GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof  (Read 3051 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BereanDAD2003

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Manna: 1
    • View Profile
The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« on: December 23, 2009, 02:40:10 PM »
I've found it interesting to consider the New Testament record as it considers the Old Testament institution of the Passover.

The Old Testament authorizes that the Passover consist of:

1. Roasted Lamb
2. Bitter Herbs
3. Unleavened Bread

By what principle of authority is wine added to the Passover meal. And why is the practice seen as condoned by God?
« Last Edit: October 10, 2010, 06:02:30 PM by BereanDAD2003 »

Christian Forums and Message Board

The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« on: December 23, 2009, 02:40:10 PM »

Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2009, 03:37:15 PM »
I've found it interesting to consider the New Testament record as it considers the Old Testament institution of the Passover.

The Old Testament authorizes that the Passover consist of:

1. Roasted Lamb
2. Bitter Herbs
3. Unleavened Bread

That's it! Period. End of Story.

By the time one gets to the New Testament people have added a cup (if you read Luke, at least TWO cups) of wine to the Passover.

By what principle of authority is wine added to the Passover meal. And why is the practice seen as condoned by God?

Danny Andre' Dixon

P.S.: Obviously the answer to this question impacts, in principle, other presumed doctrines for the New Testament Church.


Lively:  Well, if we look at Abraham we can see our pattern..  and I really do not need to go find in the OT law of Moses where wine was used... if I see they had a cup and fruit of the vine at the passover, and such is shown as acceptable, it was then acceptable...  for it to be not acceptable... it would have to be by necessity spoken against...


Gen 14:18  And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.


While the OT law given by Moses speaks of what they are to eat... it appears silent on what is to be drank if anything...  but Abraham's example speaks volumes...  Now I will wait to see where you take this... but I am sure it will be to the halls of CENIS...
When a man or woman is honestly mistaken and hears the truth,
they will either quit being mistaken, or they will cease to be honest.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2009, 03:37:15 PM »

Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2009, 06:46:59 PM »



Lively:  Well, if we look at Abraham we can see our pattern..  and I really do not need to go find in the OT law of Moses where wine was used... if I see they had a cup and fruit of the vine at the passover, and such is shown as acceptable, it was then acceptable...  for it to be not acceptable... it would have to be by necessity spoken against...


Gen 14:18  And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.


While the OT law given by Moses speaks of what they are to eat... it appears silent on what is to be drank if anything...  but Abraham's example speaks volumes...  Now I will wait to see where you take this... but I am sure it will be to the halls of CENIS...


Lively:

There's no need to take it anywhere. You have created authority on the basis of some sort of Abrahamic incident that you see as an example. This is clearly a matter of opinion at the best or speculation at the worst.


I guess I can wait for a better answer to respond to.

Peace.

Danny Andre'


Lively:  I am not creating authority for it from Abraham... I am simply showing that Abraham dd partake of the bread and wine... given to him by the priest...  if its a model, then its a model...  I am not concerned of the OT authority for passover, since it is not stated to keep in the NT... Christ is our passover and we do have authority for our partaking of the body and blood of the Lord...  now one can go on about what was to be taken at the passover and what is authorized and what is not spoken of...  so a lack of authority for... but such makes no difference to us today since it is OT covenant law... to which we are not bound to...


I also have a question for you... where is it you see anyone drinking wine at the passover?  I looked and could not find it... if you are speaking of the NT... when Jesus kept the passover... it does not state anything they drank was wine in connection to the passover itself...  I do see Jesus when instituting the LS taking a cup with fruit of the vine.. not wine, and instituting the LS...  I do not find in the NT gospels where Jesus or any of the disciples drank wine, or anything for the passover...  I would think you need to prove such did happen before we just pull a straw man out to slay.
When a man or woman is honestly mistaken and hears the truth,
they will either quit being mistaken, or they will cease to be honest.

larry2

  • Guest
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2009, 10:20:38 PM »

Lively:  I am not creating authority for it from Abraham... I am simply showing that Abraham dd partake of the bread and wine... given to him by the priest... 


