Galatians 4 two opposing covenants.

[Clare73]

Will you explain? Are you getting this from the "lasting priesthood" language?

I'm getting the "implicitly" language from Ronald Youngblood.

 

[ralliann]

There's a reason Christians are referred to as a royal priesthood, kings and priests (1 Pet2:5, 1 Pet2:9; Rev1:6: Rev5:10; Rev20:6).

KINGS From SARAH
Yes. The covenant of circumcision Genesis 17, promises Abraham and Sarah KINGS.

(king/priests) like Melchizedek.
Ge 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Ge 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

Jacob made a co- heir of the same promise of KINGS.
Gen 35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

So, while kings were promised from their loins, How is it they inherit the land? They are dead in Genesis 15.
God tests Abraham, offers Isaac and he receives him in a figure from the dead.And the covenant was established with an oath in Genesis 22, through Isaac.
His faith was made complete

 

[Clare73]

The Levites didn't establish law. God is the Lawgiver. Ultimately this is the issue at hand - Law - as usual.

On the basis of, under the Levitical priesthood, the law was given to the people (Heb 7:11).
It being on the basis of the Levitical priesthood, when there is a change of the priesthood there must also be a change of the law (Heb 7:12).

I do understand the Priesthood issues. Thanks for your input.

So not to drift from what the discussion is with @Studyman, as I understand him and he can step in & correct me or any of us if/when he may choose to, his concept is that the Priesthood Covenant of old was ended, but God's Eternal Law continued under the new Great High Priesthood of our Lord.

Do you know what he means specifically by "God's Eternal Law?"

What I've been doing is to simply identify with Him, per his point of view, what this Priesthood Covenant was, to correlate it to the Covenants God made with the children of Israel, and then track all this into Hebrews and wherever else we need to track it into the NC to see how his POV works out.

As you've identified, Hebrews obviously tells us the Law concerning Priesthood was changed and we know there are no more sacrifices, so all that Law has been ended, so is all this the Priesthood Law based in the Priesthood Covenant @Studyman is speaking of? This topic of the Priesthood runs throughout Hebrews virtually from beginning to end.

I'm simply tracking a concept a fellow Christian has to see how it works out Scripturally. Whether it works out or not or needs tweaking, I'm personally leaving open for now while I work on it.

 

[GDL]

I'm getting the "implicitly" language from Ronald Youngblood.

The author of Num25?

Just some input FWIW: In Num25:13 the priesthood of Aaron's grandson is said to be olam which can be a long time, or forever (HOL Lexicon) (context dependent and even the forever concept is misleading at times). The LXX translated it as aionios which has pretty much the same range of meaning and can be the concept of lasting for an age (BDAG Lexicon).

It's obvious that priesthood lasted until Christ and it's really not the precedent for Christ's Priesthood.

 

[Clare73]

Understood, but how are you applying it to Christ, if you are?

I'm getting that from Ronald Youndblood,

I apply it to Christ as "seed" is applied to Christ (Gal 3:16), because
his is the "lasting priesthood" (eternal High Priest--Heb 3:1, 4:14-15, 5:5, 10, 7:26, 28, 8:1, 3, 9:11), promised to Phinehas.

However, if "lasting" is not "everlasting" as you state, then it does not necessarily apply to Christ.

 

[GDL]

KINGS From SARAH
Yes. The covenant of circumcision Genesis 17, promises Abraham and Sarah KINGS.

(king/priests) like Melchizedek.
Ge 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Ge 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

Jacob made a co- heir of the same promise of KINGS.
Gen 35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

So, while kings were promised from their loins, How is it they inherit the land? They are dead in Genesis 15.
God tests Abraham, offers Isaac and he receives him in a figure from the dead.And the covenant was established with an oath in Genesis 22, through Isaac.
His faith was made complete

I'm not setting aside any of the Abrahamic Promise at the moment and understand his SEED to whom the promise was made.

What I am looking at is the concept of what was violated per Gal3:19. This word is not used that much in Scripture. It's in LXX Ps101:3 & 7 times in the NC:

• Rom2:23 violation of law
• Rom4:15 violation of law
• Rom5:14 Adam violated paralleled to sinned
• Gal3:19 see Heb2:2 & Heb9:15 below
• 1Tim2:14 Eve violated due to being deceived and the context is subordination and usurping authority
• Heb2:2 violation parallel to disobedience and correlated to the Law with Aaronic Priesthood given at Sinai (Acts7:38; Gal3:19)
• Heb9:15 violation under the first covenant (see Heb2:2 above)

Based upon this quick look, I don't see this going back to the Abrahamic Covenant. It seems pretty clear that it goes to the Law & Priesthood at Sinai.

Even in Ps101, David is clearly talking about righteousness (mercy, justice, wisdom, perfection/completion/wholeness, etc.) vs. unrighteousness (evil, slander, pride, deceit, etc.). This is also language re: law.

Taking this to the Abrahamic Covenant and circumcision seems without basis.

Still working...

 

[GDL]

On the basis of, under the Levitical priesthood, the law was given to the people (Heb 7:11).
It being on the basis of the Levitical priesthood, when there is a change of the priesthood there must also be a change of the law (Heb 7:12).

Some nit-picking since I typically look & check translations: the parenthesis in Heb7:11 literally says, "on the basis [of] it (the Levitical Priesthood) the people had been legislated" so "received law" or your "law was given" seems to make sense. My comment was that the Levites didn't "establish" law. Maybe I didn't understand what you meant by that word since it surely has some range.

This change of the law per Heb7:12 is part of what all this discussion is about. I'm sure you've looked at and reasoned these 2 verses Heb7:11-12. There was no perfection through the Levitical Priesthood so we needed the Melchizedekian Priesthood not the one according to Aaron. The Priesthood being changed from necessity also law becomes changed.

This applies to your next question which I'll answer obviously in my own way and @Studyman can comment or change what I say if/as he may choose.

Heb7:11-12 obviously and clearly says Law was changed, not terminated. By "God's Eternal Law" @Studyman is referring to what some call "God's Law" which conforms to God's Righteous character and standards for His creation, and some refer to this as "Moral Law". What he is saying is that God's Eternal Law was being taught by a Priesthood that could not perfect people so God's Eternal Law is now being taught & widely read - better "written in minds and on hearts" - of those in Christ in Spirit by a Perfect and Eternal Priesthood that can perfect His people. It's basically the law of the Priesthood that was changed and not "God's Eternal Law" - God's Eternal Righteousness which never changes. This perfection in Hebrews pertains to the conscience being cleansed one for all and perfected. Look at Heb10:2 and ponder what having no more conscience (or consciousness - you ponder & decide) of sins means.

