tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post2546594231995640727..comments2024-03-20T16:53:46.636-04:00Comments on AS BEREANS DID: Were Gentiles in Corinth Observing the Feast of Unleavened Bread?Marthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-63669382478838102852017-04-11T09:07:05.411-04:002017-04-11T09:07:05.411-04:00It would seem that God makes many exceptions to th...It would seem that God makes many exceptions to things. Passover was allowed to be a month later, in case of problems. You can see that in Numbers 9.<br /><br />But in this case, we're talking Joshua 5. At that point there was no Israelite Jerusalem. Notice that Jerusalem is first mentioned by that name in Joshua 10, and it was not Israelite. It would appear that the three annual pilgrimages never were about Jerusalem specifically, rather they were about the Temple. Israel had encamped in Gilgal and that means the Ark was there and the Tent of Meeting. This means that as best as they could manage at the time the "Temple" was in Gilgal. God didn't make an exception for this, it just was the reality of that time.<br /><br />And even that isn't really correct. The temple was only important in that it is where the tabernacle was. The tabernacle, the place of the presence of God, is what was truly important. That's kind of an academic difference because the Tabernacle was in the Temple, or in this case the Tent of Meeting. At any rate, the "temple" and the tabernacle were in Gilgal at that time. Once Solomon built the actual first temple then the tabernacle was in the Temple in Jerusalem. So, you can say that "go to Jerusalem" was really just slang for "go to the Temple [that was in Jerusalem]."<br /><br />And that is where it stayed until Jesus' death. Since that time the Church is the Temple of the Holy Spirit and the Tabernacle. It's in each of us who belong to Jesus.xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-72615175309714514892017-04-10T20:09:51.559-04:002017-04-10T20:09:51.559-04:00One question. Does God make exceptions to observin...One question. Does God make exceptions to observing outside of Jerusalem at all? Joshua 5:10 shows where they kept Passover in Gilgal. Moses had already instructed them to keep it in Jerusalem. What gives?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14535566771416550187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-33405259551645115762017-04-10T20:07:41.947-04:002017-04-10T20:07:41.947-04:00What about Joshua 5:10? "And the children of ...What about Joshua 5:10? "And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14535566771416550187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-25419084771264253332016-04-16T13:12:42.960-04:002016-04-16T13:12:42.960-04:00Concerning 1 Cor 5:8
I found Feast ref 1 Cor 5:8...Concerning 1 Cor 5:8<br /><br /> I found Feast ref 1 Cor 5:8 in strong's is G1858 found only once in NT<br /><br /> while Strong's # G1859 for feast is found all the other times.<br /><br /> What's the difference? G1858 I found knowing a little greek <br /><br /> is a verb instead of a noun.<br /><br /> A verb denotes action rather than a thing.<br /><br /> Jerry G<br />Jerry Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-22393127529042574672014-02-23T17:00:06.701-05:002014-02-23T17:00:06.701-05:00In these verses, God giveth instructions concernin...In these verses, God giveth instructions concerning the Passover to Moses and Aaron. In verse 43, God tells them, "there shall no stranger eat thereof." Yet, in verses 48 and 49, God talks about strangers keeping the Passover. When we see what doth appear to be a contradiction, we must obseve carefully what the Lord saith.<br />First, we find that "stranger" in verse 43 and "stranger" in verses 48 and 49 are from different Hebrew words. "Stranger" in verse 43 means "son of a foreigner," which is merely a way of indicating a foreigner. We'll look at verses 48 and 49 when we come to them.<br />Verse 44 says that servants who are circumcised shall eat the Passover. This obviously means servants who are not native Israelites but who become as Israelites by becoming circumcised. But verse 45 says, "A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof." The word "foreigner" in this verse is from still another Hebrew word. It means "resident alien." It refers to someone of another nation living in Israel who is not circumcised as an Israelite. "Hired servant" is from a Hebrew word that means "hireling." It refers to someone—in this case, obviously a non-Israelite—who does not become part of a household but merely works certain hours for wages. The point is again that those who are not circumcised may not eat the Passover.It is only after this explanation that God says, "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you" (verse 49). "Homeborn" is the same word as "born" in verse 48. "Stranger that sojourneth" are the same noun and verb as "stranger shall sojourn" in verse 48. Thus, Exodus 12:49 refers ONLY to strangers WHO ARE CIRCUMCISED and thus become "as one that is born in the land" (verse 48). When a stranger was circumcised, he became an observant Jew. He was not like other foreigners. There was one law for native born Israelites and for circumcised proselytes. But the law for Israelites and proselytes was not the law for uncircumcised foreigners, as is proved by the fact—as we just read—that uncircumcised foreigners were NOT