Jesus Fulfilled The Sacrificial System

[mdamon0501]

This is a good guideline. Do the right thing. Remember that Gentiles are not obliged to the commandments God gave Israel, though with a few exceptions, there is no prohibition from adopting those you are able to do.

Chapter 6. See that no one causes you to err from this way of the Teaching, since apart from God it teaches you. For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you are able. And concerning food, bear what you are able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly careful; for it is the service of dead gods. - Didache​

All I'm saying is this. What the Christian sources are doing, the Old Testament Prophets, and Holy Kings like David are doing, is exactly what the Greeks did. The Greeks exhausted an immeasurable amount of time and effort in trying to ordain what was the principle way to live. This was part and parcel for the Romans too, it was the reason why men like Caesar were given the name "God." They were arguing in Polytheistic religions on which God in the corpus was the principle God, and "Spirit" upon which all the rest of the worship was founded upon. Once it was discerned, then individuals in these cultures were to adopt that example, and mimic it. Christian Theology is no different. We have our shining light and example as given to us by the Father: Christ.

Ask yourself why it was so strange for Christ to be laying his hands on sick people. Well, to the Jews this would have been a totally strange idea, since in the Torah the sick were considered "unclean." Christ, by his actions, overturned that idea. The Jews considered the sick and blind to be punished by God for some breach of the Law which he had handed down from Moses. One could even make the argument, that Gods plan was so perfect, that the Jews who crucified Christ were in-fact not guilty by their own standard of measurement. I don't see anything the Jewish people did in the New Testament as against the Law which they had been given by God. Similarly, I don't see the Pharisees or Scribes as having no basis upon which to place their assertion that Christ was not the Messiah. The Jews thought the Messiah was going to be an all conquering hero who came and reestablished the old way of life for the Jewish People. Christ comes, and even John the Baptists followers come to him and ask him if he is actually the one who was written of.

Their error was however, in not recognizing what Christ represented. Christ did fulfill those requirements, but he didn't conquer with a sword, he conquered with love, kindness, and sound reasoning.

In this case, as we see over and over again in the Old Testament, and the New Testament, God draws with his "Loving kindness" which draws people to you, builds a house around you, and protects you from calamity. This too is the image of Christ on the cross. Here is a man who has just been tortured, led outside Jerusalem, and hung on a cross. He has no reason to love anyone at this point, and yet during the entirety of his ordeal on the cross his attention is not on himself. Christ embodies the Agape Love principle to its fullest, and in that way, follows the entirety of the Law which God had handed down to mankind.

 

[gomerian]

Sin will only be obvious when the new covenant is completely fulfilled:

Jer 31 NKJV
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day thatI took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

The New Covenant Is Completely Fulfilled:

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

 

[gomerian]

The sacrificial system was man made, Jesus simply invalidated it when he revealed that God is the loving Father of each individual.

That's kinda what Isaiah 1 & 66 are saying, isn't it.
All their neighbors were doing it. Jesus tells us that the writing of divorcement for things other than adultery was allowed by Moses because of the hardness of their hearts, but that it wasn't that way in the beginning. We wouldn't know that fact, had we not Jesus' word for it, because we'd assume "thus saith the Lord".
IMHO, Jesus not only ransoms the Israelites out from under the sacrificial system, but He does so for all their neighbors, at the same time.

 

[gomerian]

Remember that Gentiles are not obliged to the commandments God gave Israel

If you're talking about the national ordinances, I agree. But thou shalt not kill is a global commandment, and so are the others of the 10 that Jesus quoted to the rich man who wanted eternal life. And from that list, we can tell which of the Old Covenant laws apply globally.

Although I still can't wrap my head around 'money for rape' theology.

 

[Colter]

That's kinda what Isaiah 1 & 66 are saying, isn't it.
All their neighbors were doing it. Jesus tells us that the writing of divorcement for things other than adultery was allowed by Moses because of the hardness of their hearts, but that it wasn't that way in the beginning. We wouldn't know that fact, had we not Jesus' word for it, because we'd assume "thus saith the Lord".
IMHO, Jesus not only ransoms the Israelites out from under the sacrificial system, but He does so for all their neighbors, at the same time.

