Messiah and the Covenant

[Frogster]

Question to you mr frog.

Gen 26:5 tells us that Abraham kept God's Torah.

Why can't you keep God's Torah?

tell us what laws?

you ignore all the vast overt text, that says the law came at sinai.

Did Moses, david, Paul, Stephen, and hebrews all say it came then, with Angels?

Did Paul stress the law came 430 years later in gal 3;17?

So the fact is, all that shows it was not the torah. How could paul use abe, to ward off the Torah pushers, if Abe had the torah? the argument would not work, so u r wrong again.

 

[tzadik]

any part of the law passed away? lol..1/3 ot the torah law went away, when the temple went down.

Unfortunately buddy... this is an erroneous statement.
God clearly commands that All Temple services/Levitical priesthood to be done ONLY in the Temple.

So everyone NOT sacrificing, and performing temple services are currently KEEPING TORAH! (I think I've said this to you about 1,000 times now)

In fact God expects His people to keep His commandments even when they are scattered among the nations! (Deut 30:1-5)

 

[tzadik]

tell us what laws?

you ignore all the vast overt text, that says the law came at sinai.

Did Moses, david, Paul, Stephen, and hebrews all say it came then, with Angels?

Did Paul stress the law came 430 years later in gal 3;17?

So the fact is, all that shows it was not the torah. How could paul use abe, to ward off the Torah pushers, if Abe had the torah? the argument would not work, so u r wrong again.

All the above gibberish proves that you don't actually know what God's Torah means.

You are so stuck on calling the Torah of God, THE LAW (given at Sinai), that you miss the GINORMOUS point that the Torah/Instructions of God were around WAY before Sinai.

The first mention of a set of laws, written down does not mean that they weren't around before.

If that was the case then, killing, stealing, cheating on your wife, bowing down to false gods, and dishonoring parents was acceptable behavior by God before Sinai...

You DEFINITELY know that's not the case.

 

[Frogster]

Unfortunately buddy... this is an erroneous statement.
God clearly commands that All Temple services/Levitical priesthood to be done ONLY in the Temple.

So everyone NOT sacrificing, and performing temple services are currently KEEPING TORAH! (I think I've said this to you about 1,000 times now)

In fact God expects His people to keep His commandments even when they are scattered among the nations! (Deut 30:1-5)

u want verse that show the law was one? Exiled people are exiled, we know that, but 1/3 of the jot and title went away with the temple, the temple and the priesthood were intertwined. How else could they be purified, FOR BREAKING A TORAH LAW? HEHEHEHE

see the conexion yet? conexion as the british say...

Now, gimmie something thing from Abe..1..1..1..anything?


because he takes down the whole MJ doctrine.

 

[Frogster]

All the above gibberish proves that you don't actually know what God's Torah means.

You are so stuck on calling the Torah of God, THE LAW (given at Sinai), that you miss the GINORMOUS point that the Torah/Instructions of God were around WAY before Sinai.

The first mention of a set of laws, written down does not mean that they weren't around before.

If that was the case then, killing, stealing, cheating on your wife, bowing down to false gods, and dishonoring parents was acceptable behavior by God before Sinai...

You DEFINITELY know that's not the case.

gibberish? no, 5 accounts say it came at sinai, with angels, and 3;17 says 430 laaaaaaater...stop ignoring all that, while u strain at 26;5, ignoring all of Paul's usage with abe!

l luv u, but really, please stretch my brain a bit more, this is boring now...

 

[Clare73]

All the above gibberish proves that you don't actually know what God's Torah means.

You are so stuck on calling the Torah of God, THE LAW (given at Sinai), that you miss the GINORMOUS point that the Torah/Instructions of God were around WAY before Sinai.

The first mention of a set of laws, written down does not mean that they weren't around before.

If that was the case then, killing, stealing, cheating on your wife, bowing down to false gods, and dishonoring parents was acceptable behavior by God before Sinai...

You DEFINITELY know that's not the case.

Actually, the moral laws you mention are written in the natural human heart, with the conscience bearing witness to them (Ro 2:14-15). Even before the giving of the Law at Sinai, you find caring for the sick and elderly, honoring parents, condemning adultery, etc. in Gentile cultures.

