Remorse AND Faith

All right, we are going to pray and we're going to get started.

Let's pray.

Speak, Lord, your servant hears.

Please show me now your ways so that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own

that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ.

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

So give me life, O Lord, according to your word, and I will declare your greatness.

Amen.

Now, last week we did a kind of a one -off lesson regarding repentance,

what it is and what it isn't.

And does anyone remember what the two primary components of repentance are?

Remorse, yes, or contrition.

What's the other?

Faith.

So remorse and faith.

Together you have true sorrow and contrition for your sin, and at the same time, confident faith

that Jesus forgives you of your sins.

It seems counterintuitive.

And then where one is deficient, you don't really have true saving faith.

So if you have no remorse for your sins and you think that God just loves you, that's not the

gospel.

The gospel is that Christ bled and died for our sins.

Now, today we're going to get back then into our study.

We're still doing a pre -study on the book of Leviticus.

We've been taking a look at the book of Hebrews to consider what it teaches regarding types and shadows of the Mosaic

covenant as it points to Christ, specifically the sacrifices.

But before we do that, I will ask, were there any questions that percolated up in your minds

during the sermon?

Sure.

I don't know if he did or not.

Okay, you know, all right.

So John the Baptist response questionable.

All right, let's see if we can take a crack at it real quick.

I'm going to duplicate this tab real quick.

And we're going to take a look at Luke 7.

And I would argue, and this is kind of how I argued it in the text,

that based upon the plural we, that John knows he's going to his death.

He's already at this point said he must increase, I must decrease.

And so we know that he's a prophet because it says the word of the Lord came to John, the son of Zechariah, which is

your standard formula from the Old Testament of how prophets are called and the word of the Lord speaking to them.

So then, so the idea then he's now arrested, he's in the palace of Machaerus.

And so the issue that I pointed out in the sermon was that his disciples are kind of caught in limbo now.

They have real loyalty to John the Baptist.

And at the same time, John was pointing to Jesus.

And so they're seeing all these things that Jesus is doing.

And what he's doing isn't exactly squaring with their expectation of this winnowing

fork fire breathing Messiah, who is going to clear the threshing floor and burn up the

chaff.

So, you know, there was a little bit of a disconnect.

So then in, in the statement, so, so you'll note here, John is sending his,

his disciples back to Jesus.

A little bit of historical note.

Do you know that there's an actual sect, a religious sect today that claims its heritage and focus

is John the Baptist?

It's a weird, small thing, but it still exists to this day, huh?

Yeah, yeah.

Well, that, that he's, that he is their prophet, you know, he's the center of, of their teaching and

focus and stuff like that.

It's a, yeah, no. Yeah.

In fact, the people in that sect are doing the exact opposite of what John would have had them do.

Um, I'm not sure of all of their theological positions as it relates to Jesus himself.

Okay.

I'm not going to answer that.

Yes, really?

Okay.

Very good.

Okay.

So, you know, Don verifies that I'm not totally crazy, just mostly.

So that's how that works.

And so, uh, so the idea then is, is that, so his disciples, they're, they're out there watching Jesus and

they're going back and reporting to John and John sending him back to Jesus.

Okay.

And notice again, the question of focusing in on the, on the pronoun, the pronoun was, are you the

one who is to come or shall we look for another?

We notice John isn't saying, are you the one to come or shall I look for another?

That's we.

So this question is more than just on the behalf of John the Baptist.

And I, I have a hard time believing John is suffering from doubts.

You know, he's run his course.

He's already said he must decrease and Christ must increase.

John the Baptist is not a disciple of Jesus.

He's the forerunner of Christ.

So it's one of John's disciples, two of John's disciples.

Now go to Jesus with the question.

Are you the one that you were to expect or, you know, or should we expect another?

And so notice that the question itself includes his disciples.

And so it's almost as if John is sitting there going, you know, get out of the nest guys.

Get out of the nest.

You got to go to Jesus now.

Okay.

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

So yeah, so John, yeah, that's right.

In the gospel of John one, it is asked of John the Baptist, are you the prophet, not a

prophet, the prophet.

And, uh, and the, the referent there is to Deuteronomy 18, where Moses says that

the Lord himself will raise up a prophet from among you, who is like me and to him, you must listen.

And anyone who doesn't listen to him, God will give an account.

You'll have to give an account to God.

You know, so you have to listen to that guy.

