The late Pastor Joe Crews (1924-1994), founder of Amazing Facts, a Seventh-day Adventist ministry, wrote a booklet entitled Feast Days and Sabbaths – Are They Still Binding? Pastor Crews’ work was made known to me by a friend of mine and, after reading it for myself, I decided to write a review of his booklet.
To sum up the
booklet, Pastor Crews essentially pointed to several verses of Scripture to
make the point that the “Law of Moses”, with particular emphasis on the annual
festivals that God gave
Law of
Moses vs. Law of God?
In his introduction, Pastor Crews made the point that the “Law of Moses” was written by his (Moses’) hand while the “Law of God” was written by His divine fingertip. It is true that God wrote the commandments with His finger (Exodus 31:18) but does the fact that the rest of the Law wasn’t recorded in this way mean that its source was any less divine? The Law of Moses came from God, the very Lord Yahweh that wrote on the stone tablets. Moses was His instrument, His servant, through whom He decided to make His law known to the people of Israel:
Leviticus 26:46 These are the decrees, the laws and the regulations that the LORD established between himself and the Israelites through Moses.
Numbers 36:13
These are the commands and regulations the LORD gave through Moses to
the Israelites on the plains of
1 Kings 2:3 And observe what the LORD your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commandments, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and whenever you go.
2 Chronicles 34:14 - And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the LORD given by Moses.
Nehemiah 9:14 You made known to them your holy Sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses.
God used Moses to give His chosen people decrees and commands (commandments), laws and regulations. The Law does not belong to Moses, nor is it really from Moses; it belongs to and comes from Yahweh Himself! However they came to be recorded does not have any bearing on how long they would be binding to God’s people. Let’s take a look at Nehemiah 8.
Nehemiah 8:1 all the people assembled as one man in the square before
the Water Gate. They told Ezra the scribe to bring out the Book of the Law
of Moses, which the LORD had commanded for
Nehemiah 8:3 He read it aloud from daybreak till
We have an idea which “Book” is being referred to here. It
is called the “Book of the Law” and the “Book of the Law of Moses”. But as we
go on, we see:
Nehemiah 8:8 They read from the Book of the Law of God, making
it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was
being read.
Was there another book taken out for Ezra and company to
read? Check through the chapter and you’ll see that that is simply not the
case. The Book of the Law of Moses is the Book of the Law of God! Let’s
see what else the Bible calls part of the Law of God something that Pastor
Crews would have us believe is part of the “Mosaic Law” and not God’s.
Luke
Luke
2 Chronicles 31:3 The king contributed from his own possessions for the morning and evening burnt offerings and for the burnt offerings on the Sabbaths, New Moons and appointed feasts as written in the Law of the LORD.
Can it be any clearer? Luke, a New Testament
follower of God, wrote that the firstborn being called holy was in the Law
of the Lord, not the “Law of Moses”. For someone who wants to attempt to
make an argument that the “Law of the Lord” is somehow different than the “Law
of God”, the implications of the previous verse are obvious: the sacrifices
(burnt offerings) that are presented in the booklet as being in the “Law of
Moses” are said by the Bible to be written in the Law of God. And what’s more:
the very “appointed feasts” that Pastor Crews fights so hard against in his
booklet are said to be written in the Law of the Lord Yahweh!
The distinction between the Law
of God and the Law of Moses that Adventism has made and declares so boldly
simply does not exist. The Law of Moses is the
Law of God! The Decalogue is the heart
of the Law; it is not the whole Law.
Against Us?
Pastor Crews also made a very interesting observation: “There are no curses recorded in the ten commandments that God wrote, but the law that Moses wrote contained an abundance of such curses and judgements.” This is true; look through the Decalogue and you won’t find any “curses”. And he also referred to the following text:
Deuteronomy 31:26 “Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you.
The Decalogue was placed into the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:16). So, according to Pastor Crews, the not only is the Law of Moses at the side of the Ark full of curses, it is “against us”, a point which he develops by referring to Colossians 2:14. Let us address each of these separately.
Don’t take have any other gods before Him, don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t covet… There isn’t any “curse” in that mix, is there? In fact, there is even a blessing if we keep the fifth commandment! (Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16) Pastor Crews believes the Mosaic Law was added to prescribe curses for breaking the Ten Commandment Law. “If a law is made forbidding murder and it is broken, then another law would have to be enacted to prescribe the penalty or punishment for breaking that first law.” Well, there are curses in connection with the Decalogue listed elsewhere in the Torah:
Deuteronomy
11:26 See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse –
Deuteronomy 11:27 the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God
that I am giving you today;
Deuteronomy 11:28 the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your
God and turn from the way I command you today by following other gods, which
you have not known.
This is
directly referring to the first of the ten, the command against idolatry. The
curse wasn’t mentioned in the Decalogue but it is irrefutably tied to the Ten
Commandments. There is a long list of curses that would befall the people of
Deuteronomy 28:15 However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:
They begin in verse 16 and continue until verse 68. Wow; that’s a lot of curses, and they are tied in with the whole Law, not just with the one that was put in the side of the Ark. Pastor Crews believed these curses were separate and apart from the Decalogue; but, in fact the concept of curses in consequence for breaking the Law of God has been in place since the very beginning of mankind, within the lifetime of Adam and Eve. Look what happened after Cain killed Abel, his brother:
Genesis
Genesis
Genesis
Cain was
punished for murdering Abel and was cursed. And this was long before
Moses’ time. Wherever there is Law from the Lord, there is curse and
punishment. Look at the consequence for Adam and Eve’s sin (Genesis
Now, on to the Law of Moses being against us:
Colossians
Colossians
Colossians
Colossians 2:16 Therefore let no one judge you by what you eat or drink, or
with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
Pastor Crews issued the following challenge: “There are Christians today who still insist that the yearly sabbaths should be observed along with the weekly Sabbath. If such is required, then what were the sabbath days which were blotted out and nailed to the cross?” I believe his reasoning and thus interpretation are wrong.
