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

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

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.

I can understand why you see things the way that you do.  I just do not see them the same way. 

I believe the Sinai Covenant ENDED when "the husband" of that marriage covenant DIED.  But that still leaves the Covenant with Noah, and the Covenant of promise with Abraham and with David.  That still leaves the "true Tabernacle" and "priests of God and of Christ", and the Law of God, and the Sabbath, and the Holy City New Jerusalem.  And that still leaves Israel redeemed, which is NOT based in DNA, but rather - in faith. 

We have reached the point where we are just repeating our arguments. 

Bye for now.  Thanks for the discussion.  Rachel

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/4/2016 at 2:56 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

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.

There are several issues here:

• Is the metaphor of God's marriage to Israel supposed to be extended to the point the of death God?  I don't recall any Bible authors extending the marriage metaphor to the point of death and resurrection of God.  You keep trying to insert that metaphor into Paul's illustration in Romans 7, but that evidently wasn't Paul's intent in Romans 7 because he is clearly speaking of individuals and he gives absolutely no clues that he is referring to the metaphorical marriage of the nation to God. And Paul also does not say in the Romans 7 illustration anything about the husband being resurrected, which he would have needed to do if he intended the illustration to be used the way you use it because all of the Jews would have been asking the same questions I asked earlier (and more) about how the law of marriage works when a temporarily dead husband is resurrected.
• If the resurrected Messiah is a "new husband" who has lost his responsibility to his former wife, and lost all responsibility for his former promises and covenants with the Israelites, why does his death not also free him from his covenants and promises to Abraham, David, Jacob, Noah, and Daniel? 
• The apostle Paul obviously does not believe that the death and resurrection of Messiah has invalidated the previous covenants and promises with Israel, because in Romans 9:4-5 Paul declares regarding his non-believing kinsmen, "who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, ... "  Paul wrote that in the present tense describing the situation that existed several decades after the veil of the temple had been torn.  I've heard people try to argue that Paul didn't really mean the present situation when he wrote that, but that argument would only turn Paul's paragraph into meaningless nonsense.
• Are God's covenants mutually exclusive?  In other words, does a former covenant have to be invalidated when a new covenant is given?  Paul says in Galatians 3:17 , "What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise."  Although he is speaking in this case of the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant, he does not limit the principle to just those two covenants, and he does not contrast those two covenants with any covenants that do invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God.  And of course, if Paul taught that the Sinai covenant had become obsolete at the death and resurrection of Messiah, then Paul could have used that very obsolescence to absolutely and conclusively prove the main point he was trying to make in Galatians.
  Also, If we look at all the promises and covenants God gave in the Bible, we find that each of them adds to the ones previously given.  What God promised to Noah adds to what God previously promised to Adam and Eve, the same with what God promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Each new covenant and promise adds to those that came before.  We find that God's promises and covenants are cumulative rather than sequential or  mutually exclusive.  Even the promise of the new covenant as quoted in Hebrews 8 assumes that several things will be brought forward from earlier covenants -- Judah, Israel, sin, righteousness, torah, and the Lord.  That last one seems to defeat your theory of the marriage metaphor all by itself.  The wording of the new covenant promise in Jeremiah and in Hebrews both say that the new covenant will be made by the same Lord that made the original covenant, rather than saying that it will be a "new husband" instead.
• As you well know, the Bible does not say that the Sinai covenant is obsolete.  I think you acknowledged earlier that the "ark of His covenant" that appears in the temple in heaven at the time of the seventh trumpet in Revelation 11 still contains the covenant document with the same words that God spoke from Sinai.
• If the sinless Messiah was conquered by death and was resurrected as a different "husband" instead of as the same man he was before, then it seems that Paul got it backwards in 1Tim 1:10 -- instead of Messiah abolishing death, your theory of the marriage metaphor has death abolishing Messiah as the "first husband".
• Jesus came intending to die to redeem Israel. God intended for the Jewish leaders to kill Messiah.  That had been foretold centuries earlier by the prophets.  Peter preached, "And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled." (Acts 3:17-18)  Since Peter's attitude is also the Bible's attitude toward the role of the Jewish leaders, why is that role spoken of as if there were some extraordinary level of blame involved in what happened?  Don't people realize that the blame that has been needlessly directed toward the Jews over the centuries has driven the Jews further from Christianity and further from Messiah?  The plan of salvation did not allow for Messiah to die in an accident or in some random act -- it apparently needed to be done in a purposeful way, either by his enemies or by his friends.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/3/2016 at 2:22 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

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.

