Defending devotion to the Saints

[Standing Up]

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.

There's a difference between conditional and unconditional covenants. Sinai was conditional.

Remember the one where the "smoking pot" passed through the animals with Abraham? That was all God. Remember where it says in Hebrews it takes two to make a covenant, but God is one?

There's a difference between the New and the Old, besides one was at Zion with a nation of priests and one was at Sinai with a different priest/laity.

 

[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.

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

Again, to clarify the difference and confirm that some religions have maintained the OT Levitical types into the NT.

Per Narnia/RC
OT Levi:
1) HPriest (Aaron's lineage)
2) Priests
3) Priesthood of nation (except no such thing in the OT is ever mentioned)

NT Levi:
1) Christ
2) Ordained Clergy
3) Priesthood of nation (aka laity)

OR

OT Levi:
1) HPriest (order of Aaron)
2) Priests (Levitcal)
3) children of Israel

NT Melchizedek
1) HPriest - Christ
2) Priesthood of nation (aka believers)

The reason for the distinction is this:

Heb 7
"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? "

Two orders. Make a pick.

 

[Thekla]

Again, to clarify the difference and confirm that some religions have maintained the OT Levitical types into the NT.

Per Narnia/RC
OT Levi:
1) HPriest (Aaron's lineage)
2) Priests
3) Priesthood of nation (except no such thing in the OT is ever mentioned)

...

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. Exodus 19:6

 

[narnia59]

There's a difference between conditional and unconditional covenants. Sinai was conditional.

Remember the one where the "smoking pot" passed through the animals with Abraham? That was all God. Remember where it says in Hebrews it takes two to make a covenant, but God is one?

There's a difference between the New and the Old, besides one was at Zion with a nation of priests and one was at Sinai with a different priest/laity.

The covenant at Sinai consisted of both the priesthood of the nation, and the Levitical priesthood.

Both the old and the new covenants are 'conditional' in the sense that while God is constant and faithful (in both), in order to for us to participate and receive the benefits we must meet God's conditions -- faith and obedience.

Hebrews 5 "8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek."

The conditions are the same. God is constant and faithful in both. The difference is the high priest, for in Christ we are strengthened by him. By his grace, and only by his grace we are enabled to meet the terms of the covenant and thereby receive its reward -- eternal life.

 

[narnia59]

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. "

Christ does come from Judah. Nonetheless, the OT high priest (from Levi) is a shadow of the NT high priest (Christ, from Judah). Right down to the tent of the sanctuary used by the Levitical high priest, which is a copy of the one used by Christ in heaven (Hebrews 8). To say that they have "nothing to do with each other" is false.

Until you understand that God called the Israelites to be his own people and a kingdom of priests, and that the gifts and call of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29), you won't get it. God is faithful to the covenants he makes, regardless of whether we are.

As far as going boldly before the throne of grace, I do it quite often.

 

[narnia59]

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. Exodus 19:6

Presenting the facts does not appear to be helpful in the least.

 

[Standing Up]

Christ does come from Judah. Nonetheless, the OT high priest (from Levi) is a shadow of the NT high priest (Christ, from Judah). Right down to the tent of the sanctuary used by the Levitical high priest, which is a copy of the one used by Christ in heaven (Hebrews 8). To say that they have "nothing to do with each other" is false.

Until you understand that God called the Israelites to be his own people and a kingdom of priests, and that the gifts and call of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29), you won't get it. God is faithful to the covenants he makes, regardless of whether we are.

As far as going boldly before the throne of grace, I do it quite often.

Do you think there are two covenants in operation for different people?

There's a difference between Sinai and Zion.

Heb. 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

Aaronic priesthood is over.

Two orders that lead to two widely different views.

Hb. 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

We're miles apart at even beginning to understand each other or even have a conversation about things. Suffice to say that the idea someone presented about two priest types in the 12 tribes hasn't been shown. There was Levi (priests) and the others were the children of Israel.

