John 3:16 Doesn’t Mean What We Think It Means?
Lonnie Hendrix
The latest installment of the Church of God International’s Armor of God program, featuring Adrian Davis, was very disturbing to this correspondent. According to Pastor Davis, the majority of Christians do NOT understand their favorite passage of Scripture! He said that this passage has been mistranslated and taken out of context for centuries, and that Christians better be doing a whole lot more than just believing in Jesus! Davis believes that Christians are much too focused on Jesus and the New Testament. According to him, “Israel is the means by which God will save the world.”
I know, you’re probably thinking that Jesus Christ is the means by which God will save the world – me too! I bet you and I could probably think of a great many other passages to support what is revealed in John 3:16 about salvation through Jesus (e.g., Matthew 1:21, John 3:36, 14:6, Acts 4:12, Romans 10:9, Ephesians 2:8-9, etc.). By the way, I’d like to take the Pastor up on a closer look at the famous verse and its context.
In the third chapter of the Gospel of John, we find Christ having a private conversation with one of the leading Jewish religious leaders of that day – a man named Nicodemus (verses 1-2). Jesus begins by telling Nicodemus that “unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” (Verse 3) This statement, however, greatly puzzled the Pharisee (verse 4). Jesus elaborated: “I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life. So don’t be surprised when I say, ‘You must be born again.’” (Verses 5-7) Nicodemus was still puzzled, and Jesus was incredulous that Nicodemus didn’t understand what the Scriptures revealed about these things (verses 9-10).
Jesus then proceeded to get to the root of the problem that Nicodemus and the other Jewish religious leaders had in understanding what he was saying. He said: “I assure you, we tell you what we know and have seen, and yet you won’t believe our testimony. But if you don’t believe me when I tell you about earthly things, how can you possibly believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven. And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life.” (Verses 11-15) In short, they didn’t believe in Jesus or his testimony.
For Pastor Davis, however, the chief take away from this passage is the comparison to what Moses did with the bronze snake in the wilderness. Davis pointed out that God used the symbol to save the Israelites from the snakes which he had sent among them to punish them. However, it apparently never dawned on the pastor that Christ was saying that he would have to be lifted up on a pole to save all of humankind! For Mr. Davis, God intended for Israel to be the light to the Gentiles. Again, he apparently doesn’t comprehend that they failed at that mission, and that God made his Son into a light for the Gentiles (John 8:12, 9:5). Unfortunately, like many in the various Armstrong Churches of God, Mr. Davis does not seem to comprehend that “a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” (Galatians 2:16)
In this context, the remainder of that passage in the third chapter of the Gospel of John is made plain to most Christians. We read there: “For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him. There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.” (Verses 16-21) In other words, by refusing to believe in Christ and his message, the Jewish religious leaders had committed a grave sin.
In the first epistle of John, this commandment is made even more explicit. John wrote: “And this is his commandment: We must believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as he commanded us. Those who obey God’s commandments remain in fellowship with him, and he with them. And we know he lives in us because the Spirit he gave us lives in us.” (I John 3:23-24) Isn’t that interesting? John echoed the same thing that Christ had told to Nicodemus! According to John, God expects us to believe in Jesus and his instructions. Hmmmm, I’m thinking that it’s Mr. Davis who doesn’t understand John 3:16 – I think most Christians understand it perfectly!
96 comments:
My personal problem with the simplicity of John 3:16, which was bedrock scripture in my pre-WCG life was the fact that if one takes it literally then it should better read, "For God so loved the World, that he gave his son...for the weekend"
I know that sounds harsh, but how it it not true. Jesus knew he'd be coming back in three days better than ever. "The Father" knew this as well. So how is that a sacrifice. The story of Jesus sacrifice, in the story, seems more like a weekend inconvenience but certainly not a sacrifice. He came right back better, much better, than before. 3 days...,
The next question is "Isn't a sacrifice supposed to stay dead?" All OT "types of Christ sacrifices stayed dead. Jesus was sorta dead depending on where one believes he spent his time in the grave, but back better than ever in 3 days.
So again, In what way was that a "sacrifice"? How was it not just a short weekend inconvenience for Jesus and The Father.
This is something that clarified for me when a client was grieving over the loss of her only teen daughter to suicide. She said the pastor tried to console her with saying "Well, God lost his only child as well..." Oops, his response brought up her reminding him of what I have asked above and concluded with, "My daughter is dead! If I knew she'd be back on Sunday, I'd be getting the party ready on Saturday. But, she is dead.
The pastor apologized when he realized he made a bad analogy at a terrible time. She told me that going through that experience and the pastors attempt to console that only made her examine this concept of "For God loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." forcing her to go deeper and see her lifetime religious story crumble with "In what way was that a sacrifice and not just a weekend inconvenience?"
I would not then and do not now have a good answer for those conclusions drawn out of tragedy.
Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 2:01:00 PM PST
Here we go, Dennis the spiritual menace strikes again. You see, Christ was "only" dead for three days. Does Dennis comprehend someone ceasing to exist for three days, especially a God Being? Or the impact of the extreme mental and physical cruelty that Christ went through prior to His death? If anyone experienced what Christ did, and was permitted to live, he would never be the same person again. He would have nightmares for the rest of his life, as has been experienced by many front line soldiers.
Dennis is just an armchair critic devoid of comprehension. He needs to stick to eating his crackers.
Looks like Dennis does not want eternal life.
Shoulda given a link to whatever Adrian Davis actually said or preached in context. But ... that is not how it is presented by Lonnie. So of what he wrote I agree with, and consider it good, but as usually it seems to be a 'mix' ---you know, good and ...
Example of good is quoting scriptures saying that one MUST be born again, made spirit in order to see the KOG. But churches teach and preach that the millennium is the KOG. If physical, then how can it be seen?
Would love to see Gary, Lonnie, and Dennis collaborate on what it means to BELIEVE IN CHRIST, (CAPITALISATION for you, Lonnie!). I realize Dennis claims to believe in nothing in scripture, yet presents his versions of what they must mean. (Strange isn't it?).
IMO Lonnie writes some very good points, but the point of this blog seems to be to tear down some most have never heard of. Now I knew about the guy referred to as the littlest prophet before he became the focus of this blog. Don't really have a different opinion about him, before he became so popular a target on this blog. Weinland, yeah. Flurry, yeah. Pac, oh yeah. Other cogs, same doctrinal beliefs and arguments. So.... why not do that collaboration to provide that positive message that the readers of this blog must so desperately need?
Dennis,
As you know, it is always best to listen to someone who is grieving rather than trying to talk them out of what they are feeling. The book of Job is an excellent commentary on how we (humans) try to comfort/console each other, and how most of our attempts fail to do that (comfort/console). In short, if we really want to help, there is no substitute for simply sharing and validating the person's loss.
As for Christ's sacrifice, as a theist and a Christian, my perspective is different from yours. Torah sacrifices stayed dead, but they also didn't prevent the children of Israel from eventually dying themselves. Those sacrifices portrayed the cost and forgiveness of sin, but they did not negate the appointment of those folks with death. Christ's sacrifice addressed the very question of death itself. Hence, whether he died for one hour, three days, or fifty years is of no consequence to the final outcome. According to the Gospels, he designated three days/nights as a proof of his claim to be the Messiah. In order for his death to have any meaning or provide any hope for our own appointment with death, he had to be resurrected at some point. Christ's death and resurrection provides a way for that poor mother's daughter to someday transcend that appointment with death - something that the death of a bull or goat could never do.
If anyone experienced what Christ did, and was permitted to live, he would never be the same person again. He would have nightmares for the rest of his life, as has been experienced by many front line soldiers.
Are you suggesting that the resurrected Son of God currently has PTSD? Or did his return to God-status cure that? If the former, that's not an all-powerful God; if the latter, it reinforces Dennis' point about the very temporary loss, quite different from the life-long remaining pain that many Holocaust survivors had to endure.
Dennis:
The model that you are using in this critique does not assert an afterlife. With no afterlife, death is death only if the person who died stays dead permanently. This is not the Biblical model for anyone unless you believe in Annihilationism, which I do not. In the Biblical model, there is an afterlife. We all have a pneuma that goes on living after physical death and permits resurrection though the soma and psuche may go into dissolution. Most Christians believe in the Intermediate State.
This means that Jesus died just as much as anyone dies. He lost his incarnate life on this earth. But he was not without existence during the period bracketed by moment of his death and the moment of his resurrection (See the Doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell.) He was, in fact, very much alive and doing business. For this reason, I tend to not believe the Armstrongist idea of “soul sleep” describes reality.
There is a thread of illogic in the example you cite. If the woman, whose daughter committed suicide, believed that the scenario involving the Crucifixion, death and Resurrection of Jesus is a real scenario, then she would believe in an afterlife. She seems to believe the scenario but excludes the afterlife illogically. What she is really asking for is not that her daughter would go on living in the afterlife but that her daughter would be resurrected here on earth after three days. This kind of near immediate resurrection is nowhere promised in the Biblical model but is promised at its appropriate time.
God, through Paul, says one day all Israel will be saved. This to the Jew first and then the Gentile. I believe that God provides whatever accommodation is needed for salvation of anyone whether in this life or the next. John 3:16 states that whosoever believes in Jesus, in whatever context, will have eternal life. Her daughter is not excluded from this offer. But we cannot dictate the timing of the resurrection. For Jesus it happened in three days. For us, at the designated time.
Ranger
"Are you suggesting that the resurrected Son of God currently has PTSD? Or did his return to God-status cure that?"
I've pondered that. God the Father and Christ can observe people being blown apart in wars without losing Their sensitivity. The human mind can't do this, So I believe that Christ's return to God-status "cured" Him. Still, the experience must have left both of the God beings with permanent mental pains. That one of the holy days is dedicated to Christ sacrifice implies permanent injury. That's my view.
Hebrews 5:8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.
An interesting part of this blog is that there are for the most part 2 sides. One side rejects law following basically when it has anything to do with the old stuff orthodox type Jews still believe and the other tends to be of the so called word of God is fake belief and these laws do not mean anything anymore and they are made up from old pagan stuff unless an attempt to point out what Jesus really meant is made like this article.
In reality, neither side is correct. While herbie and his offshoots have got the part about the law remains until a certain time correct which the Messiah clearly says in Matthew 5, they operate under the false belief that their interpretations are correct when many are not.
For the most part, the Jewish way of understanding the Torah is more accurate when they stay away from all the stuff they like to add. Matthew 23 shows that.
herbie's children just went along with what they were told and there are a number of things they were taught that are simply wrong which will become clear some day. One of those false teachings is that tithing was transferred away from the temple system to the one true church which is their church, of course. While one may give to help true gospel teaching, it is not a law and herbie and the offshoots never taught / teach a true gospel.
I think it is interesting that the dart fan club seems to think it was ok for him because he was cool. Being the best of a pile of crap is still what it is. Philosopher genius dennis knows all these things about the falseness of armstrong teachings, but I have to admit that I have never seen instruction from him on tithing which would include him repaying his own larceny. Also, because he is cool and he was doing it because another started it makes no difference. Why should anyone listen to the teaching of someone like that?
Such contributions from that type would come across better if those who do that were not such fans of what might be called more mainstream christianity and would choose to either quit making defenses of it (i.e. saying it is better than armstrongism when both are stupid and wrong) and also pay back what they stole from people they so diligently act like they care for.
I have always found it appalling how COG ministers set themselves up to be authorities on the Bible and then mock regular Christians as unenlightened satanic deceived fools, when the actual fools have been Church of God leaders all along. The vast majority of the COG ministers have no real theological education other than what many of them got at Ambassador or through HWA's booklets and articles. I know a female pastor here in town who can run rings around most COG ministers with the amount of Biblical knowledge she has. She could put Adrian Davis and Bob Thiel in their rightful place within the first few minutes of her speaking.
Armstrongism = Human mind control. Your minister does not understand God the Holy Spirit, assumes He is an impersonal force rather than an interactive, sentient being. Your minister tries to usurp His job by giving you things you must do and functioning as a police officer or enforcer. Your lifestyle involves conforming to rituals by sheer will power.
Real Christianity = freedom in Christ. Good fruits and good works flow naturally due to the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit.
