Under Law

[8thdaypriest]

5 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

If we just go by what is recorded in Scripture regarding animal sacrifices, we have several very clear commands from God himself instructing the Levitical priests to offer the animal sacrifices "forever" and "throughout your generations". 

Sacrifices "forever".  That would mean animal blood sacrifices will continue in the Kingdom of Messiah, and on into the New Earth, and on into eternity. 

I cannot believe the LORD wants His priests to continue killing animals "forever".   The "last enemy" to be destroyed is "death".   If  there is "no more death", there can be no death of animals either.  

If there is ANY POINT where the system of animal sacrifices comes to an END, then the prophecy of "forever" was a "false promise" to the Levites  ??   I don't agree.  

The word translated as "forever" did not always mean "for eternity". 

As for "throughout your generations".   This could refer to "generations" of priests, rather than generations of Aaronic descendants.   If no man of Aaronic DNA can be "consecrated" as a priest (maybe because some element of that consecration is missing), then the "generations" of priests has come to an end.   Just another way to understand the LORD's prophecy. 

The priesthood was "changed".  If the nature of the sacrifices was also "changed" - from prophetic sacrifices, to THE REAL "forever" sacrifice, then it makes sense that Christ will continue "forever" and His "sacrifice" will be celebrated "forever".   

[8thdaypriest]

6 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

No Bible passage has been presented on this forum that would even begin to convince a Levitical priest to stop obeying God's clear instructions to offer animal sacrifices throughout the time period that God himself specified for animal sacrifices.

A man of Aaronic descent, who had been consecrated as a priest, might not be convinced.   By far the great majority of Jews were not convinced either.  Doesn't make it untrue. 

If Paul was not "under the law" - under the "curse" - under the law of sin and death, then there was no need for him to offer a sacrifice.  He did so in an attempt to win "those under the law" - who had not "seen" that Christ was enough - forever.  The LORD warned Paul three times that he would end up in chains if he went back to Jerusalem.  Paul went anyway.  

His trip to offer sacrifice was ACTING - trying to find access to Jerusalem Jews.  But he "struck the Rock twice", and the LORD allowed him to pay dearly.  The LORD commended Paul for his witness to Jews, for Messiah - NOT for offering unnecessary sacrifices.  Just as He could have commended Moses for his work, but not for striking the Rock twice. 

[BlessedMan]

9 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I believe your interpretation of Romans 12:1 would apply to people who are living outside the land of Israel, including the people Paul was writing to in Rome, but would not apply to people living within the land of Israel while there was a functioning Temple and priesthood in Jerusalem.

I note from the article referenced in the OP of this topic:

Quote

 

* The word law (Heb. torah) includes all of God's re­vealed will, not merely the Ten Commandments. The expres­sion "the law and the prophets" (Matt. 7:12) indicates a twofold division of the Old Testament Scriptures. A more common division among the Jews was threefold: the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44).

In this issue we print the first of a series of articles discussing certain doctrinal dif­ferences between those of Seventh-day Adventists and those presented in the re­cent book "The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism," by Walter R. Martin. Other articles will appear in subsequent issues. —EDITORS

 

The general idea in this article would suggest that Romans 12:1 regarding presenting our bdies as a :living Sacrifice" would preclude any ideas about "being attached to assumptions." When I commented on Rom 12:1 there was NO "assumption" at all, because I didn't comment on it in any sort of whole-picture context for that verse. By saying that the OT Temple "sacrifices" were and are different than the text from Romans has no such thing as an assumption in it. I simply stated what the Bible does. They ARE two different things.

Your attempts at  eisegetic philosophies are a complete distortion of scripture. Do you, yourself even do half of aall those "sacrifices" from the OT Temple? If not, why tell others they should? Its not making sense at all, to me.

While I can appreciate your stated desire to not "disregard" anything in God's Word, it does not follow that that means we have to do everything He said back then. Your quote from Acts 23:11 is totally out of context. It doesnt even belong in this topic.

