# Deacons Roles



## valkrod (Jun 28, 2011)

What is the role of the deacons in a Baptist church. Are they to monitor and keep the pastor accountable or to minister to the staff and serve under the pastor? We have some that feel they need power in the church.


----------



## jmharris23 (Jun 28, 2011)

Their role is to serve..plain and simple..unfortunately church life is rarely plain and simple


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 28, 2011)

Are you asking for what the Biblical role of the deacon is?  or what the role is in some churches today?

Most Baptist churches that I've been a part of, the role of the deacon is more like the Biblical role of the position of Elder.

I'd encourage you to do a study on the three roles of leadership within the Church....Pastor, Elder, Deacon....especially the requirements of the person in each position and roles they serve.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 28, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Are you asking for what the Biblical role of the deacon is?  or what the role is in some churches today?
> 
> Most Baptist churches that I've been a part of, the role of the deacon is more like the Biblical role of the position of Elder.
> 
> I'd encourage you to do a study on the three roles of leadership within the Church....Pastor, Elder, Deacon....especially the requirements of the person in each position and roles they serve.



And I would agree.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 28, 2011)

valkrod said:


> What is the role of the deacons in a Baptist church. Are they to monitor and keep the pastor accountable or to minister to the staff and serve under the pastor? We have some that feel they need power in the church.



Love God.
Love people.
Serve all.

God chooses pastors and deacons. To hold those positions by any other means is a serious problem waiting to happen. Accountability (in His church) works both ways and is ALWAYS motivated by love. If it doesn't flow in both directions from genuine caring for the God-ordained relationship, it will not work for long. Ego needs to be checked constantly. Pride has destroyed pastors, deacons, and churches (local bodies of believers). Those that feel the "need for power" make poor material for the holders of those roles.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 28, 2011)

It appears to me that the Bible (New Testament) speaks of 3 separate offices within each local church.

1.  a preacher. (referred to biblically as preacher/evangelist.
2.  Shepherds (more than one) referred to as shepherds/elders/pastors.
3.  Deacons.

The deacons are selected from among the local members by the other member and God provided the qualifications that should be used in making that selection.  A deacon serves the congregation as needs arise (biblical example) and in specific areas of concern within a local church.

The elders are selected from among the local members by the other member and God provided the qualifications that should be used in making that selection.  An elder, or pastor, is a mature member of that church who is entrusted to be a shepherd of the flock.  They were mature, trustworthy, well thought of and with good reputation in the community.  Able to teach.  An elder must desire to be an elder, not pressured into.

The preacher, or minister, is a person called by God to preach and teach the Gospel of Christ. (Within a local church, or any other way he is lead).

Now, that's what I get from the Bible.  I know that many do not agree with me.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 28, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Love God.
> Love people.
> Serve all.




There's an interesting sermon by Voddie Baucham that talks about phrases like the above.

Not that it's a bad thing by any means.  But it's a very interesting presentation.  He talks about how many churches say they live in the "freedom" of that phrase, or something very similar.

Then he very clearly explains that all they are doing is saying that their requirement is to follow OT law.  See Commandments 1-4 for the first part of the phrase and 5-10 for the rest of it.

Pretty interesting.  Essentially they say "you don't have to live under the law anymore.  All you have to do is live under the law!"

I'll see if I can find the title of it and post a link.  You can get it off of sermonaudio.com


----------



## Mako22 (Jun 28, 2011)

Bishop, Elder and Pastor all refer to the same office in the local church. Deacons are servants that is what the word "deacon" means after all "a servant". The office of deacon is NOT a position of authority in the church.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jun 28, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> It appears to me that the Bible (New Testament) speaks of 3 separate offices within each local church.
> 
> 1.  a preacher. (referred to biblically as preacher/evangelist.
> 2.  Shepherds (more than one) referred to as shepherds/elders/pastors.
> ...




The church I belong (PCA) to uses the 3 office model.


----------



## huntmore (Jun 28, 2011)

I have never seen the word deacon in the Bible. Where is it?


----------



## crbrumbelow (Jun 28, 2011)

huntmore said:


> I have never seen the word deacon in the Bible. Where is it?



(1Ti 3:10)  And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

(1Ti 3:11)  Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

(1Ti 3:12)  Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

(1Ti 3:13)  For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Jun 28, 2011)

Not my writing by it sums it up shorter than I could.  We just completed a study on the church.  Part of that study was the offices and reference through the greek dictionary only point to two offices.


A pastor in God’s Word is called an “elder,” “bishop”, “shepherd”, “preacher”, and “teacher.” Each name refers to a duty a pastor has from the Lord. The pastor must meet high qualifications in order to be qualified for the position of pastor. These have been discussed before, but can be found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Tutus 1:5-8. A pastor is to preach the Gospel, win souls to Christ, teach the church, lead by example, visit his members, lead in church meetings, and have the oversight as under-shepherd of all matters of interest to the church. A pastor should be supported by the church (1 Cor. 9, 1 Tim. 5:18), respected by the church (1 Tim. 5:19), and loved and prayed for by the church. A pastor is not an hireling and should not be greedy of filthy lucre. Every church needs a pastor, for without one, a church soon strays; but that pastor must be a Spirit led, Biblically secure man of God.

The ONLY OTHER BIBLICAL office is that of deacon. The first deacons were chosen in Acts 6:1-7. At this time, that church was approximately the size of 6-8,000 members. The pastors were not able to meet the needs in visitation and widows were being “neglected.” The pastors gathered the church and said, “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.” Deacons were needed to be chosen so that the pastors would not neglect their main duty to “give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” Thus seven men were chosen to be the first deacons.