He wrote that the “written code” or “handwriting of ordinances” as the King James Version renders it, is the Law of Moses, the “ceremonial” (including the Feasts, annual convocations called Sabbaths) that was “taken away” and “nailed to the cross”. The fact that it is the “handwriting of ordinances” is significant to the Seventh-day Adventist ideology because Moses wrote the Law.
But what is this “written code”? The Greek term that is used is cheirographon tois dogmasin, where cheirographon is “a hand-written document, specif. a certificate of indebtedness”, which could also be rendered “account, record of debts” (BDAG Lexicon). Thayer’s Greek Definitions puts it more simply: “a note of hand or writing in which one acknowledges that money has either been deposited with him or lent to him by another, to be returned at the appointed time”.
When someone was crucified historically, not only was the sentenced person nailed to the stake or cross but an inscription stating the person’s crime was also nailed to it. When our Lord was crucified, this inscription was not a record of an offence, but instead an affirmation of who He was: an innocent man, “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews”:
KJV John 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Paul used this symbolism to explain that instead of His own transgression being nailed to the wood (as He didn’t have any; 2 Corinthians 5:21), ours were placed there instead and thus taken away.
So the handwriting of ordinances is the record of our sin, our transgressions of the law (1 John 3:4), our debts that were paid and forgiven once and for all by our Lord and God Yeshua Hamashiach when He died for us! A much more powerful message than Pastor Crews expressed in his work. Paul, the writer of Colossians, was saying that we have reason to celebrate! We have been saved from death (verse 13)! We shouldn’t allow the judgements of people or their commandments of men, “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” (verse 21) to prevent us from enjoying God’s Festivals, including His Sabbath.
Paul wasn’t
addressing the permanence of the weekly Sabbath or the Feasts in this letter.
The word for “law”, nomos, was used
in other epistles of his, (such as Hebrews
In his
comment on Paul’s handing of the ‘two laws’, Pastor Crews wrote: “He did not speak of a past [Ten Commandment] law. He said,
‘the law IS holy...the law IS spiritual.’ In other words, it was very much
alive and operating when Paul wrote to the Roman church. In contrast he
described the handwriting of ordinances in the past tense: ‘WAS against
us...WAS contrary to us.’ It is certain he was not speaking of the same law.
One was present and one was past.”
True
enough: the record of sin was against us, was contrary to us; as
believers, we do see the Paschal death as a once-for-all wiping out of sin. But
let us look at another passage to see how this holds up with Scripture:
1 Corinthians 9:9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned?
If the “Law of Moses” was as opposed to is, what would be the point of Paul quoting this verse? He used it as an authority which he and his addressees apparently took still accepted, and he took it for granted that they did; they had no perception, obviously, that this Law of Moses was an abolished Law. He uses present tense here. And the fact that he asked if it is oxen that God is concerned about (and not was) shows once again that the Law is and not was.
Another passage referred to by Pastor Crews is as follows:
1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is
nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.
Pastor Crews, here, attempts to lump the command to
circumcise into the “abolished” Law of Moses. But why is circumcision
nothing? And is he referring to the abolition of any commandment? I believe that
this is something worth exploring. Let’s look at the verse in context.
1 Corinthians 7:18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised.
1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.
1 Corinthians 7:20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.
1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
1 Corinthians 7:22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave.
1 Corinthians 7:23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.
1 Corinthians 7:24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
Notice that Paul also speaks about being a slave as opposed
to being free. He is clearly speaking about the “situation which he was
in when God called him.” So, it’s talking about being circumcised or being
uncircumcised and not the circumcision command that God gave to Abraham
and, by extension, his descendants (Genesis 17:9-12; Leviticus 12:3).
Being circumcised (an Israelite, or rather a Jew) or being uncircumcised (a Gentile) doesn’t matter; race has no bearing on one’s salvation (Colossians 3:11), despite what the Messianic Jews of the apostles’ day thought (Acts 15:5). A Gentile never needed to be baptized to receive salvation; after all, the God of Israel said that Gentiles were perfectly allowed, even encouraged, to keep the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; 23:12), and to keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exodus 12:19). The Lord promised that He will accept every Gentile, every eunuch if they keep His Sabbath and covenant (Isaiah 56:2-7). They were not allowed to keep the Passover (Exodus 12:48), but as the sacrificial Passover is no longer part of the believers’ liturgy, that doesn’t matter, does it?
Therefore, it’s not physical circumcision that’s the focus of the believer:
Romans
Romans
Don’t get me wrong; this is not a new concept. Centuries
before Paul came on the picture, this command was given to the Israelites:
Deuteronomy
Deuteronomy 30:6 The LORD your God
will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that
you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.
Being Abraham’s descendant is not a matter of being Israelite-born, but a matter of faith (Romans 4:16).
