Gen 26:5?

[8thdaypriest]

What was the "problem" at Galatia?

In chapter 2, Paul tells about Peter - who used to eat with the Gentiles (as if they were acceptable), who then changed his behavior because he feared "those who were of the circumcision." Who are THEY?

Verse 12 refers to "certain men came from James." Actually they came from the council at Jerusalem. James didn't send them. They were the circumcision party. These were Pharisees, who believed in Christ, but continued to teach that everyone must obey the entire Torah - including the sacrificial law, and circumcision. THESE are the people that Paul is arguing against. The Jews did allow Gentiles to convert to Judaism, but the convert (proselyte) has to be physically circumcised, and then vow to obey the entire Torah. THIS is what Paul is arguing against. All these Gentiles were being baptized and being grafted into Israel. Some of the Pharisees (even though they believed Jesus was Messiah) wanted to maintain the old ways.

And the Sadducees - they made their living exchanging Roman money for Temple money, and in selling animals for sacrifice. If the Sacrificial system went away - so would their income and power.

The Pharisees would say, "You are cursed if you don't follow Torah to the letter." And Paul would say - no I'm NOT - Christ became that curse for me.

4:21 "Tell me - you who desire to be under the law." THIS is the intended audience. They are being misled by the "circumcision party."

Chapter 5 - is the argument against the necessity for circumcision, in order to be a part of Israel.

Galatians is all about the believing Pharisees from Jerusalem trying to maintain the old ways.

I see a new version of this argument in the Hebrew Roots movement today. Some of the teachers are saying that a man and his family cannot partake of the Passover Seder unless he is physically circumcised first.

Joshua - Yeshua - Jesus - will circumcised us Himself (See Joshua 4:3). We will receive new flesh at the resurrection as we cross the sky. The old flesh will be gone. And He will circumcise our hearts. THEN we really CAN eat the Passover with Him in the Kingdom.

Shalom

Rachel

[Ron Amnsn]

Everyone,

Thank you for sharing in this way. It is very good to see where others are coming from.

I agree. Your whole post is on the mark, Rachel. You don't sound like one of those feast-keeping terrorists that Hair has been describing.

[Ron Amnsn]

What was the "problem" at Galatia?

In chapter 2, Paul tells about Peter - who used to eat with the Gentiles (as if they were acceptable), who then changed his behavior because he feared "those who were of the circumcision." Who are THEY?

[Hair]

"Feast keeping terrorists"?.. I like that

Just for the record, I'm not accusing you guys of being the feast keeping terrorists that I deal with, and I too appreciate the discussion and am gaining from all the input here. Thanks

To be politically correct you need to make that:

EXTREME Feast Keeping Terrorists

[Green Cochoa]

Two points:

1) I don't believe we will be eating flesh in Heaven.

2) I don't believe we will be sacrificing animals in Heaven.

Both of these were associated with the feasts. So why would these rituals be continued in Heaven?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Hair]

Two points:

1) I don't believe we will be eating flesh in Heaven.

2) I don't believe we will be sacrificing animals in Heaven.

Both of these were associated with the feasts. So why would these rituals be continued in Heaven?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm with you Green. That's my thoughts. The purpose of the feast was to sacrifice, they even call the lamb "the Passover" in many places. If you remove the sacrifice, there is no reason to gather. Sorta like a wedding without a bride and groom.

Lev 23:37 These are the feasts... to offer an offering... everything upon his day.

[8thdaypriest]

About the word "observe" in Galatians 4:

We have an expression in our little group here.

"We're not the Torah police."

I think Paul used that word "observe" which means to watch someone or something very closely, because THAT is what the Pharisees (the circumcision party) were doing. They were watching to see that the new believers were keeping the Torah just right. They would probably go back to Jerusalem and criticize Paul, if His converts were not following the Law to the letter.

Daniel's enemies observed him, trying to catch him praying to his God.

Paul's enemies observed (watched) for him, to kill him.

An enemy observes us (watches us).

Paul chose his words VERY CAREFULLY, and was a master of the Greek as well as Hebrew. He used a word that to us, doesn't seem to fit - but it does.

