Charles Whitaker, examining Christ's statement that the law will not pass away until all has been fulfilled, indicates that the Law of God will change only when the preconditions Christ established in Matthew 5:18 have been met. Paul asks and answers the question, "Why do we need the law in the first place?" in Galatians 3:19-25, revealing it was given as a schoolmaster, teaching us what sin is. When the circumstance of sin ceases, what happens to the law? The concept of sin as a reality will be gone at a certain point in time. Has the law changed so far, and if so, what laws? A change in the priesthood (from Aaronic to Melchizedek) has taken place. Centuries before this event had taken place, God had prepared for it. Certain laws did indeed change. Before the Israelites entered the Promised Land, they were forbidden to eat goats, sheep, and cattle away from the altar of sacrifice, even though they could eat wild game anywhere, but after they entered the land they could eat goats, sheep, and cattle anywhere in a non-sacrificial context. Eating blood was still prohibited. In the Millennium, all people will worship God in Jerusalem, but God's called-out ones are invited to worship God in prayer in spirit and truth in His very throne room. This alone we are privileged to do. In changing the rule about the venue for eating goats, sheep, and cattle, God was looking far into the future, realizing the proclivity of mankind to sin, and could envision a time when He would be forced to destroy the altar for centuries. God does not place needless burdens on people.
John Ritenbaugh, focusing on the Night to be Much Observed, rebuts those who derisively called this event "Armstrong's folly." In Deuteronomy 16, the word "Passover" is out of context in the first verse because it was intended as an overarching category applying to the whole Passover season, including the Night to be Much Observed and the Days of Unleavened Bread. The word "herd" in the second verse does not apply to sheep, but instead to cattle. Only lambs were to be used for Passover. "The place where the Lord chooses to put His name" does not apply to Passover, but to the day Israel came out of Egypt. The Passover sacrifice itself was to be sacrificed and roasted at home. It was not to be boiled. The entire period covered by these verses applies to seven days.
John Ritenbaugh insists that if we use clear, unambiguous scriptures to clarify ambiguous scriptures, and if we don't try to establish a doctrine on the interpretation of one word, we can avoid the doctrinal blindness caused by presumptive, vain, carnal reasoning. Difficulties some have had about the time of Passover, the Wave sheaf offering, and the time of Pentecost resulted from reversing the process, making assumptions unwarranted by clear scriptural evidence. If we follow the clear instructions about offerings (given to Joshua) in Deuteronomy 12, it becomes abundantly clear that Joshua absolutely would not have made a wave-sheaf offering in Joshua 5. There is also no scriptural basis for assuming that the Wave sheaf offering must occur within the Days of Unleavened Bread.We dare not add to or subtract from God's clear instructions.
The Bible tells us that at the Feast of Tabernacles, we can spend our money on whatever we desire. However, the Feast is a test of our hearts. What do we really desire? Do we indulge ourselves, or do we use our resources to make it the best Feast ever for others?
Focusing upon a deceitful proclivity of human nature to find a loose brick to nullify a doctrine, John Ritenbaugh rebuts red herring arguments that the events of Joshua 5 provide an exception to the rule or pattern established in Leviticus 23:11. The entire contents of Leviticus 23 provides a chronological listing of the sabbaths (weekly and annual), and nothing in the subsequent chapters of the Bible alters or changes the times or dates these sabbaths are to be observed. Along with the obvious observation that nothing in the entire 5th chapter of Joshua remotely mentions anything about a wave sheaf offering, if the children of Israel, newly occupying the land, had used a foreigner's grain, it would have been a flagrant violation of Leviticus 22:25. The conditions for a wave sheaf offering were not right until Joshua 22, seven years after the Joshua 5 incident. The other "loose brick" in Luke 6:1 " the second sabbath after the first" is established on a spurious scripture.
Receive Biblical truth in your inbox—spam-free! This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 145,000 subscribers are already receiving.