# Passover



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> ...


Are you joking or just being sarcastic? (don't want to misunderstand anybody here)


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

The Passover had a main event (in Exodus) and became a ceremonial event...continuing through scripture. It was only in the Main Event that a lamb is slaughtered (and on the cross THE Lamb was slaughtered) and it's blood sprinkled. In the ceremonial no one slaughters and sprinkles the blood. So if that was a sarcastic remark, then it was uncalled for, even if you do disagree.

There is a lesson to be learned and to teach our children in the observance of the Passover. The whole of it shows the shadows and types before Christ, shows the death and reserrection, and shows his second coming. In Jewish times there was Sabbath and a High Sabbath. The Passover was a High Sabbath day. Christ was celebrating Passover when He instructed the taking of Communion. The Passover meal can be considered a Special Communion.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> ...



Let's just say I was being semi-serious. 

If you want to observe a biblical passover, you need to kill an unblemished lamb and perform certain rituals with the blood. We are told in Scripture this specific act prefigured the perfect Lamb of God who would be sacrificed for the sins of His people.

There are many pretend passovers celebrated by all sorts of folks today. Some are based on post-temple rabbinic traditions that have little in common with biblical truth.

I was wondering what sort ones observes in order to get the "learning experience".


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> The Passover had a main event (in Exodus) and became a ceremonial event...continuing through scripture. It was only in the Main Event that a lamb is slaughtered (and on the cross THE Lamb was slaughtered) and it's blood sprinkled. In the ceremonial no one slaughters and sprinkles the blood. So if that was a sarcastic remark, then it was uncalled for, even if you do disagree.
> 
> There is a lesson to be learned and to teach our children in the observance of the Passover. The whole of it shows the shadows and types before Christ, shows the death and reserrection, and shows his second coming. In Jewish times there was Sabbath and a High Sabbath. The Passover was a High Sabbath day. Christ was celebrating Passover when He instructed the taking of Communion. The Passover meal can be considered a Special Communion.



I think you are mistaken in your assessment of the passover ritual.

"And they slaughtered the Passover offerings; and the priests sprinkled the blood with their hands, while the Levites skinned the animals. Then they removed the burnt offerings that they might give them to the divisions of the fathers' houses of the lay people, to offer to the Lord, as it is written in the Book of Moses. And so they did with the cattle." (2 Chron. 35:11,12)

Other than (perhaps) the specific spreading of blood on the doorposts and lintels of the houses, I don't see any difference in how it was acted out post Exodus 12.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

To start with I don't do it just for a "learning experience" but neither do I do it as a "we still need sacrifices" either.

The blood was not sprinkled on the doors after the exodus. That was a specific event. The passovers since have been a remembrance of that event. And unbeknownst to many of Israel, the symbols within the passover meal point to Christ throughout.

If you have never heard of any of this I would be willing to start a thread going step by step through a Passover meal.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> To start with I don't do it just for a "learning experience" but neither do I do it as a "we still need sacrifices" either.



Then honestly, for what purpose do you do it?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> To start with I don't do it just for a "learning experience" but neither do I do it as a "we still need sacrifices" either.
> 
> The blood was not sprinkled on the doors after the exodus. That was a specific event. The passovers since have been a remembrance of that event. And unbeknownst to many of Israel, the symbols within the passover meal point to Christ throughout.
> ...



Earlier you said:



> The Passover had a main event (in Exodus) and became a ceremonial event...continuing through scripture. It was only in the Main Event that a lamb is slaughtered (and on the cross THE Lamb was slaughtered) and it's blood sprinkled. In the ceremonial no one slaughters and sprinkles the blood. So if that was a sarcastic remark, then it was uncalled for, even if you do disagree.



Are you now backing off that statement, or do you still contend that after the "main event" no one "slaughtered and sprinkled blood"?

Do you kill animals in your passover? If not, what makes it a "passover"?

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

I did not contradict myself. I still contend that they only sprinkled the blood on the doorposts in the exodus event....not afterwards. 

The observance of Passover is a special observation, a special communion.
And yet, it has always been a teaching event for the family (not in some cutesy, wouldn't this be fun form as implied). As I stated before "The passovers since have been a remembrance of that event. And unbeknownst to many of Israel, the symbols within the passover meal point to Christ throughout." What about that is difficult to understand? Unless you just think it an absurd thing to do because you abhore anything that even hints of a Jewish connection.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

Question....just to get an idea of where you stand...do you think that a Jewish person who becomes a Christian has to give up being a Jew and all things Jewish?


----------



## heartoflesh (Feb 2, 2005)

I've personally never been to a Passover dinner, but I've always wanted to. I've always had a keen interest in the Feasts and Festivals of Israel, and I have a great interest in Jewish culture as well. I would definately be in it for "the learning experience".


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

Look and see if there is a Messianic church in your area...they generally have big ones that all are invited to attend...though they need to know in advance of ppl coming so as to plan accordingly, headcount.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 2, 2005)

Colleen,
Is it just as a tribute; no different than like say, Thanksgiving?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

Yes, I guess you could say that. Thanksgiving was special event, for many Thanksgiving was a religious event...not a secular one. Many Christians still hold Thanksgiving with more dignity and respect, directing it towards the Lord, unlike how the world has turned it into, as a day of gluttony.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 2, 2005)

Cool; While you're talking, will you Pass the potatoes please.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

would you like more charoset also? And what kind of red wine would you reccomend this year?

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Question....just to get an idea of where you stand...do you think that a Jewish person who becomes a Christian has to give up being a Jew and all things Jewish?



Depends on what you mean by "give up being a Jew and all things Jewish". 

Seems to me that "being a Jew" today does not mean the same thing that it meant during the time of Jesus and Paul. In that day "being a Jew" as defined by a unique relationship to the old covenant with its priesthood, sacrifices, and temple. Today, practically anyone can be a Jew from Sammy Davis, Jr. to Madonna. Jewishness is defined by the rabbis as being matrilineal in nature. Does that accurately reflect the biblical definition?

"Being a Jew" in that day also meant being uniquely marked out from the other peoples of the world by physical circumcision. As best as I can tell from history it seems that the early church soon gave up this physical distinction for its people.

I don't have a problem with folks enjoying their cultural distinctives. I was raised in an Italian home, and we still as a family enjoy many of those unique cultural experiences. Wearing a yalmulke is a quaint rabbinic practice that seem to mark off a Jew. It has no real biblical significance, but remains as a cultural thing. There's no real harm as long as you don't wear it while praying.

I would object to anything that in any way divides the people of God along ethnic lines. Some folks seem to use certain Jewish practices in this way even today, e.g., physical circumcision as a religious matter. I see no place for that among God's people, the universal church.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

I don't see observing Passover as dividing lines between ethinic groups, seeing as there are just as many Gentile Christians observing as there are Jewish Christians. I don't consider it to be held or rejected dogmatically. Just as many Christian (that I know of) are very insistant upon circumcism (but not because of the OC.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 2, 2005)

Tom,
So you feel it would be wrong to use a prayer shawl (tallit) if I want? 

Mat 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I did not contradict myself. I still contend that they only sprinkled the blood on the doorposts in the exodus event....not afterwards.
> 
> The observance of Passover is a special observation, a special communion.
> And yet, it has always been a teaching event for the family (not in some cutesy, wouldn't this be fun form as implied). As I stated before "The passovers since have been a remembrance of that event. And unbeknownst to many of Israel, the symbols within the passover meal point to Christ throughout." What about that is difficult to understand? Unless you just think it an absurd thing to do because you abhore anything that even hints of a Jewish connection.



