The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[Raffi]

Again, nearly all the contemporary commentaries and Bible reference handbooks I have read larely agree that the Apostles kept the "Jewish" Sabbath and Feasts till the end of Acts. And today, largely because of the recent scholarly trend known as the NPoP (New Perspective on Paul), more and more people are realizing that Paul was a Jewish rabbi and kept the Sabbaths and Feasts even up until his death.

Peter, James the less, John, and James the Just were Apostles. They imitated what they learned from The Master himself. They continued in that, and even past their generation (according to Hegessipus, Epiphanius, and Julius Africanus) early Christians kept the Apostolic Way, including Sabbath, distinction of clean and unclean meats, and the Feasts up till about the time of the Quartodeciman Controversy, at which time Greek and Roman Christians began a concerted effort to squelch the "Jewish Christians" in the East (read, for example how Chrysostom had a real hard time dealing with a multitude of Sabbath-keeping Christians in his community).

Eusebius tells us of James the Just:

"James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his piety, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom . . ."

Here we see that James' piety was so admired even among the non-Christian Jews that some thought that the destruction of Jerusalem happened because they killed James.

It is Eusebius in his History of the Church 4.5.3-4 that tells us also that the first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were "of the circumcision".

When you just look at the post-canonical written history alone you cannot deny that the Apostolic Christians of Jerusalem up until 135 CE were every bit as "Jewish" as the other Jews, meaning simply that they were "zealous for The Torah" and lived according to Torah-Piety. There is so much to get into that I just can't do that in this forum. There is too much. But just limiting our discussion to Acts and the Epistles, you can see it also. Apostolic Christianity originally was Commandment-centered Christianity. They kept the Old Testament Laws as well as the Testimony of the Messiah, and they saw NO contradiction.

Now, if someone wants to claim that Paul saw some new insight of revelation that Peter nor James saw, that person is teaching Hyper-Dispensationalism, or worse, Ultra-Dispensationalism. That person is saying that the earlier Apostles held a "Jewish Christianity" view, and God was okay with that apparently, while Paul later had a revelation of a whole new religious way which was based solely on Salvation by Grace, and which differed from what those earlier Apostles (who learned directly from Jesus) taught and believed. And if that is the case, where is the record that the earlier Apostles changed their doctrine to get in line with Paul's new theology? It doesn't exist because Paul did not teach a new revelation from the one that the earlier Apostles had, from what Peter, James, and John began to teach in Acts 2:38.

Salvation is by faith that is evidenced by obedience in repentance and Baptism in Water and Spirit. A "Jewish-Christian" understanding of Soteriology. Thus "Jewish-Christian" is synonymous with Original Apostolic. Those original Christians were "set-apart Apostolic" Believers, who kept The Commandments, the Sabbaths, the Feasts, the Testimony of The Gospel, and who spoke in tongues, healed the sick, and prophesied one to another. And they even continued to perform Temple worship until The Temple was finally destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, AFTER the Book of Acts was finished.

So I do not believe that the Apostles before Paul had an inferior knowledge of the way that Christianity should believe and be practiced. Rather, I am saying that the Resurrected Messiah carefully taught and explained what was to be believed and practiced by his Apostles as the Remnant Israel, and after being filled with the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, the Apostles began to live out PERFECT Apostolic Faith. It included The Mosaic Law, It's Commandments, Sabbaths, Feasts, the whole nine yards. Paul came along, and upon his own study concluded on a doctrine that AGREED with Peter, James, and John.

But later, Paul was being FALSELY accused of teaching counter to The Torah because of many things he had said in some of his epistles, and so this is why we see what happened in Acts 21, and why Pater said what he said in 2 Peter 3:16.

The more you read Acts, the more these "Jewish" elements become apparent. In their practice, in their teaching, in their customs and manners of doing things. The more you compare Acts to Deuteronomy, again, the more you begin to see all of this Jewishness stick out. Then, the more familiar with Judaism as a religion you become, the less able you are to deny how incredibly rich in "Jewishness" primitive Apostolic Christianity was. And by "Jewishness" here, I only mean "Torah-observant". Because Apostolic Christianity imitated the example and teachings of the Rabbi from Nazareth -- Yeshua/Jesus.

