Under Law

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

Thanks Gregory, I can't remember where it was I read it but know I've seen something written (possibly by Ellen White) whereas it was asserted that on an alien planet the E.T.'s living there had a copy of the 10 Commandments and commandment about the Sabbath was glowing or in some way markedly illustrated indicating it was more important than the other 9 commandments.  

Its interesting and to note I believe that somewhere out there (in space) is likely a planet with intelligent life on it. I would doubt however that the planet would have exactly the same moon with the same distance and the same orbit around the sun as we do here. Possible but not likely.

Try Spiritual Gifts Volume I page 164.  She is describing Jesus in the Most Holy Place. 

"Jesus raised the cover of the ark, and behold ! the tables of stone, with the ten commandments written upon them .  . . . the fourth commandment living among the ten holy precepts, while a brighter light shines upon it than upon the other nine, and a halo of glory is all around it." 

[8thdaypriest]

4 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Do you interpret Colossians 2, 16-17 to indicate that St. Paul was actually instructing Christians to observe the annual festivals, the monthly festival (new Moon day) and the weekly Sabbath AND to not let anyone negatively judge the observance?  

Not to let the circumcision party judge them in HOW they observed (or commemorated) the "appointed times".  He did not tell all the Gentile males to make the trip to Jerusalem three times each year.  He himself had not been back to Jerusalem for 14 years, when he finally went back (only to be arrested).   And Gentile believers (in Christ) would not have been allowed to enter the Temple anyway, unless circumcised (which Paul did not advocate for them). 

"Let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." 

Foods and drinks are not symbols of what is to come.  The grain offerings and oblation offerings were (Heb 9:10).  Trumpets,  Day of Atonement, Tabernacles, and The special 8th Day Feast are definitely shadows of what is to come.  They have not yet been fulfilled.  They symbolize events which have not yet taken place. 

In verse 14, "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us" - that one is better translated "the certificate of indebtedness".  It refers to our "debt" to the law.  To sin in one point of the Law, was to make oneself a "debtor to the whole law"  (Gal cpt 4).  Christ paid that debt. 

[Gustave]

10 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Try Spiritual Gifts Volume I page 164.  She is describing Jesus in the Most Holy Place. 

"Jesus raised the cover of the ark, and behold ! the tables of stone, with the ten commandments written upon them .  . . . the fourth commandment living among the ten holy precepts, while a brighter light shines upon it than upon the other nine, and a halo of glory is all around it." 

I confounded it with Ellen's account of her visit to an alien planet, you're right. I just found what I think I was referencing (Early Writing by EGW). The alien world Ellen describes that "she flew too" allegedly has a "Tree of Life" & "commandments of God" . After Ellen says she went to another planet that had seven moons and ran into "good old Enoch", who claimed to be there on holiday. 

"The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious. The grass of the place was living green, and the birds there warbled a sweet song. The inhabitants of the place were of all sizes; they were noble, majestic, and lovely. They bore the express image of Jesus, and their countenances beamed with holy joy, expressive of the freedom and happiness of the place. I asked one of them why they were so much more lovely than those on the earth. The reply was, "We have lived in strict obedience to the commandments of God, and have not fallen by disobedience, like those on the earth." Then I saw two trees, one looked much like the tree of life in the city. The fruit of both looked beautiful, but of one they could not eat. They had power to eat of both, but were forbidden to eat of one. Then my attending angel said to me, "None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree; but if they should eat, they would fall." Then I was taken to a world which had seven moons. There I saw good old Enoch, who had been translated. On his right arm he bore a glorious palm, and on each leaf was written "Victory." Around his head was a dazzling white wreath, and leaves on the wreath, and in the middle of each leaf was written "Purity," and around the wreath were stones of various colors, that shone brighter than the stars, and cast a reflection upon the letters and magnified them. On the back part of his head was a bow that confined the wreath, and upon the bow was written "Holiness." Above the wreath was a lovely crown that shone brighter than the sun. I asked him if this was the place he was taken to from the earth. He said, "It is not; the city is my home, and I have come to visit this place." He moved about the place as if perfectly at home. I begged of my attending angel to let me remain in that place. I could not bear the thought of coming back to this dark world again. Then the angel said, "You must go back, and if you are faithful, you, with the 144,000, shall have the privilege of visiting all the worlds and viewing the handiwork of God."

 

[Gustave]

23 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Not to let the circumcision party judge them in HOW they observed (or commemorated) the "appointed times".  He did not tell all the Gentile males to make the trip to Jerusalem three times each year.  He himself had not been back to Jerusalem for 14 years, when he finally went back (only to be arrested).   And Gentile believers (in Christ) would not have been allowed to enter the Temple anyway, unless circumcised (which Paul did not advocate for them). 

"Let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." 

Foods and drinks are not symbols of what is to come.  The grain offerings and oblation offerings were (Heb 9:10).  Trumpets,  Day of Atonement, Tabernacles, and The special 8th Day Feast are definitely shadows of what is to come.  They have not yet been fulfilled.  They symbolize events which have not yet taken place. 

In verse 14, "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us" - that one is better translated "the certificate of indebtedness".  It refers to our "debt" to the law.  To sin in one point of the Law, was to make oneself a "debtor to the whole law"  (Gal cpt 4).  Christ paid that debt. 

You're essentially saying that the Sabbath Commandment as found in the 10 Commandments is a "high level" instruction and NOT subject to change BUT the "STATUTES"  [ Chuqqah - H2708 ] (how one is to observe the Sabbath) was subject to change and in fact did change. Thus, you see Colossians 2, 16-17 as Paul instructing the Colossians that the actual Jewish Feasts as identified in Chapter 23 of Leviticus were NOT SHADOWS but that the way in which God instructed they be observed to the Israelites were shadows. This culminates in your view that the Jewish Festivals spelled out in Torah are still binding but the way they are observed were legitimately re-configured and that Paul was in effect telling the Colossians they could observe the Festivals the way in which they wanted to which was obviously contrary to the way the "party of the circumcision" was advocating the festivals were to be observed? 

