Heb 8:7-13

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:43 am

As we all well know, it is not always best to view the book of Revelation as a book of chronological events happening subsequently. Yet chapters 20, 21, and 22 seem to be chronological. Because of that fact, I must say this, John lived, oh let’s see, about 1900 years ago. He’s saying from that perspective, yes, they “Shall Have” their part in the LOF., which, by the way, burns forever and ever. John is possibly looking into the future, from his standpoint around A.D. 100.

There are countless other ways to explain that verse.

What difference does it really make of what tense John is speaking in, when he says they will burn forever and ever? In Galatians and 1 Corinthians, Paul specifically says that all sinners cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Period.

I think the tense John is speaking in is significant because even though he spoke 2,000 yrs ago he was invisioning a time in the future after Christ's return and after unbelievers were already in the LOF where he says the "cowardly and other sinners" SHALL have their part , which to me means "UNREPENTENT SINNERS" shall have their part as contrasted with sinners who had been in the LOF but repented and truly made Christ their Lord.
Re Paul saying sinners shall not enter the kingdom of God , he must mean unrepentent sinners since we are all sinners are'nt we Loaves since John said "anyone who says he has no sin is a liar" and John said all liars will not be in the kingdom of Heaven.
And re "forever" let's not forget that Jonah was in the fish for 3 days and nights but he described it as "forever" and "forever" is used 50 times in the bible in this way.

Post by **_loaves** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:20 pm

Steve7150 wrote:No i don't think the Aaronic priesthood was spiritual since it was based on the Law of Moses which was physical and carnel and is the Old Covenant which has become obsolete. Hebrews 7.13
Obsolete means done,ended,finished,completed and God called the New Covenant unlike the Old Covenant. The destruction of the temple was God's final judgement on earthly Israel and the Aaronic priesthood which ended.

I understand your point about physical Israel transitioning into spiritual Israel and that's a valid point but i don't think it applies to the Aaronic priesthood under the Old Covenant which became obsolete. Israel was never called obsolete.

The Mosaic law served it’s purpose. But now its void. Its done.

Hebrews 7 is referring to the “order of Melchisedec.” Melchisedec wasn’t under the law of Moses. He wasn’t even an Israelite. But down through the ages God has this “high priest” of the “true God” ministering to “His people.”

The “Order of Melchisedec” referred to in Hebrews 7 in not based on the Law of Moses at all. It was a spiritual order. It was a spiritual priesthood. Melchisedec didn’t even know who Moses was! Melchisedec was eating biscuits and gravy with Abraham! Melchisedec was contemporaneous with Abraham.

The title of “High Priest” was transferred to Jesus in Hebrews 7:17, 7:22, 7:24, 7:27, 7:28. Since the term “everlasting” was applied to Jesus (God), Jesus will be “High Priest” forever! (A good thing, to.)

Steve7150 wrote:Re Paul saying sinners shall not enter the kingdom of God , he must mean unrepentent sinners since we are all sinners are'nt we Loaves since John said "anyone who says he has no sin is a liar" and John said all liars will not be in the kingdom of Heaven.

Wrong there, Steve7150. Paul is a big boy and he meant exactly what he said. And we don’t need to speculate. All sinners will not enter in the Kingdom of Heaven. I believe that that is 100% true.

However, when a person becomes born again, we become partakers of the Divine nature. (2 Peter 1:4). Moreover, if we confess our sins and forsake them, Jesus Christ is faithful to cleanse us of our sins. When Jesus cleanses us from our sins, we are sinless before God. Yes, of course we sin. But when we forsake and confess our sin, Jesus will cleanse us and make us spotless before God. Jesus will “take away” our sin. Mark 3:28; 1 John 1:7; Titus 2:14; Hosea 14:2; Proverbs 10:12.

A similar question would be: “How good do you need to be to get into Heaven?”

I would say: “You have to be perfect.”

They would say: “How do I do that!!??”

