I tried to post this last night, but CC was down! So here it is now:
.
jcha, please understand that the following is a critique of the 119 Ministries concepts you've posted below, and not a critique of you. My hope is that through this thread and perhaps this post, you will take another, more discerning look at what you ingest from them. My tone is blunt regarding 119 Ministries; I've seen the bad fruit produced by them through many, many people over the years, and their teaching is to be dealt with head-on.
119 'Ministries' is not a reliable source for sound teaching, they do not 'make a lot of valid points', and they are the source for MUCH heresy consumed online. The guys at 119 have raised asking the flawed question to an art form, and their 'Pauline Paradox' series (as a primary example, though there are others), for the discerning viewer, is a lesson in systematic brain washing.
Now that we have that out of the way . . .
Originally Posted by jcha
Hebrews 7:12
Have you ever been told, the Law of God has changed?
It is different now.
It is not the same yesterday, today, and forever.
This verse is often cited:
Hebrews 7:12
For when there is a change (metatíthēmi) in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change (metáthesis) in the law as well.
The word for "change" as in “change of priesthood” and also "change of law" means "transfer" in the Greek.
It simply means that because the priesthood is transferred to the order of Melchizedek through our Messiah then the law must transfer to His administration as well.
So, same law, different administration.
Note the leading, flawed question, flavored with sarcasm to start . . .
They start by setting up a straw man - Christians have said the Law is different now, they have changed it, when it is something that is the same yesterday, today, and forever!
The Scriptures do say that the Law of God has changed, they say that it has been set aside, made obsolete, yes, even abolished for those in Christ. The Law no longer has a functioning sacrificial system - it did change.
Note also note that they are giving attributes of God to Torah. This is important to note, since they claim that 'Yeshua (Jesus) is the Living Torah'.
And as you read below, note that the following teaching from 119 'Ministries' actually does do exactly what they accuse Christians of doing, which is to change the Law - make it 'different now'! They just try to attach the priesthood of Christ, Who is the High Priest of a better covenant built on better promises, to the Old Covenant.
Read on . . .
Originally Posted by jcha
If one reads the context of the surrounding text, this can be better understood.
It also helps to better understand the Greek definitions of the words translated as “change.”
The first, primary definition from Strong’s says it precisely.
"metatíthēmi / metáthesis"
First Primary Definition from Strongs:
"transfer: from one place to another"
There is a big difference in saying that the law is different versus simply transferred.
For example:
If a car is transferred from a car dealer in New York to a car dealer in California, the car is exactly the same, but simply in a different administration.
Did the car change?
No
The car was transferred.
When the administration of the priesthood was transferred in Messiah, the transfer of the law was transferred to that priesthood.
Only part of the truth has been posted above regarding the language, with only one definition of one of the two words cited given. Let's look at the verse in question and examine context, as suggested above, but not actually done:
11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood
(for under it the people received the law),
what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?
12 For when there is a change G3346metatithēmiin the priesthood, there is necessarily a change G3331 metathesis in the law as well.
13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe,
14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. (from Heb. 7)
Read through the above carefully and slowly.
So with those facts in place, let's now go back to the verse in question, vs. 12:
12 For when there is a change G3346metatithēmiin the priesthood, there is necessarily a change G3331 metathesis in the law as well.
1. to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other)
Jesus' priesthood was put in place of the Levitical priesthood. That is clear.
Also clear, from the context, is that Jesus cannot serve as a priest in the Law - He is of a different tribe - He is of the Tribe of Judah and not of the Tribe of Levi. Therefore, Jesus cannot serve as a priest in the Old Covenant.
So what of the assertion by the 119 'Ministries', that there was merely a transfer of priesthood from the Tribe of Levi to the Tribe of Judah?
Well, for one thing, regarding the priesthood, the language there, taking context into account, does not say 'transfer', it says 'transpose', which means "two things, one of which is put in the place of the other".
What are the consequences of taking the Levitical priesthood away and replacing it with a High Priest from the Tribe of Judah?
So what do we make of the second part of vs. 12, where a different Greek word is used for 'change'? Let's take a look:
"Transfer from one place to another."
"To change - of things instituted or established."
Okay, what do we know about the Law from the rest of Scripture?
The Heavenly priesthood has always existed.
Hmmmm . . . the Law did not come until 430 years after Abraham . . . so that won't work . . .
Only four chapters later, the author of Hebrews uses the SAME Greek word in referring to Enoch:
Hebrews 11:5
By faith Enoch was taken up (metatithēmi) so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.
Enoch was "transferred" up to the heavenlies.
Did YHWH "change out" Enoch and "replace him" with another Enoch?
No.
He was simply transferred, just as the law was transferred…not made different…not changed…but
transferred.
There are several definitions to metatithemi - the Greek word used in Heb. 7:12 in reference to the priesthood, and in Heb. 11:5 in reference to Enoch. Context determines meaning when there are several definitions listed.
Swapping the Levitical priesthood out for a the Perfect Priesthood of Christ, which makes Him a guarator of a better covenant built on better promises makes the definition 'transpose' make sense.
Swapping out a human being (Enoch) does not, so in Enoch's case, 'transfer' is the meaning which makes sense from the possible definitions listed.
What is the point that you think is proven here, exactly?
(continued in next post due to length . . . )
.
jcha, please understand that the following is a critique of the 119 Ministries concepts you've posted below, and not a critique of you. My hope is that through this thread and perhaps this post, you will take another, more discerning look at what you ingest from them. My tone is blunt regarding 119 Ministries; I've seen the bad fruit produced by them through many, many people over the years, and their teaching is to be dealt with head-on.
119 'Ministries' is not a reliable source for sound teaching, they do not 'make a lot of valid points', and they are the source for MUCH heresy consumed online. The guys at 119 have raised asking the flawed question to an art form, and their 'Pauline Paradox' series (as a primary example, though there are others), for the discerning viewer, is a lesson in systematic brain washing.
Now that we have that out of the way . . .
Hebrews 7:12
Have you ever been told, the Law of God has changed?
It is different now.
It is not the same yesterday, today, and forever.
This verse is often cited:
Hebrews 7:12
For when there is a change (metatíthēmi) in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change (metáthesis) in the law as well.
The word for "change" as in “change of priesthood” and also "change of law" means "transfer" in the Greek.
It simply means that because the priesthood is transferred to the order of Melchizedek through our Messiah then the law must transfer to His administration as well.
So, same law, different administration.
Note the leading, flawed question, flavored with sarcasm to start . . .
They start by setting up a straw man - Christians have said the Law is different now, they have changed it, when it is something that is the same yesterday, today, and forever!
The Scriptures do say that the Law of God has changed, they say that it has been set aside, made obsolete, yes, even abolished for those in Christ. The Law no longer has a functioning sacrificial system - it did change.
Note also note that they are giving attributes of God to Torah. This is important to note, since they claim that 'Yeshua (Jesus) is the Living Torah'.
And as you read below, note that the following teaching from 119 'Ministries' actually does do exactly what they accuse Christians of doing, which is to change the Law - make it 'different now'! They just try to attach the priesthood of Christ, Who is the High Priest of a better covenant built on better promises, to the Old Covenant.
Read on . . .
If one reads the context of the surrounding text, this can be better understood.
It also helps to better understand the Greek definitions of the words translated as “change.”
The first, primary definition from Strong’s says it precisely.
"metatíthēmi / metáthesis"
First Primary Definition from Strongs:
"transfer: from one place to another"
There is a big difference in saying that the law is different versus simply transferred.
For example:
If a car is transferred from a car dealer in New York to a car dealer in California, the car is exactly the same, but simply in a different administration.
Did the car change?
No
The car was transferred.
When the administration of the priesthood was transferred in Messiah, the transfer of the law was transferred to that priesthood.
Only part of the truth has been posted above regarding the language, with only one definition of one of the two words cited given. Let's look at the verse in question and examine context, as suggested above, but not actually done:
11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood
(for under it the people received the law),
what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?
12 For when there is a change G3346metatithēmiin the priesthood, there is necessarily a change G3331 metathesis in the law as well.
13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe,
from which no one has ever served at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. (from Heb. 7)
Read through the above carefully and slowly.
- Under the Levitical priesthood the people received the Law
- If perfection were possible under the Law, why would there be a need for another priest to arise (in the order of Melchizedek - without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever - see Heb. 7:3)
- Melchizedek predates and did not preside over Torah Law
- "It is evident that our Lord was descended from [the tribe of] Judah" and as such, Christ is not eligible to preside over/mediate the Law
So with those facts in place, let's now go back to the verse in question, vs. 12:
12 For when there is a change G3346metatithēmiin the priesthood, there is necessarily a change G3331 metathesis in the law as well.
1. to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other)
- to transfer
- to change
- to transfer one's self or suffer one's self to be transferred
- to go or pass over
- to fall away or desert from one person or thing to another
Jesus' priesthood was put in place of the Levitical priesthood. That is clear.
Also clear, from the context, is that Jesus cannot serve as a priest in the Law - He is of a different tribe - He is of the Tribe of Judah and not of the Tribe of Levi. Therefore, Jesus cannot serve as a priest in the Old Covenant.
So what of the assertion by the 119 'Ministries', that there was merely a transfer of priesthood from the Tribe of Levi to the Tribe of Judah?
Well, for one thing, regarding the priesthood, the language there, taking context into account, does not say 'transfer', it says 'transpose', which means "two things, one of which is put in the place of the other".
What are the consequences of taking the Levitical priesthood away and replacing it with a High Priest from the Tribe of Judah?
- There is no more mediation for Torah Law
- Without mediation, Torah Law becomes obsolete, for there is no relief from the condemnation the Law brings via the Old Covenant without the Levitical priesthood in place
So what do we make of the second part of vs. 12, where a different Greek word is used for 'change'? Let's take a look:
- transfer: from one place to another
- to change
- of things instituted or established
"Transfer from one place to another."
"To change - of things instituted or established."
Okay, what do we know about the Law from the rest of Scripture?
- The Law was a comprehensive unit.
- The Law, made up of commandments for everything from agriculture to hygiene to sacrifices and priestly duties worked together as a unit as a means to preserve Israel so that Messiah could be recognized when He came.
- Since the Law was violated when sin occurred, the Law had a sacrificial system and priesthood built in to atone for violations.
The Heavenly priesthood has always existed.
YHWH built into His law the right to administrate a priesthood on Earth as well.
The Heavenly always trumps the Earthly, as the Heavenly is perfect and the higher order...and the Earthly is only a reflection of the true image in the Heavens. This is what Hebrews goes on to say as well. (Exodus 25:40; Hebrews 8:5; Revelation 11:19).
Again...still the same law...
…new covenant, but same law.
The Heavenly always trumps the Earthly, as the Heavenly is perfect and the higher order...and the Earthly is only a reflection of the true image in the Heavens. This is what Hebrews goes on to say as well. (Exodus 25:40; Hebrews 8:5; Revelation 11:19).
Again...still the same law...
…new covenant, but same law.
Hmmmm . . . the Law did not come until 430 years after Abraham . . . so that won't work . . .
Only four chapters later, the author of Hebrews uses the SAME Greek word in referring to Enoch:
Hebrews 11:5
By faith Enoch was taken up (metatithēmi) so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.
Enoch was "transferred" up to the heavenlies.
Did YHWH "change out" Enoch and "replace him" with another Enoch?
No.
He was simply transferred, just as the law was transferred…not made different…not changed…but
transferred.
There are several definitions to metatithemi - the Greek word used in Heb. 7:12 in reference to the priesthood, and in Heb. 11:5 in reference to Enoch. Context determines meaning when there are several definitions listed.
Swapping the Levitical priesthood out for a the Perfect Priesthood of Christ, which makes Him a guarator of a better covenant built on better promises makes the definition 'transpose' make sense.
Swapping out a human being (Enoch) does not, so in Enoch's case, 'transfer' is the meaning which makes sense from the possible definitions listed.
What is the point that you think is proven here, exactly?
(continued in next post due to length . . . )