The "unbearable" yoke of Acts 15:10

[8thdaypriest]

I'm gonna say it AGAIN:

Everyone who enters into covenant with Yahweh thru Yeshua IS an Israelite, by faith.

But - we Israelites CANNOT keep the Feasts as originally commanded.

We CANNOT go up to Jerusalem 3 times a year.

We CANNOT sacrifice at the Temple there

- 'cause there is NO physical Temple on earth right now.

Our Temple is "Heaven itself" where Yeshua our High Priest ministers - NOW.

If you want to call that "replacement theology" because I say that the Heavenly has "replaced" the earthly - fine.

We are still in the wilderness.

Israel was to keep the Feasts - "when you are come into the land."

We - redeemed Israel - are NOT YET in the land promised to Abraham.

We CAN remember the Feasts - and try to understand what they taught.

We CAN look forward to keeping them when we ARE "returned to the land" someday.

Is there any OTHER law (besides circumcision) that you feel we Israelites are NOT keeping, and should be keeping?

Most of us subscribe to the Leviticus 11 dietary laws.

Most of us return to the LORD His tithe.

All of us try to obey the Covenant of 10 Commandments(Words).

Shalom,

Rachel

[Ron Amnsn]

There is another contradiction between the context of Acts 15 and the traditional Christian interpretation of Acts 15:10 that asserts that the "unbearable" yoke was the Law of Moses.

A few chapters later in Acts, the believing elders of the Jerusalem congregation describe the Jewish believers to Paul explaining that they are "all zealous for the Law" (Acts 21:20) and the context there shows that "the Law" refers to the Law of Moses. That description is referring to the same people who made up the congregation where the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 is taking place.

This part of the context of Acts 15 is often ignored when interpreting the yoke that Peter mentions. As far as we know, every person present when Peter was speaking was living according to the Law of Moses themselves, and all of the local Jewish believers were "zealous" about doing so. In Greek the adjective "zealous" is a strong word used to describe someone who is a "zealot".

Notice the reaction of the assembly when Peter [supposedly] states that the Law of Moses (which they are all zealous for) is a yoke that they have all been unable to bear. Verse 12 says, "All the people kept silent," and they listened to Paul and Barnabas describe God's work among the Gentiles. Something is incongruous here. Peter is talking in the assembly where all of the people are zealots for doing what Peter [supposedly] stated can't be done. What Peter [supposedly] stated is a direct contradiction to what Moses said in the Law of Moses about the book of the Law (which they are all zealous for), "it is not too difficult for you." (Deut 30:11)

Could it possibly be true that Peter got up in front of a bunch of zealous Torah-observant Jews and told them that they aren't doing what they are zealously doing, and that Moses was wrong about how difficult it is to follow God's law, and then all the people respond with silence? Not a chance.

This would be a bit like having a bike club president stand up at a national Harley-Davidson rally and proclaim, "We might as well admit that none of us can stand Harley-Davidsons because no one has been able to ride them," and having all the bikers quietly sit there and accept those two obvious lies, and then listen peacefully while other bikers explain how much fun it is to ride Honda Goldwings. It would never happen.

Actually, the situation might be more like having Bashar al-Assad address the crowd at Mecca and proclaim, "Following the Koran is so difficult that none of us can stand doing it, and the prophet Mohammed was dead wrong about people being able to do it," and then having the crowd quietly accept that and listen contentedly to a notable imam explain how successful he's been at welcoming Jews into the mosques without having them comply with the Koran. Is that scenario believable? It's a real stretch, isn't it?

The scenario about what Peter [supposedly] said at the Jerusalem Council among the crowd of zealous Jewish believers is slightly more believable, but still not realistic in context.

[Hair]

What is the difference in a Messianic Jew and a SDA Feast Keeper?

[Ron Amnsn]

I'm gonna say it AGAIN:

I am responding to the feast-related posts in the Gen 26:5? thread that is currently dealing with feast-keeping.

[Ron Amnsn]

What is the difference in a Messianic Jew and a SDA Feast Keeper?

That depends on which Messianic Jew you are comparing with which SDA feast-keeper.

The term "Messianic" is used by a very broad spectrum of people (both Jews and Gentiles). There is as much variety among Messianics as there is among Christian denominations.

