|
|
Post by Melville on Feb 12, 2008 10:44:34 GMT -8
Hello, How we interpret the meaning of the veil being rent would seem to relate to what we do with the book of Hebrews and the New Testament in general. To say that the rending of the veil represents "the grief of the Father, in seeing the death of His Son" is not something we can find in scripture. Or at least I can't. I can't think of a place where it says anything like this. When Messiah went to the Cross, well, it says that it "pleased the Lord to bruise Him" (Is 53:10), and then there is that august passage: " . . . behold I have come to do Thy will O God . . " Heb. 10:5-7. On the other hand we do see the veil representing a real barrier between man and God. Even the high priest couldn't go past it, except once a year. But now there is a "new and living way . . .through the veil" Heb. 10:20, and a call for us (plural) to "draw near" in this way. The only place that sacrifices can be done is in Jerusalem at the Temple. But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the LORD your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; Then there shall be a place which the LORD your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; thither shall ye bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the LORD: And ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God, ye, and your sons, and your daughters, and your menservants, and your maidservants, and the Levite that is within your gates; forasmuch as he hath no part nor inheritance with you. Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest: But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee. (Deu 12:10-14 KJV) The between the Holy PLace and the Most Holy PLace is called, in Rabbinical tradition, "The Garment of God." The significance, then that the veil was rent was not to invalidate the sacrificial system but to represent the grief of the Father, in seeing the death of His Son. The rending of the veil would not represent the abbrogation or dissolvement of the sacrificial system. To the Jewish mind, the loss of the Ark of the Covenant (several years earlier) would have been more suggestive that the sacrificial system was invalid. In fact, there were sects within the ultra-orthodox of that day that believed the Sacrifices were not valid during Messiah's time because this was not a Jewish Temple but was, rather erected (actually more like remodeled or renovated) by Herod, a gentile. These rabbis taught as Paul would later suggest, that the Tabernacle of God is the heart of the Jew: that His Spirit resides within us, not in buildings made of stone. Whether or not the Temple system will be restored in the future is a matter or some debate- a debate which I am not qualified to hold a definitive opinion. There are arguments on both sides that are very convincing that either the sacrificial system will be restored or that it is no longer a piece of Adonai's continuing revelation. Yet, please read my Parashah for this week: that if we fail to understand the physical elements He has shown us for worship, we will never fully grasp the realities of the spiritual things. Even under the Sacrificial System, the Jew does not believe that he was saved by the blood of goats and bulls but by Adonai's mercy. The sacrifice was, in the early days a testament of faith that the Messiah would come one day to redeem His people. After the resurrection, the thinking would not need to change for the believers and the sacrificial system would be no less relevant: instead of worshipping with hope, they would continue to worship in joy of what Messiah had already done, participating fully in the Temple worship with a fuller understanding than they had before Messiah came. |
|
|
|
Post by Melville on Feb 12, 2008 10:52:36 GMT -8
Hello, There can be no doubt that the Apostle Peter was a Jew. But in his first letter he speaks to those who have been born again as a "royal priesthood" who "offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ". So there is some group of people whose sacrifices are spiritual, not physical, and I link this onto the Lord's words to the Samaritan woman at the well, where He said the time would be coming and then was (now is) when the true worshippers of God worship in spirit and in truth (reality) for such the Father seeks to worship Him, for He is Spirit and therefore those who worship Him must worship in spirit. So we are not without the ability to offer sacrifices and that should offer joy and hope! Melville Correct. Remember that the temple has been destroyed more than once, and each time, sacrifice was not able to be offered for a number of decades or more because of that. Think of Daniel who was in exile; unable to do sacrifices because there was no temple and he also was not there. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 12, 2008 18:08:00 GMT -8
Hi Melville,
In the first place, the book of Hebrews was written to the Hebrews. The Hebraic context in for what the writer is saying is relevant. By ingnoring this context, you are inserting your own logic from a gentile perspective which is utterly unreliable. You're reading someone else's mail!
In the second place, I find some humor in your choice of reference to Messiah's dialogue with the Samaritan woman. In context (John 4:22-23), Messiah says that Salvation IS of the Jews, that the Jews know what they worship (there's the truth part). Paul will later echo this idea in Romans 3:2 when he declares that unto the Jew has been given the oracles of God. The Jewish context is very important to our understanding of the Word of God. Unfortunately, the gentile Church has done everything in its power to sanitize away the Jewishness and replace it's own, often self-serving, interpretations. You'll find nowhere in Scripture that suggests the rending of the veil abbrogated Temple worship. Such doctrine was inserted into the Church long after the text had been canonized.
