Can LCG members EVER do ANYTHING right?
Good teachers and good preachers never have anything to worry about especially when they are preaching grace, justice, and mercy, and are followers of Jesus. Instead, we witness daily the men in various COG's who focus upon Moses, rules, and "proper" church government. Jesus could care less about those things and pointedly made it part of his ministry to do the opposite of what all that the vain-glorious leaders said was the law and commands of their god.
Once more Jesus gets short-changed and left out of the picture. He is just an inconvenient guy in the way of the kingdom of God which trumps everything.
Are You Teachable? The Scriptures reveal that one of the most important qualities of character that God is looking for in Christians and future leaders in the Kingdom of God is teachability—the desire and willingness to listen and learn. Abraham was teachable and responsive to God’s instructions (Genesis 12:1–4). Moses was a very capable leader, yet a most humble and teachable individual (Numbers 12:3). David’s attitude comes through in Psalm 119:33, where he writes, “Teach me, O Lord, the way of Your statutes.” Solomon recognized his human inadequacies when he asked God for wisdom and an “understanding heart” so he could learn to rule wisely (1 Kings 3:9). When Jesus said the meek and the poor in spirit will be blessed, He was emphasizing their teachability and their willingness to be corrected and to learn and grow (Matthew 5:3–5). This is in stark contrast to an attitude that refuses to listen to advice or correction and is only focused on one’s own ideas (Proverbs 13:1; 18:1–2). The Scriptures also reveal that when we harden our hearts to God’s instructions, we will reap serious consequences (Proverbs 28:14). We have been called to reign with Jesus Christ in the Kingdom of God, and being teachable is one of the keys to attaining that incredible reward.
Have a profitable Sabbath,
Douglas S. Winnail
39 comments:
The question Dougie ol' boy is "Are YOU teachable?"
Teachability...not really. The Lord is most concerned that we repent and are converted; that we be holy.
I suppose Munson had been as well taught in Armstrongism as Weston. Both were very teachable in a wrong teaching.
Sorry, Jerry, meekness is not another word for teachability. It means at least that you don't think too highly of yourself.
Some people that think too highly of themselves may believe all their beliefs are right and thus yours are wrong.
They may also believe that if you don't do as they say, you are not teachable before God. Ah me. These COG leaders never fail to disgust.
Exactly anon 12:37! They say this crap all the time but are so blind to their own inability to follow their own advise. LCG ministry are truly wise in their own sight.
The WCG was a restoration church movement, restoring what they believed were lost truths. The LDS church believes the same thing. But, just because they believe they have truth does not mean that they have ALL the truth there is to learn. But, they don't seem to look beyond the writings of HWA so they haven't learned anything beyond what he wrote. They are NOT teachable because they believe they already know all that there is to know. This is why their sermons are the same decade after decade. I was in the WCG for four years and attended AC for 2 in the early 70's. What they teach to day is the say as what I heard fifty years ago. They can't even come up with original titles for articles, booklets, etc. I bet they still tell the same stale jokes in their sermons. Talk about a hardened heart, they have a hardened mind.
1:55 PM: Yup. They're Laodicean.
"We have been called to reign with Jesus Christ in the Kingdom of God, and being teachable is one of the keys to attaining that incredible reward."
This is so far off track that it is not funny! Who determined that this is a KEY?
I beg All in your church leadership to humble yourselvesand be transformed into the likeness of Jesus Christ our LORD and learn what will be in your life if you are a Christian and it will not be pride and AUTHORITY. But I am speaking in futillity to those who do not have ears to hear.
Jesus Christ did not beat his sheep, he lay down His life for the sheep and he told Peter, "feed my sheep."
James 3:17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peacable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, and without hypocrisy.
1 Corinthians 13: Love is patient, love is kind and not jealous, love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth, bears all things, edures all things. Love never fails.....
Galatians 5:22 Fruit of the Holy Spirit. Do you see this in your church? Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, Self Control
Galatians 5:25 If we live by the Spirit by the Spirit, let us walk by the Spirit
Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
To 1:55, the question to you is, if they gave you something new, would you accept it? As Christ said, don't think you'll accept the new when it comes..."(Luke 5:39) Christ did bring something new 30 years ago (in the Tkach years) but they didn't accept it. That's why it's been backward progress ever since.