The context of those OT sacrifices is plainly declared:

For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer.
For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;
who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, "SEE THAT YOU MAKE ALL THINGS ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN."
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. (Heb 8:3-6)

The OP article was intended as a specific reply to a specific point, and not intended as an all-inclusive statement.  That "more excellent ministry" means just what it says. Its in the Bible, it's NOT my opinion. The OT ministry and covenant are not needed now because of the "better covenant" of scripture.

[8thdaypriest]

I will begin to think about passages from the Torah/Prophets/Psalms which point forward to a "change" of "the priesthood".

One I thought of right off, was 1Samuel, where there would be no descendants of "the house of" Eli's "father", of age for the priesthood.

The LORD points to His covenant of promise with Eli's forefathers (Aaron and Phinehas), and then says HE will not continue forever to give that blessing/promise because they have knowingly broken covenant, and have dishonored HIM.  If the sons of Eli dishonored the LORD, then certainly the priests who condemned Him to death, also dishonored HIM. 

The LORD's prophecy through Samuel highlighted the fact that His promise to Phinehas (or Aaron) was conditional.  They broke covenant, as did every priest who followed them.   Those of Christ's day, rejected the true and complete forgiveness that is only to be found through Jesus as High Priest and Lamb.   Henceforth they would enter the Temple unclean.  The High Priest would enter the MHP unclean.  The LORD would reject their ministry, and their priesthood would end. 

Another one I can think of is the Psalm prophecy which says "thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek".   Melchizedek was a priest on the earth, and was also a king on the earth.  Melchizedek was NOT a Levite or descendant of Aaron.  They were not born yet.  If Messiah to come would be both priest and king, AND would be of the tribe of Judah (not Levi), that suggests the exclusive Levite/Aaronic  priesthood would one day END.   A Messiah of the tribe of Judah would become both priest and king. 

I have a feeling the clues are there - in the OT.   We just need to look for them.  

The clues to Messiah were there too.   The Jews/Levites/priests missed them.  They did not recognize HIM when He came.  

So why would I think the Aaronic priests would recognize a "change" to the priesthood?  It's not logical to think they would, even if the clues were there. 

[JoeMo]

I want to back away from the technical details for a minute.  Regardless of what "being under the Law" means or what "Law" we are under, what are the consequences of not complying with the Law, once we have given our lives to Christ and put our trust in Him? Is compliance with certain Laws more "salvational" than others?  Or is it a matter of a certain "level" of compliance with the Law that determines our salvation?  Same with doctrine.  How much doctrine do I have to accept to obtain eternal life?  What if - after careful consideration of scripture - I disregard a point of doctrine that is considered "generally acceptable by Christians in general or SDA's specifically?

For me, these questions are difficult if not impossible to answer if we as true believers in Christ and His all-sufficient sacrifice for our sins worry that our compliance has anything to do with the free gift of eternal life.  That being said, I do believe our compliance with not only the stated Law but with the personal guidance of God's Spirit  in our lives may determine the rewards we receive at His Coming.

[BlessedMan]

41 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

For me, these questions are difficult if not impossible to answer if we as true believers in Christ and His all-sufficient sacrifice for our sins worry that our compliance has anything to do with the free gift of eternal life.

Those questions, for me, are the easy part of all this. I wont bore anyone tonight with quotes and such; but why do we have to worry about that kind of "obedience?"  Its "obedience" to some, and to others not. The thing here is, GOD is the only One who KNOWS the heart; and just how at-one-ment we are with Him. And we dont need to "explain" that to anyone. Gods the only One that gets to look there, although we religious fools and bigots keep trying to find a way around that. You dont NEED doctrine, the doctrine needs you. For example, ressurection. Would that doctrine, or the "mark of the beast" doctrine be the one you take to the bedside of a dying loved one? Know what I mean?

The only real purpose of a doctrine is to talk about some aspect of God's character, and when we get all un-hinged about "the law" and who is "not keeping it," we deny the "doctrine of Christ." (oops, I guess I couldn't resist a quote). This is not the full story on what Id like to say, but thats it for tnight.

[JoeMo]

10 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

For example, ressurection. Would that doctrine, or the "mark of the beast" doctrine be the one you take to the bedside of a dying loved one?

I have never mentioned the mark of the beast; but I frequently mention the resurrection to those on their deathbed - their resurrection to eternal health and vitality.