Shalom,

[8thdaypriest]

I agree that we will not be sacrificing animals. Christ is now our Sacrifice AND our High Priest.

NKJ Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea. (Isa 11:9 NKJ)

We only go to the Father's House, for the 7th millennium - NOT forever.

We will "return to the land." We come back to this earth after the 7th millennium.

His "holy mountain" WILL STILL BE His holy mountain. The LORD claimed it as HIS. It will be the center of our worship for eternity.

NKJ Isaiah 66:20 "Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the LORD out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem," says the LORD, "as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD. 21 "And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites," says the LORD. 22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth Which I will make shall remain before Me," says the LORD, "So shall your descendants and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me," says the LORD. (Isa 66:20 NKJ)

SDAs use this verse to substantiate the eternity of the Sabbath. But it includes more than the Sabbath. If we will be going up to worship at the New Moons and Sabbath, then why not also at the Feasts. They WERE commanded forever.

And about the rest of the verse:

I believe that many from "the nations" will be brought to the LORD during the 8th millennium. They will learn "his ways" and choose to follow HIM.

Please see the study titled "The 8th Day" at my website, prophecyviewpoint.com

I have almost finished a study called "Judgment Day" about the judgment at the Second Coming. It will be uploaded soon.

I believe the "rest of the dead" are NOT the wicked from this age. The wicked from this age will be raised and judged and destroyed on the day that Christ returns. I don't think He will resurrected them AGAIN to execute them AGAIN, 1000 years later.

Shalom,

Rachel

[Hair]

NKJ Isaiah 66:20 "Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the LORD out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem," says the LORD, "as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD. 21 "And I will also take some of them for priests and Levites," says the LORD. 22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth Which I will make shall remain before Me," says the LORD, "So shall your descendants and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me," says the LORD. (Isa 66:20 NKJ)

SDAs use this verse to substantiate the eternity of the Sabbath. But it includes more than the Sabbath. If we will be going up to worship at the New Moons and Sabbath, then why not also at the Feasts. They WERE commanded forever.

Rachel

If I remember correctly, the word "new moon" here is the same word in Rev 22:2 translated as "month". Month is a better translation. We will meet from month to month as the tree of life bares fruit, as well as from Sabbath to Sabbath. That is what I get from this verse, not new moons to mark when we gather to keep the feasts.

As for "forever", well... know that doesn't always mean "forever".

[Green Cochoa]

Paul chose his words VERY CAREFULLY, and was a master of the Greek as well as Hebrew. He used a word that to us, doesn't seem to fit - but it does.

[Ron Amnsn]

It is interesting reading the comments supporting the idea that keeping God's feasts is not beneficial which are being made in this thread by those who do not keep the feasts.

This is somewhat like listening to people who have never been married talk about how marriage is not beneficial.

It is quite possible for someone who does not keep the feasts to be knowledgeable about the feasts and all the relevant Scriptures. However, it is very rare that someone who has never celebrated or commemorated God's appointed times has actually taken the time to read all that Scripture has to say on the topic, and pondered the various aspects long enough to begin to understand how they fit as a cohesive whole into the bigger picture of Scripture.

Virtually all of the comments on this thread that are not in support of feast-keeping contain some factual error, or fallacy, or contain assertions that are well supported by tradition but not cannot be supported by Scripture. The misinformation has been collecting here much faster than I have time to respond.

Even Ron du Prees, the current "anti-feast" expert in the Adventist church, doesn't talk for very many minutes before he's making the same blatant errors that are repeated here.

I'd love to spend all day showing what Scripture says about God's feasts. But being self-employed and needing to finish our cabin before winter, I really should get to work.

