A Study of Acts 15 (by 119 Ministries)

[Studyman]

I have quoted it.

No parable given from moral laws.

Two different reasons for keeping shadows. One in Exodus, the other in Deuteronomy.

For the law (cerimoinal )having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. Hebrews 10 ...

Colossians 2:16-18 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

I agree that the Sacrificial Laws of the Levitical Priesthood spoken of in Hebrews 10 did not make those who partook in them perfect. They were a shadow of what was to come.

But Colossians is speaking of unfulfilled prophesies, many foreshadowed by days God's deems as Holy. Some of these have come to pass, like Passover. But there is no command to reject Passover simply because the physical nature of the "shadow" has come to pass.

Man teaches this, the Bible does not.

So in Hebrews it is speaking to a "changed" Priesthood. These duties were never for us anyway, they were for the Priest. Did the Messiah reject the Priesthood once He became our High Priest? Hardly, it is written He still performing the duties of the Priesthood to this day on our behalf.

So no, we no longer bring our best bull to the High Priest to atone for our sins. But we still bring a sacrifice to the High Priest. It's just that the Priesthood has changed.

Rom. 12:
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Col. is telling us not to let men judge you for following those instruction created by the Christ. they are not Rudiments of the World or traditions of men, they are of the body of Christ.

There is no Biblical comparison between God's Sabbaths created for men, and animal sacrifice to be performed by Levite Priests. Apples and oranges.

 

[Dino246]

There are some who believe that God's Word last forever. Now this same God promised a "Change in the Priesthood" and called this change a "New Covenant" in Jer. 31.

There are "many" who come in Christ's name that preach the New Covenant is the destruction or annulment of the entire Law and Prophets, Including God's Commandments. But if you look at what the creator of the New covenant said, you will find this teaching is a deception.

Jer. 31:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Prior to "Those days" how did people receive God's Laws? Was it not through the Levitical Priesthood?


34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Prior to "those days" how were the sins of the people atoned for? Was it not by "Works" of the Levitical Priesthood?

Heb. 7:
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12 For the priesthood being changed, (New Covenant) there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

And what was this change? The destruction of God's Sabbaths? The elimination of God's Laws?

What does the Bible say the change of the law was?

13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

So the "LAW" of the Priesthood, added 430 years after Abraham, said only Levites could assume the Priesthood. The Word which became Flesh was from the tribe of Judah. So the promise of the change of the Priesthood made of necessity a Change of the Priesthood laws which would allow others into the Priesthood.

So according to the Bible, what was obsolete was the old Priesthood with it's "Works of the Law" for the remission of sins (Animal sacrifice) that the Mainstream Preachers of Paul's time was still pushing on the Galatians.

How is it Yahshua was promoting the "old Covenant"?

There is a massive difference between recognizing that we as Christians are not under the Law, and claiming that the Law has been annulled, destroyed, or eliminated (none of which are used in Scripture). This argument is used repeatedly by legalists, and it is invalid.

The Law still exists. Christians aren't subject to it. It really is that simple.

 

[Dino246]

I have quoted it.

No parable given from moral laws.

Two different reasons for keeping shadows. One in Exodus, the other in Deuteronomy.

For the law (cerimoinal )having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. Hebrews 10 ...

Colossians 2:16-18 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Those verses do not make a distinction between the moral and ceremonial law, nor do any others that you have quoted. Adding words in parentheses to support your case is blatant scripture-twisting.

 

[Studyman]

Hi with all due respect. I was not trying to say the word of God does not last forever. But was trying to show the difference between shadows(the temporal) of the good things to come and the unseen substance (the eternal) The law of faith

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.2 Corinthians 4:18

What is "not seen"? Is forgiveness seen? Is mercy seen? What is the "Law of Faith"?

Ex. 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Is this a "LAW of Faith"? When will the "Mercy" be made manifest? Before I die or after I am resurrected? Will I see His Mercy in this life?

Or am I to have faith that "He who endures to the end shall be saved" even though I won't see the mercy until after I die?

I mean no disrespect, but I believe it is a mistake to judge as the same, animal sacrifices of a Priesthood that has been changed, with HOLY DAYS like Passover and Sabbaths, many of which foreshadow events that are yet to come.

Isn't "Belief" in the events these Holy days foreshadow important even though we have not yet seen them? But how can we even know about them if we don't "Believe" in the God of the Bible enough to do as He instructs in regard to them.

for this reason Paul said to His People.

col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Col. 2:
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body {is} of Christ.

These are shadows of things to come, from the Body of the Christ. Religious traditions of man are "shadows of nothing, vain deceit, Rudiments of the World.

18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

What is Feast of Unleavened bread, or today, the Feast of Tabernacles. If these are foreshadows of things to come, wouldn't the Christ want us to know about them as He did for Passover?

"Remember the Sabbath day" to keep it Holy. Why? Why did the Word which became Flesh tell us this? To convince us to reject it, to not remember it?

I now know why He said His Sabbath was made for man. But in the beginning it was just Faith. I did as He instructed without "SEEING" the reason. Purely by Faith in the unseen. So I understand Paul perfectly when he says "Let no man therefore judge you in following the instructions of God, because they are foreshadowing events that he wants us to be prepared for.

I know why he says "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility". Not because I didn't believe in the Word of God, but because I did.

Sometime in the privacy of your own home, just you and God's Word, I hope you might set religious traditions aside for a moment and just think about this a little.

And thank you for your kind reply

 

[Dino246]

While I don't agree with Garee, I do think the great God of Abraham made a distinction between sacrificial laws and moral laws.

1 sam. 15:
22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Ps. 51:
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Hos. 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Ps. 40:
6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

Ps. 51:
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Therefore it seems perfectly in line with what seemed inevitable

"After those days" sayeth the Lord, I will make a "New Covenant". A Changed Priesthood built on better promises.

When you find a scriptural passage that clearly and specifically identifies which of the 613 commandments are ceremonial and which are moral, then let me know. Until then, I will go with Paul's words in Galatians 3:10.

 

[Studyman]

There is a massive difference between recognizing that we as Christians are not under the Law, and claiming that the Law has been annulled, destroyed, or eliminated (none of which are used in Scripture). This argument is used repeatedly by legalists, and it is invalid.

The Law still exists. Christians aren't subject to it. It really is that simple.

I think we should rely on the Christ to direct our footsteps. I don't buy into the Mainstream preaching that we are already saved, and that God's Laws are now against us. This teaching was false for Eve and didn't work out very well for her, and I don't believe it has all the sudden became true today.

The scriptures say God's Word lasts forever. It doesn't say His Word only lasts until I join this church or that church. Being under the law means being dead.

Rom. 6:
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, (Dead) but under grace (Alive)? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Obedience to what?)
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin,(the death it causes) ye became the servants of righteousness.

Whose righteousness? The catholic Church? AOG? Baptists? Or are we to become servants of the Righteousness of God?

I do agree with you on one thing though, It is simple.

 

[Studyman]

When you find a scriptural passage that clearly and specifically identifies which of the 613 commandments are ceremonial and which are moral, then let me know. Until then, I will go with Paul's words in Galatians 3:10.

Yes, many people do judge God's Word, some as worthy of their respect, and some which they reject altogether.

Gal. 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

While it is true that "many" who come in Christ's name use this verse to destroy volumes of scriptures, I am quite sure that was not Paul's intent. Were there "works of the Law" given to a Priesthood for the remission of sins? Yes. did Abraham have these same Laws? No, Levi wasn't even born yet in Abraham's time. These Priesthood "Works of the Law" for remission of sins were not "added" to God's laws Abraham obeyed until 430 years later. But to know this, one must use the scriptures as a learning tool, not as simple justification of this religious tradition of man, or that.

Paul said many things.