[8thdaypriest]

10 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I want to back away from the technical details for a minute.  Regardless of what "being under the Law" means or what "Law" we are under, what are the consequences of not complying with the Law, once we have given our lives to Christ and put our trust in Him? Is compliance with certain Laws more "salvational" than others?  Or is it a matter of a certain "level" of compliance with the Law that determines our salvation?  Same with doctrine.  How much doctrine do I have to accept to obtain eternal life?  What if - after careful consideration of scripture - I disregard a point of doctrine that is considered "generally acceptable by Christians in general or SDA's specifically?

For me, these questions are difficult if not impossible to answer if we as true believers in Christ and His all-sufficient sacrifice for our sins worry that our compliance has anything to do with the free gift of eternal life.  That being said, I do believe our compliance with not only the stated Law but with the personal guidance of God's Spirit  in our lives may determine the rewards we receive at His Coming.

Let's just say that Saul died during his campaign to round up believers in Jesus.   He believed he was doing what God wanted.   Would Saul be "saved" eternally, if he had died before his encounter with Christ risen?   He certainly had his "doctrine" wrong. 

We know that Saul believed that God is, and he wanted to serve HIM.   It's the attitude that counts.  It was because of Saul's attitude that Christ corrected his "doctrine". 

If the attitude is right, God will send information to the individual, to show what He wants.   If the attitude is right, the individual will respond to that information, and adapt his behavior in response.   It's that dynamic relationship that counts. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

I am open to Christ correcting my (doctrinal) belief that the Aaronic priesthood was "changed" to the priesthood of the firstborn (Christ and His redeemed). 

I absolutely believe that Christ can/will correct my view, if it is wrong.  I also believe that Christ can/will strengthen my view if it is correct. 

[JoeMo]

1 minute ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Would Saul be "saved" eternally, if he had died before his encounter with Christ risen? 

I don't know - only God knows.  He had no faith in Christ yet - the only name under heaven by which we may be saved.  If he had died prior to his encounter on the Damascus Road, wouldn't he be part of "the rest of the dead"?

What about the Islamic jihadist who dies sincerely doing what he believes his god wants him to do? Wouldn't he be part of "the rest of the dead"?.

[8thdaypriest]

Ron is a great student of the Word to argue for the continuance of the Levite/Aaronic priesthood.  I think he really believes in that.  I don't think he's just taking a position for argument. 

His suggestion that we find passages in the OT that point to a change of the priesthood, was very good.   I think that is what the author of Hebrews was doing.  That author pulled a lot of OT passages together, to support the priesthood of Christ. 

The argument that Levitical priests at the time of Jesus would not be convinced, does not at all say the argument for the end of the priesthood was wrong.  Only a very small number believed in Jesus.   Because the majority believes something, does not make that belief correct.  

[8thdaypriest]

9 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I don't know - only God knows.  He had no faith in Christ yet - the only name under heaven by which we may be saved.  If he had died prior to his encounter on the Damascus Road, wouldn't he be part of "the rest of the dead"?

What about the Islamic jihadist who dies sincerely doing what he believes his god wants him to do? Wouldn't he be part of "the rest of the dead"?.

Islamist?  Yes - "rest of the dead". 

Saul?  Perhaps yes - "rest of the dead".  Maybe not.  Maybe simply saved.

There was a transition period for Israel.  Not every Israelite knew about Jesus yet.  Some individuals - faithful to Yahweh, may be saved who had not heard of Christ.  Many were resurrected by Christ just after He was Himself resurrected (by His Father).   Those were faithful individuals from the OT period.  They had not heard the Gospel about Jesus.   There were resurrected to ascend with Him to Heaven.  

[Ron Amnsn]

On 10/10/2019 at 12:56 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Galatians 3:29 "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (NKJ)

 If you are (not) Christ's, then you are (not) Abraham's seed, and you will (not) inherit the land promised.

There is a logical fallacy at work in your negative twist on what Paul was saying.  The above would be like taking this true statement:
    If you are a patient in the maternity ward then you are a woman.
And then deducing this fallacy:
   Therefore if you are not a patient in the maternity ward then you are not a woman.

