Posted on 06/21/2005 4:27:46 PM PDT by Buggman
"So if you think he's coming... He isn't. When everyone on earth thinks he's not coming... Then he is."
That's like raising kids or Labrador Retrievers.
I strongly agree with both xzins and Buggman that Scripture discloses the metaphors. When they are not defined in context, we can often find the definition elsewhere. We ought to always search Scripture first thoroughly to avoid imposing our personal will on His revelation.
However, I also agree with Seven_0 that there are many "types" in Scripture and also in Creation which, IMHO, are there to inform us in the spirit and sometimes, in the mind.
For instance, the Temple and the Ark on earth are "types" of the heavenly, true, Temple and Ark. The scenes acted out by prophets were "types" of God's intent. The killing of an animal to cover Adam and Eve's shame of nakedness is another, IMHO.
And in God's physical revelation (nature) - such things as light v darkness, order v chaos are "types" of good v evil. That plants grow from seed is another.
For me, another is the way a woman endures horrific pain in labor but cannot remember it after the child is born. And one which I suspect Seven_0 shares is the unreasonable effectiveness of math, i.e. "all that there is" is structured.
I believe that all such "types" inform us whether we are aware of them or not.
Those are all good thoughts, A-G. Types are definitely included the the list I began in my previous post. A type will be shown as such by a variety of usages throughout scripture. When a seed is mentioned in scripture, for example, one should look a bit deeper because elsewhere it is used as metaphor/type. While it is possible that the passage has no particular meaning beyond the surface, that must not be assumed.
Take the example of Boaz' workers reaping a field when Ruth arrives.
Is there a legitimate extra level(s) of meaning attached?
So I see what you mean, and I agree that there are probably far more types in Scripture than most people have an appreciation for. However, I don't think they make up the majority of prophecy in Scripture (the majority of lessons about the spiritual world, on the other hand . . . .), and a significant number of types are partially or even fully explained to us.
Sorry for the brief answer, but I'm under the gun today. I'll try to get back with you sometime this weekend. Thanks for your patience.
The entire story is an encouragement to me, however. Here is a widow in poverty, acting out of love - in this case, for her mother-in-law - being restored and given the honor of birthing David's grandfather. God works all things together for the good. Thus if we find ourselves alone, in poverty or at the mercy of others we ought to be comforted by the knowledge that God attends, that there is good purpose in everything for those who love Him. That is, don't sweat the details...
Ruth 2:15-16 And when she was risen up to glean, Boaz commanded his young men, saying, Let her glean even among the sheaves, and reproach her not: 16 And let fall also some of the handfuls of purpose for her, and leave them, that she may glean them, and rebuke her not.
Excellent example. Is Boaz a "type" of Christ? I imagine the excitement that Ruth must have felt, when she realized what Baoz was doing, is the same as I felt when I realized that Christ does that for me.
I don't post much from work, but will try to make time today.
Seven
"we ought to be comforted by the knowledge that God attends, that there is good purpose in everything for those who love Him. That is, don't sweat the details... "
Wise words, wise words! They should be the banner on all threads posted on this forum, right next to "no flaming".
Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Yeshua Messiah, which God gave Him to show His servants--things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.
There is no mention of a seven year period in the entire book of Revelation. There is however a three and half year time period mentioned several times.
Revelation 12:14
The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach.
Time, times and half a time, three and a half years (Feast cycles).
Revelation 13:5
The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months.
Forty two months, or three and a half years.
The Revelation of Yeshua Messiah, which God gave Him to show His servants--things which must shortly take place…
Yeshua’s ministry lasted three and a half years.
