Could ALL of Gods Laws REALLY Have been NAILED to HIS CROSS

[Drew]

Clearly, those who think they can be part of God's people without obedience to His Law are deceived. Jesus himself stated this clearly:

MATTHEW 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the Law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

I believe that the written code has indeed been retired so I obviously disagree that we who believe this are "deceived".

There are many texts (e.g. Eph 2, Gal 3) that clearly show that Paul considers that the Torah has been retired. We also have Jesus (e.g. in Mark 7) overturning the Levitical food laws.

Granted, the above text from Matthew seems to pose a challenge to the view that Torah has been retired. But those who take Matt 5:17 at a "literal" reading face the challenge of explaining how Jesus is not breaking Torah when he declares all foods clean - a clear contradiction to Levitical food laws.

So how can we see Matt 5:17 as consistent with the clear statements that Torah has been retired?

I offer the following:

Jesus was a product of his times and culture and I suggest that we in the modern west have been a little careless in understanding the implications of this. On a surface reading, Matthew 5:18 is indeed a challenge to those of us who think that, at least in a certain specific sense, Torah has been retired. Those who hold the opposing view have their own challenges to face, such as Ephesians 2:15 (and Romans 7) which, to me, unambiguously declare the abolition of the Torah, at least in terms of “rules and regulationsâ€Â.

Here is Matthew 5:17-19 in the NASB:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven

How can one read this text and possibly think that the prescriptions of the Torah do not remain in force, given that heaven and earth are still here?

I think that there is a way to faithfully read this text and still claim that Torah was retired 2000 years ago as Paul seems to so forcefully argue that it was (e.g. Eph 2:15). My proposal (building, of course, on the ideas of others – I am no Bible scholar) hinges on the assertion that in Hebrew culture apocalyptic “end of the world†language was commonly used in a specifically metaphorical mode for the specific purposes of investing commonplace events with their theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence that this was so. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. There are other examples of such metaphorical “end of the world†imagery being used to describe much more “mundane†events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away†is an apocalyptic metaphor.

I would appeal to the phrase “until all is accomplished†and point the reader to Jesus’ proclamation that “It is accomplished!†as He breathed His last on the Cross. Perhaps this is what Jesus is referring to. I believe that seeing it that way allows us to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Torah was retired.

Of course, the argument here is only sketch, but I present the above as a plausibility argument that there may be a way to legitimately read Jesus here as not declaring that the Torah will remain in force basically to the end of time.

 

[wavy]

The "them" in v. 8 are the points of the first covenant and the people finding fault in them. Vs. 7 and 8 have to read together; you can't take v. 8 out of context and expect to interpret it properly. Many of the newer translations make this very mistake and mess up the translation. Goodness, this entire passage is about Covenants, not people!

Here's how the YLT (Young's Literal...) interpreted it:

7 for if that first were faultless, a place would not have been sought for a second.

8 For finding fault, He saith to them, `Lo, days come, saith the Lord, and I will complete with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, a new covenant,

When read without the interpreter's interjection, "for finding fault" points back to "for if that were faultless" in v.7. It's referring to a covenant, not people.

It's no wonder you guys can't get your doctrines straight. RND, you're wrong too for agreeing with that poor interpretation.

Eric, that was actually close; God finds fault with both the people and the covenant or more precisely, their objections to the covenant, even though the passage is about covenants only.

Actually, vic, that isn't true. The YLT may be following a variant reading (i.e., the dative autoiv) which, according to my source would better be understood as the YLT translates--'to them he says...'

But the accusative autouv is better attested, in which case the natural rendering would be 'finding fault with them'.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Cornelius]

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

If we find the "until" we will find the "passing away of the letter and stroke "

So the question would be: Did Jesus fulfill the Law? I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

If the answer is "No He did not" then the Law stands
If He did , what He said He came to do, then the answer must be "Yes,it is abolished"

.........................

But since we still know its wrong to steal, murder etc, we obviously have the Law now in our hearts. The "stone" is gone, but our hearts are still here. What was written on stone , did not work. People cannot keep things like that. But now , we can follow that which is written on our hearts. Because now....Jas 4:17 To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Praise God, its a kinder Covenant, because you do not get to sin when you do things you "knoweth not" is sin , but only the things you "knoweth" . Now we can walk in the light (walking in your amount of knowledge) and I can walk in mine. And the blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness. I may know a little, but are still cleansed, and you might know a lot, and if you are walking according to your knowledge, you are cleansed the same way as me.