Sorry, I'm trying to identify your theory of the case so I can better understand IF we may actually be in more agreement than difference. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave said in the quote below:

Agree.

I expect that there are other planets with intelligent life.  But, I would expect different solar systems.  No reason to think the same as ours.

 

 

ts interesting and to note I believe that somewhere out there (in space) is likely a planet with intelligent life on it. I would doubt however that the planet would have exactly the same moon with the same distance and the same orbit around the sun as we do here. Possible but not likely.

•  
• Quote
• Edit
• Options  

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

You're essentially saying that the Sabbath Commandment as found in the 10 Commandments is a "high level" instruction and NOT subject to change BUT the "STATUTES"  [ Chuqqah - H2708 ] (how one is to observe the Sabbath) was subject to change and in fact did change. Thus, you see Colossians 2, 16-17 as Paul instructing the Colossians that the actual Jewish Feasts as identified in Chapter 23 of Leviticus were NOT SHADOWS but that the way in which God instructed they be observed to the Israelites were shadows. This culminates in your view that the Jewish Festivals spelled out in Torah are still binding but the way they are observed were legitimately re-configured and that Paul was in effect telling the Colossians they could observe the Festivals the way in which they wanted to which was obviously contrary to the way the "party of the circumcision" was advocating the festivals were to be observed? 

Sorry, I'm trying to identify your theory of the case so I can better understand IF we may actually be in more agreement than difference. 

Thanks Gustave.  You always have a way of stratifying things, to make me think more clearly.  Or at least to express myself more clearly. 

There were specified animal sacrifices that were to be offered on the 7th Day Sabbath, and others sacrifices offered at the special "moed".   I'm saying the animal sacrifices ended with the death of Christ - the "one true sacrifice". 

If you "change" the priesthood, you also change the system of sacrifices, because the law specified that every sacrifice had to be brought to an Aaronic priest at "the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name" (Deuteronomy 12:11-14). 

Without the Aaronic priests, there is nowhere to take an animal sacrifice, rather no one to take a sacrifice to.   We now offer up "spiritual sacrifices" which Jesus then presents to His Father in Heaven ("the true Tabernacle"  "which the LORD pitched and not man"). 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Thanks Gustave.  You always have a way of stratifying things, to make me think more clearly.  Or at least to express myself more clearly. 

There were specified animal sacrifices that were to be offered on the 7th Day Sabbath, and others sacrifices offered at the special "moed".   I'm saying the animal sacrifices ended with the death of Christ - the "one true sacrifice". 

If you "change" the priesthood, you also change the system of sacrifices, because the law specified that every sacrifice had to be brought to an Aaronic priest at "the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name" (Deuteronomy 12:11-14). 

Without the Aaronic priests, there is nowhere to take an animal sacrifice, rather no one to take a sacrifice to.   We now offer up "spiritual sacrifices" which Jesus then presents to His Father in Heaven ("the true Tabernacle"  "which the LORD pitched and not man"). 

So in your view none of the  Feasts / Festivals / (moed) in Leviticus 23 were "shadows - ONLY the statutes "pertaining to the sacrifices" were shadows and the substance that cast the shadow was Christ. Thus the specific way we are to observe the feasts was what changed. I.E. the feasts are all still binding on Christians. Do I have this right? 

[Ron Amnsn]

15 hours ago, Gustave said:

From the Catechism.

Psalms 147, 20: "He hath not done in like manner to every nation; and His judgements He hath not made manifest to them."

We can know from Sacred Scripture that the above is speaking of laws God made with Israel that He DIDN'T make with any other people.

Deutronomy 5, 2: The Lord our God made a covenant with US IN HOREB. The Lord made NOT this covenant with our Fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us alive here today." 

According to Scripture itself the concept that there are certain obligatory laws for ALL people and certain obligatory laws for SOME PEOPLE is about as Biblical as it can get. There were things that the Children of Israel were commanded to observe that their own forefathers were totally ignorant of.

Deuteronomy 5:2 is an interesting passage.  A casual reading would support the point you are trying to make, but the context in which it was spoken requires a different interpretation. 

Less than a third of the Israelites that Moses was speaking to had actually been at Horeb to participate in the making of the covenant.  All the Israelites who had been over 20 years of age at Horeb had already died during the 40 years of wilderness wandering, except for a very few individuals who had remained faithful and had not grumbled.  Those who had been under 20 years of age at Horeb were now the generation between 40 and 60 years of age that was listening to Moses in Deuteronomy 5:2.  Except for Caleb and Joshua (and maybe a few faithful women), there were no Israelites listening to Moses in Deuteronomy 5 who were over 60 years of age. All the rest of the the over-60 generation who had participated in the covenant at Horeb as adults were now dead and could not have heard what Moses spoke in Deuteronomy 5:2.  The two younger generations that Moses was speaking to (the 20-40 year-olds and the 0-20 year-olds) would have made up more than two-thirds of the Israelites listening to Moses that day.  If we take verse 2 literally as it has been translated into English, Moses was very wrong, which is why the verse cannot be used to support the point you are trying to make. 

Contrary to a literal interpretation of Deuteronomy 5:2, YHWH had actually made the covenant at Horeb with the fathers (and grandfathers) of literally ALL the Israelites to whom Moses was speaking in Deuteronomy 5. And the majority of the individual Israelites who were alive the day that Moses spoke Deuteronomy 5:2 had not been present at Horeb to hear the covenant.  Since a literal interpretation of Moses' words is blatantly false, Moses must have meant something different. So what did Moses actually mean?  Moses was teaching the Israelites that the covenant YHWH had made at Horeb was made with each generation of Israelites as if the members of each generation had themselves actually stood at Horeb personally and participated in the covenant-making process themselves (as Moses stated) and that future generations of Israelites should not think of the covenant as something that God made with their forefathers, but rather with themselves personally (as Moses stated).  That gives us an idea of the importance with which YHWH views the inheritance of his covenants, a concept which is quite foreign to many modern Christians.