In the original gospel Jesus "enlightened" his followers to the truth that restoring right relations with God is a matter of a change of heart, a change of behavior rather than substituting a sacrifice. But man finds it difficult to receive forgiveness just because God is a Loving Father of each individual more that a national God.

While the Jews largely rejected Jesus, the Pagan world, that already had Mythraic concepts of sacrificing a God/man, was found to be more receptive to Paul's new version of Jesus being an atoning sacrifice.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The New Covenant Is Completely Fulfilled:

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Not according to Jeremiah 31, which is for Israel and Judah. Have these things happened yet?

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day thatI took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”​

 

[gomerian]

Not according to Jeremiah 31, which is for Israel and Judah. Have these things happened yet?

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day thatI took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”​

[1&2 bold added]
I take that to mean more than just the literal tribes... unless there are more new covenants to come [doubtful]. Which may mean... who was it here that said... that the 144k could very well be all of the believers, not just literal Israel/Judah. [in which case, boy is my face red]

On the other hand, maybe not. Because Jesus says He came only to the lost tribes of the house of Israel. So the covenant was meant for them, and ratified by the disciples [with the man Jesus as Judas' replacement as far as tribes go]. Until the parable about the vineyard being given to the nation rendering the fruits in their season, because He was killed for His inheritance. But Judah is the people He was talking to in that parable, and Israel is a very different set of people these days, being unknown and unclaimed by any but the jokesters. And as far as I know, Judah is still not saying [on a national level], Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.

I will have to think about this one. Thank you so much for forcing me to see, Steve Petersen.

 

[Ken Rank]

The New Covenant Is Completely Fulfilled:

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

2 Cor. 1:22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as an arrhabōn.

That word means a deposit, a down payment, an earnest, a promissory note (G728). So the Holy Spirit wasn't given as the end all... the Holy Spirit was given as a down payment toward something that is yet to come. Paul repeats this line in 2 Cor. 5:5

 

[Steve Petersen]

2 Cor. 1:22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as an arrhabōn.

That word means a deposit, a down payment, an earnest, a promissory note (G728). So the Holy Spirit wasn't given as the end all... the Holy Spirit was given as a down payment toward something that is yet to come. Paul repeats this line in 2 Cor. 5:5

You might find this interesting with regard to Hebrews 7:20-22. There can be found in Judaism the idea that God takes the Tzaddik (The Righteous One) as a guarantor who suffers on behalf of all.

Mashiach: Guarantor – 13 Petals

 

[Shek]

Jesus said He brought a "new covenant".

Hebrews 9:15 Greek Text Analysis

The earliest Greek copy of Hebrews is dated 300CE and has no known author. So making the claim that "Jesus said" just cannot be validated.

Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia

Bible Gateway passage: Jeremiah 31:31-34 - English Standard Version

Moving to Jeremiah, the House of Israel and Judah does NOT equate to Rome.

The Law is the Ark of the Covenant.

 

[Micah888]

Because Jesus says He came only to the lost tribes of the house of Israel.

"Lost sheep" not "lost tribes". Big difference.

 

[1 John 4:1]

@mdamon0501 lol I'm sorry. I just realized where we misunderstood each other. No, I was not taking Galatians 5:14 like you thought. (the word in Greek that means sexual love is different and not in that passage) All I was saying is if that was the only commandment we had to think about it would not prohibit many sexual things we know are wrong: in the minds of some cultures. Therefore, since God is not the author of confusion and we know the things I talked about were wrong I think that was not the only commandment he wanted us to think about. That's all I was saying. Now I understand why you thought what I said was so off the wall. I didn't realize that I was interpreted like that because it was so crazy it didn't occur to me. Sorry for the confusion.

Did you even take a moment and read what you just wrote?

You literally took what was being said in the passage, spun it's meaning, and then claimed that believing in loving others is synonymous with having sex all the time. What?!

My friend, I'm not the one making the Law Tedious, you are. You expound for ages on this thesis you have and you take no second thought about what it is your trying to say.

My friend, the passage says that God's law is fulfilled by one word in the following statement:

“ You shall love your neighbor as yourself .”

In both the Greek and the English there is only two verbs, one is an adverb, the other is ἀγαπάω

You cannot infer personal action from as.

