HISTORIANS ANND GOD'S FESTIVALS

 

Feasts of God - Comments

What some historians say about the Feasts of God

COMPILED BY KEITH HUNT CONYBEARE AND HOWSON: "......From the Hebrew point of view, the disciples of Christ would be regarded as a Jewish sect or synagogue.......But they were by no means separated from the nation. They attended the festivals; they worshipped in the temple. They were a new and singular party in the nation, holding parculiar opinions, and interpreting the Scriptures in a parculiar way. This is the aspect under which the Church would first present itself to the Jews.......The FESTIVALS observed by the Apostolic Church were at first the same with those of the Jews; and the observance of these was continued, especially by the Christians of Jewish birth, for a considerable time. A higher and more spiritual meaning, however, was attached to their celebration; and particularly the Paschal feast commemoration of blessings actually bestowed in the death and resurrection of Christ" (THE LIFE AND EPISTLES OF ST.PAUL. Pages 55, 346). PROFESSOR STANLEY in his sermon on St.Peter, page 92, says: " The worship of the Temple and the Synagogue still went side by side with the prayers, and the breaking of bread from house to house.........The fulfilment of the ancient law was the aspect of Christianity to which the attention of the Church was most directed." PHILIP SCHAFF says in his large work HISTORY OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. page 546, that it is with tolerable certainty that the Jewish Christians (particularly those at Jerusalem) observed the law with its weekly and yearly festivals. In the following paragraphs of the same chapter, he is quite at a loss to explain why the apostle Paul criticized the Galatians for observing Jewish festivals (Schaff's understanding of Gal.4:10), while at the same time observing them himself! Schaff acknowledges that James kept the holy days, because of the respect shown to him by the Jewish community. But concerning Paul, Schaff could not understand why the apostle allowed Romans to observe the holy days (Schaff's interpretation of Rom. 14:5,6), but forbade the Galatians. Schaff goes on to say on page 559, that Paul kept the feasts and he kept them as a Christian! PAUL COTTON in his book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY, says that the influence of conservative Christianity was discernable upon the Eastern or Asian churches for several centuries; that even after Sunday worship was largely accepted, the Sabbath continued to be observed - especially in the East. even as late as A.D. 425, the people of Constantinople and several other cities assembled on the sabbath (pages 63-65). His conclusion is that the church was by no means united with respect to Sunday worship, nor did it make a radical departure from Sabbath observance. The process, Cotten says, was a gradual one. It was Gentile influence he says that brought about Sunday observance; and while Christianity began in Judaism, it absorbed many points of paganism and became a worldly religion (page 159). NEANDER says that it was opposition to Judaism that led to the establishment of Sunday, rather than the Sabbath, as the day of worship - and while Christians in the East tolerated Sunday worship in the churches, they continued to retain the Sabbath for some time. In the West, however, the opposition to Judaism was so strong that Saturday was selected as a fast day, in order to make it less appealing to those who should care to observe the Sabbath. According to Neander, the contrast between the two groups of Christians - those who observed Saturday and those who observed Sunday - was quite noticeable, and that some antagonism was apparent in the matter of YEARLY festivals (Neander, Vol. 1 pages 295-297). SCHAFF (HISTORY OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH, page 558) says the Jewish Christians kept the Passover and all the annual FESTIVALS appointed by God through Moses and put them into Christian meaning.   In the footnote, Schaff says, "It is very remarkable that St.John makes Jewish festivals, especially the Passover, so prominent in the public life and ministry of Christ. He evidently considered them significant types of the leading facts of the Gospel history." On page 559, he further states that the second century Paschal controversies prove that the early church kept the Jewish festivals and that they derived their authority from the apostles! GAMBLE AND GREEN in their work SEVENTH DAY BAPTISTS IN EUROPE AND AMERICA Vol. 1, pages 21-35, say that the earliest historical writings relating to the Britons attest to the founding of Christian church in the British Isles, as early as the first century - either by Paul or by any of his converts to Christianity (made while in prison in Rome). There is no doubt they say that Christianity was planted in England before the appearance of the Catholic Augustine, A.D. 596. In Augustine's biography we are told that he found the people of Britain engaged in the most grievous and intolerable heresies, being given to Judaizing and ignorant of the sacraments and festivals of the church (Roman Catholic). There is much history available about the British or Celtic church before the arrival of the Roman Catholic religion in 596 A.D. The 7th day Sabbath was the weekly rest day, and they were accused of being Quartodecimine observers - those who observed the memorial of Christ's death on the 14th of Nisan, as they stated they had been taught by the apostle John himself. Further British history shows that it was not until A.D. 664 that Oswald, king of Northumberland, became convinced of the idea of apostolic succession from Peter to the then Pope, and was persuaded to accept Easter Sunday. So gradually over time, Easter Sunday took foothold in Britain, and pushed out and away the observance of the Lord's death on the 14th of Nisan or Abid. As far as Ireland was concerned, Irish historians state that during the reign of DERMOND (A.D. 528), Christianity was flourishing in Ireland - and that they had received it from the a ASIATICS. Scottish historians state that it was customary in Ireland, as well as in Scotland, for their early churches to keep Saturday. Queen MARGARET, in attempting to harmonize the Scottish church with the rest of Europe, stated that the majority of the Scottish church did not reverence the "Lord's day" but held Saturday to be the Sabbath. The Sabbath was observed in Scotland as late as A.D. 1093. And in Wales, the Sabbath prevailed until A.D. 1115. In spite of persecution and unpopularity, Sabbath keeping continued in England. Sometimes, prominent Sabbath preachers were imprisoned. Among those who advocated the seventh-day Sabbath was WILLIAM WHISTON, who translated the works and writings of the Jewish historian JOSEPHUS into English (Gamble and Green, pages 108, 112). This is only a FEW of the historical writings of men who search the ancient records of history. There is indeed MUCH proof from history and the New Testament itself that God's true elect and chosen people continued to observe not only the SEVENTH day Sabbath, but also the FESTIVALS of the Eternal as outlined in Leviticus chapter 23. Sometimes this light was hardly noticeable as God's people took refuge from persecution in the hills and valleys and dales of Europe and Britain. But the light NEVER WENT OUT. As Jesus said, He would build His church and the gates of death would never prevail against it. Eventually scattered remnants of the true Church of Christ, came across the ocean to settle in the New World of North America. There they established the faith, sometimes looking as though it would die, but those who were strong were courageous, stood tall, searched the scriptures daily, were willing to be led and taught by the Spirit into all truth. They would not deny the name of God or His holy word. The truth of the correct weekly Sabbath and yearly Festivals grew and grew. The Lord raised up various ministers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who proclaimed loud and strong the feasts of the Eternal. If you know and practice the observance of God's festivals then you my friend are partakers of this heritage. ........................ Written April 1985

