Following After the Feasts
Alan Yerkey
Table of Contents
Following After the Feasts: a Letter to a Messianic Believer
The following was originally written in response to a note from a Messianic believer insisting that one must hold to the Feasts in order to be obedient to Christ. It has been changed in this writing by the addition of a note on the fulfillment of types, the removal of unnecessary wording, as well as additional Scriptures written out or references added for better clarity. Little else has been changed. The note from the "Messianist" was given following a brief conversation where I had asked, how if one believes that Christ is the Atonement for their sins, they can continue to go on holding special remembrance for the Day of Atonement as a necessary part of salvation. His note has been quoted throughout my response.
_______________________________________
The promises to Israel as a nation, and not as to Jacob, were conditioned upon their ability in keeping the Mosaic Law. The feasts, given as part of the Law (Ex. 23:14,17; Lev. 23), were a "statute forever" in "their generations" as following upon that same condition (to Israel as a nation). The feasts were not separate from the Law, but were bound to all its precepts and conditions as to Israel being a special people called out from among the nations to be a witness to them of the Almighty God. If they listened and obeyed in doing His will, He would be their God and they would be His people (Ex. 19:1-6; Deut. 27-30).
Israel miserably and continually failed. It was not a matter of disobedience to a "few" commandments, or only on a "few" occasions, but in the whole of the law consistently being trodden under foot—their whoredoms of lust and idolatry consumed them while yet in the wilderness journey (Ex. 32; Num. 11; 14:1-39, just three examples), and continued throughout the judges and kings, even into their captivity and in being dispersed among the nations that they were to have been as witnesses to (1 Kings 8:41-43; Is. 1:1-15; Acts 13:47). No sooner had a judge passed, whom the Lord had set to correct them upon their course, Israel would fall back to their old ways of rebellion and sin. Of their kings, only a few were ones considered to have done what was right in the eyes of the Lord—the rest were a cause of their greatest acts of disobedience leading to their captivity. Even more, in the height of their disobedience, what was truly of importance more than the law of commandments itself was gone from them: "mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings" (Hos. 6,7; Matt. 9:10-13; 12:1-8; Mark 12:29-31; Micah 6). As a nation, they looked not even to the examples of the righteousness that was of their fathers (John 8:12-59; Rom. 4; Heb. 11). This is why it is stated in God's very Word, pertaining to the remnant, that, while they are the elect for the fathers' sake (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), it is not by law that they are such, but by promise: by grace, through faith (1 Cor. 1:18-25; 3:11; Rom 9:27-29; 11:1-11). If it was by law, none would remain (Rom. 3:10-19, 23).
I believe you already know all this, so I will forego in listing all of the prophecies pertaining both to Israel's failure and that of the remnant yet to be gathered back into the land by God Himself. However, I felt that it should be stated as it has in order to better define my response to your note regarding the Feasts.
In your note on the "Festivals in the Renewed Covenant," you offered various Scripture references as proof of these being observed by Christ, the Apostles, or the Church. You stated, "Although some of his writings are difficult to understand, even by his contemporaries (2 Pet. 3:15,16), Paul's explicit statements and actions contradict any notion that he annulled or abolished observance of these holy days." However, this is untrue and misleading, both as to the application of Peter's statement and what Paul's "explicit statements and actions" represent.