I would say: “You can’t do it.”

They would say: “How then?”

I would say: “Jesus Christ.”

The reason being is that God’s holiness requires separation from sin. He can’t tolerate it. It would simply go against His nature. It cannot happen.

Steve7150 wrote:And re "forever" let's not forget that Jonah was in the fish for 3 days and nights but he described it as "forever" and "forever" is used 50 times in the bible in this way.

The word “ôlâm” in Hebrew is a tricky word. It think it’s number 5769 in Strong’s. It has many meanings.

In context “olam” described a very short period of three days. However, this seemed like eternity to Jonah. This same word is used in connection with God. “El Olam” means “The Everlasting God.” Finite men are inadequate to describe God. Even then, it still expresses the idea of a continued, measurable existence, rather than be independent of time factors. This is exactly what “aion” and various variants mean. It is not infinite. It is measurable. It has a beginning point. But it simply goes on and on, without ending.

Jonah’s period in the fish had a beginning point, but it seemed to go on and on. Once the seaweed was around him, it seemed perpetual. His time in the fish seemed perpetual. It is a colloquialism used to describe his situation. After this period of 3 days, God delivers him.

There is no analogous relationship between this word in Jonah’s context and the “aion” with respective variants in the NT context. Why?

1 – Colloquialisms are figures of speech used predominantly in slang. Jonah is finding the best Hebrew words to describe his situation. He is saying his plight seems to go on and on. In the NT, everlasting punishment will not “seem” like eternity. It will be eternal. It would be like, in English, when your child is using the bathroom and you say: “You’re taking forever! Hurry up!” It is a colloquialistic figure of speech. You’re using slang. You’re using vernacular. It is a group of words used to describe a situation using the finite English language. God is not using slang when He says things will happen. Do you see the difference?

2 – God delivers Jonah after the plight. In the NT, nowhere does Jesus say that after this “everlasting” punishment will deliver them. After the second death spoken of in Revelation, nowhere does God talk about a kind of “second birth” after this “second death.”

3 - Jonah is not being prognostic. He is not projecting his plight into eternal realms. In the NT, God is.

Post by **_mdh** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:20 pm

Mdh said:

It's seems clear to me that you are not open to considering alternate interpretations of what you have decided is a passage on the final state.

There are some. They actually have been posted on this forum.

Sean said:

I'm not sure I understand. I wouldn't be here if I didn't want to get answers to the passages I brought up. Do you see me this way because I don't change my mind?

There are others here who do the same, they make their points and interpret passages another way and that's fine. That's how we learn from one another.

So I'm not sure what you mean. That I'm not open to changing my mind? Obviously no one else has changed their mind either. But I'm not here expecting them to. The reason I posted Luke 16 is to get a reasonable explanation. I don't know if this was covered in detail already (maybe in the other thread). I haven't seen a good explanation yet for it so that's why I brought it up. If I missed previous explanations then I apologize for missing them.

The reason I said it was clear to me that you were not open to alternate interpretations was you indicated when you brought up Luke 16 that it was already clearly about a particular subject:

Sean said: “Luke 16 is clearly about this subject:”

If I misinterpreted what you said, I apologize. I have read many, many of your posts. You seem very insightful and informed on the Bible. I do not mean to disparage you in any way.

If you do want to know alternate explanations about this passage, there are several. Steve7150 has more than once explained his viewpoint. Steve Gregg has addressed this issue in the thread on Alternative Views on Hell.

The way I look at it is to first ask the question, what point was Jesus trying to make to the people He was talking to? Another good question is to ask why Luke included it in his narrative on the life of Jesus.

Jesus seemed to be addressing the Pharisees when He told this story. It is in a larger context of an address to tax collectors and sinners, the Pharisees and scribes, and the disciples themselves. Jesus, in this narrative, has directed His teaching to each of these groups in turn. When He turns to the Pharisees, Luke makes the point that the Pharisees were lovers of money. Jesus makes the point that the Pharisees justify themselves before men, but it is different with God. God does not esteem the same things as men do.