But you will agree that every biblical passover until the end of the old covenant in AD70 involved the physical shedding of blood. So whatever you want to call these modern experiences, they are not a biblical passover.

The position of covenant theology is that the Lord's Supper has replaced the passover as a sign and seal of God's dealing with His people. Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of me." The blood of the passover lamb has been replaced by the "blood" of the fruit fo the vine. And, just as passover was in old covenant, the Lord's Supper is a sacrament, not a personal/family experience. The priest had the duty to kill the lamb on behalf of the family. Modern passover experiences are hadly sacramental in nature.

Under the new covenant there is no better "learning experince" for what God did on our behalf than the Lord's Supper.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Tom,
> So you feel it would be wrong to use a prayer shawl (tallit) if I want?
> 
> Mat 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee.



I hate to answer a question with a question, but would it be OK for me to bless myelf with holy water before I pray in secret?

Why would you wish to do so? Does it give you a holy feeling? 

Perhaps I'm missing something in the Bible about the appropriateness of physical adornment when praying or worshipping God, but I would see no reason to do it.

Of course if you were doing it in private ala Matt. 6:6 no one would ever know and we wouldn't be talking about it.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

Then you obviously have never been to a passover or studied it from a Christ driven perspective to accuse ppl of sacriledge. 
Also a passover meal is not generally just immediate family, other believers are present, it is a gathering.
And the there has ALWAYS been wine with the Passover meal. The wine has ALWAYS respresented blood.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I don't see observing Passover as dividing lines between ethinic groups, seeing as there are just as many Gentile Christians observing as there are Jewish Christians. I don't consider it to be held or rejected dogmatically. Just as many Christian (that I know of) are very insistant upon circumcism (but not because of the OC.



I don't want to appear offensive, so forgive me, but this argument all revolves around the faux passover that people observe today.

In a biblical passover non-Jews would not be permitted to participate (Exodus 12:48).

It's illogical to call something a passover which omits all the biblical prerequisites.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I may not agree with the practice due to 1 Cor 11...but I would still respect the person just as I would not walk out of the room because another lady started praying without covering her head (and I cover consistantly, btw)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Tom,
Do you ever pray with a baseball cap on? Here's the point, in and of itself, it is not sinful. If what Colleen is doing has no special meaning attached outside of the idea that it is no different from a Thanksgiving meal, it is harmless.

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

do not we as Christians (jew and gentile) have the fulfillment of that covenant. That is why it IS acceptable today for both to observe.

and it is not a faux passover...it is the same as a special communion service, a time of Thanksgiving, a time of remembrance. This is not sacriledge. And I will have you know that members of your own denomination also participate.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 2, 2005)

Colleen,
We have the supper; anything else is 'thanksgiving'. Thats it. I believe to elevate it any higher than that cause for concern.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

We don not see it as a required thing...we see it as a celebration of what Christ did. However there is breaking of bread (matzah) and giving of wine. I wonder if that also happened during the Thanksgiving in New England? I'll have to look into that.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Tom,
> Do you ever pray with a baseball cap on?



Not since the seventh game of last year's playoffs between the Yankees and Boston. :bigsmile:



> Here's the point, in and of itself, it is not sinful. If what Colleen is doing has no special meaning attached outside of the idea that it is no different from a Thanksgiving meal, it is harmless.
> 
> [Edited on 2-2-2005 by Scott Bushey]



Or the 4th of July?

If all agree there is absolutely no religious significance to what is being done, then that is fine. However, given my interactions with MJs over the years, I don't think that is always the case. 

In fact I've asked MJs point blank whether God is pleased by what they do, of if He would be displeased if they didn't do it. The majority of those asked indicated it was not a neutral thing as far as God is concerned.

I think it would be hard to convince them that their "passover" is just like the 4th of July.

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

no, the Fourth of July was not a religious observance. Thanksgiving and Passover were. We still observe Thanksgiving...there is no harm in observing Passover. I am not elavating it to a dogmatic requirement, but neither is it without religious signifigance....it is full of religious symbolism and teaching.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

You think the Messianic Jews should give up their observances? If so, then you have answered my question to you from earlier.

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> We don not see it as a required thing...we see it as a celebration of what Christ did. However there is breaking of bread (matzah) and giving of wine.



So what is this supposed to be mimicking, passover or the Lord's Supper?

I think there's a serious error to move the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, even in pretend, out from the oversight of the elders into the private home. 

I can't seem to figure out if this is just play acting, or if it's really suposed to be something commanded by God to be observed by His people. There is much ambiguity surrounding it.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

Mant times it is held in a church, not a home. There are times though that when a church is not available for it, then it takes place in the home.

You act as though we are children playing at the children of Israel. We don't

It doesn't mimick anything...it is the way it is. The Lord's supper took place during Passover, as part of the same meal... so where do you have a problem with this? Bread has always been broken during passover, before Christ did it with the apostles. Wine was always given, before Christ did it with the apostles. In fact it was part of the Passover meal that he did it as. The only thing He did different that shocked the apostles during the meal was #1 He told them to do it in remembrance of Him (what was about to occur) and #2 That He poured an extra glass of wine which they did not drink from, stating that they would drink together at the Banquet table.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 2, 2005)

Colleen,
But the supper has replaced the passover meal. We now feed on Christ.....There is no need for the passover meal in any spiritual way now.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 2, 2005)

"Messianic Judaism"
By James B. Jordan*

In recent years, a large number of Jewish young people have turned to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Many of these young people have formed "Messianic Synagogues," and have articulated here and there various theologies of "Messianic Judaism." For many, Messianic Judaism is simply a way of keeping some Jewish cultural traditions while becoming Christian, and there is nothing wrong with this. It is proper for Christians of various tribes and tongues to give expression to the faith in a variety of cultural forms.

Unfortunately, for some, Messianic Judaism is seen as an alternative to historic Christianity. This is due to the influence of pop-dispyism [dispensationalism]. After all, if the Millennium is right around the corner, and Jewish culture will be imperialistically triumphant during the Millennium, the even today Jewish practices anticipate that superiority. In fact, some Messianic Jews apparently believe that they can claim unlimited financial support from Gentile Christians, because of this preeminence. [1]

Most of what I have written regarding Christian Zionism above applies to this group of Messianic Jews. [2] I should like, however, to call attention to another facet of the matter. These Messianic Jews believe wrongly that Gentile Christianity (the historic church) departed from Biblical forms in the early days of the church. They see as their mission a restoration of these customs, which they believe they have preserved.

In fact, this is completely false. Anyone who has seen a presentation of "Christ in the Passover" is amazed at the number of non-Biblical rites that are discussed and exhibited (the use of eggs, bread broken in three pieces and hidden in cloth, etc.). These customs arose after the birth of the church, and do not preserve Old Testament ritual at all. Moreover, to try to place a Christian interpretation on the various features of these rituals is misguided and artificial. Clever as such presentations are, they are grossly misleading.

As a matter of fact, the leading features of Temple and Synagogue worship were brought straight into the church, as she spoiled the new enemies of God: apostate Jewry. The period of this spoiling was A.D. 30 to A.D. 70. Once the church had completed her integration of the spoils of the Old Covenant into her new, transfigured body, God destroyed the remnants of the Old Covenant completely. Modern Jewish rituals and music owe far more to racial/cultural inheritance from the peoples of Eastern Europe than they do to the Old Covenant. [3]

Thus, while there is nothing wrong with converted Jews maintaining a cultural continuity with their past, there are no grounds for the assumption that post-Christian Jewry has preserved the musical and liturgical forms of the Bible. Those forms were preserved in the church, and in her alone. Jews who wish to recover their heritage would do well to study the early church, not the traditions of Eastern European cultures.

