Defending devotion to the Saints

[Cappadocious]

PS. since you have nothing from scripture or tradition to support the nonsense about a royal and sacerdotal priesthood in Christianity, please don't spread it.

You don't think Christ is the Heiros?

Why won't you tell us about your house church movement?

 

[Standing Up]

You don't think Christ is the Heiros?

Why won't you tell us about your house church movement?

No idea what you're talking about with a house church movement.

Regardless of what I think about Christ as heiros, you're trying to support your claim that in Christianity there is a royal and sacerdotal priesthood. You havn't done that.

 

[Cappadocious]

No idea what you're talking about with a house church movement.

Regardless of what I think about Christ as heiros, you're trying to support your claim that in Christianity there is a royal and sacerdotal priesthood. You havn't done that.

So what does heiros mean, Standing Up?

When was your house church movement founded? How many asterisks are in the name?

 

[Standing Up]

It should be noted that the Old Testament jews also had a royal priesthood, and this did not disrupt the notion of the sacerdotal priesthood.


Do you understand that the priests of the Christian church are presbyters (from which the word priest comes)? I think you are misusing the word priest because of various english translations.

Where's the royal priesthood and sacerdotal priesthood in the OT Jews of Sinai/Mosaic Law to which you refer?

Still nothing.

 

[Cappadocious]

Still nothing.

I'm not sure how you aren't seeing it.

So what sort of instruments do you fellows play?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Still nothing.

Duly and dully noted. Mr. Cap seems quite defenseless. I had somehow expected more from him other than lame attacks against you.

 

[narnia59]

No idea what you're talking about with a house church movement.

Regardless of what I think about Christ as heiros, you're trying to support your claim that in Christianity there is a royal and sacerdotal priesthood. You havn't done that.

In the OT we have 3 clear types (typologies) of priests:

1) The high priest
2) The Levitical priesthood
3) The priesthood of the nation

The NT types are fulfilled by:

1) Christ, who is the high priest
2) The ministerial, sacramental priesthood of the apostles
3) The priesthood of the believer.

I don't know of anybody who quibbles that Christ is the true high priest and the fulfillment of that OT typology.

It is St. Peter who ties the priesthood of the believer as the fulfillment of the priesthood of the nation when he quotes Exodus 19:5-6 to the church in 1 Peter 2:9 "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." God's people has truly become one of "every tribe and tongue and people and nation" (Rev 5:9).

The sacramental priesthood of the apostles is also foretold in the OT and reflected in the NT. In the OT, we see the prophet Isaiah say in 66:20 -21 "And they shall bring all your brethren from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring their cereal offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD. And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD." Please note that from all of the brothers from all the nations (Gentiles) that come to the holy mountain Jerusalem, SOME of them God will take FOR PRIESTS AND LEVITES. This is a prophecy of the NT sacramental priesthood that is distinct from the priesthood of all believers.

We see St. Paul recognize himself in this ministry in Romans 15:15-16 when he says "But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

While some translations seem to have a natural 'bias' and fail to translate "priestly" correct, check your concorodance. The word is "hierourgeó", which is indeed related to a sacramental priesthood. Strong's defines it as "to perform sacred rites". NAS concordance shows it as a combination of "hieros" (the OT priesthood you're looking for active in the NT) and "ergon" -- to work. Pau is indeed working as the fulfillment of an OT priest (by performing sacred rites), and his role is necessary SO THAT THE OFFERING OF THE GENTILES MAY BE ACCEPTABLE. Just as the Levitical priesthood was in place so that the offerings of the Jews were made acceptable to God.

All 3 types active and working in the OT, and all 3 types fulfilled and active in the NT.

 

[narnia59]

Been away for a few days Zaal; thanks for your replies and hope to answer you back soon.

 

[narnia59]

Ex. 19:5-6 Now therefore, if ye will obey (hear per LXX) my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine:
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

What was the condition to that "kingdom of priests"?

Did they or did they not refuse to hear/obey?

The 'condition' is the same for them becoming the chosen people "a peculiar treasure unto me above all people" as it is to becoming a kingdom of priests.

Moses conveys God's words to them, and they heard, and obeyed. Next two verses:

7 So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD had commanded him. 8 And all the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.

Covenant made -- God spoke, Israel agreed, and Israel becamse God's chosen people and a nation of priests. No matter how many times they defaulted on their agreement to do the things the Lord commanded them, the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).

 

[Standing Up]

Narnia59 to the "rescue"

The 'condition' is the same for them becoming the chosen people "a peculiar treasure unto me above all people" as it is to becoming a kingdom of priests.

Moses conveys God's words to them, and they heard, and obeyed. Next two verses:

7 So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD had commanded him. 8 And all the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.

Covenant made -- God spoke, Israel agreed, and Israel becamse God's chosen people and a nation of priests. No matter how many times they defaulted on their agreement to do the things the Lord commanded them, the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).

Do you really think Israel is the peculiar treasure above all people? Or this:

Mt. 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

[Standing Up]

The 'condition' is the same for them becoming the chosen people "a peculiar treasure unto me above all people" as it is to becoming a kingdom of priests.

Moses conveys God's words to them, and they heard, and obeyed. Next two verses:

7 So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD had commanded him. 8 And all the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.

Covenant made -- God spoke, Israel agreed, and Israel becamse God's chosen people and a nation of priests. No matter how many times they defaulted on their agreement to do the things the Lord commanded them, the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29).

Ex. 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey/hear my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.


Ex. 20:18-19 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw [it], they removed, and stood afar off.
And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.

At that point, they refused condition #1 to the covenant --- hear God. Instead, they asked Moses (and his line) to do their hearing, their priesting. Thus, God told Moses-

Ex. 28:1 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, [even] Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.

At that point, we have the priestly office (Levi) and the other 11 tribes called the children of Israel.

To be clear, they would still try to obey, but they would hear God through the priestly office, rather than as the nation of priests.

 

[Standing Up]

In the OT we have 3 clear types (typologies) of priests:

1) The high priest
2) The Levitical priesthood
3) The priesthood of the nation

The NT types are fulfilled by:

1) Christ, who is the high priest
2) The ministerial, sacramental priesthood of the apostles
3) The priesthood of the believer.

-snip-

The Levitical/Israel type is not the shadow of Christianity. Melchizedek priesthood is.

1) High priest-Christ
2) Priesthood of nation (see Peter, Paul, John)

The reality is that the Melchizedek priesthood was to be what would happen to them after leaving Egypt, but, as already noted above, the people refused to hear God at Sinai; thus God separated out the Levite tribe to be the priests and the rest of them God called the children of Israel.

Christianity is unique of all the religions of the world. We are the priests. There's not some separate clergy/laity classes.

As you ponder these things, please keep firmly in mind that we have come to ZION, not Sinai.

PS. It is obvious, that some groups operate like Sinai. We are set free from bondage in "Egypt", led to the mountain, and then find out it's Sinai. Should not be. We obey/hear God as His priests on earth, having come to Zion.

 

[narnia59]

Ex. 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey/hear my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.


Ex. 20:18-19 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw [it], they removed, and stood afar off.
And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.

At that point, they refused condition #1 to the covenant --- hear God. Instead, they asked Moses (and his line) to do their hearing, their priesting. Thus, God told Moses-

Ex. 28:1 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, [even] Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.

At that point, we have the priestly office (Levi) and the other 11 tribes called the children of Israel.

To be clear, they would still try to obey, but they would hear God through the priestly office, rather than as the nation of priests.

The Israelites did not hear God through the priestly office; they hear him through the prophets (who may be Levites but not necessarily). Read Luke's account of Lazarus and the rich man. When the rich man wants Lazarus to go to his father's house to warn his brothers, Lazarus doesn't tell him they can listen to the priests. He tells him that "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them."

The purpose of the priestly office is not to hear God and communicate that to the people. Its purpose is to offer sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Moses is not acting as a 'priest' by hearing God for the people. That is why Joshua (who is neither priest nor Levite) is the successor of Moses.

I've asked you before to provide any Scripture that shows God revokes the priesthood of the nation and indicates that he's establishing the Levitical priesthood in place of it. You haven't provided one because he never says that. He never revokes the priesthood of the nation. He never indicates his establishment of the Levitical priesthood is in place of the priesthood of the nation, instead of coinciding alongside it, each with its own purpose.

