Should Christians observe the OT feasts?

[Sam21]

I think you're reading that wrong Theo.. think about it.. let's go to a Jewish Synaguoge where Christ is rejected and listen to the Law of Moses...?

Yeah, that sounds right.. lol

Man! That was a good point that I had not thought of before, the christians would have hardly been accepted in a Jewish Synaguoge(ha,ha).

 

[Eventide]

Fallen from grace..?

Man! That was a good point that I had not thought of before, the christians would have hardly been accepted in a Jewish Synaguoge(ha,ha).

Yes and that's NOT what the verse says at all.. it's either a misunderstanding of the scripture or far worse.. intentionally using it out of context to support keeping the Law of Moses.. which is clearly against the doctrine of the NT.

 

[jasoncran]

Re: Fallen from grace..?

Yes and that's NOT what the verse says at all.. it's either a misunderstanding of the scripture or far worse.. intentionally using it out of context to support keeping the Law of Moses.. which is clearly against the doctrine of the NT.

on that note.

for those on fb.here's a rabbi that read his posts and letters to the newspapers from time to time.

Rabbi David Wolpe
i also wonder how theo celebrates rosh hoshanna or has his priest enter into the holy of holies once a year for his sin and what offerings of animals theo presents.

 

[Theofilus]

I think you're reading that wrong Theo.. think about it.. let's go to a Jewish Synaguoge where Christ is rejected and listen to the Law of Moses...?

Yeah, that sounds right.. lol

You're making the same mistake I mentioned earlier - thinking that the first century Christians were in the same situation we are today. While it is true today that most Jewish congregations have completelyl rejected Christ (Messianic Jews are an exception and are in the minority), that was not the case to begin with.

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Acts 2:46-47 KJV)​

They had favor with all the people. That's not surprising, considering that they were telling people that the Messiah, which everyone was expecting, had come. They were welcomed in the synagogues. They were, eventually, forbidden to come to the synagogues, but that wasn't until the late first century. Even then, it was just the Gentile Christians that weren't allowed. The circumcized (Jewish) Christians were still allowed in the synagogues. It wasn't until the second century that no believers at all were to be found in the synagogues. That's decades after Paul wrote his letters. During his lifetime, all Christians, including Gentiles, were still considered to be Jews.

 

[Theofilus]

Re: Fallen from grace..?

i also wonder how theo celebrates rosh hoshanna or has his priest enter into the holy of holies once a year for his sin and what offerings of animals theo presents.

And I wonder if you have actually read, or even care about, what I have actually said, or if you just take a small piece of it and extrapolate from there.

 

[kiwimac]

You're making the same mistake I mentioned earlier - thinking that the first century Christians were in the same situation we are today. While it is true today that most Jewish congregations have completelyl rejected Christ (Messianic Jews are an exception and are in the minority), that was not the case to begin with.

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Acts 2:46-47 KJV)​

They had favor with all the people. That's not surprising, considering that they were telling people that the Messiah, which everyone was expecting, had come. They were welcomed in the synagogues. They were, eventually, forbidden to come to the synagogues, but that wasn't until the late first century. Even then, it was just the Gentile Christians that weren't allowed. The circumcized (Jewish) Christians were still allowed in the synagogues. It wasn't until the second century that no believers at all were to be found in the synagogues. That's decades after Paul wrote his letters. During his lifetime, all Christians, including Gentiles, were still considered to be Jews.

You do realise that there was a difference between attending the daily services
at the Temple and in the Synagogues?

 

[jasoncran]

Re: Fallen from grace..?

And I wonder if you have actually read, or even care about, what I have actually said, or if you just take a small piece of it and extrapolate from there.

those are feasts are they not. one cant keep passover with killing a lamb and offering it as was the case during the time of christ, what about the feasts of purim? feasts of tabernacles, feast that require animal sacrifice? others wise all you have that you can follow in the diaspora isnt much but the passover and chanukah and i bet during the first days of that when the temple was being dedicated. i bet they did up to the temples destruction killed and sacrificied animals.

why would God say keep them and yet most of them require blood of animals which the cross did away with.
that leaves the dietary laws, that's it.

 

[jasoncran]

(This comment is meant, not only for kiwimac, but also for all others who feel the same way.)