There is no record that the original Apostolic Believers ever ceased these "Jewish" elements once Paul showed up. To the contrary, not only can we see that Paul himself also continued in this "Jewish" way, but the Jerusalem Apostles continued in it as well as we see in Acts 21, and later historians up to Eusebius ALL admit that the early Jerusalem Christians were fully Jewish in their expression of Messianic faith, meaning they continued to keep the prayers, the Sabbaths, the Feasts, and even the Temple services up until it was finally destroyed.

So you see, Apostolic Christianity was Hebraic and Sabbatarian, and if we say we are modern Apostolics in imitation of that first generation . . . well, what's our problem?

[Raffi]

Finally, to return to the point of the animal sacrifices.

So they stopped doing Temple Worship not because of Messiah, but because The Temple was destroyed. You cannot do the sacrifices without The Temple. But the Apostles knew that according to the Prophecies, one day those sacrifices would continue in the Age-To-Come.

A literal reading of Ezekiel 40-48 shows us that there WILL be a re-introduction of animal sacrifices in the Age-To-Come. It will be in the age under Messiah. These sacrifices will be of a memorial nature, pointing BACK to the Real Atonement, in the exact same manner that the Lord's Supper points back to our Messiah. These sacrifices will NOT themselves be accepted as Real Atonements because Messiah's Atonement is the ONLY Atonement that is "real" and is once-for-all-time (Heb. 9:26). When we understand the memorial mature of the Restored Sacrifice, we can accept that such sacrifices do not contradict the value of our Lord's Finished Work. This "Memorial View" is simply the logical extension of the "Foreshadow View" which sees animal sacrifices in Redemptive History as looking FORWARD to the Real Atonement.

Simply, it is clear that The Bible says that the sacrifices are going to be restored.
Ex. 45:15, 17, 20

The purpose of the sacrifices here is QAPAR ("covering"). This is the exact same word used in Leviticus 16 to describe the HETTA sacrifice. These are not EXPIATORY sacrifices, rather they are "covering" sacrifices. Because in and of themselves they are only symbolic.

So there is no real theological reason that those sacrifices needed to be ended physically. Messiah fulfilled their meaning, yes, but that simply means he met that truth to which they pointed. but the sacrifices as symbol did not require to be stopped. They could just as well continue as symbol for as long as History itself continued, and no harm whatever would be done to the Doctrine of Grace, any more than was so in Old Testament times.

That they were stopped was the consequence of historical happenings to The Temple itself, not because the sacrifices became bereft of some perceived efficacy and so God saw fit to do away with them for that reason. Not at all. Had the sacrifices continued even till today, they would no more be perceived as expiatory than they were then, and their meaning would be the same.

Simply, there is no single Verse of The New Testament which says that Messiah ended the sacrifices, or because of his Atonement caused them to cease. You can teach that individually, if you desire, but it is not a Christian doctrine.

Peace.

[Esaias]

Hebrews 10:1-4 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. (2) For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. (3) But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. (4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

The offerings which are performed according to the Sinaitic covenant ("the law") can never make the offerors perfect. They cannot perfect the worshippers because those offerings cannot take away sins. Thus, perfecting is defined as having one's sins taken away. If perfecting were accomplished, that is, if the worshippers had their sins taken away, then the offerings would have ceased to be offered. Since the worshippers would have had their sins taken away, their consciences would have been purged, or purified from sins. And if the worshippers have their consciences purged, then they cease to offer the offerings.

Hebrews 10:5-9 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: (6) In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. (7) Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. (8) Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; (9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Because of this fact (that the sacrifices offered according to the law could never take away sins, and thus are repeated and continual), it is prophesied that God did not desire sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin, offerings of the law. Instead, Christ has come to do the will of God. Paul declares that this prophetic word from the Old Testament Scripture is proof that God takes away the first (sacrifice and offering and holocausts and sin offerings, which are offered by the law) in order to establish the second (the will of God). This is a plain statement that the offerings of the law are taken away in order to establish holiness and righteousness through the work of Christ.

Hebrews 10:10-14 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (11) And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: (12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; (13) From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. (14) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

The will of God sanctifies us through the cross. His offering of Himself perfects those who are sanctified. Notice, the offering of Christ perfects the believers separated unto God through Him. But we already saw that once a worshipper has been perfected, offerings cease. We have also seen that the sanctifying and justifying will of God is the replacement for the offerings of the law. And we have now seen that the sanctifying and justifying will of God perfects the believer through the death of Christ. Thus, the conclusion is inescapable - for the church, there are no more Levitical offerings.

