Are you a Jew under the law or a gentile ?

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,273
8,140
US
✟1,098,392.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
The Levite priesthood is over with.

(CLV) Jer 33:18
As for the Levitical priests there shall not be cut off a man from before Me who offers up the ascent offering and fumes the approach present and offers sacrifices for all the days.

(CLV) Ezk 44:15
Yet the Levitical priests, sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of My sanctuary when the sons of Israel strayed from on Me, they shall come near to Me to minister to Me, and they will stand before Me to offer to Me the fat and the blood, averring is my Lord Yahweh.

(CLV) Ezk 44:23
They shall direct My people to distinguish between the holy and the profane, and they shall inform them the difference between the unclean and the clean.
 
Upvote 0

RickReads

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
3,433
1,068
59
richmond
✟64,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
(CLV) Jer 33:18
As for the Levitical priests there shall not be cut off a man from before Me who offers up the ascent offering and fumes the approach present and offers sacrifices for all the days.

(CLV) Ezk 44:15
Yet the Levitical priests, sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of My sanctuary when the sons of Israel strayed from on Me, they shall come near to Me to minister to Me, and they will stand before Me to offer to Me the fat and the blood, averring is my Lord Yahweh.

(CLV) Ezk 44:23
They shall direct My people to distinguish between the holy and the profane, and they shall inform them the difference between the unclean and the clean.

You left out a lot of verses but ok. The sons of Zadok are one Levite family chosen to fill a largely ceremonial role, it`s a nice reward to them but all the Israelies will be priests. The special status of this one family is not a revival of the Levite priesthood which is obsolete unless you want to believe that animal blood can take away sin.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I don't believe that performing miracles in Yahshua's name is what was keeping them out of the kingdom.

Let's revisit verse 21.

(CLV) Mt 7:21
"Not everyone saying to Me `Lord! Lord!' will be entering into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who is doing the will of My Father Who is in the heavens.
So this leads to the question; what is the will of the Father?

John 6:40
For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
(CLV) Jer 33:18
As for the Levitical priests there shall not be cut off a man from before Me who offers up the ascent offering and fumes the approach present and offers sacrifices for all the days.

(CLV) Ezk 44:15
Yet the Levitical priests, sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of My sanctuary when the sons of Israel strayed from on Me, they shall come near to Me to minister to Me, and they will stand before Me to offer to Me the fat and the blood, averring is my Lord Yahweh.

(CLV) Ezk 44:23
They shall direct My people to distinguish between the holy and the profane, and they shall inform them the difference between the unclean and the clean.
A good example of the letter of the law passing. The authority of the Levite priesthood was not transferred as such. The Levite priesthood was a mere shadow priesthood, a reflection of the Divine Priesthood of Jesus.

The law and the temple are merely earthly shadows.

Hebrews 7:24
But Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.

Jesus was not born a descendant of Aaron.

Melchizedek was the shadow priesthood of the Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,433
4,605
Hudson
✟284,322.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Including wearing clothes made of only one fabric, not trimming your beard and stoning to death anyone who doesn't keep the Sabbath?

Refraining from mixing wool and linen, from marring the corners of our beard, and the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath are laws that God has given. The fact that God considers breaking the Sabbath to be worthy of the death penalty and the fact that Jesus gave himself to pay that penalty should lead you to want to keep the Sabbath holy. Something that is holy is set apart, so the various commands against mixing things are related to and are an expression of God's holiness.

God could have given any number of laws, so either the laws that God has given are completely arbitrary, or there is a reason why God chose to give the laws that He did and other other laws. Either they are arbitrary, or they express God's wisdom. God's laws were given for His people's own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), so there was good motive in why God chose to give the laws that He did, so I don't see any grounds in thinking that any of God's laws were arbitrarily. If God had a reason for giving a particular command, then that command teaches us something about Him.