[* taken from James B. Jordan, _The Sociology of the Church: Essays in Reconstruction_ (Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1986) p. 184-186. Jordan is the director of _Biblical Horizons_, P.O. Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588.]

Notes:

[1] See Gary North, "Some Problems with 'Messianic Judaism,'" in _Biblical Economics Today_ 7:3 (Apr./May, 1984).

[2] Jordan calls Christian Zionism, the notion that Christians have a theological stake in the modern state of Israel, a "blasphemy" and "heresy." His particular criticism is directed at Christian Zionist Jerry Falwell.

[3] Louis Bouyer has shown at considerable length that the eucharistic prayer of the early church was a modification of the prayers of the synagogue and Temple. See Bouyer, _Eucharist_ (Notre Dame: U. of Notre Dame Press, 1968). Similarly, Eric Werner has shown that the plainchant of the Christian church preserves the style of music known among the Jews of the Old Testament period. See Werner, _The Sacred Bridge_ (Columbia U. Press, 1959; the paperback by Schocken only reproduces the first half of this important study).

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> no, the Fourth of July was not a religious observance. Thanksgiving and Passover were. We still observe Thanksgiving...there is no harm in observing Passover. I am not elavating it to a dogmatic requirement, but neither is it without religious signifigance....*it is full of religious symbolism and teaching.*



So is _Fiddler on the Roof_, put no one is suggesting we bring it into the church and use it to [re]interpret the gospel. 

The fact remains that the modern "passover" ritual is based on post-Christian rabbinic traditions that bear little resemblance to the authentic passover described in the Bible. In fact many of them were invented to specifically *deny* what Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah of Israel, had come in the flesh.

As I said before Christians with a Jewish background are fine trying to recall their cultural distinctives, as long as they can avoid syncretism.

I don't think I would not mention Passover and Thanksgiving in the same sentence. Thanksgiving is a unique American experience with religious overtones. But at its core it is a state-sponsored holiday. It is a day of family and football. I would not build a religious celebration around it, especially with Christian friends from another country.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> In fact it was part of the Passover meal that he did it as. The only thing He did different that shocked the apostles during the meal was #1 He told them to do it in remembrance of Him (what was about to occur) and #2 That He poured an extra glass of wine which they did not drink from, stating that they would drink together at the Banquet table.



Can you point that #2 out for me in the Bible?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 2, 2005)

Colleen,
You write:


> I am not elavating it to a dogmatic requirement, but neither is it without religious signifigance....it is full of religious symbolism and teaching.



After thinking this through........

1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 

The question is, if Christ is our passover lamb, and He was sacrificed once for all, why celebrate anything but the supper. The passover looked forward, in faith. We have the reality; we should discard the old.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 2, 2005)

Has Christ come a second time? Do you realize that that is also symbolized in the Passover meal?

The Passover meal was to the (physical) salvation of the firstborn, as the Lord Supper is to our (spiritual) salvation. Both required a sacrifice. Both were continued as a remembrance. One was a foreshadowing of the other. 

Tom, I really think you are going on assumptions here. Tell me what in the Passover meal denies Christ. Again, I do not believe you know what you are talking about here. And I would be willing to share how it actually points to Christ and what He did for us and toward His second coming.
Also, your article. I think it should be pointed out that "Messianic Judaism" is a VERY broad term. A Messianic Jew is simply a Jewish person who believe Christ is Messiah. MOST of the article seems to be dealing with some radicals that exists...and believe it or not, are actually gentiles trying to be more Jewish than the Jews. They are EXTREME legalists, EXTREME Dispensationalists, EXTREME on and on and on. I have known some of these. It would is a sad thing to take these few to broadbrush those elect Jewish ppl who wish to maintain the traditions that they now understand had furthur meaning that they were previously blind to and insist that they do away with it because of it's mere Jewishness. Neither they or myself are holding it higher or even equal to that which Christ instated. But neither should it be insultingly placed on the level of a BBQ or movie.

I was not referring to Thanksgiving in the sense of the gluttonous feast that we currently see. I was referring to what it had been and how some Christian families have tried to keep it. We don't watch football etc that day. It is a time of remembering and being thankful to the Lord God Almighty. And in our house we don't stuff till we drop. It is a simple meal (only with dessert , coca, and cider).

Tom, I will pull out my Haggadah and find out about the last cup again. I know I also heard it preached from my previous pastor.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 3, 2005)

> The question is, if Christ is our passover lamb, and He was sacrificed once for all, why celebrate anything but the supper. The passover looked forward, in faith. We have the reality; we should discard the old.



Colleen,
I'm pushing this question at you again. Please look at the text.

1Co 5:7 Then purge out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, even as you are unleavened.* For also Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us.*

Is Christ OUR passover?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Has Christ come a second time? Do you realize that that is also symbolized in the Passover meal?



What you refer to as the "passover meal" is the post-temple rabbinic interpretation of the Exodus story. Of course it would have things about the "second coming" (from a Christian perspective) since the rabbis who invented it denied that Christ came the first time! 

I realize MJs are not monolithic. But I think some of the erroneous MJ theology has made it way into the broader community. Some folks accept this stuff without critical thought being given to the implications. It that sense it is much like dispensationalism.



> Tom, I will pull out my Haggadah and find out about the last cup again. I know I also heard it preached from my previous pastor.



The only true "Haggadah" is found in the Bible. I realize some of these teachings are quite popular, even among the "goy", but they are seriously lacking in solid biblical support.

But, again, let me (respectfully) point out the folly of trying to find truth in this syncretistic rite of the modern passover. I'm assuming your desire is because of your Jewish background. We all have cultural roots, and appreciating those roots is a fine thing. 

When Jesus and His apostles (esp. Paul) brought together Jews and gentiles into the universal church, the older forms that characterized national Israel passed away with the cultic rituals of the old covenant. That's why the blood picture of the passover was replaced by the simple picture of the Lord's Supper. That's also why circumcision as the mark of God's people was replaced by baptism. These new signs were universal. They could be observed by all Christians, not just those of a particular extraction. 

Any attempt to go back to the old forms make mockery of what Christ did on the cross. As Scott correctly pointed out from Corinthians, He is our Passover! That's why the church moved on from the passover celebration 2000 years ago.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 3, 2005)

I'm not Jewish.

I was going to look in the Haggadah for the biblical reference.

Scott....where does it say that we can't or aren't allowed to?

Tom...It is not making a mockery. It actually does point to his first coming as well....let me ask you, does a lamb resurrect itself? The resurrection of Christ is also symbolized in the Passover meal.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 3, 2005)

I need to go tighten my corset and put on my hoops...gettin back to my roots ya know!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Colleen,
The point is not whether or not there is a indicator that we shouldn't; the point is, as believers, we have Christ now as our passover. The Lords supper is our passover. Let us bring God glory through this alone. Let us elevate the supper and leave those things that were shadows of HIM yet to come. He has arrived, let us move forward!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 3, 2005)

I do elevate the Lord's Supper, I believe I have made that abundantly clear. Esp, seeing as the children may participate in passover, but only certain of the older children are permitted to participate in the Lord's supper.