How can a religious philosophy actually work if its leaders do not understand 1/3 of God? Could this be why the leaders have to guess at prophecy and it always fails?
Jesus did not just "have a bad weekend"! It is absolutely heart-breaking that someone could organize their thoughts in that manner and put those words together!
11.12, It's heart breaking but not surprising that Dennis could put such words together. Dennis is a product of WWCG culture which like communism, regards human life as cheap. Like the Pharisees, Herb's church regards doctrine as precious, but not life itself. So Dennis considers stealing peoples crowns as no big deal, and is therefore surprised that former associates shun him, and feels offended by the mild label of Dennis the spiritual menace. And he doesn't see himself as having a problem.
"Those who obey God’s commandments remain in fellowship with him, and he with them."
Wow, Lonnie just nuked virtually all of the arguments here against the COG teachings.
I have a John 3:16 story that was both humorous and embarrassing.
Years ago while my family was gathered in a crowded hospital waiting room for an operation my dad had, my young newbie Christian nephew thought that was a good place and time to call me out on my "fair chance" belief, that those who never had a chance for salvation in this life would receive one in the future. He said that idea denied John 3:16. This was probably because it contradicted his heaven/hell concept. He was loud and by this time the surrounding crowd was starting to join in.
I asked him about the little children who die in unbelief and followed up with Ted's missionary flat tire argument. He said, in those situations they are already "saved", which totally bypassed faith in Christ! Christ was not a factor in his equation. When I pointed out it was not me but him who didn't believe John 3:16, he started screaming " I do believe John 3:16, I do believe John 3:16" !!
Did he really? Does any view that concludes one can be saved without faith in Christ be correct as John 3:16 testifies?
Trooisto, help me out here!
Dennis, you wrote, "The next question is "Isn't a sacrifice supposed to stay dead?" All OT "types of Christ sacrifices stayed dead."
Typologies, metaphors and similes are never accurate in all their dimensions. Water is a metaphor for the Holy Spirit but water evaporates and dispserses but the Holy Spirit does not. The Holy Spirit is permanent but its metaphor is not. That is a huge difference but does not impair our ability to use the metaphor where it makes sense.
A sacrifice is a symbol of Jesus written in a biological medium - the medium of animal life. It is not different in principle from using pen an ink to write d, e, n, n, i, s. That string of letters is not the same as you but represents you. And the symbol is not burdened with all of the meaning intended by the sender of the symbol. It is instead a token that will invoke thought and experience in the receiver of the symbol. So the symbol is augmented by intellection as we impart meaning to it. The same with the symbolic sacrifice of Jesus. Our intellection tells us that it must be interpreted in the context of all relevant scripture. It cannot be interpreted in isolation.
Sorry to sound apologetic but I can't say it without saying it.
Ranger
Leave it to an Armstrongite to quote a snippet and claim I've nuked all criticism of ACOG teachings. John defined God's commandments as believing in Jesus and loving each other. If you interpret that snippet to support Christian obedience to the 613 commandments of Torah, then you have problems (see previous posts).
Miller 7:56
I constantly run into this problem. When someone on this blog cites "the law" I have difficulty figuring out what it is that they are talking about. There are at least three definitions of this term:
1. The Torah as written in scripture and observed by the Jews generally.
2. The Law of Christ spoke of by Paul in the New Testament.
3. The reduced scope rendition of the Torah created by HWA and his minions.
There may be other nuances but this is enough to cause disarray.
Scout
Scout,
I agree.
What is the law of Christ? Paul wrote we are not under the law, yet under the law to Christ.
11:32
"Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." (Galatians 6:2)
Also,
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law". (Galatians 5:22-23)
The statements above are summary statements. The Law of Christ is not an organized declaration but everything that is given as instruction to Christians throughout the New Testament. Plus everything imparted to a Christian through Jesus living in the Christian through the Holy Spirit.
It includes a rendition of the Ten Commandments and other NT prescriptions and some OT prescriptions.
My view.
Scout
The law we are not under: tithing, physical sacrifices, wearing tassels, possibly the "holydays" known as "Trumpets" and the day of atonement. My present view subject to change.
Atheists are free to do what they want.
However, I hope Christians won’t question God’s love or the cost of Jesus’ sacrifice.
It’s wrong to underestimate or under-value the pain of anyone who grieves over the abuse and death of a loved one.
We can afford the same common concern toward God.
God’s love is so great for humanity, that he gave Jesus – not just once, on the cross, but each day since.
Jesus is given, gives himself, to us every day; his intercessions on our behalf are never-ending, redeeming us is a daily venture.
Jesus is maligned an abused on a daily basis – even we humans feel the pain of that contempt.
God’s love in giving us Jesus is the core of Christianity; because of Jesus paying our death penalty, our salvation is assured.
The fact that he was only dead for a weekend is our hope for resurrection in him - we are united to Jesus in both his death and resurrection (Romans 6:5).
God giving Jesus is what makes Christianity different from all other religions.
All other religions prescribe what humans MUST DO to obtain the divine.
In Christianity, the Devine HAS DONE it all for humans.
Hello BP8: I’m intrigued that you knew I would agree with you – and I hope we will continue to agree.
No one is saved without faith in Jesus – not even the babies – but all will have their chance.
In conversations with other Christians, I often cite:
Romans 14:11
It is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’”
And
Philippians 2:10
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
I believe that everyone will confess Jesus is Lord; if not in this life, when standing before God in judgement.
After bowing and confessing, I don’t see God giving anyone the boot into the Lake of Fire.
I have faith that the babies are eternally safe because they will confess Jesus – same goes for everyone.
While I see there may be an out for those who refuse the offer of spending eternity with God, I am also conflicted with the belief that the blood of Jesus is so precious and effective, that if it has paid the ransom for a human at some point in his life, there is no return policy, regardless of how much the human may think he wants out of the deal.
That’s a conundrum that won’t be resolved on this side of heaven.
What do you think about that possible bit of bad news for former believers?
Law of Christ
1 Cor 9:21b .... (though I am not free from God’s law
1 Cor 9:21c but am under Christ’s law) ... (NIV).
Paul “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., pp.77-83).
1 Cor 9:21b & c is a synonymous parallelism; so that God’s law equals Christ’s law.
Ro 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Ro 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
"In his letters, Paul qualifies the law as "the law of God" only here and in 7:25 and 8:7. This qualification emphasizes the law's divine origin and authority..." (David E. Garland, Romans, TNTC, p.249).
“Paul “begins with the positive side: “I rejoice in the law of God according to the inner person. “The law of God” is again the Mosaic law, the Torah, to which Paul as a Jew was devoted” (Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed, NICNT, p.484).
In 1 Cor 9:21 “Paul uses the word “law,” of course, because of the wordplay involving “law” compounds. This does not mean that in Christ a new set of laws has taken the place of the old, although in terms of specifics it would certainly refer to those kinds of ethical demands given, for example in Rom 12 and Gal 5-6, so many of these reflect the teaching of Jesus...” (Gordon D, Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Rev. ed., NICNT, pp.474-75).
The Law of Christ is an iteration or version of God's Law. Christ fulfilled the requirements of Torah, and he summarized its provisions by drawing two great commandments from it which underscored God's INTENT behind ALL of the iteration's of his Law (Love). Jesus said: "‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-39, NIV) In another place, Christ also said: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12) Unlike Torah, this iteration/version of God's Law was intended to be universal in its application (Torah outlined the terms of God's covenant with Israel). Unlike Torah, this iteration/version of God's Law does NOT manifest as a list of dos and don'ts. Instead, it manifests as broad principles which can be applied to ANY and EVERY situation a person might face in this life. Hence, while it is consistent with Torah, it is NOT synonymous with that legislation. Paul wrote to the Romans that "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:10) This is the iteration/version of the Law which Christ's followers are expected to obey. It is an exercise in futility and cognitive dissonance to try to parse (cherry pick) Torah to arrive at a standard for Christians.
" John defined God's commandments as believing in Jesus and loving each other. If you interpret that snippet to support Christian obedience to the 613 commandments of Torah, then you have problems (see previous posts)."
Well, that's not true at all. He's clearly talking about the 10 Commandments, and defines love as the keeping of the commandments.
You throw out the number 613 as if it has any relevance. That is purely Jewish teaching, and they were well known for perverting the scriptures. Jesus called them out on it many times.
Trooisto.
I think former believers and most if not all of humanity will one day come to their senses. I think this is demonstrated by the example of the apostle Paul.
In 1 Timothy 1:15-16, Paul calls himself the chief of sinners, and who can argue? The description of his past conduct borders on equality with Adolf Hitler. But remember, Paul wasn't converted by the early church. He probably heard the best sermons of all time and it rolled off him like rain drops. Paul was converted by Jesus Christ Himself! --a direct face to face encounter with the risen Christ! He calls his experience "a PATTERN", the extent God will go to get our attention.
I don't think everybody will get that kind of special treatment or will even need it. But it does demonstrate the effort God will go to seal the deal. Even doubting Thomas needed extra help and he GOT IT! Other scriptures show the extra help may not always be very gentle (see Acts 14:22, Rev.2-3, 7:14), but the end result is what counts.
What a deal !!
9:55
Based on what you have cited, one would think that Cousar, Moo and Fee are all good Armstrongists and believe that the Torah is still in force and is the way to salvation. I believe all these men have an New Testament stance on the law that you are not bringing into consideration.
The canonical issue we must consider is circumcision. Did Paul love the law of circumcision? I believe in its New Covenant meaning, he did. He loved it in its principle and not in its physical implmentation. He saw circumcision as a matter of the spirit and the heart. He adamantly opposed the idea of Mosaic physical circumcision as a condition of the salvific covenant with God. Paul was clear on this issue. He stated in Galatians 5:
"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."
In other words, the observation of the Torah is not a pathway to salvation. We know "the law" in this case refers to the Torah because he is addressing the issue of circumcision in Galatians 5 as required by those Pharisees referred to in Acts 15:
"And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved...That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
Paul, we see, would not be referring to the unadorned Torah in such statements as "law of God" and "law of Christ". He is referring to God's eternal moral law from which the law of Moses and law of Christ are both derived. I make this argument in the following essay:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-meditation-on-god-law-and.html
Scout
Another more technical consideration in defining the Law of Christ emerges in the following passage from Hebrews 7:
"Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood—for the people received the law under this priesthood—what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising according to the order of Melchizedek rather than one according to the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well."
The obvious change is that the priestly function assigned to the Levites is expired. But other features of the Torah changed as well such as circumcision. So the Law of Christ is the new implementation of law under his new priesthood.
Some would argue that Jesus could not engender a change in the eternal Torah but do not consider that they have already ideologically permitted HWA to change the Torah. For instance, HWA modified how God places his name. Suddenly, the authority of the Temple was replaced by Gladewater, Texas.
Scout
For any of you who would like your own fake PhD, here is a site that offers them:
https://samedaydiplomas.com/collections/degrees
Then you too can start your own COG.
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:
Scout writes:
“The obvious change is that the priestly function assigned to the Levites is expired. But other features of the Torah changed as well such as circumcision. So the Law of Christ is the new implementation of law under his new priesthood.”
“... the Bible is an ancient book and makes sense if we look at it in ancient ways” (Peter Enns, The Bible tells me so, p.187).
I suggest that you are not reading the ancient book in ancient ways.
"It is characteristic of Hebrew literary style to state a preference of one thing over another in terms that sound like an absolute dichotomy to our Western ears" (Craig C. Broyles, Psalms, NIBC, p.192).
Jer 33:18 There shall not fail the levitical priests a man in my presence, burning whole burnt offerings, making offerings smoke [qatar], and performing sacrifices every day (Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G. Smothers).
The priestly function of the Levitical priests has not expired.
Jer 33:16 IN THOSE DAYS ... Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.
Eze 44:15 But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok ... they 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:
In the Messianic Age, when Jerusalem shall dwell safely, the levitical priests will minister before God in Ezekiel’s Temple.
Ex 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised [aperitmetos, LXX] person shall eat thereof.
Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised [aperitmetos, LXX] in heart, nor uncircumcised [aperitmetos, LXX] in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary [miqdash], of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.