Please hold each other accountable to Scripture. When someone makes an assertion that contradicts what is written in the Old Testament Scriptures, make them back it up with Scripture interpreted in context. Don't let them foist the traditions of men on you. For example, it has been asserted here that "all the feasts point to Christ" (as indeed they do) as if that were some valid reason for not following God's plain instructions about the feasts. Someone here should be enough of a Bible student to point out that although the feasts do point to Christ, the Autumn feasts have not yet been fulfilled by Christ (even Adventists still teach that an anti-typical Day of Atonement started in 1844 and is still ongoing, so it is not yet fulfilled), and that God himself says that three of his appointed times are commemorative: the weekly Sabbath (commemorates creation), Passover (commemorates the escape from Egypt), Tabernacles (commemorates the wilderness journey). There's way more that you could find if you were to start testing your doctrines by Scripture like you're supposed to.

What I say next is somewhat tongue-in-cheek but it is also quite serious. Grow up! Be responsible students of the Bible! Your pooled ignorance is painful to watch. Many of you guys are sitting-ducks for deception. You've put all your eggs in the basket called "Ellen White" but you aren't testing her writings by Scripture as she instructed, so you're actually pathetic followers of EGW, much less the Bible. You're happily making up your own religion out of the hand-me-downs of the Roman church.

Rant over. Back to work. Hopefully I'll get a chance to join in here again on some Sabbaths.

[Green Cochoa]

It is quite possible for someone who does not keep the feasts to be knowledgeable about the feasts and all the relevant Scriptures. However, it is very rare that someone who has never celebrated or commemorated God's appointed times has actually taken the time to read all that Scripture has to say on the topic, and pondered the various aspects long enough to begin to understand how they fit as a cohesive whole into the bigger picture of Scripture.

Virtually all of the comments on this thread that are not in support of feast-keeping contain some factual error, or fallacy, or contain assertions that are well supported by tradition but not cannot be supported by Scripture. The misinformation has been collecting here much faster than I have time to respond.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: 8thdaypriest

Paul chose his words VERY CAREFULLY, and was a master of the Greek as well as Hebrew. He used a word that to us, doesn't seem to fit - but it does.

I will disagree with this. I have found the opposite to be true. Most other Bible authors were more careful with their wording than was Paul. It is of interest that Paul is the only Bible author singled out for special mention of the fact that his words are easy to twist or misunderstand. I think this is part of the reason why nearly all of the "problem texts" are to be found in his writings. He simply was not a detail-oriented person, but focused on the big picture. He rambled more in his thoughts than did, for example, the studious Peter. And it is Peter who advises us to be careful about interpreting Paul's scriptures.

Originally Posted By: The Bible

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I don't find Paul hard to understand because he rambles. I find him hard to understand, at times, because, like many other very brilliant people, he talks "above" me quite often. Reading Paul is like reading Deitrich Bonhoeffer at times. They both tend to get esoteric in their language as they soar above the rest of us.

[Hair]

Your pooled ignorance is painful to watch. Many of you guys are sitting-ducks for deception.

I'm just an old country boy, but that sounds sorta arrogant to me. Are you sure you're not one of them EXTREME Feast Keeping terrorists?

"Your pooled ignorance is painful to watch."

[Hair]

I'm just bouncing this stuff off you guys to get some different views. I may be wrong.

The way I see it, the feasts will not be "fulfilled" until sin is erased and the new earth established.

But the sacrificing has been fulfilled and removed and the significance is understood, the "heart" of the feasts has been removed, therefore the purpose of the feasts has ceased.

We did not stop keeping feasts because they have been fulfilled, but because they have served their purpose as a schoolmaster.

Isn't that what they are saying in Acts 15 when discussing circumcision and the law of Moses and they say that they would not lay upon them that burden because "Vs 21 -For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Meaning that they will learn from studying and there's no sense in keeping the feasts?

What about Romans 14:6 where it discusses "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

Isn't it talking about Jewish feast days vs food dedicated to idols here??

Then there's Colossians chapter 2 that we could spend 6 months discussing back an forth, never coming to an agreement.

[8thdaypriest]

Paul was very EDUCATED, and if back then was anything like nowadays, the more education one is exposed to, the less plain spoken one gits (unless one has had military training).

Take Paul's writings on the LAW. You'd think the man was schizophrenic. "It's good" and "it's useless" - back and forth, over and over.

But there is a KEY.

When Paul speaks of the Law as a MEANS to salvation - it's NO, NO, No!!

