The law in Galatians

[Ron Amnsn]

I'm very familiar with Rico Cortes.  He is Hebrew Roots.  He has many very good insights.  I don't agree with his teaching that the Law in Galatians is the Oral Torah of the Pharisees. 

The Oral Torah of the Pharisees was NOT a God-appointed "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ.

I don't listen to a lot of Hebrew Roots teachers, and I've only heard recordings of Rico Cortes twice. I don't think I've ever heard a teacher say that Paul's metaphor of the tutor (or child-conductor) that brings us to Christ was referring only to the man-made oral laws of the Jews. The Jews usually don't separate their man-made laws from the written Law of Moses when talking about the Law. But I believe that Paul was talking primarily about God's whole Law of Moses (which includes the "Ten Commandments" twice) in his metaphor.  

However, I certainly don't agree with the common Christian interpretation of the last part of Galatians 3 that ends up saying that believers no longer need the Law that Paul compared to a schoolmaster.  That interpretation relies on assumptions that are not taught in the Bible: 

• It assumes that the Law was originally given as a means to earn eternal salvation. That is wrong.  Eternal salvation has always been a gift that comes from a relationship with God made possible by the Messiah.
• It assumes that all people who obey the Law are "under the law" in some negative way.  That is wrong.  Once God takes the heart of stone and provides a heart like his own, His Spirit causes a person to fulfill the Law.  "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:26-27)
•  It assumes that when people arrive at Christ, He teaches them to live contrary to the Law.  That is wrong.  Jesus lived perfectly according to the Law of Moses the way God intended it to be lived. While doing so he said emphatically,  "I am the Way", and "the Life", and "the Truth". Jesus also said, "follow me." When we come to Jesus, it is his kind of Torah-observant life that we will observe in Him and emulate.
• It assumes that when "faith has come" it is the kind of faith that we have in the English language which can exist without faithfulness. Wrong again.  In both Greek and Hebrew the word translated as "faith" also carries the meaning of "faithfulness".  Faith and faithfulness are two sides of the same coin and cannot be separated.  In James 2 it tells us that faith without works is useless and dead.  When "faith (with faithfulness) has come" as a result of coming to Christ, a person no longer relates to the Law as something they want to resist as a child might resist the training or instruction of a schoolmaster.
• It assumes that those who "are all sons of God" will somehow behave differently than the Son of God behaved. That is also wrong.  In John 8:39 Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders when they claimed to be children of Abraham, "If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did."  A similar thing is true of the sons of God -- they will be doing the works that Messiah did.

We all realize that successful students don't forget the important lessons they learn in school, discarding them as soon as they are no longer "under the schoolmaster".  Would you want the services of a surgeon who boasted that since he was no longer under his schoolmasters he was no longer subject to the principles of cleanliness that his professors had taught him.  Yeah, that would be nonsense.  So are some of the interpretations people try to spin from Paul's schoolmaster metaphor.
 

[Ron Amnsn]

Rico teaches that the ENTIRE LAW - including the sacrifice of prescribed animals - will continue as soon as a Temple is restored on the Mount.  Only descendants of Aaron, who are also "sons of Zadok" will act as priests (which means that Aaron himself could NOT be a priest).

It looks like your parenthetical comment is assuming that Rico is talking about after Aaron is resurrected. That's a possibility.  But it's also possible that Rico believes like lots of whole-Bible believers and would be talking about a time period after the Temple is rebuilt but before the righteous are resurrected.

[Ron Amnsn]

While I agree that this is not a passage that by itself one should take as permission to disregard those rules.   However, there are a number of other passages that do tend to support that the rules of clean vs. unclean were no longer imposed upon the church.  These were among the ceremonial laws, along with circumcision, etc. But the clear purpose of that dream was to break down one real aspect of the rues as they had been practiced among the Jews, fellowshipping with Gentiles that were considered a violation of those rules just as much as eating unclean animals.  

