Azygous Assembly

[Wick Stick]

I can't honestly say I fully understand Rev 7 and the "144,000." However, I agree that they seem to represent the ultimate Christianization of Israel in the Millennium, which begins in the " Tribulation Period" with a remnant of Jews.

I don't believe, personally, that the Mosaic Law is "paused." Rather, I think the Law was irrevocably broken. While it's true that the Law could and was re-instituted in ancient times, after being utterly broken (Zerubbabel), I don't believe that after Christ the Law would ever be reinstated.

If ceremonies of the Law are ever reinstituted in some way, it will have to be under the New Covenant, which is legally based on the righteousness of Christ, and not on the righteousness of the Law. Any religious ceremonies, based on the Law, would have to become mere superficial displays as memorials or holidays, rather than binding laws from God.

I personally believe that all who claim to be "Christian" in a proper way, by embracing all of the cardinal doctrines of the faith, have entered into a covenant relationship with God, aka a contract. And yes, by becoming an "apostate" that status would be changed. Such a person would be "cut off" from the contract, having turned against it or defiled it in an unredeemable way.

What I meant is that the Law brought Israel to the position of being unable to redeem themselves by the Law. The national contract with God failed to establish Israel forever. However, it was, I think, God's plan to save Israel by mercy, apart from the Law, which would have to begin with a faithful remnant before becoming a full national restoration.

Quite frankly, I don't think there is this "change" in the "will" from OT to NT. True, it is described as such, but without declaring it to be unique in history to this one covenant. It is descriptive, I think, of all true revivals, OT or NT, in which people stop being superficially religious and begin to focus on truly wanting to serve God.

Thanks for the discussion.

What you mean when you say "the Law?"

Are you speaking of the 10 Commandments? The 613 ordinances of the Law? The whole of Deuteronomy? All 5 books of Moses? Or maybe just the Levitical priesthood?

I don't see where the 10 commandments were ever abrogated. Most of them are re-affirmed in the New Testament.

On the other hand, it's explicit that the Levitical priesthood was replaced, and the commandments for the making of those priests annulled. Paul says the laws for the Jewish feasts and the dietary laws no longer bind, although I'm not sure if he's referring to Gentiles, Jews, or both when he says it. What about the other 600-ish laws?

 

[Randy Kluth]

What you mean when you say "the Law?"

Are you speaking of the 10 Commandments? The 613 ordinances of the Law? The whole of Deuteronomy? All 5 books of Moses? Or maybe just the Levitical priesthood?

I don't see where the 10 commandments were ever abrogated. Most of them are re-affirmed in the New Testament.

On the other hand, it's explicit that the Levitical priesthood was replaced, and the commandments for the making of those priests annulled. Paul says the laws for the Jewish feasts and the dietary laws no longer bind, although I'm not sure if he's referring the Gentiles, Jews, or both when he says it. What about the other 600-ish laws?

Yes, good questions. I bind all 613 or so requirements into a single covenant I refer to as "the Law of Moses." The 10 Commandments are a subset of this same Law.

And so, in the passing of "the Law" as a covenant, all 613 requirements would no longer be required, including all 10 of the 10 Commandments. That is, they would no longer be required "as a set," though certainly the moral elements within the Law could be required under a completely different covenant.

The New Covenant does require many of the moral elements contained in the Law and specifically in the 10 Commandments. However, in the 10 Commandments we have the Sabbath requirement, which is associated not with Moral Law, but rather, with the functioning of that specific Covenant.

With the departure of the Law went the priesthood, temple law, and sacrifices, along with many other laws, including feasts, dietary, and purification requirements. The Law was a contract between God and Israel, designed by God to keep Israel in close fellowship with Himself until a means of resurrection could be provided for.

However, it was understood, in advance, by God that at some point Israel would fail under that contract, it being that never is the whole nation in compliance with it, leading to the "leavening" of sin throughout the entire nation. The nation was always destined to fail under the Law, and to suffer the annulment of that agreement.

The Law, however, could be and was restored during the Persian era, after failing during the Babylonian Captivity. In Jesus' time, Israel failed again, and the contract was cancelled at the death of Jesus. At Jesus' resurrection, however, the Law did not need to be restored since resurrection had finally been provided for on behalf of those in Israel who were faithful.

