The FIRST Advent of the Messiah, and What It Made Possible
In a message to King Ahaz of Judah (from David's dynasty), the Prophet Isaiah assured the monarch that better days were ahead. God even offered to give Ahaz ANY sign he asked for to confirm God's plans, but the king refused to designate a sign. As a consequence, Isaiah wrote: "Listen well, you royal family of David! Isn’t it enough to exhaust human patience? Must you exhaust the patience of my God as well? All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God is with us’). By the time this child is old enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong, he will be eating yogurt and honey. For before the child is that old, the lands of the two kings you fear so much will both be deserted." Isaiah 7:13-16, NLT)
Indeed, God continually warned the children of Israel away from their sins through Isaiah, but the people refused to listen. As a consequence, God made clear that the Promised Land would be invaded and the people would be scattered. Even so, Isaiah also wrote: "Nevertheless, that time of darkness and despair will not go on forever. The land of Zebulun and Naphtali will be humbled, but there will be a time in the future when Galilee of the Gentiles, which lies along the road that runs between the Jordan and the sea, will be filled with glory. The people who walk in darkness will see a great light. For those who live in a land of deep darkness, a light will shine. You will enlarge the nation of Israel, and its people will rejoice. They will rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest and like warriors dividing the plunder. For you will break the yoke of their slavery and lift the heavy burden from their shoulders. You will break the oppressor’s rod, just as you did when you destroyed the army of Midian. The boots of the warrior and the uniforms bloodstained by war will all be burned. They will be fuel for the fire. For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. His government and its peace will never end. He will rule with fairness and justice from the throne of his ancestor David for all eternity. The passionate commitment of the Lord of Heaven’s Armies will make this happen! (Isaiah 9:1-7, NLT)
A little later, the prophet also wrote: "Out of the stump of David’s family will grow a shoot— yes, a new Branch bearing fruit from the old root. And the Spirit of the Lord will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. He will delight in obeying the Lord. He will not judge by appearance nor make a decision based on hearsay. He will give justice to the poor and make fair decisions for the exploited. The earth will shake at the force of his word, and one breath from his mouth will destroy the wicked. He will wear righteousness like a belt and truth like an undergarment. In that day the wolf and the lamb will live together; the leopard will lie down with the baby goat. The calf and the yearling will be safe with the lion, and a little child will lead them all. The cow will graze near the bear. The cub and the calf will lie down together. The lion will eat hay like a cow. The baby will play safely near the hole of a cobra. Yes, a little child will put its hand in a nest of deadly snakes without harm. Nothing will hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, for as the waters fill the sea, so the earth will be filled with people who know the Lord. In that day the heir to David’s throne will be a banner of salvation to all the world. The nations will rally to him, and the land where he lives will be a glorious place. In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to bring back the remnant of his people—those who remain in Assyria and northern Egypt; in southern Egypt, Ethiopia, and Elam; in Babylonia, Hamath, and all the distant coastlands. He will raise a flag among the nations and assemble the exiles of Israel. He will gather the scattered people of Judah from the ends of the earth." (Isaiah 11:1-12, NLT)
Isaiah continued: "Who has believed our message? To whom has the Lord revealed his powerful arm? My servant grew up in the Lord’s presence like a tender green shoot, like a root in dry ground. There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him. He was despised and rejected— a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed him down. And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God, a punishment for his own sins! But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed. All of us, like sheep, have strayed away. We have left God’s paths to follow our own. Yet the Lord laid on him the sins of us all. He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth. Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants, that his life was cut short in midstream. But he was struck down for the rebellion of my people. He had done no wrong and had never deceived anyone. But he was buried like a criminal; he was put in a rich man’s grave. But it was the Lord’s good plan to crush him and cause him grief. Yet when his life is made an offering for sin, he will have many descendants. He will enjoy a long life, and the Lord’s good plan will prosper in his hands. When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish, he will be satisfied. And because of his experience, my righteous servant will make it possible for many to be counted righteous, for he will bear all their sins. I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier, because he exposed himself to death. He was counted among the rebels. He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels." (Isaiah 53:1-12, NLT)
Likewise, the Prophet Jeremiah wrote: "What sorrow awaits the leaders of my people—the shepherds of my sheep—for they have destroyed and scattered the very ones they were expected to care for,' says the Lord. Therefore, this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says to these shepherds: 'Instead of caring for my flock and leading them to safety, you have deserted them and driven them to destruction. Now I will pour out judgment on you for the evil you have done to them. But I will gather together the remnant of my flock from the countries where I have driven them. I will bring them back to their own sheepfold, and they will be fruitful and increase in number. Then I will appoint responsible shepherds who will care for them, and they will never be afraid again. Not a single one will be lost or missing. I, the Lord, have spoken! 'For the time is coming,' says the Lord, 'when I will raise up a righteous descendant from King David’s line. He will be a King who rules with wisdom. He will do what is just and right throughout the land. And this will be his name: ‘The Lord Is Our Righteousness.’ In that day Judah will be saved, and Israel will live in safety. 'In that day,' says the Lord, 'when people are taking an oath, they will no longer say, ‘As surely as the Lord lives, who rescued the people of Israel from the land of Egypt.’ Instead, they will say, ‘As surely as the Lord lives, who brought the people of Israel back to their own land from the land of the north and from all the countries to which he had exiled them.’ Then they will live in their own land." (Jeremiah 23:1-8, NLT)
Jeremiah continued: "The day will come, says the Lord, when I will do for Israel and Judah all the good things I have promised them. 'In those days and at that time I will raise up a righteous descendant from King David’s line. He will do what is just and right throughout the land. In that day Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will live in safety. And this will be its name: ‘The Lord Is Our Righteousness.’ For this is what the Lord says: David will have a descendant sitting on the throne of Israel forever." (Jeremiah 33:14-17, NLT)
In similar fashion, the Prophet Ezekiel prophesied: "This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will take a branch from the top of a tall cedar, and I will plant it on the top of Israel’s highest mountain. It will become a majestic cedar, sending forth its branches and producing seed. Birds of every sort will nest in it, finding shelter in the shade of its branches. And all the trees will know that it is I, the Lord, who cuts the tall tree down and makes the short tree grow tall. It is I who makes the green tree wither and gives the dead tree new life. I, the Lord, have spoken, and I will do what I said!" (Ezekiel 17:22-24, NLT)
Finally, in the New Testament account of Christ's birth, we are informed that Jesus considered divorcing Mary when he found out she was pregnant with our Savior. We read: "As he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. 'Joseph, son of David,' the angel said, 'do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For the child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit. And she will have a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.' All of this occurred to fulfill the Lord’s message through his prophet: 'Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel, which means ‘God is with us." (Matthew 1:20-13, NLT)
Likewise, in the Gospel of Luke, we read: "In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, to a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David. Gabriel appeared to her and said, 'Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!' Confused and disturbed, Mary tried to think what the angel could mean. 'Don’t be afraid, Mary,' the angel told her, 'for you have found favor with God! You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he will reign over Israel forever; his Kingdom will never end!" (Luke 1:26-33, NLT) Then, in the following chapter, we read: "That night there were shepherds staying in the fields nearby, guarding their flocks of sheep. Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared among them, and the radiance of the Lord’s glory surrounded them. They were terrified, but the angel reassured them. 'Don’t be afraid!' he said. 'I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people. The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born today in Bethlehem, the city of David! And you will recognize him by this sign: You will find a baby wrapped snugly in strips of cloth, lying in a manger." (Luke 2:8-12, NLT)
Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix
75 comments:
I like listening to Dr. Robert M. Price when he is a guest on Myth Vision Podcast. He used to teach the Bible and he goes into the history of Bible Stories.
A lot of thought went into this. A lot of thought goes into many things that are just not so.
"By the time this child is old enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong, he will be eating yogurt and honey. "
This cannot refer to Jesus because he rejected what was wrong from birth and never sinned. Checkmate.
Lonnie, your post was entitled: “The FIRST Advent of the Messiah, and What It Made Possible”.
You quote Jeremiah 33:14-17, which reads in the AV:
Jer 33:14 BEHOLD, THE DAYS COME, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
Jer 33:15 IN THOSE DAYS, AND AT THAT TIME, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
Jer 33:16 IN THOSE DAYS shall Judah be saved, and JERUSALEM shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.
Jer 33:17 FOR THUS SAITH THE LORD; David shall never want a MAN [’ish] to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
So I presume, as you quoted these verses, the Messiah made possible that these verses will be fulfilled at His SECOND Advent.
To be consistent if these verses will be fulfilled then it would follow that the following verse will also be fulfilled:
Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a MAN [’ish] before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
“Yahweh goes on to affirm a matching undertaking about the Levites that takes up the formulation of the Davidic promise. Once again, there will not be cut off. Both undertakings related to the Jerusalem focus introduced from the reworked promise in vv.15-16 - that is, Jerusalem will know the rule of David and the ministry of the Levites. So Jeremiah is not only confirming the promise about David in 1 Kings, he is also providing the Levites with a matching promise” (John Goldingay, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT, pp.698).
Jer 33:19 AND THE WORD OF THE LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying,
Jer 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
Jer 31:35 THUS SAITH THE LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
Jer 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. (AV).
“Another argument similar to 31:36 is offered to prove THE RELIABILITY AND PERMANENCE OF YAHWEH’S PROMISES. 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).
Lonnie, would you agree that it would be “absurd” that God would break his covenant with the Levites? or, Will God honor his promise for the Levitical priests and that burnt offerings will be offered in Jerusalem, in those days and at that time, that is, in the Messianic Age?
Typically, British Israelites, take Jeremiah 33:17 out of its [future] context and use this verse as a proof-text that someone has sat on the throne of David from the time of Zedekiah.