Not to belabor some point probably irrelevant to your thought and maybe I'm missing something, but are you just assuming that Abraham drank wine because Melchizedek brought it?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2009, 10:20:38 PM »

larry2

  • Guest
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2009, 12:04:03 AM »

Dear Danny, any of what you wrote is probably feasible, but as you say, many times scripture is silent on these things and I try to think of how tradition may have played a part in their ceremonies as mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 3:6: the tradition which he received of us. Jesus did turn water into wine which I do not believe was grape juice to satisfy tradition. I was under the impression you were drawing away from authority of the "Old" and pursuing reason for the "New."

There is much in the Old Testament to me unsaid but become practical by later revelation such as with Abel knowing to offer the firstlings of his flock as a sin offering. How did he know to do that? We later know that without blood there is no remission, so he had to be made aware of it.

We also know that things that were done in the Old Testament were types and shadows, or examples of things in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians 10:11  Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Like Colossians 2:17, different observances were a shadow of things to come. 

My thoughts.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2009, 12:04:03 AM »



Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2009, 12:50:50 AM »
Lively:  I am not creating authority for it from Abraham... I am simply showing that Abraham dd partake of the bread and wine... given to him by the priest...  if its a model, then its a model...  I am not concerned of the OT authority for passover, since it is not stated to keep in the NT... Christ is our passover and we do have authority for our partaking of the body and blood of the Lord...  now one can go on about what was to be taken at the passover and what is authorized and what is not spoken of...  so a lack of authority for... but such makes no difference to us today since it is OT covenant law... to which we are not bound to...

I also have a question for you... where is it you see anyone drinking wine at the passover?  I looked and could not find it... if you are speaking of the NT... when Jesus kept the passover... it does not state anything they drank was wine in connection to the passover itself...  I do see Jesus when instituting the LS taking a cup with fruit of the vine.. . not wine, and instituting the LS...  I do not find in the NT gospels where Jesus or any of the disciples drank wine, or anything for the passover...  I would think you need to prove such did happen before we just pull a straw man out to slay.


Danny Response: Historically, it is known that by the time of the NT there were four or five cups (depending on the Rabbinic source) used at the Passover meal. The totality of known history is not found in the NT. You can read the details of the historical fact of what went on at a Passover in Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/book510.htm).

Luke’s account of Jesus’ Passover meal with his disciples mentions TWO of these cups. Luke seems to mention the first at Luke 22:17, then in verse 20 there is ANOTHER cup mentioned, which is the one he decides to use in instituting the Lord's Supper. (Whether or not it was wine or simple grape juice is irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make. A CUP of something was added to the Passover. Historically speaking, it was sometimes wine that had been diluted with water, but again the point is irrelevant. I suspect that it is important to you because we just couldn’t have anyone drinking alcoholic wine during the Lord’s Supper, which has the origin of its elements in the Passover. )

My point is not to discuss the institution of the Lord's Supper, but to address the question of authority as it is biblically outlined. There is no authority in Scripture for the wine of the Passover. Abraham and Melchizedek have nothing to do with the Levitical institution of the Passover. What I am trying to point out is that there was no material abrogation of the Passover by arbitrarily adding an element to the Passover that was not authorized, despite the fact that they (the Jews were not supposed to add anything to what was written or take away from anything that was written).

In Churches of Christ there is the principle of speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where it is silent. I've grown up in the church.  I was well indoctrinated in the argumentation. The fact is, however, that the reasoning breaks down at something as simple as an OT institution. And despite the fact that it breaks down, there is an overly strict application to other aspects of worship, like, for instance Instrumental Music. There is about as much reason to fear adding instrumental music to singing as there is to add a cup to the Passover. Zero reason. Otherwise everyone down through history sinned when they added a cup to the Passover—including Jesus himself. Jesus didn’t sin. Therefore adding the cup was not a sin.

Apply the principle otherly; still there is no sin.

Danny Andre' Dixon






Lively:  The only cup being described in Luke is the cup for the communion... that is it... both the verses given are speaking of the same cup...


Luk 22:17  And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:


Luk 22:20  Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
When a man or woman is honestly mistaken and hears the truth,
they will either quit being mistaken, or they will cease to be honest.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2009, 02:39:19 PM »
Gen 14:18  And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Pretty simple: a common food was BREAD and a common DRINK was wine: in this case probably fermented.  However, in the Greek world a person who drank unmixxed wine was called a tippler or winebibber: even mixed with 3 parts water made one a tippler.