My point in the Passover is that there are things in it that we can use to teach our children. It is a special time. I see nothing wrong with this. I just don't like it demeaned to "playacting"


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 3, 2005)

Please tell me that none of you give your children easter baskets and bunnies on Resurrection Sunday....

If you have a problem with Passover, you should have more of a problem with easter.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 3, 2005)




----------



## pastorway (Feb 3, 2005)

Passover is an everlasting Ordinance (Ex 12), but it does not continue according to OT regulations - why? - because we have a new high priets, a new covenant, and a new spotless lamb who was died once for all (Heb 10). Passover is continued in the church today as the Lord's Supper!

Here are notes from a sermon I preached on this very topic on Palm Sunday last year:



> *Passover – An Everlasting Ordinance*
> Selected Scriptures
> Pastor Phillip M. Way
> 
> ...



So to sum up - Passover = Communion and Christ has fulfilled it all!

Phillip


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Please tell me that none of you give your children easter baskets and bunnies on Resurrection Sunday....
> 
> If you have a problem with Passover, you should have more of a problem with easter.



Easter ... where's that found in the Bible?

Every Sunday is Resurrection Sunday. That's precisely why we worship on Sunday, the weekly Sabbath!


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Tom...It is not making a mockery. It actually does point to his first coming as well....let me ask you, does a lamb resurrect itself? The resurrection of Christ is also symbolized in the Passover meal. [/quote]
> 
> Are you speaking of the modern, ersatz "passover" meal?


----------



## heartoflesh (Feb 3, 2005)

What about the issue of observing a Passover meal in order to learn more about it, how it foreshadowed Christ, Hebrew tradition, etc? Is there any benefit in this for a Christian? If there is, how do we know what traditions we should observe, and what not to?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> What about the issue of observing a Passover meal in order to learn more about it, how it foreshadowed Christ, Hebrew tradition, etc? Is there any benefit in this for a Christian? If there is, how do we know what traditions we should observe, and what not to?



That's an interesting theoretical question, but give us some practical features of this "passover" meal?

To begin with what exactly makes it a "passover" meal?

What is the pedigree of this "passover" meal?


----------



## gwine (Feb 3, 2005)

Seems to me there is a difference between observing and participating. I myself would just read about it and let it go at that. We have a better observance now.

1 Cor 5:7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 3, 2005)

I just want to let Scott and Tom know that their excellent points (and the one by Phillip) have inspired and taught me. I do not practice Passover, but your thoughts and scripture refrences help me in my stance against dispensationalism (Colleen, I am not saying you are dispensational!)


----------



## heartoflesh (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> That's an interesting theoretical question, but give us some practical features of this "passover" meal?
> 
> ...



Well, the only research I've ever done on the Passover meal itself (from the standpoint of tradition) was a book by Marvin Rosenthal-- I think the title was something like "The Feasts and Festivals of Israel". A friend borrowed it to me, and I can't find it listed on Amazon. I can try to borrow it again from him, and present some of the details as Rosenthal has them.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> ...



Are you referring to "The Feasts Of The Lord"?

My problem with relying on interpretations by folks like Rosenthal is that they are decidedly non-reformed/non-covenantal. He is dispensational-like in much of what he says (e.g., pre-trib vs. pre-wrath are simply variations of traditional dispensationalism).

The real question is, what would be biblical passover look like under the new covenant? The answer is simply the Lord's Supper since it perfectly pictures the work of Christ, our True Passover.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 3, 2005)

The feast has evolved. The first observance had blood on the door posts and they hit the ground running the next day! Then it changed and evolved to what was being observed in Jesus' day, and He changed it definitively - showing that He was the fulfillment and that for the believer the Lord' Supper is the Passover Feast.

Anything wrong with studying or even participating in an earlier form of the meal? No. But don't mistake that for the true passover. It is a shadow, and old form that has been replaced by substance, namely the Lord's Table.

And just as this was the highest holy day and greatest observance for the OT, now it is one of only two ordinances given to the church by her Lord. A proper understanding of the history of Passover should give us a new appreciation for observing it now in the Supper.

Phillip


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Anything wrong with studying or even *participating* in an earlier form of the meal? No. But don't mistake that for the true passover. It is a shadow, and old form that has been replaced by substance, namely the Lord's Table.



If you were invited to the home of an observant Jew to participate in their passover, would that be OK given that they attach religious significance to the event?

How would that be different than participating in an RC Mass?

Aren't they both a denial of the finished work of Christ?

I still fail to see why Christians would want to put on a "Christian Seder" other than as play acting. Certainly it has no religious significance. And if they do attach religious signifiance, isn't that a denial of Christ's work and the Supper He instituted and gave to His church?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 4, 2005)

Tom, I find myself thinking along the same lines as you here.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 4, 2005)

My favorite quote from this thread:



> The Lords supper is our passover. Let us bring God glory through this alone. Let us elevate the supper and leave those things that were shadows of HIM yet to come. He has arrived, let us move forward!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 4, 2005)

Tom, I think you are getting to the ridiculous with "pedigrees" and other such non-sense. If you cared to know about the Passover and what in it is worthy of participating in it from a Christian standpoint then you would have ask and I would have posted that information. You are obviously ignoranant on the matter and prefer to remain that way. I also believe you to have an unreasonable bias and are intentionally making things more difficult than what they are (ie Resurrection Sunday, you KNEW what I was refering to and neither did you answer the question). Thirdly, you are sounding a bit sectarian. If it doesn't pass mustard with you then it is not worthy to even be considered to listened to. Apparently if a person disagrees with you on one point then you do not see fit to listen to ANYTHING they have to say (ie your comment on books). 

Gentlemen, I am on my second day of having the flu (the reason I haven't been able to keep up with this thread right now) and really am not in the right mindset to keep at this.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 4, 2005)

Colleen,
I will pray for you.............Feel better!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 4, 2005)

Thank you, Scott....I'm gonna go fall over again....


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Colleen,
> I will pray for you.............Feel better!


----------



## tcalbrecht (Feb 4, 2005)

Colleen,

I'm sorry you are not feeling well. 

And I also apologize and seek your forgiveness for being a bit abrupt and sarcastic with some of my responses. I get mildly annoyed when people assume that everyone observes such abominations as Easter (calling it "Resurrection Sunday" doesn't help a bit).

And I don't think it's over the top to question the pedigree of modern, ersatz passover events. I find that many Christians, esp. non-Reformed ones, who get into these things never give that background much thought. They just take the words of the author as gospel.

There are theological issues that folks don't seem to think through. (It appears Adam has gotten in tune with some of them.)

Not everything we do is automatically blessed by God just because we have zeal. These Christian passovers, In my humble opinion, amount to zeal without kmowledge.

Whether I'm "obviously ignorant on the matter" or not is, perhaps, a matter for debate. I've never participated in these ersatz "passover meals"/"Christian seders"/etc but I've read enough to know what they are about. I've also considered the implications of such quaint practices from the Scripture. If they are just used for play acting, then no harm. If folks attach real religious significance (as they do in the larger MJ community) then there is serious error. 

I'm not sure what you mean by being "too sectarian". Do you mean I ought to loosen up from my Reformed/Presbyterian roots? Which views should I compromise to appear less sectarian?

Is it inappropriate to question a person position based on Scripture? That's what I have attempted to do. Apparently you think that is de facto evidence of "not listening."

Perhaps you are not being objective enough on the issue to see that. You seem to have a personal vested interest in the practice.

