IAUA End Time Ministry
Preparing for the End of Time
The Lord is Coming! Are you ready?
|
|
IAUA End Time Ministry |
|
Preparing for the End of Time | |
|
The Lord is Coming! Are you ready? | |
| Home / Archives | |
|
Dear Brothers and Sisters in
IAUA
(ee-ah-oo-ah) our Father,
Greetings on this day of preparation for the weekly Sabbath. I pray this newsletter finds you in good health and happy in the service of IAUA. This is the 15th day of the 8th month of God's Sacred Calendar in the estimated year 6015 Anno Mundi. It is 21 weeks and 1 day until the new year begins with the Spring Sabbaths. Unleavened Bread Sabbath begins the evening of the 15th day of the 1st month (Sabbath, April 7th on the 2012 Gregorian Calendar, beginning sunset on Friday, April 6th). An amazing thing occurs in the Gregorian Calendar years of both 2011 and 2012. Those who follow the Millerite Calendar and the Jewish Calendar agree with what my research, and many others, has determined for the Gregorian Calendar dates of God's Sacred Calendar! _____ There was an interesting discussion on the "Adventists Linked" group at LinkedIn.com about Halloween which began to include Easter and Christmas also. An excerpt of the discussion between another participant and myself about when Easter began that led to a private discussion of the relationship between Leviticus and the Gospel. A participant (an Adventist Pastor) said: It would be nice if we had more of the actual dialogue that went on when the issue was first debated in the second century - and I don't want to speculate too much on what was said, or what motivated those saying it, since I don't think we really know as much as I wish we did. I don't know that coordinating with pagan festivals was what was driving the conversation in Rome at that time - particularly when Christians (like Polycarp) were being martyred for their refusal to enter into pagan worship (might have been more the case several hundreds of years later). I suspect the conversation was more nuanced and complicated than we can reconstruct at this point. That's just my hunch. If you are someone who still finds the festivals and feasts described in the Old Testament as something that should still be observed by Christians today, then of course what Polycarp and Dave (don't know what Dave actually thinks about that) would argue for would carry a lot of weight. If those things were not a primary consideration, you might opt for a way of celebration that fit more within a weekly cycle. There are probably lots of ways the Devil could influence the conversation on both sides of the issue - I just wonder how much of an issue it needs to continue to be, since, I suspect, most of us, are neither actively participating either in the OT feast cycles or pagan worship cycles. There are of course things that have more eternal significance (Sabbath, etc.), so this is not the "nothing really matters" perspective that some have suggested in regard to God setting aside time for special purposes. I just don't want to over-read what happened then, or what happens now. While it is an interesting conversation, detecting the presence of the remnants of pagan feast cycles in current culture is not my most pressing concern (maybe like Lynda being a bit more centrist by nature as well - I think). It is an interesting conversation though :-) _____ I wrote: Those who are interested in reading more about the "Easter Controversy" need look no further than the SDA Bible Commentary Vol 9 as I recall. Alphabetical topic order. Those who are interested in truly following the "Sabbath" need look no further than to carefully consider Leviticus 23 where God speaks of eight "Sabbaths" all observed the same way. He first speaks of the weekly Sabbath then He speaks of seven yearly?! Sabbaths. Don't be confused by some English translations. The word feasts and the word seasons are both more accurately translated "appointed times". Consult any Hebrew dictionary to verify this statement. A dictionary is readily available in eSword which is available as a free download. Since God has specified the observances He wants to be followed and the day, how would He feel about us ignoring them and choosing a different day and reason? Yes! the weekly Sabbath is on the seventh day and not the first day of the week. The yearly Sabbaths are also on a specified day of the month (not week). I choose to do exactly what God specifies and when He specifies, which includes all His appointed times (feasts). _____ They responded: As for Leviticus, Frank, I think I better understand where you are coming from now, and appreciate your desire to live in harmony with scripture - and that you are finding meaning in keeping the other feast days as well. As you probably know, however, Leviticus would be a challenging book to use as a template for how we are to go about things. I suspect that there may be a number of practices described there, quite specifically, that you probably would not engage in now for all kinds of reasons. In the case of the Sabbath, however, Leviticus is probably not the first thing I would appeal to in establishing it's on-going validity, although it is affirmed there. Interesting conversation. _____ I wrote: I chose Leviticus specifically in relation to the current conversation because it describes God's idea of what we should be observing as holidays (holy days) instead of those mixed with pagan origins. I do use Leviticus as an absolute template for my life as commanded by God. Obviously, as God has notified us in advance when and why the animal sacrifices would end, I do not practice those. I will continue this discussion with you privately about what else you think I would not wish to do. I am quite curious. _____ They responded privately: I was thinking mostly in terms of things like restrictions on women following child birth or other times of purification that restricted them from participating in gatherings, how we might treat some diseases, some interesting laws from chapter 19 regarding two kinds of fabric in the same clothing, or cutting the hair on the side of your head, etc. There are certain laws about how slave girls are to be treated, not to mention the stoning of people for various offenses. Lot's of good and helpful stuff in Leviticus to be sure, but also some things on which we have changed or moderated our position over time. Somewhere in the midst of that operates a hermeneutic that guides us selecting what is still binding and what is not. Not everything here carries over or, it seems to me, has ongoing significance. That is, essentially what I was thinking about. _____ I wrote: Thank you for replying. I am pleased to see you are well versed in what Leviticus has