Hebrews 7:12 - What change was necessary in law?

[Ron Amnsn]

Hoping to move the discussion of the change of priesthood here to free up the Colossians 2:14 thread.

[Ron Amnsn]

Hebrews 7
11   Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?
12   For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.
13   For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.
14   For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

[Ron Amnsn]

21 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.  

 

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

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

That's true -- all have sinned, except Jesus.

It would still be true even if the priests never sinned after becoming adults or after being anointed as priests, because we have all sinned during our childhoods.

God apparently expected the Levitical priests to sin, repent, offer sacrifices, be forgiven and carry on.  He made provision for that in the Law of Moses.  Such sins of a priest did not cause them to be rejected as priests.

[Ron Amnsn]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

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

Yes.  The blood of bulls and goats and sheep never took away sins.  They didn't take away sins when God first taught Adam and his family to offer sacrifices.  They didn't take away sins when God first directed Aaron to offer sin offerings or the sacrifices for the Day of Atonement.

It appears that God never intended the blood of animals to take away sins -- that was something that required a better sacrifice, the blood of Messiah.

However, God did forgive the sins of the people who brought sin offerings to the temple in obedience.  But that forgiveness came with a price that the blood of animals did not cover.  God provided his forgiveness then because he had a plan to pay the full price at the appointed time.

I think the regular sin offerings and the Day of Atonement offering illustrate the concept that forgiveness and the taking away of sins were not the same thing.  God's forgiveness was offered when in obedience the sin offerings were sacrificed -- that restored the relationship with God -- it was a tangible illustration of God's grace. The people weren't left wondering if they had really been forgiven or if there was something more they needed to do (as many sinners wonder today, even after they have confessed a sin many times).  However, there was more to the process, which I think the Day of Atonement illustrated once each year.  Yet that illustration done with bulls and goats was just an illustration -- of what Messiah would actually do to take away sins at the appointed time.

Hebrews 10:4 is not declaring something that changed after the temple veil was torn -- it is declaring what had always been true about the blood of animal sacrifices.

[Ron Amnsn]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

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."

This also was not a new truth that came into existence at the death of Messiah.  God's Law of Moses never taught that people were justified by their own deeds.

The term "works of the law" appears several times in the Dead Sea Scrolls referring specifically to the man-made requirements that the community had set up for new members, and for members who had fallen out of favor, before they would be accepted as full members.  Paul was dealing with a very similar situation in Galatia where the Gentiles were being taught they needed to comply with the traditional requirements of oral law by completing the man-made proselyte training program before they could be "saved" and be full members of the community. 

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

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.”

 

This is true too.  There were some sins for which the Law of Moses provided no remedy -- those guilty were cut off from their people. It is not clear whether they were banished or killed by the people or by God. Nevertheless they and their descendants lost their place in Israel and lost their inheritance.  Many of the exiles of Israel -- people like Paul was speaking to in Acts 13 -- knew or suspected that their forefathers had committed such sins.

Paul's gospel message that you quoted is a clear statement of a truth that is seen in the Old Testament in the stories of people like King David who knew that according to the Law of God they deserved a greater punishment, but when they threw themselves on God's mercy they were granted forgiveness. 

God spoke of such mercy when he showed Moses his glory,
And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. (Exodus 33:19)

The Old Testament prophets also speak of God showing mercy towards the Israelites.
"Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel, and I will be jealous for my holy name." (Ezekiel 39:25)

[Ron Amnsn]

8 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

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.

Correct. Zechariah and Elizabeth were living the Old Testament as it was supposed to be lived.

This isn't something new that changed when Messiah came.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/2/2016 at 4:27 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

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".

Okay. Let's consider this.

The Levitical priests, like all of us, do indeed need the sacrifice of Messiah to take away sins.  That is all part of what the duties of the Levitical priests illustrate.  Their need for Messiah in no way disqualified them to carry on as Levitical priests, nor does that need for Messiah's sacrifice disqualify them from receiving the inheritance that God promised them in lieu of tribal lands -- an ongoing role of religious leadership, with duties as judges and public health workers in Israel, and a livelihood and pension provided by a share of the offerings brought to the sanctuary/temple.