Those without the Mosaic law, which was everyone outside Israel because the Mosaic Law was given only to the people of God, are not judged by the Law (Ro 2:14-15), they are judged by their conscience (Ro 1:19-21).

Sin is transgression of the Mosaic Law (1Jn 3:4), and where there is no Mosaic Law there is no sin, because there is no law to transgress (Ro 4:15, 5:13).

So while immoral behavior was not acceptable behavior to God, it was not accounted as transgression of the Law and sin, because there was no Law to transgress (Ro 4:15, 5:13).

That is the Word of God.

Do you believe and obey it?

 

[tzadik]

gibberish? no, 5 accounts say it came at sinai, with angels, and 3;17 says 430 laaaaaaater...stop ignoring all that, while u strain at 26;5, ignoring all of Paul's usage with abe!

l luv u, but really, please stretch my brain a bit more, this is boring now...

Here’s the deal.

Those 5 accounts are in reference to the Law of God given at Mt. Sinai. OF COURSE they will all be in agreement, as they are describing an event that took place at Mt. Sinai.
None of this however proves that Mt. Sinai, was the FIRST TIME that God’s Instructions were given to mankind.
This is the point that you seem to be constantly missing.

** The fact that God judged Cain for his ‘fruit sacrifice’ and blessed Abel for his correct firstborn lamb sacrifice, shows us that God’s Torah regarding sacrifices and offering were already instructed WAAAY before Sinai.

**The fact that God told Noah about clean and unclean animals, proves that the Torah regarding what is to be considered a clean and unclean animals were already instructed before Sinai.

**The fact that God condemned the sin of sodomy in Genesis 13 proves to us that the Torah regarding homosexuality and immorality existed long before Mt. Sinai.

**The fact that God condemned adultery in Genesis 20 and 39 proves to us that the ‘seventh commandment’ was instructed long before Mt. Sinai.

**God punished Adam and Eve for coveting and stealing in the Garden, LONG before the 8th and 10th commandments were given at Mt. Sinai.

**Exodus 16, several days or even weeks before Mt. Sinai, God is expecting Israel to keep the 4th commandment.

So you see, just a couple of quick clues to point you in the right direction. Sin WAS, IS and WILL ALWAYS be transgressing the Torah of God.

Whether the first sin committed in the garden, or any sin you commit today, it is defined in Scripture!
God’s Torah is ETERNAL!

His Torah precedes and transcends all covenants and time periods, because it’s HIS WORD!

 

[Clare73]

Here’s the deal.

Those 5 accounts are in reference to the Law of God given at Mt. Sinai. OF COURSE they will all be in agreement, as they are describing an event that took place at Mt. Sinai.
None of this however proves that Mt. Sinai, was the FIRST TIME that God’s Instructions were given to mankind.
This is the point that you seem to be constantly missing.

The fact that God judged Cain for his ‘fruit sacrifice’ and blessed Abel for his correct firstborn lamb sacrifice, shows us that God’s Torah regarding sacrifices and offering were already instructed WAAAY before Sinai.

We don't know if Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable because of its material, or because of his heart.

The fact that God told Noah about clean and unclean animals, proves that the Torah regarding what is to be considered a clean and unclean animals were already instructed before Sinai.

Clean and unclean were in relation to the sacrifices, not in relation to food.

The fact that God condemned the sin of sodomy in Genesis 13 proves to us that the Torah regarding homosexuality and immorality existed long before Mt. Sinai.

The fact that God condemned adultery in Genesis 20 and 39 proves to us that the ‘seventh commandment’ was instructed long before Mt. Sinai.

The issue in the NT Word of God is not whether immoral behavior was acceptable to God before Sinai,
but whether it was counted as sin, which is transgression of the Law (1Jn 3:4), before Sinai
when there was no Law to transgress (4:15).

The Word of God reveals that sin (transgression of the Mosaic Law) was not taken into account before Sinai (Ro 4:15, 5:13).

Do you believe and obey the NT Word of God?

What more do you know that Peter, James, John and Paul did not know?

On what basis do you disagree with what they clearly state?