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/jesustme.html
The NIV nails it here…
Daniel 9:27
He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' [ Or 'week' ] In the middle of the 'seven' [ Or 'week' ] he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. [ Or it ] " [ Or And one who causes desolation will come upon the pinnacle of the abominable temple , until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city ]
Yeshua put an end to the sacrifice(s) with His own, It is finished And one who causes desolation will come upon the pinnacle of the abominable temple , until the end that is decreed is poured out on the desolated city…
And, the abominable temple is already standing in Jerusalem…
Tick tock…
Problem is, the First and Second Temples were physical structures; physical structures whose dimensions came in face-to-face contacts with God Himself. In contrast, Ezekiel's Temple came in a vision. Further, JFB states that the physical dimensions described in the temple are physically impossible:
The square of the temple, in Ezekiel 42:20, is six times as large as the circuit of the wall enclosing the old temple, and larger than all the earthly Jerusalem. Ezekiel gives three and a half miles and one hundred forty yards to his temple square. The boundaries of the ancient city were about two and a half miles. Again, the city in Ezekiel has an area between three or four thousand square miles, including the holy ground set apart for the prince, priests, and Levites. This is nearly as large as the whole of Judea west of the Jordan. As Zion lay in the center of the ideal city, the one-half of the sacred portion extended to nearly thirty miles south of Jerusalem, that is, covered nearly the whole southern territory, which reached only to the Dead Sea (Ezekiel 47:19), and yet five tribes were to have their inheritance on that side of Jerusalem, beyond the sacred portion (Ezekiel 48:23-28).
Likewise Ezekiel's Temple. Indeed, we know that at some point there must be a Temple upon the earth to fulfill Jeremiah 33:17-18 (see post #592, and please forgive me for forgetting to ping you to it). The Levites were given a priesthood forever, not just until the Messiah came.
No, you presume that there must be a third physical temple. Your interpretation of Jer. 33:17-18 is actually contra the tenor of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews. "When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear" (Heb. 8:13). The Levites are part of that system that was "ready to disappear," and indeed did disappear with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
What is the point of a return to the Old Testament system of sacrifices? Does not Hebrews say that "there is no longer any offering for sin" and that "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (10:18; 10:4)? As another commentator writes, quoted in JFB, "A temple with sacrifices now would be a denial of the all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ. He who sacrificed before confessed the Messiah. He who should sacrifice now would solemnly deny Him."
As for JFB's premillenialism, I am not concerned with their conjecture; just their statements of fact. And the facts are that the temple in Ezekiel is described in terms that are physically impossible given the geography of the region and other uses of the land of Judea mentioned in Ezekiel 40-48. The conjecture is that "These difficulties, however, may be all seeming, not real."
But again, just as I keep driving home with topcat, you aren't offering an alternative explanation for Jer. 33; you're just dismissing it out of hand based on a comfortable, popular orthodoxy.
No, you presume that there must be a third physical temple.
I "presume" a third physical Temple because Ezekiel describes a third physical Temple, and both he and Jeremiah describe sacrifices taking place there. I take all the Scriptures seriously, both the Tanakh and the New Covenant, not just selected sections. If I find two passages that appear to be in conflict, I don't just dismiss the one I'm not comfortable with out of hand, but keep studying them until both are shown to be true in reconcilliation. In this case, I've found that if you remove some anti-Torah bias, Hebrews does not actually say that the Levitical priesthood is abolished, just that it is limited and that there is a new and better priesthood that serves God in their Spiritual temples.
The Levites are part of that system that was "ready to disappear," and indeed did disappear with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
That's not what the author of Hebrews is referring to. Actually read the quote from Jeremiah 31 in full, and you'll see that he's speaking specifically of the covenant Israel made in Ex. 24:7, in which they promised in their own power, "Everything that ADONAI has spoken, we will do and obey." They could not, of course, keep the Torah in their own power, so the prophet looked forward to the day that God would write the Torah in their hearts.
You have to go through some real verbal and theological gymnastics to suppose that if God writes the Torah on men's hearts that it somehow ceases to be the Torah.
In any case, the Levite priesthood was given to the sons of Aaron as "a perpetual (eternal) statute" (Ex. 29:9), not just "until the Messiah comes." Jer. 33 confirms that their office is as eternal as that of the Messiah. Ergo, either Hebrews is wrong, or you are misunderstanding the author's point because you don't know the Tanakh as well as you should. I'm opting for the latter.
And that's all I'm going to write today. I'll be back sometime tomorrow. Until then, God bless.
As it was not pinged to me, and I don't scour the thread searching for things to read, I did not see it. Allow me to rebut it now:
You're trying to answer one question by asking another. The question on the table is: Does the Bible really say that the Levitical office is an eternal one? So far, you've yet to even attempt to explain away the plain promise in Jer. 33, which says that the Levitical office is as eternal as day and night and the office of the Messiah Himself.
