Promise-Law connection

[agnostic]

1) What Jesus said about Jewish religion came true. The temple was completely destroyed throughout the present age.

Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple wasn't a comment about "Jewish religion." Jesus was a member of the Jewish religion. He wasn't predicting supersessionism anymore than Ezekiel or Jeremiah did when they predicted the destruction of the first temple.

2) The Law cannot be followed except in its present Rabbinical form, which is the equivalent of observance in a state of captivity--there is no temple, no priesthood, and no sacrificial system in place.

This was the case during the Babylonian exile. I don't understand how this is a "reason" in support of the "mystery" of Christianity.

3) The Jewish Scriptures pointed to the need for something to mitigate the problems of the Law,

The Law itself contains mitigations for failures to uphold the commandments. Like... this has been spelled out to you several times. "If you fail do do this, then you must do this, and all will be set right." "If you persist in disobedience, you will be punished, but then restored after a time." These are not problems with the Law itself, but with the people failing to keep it. It's not any different than a Christian who claims to follow the commandments of Jesus, but sins. They set things right by following X instruction.

It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.

The Jewish Scriptures say nothing about a Messiah replacing the Law. This is one of those situations where you insist the Old Testament "says" or "points" to something, but you can't actually cite a chapter or verse that says what you're claiming.

[RandyPNW]

1) What Jesus said about Jewish religion came true. The temple was completely destroyed throughout the present age.

Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple wasn't a comment about "Jewish religion." Jesus was a member of the Jewish religion. He wasn't predicting supersessionism anymore than Ezekiel or Jeremiah did when they predicted the destruction of the first temple.

Actually, I believe Jesus was predicting the end of Jewish religion as it was, namely the end of sacrifice, as indicated in Dan 9.27.

2) The Law cannot be followed except in its present Rabbinical form, which is the equivalent of observance in a state of captivity--there is no temple, no priesthood, and no sacrificial system in place.

This was the case during the Babylonian exile. I don't understand how this is a "reason" in support of the "mystery" of Christianity.

The Babylonian Exile set the precedent for the termination of the covenant of Law. Once a covenant is broken, it may either be restored or abandoned altogether. If indeed the Jewish covenant was abandoned entirely, as it had existed under the Law, that recommends a new mysterious system, no longer under the Law.

3) The Jewish Scriptures pointed to the need for something to mitigate the problems of the Law,

The Law itself contains mitigations for failures to uphold the commandments. Like... this has been spelled out to you several times. "If you fail do do this, then you must do this, and all will be set right." "If you persist in disobedience, you will be punished, but then restored after a time." These are not problems with the Law itself, but with the people failing to keep it. It's not any different than a Christian who claims to follow the commandments of Jesus, but sins. They set things right by following X instruction.

It has been pointed out to you several times my answer for this, and you apparently wish to pretend I haven't responded to it. A *divorce* took place, ending the covenant of the Law. The curses of disobedience reflected exile, which was an end of the covenant agreement to bless Israel in the land. Restoration does not mean the Law wasn't broken.

There is a difference between being restored *under the Law* and being restored *after the covenant of the Law has been broken.* I'm referring to a system of mercy that works outside of the Law because the covenant of Law itself has been broken, rendering its own formula for mercy irrelevant and invalidated.

If you're going to keep on ignoring this point, and assert that I don't answer for the umpteenth time, I'll just consider that you're either belligerent or incapable of understanding the argument. But I think you can decipher the argument?

It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.

The Jewish Scriptures say nothing about a Messiah replacing the Law. This is one of those situations where you insist the Old Testament "says" or "points" to something, but you can't actually cite a chapter or verse that says what you're claiming.

I'll quote it one more time.

Jer 31.31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
    “when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.

It was no mystery to know Messiah would come to establish a salvation that transcended anything prior, because it would somehow provide everlasting national salvation, "never again" to be oppressed by enemies.

But what form this salvation would take was indeed a mystery in the Jewish Scriptures. Otherwise, all Jews would've acknowledged Jesus was that salvation. Instead, they considered his apparent "failure" to bring in the Kingdom an indictment on his lack of credentials.

But that there was need for a system to transcend a failing Law was indeed in the Jewish Scriptures, as I point out here for the umpteenth time.

[agnostic]

Actually, I believe Jesus was predicting the end of Jewish religion as it was, namely the end of sacrifice, as indicated in Dan 9.27.

The verse specifically says the sacrifices are halted only temporarily, "for half of the week." It's talking about the exact same thing as the previous chapter, which says "then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state" after the sacrifices were temporarily halted.

The Babylonian Exile set the precedent for the termination of the covenant of Law.

