The Jerusalem Council

[Gregory Matthews]

In the current discussion of Unity and other related issues some have believed that the  Jerusalem Council, as presented in Acts, has advice for us today.

The following URL takes one to a very brief comment, which may offend some:

https://atoday.org/31446-2/

 

[Kevin H]

Powerful!

Let's not forget that Mrs. White tells us that it was something similar to this that caused the church to loose Paul by making him go to the temple. That was a meeting of the General Conference and they were not just people put in by politics as ours is, but this General conference consisted of Apostles, Prophet's and Bible writers. What higher authority could you claim, but Mrs. White says that they were wrong.

[Ron Amnsn]

 

On 10/23/2017 at 7:40 AM, Kevin H said:

Powerful!

Let's not forget that Mrs. White tells us that it was something similar to this that caused the church to loose Paul by making him go to the temple. That was a meeting of the General Conference and they were not just people put in by politics as ours is, but this General conference consisted of Apostles, Prophet's and Bible writers. What higher authority could you claim, but Mrs. White says that they were wrong.

Have you ever tested by Scripture the statements of Mrs. White regarding Paul's situation? 

The Bible teaches that two or three witnesses are required to bring a charge against a person (Deut 19:15, Matt 18:16, 2 Cor 13:1) or an elder  (1 Tim 5:19). 

Who are the two or three witnesses that testified against Paul or against the Jerusalem elders?   We have no record of any witnesses rebuking or bringing charges against Paul or the elders, and there is no record that Paul or the elders ever confessed or repented of what they did in that situation for which they have been condemned 18 centuries after the fact by non-witnesses of the event.

What precept of existing Scripture did Paul disregard by going to the Temple?  What commandment or statute of God did the elders disobey by recommending that Paul join the four other believers in going to the Temple?

It appears from the vow that Paul started in Acts 18:18, several weeks before he arrived in Jerusalem, that he was already planning to go to the Temple to complete a Nazarite vow according to the instructions in Numbers 6.

The Lord commended Paul for his actions and words during his final visit to Jerusalem (Acts 23:11).

[8thdaypriest]

Paul was warned.  He was warned that "chains" awaited him, if he completed is journey to Jerusalem.

Acts 20:22  "And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me."    v. 24    Paul said he expected to "finish my race".  That sounds like Paul expected to die.     

Disciples at Tyre  (another stop on the way) "told Paul through the Spirit NOT to go up to Jerusalem".  (Acts 21:4)

It's NOT just the people telling Paul "not to go".  It's Jesus.   [Paul does NOT write that the LORD told him to go.]  

At Caesarea (another stop) "a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea."  "He took Paul's belt, bound his hands and feet, and said, 'Thus says the Holy Spirit,  'So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'"   (Acts 21:10-12). 

Sounds like more than one "witness" - to me. 

The Jews from Jerusalem are the ones who would not eat with the Gentiles.  Paul even rebuked Peter for acting like them.   Doesn't sound to me like the Jews at Jerusalem were good role models for the movement. 

The Jews at Jerusalem felt it would serve the new movement for Paul to "keep the Law" by sacrificing at the Temple, thus making the new movement more acceptable to observant Jews.   The writer of Hebrews had already written that sacrificing animals only served to "purify the flesh" (Heb. 9:13) and did absolutely nothing to purify the soul from sin.  

This sounds very much like the "eating things offered to idols"  command from the council.   Paul writes that idols do nothing to change the food.   So it doesn't matter if the food has first been presented to idols.   And animal sacrifices do nothing to purify the person.   So - WHY is Paul doing this??    Does he have a death wish?  Is this suicide by Temple sacrifice?   Is Paul just totally worn out, and wants to "finish his journey".  And he wants to visit Jerusalem and the Temple one last time.   He stayed away for 14 years (not exactly observant). 

And the LORD allows Paul to suffer the consequences of his action.   But HE did bring some good from it.   Paul was allowed to write several more letters, and witnessed to many in high places. 

