Posted on 09/30/2005 9:26:35 AM PDT by HarleyD
First of all, the NT does mention Christians continuing to follow Torah and even offer sacrifices, does it not? Therefore, I am not the one arguing from silence.
Secondly, even if we were both arguing from silence, the conventional assumption in reading a historical work is to expect that the author will mention any drastic sociological change--which massive numbers of Jews apostasizing from the Torah and ceasing to sacrifice would have been--so that if there is no mention of such a change, we usually assume that they just kept on doing what they were doing.
This is not even an argument between two opinions anymore. Its an argument of the Scriptures--again, from four or five different passages--against your opinion. Guess which wins.
In answer to your question, I think it was indeed a type. The original Abomination of Desolation--that is, the Idolatry that caused great destruction--was the act of Antiochus Epiphanes in putting a false god, Zeus, in the Holy of Holies of God's Temple. I think the fulfillment of the type will be the Antichrist (which even sounds like Antiochus) putting a false god, himself, in the Holy of Holies of God's Temple, per 2 Th. 2:4.
If Jerusalem were not destroyed after Yeshua's death and Resurrection, Dan. 9:26, just to pick one example, would not have been fulfilled. Thus, Yeshua is saying that 70 AD was part of the whole fulfillment of Scripture. Just like Jerusalem's restoration will be.
What He does not say, your imagination to the contrary, is that everything in Scripture was fulfilled in or by 70 AD.
This says it all.....very profound!
No, the "old covenant" spoken of here is clearly the Mosaic Covenant, the only covenant made at the time when God brought Israel out of Egypt, and the only covenanant in the Tanakh which was not a unilateral promise of God. It was that covenant in which all Israel promised as one, "All that God has commanded, we will do."
Did they? No; God, speaking through the prophet Jeremiah said they didn't. So He promised to remove that covenant and replace it with a New one, in which He would supernaturally empower them to keep His Torah by writing it on their hearts and indwelling them with His Spirit.
The Mosaic Covenant, in which Israel promised to obey the Torah in their own power, is growing old and fading, but until every last living Jew has entered the promised New Covenant, it still remains, for a Jew is bound to the covenant of his fathers by birth and circumcision (which makes him "a debtor to the whole Torah").
Therefore, it isn't the Torah which is old and fading away, but Man's attempt to keep God's Law by his own power.
And now, speaking of which, I'm off to Yom Kippur service. I'll be back sometime after sundown tomorrow. God bless.
Actually, there's no evidence that He did any such thing. It doesn't seem that the meal Jesus had with His disciples was a passover meal. For one thing they used leavened bread (the greek word used to decide the bread, artos, always refers to leavened bread in the NT). Second, we have the curious account from John when, after the meal is eaten and Jesus tells Judas to go do his thing, the other disciples speculated on what just happened. " For some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus had said to him, 'Buy those things we need for the feast,' or that he should give something to the poor." (John 13:29). Why would they speculate about buying things for the feast if they were in the process of celebrating the feast? This was apparently a pre-passover meal, which makes sense since Christ had to be crucified when the animals were sacrificed for the passover. He couldn't be eating the passover and be the Last Passover at the same time.
But, enough of a diversion. Let's get back to my point. Jesus was circumcised. You want to be like Jesus. Under the old covenant gentiles that wanted to fully participate in the old covenant ceremonies, esp. passover, were also required to be circumcised.
Now you claim that none of the old covenant cultic laws were done away with when Christ came. So the question remains, which you have never answered, by what authority do you, an uncircumcised gentile, participate in the ersatz passover of our tradition? How is it "being like Jesus" for a gentile to engage in the passover rituals?
"And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." (Exodus 12:48-49)
How do you consider yourself a Jew to be admitted to the passover in opposition to Exodus 12?
Hey, I only asked a questionand quoted a verse. What are you getting defensive about. Are you going to answer? What does Luke 21:22 "literally" mean. And what was the theological significance of AD70?
No, not in the way you suggest.
Secondly, even if we were both arguing from silence, ...
Correction. I said the Scriptures do not teach that the church continued to offer sacrifices in the temple as an ongoing part of church life. You claim it is implied. Since Christ is the last sacrifice, the burden is on you to prove your position, which, of course, you cannot do.
This is not even an argument between two opinions anymore. Its an argument of the Scriptures--again, from four or five different passages--against your opinion. Guess which wins.
I've already demonstrated how your passages do not say what you claim they say. And you have yet to show how a plain, "literal" reading of the books of Galatians and Hebrews (for a start) do not disprove you position from beginning to end. So there we have it.
No, the "old covenant" spoken of here is clearly the Mosaic Covenant,
How do you distinguish between "Torah" and "Mosiac covenant"?
"For the law (torah??)was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17)
"Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?" (John 7:19)
"If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?" (John 7:23)
"Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you." Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission." (Heb. 9:18-22)
I don't see anywhere in Hebrews of the rest of the Bible how you can make a arbitrary distinction between the law of Moses and the Mosaic covenant. Certainly Hebrew does not, speaking of the law and covenant in the very same verse. If the covenant has decayed and passed away, then the law of Moses that went with it has also passed away.
Question is do you live according to the blood of the old covenant which Moses gave in the law, or according to the new covenant of grace and truth in Jesus Christ?
That sure looks like a bottom-line question to me.
We were not reborn into the past, but into the future.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." -- 1 Peter 1:23
There's only one incorruptible seed.
On this, we agree, but I will try to take it a step further. Types have layers. One example would be communion. The bread and wine are types of Christ’s body and blood. But Christ’s body and blood are also types. So you have a symbol of a symbol. They also start out in the natural world, and ultimately, illustrate the spiritual world. I believe that the order is set by I Cor 15:46. From my observations, all roads lead to Christ.
Some years back, my wife and I went to a Seder Service with some friends. I was impressed because every detail about the service had meaning. I am convinced that God has done the same thing with creation. Take anything, whether in nature or in Scripture, and look for spiritual meaning, you will find Christ. God has put meaning into everything, and our business is to search it out.
Challenge me on this if you like, it is not without its problems, but I proceed on the Abomination of Desolation. Your view looks at thing that we can see. But spiritual things are the things we cannot see, at least not with our eyes, but they are understood by the things that are made. It is the invisible things that types teach.
Thus a spiritual Abomination of Desolation, would have to be connected with Christ because he is the Spiritual Temple, and the desecration would have been on or immediately after the Cross.
Some reasons for my reservations on the third example. Perhaps my question, “can there be an illegitimate Abomination of Desolation?” is appropriate.
Seven
As I pointed out before, you have to be careful not to abuse Roman 14 to say something that it does not say, or to address an issue directly that is really not the focus of the passage.
Romans 14 is about what we call adiaphora, that is, things which in themselves are indifferent as far as God is concerned. Now, the days and the food of Romans 14 can be taken in various ways.
1) That can be taken as regarding the heathen practices of the gentiles, such as eating meat sacrifices to idols (1 Cor. 8:1ff). The gentiles had their festival days and food practices. There were at that time various "vegetarian sects" such as the followers of Orpheus. There were also festival days to the gods of the Romans/Greeks and other pagans. If this is Paul's focus, then his words echo what he said to the Corinthians about meat being sacrificed to idols being nothing. And also what he says here, " I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." (v. 14)
2) The mention of days and food could have to do particularly with the practices of the Jews under the old covenant cultic system. In this case then "days" would refer to Levitical holy days. In thiose case we know that the Jewish festival days were merely a shadow of the heavenly reality in Christ, and destined to pass away (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5,13; 10:1). The Roman Christians were living at a time when the practices of the Jews were still very much apparent. The temple was still standing and the priesthood was still in place, so sacrifices and holy days could still eb observed. No doubt many Jewish Christians felt the tug of their old social and religious patterns. But in reality those old practices mean nothing under the new covenant in Christ. Even today Jews who convert to Christ often feel a sense of wanting to observe the "old traditions". And that is perfectly fine so long as they realize those things are merely social habits and not religiously significant practices.
I tend to think the first option is what Paul has in mind.