----------



## crbrumbelow (Jun 28, 2011)

Deacon boards tear me up.  That gives them authority.  They are caretakers..  

def.  From G1249; to be an attendant, that is, wait upon (menially or as a host, friend or [figuratively] teacher); technically to act as a Christian deacon: - (ad-) minister (unto), serve, use the office of a deacon.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 28, 2011)

Woodsman69 said:


> Bishop, Elder and Pastor all refer to the same office in the local church. Deacons are servants that is what the word "deacon" means after all "a servant". The office of deacon is NOT a position of authority in the church.



I don't believe the Bible gives any positions of authority in the church other than that of our Lord and Savior.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 28, 2011)

Sorry to hear that a simple restating of Scripture, both OT and NT, that explains the call of God upon the lives of His children, draws criticism. As a bond servant of my Lord and savior, I have given up my freedom to live in His. There is no better deal to be had anywhere else, at any price!

Clearly, freedom is not the same as trouble-free, but God is faithful. He never leaves His own, not even in the valley of the shadow of death. 

Another pithy saying, "Love God and do as you please." captures the essence of Christian living in seven words. Brevity does not imply lack of depth.

God expects all Christians to get out of the shallow end at some point, yet some just won't step out of their comfort zones,... even for the King of kings. I try not to get too comfortable. It often leads to stagnation.

Peace.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 28, 2011)

huntmore said:


> I have never seen the word deacon in the Bible. Where is it?



diakonos - (Greek) - servant

  It is found all through Scripture, but it is not always translated as "deacon". The Greeks were ever conscious of being misunderstood, so they worked very hard at using very narrowly focused terminology. There are more than six distinctly unique Greek words for "love", for example. Greek lexicology is a critical issue when translating Greek to English because English is, in many cases, less precise.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 28, 2011)

You find the word "elder" (in the church) over 20 times in the NT.(NASB)

You find "deacon"  6 times in the NT.(NASB)

You find "pastor" one time in the NT.(NASB)(KJV)(NIV).

***********************************************
It's my impression that a deacon(notice the small "d") might serve in one of the following ways:

Deacon of the youth:  Youth minister.
Deacon of missionary program.
Deacon might be the church treasurer.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 28, 2011)

They are simply leaders. Leaders take all kind of roles, whatever is needed to maintain a healthy flock. I dislike "family list". As if I have a certain group to care about. Todays deacons, speaking from my perspective based on my experience,  act as a board to make decisions regarding the buisness of the church. Truth is, we try to make the NT church life match ours in this generation but it ain't gonna happen. We only have record of meeting in homes. I'm not saying that churches have gone in an unbiblical direction, only that we have nothing in the NT that serves as a model.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 28, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I don't believe the Bible gives any positions of authority in the church other than that of our Lord and Savior.



I think of them more as titles or descriptors that always carry great responsibility and require great humility. The idea is to have the greatest possible Christian influence. For someone given such authority of leadership, the weight of stewardship is significant. A pastor bears the responsibility of the flock, intrusted to him  by God. Leading by example is far more effective than making demands based on authority. Even Paul told a few churches and their leadership, even in a personal letter to Philemon, that he had the authority to require obedience, but appealed to their sense of right doing before God.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jun 28, 2011)

gtparts said:


> I think of them more as titles or descriptors that always carry great responsibility and require great humility. The idea is to have the greatest possible Christian influence. For someone given such authority of leadership, the weight of stewardship is significant. A pastor bears the responsibility of the flock, intrusted to him  by God. Leading by example is far more effective than making demands based on authority. Even Paul told a few churches and their leadership, even in a personal letter to Philemon, that he had the authority to require obedience, but appealed to their sense of right doing before God.


This makes me think about; A shepherd leads the flock and they follow. He does not drive the flock like a cowboy.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 29, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Sorry to hear that a simple restating of Scripture, both OT and NT, that explains the call of God upon the lives of His children, draws criticism. As a bond servant of my Lord and savior, I have given up my freedom to live in His. There is no better deal to be had anywhere else, at any price!
> 
> Clearly, freedom is not the same as trouble-free, but God is faithful. He never leaves His own, not even in the valley of the shadow of death.
> 
> ...



Not criticism.  Just thought it was an interesting perspective.  That's all.


----------



## thedeacon (Jun 29, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Are you asking for what the Biblical role of the deacon is?  or what the role is in some churches today?
> 
> Most Baptist churches that I've been a part of, the role of the deacon is more like the Biblical role of the position of Elder.
> 
> I'd encourage you to do a study on the three roles of leadership within the Church....Pastor, Elder, Deacon....especially the requirements of the person in each position and roles they serve.



  Very good advice, in most churches the minister is doing the elders work, the elders are doing the deacons work and the deacons are running around with their hands in their pockets not knowing what is going on.


----------



## Tim L (Jun 29, 2011)

Usually deacons are younger members of the church and are primarily responsible for helping over see the physical needs of the church. Elders are usually older members of the church that are primarily responsible for over seeing the spritual needs of the church...Example would be an elder prays before communion, while a deacon assists in serving communion to the congregation.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 30, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> There's an interesting sermon by Voddie Baucham that talks about phrases like the above.
> 
> Not that it's a bad thing by any means.  But it's a very interesting presentation.  He talks about how many churches say they live in the "freedom" of that phrase, or something very similar.
> 
> ...





gtparts said:


> Sorry to hear that a simple restating of Scripture, both OT and NT, that explains the call of God upon the lives of His children, draws criticism. As a bond servant of my Lord and savior, I have given up my freedom to live in His. There is no better deal to be had anywhere else, at any price!
> 
> Clearly, freedom is not the same as trouble-free, but God is faithful. He never leaves His own, not even in the valley of the shadow of death.
> 
> ...





Huntinfool said:


> Not criticism.  Just thought it was an interesting perspective.  That's all.