Rom. 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

I hope you will be persuaded to question Mainstream Religious traditions. But the odds are against it. Not because I think so, but because my Savior says so and I believe in Him.

Luke 16:
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

I hope you might consider this post along with the many warnings in the Bible regarding the teaching of religious man.

 

[justpassinthrough]

Anything to contribute to the study of Acts 15? What do you think about the study?

How can anyone possible contrive from Acts 15, that they were to keep the law of Moses to be saved after reading these plain words -


So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” Acts 15:8-11



Their take was that Gentile Christians should start with the things mentioned in these verses

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell.




Then continue going to synagogues to learn how to properly keep all of the law of Moses.


Can you imagine such a thing?


Christians being discipled by unbelieving Jews!! Lol.


Craziest thing I have ever heard.





JPT

 

[Dino246]

I think we should rely on the Christ to direct our footsteps. I don't buy into the Mainstream preaching that we are already saved, and that God's Laws are now against us. This teaching was false for Eve and didn't work out very well for her, and I don't believe it has all the sudden became true today.

The scriptures say God's Word lasts forever. It doesn't say His Word only lasts until I join this church or that church. Being under the law means being dead.

Rom. 6:
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, (Dead) but under grace (Alive)? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Obedience to what?)
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin,(the death it causes) ye became the servants of righteousness.

Whose righteousness? The catholic Church? AOG? Baptists? Or are we to become servants of the Righteousness of God?

I do agree with you on one thing though, It is simple.

Yes, we are to rely on Christ through His Spirit to direct our footsteps, per Galatians 5:18 "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law."

I said nothing about the Word only lasting until you join "this church or that church". Perhaps you're responding to someone else's idea there?

 

[Dino246]

Yes, many people do judge God's Word, some as worthy of their respect, and some which they reject altogether.

Gal. 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

While it is true that "many" who come in Christ's name use this verse to destroy volumes of scriptures, I am quite sure that was not Paul's intent. Were there "works of the Law" given to a Priesthood for the remission of sins? Yes. did Abraham have these same Laws? No, Levi wasn't even born yet in Abraham's time. These Priesthood "Works of the Law" for remission of sins were not "added" to God's laws Abraham obeyed until 430 years later. But to know this, one must use the scriptures as a learning tool, not as simple justification of this religious tradition of man, or that.

Paul said many things.

Rom. 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Acts 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

I hope you will be persuaded to question Mainstream Religious traditions. But the odds are against it. Not because I think so, but because my Savior says so and I believe in Him.

Luke 16:
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

I hope you might consider this post along with the many warnings in the Bible regarding the teaching of religious man.

There you go again using language I have not used. I said nothing about "rejecting" or "destroying" anything.

This continual misrepresentation of my position only serves to confuse you. You're reacting to things I have not stated. Perhaps you need to investigate the meaning of "straw man argument"... and avoid employing it.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Moses never created even one Law. Not a single one. EVERY LAW he spoke of was the Law of God.

And yet Christ and the apostles speak of "the Law of Moses".

And he [Christ] said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)

Meaning that the Old Covenant and the Torah came to men THROUGH Moses from God.

Why are you raising up a STRAW MAN? Obviously you have a hidden agenda.

 

[Nehemiah6]

to show Christ revealed in all the scripture.

And that is off-topic in this thread, since Acts 15 is under review.

Christians know that Christ is revealed to us from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[Studyman]

There you go again using language I have not used. I said nothing about "rejecting" or "destroying" anything.

This continual misrepresentation of my position only serves to confuse you. You're reacting to things I have not stated. Perhaps you need to investigate the meaning of "straw man argument"... and avoid employing it.

I have printed and studied your posts for almost a year now as I do everyone. I believe it is a curtsey to really listen to people to know what they are are saying.

In regards to your preaching, you teach that being "Under the LAW" means being obligated to follow it.

There is a massive difference between recognizing that we as Christians are not under the Law, and claiming that the Law has been annulled, destroyed, or eliminated (none of which are used in Scripture). This argument is used repeatedly by legalists, and it is invalid.