Get well.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 4, 2005)

I am not yet educated enough to speak much to this, I will be put to shame by Tom, Phillip, and Soctt, but I want to say something, so bear with me.

From my *PERSONAL* experience, when we start to bring "Jewish" practices into the Church as some kind of "rememberance" or "memorial", etc. it begins to snowball. What starts out as something neat and a learning experience begins to spread into all areas of worship.

We begin by "remembering" the Jewish roots of our faith and trying to respect them. Before we know it every scriptural text is examined for it's "Jewishness". Many Arminian friends of mine cannot examine Romans 9 correctly because they apply it to National Israel in such a way that it's plain language is perverted into something I cannot even answer.

I have seen a discussion on prayer shaws turn into mandatory use, as well as Yamacha's (sp?) and other cultural Jewish practices brought into the church because they "honor God".

All of this happens in Churches or with people who then say "I am not bound by the law". This always shocks me. The same people wearing prayer shaws, yamacha's, and celeberating the "feasts" feel that the law has passed away (nailed to the cross). 

See John Hagee for a perfect example of what I am talking about.

Colleen, I respect you and am NOT saying you do these things. But I do get a bit nervous about practices that seem to be "memorials". If as Tom said it is some kind of "lesson" then I suppose I can live with that. But attatching any spiritual signifigance to it is cause for great concern to me.

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by houseparent]


----------



## pastorway (Feb 4, 2005)

When I used the word participate, I was referring to a church using the traditional feast to teach what the Israelites observed and then examine how these things are fulfilled in Christ and the Lord's Supper. I was not advocating using the old traditions as the Supper, not attaching any significance to them other than to use them to point to the fulfillment. 

I think it is valuable for the church to understand the OT feasts in light of that they forshadow, but I do not think the church should go back to those old ways now that the substance of those shadows has appeared!

I also agree with the concern of the church rooting its worship in Jewish practices to the point that they are in essence practicing Judaism. We need to understand our roots Biblically, and understand the extreme differences between Judaism and Christianity.

Phillip


----------



## heartoflesh (Feb 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> When I used the word participate, I was referring to a church using the traditional feast to teach what the Israelites observed and then examine how these things are fulfilled in Christ and the Lord's Supper.



That's exactly my position as well. So where can one find a reliable treatment (interpretation) of the meal and it's traditions?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 5, 2005)

Okay, talked over the thread with Steve a couple of nights ago. He hasn'thad a chance to read it...but...he agreed that Communion replaces Passover (I also agreed to this) and is not to be required. That we use it occasionally to teach the children.

I will agree that there are groups that go overboard with ADDING Jewish traditions to their churches (I Cor 11 speaks to the tallith statement, btw). I have seen this and in some of their minds it is not seeking out the Jewish roots of Christianity but trying to be more Jewish than the Jew so to speak. They see themselves as trying to make the Jewish ppl "jealous" (I guess so they will desire God?).

But I do find certain things about the Jewish culture of interest. Just as I find the deep south of the CW of great interest and old Scotland.

The thing I think I see an interest in this area in would be that some Jewish ppl have come to Christianity because (by grace) their eyes have seen things in the scripture that point to Christ, when they were raised to believe that Christianity was a gentile religion (Christianity is Jewish is a book my aunt has)

I thank you all for bearing with me, as I've admitted, I've alot to learn...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...


----------



## Texas Aggie (Sep 2, 2006)

I am with Colleen on this one.

I must respond to this older thread since the wedding communion thread was getting a little off target.... thanks for pointing me to this thread.

For me, Passover is a perpetual event to be observed by God's people forever (Exodus 12:1-17) and I do not see this is a dispensational law which only applied to the Jews. Passover is not considered a High Day in accordance with the law; however, the day immediately following Passover is a Sabbath (High Day) known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Leviticus 23).

The days of Unleavened Bread are seven days associated with the Passover. The first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, immediately following Passover, is a holy convocation to be observed as a Sabbath Day (Leviticus 23:5-7). A Holy Convocation is to be observed as a Sabbath and is considered a Sabbath Day aside from the 7th Day Sabbath (Leviticus 23:3 & Numbers 28:17). These High Day Sabbaths are not the Sabbaths as the 4th Commandment instructs. 

With this in mind, sunset to sunset (even to even) is how God counts His days (Genesis 1:5 & Leviticus 23:32). Christ held the Lord's Super on Passover (in the evening) and died on the cross by 3:00 pm (on Passover). This is how Jesus Christ died according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Since He died on Passover at 3:00 pm, Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate and begged for the body because The Feast of Unleavened Bread (High Day Sabbath/Holy Convocation) was to begin at sunset (Mark 15:42-43 ).

When taking a hard look at Chapters 15 and 16 of Mark, we must keep in mind the relationship of the Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Sabbath Day "according to the commandment." The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus must fit according to the scriptures (Passover and the 72 hour period of three days and three nights mentioned in Jonah 1:17 and Matthew 16:4).

The Sabbath mentioned in Mark 15:42 and the Sabbath mentioned in Mark 16:1 are two separate Sabbath days (one is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the other is the 7th Day Sabbath according to the commandment).

By the time Mary arrived, early "when it was yet dark," Jesus Christ was already raised out of the grave. Essentially, He could have risen anytime after 3:00 pm on Saturday (the Lord's sanctified day in accordance with the 4th Commandment and end of the required 72-hour period of 3 days and three nights).

A death on Friday and subsequent resurrection on Sunday constitutes only two nights and one whole day.

I can not find anywhere in the scripture where the observance of Passover, as well as all the other feasts (Holy Days), have been abrogated by God. I can see a necessity of a change in the law as it relates to the priesthood and animal sacrifices; however, I see no change in God's Times and Sabbaths. To me these are the observances He expects of His people (they are a sign of the covenant with Him). Easter and Christmas are subtle substitutes which cloud the real truth of the gospel.

If you are one who sees a problem with a Friday to Sunday death and resurrection, you may also want to take a look at why we all observe a Sunday "Christian Sabbath." Just a thought.

If I understand this correctly, we observe Sunday as the Sabbath because of the widespread belief that the resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred on a Sunday. Is this correct?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> I can not find anywhere in the scripture where the observance of Passover, as well as all the other feasts (Holy Days), have been abrogated by God. I can see a necessity of a change in the law as it relates to the priesthood and animal sacrifices; however, I see no change in God's Times and Sabbaths. To me these are the observances He expects of His people (they are a sign of the covenant with Him). Easter and Christmas are subtle substitutes which cloud the real truth of the gospel.





> CHAPTER 19 THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
> 
> 3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;(d) and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.(e) All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.(f)
> 
> ...



In light of these passages can you explain how one goes about observing the old covenant ceremonial ordinances of the feast days without sacrifices and a priesthood and without introducing rabbinical-style traditions?


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

"In light of these passages can you explain how one goes about observing the old covenant ceremonial ordinances of the feast days without sacrifices and a priesthood and without introducing rabbinical-style traditions?"

The last Supper?


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> ...



I myself have. It is wrong to pray in church with a baseball cap on, as the context of the passage is "in" church as it has been said to me.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Sep 3, 2006)

The Last Supper took place on the night in which Jesus was betrayed. On that occasion, our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper. The next day, Christ offered up himself as the Passover Lamb. When he gave up the ghost, the veil of the temple was rent in two. That was the end of the priesthood, the ceremonies and sacrifices, and the types and shadows that went with it. 