 

This is a fine passage for some future fulfillment. But it is evident that this passage was not fulfilled when the veil was torn, so it does nothing to support the idea that the Melchezidekian priesthood replaced the Levitical priesthood when Messiah died.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/5/2016 at 10:03 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

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

Yes, these are in God's Law of Moses. It's interesting that there is no passage in Scripture that has the same purpose as your post seems to have -- highlighting God's laws that seem difficult or bothersome or unreasonable. The Bible authors apparently had a different attitude toward God's laws.

It wasn't too many decades ago that physicians and surgeons thought it was too bothersome and unreasonable to wash their hands between patients, yet today that is considered to be part of very basic hygiene.  It wouldn't be too surprising if God's laws of family purity that you listed will someday be considered part of basic hygiene in civilized countries.

When you live in a society that respects God's laws, none of these laws would be too much of a problem.  Some of them are more challenging when you live outside of Israel. 

I've noticed that those who don't want to follow God's laws very often view God's laws more legalistically than those who do want to follow God's laws, so they construe God's commands to be more difficult than God intended.

Christians often speak of "giving their lives to Jesus". And some commit to a life of hardship in some faraway mission field.  Yet if Jesus asked a Christian to follow God's Law of Moses, would that be too much to do for Jesus?  Would that infringe on some part of life that hasn't been surrendered to Jesus?  Would it be a hardship?  It's not that the Law of Moses needs to be followed to earn salvation -- Jesus took care of that -- all we need to do is accept him as Lord of our lives.  When Jesus was following the Law of Moses every day, he said "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."

 

[Alchemy]

On September 3, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

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.

 

What change? Actually, I believe many changes. For instance; the sacrifice is the blood of the Son of God, not animal. The location; In the Heavenly Sanctuary, not on this earth. Just to name a couple. So, what change are you wanting to get at?

[Alchemy]

When we study Hebrews chapter 7, we shouldn't skip the first ten verses.

Hebrews 7:1-10 clearly explains, or interprets the experience of Melchizedek and Abraham after the slaughter. (Gen. 14:17-24)

When we get to verses 8-10 we find Abraham represented the Levitical Priesthood! This point shouldn't be missed.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/9/2016 at 1:53 AM, Alchemy said:

What change? Actually, I believe many changes. For instance; the sacrifice is the blood of the Son of God, not animal. The location; In the Heavenly Sanctuary, not on this earth. Just to name a couple. So, what change are you wanting to get at?

Does the Book of Hebrews tell us there was a change necessary in law, without telling us what that change is?  That's the first thing a bunch of Hebrew believers who were all zealous for the law would have wanted to know-- which part changed, specifically?

I think the book of Hebrews tells us exactly what changed, so there's need for speculation, assuming, or guessing.  And the change was one that would have been fully compatible with the Old Testament and thus acceptable to the Jewish believers, otherwise it would have been necessary for the author to provide much better reasons for the alleged changes.  The reasons given in Hebrews wouldn't even begin to convince someone who is zealous for God's Law of Moses that parts of the Law of Moses had become obsolete.

The Hebrew believers had learned to live by the Old Testament Scriptures before they ever heard of Paul or his teachings, which is quite different than the experience of most Christians who have lived since the Bible was finished. Also, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit had caused exactly what had been prophesied-- "And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules" (Ezekiel 36:27) just as Jesus did.  So the reasons that would fully convince a person who has never loved or kept God's law, wouldn't even start to convince the Hebrew believers that a change was necessary to God's excellent Old Testament laws that Jesus had lived by and confirmed multiple times.

If the author of Hebrews had actually been teaching something that contradicted the Old Testament Scriptures (and virtually every popular interpretation of Hebrews 7:12 does contradict many Old Testament passages) the reasons given in Hebrews would not even begin to convince a Hebrew believer that (1) such changes were actually necessary due to the Melchizedekian priesthood of Jesus operating in heaven, or (2) that God's Word in so many Old Testament passages had been rendered untrue and had never been reliable.

