Post Info TOPIC: Colossians doesn't do away with any of the holy days of the Lord
webmaster

Date:
Colossians doesn't do away with any of the holy days of the Lord
Permalink   


Many Christians like to point to Colossians 2 (especially verse 16), to try and prove that the 7th day Sabbath is done away.
Strangely, many fellow Seventh-day Adventists point to the same text to try and prove that the holy convocations of the Lord (Feast days) are done away.
Are either of those valid interpretations of this text?

Please read the entire chapter of Colossians 2. You will notice that the phrase no man or any man, is referred to 4 times.
Someone who will:
1. beguile you
2. spoil you
3. judge you (verse 16)
4. beguile you

Dont you believe it makes sense to take it in context, and understand this as Dont worry about what non-christians think of you for following Jesus?

Jesus kept the 7th day Sabbath.
Jesus kept the holy convocations (Feast days).

So what WAS done away with at the cross?
The sacrifices and oblations passed away, per Daniel 9:27.
Nothing else.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

So until heaven and earth pass, neither the 7th day Sabbath, nor the holy convocations, are done away.

Lets follow Jesus perfect example, and keep not only his 7th day Sabbath holy, but also his Feast days.



__________________
zafer

Date:
Permalink   

Greetings my Brother!

While I agree that there are some inconsistencies in the way SDA's defend the 7th day Sabbath, I don't think this to be an irrefutable evidence that we should keep the Feast days.  



__________________
webmaster

Date:
Permalink   

Agreed completely that Colossians 2 does not give irrefutable evidence to keep the Feast days.

I'm just trying to show that it is NOT giving evidence that they are done away with, which is the standard teaching by fellow SDAs regarding this passage.

I highly respect deceased pastor Joe Crews, and read his booklet regarding the feast days several years ago.  It was clear and logical, and I believed it.  He made the case that Colossians 2 does away with the feasts.  However, in studying the passage deeper, with the help of some others online who had sermons about this passage, it became clear that we SDAs, including Joe Crews, do/did not teach this passage properly.

It should raise at least a big yellow flag in fellow SDAs minds when the exact same texts that Sunday-keepers use to diss the 7th day Sabbath, are used by us SDAs to diss God's holy convocation days.  That is very big in my mind.  Wouldn't you agree?



__________________
zafer

Date:
Permalink   

webmaster wrote:

I highly respect deceased pastor Joe Crews, and read his booklet regarding the feast days several years ago.  It was clear and logical, and I believed it.  He made the case that Colossians 2 does away with the feasts.  However, in studying the passage deeper, with the help of some others online who had sermons about this passage, it became clear that we SDAs, including Joe Crews, do/did not teach this passage properly.


I think I do understand better your point now. Joe Crews wanted to take the position of a "defender of faith", but his arguments were not always sound. I myself used to resolve in my mind that Col. 2 doesn't do away with the 7th day Sabbath, because it says that such days are a shadow of things to come. And when I've read in EJ Waggoner's book, The Everlasting Covenant, that the 10 commandments written in the tables of stones are also a shadow of the true reality, it was like scales falling off my eyes. Than I realized that this thing is clearly reveled in the Bible, but my eyes were blinded by the veil of preconceived ideas.

It also became clear that the 1888 message was meant to bring us out of the bondage of the Old Covenant, but we refused that. Waggoner's message was looked upon as a very dangerous one, because it went against many of the arguments used by the SDA's against out our opponents. Like the pharisees accused the apostles of speaking against the temple and the law, the messengers of that time were accused of overthrowing the foundation of our faith and of keeping the law. Wasn't Jesus accused of breaking the Sabbath? Doesn't Col. 2 say not to allow anyone to judge us in respect to the sabbath days? But our Savior didn't do away with the law. He came to upheld it and make it honorable.

I can say many things in these regard, but I don't know if I'm not confusing already. The point is that entering into the new covenant means to step from the shadow to the reality of Christ's body. The reality of the Old Covenant's ordinances (what we call the ceremonial law), with its feasts and everything, is Christ's ministry in the heavenly Sanctuary. The reality of commandments written on tables is the image of God reproduced in the believer by accepting Christ in his heart. This doesn't do away with the 7th day Sabbath, because when Adam had God's image in his being he was a Sabbath keeper. And the 7th day Sabbath existed before any Old Covenant came into existence. 



__________________
webmaster

Date:
Permalink   

I remember reading something like that by Wagonner too.  It was quite shocking, yet I see at least some of the truth in the statement that the 10Commandments were also a shadow.

It looks like you made a mistake in your statement here: " the messengers of that time were accused of overthrowing the foundation of our faith and of keeping the law".  I've read that they were accused of advocating doing away with the law.  Maybe you could clarify.

Your point about the feasts being part of the ceremonial law is mistaken, I believe, because Ellen White clearly writes that Jesus never kept the ceremonies of the temple, yet we know he did keep the feasts.

I think I'm in agreement with the main thrust of your points tho, as Jesus is the substance of all the Commandments, Statutes, and Judgments.  That doesn't mean that any of them are done away with, except of course the sacrifices and oblations, per Daniel 9:27.



__________________
zafer

Date:
Permalink   

webmaster wrote:

It looks like you made a mistake in your statement here: " the messengers of that time were accused of overthrowing the foundation of our faith and of keeping the law".  I've read that they were accused of advocating doing away with the law.  Maybe you could clarify.

Yes, you are right. The messengers sounded for the leaders like antinomianists. That's because these leaders used to approach those passages used by antinomianists against the law as dealing always with the ceremonial law. Aren't many SDA still doing this today? Maybe we are familiar with ideas like: Christ is the end of ceremonial law, the ceremonial law was the one nailed on the cross, or the law that was added (as written in Gal. 3) is the ceremonial law.



