Galatians 4 two opposing covenants.

[ralliann]

RE: Gal3:19:

Greek parabasis: act of deviating from an established boundary or norm. Greek usage was also “violation of law” (BDAG).

Scriptures (paraphrased) containing “parabasis”:

LXX Ps101:3 God does not set before His eyes a lawless/contrary to law (Hebrew: worthless/good for nothing) thing (word, matter, deed). God hates men doing parabasis (plural).​

​

Rom3:23 Implies the Jews who boast in law dishonor God through the parabasis of the law (context is stealing and adultery)​

​

Rom4:15 If no law, then no parabasis. Law brings wrath (this is important and a parallel to Gal3:19 – see below)​

​

Rom5:14 Adam’s parabasis is compared to the sins of those who lived from Adam to Moses who death ruled over. (parabasis is correlated to sins – then Rom4:15 ties parabasis to paraptōma which means a false step (that causes one to loose footing) – is defined as a violation of moral standards, and offense, wrongdoing (BDAG) and is sometimes seen in translations as “trespass” or “transgression” – so parabasis is correlated to sins and violations. More analysis shows all these words are essentially different concepts which can be related to walking).​

​

Gal3:19 parabasis (plural) see below​

​

1Tim2:14 Eve when deceived came into the condition of parabasis (Eve became a deviator by being deceived – deceit can cause deviation)​

​

Heb2:2 the word spoken through angels (see Gal3:19 below re: the law) became valid and every parabasis and disobedience (refusal to listen) received just (what is right) recompense. (again important to Gal3:19 and to Rom4:15)​

​

Heb9:15 The High Priest Jesus Christ (Heb9:11) is the mediator of a New Covenant. His death came about for redemption of the parabasis (plural) on the basis of the first covenant (Mosaic Cov) so the ones who had been called could receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (per the Abrahamic Cov).​

Gal3:19 points paraphrased:

A promise (of inheritance) had been made to Abraham’s Seed (Jesus Christ) (in God’s Covenant with Abraham) Gal3:16-17​

​

430 years later (Gal3:17) the (Mosaic) law (covenant) was annexed (to the Abrahamic Cov) until Abraham’s Seed (Jesus Christ) would come​

​

The (Mosaic) law (covenant) was annexed (to the Abrahamic Cov) when ordered through angels in a mediator’s hand (Moses at Mt. Sinai)​

​

The reason the (Mosaic) law (covenant) was annexed (to the Abrahamic Cov) was parabasis (plural) - deviations​

Observations:

Gal3:15 says a covenant cannot be annulled or modified (the word sometimes translated as “add” speaks of a codicil (that adds or deletes terms) being added to the covenant thus modifying it)​

​

Gal3:19 says the law (Mosaic Law Covenant) was annexed to the existing Covenant (the Greek word means to place alongside).​

​

Gal3:21 says the law (Mosaic Law Covenant) was not against/opposed to the promise (contained in the Abrahamic Covenant). So, the annexed Mosaic Law Covenant which could not provide righteousness nor give life did not modify and was not in opposition to the Abrahamic Covenant which could provide righteousness and provide life in Jesus Christ – Abraham’s Seed.​

​

Some interpreters tie this point of the reason for law annexation being parabasis (plural) to Rom7 where Paul speaks of the law making sin excessive and exposing it. IMO this is not the primary reason but a part of what the law did. IMO Gal3:19 coupled with Rom4:15 gives us more of the main reason the law was annexed: Although there was parabasis from the Garden forward – apart from law there is in effect no parabasis because there is no wrath applied to it. The law brings wrath on parabasis and then Heb2:2 says every parabasis received just recompense. Then Heb9:15 says Christ could redeem for the parabasis (plural) done on the basis of the Mosaic Law Covenant.​

​

The end of all of this is that this plural parabasis that Gal3:19 speaks of is not just the golden calf incident of Ex32. It is rather the entire scope of parabasis, sins, violations - the continuing deviations, sins and violations of men from the beginning. The Mosaic Law Covenant was annexed to / placed alongside of the Abrahamic Covenant to fence in and guard and teach a very young Israel until the Christ – the Abrahamic Seed came to newly create men by grace through [Abrahamic] faith according to God in righteousness & holiness (Eph4:24) and move them into adulthood conformed to His likeness and perfection.​

The penman is telling us the change of priesthood and the change of law was at the same time.

Sure.

God also gave law to bring forth His wrath Rom4:15.

The law brings wrath.
Foretold here?
Ge 15:14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
The people inherited the land promised in Gen 15 through Judgement
De 9:5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Is God a respector of persons, a hypocrit? God forbid. this was how God was blasphemed
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

We see this same idea with Judah and Tamar
He was convinced it was her causing his son's to die. He did not want to give her his other son., so he did not.
Judah is going to pronounce the sentence for her to receive her due.....
Gen 28: 24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.
25 When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff.
26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.

You cannot be less righteous,(a hypocrit) in judgement. The nations were never put to death for not keeping the Sabbath, eating Non kosher, etc. It simply is not why God judged the nations. One thing is sure, any judgement on the nations for "unlawful conduct", was "unlawful" for Israel as well.
Le 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
Le 18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Le 18:27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled
28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

So, the law brings wrath......and certainly did.....Every piece of land they possessed was by God's wrath upon that nation.

Paul speaks of these things in Romans 1. A law unto themselves. Certain nations they were not to meddle with, he would not give them their land.

 

[GDL]

Was it cut (in blood) or just promised?

Good question. Looks like God just gave him His covenant.

Was it the Aaronic line or the line of Phinehas, for Aaron had other sons who genealogically would be of the Aaronic line?

Good question. Looks like Phinehas' descendants in Num25:11, but I haven't tracked to see if it's only his descendants. Track Zacharias back from Luke 1:5 to see if he's descended from Phinehas.

From my post #147:

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)

Thanks. As you know, I translate myself and normally have 10 or so English translations and a few Greek manuscripts on screen to see what others have done in translation. As we all know, we have many varying translations. At times I translate from some extensive word studies I do, because some of our Lexical tools have some theological opinions in them. If you'd like further explanations for what I see, please feel free to ask and I'm happy to show more details depending on the workload involved.

