What is "the handwriting of ordinances" that Christ nailed to the cross?

[Ron Amnsn]

11 hours ago, Seventh Day said:

Don't pretend you did not know ONLY the Ten Commandments were God's Laws engraved in tables of stone, both physical and spiritual, ONLY to the purpose AND result of judgment and condemnation unto eternal unredeemable DEATH.

Don't pretend you do not know this,  pretending also you do not realise that if not that LAW of GOD were taken out of the way and abolished, you would be in your sin against it forevermore. Arguing and protesting and pretending against the Law of God been taken out of the way and abolished on the cross as Paul wrote, means ONLY that you reject both that Law and its purpose, power and effectiveness, as Jesus Christ crucified and nailed to the cross and taken out of the way and killed representing in his own body with his VERY LIFE'S SOUL, THAT LAW and ALL that Law : OF GOD.

No pretending here. I've read the Bible completely through several times looking for any passages that might say something similar to what you claimed is written somewhere.  I didn't find anything that says anything like what you claimed is written somewhere.  Exactly where do you find it written?

I did find in Scripture that the Law contains provisions to save sinners without abolishing any law. 

I also found that Jesus commanded us specifically to not think that he came to abolish the Law or the prophets (Matt 5:17).  Yet that seems to be exactly what you are thinking and claiming.

[Ron Amnsn]

1 hour ago, Seventh Day said:

The feasts were "feasts of the Jews"; the Sabbath was and still is, "Sabbath Rest Day OF THE LORD GOD" and never was a "feast" until Jesus Resurrected and "this Jesus whom you Crucified, God raised up Christ and Lord", so "Sabbaths'-Feast of CHRIST the Substance", "became valid for the People of God a keeping of (feasting) the Sabbath Day".

"Feast of Sabbaths" of the Lord God is the New Covenant Sabbath for true believers everywhere and for ever after.

Where do you find this in Scripture?  It sounds like some man-made theory.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/3/2016 at 3:31 PM, jackson said:

To say the "appointed times" for the feasts are eternal is not the nature of shadows and symbols.

Where in Scripture does it explain the nature of shadows and symbols?

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/4/2016 at 0:32 PM, jackson said:

We should take the Bible as written,
trusting God that He has preserved through  the ages
and that  the average person can feel confident that its plain language needs no outside, uninspired source to interpret it for him/her.
Only inspiration can be relied upon as truth.
When a Bible verse seems difficult to comprehend, then we must look elsewhere in the inspired word for clarification.

Jackson, I have put line-breaks into your quote above so I can refer to the various phrases.

I agree absolutely with the first line, "We should take the Bible as written".  It was written in Hebrew and Greek, and virtually all of it was written by men who lived according to God's Law of Moses, as Jesus did.

The English translations that we currently use were translated by "outside, uninspired sources" that interpret God's Word for people who speak English. That is precisely what your third line says we need none of -- "it's plain language needs no outside, uninspired source to interpret it for him/her".  If it were possible to make a totally accurate translation, we could use our English translations as an equivalent to the Greek or Hebrew.  But totally accurate translations are not possible due to the nature of translating from one language to another. The target language (English for us) does not have all words that the original languages have, with matching connotations, nuances, and alternate meanings. 

An example of what translators face, is the phrase "the lamb of God".  When translating into tribal languages that have no word for "sheep" or "lamb", modern translators will sometimes translate the phrase "the lamb of God" into words that mean "the pig of God".  That approximate translation conveys part of the original meaning, but will cause significant misunderstandings when the tribal people read the "plain language" of the Old Testament that says pigs are unclean animals.  The translators of our English versions face similar situations while translating, so they have chosen for us which meaning the plain language of our English Bibles will have -- and sometimes that plain language is quite different from the meaning that the original author penned in Greek or Hebrew.

Another problem is that in the target language (English for us) the words the translators choose often have multiple meanings that the original word did not have.  This problem gets us into trouble in understanding Colossians 2:14 because technically the Greek word dogmasin can be translated into the English word "ordinances", if everyone understands that it only refers to man-made ordinances, decrees and rules. However, the English word "ordinances" has a meaning that the Greek word did not have at all.  In English "ordinances" is also used to refer to God's Old Testament instructions, a meaning that the Greek word dogmasin did not have when it was penned by Paul in Colossians 2:14.  That extra English meaning has enabled people to misunderstand what Paul wrote and to become theologically dependent on that mistranslation. 

If people had been taught the Biblical methods of study and interpretation to start with, the effect of such mistranslations would have been minimized or eliminated altogether.  Just by reading the plain language of Scripture, even in faulty translations, people would be able to confidently rule out most of the man-made interpretations that are not true to Scripture.  But proper methods of study and interpretation were never a priority for the historical church that didn't even want the people to read the scriptures for themselves or have the Bible in their own language.  And now that people have become emotionally attached to mistranslations, it is very difficult to convince them to adopt Biblical methods of study and interpretation that would exclude those mistranslations that they have based their theology and their whole lifestyle around.

On the second line, you refer to a "doctrine" that is not taught in the Bible and that history has shown to be false.  The idea that God has intervened in human history to protect Bible translations from being corrupted is not taught in the Bible.  Even a quick survey of currently available Bibles turns up a number of translations that are not reliable.  On my shelf I have a very nice looking Bible in the New World Translation, in which the translators chose words that support the beliefs of their particular denomination.  There is also a paraphrased translation of the Bible found among SDA's in which the translator has added words and concepts that were not found in the original Scriptures.  There are also the translations made in tribal languages where Jesus is referred to as "the pig of God".  And even in the mainstream English translations like the KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, etc. there are passages that have been corrupted because, after centuries of the great apostasy of lawlessness foretold by Paul, the translators do not hold the same theological beliefs as the original Bible authors held, so the translators have chosen words that match their own beliefs rather than the beliefs of the original authors.  In the case of the KJV, it is documented that King James instructed the translators to corrupt the translation by using "traditional ecclesiastical words" rather than accurate translations of key words, and many mainstream English translations have followed the example of the KJV.

These problems with translations are probably why God gave the New Testament believers the gift of tongues to go into all the world to preach the gospel, and why Jesus sent them to make disciples, rather than to make Bible translations.

I fully agree with what you said in the fourth line, "Only inspiration can be relied upon as truth."  Inspiration tells us we must test the words of everyone claiming to have an inspired message to ensure that their words are compatible with God's Word revealed in previously existing Scripture.  We can't accept as "inspired" the the words of any such message that disagrees with Scripture.  And since that has been the case ever since Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, we know that any correct interpretations of later Bible authors must not contradict the plain words of earlier Bible authors -- those earlier Bible books would have been used to test the later Bible authors to determine if they were actually "inspired".   Thus we can't use man-made interpretations of later Bible authors to overthrow the plain meaning of earlier Bible authors.   Any interpretation (of a Bible passage) that contradicts earlier Scripture cannot possibly be the intended meaning of a truly inspired writer -- either we are misinterpreting one of the Bible authors, or the later Bible author is not inspired.  When there is more than one possible interpretation of a New Testament passage, an interpretation that agrees with the Old Testament will be a better interpretation than an interpretation that disagrees with the plain language of the Old Testament.   We should always be looking for interpretations that agree with earlier Scripture.