So a new "law" works in us. The law of you conscience. Transgress your concience and you sin, transgress it not, and you will not. The law is on your heart.

C

 

[Vic C.]

No problem Eric, we read it from different perspectives. I follow Bibles that mainly follow the Textus Receptus. Darby and even the Net Bible read it as I do.

Darby - 7 For if that first was faultless, place had not been sought for a second.
8 For finding fault, he says to them, Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and I will consummate a new covenant as regards the house of Israel, and as regards the house of Juda;

Net Bible - 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one.
8 But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

I digress... back to the topic.

 

[XTruth]

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

If we find the "until" we will find the "passing away of the letter and stroke "

So the question would be: Did Jesus fulfill the Law? I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

If the answer is "No He did not" then the Law stands
If He did , what He said He came to do, then the answer must be "Yes,it is abolished"

.........................

But since we still know its wrong to steal, murder etc, we obviously have the Law now in our hearts. The "stone" is gone, but our hearts are still here. What was written on stone , did not work. People cannot keep things like that. But now , we can follow that which is written on our hearts. Because now....Jas 4:17 To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Praise God, its a kinder Covenant, because you do not get to sin when you do things you "knoweth not" is sin , but only the things you "knoweth" . Now we can walk in the light (walking in your amount of knowledge) and I can walk in mine. And the blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness. I may know a little, but are still cleansed, and you might know a lot, and if you are walking according to your knowledge, you are cleansed the same way as me.

So a new "law" works in us. The law of you conscience. Transgress your concience and you sin, transgress it not, and you will not. The law is on your heart.

C

I agree with you that the Mosaic Covenant has been abolished and fulfilled at Christ's death, thus why He said what He said while He was still alive (before He died on cross...He is alive )
I just read your post in the Millennium thread and saw your heart...so I wanted you to be aware of Heb.10:26-31 for your own growth. This New Covenant is not kinder, it is even more strict...including the very thoughts as guilt in God's sight (Mat.5:21-22, 27-28). This isn't a nasty correction to come against you, its a nice one to help you achieve your target.

 

[Cornelius]

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

If we find the "until" we will find the "passing away of the letter and stroke "

So the question would be: Did Jesus fulfill the Law? I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

If the answer is "No He did not" then the Law stands
If He did , what He said He came to do, then the answer must be "Yes,it is abolished"

.........................

But since we still know its wrong to steal, murder etc, we obviously have the Law now in our hearts. The "stone" is gone, but our hearts are still here. What was written on stone , did not work. People cannot keep things like that. But now , we can follow that which is written on our hearts. Because now....Jas 4:17 To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Praise God, its a kinder Covenant, because you do not get to sin when you do things you "knoweth not" is sin , but only the things you "knoweth" . Now we can walk in the light (walking in your amount of knowledge) and I can walk in mine. And the blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness. I may know a little, but are still cleansed, and you might know a lot, and if you are walking according to your knowledge, you are cleansed the same way as me.

So a new "law" works in us. The law of you conscience. Transgress your concience and you sin, transgress it not, and you will not. The law is on your heart.

C

I agree with you that the Mosaic Covenant has been abolished and fulfilled at Christ's death, thus why He said what He said while He was still alive (before He died on cross...He is alive )
I just read your post in the Millennium thread and saw your heart...so I wanted you to be aware of Heb.10:26-31 for your own growth. This New Covenant is not kinder, it is even more strict...including the very thoughts as guilt in God's sight (Mat.5:21-22, 27-28). This isn't a nasty correction to come against you, its a nice one to help you achieve your target.

Thank you for your kind post.