Jewish Book, written by Jews to a predominately Jewish audience. I would suggest that a Jewish interpretation is reliable.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by Melville on Feb 13, 2008 9:31:42 GMT -8
Hello Mark, Though it will likely not be profitable to enter into an extended, general discussion, I would like to bring it back to the specific points I was trying to make, just going by the texts themselves. From my reading, the Book of Hebrews does not contain the title in the original text so its intended audience must be discerned from its contents. The author does not identify a specific group of people but we can tell who he is speaking to especially by the warnings he gives. They are people whom he discerns as being in danger of falling short, of missing something. In fact they were missing it. They should by that time have been teachers and he feels as if he has to lay out the basic elements all over again. In the passage I cited the point was about entering within the veil, that a new and living way had been opened up to enter the holy place. The readers were urged not to fall short of this but rather to take advantage of it and draw near. I'm not altogether sure how to understand the implications of your saying that I am reading someone else's mail here. Are you saying that I'm reading something I shouldn't be reading, or that only Jews can draw near and enter within the veil in this way? My point was that the rending of the veil through the offering up of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ opened a way that was formerly closed, which is access to God in the Spirit. I would not be prepared to say that this is for Jews only and it would seem unnecessary to to have to summon a multitude of scriptures to illustrate this. The first one that comes to mind is when Peter went to the house of Cornelius. The same gift of the Holy Spirit was given to those Gentiles present as was given to the disciples at Pentecost. Paul further makes the point in addressing the assembly in Ephesus that the dividing wall of partition between the two had been abolished in order that the Christ might make of the two one new man. (Now this is not a letter to Hebrews but I believe that Jews are welcome to read it  ) I'm sure you are familiar with all this. The point being that the goal is a New Man, or as the Apostle puts it when writing to the assemblies in Galatia, a new creation, which neither circumcision nor uncircumcision accomplish anything toward. About the incident between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, I seems to me that you are leaving something out in the essential thrust of His statement. ". . . an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall you worship the father . . . But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth . . ." Not in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem but in spirit and truth. Not . . . but. Something new has come with His appearing and incarnation where, after His crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, a new and living way has been opened up, whereby human beings may become the dwelling place of the Spirit of God Himself. This it the Good News, no? Regarding abrogation of Temple worship, that is your wording. My statement was that Peter had described a group of people who are a royal priesthood who offer up spiritual sacrifices, not material ones. This was in response to the statement that the only place sacrifices can be made is in Jerusalem. I was saying that there is another realm of a different kind of sacrifice, as also in "Offer your bodies a living sacrifice." I believe the thrust of the New Testament is that this is the real thing (in spirit and reality [truth]), whereas the Aaronic priesthood and all the accoutrement's are said to be types and figures, copies of the heavenly things, as the author of Hebrews wrote. But Christ our High Priest went into heaven itself. I'm saying "our" as a Gentile because gentiles, too, have redemption through His Blood. There is equally no place where gentiles believers were required to offer sacrifices in Jerusalem. They would not have been allowed. I am not taking anything away from the significance of the Mosaic system. The patriarchs, the law and the prophets are the deeply rooted spiritual rootstock into which the gentile believers have been grafted. I would only maintain that it is essentially a spiritual root and not a cultural or traditional one. My concern about the issue of the reinstatement of the physical temple worship is that it can become so fascinating as to draw attention away from the spiritual reality that the apostles and authors of the New Testament were continually referring us to. Yours truly in Christ, Melville Hi Melville, In the first place, the book of Hebrews was written to the Hebrews. The Hebraic context in for what the writer is saying is relevant. By ignoring this context, you are inserting your own logic from a gentile perspective which is utterly unreliable. You're reading someone else's mail! In the second place, I find some humor in your choice of reference to Messiah's dialog with the Samaritan woman. In context (John 4:22-23), Messiah says that Salvation IS of the Jews, that the Jews know what they worship (there's the truth part). Paul will later echo this idea in Romans 3:2 when he declares that unto the Jew has been given the oracles of God. The Jewish context is very important to our understanding of the Word of God. Unfortunately, the gentile Church has done everything in its power to sanitize away the Jewishness and replace it's own, often self-serving, interpretations. You'll find nowhere in Scripture that suggests the rending of the veil abbrogated Temple worship. Such doctrine was inserted into the Church long after the text had been canonized. Jewish Book, written by Jews to a predominately Jewish audience. I would suggest that a Jewish interpretation is reliable. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 14, 2008 4:55:21 GMT -8
