How much of God's law is good?

[John317]

First Covenant

1) The Old Covenant faded away, was transitory (1 Cor. 3: 10, 11);

2) Its sanctuary a mere copy (Hebrews 8:5)

3) Its sanctuary a shadow

4) Not faultless (8:7); brought death and condemnation (2 Cor. 3:7,9);

5) Its gifts and sacrifices cannot perfect the conscience (9:9)

6) Its sanctuary symbolic (9:9)

7) Its arrangement deal only in food and drink and ablutions, things for the body

8) Arrangements imposed only until the time of reformation (i.e., New Covenant) (9:10);

9) Ratified by the shedding of the blood of calves and goats (9:10);

10) Taught that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood (9:22);

11) Merely the copies of things in heaven (9:23);

12) Earthly sanctuary needed to be purified every year (9: 25);

13) Shadow of good thing to come (10:1);

14) Cannot make perfect those who draw near (10:1); no perfection attainable (7:11);

15) People under it continue to have consciousness of sin (10:2)

16) Not possible to take away sins (10: 4, 11)

17) God never took pleasure in burnt offerings and sins offerings (10: 6, 8)

18) God abolishes the animal sacrifices in order to establish Christ's sacrifice (10: 9)

19) The fact that Christ is the High Priest proves that the law was changed/removed (7:12);

20) The New Covenant made the Old Covenant obsolete, or out of date (8:13);

New, or Second, Covenant:

1) A better hope (Hebrews 7: 1)

2) A better covenant (He. 7: 22)

3) Christ the High Priest (8:1)

4) Sanctuary in the heavens, the true

5) Sanctuary was the pattern of the earthly

6) Ministry more excellent than earthly ministry (8:6)

7) Enacted on better promises (8:6)

8) Blood of Christ purifies the conscience from dead works (9:14)

9) Christ's death redeems people from transgressions committed under Old Covenant (9:15)

10) Jesus appeared once for all to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (9: 26; 10: 12);

11) The true form of the realities (10:1)

12) Christ came to do the will of the Father (10:7);

13) By a single sacrifice, Christ has perfected for all time those who are sactified (10: 14);

14) When our sins are forgiven through Christ, no more sacrifices are needed (10: 18);

15) Christ came as Priest by the power of an indestructible life (7:16);

16) Brings righteousness and life (2 Cor. 3:9).

Summary: Hebrews 8: 6-13 leaves no room for doubt about the fate of the Old Covenant: it was set aside in favor of the New Covenant that has better promises.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

There is no doubt that since the book of Hebrew was written before 70 AD, the temple in Jerusalem was still standing and still in service. That means that of course animals were still being slaughtered. But those animal sacrifices no longer had any significance to God since Christ the real Lamb of God had been sacrificed. The animals sacrificed up to Jesus' time had only been foreshadowing Christ's coming. Once He came and died, there was no more use for them.

It is not a question of whether the earthly sanctuary continued after Christ's death and ascension, but of whether the earthly sanctuary had any more to do with salvation. It didn't. All the services were transferred to the heavenly sanctuary where Christ went. The earthly sanctuary after that point was nothing but an empty shell. Its time of service was over.

Interesting assertions. No Scripture to back it up. These are simply the traditions of men. If you repeat them often enough, do they become Scripture?

Do you sacrifice animals? Have you ever done it? If not, then talking about it is just a theory. You must not believe it's important if you have never killed a lamb or goat, etc., and are making no plans to do it.

Are Jews or Christians doing it today? When was the last time they did it?

I think the fact that no one has done it since 70 AD proves my point that the sacrifices and the temple in Jerusalem are finished. God abandoned it for a good reason, and that is, that the true sanctuary is in heaven. The early sanctuary was just a mere shadow or copy of the true sanctuary, or temple, in heaven. That is what the Bible plainly declares. Why would anyone want the shadow rather than the real thing? Why would anyone make a lamb die when it can't do anyone any good at all and when the Bible says plainly that God never got any pleasure from sacrifices anyway? (10: 6, 8)

Quote:

Where in all of the Old Testament does it indicate that the earthly temple would become irrelevant when Messiah would come?

Where in all of the New Testament does it indicate that the temple would become irrelevant after Messiah died?

Where in all of Scripture did God tell his people that they should only offer sacrifices that were foreshadows and to never offer sacrifices that were commemorations?

Will these verses work?---

First Covenant

1) The Old Covenant faded away, was transitory (1 Cor. 3: 10, 11);

2) Its sanctuary a mere copy (Hebrews 8:5)

3) Its sanctuary a shadow

4) Not faultless (8:7); brought death and condemnation (2 Cor. 3:7,9);

5) Its gifts and sacrifices cannot perfect the conscience (9:9)

6) Its sanctuary symbolic (9:9)

7) Its arrangement deal only in food and drink and ablutions, things for the body

8) Arrangements imposed only until the time of reformation (i.e., New Covenant) (9:10);

9) Ratified by the shedding of the blood of calves and goats (9:10);

10) Taught that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood (9:22);

11) Merely the copies of things in heaven (9:23);

12) Earthly sanctuary needed to be purified every year (9: 25);

13) Shadow of good thing to come (10:1);

14) Cannot make perfect those who draw near (10:1); no perfection attainable (7:11);

15) People under it continue to have consciousness of sin (10:2)

16) Not possible to take away sins (10: 4, 11)

17) God never took pleasure in burnt offerings and sins offerings (10: 6, 8)

18) God abolishes the animal sacrifices in order to establish Christ's sacrifice (10: 9)

19) The fact that Christ is the High Priest proves that the law was changed/removed (7:12);

20) The New Covenant made the Old Covenant obsolete, or out of date (8:13 );

