The Disciples' Message Forgotten

[Guest]

By Maurice Hoppe

The foundation of the disciples’ message to the whole world was the opening of Christ’s ministry as our High Priest in the Holy Place of the sanctuary in heaven. This message was so powerful that in Acts 17:6 we are told that this message had “turned the world upside down.” Nobody had to go to the earthly sanctuary anymore to offer a sacrificial lamb. They could now go directly to Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary to confess their sins and Jesus would cover those sins with His blood. But by 1844 this message, that had turned the world upside down, was no longer remembered by the church.

What happened to the sanctuary message and why did it have to be restored? We will begin our search for the answer at the ascension of Jesus Christ.

In Revelation chapters 4 and 5 we are shown the throne room of the sanctuary in heaven in 31 A.D. These two chapters should not have a chapter division because they are about the same event. In Revelation 5:6 we get a picture of Jesus coming as a Lamb slain before the Father. We know that this is an accurate interpretation of this verse. The Desire of Ages, 830–835, is a description of this same event, and gives us more details.

When Jesus ascended 40 days after His crucifixion He went in before the Father as a Lamb slain. “He enters into the presence of His Father. He points to His wounded head, the pierced side, the marred feet; He lifts His hands, bearing the print of nails. He points to the tokens of His triumph; … Before the foundations of the earth were laid, the Father and the Son had united in a covenant to redeem man if he should be overcome by Satan. They had clasped Their hands in a solemn pledge that Christ should become the surety for the human race. This pledge Christ has fulfilled.”

Then Jesus was presented to John not as a Lamb slain, but as our High Priest in the Holy Place. John recorded a description of Jesus as our High Priest in the Holy Place of the sanctuary in heaven in Revelation chapter 1:12–16.

“And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; and in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.”

On the Day of Pentecost, God sent the Holy Spirit down to the 120 disciples that were assembled in a meeting. The Holy Spirit told them that the inauguration of Jesus as their High Priest had been completed in the sanctuary of the New Covenant in heaven. He then instructed them to go forth and tell the world that sanctuary is now open and waiting to receive their petitions. That was the message that the disciples were to take to the world during the early years of the apostolic church. After Christ’s death and resurrection, nobody had to go to the earthly sanctuary anymore to offer a sacrificial lamb. They could now go directly to Jesus in the Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary to confess their sins and Jesus said He would secure their pardon.

“The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father.” The Great Controversy, 421.

This was the good news proclaimed by the apostolic church. Even the Gentiles later on recognized the power of this message because in Acts 17:6 we are told that this message had “turned the world upside down.” Such was the power of the message of Jesus’ ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.

Satan and the fallen angels saw the power of this message and they saw that this message was going to destroy their kingdom of rebellion. They had to do something to counteract this message. Satan and his angels set about to attack the Christian church and lead it into apostasy. All of the major writers of the New Testament tell about the apostasy that came into the Christian church. It became so bad that by A.D. 538, the papacy took control of the church. In Revelation 13:2 we are told that Satan gave him his power, authority and seat.

Immediately Satan set the Pope up as the head of the church in place of God. The Pope then claimed that he was the mediator between God and man. This was the work of the papacy throughout the Dark Ages. For 1260 years Satan continued his attack on the ministry of Jesus in the Holy Place of the sanctuary in heaven. Even at the present time the people in the Roman Catholic Church are taught to confess their sins to the priests.

The sanctuary message was lost because the people were directed to the priests for their salvation instead of Jesus Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. When the great Second Advent Movement began in the early 1840s, nobody knew about the sanctuary in heaven. They thought that the sanctuary was this earth. The papacy did away with the knowledge of Jesus Christ’s ministry in the sanctuary in heaven by instructing the people to confess their sins to the priests in the church on earth. “It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low.” Daniel 8:11, NIV.

The good news in Daniel 8:14 is that the sanctuary message would be restored to its rightful place. “And he said to me, for two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings; then the holy place will be properly restored.” NASB.

The restoration of this message has been fulfilled in the Second Advent Movement. In The Great Controversy, 409, we are told, “The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith was the declaration: ‘Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.’ Daniel 8:14.” The sanctuary message was to be restored and was to become the foundation and central pillar of the message to the world in the closing scenes of the great Second Advent Movement.

