The Disciples' Message Forgotten

[Ron Amnsn]

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

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

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.

Yes, God did modify the configuration of the Temple by tearing the veil, apparently making the two compartments of the sanctuary into one room.

If the Jewish leaders had totally accepted Jesus as the Messiah, do you think God would still have torn the veil in the Temple when Jesus died?

It is possible that the tearing of the veil would interrupt the Temple services. God had interrupted the Temple services before, with the intensity of his presence (2Chron 5:14) and with the destruction brought by Nebuchadnezzar's army. Such interruptions did not indicate that God wanted the services in the Temple to stop permanently.

It is possible that the priests, lacking other instructions from God about what to do in such a situation, may have sewn the veil back together. Or they could have continued the services with the veil torn.

The Scriptures do not say anything about the significance of that event, except that the veil represented the body of Messiah. Maybe (just speculation), if the veil was repaired or restored, the repairing of the veil would represent the resurrection of Messiah.

[Ron Amnsn]

Surely you agree that the sacrificial system pointed forward the the true sacrifice that Jesus would make with his own body?

[Ron Amnsn]

Why then would you have them to keep offering sacrifices, and pointing forward to something that had already taken place?

This question seems elementary. It's not me who would have them keep offering sacrifices. It is written in the Scriptures.

The primary reason for the sacrifices to continue is because God told the priests to offer the sacrifices throughout the generations of the Israelites. (Searching in your Bible software for "throughout" and "generations" will give you a long list of applicable verses.)

God never told the priests to stop offering the sacrifices. If they stopped without direct instructions from God they would be disobedient.

Genesis 22 gives us an example of what God does when he wants someone to stop offering a sacrifice that God instructed them to offer:

But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (Gen 22:11-12)

God didn't just give Abraham a hint or do something symbolic to have Abraham figure out that he should not continue the sacrifice. God told Abraham very clearly. In the typical Hebrew fashion, God gave the same message in two different ways, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad" and "do nothing to him". God is still capable of giving clear instructions like that. But God has never instructed the priests to stop offering sacrifices in the Temple at Jerusalem.

The prophecy at the end of Daniel 9, which was fulfilled by the armies of Titus four decades after the death of Messiah, speaks of the sacrifices being stopped, but does so in a way that indicates the stoppage was not a good event.

[Guest]

Which of the many lessons taught by the sacrificial system became no longer true after the death of Jesus?

[Guest]

God never told the priests to stop offering the sacrifices.

That's because God never told the priests ANYTHING after they killed His Son. Good or bad. Ripping the curtain from top to bottom was the last of the telling for them.

[Ron Amnsn]

Jesus Himself said "It is finished".

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

are you suggesting that it would be fine to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? I think you are not. But what you are writing does not at all support the idea that truth (whether it be "present truth" or the Word of God) can somehow morph into falsehood or irrelevance.

There will be no tree of the knowledge of good and evil when Eden is restored to this earth, therefor irrelevant to our continuing holiness.

Quote:

"Between the school established in Eden at the beginning and the school of the hereafter there lies the whole compass of this world’s history—the history of human transgression and suffering, of divine sacrifice, and of victory over death and sin. Not all the conditions of that first school of Eden will be found in the school of the future life. No tree of knowledge of good and evil will afford opportunity for temptation. No tempter is there, no possibility of wrong. Every character has withstood the testing of evil, and none are longer susceptible to its power.... Restored to His presence, man will again, as at the beginning, be taught of God. "

{Mar 363.2}

"What do you conspire against the Lord? He will make an utter end of it. Affliction will not rise up a second time."Nahum 1:9 NKJV

God cares!

[Ron Amnsn]

Also RLH I think they would have much trouble getting God to come back into their temple or any temple of men since.

[Ron Amnsn]

There will be no tree of the knowledge of good and evil when Eden is restored to this earth, therefor irrelevant to our continuing holiness.

Quote:

"Between the school established in Eden at the beginning and the school of the hereafter there lies the whole compass of this world’s history—the history of human transgression and suffering, of divine sacrifice, and of victory over death and sin. Not all the conditions of that first school of Eden will be found in the school of the future life. No tree of knowledge of good and evil will afford opportunity for temptation. No tempter is there, no possibility of wrong. Every character has withstood the testing of evil, and none are longer susceptible to its power.... Restored to His presence, man will again, as at the beginning, be taught of God. "

{Mar 363.2}

The author that you quote makes it evident that she believes it would still be sinful to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, if it were present. There is no evidence that God's original prohibition concerning that tree of temptation was temporary or has been removed.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

Which of the many lessons taught by the sacrificial system became no longer true after the death of Jesus?

It's no longer true that you need to keep killing lambs! Why would you do that? The true Lamb has been sacrificed. All it would be now is senseless killing! Unnecessary killing.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnson

God never told the priests to stop offering the sacrifices.

