Replies

Yep. Sweet tea is good stuff. I often thought how much more civilized the FR Religion Forum would be if these conversations were all held in person over a pleasant meal.

Anyway, I defer to go further with the Two House speculation. The endpoint seems to be a pretext to convince gentiles they are under Mosaic Torah, which is false. But some people thrive on such speculation. For myself, it seems a perfect candidate for this rebuke:

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

The "ministration of questions" is an interesting thought to me. Some things don't have definitive answers this side of Heaven. Where did all my genetic material come from? Who knows? And theologically, who cares? My family is the "one new man" created in Christ, neither Jew nor Gentile, but a brotherhood of new creations made to be like Him.

Why then get tangled up in uber-speculation about being a crypto-Ephraimite, especially when we know, for a fact, the various supposedly lost tribes were not lost, even up to the time of Christ, and not hyper-separated from Judah, as the theory requires? See, this is like those judicial opinions that seem too short, but they are dead-on correct, because they identify the essential presupposition that isn't true, that unhinges the rest of the case, no matter how gloriously complex it may be. Nothing you cited rehabilitated your damaged presuppositions.

But rather than go round the block indefinitely, which I'm sure would not be fun for either of us, I will simply leave that debate to others. It truly is an "endless genealogy" question that minsters division rather than godly edification. I am much more concerned for the truthful telling of the Gospel.

In that connection, I have a question for you. You have not responded to the remainder of my last post, and that's fine, there's a lot to sort through in that badly overweight post. But in the interest of losing some of that bulk by focusing on key presuppositions, I'd like to know what you think about this passage:

Heb 7:11-14 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? (12) For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (13) For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. (14) For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Your theory of Torah, so far as I am able to understand it, is that God never changes Torah, so that anything added later does not displace anything already in place. I think the passage above destroys that notion entirely. But I want to look at it fairly closely to understand how that could work. Because in a certain respect I think understand the value in what you are saying. God's holiness is perfect and eternal. How then could there be a setting aside of the shadows if they, even as shadows, are intrinsically good?

And yet, we see they can be set aside. The pre-Mosaic rule of divorceless marriage was modified by Moses' writ of divorce. The wilderness tabernacle was set aside for the Temple. And here, in Hebrews, we see that the levitical priesthood is set aside for Jesus as our new High Priest, and as a consequence, as so much of the law is in support of the levitical priesthood, the law itself must be changed (μεταθεσις) to accommodate Christ acting on our behalf in the order of Melchisedec.

Now I think you try to support immutability of the law by arguing that any new code is additive and always incorporates the old. That's a creative angle, but I don't think it works. Even if it were true (which I contend it is not), the premise of immutability is defeated if anything new is added. Additions are changes. If someone adds a new feature to the code, that goes in the change log. The new body of code is different. It has changed. So it is not immutable.

But your theory of continuous evolutionary incorporation is also incorrect. If you were to view Exodus 26-27 as legislative text, when David reveals the plans for the new Temple, the Exodus text is now all strike-through text. It has been taken out of the code, because the new code is not merely additive, and does not incorporate the old, but replaces it, because it must, because it directly conflicts with it. There cannot be a tabernacle inside of or alongside of the new Temple. The new Temple displaces the old. There is therefore real change to the law. It is not immutable.

And finally, as we see here in Hebrews, Paul is explicit: the law had to change because the levitical/Aaronic priesthood changed, or rather, was set aside, because there could not be both in one system. The one replaces the other. Indeed, Paul says that Moses' law of the priesthood does not account for a priest out of Judah. So how then could the law not be changed. There was no choice, if Christ was to offer Himself on our behalf as the High Priest of God. Therefore, God is free to change His law, and has done so. The law, Torah, is not immutable.

So then what is the truly eternal Torah? Only those things that God does NOT change. In our New Covenant, we know that idolatry is still wrong, as is murder, adultery, theft, bearing false witness, covetousness, etc. We also know that unjustified anger, airs of superiority, spiritual pride, lack of self-control, greed, envy, strife, lust in the heart, are all ongoingly wrong for those who would follow Jesus.