But do you also contend that God also revokes the promise that they are his chosen people? I find it interesting that you insist that they disobeyed so the promise is revoked that they are a nation of priests (as though God's gift could be revoked) but ignore the fact that the promise was twofold -- a people of his own, and a nation of priests. Does God revoke both promises in your view? The Israelites fail to obey so God at Sinai rejects them as his chosen people?

The other failure of your theory is that the purpose of God bringing the people to Sinai was never to speak directly to the people instead of communicating through Moses. It was so that when God spoke to Moses and Moses told the people, they would believe that he was speaking for God. Right after the Israelites agree to the covenant with God, he tells Moses in Exodus 19:9 "And the LORD said to Moses, "Lo, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you for ever."

They don't come to Sinai for God to speak directly to them. They come to Sinai to hear God speak to Moses. When they get to Sinai God does not summon all of them to the top to talk to them. He summons Moses to the top to speak to him (vs. 20). God warns him that the people are not to come up. This is not about no more using Moses as a go-between in God's view. It's about establishing Moses as his legitimate spokesman to the Israelites. And when the people hear the thundering of God, they are most willing to see things God's way -- Moses is going to speak to them for him.

The Israelites are not disobedient to God. You've rewritten the whole story to be that God's intention was to speak directly to them but they're afraid so he revokes their priesthood and goes back to using Moses. Sorry, but that's not what happens. His intention is to let them hear him speak to Moses (through the mighty thunder), so that they believe Moses when he tells them what God has said. Which has nothing to do with either the Levitical priesthood he is about to establish OR his covenant with the the Israelites to be his chosen people and a kingdom of priests.

 

[narnia59]

The Levitical/Israel type is not the shadow of Christianity. Melchizedek priesthood is.

1) High priest-Christ
2) Priesthood of nation (see Peter, Paul, John)

Melchizedek is a shadow of the high priest, Christ. The one who offers bread and wine.

The priesthood of the believer is the fulfillment of the priesthood of the nation. That's why Peter quotes Exodus to the church.

The Levitical priesthood, where the ministerial priesthood offers sacrifice on behalf of the church is indeed fulfilled in Christianity, as noted by St. Paul in Romans 15.

The reality is that the Melchizedek priesthood was to be what would happen to them after leaving Egypt, but, as already noted above, the people refused to hear God at Sinai; thus God separated out the Levite tribe to be the priests and the rest of them God called the children of Israel.

Read above. God's purpose at Sinai was never to speak directly to the people, and it had nothing to do with his covenant with them to be a kingdom of priests. The role of the Levitical priesthood was never to hear God for the people -- that belonged to Moses and the prophets.

Christianity is unique of all the religions of the world. We are the priests. There's not some separate clergy/laity classes.

We are indeed a kingdom of priests. That does not exclude a ministerial priesthood who conducts sacred rites and offers sacrifice on behalf of the people. Romans 15. St. Paul's priestly ministry so that the offering of the Gentiles is acceptable.

As you ponder these things, please keep firmly in mind that we have come to ZION, not Sinai.

PS. It is obvious, that some groups operate like Sinai. We are set free from bondage in "Egypt", led to the mountain, and then find out it's Sinai. Should not be. We obey/hear God as His priests on earth, having come to Zion.

We have indeed come to the new Jerusalem. Sinai was but a shadow (Hebrews 12). Let's remember that there, Isaiah says that God will take some of the Gentiles to be priests and Levites, i.e. the ministerial priesthood alongside the priesthood of believers.

 

[narnia59]

I haven't failed to show it because there has never been any need to try and teach against something that was never an excepted practice in the history of Scripture or the Jewish community.



I understand that....they are painted with broad brush strokes, which is why the whole Law can be summed up in loving G-d with your whole being and loving your neighbour like yourself.




Yep, I know that.

According to Jewish sources, the seeking of the intercession of Rachel has been an accepted practice in the Jewish community since the time Joseph was sold into slavery. This is why I find it quite telling that neither Christ nor the apostles condemn the practice and Matthew tacitly approves it when he quote Jeremiah at the killing of the innocents.

I have never claimed that silence on the subject is the only reason for not seeking help from departed Believers and the Heavenly Host...the Bible is actually rather specific indetainling what is and what isn't acceptable prractice concerning these things.

