Great!

Sorry but I cannot resist ... (nothing malintended below...just an opportunity for a little humor while being serious.)

Let's continue with the law in Ex 13:12,13 which relates to who is eligible for redemption.

Ex 13:12 That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males [shall be] the LORD'S. 13 And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

Are you an ass or a lamb? And what do you think I think I am : an ass or a lamb? or maybe I'm not even eligible for redemption since I'm born female ? And then amongst men... only the first male born from a maiden?

Be happy to.

If you look at the Bible God teaches us through revelation about Himself and how He would have us live. Creation, redemption, health, cleanliness, etc... are all taught in the Bible, as well as self-discipline, honor, duty, and much more. God taught the Israelites all these things through revelation. Thus He was teaching them to look to Him for all true learning.

Greek thinking is much different. It is based upon debate, like what Paul got into on Mars Hill. In debate, which the Greeks perfected, we look to tear apart ideas and see if they make sense to us, to our understanding of things. It makes our thinking, our ideas, the standard by which we judge all things that come across our paths.

That is much different than learning via revelation in the way God was teaching the Israelites down through the centuries. Take a look at the building of the original sanctuary during the wandering in the wilderness. God didn't use the skilled Egyptians who had accompanied the Israelites when they left Egypt. He gave special gifts to individual Israelites and had them do the work even though they didn't have the experience in running complex projects or much of the highly skilled labor it took to build the Sanctuary.

This is one example of God teaching the Israelites to trust to Him for all their learning. There are more throughout the Bible if you look for them. The Bible won't come out and say, See, here is God teaching the Isrealites/Jews to look to Him, but the examples are there, as God, through the Bible, teaches us all about life, death, human nature, etc....

Solomon is another instance of this. Study his life and you will see that he understood a great deal about the world around us. He knew a lot about nature and living things, and most of this came through revelation. Look at his understanding of human nature. It is incredible. Adam is another. He was the first biologist as he classified all the animals. This was taught to him by God or His angels in communication with Adam. It had to have been for Adam wouldn't have known how to do this by osmosis.

As I have slowly, sometimes very slowly, learned to set aside my own ideas and just learn from revelation--trust God's word implicitly--my understanding of many things has increased and the Bible has become a living Book to me from which I learn continually on a wide range of subjects. What David said is really true, God's word gives understanding to the simple.

At this point I will not yet comment on that post, as I do not feel that I have an adequate grasp of your viewpoint. But I will ask a question.

What do you feel is the implication for us today?

Our world and our culture is based on Greek thinking. The word skepticism itself is Greek. Our educational systems find that skepticism is a good thing, so we are taught from a young age to be skeptical rather than the opposite, to trust revelation. This has a large effect on our thinking that is so ingrained in us that we are often unconscious of its effects on how we perceive things.

Take a look at the world around you. If you go up to 100 anonymous people on the street and ask them which they find to better, as in more trustworthy, rationalism or trust in revelation, I would think that the vast majority of them would trust being "rational" a lot more than they would trust revelation. Who, in our day and age, wants to not be thought of as "rational"?

Rationalism and skepticism are basically one and the same thing. If you like I can give you a link to a book written by a linguist from the early 1800's on it. It's titled The Origin, Nature, and Influence of Neology. He was a highly educated man who started out as a student in the Dutch Reformed Church and later became a leader in it, and after that a member and leader in the Baptist church of his day. He joined the Millerite movement but never joined the SDA church.

It's a pretty eye opening read to see how rationalism has affected Christianity over the last 2-300 years. He starts his book with the influence of the French Revolution. As you know they, the French, deified the Goddess of Reason. He shows how that spread into other parts of Europe and then into the US. We see its influence widely in such organizations such as The Jesus Seminar and how theologians today are studying "about" the Bible, not the Bible itself. Doctor of Divinity programs seem to be where faith goes to die today.

So the argument seems to be contrasting "rationalism" (ie: "bad") with "revelation" (ie: "good"). And although I don't see rationalism and scepticism as the same, I do think they are similar and related, and both a product of education. Nor do I see them as bad. As a [relatively well] educated person rationalism and scepticism allow me the background and database (so to speak) to say "What you (generically) are telling me is not how I see things."

Learning by revelation offers its own set of circumstances. Are you meaning that God speaks directly to the individual? I will say that if God spoke directly to me and said "This is how it is." I would have to go with that, and really, I would have no trouble with that.