__________________
zafer

Date:
Permalink   

webmaster wrote:

Your point about the feasts being part of the ceremonial law is mistaken, I believe, because Ellen White clearly writes that Jesus never kept the ceremonies of the temple, yet we know he did keep the feasts.


 I really wonder where does EGW write this and how such a statement look like. Anyhow, if such a statement implies that we should be keeping these OT feasts, this would come into contradiction with the following two quotes, which make a clear distinction between the OT/annual Passover and NT holy supper: 

Here our Saviour instituted the Lords supper, to be often celebrated, to keep fresh in the memory of his followers the solemn scenes of his betrayal and crucifixion for the sins of the world. He would have his followers realize their continual dependence upon his blood for salvation. The broken bread was a symbol of Christs broken body, given for the salvation of the world. The wine was a symbol of his blood, shed for the cleansing of the sins of all those who should come unto him for pardon, and receive him as their Saviour. {3SG 227.2}

The salvation of men depends upon a continual application to their hearts of the cleansing blood of Christ. Therefore, THE LORDS SUPPER WAS NOT TO BE OBSERVED ONLY OCCASIONALLY OR YEARLY, BUT MORE FREQUENTLY THAN THE ANNUAL PASSOVER. This solemn ordinance commemorates a far greater event than the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egypt. That deliverance was typical of the great atonement which Christ made by the sacrifice of his own life for the final deliverance of his people. {3SG 228.1} 

In instituting the sacramental service to take the place of the Passover, Christ left for His church a memorial of His great sacrifice for man. This do, He said in remembrance of me. This was the point of transition between two economies and their two great festivals. THE ONE WAS TO CLOSE FOREVER; the other, which He has just established, is to take place, and to control through all time as the memorial of His death. {Ms35-1897}



__________________
webmaster

Date:
Permalink   

Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (6RH), 10-24-1899, Our Example

Christ passed through all the experiences of his childhood, youth, and manhood without the observance of ceremonial temple worship.

In other places, we have Jesus direct example that he DID keep the feasts. (Matt. 26:17 etc.)

Yes, there is a clear distinction between the Old Testament Passover, and the New Testament foot-washing service.  Yet, there is no command to change the times, except that it is said to be needed "more frequently" now. 

Christ was the blood sacrifice that all the Old Testament was pointing to.  There are no inspired words tho, showing that we are to refrain from following our Lord's example, and nothing saying that any of the holy days of the Lord have been abolished.

Just yesterday I watched a youtube video by Pr. Stephen Bohr.  He is a strong conservative Adventist, and I agree with most things he says (except his "historicist-only" position on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation).  He recently did a 24 part series on the "Hebrew Calendar".  In number 20 of that series, he covers whether we must keep the feasts or not.  As with Joe Crews and most all other SDAs, he summarily lumps in the feasts with ceremonial laws, then proceeds effectively to show that ceremonial laws are not to be kept anymore.  He quotes the Desire and Ages etc. that show that keeping the ceremonies of the Jews after the death of Christ is an "insult to Jehovah". 

But he ignores all the times the disciples kept the feasts after the cross, and Jesus presenting himself to the Father exactly on the day of firstfruits, and the Holy Spirit being poured out on the disciples exactly on pentecost, and the move into the Most Holy Place exactly on the day of atonement - 1813 years after the cross!



__________________
zafer

Date:
Permalink   

webmaster wrote:

Yes, there is a clear distinction between the Old Testament Passover, and the New Testament foot-washing service.  Yet, there is no command to change the times, except that it is said to be needed "more frequently" now.


 Well ... Ms35-1897 tells something more than the idea that the OT Passover is still to be observed, and just needs to be kept more frequently now. It tells that Christ made a transition between the two economies, with their two great festivals. And while He established the one, the other was to CLOSE FOREVER. And this I don't believe because Joe Crews, Stephen Bohr or some historicist interpretation says so. And not even because EGW. By pointing to those quotes I just wanted to show that, if what you were referring to from RH would grant the conclusion that the observance of the OT feasts, we would have to deal with another internal contradiction within EGW writings. Personally, while I don't believe this is the case, I see a quite clear contradiction between the idea of a binding observance of OT feasts in our days and what the Bible teaches. I too believe them to be part of the old levitical priesthood ceremonial regulations, which sets them apart from the 7th day Sabbath. This shouldn't surprise anyone because whoever was ceremonially unclean was forbidden to take part in those feasts, while the 7th day Sabbath was and still is to be observed whatever someone's situation was/is.



__________________
webmaster

Date:
Permalink   

Perhaps my point was not clear.

I understand that all the sacrifices and oblations ended at the cross, per Daniel 9:27.  So we are not to "keep the Passover" by killing lambs.

If you read carefully all the inspired words, you will see that Jesus never killed a lamb either, yet he "kept the Passover".

That is very important.

Since he is our perfect example, let's be zealous in following that perfect example. smile

BTW, today is the day of Pentecost.  Exactly 1987 years ago today, the Holy Spirit was poured out on the disciples, giving more evidence that God still has his special holy days in high esteem.



__________________
zafer

Date:
Permalink   

Ok Daniel, but Dan. 9:27 doesn't say that Jesus was going to cause ONLY the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. If we are to follow the TOTAL SCRIPTURA principle, there are also things like circumcision, divers washings and others, that are not valid in the NT period.

You know, by adding that little word "ONLY" to other scriptures, people can go to another extreme and disregard the eternal standard of righteousness (the 10 commandments). They would say that "the law and the prophets were until John" ONLY (Luke 16:16) or that we are ONLY  to abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood (see Acts 15:20).



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard