Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Same question | John 1:1 | skccab | 211797 | ||
Shalom Rick, May I offer comments from a Jewish believer? Verse 17 and 19 commentaries are included for further clarification. I don't agree with everything by this commentator, any more than I agree with everything John Gill, Matthew Henry, or the others write - but they all, each, have wonderful insights to offer. 9:16-17 “Greek, diatheke may be translated “covenant,” “will,” or “testament”; the sense of these two verses depends on keeping in mind at least the first two meanings. A modern reader may be able more easily to grasp the author’s argument by thinking in terms of wills, but the context (vv. 15, 18-22) is that of covenants as set forth in the Tanakh [Old Testament] where the Hebrew word “b’rit” must be translated “covenant” and cannot be rendered a “will,.” Although “will” is suggested by the last word of v.15, “inheritance,” the Tanakh [Old Testament] uses “inheritance” to mean “that which is to be received” and knows nothing of wills. There must necessarily be produced the evidence of its maker’s death. For wills this is self-evident; but it is also true for God’s covenants, insofar as sacrifices are stand-ins for the death of the one offering them. Noah offered sacrifices (Gen. 8:20; 9:9). In the case of Avraham [Abraham] there were actual sacrifices (Gen. 15:9;, 17-18) as well as the symbolism of the blood shed at circumcision (Gen. 17:11). The author himself discusses the Mosaic sacrifices (Ex. 24:1-8) in vv. 18-24. Now a will is one-sided, but a covenant is two-sided. Obviously it was not God, who set the terms of these covenants, who died. Rather, it was, in all instances, the receiver of God’s covenant who died – not actually, but symbolically through identification with the shed blood. In the Mosaic Covenant, the dead animals represent the people of Israel as having died to their former uncovenanted, sinful way of life; while the sprinkled blood represents the new life offered through the covenant (“the life is in the blood,” Lev. 17:11). The necessary connection between deaths and covenants in the Tanakh [Old Testament] is further suggested in the Hebrew phrase for “to make a covenant,” “likrot b’rit,” which means, literally, “to cut a covenant.” On the day God cut a covenant with Avram [Abram] that his descendants would inherit the Land, Avram [Abram] cut animals in pieces and saw a burning lamp pass between them (Gen. 15:7-21). V.19 After Moshe [Moses] had proclaimed the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20) and the civil code of Ex. 20-23, and the people had responded, “We will do and obey everything Adonai [the Lord] has said,” he inaugurated the covenant by sprinkling blood on the altar and on the people (Ex. 24:1-8). Lev. 14:4, 6, 49, 51-52 report that the purification rituals scarlet wool and hyssop (see John 19:28-29 N) were used, and living (i.e., running) water was mixed with the blood. The scroll of the covenant, from which Moses read to the people, is nowhere mentioned as having been sprinkled ; but since it was made by human hands, it too needed cleansing, even though the words in it were from God Himself.” Jewish New Testament Commentary, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc. 1992, David Stern, pp696-697. (The bracketed [] information was added by myself.) Still learning :o) Cheri |
||||||
2 | Same question | John 1:1 | humbledbyhisgrace | 211802 | ||
Greetings Cheri! Are you Jewish? Steve |
||||||