 

[narnia59]

Do you think there are two covenants in operation for different people?

There's a difference between Sinai and Zion.

Heb. 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

Aaronic priesthood is over.

Two orders that lead to two widely different views.

Hb. 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

We're miles apart at even beginning to understand each other or even have a conversation about things. Suffice to say that the idea someone presented about two priest types in the 12 tribes hasn't been shown. There was Levi (priests) and the others were the children of Israel.

I'm not sure what more 'showing' you want than God making a covenant with all of Israel they were his chosen people and a kingdom of priests. THE GIFTS AND CALL OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE. Romans 11:29

The Levitical priesthood is not over any more than the 'law' is. Jesus did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it (Matt 5:17). So no, there are not two covenants in operations -- the old has been fulfilled in the new.

So, best to look at the typologies of the old covenant and how they're fulfilled in the new. ALL of them.

Also best not to ignore Isaiah when he notes that in the New Jerusalem, where people will come from all the nations, God would take SOME of those who come to be priests and Levites. Clearly a prophecy of the fulfillment of the Levitical priesthood in the New Jerusalem which is separate from the priesthood of all believers.

 

[Standing Up]

I'm not sure what more 'showing' you want than God making a covenant with all of Israel they were his chosen people and a kingdom of priests. THE GIFTS AND CALL OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE. Romans 11:29

The Levitical priesthood is not over any more than the 'law' is. Jesus did not come to abolish the law but fulfill it (Matt 5:17). So no, there are not two covenants in operations -- the old has been fulfilled in the new.

That's not to say He uses the same operation. There's one method (Christ) now. Jesus' calling is irrevocable. God swore an oath , which is something He never did with Aaronic priesthood (Heb. 7:21).

Frankly, this is so basic, I can't hardly believe you don't know this. I'm sure that sounds "stupid" on my part, but it's just amazing to me.

Deut 10:8 At that time [at Sinai] the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day.

There's no such thing as the other 11 tribes being priests. To enter the holy place would have invited stoning. Only Levi descendants tended the altars.

Why did God separate Levi? Because the others refused to hear, feared the fire (of Pentecost).

Believers in Christ, however, have not come to Sinai. That is not our model, our order. We have come to Zion. The fire of pentecost burned in their hearts as living witnesses to God's glory. Christ was of Judah, was of the order of Melchizedek. The priesthood has changed. The law has changed. Heb. 7:12. The former covenant is gone v18. It was ineffective v19. He says there will be a new one 8:8. He regarded them/it not v9. The old vanishes v13.

Our order is Melchizedek with Christ the high priest and we the priesthood of believers.

 

[narnia59]

That's not to say He uses the same operation. There's one method (Christ) now. Jesus' calling is irrevocable. God swore an oath , which is something He never did with Aaronic priesthood (Heb. 7:21).

Frankly, this is so basic, I can't hardly believe you don't know this. I'm sure that sounds "stupid" on my part, but it's just amazing to me.

Deut 10:8 At that time [at Sinai] the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day.

There's no such thing as the other 11 tribes being priests. To enter the holy place would have invited stoning. Only Levi descendants tended the altars.

Why did God separate Levi? Because the others refused to hear, feared the fire (of Pentecost).

Believers in Christ, however, have not come to Sinai. That is not our model, our order. We have come to Zion. The fire of pentecost burned in their hearts as living witnesses to God's glory. Christ was of Judah, was of the order of Melchizedek. The priesthood has changed. The law has changed. Heb. 7:12. The former covenant is gone v18. It was ineffective v19. He says there will be a new one 8:8. He regarded them/it not v9. The old vanishes v13.

Our order is Melchizedek with Christ the high priest and we the priesthood of believers.

The only thing that is 'basic' about your view is that it's basically wrong.

When Paul cites that God's gifts and calling are irrevocable in Romans 11, his context is God's covenant with the Jewish forefathers, not the new covenant with Christ.