Eze 17:22 I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a TENDER ONE [rak, masculine],
British Israelites arguing that rak refers to a daughter of Zedekiah deny the Messiah His rightful recognition as the rak of this prophecy.
Anonymous 1:41
I know you addressed your comment to Miller but let me put in my two cents while I have a moment. Briefly:
Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets. What is written in the Tanakh has no other purpose than to foreshadow Christ. This is the hermeneutic one must always follow when interpreting the Law and the Prophets. Hence, the Davidic Promise you refer to and the Levitical Promise you refer to find their outplaying in Jesus. And in Jesus the Levitical Promise was fulfilled/transformed. Jesus subsumed the Levitical Promise and re-implemented it as the Melchizedek Priesthood, permanent and superior to the Levitical priesthood. Jesus is the new Temple. He is the High Priest and Christians are his subordinate priesthood.
My guess is that Armstrongists see the Levitical Promise as a means of shunting the entire Tanakh into the New Covenant. Not because they want to see slavery re-instituted but because they want to give bona fides to observing the physical seventh day. That dog won’t hunt.
Scout
You are wrong. Experience shows that Yahweh does not keep his promises.
I didn't know that anyone was playing chess! Nevertheless, the premise of the authors of the Greek New Testament (including its Messiah) is that the Hebrew Bible must be interpreted/understood through the lens of the Christ event - regardless of what the human author or Jewish people thought about it! Moreover, if this passage doesn't refer to Jesus, then the author of the Gospel of Matthew who referenced it must stand discredited! In other words, your argument is NOT addressed to a Christian.
I appreciate the thought that you always put into your comments. However, as per the referenced passage from Jeremiah, I would remind you that almost every passage which refers to the Messiah can be said to have both an immediate/present application and a future one. Once again, ANYTHING which happens at the second advent is entirely dependent on the first one. The promise to David can ONLY be fulfilled by Jesus, and the Lord had to cause the righteous one "to grow up to David."
Finally, biblical prophecy is almost always framed in very symbolic language. Hence, I would suggest that it is dangerous to interpret it in a very literal fashion. If Christ has truly fulfilled the sacrificial system and priesthood of Torah, then couldn't the promise to the Levites be fulfilled in ways that didn't involve actual physical animal sacrifices? Don't get me wrong - I'm not sure what this passage suggests in this regard. There could certainly be physical sacrifices within the Messiah's Kingdom, but I really don't understand the need or place for them. My two cents.
Devils, politicians, and criminals can all bring out some Bible verses. What was meant to be the point here?
The point of my post was to demonstrate just how important Christ's first coming was to everything which must follow it from an entirely scriptural perspective.
Your answer does not answer anything. The gospel of Matthew is definitely discredited. That is what you will not accept. Matthew misappropriated scriptures from the Old Testament to "prove" his points. Fake prophecy. My argument is addressed to people who call themselves Christians. Such people base their beliefs on unsupportable stuff, like the passage in question. Your "answer" amounts to believing in Matthew even if his evidence was fake.
Jesus fulfilled the law and prophets but most of the prophecies are not fulfilled yet. That makes no sense. I guess he did not fulfill most of the law yet either. I guess that means we have to keep the rest of it at least for now.
Matthew crammed a square peg into a round hole. He had to mangle the peg to make it fit. That was his style.
God probably does not care too much about doctrine. He cares more about character. This is where the HWA cult outshone the orthodoxy cult.
The objective of MJ seems to be to badger people into submission to orthodox doctrine by repeating it over and over until it just "seems right." The rationalizations are full of holes, but that does not seem to bother him. It's the ultimate go-with-the-flow "logic."
"By the time this child is old enough to choose what is right and reject what is wrong, he will be eating yogurt and honey. "
This cannot refer to Jesus because he rejected what was wrong from birth and never sinned. Checkmate.>>>>>>>>>
Three verses in question are:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. [Isa 7:14 KJV]
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. [Isa 7:15 KJV]
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. [Isa 7:16 KJV]
The reason given for checkmating is not sufficient because there are good reasons for believing it does refer to Jesus:
One is the Holy Spirit says so as in Matthew: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” (Matthew 1:23)
Further the passage speaks of Jesus because the prophecy is addressed not only to Ahaz, but also David’s entire house. It shows the virgin shall conceive, and that conception would be a sign to David’s entire house
We know this passage speaks of Jesus because the Holy Spirit says so through Matthew: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” (Matthew 1:23)
They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. NOT ONE person has presented anything which discredits these passages or the point(s) they make!
The Gospel of Matthew is discredited only if you accept the premise that the author of the gospel was not authorized to interpret the Hebrew Bible in light of the Christ event. Hence, your logic appears just a tad circular from where I'm sitting.
This deserves to be repeated: "Jesus fulfilled the law and prophets but most of the prophecies are not fulfilled yet. That makes no sense. I guess he did not fulfill most of the law yet either. I guess that means we have to keep the rest of it at least for now." Now, that is sound logic!
Scripture spends more time/space on Christ's first advent. So, why do the Armstrong Churches of God so completely ignore that one and focus so much energy on his second coming? Can anyone answer that for us?
Finally, what the ACOGs call character is mostly physical works devoid of spiritual fruit and sincerity. Real character is shown in things like kindness, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, faithfulness, and love.
Don't you mean Joseph considered divorcing Mary not Jesus. Although technically they were only 'bethroved' and not married yet.
Matthew says he was sent by God, so "Christians" believe it. Because he said so. His writings are scripture because he said so. Anyone could say the same thing. Where is the evidence he was telling the truth? Only tradition. Matthew mangled the scriptures so he could not have been sent by God.
The term "virgin" actually means young woman. It is not saying that a virgin would conceive.
In regard to the responses by Lonnie and Scout, I won’t respond directly but will makes some observations:
Ge 14:18 And Melchizedek KING of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the PRIEST of the most high God. (AV).
2Sa 5:6a And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites...
2Sa 5:7 ... David took the strong hold of Zion:
2Sa 5:9a So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. (AV).
“When centuries later, Jerusalem fell into David’s hands and became his capital (2 Sam. 5:6ff), he and his heirs became successors to Melchizedek’s kingship, and probably also (in a titular capacity at least) to the priesthood of God Most High” (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, p.124).
When David captured the strong hold of Zion he was not only a KING but he was now a PRIEST of God, after the order of Melchizedek.
Ps 110:1aa1 The LORD said unto my Lord,
Ps 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Ps 110:7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head. (AV).
But this priesthood would become cemented in Solomon with his building of the Temple. The context suggests that David composed Ps110 during his co-regency with Solomon. Solomon was acting king as David was too infirmed. Solomon was in effect David’s Lord.
Solomon set the pattern for Davidic kings or descendants: they were to be temple builders and patrons and guardians of the cult; but only a few could be temple builders - Solomon, Zerubbabel (partial?), and Jesus at his Second advent - which last three and a half years, when he completes the second half of his prophetic week - all were patrons and guardians of the Temple, at least they should have been. The priesthood after the order of Melchizedek was over the Levitcal priesthood. It was David who organized the priests and Levites into courses and Solomon replaced the high-priest Abithar with Zadok.
Eze 46:2 And the prince [nasi’] shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate without, and shall stand by the post of the gate, and the priests shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings, and he shall worship at the threshold of the gate: then he shall go forth; but the gate shall not be shut until the evening.
But the Davidic Melchizedek king-priests were not priests in the strict sense as the Levitcal priests were. In Ezekiel 46:2, in the future, the prince (nasi’; cp. 1 Kgs 11:24 where Solomon was made a nasi’ all the days of his life) has the privilege of standing by the post of the door of the gate into the inner court as the priests prepare his sacrifices but he is not allowed to step into the inner court.
“The adoption of Jesus by Joseph made him a legal descendant of David, the king.” ” (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, fn., p. 48).
So when Joseph died, his adopted son Jesus was now a king, and a priest after the order of Melchizedek. So it was fitting that James, Jesus’ half-brother, became head of the Jerusalem church - with the death of Jesus and his return to heaven James was now heir to the throne of David and the priesthood of the order of Melchizedek.
So there are two priesthoods of Melchizedek - one exercised by the Davidic king on earth and one exercised by Jesus in heaven; Jesus was a priest after the order of of Melchizedek on earth - inherited at the death of Joseph - before he was a priest after the order of Melchizedek in heaven.
Part 2
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Heb 8:1b We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
“ “The Sanctuary” is the primary expression the pastor uses to describe the place Christ had entered as High Priest on our behalf. The interpreter who would understand Hebrews must carefully note the two ways in which the pastor identifies this place. First, “the Sanctuary” is “heaven itself” (9:24).. Second, this “Sanctuary” is clearly “the Most Holy Place” of God’s presence “behind the veil” (6:19). Thus the Tent into which Christ has entered consists of a Most Holy Place which is heaven itself...” (Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICOT, pp.354-55).
While the earthly Melchizedek king-priest could not enter an earthly holy of holies a heavenly Melchizedek king-priest can enter the heavenly holy of holies.
Jesus performs the function of a Levitcal highpriest, at least once, in the heavenly holy of holies - will come back to this point below.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
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,
Without animal sacrifices there can be no new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah - when Jesus has a ‘dwelling-presence’ in the earthly holy of holies, while in heaven, his dwelling place.
Lev 15:31 Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.
Lev 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
Animal blood is required to maintain Jesus’ ‘presence’ in the Temple. When sins are committed outside the sanctuary, that require a hatta’t, or a person become unclean outside the sanctuary, that requires a hatta’t, impurities are generated by those sins and ritual impurities which attach automatically to sancta. (This would also apply to sins committed in the sanctuary).
Eze 43:20 You are to take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the upper ledge and all around the rim, and so purify [hitte'] the altar and make atonement [kipper] for it. (NIV).