ALLOWED to eat the Passover. A person cannot observe the Law in whatever manner he feels is right. The feasts needs be observed in the place where the Lord hath put His name. Hath the Lord put His name in Ephesus? Or in Rome? No, right? Therefore why sayest thou that the Law can be observed in any place that one doth choose? If one must keep the Law then one also needs be circumcised before he ate condemnation unto himself. One needs to to go to Jerusalem to keep the Feasts, because if one does not go to Jerusalem then he will not receive rain. Going to Jerusalem is very necessary if one claimeth to observe the Law, else thou keepest not the Law.OrthodoxApolgia92noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-12121136613597538202014-02-23T16:58:45.996-05:002014-02-23T16:58:45.996-05:00It is forbidden to stay in a hotel or any kind of ...It is forbidden to stay in a hotel or any kind of building except a sukkah, during the Feast of Tabernacles. It mattered not if one be Gentile or Jewish. To observe Jewish festivals, one must surely be circumcised else he be prohibited from eatinge the Passover. To say that anyone can eate the Passover is to violate what God hath said in Exodus about strangers eatinge the Passover. Now some people may say,"Well in Exodus, God also mentions Gentiles eating the Passover and keeping the Sabbath." <br /><br />Exodus 12:43 through 48:<br />43 And the Lorde sayde vnto Moses ad Aaron, this is the maner of Passeover: there shall no straunger eate there of,<br />44 but all the seruauntes that are bought for money shall ye circumcise, and then let them eat there of.<br />45 A strauger and a hyerd seruaunte shall not eate thereof.<br />46 In one housse shall it be eate. Ye shall carie none of the flesh out at the doores: moreouer, se that ye breke not a bone there of.<br />47 All the multitude of the childern of Israel shall obserue it<br />48 Yf a straunger dwell amonge you ad wyll holde Passeover vnto the Lorde, let him circucise all that be males, ad the let him come and obserue it ad be take as one that is borne i the lode. No vncircucised persone shall eate there of.<br /><br />OrthodoxApologia92noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-75645047980476630512013-07-16T08:31:23.719-04:002013-07-16T08:31:23.719-04:00I thought to share another observation I've be...I thought to share another observation I've been mulling over for a while as it bears some connection to the whole question over whether NT gentile Christians are meant to observe the "Jewish" holy days. My question focuses on Acts 18:21. Why doesn't Paul tell the others that they should be observing the feast in Jerusalem too and so should join him (if as Armstrongists teach both Jewish and gentile Christians should be keeping these holy days)? And note that Paul goes to Jerusalem, but the Ephesian Jews (and/or gentiles?) aren't compelled to (even though all the 3 feasts were pilgrim feasts to be observed in Jerusalem right?).Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-25037271415724424562013-07-04T12:36:03.753-04:002013-07-04T12:36:03.753-04:00Tom, thanks for your comment, well said. As I re...Tom, thanks for your comment, well said. As I recall all those holy days that I kept and all the "strictness" with which I observed them, I find it much more challenging now to be "unleavened" every day. Hmm...Hebrews 4, I will give that some thought.Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11480850570861156768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-55803918972148843422013-07-03T10:50:55.839-04:002013-07-03T10:50:55.839-04:00Excellent comment Tom. Thanks!Excellent comment Tom. Thanks!xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-59353414803439430612013-07-03T09:41:08.711-04:002013-07-03T09:41:08.711-04:00Hmm a very interesting post that does make sense e...Hmm a very interesting post that does make sense especially as you have framed Paul's letter in context with what we learn about those churches he set up during his missionary journeys as Luke writes about it in Acts. <br /><br />Personally I still observe the holy days, but am questioning the necessity of such especially since I feel that Christ celebrated the holy days within the ethnocentric culture of the Jews of his day. Yet, He never corrected them for celebrating them on the wrong day or for using the wrong calendar or how strict or liberal they were in observing the holy days. Yet, HWA was very strict and formal about such to the point that he devised the structure of services, what attire was deemed appropriate, even who was allowed entrance into his churches. And you can see all of such were due to his Methodist upbringing. It makes me wonder, therefore, if the Jews had been so strict and cultish as Armstrong was with regard to such then Paul probably wouldn't have even been able to gain entry into their synagogues to preach the good news to them on the Sabbaths! And so perhaps the way NT Christians are to observe the holy days (if they have to at all!) is less rigorous than the Jews had been commanded in OT times e.g. no pilgrimage necessary to Jerusalem or any other city, no animal sacrifices, etc. since the One whom they all point to had come i.e. Christ, so no one was to judge his brethren concerning how they were kept or not (Col 2:16). <br /><br />Also, what I find interesting and which adds weight somewhat to your interpretation is that in 1 Cor 5:8 doesn't mention "bread" at all! It actually states: "Therefore let us keep the feast...with the unleaveness of sincerity and truth"! Thus the requirement to eat unleavened bread as it was in the OT seems to be diminished for a greater, more spiritual goal i.e. to be spiritually deleavened! Come to think of it, this might even have parallels with Hebrews 4:9 and the "sabbatismos" that NT Christians are to keep like the "feast" especially if Paul did write both letters. Thus, whereas HWA focused on the ritualistic aspects of these days and seasons Paul was perhaps trying to get the early Church to focus on the spiritual meaning and intention behind them.