There are a number of passages that could be construed to suggest that the instructions regarding clean and unclean that God gave to his people were no longer relevant.  However, all of those passages taken in the full context can also be interpreted in ways that are totally in agreement with what God instructed Moses.  How a person takes those passages depends on the person's attitude toward God's Law: 

• Scripture says God's Law is good and a blessing. (Psalm 119, etc.)
• Man-made tradition says we're better off without parts of God's Law. 

Hmm...  Which should we believe?  This seems almost identical to the choice Eve faced.  Do we believe God's Word, or do we believe the other voice?

There was an important distinction between the rules of clean and unclean foods and the rules of not associating with Gentiles.  The first were given by God, and the second were not. The rules that Peter needed to set aside so he could go to Cornelius' house were only man-made traditions. The Torah does not prohibit Israelites from associating with Gentiles or entering the homes of Gentiles.  God had never declared that Gentiles were unclean in the way that Jewish tradition did. 

[8thdaypriest]

Personally,

I don't EAT carnivores, bottom feeders, or scavengers.  Just makes good sense.  Those were created for purposes OTHER than consumption. 

Edited June 23, 2015 by 8thdaypriest

[8thdaypriest]

I agree that THE WHOLE LAW - moral and ceremonial - was our "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ.   I believe that God's Law will be written on our hearts.  It won't "go away". 

Where I DIFFER with you Ron, is concerning "the priesthood".  THAT is where God has made a "change", that was planned - to fulfill prophecy.  

THE PRIESTHOOD HAS BEEN CHANGED

        I am not a male descendant of Levi.  According to the Law of Moses, I cannot be a priest.  But Scripture teaches plainly that all of the redeemed from the Second Coming will become priests.  The order of the priesthood MUST have been changed.  

    Hebrews 7:12-19  “For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law . . . For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.  And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.  For He testifies: ‘You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.’  For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.”

    The law - concerning the priesthood - is ANNULLED.  The Melchizedek priesthood is NOT added to the Levite/Aaronic priesthood - so that a Heavenly priesthood ministers WHILE an earthly Aaronic priesthood also ministers.   The Melchizedek priesthood REPLACES the Aaronic.   It replaces that (temporary) order!  Or we could say - It is the fulfillment of that prophecy.

If you ANNUL the command which said that every sacrifice must be brought to an Aaronic priest, then you have also ANNULLED the system of animal sacrifice!!! 

     This is all a repetition of our thread on The End of Sacrifices.  I post it here because you repetitious posting that we must obey the ENTIRE LAW, ignores this passage.  "There is an annulling of the former commandment."   You can either deny the inspiration of the Book of Hebrews, or you must admit that a commandment HAS been ANNULLED.  

TIL ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED

[Yeshua speaking] “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is accomplished.” (ASV) 

Hebrew Roots teachers always immediately quote Matthew 5:17-18.  They say that "heaven and earth" have not yet passed away, therefore no part of the Law could be "changed" or "annulled".  OK - but that directly contradicts the verse in Hebrews.  So we need to look for a way to reconcile the two passages.  I believe the way to reconcile them, is to say that all was "fulfilled" - of the Law (lived perfectly in Jesus) and of the Law (as a prophecy of Messiah's sacrificial death as the Lamb of God. 

    Luke 24:44 [Speaking post resurrection] “Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms concerning me.”

The words quoted in Matthew 5:17-18 WERE THOSE WORDS - "spoken to you while I was still with you".  And those words say "all things . . . concerning me." 

ALL WAS FULFILLED - concerning Jesus earthly life, and sacrificial death.  NOT every prophecy of any kind, which involves Christ, clear thru eternity must be fulfilled before anything can "pass from the law".  At the very least - the Law can be "changed" when heaven and earth pass away" - which happens at the Second Coming.  So we will NOT have animal sacrifice going on under an Aaronic priesthood, during the millennium or in the New Earth Kingdom. 

The Law was not “destroyed” - it was“fulfilled.”  We still live under a sacrificial system. We just have a better sacrifice, and we have a better priest - Yeshua Messiah!

    Acts 13:29 “Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb.”

They "fulfilled ALL THAT WAS WRITTEN concerning Him" on the day of His death.

