Sabbath and bible feasts

[Esaias]

Matthew 22:11-14 KJV
And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: [12] And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. [13] Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.

This passage does NOT teach that the Lord requires special clothes for attendance at a church meeting, either on the part of a teaching elder or anyone else for that matter.

The custom at the time was for the celebrant to provide special festive garments for the guests. The man without the festive wedding garments was a man who wilfully rejected the offered clothes as a sign of disrespect to the king. Thus the harsh response. Jesus is not teaching that you must "dress up for church", but that those invited to the eschatological Wedding of the Lamb must not expect to enjoy the celebration while refusing to be clothed with the salvation and righteousness offered by the King.

Bernes:
A man which had not on a wedding garment - In ancient times, kings and princes were accustomed to make presents of changes of raiment to their friends and favourites, to refuse to receive which was an expression of highest contempt, Genesis 45:22; 2 Kings 10:22; Esther 6:8; Esther 8:15. It was, of course, expected that such garments would be worn when they came into the presence of the benefactor. The garments worn on festival occasions were chiefly long white robes, and it was the custom of the person who made the feast to prepare such robes to be worn by the guests. This renders the conduct of this man more inexcusable. He came in his common and ordinary dress, as he was taken from the highway: and though he had not a garment of his own suitable for the occasion, yet one had been provided for him, if he had applied for it. His not doing it was expressive of the highest disrespect for the king. This beautifully represents the conduct of the hypocrite in the church. A garment of salvation might be his, performed by the hands of the Saviour, and dyed in his blood; but the hypocrite chooses the filthy rags of his own righteousness, and thus offers the highest contempt for that provided in the gospel. He is to blame, not for being invited - not for coming, if he would come, for he is freely invited but for offering the highest contempt to the King of Zion in presenting himself with all his filth and rags, and in refusing to be saved in the way provided in the gospel.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Matthew 22:11-14 KJV
And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: [12] And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. [13] Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [14] For many are called, but few are chosen.

This passage does NOT teach that the Lord requires special clothes for attendance at a church meeting, either on the part of a teaching elder or anyone else for that matter.

The custom at the time was for the celebrant to provide special festive garments for the guests. The man without the festive wedding garments was a man who wilfully rejected the offered clothes as a sign of disrespect to the king. Thus the harsh response. Jesus is not teaching that you must "dress up for church", but that those invited to the eschatological Wedding of the Lamb must not expect to enjoy the celebration while refusing to be clothed with the salvation and righteousness offered by the King.

Bernes:
A man which had not on a wedding garment - In ancient times, kings and princes were accustomed to make presents of changes of raiment to their friends and favourites, to refuse to receive which was an expression of highest contempt, Genesis 45:22; 2 Kings 10:22; Esther 6:8; Esther 8:15. It was, of course, expected that such garments would be worn when they came into the presence of the benefactor. The garments worn on festival occasions were chiefly long white robes, and it was the custom of the person who made the feast to prepare such robes to be worn by the guests. This renders the conduct of this man more inexcusable. He came in his common and ordinary dress, as he was taken from the highway: and though he had not a garment of his own suitable for the occasion, yet one had been provided for him, if he had applied for it. His not doing it was expressive of the highest disrespect for the king. This beautifully represents the conduct of the hypocrite in the church. A garment of salvation might be his, performed by the hands of the Saviour, and dyed in his blood; but the hypocrite chooses the filthy rags of his own righteousness, and thus offers the highest contempt for that provided in the gospel. He is to blame, not for being invited - not for coming, if he would come, for he is freely invited but for offering the highest contempt to the King of Zion in presenting himself with all his filth and rags, and in refusing to be saved in the way provided in the gospel.

If you see the context of my words, what I was trying to say wasn't that that passage teaches church attires, but that there is an obvious cultural factor regarding clothing expectation, which transmit a message, and we should be observant of. The cloth you wear sets a tone, especially if it is a gathering event you will be leading, and it is very serious, and you had plenty of time to prepare for it. What is the unequivocal, clear as water, dress code in our society that shows the maximum seriousness of the event?

This subject is pretty subjective by the way. There are cultures and subcultures.