I agree with your last line above.  And I would add that when we find a New Testament passage that seems to disagree with the earlier Scriptures of the Old Testament, we should check the original Greek to see if that perceived disagreement with earlier Scripture was caused by a faulty translation made by someone who was influenced by the great apostasy of lawlessness that Paul said in 2Thess 2 was already at work at that time.

Words matter, especially when they are the words inspired by God.

[Martn]

What-so-ever God makes shall exist forever --NOTHING can be done to alter or diminish it.

Ecclesiastes 3:14.

Some parts of the Law, though they still apply, aren't presently in use even among Jews because the things they apply to no longer exist (and never will again). No part of the Law, therefore, was taken out of the way. Only the certain things it applies to have been removed, and many such things will yet disappear as we progress toward perfection.

[Martn]

The Jews were warned, ahead of time, and in no uncertain terms, to reject any and every purported source of inspiration which teaches people to diminish the Law:

To the Law and to the Prophets, if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20.

[Myron]

On 8/19/2016 at 2:29 PM, joeb said:

jackson,

There is a serious flaw in this thinking and once I explain what it is I think you will agree that it is fatal to this idea.

All of the ceremonial laws, the cermonial sabbaths, all the feasts, all of the rites and ceremonies associated with the sanctuary and its services had only one reason for existance.  What was that reason?  To teach the COI/Jews about the coming Savior and the plan of salvation.  These things were all for their benefit.  They were designed to lead the the people to God.  I think, from what I've read of your posts you agree with this.

Now, if we are to assume that all these things are then "opposed" to the COI/Jews, then we must agree that the Bible is opposed to us for it teaches us about our Savior and the plan of salvation.  Why "opposed" because the Greek word Paul used that is translated as "contrary" actually means "opposed" according to Strong's Concordance. 

Secondly, I can find no reference in the OT that any of this was given by God to "oppose" His people. 

If you can find Biblical evidence to answer all this I'm more than ready to hear it, but I don't believe it exists. 

Joeb,

Two points, first with the serious error in your opening statement that demonstrates a considerable lack of discernment, and second with your inability to find anything in the OT that shows these laws were there to oppose God's people.  

In a number of his posts throughout this thread including several on the first page Jackson provides texts that prove the flaws in his thinking and he claims them as proof of his point of view.  Discernment is something very much lacking in the church today, and this denomination has a very special relationship with that lack of discernment because of our unbiblical relationship with our prophet.  Deuteronomy 18 tells us that a true prophet of God will in some way be accompanied by signs and wonders, and we make this a central theme in our teaching about prophets and prophecy, but that is all we pull out of that chapter.  We totally ignore the definition of the prophet given in that chapter (which has absolutely nothing to do with the foretelling of the future) and so Ellen White is unwise enough on many occasions to say she is not a prophet, and in her explanation of why that is so, prove that she fits very well God's definition of a prophet -- the only definition that matters.  

Only small problems there, but it is already enough to hamper our ability to discern.  When we do not use God's definitions for the things his spirit tells us we cannot really understand what he is telling us.  But the problem gets much, much worse.  In Deuteronomy 13 God has already told us that the signs and wonders only prove to us that God has sent the prophet, not that the word of that prophet is true.  This is to be discerned by each individual through a knowledge of the word God has already revealed, and an ability to understand if what the prophet is teaching agrees with that word. Deuteronomy 13 tells us clearly that even if this prophet is accompanied by the signs and wonders that prove God sent her she is not to be obeyed without question because God is testing us to see if we really love him.  If we choose the word of a prophet who is not in full agreement with the previously revealed word of God that prophet is to be stoned (symbolism for applying the law of God to her word -- the physical types are no longer to be used; we use the reality) and is not to be obeyed.  If we choose her word above that of scripture as SDAs do we show that we do not really love God and that we do not listen to his voice.  Thus we cannot discern at all.

The term false prophet is not used in the Old Testament at all.  The terminology used is one who prophesies falsely.  Balaam was a prophet of God who received his word from God but even in saying only the words God gave him prophesied falsely because his personal intentions were false and contrary to the word of God.  Eventually he found a way around God's word by which he could bring a curse upon Israel through God's word by causing Israel to sin against God's word.  He found their area of weakness and exploited it.  Ezekiel 14:1-11 gives us further information regarding how this works.  

Quote

14 Some of the elders of Israel came to me and sat down in front of me. 2 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 3 “Son of man, these men have set up idols in their hearts and put wicked stumbling blocks before their faces. Should I let them inquire of me at all? 4 Therefore speak to them and tell them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: When any of the Israelites set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet, I the Lord will answer them myself in keeping with their great idolatry. 5 I will do this to recapture the hearts of the people of Israel, who have all deserted me for their idols.’

6 “Therefore say to the people of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Repent! Turn from your idols and renounce all your detestable practices!

7 “‘When any of the Israelites or any foreigner residing in Israel separate themselves from me and set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet to inquire of me, I the Lord will answer them myself. 8 I will set my face against them and make them an example and a byword. I will remove them from my people. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

9 “‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. 10 They will bear their guilt—the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him. 11 Then the people of Israel will no longer stray from me, nor will they defile themselves anymore with all their sins. They will be my people, and I will be their God, declares the Sovereign Lord.’”

Keep in mind here Numbers 12:6-9 as well.  God speaks to a prophet through dreams and visions in riddles and symbols.  Thus it is very easy for a prophet, or one consulting a prophet to interpret the word of God almost any way they desire.  God sends the prophet to the people, even the prophet who will speak falsely in God's name, and he demonstrates this prophet is sent by him by accompanying that prophet with signs and wonders -- at the very least prophecies that come true.  The prophet is then to be able to discern the state of mind of any who come to consult with him/her.  This applies in a slightly lesser level to teachers, an office that is only slightly lower than that of prophet in the hierarchy of church offices given in 1 Corinthians 12:27, and by addressing Jackson as you did you have taken on the role of teacher.  This means you have a responsibility to discern the condition of his heart, something you did not do at all. I understand the desire to give someone the benefit of the doubt.  It is a part of God's law, but something is established by two or three witnesses and before you wrote this post Jackson had already demonstrated multiple times an inability to handle evidence correctly, to properly use the word of God and be corrected by it which shows a general dishonesty that prevents him from admitting even the possibility of an error and from ever allowing a correction.  He will not admit a serious and fatal flaw in his reasoning and he will not agree with you once that fatal flaw is demonstrated.  Does this mean you refuse to make an effort to correct him?  Maybe; maybe not.  I am getting a bit ahead of myself here and we need to back track a bit.

