Its unauthorized to say that silence equals a command of God.

[WesWoodell]

That is all.

[ParsonJefferson]

Hmmmmmmmmmm... Pondering... :groupray:

[Iosias]

In what context?

[HeyHomie]

I couldn't agree more! :thumbsup:

[ParsonJefferson]

I'm finding myself wondering if the Original Post has something to do with the Apocalypse. I think I'm hearing the thundering of horses' hooves.




No wait... That was just the garbage truck. Never mind. :D

[WesWoodell]

In what context?

To specify is to ruin my fun.

And the term "context" is unauthorized.

[crawfish]

Sarcasm is DEFINITELY unauthorized.

[Apollos1]

This thread may just turn out to be alot of fun!

Oh the suspense...:confused:

[RefrusRevlis]

Its unauthorized to say that silence equals a command of God.
(it's unauthorised (British spelling)-according to most grammar books to forget the apostrophe in "it's")

Hmm?

True.

Looking at the statement:

It's unauthorized to say

ie - "the Bible either implicitly or explicitly prohibits or is silent about the statement..."

that silence
definition:
"the lack of explicit requirement, implicit requirement, explicit permission, implicit permission, explicit prohibition or implicit prohibition."

equals a command of God.
"is equivalent to an explicit or implicit requirement found in the Bible."

The Bible would not authorise the statement "silence equals a command of God", because by its very nature a commandment is either an explicit or an implicit requirement. Anyone making the statement "silence equals a command of God" would be in error, and error is definitely unauthorised.

However this would be authorised (authorized):
It's authorized to say that silence equals the lack of an explicit or implicit command; explicit or implicit permission; or explicit or implicit prohibition by God.

This is also correct:

It's authorized to say silence equals unauthorized by God.

My brain hurts, I think I'll log off and read the Bible (The Authorised Version)
Refrus
:D

[RefrusRevlis]

Oops double posted- I think that's unauthorised too.
:blush:
refrus

[- DRA -]

Its unauthorized to say that silence equals a command of God.

That is all.

Please explain your understanding of the "silence" of God about priests from the tribe of Judah ...
Hebrews 7:13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing [was silent] concerning priesthood. (NKJV)

Was the writer of Hebrews reasoning that God's silence about priests from Judah authorized them to be priests, or that God's silence did NOT authorize them to be priests?

[Splayd]

Thanks for that DRA.

I love the example Paul provides here. First of all, it's important to note that Paul doesn't simply dismiss this matter as many today would. He recognised that the new covenant is necessarily consistent with the old and subsequently addresses what may appear to some as a contradiction. A lot of people today wouldn't care or even see the relevance, but he demonstrates here that all of scripture is in harmony with the rest and is to be considered within the context of the rest.

His method in determining the truth of the matter is interesting too. When confronted with silence from one covenant... he delves even further back. It's clear from his account that the Mosaic covenant didn't undo everything that preceded it. The precedent is established prior to the new and even prior to the Mosaic.

What a wonderful approach he presents. If the NT is silent on a matter, perhaps we should consider his example and look for an earlier precedent. Perhaps we should consider the context of ALL of scripture and recognise the harmony that exists between the different covenants.

Peace

[Apollos1]

DRA –

Hebrews 7:14 is my favorite example as to how silence is applied toward scripture as witnessed within scripture itself. God's attitude toward silence, whether within the old covenant or the new, remianed the same. I had just inserted this point into a post I am working on.

Silence Excludes:

Silence can not authorize and it can not prohibit, BUT the application of silence in scriptures shows that silence EXCLUDES.

Hebrew 7:14 - For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests.

The priesthood had changed - verse 12.

The writer’s point is Mose's silence on the matter of priests from the tribe of Judah would have excluded Christ from being a priest. Why? Because Moses was SILENT on that topic! Levites only were mentioned in the Law as being able to serve.

Moses was silent on the matter of those from the tribe of Judah serving as priests, and as such, this would have excluded Christ unless God changed something.

Of course the major point the Hebrew writer is making here is that there was a change OF the law… not a change IN the Law, but a NEW law! And this change is what made it possible for Jesus to now be a priest even though He is from the tribe of Judah.

[- DRA -]

DRA –

Hebrews 7:14 is my favorite example as to how silence is applied toward scripture as witnessed within scripture itself. God's attitude toward silence, whether within the old covenant or the new, remianed the same. I had just inserted this point into a post I am working on.

Silence Excludes:

Silence can not authorize and it can not prohibit, BUT the application of silence in scriptures shows that silence EXCLUDES.

Hebrew 7:14 - For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests.

The priesthood had changed - verse 12.

The writer’s point is Mose's silence on the matter of priests from the tribe of Judah would have excluded Christ from being a priest. Why? Because Moses was SILENT on that topic! Levites only were mentioned in the Law as being able to serve.

Moses was silent on the matter of those from the tribe of Judah serving as priests, and as such, this would have excluded Christ unless God changed something.

Of course the major point the Hebrew writer is making here is that there was a change OF the law… not a change IN the Law, but a NEW law! And this change is what made it possible for Jesus to now be a priest even though He is from the tribe of Judah.

:amen:

Thanks for this excellent commentary on those passages in Hebrews 7.

Silence itself doesn't authorize us to speak on God's behalf (which would be contrary to 1 Peter 4:11a). However, silence doesn't authorize us to deviate from that which God has specifically instructed. The classic example is the building of the ark in Genesis 6 from gopherwood. Noah, being the man of faith that he was (Hebrews 11:7), did exactly as God instructed him (Genesis 6:22). Thus, even though God was silent about other types of wood, Noah understood what he was supposed to use - and used it. Faith works that way (Romans 10:17). Faith didn't suppose or assume that oak or pine would substitute for gopherwood. Rather, Noah's faith prompted him to simply do as he was instructed. I think there's a lesson here for us to apply to our lives as we endeavor to live and serve God today under the gospel of Christ (Romans 15:4).

:bow:

[- DRA -]

Thanks for that DRA.

I love the example Paul provides here. First of all, it's important to note that Paul doesn't simply dismiss this matter as many today would. He recognised that the new covenant is necessarily consistent with the old and subsequently addresses what may appear to some as a contradiction. A lot of people today wouldn't care or even see the relevance, but he demonstrates here that all of scripture is in harmony with the rest and is to be considered within the context of the rest.

His method in determining the truth of the matter is interesting too. When confronted with silence from one covenant... he delves even further back. It's clear from his account that the Mosaic covenant didn't undo everything that preceded it. The precedent is established prior to the new and even prior to the Mosaic.

What a wonderful approach he presents. If the NT is silent on a matter, perhaps we should consider his example and look for an earlier precedent. Perhaps we should consider the context of ALL of scripture and recognise the harmony that exists between the different covenants.

Peace

Actually, I think we should be careful to not overlook an obvious point. God had spoken. He specified that priests would be the tribe of Levi. His silence about other tribes did NOT authorize them to be Levitical priests under the law of Moses. Rather, it prohibited them from being priests.

With this understanding, we should be cautious today about disregarding what God has specifically stated/commanded/directly stated for us to follow today under the law of Christ. Agreed?

[- DRA -]

To specify is to ruin my fun.

Is the term "fun" authorized? :)

And the term "context" is unauthorized.

By authorized, do you mean specifically or generically? I believe considering the "context" of a passage or text is generically authorized in the word "study" (KJV) in 2 Timothy 2:15.

[Splayd]

The writer’s point is Mose's silence on the matter of priests from the tribe of Judah would have excluded Christ from being a priest. Why? Because Moses was SILENT on that topic! Levites only were mentioned in the Law as being able to serve.

Moses was silent on the matter of those from the tribe of Judah serving as priests, and as such, this would have excluded Christ unless God changed something.AND YET... Paul's whole point here is contrary to yours. By appealing to the example of Melchizedek, he's establishing that Moses' silence on the matter doesn't exclude Jesus because of the earlier precedent. Otherwise, why would he bother mentioning Melchizedek at all? Paul says an awful lot about him, given the little that's written in the OT.

If your take is right, wouldn't it have made a lot more sense for Paul to not even bother going there at all and focus purely on the fact that God changed things because it's a new covenant?

[Splayd]

However, silence doesn't authorize us to deviate from that which God has specifically instructed. That wouldn't make sense anyway. You can't have specific instructions and silence about the same aspect. It's either one or the other.

The classic example is the building of the ark in Genesis 6 from gopherwood. Noah, being the man of faith that he was (Hebrews 11:7), did exactly as God instructed him (Genesis 6:22). Thus, even though God was silent about other types of wood, Noah understood what he was supposed to use - and used it.The instruction to use gopherwood is a positive instruction (ie: do this). On it's own it doesn't contain any negative instruction (ie: don't do this) but it's understood that by using another wood, he wouldn't have followed the positive instruction. By trying to make more of the issue by looking for the negative implications we necessarily add to the instruction and enter into an entirely unecessary world of complications, insinuations, disclaimers and definitions. I'd rather stick to what's actually said.

Consider the road some might go down with this. Is Noah allowed to use a hammer? Well there's silence about that, but common sense dictates that he'll need to use tools so we'll justify it's use by establishing (from silence) that tools (aids) are acceptable. Can he use nails? Hmmm... this is tricky because nails are a building material and as such would conflict with the use of gopherwood as a material. Besides, if the nails are made from metal then the ark would be made of gopherwood AND metal. Best to just use nails made from gopherwood. Hang on a second. We're supposed to use tar too. Now tar isn't made from gopherwood, but it's part of God's instruction so God mustn't be talking about building materials specifically when he talks about gopherwood. He must just mean that gopherwood is the only wood we're allowed to use. Does that mean Noah could use metal or plastic or rock etc... for some parts of the boat as long as he uses gopherwood exclusively for the wood part? Hardly. We'd batter come up with another extrabiblical way to define exactly what constitutes a boat and where and when the extras can be applied. etc... etc...

What a mess. Meanwhile - if we'd simply worry about following the instruction in the form it's given, we'd avoid all that legal mumbo jumbo. Noah was instructed to use gopherwood to build the ark. If he does the positive aspect of the instruction, there's no need to even consider the unspoken negative aspects.

Peace

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by Apollos1

The writer’s point is Mose's silence on the matter of priests from the tribe of Judah would have excluded Christ from being a priest. Why? Because Moses was SILENT on that topic! Levites only were mentioned in the Law as being able to serve.

Moses was silent on the matter of those from the tribe of Judah serving as priests, and as such, this would have excluded Christ unless God changed something.