I'm already in agreement and have been for quite some time with the concept of God's Eternal Law based in God's Perfect & Eternal Righteousness / God's Law / Moral Law (although I would personally forego this last one in favor of #1 then #2). What I find interesting in @Studyman is likely (I'm still working through this) a mindset based upon the way he was apparently led in personal studies to see this from a positive vs. a defensive point of view. IOW, if one begins with the premise of God's Eternal Law, then he doesn't see anything to say it doesn't exist. Most students of Biblical Law are trying to find it or bring it back amongst a lot of chatter saying it doesn't exist - all we have is Moses - and he is no more.

This concept of the Priesthood Covenant changing but not God's Eternal Law caught my eye in 2020 the first time I read @Studyman say something about it. In an aging mind that can't remember if I've had breakfast sometimes (!), I noticed his posts on this thread and recalled then verified it was him that I'd noted about 3 years ago. I've yet to really take this deeper into Hebrews, but IMO it's not a minor change of perspective. I've been doing some work in 1John. Mindset is a very big deal for us.

Do you know what he means specifically by "God's Eternal Law?"

 

[GDL]

I'm getting that from Ronald Youndblood,

I apply it to Christ as "seed" is applied to Christ (Gal 3:16), because
his is the "lasting priesthood" (eternal High Priest--Heb 3:1, 4:14-15, 5:5, 10, 7:26, 28, 8:1, 3, 9:11), promised to Phinehas.

However, if "lasting" is not "everlasting" as you state, then it does not necessarily apply to Christ.

I can see what you're doing, but I wouldn't necessarily go there.

The Seed concept on Gal3:16 has to do with the promised Spirit through Faith (Gal3:14) which I'm sure you know.

With His promised Spirit and based upon His Eternal Priesthood (much unlike the temporary priesthood) the things of Hebrews are taking place. There are of course some concepts we could find comparisons in, so I won't take a completely contrary stance.

But His is a Priesthood very much unlike the Levitical Priesthood that ended. The first time we see the word "priest" in the Bible is the King Priest of God Most High in Gen14:18. We know that this Eternal King Priest reality is Jesus Christ. In between there was mainly the Levitical Priesthood according to a "fleshly commandment" (Heb7:16) that began with Aaron and sons and then the Tribe of Levi serving them that lasted for an age until Christ. The concept of King Priests is not there. The monarchy was separate and then covenanted in David from whom Jesus Christ also came. So, in Him we're back to the King Priest (Melchizedek & David) with the promised Spirit (Abraham - also kings as @ralliann is bringing in) for His people.

It's this transition to Christ and the change of law that @Studyman is dealing with.

Some take this concept of priesthood and king back to Adam. And of course, now we are tied into the concept. There are some interesting reads on such things.

 

[ralliann]

I'm not setting aside any of the Abrahamic Promise at the moment and understand his SEED to whom the promise was made.

What I am looking at is the concept of what was violated per Gal3:19. This word is not used that much in Scripture. It's in LXX Ps101:3 & 7 times in the NC:

• Rom2:23 violation of law
• Rom4:15 violation of law
• Rom5:14 Adam violated paralleled to sinned
• Gal3:19 see Heb2:2 & Heb9:15 below
• 1Tim2:14 Eve violated due to being deceived and the context is subordination and usurping authority
• Heb2:2 violation parallel to disobedience and correlated to the Law with Aaronic Priesthood given at Sinai (Acts7:38; Gal3:19)
• Heb9:15 violation under the first covenant (see Heb2:2 above)

Based upon this quick look, I don't see this going back to the Abrahamic Covenant. It seems pretty clear that it goes to the Law & Priesthood at Sinai.

Even in Ps101, David is clearly talking about righteousness (mercy, justice, wisdom, perfection/completion/wholeness, etc.) vs. unrighteousness (evil, slander, pride, deceit, etc.). This is also language re: law.

Taking this to the Abrahamic Covenant and circumcision seems without basis.

Still working...

How is this?
Their God's..........
Amos 5:26 and Acts 7:42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?
43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.

Whom their fathers knew not.....
De 32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

Jos 24:13 And I have given you a land for which ye did not labour, and cities which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyards and oliveyards which ye planted not do ye eat.
14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;
17 For the LORD our God, he it is that brought us up and our fathers out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and which did those great signs in our sight, and preserved us in all the way wherein we went, and among all the people through whom we passed:
18 And the LORD drave out from before us all the people, even the Amorites which dwelt in the land: therefore will we also serve the LORD; for he is our God.

It is all connected to the covenant made with Abraham their father.

 

[Studyman]

I think this is the pivotal point in your argument.

I also think there are a few things we can clean up a bit.

• I do see the covenant Israel broke as the one spoken of in Ex19-24. Moses instituted this covenant with blood in Ex24:8
• The free will offering specified in Ex25 was to build the tabernacle where God would dwell, and Aaron and sons would serve God as His priests in the tabernacle. Prior to Ex32, this is all just being specified and yet to be implemented.
• While Moses was on the mountain with God getting all the terms and laws, Israel broke the covenant with idolatry.
• It looks like, as you say, that the covenant terms God was specifying - including the 10C's - were not changed when Moses went back up the mountain in Ex34 after pleading for the people in Ex32.
• The only covenant language in Ex34:10 is God covenanting to do marvels such as not seen before in the earth. This is where I think the marriage contract concept comes in. God made the original contract with His terms specified while Moses was on the mountain the first time. Israel committed idolatry (harlotry in essence). The contract was broken - Moses smashed the tablets. The next trip up the mountain Moses needs to bring the tablets and he needs to do the writing - he's there for 40 days apparently doing so (Ex34:28).

The scriptures say God still did the writing. And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

• This is the reinstitution of the marriage - the covenant. which had been broken.

Can you show me who according to Scriptures, of the 600,000 who came out of Israel, was "Reinstated" in marriage to God?

• The freewill offering specified by God in Ex25 but never implemented due to the idolatry / covenant breaking is implemented in Ex35 when Moses comes down again with the renewed covenant contract (tablets) in hand.

