The fourth "finding"

The fourth finding reported by the author of Feast-Keeping and the Faithful almost made me laugh, well, actually, I did laugh, but it was a sad kind of laugh.

4) Corroborated by various respected biblical scholars within the Adventist Church, my research has been publicly promoted by the now-retired Director of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference, Dr. Ángel Manuel Rodríguez. He notes: “Dr. Ron du Preez has produced an excellent exegetical and theological study related to the question of the relevance of the Israelite festivals for Christians. Every argument used to support its observance has been carefully evaluated and a biblical answer provided. This is not simply a study aiming at the facts, but throughout it there is a genuine pastoral concern interested in the unity of the church and its message. May this volume contribute to intensify that unity.”

Item four is less a "finding" than a quote from a well-known person in order to support the findings  already addressed and to bolster the scholarly reputation of the author. The previous three findings have not been biblically sound, as we have shown. It is true that the author does exhibit a kindly pastoral concern, but he casts feast-keepers in the same boat as those who follow nonbiblical rabbit-trails such as the lunar sabbath, 12-hour day, 2520 prophecy, etc. It is unfortunate that those groups do exist -- and even more unfortunate that their strange beliefs lead many astray who are seeking true understanding.

Ángel Manuel Rodríguez wants this volume to "contribute to intensify" the unity of the church and its message. Without a solid biblical basis, unity cannot be achieved.

Feast-keeping identified as "anti-christ"

This is the third consecutive post in which I am looking at the findings of the author of Feast-Keeping and the Faithful.

His third finding states his shocking conclusion to the previous two statements:

3) In short, to observe these feasts is actually “a denial of Jesus’ messiahship” (as one biblical scholar rightly noted); thus, it is a new form of being “anti-christ,” i.e., in place of (or against) Jesus Christ.

He laid the groundwork in his previous statements (see previous two posts) saying that the feasts are fulfilled by Jesus and are therefore not to be observed; that the ceremonial law, which we all know is not a biblical term, includes the holy days and that they ended, along with the rites and ceremonies, at the cross. He then extrapolates the astonishing conclusion that those who observe the days our Lord commanded us to observe are acting against Christ, and, in fact, are an anti-christ!

Christ Himself said that He came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it, yet to this day many claim that He has done just that, abolish the law by fulfilling it. Christ's definition of "fulfill" is the definition we must use.

Those who observe the feasts in this Christian era understand more of Christ's sacrifice, and more of the past, present, and future fulfillments of the prophetic aspects of God's calendar than anyone else on earth! I never thought such a thing could be said, but only by deeper studying have I understood so much of the message that God has given us, the blessing He has given us, through his annual Holy Days.

I do not understand how a person, who on the surface is kind and gracious, could make a such broad and untrue statement based on these weak foundations.

An expanded meaning of "ceremonial law"

The next item on the list of findings about feast keeping by the author of Feast-Keeping and the Faithful is his quoting of the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe:

2) The standard SDA book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, repeatedly confirms that, "At the death of Christ the jurisdiction of ceremonial law came to an end. His atoning sacrifice provided forgiveness for all sins. This act ‘wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross’ (Col. 2:14; cf. Deut. 31:26). . . . No more worries about the ceremonial laws, with their complex requirements regarding food and drink offerings, celebrations of various festivals (Passover, Pentecost, etc.), new moons, or ceremonial Sabbaths (Col. 2:16; cf. Heb. 9:10), which were only a ‘shadow of things to come’ (Col. 2:17). . . . [These were things] which pointed forward to the coming of the Messiah, and the observance of which terminated with His death on the cross” (pp. 274, 285). In a nutshell, Adventists do not keep the feasts.

I've referred to all of these comments in previous posts. The book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, does not supersede the Bible, and Adventists would believe that it does not supersede the inspiration of Ellen White. The book gives an expanded meaning to the term "ceremonial law," a term that is not scriptural. As such, the term is left for us to define.  

Ellen White defines ceremonial law as the Jewish rites and ceremonies (see previous post); "ceremonial law" does not refer to the sabbath days on God's annual calendar. The Holy Days can be observed as sabbaths without the addition of sacrifice, since Jesus' death caused "the sacrifice and oblation to cease." Daniel 9:27. The rites and ceremonies are never again referred to as being kept in the early Christian church; however, the observance of the Holy Days are referred to several times in the New Testament. Besides Scripture, historical documents exist that show the church kept those days in the early centuries following Christ. If they were done away with, they would not be keeping them in the various parts of the world to which they were scattered.

Am I being presumptuous, to feel myself an extension of Tyndale's plowboy, able to hold the Scriptures in my hands and read for myself? Do I have to have a degree and read from the works of a multitude of scholars in order to know what it says? I don't believe God gave that requirement for an understanding of His word. I am not an anti-theologian snob who ignores what the scholars have to say, but I must say that I believe their focus on academia and scholarly approaches to Bible study limits their understanding (not to mention their heart), and perhaps all they depend on is their advanced knowledge and their ability to prove their point -- when it may not be God's point.

Colossians 2 is clearly misunderstood by many people, when a straight reading of the passage makes it plain. My plain reading is spelled out in previous posts. Your plain reading may differ, but it's worth a close look, without the trappings of tradition, to determine for yourself what it really says.