 

[tzadik]

We don't know if Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable because of its material, or because of his heart.


Clean and unclean were in relation to the sacrifices, not in relation to food.


The issue in the NT Word of God is not whether immoral behavior was acceptable to God before Sinai,
but whether it was counted as sin, which is transgression of the Law (1Jn 3:4), before Sinai
when there was no Law to transgress (4:15).

The Word of God reveals that sin (transgression of the Mosaic Law) was not taken into account before Sinai (Ro 5:13).

Do you believe and obey the NT Word of God?

Clare...sin is the transgression of the Torah of God.
Are you meaning to tell me that Adam and Eve did not sin?
Are you telling me that the inhabitants of Sodom did not sin? Perhaps you should read Genesis 13:13...
Are you telling me that adultery was not considered a sin in Genesis 20?

 

[tzadik]

We don't know if Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable because of its material, or because of his heart.


Clean and unclean were in relation to the sacrifices, not in relation to food.


The issue in the NT Word of God is not whether immoral behavior was acceptable to God before Sinai,
but whether it was counted as sin, which is transgression of the Law (1Jn 3:4), before Sinai
when there was no Law to transgress (4:15).

The Word of God reveals that sin (transgression of the Mosaic Law) was not taken into account before Sinai (Ro 5:13).

Do you believe and obey the NT Word of God?

Since you seem to be oblivious to anything written in the "OT" I'll give you "NT". (I still don't understand how christians are comfortable splitting God's Word in two...)

Rom. 5:13~Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
1 Tim. 2:14~And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Sin/Transgression was, is and will always be defined as GOING AGAINST the Instructions of God.
Started in the garden...and still continues to this day.

Adam and Eve broke the first food law

 

[JLB777]

Since you seem to be oblivious to anything written in the "OT" I'll give you "NT". (I still don't understand how christians are comfortable splitting God's Word in two...)

Rom. 5:13~Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
1 Tim. 2:14~And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Sin/Transgression was, is and will always be defined as GOING AGAINST the Instructions of God.
Started in the garden...and still continues to this day.

Adam and Eve broke the first food law

So my question to you is; Why do you insist on feeding from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil rather than the tree of life.

The New covenant comes with the Law built into the Divine Nature.

Your purpose now is to "Walk before Him" so that His Spirit will fill and empower The Divine Nature to do God's will.

All you seem to talk about is keeping the Law of Moses.

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks!

Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh!


JLB

 

[Clare73]

Clare...sin is the transgression of the Torah of God.
Are you meaning to tell me that Adam and Eve did not sin?

Adam and Eve transgressed the law God gave them, "Do not eat. . ."
Transgression of the law is sin (1Jn 3:4), so Adam and Eve sinned.

No other law was promulgated until Sinai.
Therefore, there was no transgression of the law, which is sin, from Adam to Moses,
when the Mosaic Law was then promulgated.
From the time of Adam to Moses, no sin was taken into account (Ro 4:15, 5:13).

Okay, what's missing here in our understanding is the Son's completed revelation in the NT Word of God which explains the bigger picture, of which "no sin taken into account from Adam to Moses" is a part.

There is a reason this issue is so important in the Son's full and completed revelation (Heb 1:1-3).
It goes to mankind's moral responsibility for Adam's sin.

The completed revelation of the Son establishes that we are all born in sin (Col 2:13, Eph 2:1) and objects of God's wrath from birth (Eph 2:3; Jn 3:36, 18), and that includes God's people (Ro 3:9).
It is God's purpose to lock up all men (Jew and Gentile) in sin (Ro 3:9-19, 23), so that he may have mercy on them all (Ro 11:32).

So the revelation of the Son establishes that we are born in, and guilty of Adam's sin.

It does so in logical fashion in Ro 5:12-21, where

• death is the result of sin (Ro 6:23);
• sin is the transgression of the law (1Jn 3:4);
• where there is no law, sin is not taken into account--no guilt causing death (Ro 4:15, 5:13, 6:23);
• but death reigned from Adam to Moses over those who were not guilty of sin (the only cause of death) by transgressing the law (Ro 5:14);
• so the only sin, for which mankind from Adam to Moses (both Jew and Gentile) could be guilty of death, was the sin of Adam (Ro 5:15-19);
• therefore, we are born guilty of Adam's sin (Eph 2:1; Col 2:13) and under the wrath of God from birth (Eph 2:3; Jn 3:36, 18), both Jew and Gentile (Ro 3:9), so that God may have mercy on all (Ro 11:32).