Doug Winnail closed with: “… and being teachable is one of the keys to attaining that incredible reward.”
Notice that Winnail did not include a scripture to back up that statement. That is because there is no scripture that supports Winnail's concept. If there was an appropriate scripture Winnail would have cited it.
I always say that you must fact check and scripture check everything that Winnail preaches.
There are several verses that speak about rewards; but none address the COG concept of "teachable" - which is COG defined as accepting everything the COG tells you.
Meek and poor in spirit are broad concepts dealing with humility and can also include yielding to God in a humble manner - that is far from accepting as truth everything a COG minister, who has a very weak grasp of Holy Scripture, preaches without proper scriptural support.
Winnail rebelliously refuses to instruct people on the only way they can enter the Kingdom. Winnail treacherously refuses to accept grace, and instead enslaves people with demands that they work for their salvation.
Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.
LCG members should know their Bibles better than Doug Winnail - so that you can teach him and thereby see how teachable he is.
NO2HWA said, we witness daily the men in various COG's who focus upon Moses
I do not believe that their focus is upon Moses. They do not even understand the Torah nor the sacrificial system.
Does anyone of them know what the sacrifice was to atone for murder, prior to Jesus' death?
There was NONE! Read Lev 4:1-6:7 and Num 15:27-31. Did David or wicked Manasseh offer sacrifices to atone for their sins? No.
Manasseh repented ...
2 Chr 33:12-16 What Manasseh offered was peace and thanksgiving offerings, not sin or trespass sacrifices, AFTER he was brought back to Jerusalem.
David repented ...
2 Sam 12:13, So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against YHVH.” And Nathan said to David, “YHVH also has put away your sin; you shall not die."
Only two heartfelt Hebrew words (chatati YHVH) to atone for adultery and murder ...
Why would God now require, aside from repentance, a human sacrifice in order to forgive adultery or murder?
Are Monson and Fritts formally disfellowshipped and marked?
Doug Winnail can't even correct his own hair decently and in order. How can we expect him to correct other people on far more serious matters?
Only one verses Doug cited is related to his "teachable" theme.
I guess there were no verses that demand you be an obedient cult member, or he would have quoted those verses instead. Doug really had to stretch to convey the cult message with this one. How did someone so inept with scripture become a leading minister in a leading splinter?
I do agree with Doug on this one. Being teachable is inherent in being repentant. A willingness to repent is the opposite of believing one is always right. The same with growing/overcoming as a Christians. Mastering any skill or trait means acknowledging that their is room for improvement
King David's "against you only have I sinned" is a self serving lie. As a minimum, he trivializes his sin. Christ said "if your brother sins AGAINST you, rebuke him." We do sin against others, which is why the principle of restitution, and payouts for eg, slander.
Anon @8:18 pm said, King David's "against you only have I sinned" is a self serving lie. As a minimum, he trivializes his sin.
I think you just 'slandered' David :)
Psalms were sung in the Temple. I don't think God would have allowed it if it were a lie. Anyone can 'google' the various reasons given for such phrase.
Shalom.
This is Joe Biden
Err, I forgot what I was going to say. Do I really have that many grand children? Anyway, bye now.
Shalom
You can choose to believe either a flawed king David or a sinless Jesus Christ. I choose to believe Christ. The "I've only sinned against God and not against a person" defence was bought up in a court case in my state, and rejected by the judge.
It's so juvenile that it's hard to know what to say.
Anonymous said...
To 1:55, the question to you is, if they gave you something new, would you accept it? As Christ said, don't think you'll accept the new when it comes..."(Luke 5:39) Christ did bring something new 30 years ago (in the Tkach years) but they didn't accept it. That's why it's been backward progress ever since.
August 17, 2020 at 3:43 PM
WHAT!? What did Tkach give us that was new? Sunday worship instead of Saturday worship? Servants instead of "pastor general, ordained ministers, deacons, deaconesses"? Offering plates instead of money tithing?(That gimmick didn't last long). Joe jr and Tammy taking the reigns after the old man put them in that position? All under false pretenses. If Tkach wanted to make forward progress, why didn't he just leave and start his own "church" instead of drawing people after himself and taking all of Herbie's loot(which was actually supposed to be our's)and living a life of luxury at our expense? Sorry, I don't see any forward progress in the "Grace Church", or Christ bringing something new. All I see is the same old same old.