The Acts and the epistles confirm this - 

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)


----------



## Texas Aggie (Sep 3, 2006)

The Lord's Super took place on the same day He was killed (sundown to sundown is a day). Jesus was killed on Passover (He is our Passover). This is how He died according to the scriptures. If He did not die according to the scriptures then He is not God. Easter is a misrepresentation and a substitute for the gospel. It is a lie.

The priesthood and the animal sacrifices have been changed because of the Atonement. God has not changed His Holy Days or Sabbaths. Christ was not risen on Sunday morning. He was resurrected on the only day that was sanctified by God since the creation.

Easter has replaced the Passover and God has not instituted Easter.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> "In light of these passages can you explain how one goes about observing the old covenant ceremonial ordinances of the feast days without sacrifices and a priesthood and without introducing rabbinical-style traditions?"
> 
> The last Supper?



Good answer. We have authoritative information by which we observe the new covenant fellowship meal. It is done without the elaborate ceremonies of the old covenant form. It is devoid of typology, since the antitype has appeared and is recognized by all.

However, we have no pattern in the NT for any of the other feast days. Given the theological implications of the new covenant particularly as we find it in the book of Hebrews, esp. the end of the Levitical priesthood, it is quite reasonable to conclude that God no longer wishes His peope to recall these other feast days in any specific external form. To do so would require specific direction from an authoritative source. Otherwise you would need to invent rabbical-style traditions, ala unbelieving Israel after the flesh.

[Edited on 9-3-2006 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

Thank you Tom.

Jay, I believe that. My reason for saying "the last Supper?" was due to the question that was asked. The last Supper was an instance where the Passover was celebrated without all the Judaic legal trappings. It was Jesus and His disciples. It was nothing formal; rather it was an informal gathering where they celebrated the Passover.

Matt, I believe that God has instituted the celebration of the Resurrection. We celebrate that on the day that pagans decided to call Easter. I don't even have a problem calling it Easter as that is what I was raised on. The Lord knows my heart. This is off-topic but I know there are some who say we shouldn't celebrate Christmas either but Scripture gives pretty supportive precedent for doing so, what with angels filling the sky, shouting praise to God, singing, and telling a group of shepherds about the birth of the Saviour. Pretty joyous occasion. How could one not celebrate the birth of the Son of God in this world? How could one not celebrate the Resurrection?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> The priesthood and the animal sacrifices have been changed because of the Atonement. God has not changed His Holy Days or Sabbaths.



On what authority do you separate the two? The old covenant feast days were necessarily tied to the sacrifices and the priesthood. You could not legitimately observe the feast days without blood sacrifices.

Where do you turn in the Bible to explain how to externally observe a new covenant day of atonement or tabernacles?



> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> 
> Christ was not risen on Sunday morning. He was resurrected on the only day that was sanctified by God since the creation.
> 
> Easter has replaced the Passover and God has not instituted Easter.



No one is talking here about "easter". That He rose on the first day of the week is plain from the Bible.

"Now when He rose early on the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven demons." (Mark 16:9) I believe the Greek construction supports the linkage between "He rose" and "on the first day".


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

Tom, could they legitimately observe the feast days today while remembering the blood sacrifice of Christ, once for all? I'm just wondering.


----------



## Texas Aggie (Sep 3, 2006)

Tom,

That He rose on the first day of the week is most certainly not plain to me in the scripture. I am having a difficult time with this because it appears that there may be a contradiction in scripture (which I do not believe in such a notion). I see that there are no contradictions in God´s perfect word.

Both the words "Jesus" and "day" are words added to the Greek text in Mark 16:9. Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of James came to the tomb early Sunday morning while it was still dark. When they arrived, He was already risen (John 20:1, Luke 24:1-3). He was out of the grave and gone prior to their arrival (meaning He could have risen anytime prior to their arrival).

For me, the question still remains: how long was Jesus in the grave? I believe the scripture is plain about this one and we must only travel to Matthew 12:38-40 for the answer. When you back up 3 days and 3 nights to John 20:1 and Luke 24:1-3 you get Passover. You also need to add in the Feast of Unleavened Bread as well as the 7th Day Sabbath according to the 4th commandment and see how they relate to one another.

Since He died at 3:00 pm on Passover, He could have risen anytime after 3:00 pm on Saturday (7th Day Sabbath, and God's only Sanctified Day). This would give you the required 3 days and three nights. The 1st day of the week would have started at sundown (on Saturday) and Mary and Mary would have come to the grave just prior to sunrise while it was still dark (on Sunday).

I do not combine the Priesthood, Animal Sacrifices as well as His Times (Holy Days and Sabbaths). I see these are three distinct parts of the Ceremonial Law. The church has thrown out the entire Ceremonial Law including the times. As far as a necessity in the change of the law, the Book of Hebrews mentions specifically the priesthood and sacrifices. I can not find where there is any mention of His times (Holy Days and Sabbaths).

Furthermore, even Paul and his companions observed the Feasts and Sabbaths (Acts 13:14, 17:2, 18:4, 18:20, 20:16, 21:17-24, 1 Corinthians 5:7).

I believe we are most definitely talking about Easter (see Acts 12:4). This is the crux of the issue. The church zealously advocates the observance of Christ´s resurrection via the lie of Easter. The observance of His resurrection was never instituted by God, the observance of His death was.

His death is what was of prime importance to God and should be of utmost importance to us. The death of Christ is what satisfied the righteous demand of God. Christ´s resurrection simply proves to us that He is God. We are to celebrate (observe) His death, not His proof of deity. There is no scriptural justification commanded by God to observe the resurrection of Jesus (this type of observance is a man-made event). God provides the means which satisfies Himself.

The visible administrations of the Old Covenant have spiritual applications in the New. There is no need for an animal blood sacrifice to observe the Lord´s Passover in the New Covenant since Christ Himself provided the blood as our Passover (He was the sacrifice without blemish). I do not believe that just because the animal sacrifices were done away with necessitates an abolishment of His Holy Days. The blood is still provided by a continual sprinkling at the throne.

In the case for Atonement and Tabernacles, these were also holy convocations treated as Sabbaths (where no servile work was to be accomplished). Observance of these days in the New Covenant is to be treated as a Sabbath per God's instruction. External observance on our behalf is just that. We observe the day as a Sabbath (since it is a day sanctified by God). We are now the temple of God and we (individual believers are the priests over our own bodies). Christ is the High Priest at the throne. The visible administrations in the old are now invisible spiritual applications in the New. I am starting to believe there is a direct corelation between the human body and the tabernacle (I am still taking a hard look at this).

I also believe there is a spiritual need for communion at the Lord´s Passover. The last supper was a symbolic representation and initiation of the New Covenant (we are to do this in remembrance of Him and what He did for us). We must remember specifically that He died for us, not that He was necessarily resurrected for us (this would have happened anyway simply because death had no reign on Him because He obeyed the law perfectly). Death could not hold Him as it holds us.

By the way, I am in no way whatsoever condemning anyone who observes Easter or Christmas. I am not the Judge and Brian is absolutely correct in pointing out that God sees the heart. I just enjoy researching biblical topics and I find the topic of Easter & Passover most challenging. Please forgive me if I have come across as being crass or all-knowing on the subject (I´m just trying to get this timeline straight in my mind).



[Edited on 9-3-2006 by Texas Aggie]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Tom, could they legitimately observe the feast days today while remembering the blood sacrifice of Christ, once for all? I'm just wondering.