Much more simple, the Passover observed by the Jews was the Babylonian "must get drunk on wine" ceremony. If you remember, Esther turned the trick.

The Jews then and now followed the Babylonian scholars: there is no WINE connected with the Passover and a "drink offering' was POURED out at the altar because it was leavened.

The Lord's Supper was after that supper during the "feast of UNleavened bread" and was a visual repudiation of the Babylonianism as were others having to do with water drawing and the festival of Lights: Christ speaks the living water (for which it is criminal to charge for Isa 55 if you dilute it with your own wine) and He WAS the Passover. Therefore, we observe the Lord's Supper and show forth (an evangelism word) HIS DEATH.

If the FRUIT OF THE VINE was left over from the Babylonian Passover (Jesus didn't do it), it was and is SEOR and the task of each FAMILY was to search the house and remove any trace of leaven.

Babylonianism of the Jews anticipated that a fifth cup of UNFERMENTED Juice would be at a place reserved for John the Baptist.  They believed that Psalm 137 would be sung about 'hanging up harps' as another SIGN that the forerunner HAD announced Messiah.

Another SIGN was the SOP: Sop has the same root meaning as PSALLO and we know that:

The Alarm or Triumph over was outlawed for the Church of Christ in the wilderness which continued to the time of Christ.

The alarm outlawed "vocal and instrumental rejoicing" and also "elevated forms of speaking." Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites by naming such rhetoricians, singers and instrument players. John in Revelation 18 names them SORCERERS.

Psalm 41 promises that JUDAS would not triumph over or alarm Jelsus: this always included wind instruments.

We know that the Judas Bag was always attached to flute case.

Therefore, the SOP (Psallo) was a SIGN for Satan to ENTER into Judas and he did the honorable thing.  The Book of Enoch also speaks of Satan entering into the youth when they formed mixed-sex choirs, used musical instruments (brought by Lucifer the singing and harp playing prostitute) in the garden of Eden.  Even David wanted to AWAKEN his lyre so he could awaken the dawn.

Men like Judas Sicarri were noted for getting tipsy, going naked like David and blowing their wind instruments. They were a MARK in any crowd of someone sent to assinate or betray a person.

So, The Lord's Supper was part of UNLEAVENED BREAD and the fruit of the vine was pointedly a repudiation of the Jewish Passover by the CLERGY of intentionally getting drunk.

Jesus SPOKE or ACTED parables and told the Apostles that truth had been hidden in parables from the foundation of the world.  Isaiah 48 makes it clear that hiding the TRUTH IN PLAIN SIGHT was the best way to trip up those who, in Paul's words, corrupted the Word meaning "to sell learining at retail" and also meaning "adultery."

The Lord's Supper is built upon the specific teaching of the LORD to remember or preach his DEATH.  Using Bread and the Fruit of the Vine is so self-evident if you eat that it still trips up the unwashed.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2009, 09:38:34 PM »
Your premise is false and therefore your conclusions are false.  The Feast of Unleavened Bread merged with Passover and you WILL remember that Passover was a FAMILY practice whereas the Church of Christ in the wilderness was a gathering (Qahal, synagogue) or School (only) of the Word (only.)  That never changed and you are even outlawed from speaking your own words on the REST day which is PAUO in Greek.

The Lord's Supper connected the bread to Jesus' flesh and the "fruit of the VINE" to His blood.
The observance was to show forth or preach as an evangelizing act.
The fact that the institution came AFTER passover does not mean that Jesus borrowed anything from the Babylonian Passover which is the origin of real WINE. Esther refused to indulge.

The FLESH and BLOOD were used to fool the clergy but Jesus explained that it was His WORD which would be the food and drink.  If you remember Isaiah 55 Christ used the WATER symbol to show that we should neve pay for it.

If something entirely out of the scope of the written and authorized action can be added to an act of worship or God-ordained traditional traditions of remembrance, does this not suggest the prerogative to add something like instruments to singing?

Singing and instruments both have had a biblical history of being acceptable to God.


No, because you missed WHAT IS AN EKKLESIA OR SYNAGOGUE?  The REST day was to quarantine the spiritual people FROM worship rituals.  They were to REST, READ AND DISCUSS or rehearse the Word of God: that is called the Holy Convocation. The synagogue ran parallel to the curse of the sacrificial system devoted to the worship of the starry host BECAUSE of musical idolatry at Mount Sinai.

