THE COPS HAD A QUESTION FOR JOHN-
ON VIDEO-
.Guilty
.Can I smoke in the bathroom?
.John’s prophetic ministry
.Stop smoking weed?
.Final comments on Stephen Avery- Making a murderer
MAKING A KILLER- Steven Avery case
https://youtu.be/eQ98Edmpl50 I think he did it
https://youtu.be/d88r_Le0Fpo Making a killer
The past week I’ve been commenting on a Net Flix series-
called ‘making a murderer’.
Now- I usually wouldn’t teach on something like this- but
being I started commenting on it- I figured I’d give a brief talk.
I have yet [2-22-16] seen the outcome of the case.
I did this on purpose so you could see how I [people in
general] might react to it.
The accused- Steven Avery-
was convicted of a rape in Wisconsin and spent 18 years in prison [I’m
writing from memory and have not read on it yet- so a detail or 2 might be
off].
After 18 years in prison he was exonerated.
The state made a very big thing out of it- passed laws named
after Avery- and it was in the middle of it all- that Avery was arrested for
the sexual assault and murder- of another woman.
Ok- it looked bad on those who advocated for him.
As I have been watching the 10 part series- all real time
video of the court and witnesses.
I’m at part 7 as I write [3 more to go].
Avery sued the state and was in the middle of a huge
settlement- when he was charged with the murder.
He had to settle for an appeal for around 250 thousand-
while in jail- so he could hire his lawyers.
During the trial- the defense presented evidence- that sure
seemed like the local cops planted evidence on Avery.
Even the judge- at one point- forbid the local cops
[sheriff’s dept.] to play an active role in the investigation.
The defense showed that the cops more than likely planted
Avery’s blood in the vehicle- and also planted the key from the vehicle in
Avery’s trailer.
Yet- a key piece of evidence was found when the cops- who were
told not to play an active role- actually went into the trailer and ‘found’ the
key.
The other law enforcement agency- from the area- were put on
the stand and they testified that they never were put in the position where
they were informed to ‘keep an eye on the other cops’- because they might plant
evidence.
It is quite amazing that the judge himself gave them this
directive.
As of now- it’s obvious that they planted evidence- yet I
still can’t believe they would have ‘planted’ the vehicle itself- at the
salvage yard where Avery worked [his family owns the yard].
Yet- in court they played a call from one of the cops [who
was suspect] who called the dispatcher and had her ‘run the plates’ on a
vehicle.
In the actual recording- the lady dispatcher gives him the
info on the vehicle- and he responds by telling her the year of the vehicle-
and how it’s the one from the victim.
Ok- all of this is fine- that’s what they do when checking
out an abandoned vehicle.
The problem?
This was 2 days before they claimed they located the
vehicle.
Now- the defense- at this point- is trying to show that the
cops actually found the car- took the keys [that’s how they planted them] and
actually moved the car to the salvage yard.
To me- I simply can’t believe they would have done this.
Yet- on the stand- when the recoding of the cop is being
played- which is quite obvious that he’s standing by the car- while talking to
the dispatcher.
He actually claims he was not by the car.
He is asked- by the defense- how ‘did you know it was a 1999
model’.
He says ‘I think the dispatcher said it’.
They replay the call- and he is the one who said it.
Look- I’ve been to many car wrecks over the years- as a
Firefighter.
And I have heard dispatchers ‘run the plates’ many times.
It is obvious this cop is lying- he found the vehicle [or
plates?] 2 days before- somewhere- and had his dispatcher run the plates.
Now- even though I realize the cops were already caught
planting evidence [key] and other stuff- I just can’t believe they would
actually move the vehicle of a murdered woman- and pretend they never found it
until the day it showed up on the accused property.
NOTE- Tonight I hope to finish watching the series- and will
see the final outcome.
A few notes- so far- it is unique that a judge in a murder
case- would seem to side with the defense- in seeming to think that the cops
actually were planting evidence in a case.
As I watched the real footage- you can see that as the case
progressed- it became obvious that this was happening.
Second [or whatever number this is]
As most of you know- I have been writing/speaking about
stuff like this over the years.
And you would think I would be thinking ‘they framed him as
a vendetta’.
This is where perception is important-
Now- if all the evidence was planted [and I hate to think-
even the vehicle] then why do I think they might have done this?
I think that yes- they were ‘after him’ in a sense- because
of the history they had with him.
But I actually think they do think he did this.
Why?
The absence of any blood evidence- in a crime where they
charge him with slitting the woman’s throat- shooting her in the head and
mutilating the body.
Well- you would have some type of blood detected in the
trailer or garage [her blood was only in the vehicle].