[Amanah]

Abraham Heschel on the Sabbath:

"The Bible is more concerned with time than with space. It sees the world in the dimension of time. It pays more attention to generations, to events, than to countries, to things; it is more concerned with history than with geography. To understand the teaching of the Bible, one must accept its premise that time has a meaning for life which is at least equal to that of space; that time has a significance and sovereignty of its own."

Pagans focus on sacred places, God's focus is on sacred time.

[Esaias]

(from an older post of mine on another thread)

The Feasts or Appointed Times of the Lord have four levels of signification. The first of course is the historical. Passover was a commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt, for example. The second is Christological. The Passover looked forward to the cross as Christ became soteriological Passover Lamb accomplishing our deliverance, for example. The third is experiential. We must each of us have a personal Passover or Calvary experience, whereby not only do we 'eat' the Passover (the cross applied to our lives) but we must also take up our own cross and 'die to self' on our personal, God-ordained Golgotha, ie we identify with Christ in his death, for example. And the fourth is eschatological. Paul says the feasts are 'shadows of things coming', ie still future from when he wrote those words. (I understand this last point will be debatable by my preterist friends, but that's not what this thread is about, so bear with me a moment.)

Now, we know that Christ died on Passover. As such, he fulfilled the Passover. Yet, in Hebrews we read that Christ also fulfills the Atonement. Now, the Day of Atonement was in the fall, and did not take place during Passover. For years I had wondered 'Why, if Christ fulfills the Day of Atonement, did he not die on the day of Atonement?'

First of all, he had to die on a particular day, so it couldn't be both. It would have to be one or the other.

Second, the Day of Atonement was meant to secure the ongoing atonement of the nation. But without Passover there would be no nation to be atoned for. So, the Day of Atonement depends on the Passover.

Third, the Day of Atonement occurs in the seventh month. The Passover occurs in the first month. To determine the seventh month, one has to know when the first month is. Thus, again, Atonement depends on Passover.

Fourth, the Passover is merely part of a larger Feast, the Feast of Unleavened Bread. This feast is a seven day feast that actually spans eight days. The first day is the Passover day itself, when the lamb is killed and roasted. That night, the Lamb is eaten. This would be the 'first day of unleavened bread' properly speaking. This day was a Sabbath, and the day after that would be the presentation and waving of the 'omer' or 'sheaf of the firstfruits'. So the third day, technically speaking, of the whole festal period is the 'omer' day. Then, the last day, or seventh day of the week of Unleavened Bread, is also a Sabbath.

What we see here is a pattern: The first, the third, and the seventh. The first is when the Lamb is slain. The third is the presentation of the representative firstfruit. The seventh is the culmination or completion.

The Feasts themselves follow a similar pattern of first, third, and seventh. The first month is Passover/Unleavened Bread, the third month is Pentecost or feast of firstfruits, and the seventh month is Trumpets (announcing the beginning of the seventh month), Atonement, and Tabernacles (another 8 day feast).

So then, within the first Feast period of Passover/Unleavened Bread, there is contained in a seed form the entire cycle of yearly Feasts. Or to put it another way, the Passover/Unleavened Bread cycle is a typological representation or template for the entire Feast calendar for the whole year.

So, in conclusion, the Day of Atonement is contained in seed form within the Passover cycle, and is dependent upon the Passover for it's existence and timing. Thus, when Christ died at Passover, he fulfilled in typological form the entire yearly Feast cycle.

This corresponds not merely to the day he died, but to the entire week.

On Passover he died. He was in the tomb during the first Sabbath of Unleavened Bread. He rose the third day as the 'omer' of the resurrection, the proto-typical firstfruit signalling the Pentecost harvest of 'firstfruits' would be acceptable. Likewise, his resurrection is a type of the new life we receive by the gift of the Spirit, which was poured out on the feast of firstfruits aka Pentecost. He appeared to his disciples several times over the next week much to their amazement, signifying a 'Tabernacles' experience much as God tabernacled with Israel in the wilderness (which is what Tabernacles' historical purpose was to commemorate).

So, in a sense, the Passover week was a Christological fulfillment of the whole yearly Feast cycle. And thus, he was able to fulfill the Atonement without having to actually die on the actual Day of Atonement.

Note1: I realise some hold to either a Wednesday crucifixion or a Thursday crucifixion. This thread is not designed to debate that issue (we can do that in another thread if anyone wants?) but merely to point out how Atonement is satisfied even though his death was not on the Day of Atonement.