The other 11 tribes were not Levitical priests. They were the priesthood of the nation. Their role was not to enter the holy place. It was to be a witness to the rest of the nations.

The Israelites did not refuse to hear God. They heard him plenty. Thunder, as I recall.

Try as you like, you cannot rewrite the story that the Israelites were to be the receivers of God's conversation. They were to be witnesses to God's conversation with Moses, so they would believe Moses and listen to him. 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."

You insist that God came to speak to the Israelites directly. Scripture says he came to speak to Moses directly, and the Israelites were only to hear God speaking to Moses.

You insist that the Israelites refused to hear God. They do hear God -- speaking to Moses with a voice of thunder.

You insist that because the Israelites refuse to speak to God directly, he revokes His covenant with them to be the priesthood of the nation. God didn't ask to speak to the Israelites directly. He came to speak to Moses directly.

You insist that God revokes their priesthood of the nation. That is never found in Scripture.

You insist that God establishes the Levites as a 'substitute' for them. God never indicates he is establishing the Levitical priesthood for this reason.

As long as your foundation is all made up of stuff that is either not in Scripture or directly contradicts it, you've got nothing. I have no doubt you'll keep spouting that the Israelites refused to hear God so he revoked their covenant. That will never make it true. If St. Paul knows that even when the Jews reject Christ God yet honors his covenant with their forefathers, you are on dangerous ground by claiming he does not.

Our order is indeed Christ as high priest, we are indeed a priesthood of believers. And there is indeed a priestly service necessary so that the offering of the Gentiles is acceptable (Romans 15:16) that is foretold by the prophet Isaiah (66:21). And it is indeed an effective covenant. Not because we are so much more effective as being a priesthood of believers than Israel was. But because, and only because, Christ is our high priest. He is the pure sacrifice offered on behalf of the Gentiles, which is what makes us acceptable to God.

 

[Standing Up]

The only thing that is 'basic' about your view is that it's basically wrong.-snip-

Like I said, we are so far apart on our views, we can't even begin to communicate.

 

[Cappadocious]

Duly and dully noted. Mr. Cap seems quite defenseless.

Why defend a view I haven't even claimed to espouse?

Just like I had to "defend" the false notion that we dogmatize the Protoevangelium of James or some such nonsense.

Standing Up is an autopope who reads the Scriptures in an antisocial manner without any context or imagination, and believes that ideas only exist when written down. For God's sake, he jammed hyphens between Hebrew words to prove a technical point!

HYPHENS!

Is there no poetry in his soul? Is this what years of "campus ministry" and house churchery do to a man?

 

[Standing Up]

Why defend a view I haven't even claimed to espouse?

Just like I had to "defend" the false notion that we dogmatize the Protoevangelium of James or some such nonsense.

Standing Up is an autopope who reads the Scriptures in an antisocial manner without any context or imagination, and believes that ideas only exist when written down. For God's sake, he jammed hyphens between Hebrew words to prove a technical point!

HYPHENS!

Is there no poetry in his soul? Is this what years of "campus ministry" and house churchery do to a man?

Anything yet on your OT view that the 11 tribes were priests?

 

[Cappadocious]

Anything yet on your OT view that the 11 tribes were priests?

What do you mean by the word "priest"?

 

[Standing Up]

What do you mean by the word "priest"?

No idea. You're the one who brought it up. Narnai tried to introduce the idea that the 11 tribes were just like Levi, which isn't true. What did you mean when you posited the idea of a nation of priests and sacerdotal priests in the NT?

 

[narnia59]

No idea. You're the one who brought it up. Narnai tried to introduce the idea that the 11 tribes were just like Levi, which isn't true. What did you mean when you posited the idea of a nation of priests and sacerdotal priests in the NT?

Excuse me, but no putting words in my mouth. I never said the 11 tribes were "just like Levi". In fact, I quite distinctly said that the priesthood of the nation was separate and distinct from the Levitical priesthood, each with its own purpose, and operating together.