Many of God's laws straightforwardly obvious why God commanded them and are clearly derived from the principle of loving our neighbor as ourselves (mishpatim), how other laws are not straightforwardly obvious why God commanded them, like not plowing an ox and a donkey together or against wearing clothing mixed with wool and linen (chukim). No explanation being given for them, so they almost invite us to ponder why they were given, such as with you thinking that some of them are in regard to hygiene, and I think many people have come up with good reasons for them, but ultimately they are at most educated guesses. When we don't understand why God commanded something, then it makes it easy to find excuses not to obey it, but those situations are where we have the greatest opportunity to put our faith in God's wisdom over our intellect, to have faith that God's laws are for our own good, to obey because we to love God is to obey His commandments, or to obey simply because it was commanded by God. Even if some of God's laws seem foolish to us, the foolishness of God is wiser than men (1 Corinthians 1:25). The Holy Spirit has the role of leading us to obey both the mishpatim and the chukum (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

. Exactly.

Israel is God's people, so decide whether on not you want to be included because the New Covenant was only made the house of Judah and the house Israel (Jeremiah 31:33), and Jesus only came for the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24).

Not in the case of the above law.
Why would God command something that wasn't in accordance with His nature?

Yes, in the OT - they didn't have anything else.
In the NT we have Jesus, the Word of God who lives in us by his Spirit.

The Mosaic Law is the way (Jeremiah 6:16-19), the truth (Psalms 119:29), and the life (Deuteronomy 32:47), and in the NT, Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he is the the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).

In the OT they believed that God lived in the temple - or more accurately, the Holy of Holies which only the high priest could enter.
In the NT we are all God's temple. At the crucifixion the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The temple was later destroyed and has never been rebuilt. The temple is no longer the house of God, and any feasts which were celebrated in the temple can no longer be celebrated there.

People can still be faithful to do as much as they can.

Jesus didn't tell, teach or command anyone to obey the Mosaic law.

Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he would have still taught full obedience to it by example even if he had said nothing, and as his followers we are told to follow his example. Furthermore, to tell someone to repent from their sin is tell them to obey the Mosaic Law.

Jesus told us to come to him, Matthew 11:28, believe in him, John 6:40 and live in him, John 15:4-5. We are to be followers of Jesus, teaching everything that Jesus taught, and to be his witnesses.
If you can show me where he said "teach complete obedience to all the laws in Leviticus, just as I have shown you how to obey all the laws in Leviticus"; obviously I'll do that.

In Matthew 11:28, Jesus invited people to learn from him, not refuse to learn from what he taught by word and by example. By saying that we would find rest for our souls, he was referencing Jeremiah 6:16-19, where the Mosaic Law is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls. In John 3:36, to believe in Jesus is also to obey him. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked. Do you think that Jesus was in disagreement with the Father about whether Leviticus should be obeyed?

God's will is that I believe in Jesus and receive eternal life, John 6:40.
The work of God is that I believe in Jesus and receive eternal life, John 6:29.
Jesus came so that we would have life in all its fulness, John 10:10.

The laws written in Leviticus do not give eternal life.
Fulness of life is not gained by saying "I really like that winter coat; it's woollen, it's warm and reasonably priced - oh drat, it's 5% polyester." Or "Well most of my outfit is pure cotton - even though it's not at all warm or practical; maybe the Lord will overlook the fact that my socks/gloves/scarf are nylon".
We don't lose our salvation if there's a small amount of ham in our pie or on our pizza.
If a man trims his beard - always assuming that he even has one - no one's going to say "that proves that your God's not holy."

Then why are we told to be holy as God is holy? 1 Thessalonians 4:3
In the OT if people dedicated things to God, those things became holy, Exodus 29:37, Exodus 30:29, Leviticus 6:27, Numbers 4:16, and the Sabbath was described as holy. Things and days cannot have character traits - what made the holy was that they were set aside for God, or dedicated to God for use in his service.

Wearing clothes made from only one fabric does not show God's holiness.

In order to testify about God's holiness. Treating things are being holy is an expression of the character trait of holiness.

