Where would the Church of God prophets of doom and gloom be without some earthly catastrophe to whip them into a frenzy? Their angry god demands that, so they look far and wide at any news story that best fits their anticipated godly punishment scenarios. The more bad news they can find the more they can scare followers with so that their wallets open up for that "final push".
Living Church of God has its focus on Australia right now with an article in their rag "Tomorrow's World" entitled: Australia's Watery Wake-up Call.
Greg Watt writes:
We have all heard the saying, “God works in mysterious ways.” And we do not need to look very hard for events to which we could ascribe this proverb today. Australia’s recent travails are a prime example.
Since February 2022, this island continent has experienced unprecedented flooding, particularly in eastern regions that are west of the Great Dividing Range, as far as South Australia. Lives have been lost, thousands of houses and commercial properties have been damaged or destroyed, essential infrastructure— electricity, water, and gas—has been interrupted, and sewage systems and treatment plants have flooded. And the rains are forecast to continue for at least one more La Niña cycle over this coming summer.
After going into all the damage from rains, flooding, fires, and loss of life, Watt says this:
We clearly see that God does indeed work in “mysterious” ways—delivering an unprecedented wake-up call to Australians, who, as they begin to rec- ognize that these natural disasters and their effects are extraordinary, are naturally questioning why they are happening and what is driving them. They want answers and they want action. While the vast majority of Australians would never concede that an omnipotent God is directing these weather events,
it is undeniable to virtually everyone that unprece- dented weather disasters are now becoming the new normal—whether prolonged scorching droughts, dev- astating bush fires, or extreme flooding.
The magical god of Armstrongism is always pissed off and the church thrives on it.
So how can we explain the causes of such events? Regular readers of this magazine know that they are no mystery. Bible students know and understand that there is an omnipotent God who rules from the heights of the heavens and who is fully engaged in directing the events on planet Earth below. King David recognized this fact and said as much when speaking of God’s omnipotence; “You broke open the fountain and the flood; You dried up mighty rivers. The day is Yours, the night also is Yours; You have prepared the light and the sun. You have set all the borders of the earth; You have made summer and winter. Remember this, that the en- emy has reproached, O Lord, and that a foolish people has blasphemed Your name” (Psalm 74:15–18).
Has Australia blasphemed God’s name? Emphatically, yes! Consider the nickname Australians have adopted for their country: the “Lucky Country.” Such a name attributes to blind chance the awesome blessings this country offers them—an unmatched living environment because of extraordinary mineral and agricultural wealth, providing an incredible lifestyle, the envy of most countries. Is this just luck? Only the most hardened atheist or materialist would make
such a claim. God has blessed Australia and its citizens exceedingly, despite widespread lack of gratitude and acknowledgement of Him and His merciful generosity. Despite the blessings God has poured down, despite the incredible period of peace the nation has known— we have only once had to repel an invading force from our shores, in what could best be described as a skirmish—few acknowledge God and His authority.
This rebellion and contempt toward God must and will have consequences.
Spank'em, God! Spank'em so we can feel superior! After all, we keep the law, they don't!!!!
Australia’s Watery Wake-Up Call
This, I feel, is an example of a COG author taking a good point and using it badly.
ReplyDeleteIn The Lucky Country (1964) Donald Horne wrote:
Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.
And where were the COG prophets giving specific warnings about another case of periodic flooding? Parts of Australia are known to have flood/drought cycles. And Australia has its fair share of climate change deniers.
When I went to high school in Australia during the 1960s, there was not one psychopath in my class. Now they are every where. The !legal system is protecting criminals rather than the victims of crime. The nanny state keeps expanding, the national debt is following America's horrible example, etc.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that God's tough love warning will be heeded by my countryman.
It has been said that God works in mysterious ways, but it can also be said that I relax in mysterious ways!
ReplyDeleteRemember, the LCG was founded by a guy who had the nick name "Spanky!" He always talked about God spanking the church or the nations of the world, especially the so-called Israelite nations. He was obsessed with that idea. He was obsessed with it because he was a collector of s-m pornography. And it was well known he was a frequent visitor to a porn shop in Pasadena. It was said he was doing "research". It must have been very comprehensive! 😉
ReplyDeleteRod Meredith should have LITERALLY spanked Bob Thiel back in the day, and made him sit in the corner with a dunce hat on!
ReplyDeleteTheir focus is on Australia now because the Tomorrow’s world telecast is being banned for hate speech there. So they need to find any reason they can to justify themselves and point the finger the other way.
ReplyDeleteOf course they would never take a moment to consider that maybe, just maybe some of the things they say are actually hateful.
If the nickname is not official, why should God punish it?