[8thdaypriest]

I have posted more than once, my view concerning the "change" of the priesthood.   First:  The LORD "changed" the priesthood at Mount Sinai, after the golden calf rebellion.  He "changed" the priesthood FROM "the firstborn"   TO Aaron and his male descendants.   Second:  The LORD changed the priesthood BACK to "the firstborn" , when the sin of Israel was washed away by the death of Messiah.   Hence Jesus - "the firstborn over all creation"  (Eph. 1:15) became High Priest forever (Psa. 110:4).    And (redeemed) Israel - the LORD's "firstborn"  ( Exo. 4:22)  - become "priests of God and of Christ" (Rev. 20:6,  1Pet. 2:5). 

The new priesthood offers up "spiritual sacrifices" NOT dead animals and their blood  (1Peter 2:5).   

1 Peter 2:5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (NIV)

So.   Why would Paul feel the need to go to Jerusalem to offer animal sacrifices????   Big question!

[Ron Amnsn]

10 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Sounds like more than one "witness" - to me.

It seems the charge against Paul has suddenly changed from something like "it was wrong for Paul to follow the advice of the Jerusalem elders in going to the Temple"   to something more like "it was wrong for Paul to travel to Jerusalem".  I don't recall EGW ever writing that Paul shouldn't have traveled to Jerusalem.

Certainly, the Spirit was telling various people what awaited Paul at Jerusalem.  And because the Spirit made those people were aware of the hardship ahead, they chose to tell Paul he shouldn't go to Jerusalem.  That seems a bit different than Paul being disobedient to God's instructions.  Is an apostle and Bible author expected to defer to the requests of random believers when those requests conflict with what Paul had resolved in the Spirit to do? (Acts 19:21)  Are we authorized to judge Paul centuries after the fact when we don't know what God was guiding him  to do?  Sure, Paul's actions in Jerusalem conflict with what later generations of Gentile believers think was "proper" for a Christian leader to do-- going up to the Temple intending to offer animal sacrifices and all-- but since what Paul planned to do in Jerusalem didn't violate anything in Scripture, on what grounds do we propose to condemn what he did?

Jesus also told his followers there would be hardship ahead if they followed him. (Mark 13:9, Luke 21:12)  Does that warning mean that Jesus didn't want his followers to follow him?  No.  When Paul was first called to be an apostle, Jesus told Ananias that Paul would be shown how much he must suffer for the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16).  Did that warning mean that Jesus didn't want Paul to be an apostle?  No.  So why should the warnings of the hardship that awaited Paul in Jerusalem be interpreted to mean that Paul was mistaken or wrong to go to Jerusalem as planned?

You seem to fault Paul for not being at Jerusalem for 14 years, but also fault him for traveling to Jerusalem after 14 years. 

Have you considered that perhaps the reason Paul didn't go up to Jerusalem for 14 years was because there is no Torah requirement for Israelites outside the Promised Land to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for the feasts? Jesus commanded his disciples to make disciples of all nations. Paul was working on that, which took him away from Jerusalem and the Promised Land. The Torah contains an explicit exemption regarding Passover for those who are on a long journey. (Numbers 9:9ff)  There were also a number of Old Testament people of God who lived outside the Promised Land who did not go to the feasts at Jerusalem for a number of years and who were never rebuked for that--  Daniel, Ezekiel, Esther, Mordecai, Ezra, Nehemiah, Naomi, Jeroboam (while in Egypt evading Solomon).  Evidently David didn't go up to the feasts at the Tabernacle while Saul was out to kill him, yet we are told he was a man after God's own heart, with no recorded rebuke or repentance for not attending the three required annual feasts.  Do we have some greater insight than the apostle Paul had regarding what Paul should and should not do?

Does it make sense for the Lord to commend Paul regarding his actions in Jerusalem (Acts 23:11), but then reveal to later generations of believers that Paul was mistaken in what he did in Jerusalem?  I don't see how that makes sense.  The Scriptures tell us that Paul was called by Jesus and was filled with the Spirit (Acts 8), and that the elders of the congregation in Jerusalem were filled with the Spirit (Acts 2).  Do we somehow have some inside information that Paul and the elders did not have and that is not revealed in Scripture?

[Ron Amnsn]

9 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Second:  The LORD changed the priesthood BACK to "the firstborn" , when the sin of Israel was washed away by the death of Messiah.

Which passage of Scripture tells us this?