There was none.
So- the cops actually used a tool to dig up the concrete in
the garage.
I think this shows that they did think he did this [maybe he
did- at this point I don’t know].
Because after they dug up the concrete in the garage- it
looked worse on them- because they found no blood.
I don’t think they would have done it- if they really did
not think he did the crime.
It’s possible that they did plant evidence- thinking 'we
will get him this time- we know he did it- and we won’t let him get away
again’.
Now- this would not make it right- to plant evidence- but
it’s possible they thought this.
In the footage I saw when the cop called the dispatcher to
‘run the plates’- from experience I know the routine- this was an obvious case
where the cop found a vehicle- and ‘ran the plates’.
It looks like he found the vehicle- which he denied.
But to the jury- who are not familiar with the whole
procedure- you can make it look like the cop was simply asking for information.
To me- I saw he was
lying.
Now- that’s a big thing- because the theory of the defense
is the cops did find the car- and moved it to the salvage yard.
As of now- do I think Avery might have still done it?
Yes.
Why?
The woman did go to the salvage yard- and a relative
testified that when he left- he saw her vehicle there.
Avery claims he never talked with her.
That indeed is suspicious to me.
‘Then what about having no blood evidence’?
The blood evidence would only be there- if he committed the
crime- the way 'they think’.
But- as I watched the real footage of the 16 year old
nephew- who they seemed to get a false confession out of-
He was the one they seemed to coerce into saying they slit
her throat- shot her- etc.
But later the nephew said he lied [I think he did] and he
told his mom that his original story was true.
That the uncle [Avery] came to get him at around 7 pm to
burn some trash.
It’s possible Avery did assault this woman- and kill her.
But not in the fashion of the possible false confession.
See?
2-23
I finished watching
the series- they convicted both Stephen Avery and his nephew.
Few thoughts-
It was obvious from all the recordings [not just what they
played in court- there were phone calls from the 16 year old to his mom from
jail].
The Nephews ‘confession’ was a classic case of a false
confession.
Things like the cops/investigators saying ‘you will never go
home- until you tell us what we want to hear’.
Things of that nature.
The video of the defense investigator was terrible.
Later they found out that the defense team was working hand
in hand with the prosecutor.
The defense investigator told the kid to make drawings of a
woman being tied- murdered- etc.
His correspondence with the prosecutor came out in the
attempt for a new trial.
He said ‘these people are evil and we must stop them all all
costs’ [words to that effect].
This was the DEFENSE mind you talking about his own client!
As soon as he got the kid to ‘confess’ he calls the actual
attorney and says they got it- ‘quick- let the prosecution interview him right
away’.
It was obvious from all the evidence that the woman was not
killed according to the prosecution theory.
There was no blood/DNA anywhere where the killing supposedly
took place [trailer or garage].
DNA experts- for the prosecution- were asked in court if
this were possible- that even if Avery tried to bleach the entire place- that
there would be not even be a single speck of DNA.
She agreed there would be some.
Overall- I think the
nephew had nothing to do with it- and Avery- if he did- it did not happen at
all according to the prosecution’s theory.
‘John- then who could have done it’?
During the trial the defense was not allowed to come up with
another suspect- but you could see they pointed to the boyfriend.
Why.
The woman had complained to a friend that someone won’t stop
calling- texting her.
She seemed worried about the calls/texts.
Then- the boyfriend was actually put in charge of the search
when she went missing [yes- the cops actually put him in charge].
At that point- early on- no one even yet knew about Avery as
a suspect.
They were simply searching that ‘part of the county’ kind of
wide area.
Then at one point- he tells one of the searchers ‘why don’t
you go to Avery salvage yard’ [huh?].
And by the way- take this camera with you [in court this was
the only person that was given a camera during the search].
Others might have had them- but this was handed to her ‘just
in case’.
She goes to the junk yard- and out of hundreds of cars-
rows- a big junk yard- she walked right up to the missing vehicle hidden in the
woods [this came out in court].
Everyone in court knew this was strange- her explanation was
‘God showed me where to go’.
It’s possible that the ex-boyfriend killed her.
He knew she went to the Avery yard that day.
It’s possible- in his mind- he set the whole thing up.
Because evidence showed the cops might have located the car
days before it was ‘officially’ found.
If it was moved to the yard [with the cooperation of the
boyfriend or the cops] that’s how the boyfriend would have known to send the
searcher right to it.
The jury initially did a ‘vote’ as they went to proceedings.
The first vote was 7 innocent- 3 guilty- 2 not sure.
This is amazing- because Avery was well known- and hated in
the town.
They saw all the evidence- and a majority thought he did not
do it [or too much doubt- and planted evidence].