New, or Second, Covenant:

1) A better hope (Hebrews 7: 1)

2) A better covenant (He. 7: 22)

3) Christ the High Priest (8:1)

4) Sanctuary in the heavens, the true

5) Sanctuary was the pattern of the earthly

6) Ministry more excellent than earthly ministry (8:6)

7) Enacted on better promises (8:6)

8) Blood of Christ purifies the conscience from dead works (9:14)

9) Christ's death redeems people from transgressions committed under Old Covenant (9:15)

10) Jesus appeared once for all to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (9: 26; 10: 12);

11) The true form of the realities (10:1)

12) Christ came to do the will of the Father (10:7);

13) By a single sacrifice, Christ has perfected for all time those who are sactified (10: 14);

14) When our sins are forgiven through Christ, no more sacrifices are needed (10: 18);

15) Christ came as Priest by the power of an indestructible life (7:16);

16) Brings righteousness and life (2 Cor. 3:9).

Quote:

..... If the temple would be irrelevant after Jesus death, why did Jesus bother to cleanse the temple less than one week before his death and teach that it would be called a house of prayer for all nations? (Mark 11:17) Jesus was teaching from this prophecy in Isaiah 56:6-9

6 Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,

To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord,

To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath

And holds fast My covenant;

7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain

And make them joyful in My house of prayer.

Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;

For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”

8 The Lord God, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares,

“Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered.”

Apparently Jesus didn't believe as you do about God's temple becoming irrelevant.

He was teaching for our sakes, those of us who live now and cannot go into the temple of Jerusalem because God allowed it to be destroyed in 70 AD. He wasn't simply doing those things for the people of that time but for those who were not yet born. He wanted them and us to know that God is not just the God of the Jews but that He is the God of all peoples who will accept Him.

Jesus Himself knew it would be destroyed in about 40 years. He knew that in a short time the veil in the temple would be ripped from top to bottom by one of His angels. Why? Because He knew Himself to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and when He died, there would be absolutely no more use for animal sacrifices.

By a single sacrifice, Christ has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (Hebrews 10: 14);

When our sins are forgiven through Christ, no more sacrifices are needed (10: 18);

God abolishes the animal sacrifices in order to establish Christ's sacrifice (10: 9)

The fact that Christ is the High Priest proves that the law was changed/removed (7:12);

The New Covenant made the Old Covenant obsolete, or out of date (8:13);

[Ron Amnsn]

The church is spiritual Israel and God's plan was transferred to the church. Physical Israel has no more importance in terms of salvation.

These also are the traditions of men.

Where is the evidence in Scripture to support the idea that a "spiritual Israel" exists separately from literal Israel? You won't find it.

Exactly what Israelite characteristics does this so-called "spiritual Israel" exhibit?

Are you saying that God reneged on his Covenant with Israel? And then replaced them with a church that was even worse?

If God can annul the Covenant with Israel, then how do you know he won't annul the New Covenant as well?

Did you know your assertion was prophesied by the Lord through Jeremiah? (See the part in green below.)

The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying,

“Thus says the Lord, ‘If you can break My covenant for the day and My covenant for the night, so that day and night will not be at their appointed time, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant so that he will not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, My ministers.

‘As the host of heaven cannot be counted and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.’ ”

And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, “Have you not observed what this people have spoken, saying, [color:#33CC00]‘The two families which the Lord chose, He has rejected them’? Thus they despise My people, no longer are they as a nation in their sight.

“Thus says the Lord, ‘If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.’ ” (Jer. 33:19-26 NASB)

Last I checked, God's covenant regarding day and night was still in effect, so if God's word can be trusted (and it can be trusted) then God has not rejected the descendants of Jacob as his chosen people. (You can find the covenant regarding day and night in Genesis 8:22.)

If you think this is a conditional promise, you're right. The condition is stated right in the promise: It lasts until day and night get broken.

[Ron Amnsn]

Yes, the animal sacrifices did continue but not because it was what God wanted. The dividing curtain was ripped open from top to bottom, showing that it was no longer considered holy to God.

According to Heb. 10:20 the ripped curtain represents Jesus' body. Are you saying that the body of Jesus which was broken for us was not holy, just common? Or are you saying that a curtain that was hung in the holiest place on earth was no longer holy because God himself changed it from a mere curtain to an object lesson representing his sacrificed Son?

The logic in that isn't obvious to me, so I'm interested in seeing where you find this change from holy to common described in Scripture.

I'm quite familiar with the man-made traditions surrounding this event (I even taught them myself at one time), but I found no support for those traditions in Scripture.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The church is spiritual Israel and God's plan was transferred to the church. Physical Israel has no more importance in terms of salvation.

These also are the traditions of men.

Where is the evidence in Scripture to support the idea that a "spiritual Israel" exists separately from literal Israel? You won't find it.

Exactly what Israelite characteristics does this so-called "spiritual Israel" exhibit?

Are you saying that God reneged on his Covenant with Israel? And then replaced them with a church that was even worse?

If God can annul the Covenant with Israel, then how do you know he won't annul the New Covenant as well?

Hi Ron,

The Old Testament tells the history of the nation of Israel and of God's dealings with that nation. The New Testament reveals God's dealings with the church or "spiritual Israel." There has been much confusion regarding Israel's role as a type of the church. In this paper, I will discuss why the church can be called "spiritual Israel", and how this relates to the unity of the church.

Before the coming of the Holy Spirit, the disciples asked a question of Jesus:

Acts 1:6-8: "Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him saying, 'Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?' And He said to them, 'It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you;'" ...