to say. I am continually pondering and evaluating God's direction in Leviticus to understand how to follow what God says. It is not an easy task. I will not try to describe every detail of my current efforts to follow God's guiding but here are some examples of the things you mention. Stoning and other judgments are only appropriate in consensus of a nation of people being led and fully following God. Specifically, judgment and punishment are now limited by civil authority. It is highly instructive to note the severity God applies to specific sins and to ponder the reasons. I avoid clothing which mixes animal hairs and plant fibers. This is actually a rare problem. I have no idea why this is important but I have read interesting studies on the effects of various fibers in clothing. I have pondered how this applies to synthetic fibers with no particular conclusion. I actually prefer to avoid these anyway. I do not ever apply a razor to my skin (no shaver of any sort) and I cringe when being shaved for medical reasons but I remind myself Leviticus appears to describe it as a necessary medical procedure under certain circumstances. I do trim my hair for neatness and I am appalled by fanatic people who go to the extreme of not trimming their hair or usually only their beard. My understanding is not based only on logic or rationalization but on a sincere attempt to apply the many guiding principles the Bible gives. The basic idea is that I do not ever believe I can simply choose to decide something is not binding. I study to attempt to discern the meaning and apply it as the Holy Spirit leads me to understanding. I am relieved of concern or stress in this process by taking careful note of God's grace and His many clear examples of understanding and forgiveness of His obedient but failure prone and confused children. I could go into greater detail but this is not a Bible study. :-) _____ They responded: Sounds like you have quite a lot of thinking about this! I guess one of the questions I would have is what you do with the teaching of Jesus in the sermon on the mount, where He seems to be inviting people, and least in some cases, to move beyond the letter of the law to the intent of the law. More specifically, when He says, you have heard it said, and eye for and eye . . .etc. . . . but I say to you do not go down this road (paraphrasing here). It appears to me that Jesus is inviting people to understand the intent and spirit of the law, in context, and then apply that to the situation they are in. Thus, the eye for and eye law which may have originally been intended to moderate or restrain people's desire to get revenge in the name of justice in its original setting, at the time of Jesus becomes, "get out of the revenge business." Since we can't really get away from interpreting what we read in some manner or another, I think that taking God's Word seriously, also involves taking the context in which it is spoken seriously, so that we don't wind up applying it incorrectly to situations in which the context has changed. Just at thought. Thanks for taking time to explain your thinking further! _____ I wrote: To move beyond the letter of the law does not mean abandoning the letter but to also consider the intent. In the context of the same teaching you mention IAUShUO also says:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Context amplifies meaning and understanding, it does not change it. Our Saviour also said: John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. Perhaps you are aware that the definition of the Greek word translated as commandments in both of these verses prominently identifies the Law of Moses? Many people stick the qualifier "Ten" in front of the English word (consciously or sub-consciously) to limit their responsibility. May I offer a paraphrase of Matthew 5:19? Whoever intentionally ignores the smallest part of the Law of Moses and teaches this to others, will be unwelcome in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever obeys and teaches the Law of Moses, will be most welcome in the kingdom of heaven. This is reinforced by this quote of the voice of God directed to those in the last days. Mal 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Perhaps you may be interested to know I have a personal ministry website, books, devotional newsletter and other materials. www.IAUA.name _____ They responded: But that is precisely the issue. Jesus did indeed change the "letter" in order to help people get at the intent. When the letter does not adequately expresses the intent in a new context, the wording may need to be changed. Where the difference lies is in understanding what Jesus was saying when He makes reference to the "letter" here, and the nuance He intended. This is still fully consistent with the passage you quote from Matthew, because the point is what God is actually communicating, not the language used to communicate it. "Eye for and eye" is simply not the same as "turn the other cheek." When the intent is understood, however, that of putting limits on revenge taking, they become the same, but the language certainly changed once the language itself became a barrier to what God was trying communicate through it. What restraining revenge looks like in one situation may be different than what it looks like in another when people have learned a few more things. (multiple wives to just having one might be one example of how things change as we move into the new testament era). Context does amplify meaning, when the full context is understood. Context can also obscure it when it is not fully understood. I suspect, though, that we have a difference in perspective that may keep us in perpetual circular conversation here - but I do appreciate your willingness to share yours. _____ I wrote: I think you are correct. We have a difference in perspective. _____ I hope you can recognize the humanistic, philosophical background of what the pastor is saying. The concepts of uncertainty, cultural change, private interpretation, and simple rejection of absolute truth appear repeatedly as recognizable signs of humanistic and philosophical thinking. These concepts do not apply to Biblical thinking. There is uncertainty but we study to become certain. There is cultural change but we follow God's Word, not culture. We study to know absolute truth and remove cultural influences. What is your perspective on obedience to God's Word? Is God's Word unchanging or changeable? I pray we may all continue to seek love, peace, and unity in truth preparing for the soon coming of IAUShUO (ee-ah-oo-shoo-oh) Messiah, the Son of God.
Frank T. Clark
Next: 2011-11-13 Leviticus and the Gospel II |
|
Revised 2011-11-13 |