I do not see how they could. Remember that all the old covenant ceremonial matters were really just types of Christ's work. The feasts were the type. Christ is the antitype. The antitype has appeared. Once the antitype appears the types disappear. At least that is the way it is presented in the Bok of Hebrews. 

Remember, we do not retain the type of passover. Passover was fundamentally converted from the cultic form found under the old covenant to the universal expression under the new. That's why we don't call it "Passover". Because it is not Passover. It is not even "Passover Lite". There is enough explicit information in the New Testament about the Lord's Supper celebration that we do not need to guess in order to participate in a celebration that is pleasing to God.

How would you do that with, say, the feast of tabernacles, in the absence of any apostolic direction on how that celebration would be pleasing and honoring to God?


----------



## satz (Sep 3, 2006)

Wouldn't the passover fall into one of the categories mentioned by Paul in Col 2:16-17? 

Colossians 2:16-17 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: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Sep 3, 2006)

I'll take these two issues separately.



> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> Tom,
> 
> That He rose on the first day of the week is most certainly not plain to me in the scripture. I am having a difficult time with this because it appears that there may be a contradiction in scripture (which I do not believe in such a notion). I see that there are no contradictions in God´s perfect word.
> ...



The Hebrew way of reckoning time is not the same as what we are used to.

The phrase "three days and three nights" can mean any portion a period of time that covers a three day period. 

When you hear "three days and three nights" don't think "3 pm on Wednesday until 3 pm on Saturday". That's a modern, Western view of time. 

First of all, in the Hebrew culture, time doesn't start with zero, it starts with 1. So you have day 1, day 2, and day 3. Any part of day 1 is "one day". Any part of day 1 and day 2 is "two days". And so on. 

Look at an example in Scripture: 

"So when he had eaten, his strength came back to him; for he had eaten no bread nor drunk water for three days and three nights." (1 Sam. 30:12) 

Now look at the next verse: 

"Then David said to him, 'To whom do you belong, and where are you from?' And he said, 'I am a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick.'" 

Note how "three days ago" corresponds to "three days and three nights". If a literal 72 hours period were in view, we would think of this time period as "four days ago", not three. 

Jesus uses similar language in Luke 13:32,33: 

"And He said to them, "Go, tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.' Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem." 

Using the same language as Jesus, it is quite reasonable to speak of the days of His crucifixion as being "today" (Friday), "tomorrow" (Saturday/sabbath), "and the third day" (Sunday). 

Another problem is that this "72 hour" explanation does not seem to square with what earlier Jewish writers taught on the subject, e.g.,: 



> A day and night are an Onah ["˜a portion of time´] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it." (from The Jerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix as quoted in Hoehner, Harold W, "œChronological Aspects of the Life of Christ"”Part IV: The Day of Christ´s Crucifixion," _Bibliotheca Sacra_).



So any portion of a day fits within the designation "a day and a night". Three days and three nights do not have to fit neatly into a fixed 72 hours time slot. 


Another author put it this way: 



> The principle which governed their [Jewish] thinking in such matters has been rather clearly set forth in some of their own commentaries on the Scriptures. It is this: that any part of a whole period of time may be counted as though it were the whole. A part of a day may be counted as a whole day, a part of a year as a whole year. Furthermore, a part of a day or a part of a night may be counted as a whole "night and day." I suspect that in the Lord's parable of the man who paid his labourers for a whole day, whether they had worked for a whole day or not (Matthew 20:1-16), is really a reflection of this principle. Thus, in the Babylonian Talmud, the Third Tractate of the Mishnah (which is designated "B. Pesachim," at page 4a) it is stated: "The portion of a day is as the whole of it." (Arthur Custance)



One must also square this idea with the timeline in certain passages of Scripture, e.g., Luke 24, especially: 

"*Now on the first day of the week*, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. ... He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, *and the third day rise again*.' And they remembered His words. ... But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, *today is the third day since these things happened*." (vv. 1,6,7,8,21) 

Using the Luke 13 passage from above, it would be impossible for Jesus to be crucified in any day other than Friday and to have these things fulfilled "on the third day" which we know was Sunday. 

Lots of people look to Bullinger's explanation of "three days and three nights" in his _Companion Bible_, but I think he got it wrong.



[Edited on 9-4-2006 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## MW (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> (7th Day Sabbath, and God's only Sanctified Day).



It is important to remember that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." The commandment says nothing about what day we are to start counting from. Our Lord appeared to the apostles on the first day of the week; the apostles conducted public worship on the first day of the week; and seven days from the first day of the week is ... the first day of the week.

The OT speaks of the eighth day in preference to the seventh day as the time of consecration, especially of the firstborn. This foretold the time when Christ, the firstborn from the dead, would consecrate the New Testament and its worship by His resurrection.

Blessings!


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

Every day is the day of the Lord, and the Lord is our Sabbath rest.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> ...



I understand. Thanks for answering brother. It's much more respectful than calling me ridiculous.


----------



## MW (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Every day is the day of the Lord, and the Lord is our Sabbath rest.



"This we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat," 2 Thess. 3:10.


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Sep 3, 2006)

Matthew, what do you mean by that? I don't see how that has to do with anything I said. Did Jesus not say "come to me and I will give you rest"? Jesus is our Sabbath rest. This does not negate the need to work. I'm confused brother.


----------



## MW (Sep 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> Matthew, what do you mean by that? I don't see how that has to do with anything I said. Did Jesus not say "come to me and I will give you rest"? Jesus is our Sabbath rest. This does not negate the need to work. I'm confused brother.



It indicates that eschatological fulfilment of OT shadows does not negate moral duty in this world as commanded by the OT.

The fact that we are commanded to work shows that we have not yet fully entered into our rest. We are still to labour with our bodies, and hence our bodies still require rest from earthly labour. The fourth commandment regulates this work/rest cycle.

Marriage mystically signifies the union of the church with Christ; but the fact that Christ has now given His life to purify the church does not mean that the creation ordinance of marriage is done away with while we sojourn in this world.

Something to think about anyway. Blessings!


----------



## Texas Aggie (Sep 5, 2006)

Tom,

Thank you for the reply. Sorry this response is so long, but you have given me a good deal of info to respond to.

I realize that the Hebrew way of recognizing time is not the way we do (modern western way). That is why we are to look at the Death/Resurrection timeline according to how God counts time. Man has changed God´s measure of time away from His original prescription. Sundown to sundown is how He measures a single day (Genesis 1:5, Leviticus 23:32) and God made known His ways unto Moses (Psalm 103:7).

The phrase "œthree days and three nights" is explicit wording (it involves three actual nights and three actual days). I would be more inclined to accept the explanation that the Jews counted any part of a day as a full day if Jonah 1:17 and Matthew 16:4 were not painfully explicit in their wording. If the terminology was strictly "œthree days," I could somewhat understand the Onah explanation.

A death on Friday followed by a Sunday morning resurrection constitutes only two nights and one day (remember God has prescribed "œeven to even" as His measure of a day). The Onah explanation also does not account for the Feast of Unleavened Bread in relation to the 7th Day Sabbath according to the fourth commandment. This High Day is still somehow involved.

I have read and studied the explanation that the Jews had a custom of counting any part of the day as a full day and the phrase "œthree days and three nights" would not necessarily mean three complete days in our reckoning. With this custom in mind, we need to remember God´s reckoning of time and not be too concerned about what earlier Jewish writers taught on the subject (they are not the standard for scriptural correction). We already know how the Pharisees had totally corrupted the Law of God and western Protestantism has not distanced itself far enough from Papal tradition. God makes no mention anywhere in the scripture that a portion of a day constitutes an entire day. God has ordained that the evening and the morning constitute a full day (Genesis 1:5).

