Passover & Christianity

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/april-web-only/why-christians-can-celebrate-passover-too.html?utm_source=ctweekly-html&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=16245031&utm_content=506769676&utm_campaign=email

[Ron Amnsn]

Good article.  Jesus celebrated Passover each year, and the apostle Paul told the believers in Corinth to celebrate the Passover feast as well (1Cor 5:8 ), not that we need the apostle Paul's permission to do something that YHWH commanded his people to celebrate each year throughout their generations.

[Ron Amnsn]

17 minutes ago, RichardRuhling said:

My favorite author says, " As He ate the Passover with His disciples, He instituted in its place the service that was to be the memorial of His great sacrifice." DA 652

Richard, may I ask which passages of Scripture you used to test that statement from your favorite author?

[Samie]

9 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

I'm not saying it's a sin to use lamb, and I'm sure that many believers do so in good conscience, and I think that appointed time  (mo'ed) is important, but the sacrifice of a lamb in order to eat it should not be necessary since Christ fulfilled it.

May I just simply point out that the appointed time (mo'ed) is on the night the moon is full.

NKJ Numbers 9:2-3   2 "Let the children of Israel keep the Passover at its appointed time.  3 "On the fourteenth day of this month, at twilight, you shall keep it at its appointed time. According to all its rites and ceremonies you shall keep it."

NKJ Psalm 81:3-5   3 Blow the trumpet at the time of the New Moon, At the full moon, on our solemn feast day.  4 For this is a statute for Israel, A law of the God of Jacob.  5 This He established in Joseph as a testimony, When He went throughout the land of Egypt, Where I heard a language I did not understand.

He Who came to fulfill the law, including the law on when Passover is to be celebrated, celebrated Passover with His disciples on the night the moon was full.  If anybody is interested, it can shown from Scriptures in corroboration with astronomical data, that Jesus celebrated that last Passover with His disciples on March 27, 31 AD.

[Ron Amnsn]

18 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

I don't think you can show me any text showing the use of lamb after the resurrection. Acts 20:6 is the Feast of Unleavened Bread and 1Cor 5:8 says to keep the Feast, again with a focus on getting old leaven out. The use of bread and grape juice is clear. I'm not saying it's a sin to use lamb, and I'm sure that many believers do so in good conscience, and I think that appointed time  (mo'ed) is important, but the sacrifice of a lamb in order to eat it should not be necessary since Christ fulfilled it.

Let's go back a bit.  I asked for the Scripture passages you used to test the statement that you had quoted from your favourite author.  SDA Fundamental Belief #18 states, in part "They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested."  Since your favourite author's statement says something that the Bible doesn't say, it must be tested by the Bible standard.  Which Scripture passages did you use to test the statement that you posted?  Where do we find anything similar stated in Scripture?  There are a number of passages in Scripture that would show that Jesus would not have replaced Passover with something else.

You have asserted that Acts 20:6 and 1Cor 5:8 don't explicitly require the sacrifice of a Passover lamb.  I agree, since the folks mentioned in those passages weren't in Jerusalem for Passover they probably wouldn't have eaten a Passover sacrifice, and neither would the other Jews in those cities.  But what about the followers of Jesus who were at Jerusalem where the feast of Passover was supposed to be celebrated?  What does Scripture tell us about them?

[Samie]

10 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

Thank you, Samie, for sharing the Scripture.

You're welcome, Richard.

10 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

I have seen a problem with astronomical data that I could explain, but for now, the CLEAR biblical method is to watch for the thin crescent in the western sky about 20-40 minutes after sunset on an evening after the moon was NOT visible the night before. If you don't see it, watch the next night, because there can be 2-3 evenings when you might not see it, just like there are 2-3 nights when the moon looks full.

Unlike full moon occurrences, there is no scientific record that exists as to occurrences of sightings of the young crescent in the western horizon of Jerusalem.  On the other hand, full moon occurrences can be ACCURATELY computed FORWARD or BACKWARD in time. 