I understood it didn't come from you. The blue paragraph above seems to imply that Voddie is disapproving, but maybe not. If he is, he's missing a great little teaching tool, and that doesn't sound like the guy I have listened to on several occasions.
Personally, I find it effective in my life to use the K.I.S.S. principle and short, sharp reminders do the best job of keeping me on task.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2011)

Not disapproving.  Just pointing out a potential flaw in the logic or theology.  

Not that all who would use the phrase would be works oriented, law abiding pharisees.  He was making a point thatin trying to communicate freedom from the law...we sometimes quote the law.  It was in the context of some other point that I would butcher if I tried to make it.

I just thought it was an interesting perspective.  Love God (commandments 1-4), Love others (5-10).  

If you look at it in this context, you'll see a different angle.  What was Jesus' response when asked what the greatest commandment was?  See what I'm saying?  

Love God
Love your neighbor


He often talks about OT law and how we do not live apart from it.  It is a good law.  God gave it.  But we are unable to follow it to the point of righteousness and so he sent one who could follow the law perfectly and sacrificed him as the final sacrifice to be righteousness for us.

The law is good.  The fact that we don't have to keep it perfectly for salvation does not excuse us from following it.  It is just no longer a means to righteousness for us.  We are made righteous in Christ.

His point is that if we were ABLE to truly "Love God and Love Others", we would be able to keep all of the law and, thus, not really need Christ.  It was just a subtle point he was making and one I'd not really thought of.  Thought it was very compelling.

Love God
Love Others

It's a good philosphy to try to live by.  I suppose he would argue that a better, more doctrinally sound philosophy would be something to the effect of "Have faith and believe".  I don't know.  Jus thought it was interesting.  

Like he says "if ya can't say Amen, ya oughta say OUCH!"


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> But we are unable to follow it to the point of righteousness and so he sent one who could follow the law perfectly and sacrificed him as the final sacrifice to be righteousness for us.



But Jesus did not follow ALL of the OT laws.  I'm not saying that He couldn't have followed them, just that He chose not to.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 1, 2011)

right.....



are you stalking me?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 1, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> right.....
> 
> 
> 
> are you stalking me?



I'm trying to drive you back to the "In need of prayer" thread.


----------



## Mako22 (Jul 2, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I don't believe the Bible gives any positions of authority in the church other than that of our Lord and Savior.



The Pastor under the leading of the Holy Spirit is to be in charge of the church and not the deacons.


----------



## Mako22 (Jul 2, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> They are simply leaders. Leaders take all kind of roles, whatever is needed to maintain a healthy flock. I dislike "family list". As if I have a certain group to care about. Todays deacons, speaking from my perspective based on my experience,  act as a board to make decisions regarding the buisness of the church. Truth is, we try to make the NT church life match ours in this generation but it ain't gonna happen. We only have record of meeting in homes. I'm not saying that churches have gone in an unbiblical direction, only that we have nothing in the NT that serves as a model.



According to my bible they went to church every day of the week.


----------



## huntmore (Jul 6, 2011)

Woodsman69 said:


> According to my bible they went to church every day of the week.



We still do!


----------



## thedeacon (Jul 6, 2011)

I think that some people are missing the meaning of Pastors and Preachers in the bible.


----------



## CAL (Jul 6, 2011)

valkrod said:


> What is the role of the deacons in a Baptist church. Are they to monitor and keep the pastor accountable or to minister to the staff and serve under the pastor? We have some that feel they need power in the church.



In the Baptist church here the deacons handle the church business such as building,repairs,purchases,paying bills and taking care of the church funds.They also visit other churches looking for a replacement pastor when the time comes.They are also suppose to be role models for the congregation.Examples of how members are suppose to live.


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 9, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> But Jesus did not follow ALL of the OT laws.  I'm not saying that He couldn't have followed them, just that He chose not to.



A question (and I don't know the answer): where in scripture did Jesus not obey the Law that He did not then explain that the Law had not been broken?


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 9, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> It appears to me that the Bible (New Testament) speaks of 3 separate offices within each local church.
> 
> 1.  a preacher. (referred to biblically as preacher/evangelist.
> 2.  Shepherds (more than one) referred to as shepherds/elders/pastors.
> ...



For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly.  The main thing, though, is "does God agree with us?"  A search of the Scriptures seems to point to this as truth.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 9, 2011)

Woodsman69 said:


> The Pastor under the leading of the Holy Spirit is to be in charge of the church and not the deacons.



Where in the New Testament do we find that only one man is to be in charge of a church?  Every example I can find strongly states that there are at least two or more.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 9, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> But Jesus did not follow ALL of the OT laws.  I'm not saying that He couldn't have followed them, just that He chose not to.



If Jesus had not kept all the OT law in His lifetime, what is said of Him in Hebrews 4:15 wouldn't have been true.  And further, Jesus would have therefore been a sinner... taking away any chance of our salvation.

I think you may be confused on the issue.  According to the way many of the Jews (i.e. scribes/Pharisees) kept the Law, Jesus did not keep the Law.  However, it wasn't that Jesus was wrong... it was that the Jews had wrongly interpreted the Law and expanded it quite liberally.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 11, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> If Jesus had not kept all the OT law in His lifetime, what is said of Him in Hebrews 4:15 wouldn't have been true.  And further, Jesus would have therefore been a sinner... taking away any chance of our salvation.
> 
> I think you may be confused on the issue.  According to the way many of the Jews (i.e. scribes/Pharisees) kept the Law, Jesus did not keep the Law.  However, it wasn't that Jesus was wrong... it was that the Jews had wrongly interpreted the Law and expanded it quite liberally.



I'm speaking of all the numerous "ceremonial" type laws given by Moses from Exodus through Deuteronomy.  Moses "spoke face-to-face with God" which should exclude the possibility of Moses misinterpreting the Law.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 11, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I'm speaking of all the numerous "ceremonial" type laws given by Moses from Exodus through Deuteronomy.  Moses "spoke face-to-face with God" which should exclude the possibility of Moses misinterpreting the Law.



