Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 101

Thread: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

  1. #76

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    Rather, it is A required way. There were periods when there was no temple and no sacrifice. Since I do not believe that God would leave people without a method of atonement, there must be other ways. In fact, the bible lists many. For example:
    Atonement is not necessarily promised without blood sacrifice, but God can still provide atonement and the sacrifice (e.g. Jesus) at His choosing.

    Genesis 22:8 WEB Abraham said, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they both went together.

    Another thought: Yom Kippur brings atonement for all sins. Is this only the sins in the past? Or does it include sins in the future? If the man on the Sabbath was stoned between Yom Kippurs, then perhaps future sins are not included? So if only past sins, does it only atone for sins within that year? Or maybe it can cover past years too? So if there is a future sacrifice, say after the temple is rebuilt, can that cover the current hiatus time? Food for thought.

    Prayer
    1 Kings 8: “If they return to You with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies who have taken them captive, and pray to You toward their land which You have given to their fathers, the city which You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name; then hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive Your people who have sinned against You and all their transgressions which they have transgressed against You…”
    Solomon asked this. God did not agree to it. It also seems to refer to a partial captivity, where the temple still stands and sacrifices can still be offered. This was prayer at the dedication of the temple, to ask more blessings related to the temple.

    Turning from one's evil ways:
    Jeremiah 36:"That every man will turn from his evil way, then I will forgive their iniquity and their sin.”
    These words were spoken when the temple was still standing. Just as these words do not negate the rules to fast on Yom Kippur, they do not negate the rules to offer a sacrifice on Yom Kippur.

    Confession:
    Psalms 32: “I acknowledged my sin to You, and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, `I will confess my transgressions to the L-rd’, and You did forgive the guilt of my sin.”
    This is THE king David. I thought we weren't supposed to make rules based on him.

    Combination of above:
    2 Chronicles 7 (mentioned already) “And if My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
    As mentioned, 2 Chron. 7:12-15 is in the context of the temple being a house of sacrifice. God listed conditions like plague and drought and famine, but not exile. The temple is likely still standing in the first three conditions.

    Loving kindness and truth
    Proverbs 16: “By loving kindness and truth iniquity is atoned for…”

    And the always awesome Micah 6: With what shall I come before the Lord and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of olive oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
    He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
    Unless you're going to say that these verses are meaningless, it seems perfectly clear that God gave many avenues of atonement aside from sacrifice. In fact, absent a change of heart, even sacrifice is completely useless.

    Proverbs 15: “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord.”[/quote]

    Again, these were spoken when the temple was standing. The offerings at Yom Kippur could be assumed. Change of heart is vital, I agree.

    Again, doesn't say it's the only way, only a way. Given that the temple wouldn't always stand, God had to give others. And He did, very explicitly, in the bible.
    A future Yom Kippur / sacrifice of Jesus.

    Poetically? Sure, why not.

    Ah. So this takes us to the translation of the word "Kohen". It does usually mean "priest", but not always. In fact, in 2 Samuel 8 it says that king David's sons were "Kohanim". Obviously they weren't priests, who could only come from the line of Levi, through Aaron. So the word can mean something else, in this case "chief officers" or "leaders". OK, so bear with me here. The Psalm says that David will be a "priest" in the order of Malkitzedek. Malkitzedek was a priest, but he was also the king of Salem (i.e. Jerusalem). So the Levites chanting Psalm 110 are singing that God promised their master, king David, that he would be a "priest" that is to say, the king of Jerusalem, forever.

    See, very simple. Doesn't require any new theology.
    So you think David will be a priest, ahem official, actually the king of Jerusalem, forever! Isn't it the Messiah who will be king forever? (Isa. 9:6-7; Dan. 7:13-14) Are you suggesting there will be two kings forever?

    Zechariah 6:11 Yes, take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest; 12 and speak to him, saying, ‘Yahweh of Armies says, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build Yahweh’s temple; 13 even he shall build Yahweh’s temple; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; and he shall be a priest on his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

    Zechariah tells us there will be a king and priest in the future.


    They were, and will be again in the third temple envisioned by Ezekiel. But God did provide other avenues.
    ok

    So God forgave him. It doesn't magically undo what happened. King David also wasn't permitted to build the temple on account of the blood that he spilled. So there was still consequence.
    David was not permitted to build the temple in 2 Sam. 7. He murdered in 2 Sam. 11. There were other consequences in his family.
    But if God can forgive sins against others, then Yom Kippur should also cover sins against others, because God promised to forgive all sins.

    And then perhaps the execution atones?
    Atones for land.

    Numbers 35:33 “‘So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land. No atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, but by the blood of him who shed it.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,476

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by greenonions View Post
    Atonement is not necessarily promised without blood sacrifice, but God can still provide atonement and the sacrifice (e.g. Jesus) at His choosing.

    Genesis 22:8 WEB Abraham said, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they both went together.
    Completely out of context. Allow me to explain. Abraham was ordered to bring up his son as an "olah" sacrifice, and this verse repeats that. The phrase "burnt offering" in this verse is "olah". And the Olah sacrifice is not a sin sacrifice. Allow me to repeat that:
    the Olah sacrifice is not a sin sacrifice. Leviticus 22:18 says it's brought as a donation to God. It has absolutely nothing to do with sin.


    Another thought: Yom Kippur brings atonement for all sins. Is this only the sins in the past? Or does it include sins in the future?
    Only past sins. How does one atone for something that hasn't even happened yet? That's just playing games with God.

    If the man on the Sabbath was stoned between Yom Kippurs, then perhaps future sins are not included?
    You still haven't explained why God didn't just tell the man to bring a sacrifice, since you seem to think sacrifice atones for all sins.