Your interpretation of a few disputable verses in the New Testament epistles would strip the descendants of Aaron of the promises and covenant that God gave to Aaron and Phinehas and their descendants and confirmed through the prophet Jeremiah.  When Aaron is resurrected, will he find that God has been faithful to the promises he received from God?  Is God's Word reliable?

You seem to be assuming that the prophetic aspect of the priestly role and sacrifices was the only valid aspect of the whole priesthood and sacrificial system that God set up.  Are there any Bible passages that teach that?  Can we read the mind of God to know that there were no other reasons why he gave the instructions that he gave to Moses for the only form of whole-congregation worship God has ever given to humans?

Besides being a prophecy of Jesus "the lamb of God", every sacrifice was also an act of worship and obedience to the instructions of God and it provided "a pleasing aroma" to God and food in God's temple.  The Bible contains no record that God ever told anyone to stop obeying those instructions. When God originally gave the Levites the instructions for their priestly role, God commanded them to continue doing various things "forever" and "throughout your generations", rather than telling them to continue only until the veil of the temple was torn.  Is God's Word reliable?

Jesus taught that not a stroke of the Law would pass from the Law until after some events that are still future, and that whoever relaxes one of the least instructions in the Law "will be called least in the kingdom of heaven", while whoever does them and teaches those instructions "will be called great in the kingdom of heaven". (Matt 5:17-19) Then in the next paragraph Jesus gave instructions that pertained to offering a gift at the altar (v. 23).  Even the apostle Paul himself went up to the temple during his last visit to Jerusalem intending to offer animal sacrifices.  Paul was subsequently commended by the Lord for his actions in Jerusalem (Acts 23:11).

I realize that men who did not live according to the example of Jesus have contrived a whole system of theology that disagrees with what I find in Scripture.  That would be fine if people could provide evidence from Scripture that actually says what that man-made system of theology teaches.  Instead people make non-Scriptural assumptions and then offer Bible verses (often out of context) that only support that man-made system of theology if you have already internalized the non-Scriptural assumptions that those beliefs depend on.

[8thdaypriest]

The real question - for me - is: Are believers today, betrothed to Jesus Christ under a NEW Covenant?  My answer is YES!

The Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Marriage.  Israel was betrothed in Marriage to the pre-incarnate Son of God. 

    Jeremiah 2:1-3 “Thus says the LORD: I remember you, the kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal, when you went after Me in the wilderness . . .”

    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.’”

The LORD gave Israel (the Ten Northern tribes) a "bill of divorcement" for the cause of adultery.   He can re-marry them only IF He first cleanses them of "defilement".  True forgiveness through Jesus does THAT.

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.’”

Judah was worse than Israel. 

    Ezekiel 16:32  “You are an adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband.”  (Ezekiel was writing to Judah.)

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.”

Rather than divorce Judah (which would have ended the Sinai Covenant) the LORD preserved Judah and brought her back from Babylon. 

Finally - the rulers of Judah executed the Son of God - her "husband". 

The "husband" DIED.  

  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).

The Sinai Covenant is therefore "obsolete".   We are betrothed to Jesus Christ by a NEW Covenant.

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. (2Co 11:2 NKJ)

The LORD had promised that He would make a NEW Covenant - of marriage - with Israel and Judah (reunited forever) Jeremiah Chapter 31, Ezekiel Chapter 36, Hebrews 10:16, 

2 Corinthians 3:6 "who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

The congregation is Christ's body.  Christ is "head" of the church, as a man is "head" of his own wife.  The New Jerusalem is the bride of the Lamb. 

The Sinai Covenant was NOT "nailed to the cross", but it is finished, BECAUSE the "husband" of Israel DIED. 

Israel redeemed is now BETROTHED to "another" man - the One who rose from the dead. 

[8thdaypriest]

What is LEFT if the Sinai Covenant really is OBSOLETE, along with it's Levite priesthood?