When this kind of a person comes to consult with a prophet, living or dead, and use that word to prop up his idols, God himself provides the word that this person will use which is then interpreted and twisted according to the needs of the idol, or if it cannot find a sufficient means of twisting the meaning to support it, that word is simply ignored or called a lie.  If the prophet (or teacher) is enticed to speak a word to this person it is God himself who has enticed that prophet to speak, yet whether the prophet actually discerned the idol of this person's heart or not, the prophet shares in the guilt of that person because he has provided that person with the means of propping up his beloved idol/false doctrine. Yet the law of the watchman (Ezekiel 3 and 33) also applies.  If a danger is seen and you say nothing you will be held responsible for that person's soul if you saw the danger and did not give warning.  If you give warning and they continue in the danger anyway you are absolved of blood(soul) guilt if they lose their salvation, and you are not to give further warning or you will take that guilt back upon yourself.  It seems a bit of a catch 22.  Just do not press the issue beyond the first warning unless they respond favorably to it.  

Back to the matter of discernment and the prophet who prophesies falsely for a moment.  When we take the attitude that a prophet must be obeyed blindly because the signs are there that prove God sent the prophet but do not fulfill the requirements of the law to verify the word of the prophet for ourselves the our relationship is no longer with God (or more accurately, never was with God) but is only with the prophet, and it is the prophet we worship.  We see this very clearly in Islam.  The thing is, most of us do the exact same thing but are not honest enough to admit it.  Furthermore, it is only when we open the channel between us and God and verify every word of that prophet that we are actually able to begin to learn discernment.  We can claim discernment before this, but it does not mean we have it.  

Discernment means first reasoning skills.  There is, of course, much more involved in discernment than that, but this is where it must start.  Unfortunately for those who refuse to believe in the truth, those reasoning skills get perverted to the maintenance of the lie of that idol of the heart and therefor there can be no discernment because when truth is discerned it is immediately explained away to maintain the lie.  Simple as that.  This is also why we seek to surround ourselves with teachers and fellow believers who will tickle our ears, and get offended when this is pointed out to us.  Truth is offensive to those dedicated to the lie, any lie, and it is to be fought against even more diligently than other lies.  

 

Now, for this very reason I tend to be a bit hesitant to discuss the next issue, not because I foresee any problems in discussing this with you, but because I hesitate to provide any more fuel to Jackson's idol and there is no way to prevent him from reading this except not to post it.  Oh well.  

If you are not able to find evidence in the Old Testament that the law of God as dictated to Moses was against them you have not been looking very hard or you have an idol of the heart that is every bit as strong as the one afflicting Jackson.  Are you just as unwilling to acknowledge that idol and cast it down?

First, let me affirm what you say about the law because that is important and there is plenty of evidence of that in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.  The idea of "Do this and live" is clearly associated with the Law of Moses throughout scripture.  Probably that is most clearly seen in the prelude to the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Quote

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”   Luke 10

The two laws he quoted came directly out of the parchments of Moses, and are the exact same two that Jesus declared to be the two greatest commandments.  Do these and you will live.  

But this is nothing more than a repeat of Old Testament ideas.  In Deuteronomy 8:1 Moses told the people 

Quote

All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers.

Here is the first reference in scripture that the natural consequence of keeping this law is the bringing of life and prosperity.  Because of the lawless mindset of the sinner we choose to interpret it as, "If we will only do these things God will leave us alone and allow us to live."  No interpretation could be further from the truth.  

Quote

For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:  Proverbs 6:23

Quote

The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.  Proverbs 13:14

Quote

I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live. Ezekiel 20:11, repeated in verse 21

So we find in the Old Testament many references that the law of God is the direct cause of life.  Most translations add some level of intentional obscuring to these passages because the bias of Christians against law.  One translation I used often back when I was regularly including linguistic analysis in my Bible study, I am assuming the NAB, because it is not included in the online searchable scripture sites, translates this as the law of life or something similar, and Paul used that exact same language in his great law discourse in Romans 5-8.  I don't recall precise studies from those days and since we do not have notes from Paul regarding his study of the Hebrew text we cannot know that this is precisely the reference he was using from his study of the Hebrew texts, but it is likely so.  The first 3/4 of the book of Romans is explanation of the law and covenants, and cannot be understood without a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament sources Paul was using and explaining, yet Christians steadfastly refuse to study those texts in any detail and their teaching quite regularly displays total and complete ignorance of the Law every time they utter or write even one word on the matter.

Life is the natural result of keeping this law, just as death is the natural result of failure to keep this law, but for the most part we do not define either term as God does.  Everything God speaks through a prophet is symbol (Numbers 12:6-9).  I teach on this regularly and will not include any further proof here. Furthermore the entire law of Moses is prophecy of the plan of salvation and again, I teach on this regularly and won't provide detailed proof here, but many statements by Jesus and Ellen White confirm this.  Life, as defined by God is many different things from the spark within a single cell to the intellect breathed into Adam (where the word used for spirit is not ruach (breath, wind, spirit) but is neshamah (breath, intellect, spirit) which when breathed into Adam made him a living soul (chai nephesh).  

A quick aside seems necessary here.  Nephesh (soul) is the most mistranslated words in the entire Bible; Strong's lexicon lists 38 different words or phrases that this word is translated as in the KJV.  Most other English translations follow this lead and never correct the translation to soul.  Nephesh is never to be translated as life, but this is one of the most common mistranslations of that word.  It is translated as life or lifeblood in all the texts in Genesis 9, Leviticus 17, and Deuteronomy 12 and 14 where we are told the "life" is in the blood.  The correct translation is the soul is in the blood, and this entirely ends the discussion as to whether the lower animals have a soul or not.  But then, if we had bothered to study the laws of redemption at all, this question would never have arisen because other texts, which are translated more or less correctly, state clearly that the soul of the sacrifice is being substituted for our soul and this is why, if we sacrifice something without first repenting we are guilty of a blood debt, just the same as if we murdered a man.

Furthermore, there is a very qualitative difference between us and the "lower" life forms because of the spirit that is within us.  Most Christians, SDAs included as shown by their misuse of texts in studies on the state of the dead, believe as the Greeks and most eastern religions do, that the soul and spirit are the same thing.  This runs directly counter to Hebrew teaching, and since New Testament writings are written by Hebrews, using Hebrew thinking and only translating those terms into Greek, cannot be understood at all unless and until we return to the original Hebrew thought on these matters.  The lower animals are lower because of the spirit they possess, not because of a soul or lack thereof.  All life (man included) is said to have a ruach (breath, wind, spirit), but only man is said to possess a neshamah (breath, intellect, spirit).  This is what made man a living soul.  Jesus later gives some clarification to those with ears to hear when he says he came to give us life more abundantly.  It is this imparting of God's wisdom over man's wisdom, this giving of spiritual life that separates us from the lower animals and unbelievers.  

