Question #1:
Hey Professor,
I hope your summer is going well. I have a question about Luke 7 if that's okay.
I'm primarily interested in 7:28-30. First, in the context of John being in
prison, hoping for deliverance and not entirely pleased with Jesus' way of going
about His business, is v.28, especially the second half of the verse, part of
Jesus' reaction to this fact? So, when Jesus says, "but he who is least in the
kingdom is greater than he", is he sort of upset with John's response and
commending those responding to the kingdom, or do you think Jesus is simply
praising John and teaching about our place in the new era compared to the old
one? I hope this isn't confusing.
Also, my understanding is that the "people and tax collectors acknowledged God's
justice" because Jesus acknowledges (the necessity) of John's ministry, and they
appreciate that. Some commentary I've seen says that v.29-30 is just a summary
statement used to bridge v. 28 to v.31-35 and that it does not have much to do
with what the people heard from Jesus in v. 28. Let me know what you think.
I should be hearing back from DTS this week. If I get in, I think I'll be moving
down to Dallas in August. Any prayers on this are appreciated.
Thanks a lot
In Christ,
Response #1:
It seems pretty clear to me – as it did to you – that John should not
have done what he did in sending messengers to our Lord to ask "Are You
the Coming One, or do we look for another?" (Matt.11:3). He knew very
well that Jesus was the Messiah, but in his defense it had been by that
time several years since he'd been imprisoned and he was clearly losing
patience (here
is a link on that).
John was given to know a great deal but since the cross had not yet
taken place, since Jesus had not yet been glorified, since the Spirit
had not yet been given, since the mystery of the Church Age had not yet
been revealed, there was also still much he didn't know. John's role at
this point was to provide cover for our Lord and His ministry. Once John
was executed, all attention would focus on our Lord during His last most
difficult year of His three and a half year ministry.
It's important for us to notice and remember that it is often the case
that believers, even great ones (Job too for instance) tend to
experience "the last straw" just before their deliverance arrives. We
tend to think "I can't go on like this any longer!" about five minutes
before our Lord works a great deliverance for us. Better that we should
trust Him no matter what and no matter how long. N.b., this is easier to
say than to do. And that explains in part our Lord's words to John. Once
we are saved ultimately, that is, once we are in heaven, then we are IN
the kingdom; until then, everything we have is positional – and subject
to being lost if we lose faith. John's sending to our Lord was the
opposite of faith and that is why he was rebuked by our Lord, but
softly, because our Lord understood very well what John was suffering
and why he was vacillating.
There is a big lesson for us all here: even a believer so great as John,
pronounced great by our Lord Himself, was/is nothing . . . until safe on
the other side. That is very important for us all to remember in light
of the coming Tribulation wherein very many believers will apostatize
under the pressure. I am confident that John did not, even though this
was not his finest hour. The rest of us need to take such lessons to
heart and not give up . . . just before we are delivered.
As to "summary statement", what does that even mean? This is inspired
text, and it means what it says: when they heard Jesus say that "among
those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John", those who
had repented and responded to his ministry agreed; those who did not,
did not.
Exciting news about DTS. I've got this on my list. Let me know when you
find out please.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Professor,
Okay, so you wouldn't say that this verse has to do with the fact that
being a new covenant believer is greater than being an old covenant
believer because of the indwelling Holy Spirit, the presence of the
king, kingdom blessings, etc. on the earth?
And okay, thanks.
I'll let you know about DTS.
Response #2:
No I would not . . . but that is the type of thing you're likely to hear at DTS (just FYI). They have a tendency to explain everything through misapplying (and misunderstanding) their flawed theory dispensations. For the biblical view of "dispensationalism" (i.e., being in truth the different ways God has "dispensed" His truth at different times; cf. Heb.1:1-2), please see the links:
Hebrews chapter 1, section I.e., "Dispensations"
Hebrews chapter 3, "Dispensations"
BB 6B: Ecclesiology, section I.B.5, "The Time of Transition versus the Present Status Quo"Dispensations I
Dispensations, Covenants, Israel and the Church I
Dispensations, Covenants, Israel and the Church II
The Five Dispensational Divisions of Human History (in SR 5)
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
To Dr Luginbill,
I am trying to understand your Hebrews study. What, exactly, is the Old
Covenant? You say it is the series of promises and I take away that it
is of salvation freely given and not by works. So why is it a bondage if
it was always salvation by faith? I am conflicted over, is it intended
to be legalism-follow these laws and have salvation, in which case I get
why it would be a bondage. Or is it salvation by faith, in which case I
don't get that it is bondage. Was it both in a way? They could say in a
way that it was never intended to save in the real sense of intention,
but in a certain sense it was offered like that to reveal sin. (I have
examples in mind how in the middle of a test or example you put things
forward that you wouldn't really mean outside of that, but you put it
forward to make a point).
I really struggle over this as you may have noticed and have for a long
time and get really frustrated, which I know is not right.
Respectfully,
Response #3:
Salvation has always been by grace through faith (Eph.2:8-9). When you say, "why is it a bondage?", do you mean keeping the Law? As Peter says, the Law was "yoke on the neck . . . which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear", meaning that the Law is impossible to keep perfectly, and that is the point. As Paul says,
Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:20 NKJV
The Law could never save through keeping it, but those under the Law were bound to try to keep it as best they could. In so doing, like Paul, they were meant to come to realize that they needed God's grace to be saved – because it was impossible to be perfect under the Law (cf. Rom.6-7).
Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Galatians 3:24 NKJV
So "living according to the Law" was a privilege or a burden, however one wants to see it; when it was valid for Israel to do so, it served as a witness to the world of her special status.
“I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness,
And will hold Your hand;
I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the Gentiles".
Isaiah 42:6 NKJV
For specifics, see also this link:
"What is a Biblical
Covenant?"
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
I rambled a bit, my bad, and I am sorry. The point of confusion to
please focus on is that there is the verse on the one hand that the law
was never meant to be followed for salvation, but on the other hand it
says we need to be freed from the Old Covenant because we failed to keep
it (but why would that matter if keeping it for salvation was never the
point)? That it is an issue that we failed to keep it, and are hence
condemned, seems to imply to me that you were to keep it for salvation.
I mean I know the issue is my understanding; I do believe in salvation
by faith. But can you help me understand better?
Response #4:
As to "not meant to provide salvation" vs. "condemned for not following", to me these are totally in agreement: salvation was always by grace through faith; the Law proves (to anyone paying attention) that human beings can never be perfect through fleshly efforts. So we need a Savior. And He is at the heart of the symbolism of the rituals of the Law.
For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
Hebrews 9:16-22 NKJV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #5:
Okay so I was reading the link, and I am still struggling with your line
"...delivered us from the bondage of the Old Covenant." If it is
salvation by faith from our sins, why would it be a bondage? The Old
Covenant itself would be freedom from the Law, which would be a bondage.
Because it is promising that we will be saved despite our sins through
faith (sins such as not obeying the law). What am I missing? Galatians
4:24 seems to equate the Old Covenant with salvation by works (which was
what using Hagar was doing).
The only sense I can make of it, is that it is more of a point of
timing. Like how you wear your pjs for bed and then your actual clothes
during the day. Since the New Covenant hadn't happened yet (the Lord had
not come yet), it was at-the-time circumstances of what would be
condemnation and at works of the flesh (just by default due to that it
was before the Lord came). Does that sound right? (Continuing on) ...for
example, because of the timing (before the First Advent, it was laws on
stone instead of laws on heart, and certain other limitations....
Response #5:
The Law was never meant to produce salvation. It was a code that pointed to it in the shadows which represented Jesus Christ.
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully.
1st Timothy 1:8 NKJV
The problem is that after the return from exile the Law was being misused as a means of works-salvation. Mind you, NO ONE ever kept the Law perfectly – because it also has spiritual aspects which are impossible to keep (as Paul learned: Rom.7:7-25). But it was easy enough for legalistic Pharisees to "tithe cumin and mint" and to leave out the "weightier" parts: "justice and mercy and faith" (Matt.22:23) and "the love of God" (Lk.11:42).
One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Matthew 22:35-40 NIV
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.
Romans 13:8 NIV
Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:10 NIV
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Galatians 5:14 NIV
Rightly understood and practiced, the Law is no different from the New Testament – except that its truths are expressed in shadows and necessary rituals whereas we are now liberated from the necessity of observing those rituals and following those shadows which, to be sure, are a burden. Sacrificing an animal every time we sin would be a huge burden, especially if we had to go to Jerusalem to do it. And since in truth everyone sins many times every day, well, this just goes to show the truth of Paul's bottom line on the purpose of the Law:
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
Romans 3:20 NIV (cf. Rom.5:20; Gal.3:24)
Therefore the Law has become our guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
Galatians 3:24 NASB20
Without the universal indwelling of the Spirit and in a day and time
where everyone having access to a Bible was not feasible, the Law served
its purpose – correctly taught and understood. It convicted of sin, it
led to trusting God for salvation through a means of sacrifice by the
One yet to come, and it gave a code to live by that promoted holiness
and sanctity separate from the paganism of the ancient world whereby
that separateness itself constituted a "light to the gentiles" (Is.42:6;
60:1-3).
Trying to live according to the spirit of the Law was possible; trying
to abide by its every regulation in a picky, legalistic way was not.
Those who pretended to do the latter and imposed unbearable burdens on
others are the ones our Lord castigated.
"For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."
Matthew 23:4 NKJV
“Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law?"
John 7:19 NKJV
And now that the Law has been fulfilled, going back to it is not only a burden but an impediment to salvation and spiritual growth – and the sacrifices are wrong now since "Christ our Passover has [now] been sacrificed for us" (1Cor.5:7; n.b., this is the main theme of Hebrews).
. . . knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Galatians 2:16 NKJV
I hope this helps. In reading your emails I was a bit befuddled as to
just what it was you were concerned about specifically. Do feel free to
write me back if the above does not answer your question.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #6:
Dear Bob,
It is always a pleasure to hear from you and read you. Thank the Lord I
have no major problems and I hope you are well too. This world of ours
in times that appear increasingly "Pre-Apocalyptic", more than ever,
needs more and more Pastors enlightened by Grace who preach Jesus Christ
and the truths handed down by our Fathers. In such respect I always find
your works enlightening both from a theological-Christian point of view,
and from an ethical point of view. Therefore I will not fail to read
these new teachings of yours. You know that it is impossible for me to
abandon my Catholic choice to which my parents and teachers introduced
me, but sometimes, despite the proximity to Holy Communion, I experience
that feeling of desert that Catholic mysticism speaks of (for example
St. John of the Cross), but then thanks to my family and my relatives I
am able to resume a "more normal" path, but perhaps also less "holy".