Hi Melville, To question whether the book of Hebrews is speaking specific to the Jewish people seems a bit opportunistic, since it is almost universally agreed that this is the intended audience. Yet, the idea that we, as gentiles, are not invited to read and understand this message is probably the core source of our disconnect concerning other elements of this thread. We believe that the Christian faith is not an independent religion; but if biblically consistent, it is a sect of Judaism. This is what Paul describes in Romans 11 as gentiles being grafted in among them [the Jews] and in Ephesians 2:11-13 with the invitation to join into the commonwealth of Israel. If we fail to understand the perspective of biblical Judaism, often including the areas of Judaism that have and had drifted from  to human tradition, we will not understand the text. The result is that a void is left in our vocabulary of what would have been perceived by the given audience and intended by the author. This is why when you speak of being "born again" to the Christian you are talking about salvation. to a Jew you are talking about mikvah, but to the Hindu you are talking about reincarnation. The intended audience is significant and culture and context of the vocabulary being used in relevant. My point of Messiah's discussion with the Samaritan woman is what is completely ignored by every Christian theologian today: the phrase He makes is "Salvation is of the Jews." Another phrase in this text that is disregarded is the phrase, "and now is." The dispensationalist argues that Temple worship was relevant until Messiah's death and resurrection from the grave. Yet, why does Messiah include these words, "the time will come, AND NOW IS, when the true worshiper will worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth." Was Messiah immediately dismissing the Temple system from that point? The dispensationalist has no answer. In Ephesians 2, Paul is not describing that which separates man from God. He is describing the distinction made between Jew and gentile. In Herod's Temple (which still stood while Paul was writing) the "middle wall of partition" was that which separated the Court of the gentiles from the rest of the Temple. It ought bot be confused with the Veil between the Holy and Most Holy Places within the Temple itself. Here is where we completely agree: that the sacrificial system is nothing in itself but a descriptive object lesson for the reality that occurs in heavenly places. Even within Judaism, prayers and worship are offered as a type of sacrifice. These things are given to us so that we can grasp truths that are utterly unfathomable. The caution I laid out in the beginning of this discussion is that must understand these things within the context of their Hebraic/Jewish relevance rather than insert our own interpretations of gentile logic. I can't end without saying how grateful I am for your well-reasoned and articulate expression of your position (and sticking to your guns through our disagreement) without turning this into an angry diatribe. I am very impressed with your demeanor in handling this discussion. Thanks so very much! Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Feb 14, 2008 5:21:49 GMT -8
Mellville I wanted to point out that the "royal priesthood" and "holy nation" which you discussed, described by Paul, is the same holy priesthood and holy nation described, and in existence, in the Old Testament. It is not something that just appeared in the New Testament.
Also, historically there were reasons why Yeshua (and others) had issues with the second (or third, depending on how you want to count) temple system as it was practiced AT THAT TIME. Prophets in the past had similar issues. That does not mean that temple worship AS ENVISIONED BY THE LORD was wrong, just how it was being carried out and viewed by humans. There seems to be an ongoing problem with religious systems and it is not relegated to one time period nor to one religious system. I could name a few examples, but I won't get into that here. But horrible, horrible things have been done and continue to be done; they are horrible no matter whose name they are being done in. But the One who created the world objects to them being done in His name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Melville on Feb 14, 2008 9:27:03 GMT -8
