...quandary, predicament, catch-22, plight...
Maybe we've begun to despise laws because they are no longer designed to protect and defend...they are designed to CONTROL
Tru dat! Or maybe its because they fail to perform as promised. Hmm.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Law, commands, or instructions?
- Thread starter Verifyveritas76
- Start date
Tru dat! Or maybe its because they fail to perform as promised. Hmm.
Nothing new under the sun.Maybe we've begun to despise laws because they are no longer designed to protect and defend...they are designed to CONTROL
This week's Torah parsha (portion, from the annual cycle) is "Korach" from Numbers/Bemidbar chapters 16 through 18.
The story of Korah's Rebellion and what follows is a dramatic illustration of why understanding rebellion itself - today as much or more than ever - is vital to our understanding of why "lawlessness abounds" in a world that is in rebellion to Him.
It's up on Hebrew Nation Radio, and through other websites as well. Permalinks are here:
"Do we 'tremble at HisWord?"
The story of Korah's Rebellion and what follows is a dramatic illustration of why understanding rebellion itself - today as much or more than ever - is vital to our understanding of why "lawlessness abounds" in a world that is in rebellion to Him.
It's up on Hebrew Nation Radio, and through other websites as well. Permalinks are here:
"Do we 'tremble at HisWord?"
Last edited:
I like to use commentaries for things that I don't know too well. But I'll look for commentaries on both sides.
In regards to Poly, I already knew the standard talking points, so I looked for pro-poly commentaires. Paying particular attention to not only their own arguments, but if/how they address rebuttals and counter arguments and if/how they use scripture to back it up. This was the final nail in the mono-only coffin, for me. Most pro-poly commentaires use scripture for support and address rebuttals using scripture. The mono-only commentaries use scripture, but out of context, and counter rebuttals with conjecture and claims of out-of-date culture queues. Ridiculous.
I also look at the attitudes of people who claim one thing or the other, when discussing that specific subject. Not as a deciding factor but it does color the flavor what they're all about. Most pro-poly people I have met (figuratively) are friendly and learned kind of folks and will discuss the topic. Most mono-only only know to parrot the same checklist criticisms and when they don't know answer, they usually default to a "well that's what i believe and you can't change my mind". There's something in them that knows what they're saying isn't true.
Now, when it comes to things are over my head or i'm confused about (like most of this thread) I go with what I feel is right(eous) and have faith that I will be judged on that. I am under the working assumption that whatever is going on is not where I need to be at this time in my walk. There are those of you who have had a conviction on your hearts one way or the other, at certain times in your lives. There are those who didn't, don't and maybe won't.
One thing that I have learned is, that in many things that seem to conflict in Scripture, there's always Option D - All the Above.
In regards to Poly, I already knew the standard talking points, so I looked for pro-poly commentaires. Paying particular attention to not only their own arguments, but if/how they address rebuttals and counter arguments and if/how they use scripture to back it up. This was the final nail in the mono-only coffin, for me. Most pro-poly commentaires use scripture for support and address rebuttals using scripture. The mono-only commentaries use scripture, but out of context, and counter rebuttals with conjecture and claims of out-of-date culture queues. Ridiculous.
I also look at the attitudes of people who claim one thing or the other, when discussing that specific subject. Not as a deciding factor but it does color the flavor what they're all about. Most pro-poly people I have met (figuratively) are friendly and learned kind of folks and will discuss the topic. Most mono-only only know to parrot the same checklist criticisms and when they don't know answer, they usually default to a "well that's what i believe and you can't change my mind". There's something in them that knows what they're saying isn't true.
Now, when it comes to things are over my head or i'm confused about (like most of this thread) I go with what I feel is right(eous) and have faith that I will be judged on that. I am under the working assumption that whatever is going on is not where I need to be at this time in my walk. There are those of you who have had a conviction on your hearts one way or the other, at certain times in your lives. There are those who didn't, don't and maybe won't.