Jeremiah 33:20-21 clarifies that God's promise is conditional; "If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night so that day and night cease to come at their regular time, 21 then also My covenant with My servant David may be broken so that he will not have a son reigning on his throne, and the Levitical priests will not be My ministers."
He then says that despite this condition--broken again and again by the Israelites--"I will make the descendants of My servant David and the Levites who minister to Me innumerable." Adam Clarke comments on this that
This must be understood of the spiritual David, Jesus Christ, and his progeny, genuine Christians. The two families which God chose for the priesthood, that of Aaron and Phinehas, or, on its being taken away from him, that of Ithamar, 1 Sam. ii. 35, are both extinct. Nor has the office of high priest, or priest of any kind offering sacrifice, been exercised among the Jews for nearly eighteen hundred years; therefore what is said here of the priesthood must refer to the spiritual priesthood, at the head of which is Jesus Christ.
Hebrews points out the limits of the Levitical priesthood--they could not truly cure sin, only ceremonially purify the flesh (Heb. 9:13) and serve as a reminder of sin (10:3). It explains the superiority of the Messiah's office to theirs. But it does not say that the Levites would cease to be.
Actually, it does. Again, they are part of that "system which is ready to pass away" which Hebrews describes.
Heb. 7:11 If, then, perfection came through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise in the order of Melchizedek, and not to be described as being in the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must be a change of law as well. 13 For the One about whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, from which no one has served at the altar. 14 Now it is evident that our Lord came from Judah, and about that tribe Moses said nothing concerning priests. 15 And this becomes clearer if another priest like Melchizedek arises, 16 who doesn't become a priest based on a legal command concerning physical descent but based on the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it has been testified: You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. 18 So the previous commandment is annulled because it was weak and unprofitable 19 (for the law perfected nothing), but a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
(Holman Christian Standard Bible)
And I take the Tanakh's prophecies so seriously (not woodenly literally where a figure of speech is employed, but not simply dismissing what doesn't fit with popular orthodoxy) because Yeshua and His disciples did.
Nope. Messiah Yeshua is of the order of Melchiezedek, so those of us who follow Him and are adopted into Him must be of that same order.
You assume something not in evidence. Where does God say to any Christian, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek"? No, to Christ alone is the order of Melchizedek given. We cannot infer from our adoption that we hold the same rank as Christ. Melchizedek's wife was not likewise a priestess as he was a priest; neither is the Bride of Christ a member of the order of Melchizedek. When God calls Christians "a royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9) he is quoting the Old Testament (Exodus 19:6) and applying it to Christians in general rather than Jews strictly. That does not mean that they are literally to perform any tasks of a priesthood, even as the Jews as a whole did not perform as priests. In a spiritual sense, there is what Luther called "the priesthood of all believers," offering up spiritual sacrifices as 1 Peter 2:5 points out. But this does not mean that the title of priest in the order of Melchizedek is inherited. No, a priest in the order of Melchizedek "doesn't become a priest based on a legal command concerning physical descent but based on the power of an indestructible life." Further, the reason that there were many Levite priests was because "they are prevented by death from remaining in office. 24 But because He remains forever, He holds His priesthood permanently." There is no need for another priest in the order of Melchizedek, because "He always lives to intercede for them."
There are actually two priestly orders in God's Kingdom: The Levites offer physical sacrifices in the physical Temple for physical (ceremonial, you might say) purification and as a reminder of sins.
So you think that the Levitical priesthood has a purpose beyond the Old Testament? Their purpose in the Old Covenant was to make offerings for sins and to act as intermediaries between the Jewish people and God. Both of these purposes have been supplanted by Christ's priesthood: He is the final offering for sin (Heb. 7:27), and He is the only mediator between God and man (Heb. 8:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, Heb. 12:24).
The Melchiezedekim offer spiritual sacrifices (1 Pt. 2:5) in their spiritual Temples (1 Cor. 6:19, 2 Cor. 6:16), with our great High Priest having offered the great Sacrifice that alone truely atones from sin so that we may stand before God.
You are drawing conclusions not at all in evidence. There are only two "Melchiezedekim" ever mentioned in Scripture: The original, Melchizedek, and Jesus Christ Himself.