Are you telling me that the inhabitants of Sodom did not sin? Perhaps you should read Genesis 13:13...
Are you telling me that adultery was not considered a sin in Genesis 20?

I am telling you that the completed revelation of the Son in the NT Word of God states that sin was not taken into account until the Law of Moses was given (Ro 4:15, 5:13), that the sin, for which mankind was guilty of death from Adam to Moses, was the sin of Adam (Ro 5:15-19).

So do you believe and obey 100% of the NT Word of God, as you claimed?

What do you know and understand that was not known and understood by Peter, James, John, Paul and Apollos (1Co 1:12; Ac 18:24-28, 19:1; Tit 3:13; 1Co 3:5-6, 22, 4:6, 16:12)?
On what basis do you disagree with them?

 

[Clare73]

Since you seem to be oblivious to anything written in the "OT" I'll give you "NT". (I still don't understand how christians are comfortable splitting God's Word in two...)

Christians do it because the Word of God does it in Heb 1:1-2,
where it makes a distinction between revelation spoken by the prophets in many different ways to the forefathers,
and revelation spoken by the Son, to us.

Because of the superiority of the Son (He 1:2-4), it presents the revelation of the Son as superior in every way,
"for the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (Jn 1:17).
The contrast couldn't be greater.
The revelation of the Son is the full and completed revelation (of the former incomplete revelation given by the prophets) whose grace and truth alter the previous understanding of the revelations of old, particularly the Law.

The Word of God sees the NT as the completion of the OT, presenting the truth of it, which was only partially understood before Christ.

Rom. 5:13~Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

In context, the only sin for which mankind was guilty from Adam to Moses is the sin of Adam (Ro 5:12-21),
because there was no Law to transgress (Ro 4:15, 5:13).
"All sinned" because they were guilty of the sin of Adam, not guilty of transgressing the Law (Ro 5:14).

1Tim. 2:14~And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Yes, Eve transgressed the law which God gave Adam, "Do not eat. . ."
Transgression of the law is sin (1Jn 3:4).

Sin/Transgression was, is and will always be defined as GOING AGAINST the Instructions of God.
Started in the garden...and still continues to this day.

Where there is no law, sin is not taken into account (Ro 4:15, 5:13).
No law was promulgated between Adam and Moses, so no sin was taken into account during that time.
Law wasn't promulgated until 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant (Gal 3:17),
at which time it was temporarily (Heb 7:18) added (Gal 3:19; Ro 5:20) to that covenant.

"No sin taken into account" between Adam and Moses is all part of a bigger picture establishing that
all are born in sin (Col 2:13; Eph 2:1) and under the wrath of God from birth (Eph 2:3; Jn 3:36, 18),
because all are guilty of the sin of Adam from birth (Ro 5:12-21).

What more do you know than Peter, James, John, Paul and Apollos?
On what basis do you disagree with them?

Adam and Eve broke the first food law

If you are saying that, as in the food laws, God commanded them not to eat of the Tree of Life because it would make them unclean, you are mistaken.

 

[Source Scripture]

Here’s the deal.

Those 5 accounts are in reference to the Law of God given at Mt. Sinai. OF COURSE they will all be in agreement, as they are describing an event that took place at Mt. Sinai.
None of this however proves that Mt. Sinai, was the FIRST TIME that God’s Instructions were given to mankind.
This is the point that you seem to be constantly missing.

** The fact that God judged Cain for his ‘fruit sacrifice’ and blessed Abel for his correct firstborn lamb sacrifice, shows us that God’s Torah regarding sacrifices and offering were already instructed WAAAY before Sinai.

**The fact that God told Noah about clean and unclean animals, proves that the Torah regarding what is to be considered a clean and unclean animals were already instructed before Sinai.