9.52 PM
Neither Christ nor David had the power to change the laws of nature of moral laws. No prayer of king David could change the law of accountability ie, the souls that sins, it shall die, God judges every person according to their deeds etc. Neither can Psalms sung in a temple change any moral law.
Shalom
Doug is not very teachable. His wife tried to teach him about salvation by grace alone, but he rejected it. Since Doug desires to be a teacher, there is one verse I would like to teach Doug to alert him to his foolishness:
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
HWA and RCM preached against make-up; they forbade it for women and deemed it to be evil vanity. Winnail preached the same.
Thousands of poor COG women suffered through graying and gray hair. However, Doug was not teachable under the instruction of HWA or RCM and has ruled that hair color is a vanity necessity for him.
Oh, the hypocrisy!
Oh, the vanity!
Oh, the ridiculous look of the unteachable minister!
What planet have you been on Anon 4:31.
Because Loma Armstrong had her hair finely styled by hairdressers on a regular basis. It has always been allowed and desired for church women to have 'First Lady' hairstyles.
The was of course the blip in the mid to late 70's when money was low (and Loma and her hair no longer around) that Herbert W decreed that women, to save money, had to cut their hair themselves. Of course that did not last long overall.
Teachability cannot be separated from what is being taught. If someone wanted to teach you to be a heretic, you might well resist and this would be a good move on your part. This leads us to the instructional model that is implicit in this posted LCG statement.
This is a "teachability" model that would be appropriate to the Gnostic Priesthood:
1. We have the true knowledge and only we have the true knowledge. You cannot know anything outside of us.
2. You need to listen to us and accept what we say without appraisal, question or analysis.
This requires the targeted pupil to capitulate his own discernment and learning faculties. And this results in the learner not only being given knowledge but also being imprinted with a superordinate-subordinate relationship. Once the pupil's intellectual resistance has been undermined, future such "teaching" becomes easy.
Note: This is my opinion. I am not an educational psychologist.
Both examples of being "teachable" - Abraham and David - were dealing with God directly. They were being taught by God, not someone who says they are speaking for God.
Yes, elsewhere David is told about his sin by a prophet, to make him aware of his actions. The prophet wasn't "teaching" David; he realized what he had done, and then acted on it.
Aug 18 @2:34am said, Neither Christ nor David had the power to change the laws of nature of moral laws. No prayer of king David could change the law of accountability ie, the souls that sins, it shall die,
Again, this is what I said and leave it as is, Psalms were sung in the Temple. I don't think God would have allowed it if it were a lie. Anyone can 'google' the various reasons given for such phrase.
I'm glad that you mentioned 'the soul that sins, it shall die'. This is covered in the entire chapter of Ezekiel 18.
This is repeated two verses before the new covenant passage - Jer 31:29-30, "In those days they shall say no more: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge."
In those days, speaking of the messianic age, the people will no longer believe that someone else would die for their sins.
Why would Jesus be the ultimate sacrifice when there's no sacrifice accepted for almost all the intentional/presumptuous sins (e.g. murder)? Only a handful minor intentional sins are allowed to offer guilt/trespass sacrifice Lev 5:1, 6:1-7.
As you have said above, not even Christ had the power to change natural or moral laws, let alone the Torah, the word of God (Isa 40:8).
The sacrificial system will be restored in the messianic age - Isa 56:7; Jer 33:17-18; Eze 40:38-43, 43:18-27, 45:18-25, 46:4-6,11-13,24.
Even the end-time Mashiach will offer sin sacrifice (Eze 34:24)
Eze 45:22, "And on that day the prince shall prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bull for a sin offering.".
As stated in Lev 4, sin offering is for unintentional sins (Lev 4:2).
It's interesting that David's confession in 2 Sam 12:13 uses the same Hebrew word chatat in Lev 4:2. The only difference is the intent. The sin offering of Lev 4:2 is for unintentional sins whereas David's is intentional sin. That's why no sacrifice is accepted (Num 15:27-31).
Click on the links above to see the interlinear of the verses. Click on this link in case you want to see the connection of H2398 with H2403.
