| Author |
Message |
Flyinglady
Registered user
Username: Flyinglady
Post Number: 735
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 8:21 pm: |     |
Welcome Logophile. You are in a good place when you come here to talk, write, ask for help and prayers. We will agree to disagree at times, but every things is done in a God filled fashion. So I keep coming back.
We do care about you.
Diana |
Dd
Registered user
Username: Dd
Post Number: 203
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 7:15 am: | |
Hi Logophile, Welcome. I wish I would have had the same interest you had in Daniel/Revelation. I have always hated it. I learned what I needed to without any question. Now I find it fascinating but I have a hard time deciding what is old SDA "junk" and what is real. I look forward to the insight you will share with us. Thanks for pointing out the "Kinsman/Redeemer" of Rev. 5. I like that attribute of God.
Jeremy, FINALLY... I had some extra time to catch up on things and got to really look at the verses you shared in Hebrews. I am so excited because this week in my Bible study we just started looking through Hebrews 1. WOW! is it ever clear that Jesus is God, He has ruled and will rule forever. He is IT! Nothing else is needed. Nothing can top Him!'
The quote you shared of EGW seemed so "nice". I have heard something similar many different times and just thought she meant because we are near the end times God is working harder than ever. I never really saw it as her own self-importance. BUT...even so, what an arrogant thing to say...what about the apostles, the Christians during the reformation...? God wasn't working earnestly then?
I need to go look for a Discovery Bible. I like what you found in the Greek tense for "new" in terms of the New Covenant - NOT the same ingredients but something completely new and different. Praise Him! It is fresh, new, alive and different. GIVE ME JESUS! He abides forever!
Thanks, again, Jeremy. I'm looking forward to more of your thoughts |
Logophile
Registered user
Username: Logophile
Post Number: 4
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 9:31 pm: | |
Hi Carol,
"That causes me to question for the first time ever....just never thought about it before, how she can uphold the SDA church and EGWhite, which she does (uphold EGW,) and agree with Larry's end-time teachings. Doesn't that cause her to question Ellen's prophetic abilities???? What do you think Logophile???"
Well, to be honest, that wasn't ever a huge issue for me personally. If EGW endorsed an interpretation of prophecy that differed from what I came to accept, I just figured that that's how she understood it and that God didn't micromanage what she wrote. I also didn't think it was her role to tell us how to interpret the Bible, so it wasn't a big deal if she was wrong on something like that.
Thanks for the tip on displaying "last day" or "last week" posts.
logo |
Logophile
Registered user
Username: Logophile
Post Number: 5
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 9:39 pm: | |
Thanks for the welcome, Raven.
It's been a long time since I read anything of Larry Wilson's; however, I do remember his staunch stand on 1844, which forced him into a somewhat implausible explanation of Daniel 8:13-14. I also remember that he used the author of Hebrews as an example to show that even inspired Bible writers could be mistaken (groundwork for showing that EGW could be wrong and still inspired): after all, Hebrews clearly places Jesus in the Most Holy Place; however, we know from Daniel 8 that Jesus didn't go there until 1844.
Anyway, I'm not sure how much of his ideas I still agree with; however, his materials opened up a whole new approach to study Daniel and Revelation, and I'm grateful for that.
logo |
Logophile
Registered user
Username: Logophile
Post Number: 6
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 9:57 pm: | |
Hi Dd.
"Thanks for pointing out the "Kinsman/Redeemer" of Rev. 5. I like that attribute of God."
You know what I think is the neatest thing about that? It's the first "vision" John is given. Once the messages to the seven churches are dealt with, the very next thing is that John is taken "in the spirit" into the throne room in heaven. Revelation 4 is basically describing the scenery, and it's in Revelation 5 that the action begins. Judging from John's reaction when it appears that no one will be able to claim the scroll (verse 4), I think it safe to surmise that John knew what the scroll signified and what was at stake: if no one could claim the scroll, then there was no Redeemer, and the plan of salvation miscarried. John was allowed to experience briefly what that would feel like.
So to me what this says is, No matter what will follow in the prophecies of this book, one must never forget that the plan of salvation is absolutely assured. We have a Redeemer, and, though there's a fierce battle ahead, we are on the winning side.