Peter himself, in acknowledging Paul's ministry as he did in 2 Peter, was also previously rebuked by Paul for his hypocrisy and pride. This was due to Peter having withdrawn himself from the Gentile believers at Antioch after Jewish "brethren" had come there from James (Acts 15; Gal. 2). The "false brethren" had come to seek out the freedoms enjoyed by the assembly (Jews and Gentiles united) as being found in Christ, and sought through their own pride in "making merchandise" of them to bring them under the law of Moses (Acts 15:1,5; compare also Acts 13:38-45,46,47; 2 Pet. 2:1-3,18-22, in the jealousy produced from the preaching of the gospel and its deliverance from the law; consider also 1 Thess. 2:14-16). Peter, even Barnabas and the rest of the Jewish brethren there, though previously "living as the Gentiles do," were so caught-up in the prejudice of the law as to the Jews being "a distinct nation," withdrew from their real brothers assembled there which they had both been eating with and living among (consider also Acts 10, esp. vs. 15,28,40-43). Peter's statement in his second epistle, of "things hard to be understood," has specifically to do with both the pride within Judaism and the adherence to the Mosaic Law—the fact that all believers in Christ are on the same standing, in grace by faith, and apart from the law: "where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all" (Col. 3:11). We are all one in Christ and before the God and Father of us all (Eph. 2:8-22)—a truly difficult and "hard to be understood" concept for those of distinction in their identity of being a "chosen nation." This was unthinkable to the pride of the Jews still seeking to establish their own righteousness (by law), and for their Kingdom to be restored on earth. For Jewish Christians, "to be separated" from their "mother's womb" (their heritage of the law), goes against all they had previously known and held dear (Mark 2:21,22). Peter was exhorting them (correcting and encouraging them, throughout the whole of his letter) not to go back to the law (2:18-22), but to heed all that the prophets had written concerning Christ and to follow after Him accordingly as to the commandments of the "Apostles of the Lord and Savior"—the same that Paul continually wrote about as well (Gal. 1:11-16; 2 Pet. 3; Gal. 3,4,5; Phil. 3:2-11). The law and all its observances, for the nation of Israel, brought through their obedience, blessings in the land. Under Christ (in Christ), our blessings are heavenly, and it is there that we look for our reward (Matt. 6:19-23,24-34; Col. 3:1-4). To return to the law, is to return to the curse, "for as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, 'cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.' But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, 'The just shall live by faith' " (Gal. 3:10,11).
Though Paul's teachings within the "church epistles" themselves are fully evident proof as to the gospel he preached (as certain have previously been cited), especially regarding that of believers not to become entangled with the law in even the simplest regard, both the man and the actions taken within his ministry must also be examined as well.
You offer various references to support your statement that, "clearly, evidence is lacking that Paul ever discouraged anyone from keeping the annual festivals. Such a notion would have been unthinkable for him"; and, "the scriptural record of Paul's ministry repeatedly depicts the holy days as important observances and milestones in his life"; to linking Acts 20:16 with 1 Corinthians 16:8, in Paul arranging his travels to accommodate the feast of Pentecost, "Paul ... remained at Philippi to celebrate it and the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread. "Taking this last statement first (which appears nowhere in Scripture), it completely leaves out Paul's own stated purpose in remaining at Ephesus in verse nine of the same chapter of 1 Corinthians: "For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries."
"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth" (Rom. 10:1-4; compare also to 9:1-3).
"And now behold, I go bound in the spirit (Paul's own spirit) unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: save that the Holy Spirit witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the Grace of God" (Acts 20:22-24; compare Acts 21:4,10,11).
In reference to the feasts in Acts, either by Paul or by Luke, was primarily done both in keeping to a measure of time for their travels, as well the purposes Paul had in wanting to be at the respective places knowing the multitudes of his own countrymen would be gathered there and ripe to have the gospel preached to them. Acts 27:9, "...and when sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was already past," is an excellent example as to such an observance being used to indicate the season (Acts 12:1-3, is also a good reference in its use).
Paul is only a man, as liable to sin and disobedience as any. Though he had already been shown by the Lord his purpose of ministry being primarily to the Gentiles (Acts 13:44-47; Rom. 11:13,14), that he was to be a witness to them all the way to Rome, Paul himself purposed on his own, by his own spirit, to return to Jerusalem—in spite of all the warnings given him through various others by way of the Holy Spirit.
All the previous statements we have of Paul's visions, of his being lead or directly informed by the Holy Spirit, in reference to his purpose and ministry, are gone. We have instead, the Holy Spirit preaching to Paul through others all along his path: not to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21:4-13). We read nothing again of Paul being directed along his course until the Lord Himself, once Paul's own purposeful desire is done and he is found in bonds at Jerusalem, stands beside him to bring him comfort. Though Paul had disobeyed in going to Jerusalem as he had, his witness to those of Rome would still proceed. However, just as with him being in bonds in Jerusalem, he would go on to Rome in the same fashion as well (Acts 23:11). One cannot say "...the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus..." meant at that moment, Paul's ministry was to go up to Jerusalem, otherwise it would itself be a contradiction between the purposes and testimony of the Holy Spirit of God and that of God the Son.