While our sacrifices, which we offer through our own Passover Lamb, are superior, they are also invisible to the world, and thus cannot serve as a reminder of sin and its true cost. Neither can Yeshua's save to those who originally witnessed it--remember that the author of Hebrews still speaks of the sacrifices which were then continuing in the Temple as being a reminder of sins in his own day.
1) Our sacrifices are not superior. Jesus Christ's sacrifice is superior. Our sacrifices are sacrifices of praise; Jesus Christ's sacrifice was the sacrifice of His own life, once in atonement for all sin.
2) You seem to think that when the author of Hebrews said that the Old Testament sacrifices "served as a reminder of sins," that this was a good thing. I argue that it is not; the contrast in Hebrews 10 is between "reminder of sins" in v. 3 under the Old Testament system, and the forgiveness of sins under the New Testament system, as exhibited in verses 1, 2 and in verses 4 and following. "Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the actual form of those realities, it can never perfect the worshipers by the same sacrifices they continually offer year after year. 2 Otherwise, wouldn't they have stopped being offered, since the worshipers, once purified, would no longer have any consciousness of sins?"
3)The Levitical sacrifices never served as reminders to the world of sin "and its true cost," even less so now after the Levitical system has been extinct for almost 2000 years and the standards by which men know they have sinned is because their conscience speaks out against them.
Thus, in the Millennium, when there will be a mortal remnant (Isa. 64:17-20 and 66:18-21) in addition to those who rose with Yeshua and have already been glorified in Him, there will still be a need for that reminder of sins--especially in a society and a world where the effect of sin won't be as obvious to those who did not grow up in this present age.
Isaiah 64:17-20 does not exist. Isaiah 66 speaks of the end of the world, since it specifically speaks of "the new heaven and the new earth" and of "the worm that shall not die" and "the fire that shall not be quenched" (vv. 22,24). Further, assuming a premillenial interpretation of the Millenium, "reminders of sins" will be useless after the Second Coming. As Daniel Steele writes in "Why I Am Not A Premillenialist,"
The Scriptures abundantly prove that the church will be complete at the second coming of its Head. The church is his bride, which he will present to himself as his own at his coming. (1 Cor. 15:23, Eph. 5:25, 1 Thess. 1:10, 3:13)
Steele further argues that,
In awakening sinners what is the most effectual motive? The coming of Christ, "revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, ... who shall punish with everlasting destruction ... them that obey not the gospel." "The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night." "The Son of man cometh when ye think not." "As it was in the days of Noah, ... even thus shall it be when the Son of man shall be revealed." The futurity of the coming of Christ is everywhere urged as a motive to repent. This motive can be of no avail after this solemn and decisive event is past.
But what I do know is that the two priesthoods will continue. Why? Because the Messiah is a priest forever (Ps. 110:4), just as the Levitical line will have priests foever. If the end of sins meant the end of priests, of intercessors, then He would only be a preist for a short age, not forever. I don't have to have all the answers about what their role will be to trust Scripture when it says they will still have a role.
Once again I point out that Jer. 33:17-20's promise of an eternal line of Levites is conditional, and argue that the fact of a second priest in the order of Melchizedek, Jesus Christ, proves the breaking of the conditions set for the Levites' 'eternal lineage'--"when there is a change of the priesthood, there must be a change of law as well"--Christ replaced the Levites, just as the New replaced the Old Covenant.
Either Hebrews is in conflict with the Scriptures that Yeshua Himself endorsed (Mt. 5:17-19), and is therefore non-canonical, or you are not understanding it correctly. I opt for the latter.
Or, YOU are not understanding it correctly.
I "presume" a third physical Temple because Ezekiel describes a third physical Temple, and both he and Jeremiah describe sacrifices taking place there.
You assume a third physical temple because you think that when Ezekiel describes a temple in physically impossible terms, and in a vision to boot, it must mean that this third temple must be physical.
I take all the Scriptures seriously, both the Tanakh and the New Covenant, not just selected sections. If I find two passages that appear to be in conflict, I don't just dismiss the one I'm not comfortable with out of hand, but keep studying them until both are shown to be true in reconcilliation. In this case, I've found that if you remove some anti-Torah bias, Hebrews does not actually say that the Levitical priesthood is abolished, just that it is limited and that there is a new and better priesthood that serves God in their Spiritual temples.
First off, employing a different hermeneutical approach hardly means that one is taking only selected portions of Scripture seriously.