Speaking of Jesus, Hebrews 8:4 tells us, "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."  Evidently at the time Hebrews was written (30 to 40 years after the ascension of Jesus), there was still a valid Levitical priesthood functioning on earth, and that Jesus was not qualified to be a priest on earth at that time. You seem to be asserting something that the author of Hebrews did not believe.

Your assertion also seems to contradict numerous passages in the Law and the Prophets that speak about about the duration and continuance of the Levitical priesthood.  For example Exodus 40:7 says that the descendants of Aaron would be a perpetual priesthood throughout their generations.   Paul testified that he believed everything that agrees with the Law and is written in the Prophets (Acts 24:14)  So evidently Paul believed differently than what you are asserting regarding the priesthood.

Your position also casts doubt on the honesty of God's intentions when he gave to the descendants of Aaron the Levitical priesthood as an inheritance in lieu of tribal lands (Numbers 18:21ff), and when God promised the grandson of Aaron a covenant of peace and a perpetual priesthood. (Numbers 25:12)   If God was already planning to do away with the Levitical priesthood at some time in the future when Messiah would come, then the promises He made to the descendants of Aaron and confirmed through Jeremiah the prophet seem intentionally misleading.  Can we have confidence in the promises of God?

 

[8thdaypriest]

12 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Certainly, the Spirit was telling various people what awaited Paul at Jerusalem.  And because the Spirit made those people were aware of the hardship ahead, they chose to tell Paul he shouldn't go to Jerusalem.  That seems a bit different than Paul being disobedient to God's instructions. 

Disciples at Tyre  (another stop on the way) "told Paul through the Spirit NOT to go up to Jerusalem".  (Acts 21:4 NKJ)

After we located the disciples, we stayed there seven days. They repeatedly told Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem. (Act 21:4 NET)

Having searched out the talmidim there, we remained for a week. Guided by the Spirit, they told Sha'ul not to go up to Yerushalayim;  (Act 21:4 CJB)

Why would the Spirit "guide" all these disciples to tell Paul NOT set foot in Jerusalem, if the LORD did not mind one way or the other?

I don't believe this was just the Spirit making people aware of a coming hardship.   Paul had gone through lots of hardship before, and the disciples didn't warn him repeatedly to avoid it.  I believe this was Christ telling Paul not to go there.  Christ knew what those Jerusalem elders were like, and how they would pressure Paul.  And He knew how much Paul longed to win over his countrymen. 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

Chapter 21 seems a bit late for the Spirit to try to use people to influence Paul to not go to Jerusalem.  If the Spirit didn't want Paul to go to Jerusalem, it might have been more effective to send people to counsel Paul before he took the vow in Acts 18:18 or before Paul had resolved in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem in Acts 19:21.  Or if the Spirit actually wanted to keep Paul from Jerusalem the same thing as was done in Acts 16:6 could have prevented or forbidden Paul's arrival in Jerusalem.

What does the Bible teach us to do when the Spirit seems to be giving different messages to different people?

[8thdaypriest]

11 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Which passage of Scripture tells us this?

Speaking of Jesus, Hebrews 8:4 tells us, "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."  Evidently at the time Hebrews was written (30 to 40 years after the ascension of Jesus), there was still a valid Levitical priesthood functioning on earth, and that Jesus was not qualified to be a priest on earth at that time. You seem to be asserting something that the author of Hebrews did not believe.

Your assertion also seems to contradict numerous passages in the Law and the Prophets that speak about about the duration and continuance of the Levitical priesthood.  For example Exodus 40:7 says that the descendants of Aaron would be a perpetual priesthood throughout their generations.   Paul testified that he believed everything that agrees with the Law and is written in the Prophets (Acts 24:14)  So evidently Paul believed differently than what you are asserting regarding the priesthood.

Your position also casts doubt on the honesty of God's intentions when he gave to the descendants of Aaron the Levitical priesthood as an inheritance in lieu of tribal lands (Numbers 18:21ff), and when God promised the grandson of Aaron a covenant of peace and a perpetual priesthood. (Numbers 25:12)   If God was already planning to do away with the Levitical priesthood at some time in the future when Messiah would come, then the promises He made to the descendants of Aaron and confirmed through Jeremiah the prophet seem intentionally misleading.  Can we have confidence in the promises of God?

