The Disciples' Message Forgotten

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

How could the Jews be suffering the curses of the covenant if that covenant is no longer valid? If God's covenant with the Israelites is no longer valid, then the curses of that covenant would have been extinguished along with the rest of the covenant.

Would not these two scriptures explain the present fulfillment of God's covenant to Abraham?

"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." Romans 2:28-29 NASB

"There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God’s promise to Abraham belongs to you." Galatians 3:28-29 NLT

God cares!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

You write in riddles, LifeHiscost.

In what way do you think the Jews are being "selective" in how they hear?

They (the Jews) at least gave lip service to Moses and the prophets. They totally denied any need to listen to Jesus. This might explain how they listened to Jesus.

"Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."Matthew 13:13 NASB

Which is reiterated in this scripture;

"But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’"Luke 16:31 NKJV

God cares!

[phkrause]

I think the Complete Jewish Bible has captured the most important element of what Jesus was saying in that verse.

The CJB gives good insights into the way the New Testament would have been understood in its original Jewish context. In just a few passages, I think the translator has stretched the meaning a bit. I agree with his intent (to show that the New Testament agrees with the Old Testament) but I think some of the details could use a bit more research.

The traditional Christian interpretation of this passage (that Jesus proclaimed that God was rejecting the Jews as a nation) violates the immediate context of the passage. If Jesus had actually been proclaiming that God was rejecting the Jews as a nation, the chief priests and Pharisees would have had nothing to fear from the common people. The common people would never have mistaken a person with that message as prophet of God because that message directly contradicts God's Word in Scripture. The chief priests and Pharisees could have easily turned such an anti-Scriptural and anti-Jewish proclamation against Jesus in the eyes of the people, and gained the people's support in stoning Jesus on the spot.

Ron are you guessing that the writer of the CJB is a Christian? Because if you are, your wrong. The CJB is being translated by a Jew. If you never read it, please do. At least from your post I'm gathering you've never read it. If you have I apologies for guessing you have not. Because it also seems that you are getting your info from a "Christian" Bible! You seem to talk against Christian Bibles, but use them to get what you want from them.

[Ron Amnsn]

I guess if the Bible doesn't read like you want it to, it just needs more research.

[Ron Amnsn]

God made everything, owns everything, owns everyone.

Breaking a deal has consequences, but doesn't imply a continued contract/relationship.

In this case God entered into a special covenant with a people He chose. That covenant included laws and instructions with specific blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. The SDA writers were not saying that the Jews were suffering the consequences of falling out of covenant. The writers were teaching that the Jews were experiencing the curses that were specified as part of God's covenant with the Israelites.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron are you guessing that the writer of the CJB is a Christian? Because if you are, your wrong. The CJB is being translated by a Jew. If you never read it, please do. At least from your post I'm gathering you've never read it. If you have I apologies for guessing you have not. Because it also seems that you are getting your info from a "Christian" Bible! You seem to talk against Christian Bibles, but use them to get what you want from them.

I have not read the whole CJB. I own the CJB and the accompanying commentary. Several years ago I used it as my primary Bible for a month or two, and I refer to the New Testament section occasionally when dealing with difficult passages. If I remember correctly, the Old Testament section in the CJB is derived from one of the standard Jewish translations of the OT into English. The CJB is a fine translation. If everyone used it, we'd have far fewer misinterpretations of Scripture than we have now. It's just that in trying to clarify some of the difficult passages David Stern chose to render some verses with an interpretation of the concept rather than a translation of the Greek. It's a stretch. He may be correct. There are other interpretations of those verses that could also be correct.

I have no particular problem with the English translations. I just recognize that no translation is perfect because translating from one language into another is not straightforward. When translating, translators often have to choose from several similar words with various connotations. Usually none of the choices is a perfect match with the original language. So the translators choose the word that best matches their own understanding of the passage. It is inevitable that any translation is influenced by the personal theology and biases of the translator. Unfortunately, few (or none) of the translators of the popular English versions were Torah-observant as were the original authors of Scripture.

Translations like the CJB that are done by Jews are more likely to reflect the meaning of the original Bible authors.

[phkrause]

Translations like the CJB that are done by Jews are more likely to reflect the meaning of the original Bible authors.

I agree

[Ron Amnsn]

They (the Jews) at least gave lip service to Moses and the prophets. They totally denied any need to listen to Jesus.

Which Jews are you speaking about? The New Testament records that many Jews listened and believed. Have you ever noticed these verses?

And they said to Him, "The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, (Luke 24:19)

Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. (John 2:23)

But many of the crowd believed in Him; and they were saying, "When the Christ comes, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?" (John 7:31)

As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him. (John 8:30)

Many believed in Him there. (John 10:42)

Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. (John 11:45)

"If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him" (John 11:48)

Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; (John 12:42)

[Ron Amnsn]

Here's what I was responding to from you.