But...
(This is where the Rationalism/Scepticism factors in... )
I don't see him doing that.

So elaborate a little more on what you intend by "revelation."

While I agree with you that it is by revelation that the Lord reveal His truth.. we need to define what is a revelation and how does one receives it?

I believe there's a difference between having scriptures in a written form and equating this as "revelation" versus hearing personally the teaching of the Holy Spirit thru Him disciplining us in our own life what these really means. The latter is what I call revelation.

My view is the Israelites did not receive much revelation even though they witness and lived thru these events in the wilderness. They lived thru it without really understanding what was going on...because the Lord didn't open their ears for them to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. "AV Dt 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day."

It was Moses that received the understanding (true revelation) of it and wrote it down in those 5 books that is known as the Torah. The problem is Moses wrote the Torah in the same language he heard the Lord speak and came to understand. See the Hebrew word Chiydah H2420 in Num 12:8. I believe Moses wrote the Torah in the same "dark Speech" language that he heard it from the Lord. This pose another level of "problem" besides not having opened ears to hear the Holy Spirit.

Also I believe that when Jesus came, the Jews of those days weren't that much closer in understanding "the revelation" given to Moses compared to the Israelites who lived during Moses times. And do we -- us Christians with all that was reveal to us thru Jesus Christ, His disciples and Paul -- do we understand these "revelation" much more than the Jews?

Maybe some little more, but really, not that much more.

Since Ex 13:12,13 was used up to now for this discussion, we could use it as a little exercise to see how we all understand what the Lord meant with the redeeming of the firstborn asses with a lamb? Can we explain how this scripture applies to us today? Or how Jesus fulfilled this particular law? And does this law have other fulfillment or application in the futur?

This little exercise might make clear how we all differ in interpretating the Old Testament law and how we convert it into the New Covenant understanding.

Elle,

This time it is I that am slightly confused as to where you are going.

Why do you see a difference between the revelation given through God's servants the prophets, and any other revelation from God? Do you not see the Bible as fully inspired and trustworthy? It was Christ in the OT communicating through His prophets and it is the Holy Spirit in the NT communicating Christ's messages to Christ's servants of the NT.

I also don't understand your questions about the Old Covenant vs the New Covenant. The New Covenant is simply God's laws written in our hearts whereas the Old Covenant was the Israelites promising to keep God's laws on their stick/dime/power. They had no power to keep the covenant they made. We only have the power to obey the law after God writes them on the fleshly tablets of our hearts and we abide in Him. We would be just as helpless as the Israelites were if we tried to obey without God doing both the willing and the doing. God made that promise to them too, only they didn't want it. See the book of Deuteronomy.

Sorry for the confusion. I see now that we have very different understanding ... I went back to read the beginning of this thread by which I do not agree with the opening statement.

Maybe it would help you understand where I'm coming from and going if I tweeked the OP. This is what I would need to fix so it would reflect my current understanding :

And that quote came from "Bible Echo"? I'm not aware of that book. Does the Church say that this quote come from EGW's pen? If so... I would question that and I don't want to get into this question here. (see discussion here. BTW it is the same link provided below.)

There's way too much correction to address in that quote. That's probably why I didn't bother entering this discussion.

Again, so sorry for entering and all the confusion I created.


Do you mean the "revelation" thru the writings of EGW? If so... I have made my stand clear many times already in this forum....check here for my latest expression of it.

Again the meaning of "revelation" needs to be define as we do not have the same definition of this word and we use it differently.


?? I trust in the inspiration of the Bible; however I repeat, these passages in scriptures won't become "revelations" to me until the Holy Spirit has taught these to me personally (1Jn 2:27). 'till then, all I can do is chew my cud and wait for the Holy Spirit's teachings & timing.


I do believe we have some similar definition of the Old Covenant versus the New Covenant after reading some of your posts....and that's why I got confuse. However, I now see what you actually mean with it, versus what I mean with it...we differ greatly.

Maybe the below is how and why we differ in understanding.

Do you believe that the Law-Torah is prophetic? All that was given to the Israelites in the OT is prophetic? I do. But it was not fulfilled in the OT literal language way... what was said in the OT were TYPES & shadow (symbolic language) that pointed to greater things yet to come. How does Ex 13:12,13 Type & Shadow means to you in the new Covenant understanding of greater things to come? That's where the rubber meets the road and things becomes tangible.

To me Mat 5:18 says Christ will fulfilled all the words given in the Law(=Torah=Pentateuch) including the redeeming of the asses with the lamb said in Ex 13:12,13.