So, in some way the story that Jesus tells will probably address these 2 issues (love of money, the difference between what man esteems and what God esteems).

Now I have read that the story Jesus tells is not original to Him. It was suppose to have also been found in a Jewish commentary called the Gemara Babylonicum.

I have also read a similar description of Hades (the grave, place of the dead…) in a quotation from Josephus. So it is at least possible that Jesus is using a story that was well known to the Pharisees to make a point. If I were to try to make a spiritual point using the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, it would not mean that I was advocating everything in the story. Now I agree, before you tell me, that you cannot compare the story of Goldilocks to the Rich Man and Lazarus. I am exaggerating to make a point. Please excuse me.

Now I know that you can say, Jesus would not have used an example that would mislead the people about the fate of the dead. But would it have misled them? If they were very familiar with the story, would it have misled them? If I used the story of Goldilocks, would you think I was saying that bears could talk?

So what was Jesus point? Possibly that money was not proof of God’s favor. Possibly that those who have been granted a huge blessing from God (the Torah, the Temple, etc.) but had misused it were about to face judgment while those who had been in the disadvantaged position (the gentiles) were about to see a change of fate.

In any case, it is at least possible that Jesus was not trying to teach that when a person dies he goes immediately to either Abraham’s bosom or a place of torment.

Mdh said:

Isn't it interesting that in the passage that the rich man's brothers are still alive on earth? Sounds to me like this story (parable?)

Sean said:
I affirm that his brothers were still alive. I think it shows that this is what happens when people die, it shows where they go before the resurrection.

To me, the argument that this is a parable is strange. Mainly because I don't see how this would change the meaning, I already tried to explain why in my last post.

Jesus, IMO, didn't use non-sense in other parables, so why would He here? Why did it say that Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom if he was a Gentile? Especially when it says: But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
This would seem to suggest that Lazarus was a Jew and so was the rich man.

If it is not a parable, then it least seems to be using some figurative language. It seems that all the people in the story have body parts (tongues, fingers, eyes, etc.). Is this not before the resurrection? I think we are in agreement on that. So if it is not a parable, but some figurative language is used, what parts are figurative and what parts not?

I don’t know. I am just trying to be open to more views than a direct literal translation. At least the possibility, so I can keep my mind open when I read other parts of the Bible.

I think everyone who writes on this forum has a bias. It would be impossible I think to not have one. For many years I read these passages that talk about the judgment with the same bias as those who believe in eternal conscious torment. It troubled me DEEPLY, but I could not get around the passages that seemed so clear. I went to seminary and learned how to defend the positions of hell and judgment.

But then I started to read other interpretations. I had to admit, that at least some of the arguments made sense, and the people writing them were using scripture to interpret scripture, just as you do (very well I might add). There are a lot of poorly defended positions on universalism and annihilationism, but there are good ones as well. Let me add, there are a lot of bad defenses of the eternal torment view as well (not all, but many).

What it did to me was make me aware that there are well defended arguments for other positions, and that scripture might not be as clear as I once thought on what happens after death.

Mdh said:
is pre-resurrection, and therefore pre-judgment and before anyone has been sent to hell. Do you believe that Jesus was teaching that unbelievers are tormented before they are resurrected and judged, than stand before God at the judgment, to be sent back to eternal torment?

Sean said:
Why would you assume pre-judgment is before anyone is sent to Hell/Hades or Tartarus etc?

2Pe 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;

Yes, it mentions angels but is in the context of men as well, notice this in the same context:

2Pe 2:9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment

I'd say this confirms the theology of Luke 16's parable. How can God keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment if they are soul sleeping? Or if they don't face any punishment until after the day of judgment?

I'm sure I'll see how many multiple other ways some Greek words can be taken, and that's fine as long it is understood that ones paradigm (including my own) isn't met by searching for the one possible definition that meets my view.