Regarding the verse from Psalms 147:20,
It is true that YHWH did not give to any other people group that was separate from the Israelites a covenant and accompanying laws and worship instructions like those that were given to the Israelites.  Doesn't that mean that all the other nations have invented man-made gods and religious systems that inevitably misrepresent the Creator?

From before the time of Abraham individuals from other nations have been welcome to join themselves to the God of Israel and to his covenant people, the Israelite nation, as Ruth and others did.  Abraham's male servants (who were definitely not Jews) received circumcision, the sign of YHWH's covenant with Abraham.  The apostle Paul told the Gentile believers in Galatians 3:29 that they also are heirs of Abraham's still-valid covenant through their relationship with Christ.  Jesus is a physical descendant of Abraham who is subject to YHWH's covenant with Abraham.  That covenant included specific stipulations that applied to any bondservants/slaves purchased by a descendant of Abraham,  such as Jesus.  Paul taught that followers of Jesus are bondservants purchased by Jesus.  Paul also taught that followers of Jesus are grafted into the olive tree of Israel (Romans 11) and are citizens of the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:12). 

So I don't see how any follower of Jesus could consider themselves separate from the Israelites and separate from the good laws and instructions that YHWH gave to the nation of Israel.  If a Christian declares himself to not be a part of the Israelite nation, hasn't he pruned himself off of the olive tree of Israel? 

Since through Messiah we are heirs of Abraham's covenant, wouldn't we be subject to the explicit stipulations contained in Abraham's covenant that apply to our situation as bondservants purchased by Jesus, who is THE preeminent descendant of Abraham (Galatians 3:15-16)?  According to the covenant itself, those who don't obey the requirements of Abraham's covenant are explicitly cut off from the covenant and it's promises, of which Paul said we are heirs.  That strongly implies that the believers to which Paul was writing were already complying with the requirements of Abraham's covenant.   If Abraham had failed to circumcise the purchased slaves/bondservants within his household, he would have broken the covenant that God gave him.  Likewise, if Jesus himself doesn't apply the requirements of the covenant to the bondservants he has purchased, wouldn't Jesus be breaking the covenant that YHWH made with Abraham?  If Abraham's covenant and it's promises and stipulations applied to any of Abraham's descendants, wouldn't those apply especially to Jesus, THE singular seed of Abraham?
 

[Gustave]

14 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Deuteronomy 5:2 is an interesting passage.  A casual reading would support the point you are trying to make, but the context in which it was spoken requires a different interpretation. 

Less than a third of the Israelites that Moses was speaking to had actually been at Horeb to participate in the making of the covenant.  All the Israelites who had been over 20 years of age at Horeb had already died during the 40 years of wilderness wandering, except for a very few individuals who had remained faithful and had not grumbled.  Those who had been under 20 years of age at Horeb were now the generation between 40 and 60 years of age that was listening to Moses in Deuteronomy 5:2.  Except for Caleb and Joshua (and maybe a few faithful women), there were no Israelites listening to Moses in Deuteronomy 5 who were over 60 years of age. All the rest of the the over-60 generation who had participated in the covenant at Horeb as adults were now dead and could not have heard what Moses spoke in Deuteronomy 5:2.  The two younger generations that Moses was speaking to (the 20-40 year-olds and the 0-20 year-olds) would have made up more than two-thirds of the Israelites listening to Moses that day.  If we take verse 2 literally as it has been translated into English, Moses was very wrong, which is why the verse cannot be used to support the point you are trying to make. 

 

 

 

By extension "US" includes the Children of the individuals who were at Horeb. The narrative is likely because of what you suggest [ i.e. many if not most of the original hearers of the 1st part of the Covenant had already died ]. Look at the 1st few verses again.

"And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers [ distant ancestors ], but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day [ you agree there were still people alive at that time who were at Horeb ]. The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, (I stood between the Lord and you at that time......."

Romans 11,3 & Matthew 23, 37 plus others;

Are examples of guilt by association or extension - it's not guilt being spoken of in Deuteronomy 5 however its still the same concept. Moses is explaining in detail what happened at Mount Horeb as a reminder to those who were there and as a way of transmitting the history to those who were either not yet born or too young to remember hearing the voice of God.

For your understanding to be correct there would have had to be a NEW COVENANT made with Israel at Deut 5 because you're asserting that when the Scripture says the covenant was not made with their fathers it must mean the actual and literal immediate father's of those alive at the point of Deut 5. This isn't correct - the meaning is distant ancestors. Like the following.

"Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the Lord: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him." Isaiah 51,1

By extension every Jew alive to hear or thousands of years later to read Isaiah's words had Abraham as a father and Sarah as a mother as these two individuals were the gateway by which Jews were Jews. Abraham wasn't the literal Father & Sarah wasn't the literal mother of a Jew contemporary with Isaiah yet they were considered the sons and daughters of Abraham and Sarah. If you're Hebrew Roots or Messianic you know this better / deeper than I do. 

You're claiming that the covenant was so important that it was if EACH new Generation was as if it was the 1st Generation at Horeb. I'm not sure how it is that you believe this is news the average Christian doesn't already know? A covenant while it stands is as valid and effective to the 1000th generation as it was to the 1st generation and everyone alive when Moses spoke those words would have understood it that way. 

I realize you clarify in the part I've deleted the deeper meaning but I wanted to address this 1st section by itself because I'm affirming these verses CAN BE used to support the view I'm making. I'll quote your remaining points in my next post and explain where I agree / disagree with them.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

20 hours ago, Gustave said:

Matthew 5, 17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Prior to Christ, who fulfilled the law? Just prior to Jesus dying on the cross, when He said "it is finnished" - what was finnished? Did Jesus not say that after all was fulfilled things could pass from the law? 