Dear Mark, As I've read and thought about what you are saying I want to say that you genuinely have my respect. I note that you live in Lebanon and feel sort of glad that it is the Oregon one and not the Beirut one. That place can be dangerous! It wasn't to question the intended audience of the letter we call To the Hebrews, because we can discern that from reading it, but to note that it doesn't begin at all by naming the recipient(s), e.g. to the 12 tribes of the dispersion or the those who reside as aliens scattered throughout Pontus, etc. We can only get at the audience from the internal context. From that I cannot agree that it was written to the people of Israel or all Jews in general. It was not written to those who rejected Jesus Christ from the get go. I believe it is scripture and as such that it is profitable. I see nothing in the book, which I've read numerous times, to suggest it's something gentiles are uninvited to read. We have, after all, been grafted into the same rootstock. The letter has perhaps the sternest warnings in it that appear in any of the epistles, so stern that it severely challenges those who hold a neat doctrine of eternal security. The author doesn't hold back and I am of the solid opinion that he's not beating the air or speaking hypothetically when he writes, "Therefore let us fear lest . . .anyone should seem to have come short of it [His rest]." He is addressing people who have heard the good news and, referring back to those of whom God swore, "they shall not enter My rest", cautioning his hearers lest they too should fall short. What were they in danger of doing? What was their condition whereby he had to speak this way, repeatedly? That would seem to be the question of the letter overall. I'm not going to try to write a commentary on this but only to say that there has got to be a large lesson in this. Without going through the whole letter I'm drawn to a final appeal at the end. ". . . let us go forth to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach." This may focus the question. What or where is the camp and what does going outside it mean? If we understand this to be written to Jewish recipients of the Good News (which it says it is) then what's the camp? From reading on this forum the general opinion is that what seems to me to be the plain language of the letter is construed very differently. In that plain language the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are contrasted. I'm reading here the opinion that it is not a contrast, that the New Covenant doesn't displace the Old Covenant. In ch 8, vs. 13, it says, "When He said a new [covenant], He made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." The general thesis I seem to find on this forum is that this isn't true. I'm not a "dispensationalist" or any sort of "ist." I'm just reading what it says here. If I understand you correctly you are saying, Mark, that a gentile would not be able to "get" this letter and that it needs a Jewish perspective and where I would come down on this is that this book, like the rest of the Bible, really needs the illumination of the Holy Spirit. It's riches and treasures are spiritually discerned. This goes to the illustration of semantic gaps over the words "born again." You say that to the Christian it means salvation and I want to make a distinction here. In a doctrinal sense this is true, depending on what w mean by salvation but what it specifically means is much more literal. It means being born of God, born from above, a literal new Life having begun within the individual, which brings a new consciousness. It is as Peter means when he speaks of having become partakers of the divine nature, and John when he speaks of an anointing that abides within, and Paul when he says that anyone who doesn't have the Spirit of Christ doesn't belong to Him. Yes, I understand that the two that were made one in Christ are Jews and Gentiles. Possibly the real core of the discussion is what and how much exactly was accomplished at the Cross? The apostle Paul places Jesus Christ and Him crucified at the center of the whole thing, and attributes to His work at the Cross cosmic vastness and completeness. I do hope not to descend into angry diatribes and ad hominem evasions. I've met this in a few other discussions and from my viewpoint it is a last resort when the arguments have been refuted and an individual isn't prepared to readjust his position. Yours in Christ, Melville Hi Melville, To question whether the book of Hebrews is speaking specific to the Jewish people seems a bit opportunistic, since it is almost universally agreed that this is the intended audience. Yet, the idea that we, as gentiles, are not invited to read and understand this message is probably the core source of our disconnect concerning other elements of this thread. We believe that the Christian faith is not an independent religion; but if biblically consistent, it is a sect of Judaism. This is what Paul describes in Romans 11 as gentiles being grafted in among them [the Jews] and in Ephesians 2:11-13 with the invitation to join into the commonwealth of Israel. If we fail to understand the perspective of biblical Judaism, often including the areas of Judaism that have and had drifted from to human tradition, we will not understand the text. The result is that a void is left in our vocabulary of what would have been perceived by the given audience and intended by the author. This is why when you speak of being "born again" to the Christian you are talking about salvation. to a Jew you are talking about mikvah, but to the Hindu you are talking about reincarnation. The intended audience is significant and culture and context of the vocabulary being used in relevant. My point of Messiah's discussion with the Samaritan woman is what is completely ignored by every Christian theologian today: the phrase He makes is "Salvation is of the Jews." Another phrase in this text that is disregarded is the phrase, "and now is." The dispensationalist argues that