Unfortunately, most who claim to be believers do everything they can to avoid ever giving up man's wisdom and allowing God's seven-fold spirit to enter them.  Six of the attributes of this seven-fold spirit are given in Isaiah 11:2.  They are wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, knowledge and fear of the Lord.  We do not have spiritual life until we have these seven spirits of God within us and we are not fully alive until we have them in their fullness, something that can never happen in this life.  We are given an earnest (down payment) of the spirit in this life and will not receive the fullness until the resurrection (Ephesians 1:13, 14).

Compare this, now, with the proper biblical definition of spiritual death.  We are commonly told that the second death is the (eternal) separation from God.  That is a childish, and not quite accurate definition.  The major problem comes with the addition of the adjective eternal, which is entirely inaccurate, but even removing that word from the definition does not yet bring us to the proper biblical definition of the second death.  The clearest statement anywhere in scripture is found in Revelation 20 where we are told the lake of fire is the second death.  We tend to ignore the fact that this same thing is also symbolized elsewhere in that book as the sea of glass, is shown early in the book of Ezekiel by the symbol of the crystal expanse and late in the book by the dead sea, which comes to life because of the river of the water of life flowing from the throne of God in the Most Holy Place of the temple.  That same river is shown as the river of the water of life in Revelation 21 and 22, and the river of fire in Daniel 7.  All of these are the same thing and what that thing is to me is determined by my relationship to the judgments of God's law emanating from his throne.  If I am in agreement with them, and living according to them they are life to me.  If I am in disagreement with them and trying to live apart from them they are fire to me.  

Now, look at the symbol of baptism.  Adventists, like most Christians believe there is only one baptism, even though the New Testament very clearly and extremely unmistakably identifies two baptisms with two completely different purposes.  Christian doctrine tends to either amalgamate the two causing a great deal of confusion, or else it rejects one and gives all importance to the other.  Actually, in most doctrines you find some level of both approaches, but more one or the other.  This only confuses the matter even further.  

John's baptism is identified several times in the book of Acts as being a baptism of repentance or sometimes translated as justification and in Mark it is called repentance for the forgiveness of sin.  John said of his baptism, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire,"  Luke 3:16.  God's fire is explicitly stated in scripture to be his law (Deuteronomy 33:2) and the words of his mouth (2 Samuel 22:9, Jeremiah 5:14 -- where God says his words in the mouth of the prophet are fire.)  As we study the symbol further we see that fire, like gold, represent the character of God.  So we see that the baptism of John is mere repentance, but the baptism of Jesus, which comes after is a baptism of the Holy Spirit and of fire (the character of God.)

Jesus first gave this baptism 50 days after his resurrection, according to the laws of the feast days, in which the feast of weeks came 50 days after the wave sheaf offering was offered on the day after the Sabbath of the Feast of Unleavened bread, which started the day after the offering of the Passover lamb.  In Jesus day this feast was called Pentecost (the 50th in reference to the 50th day after the wave sheaf offering which represents the resurrection.)  The tongues of fire that fell on the heads of the 120 people in the upper room point also to the ceremony for the anointing of the high priest (found in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8).  During this ceremony some of the oil was sprinkled in various ways and the remainder was to be poured over the head of the priest and allowed to run down his face, through his beard and down over his body.  The formula for this oil is given in Exodus 30 and is about a gallon of olive oil mixed with about 30 pounds of spice, including cinnamon, which can be very hot (have you ever eaten cinnamon candies?  When I was a kid we called them red hots; the brand name of the gummy version is called Hot Tamales.)  The cinnamon gives this oil a very fiery nature, and the large amount poured over the priest's head signifies full immersion in the Holy Spirit of God and his character.  This is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling, which contrary to SDA teaching does exist. 

Paul speaks of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost as being just the earnest (down payment) of the Holy Spirit.  The symbol of the small tongues of fire at Pentecost as opposed to having large waves of fire coming over them and fully engulfing them is the proof that this is only the down payment and that yet another baptism of the Holy Spirit is reserved for a later time.  As I have already hinted the three major feast days of Israel give us a prophetic type for these three baptisms, only two of which can be received by anyone on earth at this point in time.  The three sections of the temple and the three major events of Israel traveling to the Promised Land also illustrate these three baptisms.  

Christianity, Adventists included, are very clear about Passover representing righteousness by faith.  They are not quite so clear about Pentecost being the stop at the Mt. Sinai to receive the law, but then a great many Christians, especially Adventists, reject Pentecost as something we can even legitimately receive until just before the second coming or even later.  Most Pentecostals, real or counterfeit, claim this baptism of the Holy Spirit is the receiving of the fullness of the spirit, something that right now can only be received upon after the second coming.  Israel did not receive this baptism (Pentecost) because when they were first given opportunity at Sinai they rejected it.  

Quote

18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.”

20 Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.”

21 The people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the thick darkness where God was.  

Exodus 20

Compare this with Romans 10:17, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."  This describes a somewhat circular process, and coupled with Roman 1:17 which says, "For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith,"   This verse has been difficult for most Christians to understand because they do not understand and they fully reject the prophecy of the Feast Days.  Israel had enough faith to be justified and leave Israel.  That is not enough faith to bring them into the Promised Land, and they really did not even live by that level of faith since they were constantly complaining against God and Moses.  Therefore they did not have the faith to on move on to the Pentecostal level of faith.

The Pentecostals tend to focus on the ability to speak in tongues as the proof of entering Pentecost, but the Sinai story shows us the real proof is the ability and willingness to hear God's voice.  The Hebrew word shema means both to hear and to obey.  If you have not obeyed you have not heard.  At the Passover level of faith we have a limited ability to hear and even less willingness to obey.  Because Israel did not really hear God's voice at this level they did not have the faith to hear him at Sinai and ran away when they saw the fire on the mountain top and heard the thundering of God's voice.  Instead of standing and listening, or better still, accompanying Moses up into the fire, they ran and refused to listen.  Therefore they had no ability to obey and live by faith, therefore a year and a half later when they had the chance to enter the next level of faith, fulfill the Feast of Tabernacles and enter into the Promised Land, representing our entering into our inheritance at the Second Coming they failed miserably.  

So, what does any of this have to do with the proof in the Old Testament that the law which was meant to bring life if we lived by it was also against us as Paul told us in Romans 7:9-12?  First of all, the law included certain penalties beyond the natural consequences of the sinful action.  The purpose of those penalties is always corrective, for we read in Isaiah 26:9, "My soul yearns for you in the night; in the morning my spirit longs for you. When your judgments come upon the earth, the people of the world learn righteousness."  Yet it is the very nature of those disciplines that my life will be in some way diminished for a time.  This is the fire of the law, not the water of life of the law.  Although the purpose of the fire is refinement of the silver that represents the character of God's saints it has side effects.  Paul describes these in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.  