This explains why Jesus Who can NEVER lose track of when full moon was to occur that Paschal week, celebrated Passover a day ahead of the Jewish national celebration.  Chances are, the official Jerusalem crescent observer may have, for whatever reason, failed to see the young crescent on the day it was supposed to be seen but instead saw it the following day.  That delayed the start of the month and moved Abib or Nisan 14 a day forward, and in the process their national celebration of Passover also moved with the delayed crescent sighting.

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

Ron, I think God's law and word gives us room to weigh our motives and do the best we know, sometimes without an explicit passage.

Strange.  Where does Scripture teach us that there are motives that carry sufficient weight and authority to allow us to set aside the Word of God?

4 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

Just as you cannot give me a passage showing the use of the lamb for Passover after the cross, I cannot give you a passage that says the unleavened bread and wine (emblems of His sacrifice) were instituted in place of the lamb, but we have to go by the weight of evidence.

Why would I need a passage showing the use of lamb for Passover after the cross?  Where does Scripture itself require "after-the-cross" evidence to validate the Word of God that was given before the cross?  Nowhere.  That notion regarding "after-the-cross" evidence is apparently just a man-made tradition cooked up by those who want to set aside the Word of God, just as the serpent in Eden wanted Eve to set aside the previously-given instructions of God.  Perhaps God will arrange for the 144,000 to face, and successfully pass, a similar test to the test that Eve originally failed regarding previously-given instructions from God.

When God told Moses that the Israelites were to celebrate Passover "throughout your generations" and "forever," the Passover event explicitly includes the Passover sacrifice (Exodus 12:14, 24-27).  Your favourite author teaches that it was the pre-incarnate Jesus himself who gave God's Law of Moses to Moses.  So those instructions about Passover and the lamb sacrifice would be Jesus' own words, about which He proclaimed, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." (Matt 24:35)

Jesus also taught that not a stroke would pass from the law until heaven and earth pass away and everything is fulfilled (Matt 5:17-19) Replacing the Passover sacrifice with the "Lord's Supper" would require the removal of numerous strokes from the Law.  Jesus also taught that those who annul one of the least commands of the law will be called "least in the kingdom of heaven". (v. 19)  You seem to be suggesting that Jesus would be "least in the kingdom of heaven" because he supposedly has annulled the commands regarding the Passover sacrifice.  We are told that Jesus will be highly exalted in the kingdom of heaven, so according to his own words he couldn't possibly have annulled any of the commands He gave in the Law of Moses. 

Then Paul testified before Felix that he "believed everything that agreed with the Law and was written in the Prophets"  (Acts 24:14)  If Paul had been teaching that the commands regarding the Passover sacrifice were no longer valid, then Paul blatantly lied to Felix about believing everything that agreed with the Law.  What else did Paul lie about?  Why would we pay any attention to the writings of someone who lied in the manner that your view of Scripture makes Paul lie to Felix? 

If Paul had actually been teaching that the commands regarding the Passover sacrifice had been replaced by the "Lord's Supper", where would the noble Bereans have been able to verify that non-Scriptural teaching in the Old Testament scrolls that they searched daily to see whether Paul's teachings were true? (Acts 17:10ff)  It is impossible to confirm such a teaching in the Old Testament, so we know that Paul's gospel could not have included the notion that the "Lord's Supper" replaced the Passover sacrifice. 

If Paul had actually taught people that God's commands regarding the Passover sacrifice were annulled, then according to Jesus Paul should be considered "least in the kingdom of heaven".  Does someone who is considered "least" have any authority to teach anyone anything, especially if they were teaching contrary to the existing Word of God?  Those are the kind of people that God had warned the Israelites to disregard.

There is more evidence, but this is long enough for now.

[Samie]

12 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

Dear Samie,  I have been observing the moon for more than 20 years, and I know there are two or three nights when the moon looks full and I don't think God wanted us to be in doubt or have to resort to computations or calculations. 