These times are truly frightening for the spiritual, intellectual,
psychic and physical evil that looms over us. Theme that I would like to
be present in prayer for "liberation" of all of us. As I do with the
priests I know here in Rome, I would also like to thank you for the
missions you carry out towards all of us and for this I hope that the
Lord blesses you in your mission that you pursue with such commitment.
I send you an ideal and fraternal embrace in our common Lord Jesus
Christ.
Response #6:
Thanks for getting back to me, my friend.
Re: "These times are truly frightening for the spiritual,
intellectual, psychic and physical evil that looms over us." Indeed.
"Pre-apocalyptic" certainly does apply. Blessedly, the "apocalypse" is
the unveiling of our Lord as He returns in glory. That will be worth it
(even if it does mean seven years of the worst trouble in the history of
the world first).
I do appreciate where you are coming from. The gravity of tradition is
immense. To a large degree, that is what
the book of Hebrews is really all about.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #7:
Dear Bob,
Here I am once again, and I hope not to trouble you subtracting time to
your ministerial duties.
Thank you for this latest work of guidance and support in reading the
Holy Scriptures. It allows for considerable insights, traces
interpretative lines that are usually overlooked (certainly not through
negligence!), creates organic links with other parts of the Scriptures.
The current idea of merging together (“cum-fundere”?) the writings of an
Apostle and those of his School, with which today we try to resolve
historical-literary-exegetical questions and doubts, rightly did not
seem sufficiently explanatory to you and you went into depth by
providing aspects that should be considered by all those who have a
scientific interest in the Study of the "Book par Excellence".
Referring to the works of M. Simon & A. Benoit on “Christianity and
Judaism”, which consider the dichotomous effect and the consequences of
the first messianic coming within Judaism itself, I would like to submit
an aspect to you for your confirmation or denial.
It seems to me that in Judaism the idea of Salvation has always been
understood as a salvation «hic et nunc», in short too tied to our
earthly existence. The idea of a Messianic Kingdom, albeit in body and
spirit, which is very detached from the World would not have been
possible for Judaism to conceive, which is entirely oriented towards the
present and a future that does not transcend this reality of ours.
Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus was a "blessing" for the
Gentiles and for all Christians, because it promotes their salvation,
but the same cannot be said for the Jewish People who did not recognize
the awaited Messiah, although the Letter to the Ephesians - in terms «ex
post (post mortem Christi)!» - makes it clear that in any case Salvation
belongs first to the Jews according to the Covenant (i.e. the Law) and
then to the Christians according to the Sacrifice of Christ on the
Cross, almost as if to heal a fracture that had occurred by virtue of
the generalization of salvation.
From the Jewish point of view, the conversion of Paul, previously a
fierce persecutor of Christians, was perceived as a “betrayal” of his
own people, his culture and his teachings. Therefore, on the part of
Saul, especially perceiving well the impending persecution and the
martyrdom to which he was destined, could well experience the inner need
for an explanation due to his original People, at least to tell and
explain his gesture and the reasons behind it, making it at the same
time an opportunity for teaching with all the Pauline literature but
with the Letter to the Hebrews and that to the Ephesians in particular,
which is also the object of similar questions and doubts. Beyond “Jews
for Christ”, there are people here who profess to be Catholics who see
in the priesthood, Judaism that manifests itself fully according to the
line of Peter (and therefore today according to the Pope and the
hierarchy below), while Pauline Christianity is for lay people who only
rarely reach the understanding of their “lay priesthood” thus managing
to express some profile in some way typical of Judaism.
Personally I cannot help but perceive the uniqueness between the Old and
New Testaments and therefore glimpse, but not rationalize, how to be
Catholic one must also be a little Jewish.
I would like to have your comment on this way of feeling.
A warm and fraternal greeting.
Response #7:
I would certainly agree that the "this generation" to whom our Lord came was unwilling to accept the idea of the suffering Servant (and it still abides and will continue to do so until His visible return; see the link). As it is often put, they wanted the crown without the cross – but the cross is the basis of the entire plan of God. That is evident from every sacrifice under the Law and from every teaching of the Law and from all of the prophets.
Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.
Luke 24:25-27 NKJV
So the cross and the One who would have to suffer for us to be saved is
everywhere in the Old Testament. The fact that Jesus' generation – and
all later individuals of that type, "this
generation" which still abides today – did not see it does not
negate the truth of it one bit.
As to the traditional church wrapping itself in the cloak of the Law,
whether Protestants or Catholics or Orthodox, etc. do so, there is no
legitimacy in doing so just because "we've always done so".
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
Galatians 5:6-9 NKJV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #8:
Hello Dr. Lugenbill,
Have a small question:
In the above reference verse (John 16:24 plus other verses that have "In
My Name"), I noticed that Jesus says: the above (i.e., "In My Name").