1. John 14:6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

This goes beyond initial salvation and Jesus being the 'only way'...but is also true in every aspect of the way we approach the Father...you don't do so through Saints, Mary or Angels, only through Jesus.

2. Our Father who art in Heaven....we only go to G-d in Heaven, nobody else...Jesus was emphatic in the way this was taught.

3. The instructions for the Tabernacle and Temple were very specific, everything had to be done in accordance with what G-d revealed...now Jesus is our High-Priest in the Heavenly Tabernacle, and we can approach Him boldly and make our petitions known to Him. The Israelites couldn't go behind the backs of the levitical priesthood and try to access G-d on their own terms....similarly G-d has given us His Son...no one else, through whom we can have access to the throne.

Nobody goes through the saints, Mary or the angels to approach the Father. We too know we can approach the throne of grace boldly and do. Trying to claim these things is simply not correct.

Jesus does teach us directly to go to God. And we do (ever read the prayers of the Mass)? But he does not teach us that it's inapproriate to seek the intercession of others, whether they are on heaven or on earth.

 

[narnia59]

It is blatantly obvious from the context...He is specifically talking to the living members of the Corinthian congregation.

He is talking to the living members of the Corinthian congregation about the ONE body of Christ, which elsewhere he identifies as consisting of those in heaven and those on earth.

You're not proposing that text is limited to mean the Corinthian congregation is the body of Christ, are you?

Agreed.



Good point.



Never thought of it quite like that....I get your point.



Ok I see this possibility.




Do you think a Believer departs this life to enter sorrows in Heaven because of the state of the world...do you think this is indicated as part of the inheritance in Heaven, leaving a physical world of pain and sorrows, to then enter a Heaven full of pain and sorrow because of mans sinfulness? Is there any indication of such a thing?

Rev 21:1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

As I indicated earlier, Christians tend to take the promises made to all Christians at the end of time, and apply them to individual Christians at the time of their death. Which is precisely what you've done here. God promises that at the end of time, at the creation of the new heaven and new earth that he will wipe away all tears and there will be no more crying or pain. These things pass away at the end of time, per Scripture. Not when we die.

I also said earlier we know only a few but certain things about heaven. No sin in heaven. So we are no longer living in a sinful world, full of sorrow and suffering. How wonderful that will be!

But Scripture does not tell us that those in heaven will not be aware that there are still members of the body of Christ who are living in a sinful, suffering world. In fact, there are indications they are.

So there is no suffering in heaven. That does not mean those in heaven are tricked into a belief there is not suffering elsewhere. That would not be the truth, and to be joined and united to Christ must be, above all things, truth. And his cares must be our cares, whether we're in heaven, or here on earth.

 

[Standing Up]

Melchizedek is a shadow of the high priest, Christ. The one who offers bread and wine.

The priesthood of the believer is the fulfillment of the priesthood of the nation. That's why Peter quotes Exodus to the church.

The Levitical priesthood, where the ministerial priesthood offers sacrifice on behalf of the church is indeed fulfilled in Christianity, as noted by St. Paul in Romans 15.

You're mixing Sinai with Christianity. There's two separate different priesthoods. Sinai-Levi OR Zion-Melchizedek.

Peter isn't quoting Exodus. Paul isn't suggesting a Levitical priesthood offering up Gentiles. It's Christ who makes believers "set apart", sanctified as priests. It's what happens, part of the definition of Christian.

Read above. God's purpose at Sinai was never to speak directly to the people, and it had nothing to do with his covenant with them to be a kingdom of priests. The role of the Levitical priesthood was never to hear God for the people -- that belonged to Moses and the prophets.

They refused to hear, thus God set apart the Levites.

We are indeed a kingdom of priests. That does not exclude a ministerial priesthood who conducts sacred rites and offers sacrifice on behalf of the people. Romans 15. St. Paul's priestly ministry so that the offering of the Gentiles is acceptable.



We have indeed come to the new Jerusalem. Sinai was but a shadow (Hebrews 12). Let's remember that there, Isaiah says that God will take some of the Gentiles to be priests and Levites, i.e. the ministerial priesthood alongside the priesthood of believers.

Sinai is not the shadow, not the model. They are two separate unique covenants. No mixing allowed.

"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. ... So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. "

"For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which [voice] they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: ... But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, "

Two separate things. Take your pick between them: Sinai or Zion.

"Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, ..."

 

[narnia59]

You're mixing Sinai with Christianity. There's two separate different priesthoods. Sinai-Levi OR Zion-Melchizedek.

Peter isn't quoting Exodus. Paul isn't suggesting a Levitical priesthood offering up Gentiles. It's Christ who makes believers "set apart", sanctified as priests. It's what happens, part of the definition of Christian.

Hmm, notes on 1 Peter 2:9
They were a kingdom over which he presided, and they were all priests; so that it might be said they were a kingdom of priests - a kingdom in which all the subjects were engaged in offering sacrifice to God. The expression appears to be taken from Exodus 19:6 - "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests" - and is such language as one who had been educated as a Jew would be likely to employ to set forth the dignity of those whom he regarded as the people of God.
Barnes

The Israelites were a chosen or elected race, to be a special people unto the Lord their God, above all people that were upon the face of the earth, Deuteronomy 7:6.
They were also a royal priesthood, or what Moses calls a kingdom of priests, Exodus 19:6. For all were called to sacrifice to God; and he is represented to be the King of that people, and Father of those of whom he was king; therefore they were all royal.
They were a holy nation, Exodus 19:6; for they were separated from all the people of the earth, that they might worship the one only true God, and abstain from the abominations that were in the heathen world.
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

a royal priesthood; referring to Exodus 19:6, where the Israelites are called a "kingdom of priests";
Gill's Exposition

A royal priesthood. See Ex 19:6. The Hebrew passage which Peter refers to means a kingdom of priests. Either this is its meaning, or that all in it, anointed ones like Christ, are in some sense like him, priest-kings.
People's New Testament

And my John MacArthur study Bible (which is the only one I don't have to get up to go get) -- guess what, points 1 Peter 2:9 back to Exodus 19:6 which says that is where the concept of a kingly priesthood comes from.

Tell me, how many Bibles do you have and of them, how many reference 1 Peter 2:9 back to Exodus 19:6?

And I'm not sure what you think Paul is suggesting by stating that his priestly (hierourgeó -- to perform sacred rites) is necessary so that the offering of the Gentiles is acceptable. Sounds pretty much like a fulfillment of the Levitcal priesthood to me.

They refused to hear, thus God set apart the Levites.

You can't make this stuff up.

Once again, the purpose of God bringing them to Sinai was for them to hear God speak to Moses so they would believe and listen to him, NOT for God to talk to them. Exodus 19:9 And the LORD said to Moses, "Lo, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you for ever."

READ IT. The people were supposed to hear when God talked to Moses. Nothing about he was coming to talk to them.

VS 20 -- the LORD called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up.

READ IT. Only Moses was called to go up for God to speak to.

VS 21 -- And the LORD said to Moses, "Go down and warn the people, lest they break through to the LORD to gaze and many of them perish.

READ IT. Moses could come up. The people could not -- or they would die.

Then God gives Moses the ten commandments. The people heard him talking to Moses with a voice of thunder:

Now when all the people perceived the thunderings and the lightnings and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid and trembled; and they stood afar off, 19 and said to Moses, "You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die."

Which is exactly the point God was making -- they should listen to and believe Moses when he tells them what God says. Does Moses tell them -- oh no, God wants to talk to you too! Come talk to God or he'll revoke your priesthood? No, he says to them:

20 And Moses said to the people, "Do not fear; for God has come to prove you, and that the fear of him may be before your eyes, that you may not sin."

God did not come to talk to them -- he came to prove himself to them by letting them hear him speak to Moses. They were supposed to experience 'the fear of him' before their eyes.

21 And the people stood afar off, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was. 22 And the LORD said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the people of Israel: 'You have seen for yourselves that I have talked with you from heaven.

So the people stood far off. And God says tell them now they've seen for themselves that I have talked to you from heaven. Mission accomplished as stated in the beginning -- "Lo, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you for ever." The people have heard God speak to Moses, and will believe Moses when he speaks for God. This was the purpose, it was accomplished.