One thing that I have learned is, that in many things that seem to conflict in Scripture, there's always Option D - All the Above.
This week's Torah parsha (portion, from the annual cycle) is "Chukat" from Numbers/Bemidbar chapters 19 through 21.
The concept of a 'chuq' or 'chukat' is usually translated as "statute" (one of those terms that YHVH uses when the intent IS specifically what we might call "law") -- but the distinction has to do with whether the reason for it is obvious to us. "Mishpatim" or "mitzvot" (like 'thou shalt not steal' or even the related, but more complex, issue of "dishonest weights and measures") are things we can say, "OK, that makes sense; I wouldn't want to have somebody do that to ME." But a 'chuk' is something else again; almost, "do this BECAUSE I TOLD YOU SO."
This week's portion starts with perhaps the most famous example of such in Scripture, the "Red Heifer". (Even Solomon is noted to have found it enigmatic.)
And this teaching might be 'food for thought' for those who have been led to believe that the 'law' is 'done away with'. There's whole lot of Scripture that makes even less sense were that to be true, because it really IS a matter of 'life and death':
"Chukat --
Super Symmetry, Convolution Integrals, the Red Heifer, and Other Stuff We Don't Understand"
The concept of a 'chuq' or 'chukat' is usually translated as "statute" (one of those terms that YHVH uses when the intent IS specifically what we might call "law") -- but the distinction has to do with whether the reason for it is obvious to us. "Mishpatim" or "mitzvot" (like 'thou shalt not steal' or even the related, but more complex, issue of "dishonest weights and measures") are things we can say, "OK, that makes sense; I wouldn't want to have somebody do that to ME." But a 'chuk' is something else again; almost, "do this BECAUSE I TOLD YOU SO."
This week's portion starts with perhaps the most famous example of such in Scripture, the "Red Heifer". (Even Solomon is noted to have found it enigmatic.)
And this teaching might be 'food for thought' for those who have been led to believe that the 'law' is 'done away with'. There's whole lot of Scripture that makes even less sense were that to be true, because it really IS a matter of 'life and death':
"Chukat --
Super Symmetry, Convolution Integrals, the Red Heifer, and Other Stuff We Don't Understand"
Working my way through Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho. It is a masterful example of utilizing the Old Testament to witness to an unbelieving Jew. The context seems to be at the latest just after the Simon bar Kochba rebellion of 135 AD. (At the earliest it could be around mid 70's AD due to mentioning the current war where the Jews were kicked out of Jerusalem although that seems quite early based on the rest of his apologies).
This is an incredible dialogue debating in far more depth than we have here, the issues of this post.
You can find this incredible work at http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html
BTW. Justin Martyr is the man who became the namesake for those who die for something they believe in - martyrs.
This is an incredible dialogue debating in far more depth than we have here, the issues of this post.
You can find this incredible work at http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html
BTW. Justin Martyr is the man who became the namesake for those who die for something they believe in - martyrs.
I know this was said 7 months ago I kind of need some clarification. If you believe in predestination, then could it be that the different dietary laws he gave to Adam, Noah, and Mose was not a change in his will but three separate laws to work to the fulfillment of his will.
Malachi and Hebrews both say that the CHARACTER of YHVH does not change.
It is Yahushua, the "Torah Made Flesh" Who said repeatedly (first in Matthew 5:17-19) that He didn't intend to change any of the Written "Torah or Prophets" so long as "heaven and earth" still exist. I would not presume to EVER call Him a liar.
But it's clear that Yah made changes to His creation on 'haEretz' (the Earth) more than once in Genesis, including after the Flood. (Carnivores being arguably one obvious example. Call it a 'diet change'.)
Conversely, after Yahushua's death and resurrection, neither the bodies of men, nor pigs, nor other animals changed.
Pigs and shellfish are evidently designed to eat dead things. (Hence, pork enzymes with names like "cadaverene" and "putrescene". And lots of worms. Yum.