This restoration of this message is paramount because the heavenly sanctuary is the place where Jesus carries out the terms of the New Covenant. When Jesus moved from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary in 1844 to begin the investigative judgment, His faithful followers were thrilled to learn the truth and followed Him into the Most Holy Place. Christ’s disciples in the great Second Advent Movement will again take up the message as did the first disciples.

“The third angel closes his message thus: ‘Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus’ (Revelation 14:12). As he repeated these words, he pointed to the heavenly sanctuary. The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the most holy place, where Jesus stands before the ark, making His final intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers and for those who have ignorantly broken the law of God. This atonement is made for the righteous dead as well as for the righteous living. It includes all who died trusting in Christ, but who, not having received the light upon God’s commandments, had sinned ignorantly in transgressing its precepts.” Early Writings, 254.

During the latter rain this message will be at the heart of the call to “come out of her (Babylon).” It is through the ministry of Jesus in the Most Holy Place where they can be freed from sin as they come out of Babylon.

Daniel 8:14 truly is the foundation and pillar of the Advent faith. It is a prophecy fulfilled. The ministry of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary was a message forgotten during the Dark Ages. It has been restored according to the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 and we must keep it alive, never to be forgotten again.

[Ron Amnsn]

I have some questions about this article.

The author twice makes an assertion:

Nobody had to go to the earthly sanctuary anymore to offer a sacrificial lamb.

After Christ’s death and resurrection, nobody had to go to the earthly sanctuary anymore to offer a sacrificial lamb.

If this was an important part of the disciples' message, why is this basic point not stated clearly in the New Testament?

The author's assertion contradicts the word of God.

When God instructed Moses about the daily sacrifices in the Temple, God commanded that they should be offered continually "throughout your generations" (Exodus 29:42) not just "until Messiah comes". There are still generations of Israelites being born today.

Jesus commanded, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matt 5:17-18)

Yet the author apparently thinks precisely what Jesus commanded us not to think -- that Jesus came to do away with part of the Law.

Just a few sentences later Jesus commanded, "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." (Matt 5:23-24)

Jesus gave no hint that in just a few months Jesus wanted people to stop offering sacrifices at the altar.

Indeed, for many years after the death of Jesus the disciples continued to go to the Temple in Jerusalem to worship and teach. (Luke 24:52-53, Acts 5:42.) Acts 2:46-47 tells us, "Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved."

If the disciples had been teaching at the Temple the message that this author has asserted, how would they have had the favor of all the people? The Temple in Jerusalem was the only place on earth where the sacrifices that God commanded were being offered. If the disciples had taught that the sacrifices were unnecessary, they would have been directly contradicting the Scriptures and insulting the people who continued to bring their sacrifices in obedience to God's instructions. The people at the Temple would not have looked with favor on men who taught that the sacrifices were unnecessary. The false witnesses that testified against Stephen asserted something quite similar to what this author has asserted, "This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law;" If that accusation had been true (which it would have been if the assertion of the author of this article were true) they could have had truthful witnesses testify against Stephen, rather than false witnesses.

When Paul went to the Jewish synagogue in Berea (Acts 17:10-12) the people searched the Old Testament scriptures to see whether the things Paul taught were true. The Bereans are commended for testing Paul's teachings. How much more should we be testing those who try to put words into the mouths (or pens) of the apostles, as this author has done. If this author's assertion had actually been part of the gospel that Paul was teaching, which Old Testament passages would the Bereans have found to confirm that the Temple sacrifices were no longer necessary? When we hear that the apostles taught some particular doctrine, we too should be searching the Old Testament scriptures to see whether that doctrine is true. In this case, the assertion made in the article is contrary to what noble Bereans would find in the Scriptures.

When Paul was brought to trial before Felix he testified, "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets." (Acts 24:14 NIV) If Paul had been teaching what the author of this article has asserted, then Paul's testimony about himself would have been an outright lie.