ReplyDeleteAnd what will LCG say about the "atmospheric rivers" in California... not to mention this week's mass shootings? Or does PCG have first rights to that?
flood/drought cycles
ReplyDeleteAnd don't forget annual bushfires. With warmer conditions and drought, bushfires are likely to get worse. Then LCG and Bob will have another spanking new mystery.
First time in several hundred that we have had tornadoes, floods, heavy rains, earthquakes, forest fires or someone killing people. This is for sure the end times. It’s all predicted in the revealed “sure word of prophecy “.
ReplyDeleteJim
Excerpt from “My Country” - Australia - written by Dorothea MacKellar in 1906
ReplyDeleteI love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of drought and flooding rains,
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me.
The tragic ring-barked forests
Stark white beneath the moon,
The sapphire-misted mountains,
The hot gold hush of noon.
Green tangle of the brushes
Where lithe lianas coil,
An orchids deck the tree-tops
And ferns the crimson soil.
Core of my heart, my country!
Her pitiless blue sky,
When sick at heart around us
We see the cattle die -
But then the grey clouds gather
And we can bless again
The drumming of an army,
The steady, soaking rain.
The vast majority of speakers and writers who are byproducts of the Armstrong system are overly simplistic thinkers.
ReplyDeleteThere is indeed such a phenomenon as random circumstances. People who play with the odds when availing themselves of an opportunity usually do quite well. So, that is one force in play, part of the dynamics of the universe. Since random circumstances and probability exist, it follows that not everything good that happens to a person is a blessing from God, any more than every bad thing is a curse or punishment,.. Random circumstances DO sometimes fall in one's favor, and you can maximize them, or they can become a missed opportunity. You can also make bad go to worse, through ignorance, or carelessness.. It's a good thing to thank God for the good things in your life, because He gave you a brain which knows how best to use the circumstances.
Why is this writer singling out Australia? God is punishing an entire planet whose citizens have been very bad stewards of His creation. He's allowing the natural results of their bad behavior to become the destruction of Earth as outlined in Revelation. The hard-hearted ones and evil leaders who deny this destruction are able to ignore the punishment for the time being, but ultimately it will become so intense that no logical person will be able to even question it. When coffee no longer exists, even the die hards will be educated away from climate change denial.
Rock n' Roll!
Well today, Sydney time, is January 26, Australia Day. It marks the landing of the British First Fleet of convicts in what is now called Sydney Cove. And with the same feeling of Native Americans to Columbus Day, Australian Aboriginals refer to January 26 as Invasion Day.
ReplyDeleteIn the last paragraph of the article, the writer did identify Australia as a nation "descended from Ephriam and Manasseh" - which is an Armstrongite "truth" not found in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteLCG members need to dust off their old "Plain Truths" and read the hundreds of predictions written by HWA and Spanky Merideth about how the "Israelite" nations would face all kinds of weather, pestilence, and disease calamities that they would never recover from.
Way back the 60's, the Armstrongites repeatedly assured us, by the authority of God, that Australia only had a few years left to survive.
HWA and Spanky raised money on the claim that God would break these nations "in a few short years".
Yet, Australia is a lucky nation to survive this long, despite Armstrongites "truth".
Lucky indeed, and intelligent and skilled, even while they are enduring a 100-year flood event, as the BBC called it.
Australia, like most nations, plan for these 100-year floods; the US has 100-year flood zones marked in every county in every state.
Educated people know that weather events are cyclical and predictable even though the global climate is changing.
Scientist, with no nod to God, have been much more reliable than the Armstrongite prognosticators - that's how far the Armstrongite's are from God.
Further evidence of Armstrongite distance from God is noted in the fact that God did not make the New Covenant with any nation, such as Australia or the nations from lost tribes.
The New Covenant, being very different from the old, obsolete Covenant, is available to individuals from all nations, established with all who accept Jesus as their Savior.
It defies probability that no Asian country settled Australia before the British convict ships arrived. Compare Australia to over crowed Japan or Indonesia with its 200 million citizens crowded on its many islands. And they supposedly never searched for new settlements. Obviously God hardened their hearts and kept them away. Some have called the WW2 battle of Midway the greatest case of good luck in military history. Many factors conveniently came together which resulted in 10 bombs in 6 minutes destroying three Japanese aircraft carriers. The fourth was destroyed the next day. This saved Australia from the Japanese. God protected Australia because of His promise to Abraham.
ReplyDeleteScience, a method, and how it's practiced is often very different. Likewise, the bible and HWAs Christianity are often far apart. It's intellectually dishonest for posters here to fail to separate rather than fuse the two.
If God is punishing Australia and any other country like it such as America via floods, fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc it's not so much because of what the Australian people are doing but what they're not doing by allowing the Australian government to get away with immorality and not holding them to account. So God is forced to hold the entire nation to account and just like He allows the good weather to fall on both good and bad people He allows the bad weather to fall on good and bad people too knowing unlike the bad people who would blame and curse Him for everything wrong in the world His people, like Job, will know their God will ultimately deliver them from every evil.
