What is "the handwriting of ordinances" that Christ nailed to the cross?

[8thdaypriest]

8 hours ago, jackson said:

Ron , thanks for taking the time to answer point by point.

i find it difficult to converse with you because you do not use scripture to explain scripture. You go off into what this Jewish sect did vs that sect or how geographical locations had an influence etc etc. I believe one should be able to glean the truth and true meaning of Bible verses by looking to other verses when a verse may be unclear  i  only feel safe when inspired scripture explains inspired scripture.  One can make the Bible say almost anything one desires by using uninspired references to explain inspired verses.

Jackson, 

I guess you'd better throw away every book of Ancient Middle East history.  You'd better throw away every archeology book. 

How can you know the true meaning of every word in the Bible without the context? 

Take the words of Christ to Peter, "Before the [censored] crow, you will deny me thrice."  There WERE no chickens allowed within the City of Jerusalem.  With their constant scratching, the Jews were afraid they would unearth something "unclean" by which they would unknowingly contaminate themselves.  The "[censored]" here, refers to the Temple crier, who announced the opening of the gates of the Temple at dawn. 

And how many times have Ellen White quotations been used to "prove" the true meaning of a Scripture passage?  Her writings are not Scripture. 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/29/2016 at 4:12 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

So Ron, you would equate "all is fulfilled" with the "time of setting things right" ??  WHEN is THAT TIME - in your opinion?  It must be some times AFTER "heaven and earth shall pass away" - so that would put it AFTER the Second Coming.  Right?

Rachel, I take a cautious approach to interpreting prophecy because don't think the primary purpose of prophecy is to foretell the future.  It seems that when people build prophecy charts and timelines, those take on a life of their own and get used as a framework for interpreting all Scripture, so every passage has fit into some man-made interpretation scheme, which puts us in danger of missing what God is really doing (as some of the Jews missed the coming of Messiah because they seemed to be expecting something else).

I read the prophecies so I will recognize the signs and fulfillments as they occur.  I do think about how the prophecies may be fulfilled someday, and I get excited when I see current events lining up with possible fulfillments.  But I don't generally tell people how or when prophecies will be fulfilled, because such teachings are just human speculation, and so very often the speculations distract from what is actually written in God's Word.  Time after time through history and in my lifetime, people have predicted some event is due happen because of their own prophetic interpretations, and those predictions have turned out to be false.  People who were caught up in the excitement lose faith in God's Word (when they should really just lose faith in prophetic speculation).   So I generally look at prophecy with my eyes wide open and my mouth mostly shut.

It is possible that heaven and earth may pass away at the second coming.  It is possible that the prophecies contained in the Prophets may all be fulfilled at that time.  I don't think we should decide ahead of time what will be fulfilled -- instead we should plan to examine the evidence as things happen.  Yes, it is perhaps possible that after the second coming there may be changes to God's Law.  Personally, I'm not in a hurry to have changes to God's Law because God's Law is fine the way God made it.

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I read the prophecies so I will recognize the signs and fulfillments as they occur.  I do think about how the prophecies may be fulfilled someday, and I get excited when I see current events lining up with possible fulfillments.  But I don't generally tell people how or when prophecies will be fulfilled, because such teachings are just human speculation, and so very often the speculations distract from what is actually written in God's Word.  Time after time through history and in my lifetime, people have predicted some event is due happen because of their own prophetic interpretations, and those predictions have turned out to be false.  People who were caught up in the excitement lose faith in God's Word (when they should really just lose faith in prophetic speculation).   So I generally look at prophecy with my eyes wide open and my mouth mostly shut.

I wish I could comply with the latter part of this statement.  I too believe that we won't really know how prophecy will be fulfilled until it is being fulfilled.  I have a hard time with focusing on just a single interpretation (e.g., the papacy MUST be the antichrist/beast/ harlot to the exclusion of all other scenarios).  There are so many alternative scenarios.  I try to keep my mind open to the alternatives (such as radical Islam; but I am working on controlling my rants).

[8thdaypriest]

7 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I wish I could comply with the latter part of this statement.  I too believe that we won't really know how prophecy will be fulfilled until it is being fulfilled.  I have a hard time with focusing on just a single interpretation (e.g., the papacy MUST be the antichrist/beast/ harlot to the exclusion of all other scenarios).  There are so many alternative scenarios.  I try to keep my mind open to the alternatives (such as radical Islam; but I am working on controlling my rants).