Yes , I agree, our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees. That now is possible, because we get to get the righteousness of Christ.
When I said that its a kinder Covenant, I just wanted to point out, that we are now not responsible for things we do not yet know. In the Old, they were actually guilty , even if they were not aware that something was a sin. I can imagine it was very difficult to know and remember all those laws !
A baby Christian gets to get away with more, than somebody who knows more (has more light) .We are responsible to walk in the light we have, not in the light somebody else has. I find that a relief. !

your brother
C

 

[Eccl12and13]

Actually, there was nothing wrong with the first covenant. The fault was not with the covenant, the fault was with the people that made the promises:

Heb.8
[8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

God found fault with "THEM", the people. Now let's read what the 'new' covenant will be made up of:

[10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Those same laws that God gave the nation, are now written in our minds.

I know there are those that do not agree, but as I have always said: It's not your fault!

2 Thes.2
[11] And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

If we were playing "Pin the tail on the Donkey" you'd have gotten it on this attempt! If were target shooting you'd have hit 10 of 10. And lastly, if B-I-N-G-O was the game you be the first in the room to call it! Good job!

People change, not God's law.

Thanks! Just quoting scriptures!

 

[RND]

Then apparently you do not understand it.

It's crystal clear.

For when the priesthood is changed // of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

Right, that's understandable when one consider what the role of the priest was. He made sure the lamb was slaughtered properly, he made sure to catch the blood in a vessel, he made sure to place the appropriate offering of the blood in the proper place....on the horns of the alter or on the horns of alter of incense, etc.

You see Eric all these "laws" were made unnecessaary with the death, burial and resurrection of the one true High Priest...Jesus Christ.

So when Paul says that since the priesthood changed the law had to changed he was just whistlin' Dixie!

I have divided the verse into two segments. The first 'logically' entails the other. They are not synonymous. The plain reading of the texts says there is a change of law. And the way the Greek is employed here (see any lexicon on this word or any commentary), and in light of the verse's broader context, there can be no other interpretation.

Eric, do you know exactly "what" law changed?

Parroting the same thing while ignoring this and everything else I have said will not make what I said go away. Again, your position is refuted by the plain reading of the text.

Eric, if you don't know "what" laws Paul was referring to in Hebrews you would be at a distinct disadvantage. The quote from H. W. Attridge says exactly what transpired; the priesthood changed therefore the "law" regarding the priesthood must change. The "law" regarding the priesthood was abolished, not the "law" in general.

 

[wavy]

Eric, if you don't know "what" laws Paul was referring to in Hebrews you would be at a distinct disadvantage. The quote from H. W. Attridge says exactly what transpired; the priesthood changed therefore the "law" regarding the priesthood must change. The "law" regarding the priesthood was abolished, not the "law" in general.

Lol, first of all, don't place words in Attridge's mouth that he did not say. Where do you see 'the law regarding the priesthood must change' anywhere in the quote? That would be tautologous anyway.

From verse 11 we know the 'law' enacted on the basis of the priesthood concerned the Hebrews as a whole, not just the priests. If your interpretation were correct, he would not need to mention them at all.

The logic of the two verses is that since the basis of the law (of the people) is the Levitical priesthood, when the priesthood changed, so did the law, not the 'law of the priesthood' (again, see verse 7).

Have you read Attridge? Do you know how he understands the content of the book? Do you know anything he says outside of the quote I provided?

Why are you blatantly ignoring the following words? Hence, as becomes clear with the reference to the "abolition" ([aqethsiv]) of the Law in vs 18, the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood by Christ has profound effects.

Your temerity is astonishing. And I thought your bible passage distortions were bad enough.

But anyway, the original point to Eccl12and13 was that, however one interprets the 'law' mentioned in verse 12, it is anulled, not shifted or reapplied.

Lastly, it seems you have nothing to offer against anything else I said, such as this:

What the author has in mind here is not a reapplication of the same law to Jesus. If that were the case, he could not have said that there are priests who offer gifts according to the law in contrast to Jesus (Hebrews viii.4). Rather, what the author has in mind is a totally original institution enacted by the new covenant (Hebrews viii.6)...not a fudged rehash of the same stuff.

...so you probably keep ignoring it in the hope that it will eventually disappear--but it won't.

I'll let the reader decide. I'm not going to continue bantering back and forth about the plain reading of words on paper.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Drew]

The "law" regarding the priesthood was abolished, not the "law" in general.

I doubt it - we have every indication that the entirety of Torah, as a prescriptive set of rules, has indeed been retired.

