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.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! My habit, too. Seems minimally logical and Christian to do so.
I also tend to believe that God said what He meant and meant what He said. And, that while He delights in hiding things for us to discover--most key points are in plain sight.
I can't wrap my mind around the idea that the extensive and specific detail of the yet to be revealed/built new Temple would have NOTHING to do with a tangible literal temple. What a waste of words! There are likely meanings associated with the literal temple's dimensions. Doesn't mean the temple goes poof just because the dimensions of it's walls have some hidden meanings!
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.
Absolutely. Seems like the MOST logical and most obvious meaning possible. Of course, if some want to do mental gymnastics with . . . . Bibles, I can't stop them. But I don't believe the text even hints at such being valid, much less necessary.
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.
For sure. Another rather obvious case of one of God's BOTH/AND things. After all, GOD HIMSELF NOTED IN THE BEGINNING that even the Tabernacle as well as The Temple were patterned AFTER THE HEAVENLY ONE. Sometimes it seems like some folks would even spiritualize Heaven away from any substantive anything at all--perhaps a kind of vain ethereal imagination for the super sanctified?
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.
LOVE IT. Certainly a logical consequence of such Scriptural and mental gymnastics as are necessary to pretend that Scripture supports no new Temple yet to be built in the end times.
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.
For sure! LOL.
THX.