He didn't give US his law at Sinai; that's the point.
He gave us Jesus who taught and showed us how to live and what God wanted - and at no point did he say "that means keeping the whole OT law and every rule written in Leviticus".

Mosaic Law is God's instructions for how to walk in His ways, so the reason that He gave it was not in order to teach the nations about who the Israelites are, but rather it was given to equip the Israelites to be a light and a blessing to the nations through teaching the nations about who God is. So it was never about US, but about God, and we serve the same God with the same ways and the same instructions for how to walk in His ways. Jesus was born under the law (Galatians 4:4), so he was obligated to obey it, and he was sinless, so he never broke it, which includes every rule written in Leviticus.

No, he didn't sin.
But he DID touch a woman who was bleeding, and lepers, and people who were dead - Leviticus says that anyone who does this is unclean and certain rituals should be followed before they were clean again.
No one made Jesus unclean; he made people clean. But according to the hygiene laws in Leviticus, he should not have done that.

Those actions were never in violation of God's law. There is nothing in Leviticus that says that he shouldn't have done that, just that those who do that become unclean.

Sin existed long before the Mosaic law and is much wider than disobedience to that law.
Adam, Eve and the people of Noah's day did not have the Mosaic law.

Sin was in the world before the law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became sinful when the law was given, but rather the law revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. There are many examples of the Mosaic laws being followed in Genesis prior to Sinai.

Where did Jesus teach those things?
They're not even written into the 10 commandments.

For example, in Leviticus 19:17, we are instructed not to hate our brother, which is something Jesus taught.

Yes, It WAS, for those people at that time.
Jesus didn't teach it.

Supposing God spoke to me and said, "If you are serious about following me you need to give up this hobby/sweet foods/using that language etc etc"?
That would absolutely be God's word, given to me by God's Spirit. That would be instruction, by the Lord, about how I should put him first and remove unhealthy things from my life.
Would that mean you have to do that too? No; you might not eat any sweet foods. You may not have the same hobby as me and any that you do have might be done in moderation so that they don't take over your life.
One Christian may struggle with inappropriate content and be told to give it up. Another may be addicted to church meetings, church traditions or following church rules - which would seem to be good, but these things can get in the way and take first place in someone's life so that they, and not God, become more important. If God tells such a person to give them up, not to do x, or take up y, it doesn't mean that all Christians have to do that whether they have the problem or not. If someone doesn't struggle with inappropriate content they can't give it up - even though God has spoken and commanded someone else to do so.

So just because he said those things to the Israelites, it doesn't mean that hundreds of years later, after Jesus has come and taught us how to live for God, we have to obey all the things that God once said to other people.

How can God be the same yesterday, today, and forever, yet the way to live for God not be the same yesterday, today, and forever? God is not a respecter of persons, so what He has done for one person, He will do for someone else in the same situation, so we can look at the actions that God has taken as precedent for the actions that God will take.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,887
7,988
NW England
✟1,052,143.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
(CLV) Hb 8:10
"For this is the covenant which I shall be covenanting with the house of Israel after those days," the Lord is saying: "Imparting My laws to their comprehension, On their hearts, also, shall I be inscribing them, And I shall be to them for a God, And they shall be to Me for a people.

And?

Israel were always God's people; saved from Egypt and given his word. God's people, entered into a covenant with God, were looking forward to the Kingdom of God and the day of the Lord when they would be recognised, and rewarded, as God's own people.
Yet they were unable to keep God's law and repeatedly broke the Covenant God had made with them.

God didn't abandon them; salvation is from the Jews because Jesus was a Jew. God didn't go and choose another nation; he kept the covenant he made with David that his descendants would be always be on the throne. Jesus, a descendant of David, is Messiah and King.

When Jesus came, he brought in the Kingdom of God. He showed people what it would look like when God was given his rightful place as King. He made it possible for all to be reconciled to God - Gentiles too - and become his children. All who accept Jesus receive eternal life and are told to live in him and work for his Kingdom. We are now his children - belonging to God is about accepting Jesus, John 1:12, 1 Peter 2:9-10.

