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

[8thdaypriest]

10 hours ago, jackson said:

When i see this apparent difference , it raises some interesting  questions . What is  the makeup and relationship of the Holy City in Heaven and the New Jerusalem on earth ? 

This is  the New Jerusalem coming down out of Heaven ( Rev 21 10)  to be placed on the earth. As such, it would no longer need a temple with its furniture and apartments, for sin is no more.

While the Holy City was in Heaven is this where John saw a  Temple with the ark inside  in Rev 11:19?

Rev  11:19    And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Was the Holy City of Heaven, where Mrs White and John saw the Temple, to become the New Jerusalem on the earth made new? Is not  the New Jerusalem on earth to be  where both the Father  and Jesus will reside with the saints? 

In the City which descends from Heaven.

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. (KJV)

The redeemed saints will have country homes - all over the earth, where they will build houses, and grow vineyards etc (Isa. 65:21).  The City will apparently be their City dwelling, where they go up for the Feasts of the LORD.

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/6/2016 at 4:53 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

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.

Rachel:  It wasn't Paul's metaphor (as you call it).  It was God's.  HE is the one who said, "I am married to you" (Jeremiah 3:14).  He was speaking of a specific TYPE of covenant. 

• 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? 

Rachel:  Because the covenants with Abraham, David, Jacob, Noah, and Daniel were NOT marriage TYPE covenants.  They were "grant covenants" and "covenants of promise".

• 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.

Rachel:  John 8:39 "They answered and said to Him, 'Abraham is our father.' Jesus said to them, 'If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.'" (NKJ)

Rachel:  Galatians 3:7 "Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham." (NAU)  Those who refused to believe in God's Son, were not and are not "sons of Abraham".  

They were not and are not Israelites either.  Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, (NKJ)

They were not and are not "adopted" as sons either.  Only those of faith, who receive the "spirit of adoption" are truly "sons". 

"you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" (Rom 8:15 NAU). 

"in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children". (Gal 4:5 NRS)  Those "under the law" are NOT "adopted as sons".  For the adoption one must receive the "spirit of adoption".  And "if you are led by the spirit, you are NOT under the law" (Gal 5:18). 

All of Paul's unbelieving kinsmen were NOT "led by the spirit", and they were "under the law", therefore they were NOT "adopted" sons. 

 

• 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.

Rachel:  Again - it was NOT my metaphor.  It was God's.  And I did not call the risen Christ "another" husband.  Paul did. 

• 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.

The words written on the stones, do NOT MENTION Israel - even once.  The words on the stones - called "the covenant", are God's Law - as it has been from the 7th day of creation.  The Law of God was NOT something new.  Israel simply agreed to KEEP that Law.  In return the LORD would bless them.  Their assent to God's covenant law, (their "I do", as it were) was made by voice, from the foot of the mountain.  Unfortunately, their hearts were like stone. 

• 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".

Rachel:  It's NOT my theory.  I simply pointed it out.  Paul is the one who said,

Romans 7:3-4 "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. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. (NAU)

Israel in the wilderness, and most Jews of Christ's day, were like an infertile wife.  No "fruit" of the "marriage". 

• 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.

Rachel: 

What God "intends" and what He says will happen - may be two very different things.  God never "intends" that anyone sin against Him.  And yes - sins committed in ignorance (un-intentional ignorance) are "covered" until such time that the sin becomes "known". God still offered them forgiveness and reconciliation - as long as they lived.   

I did NOT assign "blame" except to say they resisted God's spirit (Nicodemous and Joseph of Armathea being notable exceptions). 

I do NOT assign blame to all descendants of the Romans who persecuted Christians, or to all Catholics who serve the "church" which persecuted reformers.  Why would I "blame" all Jews for Jesus death.  That would just be ignorant. 

 

[Alchemy]

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.

There isn't any need for prejudice of any kind. I tested her statement against the Scriptures and found her statement correct. All because that pleases me doesn't mean I'm biased in any way. I truly love the truth in all its forms.

[Alchemy]

On 10/8/2016 at 8:35 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

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

Your assumption is incorrect. The anti-typical practices are for Melchizedek, not Levi. Levi was just used to teach the lessons (types) of what God, through the High Priestly order of Melchizedek, was to do for our salvation.