Israel rejected our lord god as their King to reign over them. Now they need a king like different international locations. The Lord supplies them simply what they want. The Lord had him to talk for Israel, for sooner than him there has been no frequent revelation. Meet additionally, the 1st 3 kings of Israel--Saul, David, and Solomon.
Find out what occurred to Israel whilst King Solomon thoroughly became clear of the real residing God to worship fake gods. Following the Good Shepherds by Wallace F. Who have been the nice shepherds that God selected to steer his humans? If Moses first involves brain, you're right. It will not be credited to the one who offered it, for it is impure; the person who eats any of it will be held responsible.
So God did not count or impute or think that the benefit that accrued from the offering belonged to the person who offered it. And so it was, in his sight or opinion. On the day of atonement, Aaron or the high priest is to keep one goat alive, lay hands on it, confess all the sins of Israel, put their sins on it, and send it into the wilderness under the supervision of someone appointed to the task.
Book Extraterrestrials And Sex: Vol. 4: The Real Theme of the Bible download pdf + audio id:ihs1h2t
The goat did not commit the sins of the people. It was not a moral sinner by inner transformation. How could it be? Yet God thinks of the goat as carrying their sins, and therefore it does. Jesus did not actually commit our sins, and he did not actually have our infirmities. He had none at all. He was not a moral sinner by inner transformation or by being infused with a sin nature.
While on the cross, he did not get the flu or cancer. Yet he carries and takes up our sin and infirmity. Thus Jesus carries or bears them only by imputation or reckoning. The ancient Israelites were forbidden to religiously sacrifice an animal in private because they might follow after the gods of the Canaanites in their pagan rituals and thus get corrupted which eventually happened for many. Instead, the people of God were required to sacrifice at the tent of meeting, where they could be supervised by the priest.
If the Israelite does not obey the command, he is considered or counted or charged with shedding the blood of a human, even though the disobedient Israelite actually did not shed human blood. The Israelite was therefore to be cut off from the people. This illustration is physical grain and wine , so we should not take it too far.
The Sixth Extinction II: Amor Fati
But it does yield some interesting insights. The priests and Levites were not to have the share of the land; that is, they were not farmers. They were not to sow the crops or plant the vineyards; they were not to harvest the grain or pick the grapes from the vine. They were not to thresh the grains or press the grapes into wine. Instead, their sustenance was to come from the offerings that the Israelites gave them. That tenth was then to be credited or counted or reckoned to them as grains from the threshing floor and juice from the winepress.
Thus, this context is a business calculation. The priests and Levites get credit for the grain and juice. This reckoning or imputation does not come from any practical act that the priests and Levites did. They did not actually thresh the grains or press the grapes into juice.
They present it as an offering to God. But this physical example should not be taken too far. The sin and transgression are not counted or imputed or charged against the person; therefore, forgiveness belongs to him. God thinks of us as forgiven as well. He imputes forgiveness to us through Christ, and therefore it belongs to us.
But David kept on sinning in his life, and so do we. But he was forgiven, and so are we. This is another physical illustration that we should not take too far. Believers are considered as sheep. Believers are not real sheep. They have not been transformed into sheep or infused with the entire nature of sheep. Rather, they are counted or reckoned or considered as sheep. These verses credit righteousness by a zealous act — or so it seems at first glance. So we need to spend more time here, since it is appears to be at odds with Gen. But is it really? Verse 31 is the same language used of Abraham in Gen.
Is there a contradiction? In the original context, the children of Israel yoked themselves to the god Baal Num. The focus of action in the verse is on them, not Moses. What they did was before Moses, in his presence — under his nose! And what they did was to engage in a sexual embrace in the manner of Baal worship — right at the entrance of the holy Tent of God! They are not weeping; they are laughing — that is, engaged in delirious love-making cf. The audacious action of this Israelite man is unparalleled and totally unexpected. The contempt for the holy things and the word of the Lord shown by Zimri and his Midianite lover, Cozbi v.
This is a climax to the first section of the Book of Numbers; here is Israel at her very worst. This provides an unhappy justification for the ways of the Lord; it also provides a theodicy of his judgment of the entire first generation. In the Old Covenant, a blasphemer had to die Lev.
The scholar again explains why the ancients used a euphemism or hid the meaning in code for some enormities. The man is a blasphemer in the strongest sense. His sin is a deliberate provocateur of the wrath of the Lord, flaunting and taunting holiness in an almost unbelievable crudity. The issue was so blatant, so outrageous, so unspeakable — I suggest — that the ancients had to hide the meaning somewhat in code words. Those who read the text today find between the words that stand which are awful enough something that is truly an outrage against Majesty that is nearly unbelievable.
As noted, this is the same language used of Abram, whose faith, not zeal, was credited to him as righteousness. So now we turn to classical commentaries. The older commentators say Phinehas was already justified by faith first, so God, out of pure benevolence, imputes or counts or credits an act as righteousness. First of all, let us examine, whether or not Phinehas was justified on account of this deed alone, Verily, the law, though it could justify, by no means promises salvation to any one work, but makes justification to consist in the perfect observance of all the commandments.