Consider this from Galatians 2:

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Paul would have to be a very incompetent writer if he didn't intend to suggest that the Torah has now "expired". The word "tutor" here is the well-known Greek word "paidagogos". And, as per the Net Bible definition, a paidagogos is

"a tutor i.e. a guardian and guide of boys. Among the Greeks and the Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood."

By the very nature of the task of the paidagogos, his job comes to an end at some point in time - when the child becomes a man. Paul would have to be very incompetent to characterise the Law as a paidagogos (to his Greek readers who knew what the term meant), and yet not expect the reader to understand that, like the real tutor, the Law "loses its job" at some point in time.

Yet we have every reason to believe that Paul is using the term "paidagogos" in the proper sense - the sense where the tutor's job comes to an end at a certain point. Just as the tutor's job ends when the boy becomes a man, the Law's job comes to an end once "faith has come" as Paul explicitly states.

And consider what Paul goes on to say:

26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28(There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Note the inclusivity. If Paul has just written something whereby the Torah has been affirmed as still applicable, then the Jew and the Gentile are still two distinct groups within the body - we have Torah following Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians who do not follow the Torah. But the whole spirit of what Paul says here (and elsewhere) is that there are no "sub-groups" within the people of God.

How would verses 26-28 make sense specifically as a "for" (effectively a "because") conclusion to what Paul has just said about being no longer under the tutorship of the Torah? It would hardly make sense if the Torah were still active precisely because the Torah served the purpose of demarcating the Jew as distinct from the Gentile . Many do not think of Torah as serving that function, but I suggest that Paul clearly does – and that is what matters. The relevant text for that argument is from the beginning of Romans 10.

Instead, these verses only make sense if the boundary marker between Jew and Gentile - the Torah - has been retired.

I am going to politely suggest that the only reason such texts can be read as not indicating the expiry of Torah is to make the implicit assumption that Paul is a bad writer not in command of his argument and its terms. Thus, to believe that Torah is still in force, we need to believe the following:

1. Paul's choice of the paidagogos metaphor is misleading, since proper use of the metaphor would imply that the Torah, like the tutor's job, expires.

2. Paul has been doubly incompetent in his choice of the metaphor, since his "now that faith has come" statement would be naturally seen as corresponding to the condition of the boy reaching manhood, triggering the release of the paidagogos.

3. Paul writes a very weak and contradictory conclusion in 26 - 28, since he argues that the Jew and Gentile are indistinguishable from each other in the family, yet the Jew retains this massive set of rules, festivals, and practices that they alone are to follow. This is hardly being "non-distinct" from the Gentile.

 

[RND]

Lol, first of all, don't place words in Attridge's mouth that he did not say. Where do you see 'the law regarding the priesthood must change' anywhere in the quote? That would be tautologous anyway.

"....the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood by Christ has profound effects."

supplanting - To displace and substitute for (another). Take away and substitute.

From verse 11 we know the 'law' enacted on the basis of the priesthood concerned the Hebrews as a whole, not just the priests. If your interpretation were correct, he would not need to mention them at all.

Not when it's clear Paul was discussing just the priesthood in Hebrews 7. Hebrews 7 speaks specifically of the change in the priesthood and the laws of the priesthood.

Hbr 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

"...the priesthood being change..."

The logic of the two verses is that since the basis of the law (of the people) is the Levitical priesthood, when the priesthood changed, so did the law, not the 'law of the priesthood' (again, see verse 7).

Hbr 7:7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

Regarding Abraham's tithe to Melchisedec.

Have you read Attridge? Do you know how he understands the content of the book? Do you know anything he says outside of the quote I provided?

Nope, just the quote you provided that is so clear as not to be easily mistaken.

Why are you blatantly ignoring the following words? Hence, as becomes clear with the reference to the "abolition" ([aqethsiv]) of the Law in vs 18, the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood by Christ has profound effects.

Right, I get that. The "law" regarding the priesthood was "abolished."

NLT - Yes, the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless.

"The gist of the argument in Hebrews 7 is that, since the Levitical priesthood has no authority under the New Covenant, the ritual laws pertaining to the priesthood are no longer valid. The priesthood has been conferred on Christ, now our High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 6:20). This "change of the law"â€â€the ceremonial law of sacrifices, ritual washings, and other rites pertaining to the Tabernacle/Temple and priesthoodâ€â€applies only to the administration of tithing (verse 12). Since the tithing law predates the Levitical priesthood, and is thus still in force, tithes are now to be given to Jesus Christ, our High Priest, for use by the church. The church is commissioned to preach the gospel free of charge. The tithe pays for this important responsibility."