I was very glad to see you make the connection between Luke 16 and 2 Peter 2. I had not thought of that before. Thank you!

I can see how you would see that as in defense of your view. Point taken.

I also see other ways of looking at it. What point is Peter trying to make? The way I see it is that Peter is telling brothers that those false teachers in their midst will not go unjudged. God is faithful, and His judgment is already at work (verse 3).

He gives several examples. The examples that involve men are judgments that take place in this life, not after this life. Sodom and Gomorrah faced their day of judgment in this life, so did the people of Noah’s day.

Regarding the angels who have sinned, they are kept in chains (it doesn’t say tormented) of darkness and reserved for judgment. I can think of another spiritual being who is said to be placed in chains (cf: Rev. 20:1-3). The chains in that case were apparently to keep him from deceiving the nations. Now I happen to know that there are those on this forum (including yourself?) who take this to mean that Satan is restricted in his ability to deceive rather than meaning he is really locked up and not able to do anything.

Does this mean that the angels who sinned are being tormented? Maybe, maybe not. I know that when I was not God’s friend, when I was living in sin, I felt tormented, afraid, expecting judgment. It happened (the judgment), and fortunately I turned to Him.

Sean said:
In Revelation, at the judgment we see this:

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

So one can be held in Hades until judgment, then judged and then Hades is cast into another "place" called the lake of fire, this is the second death. So I read this as being the events of judgment day. Those who have been dead and those who were held in Hades will face judgment, and who knows, maybe some of them have their names written in the book of life and avoid the lake of fire.

If Hades is interpreted as the grave, I do not see any difficulties here. We can talk about what is pictured as the Lake of Fire, what the second death is, how long is it’s duration, whether it results in the destruction of the ones sent there, whether there is any hope for them, etc. These are all questions I think are not clearly addressed in scripture.

I cling to the fact that I believe God is just, impartial and both holy and merciful. He has appointed as Judge the God/Man, the One who died on my behalf. I think most all who read this will agree, we can trust Him to do what is right!

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:20 pm

The Mosaic law served it’s purpose. But now its void. Its done.

Hebrews 7 is referring to the “order of Melchisedec.” Melchisedec wasn’t under the law of Moses. He wasn’t even an Israelite. But down through the ages God has this “high priest” of the “true God” ministering to “His people.”

The “Order of Melchisedec” referred to in Hebrews 7 in not based on the Law of Moses at all. It was a spiritual order. It was a spiritual priesthood. Melchisedec didn’t even know who Moses was! Melchisedec was eating biscuits and gravy with Abraham! Melchisedec was contemporaneous with Abraham.

The title of “High Priest” was transferred to Jesus in Hebrews 7:17, 7:22, 7:24, 7:27, 7:28. Since the term “everlasting” was applied to Jesus (God), Jesus will be “High Priest” forever! (A good thing, to.)

Loaves, you're not answering to what i wrote about. I know who Melchizadek is. I was saying the Aaronic priesthood was based on the Old Covenant which became obsolete and passed away so can't be everlasting. The Aaronic priesthood was called everlasting but passed away with the end of the Mosiac law. Yes Jesus became our high priest but it not a transference from Aaron it is of a new order just like the New Covenant was unlike the Old Covenant and not a transference.
And you did'nt respond to my quote from John who said " any man who says he does not sin is a liar" therefore Paul must have meant unrepentant sinners or he would contradict John. But i do agree Paul was a big boy.

Post by **_loaves** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:00 pm

STEVE7150 wrote:Loaves, you're not answering to what i wrote about. I know who Melchizadek is. I was saying the Aaronic priesthood was based on the Old Covenant which became obsolete and passed away so can't be everlasting. The Aaronic priesthood was called everlasting but passed away with the end of the Mosiac law. Yes Jesus became our high priest but it not a transference from Aaron it is of a new order just like the New Covenant was unlike the Old Covenant and not a transference.