Hebrews 10:15-18 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, (16) This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; (17) And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. (18) Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

The Holy Ghost is a witness to us of this truth. When a person receives the genuine Holy Ghost, that abiding, empowering, sanctifying Presence of Christ in the believer is a witness or testimony that the believer has experienced what the apostle was just describing - the perfecting of the believer by the purging of their conscience from their sins, demanding the cessation of Levitical offerings for sin, holocausts, etc. The reason is because the Scriptures prophesied that the New Covenant would be made and would consist in the writing of the laws of God into the hearts and minds of the believer, and the blotting out of their sins. And where the remission of sins occurs, there is no more offering for sin. The offerings under the law for sin - the tresspass offerings, the sin offerings, the whole burnt offerings, the atonement offerings (offerings made to atone), etc, are "no more". The reason? Again, because remission of sins has occurred, because the new covenant has been made, because the laws of God have been written in the heart and mind, because the conscience has been purged, because the worshipper has been perfected, all by the work of the cross and the power of the Holy Ghost.

As it is written in Acts 15:8-9: And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; (9) And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Hebrews 10:19-23 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, (20) By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; (21) And having an high priest over the house of God; (22) Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. (23) Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

We do not come before God by the Sinatic way, the Levitical way, the way of the old covenant, the way of "the law", with it's offerings, holocausts, sacrifices, offerings for sin. Instead, we come before God by a NEW WAY, consecrated for us by the death of Jesus Christ. That is to say, we come before God into His presence, into that presence that only the High Priest was allowed once every Yom Kippur, and we come into that presence by the cross, by the death of Christ. We can draw near to God in TRUE assurance of faith, because our hearts have been purged by the blood of Christ from sin, we have been baptised in the pure water of Acts 2:38 baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. And we must hold fast this profession of faith without wavering. It really is "Jesus Only".

Now, let's look at another aspect of this:

Hebrews 13:10-13 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. (11) For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. (12) Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. (13) Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

The Levitical system and the worshippers under that system have no right to eat of the altar which we, as Christians, have. Just as the carcasses of the animals which are sacrificed for sin are burnt outside the camp, Jesus suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify us by His own blood. So, we are to go to Him "outside the camp, bearing His reproach." We are to go outside the Levitical system of offerings for sin, trusting in and relying on His sacrifice for us as our atonement.

Hebrews 9:7-10 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: (8) The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: (9) Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; (10) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Here it is explicitly stated that the meat offerings, drink offerings, various mikvas, and "carnal ordinances" (ordinances pertaining to the Levitical system of worship) were imposed upon Israel TEMPORARILY, that is, "until the time of reformation." This proves several things. It proves that the Levitical or Sinaitic system of ceremonial worship (the offerings, etc) was temporary. It proves that there would be a reformation of worship. It proves that the reformation of worship would mark the end of the Levitical system of offerings conducted according to the Levitical ordinances. The Levitical system was in place until the way into the Holiest was made manifest. That way was not manifest under the "first tabernacle", a metonymy for the Sinaitic covenantal system of worship. But Jesus has made the way into the Holiest manifest, by the cross. Therefore, the reformation has occurred. And therefore, the Levitical system of worship has reached the point of "until", and has ended.

(to be continued in next post)

[Esaias]

(part two)

Hebrews 8:6-13 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

This is a plain declaration that Jesus is our High Priest, under the new covenant, which is a better covenant, than the one made at Sinai. Furthermore, because Christ was to establish a "new" covenant, that makes the first covenant (the Sinaitic covenant) "old". And, that which decays and becomes old is "ready to vanish away". This is a plain statement that the Sinaitic covenant was, at the time of the writing of this epistle, ready to vanish away. The apostle is clearly teaching a covenant replacement theology, that the new covenant has replaced the old covenant, that the offering of Christ has replaced the Levitical offerings.

Hebrews 7:11-12 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? (12) For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The priesthood has been changed, from Levi to Melchizedek, from Aaron to Christ. The priesthood being changed necessitates a change of the law. That is to say, since Melchizedek has replaced Levi, Christ has replaced Aaron, it it necessary that the Levitical system of worship is changed as well. The Levitical system of worship consisted in offerings (meat offerings, drink offerings, animal sacrifices, various rites of purification, etc). Thus, there is a change in those offerings, they having been replaced by the offering of Christ. They have been replaced because the priesthood has been replaced, because the worship has been replaced, because the covenant has been replaced.