 

 

BEFORE the priesthood was "changed" - representing "also a change of the Law" - Jesus was "not qualified to be a priest".  Correct.  

Jesus could not be born as a descendant of Aaron.  He must become a king, AND a priest of the order of Melchizedek.   He had to be born of the royal line of Judah/David.  

Melchizedek was NOT a priest in the heavenly realm.  He was a king AND a priest ON THE EARTH.   Just so - Messiah Jesus will become a king AND a priest ON THE EARTH. 

God made him "a priest forever".   Which means that AFTER He returns to this earth, He will still be High Priest. 

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

THE LAW has very specifically been "changed" where the LAW identifies the priesthood.    If it has not - then we must reject the Letter to the Hebrews, and it's author as a deceiver. 

The priesthood has been expanded to include ALL of the firstborn - regardless of their tribe.   Israel redeemed IS "the firstborn".  

Aaron and Phinehas and all their faithful descendants WILL minister in "a perpetual priesthood".  They just won't be the ONLY priests.  All of the redeemed from this age will become "priests of God and of Christ".  The 24 Elders proclaim that they will become "kings and priests" - and will "reign on the earth".   These elders are redeemed "from every tribe, and tongue, and people and nation".   They are NOT all descendants of Aaron. 

I respect your devotion to the Law.   I agree we should study it, and strive to keep it.  But NOT where it concerns "the priesthood" (which would include the sacrifice of animals at the Jerusalem Temple).  The LAW has been changed - concerning the priesthood.   God has the right to do that.   This change does NOT break His promise to Aaron or his grandson. 

We will have to agree to disagree on this one Ron.  

[8thdaypriest]

5 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Chapter 21 seems a bit late for the Spirit to try to use people to influence Paul to not go to Jerusalem.  If the Spirit didn't want Paul to go to Jerusalem, it might have been more effective to send people to counsel Paul before he took the vow in Acts 18:18 or before Paul had resolved in the Spirit to go to Jerusalem in Acts 19:21.  Or if the Spirit actually wanted to keep Paul from Jerusalem the same thing as was done in Acts 16:6 could have prevented or forbidden Paul's arrival in Jerusalem.

What does the Bible teach us to do when the Spirit seems to be giving different messages to different people?

Are you saying the folks who warned Paul not to go, were under the influence of Satan? 

The LORD did not FORBID Paul to go, but He definitely warned Paul concerning the consequences. 

[Ron Amnsn]

30 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Christ knew what those Jerusalem elders were like, and how they would pressure Paul.

You seem to be assuming that there was something wrong with what the elders suggested that Paul do.  On what passage of Scripture do you base that assumption?

Paul had evidently told the elders about his previous vow.  What is wrong with the elders suggestion that Paul complete his own vow publicly along with the four other men for the reason they gave-- "Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law."  Jesus lived in obedience to the Law and Paul was following the example of Jesus.

[Ron Amnsn]

3 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The LORD did not FORBID Paul to go, but He definitely warned Paul concerning the consequences. 

Right.  The Lord also warned Paul of the consequences of becoming an apostle.  The consequences Paul faced in Jerusalem seem to fit right in with the consequences of being an apostle.

[Ron Amnsn]

7 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Are you saying the folks who warned Paul not to go, were under the influence of Satan?

No.  I'm saying what I said above-- that the Spirit revealed to them what the future held for Paul, and just like the folks in verse 12 they were choosing to do the normal human thing in reaction to what the Spirit had revealed.

Are you saying that the elders in Jerusalem were under the influence of Satan?

 

[8thdaypriest]

3 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

On what passage of Scripture do you base that assumption?

The LAW had been "changed" concerning the priesthood.   (That's if the Letter to the Hebrews can be believed.) 

Paul's going to the Temple to complete his vow, would accomplish NOTHING good - not for him, and not for the new "church".  It would instead send the message that "the Law" had NOT been "changed" concerning the priesthood.   Because Paul went to the Temple (and was arrested before he could complete his vow), folks like us are still debating the question of whether the LAW has, in fact, been "changed". 