ReplyDeleteTrooisto said:
ReplyDelete"The New Covenant, being very different from the old, obsolete Covenant, is available to individuals from all nations, established with all who accept Jesus as their Savior."
I presume the reference to "obsolete" is taken from Heb 8:13. If so, the comment is somewhat at odds with the argument of the author of Hebrews.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new [kaine] covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
"Another feature of the covenant is its application to both Israel and Judah.... But even in this passage there is no hint of a new covenant which could extend to all people, Gentiles as well as Jews, as happened as a result of the gospel. Indeed it is worth noting that this universal aspect of the gospel finds no place in this epistle [to the Hebrews]..." (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, p.178).
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new [kaine] covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new [kaine] heaven and a new [kaine] earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;...
"The word for new (kaine) here points to something which is new IN COMPARISON with what has preceded it..." (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, p.178).
Isa 65:17a For there shall be a new [kaine] heaven and a new [kaine] earth: (Brenton, LXX).
Isa 65:18 behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and my people a joy. (Brenton, LXX).
Isa 65:17 refers to the Messianic Age and Rev 21:1 refers to what is sometimes called the "Eternal State".
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new [hds] covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Ps 81:3 Blow up the trumpet in the new moon [hds],
"Thus the word "new" in this context would mean the "renewed" or "restored" covenant (cf. Akkadian edesu "to restore" ruined temples, altars or cities; Hebrew hds connected with the new moon and Ugaritic hdt, "to renew the moon").
"... the New covenant transcends all previous announcements of the blessings of God. Thus the New is more comprehensive, more effective, more spiritual, and more glorious than the old - if fact, so much so that IN COMPARISON it would appear as it were totally unlike the old at all. Yet, in truth, it was nothing less than the progress of revelation.
"We conclude then that this covenant was the old Abrahamic-Davidic promise renewed and enlarged" (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Towards an Old testament Theology, p.234).
Isn’t this coming from the same organization that the leader kept sayin , “ in the next 10 to 15 years”. See that’s very different than say, Elijah.
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous of January 26, 2023 at 10:39: we are reading the book of Hebrews and picking up totally different meanings – likely, this is due to our pre-existing biases toward the Old Covenant.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
“I presume the reference to "obsolete" is taken from Heb 8:13 . If so, the comment is somewhat at odds with the argument of the author of Hebrews.”
Yes, the word obsolete is used in that verse and I believe the context of the book does not lend to your idea of a renewed covenant, as you phrased it later in your post.
I read Hebrews with the conclusion that the New Covenant is superior to the old, as stated in Hebrews 8:6 and not at all like the old, as stated in Hebrews 8:9.
I’m guessing that your fondness for the old is due to your love for the law - I apologize if my guess is wrong – but, in case I’m correct, I need to throw in one of my frequently quoted verses:
Hebrews 7:12
For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.
The law of the Old Covenant has been changed – gone – not renewed.
Jesus fulfilled and magnified the law and made the New Covenant superior to that obsolete, non-existent covenant:
Hebrews 8:6
But in fact, the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.
I think that your best point is about the New Covenant being for the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
I lost site of the fact that Hebrews was written by a Hebrew, first for other Hebrews.
One purpose of the book is to describe to these Hebrews how different Jesus made everything – not renewed.
Hebrews is also explicitly for those Hebrews who were also known as “Judaizers” (Galatians 2:14) and is an exhortation to rely on grace, not the laws and rites of their former religion.
You wrote:
But even in this passage there is no hint of a new covenant which could extend to all people, Gentiles as well as Jews, as happened as a result of the gospel. Indeed it is worth noting that this universal aspect of the gospel finds no place in this epistle [to the Hebrews]...
My reply is Hebrews has deep wisdom and great value to all Christians, throughout the ages and from all nations, and Armstrongites (also known as Judaizers) as well who are very much like the Hebrew Christians the book was originally written for – except for the fact that those original Christians were facing real persecution and familial and societal pressure to draw them back to their old customs.
The word “house” in Hebrews 8:8 is often translated “people” the New Covenant/Gospel is available to the people of Israel and Judah, as it’s a specific outreach to them, and to all the world.
God’s New Covenant is not established with any nation, it is a Covenant between God and people of all nations.
The author of Hebrews, in chapter 8 quotes Jeremiah because the people he was addressing were familiar with the covenant God made with their fathers Israel/Judah – not because God was making a new covenant under the same terms.
The book of Hebrews starts by reminding us that in the past, God spoke through prophets, but now God speaks through Jesus – the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14).
