MennoNet.com

I want to show you something huge. I want to show you that many so-called "Christians" have not really understood the gospel.

It's about a verse, it's about a verse that is ignored by many, that hardly anyone thinks about, it's about Hebrews 10:5.

Heb 10:5, (Jesus speaks:) You (God) did not want sacrifice and offering, but you prepared a body for me.

Wait, what? God didn't want the sacrifices? But aren't there like 1000 verses in the Old Testament where God commands sacrifices? Yes, there are. So this is a contradiction in the Bible? No, it is not.

Listen to me. This one verse is truly incredible when you understand it. This one verse explains the whole point of the Old Testament.

When Jesus said that God did not want sacrifices, did Jesus not know the Old Testament with its sacrificial commandments? Of course he did. But then why did he say that God did not want sacrifices? I'm telling you, wanting and commanding are not the same thing. What do I mean by that? When God commanded sacrifice, he did so with the intention of pointing to something. What he wanted was not what he commanded in the Old Testament, but what was to come. So what did God actually want? Read the second half of the verse, because it gives you the answer: "But you have prepared a body for me" Jesus means his own body, the body he sacrificed on the cross. In other words, the sacrifices that God commanded in the Old Testament only served to point to Jesus' death on the cross. The sacrifices in the Old Testament were therefore only shadows of Jesus' sacrifice. God did not want the sacrifices in the Old Testament but they only served as a prophecy because what God actually wanted was the cross.

Please listen to me, because this is very important. What I am trying to explain here is the foundation of the gospel, which is still not understood by many "Christians" today. Because this teaching that "God did not want it" does not only refer to the sacrifices, it refers to the whole Old Testament, it refers to Adam, Eve, the people of Israel, the land of Israel, the temple, etc. The whole Old Testament is only a shadow of the New Testament.

When God saved Israel from Egypt, it was only a shadow of the church, the church that was saved from sin. When God let Israel pass through the parted sea, this was only a shadow of the church that was baptized. When God told Israel to enter the promised land, this was only a shadow of the church that entered in Jesus. When God made Israel eat honey in the promised land, it was only a shadow of the church eating the sweet words of Jesus. When God commanded Solomon to build a temple, it was only a shadow of the church that was built by Jesus. I could name so many more.

Do you understand what I am getting at? Unfortunately, many do not understand it, unfortunately many do not understand the gospel, unfortunately many still live in the shadows. What do I mean by that? What do I mean that many are still living in the shadows? Because many still have their eyes on the worldly land of Israel, because many are still waiting for a third temple. The crusaders went and fought for the "holy land" to "liberate" it but they did not realize that the holy land is free, that the holy land is Jesus Christ. Even today, many "Christians" want a third temple, but they do not realize that the third temple has been there for a long time, that the third temple is the church. And then there are these "Christians" who are in favor of expelling and killing the Palestinians because they take Bible passages from the Old Testament and still think that the old covenant is valid, that carnal Israel is God's people, because they do not understand that the Church is the true Israel. They have never understood the Bible.

I have a damaged case of microwave popcorn around here somewhere....

Popcorn? I hope you find it, Mazel tov!

Soloist wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 12:56 pm Popcorn? I hope you find it, Mazel tov!

Better get a few bags rolling awhile. We might be in this for the long haul

While Lex has been banned for 3 days, he may not see this, but he knows little about Anabaptists. He is preaching to the choir here. We do not hold to many of the Catholic or Protestant dispensationalisms.

It would be much better to ask us instead of deciding for us and preaching down to us.

Sounds like Lex has been reading Ethelbert William Bullinger, and has joined the Ultradispensationists.

I have not heard that one since grad school.

Well, he certainly hasn't been reading Isaiah, or he wouldn't be quite so surprised about God not wanting offerings.

How is this much different from what the suffering church has been preaching for ages - that the OT temple worship was a shadow of good things to come that are now being experienced by the church? And that the blessing of being a child of God is now available to everyone who believes, Jews and Gentiles alike?

Too much is being made of types and shadows here. You can't just take one verse and build an entire theology off of it. That usually results in taking the verse out of context.

Hebrews 10:5-7 is a quote from Psalm 40:6-8. The writer of Hebrews is quoting the Greek Septuagint. It's not the original Hebrew though. The Hebrew at Psalm 40:6-8, like our translations, says, "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but my ears You have opened."

Remember what Samuel said: "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as obeying the voice of the Lord?"

The Psalmist is saying the same thing as Samuel. The Lord wants ears to hear and obey Him, not sacrifices. Of course, offering sacrifices was part of obedience at the time, but that wasn't the point.

The Septuagint is notorious for its loose translations and additions to the Hebrew text. The translators probably intended to give the general meaning (you have given me a body with which to obey you) rather than the Hebrew idiom about ears. The body is the instrument of willing obedience. And in Christ's case, God gave him a human nature and a body with which to obey the Father's will, and offer His body as the perfect sacrifice for sin. The writer of Hebrews does reference the added words about the body (vs. 10), but it's not essential in making his point in vss. 8 and 9, about Christ doing the Father's will and becoming the fulfillment of the sacrificial system.

God has loved Israel with an everlasting love. He wants them and calls them to return to Him. (Jeremiah 31:3, 31-37; Romans 11:26-32; Matthew 23:37-39; Isaiah 49:14-15). No, He does not promise the land to unbelieving Israel. No, He does not want Christians to fight to conquer the land. No, He does not want unbelieving Israel to build a temple. (If such a temple were to be built, it might have something to do with the end times, but it would not be holy or Christian.) And no, He doesn't want Christians to engage in conspiracy theories about how Jews control the world, or reject inspired books of the Bible, call good evil, etc..

Yes, there are many types and shadows of Christ in the Old Testament, especially in the Law, which is itself a shadow of good things to come. But a type is not necessarily a shadow. Some types are correlations and similarities between earlier and later historical events - for example, "out of Egypt I called my son", Hosea 11:1, quoted in Matt. 2:15. And, typology is not hermeneutics. The meaning of a passage is not the same as a type that might be found in it. For example, in Hosea 11:1, the meaning is that God called Israel out of Egypt at the time of the Exodus. But "the more they were called, the more they went away" (vs. 2). But God still loved them: "I led them with cords of kindness...I bent down to them and fed them." (vs. 4). It's not an intentional Messianic prophecy like Isaiah 9:6. But the inspired NT writer saw a type of Christ in it.

The OT and the NT are both profitable for doctrine, correction, instruction in righteousness, etc. The OT points to Christ, and the NT is the teachings of Christ.