B-

This book’s goal is to show the path the author’s took to find that the Old Testament God is the same God of the New Testament, and how that led to accepting the Statutes of the Lord, all the while showing what the title proclaims from Malachi 4:4,5. The goal of making a case for keeping the Statutes of the Lord today is carried out, but the random-type fashion in which it is done, and the lack of focus on the message of the title prevent a higher recommendation.

The Moral Law is shown to have existed before Mt. Sinai. Suddenly the word “Torah” is inserted with no explanation, leaving the reader confused about what the point is.

Colossians 2:13-16 is shown to not be talking about doing away with any of the Feast days. In the middle of the explanation tho, the reader is taken on a trip with Paul to show that he kept the Feasts, and an explanation that sacrifices were done on the 7th day Sabbath, and then brought back again to the topic of Colossians 2.

The only thing that looks like error to me in the book is the explanation of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The novel idea is proposed that the OC was what man made under his own power, and the NC is what God made, and just a few days after the OC was made at Sinai! Israelites who had incorporated pagan worship into their practices are said to have “fallen into the Old Covenant”. Then in talking about the Passover, it suddenly introduces the concept of having 4 cups at the meal, and the mistake of the Rabbis in calculating the correct day for the Feasts. It is this “out of the blue” aspect of the book that makes it confusing to all except those who have already studied up on this material.

C-

This is a very timely book, as the subject of keeping the feasts has become fairly “hot” in the past few years among Seventh-day Adventists. Br. du Preez kindly sent me this book free after i contacted him with some questions after watching his 2-hour program on this topic on 3abn (on youtube). He has treated me nicer than any other “scholar” i’ve contacted among offical SDA employees, and if for that reason alone, i have a reason to want to like the book even before opening it. However the plethora of letters after his real name send up a slightly yellow caution flag before i flip the first page. In my brief life, i’ve found that the more letters there are behind someone’s name nearly always equals more arrogance and worldly thinking. And yes, that impression is mostly reinforced by this book. There are many instances where the “opposition” is called “ignorant” and their tool of choice – Strong’s Concordance – is savaged. Many “great scholars” of the world are quoted (which means nothing to me) and their suppositions are quoted as fact. To be fair, there is a lot of digging into the meanings of the words in the Bible, and he does believe in the entire Bible, unlike many of our “top theologians” who pick and choose which parts of the Bible they wish to believe.

The final analysis? He believes that the feasts are part of the ceremonial law, and that law is done away, so we know the feasts are done away also. However, there is no inspired proof given for that position. There are several errors of logic where he quotes some Babylonian author, and then accepts that as fact. He does a good service by showing that some of the Bible and SOP quotes used by feast-keepers to support their position are taken out of context or just false. He comes up with a new interpretation of Colossians 2:16, saying it is referring to pilgrimage, new moon and non-pilgrimage feasts. He shows that he will not accept any evidence in favor of feast-keeping, even dissing Ellen White in one instance. He strives mightily (and in vain) to link the feasts with animal sacrifices. He says to keep the feasts is to deny the atonement, then at the end of the book says it is OK for Jews to observe the feasts “merely as part of their cultural heritage”. This type of cut-and-paste theology is exactly what he accuses the feast-keepers of doing. My final impression is that he wants everyone to toe the official SDA position, whether that position is correct or not – just don’t rock the boat.

I sent him a email giving my “first impressions” on Dec. 26, 2011. After waiting more than a month for a reply, i sent him another email asking if he received my Dec. 26 email, and he replied that he had, and that he had sent a response. Sadly, i did not receive that response, and he did not offer to resend it. He asked me to read the book in detail and then reply again which i did, up to page 185, and sent him a reply to which there has not been a reply for almost 1 month now, so it looks like there will not be more communication between us.

Following are my notes (shown as “my”), things that struck me as either good or bad, but in some way important. Most of the following are actual quotes from the book, but not all. I have not capitalized most of them, as they are quotes taken from parts of sentences.
——————————————
There are 2 full pages just listing various translations used.
Br. du Preez has written a whole book to explain the sabbath in Colossians 2:16.
p.13 The Holy Spirit inspired … in their own words
“my”I believe the Holy Spirit dictated it, just as written in chapter 30 of the 1858 Great Controversy, and Testimonies volume26: “The scribes of God wrote as they were dictated by the Holy Spirit, having no control of the work themselves.”

p.22 Br. du Preez writes that we must follow Biblical methods

p.25 one could “mark” (the feasts) without observing them
“my”This starts a very troublesome assertion made several times in this book, one without any biblical support at all. That is – that while we can do something with the feasts to learn from them, we MUST NOT keep them. I fail to see any precedent for this in the inspired writings either.

p.26 The New Testament says these are “Jewish” feasts
“my”The New Testament also says salvation is “of the Jews”. So are we supposed to reject salvation because it is Jewish?!

p.29 disses Strong’s Concordance, completely rejecting it
“my”Strong’s is so vehemently dissed, that i checked the book cover to make sure the subtitle wasn’t something like “and throw away your Strong’s Concordance as fast as you can!”

p.29 Genesis 1:14 Mo’ed here simply means “fixed/appointed time”. Mo’ed is translated “assembly” about 2/3 of the time, and “festival” around 1/4
“my”This is very true. So my question is, how are we really supposed to view it? Is it wrong to view ALL these instances as connected somehow?

p.39 Proof text method of study is not good
“my”Perhaps true, but this is how the Seventh-day Adventist church was born, so to diss it now is basically saying that our church is based on a false method of bible study.
…

Feast-Keeping and the Faithful by Ron du Preez reviewRead More »