Any specific examples?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 11, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Any specific examples?



Here are a couple that come to mind.

Mosaic Laws concerning unclean foods:
Matthew 15:10
Matthew 15:15-17
Mark 7:15
In all three of these scriptures, Jesus says basically that you are not defiled by what you eat, you are defiled by what you do.

Mosaic Laws concerning eating with unwashed hands:
Matthew 15:20
Jesus says basically that eating with unwashed hands could never defile you or make you unacceptable to God.

Mosaic Laws concerning relations with enemies:
Matthew 5:43
Jesus says basically that the law of Moses says to love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say love your enemies.

Mosaic Laws concerning revenge:
Matthew 5:38
Jesus says basically that the law of Moses says an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to turn the other cheek.

It would require a lot more research than I have time for, but I don't remember Jesus performing all the animal sacrifices at the temple that were required on a never-ending basis.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 11, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Here are a couple that come to mind.
> 
> Mosaic Laws concerning unclean foods:
> Matthew 15:10
> ...



I still fail to see where he went against the Mosaic law. 

Your references above point to his teachings..which give additional detail/input on the Mosaic law, but don't show examples of him going against it.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 11, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> I still fail to see where he went against the Mosaic law.
> 
> Your references above point to his teachings..which give additional detail/input on the Mosaic law, but don't show examples of him going against it.



We've had other discussions regarding the OT law and Jesus, but for the purposes of this thread, I'm not asserting that Jesus "changed" the laws of Moses.  The issue here is whether Jesus "followed" perfectly, the laws of Moses.  There are four books of the bible filled with laws handed down by Moses.  

In John chapter 8:1-11, Jesus did not follow the laws of Moses when the Pharisees brought the woman caught in the act of adultery before the crowd to be stoned.  In verse 11 Jesus tells her that He does not condemn her and for her to go and sin no more.  

I'm not insinuating that Jesus did anything wrong or inappropriate or against God.  All I'm saying is that what Jesus did was not following the Mosaic law.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 11, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> We've had other discussions regarding the OT law and Jesus, but for the purposes of this thread, I'm not asserting that Jesus "changed" the laws of Moses.  The issue here is whether Jesus "followed" perfectly, the laws of Moses.  There are four books of the bible filled with laws handed down by Moses.
> 
> In John chapter 8:1-11, Jesus did not follow the laws of Moses when the Pharisees brought the woman caught in the act of adultery before the crowd to be stoned.  In verse 11 Jesus tells her that He does not condemn her and for her to go and sin no more.
> 
> I'm not insinuating that Jesus did anything wrong or inappropriate or against God.  All I'm saying is that what Jesus did was not following the Mosaic law.



How did Jesus not follwo the laws of Moses in that situation?  He told them to cast stones at her, right?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 11, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> How did Jesus not follwo the laws of Moses in that situation?  He told them to cast stones at her, right?



(1)  "Teacher" they asked Jesus, "this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?"  Jesus said "All right, stone her. But let those who have never sinned throw the first stones!"

Mosaic answer: Both the man and woman discovered committing adultery must be killed. (Deuteronomy 22:22)

Mosaic law states that they must be killed.  It does not say that if there are sinless people present to execute them, then they can be killed.  There were no sinless people present at any of the executions conducted under Mosaic law.  Jesus was asked, as a teacher, for guidance.  Jesus provided guidance which resulted in the woman being spared.  The woman being spared was not consistent with Mosaic law.

(2)  In order for Jesus to have been in perfect compliance with Mosaic law, He, as a teacher, should have picked up stones and led the crowd in the stoning.

(3)  At the end of the story, Jesus told the adulterous woman that He did not condemn her.  Mosaic law did in fact condemn her.  Jesus did not condemn her, therefore, Jesus was not consistent with Mosaic law.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 11, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> (1)  "Teacher" they asked Jesus, "this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?"  Jesus said "All right, stone her. But let those who have never sinned throw the first stones!"
> 
> Mosaic answer: Both the man and woman discovered committing adultery must be killed. (Deuteronomy 22:22)
> 
> ...



Really?  What about Rahab?  She was a harlot and the Jews took her in.

Sounds like Jesus was consistent with Mosaic law in forgiveness.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 11, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> (1)  "Teacher" they asked Jesus, "this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?"  Jesus said "All right, stone her. But let those who have never sinned throw the first stones!"
> 
> Mosaic answer: Both the man and woman discovered committing adultery must be killed. (Deuteronomy 22:22)
> 
> ...



HJ... you've got serious disagreement with NT Scripture if you claim that Jesus did not perfectly follow the entire Law of Moses - including ceremonial purity.  Every time you stated something from Matthew 5, Jesus said, "You have heard it said"... not "it is written."  The custom of washing hands prior to eating was not part of the Law of Moses... it was part of the Oral Law - additions by man to the inspired written law.  

Regarding Jesus being the one to stone a woman, it was not His place.  Elders of a city were responsible for that duty... and even had he said it should happen, the Roman government would not allow Jews to carry out capital punishment (reason Jesus was sent to Pilate).

This is the crux of the assertion you are making... if our Lord did NOT keep the Law perfectly, He wasn't suitable to be our sacrifice on the cross.  Sacrifices in the OT (the foreshadowing of Christ) had to be without blemish.  To be acceptable, Christ had to be spiritually w/o blemish... and had He committed one sin, He would be unqualified.  To fail to keep ANY part of the Law of Moses would have meant He sinned.  Again I will say... the Jews in Christ's day did not always have a correct grasp of the Law... and Jesus corrected those misinterpretations many times.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 12, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Really?  What about Rahab?  She was a harlot and the Jews took her in.
> 
> Sounds like Jesus was consistent with Mosaic law in forgiveness.