I think I recall you bringing up the preposition "epi" that Rev. Marshall and some others translate as "under." What's immediately interesting is that "epi" mostly literally means "upon" and if you drew a spatial diagram, it would represent what's above the space, not under it. There is a lot of range and overlap with prepositions, but "under" would be far from my first choice for "epi."

I also just gave you several examples of why I wouldn't translate nomotheteo as "furnished" or "given." There are a few more if you'd like to double-check me & the Rev. you quote. You should be checking all of us as best you can, and I've seen that you work hard with Scripture. My point is that I try to be very careful with most words when I'm digging in because there are nuances and there are connections that can be made by tracking them. The Text does say Moses gave the law to people (John7:19), and the law was given through Moses (John1:17) and that God is the only Lawgiver who can save and destroy (James4:12). I think nomotheteo is giving us a bit of a different angle that could be important to the points Hebrews is making about the law and the priesthood.

"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)

I'm not certain of your point here. I'm fairly sure we both agree on the statement you've boldened.

Do you see the "weakness and unprofitable(ness)" being applied to the "preceding commandment" tying to the "law [of] fleshly commandment" in Heb7:16 tying back to the Mosaic Law Covenant that specified Aaron & sons as God's Priests?

How would you explain precisely what "law [of] fleshly commandment" means? I'll tell you the reason I'm putting "of" in brackets is because the wording needs something inserted there and "of" is the most basic fallback translation. IOW, what's being annulled - the law, or the priesthood, or both, or??? I guess this is part of @Studyman's point. I haven't gone back too far to see what was discussed yesterday since I departed the previous evening.

FWIW, dueling English translations is endless IMO. I have no favorites and I know when and how and most of the time why I agree or disagree with them. If you'd like to work on some of these verses, let's do so.

 

[GDL]

The law brings wrath.
Foretold here?
Ge 15:14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
The people inherited the land promised in Gen 15 through Judgement
De 9:5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Is God a respector of persons, a hypocrit? God forbid. this was how God was blasphemed
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

We see this same idea with Judah and Tamar
He was convinced it was her causing his son's to die. He did not want to give her his other son., so he did not.
Judah is going to pronounce the sentence for her to receive her due.....
Gen 28: 24 And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.
25 When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff.
26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.

You cannot be less righteous,(a hypocrit) in judgement. The nations were never put to death for not keeping the Sabbath, eating Non kosher, etc. It simply is not why God judged the nations. One thing is sure, any judgement on the nations for "unlawful conduct", was "unlawful" for Israel as well.
Le 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
Le 18:25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Le 18:27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled
28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

So, the law brings wrath......and certainly did.....Every piece of land they possessed was by God's wrath upon that nation.

Paul speaks of these things in Romans 1. A law unto themselves. Certain nations they were not to meddle with, he would not give them their land.

God's "wrath" is another interesting topic to chase around the Text and it's been some time since I've done so. The problem with such things is that if we chase it in English we'll usually get mislead to some degree by translations. Then if we chase it in Greek, we end up in the LXX and there can be a few different Hebrew words the Greek is translating, so then the search can become extensive and the workload huge.

I think the nuance of wrath applied to parabasis/deviations is likely important to stay with. God is certainly seen to exercise His wrath against His enemies and those He commands to do things and they refuse to whatever point of grace He may be giving in any given situation. You bring up Gen15:14. Take a look at Gen15:7 where the Greek word is used. It's used 53 times in the manuscript I just used - only 9 times in the NC 8 times by Paul and 1 by James. It's also used to speak about men's anger at times.

As I said, I think the nuance of Rom4:15 is important to our discussion in this thread re: the reason for law and when that law was given. It's also eschatological (Rom2:5 for example).

 

[Clare73]

It states that the reason law was given was to bring God's wrath against parabasis (deviations), sins, violations. The wording in Gal3:19 is a bit interesting in how it brings out "reason" but when tied with Rom4:15 by "parabasis" all is made clear IMO.

It was "added by reason of the transgressions". . .sounds like transgression was the reason for (cause of) the wrath,
like the fence was added by reason of the dog. . .the dog is the reason for (cause of) the fence.

Obviously, there are more things stated about what law was doing, some of which you mentioned.

Law is a can of wild worms causing chaos in the household when let loose.

 

[GDL]

It was "added by reason of the transgressions". . .sounds like transgression was the reason for (cause of) the wrath,
like the fence was added by reason of the dog. . .the dog is the reason for (cause of) the fence.

I think we agree so, I should probably leave it there, but:

Parabasis (plural) is the reason for the Mosaic Law Covenant and the MLC brings about God's wrath for parabasis (plural). So parabasis (plural) is the reason for the MLC & for God's wrath.

The flow (trying to just use the negative about law) of Rom4:15 looking at all the "for" (explanatory) wording is: 4:11-12: To have righteousness [and promised heirship], we need to walk in the faith of our father = pre-circumcision, pre-MLC Abraham - 4:13 to explain this, the promised heirship was not through the MLC - 4:14 to explain this, if promised heirship were through the MLC, this would void the faith and invalidate the promised heirship - 4:15 to explain why this would void the faith and invalidate the heirship, the law brings about God's wrath for parabasis (implication: which we all do, so hello wrath and good bye faith and heirship. But righteousness & heirship is by faith like our father Abraham so it can be according to grace and the promised heirship can be certain to all of Abraham's seed - those from Abraham's faith 4:16).

So, another reason for the MLC is God desired to bring His wrath against all parabasis.

Parabasis (plural) and wrath against all parabasis are the reasons for the MLC. And from what we know of the MLC, it's making sin & judgment & wrath vs. grace & faithful obedience in Christ & salvation from wrath very clear.

Or something like that....

 

[Clare73]

Good question. Looks like God just gave him His covenant.

Good question. Looks like Phinehas' descendants in Num25:11, but I haven't tracked to see if it's only his descendants. Track Zacharias back from Luke 1:5 to see if he's descended from Phinehas.

Thanks. As you know, I translate myself and normally have 10 or so English translations and a few Greek manuscripts on screen to see what others have done in translation. As we all know, we have many varying translations. At times I translate from some extensive word studies I do, because some of our Lexical tools have some theological opinions in them. If you'd like further explanations for what I see, please feel free to ask and I'm happy to show more details depending on the workload involved.