Hey Anonymous of August 18, 2020 at 7:17 AM - thanks for helping me understand!
You're saying Winnail, with his youthful hair dye and desperate comb-over is a sporting a "First Lady" do in the style of Loma Armstrong. So therefore, it is permissible for Winnail to ignore Herbie's prohibition of cosmetics, if he selects his hair dye and coiffure to follow the example of Loma. That makes perfect COG sense and I will never look at Winnail the same again!
Thank you!
Anonymous (9:13)
Are you one of those guys who used to put big ads in the back of Dixon Cartwright's newspaper?
How to defeat a legalist? Up the ante and throw it back at them. For instance. They say, "You should be praying for 30 minutes a day." Response, "Why not 45 minutes? You do love God, don't you?" It is always THEIR standard that is to be accepted by others. "Skirt should cover go down to the middle of the knee." "No, they should go down to the ankle." This irritates some of these phonies. Do you think that HWA prayed or tithed like he ordered others to? Doubt it. I've seen his IRS 1040 form, he barely tithed 10%. And, I doubt if he tithed on his expense account money that he spent on himself.
Anonymous (9:13)
I did not want to parse through your entire package. So I just looked at a piece of it.
You wrote: "Even the end-time Mashiach will offer sin sacrifice (Eze 34:24)." I had a look at this scripture has nothing to do with sacrifices. I looked in the ESV and in the Tanakh.
You wrote: "Eze 45:22, "And on that day the prince shall prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bull for a sin offering."
Well, this is a problem considering there is no reason for Jesus Christ to offer sin for himself because he is without sin. And his sacrifice extends to all "the people of the land" as well. And the Priesthood of Aaron will be replaced during the Millenium (see 1 Peter 2:9) by a royal priesthood under Christ.
This passage has all the earmarks of a mythic vision of a temple and worship patterned after (but not the same as) Second Temple Judaism (my opinion) rather than New Testament Christianity. And "my opinion" is as good as anyone's on this because there is no univocal understanding on what Ezekiel intended by this. Some Rabbis apparently opposed the Book of Ezekiel being included in the canon. (Jewish Study Bible, Second Edition, Oxford) And not everyone regards this as a vision of the future Third Temple.
Reconciliation of this vision of Ezekiel with Christianity needs to be addressed. My guess is that we are not going to find anyone capable of doing that.
Protestant literature and tele evangelists like Joyce Meyer frequently condemn legalism. But typically they either give no definition of a 'weak' definition that can't explain the strong emotions against it. So there must be something beneath the surface that's being hidden away.
NEO,
The Eze 34:24 is the connection that David is the prince. I inserted that after I've quoted Eze 45:22.
Jesus was not the promised messiah …
Jer 23:5-6a, “Behold, the days are coming,” says YHVH, “That I will raise to David a branch of righteousness; a king shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely;
In his days, Jesus did NOT bring peace in Israel. The end-time Mashiach will bring peace during his lifetime. (Isa 11:1,6-9; Hos 2:18; Isa 2:4)
Zech 9:9-10 (KJV), Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. AND I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.
The gospel writers quote Zech 9:9 but fail to include the next verse which starts with an 'AND' (see the interlinear by clicking the link above). This is something Jesus failed to do when he entered Jerusalem on a donkey. He failed to bring peace and eradicate armaments of war.
Isa 11:1, 9, And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots: … They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of YHVH, as the waters cover the sea.
Up to this time different religious organizations are still preaching their own version of god. During the lifetime of the Mashiach, the new covenant will start. There won't be any need to preach because there will be universal knowledge of YHVH.
Jer 31:34a, "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know YHVH,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says YHVH.”
Isa 11:1, 11, And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots: … It shall come to pass in that day that YHVH shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Assyria and Egypt, from Pathros and Cush, from Elam and Shinar, from Hamath and the islands of the sea. He will set up a banner for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
Instead of accomplishing this in his lifetime, the diaspora happened after his death.
There are problems with Jesus being a descendant of David. The tribal affiliation and royal succession is patrilineal (Num 1:18, Jer 33:17-18). Jehosheba's story in 2 Kings 11 tells us that a princess is not considered royal seed, neither her son. Matthew's genealogy has Jeconiah, a cursed king (Jer 22:28-30). Luke has Nathan instead of Solomon (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chron 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). Another problem with Jesus being adopted by Joseph … There is no Tanakh basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption.