Rahab was not an Israelite.  She lived in Jericho and hid the Israelite spies who were gathering intelligence in order to plan a military strike against Jericho.  Rahad hid them in her house, lied to the king of Jericho about their whereabouts, and helped them escape.  The spies promised to spare her life in payment for her assistance.  

Joshua 6:17
The city and everything in it must be completely destroyed as an offering to the Lord. Only Rahab the prostitute and the others in her house will be spared, for she protected our spies.

Sparing Rahab had nothing to do with forgiveness.  It was a negotiated arrangement to secure her assistance in a military operation.

If forgiveness and mercy were an issue in this story, ALL the other women and children in Jericho would not have been murdered.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 12, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> HJ... you've got serious disagreement with NT Scripture if you claim that Jesus did not perfectly follow the entire Law of Moses - including ceremonial purity.
> 
> My issue is with the OT law of Moses, not anything said or done by Jesus.
> 
> ...



I'm not implying that Jesus did anything wrong at all.  I'm not implying that Jesus wasn't perfect.  I'm saying that Moses was one of the most un-Christ like characters in the bible, and most of the laws of Moses were just that, laws written by Moses to try to control an obviously uncontrollable group of people.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 12, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Rahab was not an Israelite.  She lived in Jericho and hid the Israelite spies who were gathering intelligence in order to plan a military strike against Jericho.  Rahad hid them in her house, lied to the king of Jericho about their whereabouts, and helped them escape.  The spies promised to spare her life in payment for her assistance.
> 
> Joshua 6:17
> The city and everything in it must be completely destroyed as an offering to the Lord. Only Rahab the prostitute and the others in her house will be spared, for she protected our spies.
> ...



Okay...you need an israelite?  What about Aaron?

He formed an idol out of gold and worshipped it.  Why wasn't he struck dead?


Oh...and as far as forgiveness and mercy...why do you require that all must be forgiven and all must receive mercy for it to be about forgiveness and mercy?

Why can't God forgive those whom He chooses to forgive and have mercy on those whom he chooses to be merciful to?  Can we not thank God for that forgiveness and mercy?  Or should we curse God for not being forgiving and merciful to all?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 12, 2011)

Bama4me, you have to understand Hawgjawl.

He professes to be a Christian but has taken a different road than
most of us.  He has never published a comment for the sole purpose of praising or honoring God or His Son, as most of us have.  Hawg enjoys the controversies, particularly likes to show the differences in what the Son of God taught and what God taught.

I'm not coming down on Hawg, just want you to know from where he comes.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 12, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay...you need an israelite?  What about Aaron?
> 
> He formed an idol out of gold and worshipped it.  Why wasn't he struck dead?
> 
> ...



I wasn't cursing God at all.  Remember, I don't believe that everything that Moses did and said is representative of God.

Do you believe that Moses was Christ-like?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 12, 2011)

Again, how did Jesus break the law of Moses?  Since He is God, can't He choose whom to forgive and who not to forgive?



			
				Hawgjawl said:
			
		

> I'm sorry. I wasn't clear when I said that ALL the other women and children would not have been murdered. I was not meaning that they ALL should have been spared. I meant that surely one or two of them deserved forgiveness, but instead, ALL of them were murdered.



And how can you be so sure?



HawgJawl said:


> I wasn't cursing God at all.  Remember, I don't believe that everything that Moses did and said is representative of God.
> 
> Do you believe that Moses was Christ-like?



All Christians...including Moses...display Christ-like characteristics and qualities at times.  We also fight the sin within us and will display un-Christ-like characteristics and qualities at times.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 12, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Again, how did Jesus break the law of Moses?  Since He is God, can't He choose whom to forgive and who not to forgive?
> 
> I never insinuated that Jesus broke God's law in any way, only the law that Moses wrote and said came from God while he was talking to God face-to-face.  There's a big difference.  Everything that Jesus did was perfect.  Any place where Jesus acted or spoke contrary to the law of Moses only illustrates that the law of Moses was just that, the law written by Moses.
> 
> ...



Displaying un-Christ-like characteristics at times is different than wiping out entire civilizations, women, children, everyone.  I doubt a person who acted like Moses today would be so highly revered.  In fact, most folks would say he's not a REAL Christian and doesn't represent Christianity in the least.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 12, 2011)

off topic....you need to learn how to quote.  Trying to quote within a quote is impossible.



			
				Hawgjawl said:
			
		

> I never insinuated that Jesus broke God's law in any way, only the law that Moses wrote and said came from God while he was talking to God face-to-face. There's a big difference. Everything that Jesus did was perfect. Any place where Jesus acted or spoke contrary to the law of Moses only illustrates that the law of Moses was just that, the law written by Moses.



Okay....remember this.  I believe God gave Moses the law.  So...the Law of Moses=Law of God.  So...back to my original question above.

Again, how did Jesus break the law of Moses? Since He is God, can't He choose whom to forgive and who not to forgive?




			
				Hawgjawl said:
			
		

> Joshua 6:21 They completely destroyed everything in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys - everything.





No...I'm sure they wiped Jericho off the map.  My comment of being sure was about your assumption that there were people in Jericho that deserved forgiveness.



HawgJawl said:


> Displaying un-Christ-like characteristics at times is different than wiping out entire civilizations, women, children, everyone.  I doubt a person who acted like Moses today would be so highly revered.  In fact, most folks would say he's not a REAL Christian and doesn't represent Christianity in the least.



Curious?  What civilization did Moses wipe out?  All this time, I thought it was Joshua


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 12, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> off topic....you need to learn how to quote.  Trying to quote within a quote is impossible.
> 
> Since I know now that it bothers you, I'll just continue doing it.
> 
> ...