Richard dear, via your 20-year observations, can you tell me what date and time will the full moon be on May 2036, without consulting any other full moon listings?  If you can't, then, what's wrong with consulting computations and calculations that arrive at the exact full moon occurrences forward or backward in time?

You brought up issue of the mo'ed for Passover, and God specified it to be on a full moon night, not just simply on any night the moon looks full.  Have you ever wondered why Passover meal is always after sunset of the 14th day of Abib, and whether this has anything to do with full moon occurrence?

12 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

To say that Christ celebrated it a night early is human speculation or reasoning

Not at all, brother.  You seemed to have overlooked the Bible record for that.

12 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

He could not die as the Passover lamb and then celebrate it when He was dead.

Now, that's the human speculation or reasoning.  Did Christ, to you, celebrate Passover on a wrong night?

[Samie]

27 minutes ago, RichardRuhling said:

Samie, We could quibble all day about whether Christ ate the Passover early in order to die as the lamb on Passover the next day.

Not for us to quibble, Richard. The Bible has the final word. Just read it. It's there. He ate Passover ahead by a day of the Jewish celebration of Passover.

 

27 minutes ago, RichardRuhling said:

The point is, the word chodesh (crescent moon) is seen THREE times in Exodus 12:2 where God gave the calendar.

Sorry, but you seem to have misread that "chodesh" in Exo 12:2 is "crescent moon".  It's "month", brother. NOT "crescent moon".

KJV Exodus 12:2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.

If your reading of the verse is correct, then it should have read: "This crescent moon shall be unto you the beginning of crescent moons: it shall be the first crescent moon of the year to you."  Doesn't quite make sense, does it?

[Samie]

33 minutes ago, RichardRuhling said:

Samie, I hope you realize that the Bible wasn't written in English, and translators sometimes fail to convey the original meaning. The word in Hebrew is chodesh as most concordances will show you. And if you go to https://images.google.com/  and type in chodesh, you will see the meaning--crescent moon--the letters are even similar.

Well, Richard, the Hebrew vd,xo  ("chodesh") means either "month" or "new moon" (your "crescent moon").  But in Exo 12:2 it is quite clear from context that it must take on the meaning of "month" instead of "new moon".

[Samie]

10 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

Samie, I think you should understand that the new moon (crescent) "is the beginning of the months" as it says. 

I think I understand your insistence that the Hebrew vd,xo  ("chodesh") in Exo 12:2 is better translated "crescent moon" instead of "month", Richard. 

You're not aware that the moon was no longer in crescent phase when the Lord spoke to Moses what are recorded in Exo 12, are you?

[Samie]

1 hour ago, RichardRuhling said:

Dear Samie,

Please consider six reasons against your assertion.

1. If the moon "was no longer in crescent phase when the Lord spoke to Moses" (Exod 12:2), then the moon would not have been full two weeks later at Passover which it was, Passover has a full moon as celebrated by Jews and my favorite author says the moon was full when Christ went to the garden, DA 685, 2nd sentence.

I am not blaming you, Richard dear, IF you are not aware that the moon was no longer in crescent phase at the time the LORD spoke Exo 12:2. 

You may NOT have considered pertinent Scriptural accounts that transpired before and after Exo 12:2, which you believe was spoken when the moon was in crescent phase.  But Exo 12 speaks for itself that it was spoken right before the exodus of Israel from Egypt. Here's verse 12:

Exodus 12:12   For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD

You may read vv1-12 or even the whole chapter of Exo 12 and confirm for yourself that the moon was NOT in crescent phase when the Lord spoke Exo 12:2.

[Samie]

5 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

Samie,

To the contrary, Exodus 12:2 was at the crescent and in the next verse (3) the instruction is to set a lamb apart for the sacrifice on the 10th day. Then on the 14th they were to sacrifice the lamb and put its blood on their doorpost. Some passages of Scripture are separated by thousands of years as Isaiah 61:2

Ohh. So you're saying the LORD spoke Exo 12:2 at the crescent, and the LORD spoke Exo 12:3 on the tenth of the month?