**The fact that God condemned the sin of sodomy in Genesis 13 proves to us that the Torah regarding homosexuality and immorality existed long before Mt. Sinai.

**The fact that God condemned adultery in Genesis 20 and 39 proves to us that the ‘seventh commandment’ was instructed long before Mt. Sinai.

**God punished Adam and Eve for coveting and stealing in the Garden, LONG before the 8th and 10th commandments were given at Mt. Sinai.

**Exodus 16, several days or even weeks before Mt. Sinai, God is expecting Israel to keep the 4th commandment.

So you see, just a couple of quick clues to point you in the right direction. Sin WAS, IS and WILL ALWAYS be transgressing the Torah of God.

Whether the first sin committed in the garden, or any sin you commit today, it is defined in Scripture!
God’s Torah is ETERNAL!

His Torah precedes and transcends all covenants and time periods, because it’s HIS WORD!

Hi, I am here for frogster, he is a bit busy today. Then why no admission in all the teachings of the NT, that somehow the law was there, before sinai, which totally goes against Galatians 3:17, the law CAME 430 LATER...what does later mean? What does CAME mean?

Why do u ignore all the clear text, and Abrahamic usage, that totally flies in the face of your fishing around at obscurities?

Why would they, David, Moses, Stephen, Paul and Hebrews all stress Sinai, and Paul use Abe, to cast off law, if it were pre Sinai? Why? How?


How could he have the law, Abe, since law voids the promise?

Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

Does this not say, that it can't be both?


Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

Why does it say, a time of no law? If you understood the headship argument of romans 5, youu would cease this argument you support immediately.

Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

All we post is clear decisive text, all used to strike down your MJ teaching, as by the Holy Spirit, we do not fish around for extraneous teaching, to go against the clear overt text, that clealry shows no law, before Sinai.

 

[Source Scripture]

Since you seem to be oblivious to anything written in the "OT" I'll give you "NT". (I still don't understand how christians are comfortable splitting God's Word in two...)

Rom. 5:13~Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--
1 Tim. 2:14~And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Sin/Transgression was, is and will always be defined as GOING AGAINST the Instructions of God.
Started in the garden...and still continues to this day.

Adam and Eve broke the first food law

Romans 5 emphasizes one transgression, not 6;13. One can break a command, that is not a written command from the law. Jesus commanded them to go to Jerusalem for the promise, was that a Mosaic commandment, or a verbal one? Source.

 

[mandelduke]

A Priest Like Melchizedek: A Study of Hebrews 7
The New Testament often quotes the Old Testament. One of the most commonly quoted verses is Psalm 110:1: "The Lord says to my Lord: `Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'" The Gospels tell us that Jesus quoted this verse as a scripture about the Messiah.

If we read further in this psalm, we will come to verse 4, which has a thought found nowhere else in the Old Testament. This Lord is to be a priest—not a Levitical priest, but a different kind of priest.

The book of Hebrews tells us that this verse of the psalm is also about Jesus. It briefly mentions this in chapter 5, and then again at the end of chapter 6, telling us that Jesus "has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." Chapter 7 then explains this in more detail.

A priest without genealogy
It begins with a quick summary of the story in Genesis 14: "This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything" (Heb. 7:1-2).

First, the unusual name is explained. The Hebrew word melek means king, and tsedek means righteousness, so his name is explained as meaning "king of righteousness." And since shalom means peace, he was also the "king of peace" (v. 2). These titles are significant because Melchizedek prefigures Jesus Christ.

Then we are told that Melchizedek was "without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever" (v. 3).


From the grammar, it is not clear whether Melchizedek is like the Son in every respect, or just in being a perpetual priest. We know that Jesus had a Father, a mother, a genealogy, a birth and a death, so he was different in these respects. Scripture does not say that Melchizedek was the Son of God—just that he was "like" the Son. Hebrews 1:1-2 implies that the Son of God did not speak to the patriarchs.

However, Melchizedek had no parents that are mentioned in Scripture. His position as priest did not depend on his parents or his genealogy (unlike the Levitical priests). His priesthood was a different kind, a different order. Similarly, Scripture says nothing about his birth or death (unlike the patriarchs, who are carefully chronicled). He did not create a dynasty of priests, each dying and passing the priesthood to a son.