I’m confused by your statement quoted above; you seem to acknowledge the Gospel is for all but, seem to be saying that the New Covenant is not for Gentiles.
I believe that there are many scriptures that refute your argument, albeit not in the book of Hebrews.
Good thing that we have a New Covenant, because no one was able to keep that old one.
Hallelujah, the New Covenant based on better promises and a Savior that is able to save completely (Hebrews 7:25)!
Thanks Trooisto for your reply.
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"... we are reading the book of Hebrews and picking up totally different meanings – likely, this is due to our pre-existing biases toward the Old Covenant".
I would suggest it is not based on ‘biases towards' the Old Covenant but more on the ‘biases towards' the New Covenant. My view is expressed in the responses to what you said - hopefully we can agree to disagree.
Trooisto said
I read Hebrews with the conclusion that the New Covenant is superior to the old, as stated in Hebrews 8:6 and not at all like the old, as stated in Hebrews 8:9.
I also read this conclusion from 8:6 and 8:9; 8:9 = Jer 38:32 (LXX).
"There is only one pair of variations from the standard LXX text of Jeremiah 31:31-34..." (Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, p.368)
"... this passage [Jer 31:31-34] is the longest sequence of OT verses to be quoted in its entirety in the NT (see note on Heb 8:8-12; see also Heb 10:16-17)" (Ronald Youngblood, Jeremiah, NIVSB, p.1176).
Trooisto said:
"I believe the context of the book does not lend to your idea of a renewed covenant, as you phrased it later in your post; and
"God's New Covenant is not established with any nation"
Dt 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.
Heb 10:16 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;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
I believe that it does. The covenant with Israel is renewed on better promises (Heb 8:6).
I see the New Covenant as two dispensation - the Church/Sarah Administration and the Kingdom/Keturah Administration. During the first half of Christ's prophetic week He raised up the Church for its mission to the world. In the second half of His work Christ will raise up the Kingdom for its mission to the world (Isa 49:6). Both the Church and the Kingdom (future) are a "light to the Gentiles" (cp. Isa 49:6b and Acts 13:47).
(For a chart of Christ's prophetic week see members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/375ecc60.png).
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Having said that, during the Kingdom Administration of the New Covenant it maybe better see the Covenant with the Church as a covenant within a covenant. Whereas as the Davidic king covenant and Levitical priest covenant were two separate covenants within the Old Covenant, the Church covenant is a combined kingly and priestly covenant in the New Covenant, but in heaven.
Trooisto said:
I need to throw in one of my frequently quoted verses:
Hebrews 7:12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.
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:
I have to repeat my frequent reply to this contention - there has been no change in the priesthood and no change in the law.
Jer 33:18a And for the priests, the Levites, there will not be cut off [karat] an individual before me making whole offering rise... (John Goldingay).
Jer 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken with ... the Levites the priests, my ministers.
God's promise in Jeremiah 33 is for the Messianic Age. During the Messianic Age Levitical priests will be on earth teaching the people (Eze 44:23) and "burning whole burnt offerings, making smoke [qatar] [Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G. Smothers)]" (Jer 33:18).
"The writer is here arguing HYPOTHETICALLY, for the law itself cannot be changed. He has primarily in mind the law affecting the Aaronic priesthood"...
Part 2
ReplyDelete"It occurs to the writer that some confusion might arise in his readers' mind over the co-existence of two orders of priesthood. He proceeds, therefore, to show that the priesthood of Jesus was not established on the earth... This leads into his thesis that the superior priesthood is that which operates in heaven, not on earth (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, pp.164 & 174-175).
Christ's priesthood is in heaven (Heb 8:1-2; 9:11, 23-24); along with the Church Saints (cp. Rev 7:14-15).
In the Messianic Age there will be Levitical priests on earth as per Jer 33 and Eze 40-48 - so no change in the earthly priesthood.
Trooisto said:
"I'm confused by your statement quoted above; you seem to acknowledge the Gospel is for all but, seem to be saying that the New Covenant is not for Gentiles."
I am not saying this. This is what I was noting, as in:
"But even in this passage [i.e., Heb 8:8-12] there is no hint of a new covenant which could extend to all people, Gentiles as well as Jews, as happened as a result of the gospel."
Trooisto said:
"I believe that there are many scriptures that refute your argument".
But I am not making the argument; how could I in light of the Scriptures such as Gen 12:2-3; Isa 14:1, 56:6-7 and Zechariah 2:10-11; 8:13.
Trooisto said:
"The law of the Old Covenant has been changed – gone – not renewed."
1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
The law of the Old Covenant was God's law given by Moses (Neh 10:29). The law of the New Covenant is also God's law.