[Alchemy]

Ron Amnsn wrote;

 

"The Hebrew believers had learned to live by the Old Testament Scriptures before they ever heard of Paul or his teachings, which is quite different than the experience of most Christians who have lived since the Bible was finished. Also, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit had caused exactly what had been prophesied-- "And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules" (Ezekiel 36:27) just as Jesus did.  So the reasons that would fully convince a person who has never loved or kept God's law, wouldn't even start to convince the Hebrew believers that a change was necessary to God's excellent Old Testament laws that Jesus had lived by and confirmed multiple times."

 

Please continue! I would like to ask a question though; If Jesus could return to this earth today, would He serve as a priest on this earth?

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, Alchemy said:

Please continue! I would like to ask a question though; If Jesus could return to this earth today, would He serve as a priest on this earth?

The author of Hebrews says that Jesus couldn't serve as a priest on earth at the time Hebrews was written,  because the law that specified who could be a priest was still valid and there was still a valid priesthood functioning.
"Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law." (Hebrews 8:4)
If nothing changes between that time and "today", then evidently Jesus could not serve as priest on earth today.

However, the return of Jesus will probably bring some changes. Will it cause "heaven and earth to pass away"?  Will it be the fulfillment of "all" from what Jesus said in Matt 5:17?  According to what Jesus said there it sounds like the Law of Moses won't change until those events take place.

I believe God has the authority to make changes to the Law when he wants to make changes.  But I also believe that God will tell people of those changes with the same authority and scope with which he announced the original laws that are being replaced.  I don't think we are authorized to just assume things are changed, when God hasn't actually said so.

[Ron Amnsn]

One of the clues that the author of Hebrews gave us regarding the nature of the "change of law" in Hebrews 7:12 doesn't show up at all in English translations.  The Greek words for "change" in that verse usually refer to a change of location.  I'll repost here something I posted earlier in this discussion while it was still in the Colossians 2:14 thread.

On 9/1/2016 at 9:45 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

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.

I think Hebrews 7:12 is speaking of a change of place for Jesus' Melchizedekian priesthood along with a corresponding change of jurisdiction to a place where the Law of Moses has no jurisdiction.

Some English translations of this verse say that the change of priesthood requires a change  "of the law".  The definite article "the" is not present in the Greek.  The preposition "of" isn't actually present in the Greek either.  I think the inserted "the" gives people the erroneous idea that there was a change to "the law".

There is another aspect of the verse that I am exploring speculatively, which I haven't yet been able to confirm with someone knowledgeable in Greek grammar.  I'm wondering if the author might have intended that "necessity" and "law" be understood as a compound reason why the change of place happens, because the next verse starts talking about the reasons why God's Law of Moses wouldn't allow Jesus to be a priest on earth.  Here is what the Nestle-Aland Greek NT with McReynolds English Interlinear looks like:

μετατιθεμένης

γὰρ

τῆς

ἱερωσύνης

ἐξ

ἀνάγκης

καὶ

νόμου

μετάθεσις

γίνεται

metatithemenēs

gar

tēs

hierōsynēs

ex

anankēs

kai

nomou

metathesis

ginetai

Being changed

for

the

priesthood

from

necessity

and

law

change

becomes

The words "necessity" and "law" are both singular genitive nouns joined by "and" so it is quite possible that those two words are both serving as objects of the preposition "from".  Acts 18:15 uses "kai nomou" to do exactly what I'm am suggesting for this verse -- where "and law" joins "law" with the preceding noun in the sentence and both nouns serve as objects of a preposition.  So this verse may be saying that the change of location was necessary because of law.  Then the verse would agree with the next two verses, agree with what the author says in Hebrews 8:4, agree with what Jesus said about no stroke of the Law passing away yet, and agree with what God said in the Old Testament about the Levitical priests doing certain things "throughout the generations" of the Israelites, rather than only until Messiah came.

[Alchemy]

10 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

The author of Hebrews says that Jesus couldn't serve as a priest on earth at the time Hebrews was written,  because the law that specified who could be a priest was still valid and there was still a valid priesthood functioning.
"Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law." (Hebrews 8:4)
If nothing changes between that time and "today", then evidently Jesus could not serve as priest on earth today.

However, the return of Jesus will probably bring some changes. Will it cause "heaven and earth to pass away"?  Will it be the fulfillment of "all" from what Jesus said in Matt 5:17?  According to what Jesus said there it sounds like the Law of Moses won't change until those events take place.