This does not mean that God says, "right, now that you are my people, you have to obey all the laws that I first gave to my people in the wilderness - laws which they were unable to keep and repeatedly broke."
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,887
7,988
NW England
✟1,052,143.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And? These verses don't mention the law.

This one does:

(CLV) Lk 16:17
Yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass by than for one serif of the law to fall.

The law hasn't fallen or disappeared - but we are not under it.
The New Covenant is based on, and was sealed by, Jesus. Anyone who rejects Jesus as the Messiah and lives under the Old Covenant still has the law and is free to keep it.
But those who reject Jesus will not receive eternal life, be in the Kingdom of God or become God's children, John 1:12, Romans 8:16-17. Jews who don't accept Jesus and who believe they will be rewarded because they are God's people, will find that they are not safe - because they rejected his Messiah. Same as everyone else in the world; Jesus is the giver of eternal life and the only way to the Father. The most devout Jew in history who keeps every stroke of the law will not have eternal life and be at the wedding feast of the Lamb, if he rejects the Messiah.
 
Upvote 0

RickReads

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2020
3,433
1,068
59
richmond
✟64,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
A good example of the letter of the law passing. The authority of the Levite priesthood was not transferred as such. The Levite priesthood was a mere shadow priesthood, a reflection of the Divine Priesthood of Jesus.

The law and the temple are merely earthly shadows.

Hebrews 7:24
But Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently.

Jesus was not born a descendant of Aaron.

Melchizedek was the shadow priesthood of the Christ.

It looks like Hark and I both believe in a earthly kingdom of Christ before eternity begins. Jeremiah 33 and Ezekiel 44 are both unfulfilled glimpses of Israel during that time. The Levites will play a diminished ceremonial role in Jerusalem, possibly within the borders of all Israel as servants and caretakers of synagogues, One Levite family is chosen to speak the decrees of Jesus and make the ceremonial sacrifices.

It is a hairsplit to say this is a continuation of the Levite Priesthood but it`s probably Hark`s only means to make the claim.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,887
7,988
NW England
✟1,052,143.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Refraining from mixing wool and linen, from marring the corners of our beard, and the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath are laws that God has given. .

So you keep them then?
You don't wear jumpers/scarves/socks that are mixtures of polyester and cotton, or viscose/wool or any other combination?
How many people have you stoned to death for not keeping the Sabbath?

The fact that God considers breaking the Sabbath to be worthy of the death penalty and the fact that Jesus gave himself to pay that penalty should lead you to want to keep the Sabbath holy.

Keeping the Sabbath and how to keep it is a separate thread - the point is that the Israelites were told to stone anyone who did not keep it. If you insist we follow the same law today, that's what you should do.

Something that is holy is set apart, so the various commands against mixing things are related to and are an expression of God's holiness.

It was how they were to show that they were holy - set apart - for God; yes.
WE are made Holy by Jesus and the Holy Spirit who lives in us.
As I said before, no one walking down the street would say to us "your coat is a mixture of wool and nylon; you are dishonouring God and besmirching his holiness." What speaks to people of God is our changed lives, new hearts and transformed habits and values. Clothes are just outer things. Holiness comes from within; from the Spirit who is in us.

God could have given any number of laws, so either the laws that God has given are completely arbitrary, or there is a reason why God chose to give the laws that He did

God knew exactly why he was giving those laws to those people - and he knows exactly what laws he has given to us, too.