You could be well on your way, I guess, to an excellent eisegesis, Richard.

You were insisting tooth and nail that "chodesh" means "crescent moon", so why would "chodesh" in v3 mean "month"?

 

[Dave Watchman]

On 4/24/2017 at 2:18 PM, RichardRuhling said:

You are welcome to watch for full moons all  you wish, but based on the crescent, found it significant that the pope went to the UN on the Day of Atonement, the only day in the year to proclaim Jubilee (Lev 25:9,10) on the 50th Jubilee--the Jubilee of Jubilees in 1995 (counting from 456 BC when Israelites returned to their land (jubilee event) at the beginning of the 70 weeks of years cited in Daniel 9:24,25. With papal visits intersecting the jubilee timeline,

I see that end-times will begin this spring and my information is working well for me.

It sure is a tough call. And I also think that my information, if I should even call it that, is working well for me. But my zone of interest is different than yours. We're on the same year though. Because I think that you're smarter than me Richard, I tried to figure out your logic on the second Passover. Seems OK to use the tetrads as a signal. But why would we have to wait until AFTER the sabbatical year of 2016? What if 2016 is not even the sabbatical year? What if the end-times are NOT a ‘week’ of years with the last of 7 years also being a sabbatical year? Too much seems to be hinging on these long view specifications.

But I agree with the "quake" probably turning out to being the catalyst for the end times.

On 4/24/2017 at 2:18 PM, RichardRuhling said:

I would say as Paul, "Follow me as I follow Christ" (1Cor 11:1) and watch & pray on the evening of May 11/12 with further reasons seen here-- http://bit.ly/2p4TqMO 

Never a bad idea to watch and pray.

On 4/24/2017 at 2:18 PM, RichardRuhling said:

If you have an honest question re it, happy to reply but not interested in debating the issue that should be clear from above reasons.

How are you fitting the "days of Noah" in with the 2nd Passover?

[Ron Amnsn]

On 4/23/2017 at 8:42 PM, RichardRuhling said:

Ron, When Christ died and the veil of the temple was rent, it ended the system of types and shadows pointing to Messiah.

The New Testament does tell us that the veil of the Temple was torn.  But it does not tell us that the tearing of the veil "ended the system of types and shadows pointing to Messiah."  That is a non-Scriptural teaching.  The only meaning or interpretation that the New Testament provides for the tearing of the veil is that the veil represents the flesh of Messiah (Hebrews 10:20)  That's all.  Everything else you've heard about the significance of the torn veil is non-Scriptural, and nearly all of it fails the test of Scripture.

You are saying "the system" ended.  But when God was instituting "the system" He specifically commanded (over 30 times) that various aspects were to be done "throughout the generations" of the Israelites.  As you know, the Israelites are still producing generations.  The English word "forever" appears over 40 times in God's description of "the system".  How many times did God tell the Israelites that "the system" would continue only until Messiah died?  None.  Absolutely zero times. 

We know that the word "forever" in the Old Testament doesn't have the modern meaning of infinite perpetual existence -- instead it means throughout the lifetime of the object or person that is being referred to -- so "forever" can mean a period of time as short as a person's lifetime.  But in God's Law of Moses, the word "forever" is often connected to things that are still in existence, such as all the generations of Israel, or the Land that Israel inherited, or God himself.

So it's pretty obvious that your assertion contradicts God's Law of Moses.  That's rather significant, especially since God's people were supposed to test every new teaching that came along by God's Word that had been  given earlier.  In each generation they were to test the new prophets and teachings according to God's Law of Moses and by whatever subsequent writings of the prophets were available to use.  So when Jesus and the apostle Paul came along they had to pass that same test -- they didn't get a divine exemption because of miracles, signs or wonders -- the Law of Moses is clear about that. (Deut 13)  In fact in the New Testament the Bereans were commended for testing the apostle Paul himself by the Old Testament scrolls (Acts 17:10).  If it was commendable to test the apostle Paul by the Old Testament 2000 years ago, it is also commendable to test every modern and traditional interpretation of Paul's writings by the Old Testament, and to test everyone else (including your favorite author) by the Old Testament as well.  Don't be alarmed-- if Jesus and the apostle Paul passed the test, so can anyone else who is teaching God's truth.