Wasn’t the entire purpose of Hebrews 7 to explain that the Order of Melchizadek (Spiritual Priesthood) was transferred to Jesus? Maybe I do not understand you correctly?

STEVE7150 wrote:And you did'nt respond to my quote from John who said " any man who says he does not sin is a liar" therefore Paul must have meant unrepentant sinners or he would contradict John.

I believe I did respond. I said that of course we sin. But if we confess our sin, Jesus will erase the sin. Since our sin is erased, we are, in essence, sinless when God sees us. If you enter into heaven with unrepentant sin, that’s another topic altogether…but we can discuss it if you want?

STEVE7150 wrote:But i do agree Paul was a big boy.

Sorry about the wise crack. I wasn’t intending to be derogatory or anything.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:08 pm

Wasn’t the entire purpose of Hebrews 7 to explain that the Order of Melchizadek (Spiritual Priesthood) was transferred to Jesus? Maybe I do not understand you correctly?

And i could be wrong too but my understanding is that the Aaronic priesthood is not the Melchezidek priesthood. Melchizadek was either Christ himself (which is what i think) or a type of Christ.
The Aaronic priesthood was part of the Old Covenant which became "OBSOLETE" so can't be everlasting even though it was called everlasting in the KJV. At least that's how i understand it.

Post by **_loaves** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:43 pm

STEVE7150 wrote:And i could be wrong too but my understanding is that the Aaronic priesthood is not the Melchezidek priesthood. Melchizadek was either Christ himself (which is what i think) or a type of Christ.

Hmmmm.... You got me thinking! Melchezidek being Christ Himself...very possible...

By the way, how do you pronounce Melchezidek?

Me thinks its: "MEL-CHEZZ-EYE-DICK"

STEVE7150 wrote:The Aaronic priesthood was part of the Old Covenant which became "OBSOLETE" so can't be everlasting even though it was called everlasting in the KJV. At least that's how i understand it.

Yes indeed the Aaronic priesthood was part of the Old Covenant. You referenced Hebrews 7, which talks about the Order of Melchezidek, which I the think the Aaronic priesthood later took over. Remember, Spiritual Priesthood. Later on, this spiritual "high priest" duty was passed on to Christ.

What was your rationale for pointing out Hebrews 7?

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:27 pm

Yes indeed the Aaronic priesthood was part of the Old Covenant. You referenced Hebrews 7, which talks about the Order of Melchezidek, which I the think the Aaronic priesthood later took over. Remember, Spiritual Priesthood. Later on, this spiritual "high priest" duty was passed on to Christ.

What was your rationale for pointing out Hebrews 7?

To contrast the difference between the Aaronic priesthood and the Melchizedek. One was spiritual, one was flesh, one was heavenly , one was earthly. So i see the Aaronic as different and temporary and passing away with the Old Covenant and not transferring to Christ.
Therefore it's not everlasting despite being called everlasting by the KJV which was the point of this discussion.

So you said you thought the Aaronic priesthood took over from Melchizedek, where do you find this?

Post by **_Father_of_five** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:42 pm

Sean wrote:As far as the Jude example, it seems that Sodom was "eternally" destroyed in that it's gone forever, not coming back. Unless one day it could, but how can that be? If a remnant was not preserved as was the case with Israel.

Sean,

Here is an interesting quote from a book written by Jan Bonda, entitled The One Purpose of God. It deals with the future Salvation of Sodom.

What value would God’s promise to bless all nations of the earth have if they did not include Sodom? Not only before but also after the Flood, we read that every inclination of the human heart was evil continually from youth (Gen. 6:5; 8:21). That is how the nations are, all of them, without exception! In Sodom we merely see the final end – the extreme end – the path they all tread. They all are, just like Sodom, peoples on their way to perdition. God called Abraham away from such nations, and God wants to bless those nations through him.