Since we’ve mentioned Abraham, why not go to something else Pastor Crews said:
“Abraham was commended by God in these words: ‘Because that
Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and
my laws’ (Genesis 26:5). It is very obvious that the law which Abraham
faithfully obeyed was not the law of Moses, because that law was not given
until 430 years later… And since it is recorded that ‘Abraham obeyed...my laws’
(Genesis 26:5), we have to believe that that earlier law, which Abraham
observed, was the ten commandments. Moses had not yet been born, and it could
not have been his law.”
We know from aforementioned Scriptures that Abraham was
kept more than just the Ten Commandments. In fact, we’ve seen that Abraham was
charged with obeying a command that Pastor Crews calls part of the ceremonial:
circumcision. Yes, I do believe Abraham kept the Commandments; but there is
nothing that indicates that his obedience was limited to that. And we’ve seen
that even the father of the faithful faithfully obeyed the ‘ceremonial’. Even
Noah knew the distinction between clean and unclean (Genesis 7:2) and the command
not to eat meat with lifeblood (Genesis 9:4), and I’m sure that neither Pastor
Crews nor Amazing Facts would teach that Abraham did not follow the dietary
instructions found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
It’s interesting to note that the God of Abraham said that
Abraham kept His charge, commandments, statutes and laws.
Clearly, this is referring to more than just simple one Law; and it’d be pretty
strange if ten instructions would be referred to by all these words. In fact,
word for statutes (chuqqah) is used to refer to instructions from God
that are outside of the Ten. See, for example, the following passages with the
word translated from chuqqah bolded.
KJV Exodus 12:14 And this day [Passover] shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever.
KJV Exodus 12:43 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat hereof:
KJV Exodus 29:9 And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his
sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest's office shall be theirs for
a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his
sons.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute
for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat
nor blood.
Leviticus 10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons
with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it
shall be a statute forever throughout your generations:
Notice that chuqqah
doesn’t refer to the Ten Commandments at any time. While we can’t be
sure exactly how many of the ordinances or statutes that Israel was given that
had been given to Abraham before, the implications are clear: Abraham did not obey only the Ten Commandments.
The reference to Ezekiel 20 was intriguing. Look at the following from King James Version:
KJV Ezekiel
20:23 I lifted up my hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would
scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries:
KJV Ezekiel 20:24 Because they had not executed my judgements, had despised my
statutes and polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’
idols.
KJV Ezekiel 20:25 Wherefore I gave them statutes that were not good, and
judgements whereby they should not live.
The booklet makes the claim that the bad statutes and judgements are the “Law of Moses”. Pastor Crews wrote: “Because of its curses and judgments against their continual disobedience, the law of Moses was ‘against’ them and was ‘not good.’ ” How strange, I thought when I was approached with this. This view, first of all, contradicts the words of the Bible itself:
Nehemiah
See that? Everything that God gave them was called “good” and “just and right”; would he really give people bad laws, laws from Him that it would be bad to live by? The New International Version renders verse 25 differently:
Ezekiel
This makes it
far clearer. God gave them over to the pagan practices of their fathers.
It is a Hebrew idiom that the KJV doesn’t make very clear. God merely allowed them to do what they were doing
as punishment (see verse 26); allowing them to continue the pagan practises
that were “not good”. And what’s more: these verses could not be possibly
referring to the Law of Moses; Ezekiel was referring to the
Galatians
The point is made that this is saying the Law of Moses ended with the advent of the Seed, which is our Saviour, Jesus. Pastor Crews is very right in saying we’re not under the Law anymore. But he seems to misunderstand what that statement means. Just a few verses up, it’s stated that Christ freed us from the “curse of the law” (verse 13). Paul very clearly states, many times in the New Testament, that we are not under the Law anymore, but under grace, that it is grace that saves us (Romans 6:14, Ephesians 2:5). But after he stated it was faith that saves, and seemingly bashed the Law in Romans 3, Paul says:
Romans
And then, he goes on to say:
Romans
7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been
released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and
not in the old way of the written code.
Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not!
Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I
would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not
covet.”
You see that? The very Law we are released from is the same Law that tells us not to covet (the tenth Commandment, Exodus 20:17), and is the very Law that tells us what sin is. He makes no distinction between the “law” mentioned in verse 6 and verse 7; the Law we are released from contains the command not to covet: we are released from the Ten Commandments! Look at it carefully; is there any indication that it is referring to different laws? Obviously Paul did not see any difference between the Law we’ve been freed from and the Decalogue. Paul seems to see “the law” as simply “the law”; he doesn’t divide it as Pastor Crews wanted his readers to do.
We are released from the whole Law, not just one section called the “Law of Moses”. Since “the Law” was added because of sin, perhaps it was added to show what sin is? The Hebrew people had been in a foreign land for centuries; could they not have forgotten much of what they had learned through their fathers? Certainly, not everything given to them at that time was new, as shown earlier. Now, it was given to them as a legal document, in a sense, because they were now becoming a nation. For the first time, the Law was codified; all the Law, including the Ten Commandments. We are released from its consequences, but still obey it because we have faith, and we love the One who gave it: the Lord Jesus Christ.
“Certainly,” Pastor Crews writes, “there was nothing in the ten-commandment law that could be defined as ‘contrary’ to Paul and the church to whom he was writing. It was not ‘against’ those early Christians to refrain from adultery, theft, lying, etc. On the other hand, that moral law was a tremendous protection to them and favored every interest in their lives.” The writer of the booklet also makes some other interesting statements.