In as many times Peter had erred and been both rebuked and restored by the Lord to service, so here it is with Paul. His great love and compassion towards his own countrymen led him to his bonds for his willful disobedience to the Lord's warnings (Phil. 1:12-17; Col. 4:3,4). But he was still to be of use (Acts 21:13,14—the Lord's will would be done in spite of Paul's imprisonment). It is also obvious to the point that, in his disobedience and attempt to do even the simplest measure of the law (the vow), or even for "good" in bringing alms and offerings to his nation (1 Cor. 16:1-6; Rom. 15:23-32, esp. vs. 30-32, as to God's will being done), Paul's prison epistles are of greater meaning in the separation necessary between law and grace, and in giving up all claims to ourselves in order to be found in Christ (Phil. 3:1-14 [2], "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision" all a reference to those who would attempt to bring believers under the law; "concision" literally meaning "mutilation"—Judaizers insisting believers must be circumcised).
As for his doctrine, the Jews knew all that Paul preached, they fully understood "that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs" (Acts 21:21 —all an accurate accusation, compare Rom. 1:16-3:28; Gal. 2:3-16; 5:2-6), though they were ignorant in their understanding of the prophets "the things hard to be understood" "wrest—as they do also the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16-18; Acts 13:27-41), in having true liberty in Christ and the full freedom from the law they were in bondage to in the very act of their being gathered together for the feast. The whole of Paul's epistles would necessarily need to be rewritten to explicitly tell people to fully embrace the law and keep all its ordinances—including that of sacrifices—if this wasn't the case at all. Not once in all his writings does he differentiate between the law and the feasts (to keep one and not the other), whether by "explicit" instruction or figuratively speaking. But it is absolutely the opposite: Paul emphatically teaches to be bound by one, you are necessarily bound by all of them (Gal. 2:11-21; 3:1-10; 4:9-12; 5:1-6). If we were meant to be bound to any, Paul's words by the Spirit must be rewritten: "For we through the Spirit continue on in absolute obedience to all things written within the law while waiting for the hope of righteousness by faith" would be an absolutely ludicrous and contradictory translation of Galatians 5:5—how much more would it be so just to rewrite the whole of the chapter to reflect the same corruption of doctrine and thought? The whole of the New Testament would either need to be rewritten, or thrown out, as Christ's sinless life of obedience to the Father and His death on the cross would be without purpose and truly meaningless. For Paul, to once again follow after the law, would be to "build again the things which I destroyed (threw down/gave up)" (Gal. 2:16-19; compare Rom. 7:4-13); for Christ, it would need be for Him to suffer daily, in all ages, upon the cross as an offering for sin (Heb. 9:24-10:1). This would truly be blasphemous against all which has previously been written throughout the whole of the law and the prophets, which Christ is the fulfillment of, as well that of the New Testament written in His Blood (2 Cor. 3:5-15; Heb. 7:22-28; 10:1-10; Rev. 5; 19:1-16).
The Jews knew Paul's preaching was not simply to believe on Christ in addition to keeping the law, but that their entire way of practice and life would have to change—that if all Paul taught was true, their lone identity of being a "chosen nation" in their service and testimony of God was to be no more. But they refused Paul's testimony, just as they refused God's (Acts 22:18; Jer. 18,19; Is. 29:9-16; 65:1-16). The prophets themselves testify to the pride and blindness of Israel's fall. Jesus Himself said to "search the Scriptures, in them ye think ye have life, and they are they which testify of Me" (John 5:39); just as He said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31; John 12:9-11).
The law holds nothing pertaining to life, to the true righteousness of God, but only as to judgment—the whole world stands condemned before it (Rom. 2:11-15; 7:1-14). All the epistles attest to this fact, in both principle and in doctrine—you cannot combine law and grace (Rom. 3:21-28; Gal. 5:4-6). The Jews could not bear the yoke placed upon them; the Gentiles were never meant to (Acts 15:1-21).
To take that Paul chose to do as the elders at Jerusalem had him in Acts 21:20-25, to mean that Paul both taught and practiced keeping the Mosaic law as a necessary part of salvation, in being "obedient" to following Christ, is false. It is a misunderstanding of what is fully presented of Paul's ministry, as it ignores the relation between the history we have recorded in Acts and the doctrinal teachings of his epistles. Neither is the thought justified at any time in regards to certain statements Paul uses in his defense (Acts 21:37-22:22 thru 23:1-26:29).