AND YET... Paul's whole point here is contrary to yours. By appealing to the example of Melchizedek, he's establishing that Moses' silence on the matter doesn't exclude Jesus because of the earlier precedent. Otherwise, why would he bother mentioning Melchizedek at all? Paul says an awful lot about him, given the little that's written in the OT.

If your take is right, wouldn't it have made a lot more sense for Paul to not even bother going there at all and focus purely on the fact that God changed things because it's a new covenant?

Actually, I think you are overlooking several points the writer of Hebrews made:
* Jesus is declared to be high priest (3:1)
* Jesus was called by God to be a high priest just as Aaron was (5:4)
* Jesus was called to be a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (5:6,10; 6:20)
* Melchizekek was greater than Abraham (7:4-10)
- Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek
- Melchizedek blessed Abraham
* In a sense, Levi (the father of the Levitical priests) paid tithes through Abraham to Melchizedek (7:10)
* The point? Melchizedek's priesthood was greater than the Levitical priesthood

And,

* The priesthood of Melchizedek preceded the Levitical priesthood (Melchizedek lived ~ Genesis 14, the Levites were declared to be a priest until years later after the Exodus from Egypt)
* After the Levitical priesthood was ordained by God, God foretold of another priest - after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4 - approximately 450 years after the Levitical priesthood was established)
* The priesthood of Melchizedek differed from the Levitical priests
- They died and were replaced - There is NO record of Melchizedek's death, therefore, in a sense, his office remained open (7:3)
- Melchizedek's priesthood was not based on genealogy - The Levitical system obviously was
* Jesus is declared to be that priest prophesied of in the O.T.

Therefore, God was NOT silent about the matter another priest arising after the order of Melchizedek.

And, the writer of Hebrews makes it clear what his point was in 7:12. God intended for the priesthood to change. Because the Levitical priesthood was coupled closely with the law of Moses, that meant the law would also change (that discussion follows in 7:22 and begins again in 8:7.

Because the priesthood and law changed, folks such as myself can now enjoy the blessings of God (i.e. Ephesians chapters 2-4). :clap:

[Splayd]

Actually, I think you are overlooking several points the writer of Hebrews made:Far from overlooking the points you raise, I base my entire argument on them.
Therefore, God was NOT silent about the matter another priest arising after the order of Melchizedek.Absolutely! That's my point right there. Moses' silence about non-Levitical priests didn't negate what God actually did say prior to that. Some seem to take the approach that every time God makes another covenant, all the precedents prior to that are to be ignored altogether. Paul didn't. He recognised that despite the Mosaic coveant, the earlier precedent still held.

Because the priesthood and law changed, folks such as myself can now enjoy the blessings of God (i.e. Ephesians chapters 2-4). :clap::amen: No disagreements there brother.

[RefrusRevlis]

The instruction to use gopherwood is a positive instruction (ie: do this). On it's own it doesn't contain any negative instruction (ie: don't do this) but it's understood that by using another wood, he wouldn't have followed the positive instruction. By trying to make more of the issue by looking for the negative implications we necessarily add to the instruction and enter into an entirely unecessary world of complications, insinuations, disclaimers and definitions. I'd rather stick to what's actually said.


The command to use gopherwood does not prohibit the use of other woods as well as gopherwood. The command to use gopherwood prohibits using other woods instead of gopherwood. It's the absence of a command or permission to use other woods (ie silence) that prohibits the use of other woods as well as gopher wood.

Refrus

[Splayd]

The command to use gopherwood does not prohibit the use of other woods as well as gopherwood.Sure it does. The command to use gopherwood prohibits using other woods instead of gopherwood.And that's why. Using another wood as well as gopherwood is necessarily using the other wood instead of gopherwood. In this case there's simply not an either/or scenario. Every part of the boat that's made from another wood is necessarily not made from gopherwood.

There's simply no need to investigate the silence any further.

[RefrusRevlis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RefrusRevlis http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=35726077#post35726077)
The command to use gopherwood does not prohibit the use of other woods as well as gopherwood.

Sure it does. Quote:
The command to use gopherwood prohibits using other woods instead of gopherwood.
And that's why. Using another wood as well as gopherwood is necessarily using the other wood instead of gopherwood. In this case there's simply not an either/or scenario. Every part of the boat that's made from another wood is necessarily not made from gopherwood.

There's simply no need to investigate the silence any further.


I might not have chosen the best words to express what I was trying to get across, what I meant was:
The command to use gopherwood prohibits using other woods as a replacement for gopherwood (i.e. no gopherwood used). But it does not necessarily prohibit the use of other timbers as well as gopherwood. The command to use Gopherwood in itself only commands the use of Gopherwood. Gopherwood had to be used making the Ark.

It's the lack of a statement allowing or commanding the use of other timbers, that prohibits their use. It's because "use gopherwood" stands alone in regard to allowable woods. If God had said "use gopherwood" and "use pine", the command to use gopherwood would not mean that pine would necessarily be not allowable.
The point is that gopherwood is the only specified wood - i.e.the Bible is silent about the use of other woods.

This is analogous to vocal singing versus instrumental music. It's not that God specified "singing" that prohibits the use of musical instruments, it's that he did not speak to allow or command the use of musical instruments. God could well have said "sing" and "play the stringed instrument". The fact that he specified "sing" does not automatically disallow "play the stringed instrument" , it is in fact the silence about musical instruments that prohibits their use.

Using your line of reasoning instrumental music is prohibited, because God said "sing".
Refrus:)

[Splayd]

No, I understood exactly what you were saying. I just disagree. If Noah used pine for part of the boat, he wasn't using gopherwood for that part like he was instructed to. Just focussing on the instruction is all that's needed.

This is analogous to vocal singing versus instrumental music.I disagree. Pine is a like for like replacement for gopherwood. The IM situation isn't. A fair analogy might be using someone else's voice to sing instead of your own or even playing instruments instead of singing. I don't know anyone that tries to make a case for either.

A better analogy for IM from the Noah story would be gopherwood and tar or even gopherwood and nails. Neither acts as a substitute for the gopherwood and neither impedes the positive command to use gopherwood. The same is true when our singing is accompanied by music. Your argument demands that we understand it as some hybrid that has somehow replaced the singing. I simply don't agree.

If I sing while standing it's understood that I'm still singing. It doesn't become some wacky standing/singing hybrid. It just happens that I am both singing and standing.
If I sing while holding a songbook, has my singing mutated into some holding/singing hybrid?
What if I'm reading the words? Is it a holding/reading/singing hybrid? Of course not. It turns out I can simply do all 3 at the same time.
What if I'm holding a guitar while I sing? Is that different to holding a songbook?

Here's the killer... What if I strum that guitar while I sing?
All of a sudden it's turned from doing different things simultaneously to doing one hybrid thing at the expense of it's parts? Why???

Where's the point that that occured and how did it occur?

Is it different if someone else is doing the strumming? What if someone outside is strumming a guitar? Does that sabotage our singing turning it into something else? What constitutes an instrument anyway? Does tapping your foot count? What if someone is doing it without realising? Does it negate all of our singing and should we stop the service and inform them?

The whole thing simply doesn't make any sense to me unless we determine that we need explicit chapter and verse authority for everything we do... and if that's the case there's very little we can do.

Using your line of reasoning instrumental music is prohibited, because God said "sing".No. Using my line of reasoning we should sing... and we do. Sitting, standing, songbooks, overheads, harmonies, pitchpipes, foot tapping, clapping, metronomes, instruments etc... don't change that. We're still singing.

Peace

[Splayd]

For what it's worth, I was hoping we would be able to have this discussion without focussing too much on IM... only because we've already had so many threads for that and still do.

Perhaps we could shift this aspect of the discussion there to avoid turning this into another IM thread.

Peace

[RefrusRevlis]

I disagree. Pine is a like for like replacement for gopherwood. The IM situation isn't. A fair analogy might be using someone else's voice to sing instead of your own or even playing instruments instead of singing. I don't know anyone that tries to make a case for either.


The following quote I think clearly puts forth the issue in relation to the gopher wood question, and states what I did, but far more clearly. Note the sentences about substituting and adding.


"A person is correct in teaching that it would have been sinful for Noah to have built the whole ark or a part of the ark out of non-gopher wood. But the sinfulness has nothing to do with the fact that the non-gopherwood has a specific to specific relationship to gopher wood, under the same generic wood. It is thus not due to "to specify is to exclude". Rather, the sinfulness is due to the absence of authority (the absence of an affirmation) for the non-gopher wood. It was sinful to use non-gopher wood because God nowhere authorized non-gopher wood. This lack of authority is of two kinds: One kind forbade substituting non-gopher wood for gopher wood, and the other kind forbade adding non-gopher wood to the gopher wood. Let's talk about these in turn. First the requirement to use gopher wood forbade substituting non-gopher wood for the gopher wood. To require is to forbid anything that prevents the requirement. (To require is thus to forbid, not to specify is to forbid, unless by specify - and here is the exception the reference is to a required specific. But even here it's the requirement not the specificity that is forbidding the substitution.) So building the whole ark out of non-gopher wood would have been wrong, because it substitutes and thus would have prevented doing the divine requirement. A requirement implicitly forbids anything that is substituted for it. So it is correct to say "To require is to forbid substitution." But what about additions, where you still have gopher wood, but you are including non-gopher wood? With a substitution you do not have the gopher wood at all. But with an addition, you have gopher wood plus something else. Additions are not forbidden by the requirement (which only forbids substitutions) but by the silence.


Let us now turn to this second kind of the unauthorized. There was silence about using non-gopher wood, So building even some of the ark out of non-gopher wood was sinful, because God's silence forbids as we have shown in earlier chapters. Therefore, adding some wood to the gopher wood would also have been wrong. It was silence, and thus the lack of divine authority for adding any other kind of wood, which forbade any other kind of wood." George F Beals How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids p199


If silence does not prohibit, then it would be perfectly reasonable to use other woods as well as gopher wood. If Noah used pine as well as gopher wood, he could quite rightly say to God "I have fulfilled your command, I have used gopherwood". All Noah would have to do was make sure he used some gopherwood when building the ark. If God were to ask Noah "Did you use gopherwood to build the ark?" Noah could say "Yes".

Refrus

[Everlasting]

:crosseo:

The commandments were brought during the time in the old testament, when man had no such laws from God.

Growing in the knowledge and understanding of God, does not allow you to determine what His will is. Peace and silence are not indicators of rebellion and haughtiness.

