www.frankfortyotb.blogspot.com
Check out the church site too!
www.frankfortpresbychurch.com
Pastor's Reflection
Hebrews 9 describes Jesus as the high priest for all time and all people.
If you think back to our time earlier this year in the "Year of the Bible," you recognize what the first couple of verses of the chapter are describing: the Tabernacle . . . with the lampstand and the bread, the curtain and the altar, the ark of the covenant. The priests and Levites only entered the outer room. Only the high priest entered the inner room, and only then on the day of atonement.
Hebrews interprets this ritual of Judaism in the context of Christianity, in light of Christ. In the Jewish tabernacle, only one man is allowed to enter, once and for always. That never changes. But Hebrews is telling us that, in the light of Christ, there is a new way into the tabernacle, a way in for ANY person, not just the high priest.
Through the blood of Christ (not goats, bulls, or heifers), believers are cleansed from the acts that lead to death, and are led into acts that serve the living God.
So then Christ becomes the mediator of a new covenant, sealed in the blood of the perfect, unblemished Lamb of God. "Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."
Showing posts with label priests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label priests. Show all posts
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
A Perfect King
Hello! Glad you stopped by today. Let's get down to business. . .
Here's the question and answer from yesterday:
Sun, Mar 22: Deuteronomy 15 describes something called the “Year of Jubilee.” What do you think of it? Why do you think God commanded it?
This is really more of an opinion question based on what you've read about the Year of Jubilee. There isn't exactly a right or wrong answer.
And here's the question of the day:
Mon, Mar 23: How many witnesses is it necessary to have in order to put someone to death? (Dt 17—I know, I know, what a macabre question!)
And here's the reflection of the day:
Ancient Israel basically had four types of administrators to run their society: priests, judges, kings, and prophets. Throughout the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), we have heard lots and lots and lots about the role of the Levites (sons of Levi), who were designated as the priests of Israel.
Deuteronomy 17 mentions the role of the king for the first time. Remember, up until this time, Moses and the elders/judges have been the ones keeping track of everyone as Israel wandered through the wilderness, while the Levites took care of the tabernacle (the place where God's presence dwelled).
But now that they are on the edge of the Promised Land, ready to take possession of it, God reveals to them a new plan for their administration. Once they are settled, they will be more than a community of faith; they will become a whole nation. And a whole nation needs strong leadership, leadership in the form of a king, right? The writers of Deuteronomy seem to think of a king more as a concession rather than something indispensable, though other places in the Bible seem to think that a king IS a necessity (Clements, NIB Commentary on Deuteronomy).
The writers of Deuteronomy give us an outline for "A Perfect King." His power is modest: he should not have a lot of personal resources (horses, wives, etc), he is to study the law "all the days of his life" so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees," and he should not consider himself better than others. (If you know anything about Israel's history, you know that very few kings actually live up to these standards, creating a terrible succession of very IMPERFECT kings.)
The role of the king of Israel was VERY different from the typical king of the day. Generally, the kings claimed they were appointed by God, "chosen and supported by an act of divine will, enabling kings to exercise a form of 'divine' rule on earth" (Clements). Human kings acted on behalf of--and in the place of--God. So kingship in ancient Israel was a theocracy, where the "anointed of God" had a divine rule over his people. What this means is that whatever a king did, he could claim it was by divine authority and is unquestionable.
Societies "received" their kings, rather than choosing them. Kingship had the potential to be a powerful and inherently oppressive form of government. It didn't have to be that way. Certainly, the writes of Deuteronomy sought to put safeguards in place against such corruption.
When the Bible talks about kings and leaders, it doesn't really assassinate someone's character, but neither does it gloss over one's mistakes. What the Bible wants to emphasize is that kings (and all leaders, whether civil leaders or church leaders, which are essentially the same thing for them) are "simply servants of a higher power and a more perfect justice" (Clements).
In our day, it's a little harder to hold leaders to this accountability, at least our "worldly" leaders. Though it is nice when politicians remember that they work for the people who elected them, I don't want to equate taxpayers with a "higher power." That alone is the position which God holds. Maybe it is time for more believers to be involved in both church government AND the civil government. In that way, we know that at least some of our leaders are in the same vein as Deuteronomy's idea of a good leader: one who will "follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees."
Just a thought!
Allison
Here's the question and answer from yesterday:
Sun, Mar 22: Deuteronomy 15 describes something called the “Year of Jubilee.” What do you think of it? Why do you think God commanded it?
This is really more of an opinion question based on what you've read about the Year of Jubilee. There isn't exactly a right or wrong answer.
And here's the question of the day:
Mon, Mar 23: How many witnesses is it necessary to have in order to put someone to death? (Dt 17—I know, I know, what a macabre question!)
And here's the reflection of the day:
Ancient Israel basically had four types of administrators to run their society: priests, judges, kings, and prophets. Throughout the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), we have heard lots and lots and lots about the role of the Levites (sons of Levi), who were designated as the priests of Israel.
Deuteronomy 17 mentions the role of the king for the first time. Remember, up until this time, Moses and the elders/judges have been the ones keeping track of everyone as Israel wandered through the wilderness, while the Levites took care of the tabernacle (the place where God's presence dwelled).
But now that they are on the edge of the Promised Land, ready to take possession of it, God reveals to them a new plan for their administration. Once they are settled, they will be more than a community of faith; they will become a whole nation. And a whole nation needs strong leadership, leadership in the form of a king, right? The writers of Deuteronomy seem to think of a king more as a concession rather than something indispensable, though other places in the Bible seem to think that a king IS a necessity (Clements, NIB Commentary on Deuteronomy).
The writers of Deuteronomy give us an outline for "A Perfect King." His power is modest: he should not have a lot of personal resources (horses, wives, etc), he is to study the law "all the days of his life" so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees," and he should not consider himself better than others. (If you know anything about Israel's history, you know that very few kings actually live up to these standards, creating a terrible succession of very IMPERFECT kings.)
The role of the king of Israel was VERY different from the typical king of the day. Generally, the kings claimed they were appointed by God, "chosen and supported by an act of divine will, enabling kings to exercise a form of 'divine' rule on earth" (Clements). Human kings acted on behalf of--and in the place of--God. So kingship in ancient Israel was a theocracy, where the "anointed of God" had a divine rule over his people. What this means is that whatever a king did, he could claim it was by divine authority and is unquestionable.
Societies "received" their kings, rather than choosing them. Kingship had the potential to be a powerful and inherently oppressive form of government. It didn't have to be that way. Certainly, the writes of Deuteronomy sought to put safeguards in place against such corruption.
When the Bible talks about kings and leaders, it doesn't really assassinate someone's character, but neither does it gloss over one's mistakes. What the Bible wants to emphasize is that kings (and all leaders, whether civil leaders or church leaders, which are essentially the same thing for them) are "simply servants of a higher power and a more perfect justice" (Clements).
In our day, it's a little harder to hold leaders to this accountability, at least our "worldly" leaders. Though it is nice when politicians remember that they work for the people who elected them, I don't want to equate taxpayers with a "higher power." That alone is the position which God holds. Maybe it is time for more believers to be involved in both church government AND the civil government. In that way, we know that at least some of our leaders are in the same vein as Deuteronomy's idea of a good leader: one who will "follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees."
Just a thought!
Allison
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