Note2: During the Exodus event, Israel wound up at Marah on or right about what would be the seventh day of Unleavened Bread. Then they arrived at Sinai shortly before the day of what would be Pentecost. Pentecost is fifty days from Passover (technically from the omer day). Jesus stayed with the apostles for forty days after his resurrection, leaving them ten days to wait in preparation and prayer until Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out. The time he spent with them he spoke to them about the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Israel's history in those first fifty days between the Exodus and Sinai give interesting lessons concerning the kingdom of God: The tree making the bitter waters sweet, the twelve wells and seventy palm trees of Elim, the giving of manna in the wilderness of Sin, the striking of the Rock at Rephidim, the coming of Amalek, the appointment of lesser judges (governmental structure) after the arrival of Jethro, and the arrival at Sinai and preparations to receive the Law and Covenant.

Note3: Jesus was with his disciples forty days after his Passover. Israel wandered in Sinai for forty years after their Passover.

Note4: It is likely that when Jesus was baptised by John, he fulfilled much of the typology of the Day of Atonement. This by the way leads into the question of whether Jesus died in the middle of the seventieth week of Daniel, or at the end of the seventieth week. I am starting to see that Jesus did not die in the midst of the seventieth week, but that he was baptised in the midst of the seventieth week, thus (from God's perspective) ending all sacrifice and offering for sin, then completing the seventieth week with his death. I admit this is something I am not certain about, and may be a dead end rabbit trail, but I am currently looking into this to see where it goes.

[Esaias]

(another post I made from another thread)

Beyond Pentecost

There are three main Feasts that God ordained for His people, Passover/Unleavened Bread, Weeks/Firstfruits/Pentecost, and Tabernacles/Ingathering. As I stated in another thread, there are four layers of understanding concerning the Feasts of the Lord - the Historical, the Christological, the Experiential, and the Eschatological.

Let's talk about the Experiential side of these three Feasts.

Passover and Unleavened Bread must be experienced, that is, the individual needs a Calvary experience. They need to identify with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Not just through outward motions of repentance and baptism, but personally, mystically, spiritually, by taking up their cross and dying to self, coming alive to the will of God.

Pentecost must also be experienced. The individual needs a Pentecost experience. What does this entail? Obviously it involves the receiving of the promised Holy Ghost, but what does THAT include? It is being endued with power, Holy Ghost power, enabling the believer to be a witness, a genuine witness, for Christ. It is also a purification of the heart (Acts 15:8-9), a sanctifying, cleansing experience of being filled with the Spirit of HOLINESS. In the first Pentecost, in the Old Testament, the people met God, made a covenant with God, and received the Word of God, His LAW. But they couldn't keep it, because they didn't receive it in their inner man. They had His Word ringing in their ears, and written on tables of stone, and in a book, but it wasn't written in their hearts. So God promised to make a New Covenant, where He would write His laws in the inward man, and cause them to walk in His statutes, His ways. This was fulfilled on Pentecost, and is why the true Pentecostal experience is a heart purifying experience.

But the Feasts do not end there. There is yet still more! There is another and deeper layer to our walk with God that we need to recognise and walk in - TABERNACLES.

Tabernacles of course refers back to the time when Israel lived in temporary huts or booths, or "tabernacles", in the wilderness. During this time, God also "lived in a tabernacle" with them. They had not reached their final destination, they had a long journey to go, but God was with them, Tabernacling with them. In the fullness of time, this Feast was fulfilled Christologically when God tabernacled among us in the Son, Jesus Christ. (see John 1:14). So Tabernacles speaks of Christ come in the flesh, it speaks of the Word being made flesh, of God being "with us" truly and personally. But just as Passover and Pentecost have not only a fulfillment in the life and ministry of Christ, but also a fulfillment in the life of each believer, so too does Tabernacles.

How does Tabernacles get fulfilled in the believer? First of all, it should be noted that God tabernacled with Israel and Israel only. There is no tabernacling with God unless one has been delivered from the Egypt of sin and the world by the Passover Lamb, and until one has sealed the covenant at the fiery mount of Pentecost. Only then can one truly tabernacle with God. The Tabernacles experience is only available to those who have first gone through Calvary and on to the Upper Room.