Hebrews 7:17-19 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (18) For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. (19) For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

There is TRULY a "disannulling" of the previous commandment which ordained and established the Levitical priesthood (along with its attendant system of offerings). This disannulling is accomplished by the "bringing in of a better hope", which is the new covenant in Jesus Christ.

The epistle of Hebrews proves conclusively using great plainness of speech that the old covenant has been replaced by the new, the Aaronic and Levitical priesthood has been replaced by the Melchizedek priesthood, the Levitical offerings have been replaced by the offering of Christ.

The destruction of the Temple was not merely an historical event. It was a divine judgment upon Judah, signifying the old covenant had decayed and waxed old. The destruction of the priesthood, the temple, and the city, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Christ Himself, which occurred as a direct result of the rejection of Jesus as the Christ, was the vanishing away of the old covenant system of worship. God's people were to worship in a new covenant way, in a new covenant Christological context, not in the old covenant way, in a Mosaic context.

Raffi mentioned that Paul kept one of the Feasts in a local setting, not having the opportunity to go to Jerusalem. This proves Paul kept the Feast in a new covenant, Christian context, rather than in a Mosaic or Levitical context. For God had ordained that the Feast was to be kept in JERUSALEM, and no provision was made for it to be kept anywhere else. That was the Mosaic ordinance. Only in a Christian context with a Christological "change of the law" could the Feast be genuinely kept anywhere else.

[Esaias]

It is only when these fundamental facts concerning the change from the old to the new covenant are understood, can a proper examination of Paul's performance of certain Levitical rites be had. Also, these fundamental facts concerning the reformation of worship must be understood before one can properly begin to examine various prophecies concerning the eschatological worship, as spoken of in Ezekiel and Isaiah and other places. Therefore, I will leave off for now the issue of whether the Levitical offerings will or will not be resumed in the future.

[Aquila]

Y'all done went way too deep for me. I'm not a preacher or theologian.

I'm of Scottish heritage, and I live in Ohio. GO BUCKS! All I want to know is...

1.) Can I eat bacon and still be right with God?
2.) Do I have to go to church on Saturday or Sunday?
3.) Do I have to dress up and act Jewish for strange festivals I can barely pronounce?
4.) Do I have to keep strange laws in the Law of Moses like not blending fabrics (one of my favorite shirts is poly-blend), not sitting on a couch, bead, love seat, or adirondack chair a woman sat on because she's on her menses, not trimming the edge of my beard, etc.?

Help this good ol' boy out here.

[Aquila]

I was taught that the Apostles kept many of the Jewish traditions, primarily because there was an overlap between the two faiths, Judaism and Christianity. Within the overlap, Jewish customs and traditions were still practiced, but as the Christian cannon was formed stark differences clearly arose with the revelations of the New Covenant. And as time passed, the church became primarily Gentile and the old Jewish customs were abandoned.

This attached image might help to understand what I was taught.

[Aquila]

I know believers who sincerely believe that the "Law of Moses" was nailed to the cross. However, they also believe that the "Law of God" (the Ten Commandments) still stand. As a result, they keep the Sabbath by making it a time of gathering, rest, and spiritual devotion. They draw stark distinction between the Law of God and the Law of Moses. For example, they were even stored in different locations in the Ark of the Covenant.

We see that the stone tablets upon which were written the Ten Commandments were placed "into the ark" (with the pot of manna and the rod that budded):

Exodus 40:20
And he took and put the testimony into the ark, and set the staves on the ark, and put the mercy seat above upon the ark:

But the "book of the Law" (Torah scrolls) were put in the "side of the ark":

Deuteronomy 31:26
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

Essentially, these brethren believe that the Ten Commandments still stand, but the Law of Moses has been replaced by the Law of Christ. In my opinion, they make a rather strong case for obeying the Sabbath (seeing that it is one of the 10 Commandments), without the mandate to observe all the stipulations found in the Law of Moses (circumcision, tedious Sabbath prohibitions, feast days, cleanliness laws, dietary laws, etc.).