In either case the weak brother is the one who either eats only vegetables or continues to follow their old traditions wrt "holy days". They are to be permitted to continue in their practice without condemnation until the reality of Christ is made known to them. They must be convinced in their mind otherwise it is sin. When they stop being weak they will recognize their freedom in Christ.
In any event this hardly applies to modern day gentiles who voluntarily place themselves under old covenant cultic practices. They are not simply weak brethren that are still struggling with all those old habit patterns and practices. They have willing placed themselves in a very perilous position wrt the gospel. Paul even wonders in Galatians if there is any hope for them if they continue in the practice. Those who willingly place themselves under the law become a slave to the law and Christ is of no avail to them.
"But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? ... Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?" (Gal. 4:9,21)
What does Paul and the Scripures say about those who want to be under the law?
"Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.' So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing." (Gal. 4:30-5:2).
Becoming entangled in the Levitical code is a form of bondage. It denies fundamentally the liberty of Christ. Whether one does it "voluntarily" of not is not the issue for Paul. Every example demonstrates bondage to the law rather than freedom in Christ.
We need to run to the merciful High Priest who can release us from all our bondage, the one who has paid the price not after the shadowy and decayed priesthood of Aaron and his sons, but according to the order of Melchizedek.
And Paul says that any mingling of law and grace is a basic denial of what Christ came to accomplish. Paul doesn't say anything about "voluntary" observance of the old covenant cutilc practices. Paul speaks as if any following of the law after coming to Christ is prima facie evidence of bondage to the law and denial of Christ.
I think you are looking for wiggle room that does not exist in Scripture. For Paul the matter was so clear and so cut and dried that it was not for compromise.
This needs to be hammered home over and over.
He chooses to follow the Law becuase of his love for Christ and he does not impose these views on others
You're not reading carefully enough. Actually he does impose these views on others. Oh, sure, he doesn't go around beating you for up for not wearing certain clothes or eating certain food or following certain ersatz holy days. He doesn't have that power. But when he makes the claim that this is not a matter of indifference, not adidaphora, he is saying just that very thing.
He believes that Christ's commandment to His body today is to follow the old covenant practices according that tradition of the rabbis and his fellow messianics. He has made that abundantly clear. He believes the church was mistaken to change the sabbath day observance from the last day of the week to the first day of the week. He believes that Christ is pleased by having His followers keep the ersatz passover of the messianics. We are not just being indifference to these things, we are in error -- in sin!
He obviously cannot impose those views on anyone else, but he nevertheless says "thus saith the Lord" when it comes to these issues.
That's why Romans 14 doesn't apply to him and his messianic brethren. To them the matter of food and holy days is not adiaphora. They are not the weak brethren in their eyes.
Don't get suckered by the subtlety of his position. It is not very subtle when you dig a little deeper and ask some penetrating questions.
I kind of see it as marriage.
We are to keep Christ's commandments as evidence of our love for Him (John 14:15). To add all these old, expired, cultic laws as legitimate commandents for today is to cheapen that which truly remains. We don't show love to our wife by doing things where are not to her benefit, or which mask the reality of our relationship. That is precisely what we have here, a masking of the grace that is found in Christ alone who freed us from the law of bondage. I have no wish to return to earthly Sinai or earthly Jerusalem. The Jerusalam above is free and is the mother of us all.
When did passover observance go from mandatory to voluntary? When did all those "thou shall"s get changed to "thou may"s? Are they only voluntary because he's a gentile? Or are they voluntary for everyone? If it's voluntary because he's a gentile where does the Scripture make that racial distinction wrt the old covenant law of Moses? In any event where is the rule change to permit gentiles to voluntarily observe passover without first being circumcised (i.e., becoming a Jew after the flesh)? Is a person's standing in Christ complete and perfect without the observance of any of these old covenant regulations, or are you guilty of falling short of Christ's word to keep His commandments as a demonstration of our love towards Him?
There are many questions that have yet to be answered. It helps to dig deeper. I'm sure you can see why Paul was so concerned about law keeping esp. among the gentiles.
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.