What? It sets the precedent for the exact opposite: exile for disobedience followed by restoration for newfound obedience. The Babylonian exile ended and the Jews took up the Law again.

"See how the Jews went into exile for disobeying the Law and then were brought back from exile to continue obeying the Law, exactly like Leviticus and Deuteronomy say will happen? This is secretly saying that the Law will be abrogated permanently when there is exile."

It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.

The Jewish Scriptures say nothing about a Messiah replacing the Law. This is one of those situations where you insist the Old Testament "says" or "points" to something, but you can't actually cite a chapter or verse that says what you're claiming.

I'll quote it one more time.

Jer 31.31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
    “when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.

Quoting the verse one more time doesn't help when the verse still doesn't say what you claim it says. Not one word about the Messiah. Not one word about the Law. It doesn't "point" to anything about the Messiah throwing away the Law. You have to conjure those ideas from thin air, because Jeremiah says nothing about them. This is genuinely one of the most dishonest hermeneutics I have seen in quite a while.

Like, how do you just happen to stop one verse short of what Jeremiah says this "new covenant" actually is, a verse which completely undermines what you're saying?

Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jeremiah elaborates on this "new covenant" in the next chapter, calling it "an everlasting covenant"

Jeremiah 32:37-43 See, I am going to gather them from all the lands to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation; I will bring them back to this place, and I will settle them in safety. They shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for all time, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them, never to draw back from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, so that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing good to them, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul. For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good fortune that I now promise them. Fields shall be bought in this land of which you are saying, It is a desolation, without human beings or animals; it has been given into the hands of the Chaldeans. Fields shall be bought for money, and deeds shall be signed and sealed and witnessed, in the land of Benjamin, in the places around Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, of the hill country, of the Shephelah, and of the Negeb; for I will restore their fortunes, says the LORD.

So what are the components of this "new covenant"?

• God will "gather them from all the lands to which I drove them"?
• Deuteronomy 30:3-4 "gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the LORD your God has scattered you"
• God will bring them back to "this land" (which he directly says is the land of Benjamin and Jerusalem and the cities of Judah)?
• Deuteronomy 30:5 "the LORD your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed"
• God will give them "good fortune"?
• Deuteronomy 30:3 "the LORD your God will restore your fortunes"
• God will put "my law within them" and "write it on their hearts"?
• Deuteronomy 30:6 "the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants"
• They will be his people and he will be their God?
• An idiom used throughout the Old Testament, but which Jeremiah directly says in context of the Babylonian exile
• Jeremiah 24:5-7 Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Like these good figs, so I will regard as good the exiles from Judah, whom I have sent away from this place to the land of the Chaldeans. I will set my eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them back to this land. I will build them up, and not tear them down; I will plant them, and not pluck them up. I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.

Every part of this "everlasting" "new covenant" is part of the restoration package promised in Deuteronomy. The one exception, the "my people" idiom, Jeremiah already invoked when talking about the Judean exiles returning from Babylon.

[RandyPNW]

Actually, I believe Jesus was predicting the end of Jewish religion as it was, namely the end of sacrifice, as indicated in Dan 9.27.

The verse specifically says the sacrifices are halted only temporarily, "for half of the week." It's talking about the exact same thing as the previous chapter, which says "then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state" after the sacrifices were temporarily halted.

Yes, it's not a proof text--just part of the line of thought that leads to the conclusion Christians make. As I've been saying, Christ was a mystery in the era of the Law, but the precedent was set for a priesthood that had to transcend the imperfect, failed priesthood of the Old Covenant.

The Babylonian Exile set the precedent for the termination of the covenant of Law.

What? It sets the precedent for the exact opposite: exile for disobedience followed by restoration for newfound obedience. The Babylonian exile ended and the Jews took up the Law again.

Again, I'm not using the Jewish Bible as a proof text, but as evidence of a precedent for drawing the conclusions Christians make. The failure of a covenant can mean either the covenant gets reinstated by mercy (from outside of the covenant), or an entirely new covenant can be made.

It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.

The Jewish Scriptures say nothing about a Messiah replacing the Law. This is one of those situations where you insist the Old Testament "says" or "points" to something, but you can't actually cite a chapter or verse that says what you're claiming.

I'll quote it one more time.

Jer 31.31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
    “when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
    and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
    though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.

Quoting the verse one more time doesn't help when the verse still doesn't say what you claim it says. Not one word about the Messiah. Not one word about the Law. It doesn't "point" to anything about the Messiah throwing away the Law. You have to conjure those ideas from thin air, because Jeremiah says nothing about them. This is genuinely one of the most dishonest hermeneutics I have seen in quite a while.