Psalm 22, 31 indicates that when Jesus said "it is finished" He was affirming He had done what he came to do - He had reconciled the world to the Father. Subsequent to Jesus' fulfillment of "all things" ALL NATIONS were invited into the fold and early on it was determined that indeed SOME THINGS did pass away from "THE LAW". 

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus was referring to both the Law and the Prophets.  The Law and the Prophets are the terms that were used at that time to refer to two of the three major sections of what we call the Old Testament.  Because many of the prophecies in the "the Prophets" cannot be fulfilled until after Jesus returns in the future, it is impossible that "all" of the Prophets has already been "fulfilled".  One example of a prophecy in "the Prophets" that has not been fulfilled is in the promise of the New Covenant with the house of Judah and the house of Israel in Jeremiah 31 where God says, "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, "Know the LORD", for they shall all know me, from the last of them to the greatest, declares the LORD."   I think everyone agrees that this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled because in the houses of Judah and Israel there are neighbors and brothers who do not know the Lord.  There are many other prophecies in "the Prophets" that Jesus has not yet fulfilled, but he will some day.

Because many of the commands and statutes in the Law of Moses pertain to only certain groups within the nation of Israel, it is also impossible that Jesus fulfilled all of the Law.  Was Jesus a woman so that he could fulfill all of the Law that pertains to women? No.  Was he a farmer so that he could leave the corners of his fields unharvested?  Not that we know of.  Was Jesus a thief, so that he could pay back what he stole plus the additional portion required for restitution? Certainly not. Where does it tell us in Scripture that Jesus counted the years until Jubilee when he sold a piece land?  Does Scripture tell us that Jesus fulfilled any of God's instructions regarding the Jubilee year?  Was Jesus a Levitical priest so that he could offer the prescribed offerings? No.  Even if he had been a Levitical priest, part of the Law says that the Levitical priests are entitled to a portion of certain offerings throughout the generations of the Israelites, so it is impossible for that part of the Law to be "fulfilled" until there cease to be any generations of Israelites. 

Your interpretation of the "fulfilled" part of Matthew 5:17 is quite popular.  Nevertheless, even if it were correct, it is clear to those who know the major portions of Scripture that Jesus referred to within this verse that there's no chance "all" has been fulfilled. That's not even remotely possible.

But there's a much larger problem with that poplular interpretation.  In English we have two different meanings to fulfill.  One meaning is used for things that only happen once, like paying off a mortgage.  Once that mortgage agreement is "fulfilled" the mortgage document becomes irrelevant, obsolete, and nobody cares if you burn it.  That's the meaning that many Christians apply to the word "fulfill" in Matthew 5:17.   Those Christians seem to purposely ignore what Jesus went on to say in verses 18 and 19 about the other conditions that must be fulfilled before any stroke of the Law can disappear, or what Jesus said about the honor that will occur "in the kingdom of heaven" for those who keep and teach the least of the commandments in the Law.

The other meaning of "fulfill" pertains to covenants like God's covenant with Israel and to marriage covenants.  Those covenants must be "fulfilled" daily, moment by moment.  After a married man has faithfully fulfilled his marriage vows for a week, can he declare that he is now done fulfilling his marriage covenant and is free of his marriage vows because he had already "fulfilled" them completely?  Everyone would view such a declaration as total nonsense.   A marriage covenant has to be fulfilled every day and when you are done doing that you get up the next day and fulfill it some more.  That's the kind of "fulfill" that pertains to God's Law and to many of the prophecies in the Prophets.  That's the kind of fulfilling of the Law and the Prophets that Jesus was living and continues to live each day.  I think this is the true meaning of the Greek word that is recorded in this verse.

There is another large problem with the idea that Jesus already fulfilled the conditions that would allow parts of the Law to disappear is that heaven and earth have not passed away.  I've heard people assign preposterous meanings to "heaven" and "earth" in order to have them already be passed away, but it's impossible that the hearers of Jesus would have understood "heaven" and "earth" to mean those preposterous things.  In Matthew 11:25 Jesus refers to his Father  as "Lord of heaven and earth", and after the resurrection Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18) so it is obvious that heaven and earth had not yet passed away and have not yet passed away in our day.

Yes, when Jesus cried out "It is finished." he had completed everything that was necessary for him to do up until that point.  There were other things that were necessary for him to do after that point, like be resurrected, ascend to his Father, explain the Scriptures concerning himself to the men on the road to Emmaus, tell Peter to "Feed my sheep", and give the Holy Spirit to the disciples on the day of the Old Testament feast of "Pentecost", a feast that many assign to the so-called "ceremonial" laws which were supposedly all "fulfilled" before the crucifixion.  When Jesus came to earth 2000 years ago he "fulfilled" all of God's feasts that occur in the springtime with significant events that occurred on the very day of the feast, like dying on Passover and resurrecting on the day of the wave sheaf.  However, Jesus has not yet "fulfilled" the Autumn feasts in that manner.   And Jesus indicated that the Passover will be eaten again at some future date, so even though it had been "fulfilled" once when YHWH brought the Israelites out of Egypt and was "fulfilled" again when Jesus died at Passover, there is apparently more fulfilling that must be done for Passover in the future kingdom of heaven.

[Gustave]

56 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

 

Contrary to a literal interpretation of Deuteronomy 5:2, YHWH had actually made the covenant at Horeb with the fathers (and grandfathers) of literally ALL the Israelites to whom Moses was speaking in Deuteronomy 5. And the majority of the individual Israelites who were alive the day that Moses spoke Deuteronomy 5:2 had not been present at Horeb to hear the covenant.  Since a literal interpretation of Moses' words is blatantly false, Moses must have meant something different. So what did Moses actually mean?  Moses was teaching the Israelites that the covenant YHWH had made at Horeb was made with each generation of Israelites as if the members of each generation had themselves actually stood at Horeb personally and participated in the covenant-making process themselves (as Moses stated) and that future generations of Israelites should not think of the covenant as something that God made with their forefathers, but rather with themselves personally (as Moses stated).  That gives us an idea of the importance with which YHWH views the inheritance of his covenants, a concept which is quite foreign to many modern Christians.