Well, this is certainly a correct assertion. But what seems to be implied here is something that is very incorrect. It was certainly not against or “contrary” anyone to kill a lamb on the 14th of Nisan for Passover or to avoid leaven on the days following it. Nor was it against them to make offerings (of livestock, crops, etc) to the God they loved so much. It wasn’t against them either to have places to which someone who accidentally killed someone could escape (Numbers 35:25); or to have crops left over for the poor during the harvest (Leviticus 23:22). Nor to assemble on the Sabbath, which, one should note, is in the “Law of Moses”, not the Ten Commandments (Leviticus 23:3). It certainly was not the view of Israel that the Law of Moses was against them:
Numbers 9:6
But some of them could not celebrate the Passover on that day because they were
ceremonially unclean on account of a dead body. So they came to Moses and Aaron
that same day
Numbers 9:7 and said to
Moses, “We have become unclean because of a dead body, but why should we be
kept from presenting the LORD's offering with the other Israelites at the
appointed time?”
When this group of Israelites missed the Passover, they actually wanted to get a chance to do it. So strong was their desire that Moses met with God, who gave them a chance to celebrate it (verses 9-12). At another time, Moses wrote:
Deuteronomy 4:5
See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so
that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it.
Deuteronomy 4:6 Observe them
carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations,
who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a
wise and understanding people.”
Did the Hebrews misunderstand that the Law was against them? Why in the world would they want to keep it? Worse, was Moses so deluded that he actually thought the Law was giving for the benefit of his people? Was he so ignorant of Adonai’s purpose for the Law to think that it would demonstrate their “wisdom and understanding”?
Simply put,
the Law was “a witness against”
Deuteronomy 31:27 For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are.
If you have been rebellious against the LORD while I am still alive and with
you, how much more will you rebel after I die!
Here, Moses expresses why the Law would be a witness against them (as expressed in the previous verse). It was because they were stiff-necked and rebellious! Years later, Moses’ successor, Joshua, renewed the covenant, writing the decrees and laws. He then took a stone and placed it by the oak tree near the Lord’s Sanctuary. Here is what he said:
Joshua 24:27 “See!” he said to all the people. “This stone will be a
witness against us. It has heard all the words the LORD has said to us. It will
be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God.”
Surely, we can’t make the mistake of saying that the poor rock was “against” them because of, as Pastor Crews puts it, “its curses and judgments”. The Scripture does not say the rock, or the Law, is against someone because of that.
Why, then, would the stone be a witness against them? Because of rebellion against their God! The Law, just as the stone that “heard” the Law, was to be a reminder of the standard that is God’s way of life. That standard allowed for repentance and atonement (Leviticus 4-5; Leviticus 16, especially vs. 16-17, 19, 21-22, 34), but if there is outright rebellion from the ways of Yahweh, then the Law would be a witness against them, because they knew what was right and turned away from it. Not one of us has kept the Law in perfection; and only One did. But we notice in Scripture that so long as Israel did not raucously depart from the Law without repentance, they did not receive the long list of curses outlined by God.
Pastor Crews made a mistake in how he described the Decalogue. It is a Law without curses, he said; but what does that mean? Curses in the Tanakh (Old Testament) in conjunction with the Law are punishment for not keeping the Law. In other words, the Law of Moses has recorded in it condemning consequences and the Ten Commandments, he claimed, does not. Look at what Pastor Crews said:
“No Christian has ever found fault with nine of the commandments. Why would they want to get rid of the fourth? Obviously because they are breaking it and do not want to believe that they stand condemned by it.” Elsewhere, he writes, “we have just established that the ten commandments existed before Abraham, condemning even Cain for murder.”
Did you see that? Now, he’s saying the Decalogue can condemn. How can it condemn if it has no curses? Isn’t this sort of condemnation against us? He contradicts his own self: he is quoted as saying the Mosaic Law was added to punish iniquity, but now, it seems he’s saying the Decalogue does a good job of that by itself. Now, look at another quote from the booklet:
“Because of its curses and judgements against their continual disobedience, the law of Moses was ‘against’ them and ‘not good.’ ”
Pastor Crews trapped himself in a corner and, perhaps, didn’t even realize it. The reason he gave above that the “ten-commandment law” is not against the early Christians is that there’s no curse in keeping them. Now, he says that the Law of Moses is against us because of the curses against their disobedience, for not keeping it. These are opposing criteria and the conclusion is thus illogical. But the trap doesn’t end there; Pastor Crews does away with the Law of Moses, leaving only the Decalogue, saying that the curse-filled Law is gone. If there is no curse, there is no consequence for not keeping it; no hellfire.
Seventh-day Adventists are well-known for obeying the food laws. They also tithe. Looking through the Ten Commandments, I have never seen these mentioned in there. Are these “moral law” or “ceremonial law”? Obviously, they aren’t in the Decalogue and weren’t placed inside the Ark of the Covenant and so wouldn’t be moral law by Pastor Crews’ standards as outlined in his booklet. Why, then, are they kept? What’s more, in order to be baptized into the Adventist church, one must remove all ornamental apparel. Check for yourself; is this crucial aspect of Adventism contained in the Ten Commandments?
And to take it even further, Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12), which is outlined as a sin in the Law (Leviticus 18:9,11). There is no indication that it had existed before Sinai; therefore, it is part of the Law of Moses. Therefore, by the logic of the booklet, it was nailed to the cross, out of the way. But would any Adventist every say that it isn’t as binding for us now as the command not to commit adultery?
I don’t think so.