One of the jurors later spoke on the documentary and he
basically said the 3 who wanted guilty made it known they would never change
their mind- so if the other 7 don’t agree- we stay here forever [sad indeed-
that our system works like that].
There were many problems with this case- and it is
‘possible’ that Avery was set up.
There were too many coincidences.
Even in closing statements the cop’s side argued ‘even if we
planted the key- that still doesn’t mean he did not do it’.
I have never heard something like this before- the actual
prosecution defending their planting of evidence.
The woman was probably killed in her vehicle- that’s the
only place where they found her blood.
And that’s the only place where they found Avery’s blood- in
an open spot- like it was put there.
In court- the defense showed that the cops might have
planted the blood.
It was actually at that point- that the judge barred that
Police/sheriffs dept. from being a part of the investigation [ya think?].
But it was those same cops [who were told to be watched- by
the other cops- by the Judge!]
That miraculously found the key- with NO DNA on it- except
Avery’s [the trailer was searched for months- they never found anything- then-
the day the cop who was not supposed to even be there- was there- he himself found they key- in the
open- when no one 'was looking’. Other cops said it was not there until that day].
The prosecutions DNA expert in court basically said the only
way you would not find the woman’s DNA [who used the key for years] was if the
key was scrubbed- and then Avery had it- or someone put his DNA on it.
OK- I CHECKED ON-LINE.
I finally googled the case- and I hope to post the various
opinions on it.
There were things I read that made it sound like Avery might
have done it- and that yes- the cops planted evidence- not to possibly frame an
innocent man [in their minds] but to make sure they ‘got him this time’.
I actually thought of this scenario myself while simply
watching the series.
Now- I purposefully wrote the above- just by watching the
documentary.
After reading more on the case- I’m more inclined to believe
Avery did it- but I always left that option open- even while viewing the
series.
After reading other sites on the case- even those who
believe Avery did it- they also see the many problems with the case.
I have not read one ‘Avery guilty’ theorist who also
believes the cops did not do wrong things- like planting evidence and stuff.
Most of those people- like myself- do not think the cops did
this – in their minds- to frame an innocent man.
No- if that’s what happened- they did it to ‘strengthen’ the
case.
But I have not found 1 person who thinks it’s good to
‘strengthen’ a case- this way.
Also- Avery did call Theresa- multiple times on the day of
the murder.
He requested her to come out to the yard to take pictures of
vehicles.
And he seemed to have been infatuated with her.
She told others she was afraid of him.
Obviously these details- left out of the series- are real
important.
Avery’s DNA was under the hood latch of the vehicle.
Not blood- but DNA [sweat?]
The cops could not have planted that [note- I read this from
the former DA- I’ll add his post on this. But because of all the other problems
with this case- how do I know he’s telling the truth?]
PAST POSTS [verses below]-
Aristotle loved and admired his
teacher- yet Plato had somewhat of a disdain for his most famous student.
Plato passed over Aristotle to head
up the Academy- twice.
As things go- Aristotle went and
started his own school- called the Lyceum.
Aristotle did not just teach
Philosophy- but Biology- Logic- Ethics- Rhetoric.
Some refer to him as the first real
scientist.
His development of the laws of
Logic- Cause and Effect- play a key role in the Scientific Method till this
day.
Aristotle taught that the main way
we gain knowledge is thru sense perception and experiment.
As we study the natural order of
things themselves- we gain understanding from them.
What we refer to as the Empirical
method- knowledge gained thru the observation and experimentation of things.
He referred to God as the Final
Cause- not the First Cause.
Why?
He believed in God [some debate
this- Aristotle himself called him God in his work on Metaphysics] and called
him the Prime Mover.
As I said before- a big thing with
the early thinkers was the origin of Motion- who started the ball rolling- so
to speak.
Aristotle credited the source of all
motion to an ‘un- moved Mover’.
He gave the attributes of God to his
Mover- said he had no beginning- was not material- an eternal and imperishable
substance.
So- why the Final Cause?
He said God attracts all things to
himself- so in his mind- motion started by attraction- not by a ‘push’ so to
speak.
This is interesting indeed- in
modern physics we see that the universe is undergoing a continual expansion-
heading somewhere- of course we believe this somewhere is God himself- the
source of all things.
Isaac Newton agreed with Aristotle
on this point- he referred to it in his 3rd law of Physics.
The medieval Muslim thinkers called
him ‘The First Teacher’- and Kant [who we will get to later in this study]
credits him with the bulk of what we know today as the Laws of Logic.
Aristotle taught that the main
activity of God was thought.