So then, your contention here, is that if Israel had not rebelled against God while Moses was up on the mount, and created another god to worship, God would have given the exact same instructions as if no Transgression (EX. 20:3) occured? And that there is no Separation between the Levitical Priesthood sacrifices for Sin, which obviously was temporary, given God surely knew HIS Eternal Priest would come from Judah and not Levi, from the Laws of God which defined Sin for Cain, Noah, Abraham and Sodom.

Basically implying that the reason why such Sacrificial commands Concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices wasn't given until after the Golden calf, was just coincidence. And that Jeremiah is mistaken, in Jer. 7, and that God desired sacrifice from the very beginning of Israel's journey of becoming a Kingdom of Priests.

Let me ask you a question. When Moses said, " Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me." in Exodus 32 after Israel broke God's Covenant with Him, what if it wasn't the tribe of Levi who came to him? But the Tribe of Reuben. Would Mal. 2: then read;

4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi Reuben saith the LORD of hosts. 5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.

8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi Reuben, saith the LORD of hosts. 9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

For me, Hebrews perfectly explains this. "7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, Would this not be the Priests who departed out of the Way, and became Partial in the Law?

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: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Anyway, these are valid questions as we work all this out.

• I'm not doing all the work to compare the specifications given the first time to what was implemented the 2nd time, but the tabernacle gets built and the 10C's are in place, so I'd say God's original terms were probably implemented.

The ADDED due to transgressions is another pivotal point that's still a question for me:

• At the moment I don't see the transgressions as the golden calf idolatry. I actually currently see it as more in line with the concept you call "God's Eternal Law". Here's why"
• "Transgressions" is a word that means "deviating from an established norm - violation of law" (BDAG)
• In Gen26:5 Abraham is said to have kept God's commandments, statutes and laws.
• As Scripture continues, we can see law and morality/ethics issues among the Jews and in Egypt - issues of theft, defiling young women, Joseph fleeing adultery, Joseph making law in Egypt, etc... Law is not some non-existent issue and God obviously had given His Law to Abraham.
• Then some of these comments - all are prior to Ex20 where God gives His Law to Moses on Mt. Sinai:
  • NKJ Ex12:49-50 "One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." 50 Thus all the children of Israel did; as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did.
• • NKJ Ex13:8-10 "And you shall tell your son in that day, saying,`This is done because of what the LORD did for me when I came up from Egypt.' 9 "It shall be as a sign to you on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, that the LORD'S law may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand the LORD has brought you out of Egypt. 10 "You shall therefore keep this ordinance in its season from year to year.
• • NKJ Ex16:4 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a certain quota every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in My law or not.
• • NKJ Ex16:28 And the LORD said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?
• • NKJ Ex16:15-16 And Moses said to his father-in-law, "Because the people come to me to inquire of God. 16 "When they have a difficulty, they come to me, and I judge between one and another; and I make known the statutes of God and His laws."
• • NKJ Ex18:19-20 "Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God. 20 "And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do.
• So, what statutes and laws prior to Ex20, if not the statutes and laws God gave to Abraham + any additional ordinances God gave to Israel prior to Ex20?

You assume God's instruction in Righteousness was different for Abraham, than they were for Abraham's Children. I simply don't make that assumption. If Abraham knew the Christ, and Jesus said that HE did, then He also knew the Father. He also knew of the Passover. "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Hebrews says, 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: When was this? Certainly, before Abraham was, the Christ of the Bible, the Rock of Israel existed.

Surely Abraham knew the "Way of the Lord" and Justice along with God's Judgment.

Gen. 18: 19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

Did God's Way change between Abraham and Abraham's Children in Egypt? I have no reason, or evidence to make such an assumption.

The nation is growing into a hard to manage size and Jethro, Moses' father-in-law and a Midianite priest (Ex3:1 - Midian a descendant of Abraham Gen25:1) assists Moses with setting up judges in Ex18. So, where does the descendant of Abraham and the priest of Midian get all this knowledge of dealing with law, and what law? Maybe Gen26:5?

When has God not preserved His Law throughout the entire Biblical history? Through the Flood? In Abraham's Time with Melchizedek?

Did Joseph not know the "Way of the Lord" to do justice and Judgment? Did the midwives in Egypt, not Fear God? The Priest of Midian, was it just a coincidence that Moses stayed with him?

From there God is going to start arranging the growing nation as He desires for His purposes:

NKJ Exodus 19:1-8 In the third month after the children of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on the same day, they came to the Wilderness of Sinai. 2 For they had departed from Rephidim, had come to the Wilderness of Sinai, and camped in the wilderness. So Israel camped there before the mountain. 3 And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 `You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself. 5 `Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 `And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel." 7 So Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before them all these words which the LORD commanded him. 8 Then all the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." So Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.

The way I read this, the transgressions/violations of law go back to at minimum Gen26:5 and can certainly include the idolatry of Ex32. But the law including the Aaronic Priesthood and tabernacle and instructions for sacrifices for atonement for sin were given by God from Gen25-31 prior to the golden calf idolatry of Ex32.

I think you mean Exodus 25-31. And there is not one command given to any of the Children of Israel, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices for sins. The Priests brought the offering on the people's behalf, and the Priests killed the offering. If you can find differently, please show me.

And even this part of the existing Priesthood you mentioned, instituted between Ex. 25 and 31, was broken on Ex. 32.

6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; (to the god they had just created) and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. (Their first of many manmade high days)

As far as "Transgressions" going all the way back to Gen. 26:5, that makes no sense given Paul's teaching, in my view.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

So the "Transgression" Paul was speaking to, happened 430 years after God said that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

IMO this actually strengthens the POV that God's Eternal Law of Righteousness was prior to Moses and even Gal3:19 "transgressions/deviation from a norm/violation of law" is telling us this. And the law added obviously included the Aaronic (son of Levi) Priesthood which later had the tribe of Levi serving it and God (Num3) - so later AKA as the Levitical Priesthood - and the animal sacrifices for sins.

Still working...

Given Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Joseph are considered great men of Faith by the God who inspired the Scriptures, Men of God who were obedient to His Laws, Judgments, Statutes and Commandments of God. The "Norm" for God's People would be obedience. Certainly Israel, in Ex. 32, "Transgressed".

Num. 3: 10 And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.

I would agree that Levi was the only tribe who "Feared the Lord" after the Great Transgression in Ex. 32. And for this reason, God made His Priesthood Covenant with HIM, as Malachi 2 teaches.

AS I have said, in my experience, it isn't the actual scriptures that cause so much confusion. It's the "other voices" in the garden God placed us in.