Many of God's laws straightforwardly obvious why God commanded them and are clearly derived from the principle of loving our neighbor as ourselves (mishpatim), how other laws are not straightforwardly obvious why God commanded them, like not plowing an ox and a donkey together or against wearing clothing mixed with wool and linen (chukim). No explanation being given for them, so they almost invite us to ponder why they were given, such as with you thinking that some of them are in regard to hygiene, and I think many people have come up with good reasons for them, but ultimately they are at most educated guesses. When we don't understand why God commanded something, then it makes it easy to find excuses not to obey it,

Not exactly.
How do you suggest that people in busy cities plough their fields at all; never mind not mixing oxen and donkeys?
How do you suggest that people show respect to their slaves in countries where slavery has been abolished? (Not, employees are not the same as the slaves that they had in the Bible.)

or to obey simply because it was commanded by God.

It wasn't commanded by God for us or given to us.

Israel is God's people, so decide whether on not you want to be included because the New Covenant was only made the house of Judah and the house Israel (Jeremiah 31:33), and Jesus only came for the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24).

So in which Israel am I included? The Israel of Solomon's day? The Israel made up of 10 of the tribes after the country split, or the two tribes, which included Jerusalem and the temple?
Am I part of the Israel who were sent into exile for their repeated disobedience and breaking of the covenant - 10 of the tribes being wiped out by the Assyrians, and the rest being taken captive into Babylon, where some of them died? Am I part of the Israel that returned from Babylon, rebuilt Jerusalem and the temple, and centuries later were occupied and taken over by the Romans?

I am a child of God; one of God's people through Jesus. Jesus died for everyone and gave eternal life to all who came to, and received, him.

The Mosaic Law is the way (Jeremiah 6:16-19), the truth (Psalms 119:29), and the life (Deuteronomy 32:47),

So you think the Mosaic law is at least equal to Jesus, who said that he is all those things and the ONLY Way to the Father?

Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he is the the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).

No, Jesus is the Way to God because he IS God, and came to earth as fully God and fully man, to reconcile us to the Father.
Jesus was conceived by, and filled with, the Spirit of truth.
Jesus came to give us life, John 10:10 and is the only one who can give eternal life.

Jesus did not teach that faith, eternal life nor salvation would be given by keeping the Mosaic law.

Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he would have still taught full obedience to it by example even if he had said nothing,

No, if Jesus had wanted everyone to obey the Mosaic law he would have said so, told them to follow his perfect example and made it very clear that that was what he was doing.
He would not have touched unclean people, women who were bleeding or dead people, because the laws in Leviticus say not to. He wouldn't have healed on the Sabbath, nor allowed his disciples to walk through a cornfield, picking and threshing the grain. He would have insisted on following the handwashing laws and told everyone else to do so too. He would have insisted that the law be obeyed to the letter and the woman caught in adultery be stoned to death.
He did not.
He never sinned but he either did, or did not, do the above. If he had kept the Mosaic law perfectly, the Pharisees would have loved him and not opposed him, and the lawyers would have had nothing to complain about.

Furthermore, to tell someone to repent from their sin is tell them to obey the Mosaic Law.

No, that's your interpretation of repentance.
I doubt very much that anyone who has heard the Gospel today and understood they are sinners has said "yay; now I am a child of God and free I have to put myself under slavery to the law." I doubt that most hear about the OT laws until they have been Christians for a while.

In Matthew 11:28, Jesus invited people to learn from him, not refuse to learn from what he taught by word and by example.

He never taught obedience to the law.
You have not yet come up with one verse where Jesus says "follow me and obey the OT law."

In order to testify about God's holiness. Treating things are being holy is an expression of the character trait of holiness.

Being filled daily with his Holy Spirit is a expression of God's holiness.
Putting God first, Matthew 6:33 and following Jesus is an expression of God's holiness - not wearing an M&S coat which you later find is made from more than one fabric. And no one has ever looked at my plate of steak and chips in a restaurant and said "God is holy; I see it by your example - you have no pork."

Mosaic Law is God's instructions for how to walk in His ways,

For the Israelites who were living among pagan nations, who believed in more than one god and had different, and possibly debauched, lifestyles.
They were to be different - sat apart for, and dedicated to, one God, and keep his word to them.
These are not his word to us.
Jesus is THE Word; God's final Word on salvation and holiness.