)This is why I contend that "law" is a pitifully misleading translation of the Hebrew word 'torah'. To call what He Wrote for us His "instruction" makes such apparent 'contradictions' a whole lot less confusing.
Last edited:
I'm not sure how predestination plays into this dynamic. Could you explain your thoughts briefly?
Yes sir. I have been praying and thinking alot about instances where God seems to have change. I may be wrong, which is perfectly ok with me because correction leads to spiritual grow, and it might not apply in this situation. God knows what is going to happen he knows the works he has plan for us all. He provides us with instruction through scripture and the Holy Spirit. God does all things for his glory. There for all laws are meant for that purpose. So what seems as one law that changes is seperate laws set a different times to fulfill one of God's purpose.
Hey Kevin, there is no consensus here on this. Some of us though contend that God doesn't change but occasionally His methods do.
The extent of those changes is a matter of hot debate.
The extent of those changes is a matter of hot debate.
Made perfect sense, but do you have any scripture to develop it? I would like to see you develop this more if you can. Could be interesting.
I think that I can follow that and agree with those premises. My own view is much as you have stated. There are quite obvious changes between covenants, primarily those beginning new eras in Biblical History. With each era comes a certain level of change, primarily in the area of dietary permissions and prohibitions, but also in the priesthood for each era or covenant, as well as the participants engaged with the covenant. I divide them into the Perfect (Edenic) Era, the Pre Flood Era, the Patriarch's Era, the Promised Land Era, the Promised Seed and Paraclete Era, and the Era of Peace.
Typically, the Promised Land Era (beginning with the Exodus) and the Promised Seed Era (beginning with the Cross) get the most attention simply because there is more information available in Scripture. However, the Promised Land Era was not the first. If you begin with the garden, and work your way forward from there examining the instructions and prohibitions given for the beginning of each era, you will find very distinct and obvious changes with each one.
In My Humble Opinion (IMHO) these changes in the micro aspects of how God relates to His people have no bearing on the macro aspects of the nature of God. God is Holy, Righteous, Omniscient, Omnipresent, without beginning or end, Immutable and Sinless, the Creator and owner of the universe, the world and everything therein. This is His nature or who He is. This is the Macro view of God and this will never, ever change. This is what is the same yesterday, today and forever.
In the Micro view for example, God is both Just and Merciful. Two things that are mutually exclusive and diametrically opposed as one cannot be partially Just. How could anyone claim to be Just if they ever allowed Mercy? And yet, God portrays himself as both! Why would He do this? Because His Macro Nature dictates that Honor and Glory are His alone! If a man humbles himself and repents, this brings Glory to God and He responds with Mercy. If a man is proud and stiffens his neck, God still brings Glory to Himself by demonstrating Justice and making an example of this proud man. God utilizes both as He sees fit for His Glory because the micro (Justice and Mercy) is always subject to the Macro.
In the same manner, He instituted changes in each era because the Macro was Obedience, the micro was the Instruction. When the Sinai Covenant was instituted, no one said "Wait a minute, you cant be restricting me to eat only certain animals! Noah was instructed that he could eat anything that moves. Since God doesnt change, Moses is obviously trying to create some new man made religious system to enslave the people and get people to disobey God!" Or "Wait just a minute, you mean to tell me that I, as the head of my house, cant be the priest for my family anymore? The father has always been the priest under the Melchizedek priesthood. Who does Moses think he is? Substituting his tribe and his nephews for me. I tell you right now, God doesnt change! Ever! This cant be right."
Or as Noah begins to explain the terms of his covenant, "Hold on just a minute, we've never been able to eat the animals! God must have had a reason why we couldn't eat them before! God doesnt change! We'll probably get sick and die from eating them if God doesnt kill us first!"
In each case, and in every instance I'm aware of, its always about obedience to God and fulfilling the terms of your covenant, in your era! Not Adam's, or Noah's, or Moses'. In the Millenium, there will be another covenant for another era with different instructions, priests, judges, lifespans, diet, feast days, government, etc. To try to live in that era under any other covenant would simply be the other word for not wise!