In answer, Jesus points them toward the day of Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit. To understand what Jesus means, we should consider part of Peter's speech in Acts 2:

Acts 2:29-33: "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, ... Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, ... This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God," ...

David foresaw the resurrection of the Christ. Christ is of the fruit of David's body according to the flesh. Peter tells us that Christ has been resurrected and exalted to the right hand of God, and thus, figuratively, sits on David's throne.

But, has Christ restored the kingdom to Israel? I think he has done so. Has he restored the kingdom to national Israel, or to spiritual Israel -- that is, the church?

The New Testament speaks of the unity of Christ and the church:

: "For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Saviour of the body. ... So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' [Gen. 2:24] This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

The relationship between Adam and Eve as husband and wife is a type of the relationship between Christ and the church. Let me paraphrase this scripture:

Just as a husband is head of his wife, so Christ is head of the church. A husband ought to love his wife as he loves his own body, and to nourish and cherish her as he does his own flesh. For in a marital union, a husband and wife become one flesh. So it is with Christ and the church: in the figure of marital union, Christ and the church are one flesh; that is, one body. As Paul says: "For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of his bones."

The church is depicted as Christ's body, and is also identified in scripture as spiritual Israel:

Rom. 2:29: ... "but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."

Rom. 4:16: ... "Abraham, who is the father of us all" ...

Gal. 3:7: "Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham."

Gal. 4:26: ... "but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all."

Heb. 12:22-23: "But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, ... to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven," ...

Gal. 6:15-16: "But in Christ it is not circumcision or uncircumcision that counts but the power of new birth. To all who live by this principle, to the true Israel of God, may there be peace and mercy!" [Phillips]

Phil. 3:3: "For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh," ...

Col. 2:11: "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands," ...

Eph. 2:11-13: "Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh ... that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been made near by the blood of Christ."

Eph. 2:19-20: "Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone," ...

When the Apostle Paul, in his letters to the saints, refers to them as the faithful sons of Abraham, the circumcision, and as members of the commonwealth of Israel, he is referring to spiritual Israel. His mention of the "Jerusalem above" as the "mother of us all", and his identification of the "heavenly Jerusalem" with the "church of the firstborn", show that the saints are members of the "household of God", of which Christ is the "firstborn among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29). This is that church which has been "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets".

[John317]

Spiritual Israel-- Cont.

So, if we admit the existence of a spiritual Israel, what of the nation? We must ask the question which Paul asks: "What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?" (Rom. 3:1). Paul tells us of the advantage of the Jew in a later chapter of the book of Romans:

Rom. 9:4-5: ... "who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen."

This surely is a weighty list of advantages! To elaborate these specific points in connection with the advantages of the nation:

"From whom, according to the flesh, Christ came" ... The incarnate Christ was an Israelite. What an honour to the Jewish nation that the Saviour of the world should be born of them according to the flesh. And he was born into their nation for an important reason. To them had been entrusted the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2), and from the Old Testament scriptures we, and those long before us and down through the ages, have proof that Jesus is the Christ. And Christ himself learned of God's plan for his life through these same Old Testament scriptures [see Luke 24:44].

"Of whom are the fathers" ... We have only to read of the importance of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Joseph, Noah, Moses, David, etc., in the gospels and the epistles, to understand this advantage. [see Acts 2, 13; Romans 4; 2 Cor. 3; Galatians 3-4; Ephesians 2; Hebrews 11; James 2; 1 Pet. 3, etc.] The fathers wrote the Old Testament, and served as types for the understanding of New Testament truth.

In the "service of God", we have types of Christ's sacrifice and several aspects of it, as outlined in the Book of Leviticus, and expounded by the writers of the New Testament. (For example, see 1 Cor. 5:7; Ephesians 5:1-2 and Hebrews 10:1-10.)

In the "giving of the law" we also learn spiritual truth. Paul tells us that "the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Galatians 3:24)

Also, in relation to the ten commandments, there are, in the New Testament, many spiritual parallels. For example, in the commandment to keep the sabbath day holy, we learn:

(a) the sabbath, as a memorial of creation (Gen. 2:1-2; Ex. 20:8-11) reveals the power and deity of God (Romans 1:28).

( The sabbath typifies salvation by faith (Hebrews 4:9-10).

"The covenants, ... and the promises" ... Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, explains that the Gentile believers, by the blood of Christ, have been brought near to the covenants of promise, as have the believing Israelites (Ephesians 2:11-18). And "all the promises of God in Him [Christ] are Yes, and in Him Amen" (2 Cor. 1:20). One such promise made to Abraham has been fulfilled in Christ: "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29). This is why Paul tells us that the Gentiles [the "wild olive tree"], along with those who are Israelites by birth [the "natural branches"], have a share in the "good olive tree" [spiritual Israel] only through faith in Christ [the root] (Romans 11:17-24).

"The glory" ... The countenance of Moses once reflected the glory of God, but this was a temporary glory which eventually faded away (2 Cor. 3:7,13). The saints now mirror the glory of the Lord by means of the indwelling Holy Spirit. This glory will continue to increase -- "from glory to glory" (2 Cor. 3:18) -- until the first-born saints wear a glorious body, even as Christ does (Phil. 3:20-21).

In 2 Cor. 3:6-11, we read of the superior glory of the new covenant (the ministry of the Spirit and the ministry of righteousness) in contrast to the glory of the Mosaic covenant (the ministry of death and the ministry of condemnation). The Mosaic covenant, associated with fleshly Israel, is "passing away", whereas the new covenant, associated with the church (spiritual Israel), "remains". The new covenant "exceeds much more in glory".

"The adoption" ... The Israelites, as members of the chosen nation, were the adopted children of God according to the flesh. The saints are now God's adopted children: "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God" (Romans 8:16).