    So if only past sins, does it only atone for sins within that year? Or maybe it can cover past years too?
    I would say any past sins.
    So if there is a future sacrifice, say after the temple is rebuilt, can that cover the current hiatus time? Food for thought.
    Yes, but again, sacrifice is really only for accidental sin.



    Solomon asked this. God did not agree to it.
    Was Solomon not a prophet? God's "son"?



    These words were spoken when the temple was still standing.
    So what? This is God talking. He's saying if you turn from your evil ways, He will forgive your sin. He's not qualifying it with any other conditions. Why are you adding them? And Christians accuse the Pharisees of being legalistic.


    Just as these words do not negate the rules to fast on Yom Kippur, they do not negate the rules to offer a sacrifice on Yom Kippur.
    But sacrifice can't be brought. There's no temple. Shortly after Jeremiah uttered these words, in fact.



    This is THE king David. I thought we weren't supposed to make rules based on him.
    OK, chuck it out.



    As mentioned, 2 Chron. 7:12-15 is in the context of the temple being a house of sacrifice. God listed conditions like plague and drought and famine, but not exile. The temple is likely still standing in the first three conditions.
    Again, you're being hyper legalistic. Doesn't say anything whatsoever about sacrifice. In fact, the next verse says something even more interesting:
    My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to the prayer of this place.

    "Prayer". Not "sacrifice".


    Again, these were spoken when the temple was standing. The offerings at Yom Kippur could be assumed. Change of heart is vital, I agree.
    Micah specifically says that God doesn't want sacrifice. And you keep insisting that He does. Who should I listen to, you, or God?


    A future Yom Kippur / sacrifice of Jesus.
    No, that's not explicit. If you choose to believe it, fine.



    So you think David will be a priest, ahem official, actually the king of Jerusalem, forever!
    His line, yes. Unlike Saul, who had the kingship but his it was taken from him and his family. So God promising this to David, in the same generation that Saul lost it, well that's a huge promise.


    Isn't it the Messiah who will be king forever? (Isa. 9:6-7;
    Not about the messiah.
    Dan. 7:13-14) Are you suggesting there will be two kings forever?
    Doesn't say he'll be king forever, only that the kingdom won't be destroyed.

    even he shall build Yahweh’s temple; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; and he shall be a priest on his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

    Zechariah tells us there will be a king and priest in the future.
    Yes. A king and a priest. Two different people. And there will be peace between them.



    David was not permitted to build the temple in 2 Sam. 7. He murdered in 2 Sam. 11. There were other consequences in his family.
    But if God can forgive sins against others, then Yom Kippur should also cover sins against others, because God promised to forgive all sins.
    Really, God promised to forgive all sins? Where was that exactly?


    Atones for land.
    I don't even know what that means. "Atones for land". Land is not sin.
    "For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you.With a little wrath did I hide My countenance for a moment from you, and with everlasting kindness will I have compassion on you," said your Redeemer, the Lord."..."For the mountains shall depart and the hills totter, but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace totter," says the Lord, Who has compassion on you.

    Isaiah 54

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    31,981
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    Completely out of context. Allow me to explain. Abraham was ordered to bring up his son as an "olah" sacrifice, and this verse repeats that. The phrase "burnt offering" in this verse is "olah". And the Olah sacrifice is not a sin sacrifice. Allow me to repeat that: [LEFT][COLOR=#222222][FONT=Verdana]the Olah sacrifice is not a sin sacrifice. Leviticus 22:18 says it's brought as a donation to God. It has absolutely nothing to do with sin.

    .
    Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the entire idea of the Olah to draw near to God?

    Here's what I thought:

    Burnt offering: Sweet aroma / voluntary / Olah
    Grain offering: Sweet aroma / voluntary / Minchah
    Peace offering: Sweet aroma / voluntary / selemim

    Done in communion with God

    Sin offering: Not a sweet aroma / mandatory / chattath
    Trespass offering: Not a sweet aroma / mandatory / asam

    Done for communion with God
    Those who seek God with all their heart will find Him and be given sight. Those who seek their own agenda will remain blind.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,476

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    The Hebrew word "korban", "sacrifice", has the root "KRV", "to come close". So yes. But there are different kinds, which most Christians seem completely unaware of. It's all sin sacrifice to Christians, even though (as you well know, Keck) many sacrifices have nothing whatsoever to do with sin. The Olah that Abraham was bringing was not a sin sacrifice.
    "For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you.With a little wrath did I hide My countenance for a moment from you, and with everlasting kindness will I have compassion on you," said your Redeemer, the Lord."..."For the mountains shall depart and the hills totter, but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace totter," says the Lord, Who has compassion on you.

    Isaiah 54

  5. #80

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    Completely out of context. Allow me to explain. Abraham was ordered to bring up his son as an "olah" sacrifice, and this verse repeats that. The phrase "burnt offering" in this verse is "olah". And the Olah sacrifice is not a sin sacrifice. Allow me to repeat that:
    the Olah sacrifice is not a sin sacrifice. Leviticus 22:18 says it's brought as a donation to God. It has absolutely nothing to do with sin.
    Thanks for your thorough replies. I understood that the burnt offering is different from the sin offering. My point was that God can provide a sacrifice if people cannot. As for whether the burnt offering can be related to sin, consider this:

    Job 1:5 WEB It was so, when the days of their feasting had run their course, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my sons have sinned, and renounced God in their hearts.” Job did so continually.

    Only past sins. How does one atone for something that hasn't even happened yet? That's just playing games with God.
    You may be aware that Christians believe Jesus' sacrifice atones for all time. The concept is that everyone who identifies with Jesus past and future also shares in His punishment.