    John 19:28-30 “After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, 'I am thirsty.' . . .  He said, 'It is finished!' And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.”

[8thdaypriest]

I know.  I know.  You will point out that the early believers in Jerusalem were "zealous for the Law" and were offering sacrifice at the Temple.  And James talked Paul into paying for the sacrifices for 4 others.  (Acts Cpt 20 and 21). 

THEY WERE WRONG Ron.  That is WHY the author of The Letter to the Hebrews, wrote to them - to correct their LACK of understanding, concerning the priesthood. 

[8thdaypriest]

Now you're going to point to Exodus 40:13-15, to say that the priesthood was appointed to Aaron, and Phinehas by a grant covenant, as their reward for obedience. 

Exodus 40:13-15   “You [Moses] shall put the holy garments on Aaron, and anoint him and consecrate him, that he may minister to Me as priest.  And you shall bring his sons and clothe them with tunics.  You shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may minister to Me as priests; for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.”

I do NOT BELIEVE this was an everlasting "grant" promise.  It was a "blood covenant". 

    The House of Aaron entered into a blood covenant with Yahweh! Death would be the punishment for breaking this covenant! The LORD appointed Aaron and his descendants to an “everlasting priesthood,” but they did not continue in righteousness.  They despised the LORD and abused their role as priests.  A man of God came to Eli, with a prophecy and a curse.  The LORD would bring an end to their priesthood.  The promise to Aaron and his descendants was a conditional blood covenant promise - based upon their obedience to that covenant.  By their actions, they despised that covenant!  Their priesthood was forfeit!

    The LORD keeps His covenant with those who love Him, and obey His commandments (Deut. 7:9, Isa. 56:6, Dan. 9:4). “Covenant” by definition, is a pledge, an agreement, a treaty, an understanding or obligation entered into by at least two individuals.  The LORD is not bound to honor His covenant with those who despise Him, and violate (without repentance) the terms of that covenant.  

    1 Samuel 2:30-35  “Therefore the LORD God of Israel says: `I said indeed that your house and the house of your father [Aaron] would walk before Me forever.'  But now the LORD says: ‘Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.  Behold, the days are coming that I will cut off your arm and the arm of your father’s house, [Aaron’s House] so that there will not be an old man in your house [a man of eligible age for the priesthood].  And you will see an enemy in My dwelling place, despite all the good which God does for Israel.   And there shall not be an old man in your house forever.  . . .  Then I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest who shall do according to what is in My heart and in My mind. I will build him a sure house, and he shall walk before My anointed forever.’”

    The “faithful priest” would be Yeshua Messiah.  God would “build Him a sure house” and He would walk before the LORD, as His anointed priest - forever (Psa. 110:4).  

    The prophet of God said “You will see an enemy in My dwelling place.”  By the time of Christ, the priesthood was bought and sold.  The High Priest was a Roman appointee.  If you study your history - He was actually an Edomite (descended from Esau).  But I believe this prophecy is pointing to Antichrist of the last days, the “man of sin” who “sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God”(2Th. 2:4). The “abomination that causes desolation” will be set up in the House of God. 

Here's the link to the study "A Kingdom of Priests" at my website.  http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/20-Kingdom of Priests.pdf

And of course, everything is JUST MY OPINION.    Rachel

[8thdaypriest]

It looks like your parenthetical comment is assuming that Rico is talking about after Aaron is resurrected. That's a possibility.  But it's also possible that Rico believes like lots of whole-Bible believers and would be talking about a time period after the Temple is rebuilt but before the righteous are resurrected.

I've read about the Temple Institute trying to trace DNA bloodlines to determine just which men could be priests and high priest.  I don't see any strong evidence that they CAN - with any certainty, trace that line.  The priests in the time of Jesus were Roman appointees.  They were not even descended from Aaron. 

[Ron Amnsn]

    This is all a repetition of our thread on The End of Sacrifices.  I post it here because you repetitious posting that we must obey the ENTIRE LAW, ignores this passage.  "There is an annulling of the former commandment."   You can either deny the inspiration of the Book of Hebrews, or you must admit that a commandment HAS been ANNULLED.