PASSOVER HYMNS - WHAT A FRIEND

What a Friend We Have in Jesus

Joseph Striven, 1820-86

What a friend we have in Jesus, All our sins and griefs to bear!  

This is a song for the lonely—-those  who ever have been, are, or will be—written by a man who was familiar with friendship and acquainted with grief. Various threads of his life story-—-the tragedy, the mercy, the mystery-—-bear retelling.

After graduating from Trinity College in Dublin and spending several years in a military college, Joseph Scriven was forced by poor health to switch careers. Taking up theology, he studied for the Anglican ministry though in time he decided not to "go for" ordination.

Then, the night before Scriven was to be married, his bride was thrown from a horse—into the river in which she drowned.

Some say Scriven never quite recovered from this loss. At the age of twenty-five he left Ireland-—-alone—for Canada, where he was a family tutor on Rice Lake in Ontario. There Scriven fell in love again, but alas tragedy struck twice: his fiancee died of pneumonia, shortly after being baptized in the biting cold lake.

It seems that Scriven wrote "What a Friend" at this juncture-—-in 1855, for his mother, possibly sending it to her with the news of his misfortune and grief. (Can a mother bear her son's sorrow?) One copy he mailed to Ireland. Another-—-of draft manuscript quality and titled "Pray without Ceasing"-— went into his own scrapbook. It's not at all clear how the poem-—-with no author attribution at all—found its way into an 1865 book published in Boston: Social Hymns, Original and Selected. Ten years later Ira Sankey made a last minute substitution to include it in a widely distributed gospel-song collection. He later noted that "the last hymn that went into the book became one of the first in favor."

Scriven never did marry. He was increasingly viewed as an eccentric—sometimes tormented by town toughs. But if eccentric, the element was entwined with a faith that worked. He was known for "preaching to everyone about the love of Jesus." There was nothing empty about his words; a friend to the needy, he went about doing good, for example, sawing wood for the sick and the widows too poor to hire help. (It's said he would be "handyman" only for people who couldn't pay for his services.) "When he saw a need, he gave people money (not that he had much), his own winter clothing, his time. After Scriven's death a liquor salesman in town said, "If ever there was a saint on earth, it was Joseph Scriven."

Never robust, Scriven's health failed him before he reached nature's allotted three-score years and ten. Hearing of his predicament, friends took him in. Thumbing through Scriven's scrapbooks, his host-nurse, a Mr. Sackville, found an old handwritten copy of the popular song. The wheels began churning. "Did you write this?" he asked.

For my mother, he explained. I didn't intend anyone else to see it.

When asked again—directly—-if he'd written the poem, Scriven answered, "The Lord and I did it between us."

This one statement makes me think this man knew the friendship of Christ as well as he knew grief. 

To Scriven, Christ was a present partner, a burden bearer, helpmate who came alongside to inspire, to encourage, and help carry the load. "Can we find a friend so faithful / Who will all our sorrows share?" This is the type of friend noted in Proverbs 18:24 - "who sticks closer than a brother." This is the Friend who "took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows" (Isaiah 53:4).

And Jesus is the Friend who remains steady, still today. When we're lonely, feeling abandoned, in need of a soul mate. Jesus' word to his disciples might be his word to us: "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his masters' business. Instead, I have called you friends" (John 15:15).

Lord, allow me to know you as the friend who sticks closer than a brother. 

I might end the- story there; but Scriven's death is shrouded with such mystery that I cannot cut short the account. October 9—10, 1886: Scriven was sick, feverish, possibly delirious. He was also by some accounts severely depressed over his deteriorating health and his inability to care, for himself, physically and financially. Some postulate that he was still haunted by the loss of his first love, river-swept from his life. With what intent or purpose, no one knows, but sometime in the night he left his bed. In the morning he was found down by the lake, on his knees as if in prayer, his forehead to the ground—drowned in six shallow inches of water.

From the book "Spiritual Moments with the Great Hymns" by Evelyn Bence.

Oh how tragic to loose two to-be wives like that. Yes through times of sorrow and hardship, some can write the most beautiful spiritual songs. This on "What a Friend we Have in Jesus" has to be now one of the most famous and beloved spiritual hymns of all time.

Keith Hunt

PASSOVER - HYMNS FROM THE HEART

 Gave My Life for Thee

Frances Ridley Havergal, 1836 -78

I gave my life for thee, My precious blood I shed, That thou might ransomed be. . . . What hast thou given for me?

This song has never been among my favorites.

As a kid learning to play the piano, I pounded the life out of the unimaginative tune-—-one of the hymnal's easiest, no sharps, no flats, no tricks.

And the words—written as if by Jesus addressing you or me as a disciple—do not draw me to service motivated by gratitude. Rather, they drag me down with guilt. I hear a stereotypical martyr mother saying, "After all I've done for you ... you should be grateful." Duty-bound debt.

And yet I write of this song, viewing it differently in the context of its origin and the author's life.

As a young woman Frances Havergal traveled from her home in England to advance her education in Dusseldorf, Germany. While on the Continent, in a pastor's study she saw a motto printed beneath a Sternberg painting titled "Ecce Homo." The portrayed scene is Christ at his trial, whipped mercilessly, wearing a crown of thorns and a purple robe meant for mockery. He's standing between a crowd demanding death and Pilate, who says, "Ecce Homo": "Behold the Man."