It wasn't enough just to like your post. I had to quote this part so I could post it again.
The fact that Yah said He intended to destroy all flesh outside the Ark, and did -- arguably to clear out genetic abominations, it would seem -- and in the process explicitly changed what animals and man ate, is clear. He obviously made a Whole Lotta changes in that segue. Notably, men who once routinely lived centuries ended up lasting less than 120 years. He may "change not", but we sure as heck did - physically, anyway.
Noach arguably had a stronger constitution and better genes than any of us. He prolly didn't hafta worry about ingesting GMO'd Franken-corn, either! (AFTER the Flood, perhaps. )
The trouble is that physicists seem to be smarter than 'theologians'. They define a 'Law' as something that is ALWAYS and consistently true, EVERY time we measure or observe it. Gravity, Conservation of Mass-Energy (note that one had to be updated!), "F=MA", Thermodynamics (they're even numbered), and "God's Iron Law that you Reap what you Sow" are Laws*. Most of Scripture are teachings and instruction "for our blessing" ABOUT how He designed the universe, and they include His "statutes, judgments, and commandments." Many of which - He says explicitly - we should observe, "throughout your generations", "in all your dwelling places," and "ha olam". Others are explicitly for when we were allowed to live "in the land," before we (via our fathers) blew it. (True confession: I'm hoping to be invited back at some point.)
Meanwhile, Yahushua (as opposed to "another jesus, whom we have not preached," presumably, who violated Deuteronomy 13 besides) explicitly said, MORE THAN ONCE, via multiple witnesses, that He would not change ANYTHING, not even the tiniest bit, of what He had Written for Moses, and via His prophets. Not so long as the same Two Witnesses (Heaven and Earth) that He had called against us in Deuteronomy chapter 30 still existed.
I admit, I have trouble understanding why people who claim to believe IN Him, still won't BELIEVE Him.
----------------------------------------
* Note that Einstein's "THEORY of Relativity," most of quantum mechanics, "string theory," and indeed most of theoretical physics is called "theory" because while data and experimental evidence supports the hypothesis of relativity, particle-wave duality, or whatever, the admission is that more data might result in the 'theory' having to be modified, or even rejected.
The "Theory of Evolution" isn't REALLY even a 'theory', because when ever-more data arises revealing that it is incorrect, it is the DATA that is modified, not the 'theory'. Thus, it is religious dogma. Meanwhile, "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is in another category entirely, along with unicorns and pink elephants.
Noach arguably had a stronger constitution and better genes than any of us. He prolly didn't hafta worry about ingesting GMO'd Franken-corn, either! (AFTER the Flood, perhaps.
)The trouble is that physicists seem to be smarter than 'theologians'. They define a 'Law' as something that is ALWAYS and consistently true, EVERY time we measure or observe it. Gravity, Conservation of Mass-Energy (note that one had to be updated!), "F=MA", Thermodynamics (they're even numbered), and "God's Iron Law that you Reap what you Sow" are Laws*. Most of Scripture are teachings and instruction "for our blessing" ABOUT how He designed the universe, and they include His "statutes, judgments, and commandments." Many of which - He says explicitly - we should observe, "throughout your generations", "in all your dwelling places," and "ha olam". Others are explicitly for when we were allowed to live "in the land," before we (via our fathers) blew it. (True confession: I'm hoping to be invited back at some point.)
Meanwhile, Yahushua (as opposed to "another jesus, whom we have not preached," presumably, who violated Deuteronomy 13 besides) explicitly said, MORE THAN ONCE, via multiple witnesses, that He would not change ANYTHING, not even the tiniest bit, of what He had Written for Moses, and via His prophets. Not so long as the same Two Witnesses (Heaven and Earth) that He had called against us in Deuteronomy chapter 30 still existed.
I admit, I have trouble understanding why people who claim to believe IN Him, still won't BELIEVE Him.