Temple worship was relevant until Messiah's death and resurrection from the grave. Yet, why does Messiah include these words, "the time will come, AND NOW IS, when the true worshiper will worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth." Was Messiah immediately dismissing the Temple system from that point? The dispensationalist has no answer. In Ephesians 2, Paul is not describing that which separates man from God. He is describing the distinction made between Jew and gentile. In Herod's Temple (which still stood while Paul was writing) the "middle wall of partition" was that which separated the Court of the gentiles from the rest of the Temple. It ought bot be confused with the Veil between the Holy and Most Holy Places within the Temple itself. Here is where we completely agree: that the sacrificial system is nothing in itself but a descriptive object lesson for the reality that occurs in heavenly places. Even within Judaism, prayers and worship are offered as a type of sacrifice. These things are given to us so that we can grasp truths that are utterly unfathomable. The caution I laid out in the beginning of this discussion is that must understand these things within the context of their Hebraic/Jewish relevance rather than insert our own interpretations of gentile logic. I can't end without saying how grateful I am for your well-reasoned and articulate expression of your position (and sticking to your guns through our disagreement) without turning this into an angry diatribe. I am very impressed with your demeanor in handling this discussion. Thanks so very much! Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Melville on Feb 14, 2008 9:37:36 GMT -8
Dear Prodigal Girl, This is a good point. But I think we should say that this is the fulfillment. We do need to look back at the history of Israel after they came out of Egypt. We read this was God's intention for them but also read that this very generation that failed to enter His rest, failed to enter the land of promise. Even Moses didn't enter because of them. About Herod's temple, from what I understand it was a lavish rebuilding of the one built under Zerubbabel. I'm sure others on this forum know this history well and can correct me. The Lord Jesus treated it as the Temple and valid when He drove out the money changers. But He also prophesied its destruction. You are so very right about religious systems. This was what the Lord met when he came to Israel. He was always at odds with the religious authorities John designates as "the Jews". I think this is one of the lessons of the Gospels, the contrast between the Son of God, who came from heaven, and the religious system wherein men had comfy positions. Yours in Christ, Melville Mellville I wanted to point out that the "royal priesthood" and "holy nation" which you discussed, described by Paul, is the same holy priesthood and holy nation described, and in existence, in the Old Testament. It is not something that just appeared in the New Testament. Also, historically there were reasons why Yeshua (and others) had issues with the second (or third, depending on how you want to count) temple system as it was practiced AT THAT TIME. Prophets in the past had similar issues. That does not mean that temple worship AS ENVISIONED BY THE LORD was wrong, just how it was being carried out and viewed by humans. There seems to be an ongoing problem with religious systems and it is not relegated to one time period nor to one religious system. I could name a few examples, but I won't get into that here. But horrible, horrible things have been done and continue to be done; they are horrible no matter whose name they are being done in. But the One who created the world objects to them being done in His name. |
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Feb 14, 2008 17:36:36 GMT -8
"It wasn't to question the intended audience of the letter we call To the Hebrews, because we can discern that from reading it, but to note that it doesn't begin at all by naming the recipient(s), e.g. to the 12 tribes of the dispersion or the those who reside as aliens scattered throughout Pontus, etc. We can only get at the audience from the internal context. From that I cannot agree that it was written to the people of Israel or all Jews in general. It was not written to those who rejected Jesus Christ from the get go."
"I believe it is scripture and as such that it is profitable. I see nothing in the book, which I've read numerous times, to suggest it's something gentiles are uninvited to read. We have, after all, been grafted into the same rootstock."
Melville, from what you have written here, it is apparent that you are under the impression that the "people of Israel, or the Jews in general" rejected Jesus. Actually, what really happened, is that such a number of persons were following after him that it became a problem to certain person of the religious establishment, but by no means all of them. The book of Acts (6:7) says that a great number of priests were becoming obedient to the faith, for example. My impression, is that the ones who were aware of what had happened, were very grieved and outraged. The book of Luke (23:27) says that a large crowd of the people were following Him, mourning and lamenting, as he was bearing His cross. This does not sound to me like "the people of Israel rejected Jesus". I am thankful for the Jews who DID believe in Him, enough to die for believing in Him. That speaks volumes.