Eze 43:26 Seven days shall they purge [kipper] the altar and purify [tihar, Piel] it... (AV).
Hatta’t is translated by the AV as “sin offering”. But hatta’t “is a pie’el formation [not the qal “to sin, do wrong” but] derived from the verb hitte’, which is [better can be] synonymous with tihar ‘purify’ (e.g., Ezek 43:23-26)... The hatta’t, is to be rendered “purification offering” (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, AB, p.232).
When a woman becomes unclean through childbirth, she is not sinning, but playing her part in God’s instruction to increase and multiply; she needs to bring a purification offering, not a sin offering, to cleanse the altar of burnt offering; and also ransom her life:
Part 3
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
But purification offering as a designation is also wanting, as it leaves out the ransoming effect of the blood of the hatta’t. This leads to the analogy to understand how sin and ritual impurity is an offense against God. Humans deserve to die because of sin and severe ritual impurity, but God provides a way out for humans.
A man and a woman get married and hence enter into covenant, and then reside in LA. The husband goes to New York for work and commits adultery. By doing so he has breached the covenant. But there is more to the sin. When the wife, in LA, finds out, the sin of betrayal ‘wounds’ her - the sin of one ‘generates’ pain in the other. This pain must be healed so that the husband-wife relationship may continue in harmony.
The ‘hurt’ of the wife in this analogy pictures God being ‘wounded’ when sins are committed and severe ritual impurity contracted. Sin and impurity are a threat to the covenant and the lives of those who commit sin and become severely ritually impure. The relationship with God needs to be restored.
“... every sin carries its own penalty... A sinful act, in addition, unleashes impurity, which is attracted to the sanctuary” (John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC, p.lxxi).
So humans who commit sin outside the sanctuary affects God in the sanctuary. The impurity generated by the sin of a commoner is attracted to the altar of burnt offering while the impurity of the sin of a priest is attracted to the holy place. The impurity generated by the sin of giving a child to Molech penetrates into the holy of holies.
“... it is extremely unwieldy to translate kipper [“make atonement”] with ‘to ransom-purgate’. Unfortunately, there is no one English word which incorporates all of these elements. The verb ‘to expiate’ focuses more on cleansing or removing guilt/sin or pollution without necessarily including the idea of appeasement or ransom, while the verb ‘to propitiate’ has the opposite problem of focusing on appeasement or ransom but not necessarily cleansing. It is suggested that the translator make use of the verb ‘to atone’ with an explanatory note that atonement involves elements of both ransoming and purging” (Jay Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement, The Priestly Conception, fn, p.157).
Atonement requires ransoming the life of the sinner but it also requires the removal of impurity of the sancta. Ransoming by itself does not lead to forgiveness, the sanctuary must also be purified; (and the sin removed - sin transferred to the flesh of the sacrifice by hand imposition which is eaten by the priests (Lev 10:17); same transfer, but flesh and carcass burnt; sins transferred to scapegoat and let loose).
Jesus’ sacrifice does not abolish the dynamic consequences of sin; sin in the new covenant will still generate impurities and these must be removed from God’s sanctuary so that God is not forced out by the accumulation of impurities in His sanctuary. In the Messianic Age the Day of Atonement is transferred to the first month of the sacred year and purifying takes place over two day - this is for sin that has not been remedied throughout the year - there are other theories to the dynamics.
The above highlights the principles involved; but there are logistical considerations in the implementation.
Part 4
This two part atonement process - ransoming and purification - is seen in Christ’s sacrifice [as an aside, in the sacrificial system a male lamb is never used as a hatta’t, aka “sin offering”.
Christ’s ransoming humans through the shedding of His blood is not enough to provide atonement in itself:
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.
“The additional statement that the heavenly prototypes of the earthly tabernacle and its cultus required cleansing “by better sacrifices than these, clearly implies that the heavenly sanctuary had also become defied by the sin of the people. Although this implication has been dismissed as “nonsense” (Spicq, 2:266-67; cf. Moffat, 132; F. F. Bruce, 218; among others), it is consistent with the conceptual framework presupposed by the writer in 9:21-28. His thinking has been informed by the levitical conception of the necessity for expiatory purification. Sin as defilement is infectious. An individual assumes his part in the community through social relationships and cultic acts. Consequently the effects of this defilement contaminate society (e.g., Lev 2;15; cf. Heb 12:15-16), the sanctuary where God meets with his people (cf. Lev 16:16; 20:3; 21:33; Num 19:20)...
“That the effects of sin extend to the heavenly world is a corollary of the solidarity that the writer perceives between ultimate reality in heaven and its reflection on earth. The cultus on earth is inseparably linked to the situation in heaven (cf. 8:5; 9:7, 11-12; 12:18-24). A defilement reaches beyond the individual to taint society and the earthly cultus, it also pollutes heavenly reality. The writer conceived of defilement as an objective impediment to genuine access to God. It made necessary a decisive purgation that was comprehensive in its cope, reaching even to the heavenly things themselves...
“The full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice of Christ purified the heavenly sanctuary from the defilement resulting from the sins of the people. The phrase .... “by means of better sacrifices than these,” has reference to the death of Christ on the cross. The plural form .... “by these means,” in 23a, with which it contrasts... The sacrificial blood with which the former covenant had been ratified and with which the tabernacle had been dedicated and its vessels purges was insufficient to remove the defilement that clung to ... “the heavenly things themselves.” The superior sacrifice demanded was provided by the self-oblation of Christ. Cultic thinking thus demonstrates the necessity of Christ’s death. In his concern with heavenly reality, the writer has not lost sight of the historical dimension...” (William L. Lane, Hebrews 9-13, WBC, pp. 247-48).
There is one aspect of the ritual of the Day of Atonement that will need to be fulfilled in heaven, around the time of Christ’s second advent.
The true Jesus was not born of a woman but was sent directly from heaven to earth as a fully grown man. There were two Jesuses back then, as espoused in the crucifixion encounter, Jesus Barabbas (son of Abba) and Jesus called the Christ.
Matthew 27:17 (NET)
So after they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas [Bar a Abba/son of Abba/son of the Father] or Jesus, who is called the Christ?”
Previously, Jesus had mentioned that, "...among those born of a woman, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist". (Matt 11:11). If Jesus were born of a woman, he would be lower than John. But the next verse qualifies that the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John, and Jesus was sent from the kingdom of heaven, not born of a woman.
John 3:31
The one who comes from above is superior to all. The one who is from the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is superior to all.
John 4:43
I have come in my Father’s [Abba's] name, and you do not accept me. If someone else comes in his own name [Jesus Christ], you will accept him.
Scripture spends more time/space on Christ's first advent. So, why do the Armstrong Churches of God so completely ignore that one and focus so much energy on his second coming? Can anyone answer that for us >10,55
I would say Armstrong built his entire gospel around the second coming of Jesus . He built his 'work' on the prophetic imbalance and this gave the very purpose. His did not want Jesus's human life involved in this gospel. Offshoots follow of course.
Reason being such different prophetic gospel differentiated his system allowing him to call everyone else false, and coupled with OT laws he demanded and raked in huge amounts of money. Rewarding himself well too.
The Hebrew word translated virgin (almah) can also be translated as “young woman. But Old Testament apparently never uses the word in a context other than virgin - the Septuagint translates it categorically virgin (parthenos).
Anonymous 5:58 wrote, “God probably does not care too much about doctrine. He cares more about character. This is where the HWA cult outshone the orthodoxy cult.”
You are skating on thin ice. You are advocating for Inclusivism – that good Buddhists have just as much access to salvation as Christians – perhaps, without ever knowing the name of Jesus, simply based on their good character.
I knew some “good” people in the Armstrongist fold. Good up to a point. The deciding point was that they did not believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul did not say to the Circumcision Party that they were good, law-abiding people. Paul said, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”
It is by grace through faith we are saved not through good character. I admire people of good character – who follow a natural law, who are influenced by general revelation. But the best condition is to know Christian doctrine and follow it and be clothed with salvation.
Scout
Yes, thanks for catching the slip - I corrected it on my own blog.
There is zero evidence that Mary was a virgin. Did Matthew do a physical examination to check if she was a virgin? Was her hyman still intact? Who examined her? At least two witnesses are needed. Where is the record of this? We have to take Matthews word for it. We do not even have Mary's testimony. Where did she sign a form stating she was a virgin? Was it notarized? We have only a narrative that could easily have been faked. Does God want us to be naive fools and swallow whatever we are told hook line and sinker with no actual evidence?
Rubbish. I am not advocating inclusivism. I am advocating character over fake scholarship and time-wasting debates. You are reading a truckload of nonsense into it. I did not even say there is such a thing as salvation did I. If orthodoxy were real the people who follow it would have better character. But they do not.
Nobody even knows what books should be in the "scriptures" so it is impossible to follow the "scriptures."
People who argue from the scriptures argue from a rag-tag collection of myths and conflicting false narratives. So they base their arguments on nonsense. That is why there are a zillion different churches even though "Christ is NOT divided." What a mess.
Multi-part Man 1:56
“And David wore a linen ephod (1 Chronicles 15:27).” In a theocracy, one would expect that the King would also be a Priest. In general, I agree with your line of reasoning and research on this. It is also a generally accepted Christian viewpoint. David modeled the Messiah in his King-Priest role. It also supports the view I expressed earlier that the Levitical Priesthood is subsumed in Christ.
I hold a minority view that Christians will also be priests of the order of Melchizedek. Nowhere does the scripture explicitly state this. But we are to be priests and co-heirs with Christ and participants in the divine nature. So, there is at least a talking point.
Some Armstrongists advance the idea that there will be a perpetuation of the Levitical Priesthood as instituted in the Torah, that there will be a future physical Temple and that sacrifices will be offered again. None of these conclusions are exegetically sound. But I think they see this interpretation as an ideological medium for carrying forward physical seventh-day worship.