In the New Testament Jesus endorsed and quoted the Old Testament many times.  One thing Jesus said was, "For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46-47).  Moses wrote that "the system" was to continue throughout the generations of Israel.  If you don't believe Moses, how will you believe Jesus when he commands, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets"? or when Jesus says "until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished" ?

 

On 4/23/2017 at 8:42 PM, RichardRuhling said:

Animal sacrifices were no longer needed since the Lamb was slain that they pointed to.

You say that so plainly.  Have you noticed that the New Testament never says the same thing plainly?

In fact the New Testament tells us that decades after the death of Jesus the followers of Jesus were still going up to the Temple to worship and offer animal sacrifices. (Acts 21:23ff)  Paul himself intended to do so as well on his final visit to Jerusalem. (Acts 18:18, 21:19ff)  I know, your favorite author wrote that Paul was mistaken to do so, but that sentiment contradicts the Scriptures that Paul followed and endorsed, and it also disagrees with what Jesus told Paul after that event when Jesus commended Paul's actions in Jerusalem-- “Take courage, for as you have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in Rome.” (Acts 23:11)  The whole time he was in Jerusalem Paul had gone out of his way show his own faithfulness to the Scriptures of the Old Testament.

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

The point is, Christ fulfilled the sacrificial part of the law.

In English, "fulfilled" has at least two different meanings.   You seem to be using only the meaning of "fulfill" that pertains to fulfilling a one-time contract (like a mortgage contract) where provisions of the contract become annulled and void once the mortgage is fulfilled so the contract itself can be burned and abolished.  From the context of what Jesus said, it seems very doubtful that Jesus was using the same meaning of fulfill that you are using.  I'm not even sure that the Greek word can even carry the meaning that you are using in English.  If that's really what Jesus meant, it seems to make nonsense of what Jesus said.  By inserting your meaning of "fulfill" back into the text the resulting paraphrase would read something like this, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fill up in order to do away with any valid reason to obey the instructions of the Law."  So you end up with people thinking the thing that Jesus commanded people to not think. The outcome of the "fulfill like a mortgage" interpretation is that you end up teaching people to set aside parts of God's instructions, which is what Jesus said (in the same paragraph) would be done by those who "are called least" in the kingdom.

God's covenant and Law of Moses was not written as a one-time contract like a mortgage that can be burned and abolished once it is fulfilled. Rather, it was like a marriage covenant that is intended to be fulfilled each day, and then fulfilled again the next day, and then fulfilled again the next day as long as the parties to the marriage contract still live.  God still lives. The generations of Israel, heirs of Abraham, still live.   Jesus fulfilled each day all the instructions of God's Law of Moses that pertained to his particular situation.  He filled up his life with whole-hearted devotion to the God of the Covenant, so of course he also followed the instructions that were given in Scripture.  However, there are many parts of the Law that Jesus did not fulfill before his death-- the instructions for women, for soldiers, for priests, for farmers, for kings, for homeowners.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but your response makes it appear that you have more faith in the Library of Congress than you do in the Words of God written by Moses and endorsed by Jesus and Paul.

[Ron Amnsn]

3 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

The point is, Christ fulfilled the sacrificial part of the law. There is nothing we can do by our works that can add to it.

Where in Scripture does it teach that people who obey God's instructions are trying to "add" anything to what God has promised?  It seems that people who think Jesus abolished parts of the law approach the Law legalistically as if the only reason to follow God's instructions is in order to earn something.  That's not a Scriptural concept.

Do your kids (if you have any) do what you say because they are trying to earn the right to be part of your family?  I'd guess not.  They were born part of your family.  It's not something they need to earn.