If you begin with Genesis you will discover that the SERPENT was called a MUSICAL ENCHANTER(ess) in that world.  Christ in Isaiah and Ezekiel defines Lucifer as the "singing and harp playing prostitute."

Then you can jump over the TRUCK LOAD of negative material and land on Revelation 17 which defines the rise of the Babylon mother of harlots.  In Revelation 18 she uses the lusted after "fruit" (same as in Amos) as speakers, singers and instrument players.  John called them SORCERERS who HAD deceived the whole world.

Grasp one fact and the lust to sow discord will go away: The ekklesia or synagogue are WORD ONLY assemblies. There was no praise service in the synagogue (Edersheim) based on DIRECT COMMAND, universal examples and inferences necessary IF you grasp that this is the time when Jesus speaks when the elders "teach that which has been taught."

Even if you could hallucinate SINGING--which was not imposed until the year 373--Romans 15 which has the same meaning as the NOT musical SPEAKING assemblies, insists that you use THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN using one MIND and one MOUTH to teach and comfort WITH SCRIPTURE.

Why would anyone WANT to add music and MUSICIANS to suck up all of the ATTENTION (worship) during the School (only) of the Word (only).  The Campbells called church "a school of Christ" and worship as "reading and musing the Word of God."

Singing and instruments both have had a biblical history of being acceptable to God.

The Levites were an old Egyptian cult dedicted to Molech and the burning of infants: that continued off and in Jerusalem.  The Levites were under the king and commanders of the army and the not-commanded temple was the King's shrine.  Civilians were always outside of the gates when the horrors of the sacrificial system took place to satisfy a BLOOD and FLESH.  Christ who wrote the SPIRITUAL thread and denounced the King's Scribes and said that GOD DID NOT COMMAND the Burnt offerings or sacrifices when they came out of Egypt. Jesus even called the Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites by pointing to Isaiah and Ezekiel and named names: rhetoricians, singers and instrument players.

We are warned about the "lying pen of the Scribes" when they write the Civil-Military-Clergy side.

I agree, as most older RM people agreed, that there is ONE GOD and no trinity of "three equal persons or people."

No classical trinitarian every defined the trinity as in the latter day Lipscomb tritheism.  Being John literate the originators of the word explained:

Father (within Son) thinks
Spirit (breath) breaths invisible information.
Son (Word) articulates the information

I think that any person who defined the Godhead as three people about my size but a bit smarter would probably be burned. Assuredly, knowing Calvin's definition I am pretty sure he would light the wood.

I will read your papers.  But, no musicators in the School of the Bible. That leaves you 167 hours a week to sing, play and dance with the girls like David--naked says his wife.




Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2009, 09:55:16 PM »
Lively: 
     The only cup being described in Luke is the cup for the communion... that is it... both the verses given are speaking of the same cup...
     Luk 22:17  And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
     Luk 22:20  Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.


A number of commentaries, in looking at the history and wording of the Luke account see more than one cup described, with Jesus instituting the Lord's Supper possibly with the third cup. Even so that's not my main point. Actually it's not really significant at all. The issue is not about the Lord's Supper so much as it is about the Passover. The Lord's Supper only illustrates that cups had been added to the Passover without authorization by the time of Jesus.

Historical record (Try Edersheim's Temple, chapters 11-12, http://philologos.org/__eb-ttms/temple11.htm) indicates that it was Rabbinic tradition that served as the origin of the FOUR or FIVE cups used at the Passover. Jesus made it clear time and again in his encounters with the Pharisees that there is ZERO authority in traditions. Actions that are clearly identifiable as inspired or apostolic traditions and stated as such are binding.

The cups were added to the Passover on the basis of man-made tradition. That is my primary point. You seem to think that I want to make some observation about the origin of the Lord's Supper. Jesus instituted his supper and as often as we partake of it we proclaim his death until he comes again. So that's settled, okay. While the Passover cups were PERMITTED they were not BINDING. And of course it is interesting that Jesus was willing to use a non-binding aspect of the Passover and incorporate it (one of the four cups) as a binding element in the Lord's Supper.