Those actions were never in violation of God's law. There is nothing in Leviticus that says that he shouldn't have done that, just that those who do that become unclean.

And if they were unclean they could not come to God nor touch others until they were clean.
Besides, God told them not to do them, so if they did, they disobeyed his law.

There are many examples of the Mosaic laws being followed in Genesis prior to Sinai.

For example, in Leviticus 19:17, we are instructed not to hate our brother, which is something Jesus taught.

That's obviously not an example of the Mosaic law being followed in Genesis, then.

How can God be the same yesterday, today, and forever, yet the way to live for God not be the same yesterday, today, and forever?

Easily.
God works in different ways, says different things to people and people/nations have different customs.

For example, when Abraham, Isaac and Jacob met with God they set up a stone, or maybe built an altar to mark the spot where God had met with, and spoke to, them. We are not told that they had to go back to this stone, or to a special place, to meet with God.
In Moses' day if anyone wanted to meet with God they went to the tabernacle, spoke to a priest or asked Moses to ask God for them. God instructed Moses to build the Tabernacle and gave very detailed instructions for it and its furnishings. The Tabernacle included the ark of the Covenant.
Many years later, God told David that his son would build him a temple, and Solomon did. We hear nothing of the tabernacle - that God had once commanded to be built - after this point.
Many years later still, the Israelites were taken into exile in Babylon and the temple, that God had commanded to be built, was destroyed by pagans. In exile, the Israelites built synagogues, and they still have them today.
They rebuilt the temple, God's house, which was condemned by Jesus and destroyed by more pagans in AD 70. It has never been rebuilt. At the crucifixion the curtain of the temple - the bit that prevented anyone but a high priest from entering the Holy of Holies, was torn in two from top to bottom. Whereas only a high priest, specially chosen and consecrated, could once enter God's presence, now we all can.
The early church taught that WE are God's temple - that his Holy Spirit can live in us.

In the OT people could only speak to God through prophets; now we can all speak to God directly.
In the OT people were told to offer sacrifices when they sinned against God; now we are forgiven through Jesus, the Lamb of God.
In the OT certain people only received God's Holy Spirit, and then only for a shirt time, or a special task - e.g if they were anointed as kings. Now we are told to be filled with the Holy Spirt daily.

So God hasn't changed - but the way that people approach him, find forgiveness, pray to him and worship him, has.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,887
7,988
NW England
✟1,052,143.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
(Continued.)

In the NT Jesus washed his disciples feet and said that he had set them an example to follow. In those day, people walked everywhere, their feet got very dusty and dirty and there was a slave in the house whose job it was to wash the feet of anyone who entered the house. Jesus took the job of that slave.
If someone visits you today do you make them sit down, take off their shoes and socks/tights and wash their feet before they go any further? I doubt it. Today, most people drive rather than walk, and even if they don't, they wear shoes and socks/tights and their actual feet are kept clean. You would probably take your visitors coats, show them to a comfy chair and pour them a drink or make them a cuppa. You might cook a meal for them and wash up afterwards.
So the way in which people obey that teaching of Jesus and "live for God" has changed. We know what Jesus is saying; we are to serve others and in fact do the lowly, menial tasks that no one else will do, or maybe notice. But the actual way in which we serve others has changed - and will continue to change because "serving" means different things to different people. Does this mean that we can only "live for God" if we accost female visitors, drag off their tights and plunge their feet into hot, soapy water? Of course not.

In his epistle, Peter tells us to greet one another with a holy kiss. You may well kiss people on the cheek when you meet them, but not all countries do this - the Japanese bow, eskimos rub noses and others shake hands. Does this mean that we are not living for God if we do not follow this teaching? Of course not.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The word is "transferred," not "changed." The High Priesthood was transferred.

The Levitical Priesthood is eternal.


(CLV) Num 25:11
Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, reversed My fury from on the sons of Israel in his zeal- for My jealousy in their midst so I did not finish the sons of Israel in My jealousy.