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-86610700361707597032013-03-26T16:39:13.122-04:002013-03-26T16:39:13.122-04:00Perhaps it would be helpful to consider an additio...Perhaps it would be helpful to consider an additional point. Paul was not only telling them to expel the sinner from their community but also that a failure to do so would cause the increasing of sin in the church in the same way that leaven permeates the lump of dough (v6). Cleansed by Christ our passover, the church must remain like "a new lump".<br /><br />Paul's words "therefore let us celebrate the feast" are only a poor choice of words in the context of our past teaching by the COGs regarding this festival. To the people of Corinth this was a perfect choice of wording because they knew exactly what this feast was all about and the great joy of the celebration in Jerusalem. They knew what it meant to "Celebrate the feast". <br /><br />The Christian life is to be a continual celebration of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ by remembrance, gratitude, and a transformed life. "Malice and wickedness are put out", and "sincerity and truth are put in". <br /><br />Every day we should remember what the Lord Jesus has done for us and every day, therefore, we should turn from sin with the joy and thankfulness of a festival celebration! <br /><br />Thank you, your comments have caused me to think even more deeply about this "celebration".<br /><br />CalebCalebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11480850570861156768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-10612906043048322802013-03-26T11:43:44.368-04:002013-03-26T11:43:44.368-04:00I have been doing a lot of reading and meditation ...I have been doing a lot of reading and meditation on this topic over the past several weeks and can see that the link Armstrongism has made between the OT Days of Unleavened Bread and I Corinthians is weaker, at best, than I have been taught. The interpretation you describe here is much more consistent with the rest of his writings, as well as being and richer, spiritually.<br /><br />I do struggle to understand Paul's admonition to "keep the feast," as you have explained it, though. As someone regularly fighting the Judaising elements in the early church, it seems like such an unfortunate choice of words, or rather concepts, since Paul obviously didn't write in English. It just seems like a gift to the very element he was fighting. <br /><br />Just so I can make sure I understand what you are arguing in that specific verse, your interpretation is that Paul advises his brethren to "celebrate" a perpetual, unofficial, daily "feast" by expelling the sinner from their community as opposed to actually keeping the physical feast days AND expelling the sinner so they are being physically and spiritually consistent with the intent of the feast? <br /><br />I guess that could make sense, if his writing came in the weeks following the festival. It just seems like a bad turn of phrase in this specific situation. I pray that God gives me more clarity in this matter. Thank you for your post.Lurkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-51701616601481161192013-03-25T12:04:32.438-04:002013-03-25T12:04:32.438-04:00I agree that the Gentiles knew about these things....I agree that the Gentiles knew about these things. I think they were incredibly well-versed in the Old Testament. If Justin Martyr is any example at all of a Gentile Christian, even though he wasn't Corinthian, he most definitely had a deep knowledge and understanding of the Old Testament including Sabbaths and holy days - and that even though he explained exactly why he didn't observe Sabbaths and holy days.<br /><br />I think it is non sequitur to claim that they knew about it therefore they observed it. I don't think that observing necessarily follows knowledge.<br />For example, I know a fair deal about Hanukkah and Ramadan, but I don't observe either of them. Armstrongism teaches on New Moons somewhat and Jubilees more often, but observes neither. So the starting premise is non sequitur.<br /><br />I agree with your point that a later teaching the holy days nullifies the decision of the Council in Acts 15. A decision we see in tact towards the end of Paul's ministry in Acts 21, by the way.<br />I was taught often that Acts 15 didn't mean what it says; that more instruction in the law would come later. Then I Corinthians was used as a proof text. Seems everyone agrees that Acts 15 must be made null and void for Armstrongism's teaching of law to move forward.<br /><br />You made many good points. Your understanding has merit and deserves further consideration. Thanks!xHWAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com