 Sternberg's arresting depiction of Jesus' trial struck Havergal, who paused to contemplate the biblical event. Before leaving the scene, she copied the caption-phrase, translated: I did this for you. What have you done for me?

Later, back home in England, she noticed the line in her notebook, recalled her emotional response to the painting, and quickly embellished the caption. She wrote a poem of five stanzas, each ending with a pointed challenge: "What have you given to ... left for ... borne for ... brought to ... the Christ?

Pausing to read through her completed verse, Havergal thought poorly of her endeavor, and threw the paper into the fireplace. Yes, into the fire.

But it didn't burn.

Retrieving the lines, she eventually showed them to her father, who suggested they be saved. The next year the poem was printed as a pamphlet, then in a magazine, then with its own tune in an American Sunday school songbook.

Years later she wrote what would become one of her most famous hymns, "Take My Life." The first phrase is reminiscent of the earlier "I Gave My Life," but here she claims the "I-my" as her own: "Take my life and let it be / Consecrated Lord to thee...."

A few lines of a Havergal letter further connect her two songs.The "what have I given for Christ?" question is poignantly answered in the context of these later lines: "Take my silver and my gold, / Not a mite would I withhold." Her letter:

"Take my silver and my gold" now means shipping off all my ornaments—-including a jewel cabinet which is really fit for a countess—to the Church Missionary Society where they will be accepted and disposed of for me. I retain only a broach for daily wear ... also a locket ... Nearly fifty articles are being packed off. I don't think I need tell you I never packed a box with such pleasure.

This giving-up is no duty-bound debt. It is no casting away of the unsatisfactory endeavor. It is sacrificial—something precious relinquished as Havergal consecrated her Hfe to the God who asks no more of us than he asked of himself.

In her relatively short life (forty-two years), Havergal wrote what has been called a "huge volume" of hymns. Time has borne away the memory of all but a score, including these two: "Take My Life" and the earlier "I Gave My Life"—the poem thrown into the fire.

Intended for destruction—like Christ led by the crowd to Calvary.

But not destroyed—like Christ whose executioners did not have the final say.

At Jesus' trial Pilate said, "Behold the man" (John 19:5 KJV), beaten bloody." With spiritual insight John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29 KJV).

I gave my life for thee . . . That thou might ransomed be, And quickened from the dead.

This death would result in life—-an abundant life that could prompt a young woman to give away what she considered a "jewelers shop"-—with delight.

Two biblical men-—-Pilate and John the Baptist—saw one Son of God from two radically different perspectives.

And Havergal's story allows me to see new meaning in a throwaway line-—Jesus' hypothetical question: "What have you given for me?"

Lord, open my eyes to show me who you are and what you did for me. Allow me to feel such gratitude that I open my hands and my heart. Generously. Because I want to. Not because I have to.

From the book "Spiritual Moments with the Great Hymns" by Evelyn Bence.

....................

Being saved by grace does not mean we can live any way we desire. Jesus said man was not to live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God (Mat.4;4). We are to be reading and studying from Genesis to Revelation to learn how to live by God's every word. You may be wondering how we can do this. I have a study that will give you the keys, it is called "Living by Every Word of God - How?"

Keith Hunt 

EASTER - PASSOVER DEBATE IN WHITBY, ENGLAND - 664 AD

 