I believe God has the authority to make changes to the Law when he wants to make changes.  But I also believe that God will tell people of those changes with the same authority and scope with which he announced the original laws that are being replaced.  I don't think we are authorized to just assume things are changed, when God hasn't actually said so.

Excellent post.

Well, if you understand this, then why aren't you a Seventh-day Adventist? God has sent a prophetess named Ellen G. White for such a time and purpose as this.

[Alchemy]

2 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

One of the clues that the author of Hebrews gave us regarding the nature of the "change of law" in Hebrews 7:12 doesn't show up at all in English translations.  The Greek words for "change" in that verse usually refer to a change of location.  I'll repost here something I posted earlier in this discussion while it was still in the Colossians 2:14 thread.

I think Hebrews 7:12 is speaking of a change of place for Jesus' Melchizedekian priesthood along with a corresponding change of jurisdiction to a place where the Law of Moses has no jurisdiction.

Some English translations of this verse say that the change of priesthood requires a change  "of the law".  The definite article "the" is not present in the Greek.  The preposition "of" isn't actually present in the Greek either.  I think the inserted "the" gives people the erroneous idea that there was a change to "the law".

There is another aspect of the verse that I am exploring speculatively, which I haven't yet been able to confirm with someone knowledgeable in Greek grammar.  I'm wondering if the author might have intended that "necessity" and "law" be understood as a compound reason why the change of place happens, because the next verse starts talking about the reasons why God's Law of Moses wouldn't allow Jesus to be a priest on earth.  Here is what the Nestle-Aland Greek NT with McReynolds English Interlinear looks like:

μετατιθεμένης

γὰρ

τῆς

ἱερωσύνης

ἐξ

ἀνάγκης

καὶ

νόμου

μετάθεσις

γίνεται

metatithemenēs

gar

tēs

hierōsynēs

ex

anankēs

kai

nomou

metathesis

ginetai

Being changed

for

the

priesthood

from

necessity

and

law

change

becomes

The words "necessity" and "law" are both singular genitive nouns joined by "and" so it is quite possible that those two words are both serving as objects of the preposition "from".  Acts 18:15 uses "kai nomou" to do exactly what I'm am suggesting for this verse -- where "and law" joins "law" with the preceding noun in the sentence and both nouns serve as objects of a preposition.  So this verse may be saying that the change of location was necessary because of law.  Then the verse would agree with the next two verses, agree with what the author says in Hebrews 8:4, agree with what Jesus said about no stroke of the Law passing away yet, and agree with what God said in the Old Testament about the Levitical priests doing certain things "throughout the generations" of the Israelites, rather than only until Messiah came.

Excellent post, Ron.

You may want to consider Malachi 2:17 to 3:12 for more insight. The Levitical Priesthood I believe, is being purified by the Melchizedek Priesthood.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/13/2016 at 7:11 PM, Alchemy said:

Well, if you understand this, then why aren't you a Seventh-day Adventist? God has sent a prophetess named Ellen G. White for such a time and purpose as this.

I was a great fan of EGW for almost two decades.  Then God prompted me to study the Bible alone.  Now I realize that I had been abusing EGW's writings by not testing each paragraph by the Bible.  Instead I had been filtering the Bible through the writings of EGW, and had ignored or had been blind to anything that the Bible said that differed from what EGW taught.  I hadn't ever been taught how to put the last part of SDA Fundamental Belief #18 into practice, and I'd never met anyone in the SDA church who knew how to test EGW's writings by the Bible.

[phkrause]

18 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I was a great fan of EGW for almost two decades.

I've never been a "fan" of anyone's, except Jesus!!!!!

18 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Then God prompted me to study the Bible alone.

That's exactly what EGW says to do!!!!! So that leads me to believe you've never read her writings, because she says that over and over in her writings. I'd like to see the statement of hers where she states that her writings are above the Bible's!!!!!

 

18 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I'd never met anyone in the SDA church who knew how to test EGW's writings by the Bible.

Than you've never talked face to face with M Findley, S Boonstra, D Nelson, S Bohr, or any Jewish/SDA pastors like DB, S Wohlberg, Dr JM Hoffman, Herb Silver, etc., etc.!! I could go on but I think those names will do!!

Just to let you know I'm not trying to be critical of you, I enjoy your posts and for the most part agree with them.