OK - so how 'bout if I just say that I DON'T KNOW for absolutely certain - couldn't be anything else but - sure how the prophecies concerning the last days will play out.  I say that from my study, at this point in time, this is where I feel the weight of the evidence is pointing.  

'Cause if we don't talk about the prophecies AT ALL, then those who are teaching a "secret rapture" and such will be the only ones teaching.  Is THAT all we want folks to hear? 

[JoeMo]

58 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

'Cause if we don't talk about the prophecies AT ALL, then those who are teaching a "secret rapture" and such will be the only ones teaching.  Is THAT all we want folks to hear? 

I'm not saying we shouldn't study and talk about prophecy - we should; especially if it is our passion.  I'm just saying that when we do, we should at least try not to be dogmatic where "I'm right and you're wrong".  Take a look at the "3 Angels" thread if you want to see what I'm talking about.

No; I don't want the "secret rapture" to be the main teaching out there.  I truly believe there will be a rapture ("translation") at some time; and it will NOT be a secret!  I have my ideas of when it will take place and where we will go.  But it is my "opinion" rather than my "divine revelation".

[Ron Amnsn]

13 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Ron,

You seem to be saying that Israel was "married" to sin, or to Pharaoh.  If one is "enslaved" then she is being held against her will - NOT legally "married". 

Yes - the LORD sets us free from Pharaoh (Satan/slavery), but that is NOT freeing us from a "marriage".  Israel was never described as "married" to Pharaoh. 

Israel WAS "married" to the LORD.  (Betrothal IS the legally binding covenant of marriage.)

THE SINAI COVENANT (with Israel) WAS A MARRIAGE COVENANT
 
    Israel was not married to the LAW. She was betrothed to the pre-incarnate Son of God, who made a betrothal covenant with her. The Law detailed the terms of that marriage covenant, which is why idolatry was termed "adultery".

    Isaiah 54:5  “For your Maker is your husband, The LORD of hosts is His name; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; He is called the God of the whole earth.”

    Jeremiah 3:14 “Return, O backsliding children,’ says the LORD; ‘for I am married to you.”

    Jeremiah 31:32 “‘the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.’”

Ezekiel 16:32  “You are an adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband.”

Non-Israelites were NOT included in that "marriage" unless they became Israelites by circumcision and instruction. 

Gentiles who came to faith in Jesus WERE simply freed from "slavery" - just as the Children of Israel once were.  They are now partakers of the New Marriage Covenant.  For them He is a husband, but not "another" husband. 

It is true that Scripture talks about God's covenant with Israel as a marriage.  I think that is metaphorical because the relationship doesn't have many of the elements of a human marriage.

Besides the word "marriage", what evidence do you find in Romans 6-7 that Paul's illustration was talking about God's marriage to Israel?
I don't see Paul mentioning the things you mention.  And I can't think of any other passage that tries to explain it like you do.  It seems you are mixing Paul's illustration with God's metaphor to jump to an unwarranted conclusion. Although your interpretation may possibly be valid perhaps somehow, I would need to see some Scripture that explicitly says that the dead Messiah was released from all covenants after being resurrected.  Otherwise I would be unwilling to extrapolate from a metaphor to draw conclusions that contradict God's Word given earlier.

What evidence do you find in Scripture that a dead husband who is resurrected has become "unmarried" because he was briefly dead?  It doesn't make sense to me that he or his widow would need a new marriage or a new covenant since they are both living and are still both the same people who entered the covenant originally.  Even after a person dies, isn't his estate and/or heirs still bound by the contracts he entered into while alive?  Doesn't the wife still retain the things that the husband gave her before he died?  She at least still retains her title as the dead man's widow while the man is dead. How could she remain a widow if the man doesn't remain dead?  What status would she have if she or he didn't enter a new covenant after the man is resurrected? 

Which of these words spoken from Mt. Sinai suddenly became untrue after Jesus was resurrected?
   "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." 
That is the promise God made in the covenant at Sinai -- the terms he agreed to keep as His side of the covenant.  These words were recorded on stone and stored in the ark of the covenant.  Are these words not still true after the resurrection of Jesus?  Is he now a different God that is not the God of the Israelites, a God that didn't bring the Israelites out of Egypt?

[8thdaypriest]

10 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

And I can't think of any other passage that tries to explain it like you do. 

I think we would agree that the New Jerusalem is the "bride" of Christ.  Right? 

A man's wife is like his own body.  And Paul called the church (the congregation) "His body" - the body of Christ.  (Eph. 1:23,  Eph 5:30, Colossians 1:24)

Christ is "head of the church" as a man is "head" of his wife. 

2 Corinthians 11:2 "For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

It may be Paul's metaphor, as you say, but Paul uses the concept of "marriage" over and over, to explain the congregation's relationship to Christ. 

The LORD divorced Israel (the 10 tribes)

    Jeremiah 3:8  “Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.”

    Isaiah 50:1 “Thus says the LORD: ‘Where is the certificate of your mother's divorce, whom I have put away? . . . And for your transgressions your mother has been put away.’”

    Hosea 2:2  “Bring charges against your mother, bring charges; For she is not My wife, nor am I her Husband!”

So the LORD divorced the 10 tribes.  How then could He gather them again from the 4 corners of the earth to bring them back to "the land" and enter into a New Covenant with them?  The promised New Covenant was to be with Judah AND Israel.  The LAW forbade remarriage with the woman a man had divorced. 

Deuteronomy 24:4 "then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, 

And a priest was forbidden to marry a divorced woman - ever (Leviticus 21:14).  Jesus IS a priest - therefore He cannot "marry" Israel. 

The ONLY WAY I see for Jesus to be able to "marry" Israel, is to erase the record of her adultery and her divorce.  She then becomes a "virgin" and Jesus can "marry" her.

But the "betrothal" - the legal covenant of marriage, must come AFTER He has wiped away the record of her transgressions, restoring her to virginal state.

He also becomes "another man" in the legal sense, concerning "marriage". 

    Romans 7:1  “Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
    2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
    3 So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man.
    4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead” (NAS).

Here - Judah was still "married" to the LORD.  The "husband" died freeing her from that Covenant.  The record of her own transgressions is wiped clean, and she is restored to virginal state.  So Judah also can be married to Jesus Christ, under a New Marriage Covenant.  

 

[8thdaypriest]

Two things were "nailed to the cross". 

1.  Christ Himself    2.  The plaque of charges against the condemned

Galatians 3:13 "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"),

The "curse of the law" is the curse that was WRITTEN in the Book of the Law. 

Jesus took that curse upon Himself.  He actually became that curse, in order to free us from that curse. 

That curse was WRITTEN in the Book of the Law, but it had existed from the Gate of Eden.  The Children of Israel had entered into a covenant WHICH INCLUDED that curse.  They all agreed to suffer that curse IF they broke their covenant with Yahweh. 

Deuteronomy 27:26 `Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law by observing them.' And all the people shall say,`Amen!'

Deuteronomy 29:20-21 “The LORD would not spare him; for then the anger of the LORD and His jealousy would burn against that man, and every curse that is written in this book would settle on him, and the LORD would blot out his name from under heaven.  And the LORD would separate him from all the tribes of Israel for adversity, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this Book of the Law,”

A KING could take the punishment for His people.  Jesus - AS "King of the Jews" could take the punishment (the curse) due to the Jews, under their Covenant with Yahweh.  

I seems clear to me that it was "the curse of the Law" (and NOT the Law itself) that was "nailed to the cross".   

[8thdaypriest]

11 minutes ago, jackson said:

The Bible should be understood as it reads  and hard to understand texts can be best understood by other Bible texts that shed light on the subject. When John calls the Passover and other feasts, the  "feast of the Jews" that should be taken just as it reads. To further confirm this interpretation you go to Dan 9:27; Col 2:14-17; Heb 7:12,16; and Eph 2:11-16. You do not contradict the plain words of John by bringing in Jewish traditions on feast keeping that varied from region to region etc etc.

None of the texts you cited prove that Jesus "blotted out" or changed His own "appointed times" - not if they are STILL kept in the New Earth.  Not if the END is "for the appointed time"  (Dan 8:19, Dan 11:35, Habb 2:3).

I do believe the exclusive Aaronic priesthood is changed to the Melchizedek, under the New Covenant.  THAT is the ONLY CHANGE.  And therefore the system of animal sacrifice is "obsolete".  The "copy and shadow" has been left "desolate" (without the presence of the LORD).

1 Peter 2:5 "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."

We cannot "keep the Feasts" while we are presently dispersed among the nations.  We "keep" them in our hearts.  But one day - hopefully soon - we will be "returned to the land" and then we will keep them in the New Earth, when we all go up to worship the LORD at Jerusalem. 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

How then could He gather them again from the 4 corners of the earth to bring them back to "the land" and enter into a New Covenant with them?  The promised New Covenant was to be with Judah AND Israel.  The LAW forbade remarriage with the woman a man had divorced.

As far as I can find, the law does not prohibit what you say it prohibits.  However, if the divorced woman gets married to another man, then the law forbids her to remarry the first husband.

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

And a priest was forbidden to marry a divorced woman - ever (Leviticus 21:14).  Jesus IS a priest - therefore He cannot "marry" Israel. 

Hold on.  You seem to say from time to time that the laws regarding the Levitical priesthood are obsolete because the priesthood changed.  Now you're quoting those laws and trying to apply them to a Melchizedekian priest.  Make up your mind.  You really can't have it both ways.  Either the laws of the Levitical priesthood are valid, or they are not valid.  If they are valid, how do we know they apply to Melchizedekian priests and metaphorical divorces?

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

He also becomes "another man" in the legal sense, concerning "marriage". 

    Romans 7:1  “Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
    2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
    3 So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man.
    4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead” (NAS).

Here - Judah was still "married" to the LORD.  The "husband" died freeing her from that Covenant.  The record of her own transgressions is wiped clean, and she is restored to virginal state.  So Judah also can be married to Jesus Christ, under a New Marriage Covenant.

Uh.. no. 

As I asked before, what evidence do you find in Romans 6 or 7 (other than the word "marriage") to show that Paul was talking about the metaphorical marriage of Judah or Israel to YHWH as a nation?  It seems you are just trying to misapply the illustration that Paul provided to help the Romans understand the concept in chapter 6.   *Inappropriate comment removed*- Gail

[8thdaypriest]

35 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

As far as I can find, the law does not prohibit what you say it prohibits.  However, if the divorced woman gets married to another man, then the law forbids her to remarry the first husband.

Good point.  So you're saying that Israel did NOT enter into a Covenant with any foreign "god".  She was just "fornicating" with them.  Either way, she is "defiled" and her former "husband" still cannot take her back to be His wife. 

Deut 24:3 "her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Jehovah:

[8thdaypriest]

37 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Hold on.  You seem to say from time to time that the laws regarding the Levitical priesthood are obsolete because the priesthood changed.  Now you're quoting those laws and trying to apply them to a Melchizedekian priest.  Make up your mind.  You really can't have it both ways.  Either the laws of the Levitical priesthood are valid, or they are not valid.  If they are valid, how do we know they apply to Melchizedekian priests and metaphorical divorces?

Because one was a TYPE of the other.

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, jackson said:

When Christians come together to discuss or even debate  basic Christian  principles and doctrine,. they must agree that the Bible and the Bible only is to be the basis of their doctrine , faith and duty. There should be no appeal to archaeology, geology, psychiatry, sociology ancient history  customs, tradition, or religious or secular authorities unless  such appeals can be backed up by scripture.. Personal opinions not supported by scripture have no place in sincere  discussions on doctrine.. Isa 8:20 and 2 Tim 3:16 should be the ground rules for all such discussion.

Jackson, some of these guidelines are good.  However, the real meaning of any passage of Scripture is what the original author of the passage had in mind.  In order to understand that, a person has to be familiar with the whole context.  The farther we get from the original context the more likely it becomes that we will assign a false meaning to a passage.  We can get a lot of the context from the Scriptures, especially the Scriptures that already existed when the author wrote, because the Bible authors (except Nebuchadnezzar) were undoubtedly familiar with the Scripture that already existed before they were born.

Also, we must remember that each Bible author was tested by his contemporaries, both friends and enemies, to see whether his message agreed or disagreed with the Scriptures God had given earlier. Those that didn't agree with preceding Scripture would have been rejected. God had commanded the Israelites to reject anyone who encouraged them to turn away from the ways that God had instructed through Moses. (Deut. 13:1-5)   Jesus and Paul were subject to this same scrutiny.  Thus we shouldn't accept an interpretation of a passage, if that interpretation would not have passed the test of existing Scripture at the time it was written.

[Ron Amnsn]

4 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Now you're being MEAN again Ron.  You asked if I had any other Scripture passages.  You did not specify it had to be within Romans Chapters 6 or 7.

But I did.

17 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Besides the word "marriage", what evidence do you find in Romans 6-7 that Paul's illustration was talking about God's marriage to Israel?

Perhaps what I said was too blunt.

[Ron Amnsn]

27 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Good point.  So you're saying that Israel did NOT enter into a Covenant with any foreign "god".  She was just "fornicating" with them.  Either way, she is "defiled" and her former "husband" still cannot take her back to be His wife. 

Deut 24:3 "her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Jehovah:

Have you not read Hosea?

[Ron Amnsn]

21 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Because one was a TYPE of the other.

The Levitical priesthood also seems to be the model for the priesthood of the resurrected.  Does that mean that only men will be priests in that future priesthood? 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/29/2016 at 5:22 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Hebrews 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law."

A "change of location" from earth to Heaven, would NOT really change the Law - would it.

It sure looks like a jot or tittle was "changed" here Ron.  In which case the "all" WAS "fulfilled" at Jesus' death.

Can you explain this verse some other way, so there is not really a "change of the law" ? 

I'm listening.

Okay, I spent some more time with the Greek dictionaries ...

The Greek noun that is translated as "a change" near the end of Hebrews 7:12 is metathesis (Strongs # G3331).  The verb form of the same Greek word is metatithemi (Strongs #3346), which is translated as "being changed" at the beginning of the verse.
In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) both words share the same definition, which says (after removing the Greek examples and references),
   1. In secular Gk. a. the verb means “to bring to another place,” “to set in another place,” ...
                              b. [the noun] means “change of place,” ...
It also gives other meanings including "to change", "to alter", "to change opinion", or "change of mind", but the primary meaning is to change to another place.

The author of Hebrews uses the same noun (Strongs # G3331) and verb (Strongs # G3346) to refer to the translation of Enoch in Hebrews 11:5.

Isn't that change of place "from earth to heaven" exactly what Hebrews 7:12 is talking about for the Melchizedekian priesthood? When Melchizedek was priest it was on earth, and it is now in heaven where Jesus is priest.  And the necessary change of law also involves that change of place, because Hebrews 8:4 says, "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all," so the necessary change that is actually required by the law is a change of location to a place where Jesus is allowed to be a priest --  a place that is not under the jurisdiction of God's Law of Moses but under the jurisdiction of a different law-- the law that governs priests in heaven. That is what the verse is talking about. The verse doesn't require any change to God's Law of Moses.

I suspect that if the translators of our English Bibles had been keeping the Law of Moses as Jesus and the author of Hebrews did, they would have translated Hebrews 7:12 so that it was obvious that the "change of law" was due to a change of location.

[Ron Amnsn]

22 hours ago, jackson said:

There should be no appeal to archaeology, geology, psychiatry, sociology ancient history  customs, tradition, or religious or secular authorities unless  such appeals can be backed up by scripture.

We have evidence in Scripture that man-made customs and traditions were a problem in New Testament times.  Jesus calls out the leaders and Pharisees for setting aside God's Law with their traditions.  Paul rebuked Peter for hypocrisy because he let man-made tradition influence his behavior toward Gentiles.  Because many people don't know God's Law of Moses and they don't know about the man-made traditions, they erroneously think Paul rebuked Peter for following God's Law of Moses.  Thus the failure to differentiate between God's Law and man's laws causes misinterpretations of New Testament Scripture.

That problem is made greater because the religious Jews often speak of their own man-made traditions as if they are actually part of God's Law (Torah).  They usually don't differentiate, perhaps because it seems to give their own traditions more authority.  For example, when orthodox Jews today speak of studying Torah, we might think they are studying the Books of Moses -- and they are, sort of.  The books they often use for Torah study have a short portion of Scripture in the middle of each page surrounded by a lot of quotations from the Jewish sages (the oral law) telling what that passage really means according to tradition, and they often don't seem to differentiate the opinions of the sages from the actual words of God.  Of course, the oral law wasn't written down yet in NT times because it was forbidden by tradition to do so.  The "teachers of the law" taught the traditions of oral law alongside God's Law.  Those traditional interpretations were closely associated with each passage of Scripture and came to mind when a passage of Scripture was quoted.

(By the way, we can't fault the Jews for how they study Torah because Christians do something very similar.  When Christians say they are having a Bible study, they are very often reading some study guide or what some author says about the Bible rather than reading the Bible itself.  And the traditional Christian interpretations of Scripture usually come to mind when a passage is quoted, even when those traditional interpretations contradict what is actually written in Bible.)

If we try to ignore the man-made customs and traditions that were an integral part of life and the dialog that we read in the New Testament, we will be misled by our own ignorance of the real issues that were being discussed.   We would be unable to differentiate between an issue caused by the man-made traditions of oral law and an issue caused by God's Law of Moses.  Almost all of the NT passages that sound like they are addressing an issue of OT law are actually dealing with an issue of oral tradition.

[8thdaypriest]

12 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Okay, I spent some more time with the Greek dictionaries ...

The Greek noun that is translated as "a change" near the end of Hebrews 7:12 is metathesis (Strongs # G3331).  The verb form of the same Greek word is metatithemi (Strongs #3346), which is translated as "being changed" at the beginning of the verse.
In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) both words share the same definition, which says (after removing the Greek examples and references),
   1. In secular Gk. a. the verb means “to bring to another place,” “to set in another place,” ...
                              b. [the noun] means “change of place,” ...
It also gives other meanings including "to change", "to alter", "to change opinion", or "change of mind", but the primary meaning is to change to another place.

The author of Hebrews uses the same noun (Strongs # G3331) and verb (Strongs # G3346) to refer to the translation of Enoch in Hebrews 11:5.

Isn't that change of place "from earth to heaven" exactly what Hebrews 7:12 is talking about for the Melchizedekian priesthood? When Melchizedek was priest it was on earth, and it is now in heaven where Jesus is priest.  And the necessary change of law also involves that change of place, because Hebrews 8:4 says, "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all," so the necessary change that is actually required by the law is a change of location to a place where Jesus is allowed to be a priest --  a place that is not under the jurisdiction of God's Law of Moses but under the jurisdiction of a different law-- the law that governs priests in heaven. That is what the verse is talking about. The verse doesn't require any change to God's Law of Moses.

I suspect that if the translators of our English Bibles had been keeping the Law of Moses as Jesus and the author of Hebrews did, they would have translated Hebrews 7:12 so that it was obvious that the "change of law" was due to a change of location.

NKJ  Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

Here is STRONG'S on the word "changed" in Hebrews 7:12 (concerning the priesthood)

3346 metati,qhmi metatithemi {met-at-ith'-ay-mee}
Meaning:  1) to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other) 1a) to transfer 1b) to change 1c) to transfer one's self or suffer one's self to be transferred 1c1) to go or pass over 1c2) to fall away or desert from one person or thing to another
Origin:  from 3326 and 5087; TDNT - 8:161,1176; v
Usage:  AV - translate 2, carry over 1, remove 1, change 1, turn 1; 6

Here is STRONG'S on the word "change" in Hebrews 7:12 (concerning the LAW)

3331 meta,qesij metathesis {met-ath'-es-is}
Meaning:  1) transfer: from one place to another 2) to change 2a) of things instituted or established
Origin:  from 3346; TDNT - 8:161,1176; n f
Usage:  AV - change 1, translation 1, removing 1; 3

IF - as you say - the word "change" means only a "change of location" then that definition would have to apply to the second use of the word "change" in the same sentence.  But how is the location of "the Law" moved from one place to another - from earth to Heaven?  I don't think that definition FITS here. 

I think meaning #1 FITS here.  The Melchizedek priesthood of Christ is put in place of the exclusive Aaronic priesthood.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

6 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

NKJ  Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

Here is STRONG'S on the word "changed" in Hebrews 7:12 (concerning the priesthood)

3346 metati,qhmi metatithemi {met-at-ith'-ay-mee}
Meaning:  1) to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other) 1a) to transfer 1b) to change 1c) to transfer one's self or suffer one's self to be transferred 1c1) to go or pass over 1c2) to fall away or desert from one person or thing to another
Origin:  from 3326 and 5087; TDNT - 8:161,1176; v
Usage:  AV - translate 2, carry over 1, remove 1, change 1, turn 1; 6

Here is STRONG'S on the word "change" in Hebrews 7:12 (concerning the LAW)

3331 meta,qesij metathesis {met-ath'-es-is}
Meaning:  1) transfer: from one place to another 2) to change 2a) of things instituted or established
Origin:  from 3346; TDNT - 8:161,1176; n f
Usage:  AV - change 1, translation 1, removing 1; 3

IF - as you say - the word "change" means only a "change of location" then that definition would have to apply to the second use of the word "change" in the same sentence.  But how is the location of "the Law" moved from one place to another - from earth to Heaven?  I don't think that definition FITS here. 

I think meaning #1 FITS here.  The Melchizedek priesthood of Christ is put in place of the exclusive Aaronic priesthood.

 

You have to be careful using Strong's definitions.  The dictionary in Strongs was just a catalog showing how Mr. Strong and his staff interpreted the English meanings that the translators of the KJV gave to each Greek and Hebrew word.  Usually the definitions are fine.  In a few cases Strong's makes up new meanings that were not previously in Greek dictionaries because the KJV translators chose an English translation that matched their theology and Mr. Strong interpreted that English word in a way that matched his own theology and then dutifully included that meaning into the lexicon of his concordance, even if no Greek-speaking person would have ever used that Greek word to have that meaning.  That is the nature of lexicons.

I think that's how the "transposed" definition got into Strongs.  It matches Christian theology.  I would need to see an example in other old Greek literature that actually uses metatithemi  to mean "transposed".  It certainly isn't how the author of Hebrews used those words in when speaking of Enoch in Hebrews 11:5.

I agree that both instances of "change" in Hebrews 7:12 should be understood as a change of location.  I'm not totally satisfied with the interpretation I provided in my earlier post.

[8thdaypriest]

12 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Hebrews 8:4 says, "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all,"

Of course Jesus would NOT BE an Aaronic priest.  That priesthood is "obsolete". 

And I would argue that He could not fulfill His present role as High Priest of the Melchizedek order - on this earth, during this present age.  Jesus had to return to Heaven, to the Father's right hand, in order to pour out His Spirit on believers all over the earth.  He is now glorified.  His glory is brighter than the sun.  Saul and all the soldiers with him fell like dead men in the presence of this glory.  How could He be on the earth?  Would He hide Himself inside the MHP of the Temple?  We humans do not yet have "spiritual bodies".  We cannot stand in His presence.  He had to leave this earth.

And speaking of spiritual bodies, Paul wrote "and we shall be changed" (I Cor 15:51-52).  Our bodies will be changed.  We will no longer have bodies of mortal flesh.  We will have spiritual bodies.  That is exchanging one thing for another.

In Acts 28:6, the men watching Paul after the snake bite, thought that he "would swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But after they had looked for a long time and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god." 

This is not a CHANGE of LOCATION.  It's replacing one thought with another.

Galatians 1:6 "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, (NKJ)

Once again, same Greek word with the meaning of a CHANGE of mind - replacing one set of thoughts with another. 

All of these NT examples involve replacing one thing with another. 

[8thdaypriest]

Ron,

I may not always have an answer ready, for something that you post.  I may need to think about it, and pray about it, and study awhile.

[8thdaypriest]

19 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

The Levitical priesthood also seems to be the model for the priesthood of the resurrected.  Does that mean that only men will be priests in that future priesthood? 

A TYPE does not have to resemble the anti-type in every detail. 

Queen Esther was a TYPE of Christ.  She went before the King, and the King held out his scepter to her on the Feast of Firstfruits.

In the resurrection there will be "no marriage or giving in marriage".  The resurrected will be "like unto the angels" - without sexual orientation as male or female.  Therefore ALL of the resurrected - both males and females - will become "priests of God and of Christ". 

The 144,000 are NOT all females either. The term "virgin" is referring to their purity of mind and doctrine - unadulterated. 

The "Lamb's bride" is "virginal" - yes.  She is pure.  But she is NOT composed of just females or just males.  She is the City - New Jerusalem with her citizens. 

Matthew 22:2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, (NKJ)

Paul wrote, "For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

Paul was writing to BOTH males and females.  The church (congregation) will become the "bride", as citizens of The City.