So the prophet is the one referenced in Deuteronomy 18.

All right.

Uh, yeah, that's correct.

That's another way of saying it.

That's another way of saying, are you the Messiah?

If he had said, yes, I'm the prophet, then he would have been claiming a messianic title for himself.

And he could not do that.

He is a prophet, the last of the prophets, if you would.

All right.

All of that being said, let's head back then into Hebrews.

We were, we pretty much covered chapter seven.

We've taken Melchizedek and really just plumbed the depths of that

concept of how Jesus is a priest, not in the order of the Levites, but in the order of Melchizedek.

And then Hebrews 8, we're going to now get into a more in -depth look at how

the Levitical sacrifices that we're going to read as we're working through the book of Leviticus are going to tie back

in then, you know, to Christ himself.

And this is a text that explicitly says, this is a type and a shadow.

This is a type and a shadow that's pointing to Christ.

So Hebrews 8, 1.

Now, the point in what we are saying is this.

We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the

majesty in heaven, a minister in holy places, in the true

tent that the Lord set up, not man.

And so you'll note that this kind of verifies what we were saying, that the tabernacle that was built in the wilderness was a copy.

It was not the original.

The original is the true tent where Christ, our priest, ministers.

For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices.

Thus, it's necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.

Now, if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law or the

Torah here.

They serve a copy, a shadow of the heavenly things.

Now, consider that sentence, verse 5.

They serve a copy and a shadow of the heavenly things.

Now, let's do a little bit of work.

How many of you familiar with evangelical eschatology?

Big thing happened this week.

Big thing happened this week in Israel.

Did you see the news?

They dedicated the brand new altar.

For the hopefully soon to be built third temple.

I mean, there were priests and ephods and everything.

And of course, the evangelical prophetic world is a buzz, right?

They're a buzz.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

It's not a good thing, I can tell you that.

It's not a good thing.

I mean, if they rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem, would that be a yay?

Yeah.

And I'll tell you why though.

I'll tell you why the issue is and what the issue.

And Josh, you pointed out the fact.

You know, it's missing the Ark of the Covenant.

It's, nobody knows exactly where it is.

It is rumored to be in, is it Somalia?

Ethiopia, Ethiopia.

It's rumored to be there.

To let everybody see?

It's not there?

I did not miss that.

I missed that story.

How did I miss it?

So did God go whoosh?

So they opened it up and basically it was the biggest, longest running ruse.

Yeah, I will say this though.

Abraham Lincoln once said, don't trust everything you read on the internet.

So yeah, just, just so you know.

How'd you know?

That was, I mean, that's amazing.

Your prophetic insights there.

So, so you'll note then they serve a copy and a shadow of the

heavenly things.

So if they rebuild a temple in Jerusalem on the Temple Mount and the, the, the latest prediction

is, is that if it's going to be rebuilt, it's going to be rebuilt between halfway between the

Al -Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock.

That, that, that's the idea that it's going to be put in there and, uh, and it's right between the two of them

as it, but the thing is the Muslims, they run the whole top of the Temple Mount.

So I don't know how they're going to pull that off politically.

But the thing is, if, if it were built, then we're rebuilding the type and shadow.

The type and shadow never, none of the sacrifices there ever made anybody perfect.

They were all pointing to the, the reality and that's Christ.

And so we have this text that says they serve a copy and a shadow of the heavenly things for when Moses was about to

erect the tent, he was instructed by God.

See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain.

But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than

the old as the covenant he mediates is better since it is enacted on better promises.

For the first covenant had been faultless.

There would have been no occasion to look for a second.

So note how it's discussing the Mosaic covenant.

Mosaic covenant is going to be basically described as being kaput.

For if he finds fault with them, when he says, behold, the days are coming declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant

with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to

bring them out of the land of Egypt, for they did not continue in my covenant.

And so I showed no concern for them declares the Lord.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel.

After those days declares the Lord, I will put my laws into their minds, write them on their hearts, and

I will be their God and they shall be my people.

And they shall not teach each his neighbor and each his brother saying, know the Lord

for they shall all know me from the least of them to the greatest.

For I will be merciful towards their iniquities and I will remember their sins no more.

Man, that's a verse worth hanging on to.

I will be merciful towards their iniquities and I will remember their sins no more.

So in speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one, what?

Obsolete.

Obsolete.

What has happened to the Mosaic covenant?

Obsolete.