Regarding the verse from Psalms 147:20,
It is true that YHWH did not give to any other people group that was separate from the Israelites a covenant and accompanying laws and worship instructions like those that were given to the Israelites.  Doesn't that mean that all the other nations have invented man-made gods and religious systems that inevitably misrepresent the Creator?

From before the time of Abraham individuals from other nations have been welcome to join themselves to the God of Israel and to his covenant people, the Israelite nation, as Ruth and others did.  Abraham's male servants (who were definitely not Jews) received circumcision, the sign of YHWH's covenant with Abraham.  The apostle Paul told the Gentile believers in Galatians 3:29 that they also are heirs of Abraham's still-valid covenant through their relationship with Christ.  Jesus is a physical descendant of Abraham who is subject to YHWH's covenant with Abraham.  That covenant included specific stipulations that applied to any bondservants/slaves purchased by a descendant of Abraham,  such as Jesus.  Paul taught that followers of Jesus are bondservants purchased by Jesus.  Paul also taught that followers of Jesus are grafted into the olive tree of Israel (Romans 11) and are citizens of the commonwealth of Israel (Ephesians 2:12). 

So I don't see how any follower of Jesus could consider themselves separate from the Israelites and separate from the good laws and instructions that YHWH gave to the nation of Israel.  If a Christian declares himself to not be a part of the Israelite nation, hasn't he pruned himself off of the olive tree of Israel? 

Since through Messiah we are heirs of Abraham's covenant, wouldn't we be subject to the explicit stipulations contained in Abraham's covenant that apply to our situation as bondservants purchased by Jesus, who is THE preeminent descendant of Abraham (Galatians 3:15-16)?  According to the covenant itself, those who don't obey the requirements of Abraham's covenant are explicitly cut off from the covenant and it's promises, of which Paul said we are heirs.  That strongly implies that the believers to which Paul was writing were already complying with the requirements of Abraham's covenant.   If Abraham had failed to circumcise the purchased slaves/bondservants within his household, he would have broken the covenant that God gave him.  Likewise, if Jesus himself doesn't apply the requirements of the covenant to the bondservants he has purchased, wouldn't Jesus be breaking the covenant that YHWH made with Abraham?  If Abraham's covenant and it's promises and stipulations applied to any of Abraham's descendants, wouldn't those apply especially to Jesus, THE singular seed of Abraham?
 

 

Ron, I'm going to ask you a few questions. They are not a trap. I'm trying to first find what we may agree on so I can winnow those things out of my answer to you. It will make the posts much shorter and easier for everyone to follow. 

 

1)

Do you believe that Moses was circumcised prior to Pharos's daughter finding him? I'm asking you this in the context of Exodus 2,6 & Exodus 4,24. My premise is that Moses was circumcised as an infant and the Israelites knew that Abraham, Isaac & Jacob had the same God and that the male children were to be circumcised. 

2)

Do you believe that it was easier for Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac & Jacob to please God "prior to the law given at Horeb" OR, do you believe that the Children of Israel had an easier time pleasing God after they recieved the Commandments at Horeb. I will be taking the position that prior to Horeb that neither Moses or the Children knew how they were to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. 

If you answer these two questions I'll have enough to start. 

 

 

[phkrause]

17 hours ago, Gustave said:

"The Lord has given me a view of other worlds. Wings were given me, and an angel attended me from the city to a place that was bright and glorious. The grass of the place was living green, and the birds there warbled a sweet song. The inhabitants of the place were of all sizes; they were noble, majestic, and lovely. They bore the express image of Jesus, and their countenances beamed with holy joy, expressive of the freedom and happiness of the place. I asked one of them why they were so much more lovely than those on the earth. The reply was, "We have lived in strict obedience to the commandments of God, and have not fallen by disobedience, like those on the earth." Then I saw two trees, one looked much like the tree of life in the city. The fruit of both looked beautiful, but of one they could not eat. They had power to eat of both, but were forbidden to eat of one. Then my attending angel said to me, "None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree; but if they should eat, they would fall." Then I was taken to a world which had seven moons. There I saw good old Enoch, who had been translated. On his right arm he bore a glorious palm, and on each leaf was written "Victory." Around his head was a dazzling white wreath, and leaves on the wreath, and in the middle of each leaf was written "Purity," and around the wreath were stones of various colors, that shone brighter than the stars, and cast a reflection upon the letters and magnified them. On the back part of his head was a bow that confined the wreath, and upon the bow was written "Holiness." Above the wreath was a lovely crown that shone brighter than the sun. I asked him if this was the place he was taken to from the earth. He said, "It is not; the city is my home, and I have come to visit this place." He moved about the place as if perfectly at home. I begged of my attending angel to let me remain in that place. I could not bear the thought of coming back to this dark world again. Then the angel said, "You must go back, and if you are faithful, you, with the 144,000, shall have the privilege of visiting all the worlds and viewing the handiwork of God."

Awesome statement, something I look forward to doing with my time, 1,000 years, in Heaven!!!!! Plus other things of course! Like meeting  Jesus and all the Bible people, friends, etc.!!

[JoeMo]

I'm enjoying the discourse here.  In my read of the NT, it seems like there are very few requirements put on new believers:

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. (Acts 15:28-29)

Yet, as believers matured in Christ, they may become subject to the rest of the Law.  The epistles of James and John - which were written to more mature audiences (likely Jews who accepted Christ) seem to encourage compliance with the whole law.  But it does seem that some of the law (e.g., circumcision, ceremonial cleanliness) were done away with.  At the time these words were written, Christianity was considered another Jewish sect; so new believers would be keeping the Sabbath (at least go to the "Christian" synagogue - if there was such a thing) for fellowship and public worship.

There was and is so much of Jewish (and Christian) man-made tradition going on for so long that the average nominal believer had (and still has) a hard time discerning between the Laws of God and the traditions of man - be it in the SDA or Catholic or any other denomination.