----------------------------------------
* Note that Einstein's "THEORY of Relativity," most of quantum mechanics, "string theory," and indeed most of theoretical physics is called "theory" because while data and experimental evidence supports the hypothesis of relativity, particle-wave duality, or whatever, the admission is that more data might result in the 'theory' having to be modified, or even rejected.
The "Theory of Evolution" isn't REALLY even a 'theory', because when ever-more data arises revealing that it is incorrect, it is the DATA that is modified, not the 'theory'. Thus, it is religious dogma. Meanwhile, "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is in another category entirely, along with unicorns and pink elephants.
The fact that Yah said He intended to destroy all flesh outside the Ark, and did -- arguably to clear out genetic abominations, it would seem -- and in the process explicitly changed what animals and man ate, is clear. He obviously made a Whole Lotta changes in that segue. Notably, men who once routinely lived centuries ended up lasting less than 120 years. He may "change not", but we sure as heck did - physically, anyway.
Noach arguably had a stronger constitution and better genes than any of us. He prolly didn't hafta worry about ingesting GMO'd Franken-corn, either! (AFTER the Flood, perhaps.
The trouble is that physicists seem to be smarter than 'theologians'. They define a 'Law' as something that is ALWAYS and consistently true, EVERY time we measure or observe it. Gravity, Conservation of Mass-Energy (note that one had to be updated!), "F=MA", Thermodynamics (they're even numbered), and "God's Iron Law that you Reap what you Sow" are Laws*. Most of Scripture are teachings and instruction "for our blessing" ABOUT how He designed the universe, and they include His "statutes, judgments, and commandments." Many of which - He says explicitly - we should observe, "throughout your generations", "in all your dwelling places," and "ha olam". Others are explicitly for when we were allowed to live "in the land," before we (via our fathers) blew it. (True confession: I'm hoping to be invited back at some point.)
Meanwhile, Yahushua (as opposed to "another jesus, whom we have not preached," presumably, who violated Deuteronomy 13 besides) explicitly said, MORE THAN ONCE, via multiple witnesses, that He would not change ANYTHING, not even the tiniest bit, of what He had Written for Moses, and via His prophets. Not so long as the same Two Witnesses (Heaven and Earth) that He had called against us in Deuteronomy chapter 30 still existed.
I admit, I have trouble understanding why people who claim to believe IN Him, still won't BELIEVE Him.
----------------------------------------
* Note that Einstein's "THEORY of Relativity," most of quantum mechanics, "string theory," and indeed most of theoretical physics is called "theory" because while data and experimental evidence supports the hypothesis of relativity, particle-wave duality, or whatever, the admission is that more data might result in the 'theory' having to be modified, or even rejected.
The "Theory of Evolution" isn't REALLY even a 'theory', because when ever-more data arises revealing that it is incorrect, it is the DATA that is modified, not the 'theory'. Thus, it is religious dogma. Meanwhile, "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is in another category entirely, along with unicorns and pink elephants.
Love this!
I don't mind revisiting this. I didnt think I did a great job concluding the post earlier, so I'll try again.
Issues I have with your interpretation of the passage.
My conclusion is that the death of the Messiah/Testator occurred on a very important Mow'ed that was distinguished by the passing of a planetary body giving fulfillment of the sign of Jonah (not the 3 days/3 nights sign but the cause of the event/destruction that he was warning them about) the additional sign of where the sun did not rule the day, the sign that the graves were opened and the captives were freed, the sign of the veil torn and the Holy of Holies exposed for all to see, among others . . . . that all had been fulfilled according to the Scriptures (as John 19:28-31 so clearly states) and that Heaven and earth had passed. Thus, in Matthew 5, Jesus was not stating that it would never pass away, rather, He was prophesying the exact moment of its passing and the heavenly signs that would confirm the prophecy.
Issues I have with your interpretation of the passage.