The deliberate sin of Lev 5:1 requires a purification offering to atone for the wrong. In the first example of the graded hatta’t, where the sinner has the means:
Lev 5:6 And he shall bring as his reparation [‘asamo) to the Lord, for the wrong [hatta’tow] that he has committed, a female from the flock, sheep or goat, as a purification offering [hatta’t]; and the priest shall effect purgation [kipper] on his behalf for his wrong. (Jacob Milgrom, translation).
The priest effects atonement by offering the hatta’t, and as a consequence the deliberate sinner is forgiven (cp. 5:10).
As an aside Jacob Milgrom argues that the purification offering [hatta’t] is derived not from the qal of ht’ but from the piel.
Ex 29:36 And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering [hatta’t] for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse [ht’ (piel)] the altar, when thou hast made an atonement [kapper] for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.
Lev 12:5b and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying [tahorah] threescore and six days.
Lev 12:6 And when the days of her purifying [tahorah] are fulfilled ... she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering [hatta’t] ... unto the priest:
Lev 12:7a Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement [kipper] for her; and she shall be cleansed [taharah] from the issue of her blood.
The consequence from offering a hatta’t for atonement is cleansing, not forgiveness.
Ge 1:28a And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
Lev 15:31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness ; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.
Giving birth to children is not a sin, but results in ritual impurity, hence the need for a purification offering (hatta’t).
Lev 16:30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement [kapper] for you, to cleanse [taher] you, that ye may be clean [titharu] from all your sins before the LORD.
The hatta’t of kippurim cleanses or purifies from sins.
Nu 15:30a But anyone who sins defiantly [lit. with a high hand]
There is no cultic provision for deliberate high-handed sin [Nu 15:30-31] but there is for deliberate non-high-handed sin, as in Lev 5:1.
NEO this is my speculation with the aid of typology:
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things...
This is in accord with God's promise that the levitical priests would not lack a man to offer sacrifices in the messianic age (Jer 33:14-22), which is equated with the Millennium.
Heb 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (AV).
Christ's high-priesthood is in heaven; and He is the forerunner who opens the way for the Saints, after the first resurrection, to follow.
So during the Millennium there will be two sets of priests, the Levitcial on the earth and one after the order of Melchisedec in heaven; which is pictured in Revelation 7:14-16.
(Davidic kings, on the earth, are also after the order of Melchisdec (Psalm 110:4) as patrons of temple cult).
2Ch 9:8 Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee to set thee on his throne, to be king for the LORD thy God: because thy God loved Israel, to establish them for ever, therefore made he thee king over them, to do judgment and justice.
Jesus Christ will be in heaven after He has completed the second half of his prophetic week. So the nasi'
of Ezekiel 40-48 will represent Him on the earth during this time.
This is not the nasi' of Ezekiel 34 and 37.
Ezek 37:25 and my servant David shall be their nasi' for ever.
Only Jesus Christ can literally fulfill this role.
Eze 43:5 So the spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. (cp. Acts 2 where Christ's spirit "filled the house" at the end of His first-half week.
Christ's glory entered Solomon's Temple at its inauguration and left just before its destruction, pictured in Ezekiel 8-11.
Zec 8:3 Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem:
Ezekiel 43:1-7a pictures the return of Christ (the angel of the covenant (Mal 3:1)) fulfilling the promise of Zechariah.
2Ch 6:2 I have built a magnificent temple for you, a place for you to dwell forever." (NIV).
2Ch 6:21 Hearken therefore unto the supplications of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, which they shall make toward this place: hear thou from thy dwelling place, even from heaven; and when thou hearest, forgive.
So just as the sacrificial system was required to maintain the covenant when Christ's glory took up residence in the Mosaic Tabernacle and the Solomonic Temple, so it will be needed when He takes up residence in the Ezekielian Temple, while in heaven.
Eze 45:18 Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the first month, in the first day of the month, thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish, and cleanse the sanctuary:
Eze 45:19 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering, and put it upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court.