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)

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

Principles of love and unselfishness towards others. 

Tithe paying (Abraham understood and paid tithes to the Melchizedek priesthood. So did Levi in the lions of Abraham.)

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 7th day is holy.  It belongs to the LORD.  Rest on the 7th day.

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

What is GONE?  Answer:  The exclusive Levite priesthood

[8thdaypriest]

5 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

The Levitical priests, like all of us, do indeed need the sacrifice of Messiah to take away sins.  That is all part of what the duties of the Levitical priests illustrate.  Their need for Messiah in no way disqualified them to carry on as Levitical priests, nor does that need for Messiah's sacrifice disqualify them from receiving the inheritance that God promised them in lieu of tribal lands -- an ongoing role of religious leadership, with duties as judges and public health workers in Israel, and a livelihood and pension provided by a share of the offerings brought to the sanctuary/temple.

Your interpretation of a few disputable verses in the New Testament epistles would strip the descendants of Aaron of the promises and covenant that God gave to Aaron and Phinehas and their descendants and confirmed through the prophet Jeremiah.  When Aaron is resurrected, will he find that God has been faithful to the promises he received from God?  Is God's Word reliable?

You seem to be assuming that the prophetic aspect of the priestly role and sacrifices was the only valid aspect of the whole priesthood and sacrificial system that God set up. 

Ron, when you say "you" and "your" I'm assuming you are speaking to me.

I will repeat.  The faithful priests of Levite/Aaronic (and Phinehas) linage WILL receive all the promises made to them.  They WILL serve as priests.  They WILL receive tithes.  They WILL teach "the way of the LORD".  They WILL decide disputes. 

They just won't be the ONLY priests.  They will be priests of the Melchizedek order, in the Kingdom of Messiah on the earth.  They - along with all of redeemed Israel, WILL "rule the nations" - AS PRIESTS. 

ALL those who come up in the first resurrection, will become "priests of God and of Christ".  And they will "reign with Him a thousand years"  (Revelation 20:6).

(NOTE:  The first resurrection is not just for men of Levite linage. )

Revelation 7:9, 13-14  The “great multitude” who “come out of great tribulation,” are “arrayed in white robes” [priestly garments] and “serve Him day and night in His temple.”  

    NOTE: Only priests were allowed to enter the Temple.

Revelation 2:17  “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.  ‘To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat.’”

The "hidden manna" refers to the Shewbread, a symbol of Jesus (the Bread from heaven).  We will partake of that "hidden manna" in Heaven - the true Tabernacle.

     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:  The verbs here are in the Greek aorist tense, meaning that this is an ongoing process, not a completed fact.  These 24 elders are being made (are being prepared to be) priests and kings.  Notice where they will reign - “on the earth.”  They are not reigning yet.

There are many references to the coming priesthood - on the earth - in the Kingdom of Messiah.  The priesthood will be the government, under King Jesus - just it was for Israel of Old. 

The only QUESTION concerns "the nations" who will be "ruled over" by these priests of God and of Christ.  

I believe "the nations" will be "the rest of the dead" who will not "live again" until the 7th millennium is finished.   I do NOT believe "the nations" who are resurrected at the 8th millennium, are all of those confirmed in wickedness.  I believe these "nations in the four corners of the earth" will be composed of those who lived and died in ignorance of the true God and His Son.  They will be raised to HEAR, to LEARN the ways of the Lord, and then to CHOOSE whom they will serve.  Those who rebel will be wiped out at the Battle of Gog and Magog.  

Rachel Cory, prophecyviewpoint.com

 

[8thdaypriest]

6 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Even the apostle Paul himself went up to the temple during his last visit to Jerusalem intending to offer animal sacrifices.  Paul was subsequently commended by the Lord for his actions in Jerusalem (Acts 23:11).