Or maybe you believe that part of the law is abolish because it is "ceremonial" and nailed to the cross like most denominations (including SDAs) has done?

Let's go back ...do you believe Jesus fulfilled Ex 13:12,13? if so how? if not ... you believe this part is nailed to the cross?


I fully agree with that statement...but to obey which law???

Our understanding(&definition) of the law or God's.

Most SDAs when they say "Law" they mean only the 10Cs. I differ it goes way further. At the minimum we may be able to agree that the COI after hearing the 10Cs refused to hear the rest of the law (see Ex 20:19 "And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.") which included all the judgments, ... I think it goes up to chapt 34?... I don't remember but up to wherever chapter where they closed the Old Covenant [marriage]. Paul describes this covenant in Galatian 4 as a Hagar-bond woman (slave) type of marriage and also as a child-slave in the Beg of Gal 4. Nothing wrong with that step, but we need to move on to the Sarah-Free woman type of marriage.

Most of the cases what we think we understand of the law often it is a case of coming from a Hagar or Child's perspective... this perspective often does not match the Holy Spirit's interpretation of it; thus in reality... that part of the law is yet not written in our heart tablet ...for the Holy Spirit has not taught(reveal) it to us yet. Can you agree with that?

Elle,

First let me say that I really appreciate your honesty with me. You are straight out, up front, and direct. You cannot know how much I appreciate that.

You covered a lot of territory in your last post to me and I think we need to break things out of it one at a time or things will get really confusing for both us.

I will address, first, your question on Exodus 13:12,13. The context of what is said in those two verses is contained in the entire chapter. Verses 12 and 13 address the fact that God slew all the firstborn of Egypt, man and beast, when He redeemed Israel from the Egyptians. Thus, God required of the Israelites, as a remembrance of what He had done for them, that they sacrifice all of their firstborn beasts to Him as an offering of remembrance and gratitude for their deliverance. Verses 14,15 address what I have said above directly.

The redeeming of the firstborn of an ass by a lamb is, to me, just another piece of symbology along the lines of the plan of redemption. I think, and this is strictly my supposition, God allowed them to redeem the more valuable animal as a kindness towards them as the beast of burden was of significantly more financial value than a lamb was to them.

We are starting to enter the territory here of another subject expressed in Exodus 6:6. The word the King James renders there as "redeem" comes from the Hebrew word "ga'al". This is a very important concept in the plan of salvation. Every time we see the word "redeemer" in the King James in the OT, 18 times, it is translated from the Hebrew term "ga'al, Strong's #1350. God gave this law to the Hebrews and it is exemplified in the book of Ruth in which Boaz redeems Naomi's lands and marries her daughter-in-law Ruth. This is in fulfillment of law expressed in Leviticus 25 starting with verse 23. But this is an entire study all on its own. I spent several hours a day for several months studying this subject so it's pretty difficult to engage on this in the midst of a discussion about other things.

As to your question on whether or not Christ redeemed the asses by His death, I would say no. The reason being is a donkey has no knowledge of the concept of sin and forgiveness and thus cannot be guilty of sin. I can fully address this through the study of the concept of ga'al, but just allow me to give you a short overview. Jesus didn't come as a donkey. He is not near of kin to a donkey. Thus He could not pay for any "sins" a donkey could commit. This is according to the concept of ga'al.

Jesus came to be the next of kin to us so that He could pay our ransom for us and buy us back from the one who is holding us captive. That is a requirement of the law of inheritance given through Moses to the COI. This is the legal basis for allowing a substitute to pay our debt for us, the debt we could never pay on our own. This is a beautiful truth when understood.

Before proceeding in commenting to your other post....could you answer the following questions that was asked in the other post. That would help me more to understand your position and what you meant below. I've extracted all the unanswered questions and numbered them :

Q1.


Q2 : What constitute a "revelation" to you and how does someone get a "revelation"?

Q3 & Q4 are related. You did answer the first part of Q4 by saying that Jesus did NOT fulfill Ex 13:12,13. So I would assume that the answer of Q3 is NO & NO; Q4 is NO & Yes. Could you confirm?

Q3 : Do you believe that the Law-Torah is prophetic? All that was given to the Israelites in the OT is prophetic?

Q4. "Let's go back ...do you believe Jesus fulfilled Ex 13:12,13? if so how? if not ... you believe this part is nailed to the cross?"

Q5 :