It is as obsolete as your Nokia phone that you had in

1998 or your BlackBerry.

Does anyone remember those things?

Oh, I know.

It's as obsolete as a pager.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, there we go.

Huh?

Obsolete is a slide rule.

As obsolete as my HP calculator that I had, right?

And we're all thinking about this.

It's as obsolete as a white belt and bell bottoms.

I may or may not have had such a thing.

But you kind of get the point, right?

It's obsolete.

It's kaput.

It's not there anymore.

So what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish.

And you're going to note here that this is probably written, I would argue, before the temple was destroyed.

The author of Hebrews knew that Christ had prophesied that the temple itself was going to be scraped off the

temple mount.

One stone will be left upon another.

And so you'll note then, without a temple, is it possible to

practice Mosaic covenant Judaism?

Not at all.

There's no way to do it.

Now, here's the reason why evangelicals

think that there has to be a temple in Jerusalem at the time of Christ.

And let me find this real quick.

I think it's 2 Thessalonians.

And let me see if it's...

Yes, here we go.

So here's the reason they think that there has to be a physical temple when Jesus returns.

2 Thessalonians 2.

Now, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not

to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed either by a spirit or a spoken word or a letter seeming to be

from us to the effect that the day of the Lord has already come.

And so you can all hear that song now running through your head.

Life was filled with guns and wars and everyone got trampled on the floor.

Wish we'd all been ready.

Yeah, talk about being left behind, right?

Come on, Bruce, sing along with me.

I know, I know.

They gave me nightmares when I was in junior high.

Yeah, he's triggered.

Go to your safe space, Bruce.

Go to your safe space.

All right.

So let no one deceive you in any way, Paul writes.

For that day will not come unless the rebellion, that Greek word apostasy, unless the rebellion comes

first, the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction who opposes himself and exalts against every so -called

God or object of worship so that he takes his seat in the, where? Temple of

God.

Now this is a matter of referent.

It's a matter of referent.

Remember the movie Young Frankenstein?

Yeah.

Frankenstein.

That's right.

And the line, where wolf, there wolf, right?

It's a matter of reference.

So when we're talking about the temple of God, which temple are we referring to?

Well, there was one back then.

Well, okay.

So now we're, now we're cooking now.

Now we're cooking here.

So there was a temple.

Yeah, yeah.

Just tear down this temple and I'll build it again in three days.

Okay.

All right.

So that has something to do with Christ built in three days.

Now, when we are baptized, we're united with Christ and his death and his resurrection.

You ever heard that passage of scripture, how it describes the church as living stones being built into the temple of God.

Do you think the apostle Paul was talking about the temple that was going to be destroyed?

Or was he talking about the temple that existed at the time that he was writing the temple that Christ was

making, which is his church, the body of Christ.

All right.

So here's how the evangelicals read it.

Well, there ain't no temple in Jerusalem yet.

So Jesus can't come back.

There ain't no temple there right now, but they sit there and go, but look, people who are Jewish

have now resettled in Israel and they have been set up as a nation state by the United nations.

So it's just about any moment.

Now they're going to rebuild that temple, which is to set the stage for the man of lawlessness.

And it's just going to be cats and dogs living together and Zul and all that kind of stuff.

Yes.

Okay.

Now let me, let me rephrase your question.

The question was, are there so many people who are so in favor of supporting Israel because

they think that by doing so it'll bring on the end of the world?

The answer is yes.

And they overtly say that the reason why they support Israel is so that we can finally launch

into the end of the world, get that great tribulation over with and have Jesus come back.

Yeah.

Bruce.

Right.

Yeah.

Do you, and that's kind of the issue.

Do you think for a second that modern day Israel is faithful to the Mosaic covenant today?

I mean, the raging gay community in Tel Aviv is going to argue against that.

And they completely oppose Christ.

I mean, have you seen the videos of guys who've tried to do evangelism on the streets of Jerusalem and how the

Orthodox Jews literally surround them and mock them and taunt them and scream at them and yell at them and spit at

them.

So they can't even get a word in edgewise.

So, I mean, so our modern day Jews, the equivalent of Christians today, you

know, all right.

And this is where you've got to, you've got to do your biblical work because the modern day Jews of today,

they are the theological descendants of the Pharisees.

Once the temple was destroyed, the Pharisees were like the last group standing.

They were the last group standing and they reworked Judaism to be what it

is today.