Acts 23:11 The following night, the Lord stood by him and said, "Take courage! For just as you have borne a faithful witness to me in Yerushalayim, so now you must bear witness in Rome." (CJB)

Paul "bore witness" of Jesus as the Messiah.  The verse does not say he was commended FOR presenting sacrifices at the Temple.  THAT was something he was warned NOT to do, several times.  He went anyway, and the LORD allowed Paul to be taken into custody, and finally executed.  

1 Corinthians 9:20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law (NKJ)

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. (NKJ)

Here's the same verse from the Complete Jewish Bible

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, then you are not in subjection to the system that results from perverting the Torah into legalism. (CJB)

Talk about ADDING WORDS to the text. 

[Ron Amnsn]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Acts 23:11 The following night, the Lord stood by him and said, "Take courage! For just as you have borne a faithful witness to me in Yerushalayim, so now you must bear witness in Rome." (CJB)

Paul "bore witness" of Jesus as the Messiah.  The verse does not say he was commended FOR presenting sacrifices at the Temple.

I think you missed something in the verse you quoted. The Lord said, "just as you have ... so ... you must bear witness ..."  

Ever since Paul had arrived in Jerusalem he had borne witness by making a point of letting people know that he was living according to God's Law of Moses (as Jesus did).

• In Cenchrea Paul cut his hair because he was under a vow (Acts 18:18), which the scholars tell us was a Nazarene vow (Numbers 6), which would require him to offer sacrifices at the temple to complete the vow.
• Paul "went up to Jerusalem to worship" (Acts 24:11) during the feast of Pentecost.
• The elders of the congregation in Jerusalem told Paul to publicly join with four other believers who were also under a vow, so that "all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law". (Acts 21:24)
• Paul went up publicly to the temple to give notice that he would be purified (according to the Law of Moses) and ready to offer the necessary sacrifices.
• Paul was prevented from completing the sacrifices by men who broke the Law of Moses by making false accusations and trying to kill Paul without a trial. It's no wonder those men didn't show up before the council the next day -- according to the Law of Moses they should have gotten what they tried to do to Paul.
• Paul publicly addressed the angry mob of Jewish worshipers telling them that he was "educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God just as you all are today."
• Paul related to the mob that he had been healed and commissioned as an apostle by "a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews." (Acts 22:12)
• Paul publicly told the Jewish council, "I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day".  (Acts 23:1)
• Paul quoted from the Law of Moses (Exodus 22:28) before the council (Acts 23:5)
• Paul publicly testified "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6).
• Some of the Pharisees testified of Paul "We find nothing wrong with this man" (Acts 23:9), which they probably wouldn't have done if there had been any evidence that Paul was not currently living like a Pharisee.

Just two verses later comes the verse you quoted above where the Lord tells Paul the night after he testified before the Council, "Take courage! For just as you have borne a faithful witness to me in Yerushalayim, so [in like manner] now you must bear witness in Rome." (Acts 23:11 CJB)  That certainly sounds like a commendation to me.

It's true that the commendation wasn't specifically for going up to the temple to offer sacrifices.  That was just one event in a whole string of events where Paul publicly bore witness for Jesus as a Torah-observant follower of the Torah-observant Messiah.

Many Christians have criticized Paul for how he behaved in Jerusalem, but the criticism is groundless because Paul bore witness for Jesus in Jerusalem by publicly living according to God's Law of Moses, which is the same way that Jesus himself lived.  What is there to criticize in that?

If you were going to accuse Paul of wrongdoing for going up to the temple to sacrifice, which passage of Scripture would you quote as an "It is written" in order to rebuke or correct Paul?  Really.  On what grounds would you call his actions into question at all? 

[Ron Amnsn]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Talk about ADDING WORDS to the text. 

That's one of the reasons I don't use the Complete Jewish Bible.  It's also a one-translator version.

[Ron Amnsn]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I will repeat.  The faithful priests of Levite/Aaronic (and Phinehas) linage WILL receive all the promises made to them.  They WILL serve as priests.  They WILL receive tithes.  They WILL teach "the way of the LORD".  They WILL decide disputes. 

They just won't be the ONLY priests.  They will be priests of the Melchizedek order, in the Kingdom of Messiah on the earth.  They - along with all of redeemed Israel, WILL "rule the nations" - AS PRIESTS. 