We are not commanded to keep Christmas, Good Friday, Easter or Pentecost (aka the Feast of Weeks), either. Yet, many Christians keep all of those, and nobody tells them that they are not required to do so for their salvation. Do you keep these days, which the Bible does not command you to keep?

As for my keeping Passover, Channukah, the biblical Sabbath and eating only kosher food (all of which we are, indeed, commanded to do, since we are grafted onto Israel), I will follow Pauls advice, where he tells us:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days. (Col. 2:16 KJV)
​

channukah? i like that holiday but its not commanded or even really stated that any of the apostles celebrated it after the ascenscion. yes its called the festival of dedication. again what chanukah is today is a little different then. giving gifts like the christmas thing wasnt original there, nor childrens games.

 

[Sparkey]

Sigh! Brother you need to honestly read what Paul wrote about the Jewish celebrations,the people he fought with the hardest were those Jews trying to bring christians back into Judaism. Why go back into bondage when Christ has set you free?, Peter said that the law was a yoke that the fathers nor themselves were able to bear,do you really think God wants you to go back into the old covenant,"He has made old the first(OT),but that which grows old and aged,near disappearing"(Heb8:13). Move forward in Christ,you do not need OT feasts anymore because you are beyond that.

I asked if you thought that Jewish celebrations (Feast Days) were prohibited by God now. Are they sin?

 

[Sparkey]

Sparrow:

I am sure you are right, but can you give chapter and verse for that?

Thanks,

(2Cr 3:2 KJV) - "(2) Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:" We (our hearts) become epistles and we are transformed by the living word of God. Your heart too agrees with the truth (because that has been written in you too) and you testify to this by saying, "I am sure you are right," in response to my statement,

"Clearly we are commanded to cease from in-fighting amongst brothers and commanded to love the brethren with a fervent love so much that the heathen will remark about what they see."

• We are to love one another

Chapter and verse? We are to love our brothers even as we love ourselves. The two greatest commandments include this. Check (1Pe 1:22 KJV) - "(22) Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:"

• His Banner over us

​

You've heard that "His banner over us is love," right? Our love is to be the visible kind, not the store-bought, have-a-nice-day (you butt-head) kind.

(1Jo 3:14-16 KJV) - "(14) We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. (15) Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. (16) Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren."



(Jhn 13:34-35 KJV) - "(34) A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (35) By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love (agape) one to another.

I can PM you with more, if you want but I don't think you need it or would really appreciate my trying to teach you stuff you already know well.

~Sparrow

 

[Drew]

I said I would address Drew's comments about the second chapter of Ephesians. Before I say anything, let's take a closer look at the verses in question.

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace (Eph. 2:14-15 NASB)

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace (Eph. 2:14-15 ESV)

These are pretty different translations - "which is the law" and "by abolishing the law". This is not just about symantics. The meanings are completely different.

The meanings are the same - they are both clear assertions about the abolition of the Law.

In the NASB, the phraseology is "by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments ". It is clear that the "enmity" is the thing that is abolished and it is set equal to the Law. This is simply how the text reads. The object of verb "abolish" is "enmity", so we know it is the enmity that is abolished. And then in the next phrase, Paul tells us what the enmity is - the Law. So there is no doubt - the Law is abolished.

The other translation is equally clear - the phrase "abolishing the law" means that, yes, the Law has been abolished.

Both translations says the same thing - the Law has been abolished. The fact that different phraseology is used does not change this - both texts have Paul asserting that the Law is abolished.

The fact is that the original manuscripts say neither "which is" nor "by abolishing". Those words aren't in the original manuscripts, and neither are "even", as we see in the KJV, nor other words that some other translations insert. These were all inserted by the translators, to make the text fit what they thought it should say.

About the so-called absence of the verb "abolish", here is what respected NET Bible commentary has to say about this word, which the NET Bible translates as "nullified" rather than abolished:

tn Or “rendered inoperative.” This is a difficult text to translate because it is not easy to find an English term which communicates well the essence of the author’s meaning, especially since legal terminology is involved. Many other translations use the term “abolish” (so NRSV, NASB, NIV), but this term implies complete destruction which is not the author’s meaning here. The verb καταργέω (katargew) can readily have the meaning “to cause someth. to lose its power or effectiveness” (BDAG 525 s.v. 2, where this passage is listed), and this meaning fits quite naturally here within the author’s legal mindset. A proper English term which communicates this well is “nullify” since this word carries the denotation of “making something legally null and void.” This is not, however, a common English word. An alternate term like “rendered inoperative [or ineffective]” is also accurate but fairly inelegant. For this reason, the translation retains the term “nullify”; it is the best choice of the available options, despite its problems.