How do you do Judaism without a temple?

How do you do that?

And so they've invented what they call Orthodox Judaism, which is not Mosaic covenant Judaism.

And this Hasidic way of doing things has nothing to do with what Moses

was revealed to Moses, what David practiced, what he believed.

It has nothing to do with what the Judaism that Jesus grew up in at all.

It's a very different thing.

So you got it.

So coming back then to Hebrews.

So in speaking of the new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.

So what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

And with no temple there, it has vanished away.

So now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of

holiness.

For a tent was prepared.

For a tent was prepared.

The first section in which were the lamp stand and the table of the bread of presents.

I always love the fact that it keeps coming.

You'll notice it keeps being called the bread of the what?

Bread of the presents.

I cannot see that phrase and sit there and go, you know, it just

sounds a lot like a type and shadow of the Lord's supper, right?

You know, Christ being truly present in, with, under the bread and wine.

So it's called the holy place.

Now behind the second curtain was a second section called the most holy place.

Having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with

gold in which was a golden urn holding the manna and Aaron staff that budded

in the tablets of the covenant above it were the cherubim of glory,

overshadowing the mercy seat of these things.

We can not now speak in detail.

These preparations having thus been made, the priest go regularly into the first section performing their ritual

duties, but into the second, only the high priest goes.

And he, but once a year and not without taking, taking blood, which he offers for himself

and for the unintentional sins of the people.

By this, the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet open as long as the

first section is still standing.

So, you know, that the way into the holy places, because it was a curtain of partition that, you know, that there's the way in isn't there

yet until that partition is taken down, which is symbolic for the present age.

So according to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the

worshiper.

Note what it says there.

Sacrifices are offered that can not perfect the

conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink

and various washings regulations for the body imposed until

the time of reformation.

So you'll note the author of Hebrews is making it very clear that these things were to be set up until there would be a time

of reformation.

He's not talking about Martin Luther's reformation, by the way, we're talking about the one that Christ institutes with the new

covenant.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of good things that have come, then through the

greater and more perfect tent, not made with hands, that is not

of this creation.

He entered once for all into the holy places, not

by means of the blood of goats and calves, but by means of his own blood,

thus securing an eternal redemption.

For it, the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer sanctify for the

purification of the flesh.

Well, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without

blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

So the idea then is that here on earth, there was this temple set up when guys in the priesthood, and you

got the great high priest once a year, would go into the holy of holies and sprinkle blood on the mercy seat.

And all of that was a type and shadow, which prefigured Jesus Christ, who is the solo priest in the order of

Melchizedek.

And he went into the real temple, the real tent, but into the curtain of the holy places, and

he placed his own blood on the mercy seat, the real mercy

seat.

You see, it doesn't matter if there's an ark of the covenant in Ethiopia, Somalia, or somewhere hidden in the

sands of Egypt.

That was a copy.

It was a type and shadow.

The real ark of the covenant, the real mercy seat, it's safe and secure.

Does that make sense?

So the raiders of the lost ark are focusing on the wrong ark, focusing on

the wrong thing.

And so you'll note then that Christ's blood does perfect and comfort our consciences.

So when you are confronted with God's law and God says, you have

fallen short, and you sit there and you go,.

Ah, I have fallen short.

Do not despair.

Christ, his once for all sacrifice, your priest in the order of Melchizedek has taken his own blood and

poured it on the mercy seat so that you can be forgiven, so that you can have real comfort, so that your conscience can

be assuaged and you can be perfected.

End of story.

Animals can't do that.

Jesus's blood did that.

You see it?

Okay.

For if the blood of goats and bulls and sprinkling of heifers sanctify, how much more will the blood of

Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living

God.

So therefore he, Jesus, is the mediator of a new covenant.

So that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.

And this is kind of an important one right here.

Man, so much of the preaching that goes on in the visible church today is all about the here and the

now.

The here and the now.

You know, what's the point of having a Christianity if it's not going to make your life better here and now?

All right.

So we need a Christianity that's going to make my kids behave.

And we need a Christianity that's going to make it so that I can finally get that raise at work or get promoted and have that

corner office.

We need a Christianity that's going to make my wife respect me.

There's no religion like that.

Okay.

Right.

I can hear her taunting me from the basement.

Okay.

All right.

But you're going to note over and again, when we read in the epistles, it's focusing the terminus

of our faith, not on the here and the now.