[Samie]

2 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Do your kids (if you have any) do what you say because they are trying to earn the right to be part of your family?  I'd guess not.  They were born part of your family.  It's not something they need to earn.

Same goes for all of us. We were born ALREADY members of the Family of God.

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

You are welcome to do as you please, but I think God is insulted that His Lamb is not an acceptable fulfillment in the system of types and antitypes that He gave.

Where in Scripture do you get the idea that those who continue to follow God's instructions regarding the Passover sacrifice have judged/thought/declared that the sacrifice of Jesus as the Lamb of God was unacceptable?  Could that be just a carry-over of the anti-Jewish doctrines that were rampant in the church of the Roman empire?

Where in the Bible do you find the idea that God could be insulted by people continuing to obey His instructions during the time period that God instructed that those instructions were to be followed?  The concepts that "God is insulted" by obedience, or that it is "a slap in the face of Jesus" to keep doing what God instructed his people to do are very popular concepts, but they are not taught in Scripture.

Where in Scripture do we find God's instructions to stop doing the so-called "types" when someone decides that a so-called "anti-type" has fulfilled the type?  When the apostle Paul declared, "when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away," was he talking about setting aside any of God's Law?  No.  The man-made theory of "types" and "anti-types" is just that -- a man-made theory.  I don't believe that man-made theories should be used to set aside any of the Bible.

By the way, we don't sacrifice a Passover lamb currently, just as Daniel and Jeremiah probably didn't sacrifice a Passover lamb during the Babylonian captivity.

[Dave Watchman]

4 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

The point is, you take the part of Passover that you wish (lamb) but it also says, to eat it, leaving nothing till morning, Exod 12:10. 

 

"Now the Passover of the Jews was near,

and many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the Passover to purify themselves.

 

The Passover of the Jews:

• Your lamb shall be without blemish,
• A male a year old.
• You may take it from the sheep or from the goats,
• And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month,
• When the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight.
• Then they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts.
• And the lintel of the houses in which they eat it.
• They shall eat the flesh that night,
• Roasted on the fire;
• With unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it.
• Do not eat any of it raw or boiled in water, but roasted,
• Its head with its legs and its inner parts.
• And you shall let none of it remain until the morning;
• Anything that remains until the morning you shall burn.
• In this manner you shall eat it:
• With your belt fastened,
• Your sandals on your feet,
• And your staff in your hand.
• And you shall eat it in haste.

It is the Lord’s Passover.

If I were to attempt to observe the Passover of the Jews, but violate even just one of the above specifications including the proper day, it would be as sin to me. A violation of the Lord's Commandment. But I'm not a sojourner in the land that the Lord gave them. Am I?

"When you enter the land which the LORD will give you, as He has promised, you shall observe this rite. "And when your children say to you, 'What does this rite mean to you?' you shall say, 'It is a Passover sacrifice to the LORD who passed over the houses of the sons of Israel in Egypt when He smote the Egyptians, but spared our homes '" And the people bowed low and worshiped.

"When you enter the land which the Lord will give you". Is this why when on a long journey the Jews could come back and observe the "second" Passover? Did the Jews have to follow the Passover specifications when they were not "in the land" that God gave them?

 

I can't figure it out. It looks like God was giving them something that was nearly impossible to continue doing. Keep the lamb 14 days then kill it at twilight, roast it and eat it fast standing up with their sandals on and cloak tucked in and their staff in their hand and burn any uneaten animal before sunrise?

'If an alien sojourns among you and observes the Passover to the LORD, according to the statute of the Passover and according to its ordinance, so he shall do; you shall have one statute, both for the alien and for the native of the land.'"

This still sounds like I've got to be in the "land" that God gave to the Israelite's, whether I'm an alien or a native of the "land".

 

I still think that I would mess it up for sure.

 

Thank God for the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world.

"Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch--as you really are.