Easter/Passover Debate - Whitby 664 AD

The British Church did not observe Rome's Easter

From the book "A History of the English Church and People" by Bede FOREWORD and added comments by Keith Hunt The book by Bede is still in print and available through your Bible Book Store. The "Introduction" by Leo Sherley-Price is most revealing, as it admits that the practices of the British Church were in many ways far different from that of Rome, yet in time the Church of Rome dominated and all the "closer to the truth practices" of the British church were finally extinguished in those Isles we call Britain. A turning point in favor of the Roman Church was the Synod of Whitby in 664 AD. Bede recorded in his "History" the interesting debate that took place. Here it is with my added comments throughout. THE SYNOD OF WHITBY - 664 AD King Oswy opened by observing that all who served the ONE God should observe one rule of life, and since they all hoped for one kingdom in heaven, they should not differ in celebrating the sacraments of heaven. The synod now had the task of determining which was the truer tradition, and this should be loyally accepted by all. He then directed his own bishop Colman to speak first, and to explain his own rite and its origin. Colman said: "Thee Easter customs which I observe were taught me by my superiors, who sent me here as a bishop; and all our forefathers, men beloved of God, are known to have observed these customs. And lest anyone condemn or reject them as wrong, it is recorded that they owe their origin to the blessed evangelist Saint John, the disciple specially loved by our Lord, and all the churches over which he presided." (This is indeed what church history of the SECOND century also tells us, in that Polycarp stated to the bishop of Rome, in their debate over the time to observe our Lord's death, that he was taught by John the apostle, who always observed it on the 14th of the first month in the Jewish calendar - Keith Hunt) When he had concluded these and similar arguments, the king directed Agilbert to explain the origin and authority of his own customs. Agilbert replied: "May I request that my disciple the priest Wilfrid be allowed to speak in my place? For we are both in full agreement with all those here present who support the traditions of our Church, and he can explain our view in the English language more competently and clearly than I can do through an interpreter." When Wilfrid had received the king's command to speak, he said: "Our Easter customs are those that we have seen universally served in Rome where the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul lived, taught, suffered, and are buried. We have also seen the same customs generally observed throughout Italy and Gaul when we travelled through these countries for study and prayer. Furthermore, we have learnt that Easter is observed by men of different nations and languages at one and the same time, in Africa, Asia, Egypt, Greece, and throughout the world wherever the Church of Christ has spread. The only people who stupidly contend against the whole world are these Scots and their partners in obstinacy the Picts and Britons, who inhabit a portion of these the two uttermost islands of the ocean." (Of course Wilfrid was very correct here in stating that Easter was observed in all parts of the world, where the Christian Gospel had gone, for Easter was of great antiquity in the pagan nations, as a full study of Easter celebrations can be found - Keith Hunt) In reply to this statement, Colman answered: "It is strange that you call us stupid when we uphold customs that rest on the authority of so great an Apostle, who was considered worthy to lean on our Lord's breast, and whose great wisdom is acknowledged throughout the world." Wilfrid replied: Far be it from us to charge John with stupidity, because he literally observed the Law of Moses at a time when the Church followed many Jewish practices, and the Apostles were not able immediately to abrogate the observances of the Law once given by God, lest they gave offence to believers who were Jews (whereas idols, on the other hand, being inventions of the Devil, must be renounced by all converts). For this reason Paul circumcised Timothy, offered sacrifice in the Temple, and shaved his head at Corinth with Aquila and Priscilla, for no other reason than that of avoiding offence to the Jews. For James said to Paul: 'Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law.' But today, as the Gospel spreads throughout the world, it is unnecessary and indeed unlawful for the faithful to be circumcised or to offer animals to God in sacrifice. John, following the custom of the Law, used to be begin the Feast of Easter on the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month, not caring whether it fell on the Sabbath or on any other day. (Interesting here to note Wilfrid knew that John observed the Lord's death on the "evening" of the 14th day, yes, just as Jesus did when He observed His last one with His disciples as recorded in the Gospels. Also note that the same old argument that if you do "anything" from the Law of Moses you do it to appease the Jews only. Yes, it is the old argument from the early second century that many of these "observances" were merely "ceremonial" and "Jewish" while the NT Gospel did away with all them and established new days and feasts to observe. It is the original RC Church teaching - that they, with the Pope as the line of succession from the apostle Peter, have the authority from God to change "the times and seasons and laws" - Keith Hunt) But Peter, when he preached in Rome, remembering it was on the day after the Sabbath that our Lord rose from the dead and gave the world the hope of resurrection, realized that Easter should be kept as follows: like John, in accordance with the Law, he waited for moonrise on the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month. And if the Lord's Day, then called the morrow of the Sabbath, fell on the following day, he began to observe Easter the same evening, as we all do today. But, if the Lord's Day did not fall on the day following the fourteenth day of the moon, but on the sixteenth, seventeenth, or any other day up to the twenty-first, he waited until that day, and on the Sabbath evening preceding it he began the observance of the Easter Festival. (This is of course utterly false and a plain lie from Wilfrid, for there is NOTHING that even comes close to proving in all recorded history in the Christian church and its writings, even from the so-called "church fathers" that state the apostle Peter ever practiced or taught such a things as what Wilfrid just stated Peter did. In all my studies over the last 40 years in Church History, I have never read anywhere, from anyone, that Peter practiced such an observance of the Lord's death, or Passover, or Easter, or what ever other name you want to call that Spring Feasts - Keith Hunt) This evangelical and apostolical tradition does not abrogate but fulfil the Law, which ordained that the Passover be kept between the eve of the fourteenth and twenty-first days of the moon of that month. (Again, Wilfrid tries to make out that Peter's observance of the Lord's death could be anytime BETWEEN the 14th and 21st days of the first month in the Jewish calendar. This is all very sloppy Biblical scholarship. For the OT or law of Moses clearly states the Passover is on the evening of the 14th and the Feast of Unleavened Bread is from the beginning of the 15th to the end of the 21st day of the first month. There was NOTHING in the OT to state you could pick ANY day between the 14th and 21st to celebrate the "Passover" or the Lord's death. But such do people reason who think they have the weight of all the world - where the RC Church had gone - to back them up. It becomes easy to make up your own "theology" as you go along. It would seem Colman just did not have the wisdom to see the gross error Wilfrid was teaching, or he did not have the backbone to speak up LOUDLY against such false Biblical understanding and show that the apostle Peter would NEVER have developed such a practice as Wilfrid was making out that Peter did - Keith Hunt) And this is the custom of all successors of blessed John in Asia since his death and is also that of the world-wide Church. This is the true and only Easter to be observed by the faithful. It was not newly decreed by the Council Nicaea, but reaffirmed by it, as Church history records. (True per se, for Easter observance in the Roman Church began in the early 2nd century, that is why Polycarp and Polycrates, who came after Polycarp, went to Rome to debate the Easter/Passover date issue with their respective bishops of Rome in their