My other question is much shorter. The article says that now "Jesus stands before the ark". The full name of that ark is "the ark of the covenant". Which covenant is it the ark of?

[joeb]

Ron,

The fact that the disciples taught that the Messiah had come was enough to tell the Jewish people that the sacrificial system had reached the end of it's reason for being. They all knew that that the Messiah's coming was the point of the sacrificial system. How did they know that? By studying the OT.

Anyone who doesn't realize the above simply hasn't studied/understood_the_meaning_of the sacrificial system.

[ucantblost]

how do you know they knew this? where in the old test does God or anyone explain what the sacrifices mean? it seems as tho there would be some mention of Gods 'command' to sacrifice animals in the 4th chapter of Genesis, giving us more of a reason to believe Cain was on the 'wrong' track, but i dont find it.

Does God explain somewhere in the OT what the sacrifices 'foreshadow' or point to?

[Ron Amnsn]

The fact that the disciples taught that the Messiah had come was enough to tell the Jewish people that the sacrificial system had reached the end of it's reason for being. They all knew that that the Messiah's coming was the point of the sacrificial system. How did they know that? By studying the OT.

Joeb, if such OT passages exist, please provide them.

If Paul had actually been teaching what the author of the article asserts, the OT passages that you claim exist could be the passages that the Bereans could have found to confirm that Paul's alleged teachings were true.

I've read through the whole Bible more than once looking for such passages and found nothing, so I doubt such passages exist in Scripture. And previously when I've challenged others to provide such passages they've come up empty-handed.

[joeb]

Well, if you guys don't accept the fact that the sacrificial system points to the Messiah, what can I say? I can't think of anything that will lead you to accept that. What the point of it would be other than pointing to the Messiah as the real Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world is beyond me, but if that's what you want to think, be my guest. Far be if from me to argue with a couple of people who have their minds made up.

[Gibs]

This may clear it up, read the story of Abraham about to slay his son for the Lamb!

Ge 22:3 ¶ And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.

Ge 22:4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.

Ge 22:5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

Ge 22:6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

Ge 22:7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

Ge 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Ge 22:9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

Ge 22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

Ge 22:11 ¶ And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

Ge 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Ge 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

Ge 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

Ge 22:15 ¶ And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,

Ge 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

Neither did God withold His Only Begotten Son who was here pointed out.

[ucantblost]

Gibs. ''Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς "into" as opposed to exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases into and onto the text. The act is often used to "prove" a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda. Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discover-able meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective.''

we all do it, thats how most of us determine what we are going to believe concerning any given biblical story. I dont see anywhere in the story of Abraham where its said ''your son is a type of my son which i will give for the sin of the world'' or anything even close to that.

I know most have 'applied' such an 'interpretation' but why doesnt God say it? only man says it.

Maybe you could find another place where God instructs the prophets or Israelites as to the symbolic meaning of the sacrifices. I'm not opposed to the idea, just dont see it anywhere except in the new test. And, thats kind of like monday morning quarterbacking isnt it?

like foretelling or prophesying the future, we have our 'past' prophetic interpretation, but in the last 170 years of SDA 'gift of prophecy' insight, has anything come to pass that she prophecied? i think there is, just dont know what it was.

I still wonder why God didnt include in all the 'detailing' of the sacrifices and offerings and other laws the one thing that (to me) was needed most,, a good explanation of WHAT it all meant. Have a clue?

thanks.

[Guest]

When Paul was brought to trial before Felix he testified, "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets." (Acts 24:14 NIV) If Paul had been teaching what the author of this article has asserted, then Paul's testimony about himself would have been an outright lie.

[Ron Amnsn]

Well, if you guys don't accept the fact that the sacrificial system points to the Messiah, what can I say? I can't think of anything that will lead you to accept that. What the point of it would be other than pointing to the Messiah as the real Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world is beyond me, but if that's what you want to think, be my guest. Far be if from me to argue with a couple of people who have their minds made up.

Hi Joeb,

Don't give up so easily. I totally accept that the sacrificial system was an object lesson that taught about the sacrifice of Messiah for sin. There were also other sacrifices and other lessons taught by the sacrificial system. God had given portions of the sacrifices to the priests and Levites as their livelihood and designated that as a perpetual inheritance in lieu of a tribal inheritance of land in Israel.