As a related point, I believe it is important to understand the Christian view of the Sabbath. I am a Christian. I believe in the Sabbath. I believe the Sabbath is eternal. And I believe that Jesus Christ is my Sabbath. Christ is my Rest. And I rest in Christ. I believe Armstrongists would endorse all of these views. Where I part company with Armstrongists is on the issue of the physical seventh-day. I believe if you want to observe the physical seventh-day as something instructional, knock yourself out. But Armstrongists believe that the observance of the physical seventh-day is a requirement for salvation. Just as the Circumcision Party believed in physical circumcision as a requirement for salvation. That is heresy.
That is as far as I got with your comment. I may get through the rest of it.
Scout
In the Septuagent "virgin" is a mistranslation. Also, it is written in Greek and is not the official language or the original language. It is nonsense.
People need to do their own in-depth research on the scripture which was taken out of context to supposedly prophesy that a virgin would give birth. It applied to a time 700 years before Jesus. This like might be a good place to start.
https://bam.sites.uiowa.edu/articles/septuagint-prophecy-virgin-birth
Human errors, mistakes, and atrocities always seem to get blamed on God. Not everyone who professes Christ is a Christian, and everyone who is a Christian makes mistakes - sometimes very serious ones.
If orthodoxy were real the people who follow it would have better character. But they do not. 7.35
It's difficult to understand the point being made here. Is it suggesting all in orthodoxy don't on average have good character? How would one make that assessment for millions of people? Next to impossible I suggest. Is one the judge for so many?
If it is to imply that Armstrong's system achieved by comparison better character in life - he wrote of building character as a purpose - a problem is we well know of the fruits of his system, and many within it.
Perhaps If one puts the keeping of days and foods and other things in high priority then it leads to a train of thinking Armstrong is superior.
If one thinks the purpose of life is to build up a perfect character all the best in their endeavours. More likely than not they will go around puffed up in their own vanity thinking they are doing well - and in the one true church.
Or, perhaps, the statement condemns all Christians for failing in not having good character? . More one thinks on it the more confusing the statement becomes.
Perhaps best not to describe views that differ from your own as always being nonsense..
Scout is "spiritualizing away" the sabbath. What rubbish. You can make anything you do not like a symbol and then get rid of it or turn it into something else and make it empty and void of its actual meaning.
There are two types of interpretation of the OT texts:
(1) Second Temple exegesis, which include midrash and pesher, etc; and
(2) "... the grammatical-historical method of interpretation (in which the Bible is interpreted in the original languages and in view of its historical context)" (Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam, p.62).
“In my opinion, the grammatical-historical approach to reading Scripture has its limits, partly because it does not account for the non-grammatical-historical way Paul [but not only Paul] handles his own Bible (see chap. 6 above)” (Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam, p.188).
Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
Hos 11:2 As they called them, so they went from them: THEY SACRIFICED UNTO BAALIM, AND BURNED INCENSE TO GRAVEN IMAGES.
Mt 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
"... Matthew's christological interpretation consists not of an exegesis of what the text meant in its original context, but of a far-reaching theological argument which takes the OT text and locates it within an overarching scheme of fulfillment which finds in Jesus the end point of numerous prophetic trajectories" (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, p.81).
"Certainly some Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled literally in the New Testament. Some of those Old Testament prophecies were equally clearly understood in a literal manner prior to their fulfillment. Thus Herod could be advised by the chief priests and teachers of the law where to go looking for the Christ child on the basis of Micah 5:2 (Matt 2:1-5). However, other prophecies from the Old Testament were fulfilled in ways that would have been completely unexpected to preceding generations though they were fulfilled in a literal way. What first-century Bible prophecy conference would have been clearly predicting the birth of Messiah from a virgin on the basis of Isaiah 7:14? Or his crucifixion on the basis of Psalm 22? Or his physical resurrection on the basis of Psalm 16? These texts were clearly viewed by the New Testament as messianic prophecies that were literally fulfilled, yet they were only seen to be such with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight after their fulfilment in Christ, not before..." (Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel, NIVAC, p.29).
"Still other Old Testament prophecies are transformationally fulfilled, that is, their New Testament fulfillment is clearly related to the Old Testament promise, but it is not exactly literal. Thus Isaiah 40:3 speaks of the coming of a messenger whose message is: "In the desert prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God." The New Testament sees the promise fulfilled in the coming of John the Baptist, who is, to quote Luke, "a voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him" (Luke 3:4). In other words, in the New Testament, the "desert" is no longer part of the message as it was in Isaiah's proclamation, but become the location of the messenger.
"This transformational fulfillment is repeatedly found in the New Testament..." (Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel, NIVAC, p.30).
Part 2
Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:
Mt 11:10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Ex 23:20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
“Modern Christians are sometimes disturbed to discover that scriptural quotations in the New Testament often depart radically from what appears in the Old Testament. While first-century Jews were very careful to preserve accurately the Hebrew text (often misspellings were carefully retained), they showed no such reserve when translating Scriptures into Aramaic, their everyday language. Such a paraphrase (targum) was intended to communicate the meaning behind the letter. We have in Matt 11:10, then, is a Christian “targum” of Mal 3:1, which brings out what was felt to be its real significance by conflating it with Exod 23:20. The messenger prepares not for God’s coming but for the coming of God’s deputy, the Messiah” (Douglas R. A. Hare, Matthew, Int., p.122).
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, A VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and THOU shalt call his name Emmanuel. (Brenton, LXX).
Mt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and THEY shall call his name emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
“Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14 is very close to the LXX; but he changes “you will call” to “they will call.” This may reflect a rendering of the original Hebrew, if, 1QIsaa is pointed appropriately (cf. Gundry, Use of OT, p. 90). But there is more here: The people whose sins Jesus forgives (1:21) are the ones who will gladly call him “God with us” ...” (D. A. Carson, Matthew, EBC, Vol. 8, pp. 80-81).
“When one draws any conclusion about a text, whether related to its historicity or to its overall message, it is first important to know how to read it... we in the West or anywhere else, will read the text based on our present cultural understanding and world view. In addition, every person is different and will thus read any text in a different way, at least to some extent... in order to understand what the text says, we should approach it first as a form of communication from the original author to its original audience and try to understand it from this perspective before attempting to see it meaning for the present...
“Above all, Younger’s study demonstrates that the Ancient Near Eastern accounts have ‘figurative and ideological superstructures’ (Younger 1990: 265)... Embellishments and hyperbole are normal, and accuracy of facts has a different meaning from what it would have in modern Western historical writing...” (Pekka M. A. Pitkanen, Joshua, ApOTC, p.47).
Part 3
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin [parthenos] shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel. (Brenton, LXX).
Gen 34:2 And Sychem the son of Emmor the Evite, the ruler of the land, saw her, and took her and lay with her, and humbled her.
Gen 34:3 And he was attached to the soul of Dina the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel [parthenos], and he spoke kindly to the damsel [parthenos]. (Brenton, LXX).
With above in mind, it is important to understand how the Jews interpreted their Scriptures:
Isa 7:14 Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of his own accord! Look, the young woman [‘almah] is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel” (NJPS).
“This passage, which plays a significant role in Christianity, is of no special importance in Jewish tradition. 14: Young woman (Heb. “ ‘almah”). The LXX translates as “virgin,” leading ancient and medieval Christians to connect this v. with the New Testament figure of Mary. Modern scholars, however, agree that the Hebrew merely denotes a young woman of marriageable age, whether married or unmarried, whether a virgin or not” (Jewish Study Bible, p.781).
“the young woman. Hebrew ha’almah means an adolescent woman, one of marriageable age. The contention that the word must necessarily connote ‘virgin’ is unwarranted. The Hebrew for ‘virgin’ is bethulah, though almah too sometimes bears this meaning. It is difficult to say with certainty who was the young woman referred to. Chronological considerations exclude the mother of Hezekiah (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Kimchi); and the fact that birth (or the name) of the child was to serve as a sign to convince Ahaz of the certain fulfillment of the prophecy rules out the Christological interpretation that the young woman and son are identified with persons who lived 700 years later. The wife of Isaiah (Rashi, Ibn Ezra), a wife of King Ahaz (Kimichi), or a woman of the Royal Family may have been the young woman of the text.
“and shall call. lit., ‘and she shall call.’ According to some authorities, the sign given by Isaiah was not the birth, but the striking and symbolic name, of the child and which would spontaneously be give to him by his mother (Rashi).” (I. W. Slotki, Isaiah, Soncino Books of the Bible, p. 35).
Part 4
Isa 9:3 For the yoke that they bore and the stick on their back- The rod of their taskmaster - You have broken on the day of Midian.
Isa 9:5 For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. he has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceful ruler”-
Isa 9:6 In token of abundant authority And of peace without limit Upon David’s throne and kingdom, That is may be firmly established In justice and in equity Now and evermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts Shall bring this to pass. (NJPS).
“9:1-6: The ideal Davidic king. Isaiah describes liberation from some form of adversity (perhaps the Assyrian conquests of Israelite territory described in the previous vv. or Syro-Ephraimite pressures on Judah). The verbs are in the past tense. Some interpreters view them as examples of the “prophetic past,” which predicts future events using the past tense, because they are good as done. Thus it is not clear whether the Davidic king whose birth and rule are described (vv. 5-6) has already been born (if the verbs are a regular past tense) or will be born in the future (prophetic past). If the former, the v. probably refers to Ahaz’s son Hezekiah, as many modern and rabbinic commentators believe (though other possibilities exist depending on the date of the passage. Most later readers (both Jewish and Christian) understood the passage to describe an ideal Davidic ruler, i.e., the Messiah” (Jewish Study Bible, p. 784).