I remember back in Genesis 4:26 that it also used "the Name of the
LORD".
"In the Name" means "Deliverer and Salvation".
In John 16:24 does this phrase mean that the disciples never called upon
Salvation or deliverance? When I got to this verse I noticed this, and
thought about it, which I never did before. I just suddenly stopped in
my tracks.
Hmmm
Thanks for your answer as always,
I appreciate your teachings so much.
Blessings to you,
Your friend,
Response #8:
The disciples were always slow on the uptake . . . until they received
the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Even then, of course, they had
a steep learning curve to fully understand the dispensation of grace,
the Holy Spirit and the New Covenant. That is one of the main messages
of the book of Acts (which, sadly, many if not most have turned on its
head;
see the link).
Of course no one ever asked the Father anything "in Jesus' Name" before He
came into this world and before He began to minister. But by the time of
this verse, towards the very end of our Lord's three and half year
ministry, it seems that the disciples at least SHOULD have understood
that He was the Son of God and that He was now the focus of all
attention. Even John the baptist had recognized this:
"The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand."
John 3:35 NKJV
Just as our Lord later says:
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."
Matthew 28:18 NKJV
We see plenty of explains of the disciples' slowness. Our Lord had
repeatedly told them about His coming sacrifice and subsequent
resurrection . . . but they obviously "didn't get it", based upon
everything they said and did when the cross and resurrection happened.
This is just another example of that.
Wishing you a great Thanksgiving!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #9:
Hi Bob,
This may be an ignorant question. I apologize. As I read the old
testament and particularly Psalms, I'm struck by how many of the things
David was complaining about are the same things we deal with today, But,
in this case, Psalms 50:5 was a bit of a speed bump.
I've always assumed this verse referred to animal sacrifice under Mosaic
law. Is it possible there's a broader meaning? Biblegateway.com offers
the facility to look at all English translations in one list and there
are a few that translate that verse differently, suggesting that it may
apply to believers today. Strongs was no help and seemed to confirm my
earlier understanding.
Before I get off in the weeds again, what is your understanding of that
verse?
Thanks
Yours in our Lord,
Response #9:
(4) He shall call to the heavens from above, And to the earth, that He may judge His people: (5) “Gather My saints together to Me, Those who have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice.” (6) Let the heavens declare His righteousness, For God Himself is Judge.
Psalm 50:4-6 NKJV
As the context makes clear, this takes place at a future judgment, and
since this is addressed to believers, the "gathering" has to be the
second advent and following. The next installment of the Hebrews series
[HE 1, now posted; see the link] will
have a good deal to say about "covenants" (for now,
see the link in SR 5; and
this one as well). In essence, a covenant is an agreement made by
God with mankind for our benefit in which He shoulders the entire cost
and we enter into the agreement by consent. All covenants resolve into
one result in the end, namely, salvation, with the price, the
sacrificial price, being paid in the blood of Christ, His spiritual
death for us at the cross. That is the sacrifice in this context you ask
about, just as ALL animal sacrifice in the Bible is speaking of Christ's
spiritual death (and the benefit we receive by accepting it).
Our judgment will take place shortly after the return of our Lord and
will be one of evaluation of our life's work for the purpose of
rewarding us (link).
As "the ones under His mercy" (the Hebrew, literally; translated as "my
saints" above), we have, by virtue of the agreement we have entered into
with Him, been spared from the judgment which the rest of the world will
have to endure, a judgment of wrath, not mercy. But our covenant is one
of promise, validated by the Lord Himself, paid for by Him and
guaranteed by an oath (Heb.6:16-20), the promise of salvation and life
eternal.
(8) Though you have never laid eyes on Him, yet you love Him. And though you cannot see Him at this present time, yet you have faith in Him. For this reason you rejoice with an inexpressible joy that bespeaks the glorious future to come, (9) when you shall carry off in victory the ultimate prize – the [eternal] deliverance of your lives – which is the very purpose and objective of this faith of yours.
1st Peter 1:8-9
So this verse you ask about is one of many in the Old Testament which
affirms that there is no difference whatsoever in the underlying truth
between Old and New, just in the way that things were framed before
Jesus Christ was revealed and before the cross was an accomplished
reality.
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #10:
Thank you Bob,
I missed that completely. That's exactly what I hoped it meant. There is
so much for me to learn and so little time.
It was an interesting and enlightening post this week. Your first
correspondent and your responses raised points I'd not considered
before. Thank you. It does appear the war on Christians has begun.
Thank you for your prayers. You and yours are in mine as well. I think
you can take me off the prayer list. I've adjusted to her loss. Paul, I
believe, said we should not grieve as others do because we have hope.
While I miss ___ and my wife, I believe they are in a far better place
than they were here. They are free of the nonsense that seems growing
daily down here. I look forward to joining them.
In Jesus,
Response #10:
OK, will do – you are certainly right about that. As to the list,
remember, it's not irreversible. We all need prayer, and some more than
others from time to time. I lost someone very dear while still in grad
school and took it quite hard. It took me a minute to get past the worst
of it. And I have a dear Christian friend here in Louisville who
recently lost her son and is wearing it very hard (as one might well
imagine).
I appreciate your good words as always, my friend.