Eze 45:20 And so thou shalt do the seventh day of the month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye reconcile the house.
To maintain that presence the Temple will have to be cleansed yearly with animal blood - purification offerings. In the second covenant this annual purification will take place in the first month instead of the seventh month in the first covenant.
Eze 45:22 And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a purification offering.
The passover sacrifice is now a ‘public’ one; with a change in animal and function - the original Passover sacrifice was apotropaic - to keep Yahweh away; the Millennial sacrifice is purgative - to keep Yahweh near.
Anon Aug19 @1:04pm,
Lev 5:1, ‘If a person sins (H2398) in hearing the utterance of an oath, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of the matter—if he does not tell it, he bears guilt.'
Homeland Security has this slogan - 'If you see something, say something'.
Because it may save lives. This is basically what Lev 5:1 is about. This is an intentional sin but kind of passive. This is a sin offering, it cannot be called purification offering.
For those who have committed murder, how are they purified? How are they able to enter the Temple without a sacrifice? Are they still ritually impure even after repentance? Surely, childbirth or menstruation is nothing compared with murder.
Lev 4:3, if the anointed priest sins (H2398, chata), bringing guilt on the people, then let him offer to YHVH for his sin (H2403, chatta'ah), which he has sinned (H2398) a young bull without blemish as a sin offering (H2403).
Eze 4:22, And on that day the prince shall prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bull for a sin offering (H2403).
Click on this link in case you want to see the connection of H2398 with H2403.
Lev 5:1 and 6:1-7 are specific intentional sins that can have an offering/sacrifice. Other intentional sins do not have (Num 15:30-31). Also, Lev 6:1-7 requires restoration of value plus 20%.
Hey August 18, 2020 at 10:54 PM - you asked about why people condemn legalism.
I believe that legalism is used to define the practice of gaining salvation by works instead of salvation by the finished work of Jesus our Savior.
Wherever people focus on law/legalism, they take the focus away from Jesus, and the terms of his New Covenant.
The COGs are a perfect example of how their entire body of work and history is predominantly law/legalism – which has blocked their understanding and interest in Jesus, who is the fulfillment of the law.
That’s why some Protestants believe legalism is destructive and heretical.
As I have said before, we will have to agree to disagree. Some points for me:
Ex 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty;
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
God can forgive sin outside the cultic sacrificial system - David and Manasseh are examples, as you have noted. In regard to the principles of the sacrificial system:
Lev 16:30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.
Below is the translation by Jacob Milgrom, the late American Jewish Bible scholar and Conservative rabbi:
Lev 16:30 For on this day shall purgation be effected on your behalf to purify you of all your sins; you shall become pure before the Lord (Leviticus 1-16, The Anchor Bible).
The purification offering (hatta’t) is a better translation than ‘sin offering’ as it is misleading as the sacrifice counteracts sin and severe ritual impurity. The hatta’t and the ’asam are both sacrifices for sin, but have different functions.
When a sin is committed for which a purification offering is required there are two issues to be addressed - the sin and the ‘impurity’ (not ritual impurity) generated by that sin. When a person becomes ritually impure the two issues are the ritual impurity and the ‘impurity’ that is generated by the ritual impurity.
In regards to non-community and high priest sins, daubing blood on the horns of the outer altar purifies the ‘impurity’ generated by sin and severe ritual impurity. Though Roy Gane and others have a different position on the function of blood applications on the horns of the altar during the year.
In the case of the parturient woman her purification from ritual impurity has occurred before she comes to the temple and the hatta’t is only to purify the altar which has been contaminated by her ritual impurity.
In the case of the sinner who has sinned a sin that requires a purification offering there is a need for the purification of the sin and the ‘impurity’ caused by that sin.
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement [i.e., kipper = ransom] for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Lev 15:31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.
Sin and severe ritual impurity endangers -life threatening - hence the need for blood for atonement. In regard to sin the emphasis is on RANSOM-purgation and for ritual impurity it is PURGATION-ransom.
Lev 20:2 Whosoever ... giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death:
Lev 20:3 ... and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary...
Nu 19:13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth [hatta’] not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel:
Can not purifying oneself from corpse contamination be compared as nothing to murder, as both require death?