“5. a child. The verse has been given a Christological interpretation by the Church, but modern non-Jewish exegetes agree that a contemporary person is intended. The Talmud and later Jewish commentators understood the allusion to the son of Ahaz, viz., Hezekiah.
“is born ... is given. Better, in agreement with the Hebrew, ‘has been born ... has been given’
“the government is upon his shoulder. Unlike his father, who was a vassal to the king of Assyria (Kimchi)
“5. “The Mighty God ... ruler”: This long sentence is the throne name of the royal child. Semitic names often consist of sentences that describe God; thus the name Isaiah in Heb. means “The Lord saves”; Hezekiah, “The Lord strengthens”; in Akkadian, the name of the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (Isa. 39:1) means “the god Mardu has provided an heir.” These names do not describe the person who holds them but the god whom the parents worship. Similarly, the names given to the child in this v. does not describe the child or attribute divinity to him, but describes God’s actions” (Jewish Study Bible, p. 784).
“... The child will bear these significant names in order to recall to the people the message which they embodied (Abarbanel).
“6 ... and of peace there be no end. The increased power of his government is not dependent on waging war, for there shall be peace in his days (Arbarbanel).
“for ever. During the lifetime of Hezekiah. The Hebrew word olam also signifies ‘a considerable time’ (Rashi).
“the zeal of the Lord. Either Gods’s zeal on behalf of His people (Rashi) or Hezekiah’s zeal to perform the Divine Will by promoting his subjects and his passion for justice” (I. W. Slotki, Isaiah, Soncino Books of the Bible, p. 35).
Although Christian interpreters may in hindsight, and through the lens of the New Testament, see certain Scriptures as predictions and fulfillments by the Messiah, in many cases, it is unlikely this was in the mind of the original authors.
Towards the end of her life, my Mother once commented to me that people did not substantially change over the course of their lifetimes. Thing is, we were discussing people in the church at that time, and what she was saying contradicted the whole "building perfect character" and "qualifying" shtick of Herbert W. Armstrong in whose so-called sunlight she had basked the majority of her life. This statement was completely enigmatic to me, because she actually died as an avid member of HWA's church. Her observation seemed, instead, to obviate the need for the type of grace taught by mainstream Christianity. By that advanced point in time, I had come to believe that it would be so disruptive to my parents' lives to make them realize that their church was a fraud that it would do vastly more harm than good for them to leave it. Despite my own lifetime of deep studies, I gave them the space to blissfully continue in their ignorance.
Of course, Herbie himself declared that the majority of the brethren just didn't "get it", a statement which to me came off as a horrible self-indictment of his effectiveness as leader. Seems like, along the way, there were some subliminal admissions of the failure of the system he had cobbled together, if we all listened carefully enough and drew accurate conclusions.
No they do not.
Impromptu survey: Did anyone actually read the Parts 1-4 machine gun, and use it as a study guide?
Thankyou for the information provided.
7:31 Basically calling Mary a liar, the gospel of Luke lies and the testimony of the Arch Angel sent by God to deliver the message of the virgin birth to Mary a liar and the scripture 'How can this be?' lies.
And you hypocrites on here have the nerve to judge others as 'not Christian'.
No wonder Jesus healed the blind beggar from the Temple steps, and he believed instantly whilst Jesus condemned the hoity toity religious leaders of the Temple.
I was unhappy with the last paragraph of Part 4 and have this instead:
When considering OT writers use of metaphor, hyperbole, embellishments and idealization and the way NT writers interpreted the OT one needs to be careful not to assume too quickly, especially taking in the context a said Scripture occurs, that OT writers were making prediction or had the Messiah in mind we when they composed their literature:
1Ch 17:12 He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne for ever.
1Ch 17:13 I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:
1Ch 17:14 But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.
“Although Christian interpreters may in hindsight, and through the lens of the New Testament, relate Nathan’s promise to Jesus Christ, it is unlikely that it had this connotation in the Chronicler’s time.” (Louis C. Jonker, 1 & 2 Chronicles, UBOT, p.127).
Ps 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Ps 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
Ps 110:7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.
“Before the Christian era Jews already viewed it as Messianic. Because of the manner in which it has been interpreted in the NT -especially by Jesus (see Mt 22:43-45; Mk 12:36-37; Lk 20:42-44), but also by Peter (see Ac 2:34-36) and the author of Hebrews (see especially Heb 1:13; 5:6-10; 7:11-28) - Christians have generally held that this is the most directly "prophetic" of all the psalms. If so, David, speaking prophetically (see 2Sa 23:2), composed a coronation psalm for his great future Son, of whom the prophets did not speak until later. It may be, however, that David composed the psalm for the coronation of his son Solomon, that he called him "my Lord" (v. 1) in view of his new status, which placed him above the aged David, and that in so doing he spoke a word that had far larger meaning than he knew. This would seem to be in more accord with what we know of David from Samuel, Kings and Chronicles” John H. Stek, Psalms,"The NIV Study Bible," p.906).
"In light of NT use of the Psalm, Christian exegesis traditionally took the psalm as messianic prophecy that Jesus fulfills... One would never guess this interpretation from the psalm; it can only be read into it. When Yhwh spoke the words in OT times, people could not have been expected to understand them as the NT does... The relationship between NT and OT text is the one that regularly obtains. In light of Jesus' coming, the Holy Spirit inspires significance in the OT that was never there before" (John Goldingay, Psalms 90-150, BCOT, p.299).
Dt 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
Dt 18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
Dt 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Dt 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a King over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
“The singular (a prophet) is a collective form indicating a succession of prophets: see also the collective use of king (17:14)” (Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT, p.262).
Part 2
"Undoubtedly many in Moses' audience worried about their future after he was gone... What would happen when Joshua was gone as well? Since 16:18 Moses has been answering this question, challenging the people to pursue righteousness, but also assuring them that they would not be leaderless. He has charged them to appoint judges (16:18), highlighted the role of the priests (17:9-12; 18:1-8), and approved the people's impulse to set a king over themselves (17:14-20) in order to maintain righteousness. Although Moses served to a greater or lesser degree in all these capacities, none represented his primary role — as a conduit for continued divine revelation to the people. To whom should the people turn for a word from God once Moses was gone. To whom should the people turn for a word from God once Moses as gone? In 18:9-22 he answers this question” (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, p. 434).
“Although scholars debate who “the prophet like Moses” might have been, later texts create the impression that true prophets did indeed function within the Mosaic paradigm...
“I have suggested above that in this context “a prophet like Moses” refers to a succession of prophets whom Yahweh would raise up, keeping open the lines of communication with every generation. However, this did not prevent later interpreters from seeing in this "prophet like Moses" an eschatological messianic figure. Although neither this text nor the rest of the Old Testament provides warrant for or evidence of this interpretation, its roots can be traced to the intertestamental period.
"Associations of Deuteronomy 18:15-18 with an eschatological prophetic Messiah is attested in the apocryphal writings, the Qumran texts, the New Testament, and Samaritan writings. However, this interpretation required a twofold adjustment to the original meaning: the replacement of the distributive meaning of "a prophet like me" with an individual meaning, and the transformation of a text with historical significance into an eschatological statement. This reading does not arise naturally from the text; rather it imposes on the text a meaning one hopes to find or one needs to have in order to buttress questionable doctrine. On the other hand, Jesus is to be identified with Yahweh (incarnate in flesh) who raises up the prophets; on the other, he is the subject of the prophets' proclamation" (Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC, pp.444-46).
A messianic prophecy
Eze 17:3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; A great eagle with great wings, longwinged, full of feathers, which had divers colours, came unto Lebanon, and took the highest branch of the cedar:
Eze 17:4 He cropped off the top of his young twigs, and carried it into a land of traffic; he set it in a city of merchants.
“The great Eagle is the king of Babylon, Nebuchadrezzar...The snipped-off sprig of the cedar is Jehoiachin, who after a three month reign, was carried away captive to Babylon, the “city of merchants,” along with his family and the Judean nobility” (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1-24, NICOT, p.541).
Eze 17:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one [rak; maaculine], and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent:
Eze 17:23 In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell.
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.
“The answer lies in the new chip off the old block, the sprig of the cedar tree that God will plant.
Part 3
“... it is not simply a matter of rescuing the cedar sprig that has been carried off to Babylon and restoring Jehoiachin to the throne... Yahweh will go back to the source, as it were, for a new shoot, though still from the same cedar tree. Though no hope is held out for the present cedar sprig (Jehoiachin) or the vine (Zedekiah), yet the death of the contemporary Davidides does not mean the end of the road for the Davidic monarchy... A new sprig from that same tree will be planted and flourish under the blessing of Yahweh’s protection. Indeed, his future greatness will far surpass that of the past monarchs of Israel, having a worldwide impact a the nations see God visibly at work establishing his kingdom...
“The fulfillment of this prophecy is found in Jesus Christ” (Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel, NIVAC, pp. 230, 226, 230).
“... the prophet highlights the special origin of the sprig. Not only is it the topmost crown; it is also a special shoot, a rak... Other prophets had employed a variety of horticultural expressions to designate the messianic scion who would revive the Davidic line: hoter, “shoot,” and neser “branch,” in Isa 11:1; semach, “sprout,” in Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12. In this context rak, “shoot,” serves as a harbinger of the messianic figure who will be presented in greater detail in later salvation oracles” (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1-24, NICOT, p.550).
Eze 17:23aa In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it:
Eze 20:40aa1 For in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel,
“The tree is planted on the high mountain of Israel, a clear allusion to Mount Zion. Although this mountain will become increasingly significant in later oracles, only here in Ezekiel are the motifs of Davidic line and Zion brought together. Both elements are truly remarkable, reminding the exiles that Yahweh had not forgotten his covenant with David (2 Sam. 7). The dynasty would survive the deportation; it would be revived within the context of its original founding, and its protective influence would be felt around the world” (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1-24, NICOT, pp.551-52).
