"End to Sacrifice" Temporary?

[Moral Orel]

I wanted to ask about the prophecy of the Seventy Sevens (or weeks) in Daniel. I'm sure a lot of people are familiar with this prophecy, and a lot of debate has been had about the timing it predicted Jesus and all that, but I don't want to discuss any of that at all. I want to talk about just the last bit that was predicted.

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. Daniel 9:27 ESV

It says that sacrifice and offering will only end for half a week, or half of a seven year period, however you want to interpret that, that isn't the issue. The issue is that sacrifice and offering are only to end for a limited amount of time. If it was supposed to be forever, then why describe it as thus? If sacrifice is really no longer necessary because of Jesus, then this prophecy can never come true.

Now since Jesus said that "not one iota" of the old Mosaic law was to be done away with until "ALL has been fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18), I don't really see how someone can interpret what Jesus purportedly did as being the last sacrifice we ever need to make.

Thoughts?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I wanted to ask about the prophecy of the Seventy Sevens (or weeks) in Daniel. I'm sure a lot of people are familiar with this prophecy, and a lot of debate has been had about the timing it predicted Jesus and all that, but I don't want to discuss any of that at all. I want to talk about just the last bit that was predicted.

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. Daniel 9:27 ESV

It says that sacrifice and offering will only end for half a week, or half of a seven year period, however you want to interpret that, that isn't the issue. The issue is that sacrifice and offering are only to end for a limited amount of time. If it was supposed to be forever, then why describe it as thus? If sacrifice is really no longer necessary because of Jesus, then this prophecy can never come true.

Now since Jesus said that "not one iota" of the old Mosaic law was to be done away with until "ALL has been fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18), I don't really see how someone can interpret what Jesus purportedly did as being the last sacrifice we ever need to make.

Thoughts?

The ending of sacrifice most likely refers to when the Seleucids conquered Judea from the Ptolemies and the Seleucid king Antiochus introduced laws that forbade Jews from practicing their religion; this included a desecration of the Temple (the abomination that causes desolation) wherein a pig was sacrificed to Zeus in the Holy of Holies.

For more information I recommend reading the first chapter of 1 Maccabees: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Maccabees+1&version=NRSV

The important bits begin at verse 20.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

As for the primary issue of why we don't offer sacrifices any longer:

Jesus is not understood, typically, as the "final sacrifice"; rather we understand that the sacrificial system as found in God's covenant with Israel as pointing toward Christ's own death, as a type. Jesus is not another (though final) sacrifice within a system of sacrifices, Jesus's sufferings and death are not like the sacrifices of goats, lambs, and bulls (if it were it would be an abomination since in the OT it is clear that God abhors human sacrifice). Rather the sacrificial system, we believe, points us to Jesus, as a shadow of which Jesus is the substance.

Further, the sacrificial system was part of God's covenant with Israel, e.g. Jews, as such it was never given to Gentiles. And, in fact, in the New Testament we see St. Paul and some other Christians make sacrifices at the Temple--so it's not like Christians just stopped going to the Temple and participating in Temple rites. But only those Christians who were Jewish continued to do these things, Gentile converts were not only under no compulsion to observe the commandments of the Torah, they wouldn't have been able to do those things anyway since they were Gentiles--it was a huge scandal when Paul was accused of bringing Timothy (a Gentile) into the Temple grounds, even though the charge was false.

In summary:

1) Jesus is not "the final sacrifice", but rather we understand the sacrifices of old as pointing us toward Christ's offering of Himself in death on the cross.

2) The commandments about offering sacrifice were given exclusively to the Jewish people as part of their specific covenant with God, and does not apply to Gentiles. We see in the very early period that Jewish Christians did continue to observe Torah, but were emphatic that it was not required of Christians, especially for Gentiles.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Moral Orel]

The ending of sacrifice most likely refers to when the Seleucids conquered Judea from the Ptolemies and the Seleucid king Antiochus introduced laws that forbade Jews from practicing their religion; this included a desecration of the Temple (the abomination that causes desolation) wherein a pig was sacrificed to Zeus in the Holy of Holies.

My history may be a little rusty, but the Seleucids were around before Jesus right? Faded out around 50BC, right? And I don't know the story you're talking about, but if that happened before Jesus, then it can't be the 70th week of the 70 7s. I know a lot of the theories and explanations about the 70 7s have the time periods stopping and starting, and sure, I guess that could make sense, but Daniel says the 70th week out of 70, then it has to at least be in chronological order. Again, by history could be rusty, but I don't think that event qualifies.