What you say here doesn't fulfill the promises and covenant that God gave to the descendants of Aaron.  For instance, the priests that were on duty the day that the veil was torn in the temple.  According to what you've been claiming earlier, the priesthood, livelihood, and pension were supposedly revoked by God that day for those priests.  Is God's Word reliable?

[Ron Amnsn]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The verse does not say he was commended FOR presenting sacrifices at the Temple.  THAT was something he was warned NOT to do, several times.  He went anyway, and the LORD allowed Paul to be taken into custody, and finally executed.

I think there is a difference between being warned about what will happen when you do something, and being warned not to do something.  If there is no difference, then Jesus apparently warned us all NOT to follow him because Jesus warned us that there would be trouble and persecution for those who follow him.

I've looked at the warnings that were were given to Paul on his way to Jerusalem. After his friends heard the warnings, they asked Paul not to go to Jerusalem, but God did not tell Paul to stay away from Jerusalem.

[8thdaypriest]

11 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

That's one of the reasons I don't use the Complete Jewish Bible.  It's also a one-translator version.

What translations do you prefer?

[8thdaypriest]

11 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I think there is a difference between being warned about what will happen when you do something, and being warned not to do something.  If there is no difference, then Jesus apparently warned us all NOT to follow him because Jesus warned us that there would be trouble and persecution for those who follow him.

I've looked at the warnings that were were given to Paul on his way to Jerusalem. After his friends heard the warnings, they asked Paul not to go to Jerusalem, but God did not tell Paul to stay away from Jerusalem.

The question is:  Was it a "sin" for Paul to offer sacrifices as commanded under the Sinai Covenant? 

My answer would be NO.  It was not a sin. 

Paul says he became AS a Jew, in order to "win Jews" for Jesus Christ.  And if you define "under the law" to MEAN under the Oral Torah of the Pharisees, then Paul also became "as under" that law also, that he might if possible win those who lived under that law - even though he did not consider himself "under" the Orah Torah.  Neither did Jesus by the way.

The more likely understanding is that he "became  as a Jew = as those under the law".  He acted LIKE those people, with the intention of winning some to Christ. 

1 Corinthians 9:20 "and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law" (NKJ)

He did NOT go up to Jerusalem with the express purpose of being "purified".  He realized that he WAS ALREADY purified - in Christ.  He did NOT go up to the Temple because he felt he needed to complete the rites.  He went there because he felt an urgent desire to WIN Jews at Jerusalem - the ones most bound by the Law. 

Second question:  Is it a "sin" NOT to offer animal sacrifices at Jerusalem - assuming the Temple is restored on the Mount? 

Answer:  IF the Sinai Covenant is still in effect (and has not be nullified by the death of "the husband") - then my answer would be YES.

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!’”

[8thdaypriest]

    Here are just a few commands from the Torah, commanded by the LORD, and written down by Moses.

 Deuteronomy 8:10  Recite grace AFTER meals.  

SEPARATION OF MENSTRUATING WOMEN

    Leviticus 15:19 “If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. 20 `Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also everything that she sits on shall be unclean. 21 `Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. 22 `And whoever touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. 23 `If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. 24 `And if any man lies with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.”

COMMENT:  This requirement would definitely put a crimp in any career aspirations for a woman!  Do you separate your wife and daughters, and sleep in a separate bed, during their menstrual periods?

    Leviticus 19:13  “The wages of him who is hired shall not remain with you all night until morning.”  You must pay your workers at the end of each day of work.

COMMENT:  Any of you employ workers?  You must pay them every day. 

Leviticus 19:19  “Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.”

COMMENT:  Do you wear garments made of more than one type of fabric?

Deutronomy 20:16   Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations.

Really???  They are STILL supposed to KILL every person of Canaanite linage?

    Leviticus 19:27  “You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard.”

Hope you are wearing a full un-trimmed beard. 

    Leviticus 24:19-20  “If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him-- `fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him.”