The Amorites under King Sihon of Heshbon;
Deuteronomy 2:34-35     We conquered all his towns and completely destroyed everyone - men, women, and children. Not a single person was spared. We took all the livestock as plunder for ourselves, along with anything of value from the towns we ransacked.

The kingdom of Bashan under King Og
Deuteronomy 3:6-7     We completely destroyed the kingdom of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed all the people in every town we conquered - men, women, and children alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from all the towns.

Those were the first couple I found.  There are more.  The instructions to kill everyone in the towns came from Moses.  Even the later mass murders under subsequent leaders stem from the initial wars led by Moses.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 12, 2011)

Paul shared my view of the laws of Moses.
In Colossians 2:22  Paul refered to them as mere human teachings.
In Philippians 3:8  Paul refered to them as garbage.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 12, 2011)

Hawgjawl said:
			
		

> Since I know now that it bothers you, I'll just continue doing it.



Great.  Another example of your kindness that you want reciprocated on this board.



			
				Hawgjawl said:
			
		

> The law of Moses makes no exceptions. All adulterers must be killed. I'm not saying that God and Jesus can't forgive anyone they want, just that it conflicts with what Moses wrote down as law.



Nope....Like I mentioned before...Moses made "exceptions."  For example, Aaron fashioning and worshiping a golden calf.



HawgJawl said:


> The Amorites under King Sihon of Heshbon;
> Deuteronomy 2:34-35     We conquered all his towns and completely destroyed everyone - men, women, and children. Not a single person was spared. We took all the livestock as plunder for ourselves, along with anything of value from the towns we ransacked.
> 
> The kingdom of Bashan under King Og
> ...



I know...I was  about Jericho.

As far as the age thing, we are all under the curse of sin.  What happens to little one's that die before they understand the depth of thier sin, well....that's been discussed before.  Do a search.







So...I'll ask again.  Where did Christ go against the law of Moses?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 12, 2011)

Moses made many exceptions but his written law did not.  Moses said not to murder yet he murdered thousands of people.  The actions of Moses and the actual application of punishment or the lack thereof for violations does not change the strictness of the written law.  The law was so strict that it was virtually  impossible for anyone to actually follow it.

I've given several examples of Jesus not being consistent with the law of Moses.  See posts #40,  #42,  #44.

You've had me searching for scripture to quote all afternoon to back up my statements.  Let me ask you to provide scripture illustrating where Jesus performed the required ceremonies and sacrifices associated with the annual Festival of Unleavened Bread, Festival of Harvest, and Festival of Final Harvest.  These were required of EVERYONE annually.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 12, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Moses made many exceptions but his written law did not.  Moses said not to murder yet he murdered thousands of people.  The actions of Moses and the actual application of punishment or the lack thereof for violations does not change the strictness of the written law.  The law was so strict that it was virtually  impossible for anyone to actually follow it.
> 
> I've given several examples of Jesus not being consistent with the law of Moses.  See posts #40,  #42,  #44.
> 
> You've had me searching for scripture to quote all afternoon to back up my statements.  Let me ask you to provide scripture illustrating where Jesus performed the required ceremonies and sacrifices associated with the annual Festival of Unleavened Bread, Festival of Harvest, and Festival of Final Harvest.  These were required of EVERYONE annually.



Nope...haven't given examples.

And as far as Moses making exceptions....well....God's law doesn't have exceptions written in either, but as Christians, we enjoy the forgiveness that He gives us.

As far as feasts, what about the Passover?  I think I remember a famous painting by Da Vinci that shows Jesus there with his 12 buddies.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 12, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Nope...haven't given examples.
> 
> And as far as Moses making exceptions....well....God's law doesn't have exceptions written in either, but as Christians, we enjoy the forgiveness that He gives us.
> 
> ...



Eating dinner together for passover has nothing to do with the required animal sacrifices and other ceremonies for the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the Festival of Harvest, and the Festival of Final Harvest.  The book of Leviticus details the exact procedures required of EVERYONE annually.  I see no indication that the society in which Jesus lived still performed those rituals annually as required by Moses.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 12, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Eating dinner together for passover has nothing to do with the required animal sacrifices and other ceremonies for the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the Festival of Harvest, and the Festival of Final Harvest.  The book of Leviticus details the exact procedures required of EVERYONE annually.  I see no indication that the society in which Jesus lived still performed those rituals annually as required by Moses.



Okay...and because it isn't in the Bible means it didn't happen.

What about circumcision?  Seems like that was still going on in Christ's day.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 12, 2011)

Leviticus chapter 23 details many of the required festivals; Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the Festival of Firstfruits, the Festival of Harvest, the Festival of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Festival of Shelters.  At each of these festivals, burnt offerings were required of EVERYONE.

At what point did Jesus perform ceremonies of animal sacrifice for burnt offerings?  These were required several times annually and the law of Moses states clearly that these are permanent laws.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 12, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Leviticus chapter 23 details many of the required festivals; Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the Festival of Firstfruits, the Festival of Harvest, the Festival of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Festival of Shelters.  At each of these festivals, burnt offerings were required of EVERYONE.
> 
> At what point did Jesus perform ceremonies of animal sacrifice for burnt offerings?  These were required several times annually and the law of Moses states clearly that these are permanent laws.



Read this post again.



rjcruiser said:


> Okay...and because it isn't in the Bible means it didn't happen.
> 
> What about circumcision?  Seems like that was still going on in Christ's day.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 12, 2011)

By simply applying your techique, I can assert that Jesus murdered thousands of people to be consistent with Moses.  Just because it's not in the bible doesn't mean it didn't happen.