In the example of 1 Samuel 30:12-13, the third day mentioned in verse 13 would have been the third day according to God´s measure of a day (sundown would have ended the third day for the Egyptian). We also do not know what time of day David interrogated him, nor do we know what time of day the Egyptian had his last meal. The Egyptian could have endured without food or water for three literal nights and three literal days and be accurate by telling David that three days ago, he fell sick. On a side note, the Egyptian states that three days ago he fell sick. He does not state the reason for his sickness (although it may be implied). He may, or may not, have fallen sick as a result of his lack of food and water (he could have easily had a mere common cold or a virus). We also do not exactly know when his master left him. All we know is that three days ago, he fell sick and as a result, his master left him.

As for the example of Luke 13:31-33, this is no different using God´s measure of a day (sundown to sundown). You can also check the following verses where the length of time between Jesus´ death, burial, and resurrection, are mentioned (Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; 26:61; 27:40, 64; Mark 9:31; 10:34; 14:58; 15:29; Luke 9:22; 13:32; 18:33; 24:7, 21, 46; John 2:19, 20; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4). In all these verses the indefinite expression "on the third day he will be raised" are given as the length of time between these events. In all cases, the third day fits accordingly to God´s measure of a day. If Jesus died at 3:00 pm on Wednesday and was taken down from the cross and placed in the tomb, sundown would have been very close at hand (sundown would have started the first full day in the grave). Toward the end of the third day, he was resurrected (hence "œon the third day he will be raised").

Providing Christ was killed on Passover and in Joseph´s donated tomb by sundown, a resurrection that occurred anytime after 3:00 pm on Saturday would fulfill the prophetic scripture of Matthew 16:4 as well as support the scriptural wording of being raised "œon the third day." Most of the Onah explanations I have studied from multiple theologians have never included God´s measure of a day (sundown as the start point). In the Onah explanation, Jesus would have been in the grave 1/8th (3 hours) of a full day (the first day) according to God´s measure of a full day. I find this rather silly since sundown occurred at the 12th hour (or our 6 pm) and God spells out three days and three nights in Matthew and Jonah.

As for Luke 24:21, I find these fellas assessment of a third day to be accurate in their "œstory telling" along the road. Here is how I understand this passage:

These two disciples were making the little trek to Emmaus and Jesus (already resurrected) decided to show up along the way. He was unrecognizable to them and asked what they were talking about. In verses 18-20, they tell the story of what happened to Jesus. 

I do believe this conversation did occur on Sunday (the very same day that Peter, John and the women had gone to the empty sepulcher). These disciples heading to Emmaus were traveling on the first day of the week (Sunday) and mention that it had been only three days (definitely not four). This in fact would appear to be in direct conflict with both a Wednesday as well as Friday crucifixion.

"œ...today is the third day since these things were done." Well, in verse 19 Jesus asked the question: "œWhat things?" Notice "œall these things," "œthese things" and "œthe things" (verses 14, 18-19 & 21). I believe "œthings" is modified (or qualified) by the disciples´ specifying in verse 20 that they were talking of the heinous actions conducted by their rulers and chief priests. Not only did they talk about the rotten deeds of the priests and rulers, but they told of things concerning Jesus who was "œa prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people;" (verse 19). Obviously all the deeds of Christ in verse 19 did not occur just two days prior. 

I believe they were telling quite a lengthy story to Jesus about Himself... but "œthe things" has reference to the evil conducted by the priests and rulers throughout the sentencing, execution and burial process. I do not believe that their evil deeds against Jesus terminated with His deliverance to Pilate for execution. They wanted to go even further. 

Matthew 27:62-66 tells of the continued behavior of the Chief Priests and Pharisees.

"œOn the next day, which followed the Day of Preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees gathered together to Pilate (notice the chief priests and rulers gathered together), saying, Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, after three days I will rise. Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day, lest His disciples come by night and steal Him away, and say to the people, He has risen from the dead. So the last deception will be worse than the first. Pilate said to them: You have a guard; go your way, make it as secure as you know."

The day after the Day of Preparation (or Passover) was the Feast of Unleavened Bread (considered a High Day, or Sabbath). These Jewish leaders went to Pilate on a Holy Day to ensure that Jesus would not rise from the dead (thus breaking a Sabbath). They subsequently had a guard placed and the tomb sealed after seeking permission from Pilate. 

When the two disciples (on the way to Emmaus) say "œthis is the third day since these things were done" they are counting from the last evil deed conducted by the rulers and high priests on the High Day Sabbath (the Feast of Unleavened Bread). The three days indicated in verse 21 starts at the Feast of Unleavened Bread at sundown immediately following the Passover (Day of Preparation).

By the way, I have not read anything by Bullinger; however, if he is writing about this subject it may be worth my while to look at his work.


----------



## Texas Aggie (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> ...




Matthew,

We know from Psalm 103:7 that "œGod made known His ways to Moses." We also know that the Spirit orders the 7th Day Sabbath prior to the first day of the week as indicated by Matthew 28:1 (there are also other examples in the NT).

We also know from the scriptures that Jesus (God Himself) observed the Sabbath as the 7th Day of the week. This pattern has never changed and God Himself would have observed according to His own decree as an example for us. Paul also observed the 7th Day Sabbath as well as all the Feast Days.

Many people seem to believe that the Jews did not know what day the Sabbath was supposed to be (since the commandment says nothing about what day we are to start counting from). I completely disagree with this notion. The Jews knew exactly what day it was when Moses came down from Sinai. In essence God told Moses precisely when the pattern was to start and there has never been a deviation from the pattern (even to this day). Again, the NT confirms the order as Jesus observed the Sabbath in accordance with the 4th Commandment. God Himself endorsed the particular day while He lived as a man on earth.

[Edited on 9-5-2006 by Texas Aggie]


----------



## Kevin (Sep 5, 2006)

Matt, by "7th day sabbath" do you mean saturday?


----------



## Kevin (Sep 5, 2006)

Tom, You posts on this thread have been a real blessing! I have been shocked over the years at how many reformed christians seem to view modern rabbinic judaism as a sort of "christianity-lite". So often people act/think that the local rabbi is in some way connected with the religion of the OT. 

thanks


----------



## Texas Aggie (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> Matt, by "7th day sabbath" do you mean saturday?



Yes, the Lord's Sabbath has remained the same since its institution in Genesis. It is the only day of the week that has been sanctified by Him. I can not find anywhere in scripture where God has changed His Sabbath. From my perspective, it begins at sundown on Friday and lasts until sundown on Saturday.


----------



## Texas Aggie (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> Tom, You posts on this thread have been a real blessing! I have been shocked over the years at how many reformed christians seem to view modern rabbinic judaism as a sort of "christianity-lite". So often people act/think that the local rabbi is in some way connected with the religion of the OT.
> 
> thanks




I am shocked at how many Christians observe Easter in light of Mark Chapter 7. In relation to the Atonement of Jesus Christ, Passover is neither "œchristianity-lite" nor is it rabbinic Judaism. It is a commandment of God to be observed as an ordinance by His people forever (Exodus 12:1-17).

Not sure what the local rabbi has to do with Christians observing God´s Sabbath or Holy Days?


----------