    Deuteronomy 25:5  “The brother of a man who dies childless, is to marry his brother’s widow and produce an heir for his brother.” 

Any of you men ready to marry your sister-in-law?   

[8thdaypriest]

12 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

What you say here doesn't fulfill the promises and covenant that God gave to the descendants of Aaron.  For instance, the priests that were on duty the day that the veil was torn in the temple.  According to what you've been claiming earlier, the priesthood, livelihood, and pension were supposedly revoked by God that day for those priests.  Is God's Word reliable?

 

God certainly ALLOWED the Romans to destroy that system for the Levite priests.   He could have protected it - "as promised" - but he didn't.  God ripped the veil.  God ended that system.

 The END of the House of Aaron - as priests - was prophesied.

1Samuel 2:27 Then a man of God came to Eli and said to him, "Thus says the LORD:`Did I not clearly reveal Myself to the house of your father [Aaron] when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh's house? 28 `Did I not choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be My priest, to offer upon My altar, to burn incense, and to wear an ephod before Me? And did I not give to the house of your father [Aaron] all the offerings of the children of Israel made by fire?

29 `Why do you kick at My sacrifice and My offering which I have commanded in My dwelling place, and honor your sons more than Me, to make yourselves fat with the best of all the offerings of Israel My people?' 30 "Therefore the LORD God of Israel says:`I said indeed that your house and the house of your father 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.

31 `Behold, the days are coming that I will cut off your arm and the arm of your father's house [the house of Aaron] , so that there will not be an old man in your house [a man of age to serve as priest].

32 `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.

33 `But any of your men whom I do not cut off from My altar shall consume your eyes and grieve your heart. And all the descendants of your house [Eli's house] shall die in the flower of their age.

34 `Now this shall be a sign to you that will come upon your two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas: in one day they shall die, both of them.

35 `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 [Me as] My anointed forever. (NKJ)

The last verse is a prophecy of Jesus Christ.  He is our faithful high priest.  God is building HIM "a sure house" and HE will walk before God as His anointed - forever.

The LORD would bring to an end "your house" - meaning the house of Eli.  The LORD would one day bring to an end "your father's house" - the house of Aaron. 

Any men whom the LORD does not "cut off from My alter" will "consume your eyes and grieve your heart".  Think of THAT prophecy when the Temple is rebuilt on the Mount, before the return of Christ in glory.

Verse 35 of the prophecy only partly FITS Samuel.  Though Samuel was a "faithful priest", he did not last forever, and his "house" faded away.  Samuel was a TYPE of Christ. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/3/2016 at 5:30 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

The term "works of the law" appears several times in the Dead Sea Scrolls referring specifically to the man-made requirements that the community had set up for new members, and for members who had fallen out of favor, before they would be accepted as full members.  Paul was dealing with a very similar situation in Galatia where the Gentiles were being taught they needed to comply with the traditional requirements of oral law by completing the man-made proselyte training program before they could be "saved" and be full members of the community. 

This whole thing with the "Oral Torah" reminds me of criminal trials.  If there is another viable suspect, then the jury cannot convict the suspect. 

Every time "works of the law" appears, you say it means "the Oral Torah".  Why can't it just as easily MEAN that Paul was telling the Galatians ("you who desire to be under the law") that they could not be "justified by law keeping" - by trips to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice. 

Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (NKJ)

The Galatians did NOT NEED to travel to Jerusalem, to offer animal sacrifices.  Neither do I.

Your reason Ron, for believing that animal sacrifice should be restored, and will be restored on The Mount, is BECAUSE God once gave these commands.  And you say that God does not change, therefore any command He once gave is still binding today. 

And I have responded that God has NOT CHANGED.  It was His plan all along, to bring us to Christ using "a tutor". 

Galatians 3:25 "But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."

The Oral Torah of the Pharisees WAS NOT the "tutor" to bring us to Christ. 

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

What translations do you prefer?

I use ESV and NASB the most.  However, they are still translations.

