The old covenant is it still for the unbelieving jews versus the new?

[Clare73]

How so?

According to the definition of "strawman."

 

[Soyeong]

According to the definition of "strawman."

I am aware of the definition of "strawman", but am not aware of why you think what I said fits that definition, so if you are unable to explain how what I said is a strawman, then I see no good reason to think that is the case.

 

[Soyeong]

Your post is attempting to claim the New Testament does not mean what it says when we find the New Covenant has made the Old Covenant "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13.

I said that I agreed that the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, so I said nothing contrary to Hebrews 8:13, but rather I spoke in regard to how it should be understood. In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves following God's law, so 8:13 should not be interpreted as speaking about God's law becoming obsolete, but rather it only speaks about the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete. Jesus did not establish the New Covenant until the end of his ministry, so everything that he taught up until that point was in regard to how to live under the Mosaic Covenant, and he did not establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example, but rather the the New Covenant still involves following God's law.

In Deuteronomy 10:12-16, God commanded them to circumcise their hearts and obey His law. In Deuteronomy 30:1-8, it prophesies a time when Israel would return from exile, God would circumcise their hearts, and they would return to obedience to God's law. In Ezekiel 36:26-28 and Jeremiah 31:33, the context is in regard to Israel returning from exile and the New Covenant and say that God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us to obey God's law, and that He will put His law in our minds and write it on our hearts, so these verses are describing the Spirit as circumcising our hearts. In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God's law and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those with uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey God's law. So the New Covenant is all about returning to obedience to God's law.

Did Abraham keep the commandments that God gave him? Absolutely.
He went to the land God showed him, and he circumcised his male offspring. We are not commanded to do either under the New Covenant fulfilled by the blood of Christ at Calvary.

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become justified, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect purpose and a ruling against requiring what God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against requiring what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God.

Based on the passages below, the ten commandments are the Sinai Covenant and it was not given at an earlier time.

Exo 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Deu 5:1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
Deu 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
Deu 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

.

That is a demonstrably false interpretation of Deuteronomy 5:1-3 because in Genesis 39:9, Joseph knew that it was a sin to commit adultery long before the Mosaic Covenant was made. If the God has made a covenant with us that he didn't make with the ancient Israelites and it contains at least some of the same laws as the covenant that God made with the ancient Israelites, then the fact that God made a covenant with the ancient Israelites that He did not make with their fathers does not mean that any of its laws were not given at an earlier time, such as with the law against adultery. It will always against God's eternal righteousness to commit adultery no matter how many covenants God makes, and if that were ever change, then God's eternal righteousness would not be eternal, so any number of covenant being made or becoming obsolete has nothing to do with which actions are eternally in accordance or against God's eternal nature.

 

[BABerean2]

That is a demonstrably false interpretation of Deuteronomy 5:1-3 because in Genesis 39:9, Joseph knew that it was a sin to commit adultery long before the Mosaic Covenant was made.

It was also a sin when Cain killed his brother Able, long before Mount Sinai.

I accept what the text says.

If Exodus 34:28 says the ten commandments were the Sinai Covenant, then I accept it.

If Deuteronomy 5:1-3 says the Sinai Covenant was not given at an earlier time, then I accept it.

If Paul says in Galatians 3:16-29 the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed (Christ) could come to whom the promise was made, I accept what Paul said, and what Paul said in that passage agrees with the two verses above.

If Paul tells the Galatians in Galatians 4:24-31 to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage", then I have to accept what Paul says. I do not have to re-interpret the passage in order to hang onto the Sinai Covenant.

We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Zion in Hebrews 12:22-24. I can clearly see the contrast between the two covenants in the passage, because I accept what the text says.

.

 

[Clare73]

It was also a sin when Cain killed his brother Able, long before Mount Sinai.

I accept what the text says.

If Exodus 34:28 says the ten commandments were the Sinai Covenant, then I accept it.

If Deuteronomy 5:1-3 says the Sinai Covenant was not given at an earlier time, then I accept it.

If Paul says in Galatians 3:16-29 the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed (Christ) could come to whom the promise was made, I accept what Paul said, and what Paul said in that passage agrees with the two verses above.

If Paul tells the Galatians in Galatians 4:24-31 to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage", then I have to accept what Paul says. I do not have to re-interpret the passage in order to hang onto the Sinai Covenant.

We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Zion in Hebrews 12:22-24. I can clearly see the contrast between the two covenants in the passage, because I accept what the text says.

.

Excellent!

 

[Soyeong]

It was also a sin when Cain killed his brother Able, long before Mount Sinai.

I accept what the text says.

If Exodus 34:28 says the ten commandments were the Sinai Covenant, then I accept it.

If Deuteronomy 5:1-3 says the Sinai Covenant was not given at an earlier time, then I accept it.

If Paul says in Galatians 3:16-29 the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed (Christ) could come to whom the promise was made, I accept what Paul said, and what Paul said in that passage agrees with the two verses above.

If Paul tells the Galatians in Galatians 4:24-31 to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage", then I have to accept what Paul says. I do not have to re-interpret the passage in order to hang onto the Sinai Covenant.

We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Zion in Hebrews 12:22-24. I can clearly see the contrast between the two covenants in the passage, because I accept what the text says.

.

Please acknowledge that two people can both accept what the text says while having different interpretations of what is says, so I can accept what the text says while rejecting your interpretation of it, especially when you have been so kind as demonstrate that your interpretation is false by saying that it was a sin for Cain to kill his brother before Sinai.

I accept that Deuteronomy 5:1-3 says that God made a covenant with them that He hadn't made with their fathers, however, it is your interpretation that this means that none of the laws of the Mosaic Covenant were previously given, and I reject this interpretation because it is demonstrable that many of the laws of the Mosaic Covenant were previously given, such as the laws against adultery and murder. Furthermore, there is nothing about establishing the New Covenant that means that any of its laws weren't previously given, such as the greatest two commandments, so there is nothing about establishing the Mosaic Covenant that means that any of its laws were not previously given.

You do not accept verses that speak against God's laws being practiced prior to when they were given at Sinai. I accept what Galatians 3:16-29 says, but I do not interpret in a way that undermines what Christ accomplished through his ministry and the cross. I accept what Galatians 4:24-31 says, though unlike you, I also accept the next verse. I accept that there are difference between the covenants, but you do not accept that Jeremiah 31:33 says that the New Covenant involves following the Torah.

 

[BABerean2]

I accept that there are difference between the covenants, but you do not accept that Jeremiah 31:33 says that the New Covenant involves following the Torah.

I also accept what you ignored in Jeremiah 31:32, and what is in Hebrews 7:12, and Acts 15:24, and Hebrews 12:18-24.


Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


Which law?
Circumcise your male offspring?


Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:


.

 

[Soyeong]

I also accept what you ignored in Jeremiah 31:32, and what is in Hebrews 7:12, and Acts 15:24, and Hebrews 12:18-24.


Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

I agreed that there are differences between the covenants, so I was not ignoring verses that speak about the differences. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so while it it is true that the the New Covenant is not like the Mosaic Covenant, the way that it is not like it is clearly not in regard to following the Torah. In Deuteronomy 10:12-16, in the Mosaic Covenant commands the people to circumcise their hearts and obey the Torah, while in the New Covenant, God circumcises our hearts and leads us to obey the Torah. Likewise, in Hebrews 8:6-13, it speaks about the New Covenant being based on better promises and having a superior mediator, but says nothing about it having superior laws. For example, in Jeremiah 31:35-37, God promised that Israel would never cease to be a nation before Him.

Which law?
Circumcise your male offspring?


Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so God's laws for how to act in accordance with His righteousness are therefore also eternal (Psalms 119:160) and if the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness were to ever change, such as with it becoming righteous to commit adultery or sinful to help the poor, then God's righteousness would not be eternal. So the change of the law that Hebrews 7:12 could not be in regard to its content, but rather the context is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would also require a change of the law in regard to its administration.

Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:


.

Again, a ruling against requiring circumcision for a purpose for which God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God. When God has commanded something and you think that the Jerusalem Council ruled against obeying what God has commanded, then you have a decision to make about who has the higher authority and which one to follow. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Torah, so you should not interpret Acts 15 in a way that makes the Jerusalem Council out to be false prophets, and even if your interpretation were correct, then according to God, you should consider them to be false prophets and disregard everything they said. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Torah by word and by example and Acts 15 should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles being followers of Christ. Rather, the reality is that Jerusalem Council were servants of God who never spoke against obeying what He has commanded. In Acts 15:21, the expectation was that Gentiles would continue to learn about how to obey the Torah by hearing Moses taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.

 

[BABerean2]

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Torah by word and by example and Acts 15 should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles being followers of Christ.

Would you have been one of those who accused Jesus of breaking the "Torah" in the passage below?

Joh 5:12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?
Joh 5:13 And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.
Joh 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
Joh 5:15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
Joh 5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.


It was legal for priests to work on the Sabbath day, and we know Christ was a High Priest. Therefore, He did not break God's law in the passage above even though the Pharisees accused Him of doing so.
In the passage below Peter revealed that New Covenant believers are a member of the "priesthood". Therefore, it is legal for us to work on the Sabbath day under the terms of the New Covenant.


1Pe 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.


Therefore, the Old Covenant law has been changed to include a priesthood of all believers in the New Covenant. Read Hebrews 7:12 again with this in mind.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

.

 

[Soyeong]

Would you have been one of those who accused Jesus of breaking the "Torah" in the passage below?

Joh 5:12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?
Joh 5:13 And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.
Joh 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
Joh 5:15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
Joh 5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.


It was legal for priests to work on the Sabbath day, and we know Christ was a High Priest. Therefore, He did not break God's law in the passage above even though the Pharisees accused Him of doing so.
In the passage below Peter revealed that New Covenant believers are a member of the "priesthood". Therefore, it is legal for us to work on the Sabbath day under the terms of the New Covenant.