It's focusing the terminus of our faith on eternal life.

And there's some good reasons for this, by the way, because I keep pointing this out.

I've been here now for four and a half years.

And those of you who keep coming back, you look way worse today than when I first got here.

Wait, so do I.

Right.

Because we're all heading to the grave.

We're all heading to the grave.

We are saved through death and resurrection.

So our hope is in the eternal life.

It's not in the here and the now.

And what Jesus has promised us now, he has not promised you an earth

shattering divine purpose or destiny that's going to change the world.

He hasn't promised you that raise.

He hasn't promised you a wife that respects you.

No, but what he has promised you is eternal life.

That is what he has promised you.

So that being the case, we, in this life now, we expect to be given a

cross by Jesus.

Take up your cross and follow Christ.

You always think about that, you know, take up your cross and follow Christ.

And crosses are heavy.

Crosses are rugged.

They have splinters.

They are a heavy load.

And they are for the purpose of killing you.

I always think, you know, especially when we baptize somebody a little bit older, it's like, man,

that person's going to have a big old target on them now.

It's like ringing the dinner bell for the demonic.

If somebody's baptized, they are now a target of the devil.

And their lives are going to be thrown into absolute turmoil.

Because the devil is in the business of knocking that faith in Christ out of you.

And if you're telling other people about Jesus, he's not only interested in knocking that faith out of you, he's trying

to convince you that you need to keep that mouth of yours shut and stop telling everybody about

the forgiveness of sins in Christ.

You know, I think about Reverend Althoff, right?

And you think about all the work that they're doing in a persecuted place like you wouldn't believe, right?

He has to find ways to subversively keep his head down, mouth shut, not

draw attention to himself while telling people about Christ.

And it only takes that one phone call that he could really get in a lot of trouble.

And that's happening, by the way, for Christians even here in the United States.

I don't know if you've noticed, but those who are most vocal against Trump, they seem to be buying

into a particular leftist ideology.

I describe it, you know, other people describe it this way as well, as that SJW ideology, social justice

warrior, right?

And when a company is taken over by SJWs, you know, they've been converged.

In those companies, if a Christian speaks about sin, being forgiven by Christ,

calling somebody to repent of their sins, they are likely going to be written up and lose their job.

Because apparently in the SJW ideology, human beings have a right to not be offended,

right?

Yeah, while wearing a Johnny Cash shirt,

right?

Yeah, yeah.

What was that Mark Twain quote that censorship is like forbidding adults to eat a steak

because babies can't chew.

But in the SJW narrative, I mean, Christians are the one, it's the evil white Christian

patriarchy that's causing humanity to languish and to suffer.

And, you know, I've made reference to it before, but if you really want to see what that kind of ideology looks like artistically,

then watch the series on Hulu, The Handmaid's Tale.

It's, I mean, that is probably the most egregious anti -Christian

propaganda series I've ever seen in my life.

It's a complete train wreck.

But, you know, doing my line of work, it's like necessary for me to watch to kind of see what they

put in there.

But, whoa, you know, the SJWs equate, you know, biblical

Christianity with Islam.

They give real Islam a pass and they equate biblical Christianity with the evils of like

Sharia law Islam.

So the whole story is set in, you know, in a future part of, in the future in America,

when this very strict fundamentalist, Bible -thumping Christian

sect has taken over, literally conquered the United States, renamed it Gilead.

And the oppression that occurs in it, you know, is all has, you know, some kind of biblical pretense to it.

But it looks more like Sharia law to me than anything Christianity had to do.

Because if you really want to see what Christianity looks like in its heyday, look at Europe at the time of the Reformation

and in the centuries immediately following it.

That whole era, that Western civilization in that time was called Christendom.

You want to see what Christianity looks like.

There's, you know, there's freedoms, there's worship and all this kind of stuff.

And you kind of have to get past some of the initial fighting that went on in the early part of the Reformation to when things settled down.

That's, you know, Western civilization is the actual result of biblical Christianity.

It's the leavening effect that it had on society.

So, and then you look at other parts of the world where the poverty that is in those parts of

the world, a lot of times that poverty that they wear so starkly is a

direct result of their religion.

Yeah, I'm thinking of a couple of nations in particular.

Yeah, so the charge is actually false.

The charge is actually false.

Do you think for a second biblical Christianity, the Christianity that calls you to love your neighbor as yourself

would result in Christian terrorism groups killing people and engaging in genocide in the name of

Jesus?