Rachel, if you are teaching truth, why do you falsely accuse me?  I have never once posted that "we must obey the entire law".  Obeying the entire law is impossible because some laws are for men, some for women, some for priests, some for kings, and many laws can only be carried out when the descendants of Aaron officiate as priests in the location where God has placed his name forever.  

You have also set up a false dichotomy. I don't deny the inspiration of the Book of Hebrews, and I don't contradict Scripture by teaching that a commandment has been annulled. Instead, I interpret Hebrews in full context, and I test the proposed interpretations of Hebrews using the same methods that the original recipients of the letter to the Hebrews would have used. 

Frankly, there's nothing in the book of Hebrews that would have even started to convince the Hebrew believers to abandon the Old Testament Scriptures and accept your interpretation of the book of Hebrews instead.  There is plenty in the book of Hebrews to show the Hebrew believers that the sacrifice and priesthood of Jesus is superior to the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices.  (It's a bit like saying an excavator is superior to a spade.  Yet just because excavators are superior, we don't throw out all the spades.)  The book of Hebrews says what kind of "change" occurred in the Law -- a change of location.  It also specifies exactly which commandment did not have jurisdiction because the location of Jesus' priesthood was changed from the location of the Levitical priesthood:

For when the priesthood is changed [in Greek: a change of location], of necessity there takes place a change of law also. For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. (Hebrews 7:12-14 NASB)

Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; (Hebrews 8:4 NASB)

 

[Ron Amnsn]

I know.  I know.  You will point out that the early believers in Jerusalem were "zealous for the Law" and were offering sacrifice at the Temple.  And James talked Paul into paying for the sacrifices for 4 others.  (Acts Cpt 20 and 21). 

THEY WERE WRONG Ron.  That is WHY the author of The Letter to the Hebrews, wrote to them - to correct their LACK of understanding, concerning the priesthood. 

Where in Scripture does it say that those who were "zealous for the Law" were wrong?  It's only the man-made traditions that say they were wrong.

You seem to be telling us that those who followed the Word of God were wrong to do so-- even though they were doing just what the prophet Ezekiel said people would do when God placed his Spirit within them:
"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:26-27)
 

[8thdaypriest]

"Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;" (Hebrews 8:4 NASB)

Jesus could NOT be a priest on the earth, during His earthly life.  He could not be a priest at all - UNTIL the order of priesthood was CHANGED from Aaron Levite TO Melchizedek.   Melchizedek was a priest ON EARTH.  If Jesus is of this ORDER, then He should be able to also be a priest ON EARTH. 

I believe the change involved a change of ORDER, not a change of LOCATION. 

Believers descended from Levi will still be priests in the coming kingdom - just Melchizedek priests - like all the rest of those from the "first resurrection". 

[8thdaypriest]

Where in Scripture does it say that those who were "zealous for the Law" were wrong?  It's only the man-made traditions that say they were wrong.

You seem to be telling us that those who followed the Word of God were wrong to do so-- even though they were doing just what the prophet Ezekiel said people would do when God placed his Spirit within them:
"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:26-27)
 

Ron, you are able - at this forum - to post your interpretation.  Go ahead.  You believe that NOTHING was changed, by the death of Yeshua - concerning the Law.  I believe the priesthood was changed, which means that the Law concerning the priesthood was changed, which abolished the sacrifice of animals.   

I will simply link to the study on that topic at my website. 

I believe that physical circumcision was also a BLOOD covenant ritual.  I believe it was also rendered OBSOLETE by the New Covenant.   

There is a study at my website titled "Circumcision - Under the New Covenant".   Here's the link:  http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/40hc-Circumcision.pdf.

I believe in the NEW COVENANT.  I believe it is NEW - not simply renewed.  And because it is NEW, some things can be changed.