life time - Polycarp and Polycrates were bishops in Asia Minor and practiced what was taught to them by John the apostle - a 14th day observance of the Lord's death on the first month of the Jewish calendar - Keith Hunt) It is quite apparent, Colman, that you follow neither the example of John, as you imagine, nor that of Peter, whose tradition you deliberately contradict. Your keeping of Easter agrees neither with the Law nor with the Gospel. For John who kept Easter in accordance with the decrees of Moses, did not keep to first day after the Sabbath; this is not your practice, for you keep Easter between the fifteenth and twenty-first days of the moon, you do not, for you keep it between fourteenth and twentieth days of the moon. As a result, you often begin Easter on the evening of the thirteenth day, which is not mentioned in the Law. Nor did our Lord, the Author and Giver of the Gospels, eat the old Passover or institute the Sacrament of the New Testament to be celebrated by the Church in memory of His Passion on that day, but on the fourteenth. (Here we begin to see some of the ERRORS of the then British church. Over the SIX centuries they had indeed fallen away into some error on this issue and observance of our Savior's death. When a people do this, be it by carelessness or by any other means, the ones who are also in error have a readily made "crack in the wall" to further their denunciation of what truth is remaining by those who are somewhat closer to the truth, yet also in error on parts of that truth - Keith Hunt) Furthermore, when you keep Easter, you totally exclude the twenty-first day, which the Law of Moses particularly ordered to be observed. Therefore, I repeat, you follow neither John nor Peter, the Law nor the Gospel, in your keeping of our greatest Festival. (And it was indeed true, the British Church had wandered from the straight and narrow way, and had so fallen into error that made their observance of the Passover or Lord's death, neither by the standards of the Old or New Testament- Keith Hunt) Colman in reply said: Do you maintain that Anatolius, a holy man highly spoken of in Church history, taught contrary to the Law and the Gospel, when he wrote that Easter should be kept between the fourteenth and twentieth days of the moon? Are we to believe that our most revered Father Columba and his successors, men so dear to God, thought or acted contrary to Holy Scripture when they followed this custom? The holiness of many of them is confirmed by heavenly signs, and their virtues by miracles; and having no doubt that they are Saints, I shall never cease to emulate their lives, customs, and discipline. (Oh my, what a wrong mindset Colman had allowed himself and others in the British Church to wander into. It is one of the sure ways into error, even if you have a basic truth. God can use and even show He is using and working with, men that are not all infallible in their beliefs and customs, God allowing them to not see all truth on all points of His word, in their life time. God allows this, He reveals truth as He wills, sometimes it is for other servants of His to find more truth on things that ones before them did not find all truth on. To put yourself into the mindset as what Colman had put himself into, is to surely trip up and fall on your face as you basically try to hold to the faith once delivered to the saints - Keith Hunt) It is well established that Anatolius was a most holy, learned, and praiseworthy man, answered Wilfrid; but how can you claim his authority when you do not follow his directions? For he followed the correct rule about Easter, and observed a cycle of nineteen years; but either you do not know of this general custom of the Christian Church, or else you ignore it. He calculated the fourteenth day of the moon at Easter according to the Egyptian method, counting it in the evening as the fifteenth day; similarly, he assigned the twentieth to Easter Sunday, regarding it after sunset as the twenty-first day. But it appears that you do not realize this distinction, since you sometimes keep Easter before full moon, that is, on the thirteenth day. And with regard to your Father Columba and his followers, whose holiness you claim to imitate and whose rules and customs you claim to have been supported by heavenly signs, I can only say that when many shall say to our Lord at the day of judgement: "Have we not prophesied in Thy name, and cast out devils, and done many wonderful works?" the Lord will reply, "I never knew you." Far be it from me to apply these words to your fathers; for it is more just to believe good rather than evil of those whom one does not know. So I do not deny that they were true servants of God and dear to Him, and that they loved Him in primitive simplicity but in devout sincerity. Nor do I think that their ways of keeping Easter were seriously harmful so long as no one came to show them a more perfect way to follow. Indeed, I feel certain that, if any Catholic reckoner had come to them, they would readily have accepted his guidance, as we know that they readily observed such of God's ordinances as they already knew. (A great deal of "savvy" as we say used here by Wilfrid. He knew the British Church had errors and mistakes in their observance of when to observe the Lord's death. He could see the contradictions in their "theological approach" to the issue, and with some "kind" psychological charm, could make the debate swing favourably in his Roman Catholic Church's direction to all those listening to this debate. By using their weakest links Wilfrid could then bring out the pomposity of the Church of Rome being superior in Biblical understanding. Where truth is not fully followed, or where there is no more "growing in grace and knowledge" but only a looking to the outside of "men's lives" as Colman had done towards some of his great men of God from the past ages in his British Church, it is the surest way to destroy what truth there might be remaining, as in this instance, for the Church of Rome did finally succeed in implanting their observance of Easter and Sunday all over the British Isles, over the next 3 or 4 centuries - Keith Hunt) But you and your colleagues are most certainly guilty of sin if you reject the indeed of the Apostolic See, indeed of the universal Church, which are confirmed by Holy Writ. For, although your Fathers were holy men, do you imagine that they, a few men in a corner of a remote island, are to be preferred before the universal Church of Christ throughout the world? And even if your Columba - or, may I say, ours also if he was the servant of Christ - was a Saint potent in miracles, can he take precedence before the most blessed Prince of the Apostles, to whom our Lord said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven"? (Now, Wilfrid thought it was the right time to bring in the upper cut to the jaw of Colman. He now knew that Colman was not much of a debater and did not have the understanding of the Scriptures to cause any "come-back" with what he was now going to throw up to him. He knew he could now hit him below the belt, with this final discourse he hurdled out to him and everyone standing by - Keith Hunt) When Wilfrid had ended, the king asked: Is it true, Colman, that these words were spoken to that Peter by our Lord?' He answered: It is true, Your Majesty. Then the king said: Can you show that a similar authority was given to your Columba? No, replied Colman. Do you both agree, (the king continued), that these words were indisputably addressed to Peter in the first place, and that our Lord gave him the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Both answered 'We do.' At this, the king concluded: Then, I tell you, Peter is guardian of the gates of heaven, and I shall not contradict him. I shall obey his commands in everything to the best of my knowledge and ability; otherwise, when I come to the gates of heaven, there may be no one to open them, because he who holds the keys has turned away. When the king said this, all present, both high and low, signified their agreement and, abandoning their imperfect customs, hastened to adopt those which they had learned to be better. .............. So it was, the part truth that the British Church had on celebrating the death of our Lord Jesus, was mainly abandoned from that day forward. It was to be another 500 years before the 7th day Sabbath of the British Church was finally extinguished from Britain. Many small pockets of people in the hills and valleys of Wales and Scotland, held on to this truth, but the day did come when the nation was fully drunk with the wine of the spiritual fornication of the Woman who rode the beast (Revelation 17).           Keith Hunt

