The question SDA never answer.

[OrthodoxyUSA]

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

What law changed?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Sophrosyne]

What law changed?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

You won't get a straight answer from this question.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You won't get a straight answer from this question.

That's my point. They don't know. They honestly think nothing has, and nothing should, 'change' where the law is concerned.

And yet, it did.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[VictorC]

What law changed?

This same topic came up nearly a month ago, and I posted this.

The use of the Greek metathesis used to describe the 'change' of the Law in Hebrews 7:12 conveys a dual meaning dependent on context in its definition:

• transfer: from one place to another
• to change

Where this same epistle describes a transfer of location by the time the author wrote Hebrews 10:9, the narrative describes a 'change' in the manner of the Law's loss of jurisdiction.

 

[Sophrosyne]

That's my point. They don't know. They honestly think nothing has, and nothing should, 'change' where the law is concerned.

And yet, it did.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

Their idea is that we now have an "easier" to keep law that doesn't require animal sacrifices nor stonings of lawbreakers. We can now use Paul and Jesus to bend the Law to our will while still being compliant (keeping it).

 

[PROPHECYKID]

What law changed?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

Your question shows a misunderstand of the SDA position. We do not claim that none of the law is abolished. We do not claim that everything is the same as it was in the OT.

Hebrews 10:1 tells you that the law is a shadow of things to come and goes on to explain that it was because of the sacrifices and ordinance contained in the law that it no longer is necessary.

What we do not do which others do is clump up every single law of the OT into one unit. We understand that God's commandment which says Thou Shalt not commit adultery is different from the law which said that if woman is caught in adultery she should be stonned to death. We understand that the latter was only a civil law to serve the nation of Israel at that time while God command not to commit adultery was a moral law stating what sin is.

So when it speaks of the changing the priesthood meaning Jesus not being out high priest and no longer an earthly priest. It means all those laws that talked about what the earthly priest needed to do and what offerings he was to make and what feasts they were supposed to have to make atonement for sin, all of this needs to be changed. Out new high priest has a different method. Our new high priest says we approach the throne of grace boldly and we do not need to bring a lamb anymore. Our new high priest says no more meat offering and drink offers and no more special days like the day of atonement and the Pentecost. No more need for that. This is what you get when you read Hebrews 7 - 10.

Hebrews 7 - 10 specifically focuses on the elements of the sanctuary service and the ritual and ordinances that were done before, and how we now because of the New Covenant no longer need to perform those things. How Jesus now is in the Heavenly Sanctuary ministering on our behalf. That is what the change of the law is about.

 

[Standing Up]

What law changed?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

I thought you were going to ask whether keeping the 10 commandments was somehow salvific.

 

[Shimshon]

Never say never, huh.

Seems you have your SDA answer, the law has changed, been transformed. It's not observed the same way it was commanded from Sinai.

oh no, does this mean you two agree in regards to the law? Ortho, you going SDA on us?

EDIT: Please forgive the intrusion, I misread this forum from the 'new posts' page as being in General Theology, I have no intention of stirring your Orthodox pot. Be blessed....

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Your question shows a misunderstand of the SDA position. We do not claim that none of the law is abolished. We do not claim that everything is the same as it was in the OT.

Hebrews 10:1 tells you that the law is a shadow of things to come and goes on to explain that it was because of the sacrifices and ordinance contained in the law that it no longer is necessary.

What we do not do which others do is clump up every single law of the OT into one unit. We understand that God's commandment which says Thou Shalt not commit adultery is different from the law which said that if woman is caught in adultery she should be stonned to death. We understand that the latter was only a civil law to serve the nation of Israel at that time while God command not to commit adultery was a moral law stating what sin is.

So when it speaks of the changing the priesthood meaning Jesus not being out high priest and no longer an earthly priest. It means all those laws that talked about what the earthly priest needed to do and what offerings he was to make and what feasts they were supposed to have to make atonement for sin, all of this needs to be changed. Out new high priest has a different method. Our new high priest says we approach the throne of grace boldly and we do not need to bring a lamb anymore. Our new high priest says no more meat offering and drink offers and no more special days like the day of atonement and the Pentecost. No more need for that. This is what you get when you read Hebrews 7 - 10.

Hebrews 7 - 10 specifically focuses on the elements of the sanctuary service and the ritual and ordinances that were done before, and how we now because of the New Covenant no longer need to perform those things. How Jesus now is in the Heavenly Sanctuary ministering on our behalf. That is what the change of the law is about.

At least that's a decently thought out answer.

So SDA just pick and choose as they see fit, yet deny that same right to The Apostolic Churches who have been following Sunday worship as it was given in Jerusalem to all the Churches.

The fourth commandment was one of those things fulfilled.

What gives the SDA the right to say what Jerusalem's 1st century Christian worship was like when The Church of Jerusalem, who still exists, is standing in the background saying the SDA is incorrect about the keeping of the Sabbath?

The SDA picked up the written Gospels and Epistles that come from The Church and then pretend they have the authority to preach back to The Church on what The Church believes and teaches.

So... all the Apostolic Churches are wrong and the SDA has it correct.

What a riot!

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Never say never, huh.