1 Co 9:21b being NOT [ME] WITHOUT LAW [anomos] TO GOD, but
1 Co 9:21:c UNDER THE LAW [ennomos] TO CHRIST,
"He can call it "the law of Christ" (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-21). By that he does not mean a different code or document; it is the Mosaic law, but summed up in the command to love and interpreted in the light of Christ" (Charles B. Cousar, Galatians, Int, p.82).
"The law revealed God's character partially; Jesus has revealed it completely" (C.S. Kenner, "The Gospel of John," Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p.429).
"Because Moses established the Old Covenant, he was its "mediator" (Philo, Moses 2.166; cf. Heb 9:16-22). However, this heavenly High Priest is far superior to Moses. Not only has he established the New Covenant, but he also continues to make its benefit available. Thus he its not merely its "Mediator" but the "Guarantor" of its perpetual effectiveness (7:22)" (Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, p.363).
When Jesus said that "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mt 5:18). He was expressing His point in typical ancient-near-eastern hyperbole. I like this comment in this regard:
"It was thus possible for Matthew to affirm the categorical statement of verse 18 while himself exhibiting remarkable freedom in altering jots and tittles in his scriptural quotations..." (Douglas R.A. Hare, Matthew, INT, pp. 47-48).
"The law is unalterable, but that does not justify its application beyond the purpose for which it was intended. To speak of a change in application of the law is not to regard it as now discarded" (R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, p.186).
God's law for the Messianic Age also includes the Ezekielian Torah - "the law of the Temple" (Eze 43:12-46:24) - ‘revisions' of the Mosaic Torah.
Hello of Renewed Old Covenant Theory: I’m sorry, but you do not keep the law that you say is in effect.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
“I have to repeat my frequent reply to this contention - there has been no change in the priesthood and no change in the law.”
Are you saying the Levitical priesthood still exists and functions?
Are you claiming that with no change to the law, you are therefore currently paying your tithes to a Levite and had an animal sacrificed, by a Levite, as your sin offering?
I find a lot of contradiction in what you write.
You did quote I Corinthians 7:19 about circumcision and uncircumcision being of no value – and by quoting that verse, I assume you feel the verse directly before and after that verse, in which St. Paul says circumcision is no longer commanded, also are valid.
If that is the case, this passage you referenced is directly opposed Genesis 17:10-11 in which circumcision is commanded as sign of the Old Covenant between God and Israel.
In John 13:34, Jesus gave a “new commandment”; in fact, the New Testament includes many commands that were not in part of the Old Covenant.
For example, under the New Covenant, we are commanded to give cheerfully, and give as we are able.
Under the New Covenant, we’re not commanded to give ten percent our of income, but Armstrongist do claim that remains a requirement.
However, under the New Covenant, if you give ten percent of your income, you may be breaking the command to give as you are able if you can afford to give more than ten percent.
Or you may be sinning by giving ten percent if you have not first taken care of the needs of your family.
You may also be sinning if you see someone in need and do not provide help.
In many ways, the commands God does write on the hearts of believers is far deeper than the law of the Old Covenant.
What proof can you provide that you are interested in keeping and do keep the entire law you claim to be in effect?
Part 1
ReplyDelete"Hello of Renewed Old Covenant Theory: I'm sorry, but you do not keep the law that you say is in effect".
Why do you say that I don’t keep the “law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21b, ESV)?
In my previous post I had this:
I [i.e., Trooisto] read Hebrews with the conclusion that the New Covenant is superior to the old, as stated in Hebrews 8:6 and not at all like the old, as stated in Hebrews 8:9.
I also read this conclusion from 8:6 and 8:9; 8:9 = Jer 38:32 (LXX).
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
So when you say "Renewed Old Covenant" - or as the author of Hebrews calls it the "second" do you don’t appear to accept that I understand that the “new covenant” is superior to the old; and that its renewed on better promises (Heb 8:6) as I stated.
2Co 1:20a For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ.
As a fallible human-being under the Church Administration of the New Covenant, I keep the law of God/ the law of Christ (Rom 7:25; 1 Cor 9:21) as best I can; summed up in the first and great commandments (Matt 22:36-39) on which hang all the law and the prophets (Mat 22:40).
Ro 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Cp. Jer 31:31ff and Eze 36:26ff with Romans 8:4).
“Without diminishing the force of verse 1, we must not mistake its message. Paul does not say that those in Christ Jesus no longer sin or that they are exempt from the struggle against sin so dramatically portrayed in 7:7-25. Romans 8 is not an apology for Christian perfectionism. What he does say is that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ... When Paul says, there is now no condemnation, he means the sentence of death and judgment on the Last Day has been commuted... the consequences of sin are annulled through Christ’s death, and even now the Spirit begins in believers a work of regeneration that will be completed in the world to come” (James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC, pp.198-99).