I read into your comments, that you think persons here are saying that gentiles should not read the New Testament. No one has said that in any way shape or form. Mark was merely using an example when he said that about reading someone else's mail. It IS vitally important to consider the context of the letters, and that context includes who it was written to, by whom, when, and for what purpose, as far as we have been able to determine. We need to determine what the words meant to the original audience, in order to properly be able to apply them to our situation. Otherwise, we are in danger of using the words in ways not intended by the author; sometimes in extremely harmful ways. And we do use extra-biblical sources to determine these things, such as archeological findings, other written original sources from that time period, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 15, 2008 5:15:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Melville on Feb 15, 2008 9:40:47 GMT -8
Dear Prodigal Girl, Thanks for your reply. No, what I was saying was that the Hebrews letter was not written to Israel in general but to believers in Jesus- not addressed to those branches broken off so that the gentiles might be grafted in. It would be worthwhile to catalogue the specific references that characterize the readers, if it has not been done yet. I see Mark's notes below and that could be the substance of a different thread, unless we keep it tied to the topic of The Temple and the Priesthood. I'm not sure how far to go at this point. Since I've been here we've talked about the significance of the rending of the veil and and the question of whether Temple worship was abrogated thereby, among other things. The letter to the Hebrews is rather pivotal in this because of it's degree of detail and its very strong and unambiguous language. We can't tell who exactly is being addressed except they are people to whom the Mosaic covenant and system were important, that the author feels they have become dull of hearing, who hadn't matured as they should have, but who had worked and shown love for His Name and ministered to the saints (without attempting a complete list now), so He is hopeful for them, even though he feels they are in danger of falling short of the fullness of this so great salvation. We don't know if they included believing priests though it's not impossible. To these people he makes it very plain, as I quoted, that the New Covenant supersedes the Old one. I've been chided for inserting gentile reasoning into this (before I had actually done so, I believe) so I'll only suggest that there has to be a reason for the author's going to such lengths to explain this, establishing the preeminence of God's Son and His Sacrifice and Priesthood over all the others. But now for some gentile reasoning. Mark had adduced an idea from the rabbis that they considered the veil the garment of God and this raises a question of the reliability of the rabbis in matters of biblical interpretation. In Hebrews we have it in the role of a barrier between the Holy Place and the Holiest, where the High Priest could not enter but once a year for the Atonement. By this, it says, that the Holy Spirit signifies that the way into the holy place within the veil is not open while the first Tabernacle is still standing! (Ch 9) The writer goes on to explain that the way through the veil has been opened, through Jesus Christ, the veil being His flesh. This corresponds exactly to the rending of the veil in the Temple when He died, so what else can we reasonably conclude but that the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross opened the way into that Holy Place, so that the annual entry of the high priest to offer sacrifices for the sins of the people and his own is superfluous? Because the author takes such pains to go through all this to his readers it implies that their tendency was to stick with this old order in a way whereby they could miss out on the full salvation promised by the Gospel. At any rate there's some reason for elaborating on this to his readers. It is a very bold letter, speaking to Jews at that time, the kind of thing that would easily have gotten him brought before the Sanhedrin and getting him killed. But my point is that the rabbis' idea that the veil is a garment, attractive and poetic as it is, appears to run in a different direction to that specified by the Holy Spirit, that it was a barrier. In my estimation, if the Holy Spirit wanted us to think of the Temple veil as a garment He would have said so in His Word. I'm very much at a loss to imagine how any rabbinical or Jewish context can affect the very plain language here in scripture. There are places of course that are not clear, but not this one, where it says that the New renders the Old obsolete. It is my view that extra-biblical sources have a very limited usefulness for biblical interpretation. Having spent quite a bit of time on a Roman Catholic forum last year I learned that they attribute equal, or indeed greater weight to the traditions of the church than to scripture itself, leaning very heavily on "early church fathers" whom they believe were closer to the apostles and therefore had got it right. This is an assumption I cannot make. It was actually pretty amazing to me when faced with an inability for them to seemingly even be able to grasp the idea of reading the Bible itself to see what it says, let alone see it as a standard of comparison whereby to judge the later traditions. Archeology proved that the cities of Nineveh and Ur of the Chaldees really did exist. Very good. But I don't see what light this gives on what the Word of God is saying. We know from history that Jerusalem was destroyed in ad 70, and this does confirm the Lord's prophecy in Luke 21 and what the author of Hebrews suggests about being ready to disappear. Writings from the time period are of course vital to understand word usage, but with the caveat that God is saying His own things. Jesus said that the words he spoke are spirit and are life and that the flesh profits nothing. He is the man who spoke like no one ever spoke. Paul spoke of a wisdom that only those who are spiritual can handle. We should expect God to be saying things