Second, only by inserting a very strong pro-Torah bias does one not see that the whole of Hebrews contrasts the New and the Old Covenants, the priestly-sacrificial systems of each, and concludes that the Old has passed away, including the Levitical priesthood (see previous Hebrews citations in this post).
The Grammarian said: The Levites are part of that system that was "ready to disappear," and indeed did disappear with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Buggman said: That's not what the author of Hebrews is referring to. Actually read the quote from Jeremiah 31 in full, and you'll see that he's speaking specifically of the covenant Israel made in Ex. 24:7, in which they promised in their own power, "Everything that ADONAI has spoken, we will do and obey." They could not, of course, keep the Torah in their own power, so the prophet looked forward to the day that God would write the Torah in their hearts.
What ARE you talking about? What does this have to do with Hebrews?
In any case, the Levite priesthood was given to the sons of Aaron as "a perpetual (eternal) statute" (Ex. 29:9), not just "until the Messiah comes." Jer. 33 confirms that their office is as eternal as that of the Messiah. Ergo, either Hebrews is wrong, or you are misunderstanding the author's point because you don't know the Tanakh as well as you should. I'm opting for the latter.
Already dealt with this earlier in the post.
It seems to me that this is yet another instance of the difficulty many of us have in accepting all that is written in the Scriptures.
We have the same kinds of debates on predestination v free will. The Scriptures speak to both and yet we mortals tend to want an “either/or”. To the contrary, however, both are true because God says that both are true.
Likewise here – there is a dispute as to whether the priesthood of Melchisedec cancels the priesthood of Levi (an “either/or”):
On the one hand:
Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though [it be] but a man's covenant, yet [if it be] confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one.
[Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. – Galatians 3
Or to put it another way, both the law and faith are true because God says they are both true.
I offer this paraphrase of Romans 1-8: that a man can choose to live under the law and God will let him and he will fail because, as the law is purposed to prove, no man can ever be “good enough” to earn his own salvation. (If he could then Jesus' death on the cross was for nothing).
Adding a further paraphrase of the Sermon on the Mount: the law and the prophets are Holy and shall stand until heaven and earth pass away and all is fulfilled.
Thus the priesthoods of Levi and Christ (Judah, Melchizedek) continue until all is fulfilled – the law convicting of sin, bringing humility before God – the faith redeeming the unworthy, keeping the Spiritual family together.
IMHO, pride is the soul-killer both in heaven and in earth and sets both angels and man against the will of the Father – thus, all beings must realize their unworthiness always – and therefore, we need the law until heaven and earth pass away and all is fulfilled. As evidence I offer this thought experiment: consider why Lucifer went awry and what lies at the very root of lust, hate, jealousy, anger, rebellion, want, resentment, murder, theft, fear, etc. Also, the judgments apply to both angels and man, to both this heaven and this earth.
The Prophet had spoken of the restoration of the Church; he now confirms the same truth, for he promises that the kingdom and the priesthood would be perpetual. The safety of the people, as it is well known, was secured by these two things; for without a king they were like an imperfect or a maimed body, and without a priesthood there was nothing but ruin; for the priest was, as it were, the mediator between God and the people, and the king represented God. We now, then, perceive the object of the Prophet, why he speaks expressly here of the kingdom and the priesthood, for the people could not otherwise have any ground to stand on. He therefore declares that the condition of the people would be safe, because there would always be some of the posterity of David, who would succeed to govern them, and there would always be some of the posterity of Levi, to offer sacrifices.
But this passage ought to be carefully noticed, for we hence gather, that though all other things were given to us according to our wishes, we should yet be ever miserable, except we had Christ as our head, to perform the office of a king and of a priest. This, then, is the only true happiness of the Church, even to be in subjection to Christ, so that he may exercise towards us the two offices described here. Hence also we gather, that these are the two marks of a true Church, by which she is to be distinguished from all conventicles, who falsely profess the name of God, and boast themselves to be Churches. For where the kingdom and priesthood of Christ are found, there, no doubt, is the Church; but where Christ is not owned as a king and a priest, nothing is there but confusion, as under the Papacy; for though they pretend the name of Christ, yet, as they do not submit to his government and laws, nor are satisfied with his priesthood, but have devised for themselves numberless patrons and advocates, it is quite evident that, notwithstanding the great splendor of the Papacy, it is nothing but an abomination before God. Let us, then, learn to begin with the kingdom and the priesthood, when we speak of the state and government of the Church.