Quote:

Nobody in Scripture is rebuked for obedience to God's instructions, even if they are doing it for the wrong reason.

Let's deal with this first. You seem to have completely missed the point of what I said. I was responding to your assertion that no Jew was ever rebuked for following the ceremonial law in a legalistic fashion: thinking that following the ceremonies were the sum total of what their religion required of them.

In Isaiah 58 the Jews were following the ceremonial law to the letter. They were offering sacrifices, observing the feasts, fasting, etc....

I think you are trying to make a distinction between following the Law of Moses and following the so-called "ceremonial law". There is no category of law that Scripture calls "ceremonial law". It's all part of God's Law given to Moses.

Where do you get the idea that the Jews in Isaiah 58 were following the so-called "ceremonial law" to the letter. It doesn't say that in anywhere in Isaiah 58. And Isaiah 57 says they were killing children in the ravine with their offerings (verses 5 and 6). That certainly is not how God told them to offer sacrifices.

[Ron Amnsn]

For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Rom 9:6,7

[Ron Amnsn]

"There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God’s promise to Abraham belongs to you." Galatians 3:28-29 NLT

God's covenant with Abraham had provision for this very thing to happen when Gentiles were purchased by the descendants of Abraham, as we have been purchased and belong to Jesus (a descendent of Abraham).

Have you actually looked at what promises and covenants we became heirs to as heirs of Abraham. Many Christians like the idea of being an heir of Abraham, but don't really know the details of their inheritance. When you read with them the passages that talk about the actual inheritance and promises they have inherited from Abraham, they get a funny look on their face and feel awkward because they don't value the actual inheritance of Abraham that belongs to the heirs of Abraham. Many aren't interested in the Land given to Abraham, don't want the sign of God's covenant with Abraham, and really don't want to be associated with the Jewish relatives of Abraham. Becoming "one" with Jesus may be okay, but actually becoming one with the Jews is kind of repulsive to many.

The proponents of genderless public bathrooms probably love the verse you quoted, but the verse doesn't actually mean that those who belong to Messiah are no longer male or female, no longer Jew or Gentile, no longer slave or free. And it doesn't mean that the actual descendants of Abraham have been somehow disinherited. It means that our place in the congregation of believers comes from belonging to Christ rather than from our genetics or economic status.

[phkrause]

I think you are trying to make a distinction between following the Law of Moses and following the so-called "ceremonial law". There is no category of law that Scripture calls "ceremonial law". It's all part of God's Law given to Moses.

So I take it that your saying that the 10 Commandments are at the same level as the other instructions that God gave to Moses? In this I'm not in agreement with you on. If that was the case than why did God have Moses place the 10 Commandments into the Ark and have Moses place the other laws or instructions on the outside of the Ark? If they were on the same level or equal in validity, don't you think that God would've had Moses place them with the Commandments in Ark also?

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

The proponents of genderless public bathrooms probably love the verse you quoted, but the verse doesn't actually mean that those who belong to Messiah are no longer male or female, no longer Jew or Gentile, no longer slave or free. And it doesn't mean that the actual descendants of Abraham have been somehow disinherited. It means that our place in the congregation of believers comes from belonging to Christ rather than from our genetics or economic status.

Since he/she who is born again, has the genetics and economic status of their Father in Heaven, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

And this same God who takes care of me will supply all your needs from his glorious riches, which have been given to us in Christ Jesus.

Now all glory to God our Father forever and ever!Amen.

Philippians 4:18-20 NLT

As to the underlined, to try to find some hidden meaning that a child cannot discern is to accept the reasoning of much of the Christian community and the world in general, that one cannot understand the Word for what it plainly states.

"Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive and accept and welcome the kingdom of God like a little child [does] positively shall not enter it at all."

Mark 10:15 AMP Brackets theirs' LHC

God Cares!

[Ron Amnsn]

So I take it that your saying that the 10 Commandments are at the same level as the other instructions that God gave to Moses? In this I'm not in agreement with you on. If that was the case than why did God have Moses place the 10 Commandments into the Ark and have Moses place the other laws or instructions on the outside of the Ark? If they were on the same level or equal in validity, don't you think that God would've had Moses place them with the Commandments in Ark also?

No, that's not what I'm trying to say, and really what I say about God's Law isn't of much consequence -- what matters is what God has said.

My current understanding is that the Ten Words are the Covenant document between God (the Great King) and the Israelites (the vassal nation). God's side of the covenant is contained in the words "I am YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.", which is a powerful summary of God's role in the relationship. Israel's role in the covenant is summarized in the rest of the Ten Words. The Ten Words were placed inside the Ark, because that's what the "Ark of the Covenant" is for -- it's the box for holding the Covenant document.