These seven advantages of the nation of Israel are of great significance for all, and are the reason Jesus says:

John 4:22-24: ... "for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Thus, the importance of the nation of Israel is an historical one which typifies the role of the church as spiritual Israel. The church, under Christ, is that body through whom mankind, by faith, will be brought into the knowledge of God. It is even as the angel said to Mary:

Luke 1:31-33: "You will conceive in your womb and bear a son; and He will be called Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give Him the throne of His forefather David; and He will be King over the House of Jacob for the Ages, and of His Kingdom there will be no end." [Weymouth]

Please let me know if any of this helps answer any of your questions about spiritual Israel.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Yes, the animal sacrifices did continue but not because it was what God wanted. The dividing curtain was ripped open from top to bottom, showing that it was no longer considered holy to God.

According to Heb. 10:20 the ripped curtain represents Jesus' body. Are you saying that the body of Jesus which was broken for us was not holy, just common? Or are you saying that a curtain that was hung in the holiest place on earth was no longer holy because God himself changed it from a mere curtain to an object lesson representing his sacrificed Son?

The logic in that isn't obvious to me, so I'm interested in seeing where you find this change from holy to common described in Scripture...

It's plain from Scripture that no more sacrifices are needed since our sins are forgiven through Christ. The Old Covenant was made obsolete. Therefore the temple made for sacrifices, etc., was no longer needed. Christ's work began in the heavenly sanctuary. The earthly sanctuary still stood and the sacrifices continued for about 40 more years, but they were for nothing, because by a single sacrifice, Christ has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. See quotes below.

The Old Covenant faded away, was transitory (1 Cor. 3: 10, 11);

Its sanctuary a mere copy (Hebrews 8:5);

[size:14pt]Arrangements imposed only until the time of reformation (i.e., New Covenant) (9:10);

By a single sacrifice, Christ has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (Hebrews 10: 14);

When our sins are forgiven through Christ, no more sacrifices are needed (10: 18);

[size:14pt]God abolishes the animal sacrifices in order to establish Christ's sacrifice (10: 9);

The fact that Christ is the High Priest proves that the law was changed/removed (7:12);

The New Covenant made the Old Covenant obsolete, or out of date (8:13).

[Ron Amnsn]

Do Christians offer animal sacrifices today or should they? Obviously not. The temple in Jerusalem was abandoned by God, showing that it has no more relevance to God whatever.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Do Christians offer animal sacrifices today or should they? Obviously not. The temple in Jerusalem was abandoned by God, showing that it has no more relevance to God whatever.

I don't remember reading anywhere in Scripture that the temple in Jerusalem was abandoned by God. Please show me where it says that.

Luke 13:35-- Your HOUSE is left unto you DESOLATE.

How long has it been since there was a temple in Jerusalem? Have you read what Josephus says happened in 70 AD?

Is God still accepting animal sacrifices? That temple was all about symbols. It's no longer important. The temple in heaven is what's important, not a building made with hands.

Quote:

If the Temple was abandoned by God, why did God speak to Paul while he was praying at the Temple? (Acts 22:17) And when God spoke there, he didn't say a word about the temple being abandoned. It seems odd that God might sneak back into the temple, which he allegedly had abandoned years earlier, in order to give Paul an urgent message. God could have told Paul that same message elsewhere.

John 4: 21-- Jesus said there would come a day when they wouldn't worship in Jerusalem any more. That time came fairly soon after his ascension. God has no more use for it.

God abandoned the temple as a center of worship. I didn't say God abandoned Paul. Just because God answered the prayers of Christians who went there to pray and worship doesn't mean it was not abandoned by God in the sense the Bible means it.

Originally Posted By: John317

The fact that Jewish Christians worshipped in the Temple doesn't mean they were slaughtering animals as part of their worship. There is nothing in Acts to indicate that.

Quote:

You have forgotten Acts 21? Or have you removed that part from your Bible because it doesn't agree with your traditions?

Isn't it clear to you that Acts 21 is not a description of a regular practice? It was unusual. It was atypical. How many other times did Paul do that?

Originally Posted By: John317

They were going there because that is where people who loved God went. It had been the center of worship for hundreds of years. That is where they would meet God-fearers and Jews who want to do God's will.

Quote:

And why would God-fearers and Jews who wanted to do God's will be at the Temple? Because God's word says that is the place where God chose to be worshiped. Scripture clearly says that anyone living in Israel who was obedient to God's word would be at the Temple for God's feasts at least three times per year. Had that part of God's word been abolished? No. Jesus commanded, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets." There seem to be a lot of Christians who are thinking precisely what Jesus specifically commanded us not to think. When God changes his instructions, does he do it in secret, or does he do it clearly as he did for Abraham when Isaac was no longer to be sacrificed?

God told Amos, "Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7) Okay. Show me. Where did God reveal to his prophets prior to the death of Jesus that God was now reversing the plan and instructions that he had revealed previously to his prophet Moses? Let's see it.

If what you're teaching was part of what Paul was teaching, the noble Bereans would have rejected Paul's message. Because when they went to the Scriptures daily (the Old Testament was all they had back then) to see if what Paul taught was true, they would have found that what you're saying substantially disagrees with what was found in the Scriptures.

Deal seriously with the following:

It's plain from Scripture that no more sacrifices are needed since our sins are forgiven through Christ. The Old Covenant was made obsolete. Therefore the temple made for sacrifices, etc., was no longer needed. Christ's work began in the heavenly sanctuary. The earthly sanctuary still stood and the sacrifices continued for about 40 more years, but they were for nothing, because by a single sacrifice, Christ has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. See quotes below.