When Paul speaks of the Law as a teacher, or as a model for our behavior, then it's Yes, Yes, Yes!

You can put every statement in one of two stacks.

[8thdaypriest]

I think Romans 14:6 is talking about fasting. The Pharisees taught that fasting was required on certain days. And yes - he is also talking about food offered to idols.

Both are optional.

Eating food offered to idols won't hurt you, BECAUSE the idol has no power. Just don't put a stumbling block in the way of your new believer brother. You don't want him thinking it's ok to worship the idol.

[Ron Amnsn]

I'm just an old country boy, but that sounds sorta arrogant to me. Are you sure you're not one of them EXTREME Feast Keeping terrorists?

It's not "sorta arrogant". It's very arrogant. I'm guilty. Arrogance comes naturally for me, just as ignorance comes naturally to all of us. What I wrote sounded arrogant even as I wrote it.

I wouldn't be correctly classified as a Feast-Keeping Terrorist. If I were going to be condemning people for not following Scripture, I'd have to be classified as a "Torah Terrorist", because feast-keeping is only a subset of what Christians are missing out on in Old Testament. But I hope it is clear that I'm not condemning people for not following my particular interpretation of Scripture. What I rant about in this thread is this:

"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures" (Matt 22:29)

[Ron Amnsn]

Please everyone, check your assumptions carefully to ensure they are solidly based on Scripture. When your assumptions are contrary to Scripture they force your conclusions to contradict Scripture.

These are some of the faulty assumptions displayed in this thread:

The assumption is made that we know all of God's purposes and all the reasons behind his original instructions to observe His feasts. (Is this not arrogant?)

The assumption is made that we (in our infinite human wisdom/ignorance) can instruct God (by asserting that the reasons that God himself revealed are not valid) and can instruct men about which are the valid reasons why God gave us those instructions. (Is this not arrogant?) This assumption is made even though God has not told us all His purposes behind those instructions. Indeed, God specifically told us that he has not revealed to us all of the reasons behind his instructions. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

The assumption is made that when we have determined that all of God's purposes and reasons (for giving a particular instruction) are no longer relevant (to us), we are then not only free to disregard those instructions in Scripture, but that we are supposed to disregard those particular instructions from God. (This closely resembles the serpent's successful deception of Eve.)

The assumption is made that unless we (in our infinite human wisdom/ignorance) can identify a reason that seems valid to us that would make specific OT laws and instructions important to us today, we can safely assume that those instructions are of no importance today. (Is that not arrogant?)

Further, the assumption is made that following those particular instructions in God's Law would be detrimental to ourselves and to others. This is assumed even though God's Word says the opposite. (See Psalm 119 and the rest of Scripture)

Further, the assumption is made that God himself would be "insulted" by our obedience to those particular laws or instructions. (Is it not arrogant to assign emotions to Almighty God?) This assumption is made even though God himself gave those instructions and specifically commanded that they be followed for a specific time period. That time period was "throughout your generations". That time period continues as long as the Israelites continue to produce generations of offspring (which they are still producing today). The assumption is made that God would be "insulted" by continued obedience to God's instructions even though God has never told anyone to stop obeying those laws and instructions. The assumption is made that God originally made a mistake when he specified that His appointed times were supposed to be observed "throughout your generations" -- as if the work and ultimate sacrifice of Messiah somehow caught God by surprise, and that when God realized his mistake he needed to go back and withdraw his original instructions about observing His appointed times "throughout your generations". But since God has neglected to actually revisit the original command to withdraw it or change it, we (in our infinite human wisdom/ignorance) have assumed that we should proclaim such a change to God's law anyway (simply because we know better than God does about what He should have originally commanded.)

The assumption is made that if God gave instructions in the Old Testament but neglected to repeat those instructions in the New Testament, we are now free to ignore those instructions. This assumption is made even though Jesus carefully followed those OT instructions and instructed us to follow his example. Jesus specifically commanded us to not even think that he came for the purpose of annulling even the tiniest stroke of what is written in the sections of the Old Testament Scriptures that are known as "the Law" and "the Prophets". (Is it not arrogant for us to assume that God did not really mean what he put in Scripture originally?)