I mentioned that Revelation 5 and Daniel 7 are complementary. Daniel 7 introduces the Son of God as our Kinsman--one "like a son of man"--Revelation introduces him as our Redeemer--he was slain and with his blood purchased men for God.
logo |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 100
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 7:16 am: | |
I wonder if Larry Wilson would start to see that Bible writers were not mistaken, (such as the example given of Paul saying Jesus was already in the Most Holy Place) if he could see that 1844 was not a significant date in history. For example, I think the explanation about Antiochus persecuting the Jews and doing away with the sacrifice for exactly 2300 evenings and mornings (2300 sacrifices), is a much more believable explanation of the Daniel 8 prophecy. Just read about the history of Hannukah, because that is the holiday that celebrates the sacrifice being restored. It's the Feast of Dedication, or also called the Feast of Lights.
Maybe if Larry could start with the premise that the Bible writers weren't wrong, he would throw out a lot of his wild ideas that don't agree with the Bible. If we have to pick and choose what to believe in the Bible, what foundation do we have? |
Logophile
Registered user
Username: Logophile
Post Number: 8
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 12:26 am: | |
It's my understanding that the Antiochus Epiphanes view of Daniel 8 is widely accepted; and, in some ways, it probably fits the best. At the same time, doesn't the angel tell Daniel that the vision concerns the time of the end? And doesn't the scenario of Daniel 8 include the setting up of the abomination of desolation (even though this isn't specifically mentioned until later in Daniel)--something Jesus spoke of as still future (Matthew 24:15)?
Furthermore, Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 appears to be alluding to Daniel 8 when he speaks of the rebellion and the rise of the man of lawlessness.
To me, such observations mitigate rather strongly against accepting Antiochus Epiphanes as the horn. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 82
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 5:37 am: | |
Interestingly, Christ clearly applies the prophecy to an earthly sanctuary. |
Raven
Registered user
Username: Raven
Post Number: 101
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 7:37 am: | |
Actually, Logophile, those are exactly the questions I already had about Antiochus. It seems to fit far better than the SDA 1844 view, but not perfectly for the reasons you stated. I would like to see a knowledgeable person who fully accepts the Antiochus view, answer those questions.
I was bringing the Antiochus view up because you had mentioned that Larry Wilson uses "we know 1844 is correct" to say that Paul, even though inspired, wasn't correct about everything. The point I'm making, is no one can be so certain 1844 is correct, and that is not a good premise to begin with. The only good premise to begin with is that the Bible can be relied on for agreement and accuracy. If Paul says Jesus was already in the Most Holy place, that should tell us right there that the 1844 doctrine is wrong, because we should be accepting something the Bible plainly says over an interpretation EGW gives the Bible. |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1110
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 8:30 am: | |
I'm not knowledgable on this but I accept it because when it was explaied to me in a Bible sudy I took several years ago it made sense. But, I don't recall right now the specifics. I, too am hoping someone on here can reexplain it to me so I have it fresh in my mind. |
Belvalew
Registered user
Username: Belvalew
Post Number: 55
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
I, too, am not certain I can explain this well. As I understand it, Antiochus is the fulfillment of the prophecy, but then Jesus and Daniel both point forward to the end of time when another individual has the same attitude and approach as Antiochus had, and that individual will set up, in the earthly temple, the abomination of desolation. We already have a Jewish holiday that celebrates the end of the 2300 evenings and mornings prophecy. There is a story in John that places Jesus and the disciples at the Temple in Jerusalem during the winter feast. There were no winter feasts set up for the Set Times of the Lord, so this could be none other than the Festival of Lights, or Hanukkah, and Jesus and the disciples were discussing the event that brought about that particular feast, and Jesus alluded to the future and another who would desecrate the temple in a fashion similar to Antiochus. This event is also found in Matthew 24 and in Mark 13. This very wonderful Hanukkah story is found in John 10 starting at the 22nd verse. I suggest you read all three accounts at once and you will find that they are all talking about the same visit to the temple. The reason I say this is because in all three the disciples call attention to the architecture of the temple. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Belva |
Logophile
Registered user
Username: Logophile
Post Number: 9
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 1:52 pm: | |
Raven, I completely agree with you that "we know 1844 is correct" is a poor premise from which to study Daniel 8.
A question I have is how it's possible for the "stern-faced king" to arise "in the latter part of their [four divisions of Greece] reign" and yet be the star villain in this vision that pertains to the time of the end and depicts what will happen in the time of wrath. For a number of years, this has seemed a paradox to me.
Nevertheless, if there's a bit of tension, it appears to me that the weight of the scriptural evidence suggests focusing on an end-time fulfillment and sort of not worrying so much about having the horn appear in the wake of the Grecian empire.