"... Yahweh takes the first step to safeguard the holiness of the temple and its cult: he bars all who are outside the covenant community from the sacred precinct (v.9). .. Ezekiel reaffirms the Mosaic restrictions (Exod 12:43-51) on access to the sanctuary. Resident foreigners who had not identified with Israel physically and spiritually were prohibited entry" (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel - Chapters 25-48, NICOT, p.626).
No uncircumcised Israelite or Gentile male will be able to participate in millennial Temple worship in the Messianic Age. (I do not close the door on, that in the Messianic Age there could be God-fearers (cp. Acts 10:2, 22, 13:16, 26) who will not be required to be circumcised; but it will be a disadvantage as one will not be able to enter the Temple).
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, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
“The regular succession of day and night was established at creation (Gen. 1:5; 8:22). It was part of the nature of things. It is here described as Yahweh's covenant (berit) with day and night which could never be broken. If this were broken so that day and night did not function at the proper time, then one could expect Yahweh's covenant with his servant David and with the Levitical priests to fail. But the thought was absurd. David's son would sit on the throne, and the Levitical priests would serve (seret) Yahweh" (J. A. Thompson. The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT, p.603).
The success of the Messianic Age requires two priesthoods, one on the earth and one in heaven.
Ps 143:2 And enter not into judgment with thy servant: FOR IN THY SIGHT SHALL NO MAN LIVING BE JUSTIFIED.
“... Ps 143:2b also appears in the New Testament. Paul makes significant use of the psalm in his letter to the church at Rome. Following a lengthy catena of Old Testament texts alluding to sinfulness (Rom 3:10-18), Paul offers this summary conclusion in verse 20: “Therefore no on will be declared righteous in God’s sight”. Paul’s paraphrase of Psalm 143:2b serves to reinforce his claim concerning human sinfulness, a claim central to his theological argument in the book of Romans” (W. Dennis Tucker Jr. & Jamiew A. Grant, Psalms, Volume 2, NIVAC, p.969).
Gal 2:16a Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ...
Gal 3:11a But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God...
Scout writes: “In other words, the observation of the Torah is not a pathway to salvation.”
“Man is expected to respond to God’s grace. But how? This is the role of the law. The law explains how men are to imitate God. THE NT INSISTS THAT THE LAW IS not a means to salvation, but A RESPONSE TO SALVATION. The disciple is not merely to observe the letter of the commandments. HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS MUST EXCEED THAT OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. He must be perfect as his heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:17-48)” (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.34).
Scout writes:
“Paul, we see, would not be referring to the unadorned Torah in such statements as "law of God" and "law of Christ". He is referring to God's eternal moral law from which the law of Moses and law of Christ are both derived.
Mt 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
"Given that the Lord himself is the ultimate source of the Law, according to the Pentateuch, he can maintain justice through variable circumstances by giving somewhat different laws to a people for different situations [cp. Lev 17:3-5 (wilderness) with Deut 12:21-22 (in the land)]. Thus OT law is dynamic and adaptable rather than static and rigid" (Roy E. Gane, Old Testament Law for Christians, pp.34-35).
".... it must also be noted that the laws of Leviticus are an expression of the Lord's values in a specific historical-cultural context that is often very different from our own" (Jay Sklar, Leviticus, TOTC, p.58)
“Debating the Bible, especially Torah, and coming up with creative readings to address changing times was a mark of faithful Judaism. JEWS WERE NOT "LEGALISTIC" ABOUT HANDLING THE LAW, WHICH IS STILL A COMMON CHRISTIAN CARICATURE. Even though scripture was God's word and binding, they understood that the Bible - including Torah - was not a rulebook to be followed to the letter at every point” (Peter Enns, The Bible tells me so, p.174).
It appears that you acknowledge that the law is dynamic and flexible for changing times and extraordinary circumstances; but you won’t allow it for the ACOGs - they have to keep the letter at every point of the historical-cultural context in which they were given.
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.
Dt 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.
"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).
Millar writes:
“Unlike Torah, this iteration/version of God's Law does NOT manifest as a list of dos and don'ts.”
Ro 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
I am sorry Millar but I don’t understand what you are saying.
Romans 13:8 "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,' and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
Notice that Paul has quoted the individual commandments which are comprehended in the Great Commandment - rendering the individual commands redundant. In other words, a person who loves their neighbor as their self is not going to be committing adultery, murdering, stealing, bearing false witness, or coveting.
A summary of love command does not abrogate/disannul/remove the defining of love "redundant individual" commands.
Anonymous Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 7:24:00 PM PST,
You're the one employing "abrogate/disannul/remove" - NOT me. I said that the command to Love thy neighbor renders the individual commands redundant. Christ fulfilled and summarized Torah (including the ten commandments) for us.
The mental illnesses known as Sabbatitis and COGularhea seem to prevent their victims from seeing or comprehending any precepts or truths which conflict with the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong, even the actual precepts which were taught by Jesus Christ.
maybe no more tassels...nowadays it's carry a briefcase to services
along with wear sportcoat & tie
5:44, very excellent comment, thanks.
Dear Dennis, thanks for your excellent points, they seem very respectful & heartfelt despite some sharp responses further down the thread. I like what you wrote man & I am in a COG splinter full of stuffed shirts where I keep a slight distance while I wait for them to iron out some stupid stuff there.
Anonymous 11:48
Jesus stated this of himself:
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
Jesus is stating that he, when he accomplished his mission, will have fulfilled the scriptures you quote and have quoted pertaining to the Temple and Levites. There is no mention of an earthly Temple with a Levitical Priesthood in the Book of Revelation. Revelation does mention the Levites in chapter 7 and they are not accorded any special role beyond that of the other tribes listed. And, of course, that notable scripture:
“And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.”
The author of Hebrews wrote the following:
“For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.”
This, he supports with the statement that the Priesthood of Christ (Melchisedec) is eternal. That is not a mere expression of a preference. To use this line of reasoning involving the Temple and Levitical Priesthood to underpin the Armstrongist belief that the Torah is still essential for salvation just does not have traction.
Scout
Anonymous 12:52
Much can be said in favor of the Torah. It was a glorious law in comparison to what the nations that surrounded Israel practiced. And Jews did regard the Torah as a problem to be solved and engaged in extensive midrash and adaptation. While this may reduce cognitive dissonance for Torah advocates, it does not reverse the characterization of the law as obsolete in the New Testament.
Scout
Miller:
If I might kibbitz. I think 7:24 draws on the following scripture:
"This is love, that we walk according to His commandments." (2 John 1:6)
Armstrongists define love as the keeping of the Torah. They believe that the Torah is written on their hearts and that it is the eternal moral law of God rather than a dispensation for ancient Israel. And it is to be kept at the jot and tittle level. And Armstrongists believe that when John wrote the word "commandments" above he was referring to the Torah.
So when Jesus summarized the law with the principles of love, the Armstrongists got off the bus. Its as if the Jerusalem Conference and Pauline theology never happened.
As regards John's reference to commandments in 2 John 1:6, he is referring to the teaching of Jesus not the teaching of Moses (although there is naturally some overlap). And John states this explicitly a few sentences later when he wrote:
"Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son" (NRSV)
This is something that I think should blow Armstrongists away. That if you follow the teaching of Christ, you don't even have to open the Old Testament because Christ's teaching covers the will of both the Father and the Son.
The Old Testament does not condemn slavery, states that if your son is disobedient you can stone him at the city gates, that the Canaanites can and should be exterminated. In contrast we have Jesus stating that you should love your neighbor as yourself. Yet, Armstrongists would use the Torah as their definition of love based on 2 John 1:6. And this would offset anything that Jesus stated.
It is conflict over the definiton of love itself that leads to statements like what 7:24 made.
Scout
Scout,
Your comments are always welcome. I do understand the Armstrongist perspective on love and law - I just don't think that it's consistent with Scripture. I agree with you that Armstrongists have to twist or ignore John's and Paul's writings to arrive at their definitions of love and law. They simply do NOT understand that Christ fulfilled and summarized Torah - thus, transforming it into something which would apply to all people in all times. Instead, they preoccupy themselves with justifying their cherry picking of Torah - explaining why Christians are obligated to obey these commandments, but not those.
Armstrongism is a very messy confusion of law.
Mostly, when Armstrongites refer to the law, they mean the Torah.
They also think they rock the Torah – even though they ignore most of it and redesigned part of it.
Last week, in another thread on this blog, an Armstrongite reminded me of the Armstrongite belief that HWA had the right to bind and loose anything he saw fit to do – that was his explanation for why Armstrongism’s version of the law is different from the Torah.
Armstrongism does not keep the law God delivered to the Israelites; rather, Armstrongism observes the law Herbie delivered to the Armstrongites.
In another exposure of Armstrongism’s confusion, the same person posted that other Christians were rejected by Jesus because we don’t participate in the foot-washing service that’s part of Armstrongism Passover.
That COG-odd belief showcases how they feel that one act fulfills the command of Jesus to wash one another’s feet – they see the surface words but miss the meaning (as well as the fact that many Christian groups do participate in an actual foot-washing ritual).
Regardless of what’s in their hearts, Armstrongites dutifully participate in their foot-washing ritual, and go on to ignore the broader command of caring for their neighbors.
Because Armstrongites prefer their home-brew law over the law Jesus delivered, after they put away their towel and foot basin after Passover they’ve then proceed to feel that they are superior to others due to keeping their version of the sabbath, shunning piggy products, and feasting wildly during their styling of the Holy Days.
Armstrongites, in their striving to “qualify” for the salvation and pride in their law-keeping, fulfill Galatians 5:4
You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Conversely, Armstrongites are committed to ignore Galatians 6:2 - “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ”.
The Ten Commandments are Holy … and obsolete.
If one could keep the Ten Commandments, as written, they would still be sinning.
It’s easy not to commit murder, harder not to hate, and even harder to love your neighbor.
If you just obey the command to not murder but struggle with hate, and ignore actively loving your neighbor, you are sinning, and failing to keep any law.
Jesus fulfilled the law – all of it – including the Sabbath.
Armstrongites feel superior in their belief that they keep the Ten Commandments, yet they fail to see that God requires more from us than the former written code.
Armstrongites resist the Holy Spirit by being led by law written in the Old Covenant, or re-written by Armstrongism, while knowing nothing of being led by a law written in the heart.
Scout writes:
“Jesus is stating that he, when he accomplished his mission, will have fulfilled the scriptures you quote and have quoted pertaining to the Temple and Levites.”
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, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
As you would expect, I do not agree with your interpretation. The messianic Jew Michael Brown would also, more or less, disagree:
“Such an understanding of these verses [church replaces Israel], however, undermines the promises given to the Levitical priests, standing its meaning on its head. In contemporary terms this would be tantamount to God’s saying to America, “I will always bless you as a nation and will never forsake you,” only to say several generations later, “But now I have designated France as America?” Wouldn’t Americans feel robbed, not to mentioned deceived? Since when does God keep his promises to a specific people - here the Levitical priests - by changing the identity of the people?
“It is true, of course, that one group can forfeit its promised blessings and another group be raised up to take its place (thus David’s offspring replaced Saul’s offspring and the priesthood of Zadok replaced that of Abiahar; cf. 1 Ki 2:27, 35). But Jeremiah 33:18 states that the opposite of that, affirming that these same people will ultimately, if not perpetually, serve the Lord in priestly ministry (cf. also Isa 66:21-23; Zec 14:16-19; Mal 2:4, all cited by Feinberg, who also points to Ezek 40-48...” (Michael L. Brown, Jeremiah, EBC, Revised, Vol.7, p.425).
Scout writes:
“There is no mention of an earthly Temple with a Levitical Priesthood in the Book of Revelation. Revelation does mention the Levites in chapter 7 and they are not accorded any special role beyond that of the other tribes listed.”
Rev 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
“... at this juncture he is content to let the narrative of the deliver’s birth and rapture to heaven stand without modification, for his readers were all aware that Jesus, prior to his ascension, had a life and ministry among men, and experienced a death and resurrection... The birth and the ascension of the Redeemer are viewed as representing the entire Christ-event, as we term it... At this point, however, it is sufficient for it to be recognized that the conqueror of the ancient for is seated at God’s right hand” (G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, p.200).