The Law still exists. Christians aren't subject to it. It really is that simple.

A religious position which continues even in your latest posts as shown above. I believe this religious doctrine to be from man, and not what God intended. I posted scriptures and raised some questions in the hope that you might engage in a conversation and maybe we can "prove" what is acceptable to God and what is not.

But as is the case so much of the time, you have chosen to deflect from the point of my post, ignore the scriptures posted, and accuse me of somehow misrepresenting your stated position, something I did not do.

I knew it was a longshot and stated as much, but it's always good to attempt to engage when it comes to the scriptures, even if the other party declines to engage.

 

[KJV1611]

So Christ speaking (Sermon on the mount) means nothing?

I don't follow you, what does the sermon on the mount have to do with nailing the 10 commandments to the cross?

 

[BenFTW]

There is a massive difference between recognizing that we as Christians are not under the Law, and claiming that the Law has been annulled, destroyed, or eliminated (none of which are used in Scripture). This argument is used repeatedly by legalists, and it is invalid.

The Law still exists. Christians aren't subject to it. It really is that simple.

When I read Psalm 119, and then consider the apostle's words that the Law is holy, just, and good I find it somewhat perplexing the resistance believers have to it. Not for salvation, not for obedience, but for well-being. I imagine God gave these commands for more reasons than just because He said so. That has always crossed my mind, "Why did God say not to do this, what makes it immoral or what makes it not beneficial?"

I too understand that we are not under the Law, as it doesn't lead to salvation through its obedience, but leads to Christ who saves us. It is a ministry of condemnation. Yet, do I still think it provides the groundwork for a healthy conscience. As the apostle Paul says, how would he know not to lust had the Law said to not covet? It teaches us right and wrong, it defines sin. So beyond its purpose of leading us to Christ, it still is an instruction in righteousness.

I've been a part of this debate for a long time, and while I avidly present the true Gospel (of grace and not works), it feels as if we sometimes do not acknowledge the importance of the Law. Imagine the apostle Paul says in Romans 7, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man." Some people act as if the Law is bad, or trespasses upon their liberty, and it would if they thought obedience to it played any part in their salvation (and it does not). Yet, what of the man unlearned of right and wrong? Raised amongst thieves, murderers, and liars? Such is their way of life, yet through scripture they will see that such a way is not God's way.

People act as if the Law plays no purpose in the life of the Christian because we "serve in the newness of the spirit and not the oldness of the letter", but I still think it merits credit in molding a conscience (if not of a society's conscience).

Of course, knowing right and wrong doesn't make one automatically perfect. It is God who sanctifies us.

 

[Dino246]

I have printed and studied your posts for almost a year now as I do everyone. I believe it is a curtsey to really listen to people to know what they are are saying.

In regards to your preaching, you teach that being "Under the LAW" means being obligated to follow it.

A religious position which continues even in your latest posts as shown above. I believe this religious doctrine to be from man, and not what God intended. I posted scriptures and raised some questions in the hope that you might engage in a conversation and maybe we can "prove" what is acceptable to God and what is not.

But as is the case so much of the time, you have chosen to deflect from the point of my post, ignore the scriptures posted, and accuse me of somehow misrepresenting your stated position, something I did not do.

I knew it was a longshot and stated as much, but it's always good to attempt to engage when it comes to the scriptures, even if the other party declines to engage.

I commend you for your thoroughness and thank you for your courtesy.

If you think that my position is inconsistent with Scripture, then by all means present a counter-argument from Scripture. Simply stating that you believe it to be "from man" is akin to an opinion... "from man".

I haven't ignored what you've posted, but I have found it to be profoundly unconvincing. We disagree on the interpretation of Scripture. Either "under the Law" means "obligated to follow it" (I read that as "obey to the letter") or it does not mean that, and instead means something else.