As for Hebrews placing Jesus in the Most Holy Place, that's another question I have. The author was quite confident that he was living in the last days. Yet more time has passed since then than from the institution to the obsolescence of the first covenant (roughly 1500 years, I think). Has Jesus been in the MHP all this time, and have we been living under the New Covenant all this time, or is Hebrews speaking in the present of something that's available primarily for the final generation--which the author seemed to believe was his own?
Anyway, just something I've wondered about.
logo |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 100
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
The Bible says that we are living in the last days. That is the period from Jesus' death to when He comes back.
I actually can't even understand the theory that there are separate holy places and most holy places in heaven! The veil was torn at Jesus' death! And the Bible says that the veil is Jesus' flesh which was torn and that we can now, ever since His death, enter the Presence of God, the Most Holy Place!
And also, the Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of God--you can trust it.
Jeremy |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 101
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 4:57 pm: | |
Dd,
I will now go on to Hebrews chapter 9, but first I wanted to add another comment about the last verse of chapter 8.
"When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." (Hebrews 8:13 NASB.)
Some people think it's saying that God made the Old Covenant obsolete at Jesus' death, and that it was then "ready to disappear." But I think it's saying that when He spoke of a new covenant (meaning in Jeremiah's day) He made the first one obsolete and it was ready to disappear then, and it did disappear at Jesus' death.
quote:"Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant." (Hebrews 9:1-4 NASB.)
Notice that this passage is talking about the "first covenant," which the writer had just said is obsolete and has disappeared. And notice that the Ten Commandments were "the tables of the covenant" which is old, obsolete, and has disappeared!
quote:"When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings--external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption." (Hebrews 9:6-12 NIV.)
(As a sidenote, notice that verses 9-10 imply that matters of "food and drink" are not moral issues.)
Now, some translations translate "Most Holy Place" in some of these verses as "holy place," and so some SDAs try to say it's talking about the Holy Place, and not the Most Holy Place. But in verse 12, the same Greek word is used as in verse 25 which is clearly talking about the Most Holy Place.
In addition, the context from verse 7 is clearly talking about the high priest entering the Most Holy Place (the "second" or "inner room") "once a year, and never without blood." And then it talks about Christ entering "by His own blood." The only place the high priest needed blood to enter was the Most Holy Place, so it has to be talking about the Most Holy Place!
Also, notice that it says He entered the Most Holy Place "once for all." Some SDAs try to say He entered there temporarily at His ascension and then went back to the Holy Place for 1800 years until 1844 when he entered the Most Holy Place again. But this verse says He had already entered the Most Holy Place "once for all"! The Biblical truth is: nothing happened in 1844!
quote:"And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
25 nor was it that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own.
26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." (Hebrews 9:22-26 NASB.)
This passage says that the heavenly sanctuary had already been cleansed, it was not something in the future which would start in 1844!
Again "holy place" in verse 24 is the same Greek word as in verse 25--it means "Most Holy Place." Once again, verse 25 talks about the high priest entering every year--that's the Most Holy Place. Verse 24 says "the Presence of God"--that's the Most Holy Place, and that is "heaven itself."
It also says that Jesus did not "enter heaven to offer Himself again and again" (NIV)--the atonement was finished at the cross!!
Verse 26 says that Jesus "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."
Ellen White said:
"The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement; so in the type the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent, but it rested in the sanctuary until the Day of Atonement." (Patriarchs and Prophets, page 357, paragraph 5.)
Well, guess what the only definition (according to Strong's Concordance) is for the Greek word for "put away"! The only definition for "put away" is "cancellation." EGW is a liar. Jesus' blood did indeed cancel my sin! Praise the Lord!
Jeremy |
Dd
Registered user
Username: Dd
Post Number: 215
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 9:51 pm: | |
WOW Jeremy,
You are busy tonight. THank you for your kindness. I have printed this off and will go through it with my Bible in the morning. |
Carol_2
Registered user
Username: Carol_2
Post Number: 186
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 8:26 am: | |
Jeremy - If I remember correctly you are very young aren't you?
Are you studying to serve the Lord in ministry by chance?
Very wise! Thanks for sharing. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 954
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Great study, Jeremy! Absolutely, Jesus has been in the "Most Holy Place" (at the right hand of the Father!) since His ascension.
I realized recently with a new awareness that Adventists do not believe the New Covenant actually begins until the second coming of Jesus. They call Pentecost the "early rain" and say the "latter rain" (both mentioned in Joel 2) will occur right before Jesus comes. They also say the fulfillment of Joel 2:28, where God pours out His Spirit on "all people", and sons, daughters, old and young men, servants and women will prophecy, have visions and dreams is yet to happen. Yet Peter, in Acts 2:14-21, clearly identifies Pentecost as the fulfillment of these Joel prophecies. Further, he refers to his time, Pentecost, as "the last days." (v. 17)
Adventists really discount Pentecost as the fulfillment of these promises. They further downplay the formation of the church at Pentecost. They see Pentecost, rather, as a sort-of extra power-boost that enabled people to evangelize better.