As to your other post, I know the various explanations for why Christians don't sacrifice, and the way I describe it likely won't be incredibly accurate as I have my own understandings and biases, and I've heard different explanations from a lot of people, but the jist makes sense to me, except for the other stuff that seems to disqualify that theory. Such as Daniel's prophecy and what Jesus had to say about Mosaic law. Moses had a prediction about the Messiah I think that had him sacrificing bulls every year forever and ever too, but I don't remember where it was, so don't quote me on that unless you find it for me.

 

[Soyeong]

I wanted to ask about the prophecy of the Seventy Sevens (or weeks) in Daniel. I'm sure a lot of people are familiar with this prophecy, and a lot of debate has been had about the timing it predicted Jesus and all that, but I don't want to discuss any of that at all. I want to talk about just the last bit that was predicted.

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. Daniel 9:27 ESV

It says that sacrifice and offering will only end for half a week, or half of a seven year period, however you want to interpret that, that isn't the issue. The issue is that sacrifice and offering are only to end for a limited amount of time. If it was supposed to be forever, then why describe it as thus? If sacrifice is really no longer necessary because of Jesus, then this prophecy can never come true.

Now since Jesus said that "not one iota" of the old Mosaic law was to be done away with until "ALL has been fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18), I don't really see how someone can interpret what Jesus purportedly did as being the last sacrifice we ever need to make.

Thoughts?

Paul took a Nazarite vow (Numbers 6) in Acts 18:18, which involves making offerings, including sin offerings, and was on his way to pay for the expenses of others taking that vow in Acts 21:20-24, which meant paying for their offerings. So offerings did not cease with Jesus' death or resurrection, but rather they only ceased because there is no longer a Temple in which to do them. Heaven and earth have not passed away and not all has been accomplished, both of which refer to end times, so God's law is still in effect. It is His instructions for how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct, and as part of the New Covenant, we are told to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct by faith (1 Peter 1:14-16, 1 John 3:10, Ephesians 2:10), which means following those instructions for how to do that.

 

[ViaCrucis]

My history may be a little rusty, but the Seleucids were around before Jesus right? Faded out around 50BC, right? And I don't know the story you're talking about, but if that happened before Jesus, then it can't be the 70th week of the 70 7s. I know a lot of the theories and explanations about the 70 7s have the time periods stopping and starting, and sure, I guess that could make sense, but Daniel says the 70th week out of 70, then it has to at least be in chronological order. Again, by history could be rusty, but I don't think that event qualifies.

The Babylonian Captivity lasted from the seige of Jerusalem around 589 BC and the destruction of Solomon's Temple until the decree of Cyrus the Great following the Medes and Persians overthrowing the Babylonian Empire. Cyrus permitted the Jews to return and rebuilt Jerusalem and their temple, Judea became a satrapy (province) of the Persian Empire under the governence of the satrap (governor) Zerubbabel. In the 4th century BC Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire, including Anatolia, Egypt, and Mesopotamia all the way to India where his conquests were halted and, ultimately Alexander died. Following Alexander's death his empire was divided among the Diadochi, most of whom were Alexander's generals. The two most important for what we're talking about here were the Ptolemies and the Seleucids (Egypt and Syria respectively). For about a hundred years the Ptolemies and the Seleucids waged a number of battles, and the territory of Judea was caught right in the middle. Under the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes they won a major victory over the Ptolemies and claimed Judea, around 200 BC.

Under the reign of Antiochus the Jews were forced to hellenize--adopt Greek customs and practices--and thus were forbidden from circumcising their children, observing the Sabbath, keeping kosher, and it also involved a desecration of the Temple as previously mentioned. These abuses and oppression of the Jews eventually led to open rebellion and war under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus and his brother Jonathan. That war resulted in an independent Jewish state in 116 BC under the Hasmonean Dynasty, this also resulted in the conversion of the Idumeans to Judaism (of whom Herod the Great was). The independent Jewish state lasted until around 70-60 BC when the Roman Republic, under Julius Caesar, extended its claims to the region, and the region was conquered by the general Pompeii. Herod the Great's father Antipas was instated as the Roman puppet king for the region. Under Herod the Great a number of important events happened, including a major construction and expansion project on the Jewish Temple, which is why the Second Jewish Temple is usually remembered as Herod's Temple.