[Ron Amnsn]

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

Ron, I'm going to ask you a few questions. They are not a trap. I'm trying to first find what we may agree on so I can winnow those things out of my answer to you. It will make the posts much shorter and easier for everyone to follow. 

1)

Do you believe that Moses was circumcised prior to Pharos's daughter finding him? I'm asking you this in the context of Exodus 2,6 & Exodus 4,24. My premise is that Moses was circumcised as an infant and the Israelites knew that Abraham, Isaac & Jacob had the same God and that the male children were to be circumcised. 

2)

Do you believe that it was easier for Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac & Jacob to please God "prior to the law given at Horeb" OR, do you believe that the Children of Israel had an easier time pleasing God after they recieved the Commandments at Horeb. I will be taking the position that prior to Horeb that neither Moses or the Children knew how they were to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob.

What I believe is not of much importance compared to what God's Word says.  Many times I have believed things that were wrong.

1) If, as slaves in Egypt, the Israelites had the freedom to perform circumcisions on male infants that Pharaoh had ordered to be thrown in to the Nile, then Moses was probably circumcised because he was older than 8 days.  This is merely speculation because we are not told whether Moses was circumcised already.  We do know that Moses himself did not circumcise at least one of his own sons on the eighth day (Exodus 4:24)  And we know that while Moses was leading the Israelites in the wilderness the Israelite males born in the wilderness had not been circumcised (Joshua 5:5).

2) How do you define "easier" in your question?  When Moses was reviewing the Law with the Israelites, he told them that what he was commanding was "not too difficult or beyond your reach".   God told Isaac, "Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws," so Abraham apparently knew quite a bit about what would please God.  Was it "easy" for Abraham?  Was it easy for Abraham to take his promised son to Moriah to offer as a burnt offering?  Was it "easy" to chase after the kings who captured Lot and to give a tenth of the spoils to Melchizedek?  The Scriptures don't speak much about "easy" or "easier", so I haven't formulated a personal belief about that.  However, we do know that it was not "impossible" for the Israelites to keep the Law of Moses because one of the very first things that Luke tells us in his gospel account was that the parents of John the immerser "were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statues of the Lord." (Luke 1:6)

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/14/2019 at 2:46 PM, Gustave said:

This Commandment about the observance of the Sabbath, on the other hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfillment, is not fixed and unalterable, but susceptible of change, and belongs not to the moral, but the ceremonial law. Neither is it a principle of the natural law; we are not instructed by nature to give external worship to God on that day, rather than on any other.

Hi Gustave,

The above statement from the Catechism of Trent makes it sound like the authors attribute more authority to what they call "nature" than they do to the Bible.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/14/2019 at 11:47 PM, Gustave said:

Now, as to the question about the Natural Law. 

1st Corinthians 11, 14: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

See also Romans 1,26 & 2,14

Romans 2, 27 in particular

Man is NOT commanded by Nature to circumcise, this was, like the Sabbath,a commandment which required direct transmission of the commandment. Exactly like the Catechism said, Man is not commanded by nature to observe one day over another day. 

I appreciate the question Ron 

Gustave, I can't find where you actually answered the question.  Here was the question:

On 9/14/2019 at 1:49 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

Could you show from the Bible that commands that are "natural" to all people should be valid for a longer time-span than commands that require specialized instructions? 

The Bible does speak about some things that can be learned from nature or from the fragments of truth that have been handed down through human societies from our forefathers Adam and Noah.  That wasn't the question.  The question requests information from the Bible that shows that the "natural" laws remain valid after the explicit instructions given by God have supposedly expired.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 9/14/2019 at 11:47 PM, Gustave said:

early on it was determined that indeed SOME THINGS did pass away from "THE LAW". 

Acts 15, 5

Acts 15,10

Ephesians 2, 15

Galations 2,14

The passages you listed do not actually say that anything in books of Moses had passed away.  People need to understand the Jewish context of those passages before they can understand what the issues were about.

Very briefly, the "problem" in Acts 15 started when men from Judea were teaching the Gentile brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."  Is that statement found in God's Law?  No.  Circumcision was never given by God as a method to become "saved".  What was the "custom of Moses" regarding circumcision and how was it different than the kind of circumcision that Abraham received?  We know a bit about what the Pharisees of that time required of Gentile converts.  Gentiles who went through the Pharisee proselyte program were required to do many things that are not found in God's Law of Moses, including learning the man-made oral traditions of the Jewish sages and vowing to observe those traditions, before they could be circumcised. And when the program culminated with circumcision, it wasn't the kind of simple circumcision that Abraham was given.  The Gentile convert had to comply with additional man-made requirements or else his circumcision was not considered valid by the Pharisees and the convert would not be accepted into the community.  Acts 15 specifies that the believers who said "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses" were indeed Pharisees, so the issues discussed in Acts 15 would be the issues that separated the believing Pharisees from the other Jewish believers.  It was not the written Scriptures that separated the various sects of Jews, including the Nazarenes.  It was all the man-made traditions that were the issues. 

Ephesians 2:15 says, "it was the "law of commandments expressed in ordinances" that was abolished.  The Greek word for "ordinances" is dogmasin, which is never used in any of it's forms to refer to any of God's laws or instructions in the Greek Scriptures that Greek-speaking people were using in those days.  If Paul was referring to God's laws he could have used one of the several Greek words that did refer to God's laws.  Instead Paul chose a word that only referred to man-made decrees and rulings, usually made by pagan ruler.  We can confirm that Paul was referring to man-made ordinances by searching through God's Law of Moses to try to find any of God's instructions that created a "wall of separation" between godly Gentiles and the Israelites.  That separation was caused by man-made traditions.

That same word dogmasin is also used in Galatians 2:14, where it says that handwritten dogmasin were "nailed to the cross".   The only thing handwritten that was nailed to the cross was the placard written by a pagan ruler that listed the "crimes" of Jesus in three languages. 