The prophets teach us the purpose of that blessing. In Isaiah 2 we are told that all nations shall go up to Jerusalem, to the mountain of the Lord, where God dwells with his people Israel, that they might learn his ways (Isa. 2:1-4). It is the way of the Lord that God discussed with Abraham; there we find the people that has learned how to remain in that way – not only for their own sake but because God wants to teach all people his ways through them. In Isaiah 25 we hear that on this mountain God will prepare a banquet for all peoples. Here he will do away with death forever, and here he will wipe away the tears from all faces (Isa. 25:6-9). Death will have to give up its spoils. This is salvation from death; it is the resurrection of the dead! That is what will happen to those nations who served other gods and walked in their own ways. Now they are utterly ashamed about those ways. Isaiah 45:22-24 tells us that they come in shame, but they come, because they have heard about the God who is willing to save them and wants to them them his ways.

Even if we were to hear nothing further in the Bible about Sodom, the promise to Abraham and these prophecies would be ample ground to assume that judgment and death could not be the end of God’s dealings with Sodom. But Scripture does not give us only this promise for the nations in general. The salvation of Sodom is singled out! Our tradition remains silent about this issue – we will see in a moment how that came about – but we read about it in Ezek. 16. In the context of God’s judgment over Jerusalem, two sisters of Jerusalem are mentioned: Samaria and Sodom. We hear that Jerusalem was even worse than her sisters, worse – we are emphatically told – than Sodom.

“Your elder sister is Samaria, who lived with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you, is Sodom with her daughters. You not only followed in their ways and acted in their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they all in your ways. As I live, says the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done.” (Ezek. 16:46-48 )

The sins of “sister Sodom” appear insignificant when compared to those of Jerusalem. Sodom was swept away because of what she did. Likewise, God shall return the sins of Jerusalem upon her head (v. 43). But then follows the crucial point:

“I will restore their fortunes, the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and the fortunes of Samaria and her daughters, and I will restore your own fortunes along with theirs. . . (v. 53)

As for your sisters, Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former state, Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former state, and you and your daughers shall return to your former state.” (v. 55)

We hear that all three sisters will return to their former state, Sodom, Samaria, and Jerusalem – notice the order! This former state, of course, does not mean that they will be as godless as before. The real intention is made clear in what follows:

“I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish with you an everlasting covenant. Then you will remember your ways, and be ashamed when I take your sisters, both your elder and your younger, and give them to you as daughters. . . when I forgive you for all that you have done, says the Lord God.” (vv. 60-63)

We read in Ezekiel 36 what this promise means. God will give Israel a new heart. He will put his Spirit in them and make sure that they follow his decrees (36:26-27). When God gives Samaria and Sodom to Jerusalem as daughters, they will share in what God gives Jerusalem. He will also put his Spirit in them, in order that they may follow his decrees. We already learned that this declaration does not apply only to Samaria and Sodom: All the nations will stream to Jerusalem to learn to walk in the paths of the Lord (Isa. 2:1-4). This is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. Among all these nations are also the people of Sodom.

Post by **_loaves** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 8:39 pm

Steve7150 wrote:So you said you thought the Aaronic priesthood took over from Melchizedek, where do you find this?

Up until Abraham, God didn’t have a “people” or a “nation” he could call “his people” or “his nation.” Up until this time, God’s “high priest” was Melchizedek. After Melchizedek, God said he would make Israel His people, and certain men his “high priests,” (1 Samuel 2:28). Now, His high priest used to Melchizedek. Now it’s some men from Israel. Do you see a transition here?

Now! We come to Hebrews 7. In 7:27 it talks about the “high priests” who were under the law of Moses. These were the Aaronic priests. Then, the writer of Hebrews immediately makes a transition to Jesus, the “great” High Priest.

I still need the Melchizedek pronunciation.

The Narrow Path Ministries

Heb 8:7-13

A resonse to Sean

Re: aionios