[8thdaypriest]

It's a gorgeous day here, and I'm going outside.  RC

[Ron Amnsn]

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

THE LAW has very specifically been "changed" where the LAW identifies the priesthood.    If it has not - then we must reject the Letter to the Hebrews, and it's author as a deceiver. 

Undoubtedly there are deceivers around, but I don't think the author of Hebrews was deceiving anyone.

There seem to be numerous problems with your interpretation of Hebrews, including the contradictions with other parts of the book of Hebrews, and contradictions with numerous other Scripture passages,  and contradictions with the teachings and example of Jesus.  But even if your interpretation of Hebrews were correct, Hebrews wasn't available as Scripture yet at the time that the elders in Jerusalem made their recommendation to Paul regarding going up to the Temple.  Does it seem right to judge the elders according a book that wasn't written yet? 

Since the book of Hebrews was evidently addressed to first-century Hebrew believers, and since the elders in Jerusalem were actually part of that target population while we are not, is it possible that the elders may have had a better understanding of what the author of Hebrews intended than modern Christians do?  There exist valid interpretations of Hebrews that totally agree with the actions of Paul and the Jerusalem elders and do not contradict other passages of Scripture, so even if the Jerusalem elders had already received the same revelation from the Spirit that the author of Hebrews had received concerning the issues addressed in Hebrews, there still would not be room to assume that there was something wrong with the recommendation that the elders made to Paul. 

Since the congregation in Jerusalem was still the leading congregation of believers, it is quite likely that the author of Hebrews was actually present that day when the elders made their recommendation to Paul and that the author of Hebrews was in agreement with that recommendation.  Even if the author of Hebrews was not present and/or was not in agreement with the recommendation of the elders, he didn't address the issues in the book of Hebrews in a way that would support any assumption that there was something wrong with the recommendation that the elders made to Paul.

[Ron Amnsn]

21 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The LAW had been "changed" concerning the priesthood.   (That's if the Letter to the Hebrews can be believed.) 

Paul's going to the Temple to complete his vow, would accomplish NOTHING good - not for him, and not for the new "church".  It would instead send the message that "the Law" had NOT been "changed" concerning the priesthood.   Because Paul went to the Temple (and was arrested before he could complete his vow), folks like us are still debating the question of whether the LAW has, in fact, been "changed". 

First let's consider some historical context.  The Scriptures that the author of Hebrews had learned from, and the Scriptures that the intended readers of Hebrews had learned from clearly state that the Levitical priesthood was originally intended to remain valid throughout the generations of the descendants of Aaron.  That continuing validity of the Levitical priesthood was re-confirmed by the Prophets after the Israelites and Levites had been disobedient.  The first readers of Hebrews knew that the descendants of Aaron continued to produce generations.  Also, the people who originally read the book of Hebrews were followers of Jesus.  Jesus had specifically taught that not a stroke of the Law would disappear while heaven and earth remained.  Jesus taught further that in the kingdom of heaven those who teach and follow the Law are considered "great", while those who do not follow the Law and teach others to set it aside are considered "least".

So when the book of Hebrews first was read, do you think people would have accepted the interpretations of the book of Hebrews that contradict the Law?  Not a chance.  If you've had any dealings with those who are zealous for the Law, you'll know the impossibility of that.  If the first-century believers truly believed that the book of Hebrews changed any stroke of the Law, they would have easily rejected it.  Such an interpretation of Hebrews contradicts the instructions of God through Moses and the teachings of Jesus.  If the author of Hebrews was actually teaching people to set aside the teachings of the Law (as you apparently claim he was intending to do), then the person who wrote Hebrews would be considered "least" in the kingdom of heaven that Jesus described.  Even a child who reads, believes, follows and teaches Old Testament Scripture is greater in the kingdom of heaven than an author who intends to write what you claim the author of Hebrews intended to write.  A person considered "least" in the kingdom of heaven would have no authority among the followers of Jesus, and their writings would be of no value to the followers of Jesus.  The fact that the followers of Jesus did not discard the book of Hebrews as worthless is strong evidence that they did not interpret the message of Hebrews as setting aside any stroke of the Law.