1 Pe 2:15

For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:


:crossrc:

Everlasting

Bible Inspired Author
Moon Over Key Biscayne
bn.com

[Splayd]

Hmmm... seems to me that someone's using George F Beals How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids in addition to the NT. I'm pretty sure God's silent about that :P

Seriously though, I reject his argument. Using non-gopher wood in "addition to" gopher wood is necessarily using it "instead" of gopher wood for every place that it was used. There is no addition vs substitution thing going on there. They equate to the same thing because of the fact that they are both woods. Notice that noone ever argues that nails or ropes etc... wouldn't be allowed because of the silence?

Peace

[Loveaboveall]

Wow, did God not give us logic to use? When I think of the Bible being silent I think of something that is NOT talked about at all. Such as... Should a microphone be used in the worship service. The bible does not speak of it, it is silent. OT to NT-- Was it okay, in early church times, for a person to touch a person with leprosy because the NT does not forbid it? Would he still be at danger of contracting the disease? God gave us logic to use

[abadhaircut]

Hmmm... seems to me that someone's using George F Beals How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids in addition to the NT. I'm pretty sure God's silent about that :P

Seriously though, I reject his argument. Using non-gopher wood in "addition to" gopher wood is necessarily using it "instead" of gopher wood for every place that it was used. There is no addition vs substitution thing going on there. They equate to the same thing because of the fact that they are both woods. Notice that noone ever argues that nails or ropes etc... wouldn't be allowed because of the silence?

Peace
So are you saying that if Noah had used gopher wood and another type of wood, that he would have been sinning because parts of the ship would have had no gopher wood on them?

If so, then let me ask you this: When you worship and you sing and play an instrument, do you have any part of the song where only instruments are playing and there's a pause in the singing? If so, then you are using instruments in that part with no singing, thus equalling the use of gopher wood and non gopher wood.

I have a friend that goes to a church where they use instruments in their worship. He claims there's nothing wrong with using instruments because he's singing too. Well, he invited me to church with a few weeks ago, and they had long instrumental openings and instrumental only sections during the songs. This meant that people weren't singing but still playing instruments and worshiping in a way that God did not command, thus substituting (even if only for 15 seconds at a time) instruments for singing.

Also, you say that no one ever mentions the use of ropes and hammers and nails and such, even though God was silent on them. Let me clearify please: A hammer, nails, and rope are, I imagine, neccessary in order to build a boat (having never built one myself, but simply using common sense). Therefore, in order fo the gopher wood to be made into a boat, Noah would need to use a hammer, nails, rope, tar, etc. But in order to sing, instruments are not neccessary. I can sing without playing guitar, but I can't build a boat without my nails.

I apologize for the long post and I hope you read it, and I apologize cause I know you didn't want this to turn into an IM discussion., but I was already here, so...

[annie1speed]

Loveaboveall,

So if it is not addressed at all, it is fair game? Isn't that a dangerous path?

Annie

[Loveaboveall]

Not when they are based on the principles of Love! Love God and Love man. :)

[Splayd]

If so, then let me ask you this: When you worship and you sing and play an instrument, do you have any part of the song where only instruments are playing and there's a pause in the singing? If so, then you are using instruments in that part with no singing, thus equalling the use of gopher wood and non gopher wood.Once again, this isn't analogous at all and depends on first accepting that IM in worship is wrong in and of itself. Can I stand and sing? Of course. If I continue standing in between songs, is the standing offered as a substitute for singing? Of course not. You see, you are still demanding that IM is pine to vocal worship's gopherwood. I disagree and noone's offered any reason why it should be considered as such.

Also, you say that no one ever mentions the use of ropes and hammers and nails and such, even though God was silent on them. Let me clearify please: A hammer, nails, and rope are, I imagine, neccessary in order to build a boat (having never built one myself, but simply using common sense). Therefore, in order fo the gopher wood to be made into a boat, Noah would need to use a hammer, nails, rope, tar, etc. But in order to sing, instruments are not neccessary. I can sing without playing guitar, but I can't build a boat without my nails.Again - I disagree. Having built boats and sung professionally, I don't recognise either nails OR guitars as necessary, though I feel that both can be a great help. Right here is perhaps my biggest problem with this whole approach. Despite the insistance that everything must be "authorised" there's this entirely abiguous area where one is left to determine on their own that we can actually use some things for the sake of expediency etc... It's up to ??? (I dunno who) to determine that "aids" are acceptable and then to further determine what constitutes an aid and then to judge everybody else's understanding of the issue by that very same extra-biblical standard that they devised themselves. Go figure. One man's aid is another man's extra. Who would have thunk?

[Loveaboveall]

"Where the BIBLE speaks, we speak; and where the BIBLE is silent, we are silent."

I guess the question is, "who decides whether the Bible is silent or whether it speaks on specific issues?"

[cremi]

Isn't part of the problem here that an over-empahsis is placed on what happens for an hour or so on Sunday morning? (or Sunday night) Yet...often times the same strict regulations are not even considered in daily life?

[Splayd]

Absolutely cremi!

Our whole life should be a prayer. Our every moment an act of worship. While the time we spend together is definitely important, we too readily consider it as "church" or "worship" when the truth should be that neither can be confined to just an hour or two a week. It should be who we are and what we do with our every breath.

Peace

[RefrusRevlis]

Seriously though, I reject his argument. Using non-gopher wood in "addition to" gopher wood is necessarily using it "instead" of gopher wood for every place that it was used.

The difference is with "instead of" - no gopherwood is used and "in addition to" means gopherwood plus some other wood is used, the two are not equivalent. We are talking about the ark, not parts of it.

I have some questions:

Does the specifying of one thing in and of itself preclude anything else?

Could God have specified another wood as well as gopherwood? Question: does the act of specifying one thing in and of itself prohibit anything else?

If "yes" this means that because God specified gopherwood, therefore He could not have also specified pine if He wanted and said " Build an ark of gopherwood and pine"?

If "no" then what does the prohibiting?

Is it that it because God only specified one thing (gopherwood) that it excluded another things (other woods) being used?

Put another way: is it because God was silent about other woods and commanded gopherwood, that makes gopherwood the only acceptable wood?



Refrus

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

However, silence doesn't authorize us to deviate from that which God has specifically instructed.

That wouldn't make sense anyway. You can't have specific instructions and silence about the same aspect. It's either one or the other.

Let's not forget that God specified the Levites as priests, and was silent about priests from Judah. That's the point being made in Hebrews 7:11-14. The interesting thing about this situation is that the answer to the issue is given in 8:4 - Jesus was NOT authorized to be a Levitical priest; rather, He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

From this example, I learn something about specific authority - that which God specifies excludes/prohibits other options - even though God is silent about them, they are NOT authorized. Agree?

Originally Posted by - DRA -

The classic example is the building of the ark in Genesis 6 from gopherwood. Noah, being the man of faith that he was (Hebrews 11:7), did exactly as God instructed him (Genesis 6:22). Thus, even though God was silent about other types of wood, Noah understood what he was supposed to use - and used it.

The instruction to use gopherwood is a positive instruction (ie: do this). On it's own it doesn't contain any negative instruction (ie: don't do this) but it's understood that by using another wood, he wouldn't have followed the positive instruction. By trying to make more of the issue by looking for the negative implications we necessarily add to the instruction and enter into an entirely unecessary world of complications, insinuations, disclaimers and definitions. I'd rather stick to what's actually said.

I agree. Let's stick with what's said. Let's see where it takes us ... see next response.

Consider the road some might go down with this. Is Noah allowed to use a hammer? Well there's silence about that, but common sense dictates that he'll need to use tools so we'll justify it's use by establishing (from silence) that tools (aids) are acceptable. Can he use nails? Hmmm... this is tricky because nails are a building material and as such would conflict with the use of gopherwood as a material. Besides, if the nails are made from metal then the ark would be made of gopherwood AND metal. Best to just use nails made from gopherwood. Hang on a second. We're supposed to use tar too. Now tar isn't made from gopherwood, but it's part of God's instruction so God mustn't be talking about building materials specifically when he talks about gopherwood. He must just mean that gopherwood is the only wood we're allowed to use. Does that mean Noah could use metal or plastic or rock etc... for some parts of the boat as long as he uses gopherwood exclusively for the wood part? Hardly. We'd batter come up with another extrabiblical way to define exactly what constitutes a boat and where and when the extras can be applied. etc... etc...

Genesis 6:14a says, "Make yourself an ark of gopherwood" (NKJV). This is what I view as a generic (versus specific) command. Noah is commanded to build, but no specifics are given. Therefore, he is free to use whatever tools he has available. That's the way I view his options. Also, I compare it to the word "go" in Matthew 28:19. I find the disciples using various means of travel as they went about preaching the gospel i.e. running (Acts 8:30), sitting in a chariot (Acts 8:31, and sailing (Acts 13:4).

If I'm not mistaken, the use of pitch would be to seal the ark, not to fasten the individual boards together. Therefore, being fair with the text, since God didn't specify what to use to connect the gopherwood boards together, Noah was free to use whatever was available to him at the time. I understand that choice to refer to what is sometimes called an expediency - which involves the realm of choice to aid/assist in carrying out a command (1 Cor.

What a mess. Meanwhile - if we'd simply worry about following the instruction in the form it's given, we'd avoid all that legal mumbo jumbo. Noah was instructed to use gopherwood to build the ark. If he does the positive aspect of the instruction, there's no need to even consider the unspoken negative aspects.

Peace

For sure, it didn't seem to be such a mess to Noah. He did as God instructed. It sure wasn't "legal mumbo jumbo" to him, any more than the discussion about Jesus being a Levitical priest was in Hebrews 7-8 to the first-century Jews the letter was written to.

Just for interest sake, would you categorize the man of God in 1 Kings 13 as being entangled in "legal mumbo jumbo?"

How about Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10?

[- DRA -]

Originallly Posted by - DRA -

Therefore, God was NOT silent about the matter [of] another priest arising after the order of Melchizedek.

That's my point right there. Moses' silence about non-Levitical priests didn't negate what God actually did say prior to that. Some seem to take the approach that every time God makes another covenant, all the precedents prior to that are to be ignored altogether. Paul didn't. He recognised that despite the Mosaic coveant, the earlier precedent still held.

:amen: No disagreements there brother.

The point made about God's silence wasn't that Jesus couldn't be a priest - but that He couldn't be a Levitical priest.

Not sure where you're trying to go or what you're trying to do with this "precedent" idea. God proclaimed Jesus to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek earlier in the book of Hebrews, and elaborates on that idea in chapter 7. Simply stated, priesthood did not necessarily depend upon the Levitical system. Case in point, Melchizedek was a priest - long before the Levitical system ever came about. And, after God established the Levitical system, He foretold of the priesthood of Christ (Psalm 110:4). Since the Levitical priesthood and law were coupled, a change in the priesthood also prompted a change in the law (also supported by other Scriptures as explained in Hebrews 8). Therefore, I'm not sure there's a valid "precedence" argument, but simply understanding what God had in mind all along for His Son Jesus and His law/covenant/will that would go into effect when He died.