In general, a Messianic Jew will try to follow all of the instructions in the Books of Moses that are applicable to his situation. He may also follow some or all of the traditions of the Orthodox Jews (except those that specifically conflict with belief in Jesus). A Messianic Jew would not believe a number of SDA doctrines that concern the Jews and/or their covenants; nor would he be a follower of EGW. A Messianic Jew would not trace his spiritual roots back through the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic church, but would trace his spiritual roots directly back to the congregation of believers in Jerusalem in Acts. A Messianic Jew would consider himself to be part of literal Israel. Messianic Jews who have a background in Orthodox Judaism usually have more doctrines that agree with Jewish traditions, while those with no Orthodox background tend to look to the Bible for more of their doctrines.

Feast-keeping SDAs tend to follow the same doctrines as regular SDAs, except they add feast-keeping. Many of them have also learned to test the writings of EGW by Scripture; the others are still trying to believe that EGW condones or teaches feast-keeping. A few are interested in learning to follow the rest of Torah. Some consider themselves grafted-in to literal Israel, the rest probably think the church has replaced Israel as God's chosen people, and that the church is now the recipient of the blessings of the covenant, while the Jews retain the curses of the covenant.

Messianics from a Gentile background are a somewhat different category than Messianic Jews who are of Jewish descent.

[8thdaypriest]

The Messianic synagogues I have attended made me feel like a member of the "mixed multitude" just tagging along to the kingdom - when they realized that I was not claiming any Jewish or Israelite DNA. Messianics believe that only those of Israelite or Jewish descent (or those who have become "Jewish" thru circumcision and a pledge to obey all of Torah) will reign with Yeshua, over the nations.

The Hebrew Roots believe as I do, that we are adopted as sons and daughters of Abraham when we espouse belief in Messiah Yeshua - regardless of our DNA. At least that is what the recognized teachers are currently teaching. They are telling folks NOT to have their DNA analyzed.

I differ with the Hebrew Roots in their teaching that Christ will reign on earth, over the nations during the coming 7th millennium. I believe HE will reign (physically on earth)at the 8th millennium. At the Second Coming He will only deliver His redeemed Israel, and leave the rest to destruction. I believe the last plagues will kill every living thing on earth, leaving it desolate and uninhabited for the 1000 years of the 7th millennium.

Some of the Hebrew Roots teachers are saying that physical circumcision is necessary, before a man can partake of the Passover. Others are starting to recognize that we will be circumcised by Christ at the Second Coming (when we get new spiritual bodies) and then we can partake of the coming PASSOVER with Christ in the Kingdom.

The recognized Hebrew Roots teachers seem to be moving away from belief in a Trinity, and seem to be moving towards belief in our Divine Father, who beget a Son in His express image - before time was created.

Most of the HR teachers have not taken a position on the state of man in death.

Most all of the Messianics and Hebrew Roots teachers emphasize the need to learn Hebrew. They believe that Hebrew is somehow better than any other language on earth, and that it will be the pure language that Christ will restore in the Kingdom. Personally - when the LORD gives us one new pure language - I think it will be something that none of us would currently recognize. If one of the original Israelites were to somehow be transported to a Hebrew Roots meeting - I doubt he would understand anything said. No one today is even SURE how to pronounce the Name of God.

Hebrew Roots avoid using the word Christian, or cross, or the name Jesus - because they say those names are offensive to Jews.

Hebrew Roots and Messianic gatherings include music which is very Jewish/Israeli sounding. Occasionally they will play some of the old hymns, but not often. They want to appeal to the youth, so their music is very upbeat and Middle Eastern sounding, and always in a minor key - as is Jewish tradition, because they are in exile from the Temple Mount.

I personally do not see the need to change my culture, in order to be part of the Kingdom of Yeshua Messiah. Learning Hebrew is great as a tool to understanding the words of the OT, but God understands my prayers in English. And when He speaks to me - He speaks in English too.

Blessings

Rachel

[Hair]

What a tangled mess. SDA's, Messianic Jews, all of us, what a tangled mess... who really knows anything?

[Hair]

Jesus kept the Passover Feast that night - meaning by definition there was roasted lamb present at the meal, along with the bitter herbs. Yes, indeed, He became the true Passover Lamb for the world the next morning.

True, Mr. Bacchiocchi is the sole standout among the Adventist scholarly giants to posit the thought that just maybe God's Word was correct in that these 6 Feasts were to continue in observation (minus the animal sacrifices) until Christ comes again.

Indeed, our communion does come from the Passover Feast; Paul alludes to be keeping it in the New Testament.

