Christian Forums and Message Board

For context we will start with the first 3 chapters of Luke.

It is clear that not all, understand the message the same so even though we have hashed it out before I thought that we may go over this again and see if maybe we can see something we over looked or might have misunderstood.

I am in hopes that before anyone comments on anthers view they will first post their view then we can discuss the difference or be happy we all are in one thought and mind which we know will not be the case but maybe we still can have a good discussion.

I understand that many if not all will not be interested in furthering this discussion but am just trying to get some kind of discussion going here on GCM.

What are you looking for other than what you read in the first three chapters of Luke or the other references to John in the other gospels?

I am looking to see what others understanding of the subject is. I know how I understand it but what is others view the same as mine or have I miss some crucial information.

I have a question, why did John in prison tell his followers to ask Jesus if he was the””Coming One”. John KNEW who he was, he declared him the Lamb of God who takes way the sins of the world? That has always puzzled me. Thanks for the thread.

You really think this was “not a good idea” to start this thread, Yogi?  It is ALWAYS a good idea to hash out what we think is a settled subject.  God has “both new things and old” out of His treasuries of scripture knowledge to give us.

John the Baptist was not only the forerunner preceding Christ’s ministry; he was also the forerunner preceding the advent of the 70th week of Daniel in AD 30, when Messiah the Prince would come and “confirm the (new) covenant with many” of Daniel’s people before that 490 years was over in AD 37.

Christ put this chronological dividing line between John’s ministry and the introduction of His own ministry when He said, “The law and the prophets were until John: SINCE THAT TIME the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” 

We know that Christ said that “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.”  Up until that time when Christ became the “messenger of the covenant”, this had been true.  However, “Notwithstanding, he that is LEAST in the kingdom of heaven is GREATER than he.”

Now, just where have we heard someone in scripture claiming to be the “LEAST”?   Paul did this in Ephesians 3:7-8 when he wrote, “...the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.  Unto me, who am LESS THAN THE LEAST of all saints is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.”

Paul claiming to be the “less than the LEAST of the saints” shows that his position was actually greater than John the Baptist - greatest though John had been until then.  This was not due to Paul’s own merits, but because anyone - even the most obscure saint - favored with living under the greater glory of the New Covenant was not living under the shadows of the “weak and beggarly elements” anymore, but was enveloped by Christ’s perfection, imputed to them by His finished blood sacrifice.

Paul called himself the “Apostle to the Gentiles”; the herald proclaiming this gospel to those who had formerly been aliens, outside of ethnic Israel who had received the oracles of God originally.  The end of the 70th week in AD 37 was the end of the time when evangelism was concentrated to Israel, and when God commissioned Paul in a vision in Jerusalem’s temple to “Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me...Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.”

John the Baptist’s ministry as a forerunner was to “make ready a people prepared for the Lord”, leading up to the launching of this last week of 7 years evangelism concentrated on the “lost sheep” among Daniel’s people.  The Lord’s miraculous ministry starting in AD30 (when John was imprisoned that year) had a primary goal; as He said to the Canaanite woman, “I am not sent but unto the “lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL”.  This was a necessary focus, in order to fulfill Daniel’s prophecy of “confirming the covenant with many” of Daniel’s people (not focused on the Gentiles yet) during those last 7 years of the 70th week.

After Christ’s 3-1/2 year ministry ending in His death, resurrection, and ascension, the Apostles continued to concentrate their evangelism in Jerusalem and Judea for another  3-1/2 years.   But the time of transition came at the end of that 70th week, as acknowledged by both Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:46, when they said, “It was NECESSARY that the word of God should FIRST have been spoken to you” (to fulfill Daniel’s final 70th week) “but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo we turn unto the GENTLES.  For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.”

With John the Baptist’s known reputation for humility, he would have had no problem being set aside for the greater glory of establishing the kingdom of God under the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. 

Was Johns time new and a different message than before his arrival?

It was the same message the prophets always carried (repent, bad stuff is coming).

However, the Israelites hadn't had a (real) prophet in many years - generations.  So, it was "new" to his audience, even if it wasn't new-under-the-sun.

I have a question, why did John in prison tell his followers to ask Jesus if he was the””Coming One”. John KNEW who he was, he declared him the Lamb of God who takes way the sins of the world? That has always puzzled me. Thanks for the thread.

I suggest you listen to our sermon this weekend on "Doubt." He specifically addresses John the Baptist's question.  Sermon starts at 1:04:00

https://vimeo.com/496429539

I don't have time to listen today but will get to it. Does it have anything to do with Jesus speaking to John in a Remez statement (a clue in an old testament reference) indicating that John would not get out of prison?

No.  It is talking about How God sees doubt and what we can and should do about it.

  Hi and in  Matt 3:1 it reads In those days came John the  BAPTIST / BAPTISTES   which should  read and came  John the  baptizer and  if you believe in WATER  BAPTISM  , why does it read in 1 Cor 15:29  Else what shall they do which are  BAPTIZED  for the  dead , if the  dead rise not at all ?  WHY ARE THEY  BAPTIZED  FOR THE  DEAD ?