In Galatians 2:14 Peter had been influenced to revert back to following the man-made traditions that prohibited Jews from eating with Gentiles.  Those prohibitions are not found in God's Law of Moses.  Paul did not rebuke Peter for doing anything that is commanded in God's Law of Moses.

The apostle Paul himself testified that he believed everything that agrees with the Law and is written in the Prophets (Acts 24:14), so apparently those who believe that parts of the Law have passed away are believing a different gospel than Paul believed.

[Ron Amnsn]

23 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

He did not tell all the Gentile males to make the trip to Jerusalem three times each year.

Does God's Law of Moses require anyone living outside the promised land to go to Jerusalem three times a year for the feasts?

The prophet Daniel didn't make that journey from Babylon.

[phkrause]

2 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

The above statement from the Catechism of Trent makes it sound like the authors attribute more authority to what they call "nature" than they do to the Bible.

Exactly!!

[8thdaypriest]

18 hours ago, Gustave said:

So in your view none of the  Feasts / Festivals / (moed) in Leviticus 23 were "shadows - ONLY the statutes "pertaining to the sacrifices" were shadows and the substance that cast the shadow was Christ. Thus the specific way we are to observe the feasts was what changed. I.E. the feasts are all still binding on Christians. Do I have this right? 

Yes - I believe that "Christians" would do well to celebrate/commemorate the LORD's "appointed times" during this era between the LORD's death and His glorious return.   

It appears the redeemed will do so in the kingdom of God restored on the earth.  "All flesh" will go up to worship the LORD at the New Jerusalem.  When would they "go up" except at "the LORD's appointed times" ?

During this era, we don't "go up" to Jerusalem, because there's nothing there.   The "House" is left desolate.  The LORD is not there.  There is no Temple, and there are no priests.   It's like during the Babylonian captivity. 

During the 40 years between Christ's death, and the destruction of the Temple, many Jews who believed in Christ DID go to the Temple, and DID continue to offer animal sacrifices.  (Gentiles would not have been allowed to enter there without being circumcised, which required 2 years instruction, and a vow to keep all the Torah as well as the Oral Torah.)

 Matthew 23:38 "Look, your house is left to you desolate" (NIV).

If the believing Jews had understood clearly that the priesthood had been "changed", and their "house"  had been left "desolate" (without the presence of the LORD),  I wonder how many of them would have continued to go there.   I personally believe that was the main reason for the Letter to the Hebrews - to tell them that no one is justified through animal blood, and one does not have to offer animal blood to be justified through Christ Jesus. 

Yes, I know that Paul went there, after Christ warned him at least three times what would happen if he did.  Paul was determined to reach Jews.  "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;"  Though he said clearly that he himself was "not under the law."  

Whether Paul's decision to go to Jerusalem (after 14 years absence) was a mistake, only Jesus can tell us.  He was arrested, and ultimately was beheaded. 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

In Galatians 2:14 Peter had been influenced to revert back to following the man-made traditions that prohibited Jews from eating with Gentiles.  Those prohibitions are not found in God's Law of Moses.  Paul did not rebuke Peter for doing anything that is commanded in God's Law of Moses.

Exodus 23:32 "You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods." (NAS)

Deuteronomy 7:2  "You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them."

To eat a meal with others, as part of fellowship - was (in that culture) to make a peace covenant with them (especially if they shared the salt).    This was the reason for the Pharisees objection.  

On Mount Sinai, when the 70 elders "ate and drank" after they "saw God", they were eating a covenant meal. 

The point the LORD made - for Peter, in the vision of the animals in the sheet (given just before Cornelius' men arrived at the gate) was to say that Gentiles who believed on Jesus Christ were not to be regarded as "foreigners", therefore the prohibition against covenant making did not apply to them.   They were now Israelites, because they were "grafted in" and "adopted" (see Romans 11 and the tree). 

Paul wrote, "be not unequally yoked with unbelievers".   The prohibition against covenant making with non-Israelites is still in force - when it comes to marriage. 

[8thdaypriest]

19 hours ago, Gustave said:

So in your view none of the  Feasts / Festivals / (moed) in Leviticus 23 were "shadows - ONLY the statutes "pertaining to the sacrifices" were shadows and the substance that cast the shadow was Christ. Thus the specific way we are to observe the feasts was what changed. I.E. the feasts are all still binding on Christians. Do I have this right? 

I believe the LORD combined multiple things in His system of sacrifices and Feasts and priests.  We've mentioned duel prophecies.  Prophecies that came to pass, and will yet have another fulfillment. 

The priests had many roles.      They taught the Law, acted as judges, settled disputes, administerd justice and offered sacrifices” (Deut. 17:8-11, Deut. 21:5, Deut. 33:8, Ezra 8:7-8, Eze. 44:23-24).  They made "atonement" for the people.  They were mediators between persons and God.  In these roles they were a TYPE of Christ (especially the High Priest). 

The animals, as they were sacrificed, were also symbolic or typical of Christ "the Lamb of God". 

The manna, and the 12 loaves of bread for the Tabernacle - also symbolized Christ. 

The special days - appointed times, were prophetic (they symbolized events in the future, when Christ would do specific things). 

The appointed times will also be commemorated - forever, in the kingdom to come - to remember the things Christ has done for us, things He did on earth, at specific times in the Hebrew calendar.

I believe the animal sacrifices are obsolete, and so are the Aaronic priests.  They are no longer needed for "atonement".  The priesthood at a Temple on earth, offering up animal sacrifices, is no longer needed to symbolize or prophesy Christ.  The real Messiah is ministering in "the true Tabernacle".  The prophecy has been fulfilled. 

Jesus could easily have told His disciples to eat the meat of a Lamb to show His death til He come.  He didn't.  He told them to "eat this bread" and "drink this cup" - things that do not require the sacrifice of an animal on Passover, or at any other day. 