Just because the Levitical Priests are not mentioned in Revelation does not mean that they will have a crucial role in the Messianic Kingdomas promised by God.
As mentioned in previous post: “The success of the Messianic Age requires two priesthoods, one on the earth and one in heaven”. Revelation 7:9-17 pictures the “Melchizedek” priesthood in heaven during the Messianic Age.
Scout also notes:
“And, of course, that notable scripture:
"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."
Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
There is at least one thing I can agree with John,“ time will tell,” is that the last holy day pictures the goal of the plan of God - God dwelling with his people. God through Christ had a dwelling presence in the Tabernacle and Solomon’s Temple and will in the Millennial Temple. But when there is no more “death” then the goal of God’s plan can be realized as pictured in Revelation 21-22, esp. 21:3.
Trooisto 9:30 and 9:40,
Very perceptive and well-articulated commentary. Thank you for these contributions to the thread.
12:12
We have the following two scriptures to reconcile:
1) Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
2) Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Both these events apparently take place after the advent of the New Heavens and New Earth. The description is continuous running from the beginning of the chapter until the end. So we are not talking about two eons but the same timeframe. The surrounding context makes me believe that the reference to "tabernacle" in 21:3 is a reference to the New Jerusalem. John of Patmos states (NRSV), "Then I saw the Holy City, New Jerusalem ..." Then in the next sentence John hears a voice that says, " See, the home of God is among mortals..." There is no intervening text to make us believe that John is seeing two different things, first a city and then a temple.
This explanation would then comport with Rev 21:22. Hence, there is no description of an earthly Temple served by Aaronic Priests in the age to come. Whatever it is that Ezekiel was describing was only foreshadow of Jesus and fulfilled by him.
Could there be a location in the New Jerusalem where God may be approached? Certainly, there could be. But Rev 21:22 tells us it is not a Temple.
Once the Temple and the Levitical priesthood is rendered obsolete in Christ, whose priesthood is a forever priesthood, there would be no purpose in re-initiating the Temple and the Levitical Priesthood. Why would the inadequate Levitical priesthood (Perfection was not attainable through the Levitical priesthood, Heb 7:11) ever be reconstituted? And the idea of two different priesthoods operating at once for the same purpose is without precedent in scripture.
The best justification for keeping the Sabbath is to see it as a cultural, historical and ethical enrichment. Not as a requirement for salvation. And certainly not as something attached to and validated by the reimplementation of a superseded priesthood that has been adjudged as ineffective in the New Testament.
Scout
Reply to Scout
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Rev 21-22 occurs after Christ fulfills the above. Only then can a holy God dwell with his people. Hence there is no need for a Temple with a Levitical priesthood.
Isa 65:17a For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth:
Isa 65:18b for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy
““YHWH is building a new Temple, therefore creating a new world, and vice versa. In light of Gosta Ahlstrom's astute argument that Syro-Palestinian temples were meant to be "heaven and earth” ... I am led to wonder whether "heaven and earth" in Isa 65:17 and elsewhere is not functioning as a name for Jerusalem..." (Jon D. Levenson, The Temple and the World, p.295).
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth:.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem,
Rev 21:3 ... saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men
"Why does John see ‘a new heaven and a new earth' in Revelation 21:1 and yet in 21:2-3, 10-22:3 he sees a city that is garden-like, in the shape of a temple? Why does not John see a full panorama of the new heavens and earth? Why does he not see the many forests, rivers, mountains, streams, valleys and the many other features of fertile worldwide creation?...
"Another observation points to the equation of the new cosmos with the city-temple. Revelation 21:1 commences, as we have seen, with John's vision of ‘a new heaven and a new earth', followed by his vision of the ‘new Jerusalem, coming down of heaven' (v.2), after which he hears a ‘loud great voice' proclaiming that ‘the tabernacle of God is among men, and he shall dwell among them'. It is likely that the second vision in verse 2 interprets the first vision of the new cosmos, and that what is heard about the tabernacle in verse 3 interprets both 1 and 2. If so, the new creation of verse 1 is identical to the ‘new Jerusalem' of verse 2 and both represent the same reality as the ‘tabernacle' of verse 3" (G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, New Studies in Biblical Theology (NSBT) 17, Series Editor, D. A. Carson, (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004), pp.23-24).
“When the Seer writes the tabernacle of God is with us, he is saying that God in his glorious presence has come to dwell with us. The metaphor does not suggest a temporary dwelling. From this point on God remains with his people throughout eternity” (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, Rev., NICNT, p.383).
"If Ezekiel and Revelation are developments of the first garden-temple ... then Eden, the area where the source of water is located, may be comparable to the inner sanctuary of Israel's later temple and the adjoining garden to the holy place...
"I would add to this that the land and seas to be subdued by Adam outside the Garden were roughly equivalent to the outer court of Israel's subsequent temple, which would lend further confirmation to the above identification of Israel's temple courtyard being symbolic of the land and seas throughout the earth. Thus, one may be able to perceive an increasing gradation in holiness from outside the garden proceeding inward:... the garden itself is a sacred space separated from the outside world (= the holy place), where God's priestly servants worships God by obeying him, by cultivating and guarding; Eden is where God dwells (= the holy of holies) as the source of both physical and spiritual life (symbolized by the waters)" (G. K Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, NSBT, pp.74-75).
"In the ancient Near East, temples were thought of as microcosms of the created world" (John H. Stek, "Psalms",NIVSB, p.808).
I have mentioned before, suggested by ancient cosmology, that what was literally created in Gen 1-2 was Eden/Garden of Eden.
Ge 3:8a And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day:
Part 2
Eden was to be the ‘dwelling place’ of God/new temple/new heaven and earth - a microcosm of a new world that was to grow and fill on the whole word (cp. Da 2:35).
Eden/Garden of Eden appears to have been the response of God to the chaos of the Neolithic bottleneck.
Scout writes:
“And the idea of two different priesthoods operating at once for the same purpose is without precedent in scripture.”
Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
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:
Between AD 30-70 there were two priesthoods operating at the same time; and will be in the future, but with more heavenly priests.
Scout writes:
“Once the Temple and the Levitical priesthood is rendered obsolete in Christ, whose priesthood is a forever priesthood, there would be no purpose in re-initiating the Temple and the Levitical Priesthood. Why would the inadequate Levitical priesthood (Perfection was not attainable through the Levitical priesthood, Heb 7:11) ever be reconstituted?
The Levitical priesthood is not rendered obsolete by Christ. There is a future need for a Levitical priesthood.
I will state briefly as what I am going to state will be considered absurd by most, but “time will tell”:
Lk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
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).
Writing at least 20 years before HWA was born Andrew Fausset wrote this:
“If revelation is to recommence in the millennial kingdom, converted Israel must head humanity. Jews and Gentiles stand on an equal footing, as both alike needing mercy; but as regards God's instrumentalities for establishing His kingdom on earth, Israel is His chosen people. The Israelite priest-kings on earth are what the transfigured priest-kings are in heaven... Earthly and heavenly glories shall be united in the twofold election. Elect Israel in the flesh shall stand at the head of the earthly; the elect spiritual church, the Bride, in the heavenly. These elections are not merely for the good of the elect, but for whom they minister. The heavenly Church is elected, not merely to salvation, but to rule in love, and minister blessings over the earth, as king-priests" (Revelation, JFB, p.722).
Lev 16:33 and make atonement for the Most Holy Place, for the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and for the priests and all the people of the community.
Eze 45:20b so you are to make atonement for the temple.
Christ will have a dwelling presence in the Millennial Temple which will require a Levitical priesthood to maintain the theocracy.
Eze 43:7a And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever
2Ch 9:8a Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee to set thee on his throne, to be king for the LORD thy God:
Christ will not be literally sitting on the throne of David but will delegate the vice-regent role to his human relatives.
Christ and the Saints are going to replace Satan and the demons in the heavenlies - which is the lowest realm of heaven (i.e., the heavenly holy place) - and rule the earth from there - instead of demons kings over the nations there will be saint kings over the nations.
Christ and the saints will exercise their priestly role in the highest level of heaven - heaven in the book of Hebrews, is the heavenly Most Holy Place.
Christ and the Saints as King-priests will exercise their roles in the two realms of heaven.
I need to clarify something - while I believe that Armstrongism preaches a false gospel and does little to help people understand Jesus and what he expects from us - I also believe that most Armstrongites are Christians.
As a system, Armstrongism promotes the concept that once the annual Passover foot-washing is completed, there's no need to carry the intent behind the command into daily life.
However, there are Armstrongites who are motivated to show love toward neighbors, despite the teachings of their organization. One notable example is Bill Goff, who has a small operation that assists people in Kenya.
I read a post about Goff's charity on this blog a couple of years ago, and made a small donation to Help his efforts to feed hungry children - which has resulted in Goff sending follow-up emails.
Along with giving food and financial assistance directly to people in need, Goff does preach Armstrongism. While I do not want to participate in spreading the false gospel of Armstrongism, the advantage of donating to Goff's charity is that he can get food efficiently to people who are starving, with almost none of the overhead encountered by large organizations,
Due to severe drought conditions, people are starving in East Africa - including people with an ACOG affiliation. Perhaps the ACOG splinters are assisting their people- but I am not aware of any efforts. If the splinters are not running their own relief missions, they should at least assist Goff. Instead of wasting so much money promoting false prophesies about Germany and the lost Israelite nations, they should be feeding their own people.
If any Armstrongite readers of this blog know that their church is not actively loving your African neighbors, brothers, and sisters - please consider donating to Goff:http://www.khofh.org/
12:18 - 12:19
Puzzling. I would not call this a "Reply to Scout." It is more a ramble through a bunch of inconclusive viewpoints. I don't have anything to reply to. I stand by what I wrote at 6:36.
Scout
"The Ten Commandments are Holy … and obsolete."
**************************
Utterly #&^%!?*@# Law 101: Commandments: rules regulating behavior. A covenant: an agreement between two or more about the rules.
The 10 are not obsolete. It's an agreement, a covenant, that is or becoming obsolete.
Scout writes:
“And certainly not as something attached to and validated by the reimplementation of a superseded priesthood that has been adjudged as ineffective in the New Testament.”
No the Levitical has not been superseded and has not been “adjudged as ineffective in the New Testament”.
It was effective in the OC theocracy and will be in the NC theocracy; not only effective but essential.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
The Levitical priesthood was effective in “purifying the flesh”. It was not designed for, not could ever be, for the purging of the “conscience”.
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, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
God is going to honor his pledge to the Davidics and Levites in the Messianic Age.
11:35
We are no longer in the age of the flesh, we are in the age of the spirit. People worship God in spirit and in truth not in roasted flesh and spilt blood. Jesus Christ is our Sabbath and circumcision is of the heart and the sacrifice of Jesus supplants all the Levitical sacrifices.
This is really elementary stuff. I am surprised a detail oriented person like you simply stepped over it.
Scout
954
Isn't it strange how many people stumble over your simple declaration? I guess it's TOO easy!
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2023/11/what-is-sin.html
Scout writes:
"This is really elementary stuff. I am surprised a detail oriented person like you simply stepped over it.”
I haven’t stepped over it; it is what you have stepped over.
Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.
Gal 4:24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
Gal 4:25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.
Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
It is also written:
Ge 25:1 Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah.
Ge 25:2 She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah
Joel 3:1 “In those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem,
Joel 2:32a ... everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance...
"Origen, having argued that some mystery must be hid under this union of Abraham with Keturah - first, from the fact, that he who was "as good as dead" in his hundredth year, now at a hundred and thirty-seven begets many sons; secondly, from the analogy of the other two wives, both of whom, according to St. Paul, where certain principles..." (Andrew Jukes, Types in Genesis, p.280).
"Keturah cannot be known, for she only comes when Sarah as an outward form has passed away. But if this is done, then Keturah will come in thousands who are faithful by her spirit.
"... Keturah [comes] ... when the truth which Sarah represents has passed from an outward form into a higher state...
"Keturah ... is, as her name imports, "a savour of a sweet smell"..." (Andrew Jukes, Types in Genesis, pp.279-80).
It is suggested that the woman Keturah represents a covenant. The covenant will be from Mount Zion and corresponds to the future city of Jerusalem.