Now we know that in David was promised a spiritual kingdom, for what was David but a type of Christ? As God then gave in David a living image of his only-begotten Son, we ought ever to pass from the temporal kingdom to the eternal, from the visible to the spiritual, from the earthly to the celestial. The same thing ought to be said of the priesthood; for no mortal can reconcile God to men, and make an atonement for sins; and further, the blood of bulls and of goats could not pacify the wrath of God, nor incense, nor the sprinkling of,water, nor any of the things which belonged to the ceremonial laws; they could not, give the hope of salvation, so as to quiet trembling consciences. It then follows, that that priesthood was shadowy, and that the Levites represented Christ until he came.
But the Prophet here speaks according to the circumstances of his own time, when he says, Cut off shall not be from David a man, who may sit on the throne of the house of Israel; and then, cut off shall not be from the priests, the Levites, a man who may kindle burnt-offerings burn an oblation, etc.1 Why does he not speak in general of the whole people? Why does he not promise that the twelve tribes would be saved? for this would be, a matter of greater moment. But as we have said, we ought to understand this principle, that every kind of blessing is included here, so that men are always in a miserable state unless they are ruled by Christ and have him as their priest.
But it may be asked here, how does this prophecy agree with facts? for from the time Jeremiah promised such a state of things, there has been no successor to David. It is true, indeed, that Zerubbabel was a leader among the people, but he was without a royal title or dignity. There was no throne, no crown, no scepter, from the time in which the people returned from their Babylonian exile; and yet God testified by the mouth of Jeremiah that there would be those from the posterity of David, who would govern the people in continual succession. He does not stay that they would be chiefs or leaders, but he adorns them with a royal title. Some one, he says, will ever remain to occupy the throne. I have said already that there has been no throne. But we must bear in mind what Ezekiel says, that an interruption as to the kingdom is not contrary to this prophecy, as to the perpetuity of the kingdom, or continued succession, (Ezekiel 21:27) for he prophesied that the crown would be cast down, until the legitimate successor of David came. It was therefore necessary that the diadem should fall and be cast on the ground, or be transverted, as the Prophet says, until Christ was manifested. As, then, this had been declared, now when our Prophet speaks of kings succeeding David, we must so understand what he says as that that should remain true which has been said of the cast down diadem. God, then, did cast down the diadem until the legitimate successor came. Ezekiel does not only say, "Cast ye it down transverted," but he repeats the words three times, intimating thereby that the interruption would be long. There was, therefore, no cause of stumbling, when there was no kind of government, nor dignity, nor power; for it was necessary to look forward to the king, to whom the diadem, or the royal crown, was to be restored.
We now then see how it was that there have been always those of David's posterity who occupied the throne; though this was hidden, yet it may be gathered from other prophetic testimonies. For Amos, when he speaks of Christ's coming, makes this announcement,
"There shall come at that time one who will repair the ruins of the tabernacle of David." (Amos 9:11)
It was therefore necessary that the kingdom should be, as it were, demolished when Christ appeared. We further know what Isaiah says,
"Come forth shall a shoot from the root of Jesse." (Isaiah 11:l)
He does not there name David, but a private person, who was content with a humble, retired, and rustic life; for a husbandman and a shepherd, as it is well known, was Jesse the father of David. In short, whenever the Prophets declare that the kingdom of David would be perpetual, they do not promise that there would be a succession without interruption; but this ought to be referred to that perpetuity which was at length manifested in Christ alone. We have said elsewhere, how the time of return ought to be connected with the coming of Christ. For it is not necessary nor expedient to introduce an anagogical sense, as interpreters are wont to do, by representing the return of the people as symbolical of what was higher, even of the deliverance which was effected by Christ; for it ought to be considered as one and the same favor of God, that is, that he brought back his people from exile, that they might at length enjoy quiet and solid happiness when the kingdom of David should again be established.