There is a study at my website titled: "Two Covenants".  Here's the link:  http://prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/40-TWO COVENANTS.pdf

Visits to my website always go up when you debate with me on the forum.   So I would certainly NOT tell you to stop posting.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

"Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;" (Hebrews 8:4 NASB)

Jesus could NOT be a priest on the earth, during His earthly life.  He could not be a priest at all - UNTIL the order of priesthood was CHANGED from Aaron Levite TO Melchizedek.   Melchizedek was a priest ON EARTH.  If Jesus is of this ORDER, then He should be able to also be a priest ON EARTH.

Your argument is with the author of Hebrews, not with me.

Pay attention to the sequence in which things happened. 

Hebrews does not say, "When Jesus was on earth..."  Hebrews was written several decades after you claim the big change happened that supposedly annulled the Law, yet it says "Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all."  Jesus was already serving as Melchizedekian Priest in heaven when Hebrews was written, yet it still says that He would not be a priest on earth at that time because there was a valid law still in place at that time that correctly specified who could offer the gifts on earth.

Melchizedek was indeed a priest on earth.  That was before the earthly priesthood was changed from the firstborn to the Levitical priesthood after the incident with the golden calf.  That change shows us what kind of things happen when God actually changes a priesthood.  Melchizedek never officiated at the Tabernacle or Temple when he was on earth.

Jesus was declared "a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" starting way back at the time the Psalms were written.  So we know the two priesthoods can exist at the same time.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, you are able - at this forum - to post your interpretation.  Go ahead. 

Where in Scripture does it say that those who were "zealous for the Law" were wrong?

[Ron Amnsn]

The priests in the time of Jesus were Roman appointees.  They were not even descended from Aaron. 

You must be talking about the high priest.  Luke tells us that at least some of the priests at the time of Jesus were descended from Aaron.
"In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord." (Luke 1:5-6)

I don't have total confidence in using DNA testing to determine eligibility for priesthood at the Temple, but I haven't looked into it at all.  I do have confidence that God knows who the descendants of Aaron are.

[Ron Amnsn]

The priests in the time of Jesus were Roman appointees.  They were not even descended from Aaron. 

Also, Hebrews indicates that there were descendents of Aaron working at the temple when the book of Hebrews was written:
Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; (Hebrews 8:4)

[8thdaypriest]

Ron said,

Melchizedek was indeed a priest on earth.  That was before the earthly priesthood was changed from the firstborn to the Levitical priesthood after the incident with the golden calf.  That change shows us what kind of things happen when God actually changes a priesthood.  Melchizedek never officiated at the Tabernacle or Temple when he was on earth.

Rachel answers:

Wow Ron.  I thought you said that God NEVER CHANGES.  So - it seems that God DOES change His Law - sometimes, in response to the actions of men.  

God's original intention, purpose, and prophecy was for ALL OF ISRAEL to be a "kingdom of priests".  He said just that - from Mt Sinai, when they entered into covenant with Him. 

Exodus 19:5-6  “. . . if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.  And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

But the tribes BROKE the covenant they had JUST entered in to - including Aaron by the way (of the tribe of Levi !!).  There HAD to be some consequence for that idolatry.  The LORD then went to a plan B - the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood. 

The Aaronic/Levite priesthood has ONLY - EVER - been a plan B.  It was NEVER God's original forever plan.   IF the Aaronic/Levite priesthood is the only and forever priesthood on the earth, THEN Satan wins.  Satan permanently derailed God's plan, and God can never bring about His original plan and purpose. 

God's said that ALL OF ISRAEL would be "a kingdom of priests".  Peter repeats this prophecy,

    I Peter 2:5, 9, 10 [Speaking to believers after the resurrection.]  “. . . you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . .  you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation [Israel], His own special people...”

    All faithful believers are grafted into Israel (Ephesians 2, Romans 11), therefore all those delivered at the Second Coming will go on to serve as priests.      The unfaithful will be “cut off” from God's Israel.

Ron said,

Jesus was declared "a Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" starting way back at the time the Psalms were written.  So we know the two priesthoods can exist at the same time.