(CLV) Num 25:12
Therefore say: Behold Me giving to him My covenant of peace;

(CLV) Num 25:13
it will be his and his seed's after him, the covenant of an eonian priesthood, inasmuch as he was zealous for his Elohim and made a propitiatory shelter over the sons of Israel.

(CLV) Jer 33:19
The word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah, saying-,

(CLV) Jer 33:20
Thus says Yahweh: If you could annul My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night so that daytime and night fail to come about in their proper time,

(CLV) Jer 33:21
then also My covenant could be annulled with David My servant, so that he should not come to have a son reigning on his throne, and that with the Levites, the priests, My ministers.

The word is "changed," not "transferred."

Hebrews 7:11-13, " 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? For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar.

The Bible says what it says; the meaning is clear. The Levitical priesthood was valid under the Old Covenant only.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Strong in Him
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,887
7,988
NW England
✟1,052,143.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The word is "changed," not "transferred."

Hebrews 7:11-13, " 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? For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar.

The Bible says what it says; the meaning is clear. The Levitical priesthood was valid under the Old Covenant only.

:oldthumbsup:
And Jesus is our great high priest in the order of Melchizedek, not Levi.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,273
8,140
US
✟1,098,392.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
The word is "changed," not "transferred."

Hebrews 7:11-13, " 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? For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar.

The Bible says what it says; the meaning is clear.

Let us look at a literal translation.


(CLV) Hb 7:12
For, the priesthood being transferred, of necessity there is coming to be a transference of law also,

μετατιθεμενης
G3346

Strong's
to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other)
  1. to transfer
Thayer's Greek Lexicon

μετατίθημι; 1 aorist μετέθηκα; present middle μετατίθεμαι: 1 aorist passive μετετεθην; to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other (see μετά, III. 2)); i. e.,
1. to transfer: τινα followed by εἰς; with the accusative of place, passive, Acts 7:16; without mention of the place, it being well known to the readers, Hebrews 11:5 (Genesis 5:24; Sir. 44:16, cf. Wis. 4:10).

Google translate:

Modern Greek

Shifted

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=μετατιθεμενης

shift
verb
move

[intransitive, transitive] to move, or move something, from one position or place to another
    • Lydia shifted uncomfortably in her chair.
    • I shifted uneasily under his gaze.
    • shift from somebody/something to somebody/something The action of the novel shifts from Paris to London.
    • shift to somebody/something The main hub of America's dairy industry is shifting to New Mexico and Idaho.
    • shift something Could you help me shift some furniture?
    • Julie shifted her position slightly and smiled.
    • shift something from somebody/something to somebody/something He shifted his gaze from the child to her.
    • She shifted her weight from one foot to the other.
    • shift something to something More Japanese manufacturers are shifting production to China.

shift_2 verb - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,273
8,140
US
✟1,098,392.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
:oldthumbsup:
And Jesus is our great high priest in the order of Melchizedek, not Levi.

The High Priest does not serve the many functions of the Priesthoods as a whole. If we study scripture we will find that those functions are quite diverse; and in my opinion (it would seem YHWH's too) some of those functions were not suitable for the High Priest.

(CLV) Num 19:2
This is the statute of the law which Yahweh has instructed, saying, Speak to the sons of Israel that they should take for you a red, flawless young cow in which there is no blemish, on which not yoke has gone up.

(CLV) Num 19:3
You will give her to Eleazar the priest, and he will bring her forth to outside the camp, and one will slay her before him.

(CLV) Num 19:4
Eleazar the priest will take some of her blood on his finger and spatter some of her blood seven times ahead toward the face of the tent of appointment.

(CLV) Num 19:5
Then one will burn the young cow before his eyes, her hide and her flesh and her blood. Over her dung shall one burn her.
 
Upvote 0

HIM

Friend
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2018
3,980
1,747
58
Alabama
Visit site
✟375,525.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The word is "transferred," not "changed." The High Priesthood was transferred.