In sum, the Law was a covenant that served to keep Israel, temporarily, in relationship with God. It contained the moral requirements that God originally envisioned when He created Man in His own moral image. The Law was destined to fail, but resurrection had always been planned. So as much as the Law could be restored, after failing, it did not need restoring after Jesus provided for resurrection.

The Law itself provided its own means of forgiveness and purification for sins that were not instances of sedition and complete rebellion against God and His systems. But when the entire nation abandoned God and His Law for other gods and religions, the contract of Law was nullified.

What this means is that there will always be this pruning process in the nation Israel, in which those who are faithful are divided from those who rebel. Those who are faithful could be purified under the Law or outside of the Law by mercy. But those who rebel have to be "cut off."

We are in an entirely new system now, the covenant of Christ. This fulfilled the Law by maintaining its morality while substituting resurrection for appeals for mercy. There is no more need to appeal for mercy for breaking the Law when mercy has already been made available by Christ. The Law, therefore, no longer has usefulness and has been completely abrogated.

 

[Netchaplain]

I can't honestly say I fully understand Rev 7 and the "144,000." However, I agree that they seem to represent the ultimate Christianization of Israel in the Millennium, which begins in the " Tribulation Period" with a remnant of Jews.

If we take the 144,000 literal (which I do) these of course are all Jews who believe in God. I believe the innumerable "multitude" are Christians. Not out of "the great tribulation" but out of "great tribulation" (KJV) because the tribulation hasn't finished at this time.

I don't believe, personally, that the Mosaic Law is "paused." Rather, I think the Law was irrevocably broken. While it's true that the Law could and was re-instituted in ancient times, after being utterly broken (Zerubbabel), I don't believe that after Christ the Law would ever be reinstated.

True, "paused" may not be a good term to use, because Israel's new and final covenant may be new "law" (Jer 31:33) and "statutes" (Eze 36:27).

I personally believe that all who claim to be "Christian" in a proper way, by embracing all of the cardinal doctrines of the faith, have entered into a covenant relationship with God, aka a contract.

There just isn't any "covenant" language to support a covenant with God! But there is much inferred language to support the covenant between the Father and Son. Hebrews 13:20, 21 is one of many references to this Covenant of Redemption.

And yes, by becoming an "apostate" that status would be changed. Such a person would be "cut off" from the contract, having turned against it or defiled it in an unredeemable way.

It's my understanding that "apostatizing," being "hypocritical" or "drawing back" is one who was never saved, or they would have "endured unto the end" (1Jo 2:19).

What I meant is that the Law brought Israel to the position of being unable to redeem themselves by the Law.

The Jews who believed in God and in the sin sacrifices of the priests were accepted (forgiven - Num 15:25) by God.

Quite frankly, I don't think there is this "change" in the "will" from OT to NT.

They are two entirely different dispensations: one is forgiveness by faith and works (Law); the other is forgiveness by faith in Christ and His expiation for our sins. If one doesn't see this as a change, I don't believe this presents a significant problem (unless you mean something else).

I too appreciate the discussion with you Brother!

 

[Randy Kluth]

If we take the 144,000 literal (which I do) these of course are all Jews who believe in God. I believe the innumerable "multitude" are Christians. Not out of "the great tribulation" but out of "great tribulation" (KJV) because the tribulation hasn't finished at this time.

I don't take the 144,000 literally because they appear to be an obvious symbolic number, involving tribes that have ceased to exist for millennia. However, we agree that they are literal Jews who possibly exist today.

Their symbolic value indicates, to me, the fulfillment of God's promises to all 12 tribes of Israel--a complete national salvation. Those 12 tribes were promised to amalgamate into a nation. It was a nation that was the goal--not the 12 tribes. The 12 tribes simply indicate the complete nation.

But clearly, 144,000 falls short of a complete nation numerically. So I think the reference is to a remnant of faith who blaze a path for the salvation of the whole nation.

The "Great Tribulation" I define in 2 ways.
1) Jesus defined the Great Tribulation as a punishment of the Jews, lasting for the entirety of the NT period. It is, I think, the Jewish Diaspora. You'll find this definition in Luke 21.

2) I identify the Reign of Antichrist as "the Tribulation Period" because it is often recognized that this period is particularly difficult for the saints. Reference for that is in Dan 7 and Dan 12.

I'm not a Pretribulationist but I would agree with both Pretribulationists and Pre-Wrath advocates that Christians do not in any way suffer "God's Wrath." What this means is open to debate.

I don't personally think it means Christians are immune from Antichristian persecution. Nor does it mean for me that Christians cannot be casualties in natural disasters God sends upon wicked societies. What we would all agree on is that Christians won't go to Hell, and in that way suffer "God's Wrath."

True, "paused" may not be a good term to use, because Israel's new and final covenant may be new "law" (Jer 31:33) and "statutes" (Eze 36:27).

Okay.

There just isn't any "covenant" language to support a covenant with God! But there is much inferred language to support the covenant between the Father and Son. Hebrews 13:20, 21 is one of many references to this Covenant of Redemption.

Don't understand? The New Testament means "New Covenant." How is that not "covenant language?"

In Jer 31.31 the New Covenant is specifically applied to the Israeli nation in the endtimes, when Messiah returns. Of course, that implies that the New Covenant had already been put into effect through the Messiah so that when he comes he can convert Israel to a "New Law."

The Communion Service Jesus instituted as a reminder of his resurrection, and of our participation in him spiritually, is described as a "covenant between him and us." Jesus' blood is a covenant of eternal life with us.

It's my understanding that "apostatizing," being "hypocritical" or "drawing back" is one who was never saved, or they would have "endured unto the end" (1Jo 2:19).

I agree.

The Jews who believed in God and in the sin sacrifices of the priests were accepted (forgiven - Num 15:25) by God.

I agree. My point was that the Law was a temporal means of redemption, a form of self-redemption based on acts of Israel's obedience and trust in God for His mercy. As such, self-redemption could never achieve permanence, since sin disqualified them from Eternal Life.

Such efforts were, however, a temporary means of maintaining relationship with God, through covenant, until a more perfect redemption could be put in place, one that could never fail. Resurrection trumps the Law just as Jesus' sacrifice trumped animal sacrifices. Both systems, however, were designed to encourage faith and to result in resurrection--not a continuation of the old system of Mosaic Law.

They are two entirely different dispensations: one is forgiveness by faith and works (Law); the other is forgiveness by faith in Christ and His expiation for our sins. If one doesn't see this as a change, I don't believe this presents a significant problem (unless you mean something else).

Clearly, what you're talking about here is correct. The NT is definitely a "change" from the OT. Resurrection trumps animal sacrifices. Jesus' priesthood trumped the Levitical priesthood.

I was talking about, however, a change in "will." The ability to "want to do the right thing" was not new to the NT. It was, however, promised to be an integral, substantial part of the New Covenant.

I too appreciate the discussion with you Brother!

Thanks. You always have a good spirit. Some can disagree agreeably. Some cannot. You've been graced with grace!

 

[Netchaplain]

Thanks. You always have a good spirit. Some can disagree agreeably. Some cannot. You've been graced with grace!

Thanks for the compliment, and I see the same in you. God bless!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Thanks for the compliment, and I see the same in you. God bless!

May the Lord bless you richly in the New Year with wisdom and prosperity.

 

[marks]

I can't honestly say I fully understand Rev 7 and the "144,000." However, I agree that they seem to represent the ultimate Christianization of Israel in the Millennium, which begins in the " Tribulation Period" with a remnant of Jews.

I'm of the opinion that the innumerable multitude is the raptured church, and the 144,000 are God's new remnant on the earth, the church being gone.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'm of the opinion that the innumerable multitude is the raptured church, and the 144,000 are God's new remnant on the earth, the church being gone.

Much love!

Yes, I'm familiar with that position, and held to it many years ago. I do agree that the Great Multitude is the Raptured Church, although we would disagree on the timing.