I'm a gentile convert to Christianity. I was never a citizen of ancient Israel, and therefore never subject to the Mosaic Law. I have read it many times, believe it to be the truth, and have learned what role it plays in God's story. I have also read Paul's clear explanation on the role of the Law for the Christian, and I understand that I am not subject to it for salvation or for sanctification.

Because I understand that the benefit of Law-obedience (righteousness before God) is contingent upon perfect obedience, and that my relationship with God is in no way contingent upon my obedience to the Law. (continued below...)

When I read Psalm 119, and then consider the apostle's words that the Law is holy, just, and good I find it somewhat perplexing the resistance believers have to it. Not for salvation, not for obedience, but for well-being. I imagine God gave these commands for more reasons than just because He said so. That has always crossed my mind, "Why did God say not to do this, what makes it immoral or what makes it not beneficial?"
...
People act as if the Law plays no purpose in the life of the Christian because we "serve in the newness of the spirit and not the oldness of the letter", but I still think it merits credit in molding a conscience (if not of a society's conscience).

I generally agree, Ben. The continuing role of the Law in the life of the Christian is informative. It is not prescriptive as it was for Israel, nor is it additive to the gospel as the Judaizers suppose(d). Those who walk by the Spirit are guided by the Spirit; the Law only kills but the Spirit gives life.

 

[garee]

I agree that the Sacrificial Laws of the Levitical Priesthood spoken of in Hebrews 10 did not make those who partook in them perfect. They were a shadow of what was to come.

But Colossians is speaking of unfulfilled prophesies, many foreshadowed by days God's deems as Holy. Some of these have come to pass, like Passover. But there is no command to reject Passover simply because the physical nature of the "shadow" has come to pass.

Man teaches this, the Bible does not.

So in Hebrews it is speaking to a "changed" Priesthood. These duties were never for us anyway, they were for the Priest. Did the Messiah reject the Priesthood once He became our High Priest? Hardly, it is written He still performing the duties of the Priesthood to this day on our behalf.

So no, we no longer bring our best bull to the High Priest to atone for our sins. But we still bring a sacrifice to the High Priest. It's just that the Priesthood has changed.

Rom. 12:
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Col. is telling us not to let men judge you for following those instruction created by the Christ. they are not Rudiments of the World or traditions of men, they are of the body of Christ.

There is no Biblical comparison between God's Sabbaths created for men, and animal sacrifice to be performed by Levite Priests. Apples and oranges.

Hi thanks for the reply.

Like all ceremonial law they have there foundation in the old testament . Baptism is one that I have re-visited after some years of wondering where the foundation came for using water to symbolize something.

I would agree with the change of the priesthood but where and when and how did it effect the old in regard to the Levites ?

I would offer at the beginning of Christ's ministry before he was sent out into the world to minister the gospel . An argument broke out with John from the tribe of Levi in respect to the ceremonial washing (baptism) .Others were questioning that Jesus from the tribe of Judas was taking on the ceremonial washing (baptizing) in respect to when a new priest entered the ministry seeing he was not of the r tribe of Levi.

Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven John 3:25

Jesus fulfilled the old testament shadow as the High Priest after the order of Melchisidec remaining a high priest continually without beginning or end.

The time of reformation had come all believers on this side of the first century reformation became prophet priests as a kingdom of priest Jew and gentile alike.

1 Corinthians 4:8 Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.

Christiani ty as Ambassadors for Christ are sent out as apostles from what is considered a foreign land heaven where we have are birth records as priests/ prophets .Christianity itself is recognized as a kingdom of Priest. There are may verse to support the nobility of believers in that way .

1 Peter 2:9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

The old order of Levites has passed away. Beleivers are considered the temple of the Lord .

Our high Priest Christ dwells in our earthen bosies

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

 

[garee]

Those verses do not make a distinction between the moral and ceremonial law, nor do any others that you have quoted. Adding words in parentheses to support your case is blatant scripture-twisting.