This discounting of Pentecost as the instituting of the new covenant is the result of the investigative judgment belief. Pentecost created a completely new phenomenon: people with born-again spirits connected to God by the Holy Spirit. These people are Christ's body. They are the church.
The kingdom of heaven is an "already-but-not-yet" phenomenon. There is still to be a physical kingdom and our physical redemption. but our spiritual redemption has already happened, and the kingdom of heaven is here now. We are the temple of God as Christ-followers. The fact that Jesus ascended directly to the Father and His blood atoned for sin from that moment is what made Pentecost possible. His blood made it possible for us to be intimate with God, and the new birth became a reality at Pentecost.
Adventists can't really have this kind of intimacy with God before 1844 because sins weren't yet atoned. Further, Adventists can't have this kind of intimacy with God because that would mean people would KNOW they were saved. Further, Adventists can't really have Pentecost being the true beginning of the true church because the true church didn't start until the mid-19th century.
Regarding the identity of the horn which arises from the four horns which grow out of the shaggy goat in Daniel 8--the interpretation of the vision is clear in verses 21-26 that the shaggy goat "represents the kingdom of Greece". While it's possible that there may be a secondary fulfillment of this prophecy in some way at the end of time (many prophecies have successive fulfillments), the text clearly identifies the shaggy goat as the kingdom of Greece, and the horns as kings that would arise from the kingdom.
The text also clearly identifies the ram which preceeds the goat as Medo-Persia. This vision of the ram and the goats has more detail but corresponds to the vision of the image with the head of gold (Babylon), chest of silver (Medo-Persia), thighs of brass (Rome), and feet and toes of clay and iron.
The assault that yielded the desecration caused by Antiochus Ephiphanes, as Belvalew pointed out above, was a really big deal in Jewish history, and the Feast of Hanukkah memorializes the battle and the resistance of that whole episode.
I don't see how we can throw out the interpretation of Antiochus Epiphanes as a likely fulfillment of that particular horn when the prophecy and the angel's explanation clearly identify the kingdom of Greece. We have to understand the Bible first in the terms its readers would have understood it. When Daniel received this vision, Greece was still hundreds of years in the future.
Again, I believe it's possible for there still to be some future fulfillment of this passage, but if we just stick with the text, we can see that the shaggy goat and its horns are prophecies about the then-still-to-come kingdom of Greece. Possible future fulfillments will not become clear until they actually happen.
We really can't take our traditional belief in the whole 1844 "thing" and allow that to influence us to go beyond where the text leads us.
Colleen |
Esther
Registered user
Username: Esther
Post Number: 82
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
Thanks for the insight on Daniel. I still struggle with understanding these things even though I'm at peace with not knowing because my salvation is sure.
Something I keep coming back to somehow though is that Jesus clearly states that all the law and prophet are until Him. Wouldn't this include Daniel? If not, why not? And if so, what about the parallels with Revelation...which states it's "a revelation of Jesus Christ".
Specifically, are we now in the "rock kingdom era" of Daniel where the image is struck by the rock which then expands to fill the whole earth? |
Freeatlast
Registered user
Username: Freeatlast
Post Number: 234
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 12:42 pm: | |
Colleen you said: "They also say the fulfillment of Joel 2:28, where God pours out His Spirit on "all people", and sons, daughters, old and young men, servants and women will prophecy, have visions and dreams is yet to happen. Yet Peter, in Acts 2:14-21, clearly identifies Pentecost as the fulfillment of these Joel prophecies. Further, he refers to his time, Pentecost, as "the last days." (v. 17)
Adventists really discount Pentecost as the fulfillment of these promises. They further downplay the formation of the church at Pentecost.... "...This discounting of Pentecost as the instituting of the new covenant is the result of the investigative judgment belief..."
This is a classic example of the way SDA's handle Scripture in view of Ellen White's "writings". Even though Peter gives a direct, irrefutable statement that is written in the Holy Scriptures, SDA theology teaches that the text doesn't really mean what it says and that the REAL story was hidden away for 18+ centuries in another obscure, unrelated text (Daniel 8:14), and that only those with this special knowledge, or "present truth" as they call it, are able to understand these things.