In Hebrews 7:12 where it says the priesthood was "changed", it specifies that the change of law is something that is "of necessity".  So we know that whatever change the author is talking about is not some wholesale change to the Law nor some willy-nilly change to the Law.  The change that Hebrews is talking about is a change of law that is "of necessity".  The author of Hebrews goes on to show in subsequent verses that it is God's Law of Moses itself that necessitates the change of law he is talking about.   A change of law is necessary because Jesus is descended from the tribe of Judah, not the tribe of Levi.  Our English translations hide the fact that the Greek word translated as "changed" has the primary connotation of a change of location.  In Hebrews 8:4 the author confirms that the change of location for the priesthood is central to his argument because,  "If he were on earth, he would not be a priest."  Why would Jesus not be a priest if he were on earth?  The author of Hebrews already made that clear in Hebrews 7 -- because according to the God's Law of Moses priests must be descended from the tribe of Levi.  That still-valid Law which prevented Jesus from being a priest if he had been on earth at the time Hebrews was written, doesn't have jurisdiction in heaven.  The heavenly priesthood is governed by a different set of laws than God's Law of Moses which still governs the Levitical priesthood on earth.  According to the book of Hebrews itself, the change of law that is necessary is the change that brings the priesthood of Jesus under the jurisdiction of the set of laws that pertain to the heavenly priesthood.

Apparently Jesus won't be a priest on earth until the events spoken of in Revelation 21 take place.  "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away," for Jesus himself taught, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

[8thdaypriest]

On 11/25/2017 at 11:41 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

Your assertion also seems to contradict numerous passages in the Law and the Prophets that speak about about the duration and continuance of the Levitical priesthood.  For example Exodus 40:7 says that the descendants of Aaron would be a perpetual priesthood throughout their generations.   Paul testified that he believed everything that agrees with the Law and is written in the Prophets (Acts 24:14)  So evidently Paul believed differently than what you are asserting regarding the priesthood.

Your position also casts doubt on the honesty of God's intentions when he gave to the descendants of Aaron the Levitical priesthood as an inheritance in lieu of tribal lands (Numbers 18:21ff), and when God promised the grandson of Aaron a covenant of peace and a perpetual priesthood. (Numbers 25:12)   If God was already planning to do away with the Levitical priesthood at some time in the future when Messiah would come, then the promises He made to the descendants of Aaron and confirmed through Jeremiah the prophet seem intentionally misleading.  Can we have confidence in the promises of God?

The later descendants of Aaron despised the LORD, and the LORD nullified and reascended His conditional covenant promise to them. 

1 Samuel 2:30 "Therefore ADONAI the God of Isra'el says, 'I did indeed say that your family and your father's family would walk in my presence forever.' But now ADONAI says, 'Forget it! I respect those who respect me, but those who despise me will meet with contempt. 31 The day is coming when I will break your strength and the strength of your father's family, so that no one in your family will live to old age.'" (CJB)

1 Samuel 2:30 "Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, says, 'I really did say that your house and your ancestor's house would serve me forever.' But now the LORD says, 'May it never be! For I will honor those who honor me, but those who despise me will be cursed! 31 In fact, days are coming when I will remove your strength and the strength of your father's house. There will not be an old man in your house!  You will see trouble in my dwelling place! Israel will experience blessings, but there will not be an old man in your house for all time.'" (NET)

"An old man in your house" - refers to a man of the age to serve as a priest. 

God's promise was NOT "intentionally misleading" any more than His promise of blessing to Israel. 

Aaron and Phinehas, and every other faithful Levite priest WILL become "kings and priests" when Christ reigns on the earth.   And so will every other believer redeemed from this age.   

[8thdaypriest]

On 11/26/2017 at 12:06 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Your position also casts doubt on the honesty of God's intentions when he gave to the descendants of Aaron the Levitical priesthood as an inheritance in lieu of tribal lands (Numbers 18:21ff),

Here is the "inheritance" of the future priests - the New Covenant priests.  They are on the earth, and in the land.  