For Christ, Our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Peaceful Sabbath.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 4/25/2017 at 1:54 PM, jackson said:

Jesus also told Moses the following:

Ex 12:43          And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This [is] the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:  12:44         But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.   12:45     A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. 12:46          In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.   12:47  All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.   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.   

Jesus also told Paul the following:

1 Cor 7:18       Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 

If Jesus required circumcision to participate in the Passover and didm’t require circumcision for a new convert, then th seems obvious that keeping the Passover was neither required nor permitted for an uncircumcised convert. No?   

In Colossians 2:11 Paul tells the followers of Jesus that they had been circumcised in Christ with a circumcision not of human construction (Col 2:11).  It may be debatable whether that circumcision was like the circumcision that Paul did to Timothy which Timothy consented to or requested, or whether it was like the circumcision that was done to Jesus and to Paul at 8 days of age which they couldn't consent to or remember but could see the physical results of, or whether it was some sort of "spiritual" circumcision that men received and hadn't been aware of at all until Paul told them.  Nevertheless, according to Paul it seems the lack of circumcision would not have been an issue to prevent the 1st century believers from partaking in the full Passover celebration.

Paul also makes it clear in various other passages that those who were servants/slaves of Christ purchased by Christ were not considered to be foreigners (which agrees with the covenant given to Abraham, of which we are heirs).

[Ron Amnsn]

3 hours ago, Dave Watchman said:

I can't figure it out. It looks like God was giving them something that was nearly impossible to continue doing. Keep the lamb 14 days then kill it at twilight, roast it and eat it fast standing up with their sandals on and cloak tucked in and their staff in their hand and burn any uneaten animal before sunrise?

'If an alien sojourns among you and observes the Passover to the LORD, according to the statute of the Passover and according to its ordinance, so he shall do; you shall have one statute, both for the alien and for the native of the land.'"

This still sounds like I've got to be in the "land" that God gave to the Israelite's, whether I'm an alien or a native of the "land".

The requirements for the first Passover in Egypt (which happened in Egypt rather than at Jerusalem) are different from the requirements of later Passovers, which can be a bit confusing.  The lamb was selected and brought into the home or courtyard on the 10th day of the month and slaughtered on the 14th, so it was with the family for four days.

If you had been discipled by the followers of Jesus who went out into all the world to teach the nations everything Jesus had taught them (Matt 28:18-10), you would probably anticipate Passover with joy rather than trepidation. 

For most things, God's Law of Moses did not require perfection, only willing obedience.  As the Bible teaches, God's Law is a good law and a blessing.  Unfortunately, Satan has most people convinced that God's Law of Moses is an onerous burden that's impossible to keep, and that people are better off without it.  I'm pretty sure there are fewer regulations in the Law of Moses than for an NFL football game.  All those regulations help keep the game fun to play and watch, but if you only read the rules and never experienced a football game you might feel the football regulations were overwhelming.
 

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, RichardRuhling said:

Ron, I don't think you are open to fair consideration of the weight of evidence from Scripture. The sacrifice of animals foreshadowed the Lamb that Abraham foretold in Gen 22:8 and announced by John (1:29ish) but there is NO evidence of any Christian doing as you do except maybe the Galatians who were trying to earn salvation by works of the law. Paul talking about Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances (Col 2:14) and similar in Eph 2:15, but I'm sure you can come up with some other explanation, and I think you can't see the forest because you are surrounded by trees. 

Perhaps you're not accustomed to discussing Scripture with someone who believes the whole Bible is still valid, and that all interpretations should be diligently tested in context the way the righteous peers of the Bible authors would have tested the original message at the time that it was first written to see whether the message was from YHWH.  The contextual and chronological testing process that was used to determine which books and authors would be accepted as Scripture by the faithful necessarily gives more weight to the earlier books in the Bible-- the books which were historically used to test the later books and authors.  That's quite different from the traditional "here a little, there a little" method of prooftexting that allows anachronistic, contradictory and fragmentary teachings to be accepted by the people and leaves them with no reliable method of weeding out the heresies that were handed down to us by the official church of the Roman empire.

