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

[Ron Amnsn]

48 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

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

Agreed.

[Ron Amnsn]

14 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

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

 

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

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

I should have quoted the whole verse. I have quoted it so often I thought you would have already known the rest.

The rest of Hebrews 8:4 specifically refutes your claim that the Levitical priesthood is obsolete.  "... since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law."  That is the reason that the author gives for why Jesus would not be a priest on earth -- because the earth already has a valid priesthood functioning according to a valid law.

Why do I need to keep repeating myself on this? God's Word is clear enough in Jeremiah 33 where it says that the Levitical priesthood will continue until the Righteous Branch sits on David's throne in a secure Jerusalem and until God's covenant with Noah and the animals is broken so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time.

"In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.' For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel,and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever."
The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: "Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers." (Jeremiah 33:15-21)

Where do you find authorization to not believe the Word of God concerning the Levitical priesthood?

[Ron Amnsn]

Getting back to the topic of this thread -- Colossians 2:14 ...

Have you looked up which Greek word was translated as "ordinances" in Colossians 2:14 and then looked to see how that word is used in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) that was used by Greek-speaking people at the time when Paul wrote to the Colossians?

The word translated as "ordinances" in the KJV is the Greek word dogmasin, a form of the Greek word dogma.  If this word actually referred to God's ordinances or any part of God's law, wouldn't it be used frequently in the Old Testament, especially in the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy?

Using the free Bible software available at www.e-sword.net you can search for dogma in the Septuagint to see how and where it is used.  The e-Sword software includes the KJV version with Strongs numbers.  After you install the software you can use the "Download" menu to get more free Bible versions.  You'll need the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) w/ Strong's Numbers, and you'll probably also want the Brenton's English Septuagint.  Use the KJV+ tab to confirm that "ordinances" in Col. 2:14 is translated from dogma (Strong's # G1378). Then search for "G1378" (without the quotation marks) in the Greek OT+ tab. The search results will display all the verses containing all forms of the word dogma in Greek.  Accept the search results by clicking Ok at the bottom, then use the KJV or Brenton tab to read the verses in English.  (Press the F3 key or click the Search Next button to move to the next verse containing any form of the word dogma.)

How many times does any form of the Greek word dogma appear in the Books of Moses in the Septuagint?  Zero. Not even once. 

Every time any form of the word dogma appears in the Greek Old Testament of Paul's day, it always refers to man-made rulings, decrees, or documents. It never refers to any of God's instructions or laws.

In case you're not a do-it-yourself kind of person, here are all of the Old Testament verses that contain any form of the Greek word dogma:

All the Old Testament verses that contain the word dogma in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint).  The word English word translated from dogma is underlined: Daniel 2:13   So the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain; and they looked for Daniel and his friends to kill them.  (NASB) Daniel 3:10  "You, O king, have made a decree that every man who hears the sound of the horn, flute, lyre, trigon, psaltery, and bagpipe and all kinds of music, is to fall down and worship the golden image.  (NASB) Daniel 3:12  There are certain Jews whom thou has appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Sedrach, Misach, and Abdenago, who have not obeyed thy decree, O king: they serve not thy gods, and worship not the golden image which thou hast set up.  (Brenton translation of the Septuagint) Daniel 3:29  "Therefore I make a decree that any people, nation or tongue that speaks anything offensive against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego shall be torn limb from limb and their houses reduced to a rubbish heap, inasmuch as there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way."  (NASB) Daniel 4:6  "So I gave orders to bring into my presence all the wise men of Babylon, that they might make known to me the interpretation of the dream.  (NASB) Daniel 6:8  "Now, O king, establish the injunction and sign the document so that it may not be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which may not be revoked."  (NASB) Daniel 6:9  Then king Darius commanded the decree to be written. (Brenton translation of the Septuagint) Daniel 6:10  Now when Daniel knew that the document was signed, he entered his house (now in his roof chamber he had windows open toward Jerusalem); and he continued kneeling on his knees three times a day, praying and giving thanks before his God, as he had been doing previously.  (NASB) Daniel 6:12  Then they approached and spoke before the king about the king's injunction, "Did you not sign an injunction that any man who makes a petition to any god or man besides you, O king, for thirty days, is to be cast into the lions' den?" The king replied, "The statement is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which may not be revoked."  (NASB) Daniel 6:13  Then they answered and spoke before the king, "Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or to the injunction which you signed, but keeps making his petition three times a day."  (NASB) Daniel 6:15  Then these men came by agreement to the king and said to the king, "Recognize, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no injunction or statute which the king establishes may be changed."  (NASB) Daniel 6:26  "I make a decree that in all the dominion of my kingdom men are to fear and tremble before the God of Daniel; For He is the living God and enduring forever, And His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed, And His dominion will be forever.  (NASB)

Does the Septuagint use dogma or dogmasin to refer to any part of God's Law or God's Instructions?  No.  So why do we think Paul would use dogmasin to refer to part of God's Law when he was writing to Greek-speaking people who used the Septuagint?  Is it because we have a desire to set aside part of God's Law?  Why would a follower of Jesus want to do that when Jesus clearly taught in Matt 5:17-19 that not a stroke from the portion of the Scriptures that the Jews referred to as "the Law" would pass away until some very specific things occurred?