DOES COLOSSIANS 2:16 ABOLISH THE FEASTS OF GOD???

 DOES COLOSSIANS 2:16 abolish the FEASTS of GOD?

by Keith Hunt

Many a man down through the ages - some famous, some not famous and some infamous - have tried reading the Bible, but ended up rejecting it as coming from an all powerful God. These individuals were stunned by the Bibles seemingly contradictions. "This book" they said, "can not possibly be inspired for it contains dozens of contradictions." And at first glance they would seem to be right. Some Biblical scholars on seeing this predicament have written whole books to answer the sceptics concerning these contradictions. These Biblical scholars knew that Jesus had said, "The Scripture cannot he broken'." God did not contradict Himself in His word. They knew that for every seeming contradiction there had to be a logical and harmonious answer. For those outside the "church" to be sceptical of how the Bible is written is one thing, and we should expect to find this. But it has never ceased to be of amazement to me when some Biblical scholars, ministers and lay people also believe, by what they say and write, that the Bible contradicts itself ! And what is even worse - they seem to be quite happy with that belief and make no attempt to untangle their mind. One of these seeming contradictions of the Bible concerns verse 16 of Colossians chapter 2. It is said by the apostle Peter that one reason Jesus came to this earth was to leave "us an example, that you should follower His steps: Who did not sin" ( 1 Pet. 2: 21, 22 ). The apostle John wrote, "He that says he abides in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked" (1 John 2:6). Now those verses are quite plain I think - it doesn't take a degree in a theological school to understand them. All we have to do is look in the four Gospels and see HOW Jesus lived - what HE taught, commanded and observed - and follow after Him - walk as He walked. But here's where the problems start for some. You see most have thought that Paul was telling the Jews and Gentiles at Colossae (in chap.2:16) through his letter that those old laws in the Old Covenant about eating and drinking, the 7th day Sabbath, the New Month days and the Feasts, were now ABOLISHED (no longer had to keep them) when one became a Christian. Ahhhhhhhh, but didn't Peter say Christ came to set us an example for us to follow? Jesus kept the "eating and drinking" laws - He kept the weekly Sabbath - He kept the Feasts of Leviticus 23. Jesus did not teach these things would no longer need to be observed after His death. He said nothing about.........abolishment of the things listed by Paul in verse 16. In fact the opposite is the case. Look at what He said in Mat.5:17-20. He first tells His disciples NOT to think He has come to abolish the law (first five books) then notice one of His plain teachings in verse 19, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, AND shall teach men so (to break what they think is the least commandments) he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven (doesn't say he'll be in the Kingdom), BUT whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven. FOR..." notice this, verse 20, "For I say unto you, that except your righteousness(see Ps.119:172) shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven." The scribes and Pharisees kept the laws of Col.2:16 externally at least. So to many Paul contradicted Jesus - he taught differently than Jesus - he changed the teachings of Jesus. But is that REALLY SO? PAUL CONTRADICTS HIMSELF? Not only do some think that Paul contradicted Jesus but that Paul contradicted Paul. He tells the Jewish/Gentile church at Rome (according to many) that they can choose their own days to keep holy to God, and the Lord will accept them - Rom.14. Now surely some - even some Gentiles - would have chosen the 7th day Sabbath and the feast of Pentecost or day of Trumpets, as would have some Jewish Christians. Paul teaches it would seem to many here - FREEDOM! Yet, to the Jews and Gentiles at Colossae he calls them out and instructs them to not let people teach them to observe the ways of eating and drinking, the weekly Sabbath, new month days and Feasts. At least many claim Paul is teaching this to the Colossians. With all this seeming to be, contradictory teachings of Paul, what do we find in the book of Acts on how Paul LIVED and the FEASTS he observed? Why we fined he kept the 7th day Sabbath - he kept the Passover (but the NT way as instituted by Christ) - he kept the feast of Pentecost. In fact Paul did nothing that his Jewish Pharisaical enemies could accuse him in breaking the laws of God, see Acts chapters 22 through 26. Some claim Paul was a Christian Jew and as such it was okay for him to still keep his Jewish heritage by observing the Sabbath and Feasts, but the Gentiles did not have to do this, or they could observe the 1st day of the week and different festivals other than those found in Leviticus 23. With this reasoning, let's ask some questions. A Jew that accepts Jesus as the Messiah - does he stop keeping the 7th day and start keeping the 1st day? Does he continue to keep the 7th day because it is national heritage and also start observing the 1st day as the Christian Sabbath? Or does he not observe either the 7th or 1st day but can choose another as Romans 14 would suggest he can do, according to how some interpret this section of scripture. Does the Gentile have to keep Sunday as the NT "Lord's day" ? If so - what then is Romans 14 teaching? Does God have the 7th day for Jews and the 1st day for Gentiles? Does God have one set of Feasts for the Jewish Christians and another set of Feasts for the Gentile Christians? What does a person do if they are half Jew and half Gentile blood? And how does Romans 14 apply to all this? Does God have different ways of salvation for different people? It is not the purpose of this article to explain what Paul is teaching in Romans 14 - I have another article which does that - all I will say here is that the "days" of Romans 14 have nothing to do with Sabbaths or Feasts of God as found in the Old Testament. No Paul never contradicted himself either in what he taught or practiced. Now let's get to what Paul was teaching the church in Colossians chapter 2. THE CONTEXT OF COL.2:16 Even the mightily inspired apostle Peter had to admit that some things Paul wrote were "...hard to be understood" and he went on to say that those who were unlearned AND unstable did wrest unto their own destruction (2 Pet.3:16). The reason why so many have trouble with Paul's writings is because they will not look at the context of verses like Col.2:16 and the context of Paul's life as recorded in the book of Acts. Too many want to isolate a statement by Paul from the verses around that statement and from other words of his in other letters. They read Paul with what we call "tunnel vision" or with blinders (like some horses wear over their eyes when racing) over their eyes so they do not see all Paul wrote. First, let's notice the basic spiritual condition that the people to whom Paul was writing were in. They had faith in Christ and love for all saints (chap.1 v.4). They had been alienated from Christ by the way they had lived but were now reconciled (v.21). Paul took pleasure in their order and steadfastness of faith in Christ (chap.2:5). They had been baptized (v.11-12). And their sins had been blotted out (v.13-14). Secondly, we need to see the apprehension and fear that Paul held for them and WHY. Paul wanted them to have full assurance of understanding(v.2). He was concerned about them being led astray by men with enticing words (v.4). He wanted them to WALK in the way of Jesus (we have seen Peter said to do the same - Jesus kept the Sabbath and Feasts of Lev.23) - see v.6. Paul warns them about men preaching deceit, wrong philosophies, teachings of the world, and ideas of men - that were opposed to Christ's teachings (v.8). He warns them against people who were entrapped in worshipping the spirit world, teaching observance to the physical, from man's commandments, and asceticism (v.18-23). He warns them about all this, the ways of the unconverted and deceived religious world of various false dogmas. With that background we can now start to understand what Paul is warning the Colossian church about. Here was a people who had been taught the gospel, had been shown the way and teachings of Jesus - they had come to recognize they were sinners in need of forgiveness - they had accepted Christ as Messiah and Savior - they had been baptized, had their sins and debt of death removed. They were now walking after Christ - living as He lived - practicing things as He practiced them. Then Paul gets word that sinister evil men were trying to shake and destroy their faith and walk with Jesus, by enticing them with many traditions, philosophies, doctrines, commandments of men and asceticism. These men are falsely telling them about how they have had contact with the spirit world. They are preaching to the Colossians that they have the spiritual truths not Epaphras their minister. These beguiling men are saying to those who will listen, that to follow this Christ and walk as He walked is foolishness, and that they have the correct traditions, customs, worship