I have stated that Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Torah, so I would not be one of those who accused him of breaking it. The issue is that some of God's laws appear to conflict with each other, such as with priests being commanded to rest on the Sabbath while also being commanded to make offering on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however it was not the case that priests were forced to sin by disobeying one of the two commandments no matter what they chose to do, but that one of the commandments was greater and the lesser commandment was never intended to be understood as preventing the greater commandments from being obeyed, which is why there is so much discussion within Judaism about which commandment is the greatest. So this is why in Matthew 12:5-7 that priests who performed their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why Jesus defended his disciples as being innocent. This is also why it is lawful to circumcise a baby on the 8th day if it happens to fall on the Sabbath or why it is lawful to get an ox or a child out of a ditch on the Sabbath.

A group of Pharisees had reason that healing is work and that it is unlawful to do work on the Sabbath, therefore it is unlawful to heal on the Sabbath. However, we are also commanded to love our neighbor, and it would not be loving our neighbor to refuse to heal them, and no commanded was intended to be understood as preventing the greatest two commandments from being obeyed, which is why Jesus ruled that it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath. So there were some forms of work that were never intended to be understood as being prohibited by the Sabbath, however, the fact that it was lawful for priests to do the work of offering sacrifices on the Sabbath does not mean that priests could do whatever work they wanted without breaking the Sabbath.

1Pe 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.


Therefore, the Old Covenant law has been changed to include a priesthood of all believers in the New Covenant. Read Hebrews 7:12 again with this in mind.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

.

In 1 Peter 2:4-10, the terms that it uses to describe what Gentiles have become part of are terms that were used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so that is not a change, and Gentile also have the delight of getting to obey the laws that God gave to Israel for how to fulfill those roles.

 

[BABerean2]

In 1 Peter 2:4-10, the terms that it uses to describe what Gentiles have become part of are terms that were used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so that is not a change, and Gentile also have the delight of getting to obey the laws that God gave to Israel for how to fulfill those roles.

Are you going to claim there is one set of laws for Gentiles, and another set of Old Covenant laws for modern Jews?

What did Paul say below about "genealogies"?


1Ti_1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Tit_3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

.

 

[Soyeong]

Are you going to claim there is one set of laws for Gentiles, and another set of Old Covenant laws for modern Jews?

No.

What did Paul say below about "genealogies"?


1Ti_1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Tit_3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

.

I didn't say anything about genealogies. The Bible contains genealogies, so there is an appropriate use of them, though there is also a foolish misuse of them that should be avoided, and what was only said again an inappropriate use of them should not be mistaken as speaking against their appropriate use.

 

[BABerean2]

In 1 Peter 2:4-10, the terms that it uses to describe what Gentiles have become part of are terms that were used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so that is not a change, and Gentile also have the delight of getting to obey the laws that God gave to Israel for how to fulfill those roles.

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:


I see nothing about a "priesthood" in the verse below.

Deu 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.


Every Israelite was not a member of the priesthood in the Old Covenant.


.

 

[Soyeong]

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:


I see nothing about a "priesthood" in the verse below.

Deu 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.


Every Israelite was not a member of the priesthood in the Old Covenant.


.

Exodus 19:5-6 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

 

[BABerean2]

Exodus 19:5-6 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

Are you trying to say every person under the Old Covenant was a part of the priesthood?

.

 

[Soyeong]

Are you trying to say every person under the Old Covenant was a part of the priesthood?

.

Much like other things taught in the NT, the concept of being a kingdom of priests is not something that was invented in the NT, but rather the NT authors got it from what they read.

 

[BABerean2]

Much like other things taught in the NT, the concept of being a kingdom of priests is not something that was invented in the NT, but rather the NT authors got it from what they read.

How many tribes were a part of the priesthood in the Old Covenant?

.

 

[Soyeong]

How many tribes were a part of the priesthood in the Old Covenant?

.

The role of priests was to put God on display, help people navigate atonement, intercede on behalf of others, and distribute resources to those in need, which was something that all of the tribes of Israel could do, though only the the Levites were called to do that to a greater degree. Furthermore, those are the things that we are also called to do by becoming part of this holy priesthood.

 

[BABerean2]

The role of priests was to put God on display, help people navigate atonement, intercede on behalf of others, and distribute resources to those in need, which was something that all of the tribes of Israel could do, though only the the Levites were called to do that to a greater degree. Furthermore, those are the things that we are also called to do by becoming part of this holy priesthood.

Have you got any scripture to prove what you have said above?

.

 

[Clare73]

The role of priests was to put God on display, help people navigate atonement, intercede on behalf of others, and distribute resources to those in need, which was something that all of the tribes of Israel could do, though only the the Levites were called to do that to a greater degree. Furthermore, those are the things that we are also called to do by becoming part of this holy priesthood.

The role of the priesthood was to teach the people the law, offer the sacrifices and administer the ceremonial laws.