You have this rather inexcusable habit of rewriting whatever you want -- me, Scripture, the ECF....

 

[Standing Up]

Excuse me, but no putting words in my mouth. I never said the 11 tribes were "just like Levi". In fact, I quite distinctly said that the priesthood of the nation was separate and distinct from the Levitical priesthood, each with its own purpose, and operating together.

You have this rather inexcusable habit of rewriting whatever you want -- me, Scripture, the ECF....

Oh, so the 11 tribes weren't priests? Maybe you should answer Cappadocious about what you mean by priest.

 

[narnia59]

Oh, so the 11 tribes weren't priests? Maybe you should answer Cappadocious about what you mean by priest.

Not going to play word games with you. 3 different OT typologies identified and active in the OT -- priesthood of the nation, Levitical priesthood and the high priest. Are all Levitical priests in the role of high priest? No. Does that make them any less priests? No. Are all in the priesthood of the nation in the role Levitical priests? No. Does that make them any less priests? No.

Perhaps you'd care to respond to why the prophet Isaiah foresaw a time when all the nations (Gentiles) would be coming to the New Jerusalem and that God would take some of them to be priests and Levites? (Isaiah 66). Of course, the Gentiles would not be Levites by genetics, but by function. Was he wrong? Or has God taken some of the Gentiles to be Levites by function?

 

[Standing Up]

Not going to play word games with you. 3 different OT typologies identified and active in the OT -- priesthood of the nation, Levitical priesthood and the high priest. Are all Levitical priests in the role of high priest? No. Does that make them any less priests? No. Are all in the priesthood of the nation in the role Levitical priests? No. Does that make them any less priests? No.

Of course you are. Here's the bible's definition of OT priests:

Deut. 10:8 At that time [at Sinai] the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day.

The other 11 tribes do not function as priests.

Hbr 7:14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

No such thing as what y'all are suggesting about sacerdotal priests and nation of priests, in the OT Sinai conditional covenant.

Perhaps you'd care to respond to why the prophet Isaiah foresaw a time when all the nations (Gentiles) would be coming to the New Jerusalem and that God would take some of them to be priests and Levites? (Isaiah 66). Of course, the Gentiles would not be Levites by genetics, but by function. Was he wrong? Or has God taken some of the Gentiles to be Levites by function?

You also think you'll be worshipping each sabbath (saturday) and new moon? If so, then your interpretation could be right for you.

 

[narnia59]

Of course you are. Here's the bible's definition of OT priests:

Deut. 10:8 At that time [at Sinai] the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day.

The other 11 tribes do not function as priests.

Hbr 7:14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

No such thing as what y'all are suggesting about sacerdotal priests and nation of priests, in the OT Sinai conditional covenant.

Conditional on what?

You've provided the role of the Levitical priesthood. They were indeed separated for this purpose. IIn context, Hebrews 7:14 is referring to priests who serve at the altar, i.e. the Levitical priesthood.

None of which denies the role of the priesthood of the nation. Nothing about a nation of priests in the OT? Exodus 19:6 "and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests". Not in the role to serve at the altar. But hardly 'no such thing'. I'm sure you'll continue to deny it however.

You also think you'll be worshipping each sabbath (saturday) and new moon? If so, then your interpretation could be right for you.

Isaiah is speaking of the new Jerusalem when Gentiles also come to God's holy mountain. He speaks of 'some' of them becoming priests and Levites. Not a reference to the old covenant -- he's identifying what's to be in the new covenant. NEW, not OLD.

I don't see any reference there to worshipping on the sabbath and the new moon so fail to see how your question is applicable to its relationship to the NEW covenant. Rather appears to be a distraction from the real question -- why in the NEW covenant does Isaiah see 'some' of the Gentiles being taken a priests as Levites, if the Levitical priesthood is to be fulfilled (as you claim) by 'all' the Gentiles who come as the priesthood of believers?