We might say today that he came out of nowhere, and then disappeared. Nevertheless, he remains known as a priest even today. "He remains a priest forever ... is declared to be living" (vv. 3, 8). (A similar thought may be in Luke 20:37-38—the patriarchs are among "the living.") This mysterious Melchizedek is the prototype of Jesus Christ.

Psalm 110 predicted that the Lord would be a priest in the same way: not according to genealogy, but by special appointment. This order of priests was significant in several ways: 1) it was more important than the Levitical priesthood, 2) it implied that the Levitical priesthood was temporary and 3) the new order was permanent.

Greater than Levi
Although little is known about Melchizedek, we can discern that he was very important. Abraham gave him 10 percent of the spoils of war (v. 4). The old covenant required the Israelites to give 10 percent to the Levites, but Abraham gave 10 percent to Melchizedek even though Melchizedek was not a Levite (vs. 5-6). He was getting priestly honors before Levi was even born.

From this, the author constructs a hypothetical argument: "One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor" (vs. 9-10). The author knows that Levi didn't actually pay tithes to Melchizedek, but in a figure of speech he did. The point is that Abraham is greater than Levi, since Abraham is Levi's ancestor, and Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, since Abraham paid tithes to him, so Melchizedek is greater than Levi.

Verses 6-7 emphasize Melchizedek's greatness: He not only received a tithe, he also blessed Abraham. "And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater." Abraham is the lesser person—but the real point of comparison being made is with Levi.

Since Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, he is also greater than Levi, and—most important for the book of Hebrews—his priesthood is more important than the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priests die, but Jesus has been made a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, a priesthood that is more important for our salvation.

New priesthood implies a new law
Now the author observes that "if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come—one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?" (v. 11).

Note in the middle of verse 11 that the law was given on the basis of the priesthood. The law was designed with the Levitical priesthood in mind—the law and the priesthood went together. But neither the law nor the priests could bring people to perfection. That is why Psalm 110 spoke of another priesthood.

The descendants of Aaron would be replaced by a better priesthood, a better priest—and that has enormous consequences: "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law" (v. 12). What law is changed? The law that said only Levites could be priests. Which law said that? The old covenant. This will become more clear later in this chapter, and in the next few chapters.

But first, the author wants to make certain basic facts clear. "He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe" (v. 13). We are speaking about Jesus, of whom it is said that he is a priest after the order of Melchizedek—but Jesus was not a Levite. He belonged to the tribe of Judah, and no one from that tribe was ever a priest, and Moses did not authorize anyone from Judah to be a priest (v. 14).

"And what we have said"—that is, that the law has been changed—"is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life" (vs. 15-16).

Jesus was appointed as priest not by a law that focused on genealogy, but because he lives forever at God's right hand. From this fact alone, we can see that the Law of Moses is no longer in force.

"The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God" (vs. 18-19). The law that restricted the priesthood to Levites was ineffective.

How much was "set aside"? Certainly, it was the regulation restricting the priesthood. But no one expected that restriction to produce perfection, anyway. There is more involved than just one regulation. It is "the law" as a whole that is under discussion here. The law of Moses did not have the power to make anyone perfect. The best that the old covenant could offer was not good enough.

Instead of the law, we are given a better hope, and since we have something better than the law, we are now able to draw near to God in a way that was not possible under the law of Moses.

Guaranteed by an oath
The author then uses a small detail from Psalm 110 to emphasize the importance of Jesus' appointment as priest. God himself makes an oath to appoint Jesus as high priest (v. 20). The descendants of Aaron became priests without any oath, but Jesus became priest by a special oath.

The old covenant was given by God, but here is a new word from God—not just an oath but also a promise of permanence: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: `You are a priest forever' " (v. 21). The old priesthood is obsolete. The old regulation was set aside. A new and better hope is given to bring people to a perfection that the law could not give.

"Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant" (v. 22). Here the word covenant is used for the first time in this letter, almost casually. It will be picked up again in the next three chapters for more detailed comment, but even here it is implied to be a replacement for the inferior, ineffective law of Moses. The discussion is not just about a minor priestly regulation but a covenant, which includes many laws.