You would do well to look for the historical evidence that is available showing that the first-century believers were still following God's Law of Moses.  There's quite a bit right within the New Testament, if you look for it.  But there are other historical witnesses that say the same thing.

The Greek word for "ordinances" (dogmasin) that is found in Col 2:14 and Eph 2:15 is also found in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) that had already been in use by Greek-speaking Jews for a couple centuries by the time Paul was writing.  However, dogmasin is not found in the places that we would expect it to be found if dogmasin referred to the God-given ordinances of the Law of Moses.  Neither dogmasin nor any other form of the Greek word dogma is found anywhere within the Books of Moses in the Septuagint.  Those words are used in the Greek Septuagint only to refer to man-made decrees, laws and regulations, almost always decrees that were made by pagan rulers.  When we go back to the Gospels to read the story of the death of Messiah we find that there actually was a hand written declaration from a pagan ruler nailed to the execution stake of Jesus -- the placard that listed his "crime" of being the King of the Jews.  The good news is that Jesus took the placard that listed my guilt, the placard that would have been placed on my own execution stake if I had been required to pay for my own sins. Jesus accepted my guilt and paid the penalty for my sins.  Justice has been served.  The law has been satisfied (not abolished). It's awesome and awe inspiring. Jesus has done the same for anyone who is willing.

[Kevin H]

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 8:35 PM, Samie said:

You're welcome, Richard.

Unlike full moon occurrences, there is no scientific record that exists as to occurrences of sightings of the young crescent in the western horizon of Jerusalem.  On the other hand, full moon occurrences can be ACCURATELY computed FORWARD or BACKWARD in time. 

This explains why Jesus Who can NEVER lose track of when full moon was to occur that Paschal week, celebrated Passover a day ahead of the Jewish national celebration.  Chances are, the official Jerusalem crescent observer may have, for whatever reason, failed to see the young crescent on the day it was supposed to be seen but instead saw it the following day.  That delayed the start of the month and moved Abib or Nisan 14 a day forward, and in the process their national celebration of Passover also moved with the delayed crescent sighting.

Samie: The current evidence is that Jesus celebrated the Passover meal on the Tuesday night of that week, that night would have also been when the Essenes would have celebrated it. (by the time of Jesus different subgroups had different ways of figuring out when Passover was.) That year the Temple recognized it to be the Friday when Jesus went through all the rituals of the Passover and died as our Passover lamb, but he ate the  meal not one day early but a couple of days early, at the time that the Essenes and some of the other sub groups of Jews were celebrating.

For over well over 100 years there was a sermon that is frequently repeated in part or whole at Easter time. It talks about things that were illegal about Jesus' trials. However a large number of them are based on the idea that the last supper was Thursday night and Jesus was on the cross Friday morning. A time too short for all the events that happened. If you have Jesus being arrested late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning, having a Jewish inquiry, sent to the prison cell in Caiaphas's house for all day Wednesday then brought out Thursday for the trials that ended late Thursday and Jesus taken to the cross Friday morning, you would not have all the problems that famous sermon taught, and the events fit in nicely.

Also, for the early centuries of Christianity, our early traditions all had the last supper on Tuesday night with the crucifixion on Friday.  It was centuries later when people started reading the text and came to the conclusion that the last supper was the night before the crucifixion and that tradition moved it from Tuesday night to Thursday night.

[Samie]

2 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Also, for the early centuries of Christianity, our early traditions all had the last supper on Tuesday night with the crucifixion on Friday.

My reading of Scripture is Jesus celebrated Passover the night immediately preceding His crucifixion. I can yet see no biblical reason for this not to be so.

Again, Jesus celebrated Passover on the night after sunset of March 27, 31 AD Tuesday, a full moon night; He was arrested that same night and crucified the day that immediately followed, March 28, 31 AD, Wednesday.  After 3 days and 3 nights, as He Himself specified, He rose from the grave early Saturday morning, March 31, 31 AD.