Quote

10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw,13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Isaiah 40:6 says, "All flesh is grass."  Here in this passage Paul identifies two forms of grass the person uses to build his doctrinal house -- hay and straw.  These are flesh and the fire always burns the flesh.  Another symbol is the dross of silver (Ezekiel 22:18).  As the silver, which represents the Saints of God, is heated, it melts and the dross separates, generally floating to the top to be skimmed off.  Heavier elements will sink and be separated out by other means, but they do separate.  The fire does purify us -- it always burns the flesh -- and all of us experience some form of pain in the purification process because the sinful weak and mortal flesh must die.  The process is much more painful for those who resist, but all of us must go through the fire at some time.  The Saints experience it in this life, everyone else experiences it at the Great White Throne.  

So even though the law brings life, and the disciplines of the law restore the lawful order, the fire that is the word and character of God is a painful and fearful thing for most people.  Moses went up into that fire and heard the word of God.  Moses eventually came down from the mountain with the fire of God shining from his face, forcing him to wear a veil in the presence of the people who remained fearful of that fire (law) and refused to enter it.  So we see that the Old Testament does tell us in a round about way that God's law does bring death to us.  Because the death is the second death, which is repentance and justification this is a good thing, but convincing the sinner not to fear the fire is a very difficult thing because it always brings considerable pain and death to the flesh, which we love.  

 

[Ron Amnsn]

One of the clues that the author of Hebrews gave us regarding the nature of the "change of law" in Hebrews 7:12 doesn't show up at all in English translations.  The Greek words for "change" in that verse usually refer to a change of location.  I'll repost here something I posted earlier in this discussion while it was still in the Colossians 2:14 thread.

On 9/1/2016 at 9:45 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

The Greek noun that is translated as "a change" near the end of Hebrews 7:12 is metathesis (Strongs # G3331).  The verb form of the same Greek word is metatithemi (Strongs #3346), which is translated as "being changed" at the beginning of the verse.
In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) both words share the same definition, which says (after removing the Greek examples and references),
   1. In secular Gk. a. the verb means “to bring to another place,” “to set in another place,” ...
                              b. [the noun] means “change of place,” ...
It also gives other meanings including "to change", "to alter", "to change opinion", or "change of mind", but the primary meaning is to change to another place.

The author of Hebrews uses the same noun (Strongs # G3331) and verb (Strongs # G3346) to refer to the translation of Enoch in Hebrews 11:5.

I think Hebrews 7:12 is speaking of a change of place for Jesus' Melchizedekian priesthood along with a corresponding change of jurisdiction to a place where the Law of Moses has no jurisdiction.

Some English translations of this verse say that the change of priesthood requires a change  "of the law".  The definite article "the" is not present in the Greek.  The preposition "of" isn't actually present in the Greek either.  I think the inserted "the" gives people the erroneous idea that there was a change to "the law".

There is another aspect of the verse that I am exploring speculatively, which I haven't yet been able to confirm with someone knowledgeable in Greek grammar.  I'm wondering if the author might have intended that "necessity" and "law" be understood as a compound reason why the change of place happens, because the next verse starts talking about the reasons why God's Law of Moses wouldn't allow Jesus to be a priest on earth.  Here is what the Nestle-Aland Greek NT with McReynolds English Interlinear looks like:

μετατιθεμένης

γὰρ

τῆς

ἱερωσύνης

ἐξ

ἀνάγκης

καὶ

νόμου

μετάθεσις

γίνεται

metatithemenēs

gar

tēs

hierōsynēs

ex

anankēs

kai

nomou

metathesis

ginetai

Being changed

for

the

priesthood

from

necessity

and

law

change

becomes

The words "necessity" and "law" are both singular genitive nouns joined by "and" so it is quite possible that those two words are both serving as objects of the preposition "from".  Acts 18:15 uses "kai nomou" to do exactly what I'm am suggesting for this verse -- where "and law" joins "law" with the preceding noun in the sentence and both nouns serve as objects of a preposition.  So this verse may be saying that the change of location was necessary because of law.  Then the verse would agree with the next two verses, agree with what the author says in Hebrews 8:4, agree with what Jesus said about no stroke of the Law passing away yet, and agree with what God said in the Old Testament about the Levitical priests doing certain things "throughout the generations" of the Israelites, rather than only until Messiah came.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/7/2016 at 1:21 PM, Seventh Day said:

Yes, none was abolished <by Jesus>---HE, was abolished by US! Because sinners nailed HIM, Jesus, The Law-WORD of God to the cross and took HIM, Jesus, God's WORD and Law, out of the way.

But we didn't abolish him. Jesus lives.  Even if we had abolished HIM, which we didn't, it would have been an act of rebellion. We don't have any authority to abolish God's written law.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/10/2016 at 7:33 PM, jackson said:

I agree that some modern translations are "self serving and therefore biased, but that is not my disagreement with your approach to Bible interpretation. I was giving you KJV quotes that were simple and direct- the perfect example being the Apostle  John's naming the feasts as "Feasts of the Jews"  and "Passover of the Jews".

It is not safe to reject the plain meaning of a text because you think it refers to some hidden meaning that can only be understood by a knowledge of Jewish customs. 

Yes, Jackson, you are giving KJV quotes that when interpreted 20 centuries later seem to plainly support your point, as long as you can add in the modern implications and connotations that did not exist when those verses were written.  Even though you say we can't add uninspired meanings to Scripture, that seems to be what you are doing, without realizing it.

The verses that you quoted from John say, "the Passover of the Jews" and "the feast of the Jews", but you are reading them as if they said instead, "the Passover of the Jews which was not for the Christians" and "the feast of the Jews which was not for the Christians".   You see, today when people talk about things of the Jews it is plainly implicit that those Jewish things are separate and distinct from Christians things.  But that was not the case when John was writing those verses.  The Christians had not separated themselves from the Jews at that time. 

John himself, when writing in John 11:51-52, makes it clear that the Jewish nation and "the children of God who are scattered abroad" (who were not part of the Jewish nation) were to be gathered together into one.  John's Biblical view of Christians joined together with the descendants of Jacob is very different from the later Christian view of Jews and Christians as distinct and separate groups.  If we read the Bible thinking that Christians should be separate from Jews, then we are forcing Scripture into our own non-Biblical paradigm and that false paradigm results in false interpretations of Scripture.

Then, just three verses after John declares that Jesus himself will "gather together into one" the Jewish nation and all the followers of Jesus, when John mentions "the Passover of the Jews" (John 11:55) , we know that John is not using "the Jews" in a way that is meant to separate all the followers of Jesus from the Jews who are keeping YHWH's Passover that Jesus wanted to keep with his disciples.  Also, no Christians existed at the time of the Passover event that John was writing about -- all the followers of Jesus were Jewish then and they were all preparing to participate in that "Passover of the Jews".