Your temerity is astonishing. And I thought your bible passage distortions were bad enough.

The "law" of the priesthood changed, not the "law." itself brother Eric. The scripture can not be made any more clear.

But anyway, the original point to Eccl12and13 was that, however one interprets the 'law' mentioned in verse 12, it is anulled, not shifted or reapplied.

Well, if that's what Eccl12and13 said I would have to disagree with him.

Lastly, it seems you have nothing to offer against anything else I said, such as this:

What the author has in mind here is not a reapplication of the same law to Jesus. If that were the case, he could not have said that there are priests who offer gifts according to the law in contrast to Jesus (Hebrews viii.4). Rather, what the author has in mind is a totally original institution enacted by the new covenant (Hebrews viii.6)...not a fudged rehash of the same stuff.

One argument at a time.

I wouldn't say that at all. Paul was discussing the fact that Jesus is are High Priest in heaven.

Hbr 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest (Jesus), who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty (God the Father) in the heavens

That Jesus ministers in the true tabernacle made by God.

Hbr 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

That every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices, our High Priest (Jesus) must make an offering as well.

Hbr 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore [it is] of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

For if Jesus were here on earth, he would not even be a priest, since there already are priests who offer the gifts required by the law of Moses.

Hbr 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

That's exactly what Paul is saying.......

...so you probably keep ignoring it in the hope that it will eventually disappear--but it won't.

I'm a little slow and can only really address one argument at a time.

I'll let the reader decide. I'm not going to continue bantering back and forth about the plain reading of words on paper.

Plain, that's right. Very plain. Painfully plain. H. W. Attridge was saying exactly what transpired and what Paul has said: The priesthood changed therefore the "law" regarding the priesthood must change. The "law" regarding the priesthood was abolished, not the "law" in general.

 

[RND]

I doubt it - we have every indication that the entirety of Torah, as a prescriptive set of rules, has indeed been retired.

I have no doubts about this Drew.

25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Right, because righteousness is by faith and not the law. See Romans 4. Paul is not saying there is no law Paul is saying that faith determines our righteouness.

GALATIANS - WAS PAUL TEACHING AGAINST THE LAW?

People should never try an attempt keeping the law to get saved, but because it's the right thing to do.

GALATIANS 3:11 But that no one is justified by the Law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." 12 Yet the Law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."

 

[wavy]

"....the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood by Christ has profound effects."

Yes, now read the previous clause of the sentence to see what 'profound effects' the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood has.

And again, he does not say 'the law of the priesthood'. Why are you trying to foist that understanding onto his words?

Well, you did admit you were slow...

Right, I get that. The "law" regarding the priesthood was "abolished."

Uh...except that's not what he said. You appear to have trouble reading simple English. There is no 'law regarding the priesthood' or 'law of the priesthood' anywhere in the quote, so you should cease trying to foist that meaning there or learn how to read.

NLT - Yes, the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless.

A mere cherry-picked out-of context quotation of verse 18 from a poorly selected translation.

"The gist of the argument in Hebrews 7 is that, since the Levitical priesthood has no authority under the New Covenant, the ritual laws pertaining to the priesthood are no longer valid. The priesthood has been conferred on Christ, now our High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 6:20). This "change of the law"â€â€the ceremonial law of sacrifices, ritual washings, and other rites pertaining to the Tabernacle/Temple and priesthoodâ€â€applies only to the administration of tithing (verse 12). Since the tithing law predates the Levitical priesthood, and is thus still in force, tithes are now to be given to Jesus Christ, our High Priest, for use by the church. The church is commissioned to preach the gospel free of charge. The tithe pays for this important responsibility."

Please provide links to your sources. But anyway, after searching briefly, I found that this commentary is neither reputable nor authoritative. (click). And lo and behold, it is maintained online by an irrelevant church organization who believe in the validity of the Mosaic law for Christians.