The detailed instructions for the vassal nation were given to Moses and written on the scroll of the law that was placed with the Ark in the Most Holy Place.

God doesn't tell us why the scroll of the law was not placed inside the Ark of the Covenant. There are some sensible reasons why God may have done it that way, but those are merely speculation. The only reason God gives is that the scroll would be a witness/testimony among/to the Israelites.

Some of the speculative reasons why God may have had the scroll of the law placed beside the Ark instead of inside the Ark could be:

- The scroll of the law was not the Covenant document, so it wasn't necessary in the Ark of the Covenant.

- It is possible that items put into the Ark were intended to stay there permanently as a reflection of the permanence of the Covenant.

- Had it been placed inside the Ark, it may have been impossible for the scroll to fulfill the role of witness/testimony that God designated for the scroll of the law.

- According to the instructions God gave in Deut 17:18, the scroll had to be available for each new king of Israel to write a handwritten copy of it under the supervision of the priests (as Moses had written the original scroll under the supervision of God).

- Items placed into the Ark may have become too holy for non-priests to touch, making it impossible or too dangerous for each new king to be able to write his copy.

- There may not have been enough room inside the Ark for the scroll and its rods.

- The parchment made from dead animal skins may have not been appropriate in a place as holy as the interior of the Ark.

- The parchment of the scroll may have stunk in a small enclosed space like the interior of the Ark.

- The number of stone tablets necessary for putting the whole Law of Moses inside the Ark would have made the Ark too heavy for the priests to carry.

- God instructed that a copy of the contents of the scroll of the Law were to be written on stone after the Israelites entered the Land of Canaan (Deut 27:2-3), so the scroll needed to be available for that work.

- God knew that the the Ark would later be lost in battle and He may have wanted to ensure that the scroll of the law would not be lost as Aaron's rod and the manna were lost from inside the Ark.

When Jesus identified the greatest commandment of the Law he chose Deut 6:4-5, which was not part of the Ten Words placed inside the Ark of the Covenant but rather was one of God's many commandments that were written in the scroll of the law placed beside the Ark. For the second-greatest commandment Jesus chose Leviticus 19:18, which also was not one of the Ten Words inside the Ark, but was one of God's many commandments written on the scroll of the law.

[LynnDel]

If that was the case than why did God have Moses place the 10 Commandments into the Ark and have Moses place the other laws or instructions on the outside of the Ark? If they were on the same level or equal in validity, don't you think that God would've had Moses place them with the Commandments in Ark also?

I am trying to understand this. In every other place in the Bible, we understand the word of God, what God says, to be something we listen to and pay attention to, as it contains truth and guidance for us. So here we have the 10 commandments in the holiest spot in the Most Holy place, and the rest of the law that describes the details of how to keep the 10 commandments in a place nearby, still in the Most Holy Place, yet they are less valid than other words God has committed to his prophets, words that never were stored anywhere near the Most Holy Place? I am trying to understand the concept of various levels of validity of God's word. It seems like a dangerous idea.

Just thinking here...

LD

[joeb]

I think you are trying to make a distinction between following the Law of Moses and following the so-called "ceremonial law". There is no category of law that Scripture calls "ceremonial law". It's all part of God's Law given to Moses.

Where do you get the idea that the Jews in Isaiah 58 were following the so-called "ceremonial law" to the letter. It doesn't say that in anywhere in Isaiah 58. And Isaiah 57 says they were killing children in the ravine with their offerings (verses 5 and 6). That certainly is not how God told them to offer sacrifices.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

I am trying to understand the concept of various levels of validity of God's word. It seems like a dangerous idea.

I would suggest not so much when the idea that there is something called "present Truth" that is perfectly valid when certain events happen that demand definite answers now for the present circumstances, but would be irrelevant at other times.

Take for instance this command given by God when Adam and Eve were first created and cautions were needed for their eternal safety.

"...but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”"Genesis 2:17 NASB

While the principle will be ever valid, there will come a time and circumstance when the entire created universe and its' inhabitants will not only have characters that don't respond to that overt offensive appeal, but we have this promise that will be valid from then onward, without end and that is not now effective, as the world we live in attests to now, not to mention our own characters at present.

"But he will sweep away his enemies

in an overwhelming flood.

He will pursue his foes

into the darkness of night.

Why are you scheming against the Lord?

He will destroy you with one blow;

he won’t need to strike twice!

His enemies, tangled like thornbushes

and staggering like drunks,

will be burned up like dry stubble in a field." Nahum 1:8-10 NLT

One point that stands out in the NLT that is not so obvious in other translations, is the clear spoken evidence that reveals the wicked will not be burning in hellfire for the ceaseless ages of eternity but will be burned up like dry stubble, actually an act of compassion on God's part since it removes the wicked from the accusations the accuser of the brethren places to God's account.