If the coming of the Messiah was going to end the inheritance of the tribe of Levi, the coming of Messiah would be really bad news for the tribe of Levi, which included John the Baptist and his parents, Zacharias and Elizabeth. John the Baptist and his parents were all familiar with the OT, and all three said quite a bit about the coming of the Messiah, but none of them gave any indication that Messiah would end the sacrificial system and deprive their family and tribe of it's God-given inheritance of the priesthood and the associated portions of the sacrifices.

What hasn't been found in the Old Testament is anything that supports the idea that the sacrificial system instituted by God would end when Messiah died. Why put a stop to a good object lesson just at the point when someone really understands what it means? History shows us that the sacrificial system actually didn't end at the death of Christ, but continued on until the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, and during that time while the sacrifices continued we had the most successful period of evangelism among Jews.

[Guest]

Be sure to see the last post on page one Ron. I sometimes miss a post when it goes to another page, if I am not checking my e-mail notifications. Wouldn't want that to happen to you.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

My other question is much shorter.  The article says that now "Jesus stands before the ark".  The full name of that ark is "the ark of the covenant".  Which covenant is it the ark of?

Unless you believe that you are now free to sin, the only difference in the covenant, is where the law is written.

You didn't answer the question. Which covenant is it the ark of?

I agree that the Law is the same in the New (Renewed) Covenant as the original Covenant. Even under the original Covenant the Law was to be written on the heart.

"These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart." Deut 6:6

The difference with the New Covenant is that God takes responsibility for writing it on the heart.

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33

[Ron Amnsn]

Not true. He said he believed all of it, and rightly so. I believe all of it too, but I am not still killing lambs. Are you still killing lambs?

We actually have lambs to sell this year (hopefully alive). The Law allows people to kill lambs at home, but not as a sacrifice. If the lambs are a sacrifice, the Law only allows them to be killed at the Temple with a descendant of Aaron officiating.

So you're okay with Paul testifying that he believes everything that agrees with the Law, if he was actively teaching things that contradict the Law (as the author of the article has erroneously asserted)? You apparently require very little in the way of integrity from yourself and others. If that's the kind of man Paul was, why would anyone have any confidence in what he wrote?

[Ron Amnsn]

Heb 10:8  Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Because you already believe that Jesus "taketh away" the sacrifices (even though Jesus commanded us to think no such thing), you accept these verses as "proof" that the sacrifices were done away with.

But the audience that the book of Hebrews was written to didn't already believe as you do about sections of the Law being made obsolete. There's nothing in the book of Hebrews that would even begin to convince a Torah-observant Jew that parts of God's Law had been rendered obsolete.

An objective reader of the passage that you quoted from Hebrews would note that the author of Hebrews previously quoted a passage from Psalm 40 (in the LXX) then divided that passage into two parts, a first part and a second part. Then he states that the first part he "takes up" (Strongs G337) in order to accomplish the second part. The author of Hebrews could simply be showing that neither God nor Jesus took pleasure in the sacrifice of Jesus, but it was done anyway so as to accomplish God's will.

Had the author of Hebrews been trying to say what you want it to say, he would have needed to follow up with further reasons to even begin to establish a possibility that part of God's Law had been rendered obsolete -- especially a part of the Law which God himself had declared would continue throughout all the generations of the Israelites. Would you expect people to accept the ambiguous statement made by the author of Hebrews to overthrow God's clear word?

What do you think the "once for all" part means? For all time?

[phkrause]

There's nothing in the book of Hebrews that would even begin to convince a Torah-observant Jew that parts of God's Law had been rendered obsolete.

Because no "Torah-observant Jew would read Hebrews. You know that and I know that, but a Messianic Jew would read Hebrews.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

There's nothing in the book of Hebrews that would even begin to convince a Torah-observant Jew that parts of God's Law had been rendered obsolete.

Because no "Torah-observant Jew would read Hebrews. You know that and I know that, but a Messianic Jew would read Hebrews.

Maybe you're confusing Torah with Talmud.

