Posted on 06/14/2006 8:05:55 AM PDT by NYer
We believe in the Blessed Trinity because we believe in Jesus, Who revealed the Trinity. God had prepared the Jews not only to welcome the Messiah, but to recognize through revelation what philosophers like Aristotle achieved through reason: that there is a God and there can only be one God.
Moses said to the Jews, “Acknowledge today and take to heart that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other but to believe in God Who is the only God.” When the Messiah finally came, He revealed a huge mystery that went far beyond what the Jews were expecting: that the one God in Whom they believe is not solitary, but a unity, a communion of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Messiah is the Son.
He told them explicitly that the Father and He are one (Jn 10:30). He told them that He and the Father would send the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26, Jn 15:26). And when He sent them out to baptize in the name of God, He didn’t give them instructions to baptize in the “names” of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — as if they were three different gods — but in the “name,” for they are fundamentally a union of three persons. This is what the term Trinity means. It was devised by the early Church apologist Tertullian around the year 200 from the Latin words “unitas” and “trinus,” literally “unity” and “three.” It signifies that there is a unity of three persons in one God.
Since the beginning of the Church, theologians have spent their lives trying to penetrate this mystery and explain it to others. St. Patrick used the image of a three-leaf clover. St. Augustine used the image of the mind, with memory, reason and will. More recent minds have used the image of H20, which can exist as ice, water, or steam. But none of these analogies — though interesting and somewhat helpful — do justice to the reality of the mystery of how three persons can exist in the one God.
When St. Augustine was in the middle of his voluminous and classic study of the Blessed Trinity, he took a walk along the beach in northern Africa to try to clear his head and pray. He saw a young girl repeatedly filling a scallop shell with sea water and emptying it into a hole she had dug in the sand. “What are you doing?” Augustine tenderly asked. “I'm trying to empty the sea into this hole,” the child replied. “How do you think that with a little shell,” Augustine retorted, “you can possibly empty this immense ocean into a tiny hole?” The little girl countered, “And how do you, with your small head, think you can comprehend the immensity of God?” As soon as the girl said this, she disappeared, convincing Augustine that she had been an angel sent to teach him an important lesson: No matter how gifted God had made him, he would never be able to comprehend fully the mystery of the Trinity.
This, of course, does not mean we cannot understand anything. If we want to get to the heart of the mystery of the Trinity, we can turn to the most theological of the Apostles, who meditated deeply on all that Jesus had revealed and, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said simply and synthetically, “God is love” (1 Jn 4:16). For God to be love, He has to love someone. None of us can love in a vacuum; there must always be an object of our love. Who is the object of God’s love? It cannot be man, or the created world, or the universe, because all of these existed in time and God is eternal and therefore existed before time.
It’s also impossible to say that God merely loved Himself in a solitary way, because this would not really be love but a form of egotism and narcissism. For God to be love, there needed to be an eternal relationship of love, with one who loves, one who is loved, and the love that unites them. This is what exists in the Blessed Trinity: The Father loved His image, the Son, so much that their mutual and eternal love “spirated” or “generated” the Holy Spirit. They exist in a communion of love. The three persons of the Blessed Trinity are united in absolutely everything except, as the early Church councils said, their “relations of origin,” what it means to be Father, what it means to be Son of the Father, and what it means to proceed from the Father and the Son.
These theological insights about the blessed Trinity may seem theoretical, but they become highly practical when we reflect on the fact that we have been made in the image and likeness of God and called to communion with God. To be in the image and likeness of God means to be created in the image and likeness of a communion of persons in love. Our belief in the Trinity — the central teaching of the Catholic faith — has given the Church the deepest understanding available to human beings of the nature of man, the meaning of human life, and what it means to love.
Your attempts to find some fault with me do not address the Biblical question of whether Yeshua said that the whole Torah should be kept or not.
Read Hebrews.
And then read it again.
I have. Repeatedly. It's one of my favorite books. And? What has this to do with what Yeshua said about keeping Torah?