The Book of Daniel was most likely written during the Maccabean era. The "king of the north" being the Seleucid king Antiochus, the "king of the south" the Ptolemaic king. This is the general consensus among scholars of the text. Daniel's seventy weeks are not referring to the future coming and death of the Messiah (etc) but refers to the period of the Exile, the "messiah, the prince" is likely a reference to Cyrus who is a messiah not the Messiah (remember the term "messiah" just means "anointed" and applied to kings and priests and important figures, not just a future figure of eschatological importance in Judaism).

The events described in Daniel are therefore not about the events of the time of Jesus, but events well over a hundred years before Jesus.

As to your other post, I know the various explanations for why Christians don't sacrifice, and the way I describe it likely won't be incredibly accurate as I have my own understandings and biases, and I've heard different explanations from a lot of people, but the jist makes sense to me, except for the other stuff that seems to disqualify that theory. Such as Daniel's prophecy and what Jesus had to say about Mosaic law. Moses had a prediction about the Messiah I think that had him sacrificing bulls every year forever and ever too, but I don't remember where it was, so don't quote me on that unless you find it for me.

Jesus' statement really doesn't change what I pointed out. There really isn't any question that the Torah was given exclusively to the Israelites as part of their covenant with God, that is one of the few things both Jews and the New Testament (and thus Christians) actually agree upon. Whether you talk to a Christian clergyman or a Jewish rabbi, they'll both agree that the Torah was exclusively for the Jewish people.

Christians don't offer sacrifices because:

A) We believe the sacrifices of the Torah and the Sinai covenant were pointers to the greater reality of Jesus.
B) There is no Temple to offer sacrifices at any longer.
C) Even if there were a Temple, most Christians are Gentiles and thus wouldn't be able to offer sacrifices anyway since Gentiles not only don't have to do those things, but, technically, aren't even allowed to.

Further, most Christians would be under the opinion that the destruction of the Temple is more than just a mere event in ancient history, but is a sign that what once was is now no longer. The coming of the Christ has happened, the things of old which pointed to Him have found their fullness, their purpose, they have become complete, perfect, fulfilled. Such, indeed, has happened. All has been fulfilled, made full, and has come to pass; what we look forward to is the conclusion of this age, the return of Christ in glory to judge the living and the dead and render all things over to the Father so that God will be all in all. Eschatologically speaking there will be no future temple, or priesthood, or sacrifices, etc; those are things that many Dispensationalists talk about, but Dispensationalism is a fringe belief that is generally regarded as an abberation or even heterodox by most Christians.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Soyeong]

It would be inconsistent for someone to hold both the belief that the law was never given to Gentiles and the belief that Jesus came to set Gentiles free from the law. If the law was never given to them, then Jesus would not have needed to come to do that.

The law was indeed given to Israel and the New Covenant was only made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31), so Gentiles need to be grafted into God's chosen people, Israel, in order to become part of the New Covenant. According to Ephesians 2:12 and 2:19, through faith in Messiah Gentiles are grafted into Israel and according to 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are now included among God's chosen people and so should act accordingly.

 

[Moral Orel]

The events described in Daniel are therefore not about the events of the time of Jesus, but events well over a hundred years before Jesus.

So then you are not one of the many who believe that the end of the 62 7s marked the death of Jesus? I know that it isn't a consensus belief by Christians, but it is a pretty common belief. This thread follows under that assumption. If this is so, and Cyrus marks the end of the first 7 7s (which is something I have heard as well) what marks the end of the next 62 7s that is supposed to be when an anointed one is cut off and has nothing?

 

[ewq1938]

Paul took a Nazarite vow (Numbers 6) in Acts 18:18, which involves making offerings, including sin offerings, and was on his way to pay for the expenses of others taking that vow in Acts 21:20-24, which meant paying for their offerings.

No, it doesn't say he took a Nazarite vow, just said he had a vow. If he had made a promise to be somewhere at a certain time that is also called a vow.

So offerings did not cease with Jesus' death or resurrection, but rather they only ceased because there is no longer a Temple in which to do them.

Yes, all these former things ended with Christ and no one including Paul engaged in them. Paul was forced to begin a Nazarite vow a few chapters later but it was not done willingly nor did he complete it.

 

[ewq1938]

The law was indeed given to Israel and the New Covenant was only made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31)

No, it wasn't only made with them it simply was first offered to them....the majority refused it anyways. Then it was given to the gentiles.