    You still haven't explained why God didn't just tell the man to bring a sacrifice, since you seem to think sacrifice atones for all sins.
    I thought I explained this. Of the sacrifices in the Law of Moses, only the Yom Kippur sacrifice atoned for all sins. The man can't just bring a Yom Kippur sacrifice at any time.
    Levicitus 16:30 for on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before Yahweh.

    I would say any past sins.
    So when the temple is unavailable, there can still be future atonement that covers that time period.

    Yes, but again, sacrifice is really only for accidental sin.
    For the sin offering in general yes. For most cases of the guilt offering, except cheating and stealing. There are no such qualifications in Leviticus 16:30.

    Was Solomon not a prophet? God's "son"?
    God doesn't always say yes to prayer. God said no to Moses regarding entering Canaan and no to David regarding building the temple.

    So what? This is God talking. He's saying if you turn from your evil ways, He will forgive your sin. He's not qualifying it with any other conditions. Why are you adding them? And Christians accuse the Pharisees of being legalistic.
    We could quote Ezekiel 33:11, which was written when Judah was in exile in Babylon. I guess we agree that during exile, God will forgive without sacrifice. The question is: does God intend that a sacrifice will be offered for these sins in the future? I think yes and you think there is no need.

    Ezekiel 33:11 Tell them, As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn, turn from your evil ways; for why will you die, house of Israel?

    But sacrifice can't be brought. There's no temple. Shortly after Jeremiah uttered these words, in fact.
    The temple was still standing when Jeremiah said these words, but I guess they didn't listen.

    OK, chuck it out.
    No need to chuck it out. I was just poking fun at your exceptions for king David.

    Again, you're being hyper legalistic. Doesn't say anything whatsoever about sacrifice. In fact, the next verse says something even more interesting:
    My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to the prayer of this place.

    "Prayer". Not "sacrifice".
    Prayer of this place.

    Micah specifically says that God doesn't want sacrifice. And you keep insisting that He does. Who should I listen to, you, or God?
    God doesn't need excess burnt offerings or human sacrifices. The law of Moses was still in effect and required regular sacrifices at that time. God definitely prefers obedience over sacrifice.

    1 Sam. 15:22 Samuel said, “Has Yahweh as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying Yahweh’s voice? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.


    No, that's not explicit. If you choose to believe it, fine.
    Yes, it's not explicit, but neither is your statement about atonement without sacrifice: "Given that the temple wouldn't always stand, God had to give others".

    His line, yes. Unlike Saul, who had the kingship but his it was taken from him and his family. So God promising this to David, in the same generation that Saul lost it, well that's a huge promise.

    Not about the messiah.
    Doesn't say he'll be king forever, only that the kingdom won't be destroyed.
    So that's how you understand it.

    Yes. A king and a priest. Two different people. And there will be peace between them.
    Zechariah 6:13 ...he shall be a priest on his throne (Sounds like one person to me)


    Really, God promised to forgive all sins? Where was that exactly?
    See Leviticus 16:30 above.


    I don't even know what that means. "Atones for land". Land is not sin.
    The land can be defiled.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,476

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by greenonions View Post
    Thanks for your thorough replies.
    Of course! And thank you for yours, as well.

    I understood that the burnt offering is different from the sin offering. My point was that God can provide a sacrifice if people cannot.
    Again, has nothing to do with the passage your brought up about Abraham talking to Isaac. That was not a sin sacrifice.


    As for whether the burnt offering can be related to sin, consider this:

    Job 1:5 WEB It was so, when the days of their feasting had run their course, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my sons have sinned, and renounced God in their hearts.” Job did so continually.
    There's no disagreement that one way of atonement for certain sins can be a sacrifice. Our disagreement is if it applies to all sin, or if it's the only possible method of atonement.


    You may be aware that Christians believe Jesus' sacrifice atones for all time. The concept is that everyone who identifies with Jesus past and future also shares in His punishment.
    I am aware.

    I thought I explained this. Of the sacrifices in the Law of Moses, only the Yom Kippur sacrifice atoned for all sins. The man can't just bring a Yom Kippur sacrifice at any time.
    Levicitus 16:30 for on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before Yahweh.
    So great. Why not leave the guy alive until Yom Kippur?

    Although again, Numbers specifically says that there's no sacrifice for willful, defiant, and intentional sins.


    So when the temple is unavailable, there can still be future atonement that covers that time period.
    No. A person has to bring the sacrifice themselves. They're long dead. So perhaps God made other methods of atonement for those times when there was no sacrifice. Or perhaps He made other methods for sins that aren't forgiven via sacrifice.


    For the sin offering in general yes. For most cases of the guilt offering, except cheating and stealing. There are no such qualifications in Leviticus 16:30.
    And yet Numbers 15:30 says there is no atonement for intentional sin.


    God doesn't always say yes to prayer. God said no to Moses regarding entering Canaan and no to David regarding building the temple.
    But God didn't say "no" here.



    We could quote Ezekiel 33:11, which was written when Judah was in exile in Babylon. I guess we agree that during exile, God will forgive without sacrifice.
    Great. I am in full agreement. If God could forgive sin without sacrifice then, why not also now?



    The question is: does God intend that a sacrifice will be offered for these sins in the future? I think yes and you think there is no need.
    Yup. I guess we'll always be in disagreement here.


    No need to chuck it out. I was just poking fun at your exceptions for king David.
    I still see king David as the exception. He was a unique individual.



    Prayer of this place.
    And Jews go to pray there, because it is a special and holy place


    God doesn't need excess burnt offerings or human sacrifices. The law of Moses was still in effect and required regular sacrifices at that time. God definitely prefers obedience over sacrifice.

    1 Sam. 15:22 Samuel said, “Has Yahweh as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying Yahweh’s voice? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.
    Again, agree.

