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-uh-oo-uh) 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 the Lord. This is the 5th day of the 2nd month of God's Sacred Calendar in the estimated year 6013 Anno Mundi. It is 4 weeks and 1 day until Pentecost Sabbath begins with the evening of the 6th day of the 3rd month (Sunday, May 31 on the 2009 Gregorian calendar, beginning sunset on Saturday, May 30). This year, those who follow the Millerite Calendar determination agree with my understanding of the Gregorian Calendar dates for God's Sacred Calendar. The dates on the apostate Jewish Calendar are two days earlier in the spring and one day early in the fall. It is also interesting to note this year, the Catholic observance of Pentecost Sunday falls on the same day as the true Pentecost. This is because the date of Easter and Pentecost is an apostasy based on the date of Passover but moved to the next Sunday. When the time of Passover falls on a Friday evening, as it did when Messiah was sacrificed, the true date for Wave Sheaf and Pentecost will match the date for the Catholic Easter and Pentecost. Even some who believe in the Law of Moses mistakenly believe Wave Sheaf is always on a Sunday after the weekly Sabbath instead of the day after the yearly Sabbath. This causes them to unintentionally add support to Easter because they think it is the day of Wave Sheaf. _____ I have been working on some thoughts about God's Law as the "Law of Love" which I had been planning to share this week. However a reader responded to the previous newsletter with some interesting thoughts. I am not going to try to include the entire letter but will excerpt some complete paragraphs. There were several ideas discussed so I will separate them into sections. Each section repeats the idea from the previous newsletter with the reader comment and my response. The reader comment for each idea is a complete transcript of what was said on that topic. I will respect the person's privacy by not naming them but it will be helpful to understand their background as a context for their comments. The reader is a former SDA alienated from the church for their belief in the Law of Moses. They have since become closely associated with Messianics and Jewish teachings. Idea: The animal sacrifices ceased at the cross, as Daniel clearly states. Reader comment: Daniel seems to make a clear statement in this area but I must question our understanding of what he was saying. We no longer sacrifice because there is not a place for sacrifices given by haMaschiac - - either a place He chooses or a place where his name is. Hence the sacrifices have been suspended - - my take on the topic an certainly non-official. We have no new temple, we have no red heifer to purify the necessary items for the temple, etc. But I see that sacrifices would serve the same purpose now were they being done as and where God commands. The difference being that in the days before the Messiah, they pointed forward, and in the days following the death and resurrection, they would point back to the awful price paid. There may never be another animal sacrifice but such has not ended as a command, only that there is no commanded place as had been specified. You may wish to note that there is no wording that indicates anything about a "final sacrifice" being done at any time. Yet we often hear that terminology. Just some of my thinking on that particular topic. My response: The sacrifices were performed for thousands of years without a temple so this part of the argument is groundless in my understanding. Adding to Daniel, I believe Paul makes clear in Hebrews that the Messiah was the fulfillment of the sacrificial lamb and that continuing animal sacrifices are meaningless and probably contradictory. Idea: Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Reader comment: Actually we have a mis-translation going on here. What we really seem to have is a RE-NEWED TESTAMENT - - not a new one. If it were a new and different one, then some of the statements in the Tenach would be brought to naught. Check out the meanings of the words in Scripture and I think you may be able to verify this. I might offer Psalm 89-34 for one example of nothing being changed. Also Malachi 3:6 says that haShem does not change and that would be His word, His mind, or His covenants with His people. He does not change! And neither will He alter the words that have left His lips. The thing that changes is where His laws reside - - He will write His laws on the minds of men. My response: I agree God does not change and the "new" testament is not actually anything new but what existed since the Garden of Eden restated, clarified, expanded, and affirmed. Idea: In the same way, the ceremonial law is not ended either. The ceremonies specified for the temple are still carried out by the Messiah in the heavenly temple instead of an earthly one. Reader comment: Might I ask a question in this regard? Who has divided God's laws into various subdivisions and who has been given authority to make such divisions. This concept, I believe, was carried forward by SDA pioneers from their previous religious backgrounds. They learned much as they studied - - but they didn't learn all there was to lean. We are still learning. We are still searching. Mrs. White had much to say about new light from old Scriptures coming in these, the last days. My response: It is wrong to create divisions for the purpose of denying part of God's Law. It is valid to recognize different categories and purposes in the parts of God's Law. Idea: I was also delighted to observe a few women who were wearing the tassels. When I inquired about their understanding I was given the universal response: "The Bible doesn't say it is just for men." Reader comment: I'm not sure what to make of this portion of your observation. Some of the females in our congregation wear them as well but.... There is nothing in Scripture against such and no designation saying "for men only". However, in the culture of that day, men were counted, women and children were not. Also older men and younger men were not counted either. Neither were women counted. I'll not open myself for a male female debate at this point (and if smart, I NEVER will). I might add, however that women do not wear the garments, usually, worn by men - - the tallit katahn with wings (or flaps with 4 corners). So one might ask: "Were women excluded from the command or were they just not mentioned?" I have no problem with the concept - - I just find such discussion and argument (argument often ensues) to be counter productive and a distraction from the learning of clearer truth. If men need reminding, why not women? It is true the Bible does not say "just for men" but neither does it say "all of the Israelites" or anything resembling such a thought. It is my opinion that this is up to personal preference or interpretation but to try to prove it from scripture is, it seems, not a likelihood. It would be interesting to know if women at the time of the Messiah wore them. We do know that Jesus did for the Bible describes it. But, I see no such references to any of the women doing such. My response: God's Law is not changed by culture. I see no sexual distinction in these words from the mouth of God which preface all commandments in the Law of Moses: Num 15:38 Speak unto the children of Israel... Idea: The wearing of a coat and tie is the same kind of adornment the Bible speaks against in women. Reader comment: I tend to agree with you on this topic. BUT - - I'm unable to determine whether it is because I desire comfort over appearance or if it is because I see it as useless adornment. Now we are dealing more and more with jewelry in virtually obscene locations. This alone is disgusting without regard to neckties and more formal clothing. My response: I believe it is clear that something done with no functional purpose other than to draw attention to yourself and increase your perceived status or value is vain and contradictory to placing the focus on God. And, yes it is more comfortable in my opinion also. The claim of some that it shows respect to God to dress up is deceptive and self-serving. God clearly states that He looks on the heart and not the outward appearance. Are you carefully studying the Bible as your source for an understanding of God's Law? I pray we may all continue to seek love, peace, and unity in truth preparing for the soon coming of IAUShUO (ee-uh-oo-shoo-oh) Messiah, the Son of God.
Frank T. Clark
Next: 2009-05-08 Law of Love |
|
Revised 2009-05-08 |