Paul understood. "13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Just not by the sacrificial "Works of the Law".

 

[Clare73]

Some nit-picking since I typically look & check translations: the parenthesis in Heb7:11 literally says, "on the basis [of] it (the Levitical Priesthood) the people had been legislated" so "received law" or your "law was given" seems to make sense. My comment was that the Levites didn't "establish" law. Maybe I didn't understand what you meant by that word since it surely has some range.

I agree. . .(fixed it).
It was on the basis of, "under" the Levitical priesthood, that the law was given to the people (Heb 7:11).
The Decalogue was not given under the Levitical priesthood, which priesthood was not ordained until after Mt. Sinai, when then both the Levitical law was given and the priesthood ordained.
The law being on the basis of, under the Levitical priesthood, when there is a change of the priesthood there must of necessity be a change of the law (Heb 7:12).

This change of the law per Heb7:12 is part of what all this discussion is about. I'm sure you've looked at and reasoned these 2 verses Heb7:11-12. There was no perfection through the Levitical Priesthood so we needed the Melchizedekian Priesthood not the one according to Aaron. The Priesthood being changed from necessity also law becomes changed.

Agreed. . ."there must of necessity (ex anagkes) be a change of the (Levitical) law" administered by the Levitical priesthood (Heb 11:12), "for the law made nothing perfect" (Heb 7:19), it "was weak and useless" (Heb 7:18, 10:1-4, Ro 8:3, Gal 4:9).

This applies to your next question which I'll answer obviously in my own way and @Studyman can comment or change what I say if/as he may choose.

Heb7:11-12 obviously and clearly says Law was changed, not terminated. By "God's Eternal Law" @Studyman is referring to what some call "God's Law" which conforms to God's Righteous character and standards for His creation, and some refer to this as "Moral Law". What he is saying is that God's Eternal Law was being taught by a Priesthood that could not perfect people

However, that is not what Heb 7:19 is saying. . .it states that "the law made nothing perfect," (Heb 7:19) because it (the law) was weak and useless (Heb 7:18, 10:1-4), as in Ro 8:3, Gal 4:9, also written by the same apostle (in my opinion, based on the use of his customary closing--grace, and his use of Timothy-- Heb 13:23-24).

so God's Eternal Law is now being taught & widely read - better "written in minds and on hearts" - of those in Christ in Spirit by a Perfect and Eternal Priesthood that can perfect His people. It's basically the law of the Priesthood that was changed

According to Heb 7:18-19 it was the law, not the priesthood, that made nothing perfect, and according to Heb 7:11, it was the law given under the priesthood that was changed, which is in keeping with the rest of NT teaching that the law made no one righteous, for it was not given for righteousness, which had always been by faith (Gal 3:11), the law was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).

and not "God's Eternal Law" - God's Eternal Righteousness which never changes. This perfection in Hebrews pertains to the conscience being cleansed one for all and perfected. Look at Heb10:2 and ponder what having no more conscience (or consciousness - you ponder & decide) of sins means.

Heb 7:12-13 states the law administered by the Levitical priesthood was changed, that it was the law that made nothing perfect (Heb 7:18-19).

I'm already in agreement and have been for quite some time with the concept of God's Eternal Law based in God's Perfect & Eternal Righteousness / God's Law / Moral Law (although I would personally forego this last one in favor of #1 then #2). What I find interesting in @Studyman is likely (I'm still working through this) a mindset based upon the way he was apparently led in personal studies to see this from a positive vs. a defensive point of view. IOW, if one begins with the premise of God's Eternal Law,

Where do we find this premise presented in Scripture?

then he doesn't see anything to say it doesn't exist.

And I don't see anything to say that it does exist.
I'm thinking there are several premises which if I begin with, I likewise won't see anything to say that they don't exist.

This doesn't work for me, it being extra-Biblical, and seemingly driven by an extra-Biblical theology.

Most students of Biblical Law are trying to find it or bring it back amongst a lot of chatter saying it doesn't exist - all we have is Moses - and he is no more.

Chatter matters not, what matters is what the Scripture says.

And it says that the Levitical laws (basically given in Leviticus) given by Moses and administered by the Levitical priesthood are no more,
but the Decalogue has not been abolished, rather it has been summed up in one rule: love of God and neighbor as self (Ro 13:8-10).
Loving has fulfilled the Decalogue, which is not "no more" but is being fulfilled.

This concept of the Priesthood Covenant changing but not God's Eternal Law caught my eye in 2020 the first time I read @Studyman say something about it. In an aging mind that can't remember if I've had breakfast sometimes (!), I noticed his posts on this thread and recalled then verified it was him that I'd noted about 3 years ago. I've yet to really take this deeper into Hebrews, but IMO it's not a minor change of perspective. I've been doing some work in 1John. Mindset is a very big deal for us.

Agreed. . .nor is it Biblically warranted, and that is my problem with it.

 

[Clare73]

I can see what you're doing, but I wouldn't necessarily go there.

The Seed concept on Gal3:16 has to do with the promised Spirit through Faith (Gal3:14) which I'm sure you know.

Yes, the Seed concept is cleary stated in Gal 3:16.
It's about the blessing given to Abraham--righteousness by faith, Gal 3:8, Ro 4:1-5, so that we may receive the promised Spirit, Gal 3:1--
and all the promises to Abraham coming to us through Christ (Ro 4:13, Mt 5:5, 2 Pe 3:3), the real son (seed) promised to Abraham.

With His promised Spirit and based upon His Eternal Priesthood (much unlike the temporary priesthood) the things of Hebrews are taking place. There are of course some concepts we could find comparisons in, so I won't take a completely contrary stance.

But His is a Priesthood very much unlike the Levitical Priesthood that ended. The first time we see the word "priest" in the Bible is the King Priest of God Most High in Gen14:18. We know that this Eternal King Priest reality is Jesus Christ. In between there was mainly the Levitical Priesthood according to a "fleshly commandment" (Heb7:16) that began with Aaron and sons and then the Tribe of Levi serving them that lasted for an age until Christ. The concept of King Priests is not there. The monarchy was separate and then covenanted in David from whom Jesus Christ also came. So, in Him we're back to the King Priest (Melchizedek & David) with the promised Spirit (Abraham - also kings as @ralliann is bringing in) for His people.

It's this transition to Christ and the change of law that @Studyman is dealing with.

The change of law being clearly stated in Heb 7:11 as the law given under the Levitical priesthood (found mostly in Leviticus).