 

[ewq1938]

I wanted to ask about the prophecy of the Seventy Sevens (or weeks) in Daniel. I'm sure a lot of people are familiar with this prophecy, and a lot of debate has been had about the timing it predicted Jesus and all that, but I don't want to discuss any of that at all. I want to talk about just the last bit that was predicted.

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. Daniel 9:27 ESV

It says that sacrifice and offering will only end for half a week, or half of a seven year period, however you want to interpret that, that isn't the issue. The issue is that sacrifice and offering are only to end for a limited amount of time. If it was supposed to be forever, then why describe it as thus? If sacrifice is really no longer necessary because of Jesus, then this prophecy can never come true.

Think of these as symbolic types of sacrifices and offerings not the literal ones of the old testament.

Example:

Heb_13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

That will end for those taking part in the Apostasy because they will praise a false god instead of the true God.

Scripture is clear about the old ways:

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

 

[Soyeong]

No, it doesn't say he took a Nazarite vow, just said he had a vow. If he had made a promise to be somewhere at a certain time that is also called a vow.

Yes, all these former things ended with Christ and no one including Paul engaged in them. Paul was forced to begin a Nazarite vow a few chapters later but it was not done willingly nor did he complete it.

It's true that it doesn't directly say that he took a Nazarite vow, but the Bible only records one vow that involves cutting your hair, so there aren't a lot of other options. It does not say anything about him taking a vow to be somewhere at a certain time, nor is there any reason why such a vow would involve cutting his hair. It also does not say anything about Paul being forced to take the vow or that he was acting against his will. Stephen was falsely accused of teaching against the law (Acts 6:13) and Paul would have every motivation to disprove the false rumor and show that he continued to live in obedience to the law.

 

[civilwarbuff]

esus is not understood, typically, as the "final sacrifice";

I doubt most Christians (including Lutherans) would agree with that statement. Messiah is the final and ultimate sacrifice. Without Him and His sacrifice we are all lost.

rather we understand that the sacrificial system as found in God's covenant with Israel as pointing toward Christ's own death, as a type.

What kind of "type"....symbolic type....imaginary type....fantasy type...care to explain yourself?

 

[ewq1938]

It's true that it doesn't directly say that he took a Nazarite vow, but the Bible only records one vow that involves cutting your hair, so there aren't a lot of other options.

You are not allowed to cut your hair during or before a Nazarite vow.

It does not say anything about him taking a vow to be somewhere at a certain time, nor is there any reason why such a vow would involve cutting his hair.

It is more likely the other two mentioned are the ones to have cut their hair especially since Paul was force3d to take a Nazarite vow a couple chapters after this and would have had to have his hair in tact for that.

It also does not say anything about Paul being forced to take the vow or that he was acting against his will.

It does:

Act 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

The leaders of this multitude of people tell Paul what they want him to do...and if you want to live, you do what a multitude of people tell you to do...this is a mob.

Stephen was falsely accused of teaching against the law (Acts 6:13) and Paul would have every motivation to disprove the false rumor and show that he continued to live in obedience to the law. There is nothing to suggest that he was doing what is holy, righteous, and good and refraining from sin against his will.

Paul taught against the law of the first covenant:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law- Galatians 3:13

the law entangles with the yoke of bondage- Galatians 5:1

if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law - Galatians 5:18

the strength of sin is the law- 1 Corinthians 15:56

the law worketh wrath- Romans 4:15

we are not under the law- Romans 6:15

we are delivered from the law- Romans 7:6

we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter- Romans 7:6

 

[ViaCrucis]

I doubt most Christians (including Lutherans) would agree with that statement. Messiah is the final and ultimate sacrifice. Without Him and His sacrifice we are all lost.

What kind of "type"....symbolic type....imaginary type....fantasy type...care to explain yourself?

Jesus is not a bull or a goat or a literal lamb being ritually sacrificed as the last and final sacrifice of the old sacrifices. If this were the case it would amount to human sacrifice which, as noted already, is regularly described as abhorrent to God.

Instead the sacrifices are understood to point to Christ's victimhood on the cross, His death; the spilling of His blood as a victim. We speak of Christ's death as a sacrifice not because Christ is literally held over an altar and offered up to appease the divine, but sacrifice is one of the many metaphors Scripture uses to describe the meaning and significance of Christ's death; and hence Christ is described metaphorically as a paschal lamb, as the atonement offering as well as the high priest, etc.