 

[Wick Stick]

Yes, good questions. I bind all 613 or so requirements into a single covenant I refer to as "the Law of Moses." The 10 Commandments are a subset of this same Law.

And so, in the passing of "the Law" as a covenant, all 613 requirements would no longer be required, including all 10 of the 10 Commandments. That is, they would no longer be required "as a set," though certainly the moral elements within the Law could be required under a completely different covenant.

The New Covenant does require many of the moral elements contained in the Law and specifically in the 10 Commandments. However, in the 10 Commandments we have the Sabbath requirement, which is associated not with Moral Law, but rather, with the functioning of that specific Covenant.

With the departure of the Law went the priesthood, temple law, and sacrifices, along with many other laws, including feasts, dietary, and purification requirements. The Law was a contract between God and Israel, designed by God to keep Israel in close fellowship with Himself until a means of resurrection could be provided for.

However, it was understood, in advance, by God that at some point Israel would fail under that contract, it being that never is the whole nation in compliance with it, leading to the "leavening" of sin throughout the entire nation. The nation was always destined to fail under the Law, and to suffer the annulment of that agreement.

The Law, however, could be and was restored during the Persian era, after failing during the Babylonian Captivity. In Jesus' time, Israel failed again, and the contract was cancelled at the death of Jesus. At Jesus' resurrection, however, the Law did not need to be restored since resurrection had finally been provided for on behalf of those in Israel who were faithful.

In sum, the Law was a covenant that served to keep Israel, temporarily, in relationship with God. It contained the moral requirements that God originally envisioned when He created Man in His own moral image. The Law was destined to fail, but resurrection had always been planned. So as much as the Law could be restored, after failing, it did not need restoring after Jesus provided for resurrection.

The Law itself provided its own means of forgiveness and purification for sins that were not instances of sedition and complete rebellion against God and His systems. But when the entire nation abandoned God and His Law for other gods and religions, the contract of Law was nullified.

What this means is that there will always be this pruning process in the nation Israel, in which those who are faithful are divided from those who rebel. Those who are faithful could be purified under the Law or outside of the Law by mercy. But those who rebel have to be "cut off."

We are in an entirely new system now, the covenant of Christ. This fulfilled the Law by maintaining its morality while substituting resurrection for appeals for mercy. There is no more need to appeal for mercy for breaking the Law when mercy has already been made available by Christ. The Law, therefore, no longer has usefulness and has been completely abrogated.

I don't see it the same way.

The New Covenant, as first announced by the prophet Jeremiah (chapter 31), is that God will write the Law on the hearts of the people. Now, at the time Jeremiah wrote that, he probably wasn't referring to all 613 commandments in all 5 books of Moses. The synagogues at that time mostly likely only had Deuteronomy as a stand-alone book of the Law.

But... this doesn't sound like a discarding of the Law to me.

It is a change in how the Law is administered. From Moses time, the covenant was mediated by the Levitical Priests. Deuteronomy in particular charges the priests to "put the evil away from among you" by which it mostly means that they must execute people by stoning them.

In the New Covenant, this whole priesthood has been replaced with a single mediator - Jesus as the High Priest. And the Law itself is within the people's hearts. This is the same as the New Testament gospel message of the "kingdom within."

 

[Randy Kluth]

I don't see it the same way.

The New Covenant, as first announced by the prophet Jeremiah (chapter 31), is that God will write the Law on the hearts of the people. Now, at the time Jeremiah wrote that, he probably wasn't referring to all 613 commandments in all 5 books of Moses. The synagogues at that time mostly likely only had Deuteronomy as a stand-alone book of the Law.

But... this doesn't sound like a discarding of the Law to me.

It is a change in how the Law is administered. From Moses time, the covenant was mediated by the Levitical Priests. Deuteronomy in particular charges the priests to "put the evil away from among you" by which it mostly means that they must execute people by stoning them.

In the New Covenant, this whole priesthood has been replaced with a single mediator - Jesus as the High Priest. And the Law itself is within the people's hearts. This is the same as the New Testament gospel message of the "kingdom within."

Yes, I suppose we disagree then, and that's okay. We're here to discuss the Scriptures, and we can always grow more in them.