Perhaps you know of someone who'd like to hear about this article. If so, go to the bottom of the page and click on "Email this page." Fill out the form, and share the good news! There's also a way to share the page on Facebook, Twitter, and other websites.

All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. Zondervan

Other popular articles

This article was written by Michael Morrison in 2002. Copyright Grace Communion International. All rights reserved.
The author then contrasts the mortality of the Levitical priests with the immortality of Jesus Christ: "Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood" (vs. 23-24). So the fact that there were many Levitical priests is actually an illustration of their weakness, not of their effectiveness. The genealogy that validated them also testified to the weakness of the entire system. Each high priest held office only temporarily, and the entire priesthood itself was temporary.

In contrast, because Jesus lives forever, he will forever continue to be our High Priest, because his priesthood is effective in bringing us to perfection: "Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them" (v. 25).

"Such a high priest meets our need," the author says (v. 26). Jesus is exactly what we need. He was human, so he knows our needs (2:14-18), and he is now in heaven, in power, so he can effectively intercede for us. We can therefore be confident that we can approach God through him (4:14-16). He gives us access to God in a way that the Levitical priests could only symbolize.

 

[Clare73]

And then what is Ananias, chopped liver?
The risen Christ told Ananias that Paul was his chosen instrument.

How many accounts from first-hand witnesses to these events do we have?

How many accounts of firsthand witnesses do we have every time God spoke the Law to Moses from the Holy Place?
(Lev 1:1, 4:1, 5:14, 6:1, 8, 19, 24, 7:22, 28, 8:1, 12:1, 14:1, 16:1, 2, 17:1, 18:1, 19:1, 20:1, 21:1, 16, 22:1, 17, 26, 23:1, 9, 23, 26, 33, 24:1, 27:1:1; Nu 1:1, 4:21, 5:1, 11, 6:1, 22, 8:1, 5, 23, 9:1, 10:1, 11:16, 23, 13:1, 15:1, 17, 37, 17:1, 18:25, 21:8, 34, 25:4, 10, 16, 26:52, 27:12, 18, 28:1, 31:1, 25, 34:1, 16, etc., etc., etc.)

Or spoke to Balaam (Nu 22:9, 12, 20, 23:16), etc.?

Does that keep you from believing that God did speak what is recorded of him?

This is misunderstanding, misusing and employing a double standard,
regarding the Biblical requirement of two or three witnesses,
which applies only to testimony regarding wrongdoing (Nu 35:30; Dt 17:6, 19:15; Mt 18:16; 1Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28).
And with your wrong requirement of two or three witnesses to the event of God speaking, you set at naught 99% of Leviticus, Numbers, the Prophets, etc., because there were no witnesses to it.
Likewise, your wrong requirement sets at naught Paul's call by the risen Christ to be an apostle (Gal 1:1; 1Ti 1:1), because there were no witnesses to that either.
And then there's the double standard of applying your wrong requirement to NT events, but not to OT events, such as God speaking to Balaam.
Do you believe God spoke to Balaam? There were no witnesses.

This is a grasping at straws of human rationale and double standards, with no Biblical foundation for your rejection of most of the NT Word of God.

Good luck with that.

 

[Clare73]

duplicate post

 

[JLB777]

Here’s the deal.

Those 5 accounts are in reference to the Law of God given at Mt. Sinai. OF COURSE they will all be in agreement, as they are describing an event that took place at Mt. Sinai.
None of this however proves that Mt. Sinai, was the FIRST TIME that God’s Instructions were given to mankind.
This is the point that you seem to be constantly missing.

** The fact that God judged Cain for his ‘fruit sacrifice’ and blessed Abel for his correct firstborn lamb sacrifice, shows us that God’s Torah regarding sacrifices and offering were already instructed WAAAY before Sinai.

**The fact that God told Noah about clean and unclean animals, proves that the Torah regarding what is to be considered a clean and unclean animals were already instructed before Sinai.

**The fact that God condemned the sin of sodomy in Genesis 13 proves to us that the Torah regarding homosexuality and immorality existed long before Mt. Sinai.