[In the Messianic Age the city of Jerusalem will be some distance from the Temple, depending on unit of measurement is supplied to the ellipse of Eze 45:1].
Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
After Christ returns to the earth (cp. Ac 1:11; Zec 14:4 and 14:5 with 1 Th 3:13), Jesus as God’s servant will raise of the tribes of Jacob and over the three and half years of His prophetic week He will commission Israel to be His salvation to the ends of the earth (cp. Mt 28:19 & Acts 13:47 during and around the time of Jesus’ first half of His prophetic week).
Through Israel, as his kingdom of priests, a great spiritual harvest will be reaped as pictured by the six sons of Keturah — this occurs when ‘Sarah saints’ have passed into a higher state, that is heaven.
Part 2
At the end of the prophetic half week He will return to heaven and sit on his throne in the heavenlies; along with the Church/Sarah saints (Rev 3:21).
Eze 44:2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
2Co 6:16 ... for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
At this time Christ will begin His dwelling presence in the Millennial Temple, just as He had in the Mosaic Tabernacle and Solomonic Temple; this parallels the end of the first half of His prophetic work, after he had commissioned the church, returned to heaven and then took up ‘residence’ in His Church.
(For a graphic of Jesus’ prophetic week see members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/375ecc60.png).
A relative of Jesus will be the leading person on the earth during the Messianic Age, “the prince” of Eze 45:17:
Eze 45:17 It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths - at all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel. He will provide the sin [purification] offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel. (NIV).
The prince "must provide the victims/produce for all the sacrifices, which are listed in one of the most comprehensive catalogues in the OT: purification offering (hatta't), grain offering (minha), burnt offering ('ola), peace offering (selamim), and libations (nesek). Conspicuous for its absence is the reparation offering ('asam), but this list is not intended to be exhaustive; the frequency with which Ezekiel's Torah refers to the 'asam (40:39; 42:13; 44:29; 46:20) leaves no doubt about is inclusion in the regular cult ritual. [N.B. The reparation offering is not an "appointed feast" sacrifice, hence not mentioned in this context.].
"It is evident from these lists that in Ezekiel's new order sin [and ritual impurity] will continue to be a problem for the nation. As he had done through Moses, however, through this prophet Yahweh reveals his magnanimous provision for forgiveness and fellowship with him" (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, NICOT, pp.659-60).
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).
Eze 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:
Jesus’ ‘presence’ in the Millennial Temple requires a priesthood and Eze 44:15 pictures the fulfillment of God’s promise of consolation/restoration given to the two pillars of the OT theocracy just as they were about to toppled to the ground in the time of Nebuchadnezzar.
9:54
I wrote this a while back. I have done some editing to make it fit here:
One popular rejoinder to the Christian view is to assert that the law (Torah) stands inviolable and only the agreement about the law, read “agreement” as “covenant,” has changed. Jesus brought us a new view that magnified the law. We have traded one set of regular spectacles for a different magnifying set. So, the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament has nothing to do with the law – it only involves the covenants or agreements about the law.
But Paul wrote in Romans 7: “In the same way, my brothers and sisters, you have died to the law through the body of Christ…” Paul calls out the law specifically. And Paul is not referring to Christians having “died” to it by keeping it perfectly so it can no longer exact a penalty, because earlier in Romans 7, Paul speaks of the termination of the authority of the Law. (And if “dying to the law” is keeping the Old Testament Law perfectly in all its minutiae, kiss salvation good-bye. Read through the Torah sometime and remember that Hoeh wrote that not only were the Ten still in force but so were the laws, statutes and judgments because they are based on the Ten. Who when they have a contagious disease wears disheveled clothing and shouts “Unclean!” when in public? Wearing a mask is a very modest measure in comparison.)
The point is that Paul specifically addresses the Law itself in some cases and not just the agreement about the Law.
Scout
Scout,
Romans 7, yes! in Romans 7 verse 12 we read "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."
The law defines the sin which was killing "us" but now the "body of Christ" has come to help us keep it in the spirit and not just in the letter, if kept at all. The law is still "there". But from other writings of Paul it appears the law here includes the 10 but are not those laws added because of transgressions, say, of the 10 - Gal 3:19.
Hello Anonymous of 9:54: You seemed kinda #&^%!?*@# at my comment about the Ten Commandments being obsolete. Rather than being #&^%!?*@#, I hope you would spend a couple of minutes thinking rationally about the concept, while putting aside your #&^%!?*@#.
Perhaps we can agree on the typewriter/computer analogy applied to the Ten Commandments.
There’s nothing wrong with a typewriter; their useful machines and have led to much accomplishment and enjoyment. However, no one wants to use a typewriter now, when computers are so much more useful and powerful.
Likewise, there’s nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments; they are Holy – given by God. However, Jesus magnified the Ten Commandments – so if you are just following the Ten, you are missing so much utility, power, and obedience.
If you are a pastor and teaching your congregation that they must keep the Ten Commandments, you are leading your people into sin – since much more than the Ten Commandments is required of them. If you attend a church that is not teaching you about the magnification of the Ten Commandments, your church is steering you in the wrong direction by not preaching the whole word of God. All the time and energy that Armstrongism wastes on preaching law distracts, sidetracks, and brainwashes people from learning about what is really required of them under the New Covenant – yet Armstrongites take great pride in their belief that they are being obedient to God.
Our text for this fine Sunday morning is 2 Corinthians 3.
I like how St. Paul referred to Christians, juxtaposed to the Ten Commandments in verse 3:
“You show that you are a letter from Christ, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.”
Continuing with the theme of the transitory Ten Commandments, written on stone, being glorious, St. Paul than proceeds to illuminate how much more glorious the New Covenant is in verses 7-9:
”Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!”
For emphasis on how obsolete and transitory the Ten Commandments are, St. Paul continues with verse 10-11: “For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!”
Our call this morning, is to respond to the ministry of the Spirit, meditate on the greater glory of that ministry of righteousness, and delight in being that letter from Jesus.
7:58 - 7:59
What you have written is an interpretation. My guess is that you are the only person living in the world right now who believes what you have written - what Peter refers to as a "private interpretation."
While some of what you have written may have merit, I am not willing to take the time to engage you on this. I would much rather pursue the very open statement made by Paul:
"But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6, ESV) In Hebrews 13:20, the New Covenant is referred to as the "everlasting covenant". So I do not think we can see some resurgence of Old Testament practice somewhere in the future. I do not believe that Romans 7:6 will be superseded.
If you want to keep the seventh day Sabbath, knock yourself out. You just cannot make it a requirement for salvation for everyone else. If you do that, you have violated the statements that Christ made through Paul and have veered off into heresy.
Scout
Scout.
The first few verses of Romans 7, 1-4, concerning "adultery" explains what dead to the law means. There, the husband is dead. The law IS NOT dead, but we have died and are delivered from its claims.
Jesus DID bring a new view that magnified the law! Does anyone really dispute that?
Even the covenants bear that out.
The difference between the 2 covenants is simple. In the OC, the Israelites thought that they, like Abraham, Sarah and Hagar (Gen 16, Gal.4), could, by their own effert, work out God's plan (Exodus 19:5-8). They could not, it was impossible (Deut 5:29, Romans 8:7). But that was the point. They had to learn that lesson!
So finding fault with THEM, God proposed a NC (HEB 8:8), which was not based on human effort for success (Exodus 19:8), but God Himself would be the sole active agent, guaranteeing success!
"I will put my laws (plural, see Ezek 11:19-20, 36:26-27), into their hearts and minds"! That is a parallel statement to Christ living in us and Christ being "formed" in us (Gal.2:20, 4:19).
This NEW agreement is not conditional, based on obedience (Exodus 19:5-8), but unconditional, based on the promise of God. We are children of promise, not children of human planning (Roman 9:7-9, Gal.4:22-31).
It is " by HIS grace, and we are HIS workmanship", Ephesians 2.
This fundamental difference is the basis of all problematic NT scriptures about the law (see Rom. 3:20-22, 9:30-32, 10:1-4, Gal. 2-5)!
The law is not the bad guy here. Never was! I think 954 has it right.
I think the Part1,2,3 guy is largely being written through AI which is why his responses are never quite on point.
Mike
BP8 wrote, "The first few verses of Romans 7, 1-4, concerning "adultery" explains what dead to the law means. There, the husband is dead. The law IS NOT dead, but we have died and are delivered from its claims."
Paul is using the vow of marriage as a case in point. It is not "concerning adultery" but is illustrative of how the law operates in the covenant context. He is not saying that this is the narrow application of this concept. Verse 4 starts with, "hoste" in Greek, meaning that a parallel is being drawn and is translated as "so then" or "likewise". The marriage vow is a parallel principle.
In verse 3 Paul uses the phrase, "free from the law". And in verse 6 he uses the phrase "released from the law". Armstrongists might interpret these phrases as "free from the penalty of the law" and "released from the penalty of the law". But in fact, Paul is not talking about the penalty of the law. He is talking about whether the law is binding at all. And the principle he gives is "that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives". Since we are baptized into the death of Jesus, the law (of the old Covenant) is no longer binding on us.
This is where you have to parse the text finely. Paul is referring to the Torah. And Paul is not making an antinomian decree because he refers to another law in this same stretch of text. He says,
"... so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code."
So, the Spirit defines a new standard of behavior or law or way and it is in contrast to the "written code" or Torah. Paul further clarifies the operation of these two laws in Romans 8:2:
"For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death". The latter is the Torah. Paul discusses this extensively in the latter part of Romans 7. It is called the "law of sin and death" because it reveals sin and results in death. (Not everything the Torah reveals is sin. For instance, not complying with physical circumcision was a sin under the OC but is not sin under the NC. One must look at the Law of Christ to see what is sin under the NC.) The former is what we know as the Law of Christ. The former is what John refers to as the "teaching of Christ" in 2 John 9. It is not the teaching of Moses. John grimly states that anyone who operates outside the boundaries of the teaching of Christ "does not have God."
Scout
Hey Mike: I completely agree with your point; Armstrongites kinda have their own way of communicating – it makes sense to them.
A while ago, I was caught in a conversation with two Jehovah’s Witnesses dudes – that was way weird – I could not follow all their griping about world events and end-time speculation. I contemplated the possibility that they were just hazing me but could not get them to crack.
I’m more well versed in Armstrongism, so I’m more likely to keep up with their conversations.
Whatever the group, if they don’t communicate outside of their group or consume any publications or media outside of the group, they develop their own group-think, with language to match.
Exposing Armstrongites to the real world is another service this blog provides – hopefully, more of them will take advantage of it.
Àyelböůrne, Elder on Ørgæñìa ⚖️ , Friday, November 10, 2023 at 4:32:00 AM PST, said:
"...Dear Dennis, thanks for your excellent points, they seem very respectful & heartfelt despite some sharp responses further down the thread. I like what you wrote man & I am in a COG splinter full of stuffed shirts where I keep a slight distance while I wait for them to iron out some stupid stuff there.
******
Dennis had some interesting questions, and concluded his comments by saying the following:
"...The pastor apologized when he realized he made a bad analogy at a terrible time. She told me that going through that experience and the pastors attempt to console that only made her examine this concept of "For God loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." forcing her to go deeper and see her lifetime religious story crumble with "In what way was that a sacrifice and not just a weekend inconvenience?"
I would not then and do not now have a good answer for those conclusions drawn out of tragedy..."
Read about the sacrifices cited in the Old Testament that deal with animals. A sacrifice just means killing. Jesus Christ was killed. He was murdered, but yes, it was in God's plan to last for a short period of time, and He would be resurrected: alive again. That was a sign, but to who?
We don't wrestle flesh and blood, but the principalities. Satan departed from Jesus for about 3 1/2 years, a season if you will, then Satan returned and engineered Christ's murder. It had nothing to do with those OT sacrifices...well, unless you want to get technical and speak about another animal, a Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. But, the sacrifices of animals, pigeons, bullocks, etc. represent something else, but that is an aside. A sacrifice is a killing. Period.
Who needed the three days/nights' sign? Pharisees? Religious people? No. It was for the principalities (Eph 6:12).