I believe this was a prophecy Ron.  We all know that a prophecy can speak of something which is not yet - as if it is already accomplished fact. 

You think the Melchizedek ORDER of priesthood was only inherited by all first born males.  No blood sacrifice was required.  No consecration ceremony.  Which would mean that the (firstborn and only) Son of God was declared a priest forever, at the moment He was begotten.  Is THAT what you believe? 

It is interesting that Israel was CALLED God's "firstborn" (Exo 4:22).  That would mean ALL ISRAEL would "inherit" the priesthood.  Right?  And THAT was God's intention. 

So a Melchizedek priest does NOT present blood.  No blood is needed to consecrate a Melchizedek priest.  Just firstborn descent. 

So Ron, you're saying that Jesus was "declared a priest" BEFORE He had any blood to present in Heaven - the "true tabernacle".  BEFORE the Heavenly Tabernacle was anointed with His blood.  He was made a priest BEFORE He went through the consecration ceremony of 7 days - which involved blood anointing (upon completion as which the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost).  You're saying that God the Father declared His Son a priest "BEFORE the creation of anything" ??  Is that right? 

[Ron Amnsn]

I thought you said that God NEVER CHANGES.  So - it seems that God DOES change His Law - sometimes, in response to the actions of men. 

Maybe you are thinking of someone else.  I may have said that ten years ago, before I knew better. 

What I said, that may have sounded similar, is that God doesn't renege on his covenants and promises, and that when God does makes changes to his instructions he does so very plainly-- like when God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and then clearly told Abraham to stop the sacrifice; and when he changed the priesthood from the firstborn to Aaron and his descendents.  Did God ever promise the firstborn a perpetual priesthood? No.

[8thdaypriest]

God promised Israel "the land" and "blessing" and "prosperity" and victory over their enemies - ON CONDITION of obedience to Him.  By their disobedience - Israel forfeit the blessings.  In the same way, the descendants of Aaron reneged on their blood oath. 

    1 Samuel 2:30-35  [Spoken to Eli by the "man of God"]  “Therefore the LORD God of Israel says: `I said indeed that your house [Eli] and the house of your father [Aaron] would walk before Me forever.'  But now the LORD says: ‘Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed. 

Behold, the days are coming that I will cut off your arm and the arm of your father’s house, [Aaron’s House] so that there will not be an old man in your house [a man of eligible age for the priesthood].  . . . And there shall not be an old man in your house forever.  . . . 

This  "curse" was just as "forever" as the appointment to the priesthood was "forever". 

Then I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest [Yeshua] who shall do according to what is in My heart and in My mind. I will build him a sure house, and he shall walk before Me, My anointed forever.’”

Aaronic priests were appointed "according to the law of a fleshly commandment" (Hebrews).  But what happens when this "flesh" is no more.  At the resurrection this "flesh" will be gone, when we are all "changed in a moment". 

The Melchizedek ORDER is "according to the power of an endless life" (Hebrews).  Every redeemed Israelite will have "eternal life" - not just faithful descendants of Aaron. 

[LifeHiscost]

God promised Israel "the land" and "blessing" and "prosperity" and victory over their enemies - ON CONDITION of obedience to Him.  By their disobedience - Israel forfeit the blessings.  In the same way, the descendants of Aaron reneged on their blood oath. 

    1 Samuel 2:30-35  [Spoken to Eli by the "man of God"]  “Therefore the LORD God of Israel says: `I said indeed that your house [Eli] and the house of your father [Aaron] would walk before Me forever.'  But now the LORD says: ‘Far be it from Me; for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed. 

Behold, the days are coming that I will cut off your arm and the arm of your father’s house, [Aaron’s House] so that there will not be an old man in your house [a man of eligible age for the priesthood].  . . . And there shall not be an old man in your house forever.  . . . 

This  "curse" was just as "forever" as the appointment to the priesthood was "forever". 

Then I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest [Yeshua] who shall do according to what is in My heart and in My mind. I will build him a sure house, and he shall walk before Me, My anointed forever.’”