It remains, therefore, that we affirm that the work of Phinehas was imputed to him for righteousness, in the same way as God imputes the works of the faithful to them for righteousness, not in consequence of any intrinsic merit which they possess, but of his own free and unmerited grace. Besides, were our works strictly examined, they would be found to be mingled with much imperfection. We have, therefore, no other source than to flee for refuge to the free unmerited mercy of God. And not only do we receive righteousness by grace through faith, but as the moon borrows her light from the sun, so does the same faith render our works righteous, because our corruptions being mortified, they are reckoned to us for righteousness.
In short, faith alone, and not human merit, procures both for persons and for works the character of righteousness. Phinehas had to have been already justified by faith alone, and that is his deepest source of righteousness. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown say another way of translating v. Phinehas already was justified by faith.
Now his good work obtains from God, who recompenses all men according to their works, a reward of grace viz.
But it was that which God approved and rewarded with a perpetual priesthood to him and his descendants … ibid, electronic version. So Phinehas was already justified by faith, and his righteous act is rewarded through his descendants with a perpetual priesthood, not eternal life.
And this reward was an act of grace from God. Finally, these two classical commentators write that Phinehas already had constant faith and proved it with his work or action:. This accounting of a work for righteousness is only apparently contradictory to Gen. Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament , vol. Phinehas had already received saving faith and right standing with God. His priesthood was an act of grace to begin with. He demonstrated his righteous standing with a zealous work, which counted as righteousness or a righteous act.
This faith is credited to us for righteousness Rom. Then we demonstrate our salvation by behaving righteously Rom. We have the priestly duty to proclaim the gospel Rom. Phinehas was acting within that context. He was a priest after, all. He was expected to maintain the law. The law was given in Ex. Therefore we need to be careful about seeing justification within this legal, priestly context. See the Wrath of God in the Old Testament for more explanations and evidence. It is those who are circumcised in the heart who belong to God, Paul goes on to say Rom.
Circumcision has been imputed to him by faith. Paul uses logizomai three times in these verses, quoting Gen. We have already discussed Gen. Now we can turn to the business metaphor. When a man works at a company, the employer is required or obligated to pay him. Then Paul switches up the metaphor in midstream and says when someone who does not work trusts God, his faith or trust is credited donation to him as righteousness payment.
And that gift belongs to the man. They looked around at the Gentile converts and concluded they needed to keep some portions of the law, particularly circumcision, which was the sign or seal of being part of the people of God in the Old Testament. However, Paul reasoned that Abraham was credited with righteousness by faith Gen.
The fifteenth chapter of Genesis comes before the seventeenth chapter. Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. That is, righteousness by faith was imputed or credited before circumcision; therefore Gentiles did not have to be circumcised in order to be credited with righteousness. Abraham is the father both the circumcised who believe in Christ Messianic Jews and the uncircumcised who believe in Christ Gentile Christians.
They are one family Rom. When we believe in Christ and his resurrection, we will have justification — a legal declaration that we are righteous. God thinks of us as righteous, and therefore we are in his sight. This reinforces the theme that Gentiles and Jews who have faith in Christ are counted or thought of or considered the children of God. Therefore that status belongs to them, from his point of view, even though Gentiles do not biologically descend from Abraham. They descend from him by faith and promise, fulfilled in Christ. Isaac was the child of promise, and through this offspring of Abraham, all nations would be blessed.
To repeat, Gentiles are not biologically the offspring of Abraham, but are considered as having that status by imputation. Abraham nearly sacrificed Isaac Gen. The fifteenth chapter of Genesis comes before the twenty-second chapter. We receive it by faith, not by works. Imputed righteousness and imparted righteousness are worked out in love. Justification a legal declaration that we are righteous is by faith alone, not faith that is alone or by itself or solitary. Good works done for God come after justification by faith.
God does not count or regard or impute or charge our sins against us; therefore his forgiveness belongs to us, all the days of our life, every moment, every second. Note that God credits righteousness Rom. Righteousness is the direct object of crediting.
When God considers such a thing, it is a reality, not a fiction. Now Paul applies this to our life. First, we count or consider ourselves dead to sin. We are not actually sinless; we have not achieved moral perfection in our behavior. Second, we live in sanctification or practice holiness. So we must not stretch the comparison too far. Then what is Paul saying here?
We have a new lord — the Lord. First imputation of righteousness declared righteousness and then impartation of righteousness sanctification. We are not actual or literal sheep, so this passage is metaphorical. We do not undergo an inner transformation to become sheep. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. This is a clear verse about logizomai and imputing. We are so free in Christ, and we have so much of his authority in him that our thoughts can determine the uncleanness of food, and for us it is so.
This quality of uncleanness belongs to the food in an imputed sense according to the point of view of the person who imputes. But food is actually morally neutral in its physical makeup: It does not go through an inner moral transformation that renders it unclean in itself.
Book Extraterrestrials And Sex: Vol. 4: The Real Theme of the Bible download pdf + audio id:ihs1h2t
The best illustration of kosher food laws that change is found in Acts God simply declared unkosher foods kosher. The food did not undergo an inner, chemical transformation. These verses are very much like Ps. Therefore, reconciliation and forgiveness belong to them. The same is true in 2 Cor. So God can count, but sometimes he judicially chooses not to do so see point no.
May it not be held against them. Blessed is the man when God does not count his sin and transgression against him Ps. Paul also expressed forgiveness.