[- DRA -]

If silence does not prohibit, then it would be perfectly reasonable to use other woods as well as gopher wood. If Noah used pine as well as gopher wood, he could quite rightly say to God "I have fulfilled your command, I have used gopherwood". All Noah would have to do was make sure he used some gopherwood when building the ark. If God were to ask Noah "Did you use gopherwood to build the ark?" Noah could say "Yes".

Refrus

There is no "if" in the reasoning presented in Hebrews 7:13-17, 8:4. God's silence about priests from the tribe of Judah prohibited/did NOT authorize, etc. Jesus (who was from the tribe of Judah - not Levi) to be a Levitical priest.

Taking this point back to the discussion of Genesis 6, God did NOT say use "some" gopherwood in building the ark - just as He did NOT say use "some" Levites as priests under the law of Moses.

Is inserting a word into the text to support an assumed premise the basis of sound biblical interpretation?

From the text in Genesis 6, it seems to be rather clear that God told Noah to use gopherwood, and Noah did just as God told him (note verse 22). I humbly suggest being fair with the text and not reading anything into it before trying to apply your understanding of this text to other biblical teachings i.e. instrumental music.

[- DRA -]

Wow, did God not give us logic to use? When I think of the Bible being silent I think of something that is NOT talked about at all. Such as... Should a microphone be used in the worship service. The bible does not speak of it, it is silent. OT to NT-- Was it okay, in early church times, for a person to touch a person with leprosy because the NT does not forbid it? Would he still be at danger of contracting the disease? God gave us logic to use

Rather than logic, I believe you have presented the difference between specific and generic authority. An example of specific authority is discussed in Hebrews 7:13-17 & 8:4. The word "teach/preach" in Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:19, 2 Timothy 4:2. Although the command is specific to teaching the gospel of Christ, the "how" is a general command (no specifics are given). Thus, various means of teaching or using expediences (those things that aid or assist in doing what is authorized - 1 Cor. 6:12) to help teach are generically authorized.

As far as the O.T. writings are concerned, for sure we can learn from those writings today, but it is NOT our law for us to follow (Romans 15:4).

[crawfish]

If so, then let me ask you this: When you worship and you sing and play an instrument, do you have any part of the song where only instruments are playing and there's a pause in the singing? If so, then you are using instruments in that part with no singing, thus equalling the use of gopher wood and non gopher wood.

I have a friend that goes to a church where they use instruments in their worship. He claims there's nothing wrong with using instruments because he's singing too. Well, he invited me to church with a few weeks ago, and they had long instrumental openings and instrumental only sections during the songs. This meant that people weren't singing but still playing instruments and worshiping in a way that God did not command, thus substituting (even if only for 15 seconds at a time) instruments for singing.

Do you have a problem with songs that have parts where only one group sings (altos/tenors/etc)? Would you have a problem with someone singing a solo during church? Does the command to sing mean that each time a song is sung every person needs to be singing, or is it ok as long as you're singing most, or some, of the time? At my church we have a "worship team", and sometimes the first verse will be sung by a soloist and we all join in for the second verse (or the soloist sings the verse, we sing the chorus). We do not use instruments in my service. Is this wrong?

How about announcements? I don't recall any verses that authorize announcements during service, yet they're a part of pretty much every cofC service I've ever been to. Is it ok that we're doing something during service that isn't one of the "five parts of worship"?

[- DRA -]

So are you saying that if Noah had used gopher wood and another type of wood, that he would have been sinning because parts of the ship would have had no gopher wood on them?

If so, then let me ask you this: When you worship and you sing and play an instrument, do you have any part of the song where only instruments are playing and there's a pause in the singing? If so, then you are using instruments in that part with no singing, thus equalling the use of gopher wood and non gopher wood.

I have a friend that goes to a church where they use instruments in their worship. He claims there's nothing wrong with using instruments because he's singing too. Well, he invited me to church with a few weeks ago, and they had long instrumental openings and instrumental only sections during the songs. This meant that people weren't singing but still playing instruments and worshiping in a way that God did not command, thus substituting (even if only for 15 seconds at a time) instruments for singing.

Also, you say that no one ever mentions the use of ropes and hammers and nails and such, even though God was silent on them. Let me clearify please: A hammer, nails, and rope are, I imagine, neccessary in order to build a boat (having never built one myself, but simply using common sense). Therefore, in order fo the gopher wood to be made into a boat, Noah would need to use a hammer, nails, rope, tar, etc. But in order to sing, instruments are not neccessary. I can sing without playing guitar, but I can't build a boat without my nails.

I apologize for the long post and I hope you read it, and I apologize cause I know you didn't want this to turn into an IM discussion., but I was already here, so...

First, hope your bad haircut grows out and corrects itself. :)

Second, you bring up interesting points. Some of us have been involved in numerous thread discussing instrumental music in the past. Obviously, some are looking past the points made in Genesis 6 and realize the implications of specific authority and how it should be applied to instrumental music. One thing that is being overlooked is that God generally authorized Noah to "build" in Genesis 6, but did not generally authorize "music" in Eph. 5:19, nor in Col. 3:16. In fact, God specified what to do (sing), what to sing (psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs), what is accomplished when we sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (speaking to one another - Eph. 5:19; teaching and admonishing one another - Col. 3:16), and where the melody should come from (your heart - Eph. 5:19 - not the mechanical instrument of music).

Think of the story of Jonah. God told Jonah to "go" to Nineveh (1:2). Jonah went - but NOT to Nineveh. Therefore, he did part of what God said, but did not go to the specific city God told him to go to. Therefore, was God pleased by Jonah's partial obedience? Unless I'm badly mistaken, God didn't specifically say, "Jonah, you are forbidden to go to Tarshish." In fact, we would say that God was silent about Tarshish. Therefore, we (and our friends that we study with) must decide whether or not going to Tarshish was acceptable when God said go to Nineveh. Just threw this in for free. You see, this issue isn't about IM at all. It's really about a lot of Bible stories and what we should learn (Romans 15:4) from them to follow in the footsteps of the faithfull - avoiding the way of the disobedient. :clap:

[crawfish]

First, hope your bad haircut grows out and corrects itself. :)

Second, you bring up interesting points. Some of us have been involved in numerous thread discussing instrumental music in the past. Obviously, some are looking past the points made in Genesis 6 and realize the implications of specific authority and how it should be applied to instrumental music. One thing that is being overlooked is that God generally authorized Noah to "build" in Genesis 6, but did not generally authorize "music" in Eph. 5:19, nor in Col. 3:16. In fact, God specified what to do (sing), what to sing (psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs), what is accomplished when we sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (speaking to one another - Eph. 5:19; teaching and admonishing one another - Col. 3:16), and where the melody should come from (your heart - Eph. 5:19 - not the mechanical instrument of music).

Think of the story of Jonah. God told Jonah to "go" to Nineveh (1:2). Jonah went - but NOT to Nineveh. Therefore, he did part of what God said, but did not go to the specific city God told him to go to. Therefore, was God pleased by Jonah's partial obedience? Unless I'm badly mistaken, God didn't specifically say, "Jonah, you are forbidden to go to Tarshish." In fact, we would say that God was silent about Tarshish. Therefore, we (and our friends that we study with) must decide whether or not going to Tarshish was acceptable when God said go to Nineveh. Just threw this in for free. You see, this issue isn't about IM at all. It's really about a lot of Bible stories and what we should learn (Romans 15:4) from them to follow in the footsteps of the faithfull - avoiding the way of the disobedient. :clap:

That's a bad metaphor because the instruction to Jonah was specific. Was Jonah to "assume" a particular mode of travel? Could he not use a camel because camels were not authorized by scripture but walking or riding a donkey was?

[Splayd]

Jesus was NOT authorized to be a Levitical priest; rather, He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek.That is such a weak argument. Of course Jesus wasn't authorised to be a "Levitical" priest. :D

For sure, it didn't seem to be such a mess to Noah. He did as God instructed.No it didn't and we have no evidence that he approached the situation according to your understanding either.

Just for interest sake, would you categorize the man of God in 1 Kings 13 as being entangled in "legal mumbo jumbo"?

How about Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10?:doh:

[Splayd]

As far as the O.T. writings are concerned, for sure we can learn from those writings today, but it is NOT our law for us to follow (Romans 15:4).BUT only the bits you agree with right? The bits that support your position show us "principals" and the parts that don't were nailed to the cross. Right?

[Splayd]

The difference is with "instead of" - no gopherwood is used and "in addition to" means gopherwood plus some other wood is used, the two are not equivalent. We are talking about the ark, not parts of it. You seriously think this is an adequate counter to my point?

If Noah made an ark out of "gopherwood and pine" then he made it out of "gopherwood and pine". If he made it out of "gopherwood", then he made it out of "gopherwood". Every place he uses pine, he necessarily uses it instead of gopherwood. There simply isn't a need to look any deeper into this.

[- DRA -]

"Where the BIBLE speaks, we speak; and where the BIBLE is silent, we are silent."

I guess the question is, "who decides whether the Bible is silent or whether it speaks on specific issues?"

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (KJV)

And, the same passage in the NASV says,

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."

The Koine Greek word for study or be diligent means to make haste (use speed) and to apply oneself.

[- DRA -]

Isn't part of the problem here that an over-empahsis is placed on what happens for an hour or so on Sunday morning? (or Sunday night) Yet...often times the same strict regulations are not even considered in daily life?

Not at all. The silence of the Scriptures isn't just a study about instrumental music (which I assume you are referring to), but about the way we view/interpret/apply Scripture period. Frankly, once a person allows themself the liberty of deviating from one particular passage of Scripture, then they will do the same with others.

Ever studied Matthew 4:5-7? In a nutshell, the devil quotes Psalm 91:11-12. Jesus then quotes Deuteronomy 6:16. Closely consider the context of Deuteronomy chapter 6. It is silent about jumping from the top of the temple. However, Jesus applied that passage to that very situation. Was His use of Scripture correct or incorrect? If correct - which I assume we agree that it was - then it gives us an aspect of silence that must be considered for us to understand how to correctly apply biblical principles. Give it some thought. :)

[- DRA -]

The difference is with "instead of" - no gopherwood is used and "in addition to" means gopherwood plus some other wood is used, the two are not equivalent. We are talking about the ark, not parts of it.