That's a far fetched accusation! All I said was what Scripture quoted... that they didn't think his disciples followed the law.
I totally disagree with you on divorce. I think Jesus did abolish what the standard was on divorce according to Mosaic law.
It's very clear to me that we are no longer under the law according to Scripture. Galatians 3:23-28
But before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue.
For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of ALL law.
Why? That's the logical conclusion of saying that because we are no longer under the law, we shouldn't keep it.
I gave you the reason I follow the Ten Commandments. Jesus quoted them to the rich young man. Here's what the Catholic Catechism says on the subject:
2054 Jesus acknowledged the Ten Commandments, but he also showed the power of the Spirit at work in their letter. He preached a "righteousness [which] exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees" as well as that of the Gentiles. He unfolded all the demands of the Commandments. "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill.' . . . But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."
Besides, if you're going to say that, which day then do you keep the Sabbath on?
I worship on Sunday.
I think there are verses from Scripture that support that day too.
Acts 20:7 "And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight."
1st Corinthians 16:2 "On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the collections be not then to be made."
From my example do you believe...
For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they boast in your flesh. Gal 6:13
However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "He who practices them shall live by them." Gal 3:12
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Gal 5:18
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love. Gal 5:6
However, if I strive to keep God's commands while trusting Yeshua--and not my own works--for salvation, then yes, I believe it pleases Him:
The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way. (Psalms 37:23)All of your arguments against keeping the whole of the Torah are predicated on the idea that I believe that by keeping them, I am somehow trying to earn my salvation. Since I have repeatedly repudiated this idea, it amounts to a baseless strawman, and if carried too far, falls into the realm of slander.I have longed for thy salvation, O LORD; and thy law is my delight. (Psalms 119:174)
And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments: (Nehemiah 1:5)
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. (John 14:21)
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. (John 15:10)
And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil. And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full. (Deuteronomy 11:13-15)
I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. But I keep Torah out of love of the One who redeemed me, and to be just like my Rabbi.
I know this was addressed to someone else, so pardon my intervening.. but where did Jesus say that we should keep the whole Torah? Where does it say we have to follow all 613 Mitzvot of the Torah?
He gave us the commands we should follow and there weren't 613 of them! His yoke is sweet and His burden is light.
Galatians 5:1 "Stand fast, and be not held again under the yoke of bondage."
Here's a list of the 613 Mitzvot. While I can see obeying some of them, all of them.. a resounding no if you're a Christian.
Do you agree with the law that says it is okay to charge interest to Gentiles, but not to an Israelite?
Do you keep all 613 of these?
"The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." -- Hebrews 9:8-15
"Until the time of reformation...Christ...a greater and more perfect tabernacle...to purge your conscience of dead works to serve the living God"
We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." -- Hebrews 13:9-10"Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.
Read this again, Buggmann. Those who serve the tabernacle have "no right to eat" at the altar of Christ's sacrifice.
Excellent question. Bump to 568.
Ah, and that is the key: Yeshua's enemies didn't think that He and His disciples kept Torah. Why? Because Yeshua rejected some (not all, which surprises some people) of the extra-Biblical traditions which had been built up around Torah. Therefore, their opinion of His Torah-observance was wrong, since it was He, not they, who interpreted the Torah correctly.
(That wasn't an accusation, btw. I was just demonstrating the dangers of basing one's theology on what the Bible records Yeshua's enemies as saying.)
I totally disagree with you on divorce. I think Jesus did abolish what the standard was on divorce according to Mosaic law.
Since you don't explain how you think this the case or answer my argument, there's no way for me to respond to this.
Galatians 3:23-28
Again, pay attention to the key phrase: under the law. I've already differentiated being "under" the law (which includes being under its condemnation when we violate it) and being under Grace but seeking to obey God's Torah.