The Old Covenant faded away, was transitory (1 Cor. 3: 10, 11);

Its sanctuary a mere copy (Hebrews 8:5);

Arrangements imposed only until the time of reformation (i.e., New Covenant) (9:10);

By a single sacrifice, Christ has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (Hebrews 10: 14);

When our sins are forgiven through Christ, no more sacrifices are needed (10: 18);

God abolishes the animal sacrifices in order to establish Christ's sacrifice (10: 9);

The fact that Christ is the High Priest proves that the law was changed/removed (7:12);

The New Covenant made the Old Covenant obsolete, or out of date (8:13).

[Ron Amnsn]

The Old Covenant is no longer valid. It was abolished and its place was taken by the New Covenant.

[Ron Amnsn]

This, of course, would contradict Acts 15 and Galatians, and Hebrews, and involve us in one very big theological mess.

The decision of the Jerusalem Council pertained only to Gentiles. The Jews were all living according to Torah, and would continue to do so.

The Gentiles were already learning to be Torah-observant and would continue to do so as they heard the Torah read each Sabbath. The issue was whether they needed to Convert to Judaism as had been done previously and be taught how to keep Torah by learning oral law.

It would only contradict Galatians if you read Galatians and imagine it was happening in a Protestant context. In a Jewish context Galatians says nothing against Torah-observance. But you won't "get it" unless you value Torah.

The theological mess that we're in, where Christians interpret the New Testament so that it contradicts the Old Testament, would have been unheard of in New Testament times.

[Ron Amnsn]

Do you sacrifice animals? Have you ever done it? If not, then talking about it is just a theory. You must not believe it's important if you have never killed a lamb or goat, etc., and are making no plans to do it.

You're questions are silly. Why would I want to offer an animal sacrifice in a manner that is prohibited by God's law? If/when there is a restored temple and a valid functioning priesthood, then animal sacrifices could be offered. Not until then. There's plenty of other things to do and plan in the mean time.

Just as Daniel obeyed God the best he could under the circumstances of exile, in the same way Torah-observant believers do the best they can under the current circumstances.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The Old Covenant is no longer valid. It was abolished and its place was taken by the New Covenant.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;" (Matt 5:17)

Originally Posted By: John317

There's no salvation under the Old Covenant.

That will be sad news for Moses and Elijah. Will they now have to leave heaven?

What was the Old Covenant?

Take a look at this:

1. WHAT two covenants are contrasted in the Bible?

"In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and "waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Heb. 8:13.

2. By what other terms are these covenants designated?

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." Verse 7.

3. In connection with what historical event was the old covenant made?

"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." Verse 9. See Ex. 19:3-8.

4. When God was about to proclaim His law to Israel, of what did He tell Moses to remind them?

"Tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto Myself." Ex. 19:3,4.

5. What proposition did He submit to them?

"Now therefore, if ye will obey M y voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine: and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Verses 5,6.

6. What response did the people make to this proposition?

"And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord." Verse 8.

7. In this covenant with Israel, what obligation was imposed upon the people?

"Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant." Verse 5, first part.

8. What was the Lord's covenant which they were to keep as their part of this covenant?

"And He declared unto you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and He wrote them upon two tables of stone." Deut. 4:13.

NOTE.-The ten commandments were the "covenant" to which the Lord referred, when, in proposing to make a covenant with Israel, He said, "If ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant," etc. Ex. 19:5. The ten commandments were termed God's covenant before the covenant was made with Israel: hence they cannot be the old covenant itself. They were not an agreement made, but something which God commanded them to perform, and promised blessings upon condition they were kept. Thus the ten commandments-God's covenant became the basis of the covenant here made with Israel. The old covenant was made concerning the ten commandments; or, as stated in Ex. 24:8, "concerning all these words." A covenant means a solemn pledge or promise based on conditions.

9. After the law had been proclaimed from Sinai, what did the people again say?

"And all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do." Ex. 24:3.

10. That there might be no misunderstanding, what did Moses do?

"And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, . . . and he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people." Verses 4-7.

11. What did the people once again promise to do?

"And they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient." Verse 7.

12. How was this covenant then confirmed and dedicated?

"And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which

offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the Lord. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." Verses 5-8.

13. How does Paul describe this dedication of the covenant?

"For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you." Heb. 9:19,20.

NOTE.-We here have the complete account of the making of the first or old, covenant. God promised to make them His peculiar people on condition that they would keep His commandments. Three times they promised to obey. The agreement was then ratified, or sealed, with blood.

14. Within less than forty days after the making of this covenant, while Moses tarried in the mount, what did the people say to Aaron?

"Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him." Ex. 32:1.

15. When Moses came down from Sinai, what did he see?

"And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the

camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount." Verse 19.

NOTE.-The great object and secret of the old covenant is revealed here. The people did not realize the weakness and sinfulness of their own hearts, or their need of divine grace and help to keep the law; and so, in their ignorance, they readily pledged obedience to it. But almost immediately they began to commit idolatry, and thus to break the law of God, or the very conditions laid down as their part of the covenant. In themselves the conditions were good; but in their own strength the people were unable to fulfil them. The great object of the old covenant therefore was to teach the people their weakness, and their inability to keep the law without the help of God. Like the law itself, over which the old covenant was made, this covenant was designed to shut them up to the provisions of the new or everlasting covenant, and lead them to Christ. Gal. 3:23,24. And the lesson which Israel as a nation had to learn in this, each individual now must learn before he can be saved. There is no salvation for anyone while trusting in self. Unaided, no one can keep the law. Only in Christ is there either remission of sins or power to keep from sinning. The breaking of the tables of the law signified that the terms of the covenant had been broken; the renewing of the tables (Ex. 34:1,28), God's patience and long-suffering with His people.