Some take this concept of priesthood and king back to Adam. And of course, now we are tied into the concept. There are some interesting reads on such things.

Yes, Christ (the second Adam) is our King and Priest, but Scripture shows God's restoration in salvation everywhere to be infinitely greater than was the former state, so it doesn't seem Adam's former state would be equivalent to Christ's current state.

 

[GDL]

How is this?
Their God's..........
Amos 5:26 and Acts 7:42 Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?
43 Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.

Whom their fathers knew not.....
De 32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

Jos 24:13 And I have given you a land for which ye did not labour, and cities which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyards and oliveyards which ye planted not do ye eat.
14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.
16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the LORD, to serve other gods;
17 For the LORD our God, he it is that brought us up and our fathers out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, and which did those great signs in our sight, and preserved us in all the way wherein we went, and among all the people through whom we passed:
18 And the LORD drave out from before us all the people, even the Amorites which dwelt in the land: therefore will we also serve the LORD; for he is our God.

It is all connected to the covenant made with Abraham their father.

My initial post to you said this:

This seems to be an answer to what @Studyman said that ended in a quote of Heb8:9, so I'll take it up from that verse.

Heb8:9 speaks of the covenant God made with the children of Israel when He took them out of Egypt. Looking ahead in context to Heb9, it's clear that this is the covenant God made with Israel that included the tabernacle, the Aaronic Priesthood, etc. This is far greater than a circumcision issue. Israel broke every agreement they had with God.

So, I initiated from Heb8:9.

• Heb8:2 speaks of the tabernacle which specs were in Ex25-31 and which was functioning in Ex40. Ex40:17 says this is the first month of the second year. Time is being kept since Ex12:2. The Text then goes into Leviticus to deal with the priest's code, sacrifices and offerings. There is covenant language between God and the children of Israel from Ex19-34. The Abrahamic Covenant is spoken of as the reason God brought the people out of Egypt Ex2:24; Ex6:4-5.
• Circumcision is part of the Levitical Priest code carrying over from Abraham into Moses (Lev12:3).
• There's about 40 years of wandering after this.
• Heb8:5 is quoting Ex25:40 re: the tabernacle - this is during the covenant instruction on Sinai before the idolatry of Ex32 - not during the wanderings - the comparison is with Moses not Abraham
• Heb8:7 speaks of the faulty first covenant in the context of the above - the covenant with the children of Israel via Moses - not the Abrahamic Covenant
• Heb8:9 in context is clearly speaking of the covenant made with the children of Israel through Moses and the failures of the children of Israel to keep this first covenant

 

[Studyman]

I agree. . .(fixed it).
It was on the basis of, "under" the Levitical priesthood, that the law was given to the people (Heb 7:11).
The Decalogue was not given under the Levitical priesthood, which Levitical law was not ordained until after Mt. Sinai, when then both the Levitical law was given and the priesthood ordained.
It being on the basis of, under the Levitical priesthood, when there is a change of the priesthood there must also be a change of the law (Heb 7:12).

Yes, and the Hebrews author goes on to tell the Body of Christ exactly what that "Change in the Law" was, and also tells us what LAW made no one perfect..

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

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

13 "For" he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Here is the Author telling us what Law was changed, by necessity. According to the Levitical Priesthood LAW, Only Levite, sons of Aaron, could partake of the Priesthood. For Jesus to become God's Priest, the Priesthood LAW needed to change. It seems this is a critical part of the Chapter that gets glossed over by "many". I think we should not omit that part.

Agreed. . ."there must out of necessity (ex anagkes) be a change of the (Levitical) law" administered by the Levitical priesthood (Heb 11:12), "for the law made nothing perfect" (Heb 7:19), it "was weak and useless" (Heb 7:18, 10:1-4, Ro 8:3, Gal 4:9).

The Text doesn't say people received God's "Levitical Law" through the Priesthood. The 10 Commandments, Passover, how to treat each other and the stranger, Passover, His Sabbath, these were not "Levitical Law".

The argument here is that all men have sinned. How are they "Made perfect", through the sacrifices of the Levitical Priesthood? No, the Levitical Priesthood made no one perfect. WHY? For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

But the Priesthood, "After the Order of Melchizedek" can take away sins, by the power of God given HIM.

So what did the Great Priest instruct us to do, to become perfect? He said to first "Repent" and then to "Go and Sin no more". This same Christ inspired this to be written all over His Word. This is the whole duty of man, at least, the man of God.

Ecc. 12: 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

This is what Jesus, Peter, James, Paul and the entire NT preaches.

Men are not made perfect by killing a goat in front of a Levite Priest, as per the carnal, temporary Priesthood put in place, "Till the SEED should come". Men are made perfect by repenting, and then offering themself to God for cleansing and instruction in righteousness, pressing toward the prize of the High calling of God, that is in Christ Jesus.

The same Jesus that Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

It's important not to omit scriptures. The Hebrews author tells us what LAW Changed, and what Law was carnal, weak and useless. It is this Priesthood Law that Changed.

 

[GDL]

The scriptures say God still did the writing. And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

Sure does. Look at Ex34:27-28. Joint project? God wrote on the Tablets?

Can you show me who according to Scriptures, of the 600,000 who came out of Israel, was "Reinstated" in marriage to God?

The sons of Levi but not the 3,000 they killed and the remainder of the children of Israel Ex32:28. BTW, Ex32:35 contains some wording to show why the sons of Levi were later chosen to assist Aaron in restraining the people.

So then, your contention here, is that if Israel had not rebelled against God while Moses was up on the mount, and created another god to worship, God would have given the exact same instructions as if no Transgression (EX. 20:3) occured? And that there is no Separation between the Levitical Priesthood sacrifices for Sin, which obviously was temporary, given God surely knew HIS Eternal Priest would come from Judah and not Levi, from the Laws of God which defined Sin for Cain, Noah, Abraham and Sodom.

I'm skimming at times, but how do you read the sacrifices for sin in Ex29:14; Ex29:36; Ex30:10 - for the priests & the tabernacle or for the people?

I said earlier that I'm not comparing all of God's instructions given before and after Ex32. God gave specs for the tabernacle and some details for the Aaronic Priesthood before Ex32 and I haven't seen any reason to think God would not have set up the Leviticus codes if the people had not greatly sinned in Ex32. IOW, sin is not something God was ignoring when He was detailing the tabernacle and setting up the Priesthood before Ex32. Some of the details of the tabernacle specs may reveal His intentions.