So, without adding non-inspired ideas to Scripture, how do you show that John used "the Passover of the Jews"  and "the feast of the Jews" to tell us that those feasts were not for Christians?

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/10/2016 at 7:33 PM, jackson said:

It is not safe to reject the plain meaning of a text because you think it refers to some hidden meaning that can only be understood by a knowledge of Jewish customs. 

You seem to make clear Bible verses obscure  by you constant referencing Jew traditions and extra=Biblical writings to make the Bible say what you want it to say. The following criticism about the tendency  of some  Messianic Jews parallels what i see in some of your posts, though i am not labeling you as such.

If a visitor to a tribe in Nicaragua said in a story something about a "Fourth of July" celebration, would it not be useful if the natives knew some of the American history and traditions that take place on that American holiday?

You are trying to use the mention of a "feast of the Jews" to prove a point, but you seem to be objecting to knowing the traditions that were common knowledge at the time in history when that Jewish feast happened and when that Jewish feast was written about.  That seems like willful ignorance about the real context of the passages you are discussing. 

You don't even seem to want to see that the words translated as "the Jews" were used by John in the book of John to specify a subset of Jews who lived in Judea, and that he used the word in this way in the verse immediately preceding one of your "proof texts" in John.  This is not some hidden meaning that requires esoteric knowledge.  It can be discovered by reading the plain words of Scripture in a common English translation and then using a dictionary to reference the Greek words.  Look at John 7:1-2
"After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him. Now the Jews’ Feast of Booths was at hand."  The word "Jews" in these verses are both translated from the same Greek word  (Strongs # 2453).
Was Jesus safe in Galilee because there were there no Jews in Galilee?  Obviously not.  The region of Galilee was full of Jews.  But there was some difference between the Jews of Judea and the Jews of Galilee that would cause the Jews of Judea to seek to kill Jesus, while the Jews of Galilee were not.   If John was using the phrase "the Jews" to refer to all the Jews that would keep the feast of Booths, then the reason that John gives for staying in Galilee and avoiding Judea would be nonsense.  In that case the Jews in Galilee would have been keeping the feast of Booths and seeking to kill Jesus just as the Jews in Judea were.  From the context it is apparent that John is using the phrase "the Jews" to refer to the Jews in Judea, and to distinguish them from the Jews in Galilee.  Since one of the meanings of the Greek words for "the Jews" is "Judeans", we can see that John is just using the word normally when he uses it to refer to the Jews of Judea.   If John is doing that in John 7:1, how do you know John isn't doing that in the next verse, and in other verses?  It looks like further study would be useful, if we were really interested in knowing what John meant when he said "the feast of the Jews".

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/10/2016 at 7:33 PM, jackson said:

I submit the following verses and quotes to further  clarify my thoughts on what constitutes proper Bible hermeneutics

2 Tim  2:14      Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.

Isa. 28:9  Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. {doctrine: Heb. the hearing?} 10  For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: {must be: or, hath been} 11  For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. {stammering…: Heb. stammerings of lip} {will…: or, he hath spoken}

William Miller's 4^th rule of Bible prophesy. To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error. Isaiah 28:7-29; 35:8; Proverbs 19:27; Luke 24:27,44,45; Romans 16:26; James 5:19; 2 Peter 1:19, 20.

Mark the plain and manifest places of the Scriptures, and in doubtful places see thou add no interpretation contrary to them; but (as Paul saith) let all be conformable and agreeing to the faith.   — William Tyndale, Preface to New testament, 1526.   

.. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.— Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647.

I certainly agree with what you quote as William Miller's 4th rule of Bible prophecy.  That's exactly why I don't accept your interpretation of Daniel 9:27 -- your interpretation causes Daniel to contradict the Word of God that already existed in Scripture when Daniel wrote.  And it is also why I don't accept your interpretation of the verses in John that mention the feasts "of the Jews". 

When we read all of the Old Testament that existed when John was writing and accept as authoritative the whole Old Testament, as Jesus did, then we find that YHWH calls Passover and the other feasts, "the appointed times of YHWH" (Leviticus 23) rather than "feasts of the Jews".  And it does not say that Jews (or Gentiles) should stop celebrating those feasts when Messiah died. If John was saying that Passover was only for the Jews, then John was contradicting what the Old Testament says about those feasts. For instance, Zechariah 14:16-19 says that all nations will be required to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.  If the New Testament was teaching that Passover was only a type and shadow that became obsolete when Jesus died, then the NT would be contradicting what God said about Passover being a commemorative feast that should be celebrated throughout the generations of the Israelites.  William Miller's 4th rule of Bible prophecy says we should be able to form our theories without contradictions such as the ones you are teaching. 

You also seem to be using doubtful passages in order to add interpretations that are contrary to the plain and manifest passages of Scripture, which according to your quotation from William Tyndale should not be done.  The Old Testament is very plain and clear about how long the feasts should be celebrated.

[Ron Lambert]

It should be immediately obvious that "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" is a poorly worded attempt by some translators to describe the list of charges against us detailing our transgressions of the law that make us sinners. The law that is the standard of righteousness is not done away with; the charges for our transgressions are what is done away with. If the law could ever be done away with, then we wouldn't need a Savior.

[Martn]

27 minutes ago, Ron Lambert said:

It should be immediately obvious that "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" is a poorly worded attempt by some translators to describe the list of charges against us detailing our transgressions of the law that make us sinners. The law that is the standard of righteousness is not done away with; the charges for our transgressions are what is done away with. If the law could ever be done away with, then we wouldn't need a Savior.

Very good!

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/11/2016 at 9:17 PM, jackson said:

We know circumcision and the Passover were types and shadows for the Christian

Ex 12:48       And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Deut  10:16   Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.   30:6    And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. 

Acts  10:45   And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

Acts 11:2      And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,  11:3    Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Rom  2:28     For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:   2:29         But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Note: If circumcision is not a requirement for the Christian then neither is  Passover observance  a requirement, for Ex 12:48  commands the Passover  be kept/observed only  by the circumcised . 

It seems you must be adding something to Scripture inside your own head.  None of these verses say anything about "types" or about "shadows". 

I had asked,

Quote

Where in Scripture does it explain the nature of shadows and symbols?

You have apparently responded here with examples of some things you consider to be a "type" or a "shadow".  But these verses don't even contain the words "type" or "shadow".  So I don't see how they can be a Scriptural explanation of the nature of types and symbols.  Apparently you are assuming something about types and shadows, and then interpreting these verses according to your underlying assumptions.