    Maybe we're less far apart than we think...
    Yes, it's not explicit, but neither is your statement about atonement without sacrifice: "Given that the temple wouldn't always stand, God had to give others".
    But God did explicitly give other ways.

    So that's how you understand it.
    It is.


    Zechariah 6:13 ...he shall be a priest on his throne (Sounds like one person to me)
    And he shall sit and rule on his throne, and the priest shall be on his throne. And a counsel of peace shall be between them.

    Sounds like two guys.
    "For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you.With a little wrath did I hide My countenance for a moment from you, and with everlasting kindness will I have compassion on you," said your Redeemer, the Lord."..."For the mountains shall depart and the hills totter, but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace totter," says the Lord, Who has compassion on you.

    Isaiah 54

  7. #82

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    Of course! And thank you for yours, as well.

    Again, has nothing to do with the passage your brought up about Abraham talking to Isaac. That was not a sin sacrifice.

    There's no disagreement that one way of atonement for certain sins can be a sacrifice. Our disagreement is if it applies to all sin, or if it's the only possible method of atonement.

    I am aware.

    So great. Why not leave the guy alive until Yom Kippur?

    Although again, Numbers specifically says that there's no sacrifice for willful, defiant, and intentional sins.
    Numbers 15:22-29 talks about sacrifice for unintentional sin that can be atoned for with a sin offering for the congregation or an individual. Num. 15:30-31 prescribes the death penalty for sinning in a high-handed manner. Here, sins that are committed with a high hand, suggesting a proud defiance of God, are punished with capital punishment. Such a person cannot offer a regular sin offering that could secure forgiveness for unintentional sins and release from punishment (Num. 15:27-31). But this does not rule out the effectiveness of the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement to atone for transgressions, iniquities, and all sins. However, people who sin with a high hand could be killed before the Day of Atonement, and the sacrifice on that day is only effective for the people who afflict their souls (Lev. 23:27-32)—something foreign to most people who proudly defy God. Note also that sinning with a high hand does not include all intentional sins, for sins such as refusing to testify as a witness (Lev. 5:1), theft (Lev. 6:2), extortion (Lev. 6:2), lying about something found and swearing falsely about it (Lev. 6:3) have associated sacrifices prescribed for them.

    No. A person has to bring the sacrifice themselves. They're long dead. So perhaps God made other methods of atonement for those times when there was no sacrifice. Or perhaps He made other methods for sins that aren't forgiven via sacrifice.
    Actually, the high priest can offer the sacrifice on behalf of the whole nation, without the individual even being in Jerusalem. People need to be in Jerusalem for Passover, Pentecost, and Sukkot, but this rule is missing for Yom Kippur. I think Yom Kippur only atones for the sins of people who afflict their souls and do not work--otherwise they get destroyed (Lev. 23:29-30). I'm not sure how things work when someone is long dead though. I think there is hope for people who are repentant before they die.

    And yet Numbers 15:30 says there is no atonement for intentional sin.
    See above

    But God didn't say "no" here.
    True, and He didn't say "yes" either.

    Great. I am in full agreement. If God could forgive sin without sacrifice then, why not also now?
    God can forgive now. Sins that are confessed could be forgiven. The main sin today of Jews who do not believe in Jesus is the sin of unbelief. Sadly, that sin is often not confessed.

    John 15:22 NIV If I [Jesus] had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. 24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. ... 16:8 When he [the Holy Spirit] comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me;

    Yup. I guess we'll always be in disagreement here.
    At least we understand each other a little better.

    I still see king David as the exception. He was a unique individual.

    And Jews go to pray there, because it is a special and holy place
    A place chosen as a temple for sacrifices (2 Chron. 7:12). Yes, a special place.

    Again, agree.

    Maybe we're less far apart than we think...
    I hope that means that we're both on the right track for the things we agree on.

    But God did explicitly give other ways.

    It is.

    And he shall sit and rule on his throne, and the priest shall be on his throne. And a counsel of peace shall be between them.

    Sounds like two guys.
    Some translations have the king becoming the priest, while others just have "there will be a priest" on his throne. The repetition of "his throne" sounds like the same throne, but arguably it could refer to two different thrones. If the same throne, there are two people sitting on it (or one). If different thrones, what is a priest doing on a throne? I've always associated the word throne with kingship, but 1 Sam. 1:9 does mention Eli the priest sitting on a throne (also Bathsheba as the queen mother, the Shunnamite woman made one for Elisha, wisdom personified in Proverbs 9:14 had a throne).

    May you find atonement!

    Joy floods my soul for Jesus has saved me,
    Freed me from sin that long had enslaved me
    His precious blood, He came to redeem,
    Now I belong to Him;
    (Norman J. Clayton)

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,476

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by greenonions View Post
    Numbers 15:22-29 talks about sacrifice for unintentional sin that can be atoned for with a sin offering for the congregation or an individual. Num. 15:30-31 prescribes the death penalty for sinning in a high-handed manner. Here, sins that are committed with a high hand, suggesting a proud defiance of God, are punished with capital punishment. Such a person cannot offer a regular sin offering that could secure forgiveness for unintentional sins and release from punishment (Num. 15:27-31). But this does not rule out the effectiveness of the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement to atone for transgressions, iniquities, and all sins. However, people who sin with a high hand could be killed before the Day of Atonement, and the sacrifice on that day is only effective for the people who afflict their souls (Lev. 23:27-32)—something foreign to most people who proudly defy God.
    Irrelevant to this point. The verse doesn't give any out for the intentional sinner. It doesn't say "wait for Yom Kippur." So to wrangle the text to mean what you say strikes me as being extremely legalistic, which is again, the "crime" the Pharisees are accused of.