No.

No.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, so what are they going to point to?

The Crusades, right?

The Crusades to take the Holy Land.

Deus vult, right?

No, no, I'm sorry.

But even the Crusades don't really count.

The Crusades were a lot more nuanced than that.

It wasn't just some, you know, go and kill the infidel kind of thing.

That was not, that there was far more complex and nuanced political aspects to that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And yeah, and you know, even in the time of Martin Luther, I mean, Luther writes extensively about the

Turks.

I mean, every single year, once winter is over and the spring thaw is done and the land's dried out enough that you

can actually drive a cart on a path, you know, then the Turks were mustering an army and trying to press

into Europe.

You know, this was just an every year occurrence.

And, you know, you got to remember, this is the days before football.

So, you know, they had nothing better to do, but to, you know, war like that.

Yeah, so summer was war season.

And so, you know, defending yourself against a foreign invading

army that is invading, you know, for religious ideological reasons, I think you could be justified

in such a thing.

And even, you know, even taking the offensive in order to push it back so that you can protect yourself further, that makes some sense.

So the person who just blankets says, well, Christians, they've engaged in genocide.

Yeah, I'm having a hard time pulling up the data files on that that would validate the claim.

That's not to say that Christians haven't done horrible things to people, they have.

There's been some awful things done to people in the name of Christ, but that's not because Christianity teaches you to

do so.

That's because somebody is doing these evil things and trying to cloak it in a pious sounding Christianity when

it's not.

Yeah, 20th century, without any doubt, was the bloodiest century in human

history.

And what drove all that blood?

Socialistic ideologies of either, you think of communism or even fascism.

Fascism is a form of socialism.

Unfortunately, we have SJW ideology rising in our midst today.

It's a very dangerous and very aggressive thing.

How do I get off on that topic?

Okay,

yeah.

Now I want you to consider something, since we're talking a little bit about the SJW ideology.

Social justice isn't justice at all.

And so you think about it this way, is that there's a social justice ideology that is saying that if you're a white

male American citizen, you actually have a financial obligation to African

-Americans here.

And you need to personally participate in making reparations for what happened in the civil war in the United States.

Have you heard people talk like this?

All right.

But

here's the

thing,

generations have gone by, by the grudge.

We are feeding them.

Yeah.

Things like that.

We have given it to them.

What more do they want?

Well, see, you're asking why.

And I think this is kind of an interesting question.

You have to understand their ideology.

In the SJW ideology, it's a form of socialism, which means on one level or another,

they do not acknowledge individual rights.

They do not acknowledge your right as an individual.

So they are judging you based upon the group that you're a part of.

So David, the group that you are a part of, you are part of the white, heterosexual,

male, Christian patriarchy.

And that's the group that's responsible for slavery in the South.

And since you're a member of that group, the group itself must make reparations to what

happened in the civil war, despite the fact there's not a single person alive today who was

enslaved in the South prior to the civil war.

He sold all arms.

Yeah.

Oh, good.

Yeah.

That's awful nice of you.

Uh -huh.

Yeah.

Bruce.

Sure, change.

Which verse?

Which verse?

Which verse?

Nine two.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

And you're going to be looking it up in its reference.

So prothesis, setting forth

something in public, setting forth, putting forth, presenting.

That was just planned advance.

So I'll tell you what the ESV is doing here is that it's

basically taking its Old Testament referent.

So the idea then is the way that the Greek is used, it's the title there

is the Greek or the Hebrew referent is being pulled into this translation.

So that it makes sense.

Oh, no, I don't know if the Septuagint would actually translate it that way.

That's a good question.

Let me do a quick search real quick.

That's redundant.

All right.

Hold on a second here.

I work in the Department of Redundancy Department.

Um, bread of presence.

I'm just going to do the search presence.

Okay.

So, so here's, here's your reference.

So if you, if you do an Old Testament search, okay, this is the, this is the thing that is being referred to bread of the

presence, bread of the presence, bread of the presence.

So X is 2530 and shall set the bread of the presence.

And so you got, uh, and then, uh, before the face of,

you know, yeah, the, so, so yeah, the, the pot pot here.

So you got the, you know, the bread of the face, the bread of the presence, and that's, what's being pulled in.

So you're taking the, so that the references are the same.

So what the translators did is they didn't give you a literal translation from the Greek.