I see the internalization of the Law not as something unusual, but rather, as something typical. The Law always needed reform, and as such always had to go from external religiosity, or formal expression, to internal verification and sincere expression.

From the start, the Law was supposed to be in the person, and in particular, in his confession. It was always supposed to be something verbalized from the heart.

Deut 30.14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

Rom 10.9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Speaking from the heart by God's inspiration was as true under the OT system as it is under the NT system. The only difference is that now God resides in us, through Christ, permanently, when we accept him as Savior and Lord. In the OT era, redemption was a maintenance job until eternal redemption could be won by Christ.

I agree the Aaronic and Levitical priesthood was replaced by Christ's Melchizedek priesthood. Christ's priesthood was not tied to a priestly line, but was held by virtue of his Deity.

Similarly, nothing the priests could do, in their condition as sinners, could do anything more than temporarily keep Israel in God's good graces. Their work could not bring final atonement for anybody. That work was reserved for Christ alone.

That's why the Law was annulled, because it was designed only for temporary service.

Heb 10.1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.

God said that a time would come when there would be a final renewal for Israel, a time when, once again, religious formality would turn, properly, back to internal reality and spiritual worship.

The "New Covenant," therefore, was not the internalization of the Law, which had always been required. Rather, it was the change in covenants from something temporary to something eternal. The entire code of Law, the Mosaic Law, would be abandoned in favor of a different covenant entirely.

Jer 31.31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.

 

[Cyd]

The topical subject concerns the mistaken concept that the non-Christian OT saints will be a part of the Church and Body of Christ. It is taught among many spiritual growth authors (Plymouth Brethren - circa 1700-1800's) that God's people Israel (those who believe in God but not Christ - Jhn 14:1 "ye believe in God, believe also in Me") will inherit the new earth; and Christians inherit the new heaven.

Chaplain to many scriptures pop into my head with you posting this again. haha so will just post them.. of course they could just be for me and to not get into this subject.
Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
John 21:6
And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.
I laughted with this last one popping my head, cause you have the word NET in front of your nickname. Could be to avoid it on my blogs though so again scriptures for me.

 

[Cyd]

I hear ya. I still don't understand the topic.
If it is about the Jews getting special treatment because they are Jews, there is no salvation in geneaology. The Covennant given to Israel was conditional, as covenants are. It was broken. God gave a new covenant, the Levitical priesthood is gone, which is what Hebrews talks about.Jesus is not a Levitical high priest, but a priest after the order of Melchizedek.
The term Jew has been redefined in Romans 2:28, and 29, and as a matter of fact, in Gal 3:28,29 we go all the way back to Abraham as who we are heirs to. Abraham recognized Melchisedek.
Have you read the parable of the landowner? Matt 21:33-43?
“Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. “The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said. “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir.Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”

“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.” Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

Yes I know the parable but your last scripture quote says given to another people my bible say given to another nation. Israel is seed of Jacob not Abraham, God said he would increase the seed of Levites and king David. The seed does mean genealogy we see it in Rev. with the 144,000. the remnant? I agree 100% with you on it not being salvation.

So are we all from Abraham? I disagree with Paul but all can be part of Israel even strangers and sojourners could choose a tribe, so that is gentiles to me. Melchisedek was before God chose Abraham and changed his name to that, so his name then was Abram. I know quite abit about dna, they do it wrong, where genealogy is concerned plus use spittal but you can bet they have everyones with blood.. thru hospital and doctor testing now days. The way they find Jewish blood they would say Aaron's son's are 100% and Moses son's only 50% Jew I disagree they both are 100% going by their dad's house...So I do believe there are bloodlines and the number of them can't be numbered just as God says does exist.

As far as covenant please give me scripture that God changed His mind... Israel is a covenant breaker not God. Those lands are covered with circumcised males over there in the mideast. Ishmael was of Abram also. Abraham was a Syrian.

 

[Wick Stick]

Yes, I suppose we disagree then, and that's okay. We're here to discuss the Scriptures, and we can always grow more in them.

It's nice to have a dialogue without vitriol, to be honest.