If you're going to engage me, at least do me the courtesy of using real sources and not insult my intelligence by flinging the results of google searches at me for answers you cannot articulate yourself.

The "law" of the priesthood changed, not the "law." itself brother Eric. The scripture can not be made any more clear.

Saying that won't make it appear in the verse.

One argument at a time.

I wouldn't say that at all. Paul was discussing the fact that Jesus is are High Priest in heaven.

Hbr 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest (Jesus), who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty (God the Father) in the heavens

That Jesus ministers in the true tabernacle made by God.

Hbr 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

That every high priest is required to offer gifts and sacrifices, our High Priest (Jesus) must make an offering as well.

Hbr 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore [it is] of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

For if Jesus were here on earth, he would not even be a priest, since there already are priests who offer the gifts required by the law of Moses.

Hbr 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

That's exactly what Paul is saying.......

*sigh*

I don't think you got it, and I don't feel like explaining myself. (btw, there is no evidence that Paul wrote Hebrews).

I'm a little slow

As if that wasn't obvious enough.

Plain, that's right. Very plain. Painfully plain. H. W. Attridge was saying exactly what transpired and what Paul has said: The priesthood changed therefore the "law" regarding the priesthood must change. The "law" regarding the priesthood was abolished, not the "law" in general.

I think it's plain for all to see that you're placing words in his mouth that were not said. Hopefully I've exposed you for the mendacious, prevaricating and intellectually dishonest interlocutor that you are.

I'm done here.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[einstein]

In a way this thread encapsulates the differences between Christianity and Judaism. I realize you can point to passages in the NT that say that the Torah is abolished and that G-d's covenant with Israel has been replaced by the covenant of the cross- but I see no proof of this theology in the Hebrew Bible. In fact I feel it is based on a mis-interpretation. On the other hand there are multiple passages in the Tanakh that indicate the permanence of the Eternal's commandments and covenants with Israel. Perhaps someone can briefly explain why they feel justified in believing in Paul's replacement theology.

 

[wavy]

In a way this thread encapsulates the differences between Christianity and Judaism. I realize you can point to passages in the NT that say that the Torah is abolished and that G-d's covenant with Israel has been replaced by the covenant of the cross- but I see no proof of this theology in the Hebrew Bible. In fact I feel it is based on a mis-interpretation. On the other hand there are multiple passages in the Tanakh that indicate the permanence of the Eternal's commandments and covenants with Israel. Perhaps someone can briefly explain why they feel justified in believing in Paul's replacement theology.

The brief answer, I would imagine, is that all those Hebrew bible passages stating the law is here to stay should be interpreted allegorically, or, alternatively, they are upheld in a new spiritual way, the literal requirements having been 'fulfilled' by Jesus.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[einstein]

In a way this thread encapsulates the differences between Christianity and Judaism. I realize you can point to passages in the NT that say that the Torah is abolished and that G-d's covenant with Israel has been replaced by the covenant of the cross- but I see no proof of this theology in the Hebrew Bible. In fact I feel it is based on a mis-interpretation. On the other hand there are multiple passages in the Tanakh that indicate the permanence of the Eternal's commandments and covenants with Israel. Perhaps someone can briefly explain why they feel justified in believing in Paul's replacement theology.

The brief answer, I would imagine, is that all those Hebrew bible passages stating the law is here to stay should be interpreted allegorically, or, alternatively, they are upheld in a new spiritual way, the literal requirements having been 'fulfilled' by Jesus.

Thanks,
Eric

Why, exactly, would you interpret these passages allegorically? When I read the passages in Jeremiah, I fail to see how this applies in any way to Jesus. Furthermore, I fail to see where the prophet is stating that the Torah and its mitzvot are abolished. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit. Thanks.

 

[Bubba]

Wavy wrote; “Hopefully I've exposed you for the mendacious, prevaricating and intellectually dishonest interlocutor that you are.†I want you to know that after reading this post, I went to bed only to get up again and look up a third of the words you used in my dictionary; isn’t “dishonest†redundant following the adjective “mendacious�
Peace, Bubba

 

[wavy]

Wavy wrote; “Hopefully I've exposed you for the mendacious, prevaricating and intellectually dishonest interlocutor that you are.†I want you to know that after reading this post, I went to bed only to get up again and look up a third of the words you used in my dictionary; isn’t “dishonest†redundant following the adjective “mendacious�

Peace, Bubba

Well, 'intellectual dishonesty' carries a slightly different rhetorical connotation. :D

Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Why, exactly, would you interpret these passages allegorically? When I read the passages in Jeremiah, I fail to see how this applies in any way to Jesus. Furthermore, I fail to see where the prophet is stating that the Torah and its mitzvot are abolished. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit. Thanks.