In Matthew 23 it appears that Jesus Christ is chewing out the religious leaders of His day. Words such as hypocrites, blind guides, fools and blind, serpents, generation of vipers. Jesus was speaking to the spirits, the principalities, that were driving the Pharisees (as in 2 Cor 11:13-15) to do the things they did and said. Verses 34-35 are not speaking about the religious leaders, but a generation of evil spirit beings.
If Jesus was speaking solely to flesh and blood religious leaders, then which Pharisee or scribe would be responsible for the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, who was slain between the temple and the altar? Those human beings weren't alive back then.
Remember what happened after Judas, flesh and blood, was affected by Satan? It worked in a similar way with Cain's killing his own brother Abel (I John 3:12, 8; John 8:44). What an evil generation of spirit beings!
To be continued…
John
Continuing…
As a recommendation, it may have been helpful had that Pastor, Dennis mentioned, given the mother a verse like Jeremiah 17:14.
"Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved: for thou [art] my praise."
But, if the Pastor had no faith, or belief, that those inspired words were true, or if he wasn't even aware of them, then those words would not help the mother.
Her daughter will one day awake, and her eyes will open. Her mother will also experience the same thing. Will it be first or second resurrection; there is no third. I don't know, but God knows. It will be joyful for both of them, and both will come to appreciate God's unconditional love for each of them. I like Isaiah's words here:
"But now, O LORD, thou [art] our father; we [are] the clay, and thou our potter; and we all [are] the work of thy hand." Isaiah 64:8
And that LORD is not a reference to some "another Jesus" that some think is the "God of the Old Testament." It really is the Father (Acts 3:13), who gave His Son who, in turn, gave His life for each of us. It's all part of a perfect Plan to save flesh and blood humanity and subsequently destroy the principalities (Eph 6:12)
The daughter and mother will both be healed and saved, but...
Time will tell...
John
Scout writes:
“So I do not think we can see some resurgence of Old Testament practice somewhere in the future. I do not believe that Romans 7:6 will be superseded.”
In regard to the first sentence:
Da 9:27 And he [the Antichrist] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...
While not quite the intent, it appears that the Jews will build the third temple and implement sacrifices before the return of Christ. Maybe the present conflict in the Middle East will lead eventually lead to this outcome. I have though a great earthquake could destroy the buildings on the Temple Mount (cp. Zech 14:5).
In regard to the second sentence, some background:
Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem:...
Dt 30:2a And shalt return unto the LORD thy God
Dt 30:6a And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart
Dt 30:8 And thou shalt RETURN AND OBEY the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.
Ro 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter [gramma]; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Rom 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that which we were bound, in order for us to serve in NEWNESS of the Spirit, and not in OLDNESS of the letter [gramma]. (BLB).
“The new way of the Spirit and the old way of the written code presents a double contrast between newness and oldness, or the Spirit and the letter...” (James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC, p.181).
Eze 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
Eze 11:20a That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them:
Ro 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
“ “Flesh” can ... describe human existence as a whole, when it is dominated by sin and thus broken away from God...
“The counter-weight to life in the “flesh” is life in the “spirit”... Paul can also describe this contrast between flesh and spirit as ways of life in terms of the contrast between “letter” and “spirit,” something he does in verse 6 of our passage. Paul has already mentioned this contrast between letter and spirit in 2:29, and it is clear both there and in our passage that “letter” describes the law when it is controlled by sin, and is thus an instrument of sin’s mischief.
“There is another dimension involved in this contrast in ways of orientating our lives which is at work when Paul describes that contrast in terms of “letter” and “spirit,” however. That dimension is made clear by the way Paul uses this same contrast in II Corinthians 3:6. In that passage, Paul identifies this new contrast in convenantal relationships. The “new covenant” is a relationship to God empowered by the Spirit, which leads to life, rather than the old covenant, based on “letter” (law overpowered by sin), which led to death.
“... “flesh” and “spirit” refers not to two parts of our nature but rather to two ways of carrying out our total existence, and ... the contrast between “letter” and “Spirit” points to kinds of relationships to God” (Paul Achtemeier, Romans, Int., p.116).
Part 2
2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new covenant; not of the letter [gramma], but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
“The contrast here is not between THE LAW and the Spirit, as if the Spirit now replaces THE EXPRESSION OF GOD'S WILL, but between THE LAW AS LETTER AND THE SPIRIT. By choosing the designation "letter" (gramma) Paul brings out the nuance of the law under the old covenant (cf. 3:14) as that which remained expressed merely in writing, acknowledged as God's Word but not kept, rather than being obeyed from the heart by the power of the Spirit. The law without the Spirit remains merely a lifeless "letter."
“... the letter/Spirit contrast is a contrast between the law itself without the Spirit, as it was and still is experienced by the majority of Israelites under the Sinai covenant (cf. 3:14-15), and the law with the Spirit, as it is now experienced by those under the new covenant in Christ.
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34d I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
“... in moving from Paul's day to our own, it is crucial to keep to keep in view the covenant structure and promise of Jeremiah 31:34, both of which informed Paul's understanding of the gospel. The foundation of the covenant is forgiveness, the provision of the new covenant is the Spirit, the consequence of the covenant is OBEDIENCE, the promise of the covenant is to be in God's presence forever as his faithful people:
"I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me” (Jer 32:40)” (Scott J. Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, NIVAC, pp.133 & 136).
“... [the] distinction between "biblical" and "biblicist." The former hears the commandment to forgive seventy times seven (Matt 18:22), for instance to mean unlimited and unconditional forgiveness; the latter counts up to 490!... Kasermann is right that Christianity is something new and transforming and not simply addendum to Judaism, but he runs the risk, in contrast to Paul, of denying THE VALIDITY OF THE LAW AS A MORAL GUIDE FOR BELIEVERS" (James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC, p. 183).
Hi Mike,
“I think the Part1,2,3 guy is largely being written through AI which is why his responses are never quite on point.”
You give me too much credit, I wouldn’t know how to use AI.
I realize that I am a rather mediocre person - not intelligent or articulate - hence the quality of my posts.
As my posts are “never quite on point” why do read them? Isn’t this a waste of your time?
Regards
2:04: oops, missed verses 7-12.
In regards to Rom 8:2 quoted above:
Ro 7:25b So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
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.
Ro 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Ro 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
"the law of the Spirit of life. The controlling power of the Holy Spirit, who is life-giving. Paul uses the word "law" in several different ways in Romans - to mean, e.g., a controlling power (here); God's law (2:17-20; 9:31; 10:3-5); the Pentateuch (3:21 b); the OT as a whole (3:19); a principle (3:27). law of sin and death. The controlling power of sin, which ultimately produces death" (Walter W. Wessel, Romans, NIV Study Bible, p.1716).
"The "nomos of the Spirit ... cannot refer to the Mosaic law. It may however allude to the "law written on the heart" (cf. Jer 31:31-34), the "law" of the New Covenant that, according to the parallel text in Ezek 36:24-32, is closely related to the Spirit. But it is not clear that the "law" in Jeremiah is anything but an internalized Mosaic law; and it is not, in case, the liberating power of the new age. This also rules out any notion of "the law of the Spirit" being a new, Christian ethical standard that takes the place of the law of Moses (as some interpret "the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2]). Paul's use of nomos here may be rhetorically dependent on his customary use of nomos, but he does not use it in order to suggest that the Sprit is, or conveys, a norm that functions like, or can substitute for, the Mosaic law. Others think the nomos is the gospel, the new "rule" of which the Sprit is the author. This is possible, but the other texts in which Paul uses nomos in a "nonlegal" manner (cf. 3:37; 9:31-32), and especially the immediate context (7:21-25), points rather to nomos meaning "power" or "binding authority," with the following genitive specifying that authority or power. Paul always use nomos with this meaning in contexts where he has been talking about the Mosaic law" (Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, p.475).
“In the new epoch inaugurated by the sending of God’s Son and the outpouring of God’s Spirit, the Spirit acts on human hearts to bring about obedience to the law and engender life. Many commentators regard the word law (nomos) in the phrase the law of the Spirit to refer to a ‘principle’ (cf. 7:21). Paul uses the word ‘law’, however, in 8:3 to refer to the Mosaic law and presents it as coming under the control of the flesh or the Spirit. He does not intend his original audience to guess whether the word nomos refers to the Mosaic law or a principle. He uses the words seventy-plus times in the letter consistently to refer to the Mosaic law. Here he describes it under the influence of different force fields. The law of the Spirit ... in Christ Jesus refers to the Mosaic law in the power sphere of the Spirit that makes believers’ fulfilment of the law possible. The law of sin and death refers to the Mosaic law in the power sphere of the flesh where sins warps and exploits it (7:11) so that it produces condemnation and eternal death. Since the law is ‘spiritual’ (7:124), it only operates as God intended it in the sphere of the Spirit.
Part 2
“Living in the force field of the Sprit frees believers from the law that is engraved on stone and in the sphere of the flesh is so easily forged as a tool of sin. The obedience of faith among all the Gentiles’ that Paul understands to be objective of his apostleship (1:5; 15:18; 16:26) is possible only through the operation of the Spirit who does not work ‘on tables of stone but on human hearts’ (2 Cor 3:3).
“Paul’s argument is this. Sin worms its way in through the portal of the flesh and distorts the law and deforms humanity. The Spirit’s power re-forms those who are in Christ and transforms them so that they can fulfil ‘the requirements of the law’ (8:4) and be conformed to the image of God’s Son (8:29). Freedom does not come from trying to conform to a written code but only from surrendering oneself completely to the control of God’s Spirit. Paul asserts that under the Spirit’s power the external Mosaic law develops into an interior law (Jer 31:33) - in this case, as argued below, the Christian law of love” (David E. Garland, Romans, TNTC, pp.258-60).
Paul "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).
It was noted above that: “A sacrifice is a killing. Period.”
Ro 12:1 that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Heb 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
Heb 13:16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.
1Pe 2:5 ... to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Not necessarily.
Offering (qorban)
Lev 1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you shall present [qarab] an offering [qorban] unto the LORD...
Eze 40:46 ... the sons of Zadok among the sons of Levi, which come near [qarab] to the LORD to minister unto him.
“To offer a sacrifice a priesthood is necessary” (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.5).
“The offering (Heb qorban) was something ‘brought near’ (qrb) to the altar, and was a general term covering all types of sacrificial gifts” (R. K. Harrison, Leviticus, TOTC, p.46).
Mk 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift [doron]...
Lev 1:2a If any man of you shall bring gifts [doron] to the Lord (LXX).
“The term corban (korban), which is a transliterated Hebrew word (qorban) meaning ‘sacrificial offering’ (cf. Lev 2:1, 4, 12, 14), is explained by Mark for his Gentile readers with the Greek word ‘gift’ (doron)...” (Ecjhard J. Schnabel, Mark, TNTC, p.165).
“The LXX renders correctly doron ‘gift’...” (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, p.145).
Lev 5:11 he that sinned shall bring for his offering [qorban] the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering [hatta’t].
Ne 10:34 And we cast the lots among the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood offering [qorban], to bring it into the house of our God... to burn upon the altar
Nu 7:3a And they brought their offering [qorban] before the LORD, six covered wagons, and twelve oxen;
“A sin offering [hatta’t] could be an animal, but for a poor person it could consist of grain, which was not slaughtered (5:11-13). So we cannot determine whether something was a sacrifice/offering or not on the basis of whether or not it was slaughtered” (Roy Gane, Altar Call, p.82).
Lev 3:1 And if his offering [qorban] be a sacrifice [zebah] of peace offering [selamim]...
Lev 3:2 ... he shall ... kill [shahat] it at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:
1Sam 9:13 ... for the people will not eat until he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice [zebah] ;...
Lev 1:3a If his offering be a burnt sacrifice [‘ola] of the herd (AV)
Lev 1:3a if his offering is a burnt offering [‘ola] from the herd (ISV)
“It is true that in English translations of the Bible the term “sacrifice” is used with reference to a particular class of sacrifice, including the well-being offering, in which an animal was slaughtered and the offerer ate some of the meat (for example Lev 3:1, 3, 6, 9; 7:11, 15, 16). But we can also apply the word “sacrifice,” in the broader sense of an offering to God, to other kinds of sacrifices, such as burnt offerings and sin offerings. It was a sacrifice if it was given over to God in a special way” (Roy Gane, Altar Call, p.82).