So it begins to appear to us what is the eternal Torah. It is the fruit of the Spirit, all those characteristics that express our love for God and neighbor: Patience, kindness, absence of envy, humility, self-control, unselfishness, good temper, innocence of thought, sorrow for sin, joy for truth, forgiving, believing, hoping, enduring, and unfailing. To paraphrase Jesus, it's not what goes into a man that makes him unkosher, but what comes out of him.

Well, I'm starting to nod off here, so good night.

Peace,

SR

Anyway, I defer to go further with the Two House speculation. The endpoint seems to be a pretext to convince gentiles they are under Mosaic Torah, which is false.

No disciple of Messiah is under the law. A disciple of Yeshua keeps the commandments out of love for YHWH, because Yeshua, and all of the Apostles said to do exactly that.

For myself, it seems a perfect candidate for this rebuke:

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

So am I to understand that you consider Torah to be 'fables and endless genealogies'? That certainly isn't right.

The "ministration of questions" is an interesting thought to me. Some things don't have definitive answers this side of Heaven.

LOL! I take it you have never read the Talmud. There you will find 'fables and endless genealogies which minister questions'. There is not a better description anywhere. And they HAVE attempted to answer bloody near everything, this side of heaven, in heaven itself, or otherwise. Just in the reference, one can tell that Paul is speaking of Jewish Tradition.

Why then get tangled up in uber-speculation about being a crypto-Ephraimite, especially when we know, for a fact, the various supposedly lost tribes were not lost, even up to the time of Christ, and not hyper-separated from Judah, as the theory requires?

Actually, Two-House supposes they were not entirely lost, that the Apostles knew where to go to find them... at least to get the ball rolling. And that many were represented at Shavuot when the Spirit was given - Shavuot is greatly underrated by normal Christian thought IMHO. They 'forgot who they are' thereafter, in the multitude of wars and displacements that followed.

See, this is like those judicial opinions that seem too short, but they are dead-on correct, because they identify the essential presupposition that isn't true, that unhinges the rest of the case, no matter how gloriously complex it may be. Nothing you cited rehabilitated your damaged presuppositions.

It remains, no matter what, that the prophecy concerning the House of Israel is there, and necessarily serves a purpose - I am not welded to Two House, nor British Israelism, nor any other published theory. But I am welded securely to the bare fact that those prophecies exist and will come to pass, and I do consider the sheer volume of those prophecies to carry great import - Unlike standard chunked-and-formed Christianity, I cannot ignore them. To do so, with any of the prophecy is to court disaster.

To the best of my knowledge there is no 'official' Christian eschatology to deal with it except Successionism, or Supersuccessionism - Replacement Theology, if you will - That which I can resoundingly reject. So if I seem to have to wandered off, it is not without a valid reason. Supply me with a workable theory better than my own, and I will come around. But don't tell me, 'Who cares?' or that it doesn't matter... Because I am certain that it must.

In that connection, I have a question for you. [...] I'd like to know what you think about this passage: Heb 7:11-14 [...] Your theory of Torah, so far as I am able to understand it, is that God never changes Torah, so that anything added later does not displace anything already in place. I think the passage above destroys that notion entirely.

It is a matter of precedence, and thereby allowed for (predicted in Torah). Torah and the prophets show the priest-king (Melchizedek). I don't think that could be found 'going in' but rather in retrospect, after the fact. The linkage that is hard to see is that which ties Melchizedek to Messiah, because the surface emphasis in Torah focuses simply upon 'king' (out of David). That linkage IS there, if you wish to look for it (Zadok, as an example)... But that is another whole line of debate and proofs to add to an already burgeoning tome.

The key, I think, is to look at the legal authority of Aaron and how that comes from Melchizedek, and apply the same to the kingship as well. That is why the question is raised about how David could call his son, generations removed, 'Lord'. According to precedence (patriarchy), the father is more honored than the son... The son should call David 'Lord'... In the same way, Melchizedek is of a greater authority than Aaron. Once the tie between Melchizedek and Messiah is found, the rest is academic - Messiah comes from David, David is of Judah, not through Aaron, so IF Messiah is Priest and King, then the priesthood is necessarily predicted to change (albeit that it is not change exactly). Needless to say, the whole thing boils down to Yeshua necessarily being YHWH again.

But I want to look at it fairly closely to understand how that could work. Because in a certain respect I think understand the value in what you are saying.

My, but that is refreshing.