9:40 wrote:
Thankyou for the information provided.
Lk 17:15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God,
Lk 17:16 And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan.
Lk 17:17 And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?
Lk 17:18 There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger.
It is good to know at least one person found value in my post.
And merry christmas to 7:52 (LOL).
Just like the Apostle Paul spiritualized away circumcision. I am sure the Circumcision Party had a field day with their idea that the only saving circumcision involved the cutting of the flesh. No doubt they called what Paul believed about circumcision, at the inspiration of Jesus, rubbish.
In the last analysis, the Circumcision Party was a heretical movement, and their views were laid to rest at the Jerusalem Conference. They "physicalized away" the circumcision - concealing its true spiritual meaning behind outward display.
Scout
Thanks, MPM. Merry Christmas to you, as well! I grew up keeping an entirely different set of holy days, actually the ones described in Torah. After leaving WCG, I never really got back into keeping Christmas or Easter or eating unclean meats. I'm kind of like a secular Jew, and culturally I relate mostly to unprivileged minority people because of having grown up and being treated as a weird religious minority in a little pissant redneck town. It's one of the few good things Armstrongism brought into my life, compassion for people who are persecuted and held back.
Armstrongists, in general, were less likely to lie, cheat steal, fornicate (not counting GTA of course), call in sick when not sick, engage in vulgarity, gossip, character assassination, etc. A fair portion of them tried to live a good life. Of course there were jerks there who were never on the program, but, on average, there was a clear difference. And they really tried to learn their Bibles (many of them). It is EASY to judge million of people because you just have to look at the way society as a whole is going. Orthodoxy leads people to think Jesus did it all for us, so of course people "slack off" with that attitude. You are clearly missing the obvious point (deliberately, I suppose).
12:11 Yes Mary & Joseph were betrothed but it was equivalent to marriage. It’s similar to how sex is equated with marriage in the Bible which is why historically we had people asking if the marriage union was consummated ie meaning they had sex.
Does MPM have a website with all of the info he shares on here but categorized under subjects?
Multi-Part Man 2:50 wrote, “…one needs to be careful not to assume too quickly, especially taking in the context a said Scripture occurs, that OT writers were making prediction or had the Messiah in mind we when they composed their literature.”
I believe this is a topic that should be understood more widely by the laity of the Christian church. Dr. Peter Enns captured the issue in a single word: Chrisotelicity. He wrote the following:
“The term is Christotelic. The way the New Testament writers used the Old is in a Christotelic manner. Christo = Christ. Telic is built off of a Greek word which is telos and that telos means something like a purpose or goal, something like that. So, when I say the New Testament writers approached the Old Christotelicly, what I mean is this, they see Christ as the telos, the goal, the purpose, the end point of Israel’s story. That’s their starting point. Their starting point is their faith in Christ. Christ is the telos; they know that by faith. Now what they do is they go back and read their Scripture in such a way to support what they already know to be true by faith. Namely, that Jesus is God’s Messiah, crucified and raised, and this is the culminating moment, this is the telos of Israel’s story. That’s their beginning point.”
The dilemma of Christotelicity is underscored by the fact that the Jews, who are the preservers and interpreters of the Tanakh do not see Jesus in its pages. Christ’s disciples, however, saw Jesus in the OT. And they were led in that direction by Jesus himself when he said, “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that testify on my behalf (John 5:39).” The Tanakh as a body of writing testifies of Jesus. This is implicit in the fact that he is the Logos or the Word of God.
But I know of no hermeneutic by which the average reader of the Bible can methodically apply OT scripture to Jesus. Instead, we have case by case references made by the New Testament writers through ad hoc inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Did the original writers see that they were writing about the Messiah? I think not. But they were. I trust them without reservation. But I would not trust my own Christotelic deductions.
Scout
Thanks Scout for your responses.
16 years ago this month I put together some information which I entitled “Jerusalem’s Melchizedek King-Priests”. It included 1 Chronicles 15:27 that you quoted. This was the quote that accompanied the Scripture:
"... with proper procedure and great rejoicing, the ark made its way up Mount Zion. David led the procession, clothed in the priestly linen ephod, and sacrificing and dancing before the Yahweh. When the ark was safely ensconced in the tabernacle, David and the Levites offered up burnt offerings and fellowship offerings before Yahweh, thus attesting to the covenant union which existed between Yahweh and Israel. Neither the chronicler nor the author of Samuel mentions a priest in the whole course of sacrificing. Clearly David saw himself as a priest and was accepted by the people and the Levites as such. His sacerdotal role is seen also in his appointing of the religious personnel to the tabernacle (1 Chron. 16:4-6). These were led by the Levite Asaph at Jerusalem and by Zadok the priest at the Mosaic tabernacle at Gibeon (1 Chron. 16:37-39). That no mention is made of a priest at Jerusalem may imply that David himself fulfilled that responsibility at least initially (or that Abiathar did so)" (Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), p.266).
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
I also believe that “Christians will also be priests of the order of Melchizedek”. But as Christ’s priesthood is in heaven so will be Christian priests. For me Rev 7:15 pictures this reality.
We will have to agree to disagree about the “perpetuation of the Levitical Priesthood”.
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
As I have submitted before, Christ and the saints are going to replace Satan and the demons in the heavenlies - the ‘lower’ realm of heaven, where they exercise a ‘kingship’ over the terrestrial realm; and it from this realm they ‘go up’ to serve as priests in the heavenly holy of holies - typology suggest that Satan forfeited his priesthood when he sinned.
Along with argument is that for the success of the Millennium/Messianic Age there needs to be two priesthoods one in heaven (Melchizedek) and one on the earth (Levitical); along with the Davidic king-priest as guardian and patron of the cult.
For me the Sabbath is a delight, even though I am retired. As we are still human there is still a need, for at least one day, to rest and not go one’s our own way (Isa 58:13).
You write:
“I believe this is a topic that should be understood more widely by the laity of the Christian church.”
I agree that Christians [especially in the COGs] need to understand the New Testament Use of the Old Testament if one is going to understand Scripture.
One book, in this regard, is entitled “Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” ; the contributors are Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Darrell L. Bock, and Peter Enns.
The introduction alone, by one of the two editors, is worth the price of the book.
The sub-heading for Peter Enns contribution reads: “A Christotelic Approach to the New Testament Use of the Old Testament in its First- Century”.
While I lean more towards Peter Enns understanding of the New Testament writers use of the Old Testament, I do not believe that a ‘Christoltelic Approach’ is the only approach.
Part 2
Darrell Bock comments:
“My point is that the connections exist between what was said and what is said [I have quoted this as a lead into a second approach], and they can be articulated with more that saying that the goal was Christotelic. Many of the text th NT uses were being read in a messianic or eschatological sense before Jesus Christ came on to the scene. This means that some readings are as eschatotelic, if I may coin a term, as they are Christotelic (in many cases, the sacred texts used were perceived to be about the end, yet with no reference to the Messiah explicitly)” (p.226).
(Darrell Bock is more in agreement with Peter Enns that he is with Walter Kaiser, Jr.). I think some people are offended that New testament writers would use second temple exegesis of Old Testament, instead of Old Testament exegesis of the Old Testament - (cp. Gary Edward Schnittjer, “Old Testament Use of Old Testament’).
AI:
The term eschatotelic is an adjective used primarily in theology to describe something that is oriented toward or defined by its ultimate goal or end purpose.
It is a combination of two Greek roots:
eschatos, meaning "last" or "final"
telos, meaning "end," "purpose," or "goal"
Therefore, something that is eschatotelic is moving toward or has its meaning derived from its final state or the ultimate conclusion of history or existence (the eschaton). In a Christian context, it refers to the belief that all of history is moving toward a grand climax as part of God's sovereign plan, such as the return of Christ, the resurrection, and the new creation....
This is not to take away from Jesus as the heart, soul and center of the gospel.
To accept Jesus as Savior and Lord, coming under his rule, is to enter the “kingdom of God”.
The [dynamic] Kingdom of God = the reign of God = the reign of Jesus.
The primary meaning of the Kingdom of God is the rule of Jesus; the secondary is an eschatological kingdom. But even in the future Kingdom it is the rule of Jesus that holds it all together.
So when one read “kingdom of God” one must distinguish between the abstract (reign) and the concrete (kingdom).
Mt 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
The above verse captures the present reality of entering the kingdom, that is coming under the rule of Jesus.
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees are “hypocrites” since they claim to teach God’s way but refuse to enter the messianic kingdom and hinder those who try to do so.
Mt 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners....
“... the teachers of the law and the Pharisees do not enter the kingdom because they refuse to recognize who Jesus is. When the crowds begin to marvel at Jesus and suggest he may be the Messiah, the authorities do all they can to dissuade them (cf. 9.33-34; 11:19; 12:23-24; 21:15)” (D. A. Carson, Matthew, EBC, Vol. 8, pp. 477-478).
Also:
Lk 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
Mt 21:31 ... Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
“... the Kingdom is represented as a present realm or sphere into which men are now entering (Matt 11:11 [12?] = Luke 16:16; Matt 21:31; 23:13; cf. Luke 11:52)” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.123).
(I do not have a website).
No, 7:36, I believe the early Catholics were very much inspired and guided as they were considering which books should be included in the canon.
Anonymous 7:36
Please provide some evidence of that.
Scout
Multi-part Man 3:02 wrote, "Along with argument is that for the success of the Millennium/Messianic Age there needs to be two priesthoods one in heaven (Melchizedek) and one on the earth (Levitical); along with the Davidic king-priest as guardian and patron of the cult."