(The attached image explains what I'm referring to.)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Raffi

In Acts 21:39 Paul says "I AM a Jew . . .", not "I WAS a Jew". Even though he was a Christian, Paul did not see this as a break from his previous religious heritage. He simply saw himself now as a "Jewish Christian".
In Acts 22:3 Paul again admits to being a Jew.
In Acts 24:14 Paul flatly and plainly admits: "But this I confess unto thee . . . believing ALL things which are written in THE LAW and in The Prophets."
Acts 25:8

In Acts 28:17-20 Paul admits that as a Jewish Christian he had NOT committed an offense against the Customs of "Our Fathers" (that is, the ABBOT -- the Rabbinic Fathers). In trial Paul presented himself as a "Jew", and not as a "Christian". His whole defense was that he had NOT denounced his affiliation to Judaism, nor had he converted to some new religion. Instead, Paul chose to go to his death as a Jew rather than renounce his affiliation to that religion. Even as a Christian, Paul never surrendered his commitment to God's Law.

Rom. 7:25 ". . . with the mind I myself serve The Law of God: but with the flesh the law of sin."

The last book of The New Testament to be written was probably either The Gospel of John, or The Book of Revelation. BOTH of these books support a continued validity of The Commandments of Torah. Several times within this Book there is a repeated motif of religion in which one sees BOTH the keeping the Commandments of Moses along with the keeping of The Testimony (Gospel) of Messiah.

Rev. 12:17
Rev. 14:12
Rev. 15:3

In Revelation 22:14 in the KJV, we see that those who shall have the privilege of partaking if The Tree of Life shall be those who "DO His Commandments".

1Co 9:20-23 KJV....And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; ..(21)....To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. ..(22)....To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. ..(23)....And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

Paul did all the Jewish rites for one sole purpose, and it was not to personally serve God as though God required it of him. It was for the gospel's sake in reaching others who would otherwise reject and not listen to anything he said.

It's not a sin to keep law. It's just fleshly and cannot work. So, since it was not sin, he did it to not offend Jews who did, so they would hear him preach the gospel. Period.

When he said he lived without the law to reach those outside law, he ensured we all knew he still believed in holy living and sinless activity, by telling us he is not without any law at all. he just did not keep the Old Covenant law. Paul lived by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus that overcomes the law of sin and death, while the law of old covenant was impossible to keep consistently.

His commandments are not old covenant law. We know that from the sermon on the mount where he said "Mat 5:38....Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39....But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Raffi

Finally, to return to the point of the animal sacrifices.

So they stopped doing Temple Worship not because of Messiah, but because The Temple was destroyed. You cannot do the sacrifices without The Temple. But the Apostles knew that according to the Prophecies, one day those sacrifices would continue in the Age-To-Come.

A literal reading of Ezekiel 40-48 shows us that there WILL be a re-introduction of animal sacrifices in the Age-To-Come. It will be in the age under Messiah. These sacrifices will be of a memorial nature, pointing BACK to the Real Atonement, in the exact same manner that the Lord's Supper points back to our Messiah. These sacrifices will NOT themselves be accepted as Real Atonements because Messiah's Atonement is the ONLY Atonement that is "real" and is once-for-all-time (Heb. 9:26). When we understand the memorial mature of the Restored Sacrifice, we can accept that such sacrifices do not contradict the value of our Lord's Finished Work. This "Memorial View" is simply the logical extension of the "Foreshadow View" which sees animal sacrifices in Redemptive History as looking FORWARD to the Real Atonement.

Simply, it is clear that The Bible says that the sacrifices are going to be restored.
Ex. 45:15, 17, 20

The purpose of the sacrifices here is QAPAR ("covering"). This is the exact same word used in Leviticus 16 to describe the HETTA sacrifice. These are not EXPIATORY sacrifices, rather they are "covering" sacrifices. Because in and of themselves they are only symbolic.

So there is no real theological reason that those sacrifices needed to be ended physically. Messiah fulfilled their meaning, yes, but that simply means he met that truth to which they pointed. but the sacrifices as symbol did not require to be stopped. They could just as well continue as symbol for as long as History itself continued, and no harm whatever would be done to the Doctrine of Grace, any more than was so in Old Testament times.

That they were stopped was the consequence of historical happenings to The Temple itself, not because the sacrifices became bereft of some perceived efficacy and so God saw fit to do away with them for that reason. Not at all. Had the sacrifices continued even till today, they would no more be perceived as expiatory than they were then, and their meaning would be the same.

Simply, there is no single Verse of The New Testament which says that Messiah ended the sacrifices, or because of his Atonement caused them to cease. You can teach that individually, if you desire, but it is not a Christian doctrine.

Peace.

I refuted that reasoning here:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=393

I look forward to your response.