It is true that Ex 12 stipulates that no uncircumcised foreigner may eat of the Passover sacrifice.  And Deut tells the Israelites that their hearts also need to be circumcised (metaphorically, presumably).  Acts 10:45 says some circumcised men were astonished when the Holy Spirit was poured out on Gentiles, and Acts 11:2 confirms that those Gentiles were not circumcised. It's all good so far.  It is all totally compatible with the Old Testament, because these uncircumcised Gentile believers are not yet eating the Passover sacrifice.  The gift of the Holy Spirit may (or may not) imply that God has circumcised the hearts of these new Gentile believers.  Nowhere does Scripture teach that a circumcised heart somehow replaces the covenant sign of a circumcised foreskin.

These new Gentile believers in Acts 10 had been given the Holy Spirit, which Scripture teaches causes certain results --  "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:27)  There is no evidence in Acts that these new Spirit-filled Gentile believers did not do exactly as God said in Ezekiel they would do -- walk in God's statutes and carefully observe God's ordinances.

Romans 2:28 comes at the end of a chapter that describes Gentile believers actually doing what God's Law teaches.  Remember that some of the Gentiles Paul was dealing with could have already been circumcised, but not according to the requirements of the traditional Jewish proselyte program.  Some new Gentile believers have willingly circumcised themselves when they read about it in Scripture -- because they want to be like Jesus. The traditional Jews would consider such Gentiles to still be "uncircumcised" because it wasn't done "correctly".  It is quite possible that Romans 2 was dealing with such a situation.

The New Testament does not actually say that "circumcision is not a requirement" for the Christian.  It has only been interpreted that way, but those interpretations contradict numerous passages in both the New Testament and the Old Testament.  None of Paul's statements against circumcision deal with the circumcision of 8-day old babies.  Because Paul repeatedly claimed to live in agreement with the Law, it is likely that he actually did agree with the Law, and that his concerns about circumcision dealt with problems regarding the motivation, the method, the timing, or the unnecessary vows required by the traditional proselyte program that the Jewish sages had invented for Gentiles.  

In Galatians 3:17 Paul clearly teaches that God's covenant with Abraham was not invalidated.  Circumcision was the sign of that covenant. Verse 29 of that same chapter tells us that we are heirs and offspring of Abraham.  One of the things Abraham's offspring inherit from Abraham is the covenant God made with Abraham and his descendants.

[Ron Amnsn]

8 hours ago, Seventh Day said:

Sorry, but your apologetics, to me, not smacks like, but are perfectly identical with the heresies and apostasy which Paul combatted and utterly denounced in Galatians 4.  

It appears that your objection is based on your assumptions rather than on Scripture.  The Bible doesn't tell us what the specific issue was that Paul was addressing in the congregation at Galatia. All interpretations of Galatians 4 are based on assumptions about what was actually happening at Galatia.  A common assumption about Galatians 4 is that someone at Galatia was teaching something from the Old Testament and that Paul was opposed to what the Old Testament teaches.  That assumption contradicts what Paul testified about his own beliefs.

I believe Paul was telling the truth when he testified, "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets." (Acts 24:10)  Since I believe Paul was honest and not a hypocrite, I interpret all of Paul's writings (including Galatians 4) so that his writings agree with the portions of Scripture known as "the Law and the Prophets," just as Paul testified that he believed.  I don't understand how those who claim to follow Paul's teachings can interpret Paul's writings to make him disagree with the Law, when Paul himself testified that he believes everything that agrees with the Law.   

I believe Paul was correct when he taught Timothy concerning the Old Testament, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (2Timothy 3.16).   So I test all interpretations of Paul's writings (including interpretations of Galatians 4) by those Old Testament scriptures that Paul endorsed.  If any interpretation of Paul's writings disagree with the Scriptures that Paul said were profitable for "correction", then that interpretation must be wrong and must need to be corrected.

Jesus also endorsed the Law and the Prophets and warned us against anyone who taught differently.  Jesus said, "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;" (Matthew 5:17-19)  If the apostle Paul had actually been annulling or relaxing any of the commands of the Law, as you seem to assume Paul did, then according to Jesus, Paul would be considered "least" in the kingdom of heaven, and as such Paul would have no authority to teach anyone anything, and Paul's writings should be completely ignored by the followers of Jesus.  That's another reason why I believe Paul's writings all agree with God's Old Testament instructions. 

I don't understand why anyone who claims to follow Jesus and the teachings of Paul would try to prove that Paul was "least" in the kingdom of heaven, by interpreting Paul's writings in a way that would make Paul contradict the Law and the Prophets.  It seems that such people must be deceived by the apostasy of lawlessness that Paul and Jesus foretold.

There are better interpretations of Galatians 4 that agree with the whole historical context and the full context of Paul's ministry, and also agree with the rest of God's Word in the Bible.

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, Seventh Day said:

Galatians 4:8-10 unequivocally.

Yes, some aspect paganism was part of the problem.

You evidently need to rethink your interpretation of verse 10 though.

    Gal 4:10     -  "You observe days and months and seasons and years."

Many people misinterpret verse 10 as if Paul were referring to observing God's Sabbaths or feasts.  That interpretation doesn't even fit the context of the paragraph in English.  It also relies on a misleading translation of  the Greek word has been translated into "observe" in English.

The Greek word translated as "observe" is paratereisthe a form of paratēreō (Strongs #3906).

We can look up all the places that any form of paratēreō is used in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint), which were the Scriptures used by Greek-speaking people at the time when Paul wrote Galatians.  If Paul was using paratēreō to refer to Sabbathkeeping and observing God's laws and observing God's other appointed times, we would expect to find paratēreō in verses like these in the Septuagint:
Exodus 34:22 "You shall observe the Feast of Weeks, the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the year’s end."
Deut. 5:12 "Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,"
However, we find that the word paratēreō is not used in any verses like these in the Greek Old Testament. These verses all use completely different Greek words than what Paul used in Gal 4:10.

The word Paul used in Galatians 4:10 that has been translated into English as "observe" appears just three times in the Septuagint.
Here are all the verses where any form of paratēreō is used in the Greek Old Testament:
    Psalm 37:12 - "The wicked plots against the righteous, And gnashes at him with his teeth."
    Psalm 130:3 -  "If Thou, LORD, shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand?"
    Daniel 6:11   -  "Then these men watched, and found Daniel praying and supplicating to his God."
Notice that paratēreō is never used in the Law of Moses and never used to refer to keeping God's law.  In all of the verses where paratēreō is used it refers to plotting or watching someone as you would watch an adversary.

And in the New Testament, these are all the verses where any form of paratēreō is found:
    Mark 3:2     -  "They were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him."
    Luke 6:7     -  "The scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find reason to accuse Him."
    Luke 14:1   -  "It happened that when He went into the house of one of the leaders of the Pharisees on the Sabbath to eat bread, they were watching Him closely."
    Luke 20:20 -  "So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, in order that they might catch Him in some statement, so that they could deliver Him to the rule and the authority of the governor."
    Acts 9:24   -  "but their plot became known to Saul. They were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death;"
    Gal 4:10     -  "You observe days and months and seasons and years."
Notice again, that in all the verses where paratēreō is used it refers to plotting or watching as you would watch an adversary.