The assumption is made that even though God did not subdivide his Law into categories (such as "moral", "ceremonial", or "civil"), we (in our infinite human wisdom/ignorance) can subdivide God's law in that way so as to determine (and proclaim) that some man-made category within God's perfect law is no longer relevant, or is obsolete, or is detrimental. People in the church can't even agree which of God's commands are "moral" and which are "ceremonial", nevertheless they have perfect confidence that the "ceremonial" laws (whatever they are) are obsolete.

All of these assumptions have been handed down to us from the Roman church and are taught in the church today either blatantly or subliminally or by neglecting to teach God's Word. We have not been taught how to identify the underlying assumptions of our doctrines, teachings, and traditions. We have not been taught to diligently test those assumptions, doctrines and teachings according to Scripture. We have been taught (by example or by neglect) to accept these assumptions without putting them to the test. When our traditions, assumptions, and doctrines are challenged, we have been taught that it is more important to defend the status quo in order to protect our own pride and the reputation of the church than it is to diligently test all things by Scripture.

We have thus created our own man-made religion. It is a religion not followed by Jesus nor by the apostles. We have a religion that mimics parts of God's Word but annuls large portions of Scripture.

By the way, when did God proclaim that the Protestant Reformation was all finished?

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

It is interesting reading the comments supporting the idea that keeping God's feasts is not beneficial which are being made in this thread by those who do not keep the feasts.

This is somewhat like listening to people who have never been married talk about how marriage is not beneficial.

Or maybe it is like listening to someone who has never smoked, drunk, or done drugs talk about how one should avoid those things?

There is no reason one must experience something when one knows without the experience what is truth.

I see. Where did you get this "knowing"?

You seem to be assuming that obeying the instructions in God's law is somehow bad or detrimental. God's word consistently teaches the opposite.

Is there anywhere in Scripture where it teaches that a person is better off without God's law or a portion of God's law? I've never found such a passage.

I didn't say someone had to experience the feasts in order to understand them. But so far, of all the people I've read and discussed the feasts with, it's only the people who desire to experience God's appointed times that have taken the time to learn what Scripture has to say about God's appointed times. Those who oppose feast-keeping invariably start spouting "truth" or assumptions that contradict what is said in Scripture.

[Hair]

Ron - This may not be what you are referring to, but I have participated in some of these feast events with my feast practicing brothern. So I have tried and I am slightly familiar with the act of practicing them. I may try more.

I must confess, I felt like I shouldn't be there the whole time. Maybe it was the Holy Spirit, maybe it was the devil, maybe it was just me, but I felt guilty for doing it.

Its not that I have not looked at your side of the argument and gave it a chance, I am just not convinced as of yet. Maybe you are correct, maybe I am just not intelligent enough to understand.

I do not disrespect or mean to belittle the feast days in any way. They are very significant and are a vital part of holy history. I think that Green feels the same way.

I'm not 100% sure that you guys (feast keepers) are wrong, but I'm a long way from being convinced that you are correct at this point.

[Ron Amnsn]

Hi Hair,

I don't think it's a matter of intelligence, at all. There are very intelligent people on both sides of the issue. The decisions that people make about feast-keeping are based on many factors. The first time I heard about modern-day feast keeping was from World-Wide Church of God (Armstrong) people, and it was such a bizarre idea to me that I couldn't even acknowledge that such a thing might possibly be what God wanted us to do in our time. I totally rejected it. It didn't fit anywhere in my understanding of Scripture or in my world view.

It wasn't until a decade later, after I noticed in the Book of Acts that the followers of Jesus were still doing all sorts of "Jewish stuff", that I was able to take a look at the issue. If someone had tried to "convince" me, I doubt I would have listened much, even at that point. It was something I had to study out for myself.

I don't think I could have added just "feast-keeping" to what I had grown up with in the SDA church. The Feasts were just a part of the larger issue of the Torah (Books of Moses) and its role in the lives of the followers of Jesus.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

Even Ron du Prees, the current "anti-feast" expert in the Adventist church, doesn't talk for very many minutes before he's making the same blatant errors that are repeated here.