These Feast Days...each one tells of an important point in the freeing of the human race from the thralldom of sin, and how God is in a step-by-step fashion is restoring the human race back into the pulse of life He gives to His Creation - until at the last we are united with Him personally, free from all aspects of sin. They ought to be observed with this in mind.

The BIG - and I do mean BIG - caveat? Absolutely NO ONE to truly knows how God wants these kept in faith. To keep these as a church/congregation of people, would mean adding layers of new and very HUMAN traditions upon the Word of God - and this would drive us further from the presence of God, and deeper into the dependence to measure our stature before God by imperfect human works.

Until God's people have an unequivocally clear message from a recognized prophet of God on the matter...we should refrain from going down that path, lest we place back upon ourselves that unbearable yoke.

It is my opinion God forgives admitted ignorance in respect to these things much more graciously, than a proud admission by one who THINKs they know enough to do it by the traditions they keep.

Food for thought...

Ted, are you saying here that probably we SHOULD keep the feasts, but we don't know how exactly, so God will excuse our ignorance for not keeping them? Then what? Did you just give up after posting that? That post just didn't sound like the same guy who put up the previous ones.

Surely God would not require something of us and then not provide a clear definition of what to do. He has never done that in the past. Isn't a lack of definition in itself an indication that maybe we are NOT required keep the feasts?

[Ron Amnsn]

What a tangled mess. SDA's, Messianic Jews, all of us, what a tangled mess... who really knows anything?

God knows everything. And the important things he has revealed in His Word. We just need to make sure we're not setting aside any of God's Word with our man-made traditions and assumptions.

When you catch yourself thinking, "This verse doesn't apply to me anymore," you're on dangerous ground. You may be correct that it doesn't apply in your situation. But the deceiver is clever. The basic truth of Scripture is that God's Word is true-- all of it. And it agrees with itself.

When we set aside even one verse of Scripture, we've damaged the system that God gave us for determining truth -- testing all things by Scripture. We're asking to be deceived. That verse may be the verse you'll need later to recognize error when it crops up.

During the great apostasy brilliant theologians developed tons of rationalizations, theories, and assumptions for setting aside God's word. They sound reasonable. We've grown up with them those so they seem normal to us. We have a hard time even noticing many of them. The Protestant Reformation cut away a few of those and gave us back some of the Scriptures as authoritative, but still swept aside large sections of Scripture as no-longer-applicable.

People need to sort through their beliefs and acknowledge which ones are based on God's Word alone, as a whole, interpreted in context, and which ones are based on man-made assumptions and traditions.

That's the process they were going through in Acts 15. It's a process that needs to continue. We have even more man-made baggage now than they did back then.

It would be great if the situation was less messy, but it isn't so bad. We agree on most of the basics. We just don't agree on which man-made traditions are allowed to overrule which parts of God's Word.

[8thdaypriest]

I have been worshiping with Hebrew Roots congregations, and listening to their teachers since I left the SDAs in '89. Just thought I would throw that in because I am somewhat familiar with Hebrew Roots teachings and teachers. Much of the teachings are very good and I have gained many insights. I can truthfully say that my understanding of the Feasts was miniscule as an SDA.

Take Purim for instance. I'm sure most of your know that Mordicai was a Benjamite, and that he would not bow to an Amalakite (and direct descendant of King Agag) - Haman. But did you know that Haman's death decree for the Jews was written and sealed on the 13th of Nissan, and read out the next day on the 14th (on Passover). So when Esther went before the King three days later - THAT was the Feast of First Fruits. To me - this makes Esther a type of Jesus, who was resurrected and presented before His Father as the First Fruits.

I tried the Church of God 7th Day for a year or so, but they proved very chauvinistic and a woman was only supposed to provide music or food, teach kids under 12, or teach other women. They looked daggers at any woman who spoke up in a mixed group Sabbath School class. They still believe that women should "keep quiet in church."

To me the Hebrew Roots and Messianics almost WORSHIP Torah. The take great pride in saying that they are Torah Observant. Most treat the Apostolic Writings (they don't call it the NT) like an addendum to.

But to me THE GREATEST DANGER for the Hebrew Roots or Messianics is their belief that Christ will return to rule on earth, from Jerusalem, at the 7th millennium. They are ready to march to Jerusalem, to worship a glorious being who will rule from a restored Temple of Yahweh on the Mount. To me - that means they will worship Satan, when he sits in the Temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thess 2:4).

