Mike Winger Hebrew Roots

Not organized

Last time I discussed critiques. Mentioned Mike Winger - 4 part series debunking HR/MM. I got a little to ambitious

I was going to have us try to briefly address all of the points from his first 2 videos, but I kinda got caught in the weeds on a couple points, so instead I’m just going to cover those.

The first one is a common argument from the anti-Torah crowd (or w/e) from Hebrews 7:

11Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has [b]officiated at the altar.

14For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17For He testifies:

“You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” 18For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

I’m not going to discuss the Melchizedek priesthood in detail here. Rather, respond to the fundamental point that they are trying to make.

I posit that there being a change of the priesthood does not necessitate a removal or change of the entire law, just the laws in regard to the priesthood itself.

How do we know this?

Change of the priesthood already took place.

[Exo 19:5-8 KJV] 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. 7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. 8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

_[Exo 32:26-29 KJV] 26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who [is] on the LORD'S side? [let him come] unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. 27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, [and] go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. 28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. 29 For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.
_

[Deu 10:8 KJV] 8 At that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister unto him, and to bless in his name, unto this day.

[Num 8:16-17 KJV] 16 For they [are] wholly given unto me from among the children of Israel; instead of such as open every womb, [even instead of] the firstborn of all the children of Israel, have I taken them unto me. 17 For all the firstborn of the children of Israel [are] mine, [both] man and beast: on the day that I smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified them for myself.

Did you see the change of the priesthood there?

At first, all of Israel was going to be a kingdom of priests. At the very least, every firstborn.

However, after the transgression of the golden calf, Levi were the only ones that stood with God and Moses. Therefore, they received the Levitical covenant. They were sanctified, set apart, as priests instead of the firstborn of Israel.

(Compare perfect/sovereign will) This can be confusing because God of course knew that this would happen. I don’t know what to call God’s “perfect will” however, it’s evident that God often lays out what would have happened, as compared to what His sovereign will allows, that is, the plan that He actually brings about.

We know that if Adam and Eve never ate of the tree of KoGE, we would still be in the garden.

If the people believed the spies’ report, they wouldn’t have wandered in the wilderness for 40 years.

Priesthood was originally meant to be for all of Israel, the firstborn and I would say anyone who wanted to devote themselves, but was then bestowed on Levi alone.

But if all Israel were able to be priests, to whom would they be serving as mediators? To themselves only? I would argue, to the whole world.

You see, one point that Mike Winger brings up more than once is that “The law was never meant to be for Gentiles”

Deut 4:6Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’

7“For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? 8And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?

Compare with the modern view of the Law:

Acts 15:10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Per 2 Corinthians 3 it is a ministry of death and condemnation.

It is true that the law was only given to Israel, but any person from any nation that saw Israel and wanted to be joined to their God would have to do so according to the law given to Israel.

There are actually a number of people like this in the Bible, the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with Israel, Ruth, any converts or God fearers mentioned in the NT scriptures (such as Cornelius).

This is part of Solomon’s pray when dedicating the Temple:

1 Kings 8:41 “Foreigners, who do not belong to your people Israel, will come from a distant land because of your reputation. When they hear about your great reputation and your ability to accomplish mighty deeds, they will come and direct their prayers toward this temple. Then listen from your heavenly dwelling place and answer all the prayers of the foreigners. Then all the nations of the earth will acknowledge your reputation, obey you like your people Israel do, and recognize that this temple I built belongs to you.

Is 56, which I will read from later, says that the temple is to be a house of prayer for all nations.

So the law was for the Gentiles, it just wasn’t expected of them unless they chose to serve the God of Israel.

I’m now going to address another common passage used and then circle back to this idea about the priesthood.

[Gal 3:15-19 KJV] 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though [it be] but a man's covenant, yet [if it be] confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise. 19 Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The common interpretation of v19 is self-refuting to a degree.

It is that the entire law of God given at mount Sinai (which they prefer to call the law of Moses), was given only temporarily until the “seed” (Jesus) should come. Since He has come, the time for the law’s existence or application has ended.
If you just read the verse by itself, it sounds like that is a valid interpretation.

Why do I say that this interpretation is self-refuting?

Because of the part where it says it was added because of transgressions.

First of all, added?

Because of transgression?

It seems to have been God’s plan all along to lead them to Mt Sinai, give them his commands, make a covenant with them regarding those commands and his blessings or curses should they obey or disobey, and then move on.

So why does it say that it was added due to transgression?

That word transgression is “parabasis” in Greek.

a going over
metaph. a disregarding, violating
1. of the Mosaic law
2. the breach of a definite, promulgated, ratified law

So this means that the law he is referring to that was added until the seed should come was added because they transgressed an already existing law.

To further clarify this, Paul says in Romans 4:15

[Rom 4:15 KJV] 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.

It’s the same Greek word. No law, no parabasis.

Again, the Bible makes no mention of the first giving of the law being due to sin or transgression.

So what is Paul talking about?

Well, Dan has an article titled “Until the Seed Should Come”. He focuses on the added to part, and what that might mean. I already addressed some of what he says in a different context, but it’s a good article.

But as far as this argument goes, it’s enough to say that there was a law that was transgressed prior to this seemingly temporary law being added.