I agree that these scholars are disputing the "abolish" sense. But in saying that the law has been rendered inoperative still strongly suggests that the Law of Moses is no longer to be followed. Besides, a range of other texts make it clear that Paul sees that it is no longer appropriate for the believer to follow the written code. One of these is this text from Romans 7:

But now we have been (I)released from the Law, having (J)died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in (K)newness of (L)the [a]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The fact that Paul suggests that our mode of "serving" is not "by the letter" shows that He thinks the written code of the Law of Moses should no longer be followed by the Christian.

This is a complex issue, and I am sure more needs to be said from both "sides"

 

[Sam21]

I asked if you thought that Jewish celebrations (Feast Days) were prohibited by God now. Are they sin?

Paul did say that those who go back into Judaism were in danger of falling from grace, once you are out from under grace you are definately into sin. It is a heart question, why would a christian who truely recognizes that they are accepted by faith in Christ and His sacrifice find it necessarily to go back and keep laws that were intended to prepare people for the coming of Christ?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Nope. It doesn't hurt to understand 'em - but Christians aren't under the "Law" - PERIOD!!!!!

 

[reba]

Which laws?

 

[Drew]

It shows no such thing. It only shows that Paul belived (as I do) that nobody can be saved by keeping the law. It says nothing of who the law is for.

No, as per the following argument:

Here is Romans 3:28-30 in the NASB:

28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

The very logic of this statement leaves us no option other than to conclude that Paul sees the Law of Moses applies only to Jews. It is true that the text does not assert this directly, but that does not matter.

Let’s go through this carefully. First, Paul says that justification has no dependency on doing the works of the Law. Fine. Now the “or” is critical – it is clear that what follows the “or” is some expression of what would need to be true in order for justification to indeed be based on doing the works of the Law. That is simply how an “or” clause functions if it follows an assertion of what is the case and takes the form of a question. If I assert “A is true, or is B true?”, I am necessarily saying that if B were indeed true, this would overturn the assertion that A is indeed true.

Consider this example:

I maintain that I see snow falling outside, or am I in country X?

Here is the point – even if we do not know what country is actually being referred to, we can be sure that country X is one where it never snows. So the following example indeed makes sense:

I maintain that I see snow falling outside, or am I in Jamaica?

….precisely because if I were in Jamaica, this would most assuredly invalidate the assertion that it is snowing outside. By contrast, the following simply makes no sense:

I maintain that it is snowing outside, or am I in Canada?

This statement makes no sense – the form of the question: “A is true or is B true” simply demands that B be some assertion that, if true, would show that A is false. But observing snow falling in Canada obviously does not over overturn the assertion that I observe snow falling.

Now having established that if the B clause were indeed true, the A clause would be false, we need to ask what the content of B really is. This is where verse 30 becomes important. I assert that the following is a correct re-working of Paul’s text:

28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only and not of the Gentile because He (God) will only justify Jews? Is He not the God of Gentiles also, that is, will He not justify Gentiles too? Yes He is God of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

I suggest this rephrasing simply because it makes the rest of the argument easier to follow. I am quite confident that this rework in no way distorts the meaning of the text.

Now let’s suppose that the Law of Moses applies to both Jew and Gentile and see how if this text can work with such an assumption:

28For we maintain that a man, whether a Jew doing the Law or a Gentile doing the Law, is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only and not of the Gentile because He (God) will only justify Jews? Is He not the God of Gentiles also, that is, will He not justify Gentiles too? Yes He is God of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

This simply does not make sense! The A clause, that both Jew and Gentile can indeed do the works of the Law and be justified thereby, and the B clause are effectively saying the very same thing – that both Jew and Gentile can be justified. But this cannot be the case in virtue of the argument above about the nature of an “A is true, or is B true?” statement. So it simply cannot be the case that both Jew and Gentile can do the works of the Law of Moses.