BTW, in an outer-altar purification offering blood is put on the horns of the altar and then poured out at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering, but in the outer-sanctum purification offering blood is sprinkled seven times before the dividing veil, then put on the horns of the incense altar and the remaining blood poured out at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. Do you see the sprinkling associated with purifying the Holy Place or does it have a function separate from it; in a similar way that the incense altar belonged [preposition “l”] to the Most Holy Place (1 Kgs 6:22b) but was located in the Holy Place? That is the sprinkling while in the Holy Place had a function related to the Most Holy Place.
Anon Aug 21 @6:26pm,
First, I appreciate you quoting part of Lev 20:2 and 3. This passage condemns human sacrifice! Read also Lev 18:21, Deu 12:31, and Jer 32:34-35. Why would YHVH accept Jesus' death a sacrifice when YHVH condemns human sacrifice?
Your quote of Lev 17:11 is incomplete. To get the context, one should read the prior and succeeding verses:
Lev 17:10-12, And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. FOR the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’ Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood.’
The passage is condemning eating blood. Verse 11 starts with a 'FOR', meaning it is a continuation of the thought of the prior verse. It explains the only use of blood. It is not for food. This thought is further reinforced by the next verse, v12.
The Tabernacle/Temple was the only place where blood is shed. Outside the Temple, one slaughters the animal as a NON-sacrifice and spill its blood on the ground and cover it with dust (Deu 12:15, Lev 17:13).
Blood is NOT the only way to atone for sins. In a previous comment you made, you mentioned the turtledoves or young pigeons in Lev 5:7b but did not continue to Lev 5:11 …
Lev 5:11-13a, ‘But if he is not able to bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, then he who sinned shall bring for his offering one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a sin offering. He shall put no oil on it, nor shall he put frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. … The priest shall make atonement for him, for his sin that he has committed in any of these matters; and it shall be forgiven him.'
If one is so poor that he cannot afford even a bird, flour would do as an atoning sacrifice! No shedding of blood is needed for the remission of sins!
Compare this with Lev 2's voluntary grain offering/sacrifice where anointed oil and frankincense are added and made with fire, a sweet aroma to YHVH (Lev 2:1-2). Lev 2 is not an atoning sacrifice. Lev 5 is an atoning sacrifice.
Passages related to repentance and forgiveness without sacrifice or shedding of blood - Ps 51:15-17, 1 Sam 15:22, Isa 66:1-2, Deu 30:2-3, Eze 18:21-23, Hos 14:2 (literally, 'We will pay for bulls with our lips').
Going back to Manasseh, after his repentance and restoration, he offered peace offering and thanksgiving (2 Chr 33:16; Lev 3, 7:11-12). These do not have an atonement component. Burnt (Lev 1), sin (Lev 4) and guilt/trespass (Lev 5-6:7) offerings have atonement component. He was already forgiven of his sins after he repented (2 Chr 33:12-13). There is NO sacrifice for intentional or presumptuous or rebellious sins (Num 15:30-31).
Regarding your quote of Ex 34:7, who are you implying the 'guilty'? In your understanding, are those already forgiven still considered 'guilty'? I'm confused with your quotes since you even quoted Lev 16:30 where it says atonement cleanses one from all sins. Read Ps 32:1-2; Ps 51:2,7; Ps 103:8-12; Ps 130:7-8; Isa 1:18, 38:17, 43:25, 44:22; Mic 7:18-19.
The idea in Ex 34:7 is that those who continue to sin against God (and hate Him, Ex 20:5 is similar except it has 'le-sonai'), they bear the sins of their fathers.
Anon Aug 21 @6:26pm,
"My House, My Rules"
The sacrificial system is applicable only when there is a Tabernacle/Temple as that is the only place where one can bring a sacrifice (see Lev 17:10-12). Also, if one doesn't want to enter the Temple, one doesn't need to be ritually clean. Nor one needs to be circumcised in flesh and heart (Eze 44:9).
Sacrifice can be atoning or not. In the case of Passover, it has no atonement function. Sacrifice that do have atonement component usually involve laying (or leaning) of hands on the head of the animal. Lev 16 tells us what is involve in laying/leaning - confessing sins (Lev 16:21).