    Note also that sinning with a high hand does not include all intentional sins, for sins such as refusing to testify as a witness (Lev. 5:1), theft (Lev. 6:2), extortion (Lev. 6:2), lying about something found and swearing falsely about it (Lev. 6:3) have associated sacrifices prescribed for them.
    And some intentional crimes don't. Murders and sabbath violators get the death penalty. If someone commits a murder or heck violates the sabbath rules that apply to Yom Kippur, or even eats on Yom Kippur, why does the sacrifice not atone? Or maybe Yom Kippur is a sort of free for all day, when one can commit any sins they desire since they're already forgiven?

    Actually, the high priest can offer the sacrifice on behalf of the whole nation, without the individual even being in Jerusalem. People need to be in Jerusalem for Passover, Pentecost, and Sukkot, but this rule is missing for Yom Kippur. I think Yom Kippur only atones for the sins of people who afflict their souls and do not work--otherwise they get destroyed (Lev. 23:29-30).
    Great, more agreement.

    True, and He didn't say "yes" either.
    Silence is the voice of complicity. This isn't some random person making statements, its the king of Israel who also happens to be a prophet. To dismiss that is...I don't even know what.


    God can forgive now. Sins that are confessed could be forgiven. The main sin today of Jews who do not believe in Jesus is the sin of unbelief. Sadly, that sin is often not confessed.
    So then Jesus's sacrifice is actually unnecessary. God can forgive anyone He likes.




    A place chosen as a temple for sacrifices (2 Chron. 7:12). Yes, a special place.
    But God says He'll hear the prayer from there. Not the sacrifice. Words mean something.


    I hope that means that we're both on the right track for the things we agree on.
    I am absolutely certain that we are.



    Some translations have the king becoming the priest, while others just have "there will be a priest" on his throne.
    I'm not using a translation. I'm reading it in the original Klingon, err, Hebrew.

    The repetition of "his throne" sounds like the same throne, but arguably it could refer to two different thrones. If the same throne, there are two people sitting on it (or one). If different thrones, what is a priest doing on a throne?
    Well the verse plainly says the king will be on his throne, and the priest on his throne, and there will be peace between them. If it's the same person, why would there be "peace between them"? Is he schizophrenic? Suffer from multiple personality disorder?

    Biblically, in some ways kings and priests are alike. They both have a coronation, at which they are anointed. They both are (theoretically) a chief executive of a sort. They both typically inherit their position.

    May you find atonement!
    Amen! Thank you. Yom Kippur begins tonight at sundown.
    "For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you.With a little wrath did I hide My countenance for a moment from you, and with everlasting kindness will I have compassion on you," said your Redeemer, the Lord."..."For the mountains shall depart and the hills totter, but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace totter," says the Lord, Who has compassion on you.

    Isaiah 54

  9. #84

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    Irrelevant to this point. The verse doesn't give any out for the intentional sinner. It doesn't say "wait for Yom Kippur." So to wrangle the text to mean what you say strikes me as being extremely legalistic, which is again, the "crime" the Pharisees are accused of.

    And some intentional crimes don't. Murders and sabbath violators get the death penalty. If someone commits a murder or heck violates the sabbath rules that apply to Yom Kippur, or even eats on Yom Kippur, why does the sacrifice not atone? Or maybe Yom Kippur is a sort of free for all day, when one can commit any sins they desire since they're already forgiven?

    Great, more agreement.
    You wouldn't want to risk not getting atonement on Yom Kippur, so I don't think sinning on Yom Kippur gives someone a free pass. It doesn't say "wait for Yom Kippur" because God commands enforcement of the punishment as a strong deterrent. I think Yom Kippur is effective for the truly penitent sinner, not someone who abuses it. What is your view? Prayer, confession of sin, and penitence can result in forgiveness of intentional sin or not?

    Silence is the voice of complicity. This isn't some random person making statements, its the king of Israel who also happens to be a prophet. To dismiss that is...I don't even know what.
    You have a point. Maybe God was summarizing Solomon's prayer by only noting some examples. We do see Daniel praying towards Jerusalem three times a day.

    So then Jesus's sacrifice is actually unnecessary. God can forgive anyone He likes.
    God can certainly announce forgiveness at any time. He has that authority as the Judge. The New Testament teaching is that Jesus' sacrifice demonstrates God's justice (Romans 3:25, quoted over and over). I see Jesus' sacrifice as the fulfillment of what the law and the prophets promise about forgiveness. The animal sacrifices point to Jesus' sacrifice once for all.

    But God says He'll hear the prayer from there. Not the sacrifice. Words mean something.
    The place was meant to have both prayers and sacrifices. I can accept that God wants to hear the prayers even if sacrifices are not possible to be offered.

    I am absolutely certain that we are.

    I'm not using a translation. I'm reading it in the original Klingon, err, Hebrew.

    Well the verse plainly says the king will be on his throne, and the priest on his throne, and there will be peace between them. If it's the same person, why would there be "peace between them"? Is he schizophrenic? Suffer from multiple personality disorder?
    Some people interpret it as peace between the office of king and the office of priest. It does seem odd to me though.

    I sometimes use a Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible. Since you are better at Hebrew, note that there is a verb before the word "priest". Does that make "priest" the object of the clause? Your quotation says "and the priest shall be on his throne" making "priest" the subject. My understanding is that it means "and he [the king or some unspecified person] shall be priest on his throne".