Satan has planned this masterpiece of deception for at least a thousand years. He already has a counterfeit Antichrist - the Muslims. he has a counterfeit "return to the land" of Israelites (the current nation of Israel). I believe he will cause the faithful to think that the trumpets ARE the 7 last plagues. When he appears, he will be everything to every believer. To the Jews - Messiah. To the Christians-Christ. To the Hindus - the 10 great Avitar. Etc. Etc. And for the Atheists - he will say that he is an beneficent alien who visited our planet 2000 years ago, who was killed, but was beamed up to his star ship and revived. We are the Star Trek generation. And it has all been preparation.

One of my Hebrew Roots friends has an Israeli flag pinned up on his living room wall, and makes a trip there at least once a year. He supports Hebrew Roots congregations in Israel, because he sees it of paramount importance to win Jews to belief in Yeshua. I heartily disagree. Jews are no MORE important to win for Christ than any other race.

Gotta get to Preparation Day cleaning.

Blessings

Rachel

[Ted Oplinger]

Ted, are you saying here that probably we SHOULD keep the feasts, but we don't know how exactly, so God will excuse our ignorance for not keeping them? Then what? Did you just give up after posting that? That post just didn't sound like the same guy who put up the previous ones.

Surely God would not require something of us and then not provide a clear definition of what to do. He has never done that in the past. Isn't a lack of definition in itself an indication that maybe we are NOT required keep the feasts?

Give up? You jest, my brother! I made the points contributing to the conversation...those points were carried forward and discussed by others...but I haven't read of any real challenge or disagreement directed specifically to me...

To answer you questions, let me tell you what I did NOT say...

...I did NOT say these 6 Feasts ought be kept for salvation purposes.

...I did NOT say these 6 Feasts are completely erased by Christ's death on the Cross.

What I DID say was....

I DID say that Dr. Bacchiocchi's scholarly work on the subject came to the conclusion that there is strong evidence for the position that God intended the observance of these Feasts to continue after the Cross, but he stopped short of advocating such observance.

I DID say each Feast day DOES refer to a significant step in the plan of salvation for the human race as a whole (what God intended Israel His betrothed bride to ultimately be).

From that, I WILL say...

I WILL say from mine own research on the subject that the Old Testament sets up a yearly step-through illustration - starting with the Passover and ending with the Feast of Tabernacles - of of how the people of faith in the Living God would participate, and how the Promised Redeemer would figure in each step.

I WILL say I concur with Dr. Bacchiocchi that the language associated in both the Old and New Testaments on the subject does strongly imply God did intend these Feasts to be observed after the Cross, placing Christ and His sacrifice on the Cross in place of the sacrifices involved, and that there is good evidence Paul and the early church did just this.

I WILL say that I believe these Feasts did fall prey to later church politics, just as the Sabbath commandment did, and were expunged from Christian observance by those who eventually lent their influence to form the Papal governance over Christianity.

I WILL say that the current discussion on the issue is a good indication that God is allowing the subject to be one of individual conviction on the issue today.

I WILL say that if one wants to incorporate this into their Christian walk, that such incorporation be one of holy direction and humility before the Lord, and they should not be judged as Judaizing because of this.

I WILL say that one will not find the SDA denomination incorporating this into their teachings any year soon, but there will be - and currently are - SDA's who do incorporate the Feasts on an individual basis.

I WILL say that if a person so decides, and makes it a point that this is but a faith response and not required TO BE SAVED, then they have the proper attitude of faithful participation in the things of God.

I WILL say that if one adopts the position of saying these Feasts are to be observed in order TO BE SAVED, just as circumcision has been so used, then they reject the Gospel of Christ (as per Paul's argument in Galatians).

I WILL agree with Ron there are some basic instructions for how these Feasts are to proceed...but at least 3 of these call for a massive gathering of all participants in faith at the place of the Lord's choosing...aka, where He would set up His temple/Sanctuary. As no such earthly place has existed since AD 70, that makes it rather difficult to proceed by and rest one's dependence upon the Word of God regarding this matter - in other words, to proceed on Biblical faith in the matter..

At the risk of throwing this thread off-topic, I do believe God had two parallel histories for Israel outlined in the prophets for after the Babylonian exile. If anyone wants to discuss any of the following outside the issue of the feast being part of the unbearable yoke, then I strongly suggest opening up an new discussion thread.

The first history is the one which DID play out - Israel did not participate faithfully in the Covenant God had made with mankind in the very beginning.

The second (and parallel) - found mainly in Ezekiel - I see unfolds a history of Israel had she stepped forward in true participatory faith after the Babylonian Exile. Israel would not have been subjected to dominance by foreign powers, would have grown to be the strongest nation on earth, and would have eventually won the Armageddon show-down at the very end against those peoples and nations completely opposed to God.