16. Wherein does the new covenant differ from and excel the old?

"But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." Heb. 8:6.

17. What are the "better promises" upon which the new covenant was established?

"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 if their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Jer. 31:33,34. See Heb. 8:8-12.

NOTE.-These are simply the blessings of the gospel through Christ. They are promised upon condition of repentance, confession, faith, and acceptance of Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant, which means salvation and obedience. In the old covenant there was no provision for pardon and power to obey. It is true there was pardon during the time of the old covenant, but not by virtue of it. Pardon then, as now, was through the provisions of the new covenant, the terms of which are older than the old covenant.

18. In what statement was Christ promised as a Saviour and Deliverer of the race as soon as sin entered?

"And the Lord God said unto the serpent, . . . I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel." Gen. 3:14,15.

NOTE.-The covenant of grace, with its provisions of pardon peace, dates from the foundation of the world.

19. To whom was this covenant-promise later renewed?

"And God said unto Abraham, . . . Sarah thy wife

shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him." " I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, . . . and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." Gel 17:15-19; 26:4.

20. Who was the seed here referred to?

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Gal. 3:16.

21. What shows that the new or second covenant and the Abrahamic covenant are virtually the same?

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Verse 29.

NOTE.-No one should allow himself to be confused by the terms first covenant and second covenant. While the covenant made at Sinai is called the first covenant, it is by no means the first covenant that God ever made with man. Long before this He made a covenant with Abraham; He also made a covenant with Noah, and with Adam. Neither must it be supposed that the first or old covenant existed for a time as the only covenant with mankind, and that this must serve its purpose and pass away before anyone could share in the promised blessings of the second or new covenant. Had this been the case, then during that time there would have been no pardon for anyone. What is called the new or second covenant virtually existed before the covenant made at Sinai; for the covenant with Abraham was confirmed in Christ (Gal. 3:17), and it is only through Christ that there is any value to the new or second covenant. There is no blessing that can be gained by virtue of the new covenant that was not promised to Abraham. And we, with whom the new covenant is made, can share the inheritance which it promises only by being children of Abraham, and sharing in his blessing. Gal. 3:7,9. And since no one can have anything except as a child of Abraham, it follows that there is nothing in what is called the new or second covenant that was not in the covenant made with Abraham. The second covenant existed in every essential feature, except its ratification, long before the first, even from the days of Adam. It is called second because its ratification occurred after the covenant made and ratified at Sinai.

22. What is necessary where there is a covenant?

"For where a covenant is, there must also of necessity be the death of that which establishes it. For a covenant is made firm over the dead victims; whereas it is of no force while that which establisheth it liveth." Heb. 9:16,17, Boothroyd's translation.

23. With whose blood was the new covenant dedicated?

"And [He took] the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, even that which is poured out for you." Luke 22:20, R. V.

24. What power is there in the blood of this covenant

"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do His will." Heb. 13:20,21.

25. Through which covenant only is there remission of sins?

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause He is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." Heb. 9:14,15, R. V.

NOTE.-The fact that Christ, as mediator of the second covenant, died for the remission of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, shows that there was no forgiveness by virtue of the first covenant.

26. Under the old covenant, what did the people promise?

To keep the law of God in their own strength.

NOTE.-Under this covenant the people promised to keep all the commandments of God in order to be His peculiar people, and this without help from anyone. This was virtually a promise to make themselves righteous. But Christ says, "Without Me ye can do nothing." John 15:5. And the prophet Isaiah says, " All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." Isa. 64:6. The only perfect righteousness is God's righteousness, and this can be obtained only through faith in Christ. Rom. 3:20-26. The only righteousness that will insure an entrance into the kingdom of God is "the righteousness which is of God by faith." Phil. 3:9. Of those who inherit the kingdom of God, the Lord says, "Their righteousness is of Me" (Isa. 54:17); and the prophet Jeremiah says of Christ, "This is His name whereby He shall be called, The Lord Our Righteousness." Jer. 23:6.

27. Under the new covenant, what does God promise to do?

"I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in

their hearts." Jer. 31:33.

NOTE.-The new covenant is an arrangement for bringing man again into harmony with the divine will, and placing him where he can keep God's law. Its "better promises" bring forgiveness of sins, grace to renew the heart, and power to obey the law of God. The dissolution of the old covenant and the making of the new in no wise abrogated the law of God.

28. Where was the law of God written under the old covenant?

"And I made an ark of shittim-wood, and hewed two tables of stone. . . . And He wrote on the tables. . . the ten commandments, which the Lord spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the Lord gave them unto me." Deut. 10:3,4.

29. Where is the law of God written under the new covenant?

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." Jer. 31:33.

30. What reason is given for making the new covenant?

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant." Heb. 8:7,8.

NOTE.-The chief fault in connection with the old covenant lay with the people. They were not able, in themselves, to fulfil their part of it, and it provided them no help for so doing. There was no Christ in it. It was of works and not of grace. It was valuable only as a means of impressing upon them their sinfulness and their need of divine aid.

31. What unites all believers under the new covenant?

"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." Eph. 2:11-13.

[John317]

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE TWO COVENANTS

1. Both are called covenants.

2. Both were ratified with blood.

3. Both were made concerning the law of God.

4. Both were made with the people of God.

5. Both were established upon promises.

DISSIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE TWO COVENANTS

OLD COVENANT

Called the old covenant.

Called the first covenant.

A temporary compact.

Dedicated with the blood of animals.

Was faulty.

Was established upon the promises of the people.

Had no mediator.

Had no provision for the forgiveness of sins.

Under this, the law was written on tables of stone.

Was of works.