In Yom Kippur, there are 3 animals used for sin offering - bull (Lev 16:3, 6, 11) and 2 goats (Lev 16:5, 8). Aaron confesses the sins of the childre of Israel on the head of laazazel goat and someone set it free in the wilderness (Lev 16:10, 21-22). It makes the atonement by taking away the sins. This is different from the other sin sacrifice where the animal is killed.
The goat for YHVH is killed (Lev 16:9, 15-16). It is the atonement for the Sanctuary/Holy Place!
Yom Kippur sacrifice is a targeted, contrite repentance only for those who had specifically defiled the Sanctuary while they were in a state of contamination. This sacrifice does not have any purpose today because there's no Temple standing.
Repentance and fasting atoned for all other sins (Lev 16:30-31).
Hi Anon 5:55
As you are aware, in discussing the sacrificial system there are many issues involved.
For a number of years I followed Roy Gane’s theory which is presented in “Cult and Character - Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy.”
This work grew out of his Ph.D dissertation “Ritual Dynamic Structure: System Theory and Ritual Syntax applied to Selective Ancient Israelite, Babylonian and Hittite Festival Days”.
(Roy Gane is a Seventh-day Adventist, born in Australia and moved with his family to the US when he was seven years old; he is now a professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Languages at Andrews University).
Lately I have come to prefer Gyung Yul Kim’s Ph.D thesis entitled "The hattat ritual and the Day of Atonement in the Book of Leviticus".
This maybe downloaded free from the internet.
As I agree more or less with his theory, in reading it, it may answer your questions to me, and note where I have opposite views to you on some of the finer details, such as
“if one doesn't want to enter the Temple, one doesn't need to be ritually clean”.
Nu 19:13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation (cp. water of hatta’t, Numbers 8:7) was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.
To be technical you can have sacrifices without a temple standing. Some twenty years before the dedication of the Second Temple sacrifices were being offered on the altar of burnt offering (Ezra 3:1-5).
As an aside, along with others, the hatta't is my favourite offering; without which there can be no Messianic Age.
While Ezekiel 40-48 are my favourite 9 chapters in the Bible, Leviticus (Heb title: wayyiqra = And he called) is my favourite book, of which two half verses stand out:
Lev 19:2b Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
Lev 19:18b but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
BTW,
1Jn 2:22 ... he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
would this observation sum up your position?
Hopefully this question doesn’t offend too much, but it would be good to know where you officially stand.
Hi Anon Aug 24 @3:21AM,
Regarding my statement, Also, if one doesn't want to enter the Temple, one doesn't need to be ritually clean …
Would one defile the Tabernacle if he is far from it and has no plans on going to the Tabernacle? I hope that the context of what I'm writing is understandable to you.
As you have said yourself in your opening statement - there are many [other] issues involved.
Can one eat the Peace offering while ritually unclean? (1 Sam 20:26; Lev 7:20-21).
Regarding your comment on the 2nd Temple, the Altar is where the sacrifice is offered. Leviticus has some of the details. Even in ACOG, they believed that today's Jews need only have an altar to start offering sacrifices.
But the issue is - can anyone just build an altar anywhere? Can anyone just start offering sacrifice? Who is a legitimate priest? How is the altar going to be consecrated? Is red heifer needed? How is the priest going to be clean after killing the animal? If it's just an altar, how many can it accomodate in a single day? Anyone can nitpick …
I do not consider NT as scriptures/canon. It contradicts Tanakh. Jesus is not The Messiah prophesied in Scriptures. There is no concept of anti-messiah in Tanakh. Once the true Mashiach comes, there will be a universal knowledge of YHVH.
I'm not anti-Messiah. As you can tell from my comments, I look forward to the coming of the true Mashiach who will usher in the messianic age.
I listen to Bart Ehrman, Karaite Jews (e.g. Nehemia Gordon), and Orthodox Jews who are counter-missionaries (e.g. JewsForJudaism, Tovia Singer).
Although I'm not a Jew, nor affiliated with any Jewish/religious groups, I join myself to YHVH (Isa 56:1-11). We are to love (Isa 56:6), praise (Ps 135:1), proclaim (Deu 32:3), swear by (Jer 12:14-17, Lev 19:12), and call on (Joel 2:32) the name of YeHoVaH.
Post a Comment