A Look
at “Ceremonial”
Even a cursory review of Adventist rhetoric when it comes to explaining why the Festivals are not kept by them will show that one word pops up very often: ceremonial. It seems, though, that they use the term for their convenience, labelling certain things ‘ceremonial’, while others simply they call ‘moral’. The word ceremonial is not found in the (King James) Bible; so, one might wonder where they get the concept of ‘ceremonial’ verses ‘moral’ Law from. (I find it interesting that they call circumcision a ceremonial law when there is no “ceremony” attached to it through God’s instruction.) The King James Version does use the word “ceremonies” exactly one time. You could put a notch in Pastor Crews’ and Adventism’s belt, though, because sure enough, it is used in relation to one of the ‘ceremonial’ annual Festivals:
KJV Numbers
9:2 Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season.
KJV Numbers 9:3 In the fourteenth day of this month, at even, ye shall keep it
in his appointed season: according to all the rites of it, and according to all
the ceremonies thereof, shall ye keep it.
So, in reference to the Passover, the Lord Yahweh speaks of
‘ceremonies’. This word in Hebrew is mishpat; and here is the definition
I found for it (from Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions):
1)
judgment, justice, ordinance
1a)
judgment
1a1) act
of deciding a case
1a2)
place, court, seat of judgment
1a3)
process, procedure, litigation (before judges)
1a4)
case, cause (presented for judgment)
1a5) sentence,
decision (of judgment)
1a6)
execution (of judgment)
1a7)
time (of judgment)
1b)
justice, right, rectitude (attributes of God or man)
1c)
ordinance
1d)
decision (in law)
1e)
right, privilege, due (legal)
1f)
proper, fitting, measure, fitness, custom, manner, plan
The above shows that the rendering of the word as “regulations” by the
New Living Translation and the New International Version seems to be better.
They were to keep the Passover according to God’s instructions,
according to the “custom” or “manner” (sense 1f) laid out by Him. So… unless
they use the usage of the word comes from this word (which I doubt), they seem
to have no Biblical foundation. They simply equate “shadow” with “ceremony”.
If we can’t rely on the Bible to define what is ceremonial, let’s go
elsewhere. My Oxford dictionary defines “ceremony” in this way: “1 a formal
religious or public occasion, typically celebrating a particular event or
achievement. ► an act or series of acts performed according to a
traditional or prescribed form”.
So, by the only thing we have to go on, the very thing that the booklet
is trying to protect by using the label of ceremonial is incriminated:
the Sabbath day, holy as it is, is an occasion celebrating the end of the
Creation Week when the Creator ceased from His creative act. And then, we
have Communion, which is done four Sabbaths for the year. It is not only an occasion,
but it has a series of acts done that would no doubt class it as
ceremonial. Even by the Hebrew definition of mishpat, the Sabbath and Communion has ceremony.
These two important parts of the Seventh-day Adventist’s liturgy, was
part of Pastor Crews’ life, are ceremonial; that cannot be denied. If
there is nothing wrong with ceremony in Christian liturgy, as the keeping of
the Sabbath and Communion show, then this concept cannot be used against the
Festivals.
Nothing
but Shadows
Colossians
Denial of the
Saviour… that would be sin, wouldn’t it? To deny Jesus is to deny He who
sent Him; just as to accept and receive Jesus is to receive the Almighty
(Matthew
KJV Act 18:21 But [Paul] bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.
Did Paul, who wrote the letter to the Colossians, believe that keeping it would be “against” or “contrary” to him to keep the Feast? Obviously not. Looking again at words of Paul:
Romans 7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Pastor Crews would say this Law we’re freed from is that of Moses. And so to keep it would be sin. But what Paul says next is interesting.
Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”
Notice first
that the train of thought continues from chapter 6, when it says that we “are
not under law but under grace” (Romans
Romans 8:1
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,
Romans 8:2 because through Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free
from the law of sin and death.
Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the
sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to
be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
Romans 8:4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully
met in us, who do not live according to sinful nature but according to the
Spirit.
Here Paul talks about the “law of the Spirit of life” and the “law of sin and death”, which at first glance may seem to agree with Pastor Crews’ point of view. But Paul explains something important to the understanding of the passage: there was nothing wrong with the requirements of the Law – which are indeed called righteous in verse 4 – that would make God have to abolish it; there was something wrong with man and his sinful nature. We, no matter how hard we try, cannot match up to the Law in its perfection. What Paul is saying is that the Law of God is insufficient in giving us salvation. It is only through grace faith in Jesus and the gift of His Spirit that we can fulfil the Law (Ephesians 2:8). His shed blood washes away our sinful past. When the Father looks at His people, He sees the pristine life that only His Son lived. So instead of our having to suffer the lake of burning sulphur which is the second death (Revelation 21: 8), we will live.
The Bible says that the Feasts and Sabbath days are a shadow of things to come. But what exactly does that mean? And what are the implications? Pastor Crews (along with many, but not all, Seventh-day Adventists such Danny Shelton and Shelly Quinn) seemed to believe that all the types and shadows incorporated in the Feasts pointed to Jesus’ death. This simply isn’t true. Paul said they are a shadow of things to come (Colossians 2:17); the word esti being the present, active form of the verb “to be”. The annual Sabbaths still pointed to future events in Paul’s day. They are a shadow of thing to come; are, not were. (This also works against Pastor Crews’s idea that the “Law of Moses” was and the “Law of God” is.)
