> General Discussions
Couple questions - Leviticus / Galatians
Extol:
Dear nshan,
You wrote I know God does not change but this is still hard to understand...Yes, He does not change, but there is still a process, a progression of stages, by which His plan is accomplished. He says The soul that sins shall die (Ezek 18:20), yet we also know this mortal must put on immortality [deathlessness] (1 Cor. 15:53). This is not God changing; it's just two different stages in the plan.
A parent may paddle a toddler, ground a 10-year old, and take a cell phone away from the 16-year old without the law or the parent changing.
Contrary to the belief of many, the Law is not bad. Paul said I would not have been mindful of sin if not for the Law (Rom. 7:7)It is good for us to be mindful of our sin. If the Law said "When a man does ____ the congregation must forgive him"....oh, how the criminals would celebrate! There is no punishment for sin! In fact, there is no sin at all, since the Law does not demand any penalty.
As Ray said (in Porter's post), Certainly one was justified in being reimbursed for the value of a lost eye, hand, tooth, etc.
The "problem" with the Law is that it cannot save anyone, because all have sinned. It demands perfection, a demand none of us can meet. This does not make the laws themselves bad. You will notice in those Hebrews chapters you referenced that it talks about a better priesthood, a better covenant, a greater tabernacle, etc. but it does not criticize the laws of God. (The "change in the law" (Heb. 7:12) refers to Jesus' eligibility to be High Priest despite being of Judah, not Levi. It does not mean there is a change to "Thou shalt not commit adultery.")
The paper Porter quoted is called The Sermon on the Mount is For You. For you, the would-be overcomer, the potential Elect who strives for the First Resurrection. Yes, a man is justified in being reimbursed for a tooth. But if you want to pursue that higher calling...can you forgive? Here is more from that paper. It's a lengthy excerpt but there is a lot of good stuff:
Let's notice a phrase that Jesus used thirty-three times in the Gospels: " You have heard, but I SAY UNTO YOU...," "I say unto you...," or " For I say unto you...," or " But I say unto you..." Several times when Jesus prefaces His statements with, " But I say unto you...," He is giving His present teaching on something that was taught in the Old Testament Scriptures and Law of Moses.
Sometimes it appears that Jesus might even contradict the Law of Moses, as in these verses for example:
" Again, ye have heard that it has been said by them of old time, You shall not forswear yourself, but shall perform unto the Lord YOUR OATHS: But I say unto you, SWEAR NOT AT ALL" (Matt. 5:33-34).
Here is another:
" Ye have heard that it has been said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies..." (Matt. 5:43-44).
Some time ago when I began to really study verses 20 to 45, instead of taking someone else's interpretation, I found that I was wrong to assume that Jesus is contradicting portions of the Law of Moses or teaching contrary to it.
Ask yourself: Are those "circumcised in heart" really breaking God's Commandment if they are not "circumcised in flesh?" I don't think so and neither do the Scriptures.
Are present day Gentile Believers really breaking God's command to sacrifice animals to atone for their sins if they rather spiritually accept the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ Himself on the cross? I don't think so, and neither do the Scriptures.
Are Believers today breaking the tithing law if they rather " present themselves a living sacrifice," and always are willing to " lay in store as God has prospered them" (I Cor. 16:2) their money, time and talents to serve others? I don't think so, and neither do the Scriptures.
Are Believers today breaking the Sabbath day command if they do not set aside the seventh day to physically rest, but rather have set aside all days as a spiritual rest (Heb. 4)? I don't think so, and neither do the Scriptures.
Likewise, Jesus is not contradicting the Law of Moses in these few examples in His Sermon on the Mount.
We need to really understand and know as Paul did when he said: " For we KNOW that THE LAW IS SPIRITUAL..." (Rom. 7:14). And just how did Paul " know" this? Because of the 10th commandment of the Ten Commandments which were the main part of the Law of Moses, and the Old Covenant (Deut. 4:13). "... Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law [what law?] : for I had not known lust, except the law [which law?] had said, 'THOU SHALT NOT COVET'" (Rom. 7:7). Oh THAT law. That would be the 10th commandment of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:17).
Of course I have said and have written for many years now that the Ten Commandments of God are spiritual. And I have explained that it is this 10th commandment that is the absolute proof. The 7th commandment already said to not commit adultery, and the 8th commandment already said to not steal, but then the last and 10th commandment says in effect, "...and don't even THINK about it!"
Isn't this exactly what Jesus is teaching when He says that the commandment said to not commit adultery, be He then said we are not to even THINK ABOUT lusting after another woman with impure sexual thoughts?
This whole Sermon on the Mount is Christ's teaching on how to live an exceedingly higher level of morality and righteousness than was taught before, and the accompanying Judgments if one does not live up to these standards.
Paul taught:
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Gal. 3:24-25).
The law was like elementary school, whereas living by faith in Christ is more like high school or college.