“So a qorban (“sacrifice, sacrificial offering”) makes something holy by giving it over to the holy domain of God” (Roy Gane, Leviticus/Numbers, NIVAC, p.79).
Lev 1:5a The bull shall be slaughtered [sahat] before the Lord... (Jacob Milgrom)
2Ki 10:7 ... they took the king's sons, and slew [sahat] seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets...
“[sahat occurs] “most often as a technical term for sacrificial slaughter... See the use of the term in 2 Kgs 10:7 for an example of the verb meaning “slitting the throat”...” (Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, NAC, p.88).
Anonymous Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:18:00 PM PST,
Your commentary ignores the elephant in the room. Christians believe that ALL of the various sacrifices outlined in Torah find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ - that HE filled them to the full. For us, he renders ALL animal sacrifices irrelevant. For us, they ALL pointed to HIM! For those interested in the Christian perspective on the Torah sacrificial system, I suggest that you read the ninth and tenth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament.
641
You are sometimes a hard read, but I find that you are usually spot on. If I may, I would like to piggyback on what you have said.
It is true that Paul uses the word "law" in several different ways in Romans. It is also true that he refers to the old and new nature in various ways which can sometimes cloud his meaning.
In his booklet, The 2 Natures in the Child of God, E.W. Bullinger list the following names for both natures in question:
The old nature is referred to as 1) the flesh, 2) the natural man, 3)the old man, 4)the outward man, 5) the heart, as in Jer.17:9, 6) the carnal mind, 7) sin, as being the root, where "sins" are the fruit.
The new nature is referred to as 1) Divine nature, 2) the new man, 3) the inward man, 4) the mind, 5)Christ spirit -Rom.8:9, or 6) the Divine spirit.
Reviewing Romans 7-8 with this in mind reveals MUCH!
Rom 7:5- for when we were in the flesh (following the old nature), the motion of sins which were by the law, did work in our members.
Rom 7:14- for we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal (old nature) sold under sin (old nature).
Rom 7:15- sin is what my old nature naturally does.
Rom 7:16- the law is good (and is not the problem). 17, sin that dwells in me is.
Rom 7:21- for I find then a law (not God's law), that when I would do good, evil is present. 22, but I delight in the law of God after the inward man, new nature.
Rom 7:23- but I see another law in my flesh (old nature) at war with the law of my mind, the new nature.
Rom 7:25- with my mind (new nature) I SERVE the law of God, but with the flesh (the old nature) the law of sin (showing that the law of sin is NOT the law of God).
With the mind we SERVE the law of God how? "In newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter", ch. 7:6.
Rom 8:1- There is now no condemnation to them who walk not after the old nature but after the new.
8:2- for the law of the spirit of life (new nature) has freed me from the law of sin and death (see Romans 7:23 again).
8:4- that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh (old nature) but after the spirit (new nature).
8:5- for they that follow the old nature mind those things, but they that follow the new nature mind the things of the spirit, which includes God's law (ch.7:22,25).
8:7- the carnal mind, old nature, is enmity against God, it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Consider the example of ancient Israel!
8:8- so they that are in the flesh, old nature, cannot please God. BUT, verse 14, they that are led by the spirit, the new nature, they are the sons of God who please Him!!!
As sons of God following the new nature:
-we DELIGHT in the law of God, Romans 7:22.
-we SERVE the law of God, Romans 7:6, 25.
-we consider the law of God to be holy, spiritual, just and good, Romans 7:12, 14.
-we walk after the spirit which fulfills the law's requirements, Rom 8:4.
-we are subject to God's law, Rom 8:7.
Making the law the problem IS a PROBLEM and ignors the problem! The problem is US (Romans 3:23)--not the law. Thankfully The plan of salvation corrects that problem (Hebrews 8:8-12).
Every iteration of God's Law is holy, just and good. Yes, WE are the problem, and Jesus Christ has solved that problem by fulfilling and summarizing God's Law for us. The fact remains that Christians are NOT under the Torah iteration of God's Law.
Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix, Monday, November 13, 2023 at 5:38:00 AM PST, said to
Anonymous Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:18:00 PM PST:
Your commentary ignores the elephant in the room. Christians believe that ALL of the various sacrifices outlined in Torah find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ - that HE filled them to the full. For us, he renders ALL animal sacrifices irrelevant. For us, they ALL pointed to HIM! For those interested in the Christian perspective on the Torah sacrificial system, I suggest that you read the ninth and tenth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament.
******
Yes, Lonnie, Anon 7:18 did ignore the elephant in the room, and then got on to a proverbial corkscrew, or pig's tail, speaking about virtually everything else relative to other types of sacrifices, and copious opinions of others.
Even Dennis was aware of that "elephant in the room" as he wrote: [...The next question is "Isn't a sacrifice supposed to stay dead?" All OT "types of Christ sacrifices stayed dead...]
I had also written: "...Read about the sacrifices cited in the Old Testament that deal with animals. A sacrifice just means killing....But, the sacrifices of animals, pigeons, bullocks, etc. represent something else, but that is an aside. A sacrifice is a killing. Period..."
My context was also about what you mentioned: the elephant in the room.
Anon 7:18 was apparently not interested in that elephant in the room, and hence the corkscrew approach of going down a pig's tail into a host of many other things about sacrifices other than the animals of the OT sacrificial system.
There really was no need to cite numerous reference sources and opinions of such folks as: Wenham, Harrison, Schnabel Milgrom, Roy Gane, and Rocker, who go down various corkscrew paths to anything except the elephant in the room.
John
"....Jesus Christ has solved that problem by fulfilling and summarizing God's Law for us."
*******
Yes, He is the perfect example of obeying the law that we should follow.
Hi Lonnie,
Heb 9:1 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary.
Heb 9:2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place.
Heb 9:3 BEHIND the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place,
Heb 9:4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant.
I have read the first four verse of Hebrews 9 and I have a problem.
Ex 30:6 Put the altar in FRONT of the curtain that is before the ark of the Testimony—before the atonement cover that is over the Testimony - where I will meet with you.
The author of Hebrews says the altar of incense is in the Most Holy Place; but God told Moses that it was to be in the Holy Place, in front of the curtain not behind it.
If he got something as simple as this wrong, what else did he get wrong?
Lonnie writes:
“Your commentary ignores the elephant in the room. Christians believe that ALL of the various sacrifices outlined in Torah find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ - that HE filled them to the full. For us, he renders ALL animal sacrifices irrelevant.”
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
No I haven’t. Not only are the overwhelming number of Christians wrong to believe Sunday is now the Sabbath, they are also wrong about sacrifices in the future theocracy.
Ac 21:23b There are four men with us who have made a vow.
Ac 21:24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.
Ac 21:26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
In a theocracy where Jesus has His holy dwelling presence in the Holy of Holies animal sacrifices are required for the purifying of the flesh. Animal sacrifices were not designed for, not could ever be, for the purging of the "conscience".
When certain sins and certain ritual impurities are committed/contracted they generate impurities which attach to the sancta.
Lev 20:3b 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 not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD;....
“... when a person is contaminated by his evil, the sanctuary is also defiled at the same time from a distance...
"The offerer's atonement and forgiveness cannot be accomplished without cleaning the defiled sancta which he contaminated with his sin, even though his sin is removed and cleansed from him through confession and hand imposition" (Gyung Yul Kim, "The hattat ritual and the Day of Atonement in the Book of Leviticus," pp.260 & 298).
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands... to appear in the presence of God for us:
Following the two stages of atonement, Christ’s sacrifice wasn’t complete until the “heavenly things” were purified (9:23).
Eze 44:25 And they shall come at no dead person to defile themselves: but for father, or for mother, or for son, or for daughter, for brother, or for sister that hath had no husband, they may defile themselves.
Eze 44:26 And after he is cleansed [tohora], they shall reckon unto him seven days.
Eze 44:27 And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin-offering [hatta't], saith the Lord GOD.
"Verse 26-27 take the quarantine period required for laypeople after corpse defilement and double it for priests. Numbers 19:11-13 (HS) outlines a seven-day procedure of ritual purification, including application of water of purification on the third and seventh days. Ezekiel 44 stipulates an additional seven days and a purification offering at the temple after the week of cleansing before a priest can return to duty (Konkel 2001, 124)" (Stephen L. Cook, Ezekiel 38-48, AB, p.222).
To maintain Christ’s dwelling presence in Ezekiel’s Temple during the Millennium/Messianic Age animal sacrifices will be required for the purifying of the flesh.
5:28: Some translations of Heb 9:4 have "censor", not altar of incense, may be more accurate. Censors used daily are of bronze (Num 16:39) but a golden censor is stored (?) in the most holy place and used once a year after incense is brought inside the curtain - Lev 16:12.
Elephant in the Room: The Millennium/Messianic Age
Jer 30:3 For, lo [hinneh], the days come, saith the LORD, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the LORD: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it.
Jer 31:31 Behold [hinneh], 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 [hinneh], 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 30-33 is often referred to as the Book of Consolation. In the dark days at the end of the OC Kingdom of God, when the Temple and Jerusalem was destroyed, the king had his eyes put out and sent into captivity along with eight hundred thirty and two persons (831, not including Zedekiah?) (Jer 52:29) and the chief priest and second priest were slain God gave promises through Jeremiah to the people. Of import in light of the exile of the king and the destruction of the Temple and the death of the leading priests this is what the Lord said:
Jer 33:16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely:
Jer 33:17 ... There will not be cut off [karat] for David an individual sitting on the throne of the household 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... (John Goldingay).
Jer 33:20 ... 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, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
"Jer 33:14-18 contain the promise of the restoration of the monarchy and the priesthood. Jer 33:19-26 further present two special messages FROM GOD, in the form of supplements, which guarantee the eternal continuance of these institutions" (C.F. Keil, Jeremiah, KD, Vol.8, p.301-02).
I believe that God in the future will honor His promises to the Davidics and the Levitical priests. During the Millennium/Messianic Age the Zadokite priests will make “whole offering rise”.
Why would God make this promise and guarantee for the Levites if in six hundred odd years later Christ was to abolish animal sacrifices? Would he also abolish the monarchy?
"The majority of dispensationalists have argued that the sacrifices are memorials to the sacrifice of Christ, with no atoning character. However, the idea that these are memorial sacrifices is no where apparent in Ezekiel, and it is specifically claimed by Ezekiel that these offerings will make atonement (45:15, 17, 20)" (Ian M. Duguid, Ezekiel, NIVAC, p.521).
Part 2
Eze 40:1 In the five and twentieth year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the LORD was upon me, and brought me thither.
Eze 40:2 In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south.
In 573 BC, fourteen years or so after the fall of Jerusalem Ezekiel had been in captivity for some 25 years.
Ezr 8:15 And I gathered them together to the river that runneth to Ahava; and there abode we in tents three days: and I viewed the people, and the priests, AND FOUND THERE NONE OF THE SONS OF LEVI.
For the minority that longed for a return and a new covenant God provided Ezekiel with a vision of a hopeful future.
"The major literary segments that comprise 40-48 ... exhibit broad coherence in contest and arrangement. The structure of the whole may be construed as a chiasm:
A. 40:1-4 Introduction
B. 40:5-42:20 Survey of the temple complex
C. 43:1-9 Return of the Glory
D. 43:10-46:24 The Law of the Temple
C'. 47:1-12 The course of the river of life
B'. 47:13-48:29 Survey of territorial allotments and borders
A'. 48:30-35 Conclusion
(Steven Shawn Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40-48, pp.19-20).
Nine whole chapters of Ezekiel are devoted to the vision of a restored Israel - while picturing the antitype, it would have provided hope for a return in the near-future (cp. Da 9:2).
Eze 43:10 “Son of man, describe the temple to the people of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their sins. Let them consider the plan,
Eze 43:11 and if they are ashamed of all they have done, make known to them the design of the temple—its arrangement, its exits and entrances—its whole design and all its regulations and laws. Write these down before them so that they may be faithful to its design and follow all its regulations.