Acts 21:20-25, itself, shows certain of both the fears and weaknesses which had arose within the assembly at Jerusalem. Though they had been commissioned by the Lord Himself to go out and preach among all nations (starting at Jerusalem first, Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:6-8), aside from the disciples dispersed from the persecutions which arose from Stephen's death, the apostles themselves remained in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1)—the disciples were the ones who went out preaching the gospel (Acts 8:4). There are few exceptions to this given us (Acts 9:32; 10), and it is then in Acts 13, that we see Barnabus and Saul (Paul) commissioned and sent out from Antioch. Other than the rising dissension regarding circumcision and the law (Acts 15), the focus then becomes that of Paul's ministry and little of the original eleven apostles (nor Matthias).
Even after James (John's brother) was beheaded, and Peter freed from prison by the Angel of the Lord and escaped to Caesarea (Acts 12), Peter again returned to Jerusalem and the seat of Judaism. They had been forewarned of the temple's coming destruction, they had been freed from the law and told to expect persecution, and told to go abroad preaching the gospel and teaching all nations, but they continued to cling to their Judaic heritage and pride (2 Pet. 3:15-18; Acts 21:18-20; 22:21,22). They were not doing as they should have been, and they feared further persecution over the doctrine they knew Paul fully taught (Acts 21:21,22).
The "doctrine" which would be presented of Acts 21:24,25 if its statements were true as Paul's normal teachings and practice, would necessarily imply two forms of the gospel, two forms of "grace": for the Jew, the law and its ordinances, plus Christ; for the Gentile, Christ ("we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing" (Acts 21:25; compare Acts 15:23,24)). This is heresy. As under the Old Covenant, that there was to be only one law for the Jew and the stranger living among them (Ex. 12:48,49), there is only one form of grace and salvation under the New (John 1:17,18; 14:6; Heb. 8-10; 12:18-29).
That Paul "lived in all good conscience before God until this day" (Acts 23:1); and "neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple" had he offended (Acts 25:8), is easily answered in the apostle's own words (1 Tim. 1:11-13; Acts 22:3-5; Acts 21:28,29—they "supposed" Paul had profaned the temple). His "exercise" of himself "to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men" (Acts 24:16), is apparent in meaning from the same passage it occurs in "that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets ..." (Acts 24:14-16).
Paul was faithful in his beliefs: first, a Hebrew of Hebrews, yet a blasphemer and persecutor of "the way" then a heretic among the Jews—but true to Christ (Acts 9:22-26; 22:17,18; 9:28-30; 1 Cor. 9:19-23).
Paul's "explicit statements" regarding feasts and ordinances are simple. Two examples of which, one you quoted, can be found in his epistles to the Galatians and the Colossians, though his entire ministry in preaching Christ and our freedom thereby covers such as well.
In Galatians, Paul's teachings are easily understood when taken in light of the whole of the epistle. It is in the fourth chapter, however, where he states, "Ye observe days, and months, and times and years," all of which are references to the observances found in the law, that the Judaizers had been attempting to force upon the Galatian assembly (Lev. 23:3-5,10; 25:3,4). All such events Paul had already taught we are free from by faith of the Gospel of Christ (as being free from the law), just as he continues in the passage of his concern for them: first, fearing that his labor among them in preaching the liberty we have in Christ was in vain (v. 11; c. ref. 1:3-12, 13-16; 2:16; 3:1-4). Second, Paul's exhortation—pleading with them, "Be as I am; for I am as ye are (were)" would be ludicrous and contradictory if he was promoting that they should keep the observances. He wasn't, and his full epistle is proof of such. Paul's simple statement reflects the same facts brought out in other of his epistles as well: though he had "profited (advanced) in the Jewish religion" above many of his equals within his own nation, a "Hebrew of the Hebrews," he gave it all up and became as the Gentiles had been—fully free from the law (Gentiles never bound by the Law of Moses, yet having a law of conscience, Rom. 2:14,15) and held only by the grace we have in Christ (Eph. 2).
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty (freedom) wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage ..." (Gal. 5:1-6) is the war cry of not only the epistle, but of the Christian, to whomever would seek to put upon us the yoke of bondage (the law, in any form, 5:3) which the Jews themselves found impossible to bear (Acts 15:10,11).