I have some questions:

Does the specifying of one thing in and of itself preclude anything else?

Could God have specified another wood as well as gopherwood? Question: does the act of specifying one thing in and of itself prohibit anything else?

If "yes" this means that because God specified gopherwood, therefore He could not have also specified pine if He wanted and said " Build an ark of gopherwood and pine"?

If "no" then what does the prohibiting?

Is it that it because God only specified one thing (gopherwood) that it excluded another things (other woods) being used?

Put another way: is it because God was silent about other woods and commanded gopherwood, that makes gopherwood the only acceptable wood?



Refrus

Frankly, I'm not sure at all where you are coming from nor where you are going. :help:

Why not consider what the point made in Hebrews 7:13-17 & 8:4? See if it doesn't answer the questions you ask.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Think of the story of Jonah. God told Jonah to "go" to Nineveh (1:2). Jonah went - but NOT to Nineveh. Therefore, he did part of what God said, but did not go to the specific city God told him to go to. Therefore, was God pleased by Jonah's partial obedience? Unless I'm badly mistaken, God didn't specifically say, "Jonah, you are forbidden to go to Tarshish." In fact, we would say that God was silent about Tarshish. Therefore, we (and our friends that we study with) must decide whether or not going to Tarshish was acceptable when God said go to Nineveh. Just threw this in for free. You see, this issue isn't about IM at all. It's really about a lot of Bible stories and what we should learn (Romans 15:4) from them to follow in the footsteps of the faithfull - avoiding the way of the disobedient.

That's a bad metaphor because the instruction to Jonah was specific. Was Jonah to "assume" a particular mode of travel? Could he not use a camel because camels were not authorized by scripture but walking or riding a donkey was?

Note carefully what I said. I did not say that God specified the mode of travel that Jonah was to use. I focused on the city that God told him to travel to. Nineveh was specified. God was silent about Tarshish. However, Jonah went there and did not obey nor please God. Agree?

As for the mode of travel, no specific instructions were given, therefore Jonah could choose the means that was available to him. Would you agree, or would you speak on God's behalf and restrict Jonah to a particular mode? :scratch:

[crawfish]

Note carefully what I said. I did not say that God specified the mode of travel that Jonah was to use. I focused on the city that God told him to travel to. Nineveh was specified. God was silent about Tarshish. However, Jonah went there and did not obey nor please God. Agree?

As for the mode of travel, no specific instructions were given, therefore Jonah could choose the means that was available to him. Would you agree, or would you speak on God's behalf and restrict Jonah to a particular mode? :scratch:


I doubt God would care if Jonah went to Tarshish if he then proceeded to Ninevah. However, God was SPECIFIC about where he wanted Jonah to go; he wasn't punishing him for going to Tarshish, he was punishing him for NOT going to Ninevah.

It's not a silence issue. It's an obedience issue.

[abadhaircut]

Do you have a problem with songs that have parts where only one group sings (altos/tenors/etc)? Would you have a problem with someone singing a solo during church? Does the command to sing mean that each time a song is sung every person needs to be singing, or is it ok as long as you're singing most, or some, of the time? At my church we have a "worship team", and sometimes the first verse will be sung by a soloist and we all join in for the second verse (or the soloist sings the verse, we sing the chorus). We do not use instruments in my service. Is this wrong?

How about announcements? I don't recall any verses that authorize announcements during service, yet they're a part of pretty much every cofC service I've ever been to. Is it ok that we're doing something during service that isn't one of the "five parts of worship"?
If someone was to use musical instruments in their worship and have a part that was instrumental only, it's completely different from having the altos or tenors or whatever each sing their own part and maybe each sing a part alone, because the command to sing is still being fulfilled. If one is playing a guitar and there is no singing, then the command to sing is not being fulfilled.

[crawfish]

If someone was to use musical instruments in their worship and have a part that was instrumental only, it's completely different from having the altos or tenors or whatever each sing their own part and maybe each sing a part alone, because the command to sing is still being fulfilled. If one is playing a guitar and there is no singing, then the command to sing is not being fulfilled.
The command to sing is being fulfilled in either case because everybody sings. Just not at that moment.

The logic ONLY makes sense if you're trying to justify yourself. Everybody else just scratches their head.

[- DRA -]

BUT only the bits you agree with right? The bits that support your position show us "principals" and the parts that don't were nailed to the cross. Right?

Where did this come from? Let's be mature. If I have made an error or mistake, point it out and we'll discuss it. The O.T. has many lessons that we can learn from (assuming that you do acknowledge what Romans 15:4 says).

As for Colossians 2:14, please explain what I misunderstand about that passage. Don't be silent about the matter.

[Loveaboveall]

Where did this come from? Let's be mature. If I have made an error or mistake, point it out and we'll discuss it. The O.T. has many lessons that we can learn from (assuming that you do acknowledge what Romans 15:4 says).

As for Colossians 2:14, please explain what I misunderstand about that passage. Don't be silent about the matter.


I have done much study on this subject and have remained silent(:D ) to avoid starting up trouble, but....

You bring up the subject of Col 2:14 Lets take a look at this verse and the surrounding verses for context.

Colossians 2:12-17 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

Just a few questions:

1) What is the handwriting of Ordinances that was against us and contrary to us?

2) What does it mean "Which are a shadow of things to come"?

3) What is the "meat, drink, holy days, new moons, and sabbaths"?

Is the Handwriting of Ordinances the whole old testament? Is ALL of the old testament against us and contrary to us? Would it not be better to view these verses as speaking of sacrafices and ordinances that God required of the Children of Israel that all pointed to Jesus? Would this not be a better interpretation of "shadow"?

It seems that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water when we assume that the "law" was the whole of all the writings before pentecost.

The answer to question #3 can be found in leviticus 23, and Exodus 29 and 30. All of these are related to the earthly priesthood and the sacrificial system setup at mt Sinai for the children of Israel that all pointed to Jesus. They were the shadow of things to come. When the "thing"(Jesus) came there was no further need for the shadow for the real was here. Basic type/antitype. My point being this only includes the things that pertained directly to Jesus and pointed to His coming.

Look at Galatians 3:10

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Paul quoted this from:

Deut 27:26 Cursed [be] he that confirmeth not [all] the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

The Handwriting of Ordinances can be found in Exodus through Deuteronomy. Those things which were a type of Christ and were no longer needed because of His perfect sacrifice. Isn't that why the veil in the temple was torn from the top down, signifying the end of the sacrifices that all pointed to Jesus?

Just some thoughts on the subject of Colossians 2, which hopefully will stimulate some discussion.

[Loveaboveall]

Maybe we can discuss the issue raised above at this thread that Splayd started.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=35780314#post35780314

[Everlasting]

:angel:

The only reason a person would have to use justification in the presence of judgement, is in the presence of man's judgement. Putting ourselves into rememberence includes alot of things, including God doesn't have time for he said, and she said. I doubt there will be much bargaining or listening to explainations about who's is right, and who's wrong in His presence. We all know that the world puts us in position to sin. But if continuing and finding ways to praise God, through continual repentance doesn't clear the hurdle, no one person is entitled to a personal opinion, about another's trial of faith. Each person's walk of faith includes how much iniquity their soul can bear, and no one is above chastening . Charity in the world does not include putting high gloss on someone else's damnable sins, and attaching them to the greatest convenient/inconvenient struggles of our time. When God has had enough of someone, the wisdom imparted from the Word should lead us to the right conclusion. Holding steadfast in our convictions, until His Glorious Appearing.

Amen and Amen


Bible Inspired Author

:amen:

Moon Over Key Biscayne
booksandmore.4t.com
bn.com

:priest:

[RefrusRevlis]

You seriously think this is an adequate counter to my point?

If Noah made an ark out of "gopherwood and pine" then he made it out of "gopherwood and pine". If he made it out of "gopherwood", then he made it out of "gopherwood". Every place he uses pine, he necessarily uses it instead of gopherwood. There simply isn't a need to look any deeper into this.


Hmm, are you saying a boat with gopherwood and pine contains no gopherwood? :confused:

Do the scriptures say "build an ark out of only gopherwood?

Refrus

[cremi]

Not at all. The silence of the Scriptures isn't just a study about instrumental music (which I assume you are referring to), but about the way we view/interpret/apply Scripture period. Frankly, once a person allows themself the liberty of deviating from one particular passage of Scripture, then they will do the same with others.

Ever studied Matthew 4:5-7? In a nutshell, the devil quotes Psalm 91:11-12. Jesus then quotes Deuteronomy 6:16. Closely consider the context of Deuteronomy chapter 6. It is silent about jumping from the top of the temple. However, Jesus applied that passage to that very situation. Was His use of Scripture correct or incorrect? If correct - which I assume we agree that it was - then it gives us an aspect of silence that must be considered for us to understand how to correctly apply biblical principles. Give it some thought. :)Actaully, IM was only one of several "issues" I was thinking of when I made that statement.:)

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Note carefully what I said. I did not say that God specified the mode of travel that Jonah was to use. I focused on the city that God told him to travel to. Nineveh was specified. God was silent about Tarshish. However, Jonah went there and did not obey nor please God. Agree?

As for the mode of travel, no specific instructions were given, therefore Jonah could choose the means that was available to him. Would you agree, or would you speak on God's behalf and restrict Jonah to a particular mode?

I doubt God would care if Jonah went to Tarshish if he then proceeded to Ninevah. However, God was SPECIFIC about where he wanted Jonah to go; he wasn't punishing him for going to Tarshish, he was punishing him for NOT going to Ninevah.

It's not a silence issue. It's an obedience issue.

Doesn't "I doubt" really translate into "I speculate" or "I assume?" Is there a scriptural example or support for your premise?

Priests from the tribe of Levi were also an obedience issue. However, the Scripture still says there was an element of silence involved in the matter as far as Judah was concerned i.e. Hebrews 7:13-17. The matter with Nineveh and Tarshish is no different.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Jesus was NOT authorized to be a Levitical priest; rather, He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

That is such a weak argument. Of course Jesus wasn't authorised to be a "Levitical" priest. :D

The argument isn't mine. God is the author of it i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16a, Hebrews 7:13-17, 8:4.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

For sure, it didn't seem to be such a mess to Noah. He did as God instructed.

No it didn't and we have no evidence that he approached the situation according to your understanding either.

Please explain how Noah approached the situation.

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Just for interest sake, would you categorize the man of God in 1 Kings 13 as being entangled in "legal mumbo jumbo"?

How about Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10?

:doh:

And ... your point is?

[crawfish]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Doesn't "I doubt" really translate into "I speculate" or "I assume?" Is there a scriptural example or support for your premise?