How then was the Torah a pedagogue? The term "pedagogue" refers to a slave who was given charge over the children of a household. As part of his duties, he was given the authority to punish the children when they failed. Now, when the children grow up, they are no longer under the pedagogue and no longer fear being caned by him for their misdeeds, of course--but does that mean that they cease to walk in the ways of the lessons that the pedagogue taught them? Not at all.
Likewise the Torah. Before the Messiah, the whole nation of Israel was "under the Torah"--they had agreed with one voice to keep it (Exo. 24:3ff), and were therefore under the curses of disobedience it pronounced (Deu. 27). Yeshua came and took those curses on Himself, so that we are no longer threatened by them (Gal. 3). The children have grown, the pedagogue no longer weilds his cane: Does that mean that we throw off all the lessons of the teacher and cease to obey what he taught us? Not if we are wise and love the Father who put the pedagogue over us to teach us His ways.
The big error that we want to avoid--and this was why Galatians was written--is believing that Salvation is anything other than by grace received in faith--that is, trust. It is not faith + works (though genuine faith will result in works), nor is it faith + Jewishness (circumcision). God has redeemed us from our Egypt of sin by His outstretched arms; now we're simply learning to walk in His ways.
There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
So, if there's no male or female, does this mean that homosexuality is now okay? Cross-dressing? Or is Sha'ul's point simply that though there may be different roles, we are still all equally beloved by the Father in His Son, all equally redeemed, all equally one body. That is:
Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. (1 Co. 12:4-6)Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of ALL law.
Agreed. We're just disagreeing over the implications of that. I would argue that since He said that He came "not to abolish, but to fulfill," that His fulfillment, in whatever form you conceive it, does not result in the abolishon of the Torah. The fact that the essence of the New Covenant is to have the Torah written on our hearts would seem to confirm this (Jer. 31:31ff).
I gave you the reason I follow the Ten Commandments.
Really? You've never lusted after a woman in your heart? Never been angry with a brother? I agree that Yeshua "showed the power of the Spirit at work in their letter. . . preached a "righteousness [which] exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees" as well as that of the Gentiles . . ." and "unfolded all the demands of the Commandments." But He did that for more than just the Ten.
I think there are verses from Scripture that support that day too.
Not really. Let's look at Acts 20:7 first: It's the only time in Acts we see a Sunday meeting, and it was on a special occassion (Sha'ul being about to leave for Jerusalem). Saying that this is justification for moving the Sabbath would be like having a historian 200 years from now finding a record that Billy Graham once held a crusade on a Tuesday and using that as justification for a theory that American Christians moved their day of worship from Sunday to Tuesday!
In the case of 1 Co. 16:2, this actually contradicts the Sunday sabbath theory. Why? Because by tradition going back to before the 1st Century, a Jew does not handle money on the Sabbath! The synagogues did not permit alms to be collected on the Sabbath. Ergo, the second part of the verse, "that there be no gatherings when I come" actually supports the idea that Sha'ul was expecting to worship with them and address them on the seventh day rather than the first--if on the first day, then why would he tell them to gather money on the first day, a supposed "Christian sabbath," but not on the particular Sunday when he presumbably came and preached?
Why then did he say that they should lay aside funds on the first day of the week? Because his letter would have been read to them on the Sabbath, when they gathered in the synagogue/church to worship. Ergo, he was telling them to go out the very next day after the letter was read and set aside the gift.
In any case, neither of these supports the idea of a change in the Sabbath. God specifies that the Sabbath is to be on the seventh day, even tying it to the act of Creation (making it a universal, not merely a Jewish, cycle). He repeats this numerous times in the Tanakh (the OT). For there to be a change in the Sabbath, an equally clear and blunt statement would have had to be made by one with the authority to change the Torah--no mere Apostle, but Yeshua Himself! You'll find that neither He nor any Apostle made any such change.
That does not make the issue of the sabbath a salvational issue, of course. However, I do think that the greater part of the Church is in error on this issue.
You should study up on the 613 mitzvot. Even Jews don't keep all 613 mitzvot. When you exclude all the laws that pertain to the land of Israel, pertain to the temple, pertain to women, etc., etc., you're left with 278.