That's because God never told the priests ANYTHING after they killed His Son. Good or bad. Ripping the curtain from top to bottom was the last of the telling for them.

As you know, the Scriptures do not say what you are asserting.

I think you are lumping all of the priests in with the chief priests that opposed Jesus. Remember there were a great number of priests that accepted Jesus as Messiah. (Acts 6:7) Why would God refuse to communicate with them?

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

There is no evidence that God's original prohibition concerning that tree of temptation was temporary or has been removed.

Also there is no evidence beyond anecdotal that Jesus lives in people's hearts and can change lives. Sorry you don't believe. Our salvation depends upon it.

"So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”"

Acts 16:31 NKJV

"Indeed, the Sovereign Lord never does anything until he reveals his plans to his servants the prophets."

Amos 3:7 NLT

God cares!

[Ron Amnsn]

Sorry you don't believe. Our salvation depends upon it.

What is it that I don't believe? You're writing in riddles again.

[joeb]

I think you are mistaken about the people in this chapter following the rites and ceremonies of the Laws of Moses that God said they should follow.

When God taught the Israelites to keep the Biblical feasts in Leviticus 23, God called those events "My appointed times" and "the LORD's appointed times". (Some Bible versions use the word "feasts" instead of "appointed times").

Quote:

The LORD spoke again to Moses, saying, "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'The LORD'S appointed times which you shall proclaim as holy convocations--My appointed times are these:

'For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, a holy convocation. You shall not do any work; it is a sabbath to the LORD in all your dwellings.

'These are the appointed times of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at the times appointed for them.

'In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the LORD'S Passover.

(Lev 23:1-5 NASB)

'These are the appointed times of the LORD which you shall proclaim as holy convocations, to present offerings by fire to the LORD--burnt offerings and grain offerings, sacrifices and drink offerings, each day's matter on its own day-- besides those of the sabbaths of the LORD, and besides your gifts and besides all your votive and freewill offerings, which you give to the LORD. (Lev 23:37-38 NASB)

So Moses declared to the sons of Israel the appointed times of the LORD. (Lev 23:44 NASB)

Now, look at the passage from Isaiah 1 that you quoted. What does God call those feasts that were happening then? God calls them "Your feasts" rather than "My feasts". Whatever they were doing, it was not what God had instructed. Maybe they had brought the pagan shrines into the Temple as they did in Jeremiah's day.

There are many more indicators within the immediate context of Isaiah 1 that shows the people were not being obedient to the instructions that God had given.

"they have revolted against Me" Isaiah 1:2

"Alas, sinful nation, People weighed down with iniquity, Offspring of evildoers, Sons who act corruptly! They have abandoned the LORD, They have despised the Holy One of Israel, They have turned away from Him." Isaiah 1:4

Then God addresses the leaders of Judah as "You rulers of Sodom" and "you people of Gomorrah". (verse 10)

There's no way that the people addressed in Isaiah 1 were carefully following God's instructions in the Law of Moses (unless you also believe that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had somehow been following the Law of Moses when they were destroyed by God).

You would have to really twist and stretch this passage to infer that God was rebuking the leaders for obedience, when God himself says they were rebellious, doing evil, and acting corruptly.

Ron,

If you start at verse 11 it's plain all the cermemonies and rites were done as worship towards God. They were following Moses' law. The description of "your" feasts and ceremonies is simply an extension of the thought that none of their worship was acceptable to God because the people offering up all the worship were deliberately harboring sin in their hearts.

This isn't the first time people in the OT were told God wanted pure hearts, not sacrifices. David says this in Psalms. Isaiah says it in Isaiah 43:22-28 as well as Isaiah 58. It's repeated in Hosea 6:6.

The message just didn't get through to the vast majority of the Isrealites/Jews. They were often stuck in the legalistic interpretation of the law of Moses' rites and ceremonies even when they thought they were worshipping God.

Just like in Christ's day. They followed the rites and ceremonies, but anything in the law of Moses that had to do with the condition of their hearts they found ways around. Legalism always does. The message of Psalm 34:18, Psalm 51:17, Isaiah 57:15, and Isaiah 66:2 was lost to them. So, when Christ came preaching an internal righteousness of the heart they rejected the message and the Messenger. This is what Paul was talking about in I Corinthians 3:13-15.

[Ron Amnsn]

If you start at verse 11 it's plain all the cermemonies and rites were done as worship towards God.

[joeb]

Quote:

Are you trying to differentiate here between God's law and Moses' law? (Many people try to make that artificial distinction. You may not be trying to do that.) The Law of Moses was created by God. It was written in a scroll (or book) called the "Scroll of the Law" and placed in the Most Holy Place beside the Ark of the Covenant.