Colossians, as well, is both easy and beautiful in study to both Christ's preeminence (1:12-20), and His all-sufficiency in all things in freeing us from any claims of the law (1:21-2:15). The entire epistle is absolute in its study to the practice and behavior of the assemblies it was immediate to in writing (as to us, 4:16).
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day (feast), or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days" (Col 2:16) is the verse you quoted in support of the feasts. If the verse stood alone it might be so—but yet it would still be a contradiction of Paul's writings previous to this. It doesn't stand alone—as no single verse of Scripture does.
"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out (obliterating) the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it (the Mosaic law and all its ordinances) to His cross. And having spoiled (stripped) principalities (rulers) and powers (authorities), He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it (His death and resurrection)" (Col 2:14,15)—fully freeing us from the law and its authority over us in Christ (Gal. 3:19-4:7; 5:4; Eph. 2:8-12), and Christ as our Head.
"Let no man therefore judge you ... which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" are absolutely certain in their context. "Therefore": should be "because of this (or, for this reason," referring back to verses 6-15, we are not to be judged (condemned, as in a negative distinction) in being found by others in any attempt to hold to both the law and to grace—which are entirely contrary to one another—by trying to keep such ordinances of law while claiming to be of Christ (v.14; see also vs. 20-22). "...a shadow" is not such as a "positive" look to the future millennium, nor is it as a simple "outline" of what was to come (Christ), but also as that "to obscure" the true meaning of such until the full revelation was come (Christ—the fullness of the Godhead bodily, 2:9,19; compare Heb. 1:1-3; John 14:1-11).
We are to hold steadfast (stable, without wavering) to Christ our Head "from Whom all the body, by joints and bands being supplied and knit together, increases with the increase of God." The Body is of Christ—it is His work, and He alone is its foundation and standing (Is. 28:16; Matt. 16:13-18; Heb.13:8-15). We are in Him, not by law, but by faith through His Spirit working within us (Rom. 3:20-28).
Such things are fine in "will-worship," one showing that they are voluntarily able to do such (meaning, hypocritically pious or devout) for a time, but they are neither life nor have any meaning as to eternity (Col. 2:23-3:4). To use Colossians 2:16 to support the idea of the observance of the feasts as an act of obedience, you must also place yourself under the dietary restrictions ("meats" that you personally currently deny have any hold on us). They are not for us, those whose standing is in Christ, in Heaven, and not of the earth (1 Cor. 15; Eph. 1:3-13; 2:1-7).
With "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Cor. 5:7b). "Therefore let us keep the feast ..." there is nothing within either epistle to the Corinthians, nor any of Paul's other epistles, in support of the idea of keeping the actual Passover Feast (Lev. 23:4-8) as an observance among early believers. It is nowhere written within the epistle to do with as such, but it is as to the Lord's Remembrance (1 Cor. 1:10-13; 3:3-4:21; 5:1-6:20; 10:16-24; 11:17-22,27-34; and so). It is used as a type, even as analogy: that, as "Christ our Passover" being sacrificed (John 3:16,17; 10:14-18; 13:1; 19:14-30; Is. 52:7-9—a type), they were to "purge out" the evil from within the assembly (1 Cor. 5:5-7a, 11-13), just as the leaven was to have been kept from the bread during the feast (analogy). It is meant as not to dishonor or defile the table of our Lord by living holy lives before Him at all times. This is clear both from its immediate context (1 Cor. 5), as also towards the entirety of the letter in dealing with all that was wrong within the fellowship at Corinth (1 Cor. 11:34).
However, "Christ our Passover" is referenced in type for another purpose as well, one the believers would fully understand the meaning of. Just as the price of Israel's freedom from Egyptian bondage was borne of the blood, the lamb's upon the posts of the house keeping those within from the judgment being exercised (Ex. 12:12,13,29), our bondage to the law and all its ordinances was borne by Christ—the True Paschal Lamb (John 1:19-37; 3; Matt. 26:26-28; Is. 52:13-53:12). And in being "borne by Christ," it is not in any way the idea some have preached that God simply "passed over" our sin, but that Christ alone bore the full wrath of God upon Himself as the only possible atonement for our sins (Matt. 27; Rom. 5:8-11; Col. 1:14).