I don't recall a lot of sacrifice for sin discussion or preparation prior to the Moses period. I see sacrifices of worship and such. Maybe some sin offerings Ex10:25, but I'm not looking too hard for such. Do you have some Scripture to offer?

Basically implying that the reason why such Sacrificial commands Concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices wasn't given until after the Golden calf, was just coincidence. And that Jeremiah is mistaken, in Jer. 7, and that God desired sacrifice from the very beginning of Israel's journey of becoming a Kingdom of Priests.

Again, burnt offerings were not just after the golden calf. Nor were blood sacrifices for sin and atonement Ex29:33; Ex29:36-37; Ex30:10 which is pre golden calf instruction for what Aaron was to do when Moses went down the Mt.

Jer7:22-23 does seem to be in your favor. Thanks for the reminder.

Let me ask you a question. When Moses said, " Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me." in Exodus 32 after Israel broke God's Covenant with Him, what if it wasn't the tribe of Levi who came to him? But the Tribe of Reuben. Would Mal. 2: then read;

4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi Reuben saith the LORD of hosts. 5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.

8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi Reuben, saith the LORD of hosts. 9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

Not much reason to speculate. It was Levi that stepped up in Ex & Num.

For me, Hebrews perfectly explains this. "7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, Would this not be the Priests who departed out of the Way, and became Partial in the Law?

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: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Would appreciate ch. reference also.

It looks like you're using the KJV translation. verse Heb8:7 italicizes covenant because it's not in the Greek. I get your question and am going to defer until I'm fresh minded so I can pick the language apart. I do see a couple things that I'm wondering about in regard to some wording and structure. So, I'll give it a shot and see what I can conclude. I'll get back to you.

Anyway, these are valid questions as we work all this out.

You assume God's instruction in Righteousness was different for Abraham, than they were for Abraham's Children. I simply don't make that assumption. If Abraham knew the Christ, and Jesus said that HE did, then He also knew the Father. He also knew of the Passover. "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Not really. I think you're assuming this. You may well have seen some things I haven't seen, and you have, but my assumption is continuity in God's Law.

Hebrews says, 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: When was this? Certainly, before Abraham was, the Christ of the Bible, the Rock of Israel existed.

Surely Abraham knew the "Way of the Lord" and Justice along with God's Judgment.

Gen. 18: 19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

Did God's Way change between Abraham and Abraham's Children in Egypt? I have no reason, or evidence to make such an assumption.

Didn't you say that much was added after the golden calf? The righteous and just way of God is one thing. The ways God dealt with sin through the eras does not seem to be consistent.

When has God not preserved His Law throughout the entire Biblical history? Through the Flood? In Abraham's Time with Melchizedek?

Did Joseph not know the "Way of the Lord" to do justice and Judgment? Did the midwives in Egypt, not Fear God? The Priest of Midian, was it just a coincidence that Moses stayed with him?

Again, in one sense you're preaching to the choir.

I think you mean Exodus 25-31. And there is not one command given to any of the Children of Israel, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices for sins. The Priests brought the offering on the people's behalf, and the Priests killed the offering. If you can find differently, please show me.

And even this part of the existing Priesthood you mentioned, instituted between Ex. 25 and 31, was broken on Ex. 32.

6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; (to the god they had just created) and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. (Their first of many manmade high days)

As far as "Transgressions" going all the way back to Gen. 26:5, that makes no sense given Paul's teaching, in my view.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

So the "Transgression" Paul was speaking to, happened 430 years after God said that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Correct re: Ex25-31. Thanks.

Gal3:17-18 the Abrahamic Covenant with its promises & inheritance > the law was 430 years later after Egypt = law and covenant with the children of Israel via Moses. Ex3:19 the law [of Moses including the Aaronic Priesthood] was added because of violations (note this is plural - not a singular golden-calf incident - a great sin (singular Ex32:30-31).

• It says Abraham kept God's laws. It doesn't say anybody else did after him. And I doubt anyone kept them perfectly like Jesus Christ.
• The Text does speak about God and His laws pre-golden calf in verses I've already provided in Ex12, 13, 16, 18 & then 24 regarding the first tablets of stone.

Given Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Joseph are considered great men of Faith by the God who inspired the Scriptures, Men of God who were obedient to His Laws, Judgments, Statutes and Commandments of God. The "Norm" for God's People would be obedience. Certainly Israel, in Ex. 32, "Transgressed".

I'm not talking anyone out of the absolute necessity of obedience to God. I covered transgressions (violations plural) above. See this post where I tracked the word violations

Yes, Israel transgressed in Ex32 but I don't currently see it as the only transgression or what Gal3 is focusing on. I don't think this messes with the premise you have, and I still think Hebrews is the real test. I will tell you that beside what I just told you I'd work on in Heb8, I also looked at something in Heb10 re: law that surprised me a bit.

Num. 3: 10 And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.

I would agree that Levi was the only tribe who "Feared the Lord" after the Great Transgression in Ex. 32. And for this reason, God made His Priesthood Covenant with HIM, as Malachi 2 teaches.

AS I have said, in my experience, it isn't the actual scriptures that cause so much confusion. It's the "other voices" in the garden God placed us in.

Paul understood. "13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Just not by the sacrificial "Works of the Law".

Yes, it doesn't look like treating God dishonorably when a Levite with a sword or spear was around was a good idea. I've often wondered why the NC uses the word "keep" God's Commandments. It's a word that mainly means to guard and protect and obedience is more an implication or related word. Since we're priests, now that I've put some time into the Levites, guard & protect make more sense. It always did because we guard what we value. But now I see some interesting reference.

Yes, again. There is a lot going on in this weed-filled garden including the one we wear for now that has to be put to death in a sense, so it doesn't sprout the weeds.

 

[GDL]

I agree. . .(fixed it).
It was on the basis of, "under" the Levitical priesthood, that the law was given to the people (Heb 7:11).
The Decalogue was not given under the Levitical priesthood, which priesthood was not ordained until after Mt. Sinai, when then both the Levitical law was given and the priesthood ordained.
The law being on the basis of, under the Levitical priesthood, when there is a change of the priesthood there must of necessity be a change of the law (Heb 7:12).

I'll tighten this up where I accommodated it before. I don't use words like "under" that I don't see in the Text, due to how strict Paul uses "under [the] law" and I don't rely on English translations. As I stated previously, "under" is not in the Greek of Heb7:11. These are closer with the parenthetical phrase:

• More literal: NAS Hebrews 7:11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?
• Paraphrased: NIV Hebrews 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood-- and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood-- why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

Yet God spoke the Decalogue to the people in Ex20.