Paul's statement in Galatians 3:29 is inclusive-- bringing Gentiles into the family and covenant of Abraham according to the original terms of God's covenant with Abraham, rather than according to the traditional Jewish laws concerning Gentile proselytes.  Paul's statement says nothing that would exclude all the Israelites who are already heirs of Abraham according to the promise due to being physical descendants of Isaac.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 10/10/2019 at 12:56 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Galatians 3:29 "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (NKJ)

 If you are (not) Christ's, then you are (not) Abraham's seed, and you will (not) inherit the land promised.

If Jesus had been born into a family who was not of Abraham's seed, would Jesus have been THE seed of Abraham?

I think most people would agree that Jesus couldn't be the promised seed of Abraham unless he was descended physically from Abraham.  Abraham himself would probably feel he had been deceived if he was told at the resurrection that THE seed that had been promised to him was actually not of his own heirs.

According to your erroneous re-interpretation of Paul's statement above, the grandparents, and other ancestors of Jesus would be excluded from Abraham's seed because none of them had belonged to Christ, which would mean (according to your logic) that Jesus himself would not be descended from Abraham's seed.

[BlessedMan]

18 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I think most people would agree that Jesus couldn't be the promised seed of Abraham unless he was descended physically from Abraham.  Abraham himself would probably feel he had been deceived if he was told at the resurrection that THE seed that had been promised to him was actually not of his own heirs.

here we go again, someone trying to insert a statement re the supposed physical substance of Deity, into a passage that does not actually deal with that. If Gal 3:29 is so "inclusive" then there is no room in it for this kind of figural  exclusion.

[Ron Amnsn]

12 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

here we go again, someone trying to insert a statement re the supposed physical substance of Deity, into a passage that does not actually deal with that. If Gal 3:29 is so "inclusive" then there is no room in it for this kind of figural  exclusion.

Absolutely.  I wasn't arguing against my own beliefs.  I believe Gal 3:29 is inclusive, and that the physical descendants of Abraham are still included in the promises they inherited.  It is others who are trying to exclude the descendants of Abraham from the covenants they inherited from Abraham.

[BlessedMan]

7 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Absolutely.  I wasn't arguing against my own beliefs.  I believe Gal 3:29 is inclusive, and that the physical descendants of Abraham are still included in the promises they inherited.  It is others who are trying to exclude the descendants of Abraham from the covenants they inherited from Abraham.

I think that Gal 3:29 in context here is saying that NOT all physical descendants will belong to Christ, and that when the gospel went to "the Gentiles," they were included, but I think scripture has plenty of evidence to show not all physical descendents of Abraham would be "saved" or "belong to Christ."

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Paul's statement says nothing that would exclude all the Israelites who are already heirs of Abraham according to the promise due to being physical descendants of Isaac.

Those who were presented with the Gospel of Jesus as Messiah, and rejected that message - refusing to seek actual atonement through Jesus Christ, were/are "cut off".  They will NOT inherit the promises given to Abraham - either of land or priesthood, or admittance to "the City whose builder and maker is God". 

One is attached to the Olive Tree (Israel) because of belief,  and is "broken off" "because of unbelief"  (Romans 11:20).  

If every DNA descendant of Abraham thru Jacob is/was an heir "due to being physical descendants" then Paul would not have described them as "broken off".  Paul also said that God was able to "graft them in again". 

Romans 11:23 "And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." 

When Paul wrote this verse, DNA descendants who had rejected belief in Jesus as the Christ, were NOT ATTACHED to the Olive Tree.  Hence they were not regarded as Israelites in the eyes of God, so far as the promises were concerned. 

It's about faith in Jesus Christ as "the only way" to God the Father.  It's not about DNA.  Jews could be "broken off for unbelief" and non-Hebrews could be "grafted in" for belief. 

 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

There is a logical fallacy at work in your negative twist on what Paul was saying.  The above would be like taking this true statement:
    If you are a patient in the maternity ward then you are a woman.
And then deducing this fallacy:
   Therefore if you are not a patient in the maternity ward then you are not a woman.