Seems you have your SDA answer, the law has changed, been transformed. It's not observed the same way it was commanded from Sinai.

oh no, does this mean you two agree in regards to the law? Ortho, you going SDA on us?

Not at all. You forgot something.

The fourth commandment changed as well, been transformed as you say.

You going Orthodox?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[VictorC]

At least that's a decently thought out answer.

I have to admit that I really struggled once I saw the argument relying on a civil law that's nowhere to be found.

 

[Standing Up]

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

What law changed?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

Change from the Levitical Law, including the 10 commandments.

What did it change to ...

 

[Shimshon]

Not at all. You forgot something.

The fourth commandment changed as well, been transformed as you say.

You going Orthodox?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

I don't imagine I am. Neither do I imagine Messiah changed my being a Jew because of my faith in him.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

At least that's a decently thought out answer.

So SDA just pick and choose as they see fit, yet deny that same right to The Apostolic Churches who have been following Sunday worship as it was given in Jerusalem to all the Churches.

The fourth commandment was one of those things fulfilled.

What gives the SDA the right to say what Jerusalem's 1st century Christian worship was like when The Church of Jerusalem, who still exists, is standing in the background saying the SDA is incorrect about the keeping of the Sabbath?

The SDA picked up the written Gospels and Epistles that come from The Church and then pretend they have the authority to preach back to The Church on what The Church believes and teaches.

So... all the Apostolic Churches are wrong and the SDA has it correct.

What a riot!

God be gracious to me a sinner.

What in my answer demonstrates a picking and choosing as I saw fit.

Read Hebrews 8 - 10. Where is the emphasis being placed.

Hebrews 8 - 10 are the only chapters in the bible which deal exclusively with the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Yet its repeatedly talks about sacrifices, ordinances, offerings, priesthood, sanctuary and things along those lines. There only mention of the law which was not in relation to those things are the two occasions in chapters 8 and 10 where he says he will put his laws in our minds and write them on our hearts.

Don't accuse me of picking and choosing, It is clear the bible is picking and choosing and you are generalizing.

 

[Sophrosyne]

What in my answer demonstrates a picking and choosing as I saw fit.

Read Hebrews 8 - 10. Where is the emphasis being placed.

Hebrews 8 - 10 are the only chapters in the bible which deal exclusively with the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Yet its repeatedly talks about sacrifices, ordinances, offerings, priesthood, sanctuary and things along those lines. There only mention of the law which was not in relation to those things are the two occasions in chapters 8 and 10 where he says he will put his laws in our minds and write them on our hearts.

Don't accuse me of picking and choosing, It is clear the bible is picking and choosing and you are generalizing.

If the Law doesn't change then you are picking and choosing when you don't keep it EXACTLY as it was kept at the time it was given. If you keep it differently you ARE picking and choosing how to (not) keep it.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

If the Law doesn't change then you are picking and choosing when you don't keep it EXACTLY as it was kept at the time it was given. If you keep it differently you ARE picking and choosing how to (not) keep it.

The handwriting of ordinances was nailed to the cross according to Col 2:14. You don't have to keep what was nailed to the cross.

Did David keep all the laws written by Moses? Even back in those days there was an obvious change. What was the penalty for David's sin? What about Bathsheba. Why didn't God tell the prophet to tell David that he should die?

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Hebrews 8:6

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

You were saying?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Sophrosyne]

The handwriting of ordinances was nailed to the cross according to Col 2:14. You don't have to keep what was nailed to the cross.

And this includes? Sounds like another pick and choose here to me.

Did David keep all the laws written by Moses? Even back in those days there was an obvious change. What was the penalty for David's sin? What about Bathsheba. Why didn't God tell the prophet to tell David that he should die?

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Tell me who decided to change David's punishment... was it man or God? God throughout the Bible has allowed exceptions to the rules but they never become the rule themselves for all. There were still people being stoned for adultery in the Bible at the same time David wasn't stoned. This stoning continued even until the time of Jesus when he ALSO decided to make an exception to the rule. Jesus never said it was not a valid punishment for the woman he just showed them he was God and judged her and chose punishment himself which is his choice.

I think it ironic that people claim the Law hasn't changed but here you say it changes yet you don't allow it to continue to change beyond your liking to where there is no Law at all being held over people. I say the Law stands unchanged for those who wish to keep it and is nothing but a shadow of the past for those who in the spirit of God decide not to partake of it at all.
These people see the entirety of the Law (ordinances) nailed to the cross.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

And this includes? Sounds like another pick and choose here to me.
Tell me who decided to change David's punishment... was it man or God? God throughout the Bible has allowed exceptions to the rules but they never become the rule themselves for all. There were still people being stoned for adultery in the Bible at the same time David wasn't stoned. This stoning continued even until the time of Jesus when he ALSO decided to make an exception to the rule. Jesus never said it was not a valid punishment for the woman he just showed them he was God and judged her and chose punishment himself which is his choice.

"There were still people being stoned for adultery in the Bible at the same time David wasn't stoned"

Can you provide proof of this or is it an assumption?

I am sure you can't find proof of that in the OT testament during or after the time of David.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

Seems to be speaking of the decalogue to me. And look, change too.

God be gracious to me a sinner.