By contrast, if it is only the Jew who can do the works of the Law of Moses, then the B clause – that both Jew and Gentile are indeed justified by God would, if true indeed overturn the A clause, precisely because the B clause shows that people other than those who do the Law – namely Gentiles – are indeed justified.

So there really is no doubt –this text shows that Paul believes that the Law of Moses applies only to the Jew. The fact that the text does not say this explicitly does not matter – the linguistic form the “assertion of verse 28 followed by the question of verse 29” demands it.

 

[Pard]

I could always go for an extra excuse to feast.

But on a more serious note, we are not called to follow the Laws that God set forth for the Jews. Those Laws were impossible to follow to the 't' and that was the whole point! God is showing that only through Christ can we achieve forgiveness, adherence to Laws cannot save us because we cannot adhere to the Laws. Think about it! Adam had only a single rule, or "law", set before him and boy did he fail miserably!!! The Jews were given nearly (or maybe more than) 600 laws! Good luck following all 600...

 

[Theofilus]

I could always go for an extra excuse to feast.

But on a more serious note, we are not called to follow the Laws that God set forth for the Jews. Those Laws were impossible to follow to the 't'

Not true.

For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. "It is not in heaven, that you should say, '(C)Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. (Deu. 30:11-14 NASB)​

and that was the whole point! God is showing that only through Christ can we achieve forgiveness, adherence to Laws cannot save us because we cannot adhere to the Laws. Think about it! Adam had only a single rule, or "law", set before him and boy did he fail miserably!!! The Jews were given nearly (or maybe more than) 600 laws! Good luck following all 600...

Six hundred? You think that's a lot? I looked up the US criminal code, which you can read, in it's entirety, at law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/. Would you like to take a guess at how many individual sections it has, each dealing with a specific crime? Six hundred? Less than that, maybe? Six hundred is such a large number. It can't be that many... or can it? Wan't to know how many criminal laws there are - federal criminal laws, that is? There are more if you count the laws of individual states. Are you ready for it?...

There are 6005 - six thousand and five - sections in the federal criminal code. And that's just federal law. Add to that the laws of your state, and you have even more. Then add things that are not part of the criminal code, such as traffic laws, building codes, zoning regulations and so on, and you have hundreds of thousands of laws you have to keep. If you think it's impossible to keep a whole 600 laws, then I wish you good luck staying out of prison.

 

[Sparkey]

Sigh! Brother you need to honestly read what Paul wrote about the Jewish celebrations,the people he fought with the hardest were those Jews trying to bring christians back into Judaism. Why go back into bondage when Christ has set you free?, Peter said that the law was a yoke that the fathers nor themselves were able to bear,do you really think God wants you to go back into the old covenant,"He has made old the first(OT),but that which grows old and aged,near disappearing"(Heb8:13). Move forward in Christ,you do not need OT feasts anymore because you are beyond that.

Maybe there is some confusion about what I'm trying to say here?

I asked if you thought that Jewish celebrations (Feast Days) were prohibited by God now. Are they sin?

Paul did say that those who go back into Judaism were in danger of falling from grace, once you are out from under grace you are definately into sin. It is a heart question, why would a christian who truely recognizes that they are accepted by faith in Christ and His sacrifice find it necessarily to go back and keep laws that were intended to prepare people for the coming of Christ?

Culture isn't sin.

I'm not trying to say that Christians "should" or "should not" celebrate with their Jewish brothers and sisters but only that they may. Those who have called upon the Name of Jesus and trust in him for their salvation are saved. If such were the case (that following the law were sin) then how could Jesus have said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." (Mt 23) Jesus spoke and explained why the Parisees were wrong but never said that the law was sin. But and again, perhaps that isn't what you're trying to say. Kindly show the scripture (and context) that you draw this conclusion from.

But first let's think of it from a different angle: Cain offered sacrifices that were not accepted. Does that make farming illegal? What now? I agree that no flesh is justified by following the law because the law was given to conclude all mankind under sin and bring us to Jesus who is the fulfillment of the law. I do not agree that celebrating in accordance with the law is now something that any can consider to be wrong.

You've asked, "Why go back into bondage when Christ has set you free?" The law of Christ is now written into our hearts. We are to follow the path of peace. That path includes respect for all brethren in Christ.

~Sparrow

 

[Drew]

Not true.