You're stuck on my personal list in any case.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #11:
Hi Bob,
Thank you for your prayers. You and yours remain in mine as well. The list of
prayer requests was getting quite long and I was feeling guilty since there were
so many in more need than me. It will probably take me quite a long time to get
over all the losses I've had in my life. Still, there's no alternative but to
move on.
___ seem to be getting along quite well. They are all very busy don't really
have time to feel sorry for themselves.
Thanks for your support.
In our Lord,
Response #11:
That's good news. And it certainly is true that keeping busy helps with
these situations: time passes more quickly until the wounds heal up
somewhat.
No need to feel guilty about asking for prayer support. We all need that
– and that is one of the main things the Church is supposed to do in
support for each other (Eph.6:18).
Please see the link
for the most recent treatment of prayer in Hebrews.
Keeping you in my prayers daily, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #12:
Some people really like pointing to Exodus 31:16 and Genesis 2:3 as
"proof" the Mosiac Sabbath was an eternal command/part of the natural
order. It's used to just tackle on the Sabbath as a "all the 10
Commandments were given on Sinai, we can't just exclude one" mantra, but
more often than not it's the "Messianic" Jews who try to cling to both
Christ/the NT and the Law at the same time (just using the term for
these kinds of people in general, not all identify as Jewish).
The Exodus one is easy to debunk, the word for "everlasting" in Hebrew
is used elsewhere for stuff obviously not for today like circumcision,
but the Genesis one is tricky for me. How can I respond to this claim?
Response #12:
In terms of Genesis 2:3, there are no requirements listed there, and
that is really what we are talking about, right? That is, the claim that
believers should "keep Sabbath" as it is described under the Law.
So moving on to the other verse, here's the quote:
"Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant."
Exodus 31:16 NKJV
It specifically says, "The children of Israel". Most believers today are not
Jewish. And for those who are, it's important to understand that the Old
Covenant has been replaced by the New one. And under the New Covenant, "keeping
the Sabbath" has been transformed into the moment by moment "faith rest" we are
to abide within at all times – THAT is how we are not to honor it, NOT through
the strictures of the Law.
Anyone who has carefully studied the book of Hebrews understands these things (see
the link); there is also plenty within the other epistles to make the same
point clearly enough. But for people who don't respect the Bible and merely want
to pick and choose verses, anything can be proven.
If someone is interested in learning, that is one thing. If you are arguing with
people, that is something else: apologetics (in its best iteration). I'm not
skilled in that. But to be clear, continuing seventh day observance is doing
what the Jerusalem believers in Paul's day were doing, namely, neglecting the
New Covenant in the blood of Christ for the Old one which our Lord replaced. In
other words, it is legalism:
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Colossians 2:16-17 NIV
The book of Hebrews has a lot to say about the wrongness of even those of Jewish
heritage continuing with certain aspects of the Law, the sacrifices in
particular (link).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #13:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
As you already know I am teaching two other people about the end times
from your teachings and from mine. The subject of keeping the Sabbath
was brought up during the session, and I forwarded your teaching on the
Sabbath as to why it is not required today. She said that she reviewed
the study but disagreed with it. At first she did not tell me why.
Your teaching is titled: "The sign of the Sabbath".
Her husband agreed with the contents of your study, but the wife who
claims to be of Jewish heritage from the tribe of Judah, how she knows I
am not aware of how. Here is what she responded to me:
"I struggle with this for several reasons. One reason, my mother
taught me to observe the Shabbat. She changed it to Sunday because of my
father. My grandmother kept Kosher. My mom tried but it was difficult
because of my father. So, yes, I was definitely brought up Jewish. But
the main thing that haunts me, is all of the feasts and laws say to
observe them "for all generations". That is the main reason. It can be
overwhelming. I personally feel like part of my calling is to share my
testimony with other Jewish people. I took an elderly lady who had been
through the Holocaust out for breakfast and stupidly ordered sausage.
She was very offended and I could not witness to her. I don't keep
kosher now, but probably should. Where do you draw the line? Some
"Christians", usually gentiles, go all the way and dress like they are
Orthodox Jews". That makes me cringe. Some Reformed Jews go out of their
way to spit on the Word. There are two sides of thought on Shabbat. The
Messianic (completed Jews) mindset and the Christian mindset. I call
myself a Jew because I know by research that my name (Lazar) is a tribe
of Judah name. People tend to forget that the Old Covenant is the
backbone of Christianity. Paul kept the law. Peter and Paul had an
argument when Paul saw Peter eating unkosher food with gentiles. This
argument has been going on that long!! Who was correct, Paul or Peter?"
My contention which I will give to her is as follows:
The sabbath as you stated in your teaching says: Sabbath is a memorial
to the peace restored by God to the universe after the re-creation of
earth and re-lighting of the heavens.
12And the LORD said to Moses, 13“Tell the Israelites, ‘Surely you must
keep My Sabbaths, for this will be a sign between Me and you for the
generations to come, so that you may know that I am the LORD who
sanctifies you.
Again, she disagrees about keeping the Sabbath since it says above "for
the generation to come."
My answer would be that:
Jesus fulfilled the Law of the Sabbath, and therefore that law is no
longer in effect for believers whether Jew or Gentile, in my limited
understanding.