Why would God give such a long vision to Ezekiel and the exiles when six hundred odd years later Christ sacrifice would make it irrelevant?
For me, this is the elephant in the room.
Eze 40:15 The distance from the entrance of the gateway to the far end of its portico was fifty cubits.
Eze 40:16 The alcoves and the projecting walls inside the gateway were surmounted by narrow parapet openings all around, as was the portico; the openings all around faced inward. The faces of the projecting walls were decorated with palm trees.
I take God’s promises literally - no nine chapters of allegory for Ezekiel - that Israel and Judah will return to their homeland and enter into a new covenant with God (Jer 31: 31-34, cp. Heb 8:8-12). The covenant will also be renewed with the Davidic and the Levites and it will only be broken when there is not more alternating of night and day.
A Levitical priesthood will be required to fulfill these prophecies:
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.
Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
Part1,2,3 guy,
I was simply speculating on your postings. I often read them because there is good info in them, but yes, I sometimes think they are somehow not crisply on point.
I wondered why this would be the case when there is good information provided. And AI came to mind.
I wish you would give your thoughts on the information you provide. At least tie the sources together. Cheers!
Mike
Anonymous Monday, November 13, 2023 at 5:28:00 PM PST,
Your post is an excellent example of the problems inherent with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture and the absence of any contradictions therein. Are you suggesting that this disqualifies the book of Hebrews as being worthy of inclusion in the canon? To be precise, according to Torah, the altar of incense stood just in front of the veil delineating the Holiest place. Hence, technically it was part of the furnishings contained within the Holy place (I'll be interested to see if any apologetics are offered for this one). For the record, the Epistle to the Hebrews is my favorite book of the New Testament.
I'd also be interested in the opinions of the other Christians commenting here about whether or not Scripture prophesies that there will be animal sacrifices in the Messianic Kingdom. And if you agree with multi-part commentator that there will, how do you explain that in the light of Christ's sacrifice?
As for the comment suggesting that my view of Scripture allows me to exclude things I don't like or want to do, nothing could be further from the truth. My own interpretation of Scripture relies on a wholistic approach to Scripture and a preponderance of the available evidence regarding any topic. Unlike the ACOGs, I don't believe that Christians are obligated to observe any of the individual provisions of Torah (other than the ones which Christ identified - Love for God and neighbor).
Lonnie writes:
“Your post is an excellent example of the problems inherent with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture and the absence of any contradictions therein. Are you suggesting that this disqualifies the book of Hebrews as being worthy of inclusion in the canon?”
1Ki 6:22 So he overlaid the whole interior with gold. He also overlaid with gold the altar that belonged to the inner sanctuary.
Of course not, I was only teasing - seeing if you would bite. See the commentaries on the concept.
"The logic of the book [of Hebrews] is based on ancient rhetorical patterns and pre-modern exegetical principles that makes the reader's task exceptionally difficult" (Richard Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest - Community and Priesthood in Biblical Theology, p.141).
Heb 10:18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
I would suggest that if one reads 10:18 alone and concludes that animals sacrifices have been abolished, one is reading the Bible too much from a modern-western perspective.
One needs to consider the Hebraic concept of relative/rhetorical negation and that not all the information on a subject is clustered in a particular textual context. In regard to the latter:
2Sa 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
2Sa 23:5 Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.
British Israelites like to argue that the promise to David that he will always have a descendant ruling on his throne is unconditional based on the above Scriptures; that is there, is no mention of “conditionally” here. This argument betrays a misunderstanding of Hebrew literature. One needs to look elsewhere to see if the argument stands; which it doesn’t:
1Ki 8:25 Now therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, keep for your servant David my father what you have promised him, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man to sit before me on the throne of Israel, if ['im] only your sons pay close attention to their way, to walk before me as you have walked before me.' (ESV).
1Ki 9:4 And if ['im] thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments:
1Ki 9:5 Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel.
Ps 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.
Ps 132:12 If [‘im] thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.
cp. ps 89:33-37.
Sin offerings for the future:
Eze 46:20 Then said he unto me, This is the place where the priests shall boil the trespass offering and the sin offering, where they shall bake the meat offering; that they bear them not out into the utter court, to sanctify the people.
The flesh of sacrifices for sin where the blood is applied only to the outer altar is to be eaten by the priests to complete the atonement process for the sinner (Lev 10:17).
Subjective Efficacy (in a theocracy):
Heb 9:13 ... the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
temporal, finite, external, and legal
Objective Efficacy:
Heb 9:14 ... the blood of Christ ... purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God
eternal, infinite, internal, and soteriological
For more see “Jesus Christ, the Purification Offering and the Millennium” (members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/id104.htm)
Hi Mike, thanks for the reply.
Sorry about being caustic in my response to your earlier AI post.
You write:
“At least tie the sources together”.
At present I am trying to keep somewhat to Biblical precedents:)
"... and who has not felt the frustration of completing the reading of Isaiah or Jeremiah and then wondering what the "plot" was?
"For the most part these longer books are collections of spoken oracles not always presented in their original chronological sequence, often without hints as to where the oracles ends and another begins, and often without hints to their historical setting..." (Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for all its worth, 4th ed, pp.17, 189).
In my previous post I wanted to include another quote from “How to Read the Bible for all its Worth,” that stood out in the reading of the book some time back, but couldn’t find it as I couldn’t remember what it was. Just skimmed through a few passages and this observation may have been it:
“If you have read the whole section [1 Corinthians 1-4] with care and with an eye for the problem, you may have noted — or even frustrated by — the fact that, although Paul begins by specifically spelling out the problem (1:10-12), the beginning of this answer (1:18-3:4) does not seem to speak to the problem at all...” (p.65).
In the skim I found this passage, which may be of interest to some:
“Note well that nowhere in the Old Testament is it suggested that anyone was saved by keeping the law. Rather the law was God’s gift to Israel — his way of setting them apart from their pagan neighbors, of setting stipulations and boundaries for their conduct so that they might know how they were to love the Lord their God and to love each other. In other words, the rules of his law gave them an understanding of their relationship both to God and to each other. This is why in the Old Testament the righteous regularly express delight in God’s law (e.g., Pss 19 and 119).
Phil 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
“And when people did not keep the law perfectly, God also provided for them the means of forgiveness and atonement.
“Israel’s problem in the Old Testament was not with their inability to keep the law; is was with their choosing not to do so. The story of Israel as recorded in most of the Old Testament is a long and sad story of disobedience, of constant flirtation with and attraction to the gods of their neighbors. Isaiah saw clearly that people become like the gods they worship; hence Israel is described as having eyes but not seeing, and having ears but not hearing (Isa 6:9-10) — just like the idols they were attracted to and finally worshiped. Hence, instead of being Yahweh’s people — a people who exemplified his character of justice and mercy, caring for the needy in the land, etc. — they were full of greed, capriciousness, and sexual immorality, like the baals of the Canaanites.
“So the role of the law in Israel is especially important for u to know well, because here we see examples of God’s own character being expressed in the laws he gave to Israel as they worshipped and lived in loving relationship with one another. And here we understand why there had to be a new covenant accompanied by the gift of the Spirit (Ezek 36:25-27; 2 Cor 3:6. so that God’s people would bear his likeness by being conformed to the image of his Son (Rom 8:29).
“All of this is to say again that the law was not thought of in Israel as a “means of salvation.” It was neither given for that reason nor could it possible function in that way. Rather, it functioned as a way of setting out parameters of relationships and of establishing loyalty between God and his people. The law simply represented the terms of the agreement of loyalty that Israel had with God.
“The law in this sense thus stands as a paradigm (model). It is hardly a complete list of all the things one could or should do to please God in ancient Israel. The law presents, rather, examples or samples of what it means to be loyal to God...” (Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for all its worth, 4th ed, pp.175-76).
Anon, Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 12:34:00 AM PST, said:
"...In my previous post I wanted to include another quote from “How to Read the Bible for all its Worth,” that stood out...In the skim I found this passage, which may be of interest to some:...
..."Israel’s problem in the Old Testament was not with their inability to keep the law; is was with their choosing not to do so. The story of Israel as recorded in most of the Old Testament is a long and sad story of disobedience, of constant flirtation with and attraction to the gods of their neighbors. Isaiah saw clearly that people become like the gods they worship; hence Israel is described as having eyes but not seeing, and having ears but not hearing..."
******
Isn't Satan still the god of this present evil world? If not, then what changed? There is a link between Satan and sin: "He that committeth sin is of the devil;..." I John 3:8
Which Israelite(s) was going to perfectly observe God's law? Who was going to avoid the wages of sin? Who can choose to stop sinning, and then choose to make that decision stick for the rest of one's life? I mean, someone other than Jesus Christ, who was guided and directed by God's Spirit (Zech 4:6).
Anon's author says: "...Israel’s problem in the Old Testament was not with their inability to keep the law...", but yes, it was! Why blame/judge (2 Cor 5:19; 2 Tim 2:26; James 4:5) the Israelites solely because they couldn't make a right choice?
What was Moses told about the Israelites?
"Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day." Deut 29:4
Isaiah got the point. One needs God's Spirit.
Without God's Spirit guiding and directing, one is going to follow the course of this world: the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience. What do we see in the world all around us today? "Sam Teng!"
Then God provided a 40 year history of Israel seemingly "banging their heads against walls" as they couldn't keep God's law, but would go a whoring after other gods.
Was God aware, awake and alert to this? What did God tell Moses just prior to his death?
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go [to be] among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them." Deut 31:16
Joshua said a similar thing just prior to his death also.
Will this world continue to basically not observe God's law, a way of life showing how to love God/neighbor?
Time will tell...
John
Blameless
Phil 3:5b an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Phil 3:6b touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Lev 5:16 And he shall MAKE AMENDS for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be FORGIVEN him.
"Paul is certainly in a position to speak about the law. In his pre-Damascus Road days his attitude was that of an orthodox Pharisee. He delighted in the law and zealously kept its precepts. His comments about being "blameless" (Phil 3:6) need not imply that he imagined he was without fault, but in times of failure he had availed himself of the law's means of restitution and pardon" (Charles B. Cousar, Galatians, Int, p. 80).
Dt 29:4 But the LORD has not given you a heart to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear UNTIL THIS DAY. (NAB).
Dt 30:4 But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, SO THAT YOU MAY OBEY IT.
Ro 10:8b The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart:
Jos 22:5 But take diligent heed to do the commandment and the law, which Moses the servant of the LORD charged you, to love the LORD your God, and to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to cleave unto him, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Jos 24:31a And Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua...
“Joshua’s epitaph was not written on a marble gravestone. It was written in the lives of the leaders he influenced and the people he led. They served Yahweh. Here is the theological climax to the theme introduced in Josh 22:5 and repeated like a chorus in 23:7, 16; 24:14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 , 22, 24. Ironically, the minister of Moses brought the people to obey Yahweh while Moses saw only the perpetual murmuring and rebellion of the people (cf. Deut 31:27). Even Moses had to die outside the land of promise...
“Unlike leaders before him or after him, he led men to serve Yahweh. Thus he became the prime example of Israelite leadership.
Jos 1:7 Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.
Jos 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
“His was the golden age when Israel won her battles, occupied her land and made her covenant with Yahweh. This could be explained only in one way. Joshua had fulfilled the command of God to have conviction and courage (cf. chap.1), to obey all the Torah of Moses (1:7-8), and to expect the divine presence to guide him. For the faithful Joshua, God proved faithful...” (Trent C. Butler, Joshua 13-24, 2nd ed., WBC, pp.342-43).
Jo 24:31b and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the LORD, that he had done for Israel.
“... there is a pause to reflect upon the generation that had witnessed everything the Lord had done for Israel. This generation knew God in a special way and remained faithful on the basis of that knowledge” (Richard Hess, Joshua, TOTC, p.310).
Jdg 2:8a And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD...
“... a new generation ... forgot Joshua and his God (Judg 2:6-10). Such a generation finally forced Israel to look ahead to a new day, when a new Joshua appeared [and will appear] on the scene as the servant of God totally fulfilling the task of God and bringing the promise of a new kingdom of God...” (Trent C. Butler, Joshua 13-24, 2nd ed., WBC, p.343).
Post a Comment