    We have mentioned different meanings for the word "priest" and "throne". But I realize that in the context, the word priest in Ps. 110:4 should the same type of priest that Melchizedek was. It would make no sense to say: a priest like Aaron, I mean, a royal official. Ps. 110:4 should refer to a priest that offers sacrifices, unless Melchizedek was not the type of priest that offered sacrifices. Similarly, the word throne could mean a very nice chair in some cases, but in the context of say, the throne of David, it can't mean a very nice chair. Zechariah 6:13 is talking about a king's throne and a priest on a throne -- the second throne should be comparable to the first throne, implying a measure of authority and rule.

    Biblically, in some ways kings and priests are alike. They both have a coronation, at which they are anointed. They both are (theoretically) a chief executive of a sort. They both typically inherit their position.
    So the priest and the king can both be called Messiah!

    Amen! Thank you. Yom Kippur begins tonight at sundown.
    Happy Sukkot too!

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,476

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by greenonions View Post
    You wouldn't want to risk not getting atonement on Yom Kippur, so I don't think sinning on Yom Kippur gives someone a free pass. It doesn't say "wait for Yom Kippur" because God commands enforcement of the punishment as a strong deterrent. I think Yom Kippur is effective for the truly penitent sinner, not someone who abuses it. What is your view? Prayer, confession of sin, and penitence can result in forgiveness of intentional sin or not?
    Yes, absolutely.


    You have a point. Maybe God was summarizing Solomon's prayer by only noting some examples. We do see Daniel praying towards Jerusalem three times a day.
    As religious Jews do today, as well!

    God can certainly announce forgiveness at any time. He has that authority as the Judge. The New Testament teaching is that Jesus' sacrifice demonstrates God's justice (Romans 3:25, quoted over and over). I see Jesus' sacrifice as the fulfillment of what the law and the prophets promise about forgiveness. The animal sacrifices point to Jesus' sacrifice once for all.
    OK, and that's your belief. My bible doesn't lead me to that conclusion, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

    The place was meant to have both prayers and sacrifices. I can accept that God wants to hear the prayers even if sacrifices are not possible to be offered.
    Awesome. We are not so far apart, actually.



    Some people interpret it as peace between the office of king and the office of priest. It does seem odd to me though.
    Mhm.

    I sometimes use a Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible. Since you are better at Hebrew, note that there is a verb before the word "priest". Does that make "priest" the object of the clause? Your quotation says "and the priest shall be on his throne" making "priest" the subject. My understanding is that it means "and he [the king or some unspecified person] shall be priest on his throne".
    So first, even the Christian translation run the gamut. The NIV is not usually good in these instances in my opinion because they try very hard to make the translation fit the established doctrine. In this case it reads:

    It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.

    Which reads like it the same person (although how will there be harmony between the two? It doesn't make sense).


    The ESV is better:

    It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.


    Which sounds like two different people.

    Now, to the Hebrew: the word in question is "וְהָיָ֚ה" , "and there shall be" or "and there will be". There's no "He" in that verse, to say "and he will be". Which is why the NIV translation is bad, adding a word that isn't in the Hebrew, and the ESV translation is good: "And there shall be a priest on his throne".



    We have mentioned different meanings for the word "priest" and "throne". But I realize that in the context, the word priest in Ps. 110:4 should the same type of priest that Melchizedek was.
    But Malkitzedek was the king of Shalem. Again, promising David a kingship forever, only a short time after it was removed form king Saul, seems like a big, significant promise.


    It would make no sense to say: a priest like Aaron, I mean, a royal official. Ps. 110:4 should refer to a priest that offers sacrifices, unless Melchizedek was not the type of priest that offered sacrifices. Similarly, the word throne could mean a very nice chair in some cases, but in the context of say, the throne of David, it can't mean a very nice chair. Zechariah 6:13 is talking about a king's throne and a priest on a throne -- the second throne should be comparable to the first throne, implying a measure of authority and rule.
    That's presumptive.
    So the priest and the king can both be called Messiah!
    Correct. The term simply means "anointed". Heck, Cyrus is called "God's anointed" in Isaiah 45.


    Happy Sukkot too!
    Thank you! God bless. It is a pleasure chatting with you.
    "For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you.With a little wrath did I hide My countenance for a moment from you, and with everlasting kindness will I have compassion on you," said your Redeemer, the Lord."..."For the mountains shall depart and the hills totter, but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace totter," says the Lord, Who has compassion on you.

    Isaiah 54

  11. #86

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    Yes, absolutely.

    As religious Jews do today, as well!

    OK, and that's your belief. My bible doesn't lead me to that conclusion, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
    I don't know if you noticed that the Pentateuch is where forgiveness is promised for sacrifices (accompanied by certain other rules like confession of sin, restitution, fasting), while promises for forgiveness by repentance, prayer, confession are found mostly in the Writings and the Prophets. It's as if God established sacrifice as a legal requirement, but later gave additional promises, and finally sent Jesus to justify the later promises by satisfying the legal requirement.

    Awesome. We are not so far apart, actually.
    Mhm.

    So first, even the Christian translation run the gamut. The NIV is not usually good in these instances in my opinion because they try very hard to make the translation fit the established doctrine. In this case it reads:

    It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.

    Which reads like it the same person (although how will there be harmony between the two? It doesn't make sense).


    The ESV is better:

    It is he who shall build the temple of the LORD and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.


    Which sounds like two different people.

    Now, to the Hebrew: the word in question is "וְהָיָ֚ה" , "and there shall be" or "and there will be". There's no "He" in that verse, to say "and he will be". Which is why the NIV translation is bad, adding a word that isn't in the Hebrew, and the ESV translation is good: "And there shall be a priest on his throne".
    Genesis 17:5 ESV No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.

    I understand that the word can be translated as "there shall be" or simply "shall be", as in the example above.