It is true, though, that all of God’s Festivals point to an aspect of the plan of salvation. Let’s give a brief summary of what the Feasts really mean, focussing on the three pilgrimage festivals mentioned in Deuteronomy 16:
Passover
and the Feast of Unleavened Bread: These are
discussed together because they were and are considered linked, partially
because of their proximity. When the Lord ate with His disciples the night
before His death, the night He was betrayed (1 Corinthians 11:23).
As we see in Luke 22:1-20, He gave us, His people, the symbols of bread and wine as a remembrance of His death for us, the broken body and spilt blood of the true Passover Lamb (John 1:36; 1 Corinthians 5:7) and gave us the ordinance of foot-washing (John 13:1-5), a lesson in service and humility, commanding us to wash each other’s feet (verse 14). When we observe the Passover, the Lord’s Supper, we not only “proclaim the Lord's death until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26), but we look forward to when we will drink the “fruit of the vine” with Him in the Kingdom of God (Matthew 26:29). Note the following:
Luke 22:14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table.
Luke 22:15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this
Passover with you before I suffer.
Luke 22:16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds
fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
Here, we see two different things: firstly, what Jesus established that day was not a “sacramental service to take the place of the Passover” as Mrs. Ellen G. White wrote in the first paragraph an 1897 article of the Advent View and Sabbath Herald called “The Ordinances”. Jesus said it is the Passover. Secondly, the Passover will see its fulfilment in the Kingdom; a direct contrast to Pastor Crews’ assertion that all the shadows were fulfilled at Jesus’ death.
Mrs. White is correct in saying the Lord’s Supper is “the memorial of his death”, the term she used to close the first paragraph of her article; but it is also a time when we remember that there is also something better: Communion is a shadow of when we will drink with Christ in the Kingdom of God and yet Adventism has no problem with it.1
Jesus alluded
to the Feast of Unleavened Bread when he spoke of the “yeast of the Pharisees
and Sadducees” (Matthew
1 Corinthians 5:8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
Here leaven is
likened to malice and wickedness; before it was likened to false teachings.
Leaven appears to be anything that is contrary to the God of sincerity and
truth. Paul told the Church in Corinth to keep the Festival of
Unleavened Bread. It looks like he didn’t think it was an obsolete ordinance
that was “against” him. Jesus called Himself the Bread of Life (John
1 Corinthians 10: 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
When we put away leaven for a week and eat matzo (the Hebrew word for unleavened bread), we reinforce in our minds that we need the unleavened bread that is Jesus every day to walk the life He wants us to. We remember that we are one: His Church, His body, all partakers of Christ. Does this sound like something unimportant for Christians today?
Feast of
Pentecost: This is known throughout Christendom as
the day that the Church of the living God was started. This is described in
Acts 2. Leviticus 23:15-22 describes it as the time that the firstfruits of the
harvest were presented before Yahweh (the second of the firstfruits, so to
speak; the first was waved before Him during the Feast of Unleavened Bread).
This Feast is symbolic of God’s harvest; the one Jesus spoke of in Matthew
The Feast of Tabernacles: This Feast celebrated the end of the harvest (Exodus
Do these things tied in with the Feasts seem to be
things that are obsolete? They are from and of God (Leviticus 23:2, 4,
37, 44; Ezra 3:5), shadows or no shadows. The concept that those things that
would someday be fulfilled at some point in time no longer need to be observed
for Christians is flawed. Would any Christian ever say that marriage is against
us, and should not be done? And yet, the saints are described as being Yeshua’s
betrothed (2 Corinthians 11:2). Jesus says that marriage will be a thing of the
past in the resurrection (Matthew
The Memorial Sabbath
“Please keep in mind,” wrote Pastor Crews, “that the
weekly Sabbath was instituted before sin came into the world. THERE COULD NEVER
BE TYPES OF SHADOWS BEFORE SIN EXISTED.”
This, of course, is the basis of Seventh-day Adventist
attitude of shunning the Feast Days of God. Question: Did God know that
mankind would sin and fall from grace before it happened?
1 Peter
1 Peter
1 Peter
If the (Passover) Lamb of God could be chosen before
the world came into existence, is it so hard to imagine that God decided to create
a weekly Feast celebration that would mean have more tied up in it than as a
memorial of creation? Shabbat is such a memorial (Exodus 20:9-11) but
there is much more tied in the Sabbath than that. Let’s see what is said in the
reiteration of the Decalogue:
Deuteronomy
The message is clear: God Himself told them to
remember their release from slavery in light of and in connection to the
Sabbath! Although the Sabbath is a memorial of Creation, it is not limited
to that meaning. Adonai has shown that it can and does have at least one other
meaning imparted to it; a connection to an event that happened long after the
day was blessed and sanctified.
Pastor Crews wrote that Hebrews 3 and 4 “definitely
tie the spiritual rest to the seventh-day Sabbathkeeping initiated and commanded
by God in the beginning. Otherwise, we would not find in verse 4” – of chapter
4 – “a direct quote from Genesis 2:2.” This is true, yes. But it is a
connection to the spiritual rest we will receive in the future
Sabbath-rest.
Hebrews 4:9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for
the people of God;
Hebrews 4:10 for anyone who enters this rest also rest from his own work, just
as God rested from his.
Hebrews 4:11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest so that no one will fail by following the example
of disobedience.
Is this rest merely what we will experience in this
life by accepting Christ as Lord?
Hebrew 4:1 Therefore, since the promise of entering
his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to
have fallen short of it.