**The fact that God condemned adultery in Genesis 20 and 39 proves to us that the ‘seventh commandment’ was instructed long before Mt. Sinai.

**God punished Adam and Eve for coveting and stealing in the Garden, LONG before the 8th and 10th commandments were given at Mt. Sinai.

**Exodus 16, several days or even weeks before Mt. Sinai, God is expecting Israel to keep the 4th commandment.

So you see, just a couple of quick clues to point you in the right direction. Sin WAS, IS and WILL ALWAYS be transgressing the Torah of God.

Whether the first sin committed in the garden, or any sin you commit today, it is defined in Scripture!
God’s Torah is ETERNAL!

His Torah precedes and transcends all covenants and time periods, because it’s HIS WORD!

** The fact that God judged Cain for his ‘fruit sacrifice’ and blessed Abel for his correct firstborn lamb sacrifice, shows us that God’s Torah regarding sacrifices and offering were already instructed WAAAY before Sinai.


It is comments like this that show your true ignorance of the word, and therefore you have to twist the word to make it agree with your carnal understanding.


The word says GOD DID NOT RESPECT CAIN, therefore He did not respect his offering.

Genesis 4:5

but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.


WHY DID HE NOT RESPECT CAIN? BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS IN HIS HEART!

Cain tilled the ground! Therefore his offering should be of what his life produced!

It has NOTHING to do with fruit or sheep! It has everything to do with your heart. What you bring to God is what you EXCHANGE YOUR LIFE FOR.

The money you bring to God in an offering, REPRESENTS what you have exchanged your life for.

The problem God had with Cain is what was in his heart toward Able, NOT BECAUSE IT WAS FRUIT.

JESUS IS THE FIRST FRUITS OFFERING. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BRING A TENTH OF WHATEVER THEY PRODUCED!

Jesus taught us clearly -Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Matthew 5:23-24

As we see Cain had anger toward his brother and murdered him.

The Law of Moses does not teach this!

The commandments that Jesus is teaching in Matthew 5:19, that you say are the Law of Moses, is The DOCTRINE OF CHRIST! WHICH DEALS WITH THE HEART!


JLB

 

[ananda]

How many accounts of firsthand witnesses do we have every time God spoke the Law to Moses from the Holy Place?
(Lev 1:1, 4:1, 5:14, 6:1, 8, 19, 24, 7:22, 28, 8:1, 12:1, 14:1, 16:1, 2, 17:1, 18:1, 19:1, 20:1, 21:1, 16, 22:1, 17, 26, 23:1, 9, 23, 26, 33, 24:1, 27:1:1; Nu 1:1, 4:21, 5:1, 11, 6:1, 22, 8:1, 5, 23, 9:1, 10:1, 11:16, 23, 13:1, 15:1, 17, 37, 17:1, 18:25, 21:8, 34, 25:4, 10, 16, 26:52, 27:12, 18, 28:1, 31:1, 25, 34:1, 16, etc., etc., etc.) Or spoke to Balaam (Nu 22:9, 12, 20, 23:16), etc.? ... there's the double standard of not applying it to OT events.

Torah itself is witnessed to by 1) Messiah Himself, 2) Joshua, 3) the testimony of Israel, and 4) time and space (i.e. fulfilled prophecy).

Does that keep you from believing that God did speak what is recorded of him?

Why would I be kept from believing Torah? I have multiple witnesses.

This is misunderstanding, misusing and applying a double standard regarding the Biblical mandate requiring two or three witnesses, which applies only to testimony regarding wrongdoing (Nu 35:30; Dt 17:6, 19:15; Mt 18:16; 1Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28).

If anyone comes bearing a false message which may condemn someone to eternal death, that would surely be a "wrongdoing".

And with such misuse of it, 99% of Leviticus, Numbers, the Prophets, etc. are set at naught, as well as falsely setting at naught Paul's call by the risen Christ to be an apostle (Gal 1:1; 1Ti 1:1). This is a grasping at straws of human rationale and double standards, with no Biblical foundation for your rejection of most of the NT Word of God. Good luck with that.

I don't need luck, thanks