The bible says that thru Wisdom and
Understanding God made things [‘Wisdom builds the house- Understanding
establishes it- and thru Knowledge it’s rooms are filled with all pleasant and
precious riches- Wisdom is profitable to direct- the words of the wise are like
nails fastened by the masters of assemblies- as a wise master builder I have
laid the foundation’- various bible verses found in Proverbs- Ecclesiastes and
Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth] - in a way Aristotle was right.
One of his key contributions was the
Syllogism- you start with a Logical argument- you engage in Deductive
reasoning- and come to a Conclusion.
A famous example would be ‘All men
are mortal- Plato is a man- Plato is mortal’.
Aristotle did not believe that
something comes from nothing- a phrase that will come up a lot as we progress
in this study is ‘ex nihilo nihil fit’- meaning Nothing comes from Nothing.
He was also what we refer to as a
Teleolologist- he believed that there was design and purpose in the created
order of things.
He saw design in the universe-
world.
Many today embrace an idea that
there is no purpose or design- that the design we see in the material world is
by accident- and furthermore some say all that we see- CAME FROM NOTHING.
I can’t stress enough that this is
simply not possible- I don’t say this from the Christian view point alone- but
from a scientific one.
Science deals with the observation
and testing of things- we look into the material world and come to certain
conclusions based on what we see- observe.
One of the most fundamental
observations that science SEES- is what I quoted above- NOTHING COMES FROM
NOTHING.
That is- every effect has a cause.
This is important for our day-
because many have capitulated to the view that all things CAME FROM CHANCE.
Not only is this statement illogical
[chance is simply a word- this statement ascribes Ontological status to a word-
which is impossible].
But it is scientifically not true.
Why?
Because science shows us that things
do not ‘pop into existence’ without a cause- from nothing.
True science in no way contradicts
belief in God- no- it backs it up.
Aristotle- as well as most of the
great thinkers we shall cover- came to the conclusion that there had to be some
immaterial thing [being] that was the cause of all other things.
Now- why did he argue for a PRIME
MOVER?
Because he believed that the
universe was eternal- if there ever came a time when science showed us that the
universe had a beginning point- then the argument would be over.
The Theists [those that believe in
God] would win.
Sure enough- in the 20th
century that’s exactly what happened.
Today Physics teaches us that time-
space- matter did indeed have a beginning point- what we refer to as the Big
Bang Theory.
If the early thinkers had this
knowledge- then the argument for a Prime Mover would be moot- because instead
we would have a Prime Starter- see?
[note- why ‘parts’ like this John? I try and go back to past
stuff I taught- and I searched Kant [because I talk about natural law] and
found his name on a past post- then pasted it- Just thought I would clarify]
[parts]
HEBREWS 10-13
There’s more on the video- Kant, John Mill- Moral Theory-
Utilitarianism, Kantianism. Dead Sea Scroll-s ‘Lost Books’ of the bible-
Septuagint- Jerome- Alexander the Great- Ptolemy- Seleucids- Essenes- Qumran
community- Ecclesiology- Local Church
etc.
END NOTES OF POST-
Masada.
Hadrian.
Judaism in transition.
Did they ‘move on’ ?
Who was Elazar ben Yair?
End notes of chapter-
IS THERE MEANING TO THE ACTUAL ORDER OF BIBLE VERSES?
HOW DID THE SPIRIT ‘TESTIFY’ TO THE FINAL SACRIFICE?
WHY DOES THE WRITER CONTINUE TO SAY THE NEW COVENANT IS HARSHER?
CHAPTER 10:
‘For the law having a SHADOW of good things to
come, AND NOT the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices
which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshipers
once purged should have no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices
there is a remembrance again made of sins every year’. Paul shows how the
simple fact of ongoing sacrifices in and of itself testifies of the
insufficiency of the law. The on going sacrifices were a reminder that the
peoples sins were still there. If the sacrifices really worked, then why do it
over and over again every year? He will contrast this with the singular
sacrifice of Christ. The fact that Jesus did it once shows the superiority of
his sacrifice over the law.
‘Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he
saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared
me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. THEN SAID
HE, lo, I come to do thy will O God. ABOVE WHEN HE SAID sacrifice and
offering…THEN HE SAID, lo, I come to do thy will O God. He taketh away the
first that he may establish the second’ Here Paul uses the actual order of the
verses in Psalms to prove that the Old law will pass away and a New covenant
will replace it. The fact that David [Psalms] says ‘sacrifice and offering thou
wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared for me’ in this order shows that
God always planned on taking away the sacrificial system and replacing it with
Christ [or fulfilling it!] So even in the simple prophetic order of these
statements Paul sees the Old law passing away and a new one being instituted.