The promise of entering God’s rest still had not been
fulfilled in Paul’s time. And it certainly hasn’t been fulfilled in ours. The
previous chapter speaks of enduring until the end (Hebrew 3:14); to obtain the
fullness of God’s rest, free of worry and the cares of this world, we have to
be steadfast in our walk with Christ until Jesus comes to give us His rest.
The Sabbath is linked with the future rest that God’s
people will receive. That sounds like a type and shadow to me. That’s what a
type is: something that illustrates and is linked with something in the future.
When we rest on the Sabbath, free from the worries of school or our occupation,
we are to remember that the rest we will experience will be much more
wonderful, and also, much more permanent. The Sabbath is a shadow of
this wonderful resting time just as the Feast of Trumpets is a shadow of with
the seven trumpets of Revelation and the “last trumpet” at which our Saviour
will return (1 Corinthians 15:52).
Of the Jews
Pastor Crews made these assertions, “the weekly
Sabbath is never referred to as a ‘feast,’ neither is it ever connected to the
Jews by such terms as ‘sabbath of the Jews.’ It is only designated as the
“sabbath of the Lord.’ ”
He is dead wrong in his first one.
The Sabbath is listed as one of God’s appointed
Feasts in Leviticus 23. It is the only sacred assembly that is weekly and
not annual.
Leviticus 23:1 The LORD said to Moses,
Leviticus 23:2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘These are the my
appointed feasts, the appointed feasts of the LORD, which you are to
proclaim as sacred assemblies.
Leviticus 23:3 There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a
Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever
you live, it is a Sabbath to the LORD.
Leviticus 23:4 These are the LORD’s appointed feasts, the sacred assemblies you
are to proclaim at their appointed times:
It then goes on to speak of the others, staring with
the Passover. The second assertion is a reference to Luke 5:1, which speaks of
a “feast of the Jews” and Pastor Crews perhaps would have also referred to John
7:2, which speaks of the “Jew’s feast of tabernacles”. We have to remember one
point here: most of the early Christians were Jews (Luke, though is
considered Gentile by scholars). They were the descendants of those who had
been chosen by God so long ago and the Feasts were given to them, just as the
Sabbath was (Exodus
Romans 3:1 What advantage, then, is there in being a
Jew, or what value is there in the circumcision?
Romans 3:2 Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with
the very words of God.
Paul, himself, was a Jew (Romans 11:1) and circumcised
Timothy, a biracial Jew (Acts 16:3), even though he berated “every man who lets
himself be circumcised” (Galatians 5:3) and said, “Circumcision is nothing and
uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1
Corinthians
Also, isn’t it possible that the Feasts were “of the
Jews” in the sense that the unbelieving Jews kept them differently than
believing Jews and Gentiles? After all, when they are mentioned outside of the
four Gospels, they are not identified as being “of the Jews”. An example would
be the Day of Atonement, well known in Adventism; it is called “the fast” in
Acts 27:9. To a Messianic people, they would know their Yom Kippur (Day
of Atonement) sacrifices done by the high priest before all pointed to Jesus as
High Priest; and His sacrifice once and for all. And they would know that at
their High Priest’s death, the curtain in the Temple that hid the most sacred
of its rooms was torn (Matthew 15:37-38), indicating that this death ended the
sacrifices surrounding the Temple on Earth; and that His blood was used for
atonement in another Temple (Hebrews 9:11-12). Thus, isn’t it possible that it
would be only a Fast; in commemoration of this atonement?
There’s also the possibility that even Gentile
believers would have called themselves Jews at that time. After all, the
believers were considered at first a sect of Judaism (called “the sect of the
Nazarenes”, Acts 24:5) and Paul did say anyone with a circumcised heart is a
Jew (Romans 2:29). Jesus did not come to start a new religion; he came with
very Jewish concepts to the Jewish people. The Christian faith is
called by Paul the “faith of our father Abraham” (Romans 4:12, 16), showing a
continuation in his mind between before and after the death of Christ. Before
any accepted name (that was not derogatory) came along for Christians, perhaps
even Gentiles called themselves Jews, associating themselves with Jewish
beliefs, just as many modern Gentile followers of Messianic Judaism do call
themselves part of Judaism.
Why is salvation of
the Jews? Why did Paul see advantage to being a Jew? It’s pretty clear
if you think about it. What distinguished a Jew from a (pagan) Gentile? The
answer: their religion. The Jews’ religion, albeit somewhat tainted over time,
came from God! They already believed in loving their neighbours
as themselves (Leviticus 19:18); already believed that that they should not
worship other gods (Exodus 20:3). These things, the whole Torah (instruction
and revelation of God, not just law) were taught in the
synagogues on the weekly and annual Sabbaths. They already expected a Messiah.
These were foreign concepts to Gentiles coming into the faith; they had to
change their lives from these ungodly ways, while the Jews were already living
in it.
Any of these could be why the Feasts are referred to
as of the Jews. But the truth is, of the Jews does not mean only for
the descendants of Jacob any more than God of Israel (Matthew 15:31)
means He is only for them. Whatever the reason for identifying the
Feasts with the Jews, however, this does not prove that they are any less
God’s. And they are His; He Himself proclaimed them as such. Pastor
Crews quotes from this very passage from Scripture, but seems to conveniently
overlook verse 37. From the King James:
Leviticus 23:4 These are the
feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim
in their seasons.
Leviticus 23:37 These are the
feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to
offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, and a meat
offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, every thing upon his day:
Leviticus 23:38 Beside the sabbaths of the LORD, and beside your gifts,
and beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill offerings, which ye give
unto the LORD.