Aaronic priests were appointed "according to the law of a fleshly commandment" (Hebrews).  But what happens when this "flesh" is no more.  At the resurrection this "flesh" will be gone, when we are all "changed in a moment". 

The Melchizedek ORDER is "according to the power of an endless life" (Hebrews).  Every redeemed Israelite will have "eternal life" - not just faithful descendants of Aaron. 

Some confusion of conclusions occurs as a direct result of not properly understanding that "forever" as used in the Word, very often does not mean limitless time.

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Ron Amnsn]

God's original intention, purpose, and prophecy was for ALL OF ISRAEL to be a "kingdom of priests".  He said just that - from Mt Sinai, when they entered into covenant with Him.

Exodus 19:5-6  “. . . if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.  And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

It may be possible that the phrase "kindom of priests" meant that God intended every person in the kingdom to be a priest, as you have interpreted it.  However, it is more likely that God meant something quite different.  The translation of prepositions (such as "of") from one language to another is often not precise. 

In Exodus 19:6 the words "kingdom of" are translated from a single Hebrew word "mamleket", a form of the word "mamlakah".  That same form of the word is used eleven other times in the Old Testament. Let's look at those:

1. Num 32:33 - the kingdom of Sihon
2. Num 32:33 - the kingdom of Og
3. Deut 3:4 - the kingdom of Og
4. Deut 3:10 - the kingdom of Og
5. Deut 3:13 - the kingdom of Og
6. 1 Samuel 24:21 - the kingdom of Israel
7. 2 Chron 13:8 - the kingdom of the Lord
8. 2 Chron 21:4 - the kingdom of his father
9. Jeremiah 27:1 - the reign of Zedekiah
10. Jeremiah 28:1 - the reign of Zedekiah
11. Micah 4:8 - the kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem

In all of these verses the preposition "of" could carry the meaning of ownership, with the word after "of" telling us who owned the "mamlakah".

Several of these refer to a particular piece of land. Two refer to a certain time period.

Do any of the verses above refer to a kingdom made up entirely of a certain type of person?  Maybe number 6 if we stretched the context significantly.

So when God said "you shall be to me a kingdom of priests" it is not likely that he was saying that every individual in the nation would serve as a priest.  Probably God meant that it would be a kingdom presided over by priests, which is what God actually set up in the Law of Moses.  Or he may have meant that it would be a kingdom where the kings were priests.

Even in English when we say, "a kingdom of seafarers" we don't mean that every individual in the nation went to sea.  Rather we mean a nation that contains seafarers along with a bunch of normal people.

[8thdaypriest]

So when God said "you shall be to me a kingdom of priests" it is not likely that he was saying that every individual in the nation would serve as a priest.  Probably God meant that it would be a kingdom presided over by priests, which is what God actually set up in the Law of Moses.  Or he may have meant that it would be a kingdom where the kings were priests.

Not everyone in "the Kingdom" will be a priest.  But EVERY redeemed Israelite from this age, will be a priest. 

In "the kingdom" of Messiah, there will be "nations".  The nations ARE NOT PRIESTS.  The nations will be taught BY and governed BY the priests. 

You believe this will happen at the 7th millennium.  I believe it will happen at the 8th millennium BECAUSE the redeemed Israelites are NOT YET PREPARED to serve as priests when Christ next returns.  The TYPE (Aaron and his "sons") had to complete a 7 DAY CONSECRATION (within the Temple courtyard), and could NOT SERVE as priests UNTIL the 8th day (Exodus Chapter 29:7-35 & Leviticus Chapter 8).  The "eighth day" will be the 8th millennium. 

These priests will NOT all be descended from Aaron, or Levi, or Phinehas, or even Jacob.  They will come out of EVERY nation, kindred, tongue and people.  

Revelation 1:6, Revelation 5:9-10  The twenty four elders [presently in heaven] proclaim that Christ “has made us kings and priests to His God and Father.”

    You Jesus  “were slain”. . . “and have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth.”