You'll have to ask others for the details. I am not a Christian.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[RND]

Yes, now read the previous clause of the sentence to see what 'profound effects' the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood has.

The previous clause says, " Hence, as becomes clear with the reference to the "abolition" ([aqethsiv]) of the Law in vs 18..."

Verse 18 is talking about the "laws" of how the earthly priest was to do things. "Yes, the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless. "

And again, he does not say 'the law of the priesthood'. Why are you trying to foist that understanding onto his words?

Well, you did admit you were slow...

Um, because that's what Paul was saying.

Uh...except that's not what he said. You appear to have trouble reading simple English. There is no 'law regarding the priesthood' or 'law of the priesthood' anywhere in the quote, so you should cease trying to foist that meaning there or learn how to read.

[quote:2bi3ijzi]NLT - Yes, the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless.

A mere cherry-picked out-of context quotation of verse 18 from a poorly selected translation. [/quote:2bi3ijzi]

Eric, your source was saying the exact same thing. The "law" of the priest was abolished, not the law. "Hence, as becomes clear with the reference to the "abolition" ([aqethsiv]) of the Law in vs 18"

The law, in verse 18, was abolished. I get that. Your source was right.

Please provide links to your sources. But anyway, after searching briefly, I found that this commentary is neither reputable nor authoritative. (click). And lo and behold, it is maintained online by an irrelevant church organization who believe in the validity of the Mosaic law for Christians.

Forerunner Bible Commentary.

"There is a change in the efficacy of the priesthood. The former was weak and unprofitable, made nothing perfect; the latter brought in a better hope, by which we draw near to God, v. 18, 19. The Levitical priesthood brought nothing to perfection: it could not justify men’s persons from guilt; it could not sanctify them from inward pollution; it could not cleanse the consciences of the worshippers from dead works; all it could do was to lead them to the antitype. But the priesthood of Christ carries in it, and brings along with it, a better hope; it shows us the true foundation of all the hope we have towards God for pardon and salvation; it more clearly discovers the great objects of our hope; and so it tends to work in us a more strong and lively hope of acceptance with God. By this hope we are encouraged to draw nigh unto God, to enter into a covenant-union with him, to live a life of converse and communion with him. We may now draw near with a true heart, and with the full assurance of faith, having our minds sprinkled from an evil conscience. The former priesthood rather kept men at a distance, and under a spirit of bondage."

"The priesthood..."

Matthew Henry says the same thing.

If you're going to engage me, at least do me the courtesy of using real sources and not insult my intelligence by flinging the results of google searches at me for answers you cannot articulate yourself.

The only thing insulting your intelligence Eric is your failure to see just exactly what the source you quoted is saying. He was saying the same this as Forerunner, Matthew Henry or most other Bible scholars.

Saying that won't make it appear in the verse.

That's exactly what verse 18 states as your source confirmed.

" Hence, as becomes clear with the reference to the "abolition" ([aqethsiv]) of the Law in vs 18, the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood by Christ has profound effects."

The law "supplanting" (changing) of the Levitical priesthood...

*sigh*

I don't think you got it, and I don't feel like explaining myself. (btw, there is no evidence that Paul wrote Hebrews).

Eric, I got it! You don't even know what your source was saying!

As if that wasn't obvious enough.

In what way?

I think it's plain for all to see that you're placing words in his mouth that were not said.

You mean he didn't say, "Hence, as becomes clear with the reference to the "abolition" ([aqethsiv]) of the Law in vs 18, the supplanting of the Levitical priesthood by Christ has profound effects."

Hopefully I've exposed you for the mendacious, prevaricating and intellectually dishonest interlocutor that you are.

I'm done here.

Name calling...the last bastion of the defeated. Eric, have you ever heard the old Roman legal maxim that says "He who leaves the battlefield first loses?"