I would prefer that the OT books was called the Old and Renewed Kingdom Covenant, or Kingdom Covenant for short, as there is so much on the new covenant with Israel within it.
Lev 19:18b but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Mt 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
For me, the law of God today comprises at a minimum, God's law mediated through Christ as revealed in the NT, which mainly concern the second great commandment; and God's NC law revealed in the Old, with its concerns on the great commandment.
Lev 19:18a Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people
Mt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Mt 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee;
Mt 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Lev 19:2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
In regard to the former:
Christ “himself supplies the true interpretation. His purpose is not to change the law, still less annul it, but ‘to reveal the full depth of meaning that it was intended to hold’ [A.H. McNeil, The Gospel according to St Matthew, p.58]” (John R. W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, BST, p.72).
Part 2
ReplyDeleteThe "law is dynamic and adaptable rather than static and rigid" (Roy Gane), that is, it can, according to ANE thinking, be "revised to fit changing social and historical circumstances" (Patrick Miller), without being in conflict with the law delivered at Sinai.
While in the present age a Christian is not in a theocracy there are certain laws, or parts of laws, that I suggest are applicable for today as well in the future.
The argument is that if Israelites and Gentiles will be honoring the first great commandment in the Messianic Age then it follows that Christians - Jews and Gentiles - would also honor God in the same way in the Church Age.
In the New Covenant in the Messanic Age the Sabbath will be kept by Israelites and Gentiles (Eze 44:24; Isa 56:6; 66:23); the Passover and days of Unleavened Bread (Eze 45:21) will be kept; and Israelites and Gentiles will keep the Feast of the Seventh Month (Eze 45:25; Zech 14:16).
"To whom are the promises given? Just to the people of Israel? Hardly. They are given to those of all flesh who worship from month to month and Sabbath to Sabbath. THIS IS THE ULTIMATE END OF ISRAEL RELIGION, THAT EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF JOINING ISRAEL IN WORSHIPING THE ONE GOD (cf. Zech. 14:16-21)" (John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66, NICOT, p.691).
"The one festival uniting all nations in worship is to be the feast of booths... In God's Kingdom the gentiles would be brought within that covenant when they came to worship in the Temple the King, the Lord of hosts..." (Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai Zechariah Malachi, TOTC, p.206).
Trooisto said:
“For example, under the New Covenant, we are commanded to give cheerfully...”
2 Cor 9:7 for God loveth [agapao] a cheerful [hilaros] giver [dotes].
Pro 22:8 God loves a cheerful and liberal man [Brenton, LXX).
Pro 22:8 A happy [hilaros] and a giver [dotes] God loves [agapao] (ABP).
Pro 22:9 Whoever has a bountiful eye will be blessed, for he shares his bread with the poor. (ESV).
Pro 22:9 He that has pity on the poor shall himself be maintained; for he has given of his own bread to the poor. He that gives liberally secures victory and honour;... (Brenton, LXX).
“Here Paul is likely alluding to Proverbs 22:8 (in the LXX; this passage does not occur in the Hebrew text; cf. Rom 12:8). His statement differs somewhat from the LXX, which reads, God blesses a cheerful and giving man,” though the LXX of Proverbs 22:8 also contains an expression of the “sowing” and “reaping man” maxim as found in 2 Corinthians 9:6. Paul’s choice of “loves” over “blesses” is likely influenced by Proverbs 22:11) (LXX, “The Lord loves pious hearts”), where here, “loves” carries the sense of “approves” and where, as in 9:7, the concept of the “heart” is also found. Hence, Paul combines two related texts from the same context in order to make his point” The Lord approves of those who show by their willingness to give cheerfully to the poor that their hearts are holy (cf. Prov 22:9)” (Scott J. Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, NIVAC, p.367).
Pr 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
Ro 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink:
As an aside, my favourite OT example of 12:20:
2Ki 6:21 And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them?
2Ki 6:22 And he answered, Thou shalt not smite them: wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master.
2Ki 6:23 And he prepared great provision for them: and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. So the bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteMt 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
And my favourite OT example of 5:44:
Ps 35:11 Ruthless witnesses come forward; they question me on things I know nothing about.
Ps 35:12 They repay me evil for good and leave my soul forlorn.
Ps 35:13 Yet when they were ill, I put on sackcloth and humbled myself with fasting. When my prayers returned to me unanswered,
Ps 35:14 I went about mourning as though for my friend or brother. I bowed my head in grief as though weeping for my mother.
Lk 6:27 “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
"Perhaps this is where Jesus' admonition to "love your enemies" and "do good to those who abuse you" comes from" (Gerald H. Wilson, Psalms - Vol.1, NIVAC, p.588).
“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old becomes manifest in the New” - Augustine
Hello Anonymous of the Renewed Old Covenant Theory: I read what you wrote but, I think we are not connecting well.