I do not understand the need for the dualism. Revelation 21 states, "“See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them and be their God." This leads me to favor a monistic approach. One priesthood and one Temple serving both heaven and earth. And heaven and earth joined together.
Scout
Two sanctuaries and two priesthoods - one earthy and one heavenly:
Heb 8:4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.
Heb 8:5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven.
Two ‘rulers’ - one earthly and one heavenly
Da 10:1aa In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia,
Da 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia, (NRSV; but see MT; LXX; “king of Persia” (NIV); “Pince of princes” 8:25).
But two different dispensations:
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in HIS TEMPLE: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
Rev 21:22 And I saw NO TEMPLE therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
The saints will serve in the temple in heaven during the Messianic Age.
Ro 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Ro 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Ro 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
This will be the time when Rom 11:26b-27 is fulfilled.
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.
Ge 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah; [and Abraham had six sons].
"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..."
"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..." (Types in Genesis, pp.279-80).
As mentioned before this is also the time when the ‘Keturah’ covenant will be fulfilled.
Under the Old Covenant there were two ‘tabernacle’ and one ‘temple’ dispensation; under the new Covenant there is one ‘tabernacle’ dispensation; and two temple dispensation, one earthy [Keturah] and one heavenly [Sarah].
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
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 21:3 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.
Rev 21:22 And I saw NO TEMPLE therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
Once “death” is destroyed - implication no more sin - then God can dwell with men/his people — no need for a temple.
God goes from dwelling in a temple in heaven to dwelling in a ‘city’ on earth.
MPM 1:37 wrote, "Two sanctuaries and two priesthoods - one earthy and one heavenly"
There is an issue at the outset of your argument. What you cite is not the spirit of Hebrews chapters 8 and 9. Chapter 8 shows the distinction between the two priesthoods. Chapter 8 concludes with the statement:
"In speaking of a new covenant, he has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear."
The Levitical Priesthood is implemented by the first covenant that was becoming obsolete at the time that the author of Hebrews wrote. Hebrews Chapter 9 describes the deficiencies of the Levitical Priesthood. The entire thrust of the two chapters is that a deficient priesthood is being replaced by a super priesthood. This is not about maintaining dual, valid priesthoods.
Scout
Ps 51:16 For YOU WILL NOT DELIGHT [TAHPŌS] IN SACRIFICE, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. (ESV).
Ps 51:19 then YOU WILL DELIGHT [TAHPŌS] IN SACRIFICES OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar. (mixed).
I would suggest that a key to understanding Scripture is the ‘nuance’ in Hebraic argument.
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
As you know Scout, when it comes to theodicy there is one thing an omnipotent God cannot do - without the sacrifice of Jesus He cannot forgive sin - He wouldn’t be a just God if he did.
“If the Bible teaches any truth, it is the primacy of the need for sacrifice in order to effect fellowship with God. Both the Old and New Testament stress this basic requirement” (Charles Lee Feinberg, The Prophecy of Ezekiel, p.266).
Heb 8:8 FOR FINDING FAULT WITH THEM, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new [kaine; as in LXX] covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new [kaine] covenant, he hath made the first old.
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator [kaine] of the new testament
Heb 12:24a And to Jesus the mediator of the new [neas] covenant
“The word for new (kaine) here points to something which is NEW IN COMPARISON with what has preceded it, whereas, the alternative adjective (neos), applied to the same covenant in 12:24, points to its freshness, compared with something old and worn out. Both aspects are full of meaning” (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, p.178).
As an aside: “BUT EVEN IN THIS PASSAGE THERE IS NO HINT OF A NEW COVENANT WHICH COULD EXTEND TO ALL PEOPLE, GENTILES AS WELL AS JEWS, AS HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF THE GOSPEL. INDEED IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THIS UNIVERSAL ASPECT OF THE GOSPEL FINDS NO PLACE IN THIS EPISTLE...” (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, pp.177-178).
Heb 8:8 FOR FINDING FAULT WITH THEM, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
“The truth of the matter was that Jeremiah found no fault with the Sinaitic covenant. Both Jeremiah and the later writer of Hebrews were emphatic in their assessment of the trouble with the covenant made in Moses’ day. The problem was with the people, not with the covenant making God nor with the moral law or promises reaffirmed from the patriarchs and included in that old covenant. The text of Jeremiah 31:32 explicitly pointed the finger when it said, “Which covenant of Mine they broke.” So also did Hebrews 8:8-9: “His finding fault with them because they continued not in [His] covenant” (italics ours)” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Towards an Old Testament Theology, p.232).
Part 2
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
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 [torah] in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
"[Hebrews] 8:8-12. A quotation from Jer 31:31-34 containing a prophetic announcement and definition of the new covenant, which was to be different from the Mosaic covenant (v. 9). Its superior benefits are: (1) God's laws will become inner principles (v. 10 a) that enable his people to delight in doing his will (cf. Eze 36:26-27; Ro 8:2-4); (2) God and his people will have intimate fellowship (v. 10 b); (3) sinful ignorance of God will be removed forever (v. 11); and (4) forgiveness of sins will be an everlasting reality (v. 12)" (Philip E. Hughes & Donald W. Burdick, Hebrews, NIVSB, p.1867).
“... Why call this covenant a “New covenant” especially since most of the content adduced in the “New” is but a repetition of those promises already known from the Abrahamic-Davidic covenant already in existence?...
“In this list, the New covenant transcends all previous announcements of the blessings of God. Thus the New is more comprehensive, more effective, more spiritual, and more glorious than the old - if fact, so much so that IN COMPARISON IT WOULD APPEAR AS IT WERE TOTALLY UNLIKE THE OLD AT ALL. Yet, in truth, it was nothing less than the progress of revelation.
“... the word “new” in this context would mean the “renewed” or “restored” covenant (cf. Akkadian edesu “to restore” ruined temples, altars or cities; Hebrew hds connected with the new moon and Ugaritic hdt, "to renew the moon"). We conclude then that this covenant was the old Abrahamic-Davidic promise RENEWED AND ENLARGED...”
“The New Covenant was indeed addressed to a revived national Israel of the future; but nonetheless by virtue of its specific linkage with the Abrahamic and Davidic promises contained in them all, it was proper to speak of a gentile participation then and in the future. THE GENTILES WOULD BE ADOPTED AND GRAFTED INTO GOD’S COVENANT WITH NATIONAL ISRAEL” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Towards an Old Testament Theology, pp.231-35).
Part 3
Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
“To whom are the promises given? Just to the people of Israel? Hardly. They are given to those of all flesh who worship from month to month and Sabbath to Sabbath. THIS IS THE ULTIMATE END OF ISRAEL RELIGION, THAT EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF JOINING ISRAEL IN WORSHIPING THE ONE GOD (cf. Zech. 14:16-21)" (John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 40-66, NICOT, p.691).
Ro 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
“In applying the Hosea prophecy to the Gentiles ... Paul affirms that they too are heirs of the promises to Israel” (James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC,p.242)
This means that grafted in Gentiles should worship God on the sabbath. But unfortunately, as typology suggested, the Gentiles, like the northern kingdom, went there own way and chose to worship God differently.
[The typology - “David, son of Jesse, and the Old Testament temple and its Aftermath and David, son of God, and the New Testament and its Aftermath; e.g., both Temples were built after the death of David and Jesus:
[1Ch 22:3 And David prepared iron in abundance for the nails for the doors of the gates, and for the joinings; and brass in abundance without weight;
Ac 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
But both, provided for the building of the future temples - David iron for the nails and Jesus “names”].
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Jer 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken ... with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
"The writer is here arguing HYPOTHETICALLY, for the law itself cannot be changed. He has primarily in mind the law affecting the Aaronic priesthood"...” (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, pp.164).
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:
"It occurs to the writer that some confusion might arise in his readers' mind over the CO-EXISTENCE OF TWO ORDERS OF PRIESTHOOD. He proceeds, therefore, to show that the priesthood of Jesus was not established on the earth... This leads into his thesis that the superior priesthood is that which operates in heaven, not on earth” (Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, pp.174-175).
Eze 44:11 Yet they [non-priest Levites] shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having charge at the gates of the house, and ministering to the house: they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister unto them.
Lev 1:5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
“[In the Messianic Age] the Levites shall slaughter (šāhat) the sacrificial animals of the burnt offerings (‘ôlâ) and regular (peace) offerings (zebah) for the people (lā‘ām). This authorization actually represents a promotion over the Mosaic legislation, according to which the worshiper would kill the victim himself” (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25-48, NICOT, p. 630).
MPM 5:45 wrote, ”As you know Scout, when it comes to theodicy there is one thing an omnipotent God cannot do - without the sacrifice of Jesus He cannot forgive sin - He wouldn’t be a just God if he did.”
First, when I see a litany of scriptures from the OT entering debate, I am reminded that the Tanakh points to Christ. The culmination is in Jesus and the message he brought. That message is the Gospel with its behavioral standards found in the Sermon on the Mount and the declarations of the New Testament. With that guiding principle, use of the superseded OT as a source of proof-texts, independent of the overarching influence of the NT, is not viable.
Second, the idea that God cannot forgive sins without the sacrifice of Christ is a mistaken notion. That was the view that the scribes took of Christ. Jesus said to them, “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic— “Stand up, take your bed, and go to your home.” Jesus could himself forgive sins and that prior to his sacrifice. Jesus refers to “authority” to forgive sins and that authority had to have come from God the Father. Jesus told the Thief on the Cross that the thief would enter into Paradise even before Jesus had completed his sacrifice. Jesus could confer, prior to his sacrifice, not only forgiveness of sins but its ultimate salvational outcome.
In the New Testament, the liturgical package containing the physical temple, the Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices has been superseded. There is no indication involving sound exegesis of the message that we have been given that the package is coming back. We find in Isaiah 11:9, “They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” That statement does not seem to be referring to a temporary condition. Thankfully, the brutal concept of animal sacrifice will not be re-instituted in the Eschaton.