ἀγαπάω - love, wish Well, take pleasure in, etc.

Which word in that sentence do we assume Paul is talking about? ὡς or ἀγαπάω?

 

[mdamon0501]

@mdamon0501 lol I'm sorry. I just realized where we misunderstood each other. No, I was not taking Galatians 5:14 like you thought. (the word in Greek that means sexual love is different and not in that passage) All I was saying is if that was the only commandment we had to think about it would not prohibit many sexual things we know are wrong: in the minds of some cultures. Therefore, since God is not the author of confusion and we know the things I talked about were wrong I think that was not the only commandment he wanted us to think about. That's all I was saying. Now I understand why you thought what I said was so off the wall. I didn't realize that I was interpreted like that because it was so crazy it didn't occur to me. Sorry for the confusion.

I didn't assume you did it on purpose, I was perhaps a bit flippant in my response, it was unintentional.

My next question would be, what do you see as the sexually immoral actions that Scripture Defines? That is the only way to continue our side conversation in reference to the OP.

Me personally, I believe that a sexually immoral act, by the Bibles definition, is any act that is not wanted by the person who is the beneficiary of the sexual act. Hence, the principle would still stand, which is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The principle idea here is, that if you do not enact any action upon another being, that you yourself would not personally want to endure, you are extending the love you have for yourself to others. This is not just a superficial definition of love either. We are talking about things both physical, and otherwise.

For instance, I can't name a single person who holds a strong belief in God, that would ever want to have that belief challenged by any other.

Or another example, perhaps more pertinent to our examination, many people consider their bodies to be personal and private, and therefore if you extended the same thought to another you apply to yourself, then you would not entreat upon the other individual that they should show you themselves naked.

 

[1 John 4:1]

"Me personally, I believe that a sexually immoral act, by the Bibles definition, is any act that is not wanted by the person who is the beneficiary of the sexual act. Hence, the principle would still stand, which is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You do realize though that the bible condemns many types of sexual acts regardless of whether the other party consents right? I've already shared that I see the sexual prohibitions in the old testament as still standing (hence why you can't marry your brother or sister) If you want a place that lists a bunch of them though there's Leviticus 18. Also prostitution and premarital sex are condemned: Deuteronomy 23:17 some translations have "cult prostitute" yet it really means any promiscuous sexual behavior. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...prostitution-in-the-story-of-judah-and-tamar/ The stone's edition to the Tanach translates "zonah" as "promiscuity"

 

[mdamon0501]

You do realize though that the bible condemns many types of sexual acts regardless of whether the other party consents right? I've already shared that I see the sexual prohibitions in the old testament as still standing (hence why you can't marry your brother or sister) If you want a place that lists a bunch of them though there's Leviticus 18. Also prostitution and premarital sex are condemned: Deuteronomy 23:17 some translations have "cult prostitute" yet it really means any promiscuous sexual behavior. Sacred Prostitution in the Story of Judah and Tamar? - Biblical Archaeology Society The stone's edition to the Tanach translates "zonah" as "promiscuity"

The problem I have with this interpretation, is that we are not under the Law, we are under Grace. Therefore the Laws of Leviticus do not hold standing in Christs New Covenant. This is precisely why the veil of the temple was torn in two on his death. Regardless, study the Laws that are spoken in Leviticus and ask yourself if any of those things are things that you yourself would want to happen to you personally, if the answer is no, then Christs assertion that the foundation of all of it is the aforementioned principle.

His condemnation of the Jews adulterous use of the Law is seen in the Gospel too:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

Also, lets not confuse the Biblical definition of Adultery. Because Adultery in the Bible is not the definition which has been applied to it in the modern age. Adultery in the Biblical sense is an abuse on the behalf of an individual who takes advantage of the world. This is seen especially in the description of the Adulterous Woman in Proverbs:

My son, pay attention to my wisdom, turn your ear to my words of insight, that you may maintain discretion and your lips may preserve knowledge. For the lips of the adulterous woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to the grave. She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths wander aimlessly, but she does not know it. Now then, my sons, listen to me; do not turn aside from what I say. Keep to a path far from her, do not go near the door of her house, lest you lose your honor to others and your dignity to one who is cruel, lest strangers feast on your wealth and your toil enrich the house of another. At the end of your life you will groan when your flesh and body are spent. You will say, "How I hated discipline! How my heart spurned for correction! I would not obey my teachers or turn my ear to my instructors. And I was soon in serious trouble in the assembly of God's people."

