I bet you cannot solve this easy biblical problem... Can you?

Jeremiah 7:22-23,"For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you."

Read the scripture VERY carefully.

Is there a contradiction... If so why?

Is there NOT a contraduction... If so why?

Shalom

Views: 7

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No contradiction there. The commandment of burnt offerings and sacrifices is the 'Law that was added" that Paul speaks of in Gal.. Let's read;

“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Gal 3:19

When Paul says, "It was added", did he mean that some ’additional law’ was put in place to go along with some others that already existed ? Of course he did! And what 'already existed ', were Gods laws. The reason I say that is because of the term Paul used; 'transgressions'

If you look up the biblical meaning of the word 'transgression', you will find it means the breaking of laws. The bible tells us this:

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4

Now let’s look up the word, ‘transgress’ in the dictionary:

Definition: 1. transitive verb break law: to break a law, rule, or moral code
transgress the law
2. intransitive verb do wrong: to commit a crime or do wrong by disobeying a law, command, or moral code
He transgressed against the organization's code of conduct.

So, a person who ‘transgresseth’ the law is someone who is breaking the law, in this case God‘s laws!

Knowing that transgression is breaking God’s laws, we can now read the verse for what it is; we can see that 'another' law was added to other already established laws. Let’s read:

“Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions (the breaking of the laws), till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Gal 3:19

So what Paul was saying in Gal. is that A LAW was ADDED (to put something into or join something onto something else) because of TRANSGRESSIONS (breaking a rule, or moral code).

Let’s read a bit more of what Paul said in Gal.:

“…till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.” Gal. 3:19.

Above, Paul also tells us that the Law that was ADDED, was ONLY to be around until the seed should come.

And that seed was Jesus Christ. So the Laws that were added were only to be around until Jesus came. Let's read more;

Gal.3
[24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
[25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

So the same law that was added was to be a schoolmaster, but ONLY until Jesus came.

Now let's read what happened to the law of offerings and sacrifices when Jesus died;

Matt.27
[50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
[51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

As we know, it was behind the veil of the temple that the high priest would offer the sacrifices. So when Jesus died, the law that was added, "burnt offerings and sacrifices" ended. Let's read a little more;

Col.2
[14] 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 how do I know it was the ordinances of sacrifices that were against us? Let's read it;

Heb.10
[1] For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

So sacrifices could NOT make the comers perfect. Let's read more;

[4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

The sacrifices could not make us perfect because they could not remove sin. Just a bit more to read;

[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
[6] In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
[7] Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
[8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

So God never had pleasure in killing bulls and goats.

So if killing bulls and goats could not take away sin, AND God never liked doing it anyway, you can see how the following must be true;

"[14] 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;" Col.2

Contradiction, NO! Harmony, YES!!!!
I did not speak to your Fathers there is no contradiction, although the scripture states that God didn' t speak to them, in reference to divine obligation of the legal sacrifices. He did not require sacrifices, unless combined with moral obedience"

He had mercy, and did not want sacrifice" Love to God is the supreme end, external observances are only means towards that end.

"The mere sacrifice was not so much what I commanded, as the sincere submission to My will gives to the sacrifice all its virtue"
obedience is better than sacrifice.
A statement by the prophet Jeremiah has given classical commentators a difficult time. Jeremiah says,"For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of Egypt concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this thing did I command them, saying, listen to my voice, and I shall be for you for a God and you shall be for me for a nation..."(Jeremiah 7:22-23).

But had not God spoke to them about sacrifices? The covenant at Sinai was accompanied by sacrifices; the tabernacle was constructed for the sole purpose of bringing sacrifices; the book of leviticus is devoted to the laws of sacrifices. what could Jeremiah have meant by his statment?

The talmudic sages(Brachot 12) have cleared up these difficulties by pointing out a unique characteristic of biblical linguistic style. If we take this phrase literally, we have misunderstood it. Phrases constructed in the style of "Not... x, But ... y ..." do not mean "NOT X, But Y." Instead they mean: "Not X is the main thing, but rather Y is the main thing." Let us see how this simple change, which is consistent throughout the Scripture, helps us better understand these puzzling texts.

When Moses speaks to the second generation of the wilderness and says,"Not with our fathers did He make the covenant, but with us, here living today." This means "Not with our fathers mainly did he make a covenant, but with us--- the living." Of course, we can see that the covenant has no meaning for history if it was given only, or even mainly, to the jews at the time of Sinai; rather; its purpose is to be a covenant to all jews living in each generation.

Likewise,"Your name shall no longer be called Jacob(mainly), but Israel is your name(main) name." Compare this with the similar, but different, name change in the case of Abraham. There his name is changed from Abram to Abraham and never again is called Abraham."And thy name shall not be called any more Abram, and thy name shall be Abraham" (Genesis 17:5). Notice the precision of the Torah's choice of words: here it does not say,"Not Abram, But Abraham." It says instead,"Not Abraham, and thy name shall be Abraham." The "Not... x, But... y" formula is absent and thus the meaning if different. The word "but" is replaced by the word "and," which implies "and in the future it will be Abraham."

Jeremiah was also pointing out that God did not command the sacrifices to be the main aspect of the Jew's life, but, rather,"listening to His voice" is the essence of the Torah.

Hearing the similar ring in these recurring phrases scattered throughout the Scriptures enables us to sense its true meaning. This meaning makes the Torah's message comprehensible. In this case, the medium is the message. The ear attuned to the verbal similarities across different texts picks it up.

Misinterpreting breeds misunderstanding. Sometimes small misunderstandings cast giant shadows.


--- Avigdor Boncheck, Studying the TORAH: A Guide to In-depth Interpretation, Pgs: 63-64

RSS

© 2024   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service