Conditions: Obey and live; disobey and die.

NEW COVENANT

Called the new covenant.

Called the second covenant.

An everlasting covenant.

Ratified with the blood of Christ.

Is a better covenant.

Is established upon the promises of God.

Has a mediator.

Provides for the forgiveness of sins.

Under this, the law is written in the heart.

Is of grace.

Conditions: Repent and be forgiven; believe and be saved.

THE OLD

If. If ye. If ye will. If ye will do.

If ye will do all.

If ye will do all, then-ye shall be

THE NEW

My people, and I will be your God. I will do all, and-will be your God,

and ye shall be My people.

[Ron Amnsn]

Why would anyone make a lamb die when it can't do anyone any good at all and when the Bible says plainly that God never got any pleasure from sacrifices anyway?

Why are you asking me this? It isn't just sacrifices that happened after Jesus died that would make lambs die, and that didn't earn salvation. The sacrifices that God asked of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, David had the same effect, or lack thereof. Scripture says that God's law is good, and God's law required people to kill lambs. Have you never thought about this before?

[Ron Amnsn]

What was the Old Covenant?

Take a look at this:

1. WHAT two covenants are contrasted in the Bible?

"In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and "waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Heb. 8:13.

2. By what other terms are these covenants designated?

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." Verse 7.

I'm afraid we aren't even on the same page. I study the Bible in context. You apparently study the Bible from some sort of catechism where individual verses are isolated from their context, so you don't notice that the verse doesn't have the slant that the catechism question puts on it.

That's probably why you didn't notice that the verse you quoted from Romans 2 about the "spiritual" Israelites actually undermines your argument because it only applies to Gentiles who, because the are filled with the Spirit, are actually obeying the law that the Jews should have been obeying (Torah). And that's probably why you didn't notice in the other verses that the Gentiles who follow Jesus are grafted in with the actual descendants of literal Israel, not separate from them.

It's probably also why you contradict your own arguments, without even noticing that you have done so. If you fragment the Scriptures into small enough pieces it can be interpreted willy-nilly however your traditions dictate.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Why would anyone make a lamb die when it can't do anyone any good at all and when the Bible says plainly that God never got any pleasure from sacrifices anyway?

Why are you asking me this? It isn't just sacrifices that happened after Jesus died that would make lambs die, and that didn't earn salvation. The sacrifices that God asked of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, David had the same effect, or lack thereof. Scripture says that God's law is good, and God's law required people to kill lambs. Have you never thought about this before?

So, then, tell me why you want to kill lambs and other animals when there is no good reason to.

Here's the NT--

By a single sacrifice, Christ has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (Hebrews 10: 14);

When our sins are forgiven through Christ, no more sacrifices are needed; "When sins are forgiven, there is no longer any need to sacrifice for sins"; "Now where there is forgiveness of sins, there is no longer offering for sin" (10: 18);

God abolishes the animal sacrifices and the Old Covenant in order to establish Christ's sacrifice and the New Covenant (10: 9).

What is there to be gained by offering an animal in sacrifice that Jesus has not already done and that you cannot have through Jesus Christ?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

What was the Old Covenant?

Take a look at this:

1. WHAT two covenants are contrasted in the Bible?

"In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and "waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Heb. 8:13.

2. By what other terms are these covenants designated?

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." Verse 7.

I'm afraid we aren't even on the same page. I study the Bible in context. You apparently study the Bible from some sort of catechism where individual verses are isolated from their context, so you don't notice that the verse doesn't have the slant that the catechism question puts on it.

That's probably why you didn't notice that the verse you quoted from Romans 2 about the "spiritual" Israelites actually undermines your argument because it only applies to Gentiles who, because the are filled with the Spirit, are actually obeying the law that the Jews should have been obeying (Torah). And that's probably why you didn't notice in the other verses that the Gentiles who follow Jesus are grafted in with the actual descendants of literal Israel, not separate from them.

It's probably also why you contradict your own arguments, without even noticing that you have done so. If you fragment the Scriptures into small enough pieces it can be interpreted willy-nilly however your traditions dictate.

Tell, then, what you understand the Old Covenant is or was?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Why would anyone make a lamb die when it can't do anyone any good at all and when the Bible says plainly that God never got any pleasure from sacrifices anyway?

Why are you asking me this? It isn't just sacrifices that happened after Jesus died that would make lambs die, and that didn't earn salvation. The sacrifices that God asked of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, David had the same effect, or lack thereof. Scripture says that God's law is good, and God's law required people to kill lambs. Have you never thought about this before?

Yes, it's true the sacrifices that were before Christ also had the same effect as those that were offered after Jesus' death.

My question is, why would you want to go back to those sacrifices? What do they provide or do that Christ has not already done?

Those sacrifices were all fulfilled in Christ. He is our Sacrifice. The Bible says we don't need any more after Jesus' sacrifice.

That sanctuary and its service was a copy, not the original. We have the original now. Why do you want to continue the copy? It was a shadow, pointing forward to Christ's work on the cross and in the heavenly sanctuary. Its arrangements were only until the New Covenant came, or the time of Reformation. The Bible says clearly God never took pleasure in those animals sacrifices and that they have nothing to do with forgiveness of sin.

[Ron Amnsn]

Yet surely we misunderstand Jesus if we believe He intended to say that we should keep all the civil laws and all the ceremonial laws, including circumcision. That would pit Paul against Christ. Remember that in Matt. 5: 17, Jesus says He came to fulfill the law, meaning that once he fulfilled the parts of the law which pointed to His sacrifice, it would obviously not be something that people needed to keep doing. If this is not true, then Jesus would be contradicted by Hebrews 10: 9, 18. Also, if it not true-- that is, if Jesus means for us today to be obeying all of the Torah-- then we are all of us committing grave sins by not keeping all those laws, including those which pertain to animal sacrifices and the human priesthood, etc. This, of course, would contradict Acts 15 and Galatians, and Hebrews, and involve us in one very big theological mess.