They plugged in the referent and that's not a, I wouldn't say that's in fact, because the

ESV is a really reformed Calvinistic.

Translation, the reformed have a bigger hand on this than anybody else that you're not, they're not pulling in

Lutheran theology here.

They're just taking the Old Testament referent.

So they're taking the idiomatic word, the phrase there in the Greek and plugging in how it

would be translated if you were to take the, you know, the, the, the, you know, the face of God.

So does that make sense?

Did we lose everybody?

Yeah.

All right.

So back then to our text,

let's see here.

Where did we leave off?

Okay.

Therefore he's the media of a new covenant so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance since

death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant for

where a will is involved.

The death of the one who made it must be established for a will takes

effect only at death since it is not in force as long as the one who made

it is alive.

Therefore, not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

Now, a little bit of a note here.

This is where what we call the old Testament and the new Testament come into

play as opposed to covenant and old covenant.

People use these interchangeably, but when you were to sit down and decide who's going to get what after you

die, we call that a last will and what Testament.

So you'll note here it's invoking the covenant now in speaking about the new

covenant as if it is a last will and Testament.

You see how it's using that interchangeably.

So now this is an interesting thing.

If the new covenant is really a new Testament,

then in order for it to be put into effect, somebody had to die.

And who would that be?

Christ, right?

So this is one of the reasons why when you open up your Bible, it says the new Testament.

It says the old Testament.

Rather than the new covenant and the old covenant.

Is that interesting?

This text then literally ends up playing into how we understand the

Bible.

So therefore he's the mediator of a new covenant so that those who are called may receive the promised inheritance since

the death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

So the reason for then this covenant then being referred to as a Testament is because eternal life is

an inheritance.

That's the reason why.

And we all know that inheritance is a gift.

It's not something you earn.

So those of you who've had a relative who's died, who had some money, and they,

you inherited from them a certain amount of money so that you maybe make a down payment on a house or something like that.

That's a gift.

And you didn't have that until that person died.

So the new covenant itself promises us an eternal inheritance.

It's the death has occurred then that redeems them from the transgressions committed on the first covenant for where will is involved.

The death of the one who made it must be established for will takes effect only at death.

Since it is not enforced as long as the one who made it is alive.

Therefore, not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood for when every commandment of the law had been declared to Moses to all

the people, he took the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop.

Hyssop.

That's a weird one that shows up just a few times in scripture shows up Christ's crucifixion to and sprinkle both the book

itself and the people saying, this is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.

And in the same way, he sprinkled with the with the blood, both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.

Indeed, under the law, almost everything is purified with blood and watch this.

The subclause without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.

Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.

So thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these.

Rights.

Notice again, the emphasis on the copies that they be purified with these heavenly things.

But the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these for Christ has entered not into holy places made

with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself now to

appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly as the high priest enters the holy places every

year with blood, not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the

world.

But as it is, he appeared once for all at the end of the ages

to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

And just as it is appointed for man to die once and after that comes the judgment.

So Christ having been offered once to bear the sins of many will appear a second

time not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting

for him.

Once for all sacrifice.

Jesus performed his high priestly duties with his own blood.

Once the end.

Now, one of the teachings of the dogmas of the medieval Catholic church, and they've kind of tweaked

their language in the modern era.

But this is one of the things that the Lutherans were reacting against was there was there was talk within the Roman Catholic

church in the medieval times as of as the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper being

a bloodless resacrifice of Christ.

That's that's no bueno.

That's no bueno.

There's no such thing as that.

And even Rome, the modern modern day Rome has, you know, kind of tweaked its language to take that edge

off of it so that they don't stand out like that anymore.

So modern day Roman Catholics there.

I don't know very many who talk this way at all.

You know, they they will somehow talk about it kind of in a quantum way.

The Lord's Supper connects to the one sacrifice of Christ, and it's not a resacrifice.

But yeah, you're getting into weird kind of speculations and stuff.

Huh?

Yeah, yeah.

So they've put the emphasis on a different syllable.

So yeah.

So.

All right.

Any questions about that next week?

We're going to actually get into the book of Leviticus as actually no, not next week.

Not until after the first of the year.

I think about this.

So no Sunday school next week because we have the Christmas play and there will be no

Sunday school the week between Christmas and New Year's.

Right.

So we'll come back.

We'll come.

We'll assemble back for Sunday school after the epiphany.