The pagans have days, months, seasons, and years -- such as Friday the 13th --, that they watch superstitiously because they are afraid something bad is going to happen.  That was not the case with God's Sabbaths and appointed times.  There was no superstitious fear involved in keeping God's Law.

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/11/2016 at 11:17 PM, jackson said:

We know circumcision and the Passover were types and shadows for the Christian

Ex 12:48       And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Deut  10:16   Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.   30:6    And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. 

Acts  10:45   And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

Acts 11:2      And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,  11:3    Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Rom  2:28     For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:   2:29         But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Note: If circumcision is not a requirement for the Christian then neither is  Passover observance  a requirement, for Ex 12:48  commands the Passover  be kept/observed only  by the circumcised .

I would just like to speak to the issue of circumcision.  I AGREE that true circumcision, is that of the heart, just like a TRUE JEW is the one who is devoted to Yahweh INWARDLY. 

Here is one more verse: 

Ezekiel 44:9  “Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner [non-Hebrew] who is among the children of Israel.’”

So - men must be circumcised IN HEART and IN FLESH - in order to enter that future Temple of Yahweh. 

I believe there IS a simple explanation. 

Joshua led Israel across the Jordan into the promised land.  THEN he "circumcised the people". 

Jesus will led His"Israel" across the sky.  THEN He will "circumcise the people".  The FLESH will be GONE.  We will have new "spiritual" bodies.  And of course - He will do this ONLY FOR those who are "circumcised in heart".  THAT is HOW we may enter. 

And because "there is neither male nor female" "in Christ" - that means women also may be "circumcised in heart" AND "in flesh".  Women will receive "spiritual bodies" too, when we "cross the Jordan". 

[8thdaypriest]

All the disputes about "the Law" get a bit murky when you consider that Pharisees and Sadducees (in Christ' day) could not agree concerning which day to celebrate "the Feast of Firstfruits".  So - HOW can we know 2000 years "down the road"? 

And a 13th month could be added to the calendar IF the barley was not yet ripe.  The priests made that determination.  So how are we today, supposed to determine IF the barley harvest is ready at Jerusalem?  (Yes - I am aware that a field of barley exists at Jerusalem, for those who adhere Pharisaically.) 

You can see where things break down a little, if you're trying to keep it strictly - and to the letter.

[8thdaypriest]

OK.  I was NOT trying to start an argument about the "three days and three nights" "sign of the prophet Jonah".  I do not want to get into THAT one here.  There is a detailed study at my website on THAT topic, with a written, and audio, and video presentation - whichever you prefer.  I will only say that I believe Jesus died on a Friday, rested over the Sabbath in death, and was resurrected by His Father at sunrise on the first day of the week. 

http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/45-Three-Days-Nights.pdf

[Ron Amnsn]

18 minutes ago, Seventh Day said:

Ezekiel 21:21 Acts 9:24; 14:11-17.

What were you wanting us to notice about these verses?  They don't seem to support your views at all.

[Ron Amnsn]

8 hours ago, Seventh Day said:

These Scriptures are about the same idolatry Galatians 4 is about.

Ezekiel 21:21 is about pagan idolatry as practiced by a complete pagan.

Acts 14:11-17 is about complete pagans practicing idolatry, while Paul and Barnabus objected.

In Galatians 4:8-10 Paul is expressing concern that some of the Gentile followers of Jesus who had come out of paganism were returning to their former pagan practices of being superstitious about the same pagan days, months, seasons, and years that they had been superstitious about as complete pagans before they came to Christ.  Yes, Paul really is concerned about paganism being practiced by believers because that is something that the Old Testament Scriptures clearly teach against.

Acts 9:24 has to be really twisted out of context, as you have done, to find any reference to paganism or idolatry in it.  Remember, just a few verses earlier in Acts 9, it tells us that God sent a believer named Ananias to restore Paul's sight.  Paul tells us later that this Ananias that God chose to commission Paul as an apostle was "a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there." (Acts 22:12)  Paul himself was also devoutly observing the Law so it is apparent in Acts 9 that God valued people who were devoutly observing the Old Testament law, as Jesus did.  Then in verse 22 of Acts 9 it tells us why some of the Jews were upset with Paul, "But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ."  Notice that Paul did not confound the Jews by proving that the Old Testament was somehow no longer valid, nor by proving that the observation of God's appointed times had somehow become pagan.  No, Paul confounded the Jews by proving that the Messiah was the man who had perfectly lived according to all the commands, laws and teachings of the Old Testament and had instructed His followers to follow His own example, rather than the example of those who followed man-made traditions.  This led to the events of Acts 9:24.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/19/2016 at 10:08 AM, Seventh Day said:

Correct. "Superstitiously watch", by literal "observation"; in fact, "plotting" on capricious calendars of "days, month, seasons, years" as found in so called 'Hebraic Christian' cults who claim the OT holy days and feasts must be 'observed', NO DIFFERENT than the IDOLATRY of astrology.

Are you saying that YHWH's appointed times as taught in the Old Testament are "capricious" ?

Are you saying that those who teach that the Old Testament feasts of YHWH are still valid are teaching the idolatry of astrology?

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/11/2016 at 11:52 PM, Myron said:

In Deuteronomy 13 God has already told us that the signs and wonders only prove to us that God has sent the prophet, not that the word of that prophet is true.  This is to be discerned by each individual through a knowledge of the word God has already revealed, and an ability to understand if what the prophet is teaching agrees with that word. Deuteronomy 13 tells us clearly that even if this prophet is accompanied by the signs and wonders that prove God sent her she is not to be obeyed without question because God is testing us to see if we really love him.

Thank you for this explanation. I learned something I hadn't noticed before.

[Martn]

Jesus, a fully observant Jew, is in that sense (through his example)

the Law for non-Jews (those who do not have the Law).

But NOT for actual (observant) Jews.

Because actual Jews already have the Law

--in all its fullness-- more so than any non-Jew can begin to imagine.

Judaism has always maintained --since well before the time of Jesus even--

that only minor parts of the Law (and only minor parts of the Ten) apply to non-Jews.

For the most part, therefore, the Law (and the Ten) do not apply to non-Jews.

All they need is revealed in Jesus, by his example.

Christians therefore are not under Law.

And Jews therefore are not under Jesus.

To each his own.

The error of Paul was, therefore,

that he tried to put both Jews and Christians under Jesus

and make Jews as well as Christians live without the Law.

For Jesus, as he himself stated, was sent ONLY to the

lost tribes of the House OF ISRAEL.

He was sent, therefore,

NOT to the House of Judah (the Jews). But to the House OF ISRAEL.

He is only for those who have become lost among the Gentiles.