As to the priesthood, the same difficulty might be raised, for we know that the priesthood became corrupted; nay, that for the most part the priests not only became degenerate, but altogether sacrilegious. Hence the sacerdotal name itself became nothing else but a base and wicked profanation of all sacred things. But it was God's purpose in this manner to shew that another priest was to be expected, and that men were not to look on figures and types, but were to raise their thoughts higher, even to him who was to be the only true Mediator to reconcile God to men.
By saying, who may kindle a burnt-offering, etc., he specifies certain things, or some parts of the priest's office, because the Prophets accommodated their discourses to men of their own age and time, and described the kingdom and priesthood of Christ under those external symbols, which were then in use. It is hence proper to take the ceremonies of the Law as denoting the reality, or what they signified. For Christ offered no calves, nor any incense, but fulfilled all these things which were then set forth to the people under symbols. And he speaks of burning, or perfuming the oblation, hxnm, meneche, for though the oblation remained entire, there was yet a perfuming made by frankincense, and a small portion of the flour was burnt. It is then a mode of speaking, when a part is stated for the whole. It now follows --
1 It is better to adopt the secondary meaning of the verb, rendered "cut off," as it is done by the Syr. and the Targ., which is that of failing or wanting, --
17. For thus saith Jehovah, -- Not wanting to David shall be a man, Sitting on the throne of the house of Israel;
18. And to the priests, the Levites, Not wanting shall there be a man before me, Burning a burnt-offering, And perfuming an oblation, And making a sacrifice all the days. -- Ed.
This position is either nonsensical or pointedly refuses to delve into the mechanics of the statement.
Just as with the Calvinist-Arminian debates, the problem is not simply predestination versus free agency, but Calvinistic predestination and free agency versus Arminian predestination and free agency, even so here the question is not whether both are true statements, but rather in what manner both statements are true. I have already argued my position, so I will refrain from repeating the arguments here.
'Jeremiah 33:20-21 clarifies that God's promise is conditional; "If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night so that day and night cease to come at their regular time, 21 then also My covenant with My servant David may be broken so that he will not have a son reigning on his throne, and the Levitical priests will not be My ministers."
"He then says that despite this condition--broken again and again by the Israelites"
"Once again I point out that Jer. 33:17-20's promise of an eternal line of Levites is conditional, and argue that the fact of a second priest in the order of Melchizedek, Jesus Christ, proves the breaking of the conditions set for the Levites' 'eternal lineage'--"when there is a change of the priesthood, there must be a change of law as well"--Christ replaced the Levites, just as the New replaced the Old Covenant."
I apologize for coming in late but I have been following this debate and I see you assert that the covenant with the day and night has been broken repeatedly and therefore God's covenant with the house of David and the house of Levi has been broken. Would you be so kind as to point out where that covenant has been broken?
I do however get involved in predestination v free will debates which has two aspects - Scriptures and geometric physics.
T-G can answer for himself, but the book of Hebrews makes it clear that the old covenant was temporary.
"'For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.' In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8)
"But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9)
"For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure." (Heb. 10)
God's plan, according to the prophets and the writer of Hebrews, was always to institute a greater covenant by the work of Messiah. The Levites, the physical tabernacle, the animal blood sacrifices were temporary. There is a distinct linkage between the three. Levites serve no purpose without the sacrificial system. That is even clear from Jeremiah:
"For thus says the Lord: 'David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; nor shall the priests, the Levites, lack a man to offer burnt offerings before Me, to kindle grain offerings, and to sacrifice continually.'"
"Levites to bring a burnt offering."
Now, obviously some need to twist the word of the prophecy to say that "never lack" doesn't really mean never. The need to account for the time in which we live. There are no Levites. There are no sacrifices and burnt offerings. So never has to be interpreted to mean.
So either God is being deceptive in meaning the physical priestood and physical throne of David, or He means to communicate that there would be a greater than David who would be a Priest and King, who would sit on the heavenly throne, of with the earthly throne was but a pattern, offering a true sacrifice, of whch the earthly was but a pattern.
Nowhere in Hebrews or the rest of the NT is there even the slightest hint of a future, reconstituted earthly priesthood and animal sacrifices. The idea that we are in a temporary "break in action" is absolutely unfounded and totally speculative. It is a pure refusal to read the OT in the light on the NT. It is the spirit of antichrist, because it denies a recognition of the finished work of Messiah, to which all the OT sacrificial system pointed. He is our greater High Priest. Not other is necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.