If it were significant to Jesus, the Apostles, or the early church, to illustrate to mankind that Jesus obeyed perfectly every law of Moses, it would have been documented.  The fact that it isn't metioned in the bible only strenghtens my position that Jesus never attempted to abide by all the man-made laws of Moses.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 12, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Bama4me, you have to understand Hawgjawl.
> 
> He professes to be a Christian but has taken a different road than
> most of us.  He has never published a comment for the sole purpose of praising or honoring God or His Son, as most of us have.  Hawg enjoys the controversies, particularly likes to show the differences in what the Son of God taught and what God taught.
> ...



Thanks Ronnie... always good to know that I'm trying to discuss a matter with someone who likes controversy. 

HJ... just so you know, the NLT (New Living Translation) is a paraphrase translation... which means that the Greek in the original is not always adhered to.  In the Greek, none of the phrases in Matthew 5 can legitimately be rendered "it is written."  Feel free to check me on that.

If you claim that Moses' law didn't provide salvation for the Jews, which is my only assertion you can be making, explain why Jesus said what He did in Matthew 5:17-20.  And instead of simply giving an answer, how about citing a passage where you can prove Jesus spoke against the Law of Moses and claimed people shouldn't follow it... John 8:1ff not included.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 12, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Leviticus chapter 23 details many of the required festivals; Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the Festival of Firstfruits, the Festival of Harvest, the Festival of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Festival of Shelters.  At each of these festivals, burnt offerings were required of EVERYONE.
> 
> At what point did Jesus perform ceremonies of animal sacrifice for burnt offerings?  These were required several times annually and the law of Moses states clearly that these are permanent laws.



Hebrews 4:15 claims He did exactly that.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 12, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Paul shared my view of the laws of Moses.
> In Colossians 2:22  Paul refered to them as mere human teachings.
> In Philippians 3:8  Paul refered to them as garbage.



Being under the law of Christ, that's exactly what they would have become.  Although during His life, He lived under the Law of Moses (i.e. He had to obey the Law of Moses), Christ nailed it His cross (Colossians 2:14).  At that point, the law God had inspired Moses to record was abolished for all time.  That, however, did not mean the people living in the Mosaical period didn't have to obey the law they were accountable to.  You say the law was "man-made"... why did Paul say in Romans 7:7 that without the law, he wouldn't have known what sin was?  In other words, the Law of Moses identified sin to those living accountable to it.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 12, 2011)

I've said this before during a similiar discussion: in the sermon on the mount, Jesus was not making corrections to the law as given by Moses.  Jesus was dealing with the righteousness (actually unrighteousness) of the Scribes and Pharisees.  They were the Jewish teachers of the day, so they were the negative side of Jesus' comparison.
On the positive side of the comparison was the things that Jesus came to teach.  On the mount, Jesus was preparing disciples for the coming kingdom of God, the church of Jesus Christ.

"Thou shalt not kill" dealth with the physical act of taking someone's life, with malice.  Thru Christ, God wanted Israel to know that hating a person was as great a sin.

The sermon on the mount is not a comparison of what God instructed Moses to teach and what Moses actually taught.  It's a condemnation of the superficial righteousness of the Pharisees and how they were leading Israel in the wrong direction.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 12, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> I've said this before during a similiar discussion: in the sermon on the mount, Jesus was not making corrections to the law as given by Moses.  Jesus was dealing with the righteousness (actually unrighteousness) of the Scribes and Pharisees.  They were the Jewish teachers of the day, so they were the negative side of Jesus' comparison.
> On the positive side of the comparison was the things that Jesus came to teach.  On the mount, Jesus was preparing disciples for the coming kingdom of God, the church of Jesus Christ.
> 
> "Thou shalt not kill" dealth with the physical act of taking someone's life, with malice.  Thru Christ, God wanted Israel to know that hating a person was as great a sin.
> ...



Bingo... the theme of the entire message (5-7) is found in 5:20.  Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 14, 2011)

I'm not saying that Jesus sinned.  I'm not saying that Jesus challenged the law of Moses.  I'm saying that Jesus did not offer daily burnt offerings on the Lord's altar of the Levites.  I'm not saying that this equates to sin.  I'm not saying that this had anything to do with obedience to God.  I'm saying that this was a requirement written down by Moses and this requirement had not been followed consistently since before Moses died.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 14, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I'm not saying that Jesus sinned.  I'm not saying that Jesus challenged the law of Moses.  I'm saying that Jesus did not offer daily burnt offerings on the Lord's altar of the Levites.  I'm not saying that this equates to sin.  I'm not saying that this had anything to do with obedience to God.  I'm saying that this was a requirement written down by Moses and this requirement had not been followed consistently since before Moses died.



Neither you nor I know whether Jesus submitted to those things or not.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 14, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I'm not saying that Jesus sinned.  I'm not saying that Jesus challenged the law of Moses.  I'm saying that Jesus did not offer daily burnt offerings on the Lord's altar of the Levites.  I'm not saying that this equates to sin.  I'm not saying that this had anything to do with obedience to God.  I'm saying that this was a requirement written down by Moses and this requirement had not been followed consistently since before Moses died.



Had Jesus actually offered a daily burnt offering, He would have sinned because He was not of the tribe of Levi.  Obviously, your final sentence indicates that you do not believe the Law of Moses was inspired of God... you're claiming it originated with Moses.  IF that is your assertion, again check with Matthew 5:17-20.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 15, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> Had Jesus actually offered a daily burnt offering, He would have sinned because He was not of the tribe of Levi.  Obviously, your final sentence indicates that you do not believe the Law of Moses was inspired of God... you're claiming it originated with Moses.  IF that is your assertion, again check with Matthew 5:17-20.