"But with an overflowing flood

He will make a complete end of its site,

And will pursue His enemies into darkness.

Whatever you devise against the Lord,

He will make a complete end of it.

Distress will not rise up twice.

Like tangled thorns,

And like those who are drunken with their drink,

They are consumed

As stubble completely withered."Nahum 1:8-10 NASB

God cares!

[Ron Amnsn]

I don't see how you can avoid the plain words of Isaiah 58. God said their sacrifices, feasts, fasting, etc... were all an abomination because in the very day they were doing these things they were missing the entire point God wanted them to learn by following these rites and ceremonies.

JoeB,

I've been talking about Isaiah 58. The passage you quoted appears to be from Isaiah chapter 1 rather than chapter 58. I will respond to your questions in regard to Isaiah 1 when I get time.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

I don't see how you can avoid the plain words of Isaiah 58. God said their sacrifices, feasts, fasting, etc... were all an abomination because in the very day they were doing these things they were missing the entire point God wanted them to learn by following these rites and ceremonies.

JoeB,

I've been talking about Isaiah 58. The passage you quoted appears to be from Isaiah chapter 1 rather than chapter 58. I will respond to your questions in regard to Isaiah 1 when I get time.

You are right. It was Isaiah 1, not Isaiah 58. But, the same message is in chapter 58 too. It's all throughout Isaiah.

[Ron Amnsn]

I am trying to understand this. In every other place in the Bible, we understand the word of God, what God says, to be something we listen to and pay attention to, as it contains truth and guidance for us. So here we have the 10 commandments in the holiest spot in the Most Holy place, and the rest of the law that describes the details of how to keep the 10 commandments in a place nearby, still in the Most Holy Place, yet they are less valid than other words God has committed to his prophets, words that never were stored anywhere near the Most Holy Place? I am trying to understand the concept of various levels of validity of God's word. It seems like a dangerous idea.

I agree.

[Guest]

Ron, back to your idea that the sacrificial system never came to an end:

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

God gave a not so subtle hint that it had come to an end, when He ripped the dividing curtain in the temple from top to bottom. Unless the priests took a big needle and thread and repaired what God had done, the sanctuary service could not go on.

Surely you agree that the sacrificial system pointed forward the the true sacrifice that Jesus would make with his own body? Even though you contend that nobody knew it, since it wasn't spelled out in those exact words.

But even if that were the case, that they really didn't know what it was for, then at least you would have to agree that it became apparent in hindsight, after Jesus' death. At least to the ones who believed that Jesus was the Son of God.

Why then would you have them to keep offering sacrifices, and pointing forward to something that had already taken place? Jesus Himself said "It is finished".

I can see how the ones who never accepted Christ would maybe keep doing this, but they are not in the Kingdom of God any longer, and cannot be saved without accepting Christ. Jesus was very plain about this, as were the rest of the NT writers. The only way to salvation is through Jesus.

Do you dispute that also? What say you?

[Gibs]

Also RLH I think they would have much trouble getting God to come back into their temple or any temple of men since. That veil torn from top to bottom showed that He in disgust "tore" out of there never to return.

It, the worship is now by His Spirit, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth that Jesus prayed and the Father sent Him, and then Jesus told us, "I will be with you alway"

Mt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Then He told us too how the worship would have to be, notice "MUST",

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

[Ron Amnsn]

I don't see how you can avoid the plain words of Isaiah [1]. God said their sacrifices, feasts, fasting, etc... were all an abomination because in the very day they were doing these things they were missing the entire point God wanted them to learn by following these rites and ceremonies.

Quote:

Isaiah [1]:10 ¶Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.*n6

12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?*n7

13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.*n8

14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.*n9*n10

16 ¶Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;

17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.*n11

18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:

20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

God didn't accuse them of sacrificing to other Gods. He just said that all of their rites were meaningless because they were missing the point. They were in rebellion, yet following the rites and ceremonies the law of Moses said they should follow.

[Ron Amnsn]

You want to make a big deal out of me calling it the ceremonial law rather than the law of Moses. Who cares what it is is called? It's the same thing. It's the law of ordinances, the law of ceremonies, that Moses included in his law that was placed outside the ark of the covenant. It's the law of blessings and cursings. Blessings if God's rules were followed, and cursings if it wasn't. God is telling the Jews in Isaiah 58 that just following the rites and ceremonies isn't good enough.

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

I am trying to understand the concept of various levels of validity of God's word. It seems like a dangerous idea.

I would suggest not so much when the idea that there is something called "present Truth" that is perfectly valid when certain events happen that demand definite answers now for the present circumstances, but would be irrelevant at other times.