As to the Atonement: the day we had our brief conversation at lunch, you had stated that the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was a feast of celebration and joy. Yet I can find no understanding to this thought in Scripture. The only possible exception I can find one might consider would be having to deal with the Year of Jubilee (the trumpet of Jubilee being blown on the Day of Atonement in the 49th year, announcing the coming year of Jubilee, Lev. 25:8,9).
Undoubtedly, the Day of Atonement was the most important day of the Hebrew calendar. It was the one day each year (10th of Tishri) that the high priest would enter into the Holiest of Holies, to pass within "the veil before the Mercy Seat; which is upon the Ark" to present the Blood Sacrifice of Atonement for the sins of the nation. To come at any other time, and to come without blood, would be death (Lev. 16; 23:26-32; Num. 29:7-11; Heb. 9:1-7).
During this time, "from even to even" (9th/10th), they were to do no work (as a Sabbath day's rest), but were instead to afflict their souls—a day of sorrow and repentance, of humility and abasement—not in any way a "celebration" of joy (Lev. 23:32). Even upon the close of such observance for the year, there would be no actual "joy" to speak of, but a lingering consciousness of sin in looking to the coming observance of the following year. It would be for any truly convicted, a time of grateful sobriety and humility in knowing their true nature as a sinner (Rom. 5:12; Gen. 3:1-19; 6:5; Rom. 3:9-18). While there may have been some comfort in the idea of the sacrifice offered, it would not be practical to consider it a time of joyful celebration as it was a constant reminder to them of their sinfulness. The Day, or even the Law itself, could never do anything to free someone from such a conscience and bring them true life and peace with God (Heb. 9:8-10; 10:1-4). Only Jesus can and has (for all those of faith, Is. 9:6; 28:13-17; Luke 1-2:38; Matt. 27; Acts 10:34-43).
Christ alone is our Atonement. One must only repent and believe the gospel, seeking not after their own righteousness, but that of God's (Rom. 8:1-4; 10:1-4; Heb. 12:22-29; 13:8-15). To deny this fact is to deny the whole of prophecy—to deny Scripture—it is to deny Him (John 3:33-36; 5:36-47; Matt. 10:16-39; Jude 4; Rev. 20:12-15; 21:27). No other atonement can be made; no other way of salvation is offered (John 14:6; Matt. 7:13; John 10:1-18,24-30; crf. 1 Pet. 2:3-8). For one to make an observance of the Day of Atonement while claiming Christ as their Atonement, is to "cast away" their confidence in the fullness of His sacrifice and "draw back" unto perdition (destruction) by returning to the law (Heb. 6:4-8; 10:35-39).
Both the Passover, though given prior to Israel being delivered from Egypt (Ex. 12:14), and the Day of Atonement (as well the other feasts), are each an ordinance given under law (Lev. 23). They are in no way separate from it, nor could their offerings be made and accepted outside the given precept (Is. 28:13; Num. 28,29—the very first Passover was the only exception to this; that the sacrifice was not given at that time as an "offering" but as a sign, a Token, that those inside were to be spared from the coming judgment and destruction; Ex. 12:11-14; Christ is our Passover—He is the Atonement and Deliverance demanded from the coming judgment and destruction).
Even beyond what has already been stated, the necessity to recognize that the feasts themselves were but types awaiting their fulfillment in Christ, must also be addressed. A 'type,' a model or impression as presented in the Old Testament, was a person or thing that was itself only a foreshadow (representation) of what was to come. It was not the exact image or completion of the ultimate expectation itself. Christ alone is the Ultimate Expectation. Each of the feasts are but types foreshadowing Christ. With Christ then as their fulfillment, the type is no more (it is complete), and the feast no longer to be kept as He is the completion of all things (Col. 1:15-20; In the Millennial reign, certain of the feasts will be observed, Ezk. 45,46, but that is a separate topic which is unrelated to the Church).
Neither "their generations," nor "forever," mean time unending in such application to the law and its ordinances. They are not of literal emphasis as to "all eternity." Multiple contradictions could be made in Scripture if this were not true, or if it meant that God could not exercise His sovereignty in doing otherwise and still be Righteous and Holy in doing so (Ex. 29:9; 40:5; 1 Sam. 2:30-35, is just one example of argument to be made). They have more of an application to a place of dwelling for a given age, than anything to do with an undefined and endless period of time.