Also, it is not merely an "experience", but a continuous journey. Israel was Tabernacling with God in the wilderness as a matter of daily life. Every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, from the time they became a nation before God until the time they had conquered Canaan. And of course, afterwards, they continued to remember those Tabernacle days by the yearly memorial Feast. The point is, Tabernacles teaches us that our walk with God is not just a series of distinct experiences that we can look back to in our personal history, but an ongoing lifestyle, a present continuous reality that lasts from the time God called us to the time our journey is finished and we have run the race.

But is the Tabernacles reality simply something we should take for granted? NO! We need to actively LIVE in the Tabernacles reality! Where our life is ACTIVELY and ACTUALLY a daily dwelling with God. Not merely where we affirm to ourselves that God is with us, but where He is ACTUALLY MANIFESTING HIS PRESENCE ALL THE TIME. Or to put it another way, where our eyes are opened up to the DAILY AND CONTINUOUS MANIFESTATION OF GOD'S PRESENCE WITH US as we journey to our destination.

What are the benefits of this? What exactly is the difference between a believer walking in Pentecostal reality, and a believer walking in Tabernacles reality? It is the difference between being sanctified, and being ENTIRELY sanctified. It is the difference between reckoned as abiding in Christ, and actually ABIDING (permanently) in Christ. It is the difference between imputation, and impartation, and between impartation, and saturation. It speaks to a permanence. Too many have Pentecostal experiences, and then like a yo-yo they bounce from one extreme to the other. Many fall by the wayside. They got something, but it didn't stick. God came down in tongues of fire and sat upon them, and they spoke in tongues like Joel said they would, but somehow they didn't follow God in their journey, somewhere along the line they got sidetracked. They find themselves powerless, dry, maybe even backslidden. They pine away for the good ole days, and although they believe "God is with us" it is really just something they tell themselves to keep from despairing. What we need is a Tabernacles revelation, our eyes need to be opened to the spiritual reality God has for us. We need to walk in the reality of tabernacling with God on a continuous basis. Not from meeting to meeting, but from breath to breath.

But there is more. Passover and Pentecost were not only PERSONAL experiences, but CORPORATE experiences. The church in the wilderness experienced Passover, and afterwards kept it as a nation, as a body. Same with Pentecost. And under the New Covenant, the whole church entered the Pentecostal reality, corporately, as a Body. This was the time of the first or early harvest. After the first harvest, were many long months preparing for the final harvest. And in the time of that final harvest, was Tabernacles.

Will the church experience a CORPORATE Tabernacles? Will there be a revival, if you will, whereby the Tabernacles reality becomes a present experienced reality for ALL GOD'S PEOPLE, as a BODY? I believe yes, it is possible. I do not believe it is strictly limited to some specific historical period, either in the past or the future, but is something we can access RIGHT NOW BY FAITH. Pentecost and Passover (Calvary) are available right now to whosoever will. SO IS TABERNACLES. There doesn't have to be a delay in our experience between Calvary and the upper Room. A person can, IF THEY HAVE FAITH FOR IT, they can go straight from Calvary to Pentecost in one shot. They can repent, experience remission of sins in Christ, and be filled with the Spirit and have their heart purified by faith all in one meeting. There is no requirement that anyone delay, or have to "come back in a couple weeks or months" to "get the next thing God has to offer." There is no need for "steps" spread out over time. TODAY is the Day!

But this implies that Tabernacles is available Today as well. One can get IT ALL in one shot, IF THEY WILL BUT BELIEVE! All the delay is on our part, it is due to our lack of knowledge, lack of understanding, and lack of believing. This is why many go for days, weeks, months, or years from the time they repent and are baptised until they "finally" get the Holy Ghost. It wasn't because God wasn't ready, rather they themselves weren't ready. So the question is the same that was asked of Paul - why tarriest thou? Why are you waiting? Get up and RECEIVE!

But wait! Someone will say Tabernacles speaks of backslidden Israel wandering in the wilderness! They were commanded to memorialise it as a reminder of their backslidden ancestry! Well, are you backslidden? Are you wandering in a dry desert? Then you need TABERNACLES! But besides that, the Feast of Tabernacles was not given to remind Israel of their backsliding in the wilderness, but rather of their being delivered from Egypt and forged into a nation in the sight of God as His peculiar people (Lev 23:43). Tabernacles thus speaks of God calling and delivering a people for Himself.

