Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | DocTrinsograce | 152248 | ||
Hi, MJH... I don't see Paul participating in sacrifices in Acts 21. Would you please point out the specific verse? In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | MJH | 152288 | ||
Hey Doc, Acts 21:26 says, "Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them." The preceding verses indicate that the vow was a Nazirite vow. See Numbers 6. It seems obvious that the Jerusalem leaders of the Jewish Christians wanted to prove to the rest of the believing Jewish population that Paul was loyal to the Torah (or law of Moses). This situation provided a good opportunity to show this by action and not just words. If Paul was anti-Mosaic-law, then he would not participate in a ceremonial sacrifice such as a Nazirite Vow requires. Since Paul did so, it raises questions concerning the post I replied to. MJH |
||||||
3 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | DocTrinsograce | 152290 | ||
Dear MJH, Perhaps I am not as observant as I ought to be, but I do not see anyone saying that Paul is "anti-Mosaic-Law" (sic). I'd object to such a description of the Apostle. The term supersessionist might be used with impunity, but I certainly wouldn't think that Paul was antinomian! Furthermore, Paul does not teach that there is anything inherently wrong with keeping the Mosaic Law. The problem arises if one does it in order to obtain some sort of merit with God (Galatians 3:10). Consequently, even if one were to build an altar, slay a red heffer upon it, etc., it would not be sinful unless one supposed that such an act would supplement or replace the atonement of Christ. For a believer it would simply be silly -- but silly isn't sinful. :-) In addition, there are a number of purification rites proscribed in Torah that do not involve a blood sacrifice. However, if this instance described in Acts was the vow of the Nazarite (Numbers 6:3-7) -- and I have no reason to suppose that it was not -- Paul could have maintained his purity without an animal sacrifice, which is clear from the passage in Numbers. These difficulties would need to be resolved before anyone could give a meaningful answer to your question. In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | MJH | 152336 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the reply... As for those who thought Paul was "anti-Mosaic-Law", I am referring to the first century Jews who ended up setting him up and tried to kill him. You said, "The problem arises if one does [Mosaic Law] in order to obtain some sort of merit with God." I completely agree and feel that some on the forum misuse the term “Judaizers" against those who advocate following more of the Mosaic Law as Gentile Christians. One might disagree with how much of the Mosaic Law applies to Gentile Christians, but I have yet to read anyone uphold the view that salvation is dependant on your observance or lack of. In fact, I hear (not on this forum yet) some say the opposite -- that if you follow some or all of the Mosaic Law, you can not be saved. Sorry for tangent . . . Back to the passage at hand… If we assume for a moment that Paul participated so that he would provide the animals and/or the money for the animals to be sacrificed, then what does this have to say about our view that every and all sacrifices were done away with? I harp on this point, because it has perplexed me for some time. One commentator said that Christians didn’t have a full understanding of the end of the sacrificial system yet when this event occurred. I feel that such a statement is a cop-out. This commentator may have done better to say, “I don’t know why Paul did this” than to use his argument. I, obviously, have read Hebrews, and I know what it says, which is why this Acts passage causes me to scratch my head. MJH |
||||||
5 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | DocTrinsograce | 152339 | ||
Hi, MJH... Thank you for the clarification. Now, I'm probably not as well versed in all the jots and tiddles of Mosaic Law. However, after reading Numbers 6 a second and third time, a question came to mind. Notice that verses 1-8 describe the vow of the Nazarite, as you pointed out early. However, verse 9 is the begining of a series of instructions that have a contingency. Namely, that the person taking the vow of the Nazarite has become defiled by touching a dead person. Note further that verse 11 mentions this particular form of defilement a second time. Now the question that comes to my mind is this: is it possible that the sacrifices were *only* associated with the defilement? If so, that would resolve the problem. What do you think? In Him, Doc |
||||||
6 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | MJH | 152367 | ||
Doc, True, the sacrifices were for the defilement, BUT verses 13-21 tell of the sacrifices that end the Nazirite vow when completed without defilement. So any Nazirite vow would have to end with the sacrifices. Since during this time the Temple was still run by the Sadducees, they would have followed Num 6 to the letter. Most commentators acknowledge that a sacrifice would have been made here. Again, in context, there are 1000's of Jewish believers who have it in mind that Paul teaches Jews who live among the Gentiles to not follow the Law or customs of the Jews. This whole episode is meant to disprove that accusation. If Paul and the Christian leaders felt sacrifices were done away with totally, they could have proved Paul's adherence to the Law of Moses in another way, but they choose this -- probably because it was so public. Hebrews 10:18 says, "And where these [sins] have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin." Re-reading Hebrews 10 I am stuck by the absence of any statement that says, "All sacrifices have ended." Actually most of Heb. 10 is referring to the Day of Atonement and once mentions the daily sacrifices. Side note: It is interesting to note that in Jewish Rabbinic literature written some time in the second century (I believe) they admit that for one full generation before the destruction of the Temple, the "Day of Atonement" cord did not turn white, which to them meant the sacrifice was not accepted. On generation being about 40 years, this would mean that we have a Jewish source that admits that after the death of Jesus (or near that time) the Atonement Day sacrifices were not accepted. It seems to me that the Believing Jews participated in at least some sacrificial events either personally or corporately after the death of Jesus. We also know that they celebrated the three main festivals, Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (Booths). Am I right or am I still missing some thing? MJH (Thanks for following this with me.) |
||||||
7 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | DocTrinsograce | 152368 | ||
Dear MJH, You're right. But now I'm as puzzled as you are! :-) Well, it doesn't say explicitly that they did offer a sacrifice. We only are construing sucha thing based on inference. I think I've got too many explicit statements to puzzle over all by themselves. :-) In Him, Doc |
||||||
8 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | Searcher56 | 152392 | ||
What aboutthe sacrifices/ offerings in Ezekiel? Answer under post 152390. | ||||||