    NOTE: These “priests” are redeemed from “every tribe, tongue, people and nation.”   
    They are NOT all Hebrews, much less Levites ! (Rev. 5:9-10)

    NOTE:  They are not reigning yet.  Their consecration will not be complete until “the 8th day.”

    Isaiah 61:4-9  “And they shall rebuild the old ruins.  They shall raise up the former desolations. And they shall repair the ruined cities, the desolations of many generations.  Strangers [non-Israelites] shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the foreigner [non-Israelite] shall be your plowmen and your vine dressers.  But you shall be named the Priests of the LORD.  Men shall call you the Servants of our God.  You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory you shall boast.  Instead of your shame you shall have double honor, and instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion.  Therefore in their land they shall possess double [the inheritance of the firstborn].”  “Everlasting joy shall be theirs.  For I, the LORD, love justice; I hate robbery for burnt offering; I will direct their work in truth, and will make with them an everlasting covenant.  Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people.  All who see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the posterity whom the LORD has blessed.”

    NOTE:  The firstborn inherited a “double portion” (Deut. 22:17). Their inheritance included a “double portion”of the land, AND the “priesthood.”   God said, “Israel is my son, even My firstborn” (Exo. 4:22).  Therefore Israel (all of the redeemed from the first age) will inherit the priesthood.  

    NOTE:  The Levites were given NO inheritance in the land.  Therefore the priesthood presented in this prophecy CANNOT be the Levite priesthood. 

 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

Not everyone in "the Kingdom" will be a priest.  But EVERY redeemed Israelite from this age, will be a priest. 

In "the kingdom" of Messiah, there will be "nations".  The nations ARE NOT PRIESTS.  The nations will be taught BY and governed BY the priests.
...
These priests will NOT all be descended from Aaron, or Levi, or Phinehas, or even Jacob.  They will come out of EVERY nation, kindred, tongue and people.  

Revelation 1:6, Revelation 5:9-10  The twenty four elders [presently in heaven] proclaim that Christ “has made us kings and priests to His God and Father.”

    You Jesus  “were slain”. . . “and have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth.”

    NOTE: These “priests” are redeemed from “every tribe, tongue, people and nation.”   
    They are NOT all Hebrews, much less Levites ! (Rev. 5:9-10)

Rachel.  You may be correct.  But it seems you are building a very large interpretation from some very small fragments of Scripture.

In Revelation 1:6 John was addressing seven churches in what is now Turkey. Although those churches may represent the larger body of believers in all ages, it could be a stretch to claim that John was saying that every believer in a future age would be a priest.  It is certain that none of the members of those seven churches was officiating as priests at the Temple in Jerusalem (which had been destroyed) nor in the Temple in heaven.

In Revelation 5:9-10 It is the 24 elders who are saying "you have made us [or them] priests".  Since the 24 elders are depicted before the throne doing priestly activities, the most direct interpretation would be that it was the 24 elders who had been made priests, rather than saying that every purchased person becomes a priest.  The NET Bible says that the phrase "kingdom and priests" in this passage may mean "priestly kingdom", which could have the same meaning it had in Exodus 19.

[8thdaypriest]

In Rev 5:9-10 the words "made us to be" - priests, is in the Greek aorist tense.  The better translation would read, "are making us to be priests".  The 24 elders were NOT YET priests, at the time John wrote of them.  They will "reign on the earth" - future  - under Christ. 

[Ron Amnsn]

In Rev 5:9-10 the words "made us to be" - priests, is in the Greek aorist tense.  The better translation would read, "are making us to be priests".  The 24 elders were NOT YET priests, at the time John wrote of them.  They will "reign on the earth" - future  - under Christ. 

I am not a Greek scholar at all.  My study tools agree that epoiesas in verse 10 is in the aorist tense in the indicative mood.  However, every explanation I have read regarding the aorist tense in the indicative mood disagrees with your "better translation". That tense and mood seem to be used for events that were finished in the past.  If it wasn't in the indicative mood, there might be reason to push the event into the present or the future. At this point I suspect that your "better translation" is based more on wishful thinking than on a knowledge of Greek.