Isaiah 61:4   "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. 5 Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, And the sons of the foreigner Shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. 6 But you shall be named the priests of the LORD, They shall call you the servants of our God. You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, And in their glory you shall boast. 7 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; Everlasting joy shall be theirs. 8 "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. 9 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."  (NKJ)

These are PRIESTS who receive a "double portion" in their land - the inheritance of the firstborn.   The LORD makes "an everlasting covenant" with these priests.   And their are "Gentiles" - strangers - sons of foreigners, around.   This is the 8th millennium.   The redeemed from the first resurrection are reigning as "kings and priests". 

[8thdaypriest]

Ron, 

Before I came to believe as I do now concerning the priesthood and animal sacrifices, I listened and listened to teachings by Hebrew Roots leaders and I read and read materials they published.  It just never "set right", to believe the LORD still wants us to offer animal blood or burn dead animals on an alter - to believe such will continue in the kingdom.   That is WHY I prayed and prayed, and studied and studied.   I know.  You will say that I found what I wanted to find.   On the other hand, I really could have been convicted by the LORD.  

If you suggest reading material that I have not already read - I will be glad to read it.   If you post quotations from such material -  I will read your posts.   I do not want to be closed minded.  I just seriously doubt that I will ever come to agree with your position, that descendants of Levi will offer animal sacrifices at the glorious Temple, in the Kingdom of Messiah after His return. 

[Ron Amnsn]

9 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The later descendants of Aaron despised the LORD, and the LORD nullified and reascended His conditional covenant promise to them. 

1 Samuel 2:30 "Therefore ADONAI the God of Isra'el says, 'I did indeed say that your family and your father's family would walk in my presence forever.' But now ADONAI says, 'Forget it! I respect those who respect me, but those who despise me will meet with contempt. 31 The day is coming when I will break your strength and the strength of your father's family, so that no one in your family will live to old age.'" (CJB)

To whom was God speaking in 1 Samuel 2:30?  Was he speaking to every descendant of Aaron?  No. The man of God spoke those words to Eli concerning his own household, because of the sins of his sons.

Later the Bible speaks of the fulfillment of those words:
1 Kings 2:27 "So Solomon expelled Abiathar from being priest to the LORD, thus fulfilling the word of the LORD that he had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh."

There were other families within the descendants of Aaron who were also qualified to be priests who were not part of the house of Eli.

When God spoke through Jeremiah several centuries after the events of 1 Samuel and 1 Kings, God said,

17 “For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.”   ...  
20 "Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, 21 then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me."  (Jeremiah 33:17-22)

The only condition for this promise to the descendants of Aaron is that it will continue as long as the covenant for day and night continue.  That covenant for day and night was given to Noah and his descendants (that's you and me) after the flood.  It is found in Genesis 8:22 which says, "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

[8thdaypriest]

10 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

7 “For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.”   ...  
20 "Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, 21 then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. 22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me."  (Jeremiah 33:17-22)

The "man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel" IS Jesus Christ. 

The "man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever" IS Jesus Christ. 

BOTH the promise of a king, and the promise of a priest ARE FULFILLED in Christ. 

Once the priesthood is "changed" and expanded to include all the firstborn,  Jesus Christ can fulfill the promise made concerning a priesthood forever. 

10 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Genesis 8:22 which says, "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. (NKJ)

If the heavens pass away, what happens to "day" and "night" ?   If the earth is "burned up",  then it does not "remain".  

[8thdaypriest]

I will need to do some study into priestly descendants of Aaron.  I believe the promise referred to in 1Sam 2:30  is the promise to Aaron. 

I 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?  Did I not choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be My priest, to offer upon My alter 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? 

The LORD is speaking of Aaron here, not just Eli's father or grandfather.    

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

1 Samuel 2:30 "Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, says, 'I really did say that your house and your ancestor's house would serve me forever.' But now the LORD says, 'May it never be!

Just a curious question -- How would Israel today determine a descendant of Levi/Aaron.  Where would they get a pure DNA sample?  By the time of Jesus, the high priesthood was appointed by the Romans, and it was my understanding that the family of Caiaphas was NOT the true descendants. 

[Ron Amnsn]

10 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. (NKJ)

If the heavens pass away, what happens to "day" and "night" ?   If the earth is "burned up",  then it does not "remain". 

Yes, I thought my posts were clear that I expect there to be some changes to God's Law of Moses after heaven and earth pass away.  That event marks the end of the time period that Jesus specified in his statement, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."