that are outside the compass of any human systems of thought or cultural concepts and practices. But perhaps we should be more specific. Are there additional places where you feel that extrabiblical sources give more light on this topic (or another one, another thread)? Yours in Christ, Melville "It wasn't to question the intended audience of the letter we call To the Hebrews, because we can discern that from reading it, but to note that it doesn't begin at all by naming the recipient(s), e.g. to the 12 tribes of the dispersion or the those who reside as aliens scattered throughout Pontus, etc. We can only get at the audience from the internal context. From that I cannot agree that it was written to the people of Israel or all Jews in general. It was not written to those who rejected Jesus Christ from the get go." "I believe it is scripture and as such that it is profitable. I see nothing in the book, which I've read numerous times, to suggest it's something gentiles are uninvited to read. We have, after all, been grafted into the same rootstock." Melville, from what you have written here, it is apparent that you are under the impression that the "people of Israel, or the Jews in general" rejected Jesus. Actually, what really happened, is that such a number of persons were following after him that it became a problem to certain person of the religious establishment, but by no means all of them. The book of Acts (6:7) says that a great number of priests were becoming obedient to the faith, for example. My impression, is that the ones who were aware of what had happened, were very grieved and outraged. The book of Luke (23:27) says that a large crowd of the people were following Him, mourning and lamenting, as he was bearing His cross. This does not sound to me like "the people of Israel rejected Jesus". I am thankful for the Jews who DID believe in Him, enough to die for believing in Him. That speaks volumes. I read into your comments, that you think persons here are saying that gentiles should not read the New Testament. No one has said that in any way shape or form. Mark was merely using an example when he said that about reading someone else's mail. It IS vitally important to consider the context of the letters, and that context includes who it was written to, by whom, when, and for what purpose, as far as we have been able to determine. We need to determine what the words meant to the original audience, in order to properly be able to apply them to our situation. Otherwise, we are in danger of using the words in ways not intended by the author; sometimes in extremely harmful ways. And we do use extra-biblical sources to determine these things, such as archeological findings, other written original sources from that time period, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Prodigal Girl on Feb 15, 2008 10:58:13 GMT -8
Hello Mellville,
I agree with Mark that we are getting way too broad to be able to effectively address all the issues that have been raised at this point, and that it would be better to visit the theads which discuss each one separately. They all are, indeed, interwoven, and if you understand one in a certain manner, it effects your understanding of the others.
The problem with NOT looking at historical records which assist us in understanding what the words of scripture meant to the people it was written to at the time it was written, is that if you don't, you are unconsciously letting your own cultural and religious viewpoint color the way you are reading it. There are too many examples to even begin to list here. And yes, I would agree completely that we can not let the interpretations of others, be they rabbinical, Catholic "church fathers", a televangelist, or our own pastor, do our thinking for us. We have to prayerfully study things out ourselves. That often includes looking at various viewpoints, some of which are bound to be mistaken, and some of which are cherished parts of the Christian "canon within a canon". The norm is, to just accept whatever your spiritual leader spoon-feeds you. However we have much more available today in terms of information, than they did in medieval times. Amazing stuff, that really is very helpful in gaining a fuller more complete understanding of scriptures. There are a number of scriptures that without this, are frankly, puzzling. Some even very basic historical knowledge often clears it right up! However I realize that it seems to be something specific to some groups in particular, that study, knowledge, education, is not exactly encouraged, and sometimes quite the opposite. I guess it is seen as not "spiritual" enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Melville on Feb 15, 2008 17:26:12 GMT -8
Dear Mark, Thank you for these. I was only able to look up one before I had to leave because I was referencing the veil, but this seemed to be about the veil on Moses's face, which as I went about the day suggested a thought I'd like to share there. I think I can offer a similar one here that does have to do with the Priesthood. I don't know if it should be a separate thread or not. But I do appreciate keeping things orderly and on a topic. It is simply that when the author of Hebrews brings in Melchizedek he discerns something in scripture that I would not have thought of doing unless it was in English class or literary criticism, but not at all according to human wisdom. It is in Chapter 7:3, "Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life . . ." And then he writes that this Melchizedek order was not based on a physical requirement but by "the power of an indestructible life." I have long marveled at this. Where did he get this? Yes, we believe it is spiritual inspiration, but it is also a way of treating scripture. Melchizedek appears out of nowhere and the writer is able to confidently draw these conclusions, because there is no reference in the text otherwise. What an insight! Now I'm being serious and not contentious, I hope you understand, when I wonder if this is a pre-New Testament rabbinical thought about this man or if this is a new revelation. Appreciatively, Melville |
|
|
|
Post by Melville on Feb 15, 2008 17:44:50 GMT -8