The NT lists several different baptisms. I believe there are at least 6; maybe 7.  "Baptism for the dead" is one we really do not know anything about.

1 - John's baptism - immersion in water - superseded by Christian baptism
2 - Christian baptism - immersion in water in the name (authority) of the Father Son and Holy Spirit
3 - Baptism in/with/into the Holy Spirit.  Experiential  - Acts 1:8
4 - baptism by fire - experiential  - Luke 3:16
5 - baptism of suffering - experiential  - Luke 12:50
6 - baptism into the body - experiential - 1 Corinthians 12:13
7 - baptism for the dead - ? ? ? - 1 Corinthians 15:29

In the Temporary Priesthood given to Levi, ...

There is nothing temporary about ANYTHING God gives:

Romans 11:29
for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

John the Baptist was a forerunner to the Lord's One True Church, The Baptist Church.

      

WHICH Baptist?  There are more varieties than Baskin Robbins

So then you don't believe God knew Jesus would be born and take over the Priesthood from Levi when HE gave the Priesthood to Levi?

Wow. That is one of the more ridiculous statements I have seen on this board.  I do hope it was tongue-in-cheek and not serious.

Since God lives outside of our time, that happened (from HIS perspective) BEFORE creation. 

Yeshua (Jesus) did NOT take away any priesthood from Levi.  Levi was added as a supplementary priesthood for the already existing Priesthood of our Lord.

Wow. That is one of the more ridiculous statements I have seen on this board.  I do hope it was tongue-in-cheek and not serious.

Since God lives outside of our time, that happened (from HIS perspective) BEFORE creation. 

Yeshua (Jesus) did NOT take away any priesthood from Levi. 

Well that is certainly what the Pharisees believed. And are you sure you want to stick with the doctrine that Jesus Didn't take the Priesthood away from Levi? And FYI, my understanding is based on what the Scriptures say about Levi.

Mal. 2:4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.

6 The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity.

7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.

8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.

9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

Your statement that Jesus didn't take away the Priesthood from Levi is not supported by scriptures. What did God do given Levi had corrupted God's covenant with him on Israel's behalf?

Heb. 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, (Corrupt Levite Priests)he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

What Covenant did God make as the result of Israel building the golden calf?

5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.

Ex. 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:)

26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

So this is the Covenant that was changed.

Heb. 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

The LAW of the Priesthood given to Levi commanded that only a Levite could be the High Priest. But Jesus wasn't a Levite. He was from Judah which, according to the Covenant God made with Levi, could not hold the Priesthood office of High Priest.

This all changed when Jesus became the High Priest, taking the Priesthood away from Levi.

So then, the Levitical Priesthood, given exclusively to Levi, was Temporary from the very beginning, because God knew when HE made the Covenant with Levi, that this Covenant would change "After those days", when Jesus would take over the Priesthood duties from Levi.

At least that is what the scriptures teach.

"I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts:" The administration of God's Laws was a duty of the Priesthood given exclusively to Levi, until God took it away from them and gave to Jesus "After those days".

"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." Atonement was an exclusive duty of the Priesthood given exclusively to Levi until "After those days" when the Christ becomes High Priest and takes over the Priesthood duty of atonement. No more Levitical Priesthood sacrificial "works of the Law" for atonement.

To say God didn't take the Priesthood away from Levi is simply untrue, if the Bible is the source of our information.

You're out of context, Dave.  That verse has NOTHING to do with the Levitical priesthood.

it has to do with EVERYTHING God gives. 

There are many things in the Bible that are vague, or require interpretation.  This isn't one of those times, though.

The book of Hebrews contains a clear statement saying it was "disannulled."  I would quote it, but I think someone already did.

That is certainly something that needs interpretation.  And I totally disagree with your interpretation.

Really? ? So then should we be building tabernacles?  Or perhaps we should be sacrificing animals on the alter?  Or how about the old covenant? WS is right, the entire book of Hebrews is the message to the Jewish Christians not to revert back to the old ways under the old covenant.

the Temple will be rebuilt.
Animal sacrifices (OTHER than sin offerings) will again be performed.

I understand that understanding of Hebrews is popular in protestant circles, perhaps even Catholic and EOC groups.  But that is from a gentile perspective; the book was written to religious Jews who believed in Jesus.  It needs to be seen thru those eyes.

it has to do with EVERYTHING God gives.

Does that also apply to judgment and punishments?

The Levitical priesthood was not a good-and-perfect-gift-from-above.  It was a just-and-deserved-punishment-from-above.  Israel received the Levitical priesthood as punishment because they sinned.  The first recorded act of the Levites was to take up swords and put to death the idolaters among them.  They continued their work in Israel afterwards essentially as tax-collectors and executioners.

Why do you want Israel to continue in that punishment?  The Lord has paid all the price for sins forever.  There is no longer any need either to mete out punishment, or to mediate a propitiation in the case of wrongdoing.

That is certainly something that needs interpretation.  And I totally disagree with your interpretation.

Then give me your interpretation.  Specifically, what has been disannulled in Hebrew 7:18?

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

The commandment is mentioned 2 verses earlier, in the context of appointing priests.

Jarrod