Is not elementary school necessary before high school? Most elementary students cannot do high school or college work. Do high school and college teachers contradict the math, grammar, and science that was learned in elementary school. No, of course not, and so neither does Jesus CONTRADICT the lessons of the Law of Moses which brought us to Him. We never contradict 2 + 2 = 4 when we get to high school, but we do move onto higher math and do not continue re-laying the foundation of these subjects already established back in elementary school.
We will now turn to the Sermon on the Mount and see if we are able to learn a little "new [spiritual] math."
Lets be clear on one thing before we enter this study. You will find the phrase, New Covenant, New Testament, and New Commandment in the Greek Scriptures, But you will not find the phrase "New LAW" anywhere. There are "new commandments" regarding that law, the but law is the same, as it is " spiritual" and therefore is not " temporal" (II Cor. 4:18).
And let me make this perfectly clear. In the Old Covenant Law, we read this:
"... you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18 & Matt. 5:43, 19:19, 22:39, etc.)
The apostle John informs us that this commandment is not new:
"And now I beseech you, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto you, but that which we had from the beginning, that we should love one another" (II John 1:5).
But John also knew that Jesus did add something to this commandment:
" And this is HIS commandment, that we should believe on the Name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, AS He gave us commandment"
(I John 3:23).
Well was there something different about this commandment from the Old Covenant Law and " AS" Jesus commanded it? Yes there was. A new Law? No. A contradictory Law? No. Well what then was different from the way Jesus taught and kept this commandment to " love your neighbor?"
Here it is, simply and profoundly: " A NEW commandment I give unto you, That you love one another [same as the Old Commandment, right? No, here is were the new " AS" part comes in...] ...That you love one another AS I HAVE LOVED YOU, that you also love one another" (John 13:34). Now that brings a whole lot more meaning to the "old" commandment which they had from the beginning. Loving " AS" Jesus loved, is a whole new ball game, as they say. (my comment: One can still ask for reimbursement; but loving like Jesus loves? That is something only a few (the elect) will be able to do.)
There was and is nothing wrong with the Law of Moses. God calls it "MY law."
The problem was never with the Law, but with the people:
" O that there were such an HEART in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always..." (Deut. 5:29).
The problem was never with God's Law, but with the peoples' heart-they were carnal, and when one is carnal, he cannot keep a " spiritual" law:
"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Rom. 8:6-7).
And here is absolutely proof that there needed a change in the Covenant, not in the LAW OF THE COVENANT:
"For if that first covenant ['covenant,' not law] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For FINDING FAULT WITH THEM, He said, Behold, the days come, says the Lord, when I will make a NEW COVENANT [not a New Law] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah... For this is the covenant that I will make... I will put my LAWS [same old laws-but new covenant] into their MIND, AND WRITE THEM IN THEIR HEARTS..." (Heb. 8:7-9).
There it is!
AwesomeSavior:
I know Ray said that "Only one person in the Scriptures said that He hated his enemies, and that was David."
However, there is this verse(s) as well:
The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. (Psa 11:5)
Strongs definition for the word "hateth": שָׂנֵא sânęʼ, saw-nay'; a primitive root; to hate (personally):—enemy, foe, (be) hate(-ful, -r), odious, × utterly.
I might even make a case with Hosea 9:15, as it seems as though the Lord is speaking in that particular verse. It uses that same Hebrew word for hated.
nshan:
--- Quote --- Only thing I can think of is the fact the Old Covenant (with it's Mosaic laws) is not in accord with the New Covenant (and it's Law of Christ). The first Covenant is death, the second Covenant is life.
--- End quote ---
From what I am reading in the scriptures this seems to be correct. Understanding the "why?" part is really my question.
--- Quote ---The "problem" with the Law is that it cannot save anyone, because all have sinned. It demands perfection, a demand none of us can meet. This does not make the laws themselves bad. You will notice in those Hebrews chapters you referenced that it talks about a better priesthood, a better covenant, a greater tabernacle, etc. but it does not criticize the laws of God. (The "change in the law" (Heb. 7:12) refers to Jesus' eligibility to be High Priest despite being of Judah, not Levi. It does not mean there is a change to "Thou shalt not commit adultery.")
--- End quote ---
You seem to be right, but Heb 7:12 is not just referring to Jesus's eligibility to being High Priest, it uses this as an example because if you actually read the verse it says:
[KJV] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
[HNV] For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made also in the law.
etc.
This change I guess is probably referring to the law of Christ since it was not made manifest until now in Heb 9:8 and is now being written in our hearts. Also, I continued reading in Heb 10 about the old ordinance being a shadow which leads me to believe it was never the real deal. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is just a shadow of something better. I guess we are to live by faith now.
A better example would be Mat 5:17 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
So he fulfilled everything as they were just a shadow of the real thing.
--- Quote ---Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
--- End quote ---
This is a complete 180 from what was given (by God) before. Blood for blood VS nevermind.
The question about Leviticus is still not very well answered which is probably because God's ways are past finding out (Rom 11:33) though it would be nice to know everything now. Maybe because the old with all its laws and ordinances is not equal to the new.