For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. "It is not in heaven, that you should say, '(C)Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. (Deu. 30:11-14 NASB)

This is a great text, but I think it is a mistake to apply it to support the keeping of the Law of Moses.

First, we should note that the "what" that is being commanded here is not necessarily the Law of Moses. It could be the Law of Moses, but it could be, and I suggest that it is indeed, something else.

This is why it is so critical to look at the entire Biblical narrative and not come to such a text, presuming that it is talking about keeping the Law of Moses in particular. And while I will not give the whole story here, I suggest that the following is the proper interpretation of this famous passage:

1. This passage appears in an overall prophetic treatment by Moses (assuming he is the author of Deuteronomy) of how the covenant narrative will unfold. And in this text, in particular, it is clear that Moses is talking about what will happen at covenant renewal. So we should apply this text only in a context where we believe that the covenant has been renewed.

2. The Biblical narrative shows us quite clearly that covenant renewal happens at the Cross.

3. However, based on the teaching of Paul (Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, Colossians), and the actions of Jesus (such as His declaration, against the Law of Moses, that all foods are clean), it is clear that the Law of Moses, as a written code, has been retired at covenant renewal.

4. However, as per Romans 3:31, Romans 2, Romans 10, and Jesus summarizing of the Law of Moses, we know that, while the Law of Moses has come to an end, there is still a "law" that persists. We can talk about what this is, but one thing is clear - it is not the Law of Moses.

5. The renewal of the covenant, again following many Old Testament texts, involves the ingathering of the Gentiles. So since the Law of Moses was given to Jews only (as established by a separate argument), it would be very odd indeed if the covenant renewal text given to us in Deuteronomy 30 is talking about obeying commands that are part of a law - the Law of Moses - that only Jews are under.

6. So, given that covenant renewal involves the replacement of the Law of Moses with this mysterious new law, we can be quite confident that what Moses is talking about in Deuteronomy 30 is not the Law of Moses, but this mysterious new law, a law that, unlike the Law of Moses, Gentiles can indeed keep.

 

[Theofilus]

This is a great text, but I think it is a mistake to apply it to support the keeping of the Law of Moses.

First, we should note that the "what" that is being commanded here is not necessarily the Law of Moses. It could be the Law of Moses, but it could be, and I suggest that it is indeed, something else.

This is why it is so critical to look at the entire Biblical narrative and not come to such a text, presuming that it is talking about keeping the Law of Moses in particular. And while I will not give the whole story here, I suggest that the following is the proper interpretation of this famous passage:

1. This passage appears in an overall prophetic treatment by Moses (assuming he is the author of Deuteronomy) of how the covenant narrative will unfold. And in this text, in particular, it is clear that Moses is talking about what will happen at covenant renewal. So we should apply this text only in a context where we believe that the covenant has been renewed.

2. The Biblical narrative shows us quite clearly that covenant renewal happens at the Cross.

3. However, based on the teaching of Paul (Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, Colossians), and the actions of Jesus (such as His declaration, against the Law of Moses, that all foods are clean), it is clear that the Law of Moses, as a written code, has been retired at covenant renewal.

4. However, as per Romans 3:31, Romans 2, Romans 10, and Jesus summarizing of the Law of Moses, we know that, while the Law of Moses has come to an end, there is still a "law" that persists. We can talk about what this is, but one thing is clear - it is not the Law of Moses.

5. The renewal of the covenant, again following many Old Testament texts, involves the ingathering of the Gentiles. So since the Law of Moses was given to Jews only (as established by a separate argument), it would be very odd indeed if the covenant renewal text given to us in Deuteronomy 30 is talking about obeying commands that are part of a law - the Law of Moses - that only Jews are under.

6. So, given that covenant renewal involves the replacement of the Law of Moses with this mysterious new law, we can be quite confident that what Moses is talking about in Deuteronomy 30 is not the Law of Moses, but this mysterious new law, a law that, unlike the Law of Moses, Gentiles can indeed keep.

Look at it again.

For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you (Deu. 30:11 NASB)​

It's talking about the commandments God had just recently given them. Also, I wasn't using this "to support the keeping of the Law of Moses", but to reply to pard's comment thatt the law of God is too difficult to keep. It clearly is not. God himself says it is not too difficult to keep.