All of Israel was required to submit a daily burnt offering. It was the Tribe of Levi who was given authority over the sacrificial altar.  Even before Moses died, the Israelites had stopped following the law of Moses.  Read the end of Deuteronomy.  By the middle of the book of Judges, Israel had turned it's back on God completely.  By that time, the tribes were so spread apart and so separated that they even fought battles against each other.  When Israel spead apart in the promised land, it became impossible for them to follow the laws that Moses because the laws were written for a single group that lived and worshiped together.  Certain individuals or certain groups would return to worshiping God whenever they were losing a battle, and they sometimes offered a burnt sacrificial offering as they prayed for victory.  They sometimes worshiped God long enough after the victory to celebrate a festival for God and offer a burnt sacrificial offering at the time of the festival, but the days of daily sacrifical offerings ended prior to the death of Moses.


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> All of Israel was required to submit a daily burnt offering. It was the Tribe of Levi who was given authority over the sacrificial altar.  Even before Moses died, the Israelites had stopped following the law of Moses.  Read the end of Deuteronomy.  By the middle of the book of Judges, Israel had turned it's back on God completely.  By that time, the tribes were so spread apart and so separated that they even fought battles against each other.  When Israel spead apart in the promised land, it became impossible for them to follow the laws that Moses because the laws were written for a single group that lived and worshiped together.  Certain individuals or certain groups would return to worshiping God whenever they were losing a battle, and they sometimes offered a burnt sacrificial offering as they prayed for victory.  They sometimes worshiped God long enough after the victory to celebrate a festival for God and offer a burnt sacrificial offering at the time of the festival, but the days of daily sacrifical offerings ended prior to the death of Moses.



HJ... I'm done.  You obviously condemn Moses, the Law of Moses, and the inspiration of God... and Jesus along with them.  Just because people don't faithfully adhere to a code doesn't make the code "from man"... but you seem to think otherwise.  Jesus clearly claimed the Law was authoritative and Moses is identified as being one of faith's heroes in Hebrews 11.  You believe what you want, I'll believe the Bible.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jul 15, 2011)

Honestly Hawg, your harping on this never ends.
Never.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 15, 2011)

Hebrews 7:11-19
And finally, if the priesthood of Levi could have achieved God's purpose - and it was that priesthood on which the law was based - why did God need to send a different priest from the line of Melchizedek, instead of from the line of Levi and Aaron?  And when the priesthood is changed, the law must also be changed to permit it.  For the one we are talking about belongs to a different tribe, whose members do not serve at the altar.  What I mean is, our Lord came from the tribe of Judah, and Moses never mentioned Judah in connection with the priesthood.  The change in God's law is even more evident from the fact that a different priest, who is like Melchizedek, has now come.  He became a priest, not by meeting the old requirement of belonging to the tribe of Levi, but by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed.  And the psalmist pointed this out when he said of Christ, "You are a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek."  Yes the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless.  For the law made nothing perfect, and now a better hope has taken its place.  And that is how we draw near to God.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 15, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> You believe what you want, I'll believe the Bible.




Everything I've pointed out IS from the bible.


----------



## Foxfire (Jul 15, 2011)

The Shepherd's Assistants (A Handbook for Church Elders or Deacons) by Arthur J. Clements may be of some help.

Foxfire/Y2KZ71


----------



## Bama4me (Jul 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Hebrews 7:11-19
> And finally, if the priesthood of Levi could have achieved God's purpose - and it was that priesthood on which the law was based - why did God need to send a different priest from the line of Melchizedek, instead of from the line of Levi and Aaron?  And when the priesthood is changed, the law must also be changed to permit it.  For the one we are talking about belongs to a different tribe, whose members do not serve at the altar.  What I mean is, our Lord came from the tribe of Judah, and Moses never mentioned Judah in connection with the priesthood.  The change in God's law is even more evident from the fact that a different priest, who is like Melchizedek, has now come.  He became a priest, not by meeting the old requirement of belonging to the tribe of Levi, but by the power of a life that cannot be destroyed.  And the psalmist pointed this out when he said of Christ, "You are a priest forever in the line of Melchizedek."  Yes the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless.  For the law made nothing perfect, and now a better hope has taken its place.  And that is how we draw near to God.



Do you not realize that the people of the Bible did not all live under the same law?  Hebrews 7:11ff was written during the CHRISTIAN AGE.  Christ came and lived during the MOSAICAL AGE... a time in which Jews were commanded to follow the Law of Moses.  Prior to the Law of Moses, there was the PATRIARCHAL AGE... God spoke to the oldest males in families.  Here's how it breaks down:
*  Genesis 1 - Exodus 19:  Patriarchal Age
*  Exodus 20 - Jesus' Death on Cross:  Mosaical Age
*  Cross of Christ - Present Day:  Christian Age

If you lived in the Patriarchal Age, to be "saved" one had to obey God's direct commands to the families.  Living in the Mosaical Age, one had to obey the Law of Moses.  In the Christian Age, we obey Christ and His law... found in the New Testament.  The book of Hebrews, written in the New Testament age, refers to a law that was abolished (8:13).  While it may have been inferior to Christ's law, it still had to be obeyed for people to be "saved" in God's sight.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 18, 2011)

Bama4me said:


> Do you not realize that the people of the Bible did not all live under the same law?  Hebrews 7:11ff was written during the CHRISTIAN AGE.  Christ came and lived during the MOSAICAL AGE... a time in which Jews were commanded to follow the Law of Moses.  Prior to the Law of Moses, there was the PATRIARCHAL AGE... God spoke to the oldest males in families.  Here's how it breaks down:
> *  Genesis 1 - Exodus 19:  Patriarchal Age
> *  Exodus 20 - Jesus' Death on Cross:  Mosaical Age
> *  Cross of Christ - Present Day:  Christian Age
> ...



Hebrews 7:11-19 makes it clear that during Jesus' life here on earth, He did not conform to Mosaic law.  That is the only point I have been asserting.  Jesus did not follow the law of Moses perfectly during His life.  According to the law of Moses, Jesus was not authorized to perform any priestly duties, such as teaching at the temple, or interpreting and relaying God's will, because Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi which was a Mosaic requirement.


----------