Meaning, if you want to say that the law that was added was done away with, you still have the law that existed prior to that, of which Sabbath was one. The Sabbath was not only instituted at creation, but given to Israel (forever) prior to mount Sinai.

So either way, this verse cannot be used to dispense with all “OT” law.

However, I’m going to make that case that even it isn’t talking about the law going away,

it’s talking about the promise - that inheritance and blessing would flow to all of the nations - that that promise would be brought into effect when the Seed (Messiah) came.

And prior to that, it was the law that would determine who would be considered an heir of Abraham.

In fact, both Galatians 3, which I am discussing, and Romans 4, which I just read are making the exact same case.

We often see sections of Paul’s writing where he is repeating the same concepts to different people or churches.

Let me back up and read a few verses more of Romans 4

[Rom 4:11-16 KJV] 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which [he had] being [yet] uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression. 16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

You see, in both Galatia and Rome, he was confronting a very specific error - the idea that gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to be saved, to become part of the covenant, heirs with Israel. This is critical, because Paul is constantly addressing this heresy. These are the people referred to the “Circumcision party” and the “Judaizers”. In other words, they were saying that to be part of the New Covenant you have to first be part of the Old Covenant, which meant circumcision and agreeing to keep the entire law (with all the attendant blessings and curses).

But that’s not the case, it is by faith. It’s automatic.

Andy corrected me on my last message, since I apparently misspoke something.

I believe I said something like “The New Covenant is open to the Gentiles”. Which is in one sense true and one sense not.

Which is an important point.

We are only part of the New Covenant because we are grafted into Israel by faith in Israel’s messiah.

The New Covenant is only made with the House of Israel and Judah.

However, there is no further action required to become part of Israel than to put your faith in Yeshua, just like Abraham was counted righteous because of his faith, and only after received the sign of circumcision

Which brings us full circle, back to the very specific point that Paul was trying to make.

It has nothing to do with the law as guidelines for His covenant people, but rather its role as a sanctifying, spiritual boundary, if you will.

The thing that set Israel apart as the chosen people, with access to His promises.

So if I go back and read Galatians again it should make more sense.

[Gal 3:15-19 KJV] 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though [it be] but a man's covenant, yet [if it be] confirmed, no man disannulls, or adds thereto.

(After the covenant is made, there is no change)

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ (Abraham’s covenant), the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise. 19 Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

In other words, as a Gentile convert, you receive inheritance with the saints and are the seed of Abaraham by faith, and a child of promise. Your not being circumcised and under the Old Covenant does not make that promise of none effect. So if the promise isn’t by the law, why was it instituted? Because due to sin, the body of the law was necessary to sanctify God’s people. The only way to become a child of Abraham was through the works of the law, until the Seed, or Messiah came, who would then become the mediator of the New Covenant. Now that He has come, Gentiles can become children of Abraham by faith alone.

Nothing in that indicates that the law given at mount Sinai would cease to be an accurate representation of how God’s covenant people should walk.

I do believe though that it does mean that we are not under the law, ie. subject to the letter of the law, with it hanging over us, nor does it affect our standing with God in Christ.

Being under the law means being required to keep the law for righteousness.

But righteousness has always been by faith!

This is true, but that doesn’t change the fact that Israel failed to uphold the Sinai Covenant.

But we know some of them will still be with us in eternity.

It just won’t be because they perfectly performed all of the laws.

It was about righteousness, but it was not the way to righteousness that was attainable.

It shows us what righteousness is to show us that we can’t meet it,

Which brings us to Christ.

This is what is meant by Paul when he says the law is our schoolmaster.

Once we come to Christ, we are no longer under the law.

That is, the “Old Covenant” of “Do all these things to be righteous” and “all that God has said we will do” is no longer applicable.

That doesn’t mean that the law ceases to be righteous, and a measure of righteousness. Nor does it mean that any Israelite, except one, was able to attain sinlessness by knowing what sin was.

That is why it also called a ministry of death and condemnation, because it could only offer punishment, not eternal life, because of the weakness of the flesh.

Absent of the ministry of life in Christ, that’s the only thing it could offer.

However, with the ministry of Christ, when used lawfully, it remains useful as a rubric for what actions God finds pleasing - profitable for reproof, rebuke, and correction.

What “not being under the law” does mean is that by faith we are declared righteous before God, rather than the law itself. That’s it. The method by which God does this was hidden in the past, but now (since the coming of Messiah) it is revealed.

Okay, so I want to go back to this idea of the priesthood.

Originally, all of Israel’s firstborn were to be priests. Then the law was added to make Levites to be the only priests. With the Melchizedek priesthood, there requires another change, because under it, anyone can become a priest of his order:

Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song: “Worthy are You to take the scroll and open its seals, because You were slain, and by Your blood You purchased for God those from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign upon the earth.”

1 Peter 2:9 9But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

Israel was the select/chosen/set apart/holy people chosen to be the ones through whom God redeemed and ministered to the world. Their failure and negligence resulted in the specific manner in which this plan spread to the world and their being broken off that gentiles might be grafted in. (Their forfeited right/duty).
House of God was to be a house of prayer for all nations.

Mike Winger HR Addt'l Notes