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Your reason Ron, for believing that animal sacrifice should be restored, and will be restored on The Mount, is BECAUSE God once gave these commands.  And you say that God does not change, therefore any command He once gave is still binding today

When you tell me what I believe, you often assign me beliefs I don't have. I don't recall ever saying that animal sacrifice "should" be restored, or that animal sacrifices "will be restored".  Maybe you are mixing me up with someone else.

God may choose to have the temple services restored.  If the Jews resume offering sacrifices, I expect that it will be condemned by many people for various reasons-- animal rights people, Christians, etc.  I don't think the Bible says anything that authorizes us to condemn the resumption of the temple service, including sacrifices.  And I definitely think it is foolish to assume ahead of time that the resumption of temple services and sacrifices would be part of some evil scheme, since the Bible doesn't say anything like that. 

The gospel of John tells us that we worship a Messiah who is consumed with zeal for the temple, so it seems his followers would be similar.

I think there's a difference between God giving a command once -- like God telling Noah to build an ark -- and God setting up a system of worship and instructing that the priests and Israelites continue that worship system throughout their generations, especially since God has never instructed anyone to stop worshiping him in that way.

I'm not the one who says God does not change. I think the Bible does say something like that, but I don't think I've mentioned that in at least a couple years.  I do say that if God does change his mind he is very capable of clearly telling people of that change, and that we shouldn't just assume that God has changed his mind because of changing circumstances.

[Ron Amnsn]

22 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The question is:  Was it a "sin" for Paul to offer sacrifices as commanded under the Sinai Covenant? 

My answer would be NO.  It was not a sin. 

That wasn't the question I was responding to, and I think you know that.  You had suggested that Paul was being disobedient to some non-existent warnings from God by going to Jerusalem for Pentecost and was preparing to offer sacrifices at the temple because that happened to be expedient.

So the question is: Did Paul live in obedience or disobedience, integrity or hypocritical expediency?

It seems that your beliefs require that Paul be portrayed as a disobedient hypocrite that would say and do whatever was expedient to advance his own cause.  That's sad and counterproductive.  I believe Paul always acted and spoke with full integrity before God and man, as he claimed to, and I think the book of Acts and Paul's epistles fully bear that out, once people drop the notion that Paul was teaching something different than Jesus taught and teaching something different than what could be confirmed in the Old Testament (as the Bereans were able to confirm).  I think Paul's whole-hearted open integrity was why God chose Paul rather than choosing someone clever in the ways of the world.

Of course, the answer to your new question is that following God's Word is not a sin, because God's Word is reliable.  How could wanting to honestly follow God's latest instructions possibly be considered a sin?

[Ron Amnsn]

21 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

God certainly ALLOWED the Romans to destroy that system for the Levite priests.   He could have protected it - "as promised" - but he didn't.  God ripped the veil.  God ended that system.

Some very different issues are being muddled together here:

1. God putting a temporary stop to sacrifices and temple services in AD 70 because of disobedience.
2. God putting a permanent stop to sacrifices and temple services in AD 70 and rejecting Israel as a nation because of disobedience.
3. God putting a permanent stop to the sacrifices and temple services at the death of Messiah because God had planned all along to make that system of worship and that priesthood obsolete when Messiah died.

God may have allowed the Romans to destroy Jerusalem and the temple because of disobedience "as promised" in his covenant with Israel.  I don't see a conflict between that destruction and God's covenant with Israel or God's covenant with the descendants of Aaron.  I don't think anyone thought that the priesthood was somehow granted some sort of immunity from the consequences of disobedience under God's covenant.

If we're talking about issue number 1, then God is faithfully keeping his word with the Israelites and Levitical priests.
If we're talking about issue number 2, then God is not being faithful to the confirmation of his covenant with the Levitical priests that God gave in Jeremiah 33. This would also seriously call into question God's faithfulness to his promises to Abraham, the Israelites, David, and to the 12 disciples.
If we're talking about issue number 3, then even at the moment while God was speaking the promises to Aaron and the covenant to Aaron's descendants, God was already planning to not honor his own word.