Priests from the tribe of Levi were also an obedience issue. However, the Scripture still says there was an element of silence involved in the matter as far as Judah was concerned i.e. Hebrews 7:13-17. The matter with Nineveh and Tarshish is no different.

Alright...look at God's command to Abraham. He was commanded to "leave his country, his people and his father's household" and go to Canaan. I don't recall taking Lot a part of that deal.

[- DRA -]

I have done much study on this subject and have remained silent(:D ) to avoid starting up trouble, but....

You bring up the subject of Col 2:14 Lets take a look at this verse and the surrounding verses for context.

Just a few questions:

1) What is the handwriting of Ordinances that was against us and contrary to us?

2) What does it mean "Which are a shadow of things to come"?

3) What is the "meat, drink, holy days, new moons, and sabbaths"?

Is the Handwriting of Ordinances the whole old testament? Is ALL of the old testament against us and contrary to us? Would it not be better to view these verses as speaking of sacrafices and ordinances that God required of the Children of Israel that all pointed to Jesus? Would this not be a better interpretation of "shadow"?

It seems that the baby has been thrown out with the bath water when we assume that the "law" was the whole of all the writings before pentecost.

The answer to question #3 can be found in leviticus 23, and Exodus 29 and 30. All of these are related to the earthly priesthood and the sacrificial system setup at mt Sinai for the children of Israel that all pointed to Jesus. They were the shadow of things to come. When the "thing"(Jesus) came there was no further need for the shadow for the real was here. Basic type/antitype. My point being this only includes the things that pertained directly to Jesus and pointed to His coming.

Look at Galatians 3:10

Paul quoted this from:

The Handwriting of Ordinances can be found in Exodus through Deuteronomy. Those things which were a type of Christ and were no longer needed because of His perfect sacrifice. Isn't that why the veil in the temple was torn from the top down, signifying the end of the sacrifices that all pointed to Jesus?

Just some thoughts on the subject of Colossians 2, which hopefully will stimulate some discussion.

Response to Question #1:
Jesus blotted out the handwriting of ordinances ... nailing it to His cross. In light of this, note the conclusion drawn in verse 16 - "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." This helps us understand what is included in the "handwriting of ordinances." It included instructions about food, drink, new moons, and sabbaths. Because Jesus took the instructions about these ordinances out of the way, God's people should no longer judge each other by whether or not they follow the instructions about these things. Consider also Romans 15:4. The things written "aforetime" were written for our "learning," not our law today. In fact, the things described in Col. 2:16 were a part of the law of Moses, which was given exclusively to the Israelites i.e. Romans 2:14. It ended when the new covenant/testament/law/will went into effect (see Hebrews 8:6-13 and 9:16-17.

Response to Question #2:
"Which are a shadow of things to come" refers to the things mentioned in the previous verse - Col. 2:16. Note also passages such as Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1. And, also note the use of "example" ("copy" in the NKJV) in Hebrews 8:5, and "like figure" (antitype in the NKJV) in 1 Peter 3:20. Another consideration is the word "figure" in Romans 5:14. Conclusion: Many things in the Old Testament foreshadowed things in the New Testament.

Response to Question #3:
These were things specified under the law of Moses, but not under the law of Christ.

Additional Points:
The "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" refers to the law of Moses and its lack of ability to completely take sins away. God made provisions for the blood of animals to make atonement (or cover) for sins, but it could not take them completely away as does the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10). An additional text that should be considered is 2 Corinthians 3.

Hope this helps you in your studies.

Oh, almost forgot. The veil in the temple separated the holy place from the most holy place. Thus, its tearing signified access to the most holy place i.e. God's presence (see Hebrews 6:19-20, 10:19-20). :clap:

[- DRA -]

Alright...look at God's command to Abraham. He was commanded to "leave his country, his people and his father's household" and go to Canaan. I don't recall taking Lot a part of that deal.

Actually, Terah (Abram's father), Sarai, (Abram's wife), and what I suspect are servants (Gen. 12:5) also went along. They weren't in the "deal" either. But they went along.

Food for Thought: :idea:
Perhaps the "deal" wasn't that Abram's wife, relatives, and servants couldn't go with him, but that God wanted Abram to go sight unseen to a land that God would show him. Unless I'm badly mistaken, Abram did what God told him to.

Additional Food for Thought: :idea:
Today, under the gospel of Christ, does the Lord save those who disobey Him according to Hebrews 5:9?

[crawfish]

Actually, Terah (Abram's father), Sarai, (Abram's wife), and what I suspect are servants (Gen. 12:5) also went along. They weren't in the "deal" either. But they went along.

Food for Thought: :idea:
Perhaps the "deal" wasn't that Abram's wife, relatives, and servants couldn't go with him, but that God wanted Abram to go sight unseen to a land that God would show him. Unless I'm badly mistaken, Abram did what God told him to.

I'm fairly certain, based on your prior post, that you wouldn't let me get away with the bolded word. :)

Also, I'd forgotten about Terah. Wouldn't Abram's father be part of his father's household? Wouldn't Abram be in direct violation of God's command by taking him? In any case, I have no problem with your scenario above, but I'm not the stickler for the "silence" issue that you are.

Additional Food for Thought: :idea:
Today, under the gospel of Christ, does the Lord save those who disobey Him according to Hebrews 5:9?

I'll need a better definition of the verse to answer. Does "obey him" in this context refer to all times, or obeying the call of salvation by repenting and being baptized?

[Splayd]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Jesus was NOT authorized to be a Levitical priest; rather, He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

The argument isn't mine. God is the author of it i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16a, Hebrews 7:13-17, 8:4.
Oh please. Let's recap. You originally made the argument that silence prohibits, using the argument that Jesus couldn't be "a priest" because he wasn't a Levite.

On further examination you've perhaps recognised the folly of your argument and rephrased it to the much weaker argument (for your position) that He couldn't be a "Levitical priest". While absolutely true, it now demonstrates nothing for your case. People from the tribe of Judah aren't authorised to be from the tribe of Levi is a ludicrously obvious statement if you think about it which says nothing of silence.

Let's consider what Paul was really saying and just how well it supports your position. Wasn't he actually saying that the silence about priests from the tribe of Judah doesn't necessarily prohibit Jesus from being a priest? Isn't he actually demonstrating that although Jesus obviously couldn't be a Levitical priest, scripture still allows that he could be (and in fact is) a priest after the order of Melchizadek? Hmmm...

Originally Posted by - DRA -

For sure, it didn't seem to be such a mess to Noah. He did as God instructed.

Please explain how Noah approached the situation.I'm not sure DRA and that's exactly my point. We simply aren't given those details. For someone who likes to call others for speculating, you do it a lot yourself. Do you have any evidence of anyone in scripture ever applying the approach you insist on?

[Splayd]

Hmm, are you saying a boat with gopherwood and pine contains no gopherwood?No. :doh:

Do the scriptures say "build an ark out of only gopherwood?OK. Let's back up and consider our approaches against what scripture actually does say.

Scripture DOES say that God instructed Noah to make the ark out of gopherwood. We're also told that Noah did as he was instructed.

From that information you ASSUME that Noah wasn't to use pine in addition to gopherwood. Not an unreasonable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. You don't stop there though. You build upon that assumption with further assumptions.

Because you have first determined that Noah wasn't to use additional woods, you conclude that he didn't. Again this isn't an unreasonable assumption, given that he did do what he was instructed to it BUT it is entirely reliant on your first assumption being correct and further increases the speculation. You've built an assumption on an assumption.

You keep building your tower of speculation by trying to justify your initial assumption. ie: The scripture doesn't say not to use additional woods but because we have determined that it meant that, we now to rationalise our assumption by speculating as to why it would mean that. Starting to get pretty shaky now and fast developing into a circular argument.

Not content with determining that there must be a reason that the lack of comment about additional woods necessarily equates with an actual (and already determined) comment about additional woods (ie: that they aren't allowed) it's now imperative that we now speculate as to what that reason is. This is where you now conclude that silence prohibits. It is an assumption built on an assumption built on an assumption built on an assumption... BUT makes a nice neat package of circular reasoning. How do we know silence prohibits? Because Noah wasn't allowed to use other woods! How do we know he wasn't allowed to use other woods? Because silence prohibits! It's beautiful... but not based on anything concrete.

By contrast, my argument is that Noah was given the positive instruction to build an ark with gopherwood... and did. That's it. I can speculate that he shouldn't use other woods and that he didn't use other woods but I acknowledge that it's speculation and base it entirely on the facts as presented. He built an ark using gopherwood.

Peace

[Loveaboveall]

Response to Question #1:
Jesus blotted out the handwriting of ordinances ... nailing it to His cross. In light of this, note the conclusion drawn in verse 16 - "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." This helps us understand what is included in the "handwriting of ordinances." It included instructions about food, drink, new moons, and sabbaths. Because Jesus took the instructions about these ordinances out of the way, God's people should no longer judge each other by whether or not they follow the instructions about these things. Consider also Romans 15:4. The things written "aforetime" were written for our "learning," not our law today. In fact, the things described in Col. 2:16 were a part of the law of Moses, which was given exclusively to the Israelites i.e. Romans 2:14. It ended when the new covenant/testament/law/will went into effect (see Hebrews 8:6-13 and 9:16-17.

Response to Question #2:
"Which are a shadow of things to come" refers to the things mentioned in the previous verse - Col. 2:16. Note also passages such as Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1. And, also note the use of "example" ("copy" in the NKJV) in Hebrews 8:5, and "like figure" (antitype in the NKJV) in 1 Peter 3:20. Another consideration is the word "figure" in Romans 5:14. Conclusion: Many things in the Old Testament foreshadowed things in the New Testament.

Response to Question #3:
These were things specified under the law of Moses, but not under the law of Christ.

Additional Points:
The "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" refers to the law of Moses and its lack of ability to completely take sins away. God made provisions for the blood of animals to make atonement (or cover) for sins, but it could not take them completely away as does the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10). An additional text that should be considered is 2 Corinthians 3.

Hope this helps you in your studies.