[Ron Amnsn]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

To eat a meal with others, as part of fellowship - was (in that culture) to make a peace covenant with them (especially if they shared the salt).    This was the reason for the Pharisees objection.  

Thanks. I learned something.

So, in essence, when Peter quit eating with the Gentile believers (in Galatians 2) he was acting as if those Gentile believers were still foreigners, probably based on the fact that they hadn't fulfilled the man-made traditions that would supposedly turn them into Jews.

[Gustave]

8 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

What I believe is not of much importance compared to what God's Word says.  Many times I have believed things that were wrong.

1) If, as slaves in Egypt, the Israelites had the freedom to perform circumcisions on male infants that Pharaoh had ordered to be thrown in to the Nile, then Moses was probably circumcised because he was older than 8 days.  This is merely speculation because we are not told whether Moses was circumcised already.  We do know that Moses himself did not circumcise at least one of his own sons on the eighth day (Exodus 4:24)  And we know that while Moses was leading the Israelites in the wilderness the Israelite males born in the wilderness had not been circumcised (Joshua 5:5).

2) How do you define "easier" in your question?  When Moses was reviewing the Law with the Israelites, he told them that what he was commanding was "not too difficult or beyond your reach".   God told Isaac, "Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws," so Abraham apparently knew quite a bit about what would please God.  Was it "easy" for Abraham?  Was it easy for Abraham to take his promised son to Moriah to offer as a burnt offering?  Was it "easy" to chase after the kings who captured Lot and to give a tenth of the spoils to Melchizedek?  The Scriptures don't speak much about "easy" or "easier", so I haven't formulated a personal belief about that.  However, we do know that it was not "impossible" for the Israelites to keep the Law of Moses because one of the very first things that Luke tells us in his gospel account was that the parents of John the immerser "were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statues of the Lord." (Luke 1:6)

 

We know that its more likely than not that Moses was circumcised prior to leaving Egypt because, as you said, God was going to kill Moses because he hadn't had his son circumcised. 

"All the people that came out [of Egypt] had been circumcised. Joshua 5,5

I define easier to be having fewer Mitzvot you have to worry about breaking - essentially the same thing  Saint Paul said.  Abraham knew what God told him and unless, as you say, you want to speculate about it - Abraham was not provided with the same Mitzvot Moses relayed to the Children of Israel. 

This started out by your asking me to provide you with an example of "

Quote

commands that are "natural" to all people should be valid for a longer time-span than commands that require specialized instructions

According to Romans 2,27 man is commanded by nature to NOT decapitate the sheath covering his penis. Therefore the command to circumcise comes outside of what was "WRITTEN ON THE HEART" and by necessity came by way of supernatural instruction, i.e. a CEREMONIAL law. Since the command by nature to not circumcise your penis was defined to be valid after the command to circumcise was fulfilled and superseded I've provided your example and it's now a 2000 plus year example.

Besides that, if you're of the Anthropormorphite position God created Adam in His image and everything God created was good Adam being uncut was good or are you suggesting not really?

Some of the things you are saying are as alien to Judaism as they are to Christianity. 

Now, you also said; 

Quote

the theory that God's laws can be divided into man-made categories called "ceremonial" and "moral" is not a Biblical theory. It is just a man made-made theory that some people superimpose over the Word of God. Scripture does not make use of those man-made categories, nor does Scripture even hint that such categories might be legitimate.

And followed that up with;

Quote

When YHWH said those instructions were to be followed throughout the generations of the Israelites  - a time-span that has not yet ended.

Last two questions.

A)

Do you believe in the Trinity?

 

b)

Do you believe that St. Paul went rogue and taught things contrary to what Jesus and the other Apostles wanted? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

Re:  circumcision

I wrote a study on this topic.  It's up at prophecyviewpoint.com. 

https://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/40hc-Circumcision.htm

I do believe that circumcision was one of the symbolic/prophetic laws.  It symbolized our experience someday, when we will no longer live in this mortal "flesh".  A part of us, that we once lived in - will be gone.  Yet we will continue to live.  We will live in new spiritual bodies.

The prophecy is acted out in the events of Israel's entry into the promised land.  Joshua is Y'hoshua or  Yeshua, a TYPE of Jesus.

ACTED PROPHECTIC TYPE:  Joshua (commander of Israel's hosts) led physical Israel across the Jordan - that rolled back as a scroll. 

FULFILLMENT:  Jesus (commander of the LORD's hosts) will lead us - victorious Israel, across the sky (1Thess4:17), that will "roll back as a scroll" (Isa 34:4 and Rev 6:14). 

ACTED PROPHECTIC TYPE:  Joshua then "circumcised the people" because they had not been circumcised in the wilderness (after the rebellion at Sinai) (Joshua 5:3-7).

FULFILLMENT:  Yeshua will "circumcise" His victorious people when we receive our new spiritual bodies (no longer flesh).

(Spiritual body 1Cor 15:44)

Exactly why the LORD chose that particular symbolic command, I don't know.  It would be hidden, just like the circumcision of our hearts is hidden from view.  And it would effect only males.  (Females will also experience the fulfillment "circumcision".)  Egyptians were already practicing a form of circumcision, as were descendants of Ishmael (and Muslims today). 

The question we have been discussing, is whether that command should be obeyed today, by those who belong to Christ.  I think Paul made it clear, that it does not need to be - for Gentile converts.  Believers are circumcised in heart (where it counts) by Christ. 

Philippians 3:3  "For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,

Colossians 2:11 "and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;" (NAS)    NOTE:  We regard our old flesh as dead. We are delivered from its demands.

My own thinking is that Christ (our High Priest) performs the circumcision.  That makes circumcision something performed by a priest.  That would make the foreskin a "sacrifice", just like the hair grown during the period of the Nazarite vow (which was burned on the alter).  If that is the case, then physical circumcision would go away with the change of the priesthood.  We are now circumcised by Christ - in heart.  Just my thinking.

Does Ron know if foreskins were burned on the Alter?  I've always wondered about that.