Agreed. . ."there must of necessity (ex anagkes) be a change of the (Levitical) law" administered by the Levitical priesthood (Heb 11:12), "for the law made nothing perfect" (Heb 7:19), it "was weak and useless" (Heb 7:18, 10:1-4, Ro 8:3, Gal 4:9).

This pretty much sounds like what @Studyman is saying - the Priesthood Covenant was changed.

Where do you see (Levitical) law. I see the law appoints high priests Heb7:28.

Heb11:12 (check reference).

I agree that's what Heb7:19 says but I'd be cautious of pushing this too far too quickly because of verses like Heb7:18 cf. Heb7:16. And this ties to some of what I'm looking at with @Studyman. Heb10:1-4 ties to this also. Rom8:3 definitely says what it says, and God structured the Mosaic era for a purpose. Gal4 again takes us back to the Mosaic era and what God was doing with people "under law". I'm sure you know Messianics at minimum have a much different take on what Gal4:9 refers to.

I'll not be going into a law vs. anti-law discussion, so please understand if I don't respond to this topic further for now.

However, that is not what Heb 7:19 is saying. . .it states that "the law made nothing perfect," (Heb 7:19) because it (the law) was weak and useless (Heb 7:18, 10:1-4), as in Ro 8:3, Gal 4:9, also written by the same apostle (in my opinion, based on the use of his customary closing--grace, and his use of Timothy-- Heb 13:23-24).

Same comments.

According to Heb 7:18-19 it was the law, not the priesthood, that made nothing perfect, and according to Heb 7:11, it was the law given under the priesthood that was changed, which is in keeping with the rest of NT teaching that the law made no one righteous, for it was not given for righteousness, which had always been by faith (Gal 3:11), the law was given to reveal sin (Ro 3:20).

Heb 7:12-13 states the law administered by the Levitical priesthood was changed, that it was the law that made nothing perfect (Heb 7:18-19).

Same comments. I'm looking at Hebrews pursuant to a perspective presented by @Studyman.

Where do we find this premise presented in Scripture?

Same comments for now.

And I don't see anything to say that it does exist.
I'm thinking there are several premises which if I begin with, I likewise won't see anything to say that they don't exist.

This doesn't work for me, it being extra-Biblical, and seemingly driven by an extra-Biblical theology.

Discuss with him. This easily works both ways or from any perspective one has.

Chatter matters not, what matters is what the Scripture says.

Agree.

And it says that the Levitical laws (basically given in Leviticus) given by Moses and administered by the Levitical priesthood are no more,

The Levitical Priesthood is no more. The blood sacrifices are no more. I'm not going to read through Leviticus right now but we're probably in agreement here.

but the Decalogue has not been abolished, rather it has been summed up in one rule: love of God and neighbor as self (Ro 13:8-10).
Loving has fulfilled the Decalogue, which is not "no more" but is being fulfilled.

Same comments re: law for now.

Agreed. . .nor is it Biblically warranted, and that is my problem with it.

Same comment as 4 above this one.

 

[GDL]

Ecc. 12: 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

One of my favorite verses. Old wisdom seemingly lost or explained away by many.

 

[GDL]

@Mark Quayle if you cheer too much, I'm going to call for backup

cc: @Clare73

 

[Studyman]

Sure does. Look at Ex34:27-28. Joint project? God wrote on the Tablets?

I stand corrected, thank you.

The sons of Levi but not the 3,000 they killed and the remainder of the children of Israel Ex32:28. BTW, Ex32:35 contains some wording to show why the sons of Levi were later chosen to assist Aaron in restraining the people.

I'm skimming at times, but how do you read the sacrifices for sin in Ex29:14; Ex29:36; Ex30:10 - for the priests & the tabernacle or for the people?

Ex. 29:14 But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering. 15 Thou shalt also take one ram; and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the ram. 16 And thou shalt slay the ram, and thou shalt take his blood, and sprinkle it round about upon the altar.

Ex. 29: 35 And thus shalt thou do unto Aaron, and to his sons, according to all things which I have commanded thee: seven days shalt thou consecrate them. 36 And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.

Ex. 30: 6 And thou shalt put it before the vail that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy seat that is over the testimony, where I will meet with thee. 7 And Aaron shall burn thereon sweet incense every morning: when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn incense upon it. 8 And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations. 9 Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, nor burnt sacrifice, nor meat offering; neither shall ye pour drink offering thereon. 10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.

To understand who the "THOU" was, you need to go back to Ex. 25:

Ex. 25: 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.

8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. 9 According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it. 10 And they shall make an ark of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.

11 And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about.

21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.

22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

It was for the Priests, the Tabernacle and the people, before the Golden Calf. Moses brought the Bullock, Killed the Bullock, and took a ransom payment from EVERY Israelite.

Ex. 30: 11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

12 When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.

13 This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD. 14 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.

15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls. 16 And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

Ex. 31: 18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

The teaching that God and Moses were not done communing when Moses came off the mountain with the tables of stone, is not really shown in scriptures, in my view. Moses came down with the Tables God gave him after He made and end of Communing. There was no Command given to the Israelites prior to the Goden calf, regarding burnt offerings and sacrifices, just as Jeremiah 7 teaches. God gave them His Covenant, just as Jeremiah teaches, and there was the mediator they had asked for, and a Tabernacle where God would dwell among them. "And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them." They had everything they needed and agreed to in Ex. 19. Clearly shown in Ex. 25-31. There obviously was no plan for such an atonement for such a sin, otherwise Moses wouldn't have had go seeking Atonement, and another Covenant.

It's a no brainer for me, given I have no reason to doubt or question Paul when he speaks to a "LAW" that was ADDED because of Transgressions. Transgressions of what? ADDED to what? It's all right there.

I said earlier that I'm not comparing all of God's instructions given before and after Ex32. God gave specs for the tabernacle and some details for the Aaronic Priesthood before Ex32 and I haven't seen any reason to think God would not have set up the Leviticus codes if the people had not greatly sinned in Ex32.

Why would God set up Sacrificial "Works" for sin, to be performed by the sinning Israelites themselves, given HE already had an agreement with them, sealed in Blood, stating that they would "do" as God commanded?

They already saw God's Glory and great Might. And heard His Goodly Promises toward them.