and commandments. Try to put yourself in the picture. You were a part of a false pagan or religious society - doing things contrary to the ways of Christ. Along comes a minister of Jesus and expounds the saving truth to you - and you see your sins - you see that what you have been believing and practicing have been the philosophies, traditions and commandments of MEN. You see you are a sinner in need of forgiveness - you see Jesus is the savior - you repent and are baptized - you start to live as He lived, walk as He walked. Your former friends and philosophical leaders see they no longer have any influence over you pertaining to your spiritual life. They do not understand your new faith - they think what you are now doing is crazy!! Then they make every effort to entice you back into their world and their man made concepts and traditions. SO IT WAS FOR THE CONVERTS TO CHRIST AT COLOSSAE! These converts to Jesus at Colossae had been in sin - but now are forgiver by the death of Christ on the stake. They now have repented or their old former way of life, and are now walking as Jesus walked - they are obeying God's laws concerning eating and drinking - they are keeping as Jesus kept, the festivals that God says are "my feasts" (Lev.23:1). Many are now observing the 7th day Sabbath as God commanded in the fourth of His 10 commandments (Ex.20). These followers of Jesus now observe the Jewish calendar and honor the new month days set by that calendar, together with the yearly Festivals as outlined in the books of Moses. Then after they start to live this way - the way Christ lived - along came men trying to criticize, sit in judgment, and govern them back into their man made, philosophies, commandments and traditions. Paul admonishes the Colossian church, "Let no man therefore judge you..." What does Paul mean by "no man"? Is he saying that their minister should not guide and govern them into God's way and truth? Does he mean that he Paul should not lead and guide them into the truth of Christ? Does the body of Christ - the church - have no leadership, guidance, or government among itself? Of course it does! See 1 Cor. 5 and 6:1-8. Paul is telling the Colossian Christians that they should let no man of these ENTICING, BEGUILING, vain, fleshly minded men of the world govern or sit in judgment over them concerning the way they now eat and drink, and the festivals they now observe. No PART of this way of life is to be governed by the outside people of this world who reject Christ, or who make up their own rules of religion for their spirit worship of the unseen. The Colossians are not to be governed by the fleshly unconverted minds of men in regards as to "...eating and drinking(as the Greek is), in regards festivals, new months or sabbaths." The day to day eating and drinking habits, the yearly, monthly, and weekly festivals, that God's people follow should not be influenced, determined or governed by the philosophies, traditions, doctrines and commandments of men who would entice them from walking in Christ Jesus. Now notice verse 17. Did Paul teach and believe the physical laws of eating and drinking were "done away"? Did he believe the Festivals, new month days, the weekly Sabbaths of God were "done away"? Look at what he says regarding these, "Which ARE" present tense in the Greek - "Which ARE (not were) a shadow of things to come..." A shadow leads to the reality! A shadow of a man appearing around a corner will lead you to the man. So it is with all of God's yearly, monthly and weekly festivals - they have GREAT MEANING about "things to come." The Passover lamb was slain on the 14th of Nisan - Jesus as the reality of the shadow was slain on the Passover day as the true Lamb of God. The Passover festival was a shadow of things to come. The feast of Firstfruits(Pentecost) was a shadow of things to come - the outpouring of God's Holy Spirit came on that precise day (Acts 2). The feast of Trumpets is a shadow of the coming last trump when Jesus will return to earth. All the weekly, monthly, and yearly festivals are a "shadow of things to come." They ARE, presently, today, continually a constant reminder of the wonderful plan of God for this earth and the people on it. If the Christian world had continued to observe God's festivals they would not be in confusion today as to what is the plan of Salvation that the Lord has for mankind. ....BUT THE BODY OF CHRIST? This phrase of Paul's has also been misused, abused, and not understood but by a few. It is claimed that Paul was telling the Colossians that laws to do with eating and drinking, festivals and sabbaths were not important - were "done away" - only accepting Jesus as the Messiah and Savior was now important. Just "give your heart to the Lord brother," just "come as you are," the law is "done away and it's only grace today" is what many teach that Paul is basically saying here in verse 17. Nothing could be further from the truth! In the inspired original Greek that the New Testament was written in, the little word "is" can not be found - it is not there. This phrase should read, "but the body of Christ" and that puts a whole different light on this passage. The word "but" is a connecting word, and what most miss is WHERE it is connecting. It is connecting with the thought of verse 16 - the phrase, "Let no man therefore judge you." Put these two phrases together and you have Paul's complete thought and statement with a parenthetical thought inbetween. So Paul's complete statement should be, "Let no man therefore judge you(parenthetical thought)but the body of Christ." The Greek contained no punctuation whatsoever. Today we would write verses 16 and 17 like this, "Let no man therefore judge you(in eating and drinking, or observance of a festival, or new month, or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come)but the body of Christ." The "body of Christ" are the collective remembers of the church. This can be seen from the following verses of scripture: 1 Cor.6 15; Rom.12:5; 1 Cor.12:12-27. It is the church of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit and the Ministry that God has established (Eph.4:11 12) that is to govern and guide the church as a whole in matters of Christian living and observance of Festivals, not those outside the church with their various ways of a so-called spirituality, based upon "the way that seems right unto man but which ends in death." Certain individuals were endeavoring to get the followers of Christ at Colossae into observing man made food and drink commandments (i.e. touch not, taste not, handle not - give up something during the Lent season. Or, do not eat fish on Friday) as well as their festive traditions (i.e. pagan Easter, Xmas, January lst and the Roman-Greek calendar), philosophical teachings, humanism, bodily flagellation (they still walk on their blood covered knees while reciting prayers to the altar, in some parts of the world) and spirit (angel-demon) worship. They wanted the Christians to give up following the physical and festival laws of the Hebrew God and reject Jesus as the Savior from sin. Paul tells the Colossian church to pay no attention to these fleshly minded men, but to let the body of Christ - the church - be their light and guardian over the things they were NOW ALREADY practicing (in the way of eating, drinking, festivals and sabbaths) as they walked in Christ. Contrary to the popular teaching or Colossians 2:16 this section of scripture is one of the greatest proofs in the New Testament that the Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity continued to observe not only the physical laws of God, but also the weekly Sabbath, the new month days(Hebrew calendar as governed by the Jewish authorities) and the Festivals of the Lord as outlined in Leviticus 23. ............. Foot note I've purposely stayed away from getting too technically scholastic with the Greek in this presentation, while at the same time bringing out what the Greek means. I do not believe God's children need a degree in NT Greek to understand what Paul is teaching in this part of his letter to the Colossae church. It is really quite plain to see from the whole context. For those who could desire a somewhat more technical presentation of this passage I refer you to the scholastic book FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi (4569 Lisa Lane, Berries Springs, Michigan 49103 USA). Dr. Bacchiocchi has another way to explain this section of Paul's letter. While I personally do not agree with his explanation, it does still agree with the truth I have presented here - namely that the Christians (Jews-Gentile) of the first century A.D. continued to observe the Sabbath and Feasts of God as established in the Old Testament. One of the most technical study articles I've seen to date on this section of Paul's writings is by Larry Waker. He basically gives the same explanation as Dr. Bacchiocchi. His articles are available on computer disk (ASCII text format) for a donation of $2.50 from: Sharing Disks, c/o John Guffey, 9700 South Anderson Road, Oklahoma City, OK 73165, USA. ................... Written May 1987 by Keith Hunt All articles and studies by Keith Hunt may be copied, published, e-mailed, and distributed as led by the Spirit.