This answers the last of the three assertions quoted
above; the Feasts are also of God. Moses himself wrote this, having
heard it from the Lord Yahweh Himself (verse 1). The latter two verses, though,
is used by Pastor Crews to help him make the claim that the sacrifices and
offerings were not done on the Sabbath. Perhaps the following verse from the
NIV will help clear things up:
Leviticus 23:28 “ ‘These offerings are in addition
to those for the LORD’s Sabbaths and in addition to your gifts and freewill
offerings you give to the LORD.)’ ”
This rendering is clearer for the modern
English-speaker than the King James and the conclusion we draw from it is more
in agreement with the rest of the Tanakh. Pastor Crews wrote, “There were
certain prescribed offerings for each of those yearly feast days, and they were
shadows pointing to the future sacrifice of Jesus. But the Bible says these
were ‘BESIDE THE SABBATHS OF THE LORD,’ or the seventh-day Sabbath.” Pastor
Crews uses the words in block capitals, which are a quote from the King James
that has led to a simply incorrect conclusion: that there were no
offerings “prescribed” for the Sabbath. How do I know this is incorrect?
Numbers 28:9 On the Sabbath day, make an offering
of two lambs a year old without defect, together with its drink
offering and a grain offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine
flour mixed with oil.
Numbers 28:10 This is the burnt offering for every Sabbath, in addition
to the regular burnt offerings and its drink offerings.
There were offerings made to God on the
Sabbath. And, indeed, they were to be made every Sabbath, along
with the regular daily offerings described in verses 1 to 8; twice the
offerings. Thus, Pastor Crews’ point is completely incorrect and invalid.
After commenting on the 4th chapter of
Hebrews, Pastor Crews asks: “Don't you see how this lends a tremendous
new spiritual dimension to the keeping of the Sabbath?” And I must agree that
it does. Knowing the spiritual meaning of the Sabbath is incentive for me to
love it and keep it; and actively learn the lessons that God has in store for
me while I do so. The same goes for His other Holy Days. The New Testament is
rife with the spiritual significance of these days. If New Testament revelation
brings “new spiritual dimension” to Sabbath-day observance, don’t you think it
can (and does) bring such a dimension to the other Festivals of the
Lord?
We have seen that it does.
The Concept of Fulfilment
Jesus came to fulfil (make perfect; more full) the Law (Matthew 5:17). With His coming a new, better covenant was established with God (Hebrew 8:6). The sacrificial system has not ended.
Hebrews 9:22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness.
The system has merely been perfected. Now that our Lord Yeshua’s blood has been shed for us, we need no more sacrifices or offerings for our sins! We rely on His blood, His sacrifice instead of the blood of animals (Hebrews 9:12-14; 10:9-10, 18, 26). Instead of the need of a physical temple with the presence of God in the Most Holy Place, we can go there ourselves by His blood (Hebrews 10:19), because our very bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 6:19). With the end of the need to sacrifice lambs, Jesus gave us new symbols to celebrate His Passover. Everything that was fulfilled was replaced by something greater to observe. Only the Roman Catholic Church, with its Papal institution of the Passover-replacing Easter celebration, can make any claim that this season was divinely instituted to replace God’s Feasts. And this is a wrong claim as Easter is a pagan-originated commemoration, as most any encyclopaedia would tell you.
Closing
Admonitions
Mankind loves if not needs celebrations. Check out your calendar. There are birthday parties, graduation parties, Independence Day celebrations, Christmas… Would you really deprive yourself of God’s Festival celebrations? Shouldn’t they better than the world’s? These celebrations were important to the early Christians. Paul told the Corinthians to keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread (1 Corinthians 5:7).
Through the Feasts of God, there is much we can learn, just as we can by observing God’s Sabbath. They are a gift from God. Why should we not accept this gift with joyful and prayerful thanksgiving? ש
Note: The Bible references cited will be from the New
International Version (NIV) unless otherwise stated. In King James Version
(KJV) quotations, words in italics were added by translators to make complete
English sentences. Bolded words in Bible quotations are my emphasis.
1. The reason that Pastor
Meyer gave for the annual Sabbaths not being expedient for spiritual
2. I have seen it argued by Seventh-day Adventists that marriage continues even after the resurrection. While this is not the official SDA teaching, I will address it here. The assertion is that Matthew 22:23-33 is saying that the resurrected saints are not married again, but stay married to whoever they were wed to while in this life. Analyzing the passage, if this was the point being made here, then Jesus did not answer the Sadducees’ question. Will she be the wife of all seven men? If there is no marriage in heaven, the question was answered perfectly: Since there won’t be any marriage in the resurrection, she won’t be married to any of them! Jesus was answered their question as well as the hypocritical motivation behind it. John, in Revelation, expounds that with the end of the marriage of this world, the fullness of the marriage to Christ begins. Go back.
©
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008 Keneil Thomas
·
TCTR Reviewed
– A review of a similar work, Ten Commandments Twice Removed, by Danny Shelton
and Shelley Quinn. This study is more comprehensive; a suggested read.
·
What It Means To Be Under Grace
·
Colossians 2:
Paul’s True Message
· Sabbath Days – A look at the “sabbath days” of Colossians 2:16.
·
Feasts of God: The
Hidden Design
Readers are permitted and encouraged to reproduce this paper in its entirety. To copy subsections, you will require the permission of the author, who may be contact at the e-mail address below. All reproductions and distributions must have the name and e-mail address of the author.
Contact: [email protected]