Let's deal with this first, then we can go back and deal with the rest.

Moses differentiated between "his" law and God's eternal law when he instructed the Levites to store "his" law outside the ark, and God's eternal law was stored inside the ark.

One was a temporary law that dealt with the civil government of Isreal and the rites and ceremonies that pointed forward to Christ and His sacrifice. God's eteranal law was just that, eternal. It had always been in force, and always will be in force.

Two different laws. Two different purposes.

[LynnDel]

The below is what is taught by churches who do not believe in keeping the Seventh-day Sabbath. This is the very reason that the World Wide Church of God turned its back on the Sabbath. We have to be very careful how we "divide the word of truth."

Quote:

The annulment of the Mosaic Law was total in nature. The Bible never speaks of portions of the Law being "carried over" into the New Covenant. As the Hebrew writer reminds us, the giving of the New Covenant "has made the first obsolete" (Hebrews 8:13).

This includes even the Ten Commandments, as Paul makes clear in 2 Corinthians 3:6-9. In that passage Paul states that we are "servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." He then refers to the "letters engraved on stones" as a "ministry of death" (verse 7) and a "ministry of condemnation" (verse 9).

The "letters engraved on stones" is a direct reference to the Ten Commandments. Those were the only commandments in the Law of Moses that were written on stone by the finger of God. All the rest of the remaining 603 commands were written down by Moses at the instruction of God.

Does this mean the Ten Commandments are no longer applicable to Christians? Not necessarily. It means that as part of the Law of Moses they no longer apply. But any of them that are incorporated in the Law of Christ do apply — and the fact of the matter is that nine of the ten have been included in the New Covenant and have even been expanded to cover our thought life (see for example, Matthew 5:21-48). The only one that is not mentioned in the New Covenant is the command to keep the Sabbath.

If anyone has time, looking over the remaining 603 commands is very interesting. A lot of them are followed by Christians and even non-Christians today.

As Seventh-day Adventists, we need to understand the eternal nature of the Everlasting Covenant of God. The identity and meaning of the old and new covenants are the basis on which our beliefs are being attacked today.

LD

[joeb]

If anyone has time, looking over the remaining 603 commands is very interesting. A lot of them are followed by Christians and even non-Christians today.

As Seventh-day Adventists, we need to understand the eternal nature of the Everlasting Covenant of God. The identity and meaning of the old and new covenants are the basis on which our beliefs are being attacked today.

LD

LynnDel,

I'm not quite sure I understand your position. Are you saying the Mosaic law has always existed and was in force in heaven before creation, and will always exist? Or, are you recognizing its temporary nature?

Excluding the Sabbath using the Mosaic law as an excuse is quite a twist of scripture.

[JoeMo]

I understand that some people see a difference between the Mosaic Law (which we are not required to keep in order to be saved) and God's Law (which we must keep perfectly in order to be saved), can someone explain to me what the following verses mean?

" Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.(2 Cor. 3:6-10)"

Is Paul calling the Law "engraven in stone" the ministration of death and condemnation? Isn't the Law "engraven in stone" the 10 Commandments?

This seems to say that the glory of the 10 Commandments was fading even in Paul's times - much like the glory faded from Moses' face after he came down the mountain.

For the record, I am NOT advocating dissolution of the 10 Commandments - I am asking what the verses mean.

[joeb]

I understand that some people see a difference between the Mosaic Law (which we are not required to keep in order to be saved) and God's Law (which we must keep perfectly in order to be saved), can someone explain to me what the following verses mean?

" Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.(2 Cor. 3:6-10)"

Is Paul calling the Law "engraven in stone" the ministration of death and condemnation? Isn't the Law "engraven in stone" the 10 Commandments?

This seems to say that the glory of the 10 Commandments was fading even in Paul's times - much like the glory faded from Moses' face after he came down the mountain.

For the record, I am NOT advocating dissolution of the 10 Commandments - I am asking what the verses mean.

IICorinthians 3:3

[JoeMo]

Quote:

IICorinthians 3:3

Great verse. It seems to say 'they will know we are Christians by our love" rather than "... by our obedience".

[joeb]

Quote:

IICorinthians 3:3

Great verse. It seems to say 'they will know we are Christians by our love" rather than "... by our obedience".

[Guest]

You're right joeb. Absolutely!

The law is written in my heart, so now I'm going to toss it aside? No need to keep it anymore? I don't think so! What foolishness.

[Guest]

Who would be better able to keep the law? Someone with it written in their heart, or someone who does not have it in their heart?

[Gibs]

The thing of it is, IF, it is written in the heart it is the love of that heart to do it. We do what we love to do most! If it the law of love is in our hearts, it is our delight to do it all. No burden, no yoke or galling or straining!