    Now see what happens when we replace "there shall be" with "shall be":

    Zechariah 6:13 ESV (modified) It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”’

    There is no "he" immediately in front of "shall be", but the subject then defaults to the "he" at the beginning of the verse. It seems to me that both translations are possible grammatically.

    But Malkitzedek was the king of Shalem. Again, promising David a kingship forever, only a short time after it was removed form king Saul, seems like a big, significant promise.

    That's presumptive.
    Yes, David was promised kingship forever. It was very significant when compared to Saul's fate.

    2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

    Psalm 110:2 talks about the scepter, so the psalm is talking about kingship. Still, it is possible that Psalm 110:4 means priest. Melchizedek was king and priest, right?

    Psalm 110:4 The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”
    Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)


    Correct. The term simply means "anointed". Heck, Cyrus is called "God's anointed" in Isaiah 45.
    So Messiah is a good term to describe someone who is both king and priest, like Melchizedek (don't know if Melchizedek was anointed though).

    Thank you! God bless. It is a pleasure chatting with you.
    Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,476

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by greenonions View Post
    I don't know if you noticed that the Pentateuch is where forgiveness is promised for sacrifices (accompanied by certain other rules like confession of sin, restitution, fasting), while promises for forgiveness by repentance, prayer, confession are found mostly in the Writings and the Prophets. It's as if God established sacrifice as a legal requirement, but later gave additional promises,
    More like those other methods always existed, but had to be spelled out. Exodus 30 mentions "atonement money" which is obviously not a sacrifice.


    and finally sent Jesus to justify the later promises by satisfying the legal requirement.
    The requirement is that the sinner genuinely atones and makes good on their sin, to the best that they can.




    Genesis 17:5 ESV No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.

    I understand that the word can be translated as "there shall be" or simply "shall be", as in the example above.
    More like "It shall be".

    Now see what happens when we replace "there shall be" with "shall be":

    Zechariah 6:13 ESV (modified) It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”’

    There is no "he" immediately in front of "shall be", but the subject then defaults to the "he" at the beginning of the verse. It seems to me that both translations are possible grammatically.
    And yet Jews don't translate the verse in this way. Hebrew is our language, that should count for something.

    Yes, David was promised kingship forever. It was very significant when compared to Saul's fate.
    Yup yup.
    Psalm 110:2 talks about the scepter, so the psalm is talking about kingship. Still, it is possible that Psalm 110:4 means priest. Melchizedek was king and priest, right?

    Psalm 110:4 The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”
    Genesis 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)
    Yup.

    So Messiah is a good term to describe someone who is both king and priest, like Melchizedek (don't know if Melchizedek was anointed though).
    Or a king, or a priest. Mind, in Judaism the messiah is a king, not a priest.
    Proverbs 27:17 Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.
    Beautiful!
    "For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you.With a little wrath did I hide My countenance for a moment from you, and with everlasting kindness will I have compassion on you," said your Redeemer, the Lord."..."For the mountains shall depart and the hills totter, but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace totter," says the Lord, Who has compassion on you.

    Isaiah 54

  13. #88

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    More like those other methods always existed, but had to be spelled out. Exodus 30 mentions "atonement money" which is obviously not a sacrifice.

    The requirement is that the sinner genuinely atones and makes good on their sin, to the best that they can.
    True, atonement money doesn't have blood. But most atonement in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers involved blood. Interesting that usually atonement is for God to forget the people's sin, but this atonement money was so that God would remember the people.

    Exodus 30:14 ESV Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the Lord's offering. 15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the Lord's offering to make atonement for your lives. 16 You shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the Lord, so as to make atonement for your lives.”

    On a side note, have you ever wondered whether the census took place before the tabernacle was built (Exodus 38:25-27) or afterwards (Numbers 1:1-2)?

    More like "It shall be".

    And yet Jews don't translate the verse in this way. Hebrew is our language, that should count for something.
    "there shall be" seems to be much more common in the Hebrew Bible, so I can understand why it would be translated "there shall be" by the Jews. I found a Bible verse with a similar grammatical construction, that does not translate the word as "there shall be" or "it shall be", to lend support to "shall be" possibly being a correct translation (unless David is an exception to the rule).

    1 Samuel 27:12 And Achish trusted David, thinking, “He has made himself an utter stench to his people Israel; therefore he shall always be my servant.”

    I also recalled the context of Zechariah 6:11-13.

    Zechariah 6:11 ESV Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it on the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 And say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. 13 It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there[a] shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”’
    Footnotes: a. Zechariah 6:13Or he

    The prophecy is mainly about the Branch who will bear royal honor. It seems to me that Joshua the high priest was intended to represent the man whose name is the Branch.

    Apparently there are three Hebrew words for crown (https://ohr.edu/6964). One word for crown (nezer) encircled half the head and was associated with both the high priest, nazirites, and kings (Exodus 29:6; 39:30; Leviticus 8:9, 21:6; Numbers 6:5-21; 2 Samuel 1:10; 2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chronicles 23:11; Psalms 89:39; 132:18; Proverbs 27:24; Jeremiah 7:29; Zechariah 9:16). The second word (atarah) encircled the whole head and was associated with kings, Mordecai, and Joshua the high priest (2 Samuel 12:30; 1 Chronicles 20:2; Esther 8:15; Psalm 21:3; Song of Solomon 3:11; Isaiah 62:3; Jeremiah 13:18; Ezekiel 21:26, Zechariah 6:11, 14), but also some other places where it seems to represent honour in general (Job 19:9; 31:36; Proverbs 4:9; 12:4; 14:24; 16:31; 17:6; Isaiah 28:1, 3, 5; Lamentations 5:16; Ezekiel 16:12; 23:42). The third word (keter) encircled the head but did not stick up, and was associated with Queen Esther (Esther 1:11; 2:17; 6:8). My long-winded point is that Joshua was given a crown that was different from the high priest's usual nezer type crown.