And:
“ 12 Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God
has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14
but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must
not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your
manservant or maidservant, nor your ox or donkey or any of your
livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates, so that your manservant
and maidservant may rest as you do. 15 Remember that you were a slave in
the land of Egypt, and that the LORD your God brought you out of there
with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. That is why the LORD your
God has commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.”
This is the only commandment that was not carried over to the New
Testament; the reason is clearly stated in Verse 15:
“ 15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and that the
LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an
outstretched arm. Therefore[That is why] the LORD your God has commanded
you to keep the Sabbath day.”
Any other comments you have will be of great benefit.
Thanks always for your help and understanding.
Your Friend,
P.S. I have a prayer request for __. She is very sick and has stage four
cancer of the bowels. She is a Roman Catholic, and knowing what they
believe I want to be a witness to her before and if she passes this life
without being born again. As you know, and I know, since I once was a
Roman Catholic that it does not teach this doctrine among many others. I
have been praying that the LORD would open a door for me to witness to
her, and that her heart would be receptive to God's Word.
Thanks so much.
Response #13:
I agree with you completely, of course.
I certainly respect the right of Jewish believers to continue in their
traditions and would never dream of telling them not to do so. Where I
draw the line is whenever one of them – or more frequently a gentile who
has adopted the Messianic approach – wants to proclaim such things as
necessary for the rest of us. THAT issue was settled at the Jerusalem
conference by none other than our Lord's brother James:
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell."
Acts 15:28-29 NKJV
Otherwise, the gentile believers were never required to keep the Law.
As Peter said:
"Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke [i.e., of following the Law] on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
Acts 15:10 NKJV
As Paul said:
You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Galatians 5:4 NKJV
There is no controversy. There WAS no controversy. As you pointed out, Christ fulfilled the Law so that the Law is at an end (Rom.10:4).
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 8:13 NKJV
The latest installment of the Hebrews series has a good deal to say about the fact that the fourth commandment, the only one which is not repeated as necessary to follow anywhere in the New Testament, is now to be obeyed spiritually and at all times rather than in a ritual fashion on one physical day of the week (link HE 4 under "The New Sabbath") . Changing the prior physical Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is something I find no biblical basis for whatsoever. But, to claim that Paul followed the Law?!
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
1st Corinthians 9:20-21 NIV
As mentioned, I don't quibble with anyone who is Jewish by ancestry and
Christian by faith in Christ continuing with their traditional rituals .
. . just as long as they don't want to tell the rest of us that these
are of any spiritual significance whatsoever or that we are required to
do likewise.
I've said a prayer for ___ and will keep her on my list.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Good morning my friend and brother.
I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for your heart for our
Lord. I am greatly encouraged by Him through you, and encourage you to
continue for the sake of G-ds desire all would come to know His love for
us, His creation.
As I am in Leviticus, have you expounded in any of your writings on the
sacrifices that the Lord required? Culturally and actually, it is hard
for me to understand. I do understand the paramount truth, that Jesus
Christ has fulfilled the Laws requirement, and that He is where my heart
is.
Thank you Bob. The only true peace which is Christ be upon you, and pour
through you.
Response #14:
Good to hear from you, my friend.
If you mean some sort of detailed and comprehensive treatment of all of
the sacrifices, festivals, prohibitions, regulations and pronouncements
of the Law, that has not been a focus of this ministry. Here is what I
do have which might be helpful:
Gifts and sacrifices (the distinction under the Law): in HE 5
The Mosaic Law: in HE 7
Jewish Festivals and the Calendar: in SR 5
There are other things scattered about (see the Subject Index), but
these are the main postings on the subject. Col. R.B. Thieme Jr.'s
Levitical Offerings is very good on this (at
the link).
In terms of what "the Lord required", for the rituals this is pretty
clearly set out in Leviticus (and elsewhere in the Pentateuch). It is
also pretty clear from even a casual reading that being completely
perfect in observing the Law was impossible. As Peter says, it was "a
yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were
able to bear" (Acts 15:10). If a person really understands what sin is,
there would be no time or resources for anything else other than
sacrificing for sin – and no one could keep up with the vigorous
production of the most docile sin nature. But what does the Lord really
require?
He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?
Micah 6:8 NKJV
In other words, even under the Law, it was the truth behind the Law that
was really important, all of which truth always pointed to Jesus Christ
(there's much about all this in the posting on Hebrews chapter 7;
link).
For those today who, in emulation of the bad behavior of the Jerusalem
congregation of Paul's day, want to "keep the Law", it's always
important to point out that the elders in Jerusalem under James'
leadership proclaimed to the gentile believers well before the writing
of Hebrews that the fundamental sign of the Old Covenant, circumcision,
a sign which greatly predated the Law itself, was no longer required.
They wrote this letter by them:
"The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment—it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well."
Farewell.