Please do not mistake what I am saying. The law itself remains, its purpose remains, but its conditions in observance now differs. In faith, the law is fully established, as our faith looks to Christ and not in any way to our own working in the law, as we know that no man can be justified therein (Rom. 3:19-31; 8:17; Gal. 3:19-29). When the covenant (Sinai) under which the law was given is no more, the observances are no more as well—and it is all fulfilled in Christ (Matt. 5:17; Heb. 8:6-13; 9:11-28). Not one feast, not one "Holy Convocation" is to be held by the true disciple of Christ —Christ alone is to be held above all else, as He alone is the fulfillment of all things. Our Remembrance, our "Feast," is solely at our Lord's Table and nowhere else (1 Cor. 11:23-29). Why would we have the Remembrance of Christ, at His Table, with Him being the fulfillment of all things—and yet be bound to holding the feasts?
"Think not that I am come to destroy (abolish) the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill (to complete/completion of/fill-up). For of certainty 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 (come to pass)" (Matt. 5:17,18) is not saying that the Mosaic law is to be in full force as held in observance until the "heaven and earth pass," as this would contradict all the prophetic writings pertaining to the Christ and His deliverance of us from all things that the law itself could not possibly deliver us from. Hence, "the law, or the prophets," referring to the whole of God's revealed Word pointing up to Christ, and that only through Christ (the Fulfillment) is life and Redemption (the Way, the Truth, the Life—John 14:6). All Scripture pointed to Christ in its fulfillment (John 5:39), and it will in no way change.
"Till heaven and earth pass..." the law will not in any way lose its authority in convicting one of sin, nor will the voice of the prophets change as to Christ (1 Tim. 1:3-14; Gal. 1:3-24). God's Word truly does not contradict itself—only man's attempts to rewrite it to justify his own understanding, or in seeking after his own glory and righteousness by the works of the law, do contradictions come in. Jesus' teachings within the "Sermon on the Mount" must not only be understood in context to the law, but in His expounding upon the absolute moral standards of perfection required therein—just as to what is actually necessary in our being found in Him (Matt. 7:12-27; 11:25-30; 1 John).
Jesus doing the will of the Father in being obedient to the law, feasts included, was both a matter of the law and of prophecy: "to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15); "that all things must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44-47). With Christ then sacrificing Himself upon the cross (John 14:31; 5:26; 10:17,18), the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets: "It is finished."
Most certainly, we are to follow after Jesus in the same moral standards He taught and elaborated on throughout the gospels, but not as to attempt to keep the exacting standards and obligations of the law which Christ alone was ever fully able to (John 14:6-11; Heb. 1:1-3). Neither 1 Corinthians 11:1 or 1 John 2:6 have anything to do with the application given in following after Christ in His obedience to the law and in keeping the feasts. If it was meant that we should, and such that it was what Christ and His apostles taught (and that His apostles practiced as necessary), then there would have been no reason for the persecution the believers faced in preaching the cross (Gal. 5:11; 6:12-16; 1 Cor. 1:18-31).
Christ was our example of obedience in doing the Father's will, even unto death, not to the simple idea of obedience to the law and its ordinances. Yes, Jesus was obedient in keeping the law (as only He could), but "to fulfill all righteousness," that "the prophecies should be fulfilled": that He alone is the righteousness of God (Phil. 2:6-11; Rom. 10:3-13) reconciling the world unto Himself—it is not by man's keeping of any law or observance, but by His own Holy and Righteous Sacrifice given of the Truest Grace known (John 3:3-21; Rom. 5:6-11; Eph. 2:4-10). Our only righteousness, our life, is in Him (2 Cor. 5:17-21).
We are children of the Father by grace and in love to do the Father's will. We are born of water (the Word) and the Spirit—purchased with the Blood of Christ. In following after Him, it is to be in the role of a servant in genuine love and compassion towards all. All His apostles taught this fact—to put others ahead of themselves: to edify, to encourage, and so on—and nothing towards the idea of following the commandments of the law as being obedient to Christ.