ReplyDeleteI feel you neglected to directly address my questioning of your law keeping in light of your statement about there being no change in the priesthood or law.
Furthermore, it seems that you mis-quoted me – although I’m not certain as to how you meant the use of quotation marks; your wrote:
“Why do you say that I don’t keep the “law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21b, ESV )?”
I did not question your keeping the “law of Christ”
I questioned your claim to keep laws given as part of the Old Covenant – laws that involve a defunct priesthood, in light of your insistence that the priesthood and law has not changed.
You wrote:
“I have to repeat my frequent reply to this contention - there has been no change in the priesthood and no change in the law.”
I asked how you are following Old Covenant laws such as sacrificing animals and tithing to a bona fide Levite?
Why did you avoid answering directly?
Hi Trooisto,
ReplyDeleteI will address that in part 4, as I was intending to do, when I have time over the weekend.
In the mean time I suggest that you may like to re-read "A Meditation on God, Law and Armstrongist Torah Observance" as I have posted some what similar on the subject, but less articulate; eg.,:
Mal 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb [= Sinai] for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
“The law is referred to here [in Malachi] (and this is the very point which has been overlooked), NOT ACCORDING TO ITS ACCIDENTAL AND TEMPORARY FORM, BUT ACCORDING TO ITS ESSENTIAL CHARACTER, as expressive of the holiness of God, just as in Matt. 5:17... The laws, which were afterwards given in the plains of Moab, are also included in the expression “in Horeb.” For they were merely a continuation and further development; the foundation was fully laid at Sinai” (E.W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, Vol.4, pp.190-91).
Happy Sabbat anyway.
Hi Trooisto,
ReplyDeletePart 4
My apologies for failing to understand your line of questions - I am not the sharpest pencil - I think I may have it.
“Are you claiming that with no change to the law, you are therefore currently paying your tithes to a Levite and had an animal sacrificed, by a Levite, as your sin offering?”
I was somewhat thrown that someone would ask the above question. While it may have had relevance in the first 40 years of the Church Age, especially for someone living in the Holy Land, but not after the destruction of the Temple in AD70.
“What proof can you provide that you are interested in keeping and do keep the entire law you claim to be in effect?”
Also I was thrown by the above question, what came to mind was James 2:20.
I am still unsure what you mean the “entire law,” I presumed that you meant God’s law for a Bronze Age agrarian theocracy.
Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
“Of course his laws were edited and expanded, issued and re-issued down the centuries that followed, for different situations and changing circumstances; but Israel's law would never cease to be known as the law of Moses. Rightly so: for the principles laid down in his time, before the settlement in Canaan, remained the principles of Israel's law for all centuries to come" (F.F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations - The History of Israel from the Exodus to the Fall of the Second Temple, pp.3-4).
As mentioned before, Mt 5:18 is typical ancient-near Eastern hyperbole.
"The law is unalterable, but that does not justify its application beyond the purpose for which it was intended. To speak of a change in application of the law is not to regard it as now discarded" (R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, p.186).
Dt 12:15 NOTWITHSTANDING thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart.
“The verse establishes a major change in religious and dietary practice (Tigay 1996:124). Here we may observe an alteration to the previous legislation given at Leviticus 17:2-9, where the children of Israel were a pilgrim people within the wilderness setting. Now, the (profane) slaughter or sacrifice (zebah) of animals otherwise suitable for the altar of sacrifice (cf. Lev 17:5) may be carried out on a par with the gazelle and deer (cf. 14:5) in any of their towns, according to the blessing of the Lord. Furthermore, the people need not be ritually clean in order to participate. The CONCESSION only has real meaning in the light of the anticipation of a central sanctuary at verse 18 (cf. vv. 5, 11, 14), and THE IMPRACTICALITY OF GETTING THERE FREQUENTLY FROM DISTANCE PLACES” (Edward J. Woods, Deuteronomy, TOTC, p.191).
Dt 12:5 But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to PUT HIS NAME THERE, EVEN UNTO HIS HABITATION shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:
Dt 12:13 Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest:
Dt 12:14 But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee.
“The general picture in ch. 12 as it relates to proper worship of Yahweh is one of anticipation. The Lord declares that sacrifices offered to him take place only at a location among the tribes of Israel where he “places his Name”... Once Solomon erected the temple of Yahweh, the restriction was narrowed: the Israelites wee not to offer Levitical sacrifices at any other location other than the temple” (Michael A. Grisanti, Deuteronomy, EBC, Revised, Vol.2, p.615).
Dt 18:5 For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever.
Part 5
ReplyDelete"Are you claiming that with no change to the law, you are therefore currently paying your tithes to a Levite and had an animal sacrificed, by a Levite, as your sin offering?"