This passage is a clear illustration of the adulterous woman who is seen also in the Prophets. The adulterous woman is a parable, or a metaphor, for the sort of temptation that the Bible calls on us to avoid. You are right in asserting that we are called to have self control, but it is my opinion that when God commands us not to commit adultery, that this is the type of adultery that he is referring to. A lack of self control. This section of proverbs also falls onto the principle, because we have all seen people doing things which we consider to be in the midst of a lack of self control, and cant imagine ourselves doing the same. If we hold that position, and then do the same, then we are hypocrites.

The reason prostitution would be frowned upon by the Old Testament is easy to explain. Paying for the services of a prostitute is an act of lust, which is desire of the flesh, not of the spirit. I don't believe Christ would have judged the prostitutes, (and I'm not referencing the story of the Adulterous woman, because I have seen good evidence it was not originally in the Gospel) rather, he would have had issue with the men who took advantage of their services, creating an atmosphere where such a profession was even tenable. Would those same men want their daughters to be in the prostitutes position? If the answer is no, and they do it anyways, then they are in the error. This is far different than putting the blame on the women who are prostitutes, many of whom (especially in the era we are talking about) would have probably have been slaves. Hosea is the book to read about that idea. Which in that case would be doubly wrong on the part of the man who's bondservant the woman was.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The problem I have with this interpretation, is that we are not under the Law, we are under Grace.

Acts 15:20-21

 

[mdamon0501]

Acts 15:20-21

I'm not sure your point here? The apostles choose to do this because, a group of men came north from Jerusalem trying to teach circumcision. Moses was already being taught, and under the circumstances they called a council to discuss the matter. Furthermore this is what Peter said just before:

Acts 15:6-11 NASB
The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. [7] After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. [8] And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; [9] and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. [10] Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? [11] But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

You can also read a similar argument by Paul In Roman's specifically about circumcision.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I'm not sure your point here? The apostles choose to do this because, a group of men came north from Jerusalem trying to teach circumcision. Moses was already being taught, and under the circumstances they called a council to discuss the matter. Furthermore this is what Peter said just before:

Acts 15:6-11 NASB
The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. [7] After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. [8] And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; [9] and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. [10] Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? [11] But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."

You can also read a similar argument by Paul In Roman's specifically about circumcision.

It specifically says to abstain from "sexual immorality"...and they teach Torah (Moses) every Sabbath.

"abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

 

[All4Christ]

In this case, I tend to agree with Yeshua. Yes, we are saved by Grace, and we certainly don’t have to follow the 613 laws, but we as Gentiles are still taught to continue to follow those four laws which were outlined for Gentiles in Levitical law. You can see that the early church still interpreted it this way when you look at the Apostolic Canons - specifically 63 and 67. Many forget about the blood commandment today.

 

[mdamon0501]

It specifically says to abstain from "sexual immorality"...and they teach Torah (Moses) every Sabbath.

"abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

Again, I'm not arguing the Bible does not argue for a standard, prudent, measurement your of behaviour. I am however arguing that if we are to take that term seriously, then we need to do away with our traditional definition of what that means, and find the Biblical outline. I personally do not see the connection, how, in the light of the Gospel taught, that Leviticus and Deuteronomy hold creed on this matter after Christs death.

It is my opinion, that Christs view is, that self-control, and proper behaviour are important, but that those things will never overpower the love of the Father, and anyone who takes those as holding any merit to their salvation, which is Grace through Jesus Christ, and his death and resurrection as the forgiveness for our sins; threatens to fall back into the same regrettable hole that the Jewish leaders had fallen into:

Matthew 23:13-33 NASB
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. [14] [Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.] [15] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. [16] "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.' [17] You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? [18] And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.' [19] You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? [20] Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. [21] And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. [22] And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it. [23] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. [24] You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! [25] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. [26] You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. [27] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. [28] So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. [29] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, [30] and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' [31] So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. [32] Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. [33] You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?