God's holiness is perfect and eternal. How then could there be a setting aside of the shadows if they, even as shadows, are intrinsically good?

You are really close here. The conundrum is that Torah says Torah is immutable and eternal. The task is to reconcile the Messianic Covenant to that. The shadow is cast by, and therefore inherently resembles, what cast it. And what cast it, admittedly comes from before the law was given, presaged in Melchizedek (actually from the foundation of the world). BUT the shadow necessarily shows what the object is.

Maybe a different analogy: You hold in your hand a picture of a mountain scene. Think of two dimensions becoming three. The information held within the two dimensions (say, a picture on paper) is not an inaccurate representation of what it displays. Now let's jack it up a notch: Now you are sitting in my private theater, looking at a movie still-shot of that same mountain scene... The representation is still two dimensional, but now you have the benefit of seeing motion within the frame, and an illusion of depth - You can see the wind blowing through, the aspen leaves flipping and changing color, animals popping into view, the ever-changing motion of a mountain stream.

Now, your job is to find that exact place in real life. I don't care if you use the movie or the picture. Either one will get you there, providing you understand what they are showing you (eyes to see). The movie shows you more, but essentially, the movie and the picture are necessarily showing the very same thing. And for all that, I can guarantee that all of it is a poor shadow of what you will experience when you are standing in that place, when you find it, with all it's dimensions intact. There is SO much more than can be captured in the images of any kind, that it is really impossible for you to appreciate it...

Yet my point is this: You are arguing that the picture should be thrown out - That it's data is no longer necessary because we have the movie. I can see where you might think that... But now, let's use only the movie and edit out of the movie the information the picture contains: Can you still find that place with what is left in the movie? I don't think so.

And yet, we see they can be set aside.

Unless of course, we are talking of the first temple destruction, Then the Jews are all damned until there is a new Temple again. Of course I am being sarcastic, but it seems that is what you see.

The pre-Mosaic rule of divorceless marriage was modified by Moses' writ of divorce.

We don't know the context of that - whether it is talking of Sodom, or of Noah's time, or of Eden. But it also shows that there was some kind of Torah all the way along. At least we can see that much.

The wilderness tabernacle was set aside for the Temple.

I have already disagreed with you on this point. The Temple is an expansion, a further revelation, of what was imaged in the Tabernacle.

And here, in Hebrews, we see that the levitical priesthood is set aside for Jesus as our new High Priest, and as a consequence, as so much of the law is in support of the levitical priesthood, the law itself must be changed (μεταθεσις) to accommodate Christ acting on our behalf in the order of Melchisedec.

This is somewhat true - If one looks to the Prophets, the Levites are in the future Temple. One cannot forget YHWH's promise to Aaron. Try and figure out how that works. But, to your point, Torah predicts and allows for this 'change'.

Now I think you try to support immutability of the law by arguing that any new code is additive and always incorporates the old. That's a creative angle, but I don't think it works. Even if it were true (which I contend it is not), the premise of immutability is defeated if anything new is added. Additions are changes. If someone adds a new feature to the code, that goes in the change log. The new body of code is different. It has changed. So it is not immutable.

Unless the feature was already there and the Creator of the code simply revealed the switch to use to activate the feature in the change log... The code didn't change. Our knowledge of the code changed. Think of Torah as a seed that the rest of Scripture sprang forth from. All of it must be there, contained in the dna of the seed. An oak tree looks nothing like an acorn, yet both are the very same thing.

The law, Torah, is not immutable.

Then something is amiss, because Torah says Torah is immutable. Cannot be changed, added to, or taken from. So either Torah has been changed from it's original state, or YHWH changed his mind (which He said He NEVER WILL), or the Messianic covenant is false, or, you are reading it wrong. Guess which one I choose?

So then what is the truly eternal Torah? Only those things that God does NOT change.

YHWH said He would never change ANYTHING in Torah. What was given to Moses cannot change, or the whole thing is a lie (or you are reading it wrong again).

Here again, we are pretty close together. This is TRUE... Like the Beatitudes, against which there is no law... That doesn't change Torah, but rather, illuminates it. Those who are in the kingdom keep Torah naturally - It is not their focus, but neither do they disobey, because like all law, it is written for criminals. To a lawful citizen, the law is transparent, it has no effect upon them because they do not break the law.