Pedagogue also means a teacher or schoolmaster.
pedagogue /peddgog/ • noun formal or humorous a teacher, especially a strict or pedantic one.
That is the context that is used in the Douay Rheims Bible. The KJV says:"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."
So, if there's no male or female, does this mean that homosexuality is now okay? Cross-dressing? Or is Sha'ul's point simply that though there may be different roles, we are still all equally beloved by the Father in His Son, all equally redeemed, all equally one body.
HUH? I'm kind of confused on how you come up with that logic about homosexuality. You took one line from the verses I gave you from Galatians. I quoted Gal. 3:23-28 and you only keyed in on 28. I think you have proved my point in a way when you say that we are all equally one body. If we are all equally one body, why would the Jewish Christians tell Gentiles to be under different laws than they? Why would the Messianic Jews say that the Jews in their congregations are expected to follow Torah laws, but the Gentiles can refrain from it? How is that equal?
Really? You've never lusted after a woman in your heart? Never been angry with a brother? I agree that Yeshua "showed the power of the Spirit at work in their letter. . . preached a "righteousness [which] exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees" as well as that of the Gentiles . . ." and "unfolded all the demands of the Commandments." But He did that for more than just the Ten.
Excuse me, but why are you asking me about personal shortcomings? How does that prove that the Ten Commandments shouldn't be followed? Your point please? Frankly, my sins/or not having sinned isn't the issue here. The issue here is that the Ten Commandments should be followed because Jesus said so and His Apostles preached it too.
Not really. Let's look at Acts 20:7 first: It's the only time in Acts we see a Sunday meeting, and it was on a special occassion (Sha'ul being about to leave for Jerusalem). Saying that this is justification for moving the Sabbath would be like having a historian 200 years from now finding a record that Billy Graham once held a crusade on a Tuesday and using that as justification for a theory that American Christians moved their day of worship from Sunday to Tuesday!
In the case of 1 Co. 16:2, this actually contradicts the Sunday sabbath theory. Why? Because by tradition going back to before the 1st Century, a Jew does not handle money on the Sabbath!
Acts 20:7 specifically states that "on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread....i.e, they assembled on this day to break bread not for some special farewell to Paul! The fact that he was leaving the next day had nothing to do with it.
As to 1 Corinthians 16:2, you are still seeing everything as through Jewish law which we are no longer under.
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths
Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ."
That does not make the issue of the sabbath a salvational issue, of course. However, I do think that the greater part of the Church is in error on this issue.
I'm sorry you feel that way. This sums up why the Church celebrates on Sunday:
The day of the Resurrection: the new creation
2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:
Place marker
I've studied it. According to the website I listed, look under "Marriage, Divorce and Family." Only 4 have been deemed negative out of 23 laws. Doesn't look like all the ones that apply to women have been excluded to me.
Let's apply your argument though that only 278 are left. That still doesn't match the number of commands that Jesus gave us that He said would help grant us eternal life.
The day of the Resurrection: the new creation
2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:
572 posted on 06/20/2006 4:47:09 PM MDT by FJ290
This is the Decree from the first Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world. Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire He had issued an Edict making Sunday the day of rest In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine
They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day."The Roman church celebrates on the day of the Sun because:
b'shem Y'shua
declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire: "On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest,
Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were
and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture
may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day
is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment
for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."
to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath.
Whatever. You can argue with the others about what Jesus said. I just wanted you to get your facts straight.
Concerning non-Jews, Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh explains the problem like this:
For a non-Jew, spiritual "rectification" involves the refinement of the seven innate powers of emotion through a commitment to fulfill the seven Noahide commandments. The non-Jew's innate first nature is thereby transformed into a second, rectified nature, which enables him to "see through" the three uppermost levels of his soul and envision the "One." This (often sudden) perception causes the seven emotive powers to serve the three Divine powers, rather than the other way round.If a non-Jew neglects his obligation to observe his seven commandments, he remains unable to apprehend God's true unity, and his consciousness is apt to fall into idolatry, with its deluded worship of the "three"...