As an aside under the Mosaic legislation the laypeople killed the animals, but in the Messianic Age, according to the Ezekielian Torah, it will be the Levites:
2Ch 30:17 For there were many in the congregation that were not sanctified: therefore the Levites had the charge of the killing of the passovers for every one that was not clean, to sanctify them unto the LORD.
Eze 44:11 Yet they [the Levites] shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having charge at the gates of the house, and ministering to the house: they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister unto them.
"Removing the role of slaughtering sacrifices from laypeople is a structure beyond Leviticus (see Lev 1:5, 11; 3:2; 17:3-5;...) and reflects Ezekiel's intensified concern with tiered holiness... The stricture never gained traction in real practice: 2 Chr 30:17; 35:6. 11; Josephus Ant. 3.9.1' m. Zebah 3:1” (Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48, AB, p.210-11).
Lev 12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, 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).
Also "purification offering" is a better translation: "lehatta't is a pie'l formation from the verb hitte', which is synonymous with tihar 'purify' (e.g., Ezek 43:2-6) and kipper 'purge' (Eze 43:20, 26)..." (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, P.232).
No, I am not paying tithes to a Levite and offering sacrifices as there is only one place that sacrifices can be performed and a the present time there is no temple/altar or temple personnel. Even if there was a Temple as I am around14,000 km from Jerusalem it would be "IMPRACTICAL" for me getting there - I will probably never visit to Jerusalem in my lifetime.
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.
If there was a Temple and I wanted to visit I would offer a purification offering as an insurance policy.
As there is no Temple and temple personnel at present it does not mean that the Levitical priesthood has come to an end.
For me, the period after AD70 until the Messianic Temple is to be compared with the time between the destruction of Solomon's Temple and the offering of sacrifices at the return from captivity and later after the completion of Zerubbabel's Temple.
Ezr 3:8 Now in the second year of their coming unto the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the remnant of their brethren the priests and the Levites, and all they that were come out of the captivity unto Jerusalem; and appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to set forward the work of the house of the LORD.
During the interregnum there were Levitical priests and Levites living in Babylonian captivity; Joshua the grandson of the last high priest was probably born there. This did not mean that the priesthood had been abolished. In the restoration the priesthood resumed where they had left off in either 587 or 566 BC.
Zec 8:3 Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain.
Eze 20:40 For in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and there will I require your offerings, and the firstfruits of your oblations, with all your holy things.
Part 6
ReplyDeleteEze 44:15 But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok ... shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord GOD:
The sons of Zadok served in Solomon's Temple, and for a while in Zerubbael's Temple, and will serve in the Millennial Temple.
With God, through Jesus Christ, having a dwelling presence in the Millennial Temple (Eze 43:1-7a) animals sacrifices will be required for atonement and fellowship. Which means that there will be a need for temple personnel, which is in accord with the promise made by God through Jeremiah.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 33:14 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
The formula "days are coming" is a messianic formula; Jeremiah uses it to direct special attention to what is stated. The phrase is used fifteen times in the book. In contrast to the troublous times of Jeremiah's day, there will be a time of blessing ahead..." (Charles L. Feinberg, Jeremiah, EBC, Vol.6, p.518).
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want [karat] a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18a And for the priests, the Levites, there will not be cut off [karat] an individual before me making whole offering rise...
"Yahweh goes on to affirm a matching undertaking about the Levites that takes up the formulation of the Davidic promise. Once again, there will not be cut off... Jerusalem will know the rule of David and the ministry of the Levites. So Jeremiah ... is also providing the Levites with a matching promise... While a collocation of Davidic leadership/covenant and Levitical leadership/covenant come to feature in Second Temple times, that collocation does not correspond to the one that features here... the responsibility of the Levites relates purely to worship; it is the descendant of David who will exercise political leadership..." (John Goldingay, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT, pp.698).
Jer 33:20Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant ...; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
"The ... paragraph associates these perpetual promises to David and to Levi by associating these perpetual promises ... [with God's ] ...covenant with day and my covenant with the night (v. 20). This appears to be a reference back to Genesis 9 where God promises Noah that he will maintain the rhythm of creation. It is only if this covenant is broken, which it cannot, that he will break the covenants with David and Levi" (Tremper Longman III, Jeremiah, Lamentations, NIBC, pp.222-23).
As this is getting too long, especially for those who do not see a literal fulfillment of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, just a quick note:
1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel
Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
In the Messianic Age circumcision will not be nothing - if one would want, or has no choice, to participate in worship of God in the Messianic Age at the Jerusalem Temple one will be required to be physically circumcised.
Below are a couple of renders from my 3D model of Ezekiel's Temple:
members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/33a00600.jpg
members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/3a31cea0.jpg