I see the internalization of the Law not as something unusual, but rather, as something typical. The Law always needed reform, and as such always had to go from external religiosity, or formal expression, to internal verification and sincere expression.

From the start, the Law was supposed to be in the person, and in particular, in his confession. It was always supposed to be something verbalized from the heart.

I see the Ten Commandments as more of a national constitution. When viewed within that paradigm, they establish, respectively... a national religion, a priesthood, worker's rights, a retirement system, a right to life, personal property rights, monogamous marriage, a system of jurisprudence, and real property with rights of inheritance.

The internalizing of the Law shifts the onus from corporate observance to personal observance. It's no longer an issue of every man (or at least the priests) enforcing the rules upon each other, but instead each man enforces the rules on himself.

I agree the Aaronic and Levitical priesthood was replaced by Christ's Melchizedek priesthood. Christ's priesthood was not tied to a priestly line, but was held by virtue of his Deity.

As far as I can tell, the qualification for the Melchizedek priesthood is to be the king of Jerusalem. This was true for Melchizedek and David, while the latter clearly is not a deity.

This is a digression, but my own observation is that EVERY king must also act as a priest, because he must represent nation before God, which is the definition of a priest.

Similarly, nothing the priests could do, in their condition as sinners, could do anything more than temporarily keep Israel in God's good graces. Their work could not bring final atonement for anybody. That work was reserved for Christ alone.

'Good graces' might be an overstatement. The priests acted as a buffer between God and Israel, so that God wouldn't destroy them outright for their wickedness. (Exodus 32)

That's why the Law was annulled, because it was designed only for temporary service.

I don't see that the whole Law was annulled. In the chapter of Hebrews that uses that word - disannulled - it is only the commandment for anoiniting priests which is discarded. That is to say, the priesthood is annulled.

It is less clear regarding the rest of the Law, although Paul also discards the commandments to keep the feasts and the dietary restrictions.

God said that a time would come when there would be a final renewal for Israel, a time when, once again, religious formality would turn, properly, back to internal reality and spiritual worship.

The "New Covenant," therefore, was not the internalization of the Law, which had always been required. Rather, it was the change in covenants from something temporary to something eternal. The entire code of Law, the Mosaic Law, would be abandoned in favor of a different covenant entirely.

Jer 31.31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.

If the 10 Commandments establish a nation as a constitution, as I contended earlier, then the natural consequence of internalizing them is that the man is established as part of that kingdom.

That idea seems awfully similar to what Jesus preached. Well, it's based on His teachings, so I suppose that isn't a surprise.

-Jarrod

 

[Randy Kluth]

It's nice to have a dialogue without vitriol, to be honest.

Yes, that statement deserves recognition! Not everybody on Christian forums are really Christian. Not everybody that is a real Christian is living for Christ. And not everybody has learned to overcome their carnal tendencies.

All of us are in a state of flux. But genuine Christians should be maturing and learning to overcome their sinful tendencies with the righteousness of Christ.

The ministry of God's word should continue even in imperfect environments--perhaps in particular in imperfect environments. But the incorrigible should be ignored until there is real change.

I see the Ten Commandments as more of a national constitution. When viewed within that paradigm, they establish, respectively... a national religion, a priesthood, worker's rights, a retirement system, a right to life, personal property rights, monogamous marriage, a system of jurisprudence, and real property with rights of inheritance.

The 10 Commandments, as I see it, were part of the religious constitution for the nation. You are right, in my opinion--the Law was a theocratic system designed not just for moral teaching, but also for the political structuring of the society.

It was not a political document. But it certainly joined religion with politics.

The internalizing of the Law shifts the onus from corporate observance to personal observance. It's no longer an issue of every man (or at least the priests) enforcing the rules upon each other, but instead each man enforces the rules on himself.

I see it a little differently. Yes, internalizing the Law made it personal and individual. But that is always how religion was intended, by God, to be. Each man was to live in the image of God. When things became perfunctory and external, reform was to come by greater internalization, as opposed to an outward facade.

A sure sign of religious deterioration is the over-formalizing of religion. The way to combat it is through things like prayer, which is internal and one on one with God.