Sorry, Usually I identify my addition (purple in parenthesis) to help give my suggestion. But clearly shadows of the good thing to come are not the substance not seen .We walk by faith not by sight .The kingdom of God does not come by observation .(the lust of the eye )

Everything seen with the eye to include the furniture and veil used in temple worship was used as shadow as a parable up until the time of reformation .Everything as a shadow pointed ahead to the suffering of Christ beforehand and the glory that did follow .The graves were opened and the Old testament saints that had the spirit of grace the Spirit of Christ came out as the first resurrection .

They received the end of their faith(salvation) that came from hearing the word of God just as us today who look back to that same glorious day.

Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.1 Peter1:11

What manner of time? The time the shadows became sight as a one time demonstration of the old testament manner used as a parable(figure) revealing the hidden spiritual understanding.

The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure/parable for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. Hebrews 10:8-11 ..

 

[Studyman]

Hi thanks for the reply.

Like all ceremonial law they have there foundation in the old testament . Baptism is one that I have re-visited after some years of wondering where the foundation came for using water to symbolize something.

I would agree with the change of the priesthood but where and when and how did it effect the old in regard to the Levites ?

I would offer at the beginning of Christ's ministry before he was sent out into the world to minister the gospel . An argument broke out with John from the tribe of Levi in respect to the ceremonial washing (baptism) .Others were questioning that Jesus from the tribe of Judas was taking on the ceremonial washing (baptizing) in respect to when a new priest entered the ministry seeing he was not of the r tribe of Levi.

Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven John 3:25

Jesus fulfilled the old testament shadow as the High Priest after the order of Melchisidec remaining a high priest continually without beginning or end.

The time of reformation had come all believers on this side of the first century reformation became prophet priests as a kingdom of priest Jew and gentile alike.

1 Corinthians 4:8 Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.

Christiani ty as Ambassadors for Christ are sent out as apostles from what is considered a foreign land heaven where we have are birth records as priests/ prophets .Christianity itself is recognized as a kingdom of Priest. There are may verse to support the nobility of believers in that way .

1 Peter 2:9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

The old order of Levites has passed away. Beleivers are considered the temple of the Lord .

Our high Priest Christ dwells in our earthen bosies

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

But you seem to forget why the Pharisees lost the Priesthood in the first place. It was because of these things the Christ pointed out.

Matt. 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition

Matt. 15:
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Matt. 23:4 For they (Levite Priests, not God)bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

These Levites were given instruction on how to be a Priest of God, and they rejected Him, and created their own instructions. Jesus didn't do this.

Is. 9:
15 The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail.
16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.

Ez. 13:
2 Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the LORD;

Jer. 50:6 My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace.

Jer. 10:
20 My tabernacle is spoiled, and all my cords are broken: my children are gone forth of me, and they are not: there is none to stretch forth my tent any more, and to set up my curtains.
21 For the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the LORD: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered.

The Messiah Himself said: "24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

He promised a New Covenant in Jer. 31 and the New Covenant "IS" the New Priesthood. And He tells us why in Hebrews.

Heb. 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

This is saying if the Old Priesthood had worked as intended, there would still be Levite Priests, only teaching teaching about the Cleansing Blood of the Christ written in the Law and Prophets.

But the Pharisees "omitted" much of God's teaching, and created their own religion.

Matt. 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

8 For finding fault with them, (The Shepherds appointed to watch over the Flock, not the Priesthood) he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

He promises to take on the Priesthood duties Himself:

#1. Administration of God's Words which we are to live by.

#2. Atone for the sins of His People.

Continued.

 

[Dino246]

Because I understand that the benefit of Law-obedience (righteousness before God) is contingent upon perfect obedience, and that my relationship with God is in no way contingent upon my obedience to the Law

I see I left that sentence incomplete. Here's the rest of the thought:

... I see the Law as historical. It does inform how I live my life, but I don't consider obedience to it to be part of the Christian life-not for salvation, not for sanctification, not for God's blessings or favour.