The Levitical Priesthood is eternal.

Only eternal in the Christ

What references are using in respect to your claim about μετετεθην?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HIM

Friend
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2018
3,980
1,747
58
Alabama
Visit site
✟375,525.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The High Priest does not serve the many functions of the Priesthoods as a whole. If we study scripture we will find that those functions are quite diverse; and in my opinion (it would seem YHWH's too) some of those functions were not suitable for the High Priest.
It is the entire Priesthood in which has been fulfilled in Christ. No more Temple needed. We are the Temple. The Priesthood is all whom call on Christ. Yahshua being the High Priest and Chief CornerStone.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Strong in Him
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
55,273
8,140
US
✟1,098,392.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
It is the entire Priesthood in which has been fulfilled in Christ. No more Temple needed. We are the Temple. The Priesthood is all whom call on Christ. Yahshua being the High Priest and Chief CornerStone.


(CLV) Num 25:11
Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, reversed My fury from on the sons of Israel in his zeal- for My jealousy in their midst so I did not finish the sons of Israel in My jealousy.

(CLV) Num 25:12
Therefore say: Behold Me giving to him My covenant of peace;

(CLV) Num 25:13
it will be his and his seed's after him, the covenant of an eonian priesthood, inasmuch as he was zealous for his Elohim and made a propitiatory shelter over the sons of Israel.

(CLV) Jer 33:19
The word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah, saying-,

(CLV) Jer 33:20
Thus says Yahweh: If you could annul My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night so that daytime and night fail to come about in their proper time,

(CLV) Jer 33:21
then also My covenant could be annulled with David My servant, so that he should not come to have a son reigning on his throne, and that with the Levites, the priests, My ministers.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

HIM

Friend
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2018
3,980
1,747
58
Alabama
Visit site
✟375,525.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Let us look at a literal translation.


(CLV) Hb 7:12
For, the priesthood being transferred, of necessity there is coming to be a transference of law also,

μετατιθεμενης
G3346

Strong's
to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other)
  1. to transfer
Thayer's Greek Lexicon

μετατίθημι; 1 aorist μετέθηκα; present middle μετατίθεμαι: 1 aorist passive μετετεθην; to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other (see μετά, III. 2)); i. e.,
1. to transfer: τινα followed by εἰς; with the accusative of place, passive, Acts 7:16; without mention of the place, it being well known to the readers, Hebrews 11:5 (Genesis 5:24; Sir. 44:16, cf. Wis. 4:10).
Why would you post only part of what Thayer entered?


It actually seems Thayer disagrees with you.
μετατίθημι; 1 aorist μετέθηκα; present middle μετατίθεμαι: 1 aorist passive μετετεθην; to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other (see μετά, III. 2)); i.e.,
1. to transfer: τινα followed by εἰς; with the accusative of place, passive, Act 7:16; without mention of the place, it being well known to the readers, Heb 11:5 (Gen 5:24; Sir 44:16, cf. Sap. 4:10).
2. to change (Herodotus 5, 68); passive of an office the mode of conferring which is changed, Heb. 7:12; 71 τί εἰς τί, to turn one thing into another (τινα εἰς πτηνην φύσιν, Anth. 11, 367, 2); figuratively, τήν ... χάριν εἰς ἀσέλγειαν, to pervert the grace of God to license, i.e. to seek from the grace of God an argument in defense of licentiousness, Jud 1:4 (cf. Huther, in the place cited).
3. passive or (more commonly) middle, to transfer oneself or suffer oneself to be transferred, i.e. to go or pass over: ἀπό τίνος εἰς τί, to fall away or desert from one person or thing to another, Gal 1:6 (cf. 2Ma 7:24; Polybius 5, 111, 8; 26, 2, 6; Diodorus 11, 4; (ὁ μεταθεμενος, turncoat, Diogenes Laërtius 7, 166 cf. 37; Athen. 7, 281 d.)).*
 
Upvote 0