Oh, almost forgot. The veil in the temple separated the holy place from the most holy place. Thus, its tearing signified access to the most holy place i.e. God's presence (see Hebrews 6:19-20, 10:19-20). :clap:

I think you just about missed my whole point:)

What was nailed to the cross was the ceremonies given to the children of Israel. They were not needed because Jesus was our perfect sacrifice. Does this mean that all of the old testament should be thrown out? Psalm 150 specifically tells us to worship God with instruments and all I hear is that we are not under the old covenant. How was this done away with at the cross? Or anything else that is mentioned in the old testament that does not specifically deal with the "Ordinances and Shadows" which pointed to the cross.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Response to Question #1:
Jesus blotted out the handwriting of ordinances ... nailing it to His cross. In light of this, note the conclusion drawn in verse 16 - "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." This helps us understand what is included in the "handwriting of ordinances." It included instructions about food, drink, new moons, and sabbaths. Because Jesus took the instructions about these ordinances out of the way, God's people should no longer judge each other by whether or not they follow the instructions about these things. Consider also Romans 15:4. The things written "aforetime" were written for our "learning," not our law today. In fact, the things described in Col. 2:16 were a part of the law of Moses, which was given exclusively to the Israelites i.e. Romans 2:14. It ended when the new covenant/testament/law/will went into effect (see Hebrews 8:6-13 and 9:16-17.

Response to Question #2:
"Which are a shadow of things to come" refers to the things mentioned in the previous verse - Col. 2:16. Note also passages such as Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1. And, also note the use of "example" ("copy" in the NKJV) in Hebrews 8:5, and "like figure" (antitype in the NKJV) in 1 Peter 3:20. Another consideration is the word "figure" in Romans 5:14. Conclusion: Many things in the Old Testament foreshadowed things in the New Testament.

Response to Question #3:
These were things specified under the law of Moses, but not under the law of Christ.

Additional Points:
The "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" refers to the law of Moses and its lack of ability to completely take sins away. God made provisions for the blood of animals to make atonement (or cover) for sins, but it could not take them completely away as does the blood of Christ (Hebrews 10). An additional text that should be considered is 2 Corinthians 3.

Hope this helps you in your studies.

Oh, almost forgot. The veil in the temple separated the holy place from the most holy place. Thus, its tearing signified access to the most holy place i.e. God's presence (see Hebrews 6:19-20, 10:19-20).

I think you just about missed my whole point:)

What was nailed to the cross was the ceremonies given to the children of Israel. They were not needed because Jesus was our perfect sacrifice. Does this mean that all of the old testament should be thrown out? Psalm 150 specifically tells us to worship God with instruments and all I hear is that we are not under the old covenant. How was this done away with at the cross? Or anything else that is mentioned in the old testament that does not specifically deal with the "Ordinances and Shadows" which pointed to the cross.

Sorry, my mistake. For a moment there, I thought you might actually be interested in studying Colossians 2:14.
Now it is clear you aren't. You're just looking for a way to justify instrumental music.

I am of Gentile descent. My people were never under the law of Moses in any way, shape, or form. As for what parts of the law apply today under the gospel of Christ, I urge you to check out that issue in Acts 15 and see what the resolution was to the issue.

You might also want to consider Galatians 5:1-4. Although the issue at hand was circumcision, note the consequences of looking to the O.T. for justification for a particular practice - a person was indebted to keep the whole law - not just the part(s) that suited them - and resulted in them being separated from Christ. :eek:

[- DRA -]

Oh please. Let's recap. You originally made the argument that silence prohibits, using the argument that Jesus couldn't be "a priest" because he wasn't a Levite.

This is my original point:

(From Post # 15 on Page 2) Actually, I think we should be careful to not overlook an obvious point. God had spoken. He specified that priests would be the tribe of Levi. His silence about other tribes did NOT authorize them to be Levitical priests under the law of Moses. Rather, it prohibited them from being priests.

On further examination you've perhaps recognised the folly of your argument and rephrased it to the much weaker argument (for your position) that He couldn't be a "Levitical priest". While absolutely true, it now demonstrates nothing for your case. People from the tribe of Judah aren't authorised to be from the tribe of Levi is a ludicrously obvious statement if you think about it which says nothing of silence.

Let's give credit to whom credit is due. If the reasoning about the silence of priests from Judah is indeed folly (as you say), then the credit belongs to God who inspired the Scriptures (i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16a, Hebrews 7:14) and make this very point.

Let's consider what Paul was really saying and just how well it supports your position. Wasn't he actually saying that the silence about priests from the tribe of Judah doesn't necessarily prohibit Jesus from being a priest? Isn't he actually demonstrating that although Jesus obviously couldn't be a Levitical priest, scripture still allows that he could be (and in fact is) a priest after the order of Melchizadek? Hmmm...

Uh, you kinda left out part of the story. You see, the point being stressed is that Jesus was declared to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. A supporting point is that He couldn't have been a Levitical priest - He descended from the wrong tribe to be a priest. And, it is specifically pointed out that God was silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. As much as you would like to discredit this point and claim that it is just a part of some reasoning process that I came up with, it's a plain statement made right there in black and white in Hebrews 7:14. Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself. :sigh:

I'm not sure DRA and that's exactly my point. We simply aren't given those details. For someone who likes to call others for speculating, you do it a lot yourself. Do you have any evidence of anyone in scripture ever applying the approach you insist on?

Uh ... yes. Noah. Genesis 6:22. Check it out. He did just as God told Him. :amen: That's the approach I recommend. Why are you so afraid of this conclusion? Could it be that it has something to do with the IM issue? After all, if Noah had to do just as God said, then we should do likewise with passages such as Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, right? But, that approach causes problems, right? :thumbsup: You see, I really do understand where you are coming from and why you are resorting to the red herrings.

[Splayd]

You see, I really do understand where you are coming from and why you are resorting to the red herrings.

Red Herrings??? Hmmmm... examining your argument is a distraction? Sorry - I didn't realise we were supposed to take everything you say at face value. I can appreciate how it must be difficult for you to be asked to explain your handling of scripture. Nonetheless it seems to me that it's actually pertinent to the discussion.

Let's apply some integrity to the discussion and reexamine the way it has progressed.

You concluded: Rather, it prohibited them from being priests.

To be fair, your preceding sentence acknowledged that Jesus couldn't be a "Levitical" priest, but you have regularly missed that qualifier in your argument. I'd suggest that it's a very important qualifier but an inconvenient one for your argument.

Firstly - I agree 100% that it says that the scripture is silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. I've never argued otherwise. The issue isn't whether or not it's stated but whether or not it is being interpreted and applied correctly in your argument. That's what I'm disputing and I'd suggest that it's arrogant to insist that your argument is necessarily God's argument.

Now let's consider it carefully.

Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Now - it's very clearly demonstrated here that scripture is silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. Noone could dispute that... BUT how is it applied?

If it's concluded that silence prohibits, then it necessarily follows that this passage would conclude that Jesus couldn't be a priest at all, wouldn't it? Any other conclusion demands that He could be a priest DESPITE scripture's silence on that point.

Far from making the point that silence prohibits, it emphasises the point I've made all along - that we should consider what IS said instead of focussing on what isn't.

Mightn't the argument be better understood along the lines of:
"Scripture is silent about priests coming from the tribe of Judah. Right?
And only Levites can be priests. Right?
So Jesus can't be a priest. Right?
WRONG! Don't forget good old Melchizadek. He wasn't a Levitical priest but he was still a priest. In fact his is a better priesthood and that's the sort of priest Jesus is."

Now I agree entirely with the point that noone other than Levites could be a Levitical priest. I've never argued against that either... BUT it in no way whatsover makes a case for silence prohibiting.

NOW - to the Noah situation again.
Uh ... yes. Noah. Genesis 6:22. Check it out. He did just as God told Him. :amen: That's the approach I recommend. Why are you so afraid of this conclusion?Ummm... That's my conclusion too. Noah did as God asked. Again - the issue was never about what scripture said. It was about your understanding and application of what it says. What I asked for is evidence that Noah approached the matter by considering what the silence meant. I submit that there is none and further that the only evidence we have is that he followed the positive instruction.

Peace

[Loveaboveall]

Sorry, my mistake. For a moment there, I thought you might actually be interested in studying Colossians 2:14.
Now it is clear you aren't. You're just looking for a way to justify instrumental music.

Sarcasm does no good and is not indicative of how a christian should talk

This has EVERYTHING to do with Colossians 2:14! These verses outline specifically what was nailed to the cross. It wasn't the whole "old testament" it was the handwriting of ordinances that were against us. Personally I have no bone to pick about the IM, I just want to go by the bible and the bible alone for my doctrine. This idea of silence making doctrine I have found is not biblical. Col 2 is loud and clear what was done away with, there is NO silence. The law of types that foreshadowed Jesus as our savior is no more. This included the commands regarding the levitical priesthood. This is how Jesus could be a High Priest and and not violate the law. If the law had not been nailed to the cross then God would have been breaking the law by ordaining Jesus as the High Priest. Simple as that, there is NO silence.

I am of Gentile descent. My people were never under the law of Moses in any way, shape, or form. As for what parts of the law apply today under the gospel of Christ, I urge you to check out that issue in Acts 15 and see what the resolution was to the issue.

Does God really care who your ancestors are when determing whether to offer salvation to them? To suggest that God would only save the Israelites and no one else is completely against the character of God.I gave evidence of Gentiles who became a part of the children of Israel and thus were bound by the old covenant! With the bible clearly showing that Gentiles could be part of God's people and worship Him under the old covenant how can you dismiss it?


You might also want to consider Galatians 5:1-4. Although the issue at hand was circumcision, note the consequences of looking to the O.T. for justification for a particular practice - a person was indebted to keep the whole law - not just the part(s) that suited them - and resulted in them being separated from Christ. :eek:

Where were the children of Israel commanded to circumcise their boys? In the Handwriting of ordinances that was against us and contrary to us, right? Wouldn't this have been nailed to the cross? The Galatians still wanted to require the Gentiles to become circumcised as they would have had to under the old covenant if they converted. Paul wrote a whole letter to them to speak out against keeping the Handwriting of ordinances that was against us. He tells them several times, this law is a curse to you if you don't keep all of it, and you aren't required to keep it so why do you want to. You have freedom in Christ! That is his point!

But it still goes back to this idea of silence... Hebrews 7 clearly makes the point that Jesus COULD NOT be a priest under the original law that governs the priesthood, He was not a levite. There is not silence there. Col 2 specifically states this law of the priesthood was done away with at the cross. The writer of Hebrews makes this very point! The law was nailed to the cross, it was changed, this is why Jesus could be our High Priest and it is much better because it is not after a carnal commandment that was contained in ordincances with curses but He is a priest after the order of Melchizidek which never ends.

[GoldSolThumpkin]

Now let's consider it carefully.

Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda(h); of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Now - it's very clearly demonstrated here that scripture is silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. No one could dispute that... BUT how is it applied?

If it's concluded that silence prohibits, then it necessarily follows that this passage would conclude that Jesus couldn't be a priest at all, wouldn't it? Any other conclusion demands that He could be a priest DESPITE scripture's silence on that point.