It is as if the Holy Spirit deceived Peter, those present at Pentecost, and all who read that text thereafter, and that the real truth of the matter was to be delivered to the body of Christ in the 19th century out of some dark corner of New England by a self-proclaimed "messenger" who was booted from her own church for doing exactly what Jesus said not to - setting a date for His return.
Peter misunderstood the Holy Spirit, yet Ellen White did not. Absurdity! |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 959
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
Oh, yes, Esther--the OT laws and prophecies were in place until Jesus--but many of the OT prophecies were not only about Jewish Israel. There are definitely prophecies in the OT that are about the end of all time. Daniel 7, for example, pictures the "great white throne judgment" that happens when Jesus returns.
If we take the position that all OT prophecies were about OT Israel and have no bearing after Jesus, we pretty much have to "throw out" nearly half the OT as being obsolete. Isaiah, for example, has prophecies that appear to be referring to Christ's millennial kingdom on earth (see Rev. 20)and/or the New Earth, and those certainly haven't happened yet. Ezekiel has prophecies (such as the dry bones coming together but still without life--God tells Ezekiel He can make them live and finally does) which seem, perhaps, to apply to secular Israel forming and attracting Jews, but they are still spiritually dead and need to be brought to life by God. Etc.
Even Daniel's vision of the image showed the history of world powers--with really broad brush strokes--from Babylon until the coming of Christ.
But because prophecy is symbolic in character, we usually can't predict exactly what will happen until it comes to pass. Then we can look at the prophecies and say, "Oh, yeah--this is exactly what that prophecy told us to expect!"
Oh-great summary line, Freeatlast--"Peter misunderstood the Holy Spirit, yet Ellen White did not. Absurdity!"
Colleen |
Dd
Registered user
Username: Dd
Post Number: 246
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 10:41 pm: | |
Jeremy,
I cannot thank you enough for your wonderful posts regarding the IJ, EGW quotes and Hebrews insight...I just finished reading and studying through Hebrews to chapter 11. I have been so moved by the whole study and the sharing that you did added to what the Holy Spirit gave to me. You are a true friend, indeed.
One thing that really hit me regarding the Old Covenant is that there really was a problem with it. The problem was not in the law itself but that the law could not produce holiness, righteousness or goodness. On the contrary, all the law could do was condemn. Does that ever explain my life as an Adventist...I felt like such a failure ALL the time...I would try and try and try...but I never felt good enough. I was living under the Old Covenant and it could not draw me to God. I had to have "a better hope" or there would have been no need for me to go on living.
I also learned something new in my study. Ordinarily a covenant is an agreement between two people that embraces conditions to which both agree. That would fit the meaning of the Sinai covenant, which had conditions to be kept if its terms were to be fulfilled. However, in Greek a covenant like this would normally be known as a "suntheke", an "agreement," not a "diatheke", the word used in Hebrews 8. "Diatheke is normally used for a "will," which, of course, was not put into force until the death of the testator.
When the Hebrew writer chose the term "diatheke," he seems to have done it to stress that this "new covenant" was made entirely by one person, the testator, and that, as a result, the other party could not alter the terms but only accept or refuse the inheritance. Moreover, Jesus put it into effect by His death. It is these features, more than any others, that make this "new covenant" NEW. It is not BILATERAL (a two-sided agreement) but UNILATERAL (a one-sided agreement). In other words, IT DEPENDED ONLY ON GOD AND NOT ON ANY PERSON'S ABILITY TO KEEP IT! The New Covenant is a superior covenant indeed!
In Hebrews 9, the word that struck me was "copy". Moses' man-made earthly sanctuary was at best a COPY, not the true, real, original sancutary in heaven into which Christ has entered for us (verses 11, 24). The word "copy" reflects the word "pattern" in Exodus 25:9, 40, after which Moses was to construct the tabernacle. If anything shows that the ceremonial law was temporary and had a built-in obsolescence, it is the word "pattern" or "copy". For how could what was temporary be held on to when that which was real and lasting had come to take its place?
The conclusion?...Hebrews makes it clear...we are to leave all ceremonies and place our full faith in Jesus Christ! We can have the confidence to "draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith...!"
GIVE ME JESUS!!!!
|
Dd
Registered user
Username: Dd
Post Number: 247
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 10:43 pm: | |
I want to credit some of my comments above to the notes I received to review my studies of Hebrews 7-10 at Bible Study Fellowship (Lesson 13). |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 12:51 am: | |
Great summary, Dd! The new covenant is indeed different from the old--it's most definitely NOT just a different way of stating the same thing, as I was taught.
Praise God!
Colleen |
|