Scripture uses a lot of ways to describe the significance of Christ's death, the imagery drawn from the temple sacrifices, of the paschal lamb, etc are one way Scripture does this. But it would be entirely inappropriate to describe Jesus' death as just the last sacrifice in a system of ritual sacrifice, that would completely undermine the immensity and meaning of the Cross.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ewq1938]

But it would be entirely inappropriate to describe Jesus' death as just the last sacrifice in a system of ritual sacrifice, that would completely undermine the immensity and meaning of the Cross.

-CryptoLutheran

Except that is exactly what scripture says his sacrifice was. THAT is the meaning of the cross not your re-defining of it.

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

 

[Soyeong]

You are not allowed to cut your hair during or before a Nazarite vow.

Indeed, so it was talking about the completion of their vows.

It is more likely the other two mentioned are the ones to have cut their hair especially since Paul was force3d to take a Nazarite vow a couple chapters after this and would have had to have his hair in tact for that.

In Acts 18:18, Paul took the vow and it does not say anything about him being forced to take it. He was not taking the vow in Acts 21:20-24, but was on his way to do the good deed of paying for the expenses of others who had taken the vow. In neither case does it say anything them vowing to be at a certain place at a certain time or about why their vows were taken or about any of them being forced to take their vow.

It does:

Act 21:22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

The leaders of this multitude of people tell Paul what they want him to do...and if you want to live, you do what a multitude of people tell you to do...this is a mob.

It says that Paul continued to live in obedience to the law and at the direction of James he took steps to disprove the rumor that he had taught against keeping the law. This is similar to the false accusations that Stephen was teaching against obeying the law (Acts 6:13). It does not say that James threatened him or that the mob demanded that he pay their expenses. Paul would not need to be threatened in order to willingly want to clear his good name.

Paul taught against the law of the first covenant:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law- Galatians 3:13

The curse of the law is detailed in Deuteronomy 28 for those who disobey it. There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ, so there is no longer a penalty for disobedience, but those who are in Christ follow his commands and walk as he walked (1 John 2:4-6), which was in accordance with the law.

the law entangles with the yoke of bondage- Galatians 5:1

The requirement for all Gentiles to become circumcised and keep the customs of the Jews in order to become justified amounts to slavery, but that not a requirement that is found anywhere in the law.

if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law - Galatians 5:18

The Father, Son, and Holy spirit are not in disagreement with each other about what conduct we should have, but rather the law of Christ is exactly the same as the law of the Spirit, which is exactly the same as the law of the Father. The Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and Jesus said he came only do the the Father's will (John 6:38) and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 7:16), so what Jesus commanded and walked out was in complete accordance with what the Father commanded.

the strength of sin is the law- 1 Corinthians 15:56

Whenever we're told to do something, we tend to want to do the opposite, which is why reverse psychology works. That doesn't turn instructions for how to do what is holy, righteous, and good into something that is bad.

the law worketh wrath- Romans 4:15

The law brings wrath for disobeying it, so it follows that therefore we shouldn't disobey it.

we are not under the law- Romans 6:15

The law gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), without the law we wouldn't even know what sin is (Romans 7:7), sin is defined as lawlessness (1 John 3:4), and not being under the law doesn't mean that we are permitted to sin (Romans 6:15), so not being under the law doesn't me we are permitted to disobey the law. Rather, not being under the law refers to not being under its power to condemn us to death for breaking it.

we are delivered from the law- Romans 7:6

In the example in Romans 7:1-5, when the woman's husband died, she wasn't freed to murder, steal, break the Sabbath, etc., but rather she was only free from the part of the law that would condemn her to death if she were to live with another man while her husband was still alive. In the same way, dying to the law doesn't free to disobey it, but only frees us from what would condemn us to death for breaking it.

we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter- Romans 7:6

Following the law according to the spirit rather than according to the letter does refer to following the law vs. not following the law, but rather it refers to the manner in which the law is followed with regard to the intent behind the law.

 

[ewq1938]

In Acts 18:18, Paul took the vow and it does not say anything about him being forced to take it. He was not taking the vow in Acts 21:20-24, but was on his way to do the good deed of paying for the expenses of others who had taken the vow.

No, he was to be purified as they were and he was being forced. The vow in Acts 18 is something completely different.

It says that Paul continued to live in obedience to the law and at the direction of James he took steps to disprove the rumor that he had taught against keeping the law.

Paul did not live according to the law. He taught against it as I have already proven.