The significant  point at issue is still the question of authority for adding one, two, three, four, or five (take your pick) to the Passover meal which only authorizes unleavened bread, fruit of the vine, and bitter herbs. There is no authority to have something there to wash it down; although the contents of the cup could have halped that, though it was certainly not necessary (Any of us can eat any number of meals without any liquid to help the meal along.).

If something entirely out of the scope of the written and authorized action can be added to an act of worship or God-ordained traditional traditions of remembrance, does this not suggest the prerogative to add something like instruments to singing?

Singing and instruments both have had a biblical history of being acceptable to God.

To summarize:

1.  Some things NOT commanded MAY be added.

2.  Silence is not sufficient to prohibit in and of itself.

Tour Guide to the Halls of Cenis





Lively:  Commentaries are just someones opinion...  nothing in the scripture shows it to be anything but the same cup...
When a man or woman is honestly mistaken and hears the truth,
they will either quit being mistaken, or they will cease to be honest.

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 716
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2009, 12:16:33 AM »
And of course The Feast of Purim was added by the Jews in exile, to the feast days God commanded Israel to keep. Condemn that addition and you condemn a whole book of the OT.

The case of Nadab and Abihu does perhaps teach the existence of a "law of silence" in regard to priests offering sacrifices of attonement, but with regard to other aspects of commanded worship, the Bible teaches that no such law ever exited.
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say \"No\" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age

Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2009, 12:36:53 AM »
And of course The Feast of Purim was added by the Jews in exile, to the feast days God commanded Israel to keep. Condemn that addition and you condemn a whole book of the OT.

The case of Nadab and Abihu does perhaps teach the existence of a "law of silence" in regard to priests offering sacrifices of attonement, but with regard to other aspects of commanded worship, the Bible teaches that no such law ever exited.


Lively:  and yet, Jesus kept the feast of Purim, did he not?
When a man or woman is honestly mistaken and hears the truth,
they will either quit being mistaken, or they will cease to be honest.

Offline DCR

  • Global Moderator
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11300
  • Manna: 432
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2009, 08:17:01 AM »
And of course The Feast of Purim was added by the Jews in exile, to the feast days God commanded Israel to keep. Condemn that addition and you condemn a whole book of the OT.

The case of Nadab and Abihu does perhaps teach the existence of a "law of silence" in regard to priests offering sacrifices of attonement, but with regard to other aspects of commanded worship, the Bible teaches that no such law ever exited.


Lively:  and yet, Jesus kept the feast of Purim, did he not?

...which actually makes Norton's point.

Jesus allowed observance of an addition that was not part of the Law of Moses.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2009, 10:03:50 AM »
No one knows what the feast was and Jesus didn't go up to observe it. For instance, Jesus went to the Feast of Tabernacles but AVOIDED the opening days which was a great talent show: the brothers of Jesus was sure he could perform some tricks and win a prize.  Probably even get on the lecture circuit.

Willy, why do you rob banks? Because that's where the money is.
Simple! Jesus went up to Jerusalem and NOT to observe anything but to CONFRONT the Jews.

Jn 5:1 After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

Jn 5:2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

Jn 5:3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.

Jn 5:4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

Jn 5:5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.

JESUS IN FACT TAUGHT OR ACTED PARABLES AGAINST ALL OF THE BABYLONIAN ACCRETIONS INCLUDING THEIR PASSOVER.

Jn 5:6 When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?

Jn 5:7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

Jn 5:8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.

Jn 5:9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.

If you want to walk in the steps of Jesus you WILL offend most religionism and maybe get yourself killed.

blituri

  • Guest
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2009, 10:39:06 AM »
Remembering that God turned the tribe of Levi over to worship the starry host at Mount Sinai.
And remembering that Christ defined the Church of Christ (synagogue) in the wilderness for the civillians.

We are aware that the SPIRITUAL thread through Christ is defined by the Prophets and Apostles.

Amos 8:3 And the songs of the temple shall be howlings [praise singing] in that day, saith the Lord GOD: there shall be many dead bodies in every place; they shall cast them forth with silence.

Amos 8:10 And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day.