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, phkrause said:

I've never been a "fan" of anyone's, except Jesus!!!!!

That's exactly what EGW says to do!!!!! So that leads me to believe you've never read her writings, because she says that over and over in her writings. I'd like to see the statement of hers where she states that her writings are above the Bible's!!!!!

Well, I thought I was a "student" of EGW.  I think I read every book she wrote herself.  (I also read many, but not all, of her magazine articles, compilations, and manuscript releases).  But I wasn't testing her writings by Scripture, as she teaches should be done.  So I was something less than a "student".  Maybe "fan" isn't the right word, maybe I was an "enthusiast", or whatever. 

The perplexing thing is that I never saw anything in her writings that actually tells how to test her writings by Scripture.  And I never saw anything published by the church that actually teaches a person how to test her writings by Scripture.  One of the required courses at the SDA college I attended was specifically on the "Spirit of Prophecy" as exemplified in the life and writings of EGW, yet we weren't taught how to test EGW's writings by the Bible    The assumption among SDA's back then (late 70's to early 90's), at least in practice, seemed to be that once you accepted that EGW was a "prophet" there was no need for further testing of her writings -- you could just accept them all as "inspired" like the Bible, but theoretically not at the same level as the Bible.

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, phkrause said:

Than you've never talked face to face with M Findley, S Boonstra, D Nelson, S Bohr, or any Jewish/SDA pastors like DB, S Wohlberg, Dr JM Hoffman, Herb Silver, etc., etc.!! I could go on but I think those names will do!!

It's true.  I never met the people you name.  I think most of them weren't well known when I had access to the SDA enclaves, and the big names apparently don't venture into small-town Canada 8 hours beyond the US border.  There was one administrator at college that spoke once about abusing EGW's writings. He might have known how to test EGW's writings by the Bible, but didn't share it publicly.  I recall that I wasn't very receptive to what he said at the time.

In those days, I don't think a person would have lasted long in an SDA position if he publicly stated that some passage of EGW's writings had been tested and was found to contradict the Bible.  People had an "all or nothing" attitude toward EGW -- either everything she wrote was truth or she couldn't be a true prophet.  It doesn't seem much different now in the local SDA church when I visit, except there are far fewer quotations of EGW shared publicly.  When I flip through the monthly edition of Adventist Review that comes to my wife, I see pictures and articles by some of the people you name, but there isn't any apparent testing of EGW's writings by the Bible.  The lay members in town here don't know how to test EGW by the Bible, and although my friend who is a regular SS teacher knew it was something that should be done, he didn't know how to put the idea into practice.

Since I left the SDA church I have met some SDA feast-keepers online who do know how to test EGW's writings by the Bible. But people like that are not welcome in our local SDA Conference and are not allowed to hold any local church offices.

Has there ever been a lesson in the Sabbath School Quarterly showing how to test passages of EGW's writings by the Bible, with examples of passages that pass the test, passages that are inconclusive, and passages that fail the test?

[Alchemy]

Blessings Ron,

I am not surprised to find you have had an experience with the SDA Church. I find it interesting as one who converted from Roman Catholicism in 1982 how many are confused about Ellen White's writings. I must admit it took me a few years in the church to finally accomplish this task of testing her, yet, it is something I still do! This study of Hebrews 7 would be one such example. I read in Ellen White's writings that Melchizedek in Genesis 14 was not Jesus, but a representative. I thought for sure she was wrong about that until I studied Hebrews 7:1-10. The Bible proved her correct once again.

I will be praying for you Ron. Something else I've learned from my study of Hebrews is that the feast days are typical of Christ and the Levitical Priesthood has nothing to do with anything typical of Christ anymore.

 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 10/3/2016 at 6:01 AM, Alchemy said:

I thought for sure she was wrong about that until I studied Hebrews 7:1-10. The Bible proved her correct once again.

Is it the Bible's proper role to prove someone is correct?  I don't think so.  Maybe that's not what you meant.

When we are testing something taught or written by EGW (or anyone else) by the Bible, it doesn't seem like we should have a preference for the outcome of the test or the test will be biased.