PASSOVER TRUTHS---- JESUS LOVES ME

 Jesus Loves Me

Anna Warner, 1820 -1915

Jesus loves me! this I know, For the Bible tells me so; Little ones to him belong; They are weak, but he is strong.

This simple children's song has its high-minded critics who call it schmaltz. Bless them. May they someday learn ...

This same song has been memorialized by an eminent scholar .... One day the aging Karl Barth was asked a "deep" question. Would he—-could he—summarize the essence of his theological discoveries?

Barth had a ready response: "Jesus loves me! this I know. For the Bible tells me so." The first couplet of a children's song crisply condensed his lifelong journey in faith.

The song itself was first published a century before Barth's citation, and even then the words were written as a response— to a dying boy's request of his Sunday school teacher: "Sing." Not that this was a flesh-and-blood death. The sickly Johnny was a character in a popular but now long-forgotten novel, tided Say and Seal, coauthored by Anna Warner and her sister Susan. In this fictional world the impromptu lullaby "Jesus Loves Me" calmed the feverish child and introduced the reader to the assuring words now sung around the globe by children of all ages.

It takes a child's heart to appreciate this song, just as it takes a child's heart to know the heart of our loving God. Jesus made it clear: "Anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it" (Mark 10:15).

My friend Elsie recently spent a warm summer afternoon as a volunteer visitor in a hospital long-term-care unit. Intent on delivering inspiration to one particular woman, she dressed in a bright dress, bought a handful of flowers, and wore a smile. These visual signs of cheer did not dispel the gloom in the patient's room. "Nothing could be said to cheer her up," Elsie remembers. Until..."I began to sing softly, "Jesus loves me! this I know,... Little ones to him belong... .Yes, Jesus loves me!"

And a second verse-—-not part of Warner's original lineup: "Jesus loves me! He will stay / Close beside me all the way...."

Elsie continues: "When I started, she became very quiet. And with the last note, she could focus on hope. We talked of God's wonderful love for each of us and the hope of eternal life. After a short prayer, it was evident that peace had filled her heart."

In their book Songs for Renewal, Janet Janzen and Richard Poster tell of a man dying after a long battle with cancer. Knowing his hour was at hand, he started singing Warner's lullaby "and praying for God to receive his spirit."

Jesus loves me! He who died Heaven's gate to open wide; He will wash away my sin, Let his little child come in.

Janzen continues, "In the early hours of the morning he was indeed welcomed into the arms of Jesus."¹ Like a child. Like the children of another age, as described by the evangelist: "And [Jesus] took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them" (Mark 10:16).

In the words of another sentimental song: "Jesus loves the little children." All the children.Young and old. Healthy or feeble. He loves you. Are you child enough to claim it?

Lord, I want to know your love for me-—-not just on an intellectual level. Allow me to feel—emotionally—the assurance of your love. That means I have to become a child at heart? I'm not sure I know what that means, but . . . work your love in me.

....................

From the book: "Spiritual Moments with the Great Hymns" by Evelyn Bence

There is indeed a "spirit in man" and it does go back to God at death [Ecc.12:7].

It does not think, act, do, all by itself, but it is the CD recording of your character without sin. God keeps it safe until the day of the resurrection, when the saints will be raised to immortal life, with a glorified body, and the "spirit" character united with it.

The Passover time reminds us Jesus loves me, and YOU!

Keith Hunt