At the time Hebrews was written all the Messianic Jews were Torah-observant (They obeyed God's instructions in the OT Scriptures). Most Messianic Jews today are Torah-observant. (They follow the example of Jesus, who lived totally in accordance with God's OT instructions.) As far as we know, every Jew who read the book of Hebrews while Paul was alive was Torah-observant.

The book of Acts records that all of the tens-of-thousands of Jews who believed were zealous for the Law of Moses. (Acts 21:20 and context) Historical documents also record that the Jewish followers of Jesus (which included the sect of the Nazarenes, of which Paul was a ringleader) continued to follow God's Old Testament instructions.

[joeb]

Maybe you're confusing Torah with Talmud.

At the time Hebrews was written all the Messianic Jews were Torah-observant (They obeyed God's instructions in the OT Scriptures). Most Messianic Jews today are Torah-observant. (They follow the example of Jesus, who lived totally in accordance with God's OT instructions.) As far as we know, every Jew who read the book of Hebrews while Paul was alive was Torah-observant.

The book of Acts records that all of the tens-of-thousands of Jews who believed were zealous for the Law of Moses. (Acts 21:20 and context) Historical documents also record that the Jewish followers of Jesus (which included the sect of the Nazarenes, of which Paul was a ringleader) continued to follow God's Old Testament instructions.

You're going to argue this with a Jew? LOL.... Good luck with that.

[Ron Amnsn]

You're going to argue this with a Jew? LOL.... Good luck with that.

Even Jews can be wrong. In this case, his position is unsupportable.

[joeb]

Hi Joeb,

Don't give up so easily. I totally accept that the sacrificial system was an object lesson that taught about the sacrifice of Messiah for sin. There were also other sacrifices and other lessons taught by the sacrificial system. God had given portions of the sacrifices to the priests and Levites as their livelihood and designated that as a perpetual inheritance in lieu of a tribal inheritance of land in Israel.

If the coming of the Messiah was going to end the inheritance of the tribe of Levi, the coming of Messiah would be really bad news for the tribe of Levi, which included John the Baptist and his parents, Zacharias and Elizabeth. John the Baptist and his parents were all familiar with the OT, and all three said quite a bit about the coming of the Messiah, but none of them gave any indication that Messiah would end the sacrificial system and deprive their family and tribe of it's God-given inheritance of the priesthood and the associated portions of the sacrifices.

What hasn't been found in the Old Testament is anything that supports the idea that the sacrificial system instituted by God would end when Messiah died. Why put a stop to a good object lesson just at the point when someone really understands what it means? History shows us that the sacrificial system actually didn't end at the death of Christ, but continued on until the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, and during that time while the sacrifices continued we had the most successful period of evangelism among Jews.

I don't give up easily. But, I see no point in discussing things with people who have their minds made up.

For instance, your comments on how the tribe of Levi would be up a creek. Do you really think God would not have that covered in His plans? If the Jewish nation had not denied the Messiah don't you think God would have used the Levitical priesthood just the way he's using the Gentile priesthood now? Isn't that what the mission of John the Baptist teaches us? So what if it wasn't spelled out in the OT? It couldn't be as there was a choice to be made by the Jewish nation.

God would have dealt with things as they came to fruition.

Isn't the Gentile priesthood--you and I--plan B? The NT is God dealing with plan B and implementing it. I don't see anything worth arguing over. It's so obvious as to be beyond discussion.

That you can't see this is beyond me. That's not a put down. It's just me scratching my head and wondering why someone has to argue about something so obvious. All it takes is just a little bit of thought after looking at the OT and the NT, and trust in God that He will do the right thing by everyone. He leaves no one in the lurch who is willing to trust Him, and that includes the Levitical priesthood.

[Ron Amnsn]

I don't give up easily. But, I see no point in discussing things with people who have their minds made up.

[phkrause]

Maybe you're confusing Torah with Talmud.

No on this point I'm not. What I did confuse in replying to you was the Jews in Christ's day with Jews of today. Obviously the Jews in Christ's day did read the Talmud and of course the Torah. Sorry about that. The only point I was making was that today's Jews would not even give the NT a look.