Paul's statement in Galatians 3:29 is inclusive-- bringing Gentiles into the family and covenant of Abraham according to the original terms of God's covenant with Abraham, rather than according to the traditional Jewish laws concerning Gentile proselytes.  Paul's statement says nothing that would exclude all the Israelites who are already heirs of Abraham according to the promise due to being physical descendants of Isaac.

 

If you are a patient in a maternity ward, then you are/were about to give birth to a child.

If you are not a patient in a maternity ward, then you are/were NOT about to give birth to a child. 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 10/13/2019 at 12:36 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

The word translated as "forever" did not always mean "for eternity". 

That's correct.  In the Bible the word "forever" means the lifespan of the entity that is being talked about.  When "forever" is referring to God it means "for eternity".   When it's talking about something with a shorter lifespan, it means a shorter timespan.

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

If Jesus had been born into a family who was not of Abraham's seed, would Jesus have been THE seed of Abraham?

I think most people would agree that Jesus couldn't be the promised seed of Abraham unless he was descended physically from Abraham.  Abraham himself would probably feel he had been deceived if he was told at the resurrection that THE seed that had been promised to him was actually not of his own heirs.

According to your erroneous re-interpretation of Paul's statement above, the grandparents, and other ancestors of Jesus would be excluded from Abraham's seed because none of them had belonged to Christ, which would mean (according to your logic) that Jesus himself would not be descended from Abraham's seed.

I think I said a short post ago that believing Israelites who lived before Christ, who were faithful to Yahweh, who were "righteous" and were led by the Spirit, WILL "inherit".   They will partake of Christ's inheritance.   Christ is the only "Seed" who legally will inherit. 

Galatians 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ." (NKJ)

THE SEED is Jesus Christ.   He is the ONLY Seed.  If we belong to Him, and are "Christ's" - then we will share in HIS inheritance.   He is the only one who fulfilled the covenant conditions.  

There is no "inheritance" apart from Christ.  

Yes.  Jesus Christ was a DNA descendant.  He fulfilled that prophecy - concerning his ancestry.   But He will inherit the promise that He gave to Abraham Himself,  because of His own righteousness - not simply because He was a DNA descendant. 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

17 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

If you are a patient in a maternity ward, then you are/were about to give birth to a child.

If you are not a patient in a maternity ward, then you are/were NOT about to give birth to a child. 

That is true, but it doesn't make your statement less false.

[Ron Amnsn]

2 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I think I said a short post ago that believing Israelites who lived before Christ, who were faithful to Yahweh, who were "righteous" and were led by the Spirit, WILL "inherit".   They will partake of Christ's inheritance.   Christ is the only "Seed" who legally will inherit. 

Galatians 3:16 "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ." (NKJ)

THE SEED is Jesus Christ.   He is the ONLY Seed.  If we belong to Him, and are "Christ's" - then we will share in HIS inheritance.   He is the only one who fulfilled the covenant conditions.  

There is no "inheritance" apart from Christ.

 

You seem to be using a different measuring stick for the people that lived before Jesus than you use for the people who lived after Jesus.  The Israelites are scattered across a vast area.  Would the righteousness of an Israelite who lived in Spain suddenly become unrighteousness because Jesus died in faraway Jerusalem?

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

According to your erroneous re-interpretation of Paul's statement above, the grandparents, and other ancestors of Jesus would be excluded from Abraham's seed because none of them had belonged to Christ, which would mean (according to your logic) that Jesus himself would not be descended from Abraham's seed.

Ron, 

I feel you are getting into the "weeds" of personal criticism and accusation.  I say what I believe.  I try to state it that way.  I don't say "you" are in error, or have posted an "erroneous interpretation".   If we can keep from accusing each other or dismissing each other, we can keep our discussion flowing.  I realize we will probably never agree on this point, but I still find the discussion worth time and energy, because it makes me think about the best answers to arguments.  And I'm open to a change of view, IF I am impressed that truth is on the side of such a change.   The LORD changed Saul.  He can change me too, if I'm in the wrong.  I've given HIM permission to do that. 

 

[JoeMo]

28 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

If you are not a patient in a maternity ward, then you are/were NOT about to give birth to a child. 

That's not true. You might be stuck in traffic about to give birth in your car or a taxi!