I think I recall you bringing up the preposition "epi" that Rev. Marshall and some others translate as "under." What's immediately interesting is that "epi" mostly literally means "upon" and if you drew a spatial diagram, it would represent what's above the space, not under it. There is a lot of range and overlap with prepositions, but "under" would be far from my first choice for "epi."

From my post #141:

The word "under" (epi) in Heb 7:11 also has the meaning "during the time of" (e.g., in Mk 2:26, 1Ti 6:13).

I also just gave you several examples of why I wouldn't translate nomotheteo as "furnished" or "given." There are a few more if you'd like to double-check me & the Rev. you quote. You should be checking all of us as best you can, and I've seen that you work hard with Scripture. My point is that I try to be very careful with most words when I'm digging in because there are nuances and there are connections that can be made by tracking them. The Text does say Moses gave the law to people (John7:19), and the law was given through Moses (John1:17) and that God is the only Lawgiver who can save and destroy (James4:12). I think nomotheteo is giving us a bit of a different angle that could be important to the points Hebrews is making about the law and the priesthood.
I'm not certain of your point here. I'm fairly sure we both agree on the statement you've boldened.

"in the time of it (Levitical priesthood) the people had been furnished with the law" (Heb 7:11)
"the law perfected nothing" (Heb 7:19)

I'm saying "the law furnished to the people" (Heb 7:11) is the same law that "perfected nothing" (Heb 7:18); i.e., the Mosaic law, not the law of human descent.

Do you see the "weakness and unprofitable(ness)" being applied to the "preceding commandment" tying to the "law [of] fleshly commandment" in Heb7:16 tying back to the Mosaic Law Covenant that specified Aaron & sons as God's Priests?

I see the "preceding commandment" (Heb 7:18) not to be "the law of fleshly commandment," (Heb 7:16) but
to be the Mosaic law of the Old Covenant given at Sinai,
it being weak and "perfecting nothing" (Heb 7:18) and
only as preparatory (Gal 3:23-25), with
the better hope brought in through which we draw near to God to be the New Covenant of complete redemption
bringing us into the very presence of God.

I see the contrast of Heb 7 as between
the Old Covenant, with its Mosaic law, making nothing perfect, and priesthood based on (mortal) human descent and
the New Covenant, with its law of faith, imputing righteousness, and priesthood based on an endless (immortal) life.

How would you explain precisely what "law [of] fleshly commandment" means?

Becoming a priest
by law based on a requirement of fleshly (mortal) human descent (OC), as contrasted to
becoming a priest
by the power of an indestructible (immortal) life (NC).

I'll tell you the reason I'm putting "of" in brackets is because the wording needs something inserted there and "of" is the most basic fallback translation. IOW, what's being annulled - the law, or the priesthood, or both, or???

Well, first of all, two different laws are involved,
#1 - the law furnished to the people (Mosaic law) during the time of the Levitical priesthood (Heb 7:11), and
#2 - the law of a fleshly commandment; i.e., High Priest based on fleshly (mortal) human descent (Heb 7:16) of the tribe of Levi.

Secondly, what is being annulled is both the Levitical priesthood of Aaron, and the law furnished to the people during the time of it (#1 above), because it was weak and perfecting nothing (Heb 7:18), being only preparatory for the law of faith (Gal 3:23-25).

I guess this is part of @Studyman's point. I haven't gone back too far to see what was discussed yesterday since I departed the previous evening.

FWIW, dueling English translations is endless IMO. I have no favorites and I know when and how and most of the time why I agree or disagree with them. If you'd like to work on some of these verses, let's do so.

 

[Clare73]

I think we agree so, I should probably leave it there, but:

Parabasis (plural) is the reason for the Mosaic Law Covenant and the MLC brings about God's wrath for parabasis (plural). So parabasis (plural) is the reason for the MLC & for God's wrath.

Would that be the meaning of to "reveal sin" (Rom 3:20), its nature (transgression), its consequences (wrath)?
Sin exists, but there is no law against it, so it is not revealed (known), nor punished which regulates it.
So law is given, which reveals what sin is and punishes it which regulates it.

The flow (trying to just use the negative about law) of Rom4:15 looking at all the "for" (explanatory) wording is:
4:11-12: For righteousness [and promised heirship], we need to walk in the faith of our father = pre-circumcision, pre-MLC Abraham -
4:13 to explain this, the promised heirship was not through the MLC -
4:14 to explain this, if promised heirship were through the MLC, this would void the faith and invalidate the promised heirship -
4:15 to explain why this would void the faith and invalidate the heirship, the law brings about God's wrath for parabasis (implication: which we all do, so hello wrath and good bye faith and heirship.

Sin done unintentionally (Nu 15:22) does not bring God's wrath.
Transgression (Nu 15:30) of the law brings God's wrath (Ro 4:15) .
So where there is no law, there is no transgression (Ro 4:15).

"For not through law the promise to Abraham or to the seed of him (that he should be) heir of the world, but through a righteousness of faith.
For if the heirs are of law, faith has been emptied and the promise has been destroyed, for the law works wrath; and (but) where there is not law, neither (is there) transgression (and wrath). (Ro 4:13-15, The Nestle' Greek text)

Abraham received the promise by righteousness which is by faith, not by law.
And if received not by law, then there is no transgression and, therefore, no wrath.
If the promise is by law, not only is faith of no value, but also the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath on all who transgress it (Ro 4:15).

But righteousness & heirship is by faith like our father Abraham so it can be according to grace and the promised heirship can be certain to all of Abraham's seed - those from Abraham's faith 4:16).
So, another reason for the MLC is God desired to bring His wrath against all parabasis.
Parabasis (plural) and wrath against all parabasis are the reasons for the MLC. And from what we know of the MLC, it's making sin & judgment & wrath vs. grace & faithful obedience in Christ & salvation from wrath very clear.
Or something like that....

Or something like mine above. . .

 

[ralliann]

Would that be the meaning of to "reveal sin" (Rom 3:20)?
Sin exists, but there is no law against it, so it is not revealed (known), nor punished to regulate it.
So law is given, which reveals what sin is and punishes it to regulate it.

Sin done unintentionally (Nu 15:22) does not bring God's wrath.
Transgression (Nu 15:30) of the law brings God's wrath (Ro 4:15) .
So where there is no law, there is no transgression (Ro 4:15).