Your sense of a "dishonest hermeneutic" is actually based on an argument from silence, that something "cannot" be interpreted in such a way simply because it is not spelled out. The mere suggestion that this refers to the Messianic Kingdom may imply a mysterious interpretation, reserved for future clarification.

What is "dishonest" to me is your claim that "not one word has to do with the Law."

When the verse suggests there will be a "new covenant," it means the "old covenant" is going away. And the "old covenant" consisted of a Law, which formed the basis for this agreement between God and Israel. And you say it has "not one word about the Law?' 

Furthermore, you say this doesn't say anything about the Messiah. That may be true, but that doesn't mean it doesn't refer to the Messianic Kingdom. Inferences are not "dishonest hermeneutics!" It means there are hypothetical views that must be figured out when the complete set of data comes in. And this is what the NT Scriptures state:

1 Peter 1.10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

Like, how do you just happen to stop one verse short of what Jeremiah says this "new covenant" actually is, a verse which completely undermines what you're saying?

Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jeremiah elaborates on this "new covenant" in the next chapter, calling it "an everlasting covenant"

Jeremiah 32:37-43 See, I am going to gather them from all the lands to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation; I will bring them back to this place, and I will settle them in safety. They shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for all time, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them, never to draw back from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, so that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing good to them, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul. For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good fortune that I now promise them. Fields shall be bought in this land of which you are saying, It is a desolation, without human beings or animals; it has been given into the hands of the Chaldeans. Fields shall be bought for money, and deeds shall be signed and sealed and witnessed, in the land of Benjamin, in the places around Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, of the hill country, of the Shephelah, and of the Negeb; for I will restore their fortunes, says the LORD.

So what are the components of this "new covenant"?

• God will "gather them from all the lands to which I drove them"?
• Deuteronomy 30:3-4 "gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the LORD your God has scattered you"
• God will bring them back to "this land" (which he directly says is the land of Benjamin and Jerusalem and the cities of Judah)?
• Deuteronomy 30:5 "the LORD your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed"
• God will give them "good fortune"?
• Deuteronomy 30:3 "the LORD your God will restore your fortunes"
• God will put "my law within them" and "write it on their hearts"?
• Deuteronomy 30:6 "the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants"
• They will be his people and he will be their God?
• An idiom used throughout the Old Testament, but which Jeremiah directly says in context of the Babylonian exile
• Jeremiah 24:5-7 Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Like these good figs, so I will regard as good the exiles from Judah, whom I have sent away from this place to the land of the Chaldeans. I will set my eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them back to this land. I will build them up, and not tear them down; I will plant them, and not pluck them up. I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.

Every part of this "everlasting" "new covenant" is part of the restoration package promised in Deuteronomy. The one exception, the "my people" idiom, Jeremiah already invoked when talking about the Judean exiles returning from Babylon.

What you call a "restoration package" is actually proof that the covenant will fail. And when an agreement fails, it can be restored, and it was. Or, it can be terminated forever.

The only requirement for a restored covenant that had failed was God's promise that it would be restored. But God never said it would *always* be restored. And it wasn't. When the temple was destroyed, after Jesus' death, it was never restored. It was a broken covenant, and there was no provision, within the covenant itself, nor in prophecy, that required it to be restored.

The "everlasting covenant" was God's promise to Abraham to have a people from all nations, including from Israel, forever. But the contingency of the Law was not part of this everlasting promise.

It was just a temporary attachment to an everlasting promise. Once the Law had failed, the everlasting covenant given to Abraham had to continue forever--but not the Law that had previously been attached to it.

It had failed, and there was no compelling reason to restore it once a better, and eternal, means of salvation had been brought forward and attached to the eternal promise. Once Christ had come and made eternal atonement for sin, there was no need to keep temporary forms of atonement in the Law attached to the promise.

[Fenris]

As I've been saying, Christ was a mystery in the era of the Law

This is just awful. Using this concept, you can throw out all of the bible. Every word. Nothing means anything, because it's all "mystery".

[RandyPNW]

As I've been saying, Christ was a mystery in the era of the Law

This is just awful. Using this concept, you can throw out all of the bible. Every word. Nothing means anything, because it's all "mystery".

When you watch a mystery movie on TV, you get all kinds of clues. Who did it?

But in the Bible, you get all kinds of principles established, with a vague resolution up ahead. When the resolution comes, you're expected to fit the pieces together. That's the kind of mystery I'm talking about--not jumping into a black hole.

[Fenris]

When the resolution comes, you're expected to fit the pieces together.