What errors have you heard him speak?

There is a YouTube recording of Ron Du Preez titled "Should We Observe the Annual Feast Days?" at youtube.com/watch?v=yIHIkNFAppg . It was recorded by Ovidiu Radulescu in 2010. The video is 2 hours and 7 minutes long.

I'm going to try to quote Ron Du Preez very carefully so I don't misrepresent him like he misrepresents feast-keepers.

At 4 minutes into the recording Ron Du Preez quotes himself from a presentation he did at 3ABN in 2007 where he had said, "The festivals, the new moons, and the ceremonial Sabbaths are all done. They are obsolete. They have been fulfilled by Christ." He then tells of his surprise at the reaction of Adventist feast-keepers to that statement (in the form of a ream of letters), and characterizes that reaction as "a hornets' nest".

What Ron Du Preez is doing here is starting an ad hominem attack against feast-keepers (the people) rather than presenting material that shows whether the followers of Jesus should now be celebrating God's feast days (the Biblical teaching) or not.

The statement that Ron Du Preez made at 3ABN cannot be supported by Scripture (except by twisting Scripture out of context). His statement contains errors that contradict what is written in the Scriptures in many places. For example, God said that the Passover commemorates the escape from Egypt (Exodus 12:14). How could commemorating that become obsolete? When a person contradicts Scripture on a TV channel that claims to teach truth, he should expect to get a response from the people who value the truth of Scripture.

Then Ron Du Preez continues his ad hominem attack against feast-keepers by quoting a fragment from one of the letters he received from a feast-keeper which said, "Ron Du Preez, if he continues to speak against the holy days, is in danger of capital punishment." He then characterizes that statement as a "veiled threat" and likens it to a Muslim fatwah, and says "It was kind of a death decree that was placed upon me. ... a perpetual death decree on me because I speak against the Holy Days."

Well, I suppose that might be one way to interpret the warning in the letter he received. But if Ron Du Preez is familiar with what Scripture says about God's appointed times, he would also recognize that Scripture mentions a specific consequence for anyone who did any work on the Day of Atonement -- God says "that person I will destroy from among his people" (Lev 23:30). It is likely that the person who wrote to Ron Du Preez was only restating what God has stated would happen. It's a fairly common theme in Scripture -- if you continue sinning, you will die -- not by the hand of the person who is warning the sinners, but by God himself.

If Ron Du Preez had bothered to look up the meaning of "capital punishment" he would have found that it has a fairly specific meaning. It refers to a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the government as a punishment for a crime. God is the head of government for the Kingdom of God. I think the "capital punishment" mentioned in the letter could be referring to the judgment of God.

But even if Ron Du Preez were not stretching the truth when he refers to the statement in the letter as a "veiled threat", we know he is stretching things beyond credibility when he likens it to a Muslim fatwah, which is a decree of death by someone in authority to be carried out by any individual who recognizes the authority of the person issuing the fatwah. We don't know who the feast-keeper was who wrote the letter, but we do know that Adventist feast-keepers don't have people in authority. There is nobody among feast-keepers who could issue anything remotely resembling a fatwah. To suggest that the statement received in the letter is like a Muslim fatwah is an irresponsible exaggeration.

It is possible that some unbalanced feast-keeper may have actually threatened Ron Du Preez, but if that was the case and Ron Du Preez had any real concern or had any real evidence of a threat he could have simply gone to the authorities, rather than trying to exaggerate the situation in order to implicate all feast-keepers.

So far, it appears that Ron Du Preez lacks Biblical evidence against observing God's feasts, and is instead trying to smear all feast-keepers because one unknown person wrote something that may (or may not) have been over-zealous.

We have covered only the 4th minute of the recording so far. Shall we continue?

[Correction: I guess minutes are like centuries -- the one starting at the 4-minute mark is actually the 5th minute of the recording.]

[8thdaypriest]

I may have more exposure to the Hebrew Roots Movement, so I hear their arguments for keeping the Feasts, and their exposition on the LAW.