It does not escape my attention that each manifestation of God's plans for the Sanctuary/Temple progress to a form more and more like the picture of New Jerusalem described in Revelation 21, 22 - particularly those plans given to Ezekiel for the post-Exile period. The rebuilding of the Temple according to the design outlined in Ezekiel would have been and even more miraculous achievement than the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls, given the politics of the day. It would have truly required stepping out in faith to complete this Temple. But history shows it was rejected in favor of a design "more prudent" to the times and available resources...

Here, I am currently of the thought that the Temple as outlined in Ezekiel should have - and would have - been built in faith upon return from the Exile, and was to stand until the Second Coming. Ezekiel points out that the East gate of this Temple would remain closed to usage until a) the Ark of the Covenant would be returned, and the Redeemer came to fulfill certain responsibilities outlined, which the words there lead me to conclude these were post-Sacrifice duties which needed to be tended to prior to His ascension to the heaven, to continue earthly faith participation at the earthly temple while He took up His High Priest office in the heavenly Temple.

In this scenario, the earthly priesthood would have been faithful to Christ, and the yearly Feasts would have continued to have been observed until the present day.

However, we must deal with reality, and consider any intended participation in faith of these Feast parables to be light lost (as the Sabbath was lost to general knowledge at one time).

I conclude by stating if one is faithfully participant in the Gospel - and by faithfully participant, I mean resting in complete, entire dependence on the power contained in the word of God to make the things of the Gospel manifest in one's life - and God brings the Feasts into one's experience in this manner, then it cannot be in pride of tradition. Outside of this, I can see people very easily burying the Feasts in layer and layer of unnecessary human traditions which would mask the true lessons each Feast is to teach.

Food for thought,

[Ron Amnsn]

There's another piece of evidence in Acts 15 that shows that the "unbearable" yoke that Peter mentions was not the Law of Moses.

In verse 14 James says, "Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name." What does that mean, "a people for His name"?

In verse 16 James quotes from Amos 9 where it says, "and all the Gentiles who are called by my name." In Amos 9:12 it says literally in Hebrew, "the nations upon whom my name is called". What does that mean?

It's not talking about your average pagan Gentile.

I haven't found a place in Scripture that defines a Gentile that is "called by my name". But there is a place that tells us what the Gentiles themselves will recognize as a people "called by the name of the Lord":

"The LORD will establish you as a holy people to Himself, as He swore to you, if you keep the commandments of the LORD your God and walk in His ways. So all the peoples of the earth will see that you are called by the name of the LORD, and they will be afraid of you." (Deut 28:9-10)

Here again the Hebrew says literally, "the name of YHWH is called upon you".

It's tempting to interpret "the commandments" as only the "Ten Words" God spoke from Sinai and placed in the Ark, but that is not an interpretation that the context will support. The context of this passage is where Moses is reviewing all the Law with the Israelites and going over the blessing and the curses. If you read the whole teaching that Moses gave that day it is obvious that he's referring to the whole of the Law, not just the "ten commandments". The Hebrew word Moses used for "commandments" is mitzvot" which refers to far more than the "ten commandments". Even if "the commandments" here had meant only the "Ten Words" that were placed in the Ark, the verse also says "and walk in His ways" which would include all the instructions (Torah) that God gave to the Israelites and by which Jesus lived.

So if the Gentile nations will recognize that the Israelites are "called by the name of the Lord" (literally "the name of YHWH is called upon you") when the Israelites follow all the teachings that God gave through Moses, there is no reason that the Gentiles that James is talking about in Acts 15 "who are called by my name" (literally "upon whom my name is called") would use a different criteria for themselves than they use to recognize that same condition in the Israelites.

In the sentence just before Peter talks about the "yoke", he specifically says that God "made no distinction between us and them". Paul also says, "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek" (Rom 10:12, cf Col 3:11, Gal 3:28). So why would God make any distinction between the Israelites and the Gentiles in the criteria that determine when a people is "called by my name" ?

[Ron Amnsn]

What I DID say was....

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Ted. Well said. There's some new ideas there for me to ponder.

[8thdaypriest]

Great posting Ted. Agree with most of it.

I DO agree that "the unbearable yoke" was righteousness by works of the law.

The Law itself was not bad - just the Israelite/Jew efforts to keep it.

Unless we are yoked up with HIM, we cannot pull the load.