It is really quite shameless to try to turn that into 1) God actually meant to talk directly to the people, even though that's in direct contradiction to what God said about speaking directly to Moses, 2) The people were disobedient when they are merely frightened by the sights and sounds AND get the point -- God is speaking to us through Moses -- believe him 3) God tells Moses that okay, now you can tell them they've seen for themselves, and you turn that into God says "you are no longer my chosen people or a kingdom of priests" and 4) God replaces them with the Levites, when God NEVER says that at all, to the people, to Moses, or to the Levites.

You can try to morph, rewrite, bend, twist or whatever to the story all you want, but anybody that takes the time to read it, isn't going to buy it. God does not revoke his covenant with Israel to be his chosen people and a nation of priests. The Levitical priesthood is established to offer sacrifice on behalf of the people, not as a replacement for Israel being a nation of priests.

Sinai is not the shadow, not the model. They are two separate unique covenants. No mixing allowed.

"Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. ... So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. "

"For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which [voice] they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: ... But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, "

Two separate things. Take your pick between them: Sinai or Zion.

"Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, ..."

Sinai is the shadow. Shadows are an outline; not drastically different -- waiting to be 'filled in'.

3 OT shadows, fulfilled in 3 NT priesthoods.

1) the high priest -- fulfilled in the NT by Christ, the one and only priest like Melchizedech and high priest
2) the Levitical priesthood -- fulfilled by the ministerial priesthood -- Isaiah -- at the New Jerusalem I will take SOME OF THE GENTILES FOR PRIEST AND LEVITES and fulfilled in the ministry of the apostles
3) The priesthood of the nation -- fulfilled by the priesthood of believers

Between Sinai/New Jerusalem -- no contest -- I choose New Jerusalem in ALL its fulness and fulfillment, with ALL its fulfilled types of priesthood.

Wondering what would have happened to the Romans if they'd told St. Paul -- nope, we don't need your 'priestly' service.

 

[narnia59]

Narnia59 to the "rescue"



Do you really think Israel is the peculiar treasure above all people? Or this:

Mt. 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Hmm, missed this one. Yes, God said it, and I believe it.

Of course, when they reject Christ, they are broken off from the root. Only a remnant actually become believers. THIS is the point in time when the kingdom is taken from them -- note when Jesus says your verse from Matthew, THEY STILL HAVE IT. And the Gentiles are grafted in. Hence, the church becomes the chosen generation, royal priesthood, holy nation, and a 'peculiar' people to God -- the fulfillment of God calling Israel to be his chosen people and a royal priesthood.

Regardless, I would point out that St. Paul reminds us that this is for our sake, and a mystery, and we are not to boast over the natural branches. For just as God broke them off, he may also do to us. And that the gifts and calling of God are IRREVOCABLE.

All Romans Chapter 11.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-



Sinai is the shadow. Shadows are an outline; not drastically different -- waiting to be 'filled in'.

3 OT shadows, fulfilled in 3 NT priesthoods.

1) the high priest -- fulfilled in the NT by Christ, the one and only priest like Melchizedech and high priest
2) the Levitical priesthood -- fulfilled by the ministerial priesthood -- Isaiah -- at the New Jerusalem I will take SOME OF THE GENTILES FOR PRIEST AND LEVITES and fulfilled in the ministry of the apostles
3) The priesthood of the nation -- fulfilled by the priesthood of believers

Between Sinai/New Jerusalem -- no contest -- I choose New Jerusalem in ALL its fulness and fulfillment, with ALL its fulfilled types of priesthood.

Wondering what would have happened to the Romans if they'd told St. Paul -- nope, we don't need your 'priestly' service.

Obviously, they didn't ...

Truth is that Sinai is not the shadow of Melchizedek/NT/Christ. Sinai is bondage, per Paul. They fear and tremble at Sinai, asking for Moses/Levi to intercede/hear God for them. Sinai sets God out there as unapproachable, but once a year by the Levitical High Priest.

We, instead, have come to Zion, to Christ.

Zion
High Priest/ Bishop-Christ
Nation of priests-Christians

vs.

Sinai
Levitical High Priest/ Bishop-
Levitical type priests/ Priests-
Non-priests

Until you understand that Christ came from Judah and Judah had nothing to do with Levi, it'll be hard to understand that the way in is wide open.

" Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. "