IOW, sin is not something God was ignoring when He was detailing the tabernacle and setting up the Priesthood before Ex32. Some of the details of the tabernacle specs may reveal His intentions.

Remember, all these things happened to them for our admonition.

I don't recall a lot of sacrifice for sin discussion or preparation prior to the Moses period. I see sacrifices of worship and such. Maybe some sin offerings Ex10:25, but I'm not looking too hard for such. Do you have some Scripture to offer?

For me, to obey is better than sacrifice. God gave Sodom a lot of latitude. The Passover Lamb was slain. Jer. 7: 21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. 22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.

No need for a carnal Law if Israel would have done the works of Abraham. I agree, the Law about men bring a goat to the Levite Priest and Killing it, in order for their sins to be forgiven, was certainly "ADDED" long after Abraham.

Again, burnt offerings were not just after the golden calf. Nor were blood sacrifices for sin and atonement Ex29:33; Ex29:36-37; Ex30:10 which is pre golden calf instruction for what Aaron was to do when Moses went down the Mt.

Ex. 19: 9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD. 10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, 11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.

14 And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes. 15 And he said unto the people, Be ready against the third day: come not at your wives.

Ex. 30: 10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.

But obviously this atonement wasn't sufficient for such a great sin. Or else Moses wouldn't have had to go up a second time.

Jer7:22-23 does seem to be in your favor. Thanks for the reminder.

Malachi 2 as well, and Hebrews 7-10 sealed the deal for me, along with Paul's instruction in Gal. 3, which speaks to a LAW that was "ADDED" till the SEED should come. Surely the Way to honor God, and treat others was not a Law ADDED till the SEED should come. In my view.

Not much reason to speculate. It was Levi that stepped up in Ex & Num.

And nowhere else in scriptures.

Would appreciate ch. reference also.

Heb. 8.

It's last day of unleavened bread today, I need to go for now.

Thanks so much for the discussion. I share our conversations with others in a small flock of adults I belong to. It has been a great discussion, and where two or more are gathered, and so on. Important stuff and it's really good to dig into the Scriptures. I'll continue with this later on.

Thanks GDL

 

[Clare73]

Yes, and the Hebrews author goes on to tell the Body of Christ exactly what that "Change in the Law" was, and also tells us what LAW made no one perfect..
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 "For" he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Here is the Author telling us what Law was changed, by necessity.

Well done. . .

"If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood--as the High Priest of the priesthood of Melchizedek could do by faith in him--(for during the time of it the law was given to the people--that is all the laws of Leviticus), why was there still need for another priest to come. For where there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law." (Heb 7:11-12).

And why does that not include all the law in Leviticus, the law ordaining the priesthood as well as the laws the priesthood administered?
The necessity of raising up another priest, so that perfection could come, required a change in the whole system; i.e, priesthood of Aaron to priesthood of Melchizedek, law to grace, Mosaic Covenant to New covenant.

Is this not the the writer telling us the priesthood (during the time of which priesthood the law was given to the people) was changed first, and then the law, given during the time of the priesthood to the people, which are the laws in Leviticus (including the law over the priesthood) was changed (Heb 7:11-12)?

Nestle Greek text (translated by Rev. Alfred Marshall D. Litt.)
"If therefore perfection was through the Levitical priestly office (for under it the people had been furnished with law), why yet need another priest to arise and not to be said according to the order of Aaron? For the priestly office being changed there occurs also of necessity a change of law." (Heb 7:11-12)

"For on one hand there comes about an annulment of the preceding commandment because of the weakness and unprofitable(ness) of it, for the law perfected nothing; on the other a bringing in of a better hope through which we draw near to God." (Heb 7:18-19)

RSV translation:
"Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." (Heb 7:11-12)

"On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); on the other hand, a better hope is introduced through which we draw near to God (Heb 7:18-19).

NIV:
"If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law." (Heb 7:11-12)

"The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God" (Heb 7:18-19)

According to the Levitical Priesthood LAW, Only Levite, sons of Aaron, could partake of the Priesthood. For Jesus to become God's Priest, the Priesthood LAW needed to change. It seems this is a critical part of the Chapter that gets glossed over by "many". I think we should not omit that part.
The Text doesn't say people received God's "Levitical Law" through the Priesthood.

It states "under (during the time of, on the basis of) it the people had been furnished with (received) law." See those laws in Leviticus.

The 10 Commandments, Passover, how to treat each other and the stranger, Passover, His Sabbath, these were not "Levitical Law".

See Lev 23 for Sabbath, Passover, and Lev 25 for Sabbath Year, Year of Jubilee, laws for the poor (Lev 25:35-37), including Hebrew slaves and Gentile slaves (Lev 25:39-46)

The argument here is that all men have sinned. How are they "Made perfect", through the sacrifices of the Levitical Priesthood? No, the Levitical Priesthood made no one perfect. WHY? For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Is it the priesthood not making them perfect, or the law of sacrifice not making them perfect?

But the Priesthood, "After the Order of Melchizedek" can take away sins, by the power of God given HIM.

Which he does only by faith in him (Eph 2:8-9).

(So what did the Great Priest instruct us to do, to become perfect? He said to first "Repent" and then to "Go and Sin no more". This same Christ inspired this to be written all over His Word. This is the whole duty of man, at least, the man of God.
Ecc. 12: 13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
This is what Jesus, Peter, James, Paul and the entire NT preaches.
Men are not made perfect by killing a goat in front of a Levite Priest, as per the carnal, temporary Priesthood put in place,

Was it given to "make" perfect, or to "forgive" imperfection (sin)?
Does "perfection" refer to the work of the priesthood, or to obedience to the law?

"Carnal" here is not referring to the law of animal sacrifice, right? It is referring to the law based on the human (carnal) ancestry of the Levitical high priest rather than on the power of an indestructible life, as in the order of Melchizedek Heb 7:16, Ps 110:4).

"Till the SEED should come". Men are made perfect by repenting, and then offering themself to God for cleansing and instruction in righteousness, pressing toward the prize of the High calling of God, that is in Christ Jesus.
The same Jesus that Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
It's important not to omit scriptures. The Hebrews author tells us what LAW Changed, and what Law was carnal, weak and useless. It is this Priesthood Law that Changed.

"Carnal" meaning high priest based on human ancestry.

"Weak and useless" (Heb 7:18) including the laws given to the people during the time of the priesthood (Heb 10:1-4), and as in Ro 8:3, Gal 4:9-10.