The Father, Son, and Holy spirit are not in disagreement with each other about what conduct we should have, but rather the law of Christ is exactly the same as the law of the Spirit, which is exactly the same as the law of the Father. The Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and Jesus said he came only do the the Father's will (John 6:38) and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father (John 7:16), so what Jesus commanded and walked out was in complete accordance with what the Father commanded.

And that was to fulfill the law and a new law and covenant to replace the old, just as Paul taught.

The law brings wrath for disobeying it, so it follows that therefore we shouldn't disobey it.

Which is contrary to the rest of the content of your post, especially regarding Paul.





[/QUOTE]so not being under the law doesn't me we are permitted to disobey the law. [/QUOTE]

The old law is gone, and we are not to obey it. We obey the new law of Christ.


There are only two laws. The old Sinai law of sin and death and the "law of Christ" which is the law of the Spirit of life!




1 Corinthians 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1 Corinthians 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ) that I might gain them that are without law.
1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.



Here again the two are compared.




James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.


James 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.


It is also called "the law of liberty" because it is the opposite of the law of bondage, that same old law of sin and death.


Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.




Paul says Christians are delivered from the law, because the old covenant law is dead.



Gill:


are become dead to the law, and that to them, as in Rom_7:6, and can have no more power over them than a law can have over dead persons, or a dead abrogated law can have over living ones. They are represented as "dead to sin", and "dead with Christ", Rom_6:2; and here, "dead to the law", as in Gal_2:19, and consequently cannot be under it; are out of the reach of its power and government, since that only has dominion over a man as long as be lives the law is dead to them; it has no power over them, to threaten and terrify them into obedience to it; nor even rigorously to exact it, or command it in a compulsory way; nor is there any need of all this, since believers delight in it after the inward man, and serve it with their minds freely and willingly; the love of Christ, and not the terrors of the law, constrains them to yield a cheerful obedience to it; it has no power to charge and accuse them, curse or condemn them, or minister death unto them, no, not a corporeal one, as a penal evil, and much less an eternal one. And the way and means by which they become dead to the law, and that to them is,


that ye should be married to another; or "that ye should be to another", or "be another's"; that is, that ye should appear to be so in a just and legal way; for they were another's, they were Christ's before by the Father's gift, and were secretly married to him in the everlasting covenant, before he assumed their nature, and in the body of his flesh bore their sins, satisfied law and justice, paid their debts, and so freed them from the power of the law, its curse and condemnation, or any obligation to punishment; all which was done in consequence of his interest in them, and their marriage relation to him; but here respect is had to their open marriage to him in time, the day of their espousals in conversion; to make way for which, the law, their former husband, must be dead , and they dead to that, that so their marriage to Christ might appear lawful and justifiable; who is very fitly described by him,



Clarke:


Rom 7:4 -
Wherefore, my brethren - This is a parallel case. You were once under the law of Moses, and were bound by its injunctions; but now ye are become dead to that law - a modest, inoffensive mode of speech, for, The law, which was once your husband, is dead; God has determined that it shall be no longer in force; so that now, as a woman whose husband is dead is freed from the law of that husband, or from her conjugal vow, and may legally be married to another, so God, who gave the law under which ye have hitherto lived, designed that it should be in force only till the advent of the Messiah; that advent has taken place, the law has consequently ceased, and now ye are called to take on you the yoke of the Gospel, and lay down the yoke of the law; and it is the design of God that you should do so.


Matthew Henry:


I. Our first marriage was to the law, which, according to the law of marriage, was to continue only during the life of the law. The law of marriage is binding till the death of one of the parties, no matter which, and no longer. The death of either discharges both.

 

[Moral Orel]

Think of these as symbolic types of sacrifices and offerings not the literal ones of the old testament.

Example:

Heb_13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

That will end for those taking part in the Apostasy because they will praise a false god instead of the true God.

Scripture is clear about the old ways:

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

I really don't think that it is symbolic sacrifice. I really think that it is the OT sacrifice we have been talking about. In your OT verses they use "sacrifice" and "offering" together when they mean the burnt offerings and the like, and so does the verse in Daniel:

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. Daniel 9:27 ESV

See? An end to "sacrifice and offering" not just some symbolic sacrifice.

 

[ewq1938]

I really don't think that it is symbolic sacrifice. I really think that it is the OT sacrifice we have been talking about.

That causes a contradiction because NT scripture states outright that such things are done away with.

See? An end to "sacrifice and offering" not just some symbolic sacrifice.

Yet what kind they are is not described.