Scout
Scout quotes Isa 11:9:
“THEY will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.”
Who are “they”? The animals of 11:6-8?
Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice's den.
Scout writes:
“Second, the idea that God cannot forgive sins without the sacrifice of Christ is a mistaken notion.”
I disagree.
The OT comments below introduces some comments on Romans 3:23-26:
“... Romans 3:21-31 may at first deceive the reader because of its compactness. Here is a veritable glossary of the Christian faith, and surely the most succinct and profound expression of the gospel in the Bible...” (James R. Edwards, Romans, NIBC, p.97).
Lev 4:20b and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be FORGIVEN THEM.
Lev 4:26b and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be FORGIVEN HIM.
Lev 4:31and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be FORGIVEN HIM.
Lev 4:35b and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.
Lev 5:10b and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be FORGIVEN HIM.
Lev 5:16b and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be FORGIVEN HIM.
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you on the altar to ransom [kipper] your lives; for its is the blood that ransoms [kipper] by means of live (Jacob Milgrom, pers. translation).
The blood of sin offerings ransoms the life of sinners and makes possible the forgiveness of sin. The blood of Jesus also ransoms all sinners making possible forgiveness of sin.
(God can forgive sin outside the sacrificial system, David being the prime example).
“... the OT sacrifices were subjectively efficacious... But it is just as clear that the sacrifices of bulls and goats were not in themselves expiatory and efficacious... the OT sacrifices were not objectively efficacious; but then neither did the OT ever claim that the blood of these bulls and goats was inherently effective...
“The efficacy of the OT sacrifices, then rested in the Word of God, who boldly announced that sacrifices done in this manner and with this heart attitude ... would receive from God a genuine experience of full forgiveness. Of course, everything depended on the perfect payment for this release, a payment that would occur sometime in the future. Therefore, not the blood of bulls and goats but the “blood” (i.e., the life rendered up in violent death) of a perfect sacrifice finally made possible all the forgiveness proleptically enjoyed in the OT and retrospectively appreciated in the NT. Only the lamb of God could have provided objective efficacy, even though the subjective efficacy that had preceded it was grounded on the authority and promised work of Christ.
Part 2
Rom 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation [hilastērion] in His blood through faith, for a demonstration of His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over [(parēsis] the sins previously committed;
“Until the death of Christ happened, the sins of the OT saints were both forgiven and “passed over” (parēsis, Rom 3:25) in the merciful grace of God until the expiatory death of Christ provided what no animal ever could and what no OT text ever claimed it could do” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Towards Rediscovering The Old Testament, 134-35).
“God had a record of passing over sins. Due for extermination for violating God’s specific command, Adam and Eve received only expulsion. Reuben, guilty of intercourse with his father’s concubine (Gen. 35:22), the punishment for which was death (Lev. 20:11) and being cut off from his people (Lev. 18:29), received mercy instead: ‘May Reuben live, and not die out’ (Deut. 33:6)...” (David E. Garland, Romans, TNTC, p. 147).
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
“Paul’s meaning is ... that God “postponed” the full penalty due sins in the Old Covenant, allowing sinners to stand before him without their having provided an adequate “satisfaction” of the demands of his holy justice (see Heb 10:4)” (Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT, pp. 260-61).
Rom 3:25 God set forth [protithēmi] Jesus as a propitiatory sacrifice through faith, in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness because of the passing over of sins committed beforehand
Rom 3:26 in the forbearance of God, for a demonstration of the righteousness at the present time, in order that he might be just and the justifier of the person who has faith in Jesus (Douglas Moo, pers. translation).
“[The] translation of the of the verb [protithēmi as ‘intended’ or ‘purposed’] explains why God has passed over sins committed in the past (cf. 2:4; 9:22; Acts 14:16; 17:30), and letting sins go would be incompatible with God’s righteousness, since it would imply that God turns a blind eye to sin and pretends it never happened. Cranfield explains:
“God has in fact been able to hold His hand and pass over sins without compromising His goodness and mercy, because His intention has all along been to deal with them once and for all, decisively and finally through the cross’ (Cranfield, I. p.212).
“The cross reflects God’s eternal purpose, and it was ‘not some sudden new idea or impulse on God’s part’ (Cranfield, I. p.210). In his divine forbearance answers the question of how God can pass over sins and remain holy and just. God’s purpose all along was for redemption to come through Jesus Christ as the sacrifice of atonement...” (David E. Garland, Romans, TNTC, p. 144).
Part 3
Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Ro 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption [or ransom] that is in Christ Jesus:
Ro 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation [hilastērion] in His blood through faith, for a demonstration of His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
Ro 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Some observations:
“God’s wrath is the inevitable and necessary reaction of absolute holiness to sin” (Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT, p. 256).
“Only the death of Jesus makes possible the forgiveness of sinners without compromising the very character of God” (Everett F. Harrison and Donald A. Hagner, Romans, EBC , rev. Vol.11, p.74).
“God could not simply wipe the slate clean by pardoning sins. That would be condoing sins. Christ’s death on the cross shows how seriously God in his righteousness takes sin, how costly forgiveness is, and how much love underlies God’s grace” (David E. Garland, Romans, TNTC, p. 147).
[Besides providing atonement and fellowship, animal sacrifice in the Messianic Age will remind people of the brutal and costly sacrifice of Jesus - imagine hanging naked, no loin cloth, and alive on the starous with birds attempting to pluck out your eyes and one cannot do anything about it and no one to help you].
“While, then, the basic notion of hilastērion points to the removal of God’s wrath, this removal of wrath implies, or lead to, the forgiveness of sins: so “expiation” might also be part of the meaning here” (Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT, p. 256).
“Paul’s point is that God can maintain his righteous character (“his righteousness” in vv. 21 and 22) because Christ, in his propitiatory sacrifice, provides full satisfaction of the demand of God’s impartial, invariable justice” (Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT, p. 262-63).
“... Paul’s insistence that it is God, and not the sinner, who has provided this hilastērion. The Old Testament similarly ascribes the initiative to God’s grace: ‘The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement [kipper] for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement [kipper], by reason of the life’ (Lev 17:11). It is an Old Testament text like this, moreover, that explains Paul’s use of the expression ‘by his blood’ in the present context and justifies the NEB interpretation of as ‘by his sacrificial death’ ” (F. F. Bruce, Romans, TNTC, p. 111).
“ “In his blood” singles out Christ’s blood as the means by which God’s wrath is propitiated” (Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT, p. 256).
“The phrase by his blood refers to the sacrificial death of Christ as the means by which the one effective atonement for sin has been made (cf. 5:8-9), ‘while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God’)” (F. F. Bruce, Romans, TNTC, p. 112).
Part 4
“The death of Christ, then is the means by which God does away with his people’s sin... sin has been removed not only from the believer’s conscious, on which it lay as an intolerable burden, but also from the presence of God...” (F. F. Bruce, Romans, TNTC, p. 111).
“The hilastērion which God has provided in Christ not only removes the ungodliness and wickedness, but as the same time averts the retribution which is the inevitable sequel to such attitudes in a moral universe” (F. F. Bruce, Romans, TNTC, p. 111).
“This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. That is, ‘to demonstrate that God was not unrighteous when he passed over sins committed in earlier days, in the period of his forbearance’. THE REDEMPTION ACCOMPLISHED BY CHRIST HAS RETROSPECTIVE AND WELL AS PROSPECTIVE EFFICACY. His atonement avails for the whole human family; he is the expiation for our sins’, as a later New Testament writer puts it ... ‘and not for ours only but also for the ... whole world’ (1 John 2:2)...” (F. F. Bruce, Romans, TNTC, p. 113).
“Although the problem in theodicy may not be as obvious to the modern mind as it was to Paul, yet to pass over wrong is as much an act of injustice on the part of a judge as to condemn the innocent...” (F.F. Bruce, Romans, TNTC, p.113).
“That he himself is righteousness and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus. In the self-offering of Christ, God’s righteousness is vindicated and the believing sinner justified. For Christ occupies a unique position as God’s representative with man and man’s representative with God. As the representative man he absorbs the judgment incurred by human sin; as the representative of God he bestows God’s pardoning grace on men and women. The words recall Isaiah 45:21 (‘a righteous God and Saviour) and Zechariah 9:9, LXX (‘righteous and saving’)” (F. F. Bruce, Romans, TNTC, p. 114).
“Yet, while justification in this sense is received by faith alone, ‘the faith which justifies is not alone; it is, as Paul says in Galatians 5:6, ‘faith working through love’ — and just how its so works is set out in practical detail in Romans 12:1 - 15:13. But this belongs to a later stage of the argument; what is important at this stage is to insist that it is by faith, not what they do, that human beings receive the justifying grace of God” (F. F. Bruce, Romans, TNTC, p. 115).
“Humans cannot make atonement through their ritual acts. All they can do is respond to God’s action in Christ with a confession of faith, as did the Gentile centurion who, facing Jesus on the cross, witnessed how he died and declared, ‘Truly this man was God’s Son! (Mark 15:37-39). Those who make this confession no longer stand against God but can stand under God’s grace” (David E. Garland, Romans, TNTC, p.149).
“Paul underscore that fact that divine retribution for sin is real, and humans better not discount the reality of God’s wrath again sin. The cross both expresses God’s wrath and satisfies it (Peterson, p. 197)” (David E. Garland, Romans, TNTC, p.149).
“Atonement and escape from God’s wrath come only through Christ’s death. It is ‘effective once for all time and procures for those who believe the forgiveness of their sins...” (David E. Garland, Romans, TNTC, p.149).
John 5:43 ...not John 4:43
Post a Comment