I believe before Israel was called out to bring his judgement on 7 nations, men Kings judged their people. When kings gave over to corruptions, Less and less righteous people were left, probably dead like they wanted to do with Lot. and the (angels) men with him.
Just to consider something in the notion of the fullness of sin, of a nation. How many ended up being righteous in Sodom? Not even 5 in the entire city. So the great cry, that came up to God, who was it from. Lots of cries, were coming from somewhere, a large group. He was going down to see if things were as these cries had cried. Who were all these? I believe it was the righteous dead, that were slain. Their blood crying out from the ground.

 

[Studyman]

Clare73 said:

Is this not the penman 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 Ex, Lev, Nu, was changed (Heb 7:11-12)?

No, the Hebrews Author is not teaching that God's Laws Jesus and all the Faithful examples in the Bible walked in, are carnal, weak and useless because of the Priesthood which existed when HE gave them.

And to promote such a teaching, is to imply that God killed His own people, for rebelling against "carnal useless unprofitable and weak" laws which would become obsolete, "After those days". Laws Jesus told His People to Seek and Keep. NO! The scriptures teach no such thing. Religious men who call Jesus Lord, may preach such things, and we might be influenced by their doctrines and philosophies, but not the Holy Scriptures.

And you still have yet to even acknowledged what "LAW" the Hebrews Author actually said did change.

The preaching that God's instruction in righteousness changes according to the priesthood HE has in place when HE gives them, isn't supported by scriptures at all. And certainly not by Paul, according to his teaching to the Body of Christ, both Jew and gentile, years after the Christ ascended.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

What other "Scriptures" were there, but the Law and Prophets that Jesus taught from?

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."

And of course they are, God said HE would write them on the hearts of HIS People, "After those days".

But the duties of a Temporary Priesthood, along with Sacrificial "works" of this temporary Law for the forgiveness of sins, put in place until the True Lamb of God should come, would certainly not be written on the hearts of His People, rather, they would vanish after the Prophesied Priest of God came.

In the context of the book of Hebrews, which purpose is to demonstrate the superiority

1) of the Son (Heb 1:7)
over the angels (Heb 1-2)
over Moses (Heb 3-4:13),
over the Aaronic priests (4:14-7:28), and

2) of the sacrificial work of our High Priest (Heb 8-10)
a better covenant (Heb 8),
a better sanctuary (Heb 9:1-12),
a better sacrifice (Heb 9:13-10:18),

Of course, the Priesthood "After the Order of Melchizedek" is superior to the Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron". Zacharias, Simeon and Anna knew this even before Jesus came.

And yes, this is the purpose of Hebrews 7-10. To explain the difference between the two Priesthoods.

in that context of Heb 7, we are looking at the Son's superiority over the Aaronic priests.
The context here is not to establish a change in the covenant with Phinehas, it is to establish the superiority of Christ's priestly order over the Levitical priestly order, just as it establishes the superiority of Christ himself over the angels, Moses and the Aaronic priests themselves, which superiority of Christ is the purpose of Heb 1-10.

Yes, The manner in which transgression of God Law is forgiven "After the Order of Melchizedek" is certainly Superior to the Sacrificial "Works" of the Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron".

In the context of demonstrating the superiority of Christ's priestly order over the Levitical priestly order in Heb 7,
it first establishes that although Moses gave no law regarding a High Priest of another order (Heb 7:14), Christ is eternal High Priest since Ps 110:4 (Heb 7:16).

Yes, The Levitical Priesthood was Temporary, foreshadowing the Glory of God's Prophesied High Priest to come.

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:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

God gave Moses the Levitical Priesthood and commanded the Priests and the people to listen to Moses, as they didn't want to talk to God. But Moses told of a Prophet, like him, that would come. The Prophets spoke of this "Priest" throughout the Holy Scriptures. David, Isaiah and others knew of Him. Zacharias, Simeon and Anna and the wise men knew of the Prophesies and worshipped and Glorified this Savior before HE was even born. They knew Him when HE came, but the sinful Pharisees, who rebelled against God's Law, didn't.

Then it demonstrates the superiority of Christ's priestly order over the Levitical priestly order by comparing the efficacy of the two ministries, where the Levitical ministry was unable to make perfect by its sacrifices and law keeping, while Christ's ministry makes perfect by its sacrifice and faith.

That isn't what the Hebrews Author teaches at all. The purpose of your post is to justify disobedience to God's Laws. The very purpose of the Priesthood was to teach men God's Commandments (God's Righteousness Jesus walked in) so they could walk in them, "for their wellbeing", and to provide forgiveness for them, when they fell. And His disciples promoted.

1 John 2: 1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

This "Advocate" was the Priests "After the Order of Aaron" before "After Those Days". The Priesthood changed, and we now have the Prophesied New Priesthood Order. But the obligation to obey God did not change. As Jesus teaches. "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." and again in another place, "Now Go and Sin no more".

The point is not the change of the covenant with Phinehas (the "law" being the law given to the people), the point is the authorization of Christ's High Priestly ministry, which is found in Ps 110:4 (Heb 7:16).
There is only one giving of law to the people (in addition to God giving the law to Moses on Mt. Sinai, Ex 19:9), and it is presented in Ex, Lev and repeated 40 yrs. later in Nu, where in both givings, the laws regarding the priests and the people are interchanged, because all of it is "the law."

This is what the Pharisees also preached. If the Priesthood changed, then "ALL" of God's Law changed because they were all ONE LAW. So the abolition of the LAW requiring a man to bring a goat to the Levite Priest for forgiveness, must also mean the abolition of all God's Laws HE gave through Moses. And as a result, they accused Paul of preaching against the Law of Moses, when he was promoting God's Prophesied High Priest, as Moses and the Prophets taught would come, "After those days", for the forgiveness of sins..

Acts 13: 37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins.

Not taking a goat to the Levite Priest and killing it.

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Because by the "works of the Law" is no flesh justified. Why? Hebrews tells us "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."

So . .in light of the above, I'm saying that "the law" given to the people (Heb 7:11) does not refer to the covenant with Phinehas, it refers to all the Mosaic law; i.e.,

Moses never created Law. God did. So to be accurate and honest, It was God's Law for the People, for their own Good, that God gave them, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, through the Priesthood.

1) the laws for the Levitical priesthood which was set aside by God when he struck down the firstborn in Egypt (Nu 3:11), and which laws
are interspersed throughout Ex 28-29, Lev 8-10, 21-22, 24:1-9, Nu 2-3, 8, 18, 27:12-23, 33, etc., as well as
2) the laws for the people, also interspersed throughout Lev 1-7, 11-15, 17-20, 23, 24:10-21, 25-27, Nu 15, 19, 27:1-11, 28-32, 34-36, etc.

I am saying that "the law given to the people" (Heb 7:11) includes all the laws in Ex - Nu, the laws for the priesthood as well as the laws administered by the priesthood.
I'm saying that the necessity of raising up another priest, so that the people could be made perfect, required a change in the whole system; i.e, priesthood of Aaron to priesthood of Melchizedek, law to grace, Mosaic Covenant to New covenant, not just a change in the law, and I am saying "law" that was changed refers to both law for the priesthood and administered by the priesthood.

Yes, "YOU" are saying this. But the Hebrews author is not. Jesus didn't. Paul didn't, and Peter didn't.

And there were people who "Esteemed the Rock" in Israel, and mixed Faith with the hearing of the Gospel of Christ when God showed it to them. Paul said that what happened to Israel, happened to them for our admonition, so we would lust after disobedience to God as they lusted.

 

[Studyman]

"If therefore perfection was through the Levitical priestly office (for under--during the time of--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)

"If forgiveness of Sin" (Making a person sinless, or perfect) defined by God for His People through a Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron, was accomplished by taking a goat to the Levite Priest, and killing it, then what reason was there that another Priest, after a different Order, should come?

"If perfection was through the office of priesthood. . ."
Does that necessarily mean the perfection of the priest himself, or does it mean the perfection of the people through the ministrations of his office, which was the whole system of sacrifices and law-keeping?

The whole system of "Law Keeping" was established long before Levi. God's Righteousness, and His wrath against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men, was shown long before Moses and the burning bush. Men want to merge them together as inseparable in spite of God's Word which clearly separates them, for the purpose of justifying Sin.


"Many" of this world's religious men, who come in Christ's Name, have essentially said to God, "Don't talk to us, we will listen to a man, but not you", just like Israel. So God gave them Jesus, as Moses said would come, and instructed them to listen to HIM. Just as HE gave the men of old Moses and commanded them to listen to him.

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."



Matt. 4:4 It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

"Now go and Sin no more". "

Matt. 19: 17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

The same Message God gave Abraham, and the Children of Israel, Jesus gave to men. Except the part where they take a goat to the Levite Priest. But "many" simply are not persuaded. as Jesus tells us.

Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Was the imperfection in the inadequacy of the Levitical High Priest's sacrifice of an animal, compared to the perfection of the new High Priest's sacrifice of himself?

Surely the second ADAM was more Righteous than the first. And surely the Ministration of Moses had Glory, but the Ministration of the New High Priest had more Glory.

"Under it (the priesthood) the law was given to the people. . ."
The language here is not a reference to the laws of ancestry governing the priesthood, but to all the laws given by Moses.

There is no argument from me that the LAW the people of God were to receive from the Priests and Scribes, who sat in Moses Seat, were the Laws of God written in the Book of the Law for the welfare of His People in their journey to the promised land. We no longer need a Priest to read us God's Laws now, because we have His Oracles in our own home, and in a fashion are "sitting in Moses Seat" ourselves. But the requirement for "Belief/Faith" still exists for us, as it did for them, as we both received the Gospel of Christ, according to this same Hebrew Author.

Heb. 4: 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

One place where you and the Pharisees go off the rails, in my view, is that the sacrificial "works of the Law" for forgiveness of sin in the Law and Prophets, and God's Law defining Sin and Righteousness that HE gave to all men, cannot be separated. And God most certainly Separated them. "To Obey is better than Sacrifice".

Is not my response totally based in the Scriptures?

A man can justify almost every religion, and every religious sect, philosophy and theory on the planet, by selecting some scriptures and "Omitting" others, as did the Mainstream Preachers of Jesus Time. But it's much harder to justify all these differing religious philosophies, if a man is a "Doer" of the Christ's Sayings, and not a hearer only. As "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

As the Hebrews author also teaches;

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

 

[GDL]

From my post #141:

The word "under" (epi) in Heb 7:11 also has the meaning "during the time of" (e.g., in Mk 2:26, 1Ti 6:13).

Thanks for the repost. Since the immediate context is in one sense temporal in dealing with Abraham & Melchizedek > Levi > Christ, I'd see epi here as being temporal as you're suggesting (nice work BTW) or since the immediate context is also authority, Abraham & thus Levi tithing to Melchizedek - the lesser to the better Heb7:7 - epi can also have the meaning of "power over" or "rule over" (remembering that the basic meaning of epi is "above" or "over."

One of the things we can get caught up in from language to language is to get too wooden - too strict - and lose track of how a native speaker would hear things. IOW, the native hearer might read this clause and immediately reason what the preposition means based upon everything else they know about the matter being discussed. They may just as easily reason this clause to be speaking of the time the Levitical Priesthood was in the authoritative position of being God's Priests, who had the law scrolls, taught law, was involved in judging legal matters, etc...

Those translating epi as under may be doing this, but I prefer to do what you & I have just done which is to remain closer to the range of actual meaning and pick up the nuances from context & then horizontally to other Scriptures. Also, as I've pointed out at times, another preposition - "huper" - at its most basic means "under" and as you know, Paul uses that preposition in some very strict ways (under law & under grace) so I'm cautious in throwing "under" around too widely when translating.

Last thought for the moment on this topic; the Text is speaking about the system in power for a time. Epi remains in this context. If huper were used it would switch the emphasis to the ones under that authority. This section of Scripture is dealing with the authority of the Priesthood. I'd prefer not to insert my ideas into the flow of the arguments and just let God speak and teach His Word.

"in the time of it (Levitical priesthood) the people had been furnished with the law" (Heb 7:11)
"the law perfected nothing" (Heb 7:19)

I'm saying "the law furnished to the people" (Heb 7:11) is the same law that "perfected nothing" (Heb 7:18); i.e., the Mosaic law, not the law of human descent.

OK. So that's your focus and I'm getting into the language again. Understood. One point to make for your consideration. Above I spoke of the range of epi. Here I see you've adopted the temporal concept. As I've pointed out, "furnished" is a word that more basically means "to legislate" but we know God is the Lawgiver so the Priesthood is not legislating and we know this word was used in the LXX to translate a word that can mean "teach" (there's actually a bit more to consider in the Hebrew word). But the point is, both legislating and teaching are authoritative actions. So, with the temporal epi that can also denote authority, the word nomotheteo (legislate, teach) is speaking of the authority. Both concepts of epi are here so the temporal epi is probably the more appropriate, but not strictly for the natural hearer (IOW during this time of authority)

I'll continue with the rest of your post later.

 

[Clare73]

No, the Hebrews Author is not teaching that God's Laws Jesus and all the Faithful examples in the Bible walked in, are carnal, weak and useless because of the Priesthood which existed when HE gave them.

From my post #166:

"Well, first of all, two different laws are involved,
#1 - the law furnished to the people (Mosaic law) during the time of the Levitical priesthood (Heb 7:11), and
#2 - the law of a fleshly commandment; i.e., High Priest based on fleshly (mortal) human descent (Heb 7:16) of the tribe of Levi."

#1 is rendered weak and useless (Heb 7:8) because of sinful flesh (Ro 8:3), and
#2 is carnal because it is based on mortal human (flesh) descent (Heb 7:16).

Correct, they are not carnal, in either Paul's use of the word (sinful flesh) in Ro 8, nor In the use of the word in Heb 7:16; i.e., office by human (flesh) descent.
But the sacrificial, defilement, cleansing, etc. laws, that Jesus and all the Faithful examples in the Bible walked in,
were weak and useless because of sinful flesh (Ro 8:3), they could not take away sin (Heb 10:4) and are abolished (Eph 3:15).

And to promote such a teaching, is to imply that God killed His own people, for rebelling against "carnal useless unprofitable and weak" laws which would become obsolete,

Heb 8:13 (obsolete), Eph 2:15 (abolished), Ro 8:3 (weak and useless because of sinful flesh), Heb 10:4 (could not take away sin)
disagree with you.

Failure to distinguish between the law of God given in the Decalogue and the law of God given in Leviticus.

"After those days". Laws Jesus told His People to Seek and Keep. NO! The scriptures teach no such thing. Religious men who call Jesus Lord, may preach such things, and we might be influenced by their doctrines and philosophies, but not the Holy Scriptures.

And you still have yet to even acknowledged what "LAW" the Hebrews Author actually said did change.

The law of priestly descent changed from no more of the line of Aaron to the priesthood of Melchizedek, with Jesus of Nazareth as its eternal High Priest, offering the perfect once-for-all sacrifice, himself.

The preaching that God's instruction in righteousness changes according to the priesthood HE has in place when HE gives them, isn't supported by scriptures at all. And certainly not by Paul, according to his teaching to the Body of Christ, both Jew and gentile, years after the Christ ascended.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
What other "Scriptures" were there, but the Law and Prophets that Jesus taught from?

There is indication that some material included in the NT were already considered equal in authority to the OT Scriptures, as in
Peter placing Paul's writings on the same level of authority as the God-breathed writings of the OT (2 Pe 3:16),

"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."
And of course they are, God said HE would write them on the hearts of HIS People, "After those days".

Refers to the Decalogue, not the commandments of Leviticus.

But the duties of a Temporary Priesthood, along with Sacrificial "works" of this temporary Law for the forgiveness of sins, put in place until the True Lamb of God should come, would certainly not be written on the hearts of His People, rather, they would vanish after the Prophesied Priest of God came.
Of course, the Priesthood "After the Order of Melchizedek" is superior to the Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron". Zacharias, Simeon and Anna knew this even before Jesus came.
And yes, this is the purpose of Hebrews 7-10. To explain the difference between the two Priesthoods.

Yes, The manner in which transgression of God Law is forgiven "After the Order of Melchizedek" is certainly Superior to the Sacrificial "Works" of the Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron".

Yes, The Levitical Priesthood was Temporary, foreshadowing the Glory of God's Prophesied High Priest to come.

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:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

God gave Moses the Levitical Priesthood and commanded the Priests and the people to listen to Moses, as they didn't want to talk to God. But Moses told of a Prophet, like him, that would come. The Prophets spoke of this "Priest" throughout the Holy Scriptures. David, Isaiah and others knew of Him. Zacharias, Simeon and Anna and the wise men knew of the Prophesies and worshipped and Glorified this Savior before HE was even born. They knew Him when HE came, but the sinful Pharisees, who rebelled against God's Law, didn't.

That isn't what the Hebrews Author teaches at all. The purpose of your post is to justify disobedience to God's Laws. The very purpose of the Priesthood was to teach men God's Commandments (God's Righteousness Jesus walked in) so they could walk in them, "for their wellbeing", and to provide forgiveness for them, when they fell. And His disciples promoted.

The book of Leviticus includes more than the Decalogue in its laws of defilements.

1 John 2: 1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

This "Advocate" was the Priests "After the Order of Aaron" before "After Those Days". The Priesthood changed, and we now have the Prophesied New Priesthood Order. But the obligation to obey God did not change. As Jesus teaches. "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." and again in another place, "Now Go and Sin no more".

This is what the Pharisees also preached. If the Priesthood changed, then "ALL" of God's Law changed because they were all ONE LAW. So the abolition of the LAW requiring a man to bring a goat to the Levite Priest for forgiveness, must also mean the abolition of all God's Laws HE gave through Moses. And as a result, they accused Paul of preaching against the Law of Moses, when he was promoting God's Prophesied High Priest, as Moses and the Prophets taught would come, "After those days", for the forgiveness of sins..

Irrelevant to the laws given to Moses in the Tent of Meeting in Lev.

Acts 13: 37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption. 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins.
Not taking a goat to the Levite Priest and killing it.
39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Because by the "works of the Law" is no flesh justified. Why? Hebrews tells us "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."
Moses never created Law. God did. So to be accurate and honest, It was God's Law for the People, for their own Good, that God gave them, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, through the Priesthood.

Not a good description of the law given in Leviticus.

Yes, "YOU" are saying this. But the Hebrews author is not. Jesus didn't. Paul didn't, and Peter didn't.

It is the testimony of the epistles.

And there were people who "Esteemed the Rock" in Israel, and mixed Faith with the hearing of the Gospel of Christ when God showed it to them. Paul said that what happened to Israel, happened to them for our admonition, so we would lust after disobedience to God as they lusted.

 

[GDL]

I'm saying "the law furnished to the people" (Heb 7:11) is the same law that "perfected nothing" (Heb 7:18); i.e., the Mosaic law, not the law of human descent.

This is where I asked you about the phrase "law [of] fleshly commandment" which is going to be even more technical than what epi means.

I see below that you are interpreting its meaning to some degree. It looks like @Studyman is taking issue with some of this and I would expect him to do so. This is one of the places in Hebrews that I was interested in getting into with @Studyman.

If I asked you and @Studyman and anyone else reading this (like @ralliann) to just interpret this one phrase - which I am now asking - without yet connecting it to any other Scripture, what does the ever-ambiguous word "of" mean? How would you explain what this one phrase is telling us about law & fleshly commandment? What is the relationship between the 2?

I see the "preceding commandment" (Heb 7:18) not to be "the law of fleshly commandment," (Heb 7:16) but
to be the Mosaic law of the Old Covenant given at Sinai,
it being weak and "perfecting nothing" (Heb 7:18) and
only as preparatory (Gal 3:23-25), with
the better hope brought in through which we draw near to God to be the New Covenant of complete redemption
bringing us into the very presence of God.

I see the contrast of Heb 7 as between
the Old Covenant, with its Mosaic law, making nothing perfect, and priesthood based on (mortal) human descent and
the New Covenant, with its law of faith, imputing righteousness, and priesthood based on an endless (immortal) life.

 

[Studyman]

From my post #166:

"Well, first of all, two different laws are involved,
#1 - the law furnished to the people (Mosaic law) during the time of the Levitical priesthood (Heb 7:11), and
#2 - the law of a fleshly commandment; i.e., High Priest based on fleshly (mortal) human descent (Heb 7:16) of the tribe of Levi."

#1 is rendered weak and useless (Heb 7:8) because of sinful flesh (Ro 8:3), and
#2 is carnal because it is based on mortal human (flesh) descent (Heb 7:16).

Correct, they are not carnal, in either Paul's use of the word (sinful flesh) in Ro 8, nor In the use of the word in Heb 7:16; i.e., office by human (flesh) descent.
But the sacrificial, defilement, cleansing, etc. laws, that Jesus and all the Faithful examples in the Bible walked in,
were weak and useless because of sinful flesh (Ro 8:3), they could not take away sin (Heb 10:4) and are abolished (Eph 3:15).

First off, Jesus forgave sins, cleansed Lepers and healed men without once partaking of the Levitical Priesthood "Works". So your statement regarding Jesus walking in these "sacrificial, defilement, cleansing, etc. laws", is simply an Error on your part. One that is made by "Many" who come in Christ's Name. I was also taught this by modern religions, and am hoping you might consider what is actually written.

Also, God's instruction in Righteousness, given to us by God through Moses, were not created for the purpose of removing transgressions, as you are preaching here. There is nothing in scripture which teaches they were.

God and HIS Son is teaching His People how to walk before Him, as HE has done from the beginning.

Gen. 4: 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Gen. 6: 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Gen. 17: 1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Duet 18: 13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God. 14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.

Duet. 32: 3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. 4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

1 Kings 8: 60 That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else. 61 Let your heart therefore be perfect with the LORD our God, to walk in his statutes, and to keep his commandments, as at this day.

And the Lord's Christ, the Jesus of the Bible, taught the exact same thing.

Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Luke 6: 39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? 40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

And Paul also taught the same.

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

What you and the Pharisees did, is refuse to "Separate" God's Laws which show how His People are to WALK, from Priesthood Duties created to atone for Sin, which is defined in Scriptures as Transgressing God's instruction in Righteousness that we are tasked to "Walk in". As Paul teaches.

Eph. 2: For we (The Body of the Christ of the Bible) are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained (In the Law and Prophets) that we should walk in them.

As a result, both the Pharisees, and modern religions today, believe in their heart that there is no difference between "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.", or "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.", both Laws of God given to HIS People through Moses that Paul said were "Written for Our sakes", that is, the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile years after Jesus ascended, and the Levitical Priesthood "works of the Law" given to the sons of Aaron, to provide for the forgiveness of sins, until the Prophesied Priesthood of God should come.

Lev. 4: 27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; 28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.

So refusing to separate the Priesthood "Works of the Law" from God's "instruction in righteousness", like Jesus and the Prophets, and Paul did, places men at odds with Scriptures, as it did with the Pharisees.

Heb 8:13 (obsolete), Eph 2:15 (abolished), Ro 8:3 (weak and useless because of sinful flesh), Heb 10:4 (could not take away sin)
disagree with you.

No, they disagree with you. Because you are not considering why the NT authors are discussing this in the first place. And that is because the Mainstream Preachers of their time had corrupted God's Priesthood, Had turned God's Priesthood into a religious business, they Had God's Oracles but didn't believe them, they were laying aside God's Commandments so they could promote their own religious traditions, they taught for doctrines the commandments of Men. Moses gave them God's Laws, but they didn't walk in them. They didn't believe Moses and the Prophets. They taught that gentiles were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and were without God in this world. They had created a partition between Gentiles and Jews that God didn't create.

So with all these Biblical Truth omitted, and discarded, the very foundation of modern religious philosophy is corrupted.

This is why there are dozens of religious franchises and businesses, all preaching different doctrines and philosophies, and all claiming their religion is the way, and all laying aside the commandments of God so that they may do their own religious traditions.

 

[Studyman]

It was "added by reason of the transgressions". . .sounds like transgression was the reason for (cause of) the wrath,
like the fence was added by reason of the dog. . .the dog is the reason for (cause of) the fence.

But isn't God's Law defining sin, the fence God places His People in to protect them? God gave Eve "LAW", not because of transgression, but for her own good, because HE loved her.

I built a fence for my dog to keep it from getting run over by cars which exist in the world I placed my dog in. I did so to protect my Dog, not because the dog Transgressed. Does my dog understand this? Maybe not. It might look at the cars going by lusting after the chance to be "Free" from the fence to chase them. And he might jump the fence, In which case I might "ADD" a top or build the fence taller.

In this case, something was "ADDED" because of transgression. But the purpose was to protect the dog from the onset.

 

[GDL]

Would that be the meaning of to "reveal sin" (Rom 3:20), its nature (transgression), its consequences (wrath)?
Sin exists, but there is no law against it, so it is not revealed (known), nor punished which regulates it.
So law is given, which reveals what sin is and punishes it which regulates it.

I think ultimately and certainly we can take ideas like this and reason them through the topic.

I also think ultimately and certainly we are dealing with the same overall topic - law and thus sin vs. righteousness. One section of Scripture is typically explaining one concept within the whole and another section another concept within the whole. In the end we have the whole lesson (some call it a doctrine) and there are ties in the Text that assist us to see the whole picture from the interconnected internal lessons. But we're too quick at times to intermix the individual components.

For example, we're dealing with 2 areas of scripture that deal with law & parabasis, and wrath is added to the lesson by one of them. So, this is our focus. Then we have to go to other Scripture as you've done to bring in more clearly the law being instructional about sin concept which certainly is part of the big picture but maybe indirectly related to the lesson we might be looking at. We can also go to Rom9:22 for example and see that there is another purpose behind God's wrath - another instructional one. So His law is instructional, and His wrath is instructional. There are many lessons within the theme, as it's clear you know. It's almost impossible to study His Word and not end up in interconnected rabbit trails.

Ultimately, what I see in most all of these things is that God is making us aware of things He wants and expects us to know. His law teaches about sin so sin can't hide. His law teaches about wrath, so His wrath won't be a surprise as and when He makes His power known. Torah at root means instruction. I mentioned I'm reading an interesting book that speaks about the Hebrew language of Law. Much of Hebrew law is in the language of wisdom literature. The language means and is meant to solicit deep thinking and reasoning - the type that provides insights that become part of us. I try to always remember who the ultimate Author is - who the Word is - and pay attention to even the smallest stroke of the law (and Word) He ultimately wrote and says Matt5:18 about. That's why I look at things like epi as you also did and why I've asked us all to discuss "of" in Heb7:16.

 

[ralliann]

This is where I asked you about the phrase "law [of] fleshly commandment" which is going to be even more technical than what epi means.

I see below that you are interpreting its meaning to some degree. It looks like @Studyman is taking issue with some of this and I would expect him to do so. This is one of the places in Hebrews that I was interested in getting into with @Studyman.

If I asked you and @Studyman and anyone else reading this (like @ralliann) to just interpret this one phrase - which I am now asking - without yet connecting it to any other Scripture, what does the ever-ambiguous word "of" mean? How would you explain what this one phrase is telling us about law & fleshly commandment? What is the relationship between the 2?

I am not seeing "of" in that verse. I read it as "fleshly" commandment of the law. As Clare says, It is the law that commands it.
I would like to add this, as I think it is something brought up somewhere in this thread. Priesthood of Aaron and when did it begin or something like that

Heb 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

Heb 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
When was Aaron called?
At the mount of God, before Moses even went to Egypt.....
4:14 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.
15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.
16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.

Aaron was called before they even went into Egypt, he was MOSES MOUTHPIECE TO THE PEOPLE.

The order of Aaron, The HIGH PRIESTHOOD.
Ex 4:27 And the LORD said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him.
28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD who had sent him, and all the signs which he had commanded him.
29 And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel:
30 And Aaron spake all the words which the LORD had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people.

Before going up the mount........

These priests are the sons of Aaron, The tribe of Levi is not given to them yet.

Ex 19:22 And let the priests also, which come near to the LORD, sanctify themselves, lest the LORD break forth upon them.

24 And the LORD said unto him, Away, get thee down, and thou shalt come up, thou, and Aaron with thee: but let not the priests and the people break through to come up unto the LORD, lest he break forth upon them.

That about more than answers the question for me

Oh and also about circumcision, it is important concerning marriage. A lawful wife (covenant) vs a concubine (no marital covenant)

Ex 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
Ex 4:26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

After all, these things are all events of previous covenants....
Husband <02860> in these two verses is distinct, implying Marital covenant, vs concubines.
used 20 times only, and as you can see as law. This is used in speaking of sons and daughters IN LAW. Of a husband, a bridegroom.

02860 חתן chathan khaw-thawn’

from 02859; n m; [BDB-368b] {See TWOT on 781 @@ "781c"}

AV-law 10, bridegroom 8, husband 2; 20

1) son-in-law, daughter’s husband, bridegroom, husband

 

[GDL]

One place where you and the Pharisees go off the rails, in my view, is that the sacrificial "works of the Law" for forgiveness of sin in the Law and Prophets, and God's Law defining Sin and Righteousness that HE gave to all men, cannot be separated. And God most certainly Separated them. "To Obey is better than Sacrifice".

2 questions:

• Are you meaning that the phrase "works of [the] law" applies only to the sacrifices?
• If you are, can you show with Scripture why you are?

 

[ralliann]

But isn't God's Law defining sin,

What is sin?
Ro 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
weak uselessness sacrifices?
What's the difference if they had faith in it?

Mt 15:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
Luke 4:25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.

Ac 14:9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,
Mt 9:22 But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

 

[GDL]

I am not seeing "of" in that verse. I read it as "fleshly" commandment of the law. As Clare says, It is the law that commands it.

Thank you for the response. Meaning no disrespect, I'm going to just stay focused on the phrase, which verse I should have posted, so my apology.

Without concern for word order in English, the Greek literally translated says: ...not according to law commandment fleshly..

Some English translations inserting "of":

YLT Hebrews 7:16 who came not according to the law of a fleshly command, but according to the power of an endless life,​

​

NKJ Hebrews 7:16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.​

​

KJV Hebrews 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.​

DBY Hebrews 7:16 who has been constituted not according to law of fleshly commandment, but according to power of indissoluble life.​

​

DRA Hebrews 7:16 Who is made not according to the law of a carnal commandment, but according to the power of an indissoluble life​

NAS Hebrews 7:16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.​

​

ESV Hebrews 7:16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.​

​

NIV Hebrews 7:16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.​

​

The reason I'm asking about the insertion of the word "of" is that the Greek wording can be translated in many different ways, some of them easy to see don't apply here. This phrase says and means something very specific that interpreters need to work out. These English translations are not doing this for us. The word "of" here is just an accepted fallback translation. But even in English as translated, what would "of" be telling us that makes this phrase more clearly understandable? BTW, even an English Dictionary will provide much of the range of this 2 letter word.