No, we're not. Because if the bible is strange and vague, God can't blame us for coming to the wrong conclusion. The bible uses clear and plain language for this very reason. 

[RandyPNW]

When the resolution comes, you're expected to fit the pieces together.

No, we're not. Because if the bible is strange and vague, God can't blame us for coming to the wrong conclusion. The bible uses clear and plain language for this very reason.

Be careful who you're describing as "us." When Israel, as a nation, turns to Christianity, "they" may not include *you!*

The Bible is not strange, but it is sometimes opaque. And that's because God knows some people don't even want to know the truth. Why should He argue with them, even if it is for their own good?

Isa 29.11 For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I can’t; it is sealed.” 12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I don’t know how to read.”

13 The Lord says:

“These people come near to me with their mouth
    and honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
    is based on merely human rules they have been taught.
14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
    with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
    the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.”

[Fenris]

Be careful who you're describing as "us." When Israel, as a nation, turns to Christianity, "they" may not include *you!*

Israel as a nation hasn't turned to Christianity though. I'm sure this bothers you a lot.

The Bible is not strange, but it is sometimes opaque.

If the bible is opaque, then God can't really punish us for not understanding it, now can He? Then it's His fault.

And that's because God knows some people don't even want to know the truth.

And how do we know who those people are? Of course, it's anyone who disagrees with your personal understanding of the truth. Of course.

Isa 29.11 For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I can’t; it is sealed.” 12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I don’t know how to read.”

13 The Lord says:

“These people come near to me with their mouth
    and honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
    is based on merely human rules they have been taught.
14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
    with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
    the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.”

This is talking about the generation that saw the Temple's destruction by Babylon. Not all Jews or all humanity for all time. Heck, the chapter even ends with a consolation:

No longer will Jacob be ashamed;
    no longer will their faces grow pale.
 When they see among them their children,
    the work of my hands,
they will keep my name holy;
    they will acknowledge the holiness of the Holy One of Jacob,
    and will stand in awe of the God of Israel.

[RandyPNW]

Be careful who you're describing as "us." When Israel, as a nation, turns to Christianity, "they" may not include *you!*

Israel as a nation hasn't turned to Christianity though. I'm sure this bothers you a lot.

I do get frustrated a lot, but not on this point. It saddens me greatly, but it's to be expected. Jesus predicted "the way is broad that leads to destruction, and only a few enter into life." I think that's true of all nations. Relative few find the narrow path that leads to life, that leads to divine blessing.

The Bible is not strange, but it is sometimes opaque.

If the bible is opaque, then God can't really punish us for not understanding it, now can He? Then it's His fault.

Sometimes He chooses only to give us enough light to get from one room to another. It's better than pitch blackness.

And that's because God knows some people don't even want to know the truth.

And how do we know who those people are? Of course, it's anyone who disagrees with your personal understanding of the truth. Of course.

My word doesn't mean anything. It's my arguments that matter. And it's not because I argue them, but only if the arguments are true and compelling.

Some people reject even compelling arguments because they have their own personal agenda.

Isa 29.11 For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I can’t; it is sealed.” 12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I don’t know how to read.”

13 The Lord says:

“These people come near to me with their mouth
    and honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
    is based on merely human rules they have been taught.
14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
    with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
    the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.”

This is talking about the generation that saw the Temple's destruction by Babylon. Not all Jews or all humanity for all time. Heck, the chapter even ends with a consolation:

No longer will Jacob be ashamed;
    no longer will their faces grow pale.
 When they see among them their children,
    the work of my hands,
they will keep my name holy;
    they will acknowledge the holiness of the Holy One of Jacob,
    and will stand in awe of the God of Israel.

I fully understand this. It's an eternal principle. God never changes.

[Fenris]

I do get frustrated a lot, but not on this point. It saddens me greatly, but it's to be expected. Jesus predicted "the way is broad that leads to destruction, and only a few enter into life." I think that's true of all nations. Relative few find the narrow path that leads to life, that leads to divine blessing.

I think most people in the world will merit some kind of positive afterlife. But then I have a different outlook.

Sometimes He chooses only to give us enough light to get from one room to another. It's better than pitch blackness.

Or maybe He told us everything that we need to know. No riddles, no obfuscation, no darkness.

My word doesn't mean anything. It's my arguments that matter. And it's not because I argue them, but only if the arguments are true and compelling.

Which they may be, to people who already believe as you do.

Some people reject even compelling arguments because they have their own personal agenda.

Or maybe the arguments aren't compelling. Also possible.

I fully understand this. It's an eternal principle. God never changes.

And yet you think that God changes His mind.