You had offered 1 Corinthians 11:1 and 1 John 2:6 as reference to the law and ordinances in being obedient in following Christ's example, but this is a false application. Neither have to do with the Mosaic Law itself—and neither apostle (Paul or John) taught or practiced such as to righteousness or obedience. The verse in Corinthians most appropriately belongs with the verse preceding it (actually, the entire passage back through 10:23): "even as I please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Be ye followers (imitators) of me, even as I also am of Christ" all is in answer to the verses preceding them, not to what followed after. We are to do all things to the glory of God (as Christ did) for the good and well-being of all (as Jesus did).
John's verse, as Paul's, is fully understood in context to the whole of his epistle (as also to his others). Not once are the "commandments" he exhorts we are to follow in respect to the Mosaic Law, but it is that we are to believe on Jesus' name, and to love one another, as Christ commanded (John 6:29; 13-17; 1 John).
To "keep Christ's words" is not to hold to certain teachings regarding the law in seeking one's own righteousness, but to give up the law entirely (Rom. 9:1-5; 10; 3:19-28; Gal. 2:16-21). It is to believe on His name, His work: to hold to His truth and revelation of God the Father, Christ the Son; (Jesus being the fulfillment of all the law and the prophets) of His vicarious Atonement on our behalf in being such, and for us to love one another, as He commanded—in this is our love towards God, which is to be above all, shown as being true. It is to place all in His hands—it is His righteousness, not ours. We are to walk in genuine love towards all, in His righteousness, by faith. The feasts have nothing to do with the heavenlies—and the heavenlies are ours in being found in Him.
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1), it is all of Him. For any who would go after the righteousness of the law, in any form, it would be fair to question if they are one who has never truly felt the full conviction of sin. To understand that simply the knowledge of sin is a transgression of the law, and because of such, no one could be justified by it (Rom. 3:19,20), is to have a greater understanding of both the fall and of God's grace towards us in Christ (Gen. 2:15-17; 3:5,8-22; 6:5; Ps. 51:5).
"It Is FINISHED" John 19:28-30; Luke 23:27-46; Matthew 27:33-54; Philippians 2:6-11; Revelation 4,5,19:1-9.
There is no such thing as a "Renewed Covenant" through Christ. To "renew" would simply be to try to alter ("polish") certain points or conditions of the law, while yet allowing its ultimate condition to remain the same. Christ is a New Covenant entirely—a sure foundation requiring nothing of the working of man: an entirely New Testament as to God's glory, compassion, sovereignty and grace, His absolute holiness, as well His judgment and justice, to declare salvation to all who would no-longer seek after their own righteousness (by law), but the righteousness of God in Christ. It is to bring into His family those who "knew not God"—the strangers and foreigners to the promise—by placing all upon the equal footing and foundation of Christ Jesus the Chief Cornerstone (Is. 9; 11:10; 42:1-12; 28:16; Luke 20:1-18; Eph. 2:11-22; 1 Pet. 2:1-10).
We must give up all claim to ourselves (Gal. 2:20), even that of any "working" to show ourselves as righteous, and accept the righteousness which comes from God alone through His grace bestowed upon us in Jesus Christ the Lord (Heb. 2).
_______________________________________
1 Corinthians 14:21 "In the law it is written, with men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that they will not hear Me, saith the Lord."
"Whom shall He teach knowledge? and whom shall He make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: for with stammering lips and another tongue will He speak to this people. To whom He said, 'This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."
"Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, 'We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves':
"Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a Stone, a tried Stone, a Precious Corner Stone, a sure Foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters (nations) shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it." (Is. 28:9-18)
"At that time Jesus answered and said, 'I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in Thy sight. All things are delivered unto Me of My Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him."
"Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light." (Matt. 11:25-30).
"To whom coming, as unto a Living Stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, precious; ye also, as lively (living) stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, 'Behold, I lay in Zion a Chief Corner Stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded.' Unto you therefore which believe He is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the Stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the Head of the corner, and a Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the Word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." (1 Pet. 2:4-8)
For anything remaining that I left out in response to your brief note, I truly recommend a thorough and combined study on Romans and Hebrews before going on to the remaining Church Epistles. It is my hope that I have not offended you in my writing by any of my own wording and such, as it is in no way my intent to do so. It is truly in love and in hope for it to somehow be profitable to you.
In Christian hope,
A. Yerkey