Acts 15:23-29 NKJV
And today it is not even possible to go to the temple in Jerusalem three times a year for the major festivals – since the temple no longer exists. Nor are animal sacrifices being made any longer. Nor is there any priesthood to which to pay tithes. Nor are a great many of the commands and stipulations in the Law even possible to try to comply with since they involve the administration of the theocratic state of ancient Israel which likewise no longer exists. So to "keep Kosher" according to medieval Jewish interpretations of the dietary code and to "keep the Sabbath" by the same lights, ignoring what the New Testament says on both issues, is not only not "keeping the Law" (since if only one part is omitted it is the same as violating it all: Jas.2:10-11), but is actually falling from grace, now that Christ has fulfilled the Law in every point (Matt.5:17).
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
Romans 3:20 NIV
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Colossians 2:16-17 NIV
Thanks for all your good words, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Dear Robert,
It has been long since I made contact. I trust that your are well and
that you are continuously led by our Shepherd.
Following is a short summary regarding a New Covenant question. The
prophet Jeremiah clearly indicates that a new covenant is made with both
the house of Israel and of the house of Judah (Jer. 31:31-34). Nowhere
in the Old Testament is there any references that it is made with the
Gentiles. However, in the New Testament references are made to infer
that the new covenant is for Gentiles aswell. This 'however' is deducted
from the view point that the new covenant is a reflection of the gospel
of the grace of God (Acts 20:24; 1 Cor. 15:1-4), which points to the
Cross.
My questions:
a) In terms of the OT the new covenant implicates both houses of Israel
and Judah and not the Gentiles?
b) The new has made the old obsolete, in the Jewish context.
c) The new covenant is thus an agreement between the houses of Israel
and Judah and the Lord ( Eze. 20).
d) Paul identifies the 'new covenant' as the gospel of the grace of God.
This implies that the Gentiles did not have a covenant that needed to be
replaced. Faith is then the substance whereby the Gentile would agree to
accept the grace gospel as reflected by the 'new covenant'. For
salvation came to the Jew first and then to the Gentile?
The terms may be interchangeable due to semantics, but the inference is
completely different.
Love in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Response #15:
I'll give you the gist here. I've written a great deal about this
subject recently in the just posted Hebrews series (intro and chapters
1-10 already posted; see the link).
Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul very clearly equates the
New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah with the New Covenant mentioned by
our Lord.
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 8:13 NKJV
This being the case, logical arguments which may wish to distinguish the
"new" of Jeremiah from the "new" of the New Testament necessarily run
head-first into the immutable barrier of scripture.
If I may, I believe the nub of the "problem" is the evangelical tendency
to wish to make a fundamental distinction between Israel and the Church,
whereas, in biblical terms, Israel is the foundation of the Church. By
faith in her Messiah, gentiles are subsumed into Israel, so to speak,
rather than being forever distinguished from her (cf. Gal.6:16, "And as
many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and
upon the Israel of God" NKJV). New Jerusalem has twelve
gates named for the twelve tribes and this is the home of the Church,
the entire Bride of Christ – which of course includes gentiles as well
as Jews. Israel is special (as this ministry has always affirmed;
see the link). But in the end, there are believers and unbelievers.
Being of Israel by birth but not believing is the counterpoint situation
to believing though not being of Israel by birth. In the eternal state,
we the Church are all one – just as in principle we are all one in
Christ right now.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28 NKJV
It is certainly true that during the Millennium Israel will enjoy a
supremely privileged position. All of God's promises to her will be
fulfilled (e.g., Is.62:2-7). But these blessings will come to the
millennial believers, the Church having already been resurrected at that
point.
Just as Jews are not excluded from the Church, so gentiles are not
excluded from true Israel (believers in each case). There are
distinctions in this life (as between "slave and free", e.g.), but no
such significant divisions in New Jerusalem.
(1) And He showed me the river of the water of life, sparkling like crystal[s of ice], coming forth from the throne of God and of the Lamb. (2) In the middle of the [New Jerusalem's network of twelve main] streets and on both sides of [this] river [of the water of life which ran through them] was the tree of life, producing twelve crops, offering its fruit every month, month by month. And the leaves of the tree are for the enjoyment of [all] the nations, (3a) so that there will no longer be any division.
Revelation 22:1-3a
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #16:
Dear Robert,
Thank you for the extensive exegesis and the interpretive studies. I
value your viewpoints and perspectives, which help to formulate my
understanding of Scripture in a wider spectrum.
I have a concern, and would like to present it as "Christ: God's perfect
standard" juxtaposed to "Israel: God's perfect standard". They were to
be a perfect standard under the old covenant, which they have failed to
be. This is the result of their rejection of their spiritual rock,
Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). The Jews are like the Gentile's branches (Rom.
11:11-24). We are all (believers by faith, the body of Christ) rooted
and built in Christ Jesus (Col. 2:6-7) before His second coming. Faith
will restore the severed branches (Jews, a remnant of national Israel)
to their rightful place in Christ our Lord, after the second coming (Eze.
20:38). Therefore they shall be God's perfect standard during the
millennium, for they have seen and accepted Him their Saviour. By
implication both the Jew and the Gentile must have faith in God's
provision of salvation in Christ Jesus, the root.
Thank you for your input.
In Christ our Lord.
Response #16:
My pleasure, my friend. I vigorously agree with most of what you have
written here.