No. The qualifier that his priesthood was an exception to the rule puts a hole in this specific point of your argument.

My example of how to interpret scripture is this:
1) I am very careful. Like Noah, if told to do something a certain prescribed way, then I will not entertain others, at all.
2) Changing one thing is the same as changing the entire thing.
3) If, for example, communion was to be done with juice, crackers, and sacrificial lamb, then I would use all three. I would not choose one or two of them. The fact that in the old testement, sacrificial lamb was the prescribed method, does not include it as an option. The prescribed method in NOW grape (not orange) juice and crackers (not bread).

Yes, the prescribed method and/or process in the new testement supercedes other previous methods and processes. The reason is because God made a point of making a change. He had a reason. My reasons for anything are less important that his. I don't like taking risks with pleasing or displeasing God.

[Splayd]

No. The qualifier that his priesthood was an exception to the rule puts a hole in this specific point of your argument.So just to clarify - the exception proves the rule? I might even buy that if it was established that it is a rule. All I can see is the counter-example.

My example of how to interpret scripture is this:
1) I am very careful. Like Noah, if told to do something a certain prescribed way, then I will not entertain others, at all.:confused: Like Noah??? We don't have that information. We simply don't know the way Noah went about it apart from the fact that he did what God told him to do. Now IF silence prohibits AND he couldn't do anything other than the things you've determined he could do then of course it follows that that's what he did. On the other hand, IF silence actually means he must jump 7 times every 10 minutes then it necessarily means that he did that. Your Noah example is circular reasoning. Whatever he did and however he did it was in line with what God wanted him to do. That's it.
2) Changing one thing is the same as changing the entire thing.Noone's advocating changing anything.

[RefrusRevlis]

From that information you ASSUME that Noah wasn't to use pine in addition to gopherwood. Not an unreasonable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. You don't stop there though. You build upon that assumption with further assumptions.

Because you have first determined that Noah wasn't to use additional woods, you conclude that he didn't. Again this isn't an unreasonable assumption, given that he did do what he was instructed to it BUT it is entirely reliant on your first assumption being correct and further increases the speculation. You've built an assumption on an assumption.

You keep building your tower of speculation by trying to justify your initial assumption. ie: The scripture doesn't say not to use additional woods but because we have determined that it meant that, we now to rationalise our assumption by speculating as to why it would mean that. Starting to get pretty shaky now and fast developing into a circular argument.

Not content with determining that there must be a reason that the lack of comment about additional woods necessarily equates with an actual (and already determined) comment about additional woods (ie: that they aren't allowed) it's now imperative that we now speculate as to what that reason is. This is where you now conclude that silence prohibits. It is an assumption built on an assumption built on an assumption built on an assumption... BUT makes a nice neat package of circular reasoning. How do we know silence prohibits? Because Noah wasn't allowed to use other woods! How do we know he wasn't allowed to use other woods? Because silence prohibits! It's beautiful... but not based on anything concrete.

By contrast, my argument is that Noah was given the positive instruction to build an ark with gopherwood... and did. That's it. I can speculate that he shouldn't use other woods and that he didn't use other woods but I acknowledge that it's speculation and base it entirely on the facts as presented. He built an ark using gopherwood.


You are assuming that I'm assuming.:P
But seriously, I will try to get to the point of my questions in my next post.

Refrus

[Countrygirl1976]

God speaks to us and there is no silence.

[Loveaboveall]

Has anyone gone back and actually looked at what Moses did say about the Priesthood?

Ex 28:1 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, [even] Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.

Numbers 3:6-7,9,12 Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may minister unto him.And they shall keep his charge, and the charge of the whole congregation before the tabernacle of the congregation, to do the service of the tabernacle...And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they [are] wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel...And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine;

A little history may help here, also. One of the Sanhedrins functions was to determine wether a man who claimed to be a levite could prove his lineage all the way back to Aaron. If he could not he was rejected and was not allowed to officiate in the preistly ministry. Where is the silence in this argument. God SET APART a tribe to be His to perform holy duties in the sanctuary. All others were considered strangers in the Holy Places and would be put to death.

Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

How can we take this verse so far out of context to prove something that it never was intended to prove? By saying, "Moses spake nothing", does not mean it is a doctrine of silence! It means that God set apart the tribe of Levi not the tribe of Judah, thus Jesus, under the law of the priesthood could not be a Priest, let alone a High Priest. Where is the silence? Does God ever have exceptions to His laws? I can't think of any, maybe someone else can. The law said the Levites were set apart and only they could be priests, there are no exceptions. If there was an exception Moses would have written it, thus because he did not there is no doubt. To assume because it does not specifically state that the tribe of Judah could not be priests that there is the possiblity that it would be possible is not sound biblical reasoning.

[Loveaboveall]

Uh, you kinda left out part of the story. You see, the point being stressed is that Jesus was declared to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. A supporting point is that He couldn't have been a Levitical priest - He descended from the wrong tribe to be a priest. And, it is specifically pointed out that God was silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. As much as you would like to discredit this point and claim that it is just a part of some reasoning process that I came up with, it's a plain statement made right there in black and white in Hebrews 7:14. Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself. :sigh:

Okay, I think I am starting to understand where you are coming from. A positive command always is silent about any other positive/neutral aspects of that command, is that right? However, a negative command is never silent about a positive/neutral aspect of the command, right? In some instances I can buy your argument, others not so much.

i.e. any positive command given such as "go unto all the world" does not speak of what mode to do this which would be another positive command. Which I can go along with.

However, the examples given are just not good examples to use for your argument of silence. I understand why Heb 7:14 is used because it specifically says "Moses spake nothing" which is a great statement on the surface to use in the silent argument but it is not.

Heres the difference: God's commands are general and specific. "Go to all the world" is general, it would not be disobeying the command to do it by foot or horse. The command in Numbers to set apart the Levites as God's chosen tribe is specific, it leaves no room for discussion. There can be no other postive commands associated with it, which means there is no silence on the subject. It would be the same if some of Israel decided that since God did not say they couldn't keep sunday as the sabbath that they would do that because God was silent on the subject. The sabbath was a specific command that left no room for other positive commands to keep sunday as the sabbath. Abraham on the other hand got a general command to get out of Ur. It did not specify how he was to do it but that he was to leave and trust God to lead him. Thus there was left open(silence) the ability of abraham to choose what would be the best way to leave whether it be by foot, boat, whatever.

So what one must do is study to understand whether a command is general or specific. The illustrations of the priesthood and Noah's wood are specific thus they are not good examples of silence by God. Pick some general examples and I might agree with you then.

[Everlasting]

:prayer:

The plight of Moses only reflects: that we comparing a time when man did not have, and had not examined the laws from God. To a time when man should have begun to grown; into the knowledge of the God law's?

:wave:

How can anyone say that, Jesus the Son of God, was not a minister of the people. If you really want to hold onto the "wrestling with principalities concept" then you will find the obivious. If the world wanted to accept Him for who He was, with all of the healings and miracles that He performed: The oppressive establishment could have embraced Him. How can you await the return of a redeemer whom you do not feel can minister goodness to your soul?

:angel:

Just a Thought
_____________



Everlasting

Moon over Key Biscayne
bn.com
ISBN# 1-4241-6884-8

[- DRA -]

Red Herrings??? Hmmmm... examining your argument is a distraction? Sorry - I didn't realise we were supposed to take everything you say at face value. I can appreciate how it must be difficult for you to be asked to explain your handling of scripture. Nonetheless it seems to me that it's actually pertinent to the discussion.

There is no problem discussing my handling of Scripture ... just as there should be no problem discussing your handling of Scripture. However, stating the so-called "folly" of "my approach" which just so happens to be a point made in Hebrews 7:14 is indeed a red herring. God's word makes a point about the silence of priests from the tribe of Judah. God specified the Levites would be priests. Although He was silent about the tribe of Judah, they simply weren't authorized to be Levitical priests. That meant Jesus couldn't be a Levitical priest. The point? God called Him to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek according to Psalm 110:4. "Silence" is brought up in Heb. 7:14 to support why Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Like it or not, when God specifies what He wants, "silence" about other so-called options doesn't authorize any of them. Rather, only that which is specified is authorized. You know, I don't think this principle is that hard to understand. However, the application of this principle to issues such as IM is surely going to present problems for some. Therefore, such folks are faced with decisions: either discredit or undermine the point being made in Hebrews 7:14, or change the way they view passages such as Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 and simply do the things God specified in those passages.

Let's apply some integrity to the discussion and reexamine the way it has progressed.

You concluded: Rather, it prohibited them from being priests.

To be fair, your preceding sentence acknowledged that Jesus couldn't be a "Levitical" priest, but you have regularly missed that qualifier in your argument. I'd suggest that it's a very important qualifier but an inconvenient one for your argument.

Thanks for being fair and acknowledging what I said in its context. I do not believe that Hebrews 7:14-17 is teaching that Jesus couldn't be a priest - that point is made in 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:6,10; 6:20; and is the basis for the discussion in chapter 7 ... that continues through chapter 10. The point being made in Heb. 7:14-17 is that Jesus couldn't be a Levitical priest. And, an additional point is also emphasized in this text. The change in priesthood meant that there would also be a change in the law, which was discussed in 8:6-13.

Frankly, I think the point in Hebrews 7:14 is a valid principle that needs to be considered when people attempt to deviate from what God specified. If the point is invalid, then please explain to us why it's even there. Do you think God makes invalid points? Uses poor reasoning skills? By all means, if my understanding of Heb. 7:14 is amiss, then please explain to us exactly what the point is of this passage in its context.

Firstly - I agree 100% that it says that the scripture is silent about priests from the tribe of Judah. I've never argued otherwise. The issue isn't whether or not it's stated but whether or not it is being interpreted and applied correctly in your argument. That's what I'm disputing and I'd suggest that it's arrogant to insist that your argument is necessarily God's argument.

Good. You acknowledge what the passage plainly says. Now, why exactly is it "arrogant" (another personal attach - a red herring) to think that when God specifies what He wants (e.g. priests from the tribe of Levi), His silence doesn't authorized something else (e.g. priests from the tribe of Judah). I'm kind of lost here. You acknowledge what the passage says, but don't give us any indication at all of how we should apply the principle taught in the passage. But, I'm "arrogant" for accepting what the passage teaches and applying it. Help me out here. :scratch: Surely now, since you are not blinded by a beam in your own eye (i.e. Matt. 7:1-6), and should be able to help us see the truth revealed in Heb. 7:14.

Now let's