This reminds me of David and the shewbread too since God considered David guiltless even though he broke the sabbath, but since God was lord of sabbath he considered him as guiltless as the priests who broke the sabbath, yet it was lawful for them to break the sabbath:
Matthew 12:4-8
Luke 6:4-5
--- Quote ---I know Ray said that "Only one person in the Scriptures said that He hated his enemies, and that was David."
However, there is this verse(s) as well:
The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. (Psa 11:5)
Strongs definition for the word "hateth": שָׂנֵא sânęʼ, saw-nay'; a primitive root; to hate (personally):—enemy, foe, (be) hate(-ful, -r), odious, × utterly.
I might even make a case with Hosea 9:15, as it seems as though the Lord is speaking in that particular verse. It uses that same Hebrew word for hated.
--- End quote ---
I remember reading that God hated Esau (though he was blessed by God and reunited with his brother) and there is no meaning in Hebrew "to love less" it is just "hate", only the Greek "introduces" the meaning "to love less" but not the Hebrew.
Extol:
--- Quote ---You seem to be right, but Heb 7:12 is not just referring to Jesus's eligibility to being High Priest, it uses this as an example because if you actually read the verse it says:
[KJV] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
[HNV] For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made also in the law.
etc.
This change I guess is probably referring to the law of Christ since it was not made manifest until now in Heb 9:8 and is now being written in our hearts.
--- End quote ---
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. I did actually read the verse, which is why I referenced the law changing regarding the priesthood...because that is what the verse says! Here is the law that was changed:
Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the doorway of the tent of meeting and wash them with water. You shall put the holy garments on Aaron and anoint him and consecrate him, that he may minister as a priest to Me. You shall bring his sons and put tunics on them; and you shall anoint them even as you have anointed their father, that they may minister as priests to Me; and their anointing will qualify them for a perpetual [olam] priesthood throughout their generations. Exodus 40:12-15
Jesus Christ, our High Priest, was not of the line of Aaron. So the Law was "changed" to accommodate Him being from another tribe. And He is in fact part of a priesthood that predated the Levitical one.
--- Quote from: nshan on April 14, 2020, 02:40:09 PM ---
--- Quote ---Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
--- End quote ---
This is a complete 180 from what was given (by God) before. Blood for blood VS nevermind.
--- End quote ---
You are assuming things that are not actually stated in the text. Jesus did not say "But I say to you, that law of Moses about eye for an eye is a bunch of rubbish and should be thrown away, here is a new law...." Because B (v. 39) is true does not necessarily mean A (v. 38) is false (or a "complete 180"). Have you driven in one of those work zones where a flashing sign says TAKE TURNS MERGING ? What if Jesus said to YOU (you potential Elect of God), "Let ALL the cars go ahead of you" ? That does not mean it is bad or wrong for the other cars to go on after letting just one car merge. Car for a car is fine for the world--it is justice--but there is a higher calling for those who want to be part of that blessed and holy first resurrection.
Also, what is the question in Leviticus you say is yet unanswered? Is it about the guy being stoned?
nshan:
After reading more:
If the laws given to Paul's fathers were perfect there would be no need for anyone besides Aaron and his sons in the Levitical priesthood. Paul uses this as an example leading up to a better testament if you read both chapters.
--- Quote ---You are assuming things that are not actually stated in the text. Jesus did not say "But I say to you, that law of Moses about eye for an eye is a bunch of rubbish and should be thrown away, here is a new law...." Because B (v. 39) is true does not necessarily mean A (v. 38) is false (or a "complete 180"). Have you driven in one of those work zones where a flashing sign says TAKE TURNS MERGING ? What if Jesus said to YOU (you potential Elect of God), "Let ALL the cars go ahead of you" ? That does not mean it is bad or wrong for the other cars to go on after letting just one car merge. Car for a car is fine for the world--it is justice--but there is a higher calling for those who want to be part of that blessed and holy first resurrection.
Also, what is the question in Leviticus you say is yet unanswered? Is it about the guy being stoned?
--- End quote ---
According to the Christ it seems to be rubbish because we are to love our enemies and not retaliate. If you think love your enemies, don't retaliate, etc. is not a 180 from Blood for Blood then I'm not sure what to really say here. I quoted from the text. I am not saying the scriptures contradict, but this is definitely the opposite of the commandment given before. We are also supposed to accept Jesus as our high priest and sacrifice unless we should start killing bulls again? The old is passing away right? I get what you're trying to say about the cars a bit but it's not a great example as it would be a sin for me to hold the others back by not going when it's my turn. I took a few math proofs classes myself. If you're trying to say that the new testament is just a better version than the old than yes, I guess it's infinitely better. (If this is not what you meant then nvm)
If the old was meant to pass away then I am assuming it is not perfect? If it's perfect, and let us assume anything less than perfect is rubbish to God and us, then how many lambs does it take to equal Christ's blood? If it's not perfect then I'm going to just flat out say it's garbage compared to Christ's, as Paul also gave up being blameless in the law and counting it all as a loss compared to the Christ. (Php 3)
--- Quote ---Also, what is the question in Leviticus you say is yet unanswered? Is it about the guy being stoned?
--- End quote ---
Yes
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version