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

Christ brought us the FREE Water of the word (no more water drawing festival)
And He brought us spiritual LIGHT (no more festivals of light)
And HE is our passover (He did not observe the Babylonian passover)

Hosea 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

4Q166 (4QpHosa) Dead Sea Scrolls, (Plus, pg. 276-7 Vermes)

http://www.piney.com/hosea.html

(13) AND I SHALL PUT AN END TO ALL HER JOY, [HER] PIL[GRIMAGE,] HER [NEW] MOON, AND HER SABBATH, AND ALL HER FEASTS.

    The interpretation of it is that they make [the fe]asts go according to the
           appointed times of the nation.
    And [all] [joy] has been turned for them into mourning. 

"I will put an end to her rejoicing, her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths, and all her festivals (Hosea ii,11).

    "Interpreted, this means that they have rejected the ruling of the law,
    and have followed the festivals of the nations.

    But their rejoicing shall come to an end and shall be changed into mourning.

I will ravage her vines and her fig trees, of which she said, 'They are my wage which my lovers have given me'. I wall make them a thicked and the will beasts shall eat them...ii, 12

But they, like Adam, have broken the Covenant (vi, 7)

    Its interpretation... they have forsaken God and walked according to the decrees of the Gentiles....

Hosea 2:12 And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees,
        whereof she hath said, These are my rewards that my lovers have given me:
        and I will make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall eat them.

Hosea 2:13 And I will visit upon her the days of Baalim,
        wherein she burned incense to them, and she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels,
        and she went after her lovers, and forgat me, saith the Lord.


"Elements of ritual and mythology were taken over from Canaanite religion and inocrporated into the worship of Yahweh. Former Canaanite sanctuaries, like Bethel, Shechem, and perhaps Gilgal, were rededicated to Yahweh, and the Canaanite agricultural calendar was adopted for the timing of the pilgrimage festivals. Parents began naming their children after Baal, apparently with no thought of abandoning Yahweh.... As late as the eighth century B.C., Israelites--according to the prophet Hosea—actually addressed Yahweh as 'Baal," and by worhipping him according to the rituals of Baal sought the blessing of fertility (Hos. 2) At the popular level this syncretism—that is, the fusion of different religious forms and view--went on to some degree from the time Israel first set foot on Canaanite." (Anderson, Bernhard W., Understanding the Old Testament, 3rd, Prentice-Hall, p, p. 145).

Whatever they called their "gods" God abandoned them to worship the STARRY HOST.

Gal. 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God,
      ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
Gal. 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God,
      how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements,
      whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Gal. 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Gal. 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

The FALL FROM GRACE at Mount Sinai was caused by musical idolatry: SO watch people who lust to find VIOLATIONS of the law always with the INTENTION of adding INSTRUMENTS. What they CONFESS is that "instruments are sin but GRACE GONNA COVER US."

The Law of Moses to legislate for the LAWLESS prescribed three annual festivals: these were CAMPS only for the MUSTER AGE MALES.  It had NO redeeming value.

However, not even when God gave them a FIREY LAW to protect the weak from the strong (Civil-Military-Priestly class), there was NOTHING similar to MUSIC. And not even after exposure to Babylon did the Jews ever hallucinate festivals with or without music.

Offline Livelysword

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Manna: 16
    • View Profile
Re: The Origin of the Passover and Implications Thereof
« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2009, 04:53:42 PM »
And of course The Feast of Purim was added by the Jews in exile, to the feast days God commanded Israel to keep. Condemn that addition and you condemn a whole book of the OT.

The case of Nadab and Abihu does perhaps teach the existence of a "law of silence" in regard to priests offering sacrifices of attonement, but with regard to other aspects of commanded worship, the Bible teaches that no such law ever exited.


Lively:  and yet, Jesus kept the feast of Purim, did he not?

...which actually makes Norton's point.

Jesus allowed observance of an addition that was not part of the Law of Moses.


Lively: The point being is, would Jesus keep something which was not to be kept?  While the Lord may have given certain feasts on certain days... such does not mean that man may not have a feast of his choosing some other day...  I do not see thanksgiving being a feast of the Lord in the NT teachings, yet I see all brethren in the US celebrating it... it is a national holiday... not a holy day of the Lord...  now, if one stated that all must keep it as a commandment from the Lord, then I think we would have a problem with such a teaching...
When a man or woman is honestly mistaken and hears the truth,
they will either quit being mistaken, or they will cease to be honest.