When I thought I was a student of EGW, I would have been alarmed if someone had shown me portions of EGW's writings that fail the test of Scripture.  I would have made a great effort to prove that those passages did not fail the test of Scripture.  Even if I had known how to test EGW's writings by the Bible, I would have approached the testing with a very strong bias because my belief system at that time was dependent on EGW being inerrant.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 10/3/2016 at 6:01 AM, Alchemy said:

Something else I've learned from my study of Hebrews is that the feast days are typical of Christ and the Levitical Priesthood has nothing to do with anything typical of Christ anymore.

You seem to be referring to the theory that "anti-types" make "types" obsolete.  Have you tested that teaching by Scripture?

[8thdaypriest]

On 10/8/2016 at 8:31 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

Is it the Bible's proper role to prove someone is correct?  I don't think so.  Maybe that's not what you meant.

When we are testing something taught or written by EGW (or anyone else) by the Bible, it doesn't seem like we should have a preference for the outcome of the test or the test will be biased.

When I thought I was a student of EGW, I would have been alarmed if someone had shown me portions of EGW's writings that fail the test of Scripture.  I would have made a great effort to prove that those passages did not fail the test of Scripture.  Even if I had known how to test EGW's writings by the Bible, I would have approached the testing with a very strong bias because my belief system at that time was dependent on EGW being inerrant.

I had an almost identical experience. 

Just the other day I read the following post, here on CA.  I had never noticed this quote before, though I had read it many times.

    "...The Lord gave me the following view in 1847, while at Topsham, Me. The brethren were assembled on the Sabbath. . . .  We felt an unusual spirit of prayer. And as we prayed, the Holy Ghost fell upon us. We were very happy. Soon I was lost to earthly things, and was wrapped up in a vision of God's glory. I saw an angel swiftly flying to me. He quickly carried me from the earth to the Holy City.  In the City I saw a temple, which I entered. I passed through a door before I came to the first veil. This veil was raised, and I passed into the Holy Place. Here I saw the altar of incense, the candlestick with seven lamps, and the table on which was the shew-bread. After viewing the glory of the Holy, Jesus raised the second vail, and I passed into the Holy of Holies.  (A Vision, April 7, 1847....See also A Word to the “Little Flock,” p. 19; Experience and Views, p. 17; Early Writings, p. 33)

    Compare the Apostle John's vision - writing many years after Jesus returned to Heaven:
Revelation 21:22 “I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (NRS). 

 

[8thdaypriest]

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

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. 

You seem to equate "the law" in Galatians with the Oral Torah (something which Judaism traditionally elevates above the written Torah). 

Paul wrote that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ".  I cannot believe that "the Oral Torah" - "traditions" which Christ said "make void the Law" - could be the schoolmaster to bring anyone to Christ, that they might be justified by faith. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/4/2016 at 11:00 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

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.

1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

Paul did NOT regard himself as "under the Law".

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/4/2016 at 11:18 PM, 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?

It was certainly "revoked" (if you want to call it that) when the Temple was destroyed almost 2000 years ago.  No more livelihood or pension. 

1 Samuel 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 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 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.

The promise to Aaron/Phinehas is quoted, and then revoked.  It was a CONDITIONAL promise. 

31 `Behold, the days are coming that I will cut off your arm and the arm of your father's house, so that there will not be an old man in your house [a man of 30 years who could serve as a 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 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 My anointed forever. 36 `And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left in your house will come and bow down to him for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and say, "Please, put me in one of the priestly positions, that I may eat a piece of bread."'" (NKJ)

The "faithful priest" is Jesus Christ.  God is building for Him "a sure house". 

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/7/2016 at 8:44 AM, Ron Amnsn said:

 

This is a fine passage for some future fulfillment. But it is evident that this passage was not fulfilled when the veil was torn, so it does nothing to support the idea that the Melchezidekian priesthood replaced the Levitical priesthood when Messiah died.

Well the Melchizedekian priesthood certainly replaced the Levite/Aaronic when the Temple was destroyed!

[8thdaypriest]

Could Jesus be a priest on this earth?  Will He be a priest AFTER He returns?

Zechariah 6:13 "It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two [offices]. (NIV)

Psalm 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (KJV)

ANSWER:  Yes.  Jesus will continue as High Priest of the order of Melchizedek, AFTER He returns to rule on this earth. 

And every person from the "first resurrection" will be a priest of that same order. 

So the real question is:  Who needs a priest AFTER the second coming? 

My answer is:  "the nations" who will come up as "the rest of the dead"