Would you state your source please?
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]). St. Ignatius of Antioch
"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]). Justin Martyr
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]). Justin Martyr
Tell me again that Constantine was the originator of Sunday being the new day of worship for Christians? Compare the date that you gave of 321 C.E.(which should rightfully be A.D.)with the Early Church Fathers that I gave. It doesn't mesh does it? Proving that the early Christians celebrated Sunday worship before this "decree" of Constantine's.
First, let us suppose for the sake of argument for just a moment that you are correct in your interpretation of Hebrews: If Hebrews actually does say that the Torah is done away with, then it is in direct contradiction to the words of the Lord Yeshua HaMashiach Himself, as well as the actions of the Apostles (cf. Acts 21).
If that's the case, why in the world would we take the word of an anonymous book over the words and deeds of the Lord and known Apostles? It is not my view that is put on trial by such an interpretation, but the canonicity of Hebrews!
Secondly, let's deal with your interpretation. First, let us step back a chapter. Heb. 8:8-12 quotes Jer. 31:31-34, which says:
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law (Heb. Torah) in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.Now, as I've pointed out innumerable times before, if the Torah is written on our hearts, by what convoluted thinking can we say that the Torah is no longer valid? Especially when the Lord by His own lips said that it is, and that even the least commandments should be followed and when we see that the Jerusalem Church had many myriads "who are all zealous for the Torah"?
Moreover, Hebrews is not dealing with the validity of the Torah as a whole--that much is assumed--but rather with the issue of the sacrificial system, which is but a small subset of the Torah's commands. Ergo, even if you are right in your interpretation, you have only proven that a small subset of the Torah has changed, not that the whole has been thrown out and replaced.
But even that does not hold up under the Biblical evidence. What was God's covenant with Aaron's grandson?
Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel. (Num. 25:11-13)This everlasting priesthood is confirmed by the prophets. Ezk. 40-48 describes a future Temple, one which has never seen fulfillment, which will be ministered to by the Levites. Lest we think this some mere symbol of the Church, Jeremiah writes
For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me. (Jer. 33:17-22)Notice just what the Lord links His promise that the Levites will minister and offer sacrifice forever to: The Davidic promise of a Son to rule on his throne (cf. 2 Sam. 7:12-14, Luke 1:32)! That is to say, the priesthood of the Levites is as eternal as that of the Messiah's office!
Now, could it be that Yeshua fulfills both the role of the King and that of the Levites? Not quite. First, He wasn't a Levite, but from the tribe of Judah. Hebrews acknowledges this, calling Yeshua a priest after the order of Melchiezedek rather than after the order of Levi. Secondly, the prophecy speaks of Levites and priests in the plural, where it uses singular terms ("a man" and "a son") to refer to the Messiah's kingly role. Thirdly, even if we supposed this, the prophecy (and that of Ezekiel's) refer to several different types of animal sacrifice.
How then do we reconcile Hebrews with the rest of the Bible. The answer is not to "interpret the OT in light of the New"--a phrase which is wrongly used to justify throwing out anything in the Tanakh which does not fit with our preconceived notions of what the NT is saying. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). Therefore all Scripture must be understood in a way that none of it contradicts any other part of it. If we seem to have a contradiction between the Testaments, or between Yeshua and Sha'ul, or between everyone else and Hebrews, or between the Acts of the Apostles and their letters, then we are not understanding the Bible correctly.
So now let's get into the nitty-gritty, and hit the passage you've presented me piece-by-piece:
The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Notice the terminology here: The first Tabernacle (Gr. skene), not the Temple (hieron). The Tabernacle of course ceased standing long before "the holiest of all [was] . . . made manifest," while of the Second Temple the prophets wrote:
The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts. (Haggai 2:9)So right off the bat we have to be suspicious of any interpretation that automatically assumes that the author is speaking of the Temple service, especially since the Apostles continued to participate in it.Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 3:1)
Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Indeed, the Levitical sacrifices and service were a figure for their time, centuries before they saw their culmination in the Messiah. However, that does not render them without value to the present time. Sha'ul speaks of our present "vision" of the glory of God as being "but through a mirror, darkly" (1 Co. 13:12), but looks forward to the Second Coming, when we will see "face to face." Likewise, Yochanan (John) writes,
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (I John 3:2)It was in the light of this imperfect view of God's glory, which will only be brought to fulness when the Messiah returns and we are raised in our incorruptable bodies (1 Co. 15:42ff). Thus Sha'ul instructs:
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Co. 5:7-8)Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are (present tense) a shadow of things to come (future tense); but the body (reality behind the types) is of Messiah. (Col. 2:16-17).
As far as I can tell, the key word in the entire passage is the word "until" (Gr. mechri). If it can only mean, "up to that point, but to be stopped thereafter," then indeed Hebrews would present a problem. However, it doesn't. For example, in Mat. 11:23, the Lord laments, "And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until (mechri) this day." Does this mean that Sodom would have been destroyed the day after Yeshua uttered His words?
Or in 28:15, Matthew reports the bribery of the guards of the tomb: "So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day." So . . . the day after Matthew published his book, the guard's false report ceased being published?
Let's take a Pauline example: "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to (mechri again) Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come" (Rom. 5:14). Does this mean that death ceased to reign after Moses?
Obviously, while mechri can refer to a termination point (as in Mat. 13:30), there is no requirement for it to--rather, it reports that an event has continued up to X time, and leaves open the question of whether it continues beyond that point. Therefore, it is not necessary by the language of Hebrews to suppose that "meats, and drinks, and divers washings and carnal ordinances" were to be done away with at the time of Yeshua's coming.
Moreover, there's a second problem with saying that "carnal ordinances" refers to the Torah: Sha'ul says that the Torah is Spiritual, but that we are carnal (Rom. 7:14). Either a) there's a contradiction, and Hebrews must be rejected, b) Hebrews is not using sarx with the negative connotation that Sha'ul gives it, or c) Hebrews is not referring to the Torah at all, but to the rabbinical ordinances which added to the Torah.
Therefore, we may interpret this verse as meaning either of the following:
1) The sacrificial and ritual purity ordinances of the Torah continued up to the time of Yeshua; whether they continue beyond that is not stated and must be inferred by other passages (which indicate that they do), orNeither of these makes a case for jettisoning the Torah.2) "Fleshly ordinances," or rabbinical halakha, regarding meats and drinks (the latter of which the Torah is silent on), divers washings (the Torah only speaks of washing one's self, not of various kinds of washings), and other rulings continued up until the time of Yeshua. Again, whether they continue beyond that is not stated.
In any case, the rest of the passage simply continues the theme that is built up throughout the book of Hebrews: That the Messiah is a superior priest, who ministers in the Heavenly Tabernacle, and whose blood, unlike that of bulls and goats, brings true forgiveness from sin. I agree. While it's beyond my scope here to delve fully into the subject, I believe that the blood of animals only served to ritually purify a sinner (or someone who was simpy unclean for non-sinful reasons) (Heb. 9:13), and stood to a witness of the death that sin brings (10:3, and note that the author uses the present tense). True forgiveness of sin had to come from God before the ritual offering of an animal could be made, not after and as a result of it. Thus David writes,
For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it : thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem. Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar. (Ps. 51:16-19)But where the blood of bulls and goats could not appease a just God or remove the guilt of one's sin, through the blood of the Messiah, our Passover Lamb and Unblemished Sacrifice, "we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10).
Since your quote from Heb. 13 depends on your interpretation of Heb. 9, which I have shown to be incorrect, I'll leave it at that, except to say this: Given that Yeshua and the Apostles all kept Torah themselves, it is the doctrine that it is to be done away with that they would find to be "divers and strange."
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.