No, you're still reading the New Testament with the misconceptions handed down from the mother church of Rome.

Paul was not against Torah-keeping, even for Gentiles. The confusion comes when people think that every time Paul used the word "circumcision" he meant simple circumcision, which was the sign of Abraham's covenant (of which all believers are a part) and was commanded by Torah. By New Testament times, the rabbis had added numerous other requirements to a non-biblical process that supposedly turned Gentiles into Jews. And they were teaching that this proselyte process was the only way that Gentiles could be saved. This was the policy of the "Circumcision" group, and I usually write it with a Capital "C" to differentiate it from the simple circumcision which Abraham did to the males in his household, and which Paul did to Timothy. The Circumcision of the rabbis was based on erroneous theology and motivation, so Paul fiercely opposed it. But simple circumcision was in line with the gospel, even for Gentiles, which is why Paul circumcised Timothy and then took him around to the outlying congregations as an example when he went to deliver the decision of the Jerusalem council of Acts 15.

When Paul opposed Circumcision, he wasn't opposing Torah and he wasn't opposing Abraham's covenant. He was opposing the oral traditions of the rabbis which taught that Gentiles had to become Jews in order to be saved, and that to become Jews they had to go through all the rituals and training in oral law stipulated by the Circumcision group.

It was the oral traditions of the rabbis that caused most of the controversy in the New Testament. People who don't know the Torah think that Peter's vision in Acts 10 was to show him that Torah didn't apply any more. But there was no command in Torah to keep Jews from associating with Gentiles, that was only a man-made tradition of the rabbis, and that was what God needed to correct in Peter. It was the same thing when Paul rebuked Peter at Antioch in Galatians 2. Peter was separating himself from the Gentiles, not because of a Torah command, but because of oral traditions, specifically those relating to the teachings of the Circumcision group.

It was also the oral traditions that Jesus opposed, not the teachings of Torah. Jesus called the man-made traditions a "heavy burden", but said that his burden was "light", even while Jesus himself was living by Torah.

Those oral traditions were also the issue at the Jerusalem Council. All the Jews at the council, including the whole Jerusalem congregation , were Torah-observant -- zealously so. So obviously it couldn't be the Torah that was the burden which Peter said they couldn't bear. It was the oral traditions of the rabbis that the Circumcision group taught to their Gentile converts along with Torah.

Why would it be a theological mess if all of the followers of Jesus followed Torah as Jesus did? It would simply mean that you'd need to re-read the New Testament from a Torah-observant perspective, the way it was originally written. From that perspective Scripture becomes one cohesive whole.

[Ron Amnsn]

Luke 13:35-- Your HOUSE is left unto you DESOLATE.

Yes, Jesus said that, but was he talking about the Temple? When Jesus was young he said, "Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?"

And long after Jesus said, "Your house is left unto you desolate," Jesus cleared the Temple and said, “It is written,‘My house will be a house of prayer’; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”

Doesn't sound like Jesus was talking about the temple in your quote. But maybe he was talking about AD 70 and beyond.

[Ron Amnsn]

The temple had been destroyed by foreigners before, in the time of Daniel. But it wasn't permanent, and Daniel still faced Jerusalem to pray.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Luke 13:35-- Your HOUSE is left unto you DESOLATE.

Yes, Jesus said that, but was he talking about the Temple? When Jesus was young he said, "Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?"

And long after Jesus said, "Your house is left unto you desolate," Jesus cleared the Temple and said, “It is written,‘My house will be a house of prayer’; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”

Doesn't sound like Jesus was talking about the temple in your quote. But maybe he was talking about AD 70 and beyond.

Let's accept your view for a moment that Jesus was talking about the temple in Jerusalem. It hasn't been in existence for almost 2000 years. Isn't that pretty desolate?

Has the temple in Jerusalem been a house of prayer all this time?

Doesn't that tell you something? It should tell you that the temple in Jerusalem is abandoned and that it is not a house of prayer.

Therefore Luke 13: 35 was talking about the temple. As a people, when they rejected the Messiah, God abandoned the nation of Israel to reap the results of that rejection. It was the end of their probation as a nation. This is brought out in Daniel 9: 24-27. God gave them 490 years of probationary time. That period ended in 34 AD. It ended with the stoning of Stephen.

Individual Jews can be saved, of course, but as a nation they are no longer the nation that God plans to use in the spreading of the gospel. That commission went to the church.

As for the temple being a house of prayer, Jesus was trying to show us that God's church is not a place of common business, and that God wants to cleanse our soul temple for the Holy Spirit to live in us.

[John317]

The temple had been destroyed by foreigners before, in the time of Daniel. But it wasn't permanent, and Daniel still faced Jerusalem to pray.

Yes, true. And Jeremiah, 2 Chronicles, Daniel, Nehemiah, Ezra, and Haggai all speak to that issue. It wasn't permanent, you are right. God was patient and gave the nation of Israel another opportunity. He gave them 490 years (in Daniel 9: 24-27).

But this time-- with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD-- it was the last time, and the abandonment was permanent for the nation. Physical Israel will never again be the specially chosen nation of God.

After 2,000 years of the temple's not existing, it seems like that message ought to be clear.

The prophecies that God had planned for Israel were conditional, so that after the rejection by Israel of the Messiah, what God had originally offered to literal Israel passed from them to spiritual Israel, the church.

[John317]

What was the Old Covenant?

What is the New?