Also, God tabernacled with man, and Christ makes us His Body, so we become the Tabernacle of God. This world is a wilderness of sin, and people are lost and dying, and they need the TABERNACLE OF GOD. They need a church that is alive to the present reality of the manifest presence of God! They need God to tabernacle among them so they can be led to the promised land! In the Revelation it says God will tabernacle with us (dwell among us, His tabernacle is among men). This is not merely a backward look to our time in the wilderness of this world, but rather it is a forward look to our final destiny.



Calvary is about conception, eternal life is made possible. Pentecost is about birth, eternal life is birthed in us per Acts 2:38. Tabernacles is about MATURITY, "a perfect man". Tabernacles isn't a one time experience, but an ongoing reality.

[Amanah]

God tabernacled with Israel in the wilderness, is tabernacling with the Israel of God now by the indwelling of His Spirit, and will continue to tabernacle with us when the heavenly city the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven to earth to establish God's government on the earth in the millennial reign.

Law on tablets, law in hearts, law established as God's reign/Kingdom on the earth.

[coksiw]

Amen, Esaias!

People trying to defend their anti-Sabbath position by making the Law look ridiculous, forgetting that the author of the Law is God, and the Law of the Lord is good, making the simple wise, and giving understanding to the heart.

Pharisees brought the “fences” or traditions in form of incorrect interpretation that would supposedly keep you far away from breaking the law.
Pharisees had other issues but it is out of the scope of this thread.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Amen, Esaias!

People trying to defend their anti-Sabbath position by making the Law look ridiculous, forgetting that the author of the Law is God, and the Law of the Lord is good, making the simple wise, and giving understanding to the heart.

Pharisees brought the “fences” or traditions in form of incorrect interpretation that would supposedly keep you far away from breaking the law.
Pharisees had other issues but it is out of the scope of this thread.

I don’t think the law is ridiculous. The law was to lead us to Christ. The law never made any person righteous, but on the contrary made us sinners. Personally I believe that all this getting back to OT law is a departure from the grace of Jesus Christ and brings us back into Condemnation. I believe that the Spirit leads us into righteous living and we read the scriptures as a whole to get application. The NT has letters explicitly to the churches that contain the apostles doctrine and that is what we must continue in.

It is funny that you have been adamant about tithing being a false teaching, but sabbath observance is for us today. How do you distinguish which laws are applicable and which are not, without being inconsistent?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I don’t think the law is ridiculous. The law was to lead us to Christ. The law never made any person righteous, but on the contrary made us sinners. Personally I believe that all this getting back to OT law is a departure from the grace of Jesus Christ and brings us back into Condemnation. I believe that the Spirit leads us into righteous living and we read the scriptures as a whole to get application. The NT has letters explicitly to the churches that contain the apostles doctrine and that is what we must continue in.

It is funny that you have been adamant about tithing being a false teaching, but sabbath observance is for us today. How do you distinguish which laws are applicable and which are not, without being inconsistent?

Well, as I said, I am not a Sabbath keeper, but I disagree with the reasoning you and Originalist use to defend your position.

The fact that it is strange to you that I esteem the OT at the level you don’t and yet I have a strong position against modern tithing shows how confused you are.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Well, as I said, I am not a Sabbath keeper, but I disagree with the reasoning you and Originalist use to defend your position.

The fact that it is strange to you that I esteem the OT at the level you don’t and yet I have a strong position against modern tithing shows how confused you are.

You are saying you are not a sabbath keeper, but yet contending for the point. If I believed that we are still commanded to keep the feasts and sabbaths, I would do my best to observe them, but many NT epistles explain in depth that we are not under the law. If we where still keeping the laws of the old covenant we would also have to observ sabbatical years as well. Also we would be in sin to collect interest from money loaned because the old covenant forbid usury. I can probably demonstrate a lot scenario’s that would present problems to our modern lifestyles.

If people want to consecrate their entire Saturdays to resting and worship there is not a thing wrong with that, but I am not pagan because I disagree about the necessity of that. I personally believe that you are casting a stumbling block to the people you are discipling when you go telling them they must refrain from work every Saturday and in keeping Jewish feast days.