Dear Prodigal Girl, Well, I can find no fault in what you are saying here. We are told to test and prove things, something not emphasized in a great deal of mainstream Christianity as far as I can see. I would be interested in a couple of examples where you see that some basic historical knowledge clears things right up. I'm not doubting you, just for the sake of communication would like to know your experience. I have some thoughts that were a long time coming where some post-biblical historical events seem to me to clear up a mystery, but it runs against quite a lot of commentators. In this context I'm more interested in those contemporary with biblical times, which is what we've been talking about. Please start another thread or refer me to one if appropriate. There are many things in scripture that are indeed puzzling, to be sure! The Best to you in Christ, Melville Hello Mellville, I agree with Mark that we are getting way too broad to be able to effectively address all the issues that have been raised at this point, and that it would be better to visit the theads which discuss each one separately. They all are, indeed, interwoven, and if you understand one in a certain manner, it effects your understanding of the others. The problem with NOT looking at historical records which assist us in understanding what the words of scripture meant to the people it was written to at the time it was written, is that if you don't, you are unconsciously letting your own cultural and religious viewpoint color the way you are reading it. There are too many examples to even begin to list here. And yes, I would agree completely that we can not let the interpretations of others, be they rabbinical, Catholic "church fathers", a televangelist, or our own pastor, do our thinking for us. We have to prayerfully study things out ourselves. That often includes looking at various viewpoints, some of which are bound to be mistaken, and some of which are cherished parts of the Christian "canon within a canon". The norm is, to just accept whatever your spiritual leader spoon-feeds you. However we have much more available today in terms of information, than they did in medieval times. Amazing stuff, that really is very helpful in gaining a fuller more complete understanding of scriptures. There are a number of scriptures that without this, are frankly, puzzling. Some even very basic historical knowledge often clears it right up! However I realize that it seems to be something specific to some groups in particular, that study, knowledge, education, is not exactly encouraged, and sometimes quite the opposite. I guess it is seen as not "spiritual" enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Melville on Feb 28, 2008 18:49:12 GMT -8
Thank you, Ruchamah, for your direct response to my query. Contrary to the opinions of some, who have misconstrued my words, I did not engage on this forum to be a spoiler. I began with a specific instance of scripture with a point that I ponder and I'll perhaps attempt one last go at getting to this. I don't, from the response, get whether our English "forever" means FOREVER in Hebrew or not. If we assume that it does, then the Revelation proves that it doesn't, unless we deny the inspiration of that book. If we believe it is God's word then it trumps our translational "forever". If it means "past the horizon", (a more poetical sense), then it would still imply that this was beyond what they could see. Yes, it was beyond what they could see- something different from "forever". In that case one couldn't tell whether there was an end to it or not. It was past the horizon. Hmmmm . . . My view of Ezekiel's vision remains that it is, in its essence, spiritual, not physical, and that it is laden with riches of meaning that a purely physical interpretation will thwart. Melville Hi Melville, The words u asked about in Ezek 43, Dwell and Forever, are SHAKAN and OLAM: SHAKAN, where we get the word SHEKINAH, means to sit or dwell, OLAM means *past the horizon*, translated *forever*. The word Shakan is imperfect, ie, future tense, I will dwell. IMO, the Temple will be built during the Millenial kingdom, (by us, should we live to see the day!), the sacrifices, as outlined in Leviticus and Ezekiel will be done. There is no *high priest* pre se, in Ezekiel's vision: rather someone called the PRINCE seems to be in charge of offering sacrifices for himself and the people. There are also Levites, the sons of Zadok, who are involved in the Avodah (service in the Temple). QUOTE: Here¡¦s where my problem over the words ¡§forever¡¨ and ¡§I will dwell¡¨ comes in. A thousand years is not forever, as we use the word. In Revelation 21 and 22 we see a new heaven and a new earth. The former things have passed away. We now have the Bride, the wife of the Lamb- the New Jerusalem, and here there is no Temple, for the Lord God and the Lamb are the Temple, it says.Actually, Rev says: Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. There is no need for a Temple, it seems, because the Lamb is actually WITH US on earth, along with the Lord G-d and the glory of G-d, after the New Heavens and Earth are created. I think, Melville, that the basic difficulty mopst people have with the passages from Ezekiel is that we have been misinfomed about the purpose and function of the Temple/altar service. In order to help clear up some very bad misinformation, I would direct you to the study on Hebrews at www.bereansonline.org. It is outstanding and will shed new light on all of Scripture! May He bless you as you study! Ruchamah |
|
) I'm sure you are familiar with all this. The point being that the goal is a New Man, or as the Apostle puts it when writing to the assemblies in Galatia, a new creation, which neither circumcision nor uncircumcision accomplish anything toward. 
to human tradition, we will not understand the text. The result is that a void is left in our vocabulary of what would have been perceived by the given audience and intended by the author. This is why when you speak of being "born again" to the Christian you are talking about salvation. to a Jew you are talking about mikvah, but to the Hindu you are talking about reincarnation. The intended audience is significant and culture and context of the vocabulary being used in relevant.