 

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Why do I need to keep repeating myself on this? God's Word is clear enough in Jeremiah 33 where it says that the Levitical priesthood will continue until the Righteous Branch sits on David's throne in a secure Jerusalem and until God's covenant with Noah and the animals is broken so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time.

Why keep using phrases that accuse others of being slow or stupid? 

In your opinion, others who do not agree with you, just don't get it, or are wasting your time, or are ignorant (of Scripture, of history, of ancient customs).  

I still DO NOT AGREE with you Ron.  But I will not be discouraged by your dismissive or disrespectful language. 

You force me to look deeper into the foundations of my beliefs, but that is a good thing.   What I have found does NOT convince me that you have the correct understanding.  

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Where do you find authorization to not believe the Word of God concerning the Levitical priesthood?

I "believe the Word of God".  I do not agree with your interpretation of the Word of God, concerning the Levitical priesthood.

[8thdaypriest]

Jeremiah 33:17 "For thus says the LORD:`David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; 18 `nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually.'" 19 And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, 20 "Thus says the LORD:`If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that there will not be day and night in their season, 21 `then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levites, the priests, My ministers. (Jer 33:17 NKJ)

David never lacked a man.  That man was/is Jesus.

And the Levites have never lacked a man.  Jesus appeared and was "offered" and was "glorified" and made High Priest BEFORE the Temple was destroyed - therefore the Levites have "never lacked" a man to present offerings before God. 

Even if you interpret this verse literally - keeping the meaning confined to "a man" of Levite linage, then you still have more than one interpretation. 

It could be understood to say that the Levites have a man - the man exists, somewhere, who could "offer burnt offerings before Me". 

Or it could be understood to say that the Levites would always have a man standing before the LORD, offering burnt offerings, which is obviously NOT the case, because there IS no Temple and has not been for some 1900+ years. 

[Ron Amnsn]

3 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

It could be understood to say that the Levites have a man - the man exists, somewhere, who could "offer burnt offerings before Me". 

Or it could be understood to say that the Levites would always have a man standing before the LORD, offering burnt offerings, which is obviously NOT the case, because there IS no Temple and has not been for some 1900+ years.

I think it means your first option. Except I think that man would have to be a qualified descendant of Aaron.  The author of Hebrews apparently thought Jesus didn't qualify to be a Levitical Priest, so I don't see how he could be the fulfillment of that prophecy.  Jesus wasn't a Levitical priest.  Also, since it is YHWH speaking the prophecy, the "me" in "offer burnt offerings before me" would probably refer to Jesus himself. 

On the other hand, there was a lack of a Temple during part of Jeremiah's lifetime.  I don't know if the Temple was standing when this prophecy was written.  Anyway, the prophecy probably is not dependent on there always being a Temple -- just as the prophecy about someone sitting on the throne of David wasn't dependent on there being a throne to sit on.  By the way, the throne of David has been vacant much longer than the Temple has been destroyed, yet we still expect Jesus to actually sit on that throne someday.

[8thdaypriest]

    Aaron and his sons entered into a “blood covenant” with Yahweh on the day which began their consecration (Lev. 8:22).  They placed their hands on the head of the second ram and pledged obedience and faithfulness to Yahweh, on pain of death.  So I would point out that only faithful sons of Aaron would continue as priests, under this Aaronic priestly covenant.

    Not a single one of the Aaronic priests obeyed perfectly.  They all stand condemned to death without The One Offering that can cover their sins.   Those who sought the LORD in humility of heart will be forgiven, and will be delivered into the Kingdom of Messiah, where they will continue as priests - under the New Melchizedek order which will include all of Israel redeemed.  The Aaronic priesthood was a prophecy of Christ and of His Melchizedek priests, just as every sacrifice was a prophesy of Jesus the "lamb of God".

    By the time of Christ, the position of High Priest was occupied by a Roman appointee.  Annas and his sons were imposters.  Israel really had no High Priest by that time, and the Day of Atonement ceremony would therefore have been unacceptable to the LORD.

[8thdaypriest]

5 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

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.