    Yup yup.
    Yup.

    Or a king, or a priest. Mind, in Judaism the messiah is a king, not a priest.
    Yes, there are those possibilities.

    You mentioned earlier that Isaiah 9:6-7 was not about the Messiah. It seems to be referring to a king in the line of David. Who do you think it refers to? Hezekiah?

    Beautiful!

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wherever the Lord places me
    Posts
    42,476

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by greenonions View Post
    True, atonement money doesn't have blood. But most atonement in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers involved blood.
    Most, but not all. And that's an important distinction.



    Interesting that usually atonement is for God to forget the people's sin, but this atonement money was so that God would remember the people.

    Exodus 30:14 ESV Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the Lord's offering. 15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the Lord's offering to make atonement for your lives. 16 You shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the Lord, so as to make atonement for your lives.”
    It specifically says "atonement money" though. Again, significant.


    On a side note, have you ever wondered whether the census took place before the tabernacle was built (Exodus 38:25-27) or afterwards (Numbers 1:1-2)?
    Or maybe 2?



    "there shall be" seems to be much more common in the Hebrew Bible, so I can understand why it would be translated "there shall be" by the Jews. I found a Bible verse with a similar grammatical construction, that does not translate the word as "there shall be" or "it shall be", to lend support to "shall be" possibly being a correct translation (unless David is an exception to the rule).

    1 Samuel 27:12 And Achish trusted David, thinking, “He has made himself an utter stench to his people Israel; therefore he shall always be my servant.”

    I also recalled the context of Zechariah 6:11-13.

    Zechariah 6:11 ESV Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it on the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 And say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. 13 It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there[a] shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”’
    Footnotes: a. Zechariah 6:13Or he

    The prophecy is mainly about the Branch who will bear royal honor. It seems to me that Joshua the high priest was intended to represent the man whose name is the Branch.

    Apparently there are three Hebrew words for crown (https://ohr.edu/6964). One word for crown (nezer) encircled half the head and was associated with both the high priest, nazirites, and kings (Exodus 29:6; 39:30; Leviticus 8:9, 21:6; Numbers 6:5-21; 2 Samuel 1:10; 2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chronicles 23:11; Psalms 89:39; 132:18; Proverbs 27:24; Jeremiah 7:29; Zechariah 9:16). The second word (atarah) encircled the whole head and was associated with kings, Mordecai, and Joshua the high priest (2 Samuel 12:30; 1 Chronicles 20:2; Esther 8:15; Psalm 21:3; Song of Solomon 3:11; Isaiah 62:3; Jeremiah 13:18; Ezekiel 21:26, Zechariah 6:11, 14), but also some other places where it seems to represent honour in general (Job 19:9; 31:36; Proverbs 4:9; 12:4; 14:24; 16:31; 17:6; Isaiah 28:1, 3, 5; Lamentations 5:16; Ezekiel 16:12; 23:42). The third word (keter) encircled the head but did not stick up, and was associated with Queen Esther (Esther 1:11; 2:17; 6:8). My long-winded point is that Joshua was given a crown that was different from the high priest's usual nezer type crown.
    Very interesting discourse, thanks for sharing.



    Yes, there are those possibilities.

    You mentioned earlier that Isaiah 9:6-7 was not about the Messiah. It seems to be referring to a king in the line of David. Who do you think it refers to? Hezekiah?
    Yes, exactly.

    A hint to this: the chapter uses the phrase "The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall accomplish this". This is a unique phrase that occurs only three times in scripture: Here, in Isaiah 37, and in 2 Kings 19. Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19 both talk about God sparing king Hezekiah and Jerusalem from the siege of Sannichereb's armies. So it's imputed that this is the subject here as well.
    "For a small moment have I forsaken you, and with great mercy will I gather you.With a little wrath did I hide My countenance for a moment from you, and with everlasting kindness will I have compassion on you," said your Redeemer, the Lord."..."For the mountains shall depart and the hills totter, but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace totter," says the Lord, Who has compassion on you.

    Isaiah 54

  15. #90

    Re: Are we to be slaves to the Law of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
    Most, but not all. And that's an important distinction.

    It specifically says "atonement money" though. Again, significant.
    Point taken.

    Or maybe 2?
    Yes, I suppose two censuses seems like the most reasonable explanation.

    Very interesting discourse, thanks for sharing.
    You're welcome. The reason we got into the topic of a priest being king was because I wanted to show that the law had to change, and you were pleased to discuss Psalm 110 more. That was a nice scenic route.

    Yes, exactly.

    A hint to this: the chapter uses the phrase "The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall accomplish this". This is a unique phrase that occurs only three times in scripture: Here, in Isaiah 37, and in 2 Kings 19. Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19 both talk about God sparing king Hezekiah and Jerusalem from the siege of Sannichereb's armies. So it's imputed that this is the subject here as well.
    Interesting. I never noticed that that phrase was only used during Isaiah's prophecy at the time of Hezekiah. I guess one reason why it's often interpreted as the Messiah is because the son is given some pretty exalted names:

    Isaiah 9:6 WEB ...And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    Similarly, the Branch, mentioned in Zechariah 6:12 in relation to the priest on his throne, is also mentioned in Jeremiah 23:5-6 and given a name that sounds divine:

    Jeremiah 23:5 Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name by which he shall be called: Yahweh our righteousness.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Feb 8th 2016, 01:03 AM
  2. Information Giving slaves their freedom
    By MyRock in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Jan 12th 2012, 08:08 PM
  3. House of slaves
    By WillPower in forum Christians Answer
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Dec 11th 2010, 09:34 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •