I assume that in this line:
This is why God chose Zacharias to be in the Temple offering incense. Zacharias was a descendant of Aaron,
The author means that "[we can infer from the above] that Zacharias was a descendant of Aaron"
Is that correct? He's inferring from Zacharias' role of burning incense that he was a descendant, and in Elizabeth's case scripture says it directly.
I also wonder whether the author's distinction between Hebraic and Jewish has scriptural support. The author says the pharisees created "Jewish" law and Moses received "Hebraic" law. Is there some evidence of this distinction in scripture or archaeological evidence? Did the term Jewish law come into existence with the Pharisees and was not used before them to describe the Mosaic law?
You ask an excellent question, because just yesterday I asked the same question to a group of scholars I am in touch with.
See, in my opinion, what we recognize as Judaism, is not the same religion God handed down to Moses. What follows below is the exact query I put forth to the scholars, who ended up agreeing with me.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
To my fellow scholars on this board, I have an important question I need to put forth for discussion.
We all know that God handed down His regulations as to how Moses was to set up the Religious order, and the Priesthood. He used Aaron and the first High Priest, and all High Priests afterwards were to only come from His loins, so to speak.
That being said, sum forward to the dispersion of Judah, and thus the Levitical Priesthood. Now, up till then, the religious order was still considered Mosaic.
However, after the return, and some years later, the Religious order was changed, not by GOD, but by men. This new religious order became know as Judaism.
Under Judaism, the rules changed, the lineage of Aaron ceased to exist as to who the High Priests were. By the time Christ showed up, the Priesthood, and the Religion became but a shadow of what God put in place.
Now I know that Christ replaced the Old religion, and He fulfilled all that needed to be filled, and thus His work is finished, so He sat down on the right hand of the Father.
Yet, 2000 years later, we still consider God’s Old Testament religion as being Jewish, when it is not, and never was. Judaism is not what God put in place. God never changed it.
Should it not still be called the Hebrew Religion? After all, even Jesus stated that the disciples will sit will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. He did not say just the former Kingdom of Judah. He clearly referenced Israel as a united nation under Christ’s rule with the disciples judging the 12 tribes.
So tell me, Why do we still put all emphasis on Judaism, and none on Israel as a whole. Christian teachers, preachers always refer to Jews, and Jews only as if the whole nation does not exist. Yet to Christ it does, or else He would not reference all 12 tribes.
My big question is, when did God replace the Hebrew Mosaic Religious order with Judaism? Because Judaism is not the same religion God told Moses to set up. In fact, one thing Jesus did was to tear down the Jewish religion since they bastardized most of Moses commands. What Jesus fulfilled was the Mosaic Laws and Mosaic ceremonies, not the Jewish ones.
Am I wrong. If so please enlighten me.
Your humble brother in Christ
Chuck Ness
I concur. Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews." John 4:22