I DO agree that the earthly Aaronic/Levite priesthood and sacrifice of animals came to an END, when Christ became THE ONE SACRIFICE FOR ALL HUMANITY FOR ALL TIME and our High Priest forever.

I AGREE that the vision of Ezekiel COULD HAVE BEEN fulfilled by the returning Israelites IF they had become and remained faithful to Yahweh.

FYI- Ezekiel's Temple is 200 feet high. They did not have the technology to build such a structure in the days of Ezra/Nehemiah. But I'm sure the LORD would have given them the knowledge.

The question is whether the vision/prophecy will EVER be fulfilled, or does it just pass away, as a WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ? I believe it WILL be fulfilled. God's word does not return to him void.

NKJ Isaiah 55:11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it. (Isa 55:11 NKJ)

The prophecy of Ezekiel's Temple covers 7 chapters. Why give such specific detail for something that was only a "might have been" ?

I believe the LORD will fulfill that prophecy. He will resurrect His redeemed Israel and will return her to the land promised to Abraham. Those promises are repeated over and over in Ezekiel. Returned Israel (after the 7th millennium) WILL build the Temple seen by Ezekiel.

Some of the Hebrew Roots teachers are quoting Ezekiel to say that animal sacrifices will continue, in a Temple on the earth AFTER the Second Coming. But the vision was a prophecy. Just like the animal sacrifices were a prophecy - of what Christ would and will do.

This Temple seen by Ezekiel will be another COPY of the true - BECAUSE at that point, the Holy City has not yet descended. Heaven has not yet come down to earth. WHY???

BECAUSE those raised to life at the 8th millennium are not yet ready to stand in the presence of Yahweh. They still need a buffer - the Temple seen by Ezekiel.

Ezekiel was shown animal sacrifices and an earthly priesthood - but WE see redeemed Israel acting as "a kingdom of priests", and we see Christ - the forever and only acceptable Sacrifice.

The point is that probation will continue - for those raised at the 8th day, until they have come to "learn His ways" or have rebelled (at Gog-Magog).

I know Ted - you're gonna say that I'm reading too much into it. But I think you see too little.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Blessings

Rachel

[Ted Oplinger]

I know Ted - you're gonna say that I'm reading too much into it. But I think you see too little.

Nope, Rachel. Not gonna say that in reply.

I will say that we will all see it together and in person when Christ comes to take us home. We will participate in His Feasts together and in unity of the Spirit when that time comes.

Blessings,

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

I'm just not convinced - yet. There's nothing that says outright - "the unbearable yoke was the traditions added by the Oral Law." You have to add something to the Scripture text, in order to come up with that.

The writer of Hebrews describes the system with animal sacrifices and an earthly priesthood. He says that system is "becoming obsolete and growing old." (Heb 8:13). Now Paul (and others of his day) expected Christ to return very soon - within their lifetimes. So I can accept perhaps - that he expected the system to "vanish away" at the return of Messiah. Yeshua did say that "heaven and earth will pass away" - presumable at the Second Coming.

The LORD ALLOWED His Temple to fall into disuse with the Roman destruction, and then the occupation by the Muslims.

So - let's say that the system is NOT YET "vanished."

It is STILL in place.

OK - what does that say for us? How does that change the way we live and worship?

How did Daniel live - so far from the HOUSE of God ?

Is circumcision the MAIN thing? And wearing "blue fringes"?

What else do you feel we should be doing?

Are the Hebrew Roots members "keeping Torah" in the way you feel they should ?

Shalom,

Rachel

[8thdaypriest]

What was "the unbearable yoke"?

Ron says it was the traditions of the elders - the Oral Law.

Peter says that "the fathers" were unable to bear that yoke.

Which "fathers"?

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob ??

How far back do we go ???

Is Peter speaking of the 12 tribes who came out of Egypt? Are those "the Fathers"?

They did NOT HAVE the Oral Traditions.

The Oral Traditions started with the captivity in Babylon.

So is Peter speaking of "the Fathers" SINCE the return to the land?

IF Peter is speaking of "the Fathers" all the way back to Abraham - (or even just back to the Israelites who came out of Egypt) then "the yoke" would be "righteousness by works of the Law" as opposed to "righteousness by faith."

Righteousness because of what we do, rather than because of what HE DOES - in us.

Rightness with God because we have completed the correct cleansing procedure at the Temple, with the correct sacrifices, OR rightness with God because Yeshua died in my place and is living out the "good" in me??