However, Christ is God. He is not just a standard like Israel. He is the
Messiah, the One for whom Israel was created and by whom she came into
being as well. What I mean by this, as the
link should make clear, is that Israel was meant to set the standard
of how every people ought to behave and what God's blessings would be
for them if they did. Of course, Israel never lived up to that high
calling. But, as you suggest, she will do so during the Millennium, the
Jewish believers of that day, that is (the Church will already have been
resurrected by then and will share in the administration of our Lord's
millennial Kingdom; e.g., Rev.2:26-27).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #17:
Hi Robert,
Thank you for your email. Appreciate it and certainly there will be
different understandings. But by God's grace we will mature in Christ.
Christ our God, our Saviour (1 John 5:20 & Isa. 9:6).
In Him,
Response #17:
My pleasure.
". . . by God's grace we will mature in Christ" – Amen!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
Hi Bob,
This is just curiosity, so if you have other pressing emails, please
tend to those first. In the KJV of Exodus 28:4, part of the priestly
garments is a mitre. NIV translates it turban. In my understanding, the
two are much different. Today, popes wear a mitre for ceremonial
functions. Is Ex.28:4 the same; the same as I've seen pictured for
Dagon? Or is it truly a turban (which makes a little more sense to me
given the milieu. Strong's shed absolutely no light on the question.
I pray all is well with you and yours. Things are getting somewhat dicey
out there. The Olympics "ceremony" convinces we're swirling down the
drain of history at an increasingly rapid pace.
In our Lord Jesus,
Response #18:
These English terms are approximate. The Hebrew word, mitsnephet,
comes from the root tsanaph, which apparently means something
like "to wrap". So all we know from the etymology is that this is a wrap
of some kind which goes around the head. What this looked like, exactly,
at the time, no one knows for sure.
Re: "ceremony", just one more reason not to pay any attention to
that event.
Hope you are doing well out there on the prairie, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Hi Bob,
So far, all is well out here. Thank you for your wishes. What you've
written tells me "turban" is much closer to accurate than "mitre."
Translations can lead one off into the weeds if one's not careful:)
I'm getting disgusted with most current events and, in fact, backing off
most scan-by headlines. Who knows what's true and what's spin?
Thanks for your explanation.
In our Lord,
Response #19:
You're probably right about this, though what the exact form was is
unclear. Scripture is very specific about the dimensions and
construction of the furniture in the tabernacle/temple, but less so as
to the priestly clothing, which leads me to believe some flexibility of
design within the parameters mentioned was allowed. It reminds of the
way the Bible treats the local church in our era: very few details – and
certainly nothing to justify what most "churches" look like today with
most common features in buildings (not authorized at all) and services
(assemblies were meant to teach) and rules (the Bible only talks about
qualifications of personnel) considered by most as essential being
instead off the mark for the most part.
Spin has always been "a thing" (the Athenians were past masters of it).
With the internet, it's a little harder to pull off over the heads of
any and all who are really interested in knowing what's what (and
remember what Lincoln said about "not being able to fool all of the
people all of the time"). Most spin is just "preaching to the choir"
rather than really persuading innocent bystanders . . . in my view of
things. The fact that there is so much of it just shows how many are
eager to eat it up. No spin in Christ's millennial kingdom! Can't wait!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Hi Bob,
"Can't wait!" AMEN!! Aside from the scan-by headlines, I pay little
attention to the goings on out there. I still have the perverse notion I
should be aware of what's going on, but I doubt I can trust anything I
see in the headlines. Haven't watched TV in many years since they went
digital. (Two-way communication!) I scan Pravda every so often and they
seem to be going through the same thing.
I wonder about the instructions in Exodus. You're right, some are very
specific -- two tenons on the posts!? Most of that is similar in both
KJV and NIV translations, but the clothing and incense, in particularly,
are not. I'm still trying to understand the relative importance of all
the instructions. It's fallen into the category of, "when I'm ready to
understand, I'll understand ."
Your "Special Topics" series has been a great help. Thank you. It took
me a long time to discover it, but I'm glad I did.
Your spin on spin, if you'll forgive a repetitive redundancy, is spot
on. If I read any further than the headline, I expect the first PP to
follow established journalistic standards -- who, what, why, where and
when. Almost none do. So, I don't read past that. Apparently, those
standards no longer or rarely exist.
At this stage of my game, I'm simply biding time. I'm still here and in
reasonable health, so I believe the Lord has further use for me. For me,
I've "clumb my mountains and kilt my dragons," as the saying goes, so I
have nothing left except to wait on the Lord. I'm ready whenever He is.
Praying all is well with you and yours.
In our Lord,
p.s., Just a followup question. Given the new covenant, what should we
expect in the millennium? If God never changes, I would expect it to
have expressions in the millennium.
Response #20:
I appreciate you hanging in there. And I appreciate your friendship and
your prayers.
On this latest question, if you mean what about the way things will be
in the Millennium, there will be sacrifices at the restored temple, but
they will be for memorials rather than being anticipatory of the cross.
Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 22:15-16 NKJV
The Church – us – will be part of the administration of the Messiah's kingdom (link). What that will entail, exactly, we'll have to wait and see. My guess would be a little bit of everything that is called "good government", and possibly teaching too.
For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 11:9b KJV
I'm very much looking forward to all this . . . and it's only a few
years off! A good thing to keep in mind when one is troubled by the
current situation in this country.
Keeping you in my prayers too, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.