- That Christ will make no changes in the law has a "sundown" clause, till all be fulfilled. All will be fulfilled when Heaven and Earth pass.
- Your stated interpretation of Heaven and Earth 'passing' is when they are no longer in existence, yet a study of the word 'pass' indicates that this is not the only possible interpretation for the word or phrase.
- The passages dealing with the law being "forever" (in English) are an obviously poor representation of the thought behind the Hebrew word "ha owlam". The English word forever indicates an unreachable point similar to infinity. Ha owlam does not represent infinity as the English interpretation and your posts would suggest. Ha owlam simply means that there is a fixed point that is so far in the future that to the listening audience (1500 ish BC) it might as well be infinity because they will never live long enough to see that fixed point or mow'ed. Their offspring, many generations later may see this mow'ed and that is why it must be observed exactly until that point, so the latter generation can recognize the event by the pattern and signs associated.
- Do you admit the stated condition 'til all be fulfilled' ? If not, why not?
- Could the astronomical phenomena occurring during the Crucifixion be a fulfillment of Heaven and earth "passing" based on the definition of the Greek word used in this instance, parerchomai Strongs #3928? If not, why not?
- Did the crucifixion have any effect on any of the Instruction? If not, why not? If only in part, which part?
My conclusion is that the death of the Messiah/Testator occurred on a very important Mow'ed that was distinguished by the passing of a planetary body giving fulfillment of the sign of Jonah (not the 3 days/3 nights sign but the cause of the event/destruction that he was warning them about) the additional sign of where the sun did not rule the day, the sign that the graves were opened and the captives were freed, the sign of the veil torn and the Holy of Holies exposed for all to see, among others . . . . that all had been fulfilled according to the Scriptures (as John 19:28-31 so clearly states) and that Heaven and earth had passed. Thus, in Matthew 5, Jesus was not stating that it would never pass away, rather, He was prophesying the exact moment of its passing and the heavenly signs that would confirm the prophecy.
The fact that He intended to destroy all flesh outside the Ark is obvious, but that it had anything to do with the dietary change is a non starter. Everything that God intended to destroy had been destroyed already and had not been part of the equation for about a year before Noah sacrificed and received the new instruction. That the pre Flood genetics or experiments had anything to do with changes in diet is . . . .reaching.
The thought of Noah's genetic perfection I find unsupportable. Let's flesh this out to its furthest conclusion. He was either 10 generations removed from genetic perfection in Adam, or Noah was the epitome of genetic perfection because the genetics of Adam had been perfected over 10 generations. If the second is true, that would mean that God did not create Adam in a perfect state. I find this highly unlikely.
So if God created Adam perfect and restricted him to vegetables, herbs, fruits and nuts, how does Noah's genetics (10 generations removed from perfection including the fall) qualify him to eat anything that moves?
Maybe the genetics hadnt declined, and Noah had the exact same genetic quality as Adam 9 generations previously. What is it that makes these two genetically identical people unable to process the same food. Keep in mind that Noah lived more of his life under the Adamic diet than the Noah diet. What was it about a boat ride that changed Noah's genetics to enable him to eat anything that moves?
It has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with a change in Instruction. God instructed Adam for his era and God changed the instruction to Noah for a different era.
The change in lifespan was more likely due to the loss of the canopy rather than the change from vegetarianism.
How does "He may "not change" but we sure as heck did - physically anyway" reconcile with your other statements? What does this mean? How did we change other than length of life? You said "He made a Whole Lotta changes in that segue", so help me out here, God changes not, but He made a Whole Lotta changes in that seque.
The lifespan is the "notable change" in that passage? The dietary permissions and restrictions would seem more notable to me in real time since the "notable"change would not become notable to them for another 500 years. The dietary permissions were visible from day one, not 500 years after the covenants inauguration.
Well that all fell apart pretty quickly. Your far future date that would never be seen by the hearers or their children was less than three years away. I can accept that the word doesn't mean infinity but I would expect there to be a little more crossover than that!