So you dismiss the Strong's because Strong was Christian.  By that reasoning you would also dismiss any lexicon or dictionary compiled by a Christian.  But would not similar resources compiled by Jewish theologians be biased towards NO CHANGE to the Law?  I guess we would need a lexicon compiled by religion neutral persons.  Know of one??  Maybe someone just interested in Ancient Greek literature.

[Ron Amnsn]

1 minute ago, 8thdaypriest said:

 Not a single one of the Aaronic priests obeyed perfectly.

"In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord."

You seem to have a different opinion of what priestly obedience looks like than what the Scriptures describe.  I suspect it has to do with your use of the word "perfectly".  God's Law of Moses included provisions to deal with sin and mistakes -- and the Messiah was part of that.  Those provisions included specific offerings for a priest's own sins.  So God apparently expected the priests to sin and repent and offer those sacrifices and still be considered obedient, as Zechariah was.  

[Ron Amnsn]

7 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

So you dismiss the Strong's because Strong was Christian.

I don't think I said I "dismiss" Strong's definitions. I said we need to be careful with them.  Part of that is being aware of what his lexicon was designed to contain and how it got there.  One of the remedies is to use a dictionary rather than a lexicon.

The problem with Christian theology currently is that much of it has been handed down to us from the Church that was prominent during the Dark Ages, and we have not put all of that theology to the test of Scripture. We are living after many centuries of the apostasy foretold by Paul, which he described as "lawless". The Protestant Reformation started examining parts of Christian Theology and discarded some things that were not Scriptural. That was good. But the job is not finished. God didn't declare the Reformation complete when the Reformers died.

Referring even to prophetic utterances, Paul tells us to "Test everything; Hold fast what is good." (1 Thess 5:20-21). And in Revelation 2:2 Jesus commends the Ephesians for putting apostles like Paul to the test. Christians haven't been diligent about doing that over the centuries. So Christian theology has collected a lot of baggage.

[Ron Amnsn]

7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

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. 

But these examples don't all use the Greek word that Hebrews 7:12 uses.

The TDNT gave the less common "change of mind" definition for metatithemi as in Acts 28:6. 

The author of Hebrews doesn't seem to believe that the Melchizedekian priesthood replaced the Levitical priesthood because he describes them as both functioning when Hebrews was written.  The belief that the Levitical priesthood was replaced contradicts what is written in God's Word in a number of places.  It would also mean that God never intended to honor his promises and covenants He made with Aaron and his descendants regarding the Levitical priesthood as an inheritance in lieu of tribal lands.  How would the Bereans have been able to confirm such a teaching by searching the Old Testament Scriptures?

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

"In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord."

You seem to have a different opinion of what priestly obedience looks like than what the Scriptures describe.  I suspect it has to do with your use of the word "perfectly".  God's Law of Moses included provisions to deal with sin and mistakes -- and the Messiah was part of that.  Those provisions included specific offerings for a priest's own sins.  So God apparently expected the priests to sin and repent and offer those sacrifices and still be considered obedient, as Zechariah was.  

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Hebrews 10:4-10  “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

Galatians 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified."

Acts 13:38-39 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.”

Romans 3:28-30  “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.”

Zechariah and Elizabeth were "justified" by their faith, NOT BY the sacrifices they offered.

Romans 10:4 “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”

For my part, I believe the Father has spoken.  He has provided the Lamb.  His hand tore the veil of the Temple from top to bottom.  His spirit inspired the disciples and apostles with the clear message that forgiveness of sins is by faith alone, and may be found without offering the blood of an animal.  

[8thdaypriest]

15 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

But these examples don't all use the Greek word that Hebrews 7:12 uses.

The TDNT gave the less common "change of mind" definition for metatithemi as in Acts 28:6.

Acts 28:6 DOES use the same word that Hebrews 7:12 uses.  And it does NOT describe a change of location. 

Jude 1:4 "For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn (#3346 metatithemi) the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ."

SAME word again - #3346.  SAME word translated "change' in Hebrews 7:12.  The "grace of our God" is changed or turned into "lewdness".  One thing is changed into another, in the minds of those deceived. 

NOT a change of location. 

[8thdaypriest]

15 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

The author of Hebrews doesn't seem to believe that the Melchizedekian priesthood replaced the Levitical priesthood because he describes them as both functioning when Hebrews was written. 

The Levitical priesthood may have appeared to be "functioning" when the Book of Hebrews was written, but that does NOT confirm God's continued blessing upon that system.    Just because the priests put up another veil at the entrance, does not mean the LORD's presence was still within. 

We are all aware that James and Jewish believers were "zealous for the Law", but even James told Paul they did NOT expect Gentile (non-Jewish) converts to offer such sacrifices (Acts 21:25). 

THAT is NOT according to "the Law".  The LORD prescribed the same set of laws - including the offering of sacrifices - for non-Hebrews (Exo 12:49, Num 15:16).  If the "mixed multitude" of Gentile converts were journeying to the "kingdom" WITH Jewish believers, they should have observed the same set of laws - to include circumcision and sacrifices.  

So either there is STILL a difference in what God expects from Jews vs His laws for Gentiles, OR we are ALL (Hebrew and Non-Hebrew) betrothed by a "New Covenant" under which we are "justified by faith" - NOT by sacrifices. 

[Martn]

On 8/17/2016 at 8:24 AM, Robert said:

How was the "ceremonial laws" against us? 

Heb 10:1 For the Law...was only a shadow of the good things to come (i.e., Christ righteousness)...

verse 3: in those sacrifices (i.e., the ceremonial laws - see Lev 23) there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 

I submit to you that the "handwriting of the ordinances" was the record of our sins.  These sins were "against us" and placed in death row awaiting the judgment. 

 

This gets my vote as BEST ANSWER.

None of the Law was abolished by Jesus, not any of the Ten or any of the rest. The Jewish position has always been --from well before the time of Jesus even-- that only minor parts of the Law, including minor parts of the Ten, apply to non-Jews.

[Ron Amnsn]

To free up this thread for the discussion of Colossians 2:14, I'll respond to posts regarding the priesthood in the Hebrews 7:12 thread.

[JoeMo]

21 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

But would not similar resources compiled by Jewish theologians be biased

I think it is possible that the Jewish scripture translations subtly manipulated the translations to minimize the deity of Christ.

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

The author of Hebrews doesn't seem to believe that the Melchizedekian priesthood replaced the Levitical priesthood because he describes them as both functioning when Hebrews was written.  The belief that the Levitical priesthood was replaced contradicts what is written in God's Word in a number of places.  It would also mean that God never intended to honor his promises and covenants He made with Aaron and his descendants regarding the Levitical priesthood as an inheritance in lieu of tribal lands.  How would the Bereans have been able to confirm such a teaching by searching the Old Testament Scriptures?

I have already explained that God will honor his promises to faithful priests.  They will continue as priests - as Melchizedek priests. 

Here is a verse for the Bereans.

    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) 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.

[8thdaypriest]

16 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

To free up this thread for the discussion of Colossians 2:14, I'll respond to posts regarding the priesthood in the Hebrews 7:12 thread.

It's all the SAME TOPIC:  What was "nailed to the cross"? 

Was it the charges against us - based in the Law?

Was it the Sinai Covenant?

Was it only part of the Law - the "ceremonial" Law? 

My answers are Yes - No - No.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/2/2016 at 4:39 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

But would not similar resources compiled by Jewish theologians be biased towards NO CHANGE to the Law?

The TDNT that I used is a Greek Dictionary that was compiled by German scholars, one of whom was anti-semitic and joined the Nazi party.

Jesus was openly biased towards "no change" to the Law, and he was Jewish, so what you say has some validity. 

If not for the great apostasy of lawlessness that Paul talks about in 2Thess 2, we would expect Christians to have the same bias that Jesus had.

[Martn]

23 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I think it is possible that the Jewish scripture translations subtly manipulated the translations to minimize the deity of Christ.

I think it is likelier Jewish people understand the Jewish scriptures better than Christians do.

Just as Christians likely understand Christian scriptures better than we Jews do, though we do try.

[Martn]

22 hours ago, jackson said:

The Bible rarely provides a"smoking gun" for conviction. If you don't want to believe something you can always find some reason to doubt or disbelieve.

The Bible is unmistakably clear on many points, but most people simply are not honest about the facts (both in biblical and non-biblical matters) even to themselves. God will judge.

[8thdaypriest]

What is LEFT if the Levite priesthood really is "obsolete" under the NEW Covenant?

The Melchizedek priesthood (It preceded the Levite) - And it WAS on this earth.

The true Tabernacle - Heaven itself  (It also preceded the Sinai Tabernacle - which was a copy of the heavenly one)

Serve no other God than Yahweh, Who created the heavens and the earth

Tithe paying (Abraham understood and paid tithes to the Melchizedek priesthood)

Clean foods (Noah understood clean vs unclean foods)

One man - one woman marriage (instituted in Eden)

Work (six days out of seven - the weekly cycle)

The Sabbath

The LORD's appointed times (they preceded the Sinai Covenant)

Love you neighbor as your self, and do good even to those who hate you.

[Ron Amnsn]

1 hour ago, Seventh Day said:

But it is written of God’s Law that that part specifically which was engraved (on stone tables), was taken out of the way.

Where is that written?