So - assuming the "old system" has NOT YET vanished, (It's just temporarily out of service.) does that mean I am "still in my sins." I don't think so. The "certificate of indebtedness" to the LAW (for everyone) was nailed to His cross.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Peace,

[8thdaypriest]

There are a lot of THINGS that we believers DO - not in order to be saved, but because we want to bless others, and to show our love for HIM.

We pay our tithe.

We give offerings.

We serve our local congregation.

We serve others.

We try to spread the gospel.

We study the Word.

We assemble together for fellowship and worship.

We train up our children in the fear of the LORD.

We rest on the Sabbath.

We are faithful to our spouse.

We eat "clean" foods.

We treat our bodies like the temples they are.

Are these THINGS an "unbearable yoke"?

It depends on WHY we do them. If we are doing those things in order to win God's approval - then yes - they will prove an unbearable yoke, because we CANNOT (of ourselves) live up to the LORD's ideal in any of these things.

It's sort of like cooking all day to prepare a Thanksgiving meal for a house full of your husband's relatives - most of whom you don't like all that much. If you love your husband and know that he absolutely appreciates your efforts, and will not love you one bit less if one of your dishes should fail to come up to Aunt Pitty's standard - then you can do it with a light heart. But if you fear your husband's disapproval, and know that he is expecting you to do this just right - the project will wear you out. It will be a "heavy yoke."

Should we add circumcision to the list? Or wearing blue fringes? Or strapping writings of the Law to our foreheads or arms? So far - I would say "no" because of the things Paul wrote in Galatians. I'm not convinced yet, that we should still do those things.

I have tried to answer the original question concerning the "unbearable yoke" as Ron requested.

Peace,

Rachel

[Ron Amnsn]

I'm just not convinced - yet. There's nothing that says outright - "the unbearable yoke was the traditions added by the Oral Law." You have to add something to the Scripture text, in order to come up with that.

What I have added back to the text is the historical context in which the Jerusalem Counsel took place.

To believe that the "unbearable" yoke was the Law of Moses, you have to subtract a lot of Scripture that says God's Law of Moses was good and beneficial and do-able and easy. And you have to pretend that all the Jewish believers present at the Jerusalem Council who were "zealous for the Law", were actually unable to follow the Law of Moses -- something which would be contrary to all the evidence provided in Scripture. Even Paul says of his own experience, "as to righteousness under the law, blameless." (Philippians 3:6) It would have been just a plain, outright falsehood for Peter to say that the Law of Moses had been unbearable.

I'm not saying that people had perfectly obeyed the Law, but that when they missed the mark they did what the Law provided for those situations, as well as having faith in the promised Messiah.

And the outcome of identifying the "unbearable" yoke as the Law of Moses is to subtract all of the Law of Moses as fully valid Scripture, except for those portions for which a man-made theory has been created in order to salvage some precept from the dust-bin. We end up with a system where mere humans pick and choose which parts of God's perfect law they are interested in obeying. In the historical context where the Jerusalem Council occurred, that outcome would have never been acceptable.

[8thdaypriest]

I did some study on #3346 translated "change" in Hebrews 7:12. I also looked at #3331, used in that same verse.

ANALYSIS: metatithemi {met-at-ith'-ay-mee} Meaning: 1) to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other) 1a) to transfer 1b) to change 1c) to transfer one's self or suffer one's self to be transferred 1c1) to go or pass over 1c2) to fall away or desert from one person or thing to another

Origin: from 3326 and 5087; TDNT - 8:161,1176; v

Usage: AV - translate 2, carry over 1, remove 1, change 1, turn 1; 6

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed (#3346), of necessity there is also a change (#3331) of the law.

The word is used in a few other verses:

Acts 7:16 “And they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem.”

Galatians 1:6 “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel . . .” (Something that happens in the mind, and then the actions, NOT a physical transport transport from one place to another.)

Hebrews 11:5 “By faith Enoch was taken away (#3346a) so that he did not see death, ‘and was not found, because God had taken him’; for before he was taken (#3331) he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”

Jude 1:4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Not a change in location, but in kind.)

Here are the verses for #3331

Hebrews 11:5 “By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, ‘and was not found, because God had taken him’; for before he was taken (#3331) he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” (This is a change in location, as well as a transformation of body.)

Hebrews 12:22-27 “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven, whose voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, ‘Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.’ Now this, ‘Yet once more,’ indicates the removal of (#3331) those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain.”