Most Hebrew Roots teachers have taken the position that only the ORAL LAW (the traditions of the Rabbis) was declared obsolete, and is now "annulled."

Check out Jim Staley, Bill Cloud, Rico Cortes, Brad Scott.

I do NOT agree with their position.

I do NOT believe that the writer of Hebrews was referring to the Oral Law, when He wrote "a change of the Law." I believe He was speaking of THE Law. The Torah.

I know someone is going to quote: "I am the LORD. I change not."

But what if the change was a part of His plan from the beginning. Then it wouldn't be a "change" for Him. Just for us. Many times the LORD told individuals to change the place where they lived, or something about the way they lived or worshiped. Those would be changes for the individuals - but NOT for the LORD.

I believe that the ONLY thing "changed" in the LAW was the priesthood. But without it, one could not offer a sacrifice.

They were told NOT to sacrifice at any place other than the place God identified as HIS.

KJV Deuteronomy 12:5-6 But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come: And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks:

Without the TEMPLE, at Jerusalem - without the Levite priests - one CANNOT offer animal sacrifices, which means one CANNOT "keep" the Feasts as originally commanded.

But we HAVE a perfect sacrifice - Yeshua.

And we HAVE a perfect High Priest - Yeshua, the Son of God.

ONLY the remedy for breaking the LAW has been changed. We have a NEW REMEDY - because the old one (animal sacrifice) was "weak" (compared with the new way) and changed nothing in the heart.

I do not think the Feasts were just about offering sacrifice, any more than the Sabbath is just about resting. The LORD commanded that we REMEMBER the Sabbath, because He declared it holy. When we rest - we declare that we believe Yahweh created the heavens and the earth. Sabbath was a memorial.

Passover will be a memorial of His death, and His deliverance of His people. We will commemorate Passover forever.

Shavuot (Pentecost) was a memorial of Yahweh writing His Law on stone, and then (NT - Acts) beginning to write it on our hearts. I expect it will be the day - future - when that writing will be complete. He will perfectly circumcise our hearts.

Sakkot - Tabernacles - pointed forward to the final celebration of the harvest. It was celebrated AFTER the harvest had been gathered in.

REALLY - you don't think we will celebrate THAT one...

When we commemorate these Feasts, we are saying that we believe they came to pass, and will come to pass, as real events.

Shalom

[8thdaypriest]

I am not a male descendant of Levi. According to the Law of Moses, I cannot be a priest. But Scripture teaches plainly that all of the redeemed from the Second Coming will become priests. The order of the priesthood MUST have been changed.

Hebrews 7:12-19 “For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law . . . For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies: ‘You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.’ For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.”

The Melchizedek priesthood is NOT added to the Levite/Aaronic priesthood. It replaces that (temporary) order! Or we could say, “It is the fulfillment of that prophecy.”

I know someone is going to quote Matthew 5:17-18:

Matthew 5:17-18 [Yeshua speaking] “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

He came “to fulfill” the Law, and He came “to fulfill” the Prophets.

Did He fulfill the Law? Yes! “He was obedient unto death” (Phil. 2:8). He was the perfect representation of the Law, lived out in a human life. Did He fulfill the Prophets? Yes!

The Law was not “destroyed” - it was“fulfilled.” We still live under a sacrificial system. We just have a better sacrifice, and we have a better priest - Yeshua Messiah!

Acts 13:29 “Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb.”

Luke 24:44 [speaking post resurrection] “Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms concerning me.”

Acts 3:18 “But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.”

TIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY

Was Jesus saying that “all” would be fulfilled only when “heaven and earth pass away” ?

When will “heaven and earth pass away” ?

Mark 13:31 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

In context He was speaking of His own glorious return.

2 Peter 3:10 “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.”

Perhaps we could at least agree that AFTER the return of Christ in glory, the law may be changed, allowing for “spiritual sacrifices” only in the coming kingdom of Messiah.

I copied from a study I have at my website: prophecyviewpoint.com

Study is titled "A Kingdom of Priests."

Hope this is helpful.

Shalom