As far as I can tell, the qualification for the Melchizedek priesthood is to be the king of Jerusalem. This was true for Melchizedek and David, while the latter clearly is not a deity.

Well, Mel. was in fact the king of Jerusalem. But we're talking about his priesthood. Mel. was both king and priest.

The author of Hebrews was comparing Jesus' priesthood to the priesthood of Mel. because it was decidedly different from that of priests under the Law. Under the Law, entering the priesthood was an hereditary thing.

With Mel. it was not. He was king and was not subject to any religious law over his kingdom.

He simply obtained his priesthood from God, which is what Jesus also did. The idea was to separate Jesus' new covenant system from the Old Covenant system of Mosaic Law. Jesus was not tied to an hereditary system of priesthood, nor was he tied to the Law that made it so.

'Good graces' might be an overstatement. The priests acted as a buffer between God and Israel, so that God wouldn't destroy them outright for their wickedness. (Exodus 32)

Yes, the priests prevented God's wrath from coming down upon the people. But priestly ceremonies would do no good at all if the people themselves didn't cooperate. So for me, the essential thing was the Law itself, which protected them, and the compliance of the people, rather than the priests acting as "buffers."

So the priests represented a system of temporary protection through the Law, so that Israel could live in covenant relationship with God. That way, even before the resurrection of Christ made salvation final, Israel could experience God's blessings until the New Covenant system could come and make it final. This is a whole subject in itself.

I don't see that the whole Law was annulled. In the chapter of Hebrews that uses that word - disannulled - it is only the commandment for anoiniting priests which is discarded. That is to say, the priesthood is annulled.

It is less clear regarding the rest of the Law, although Paul also discards the commandments to keep the feasts and the dietary restrictions.

Yes, Paul, in excluding various elements of the Law was actually dismissing the entire Law as a binding covenant. He only allowed practice of the Law in a *cultural sense* to witness to Jews without disturbing their sentimentalities, or traditions. Paul never indicated the Law had any more binding value, as far as redemption goes, since he clearly taught that Christ himself had become the final source of redemption.

If the 10 Commandments establish a nation as a constitution, as I contended earlier, then the natural consequence of internalizing them is that the man is established as part of that kingdom.

That idea seems awfully similar to what Jesus preached. Well, it's based on His teachings, so I suppose that isn't a surprise.

-Jarrod

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

The differences between the 2 covenants are clear. The cross of Christ was clearly a turning point in history with respect to God's covenants.

Only I would not cancel the promises God made while still under the OT period. God promised there would be the nation Israel throughout the present temporal era. And I think that includes the Millennial period.

The fact Israel failed under the Law is little different from Christianity in Europe failing in our own era. Both are national or international failures. The only major difference is that we have the cross of Christ today to give us eternal assurance. In the OT era they only had the *hope* of eternal assurance.

And don't forget "christianity" failing in the rest of the world, not just Europe

What passed for "christianity" these days is not the real Christianity that follows God's Word.

The failings are by denominations that teach man's wisdom and not God's wisdom.

 

[Randy Kluth]

And don't forget "christianity" failing in the rest of the world, not just Europe

What passed for "christianity" these days is not the real Christianity that follows God's Word.

The failings are by denominations that teach man's wisdom and not God's wisdom.

Yes, true Christianity over the centuries has dwindled from a State Christianity to a Remnant Christianity. I'm fully aware that my own fellowship with other Christians is with those who have "eyes to see" and do not base their "Christianity" on association with denominations or Christian countries alone.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

And, let's not forget God never set up Christianity to be a state religion of any country.

 

[Jay Ross]

And don't forget "christianity" failing in the rest of the world, not just Europe

What passed for "christianity" these days is not the real Christianity that follows God's Word.

The failings are by denominations that teach man's wisdom and not God's wisdom.

Do you do any better? Please be honest in your response.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Do you do any better? Please be honest in your response.

I do well enough to know not to pay attention to you!

 

[Jay Ross]

I do well enough to know not to pay attention to you! View attachment 40659

Oh well, I suppose in your mind that was being honest. I am happy to learn from what you post, but many of your fundamental biblical conclusion are leading you astray and away from God's word.