NOTE: The "heavens and the earth" will pass away, at the Second Coming. They are NOT simply moved from one place to another. They are "changed" in the sense that they are "burned up".

I can agree that the priesthood has been MOVED, from the earthly Tabernacle (which was only a copy) TO Heaven itself, which is the original one.

If a Melchizedek priest could NOT minister at the earthly copy Tabernacle, then just as true - the Levite priest can not minister at Heaven itself.

If the priesthood has been MOVED to "the true Tabernacle" then it CANNOT still continue in the original place. I do not see that the two priesthoods continue in parallel - the earthly and the heavenly.

I am slowly working my way thru all of the Law concerning the Tabernacle and the animal sacrifices to understand HOW we continue to obey this Law, under the New System, where our High Priest ministers at the "true tabernacle" which is "Heaven itself."

Israelite males were commanded to come up to Jerusalem, three times in the year - at the Feasts. But Hebrews 12:22-27, says that we ARE COME to Jerusalem, and we ARE COME to the "sprinkling" with the ashes of the "red heifer."

“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Shalom,

Rachel

[8thdaypriest]

I DO NOT BELIEVE that the entire "LAW" commanded of Israel is abolished.

The "rest" day is still "the Sabbath." We must STILL refrain from worship of anyone or anything other than Yahweh. We must not use his name in a careless or insincere manner, or make any image to "assist" our worship.

We are still to refrain from murder, stealing, adultery, false testimony and coveting that which belongs to another. We still eat "clean". We still give our tithe to God's ministers.

I DO BELIEVE that "the priesthood" has been relocated to "Heaven itself"-the original and "true Tabernacle".

That being said, if there is NO PRIESTHOOD at an earthly copy Tabernacle, then WHAT?

Exactly HOW do we continue to KEEP those parts of the Law given to Moses, that involved a priesthood ministering at the (copy) Tabernacle?

Animal sacrifices would be OUT because Israelites were commanded that they be offered ONLY AT THE PLACE which God chose, AND they were to bring those sacrifices TO THE PRIEST - which priesthood has been moved (changed).

Sooooo - the Feasts would be effected, because those Feasts involved a trip to Jerusalem, and they involved a LOT of animal sacrifices.

EVERYTHING that revolved around a priesthood ministering at the earthly (copy) Temple, at Jerusalem would be effected.

NOW - What that has to do with "the unbearable yoke" - I have yet to put into words exactly - but I believe it is a major part of it. Jesus has done for us - that which we could NOT do for ourselves - thru the system of animal sacrifice and the earthly priesthood.

[Ron Amnsn]

I can agree that the priesthood has been MOVED, from the earthly Tabernacle (which was only a copy) TO Heaven itself, which is the original one.

If a Melchizedek priest could NOT minister at the earthly copy Tabernacle, then just as true - the Levite priest can not minister at Heaven itself.

If the priesthood has been MOVED to "the true Tabernacle" then it CANNOT still continue in the original place. I do not see that the two priesthoods continue in parallel - the earthly and the heavenly.

I don't see how your assumption that there can only be one priesthood at a time could be based on Scripture.

That idea conflicts with what the author of Hebrews said just a few verses earlier in Hebrews 7:9-10, that in a sense the tribe of Levi that receives tithe actually paid a tithe to the Melchizedek priesthood while still "in the loins" of Abraham. That illustration would fall flat if the Levitical priesthood could not co-exist with the Melchezidekian priesthood.

The author of Hebrews also talks about the two priesthoods co-existing at the same time in Hebrews 8:4-5 where he explains that if Jesus was on earth he would not be a priest at all because there were already priests serving lawfully in the earthly temple.

Also, if "the priesthood being changed" in Hebrews 7:12 actually meant that the Levitical priesthood was ended at the time that Jesus commenced serving as a priest in heaven, then we would be back to the problem of God giving promises and covenants to the Levitical priests in the Old Testament that God could never have intended to keep.

Why do you want the New Testament to overthrow or disagree with God's word in the Old Testament. Can't God's Word all be true? Yes, it can. Indeed it is all true.

[8thdaypriest]

I started a new thread about the priesthood.

Ron,

If ALL of those delivered at the "first resurrection" will be "priests of God and of Christ", that has to include more than just Levite priests. And they "WILL reign on the earth," so that means something has to be changed in order to include the redeemed from every tribe - on the earth - during the next age.

The LORD will keep his promise to the descendants of Aaron and Phinehas. They will be priests. They just won't be the ONLY priests.

Shalom,

Rachel