[Ron Amnsn]

No on this point I'm not. What I did confuse in replying to you was the Jews in Christ's day with Jews of today. Obviously the Jews in Christ's day did read the Talmud and of course the Torah. Sorry about that. The only point I was making was that today's Jews would not even give the NT a look.

Ok. That makes sense.

Except I'm pretty sure the Talmud was not available in writing during New Testament times. It was strictly oral teachings at that time. Many years later, when Jerusalem had been destroyed and the Jews had been dispersed, the oral teachings of the Talmud were in danger of being lost. At that time the Jewish sages decided it was better to break the tradition of not writing down the oral law than to risk losing the traditional teachings altogether.

The difference between God's Law (which was written in the Law of Moses) and the traditional oral laws of the Jews (which were not written down) shows up in the Sermon on the Mount. When Jesus said, "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law," he was being careful to refer to the written law and to exclude the oral law, which of course had no jots, tittles, or iotas. If Jesus had said, "not one word will pass from the law", it would have been ambiguous because both the oral and the written laws are contained in words.

Jesus also differentiated between God's law and the traditional oral laws when he quoted from them. When he referred to Scripture Jesus often said, "It is written ..." or "What is written in the law?", but when he referred to the traditional oral teachings he said, "You have heard that it was said ..."

[joeb]

Ron,

I'm going to refer you to a book written by a SDA who was a converted Jew. I think he might clear up a few things for you. The book is an e-book in the pdf format(Acrobat Reader) and a free download. You can also read it and or download it at the following link.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/64205669/F-C-G...he-Church-Today

[Guest]

Thanks Joe.

[Ron Amnsn]

I'm going to refer you to a book written by a SDA who was a converted Jew. I think he might clear up a few things for you.

JoeB,

I'm taking a look at the book.

The first sentence of the introduction is obviously false. "A PEOPLE without a home, a race without a country, such is the Jew of to-day;" That statement had been true when the book was written, but if the author had interpreted the Scriptures correctly he would have known that God would keep his Covenant with the Israelites and that the Jews would return to the land of their inheritance, as they have now.

In the second paragraph the author mistakenly applies Matthew 21:42 to the Jews as a people or nation, when the the context of that verse clearly says the pronouncement in the parable referred to the chief priests and Pharisees rather than to the common people. The part the author missed comes just three verses later: "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet." (Matt 21:45-46 NASB)

The common people knew that Jesus' pronouncement that the kingdom would be removed was not talking about the Jewish nation as a whole, because the people recognized that in the parable Jesus had quoted from Isaiah 5 and was referring to the passage where God clearly states, "For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel And the men of Judah His delightful plant." (Isaiah 5:7) Jesus said that the tenants or vine-dressers would be replaced, which the chief priests and Pharisees recognized correctly as themselves. But Jesus did not say that the vineyard and the plants would be replaced, and the common people knew from God's Word that the vineyard itself represents the people of Israel and Judah. God had changed the leadership of the nation several times previously -- from Eli to Samuel, from Saul to David, from Rehoboam to Jeroboam, from Ahab to Jehu, etc. Jesus was stating that it would happen again.

The author's mistake is an error commonly made by Christians who believe in the man-made doctrine of "Replacement Theology" or "supersessionism", which teaches that God has cancelled His covenant with Israel, rejected the Israelites as a nation, and replaced Israel with "the church". This doctrine is contrary to many passages in the Old Testament Scriptures. In order to ignore those passages people invented the doctrine of "conditional prophecies" which supposedly enables them to nullify the parts of Scripture that don't agree with their man-made doctrines.

The author of the book, F.C. Gilbert, may have had some Jewish ancestors, but I seriously doubt he was ever a religious Jew before becoming a Christian. Many religious Jews have accepted Jesus as the Messiah foretold in the Scriptures, but very few religious Jews ever give up the truth of Scripture to be deceived by the the man-made doctrines handed down by the Roman church.

I don't think this book will clear things up for anyone. We've covered two paragraphs so far and the author has only presented errors, while trying to make Scripture conform to his man-made traditions.

Which parts of the book in particular did you want me to take a look at?