Wow again!
‘By the which will we are sanctified thru the
offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every high priest
STANDETH daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which
can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for
sins forever, SAT DOWN on the right hand of God’ The comparison here is that
the priests under the law stood, showing their sacrifices were never
sufficient, they could never say ‘it is finished’. The fact that they stood
while offering sacrifices showed the incompleteness of the system. Jesus sat
down. This showed that his sacrifice was once and for all. Now, no where does
scripture teach this concept between ‘sitting and standing’. Where does Paul
get this stuff from? From ‘revelation’, that is God is supernaturally showing
this stuff to Paul as he writes. This is the prophetic element of scripture.
While we don’t ‘write scripture’ any more today, there are still lots of hidden
meanings that we don’t fully see yet. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to
‘bring to our remembrance all the things that Jesus taught us’ [also all the
things about Jesus!] So when you read the Old Testament, look for Jesus! He is
there in more ways than you realize.
‘For by ONE offering he hath perfected for
ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us
[of what? Of the singularity of Christ’s offering. The fact that the Holy
Spirit thru Jeremiah prophesied that God would never remember our sins any more
speaks to the truth of the one offering of Christ, we will read ‘if there is no
more remembrance, then there is no more sacrifice’] this is the covenant that I
will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into
their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and
iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is
no more offering for sin’. Do you see the point Paul is making? It is common
for preachers and Christians to read these letters and to simply glean
practical truths from them. That’s OK. But like I said in the introduction,
when you see these things in context, then you can still make practical
application, plus you are seeing the relevance behind the teaching. The
practical part of this is ‘wow, God will not bring my sins back up into
remembrance before his face!’ Now that’s practical!
‘Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter
into the holiest [true holy place, that is Gods presence in the throne room] by
the BLOOD OF JESUS, by a new and living way[ the early Christians were at times
called ‘the way’] which he hath consecrated for us, thru the veil, that is to
say his flesh’ We now have total access to the Father thru the Son. This is the
ONLY WAY man can have this access! It is common today to teach a type of pluralism
that says ‘all religions will eventually lead us to God’ some will lead
straight to hell! Sorry. The only way to the Father is thru the Son. God
ordained it to be so. Don’t fight over it, God says ‘come freely’ those who
don’t come, they will never GET THERE! Jesus flesh is called the ‘veil’. During
the crucifixion the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the
bottom. Most believers know the significance of this. I would submit to you
that when the scripture says ‘the veil was ripped’ that it was not only
speaking of the actual veil that was in the temple on that day, but it was also
prophetically speaking of the true veil, Jesus Body, that was being torn apart
on the Cross.
The veil of the
temple not only restricted access for man coming to God, but it also separated
God from the true community of people. The tearing of the veil [Jesus body] not
only allowed man to have access to Gods presence in heaven, but it also opened
the door for the Spirit of God to tabernacle with men on the day of Pentecost.
After the tearing of Jesus flesh [which Jesus is also called the door] it is
like a door opened, both letting man into the presence of God, as well as
‘letting’ God tabernacle with men [note- Jesus ‘Emmanuel’ was ‘God with us’ so
in a sense God was already tabernacling among men thru Christ, but at Pentecost
God ‘spread’ this ‘tabernacling’ to a community with worldwide potential, as
Christians would increase thru out the ages, so would Gods presence increase as
he dwells in men. Thus the Kingdom starts small, like a little leaven, and
before you know it the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord. It
culminates at the second coming of Christ].
‘And having an high priest over the house of
God [remember, even though in Hebrews Paul speaks of heaven itself as the
tabernacle, yet he also told the Jews ‘who’s house are we, if we hold the
beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end’] let us draw near with a
true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil
conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water [baptism]. Let us hold fast
the profession of our faith without wavering [for he is faithful that promised]
and let us provoke one another to love and good works: not forsaking the
assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one
another…’
A few things here. First, Paul is exhorting
them to ‘get washed in pure water’ [baptism]. Remember, some of the recipients
of this letter were believing in the message as Paul preached it as he traveled
thru their cities, others were still on the edge. In this chapter it seems as
if he is saying ‘some of you who have heard and seen all of these things, it’s
time to make the decision to go all the way. Others have made a good profession,
you too need to stick with the message’. Now, to those who would ‘revert’ back
to the law, after they ‘received’ the truth, Paul says there is only judgment
down the road. Even though they heard and the message reached them. Even though
Paul presents the gospel in a way that says ‘you are all sanctified’ yet there
was always the danger of apostasy. Those who believe you can lose your
salvation [Arminians] take these verses and say ‘see, those who were once
sanctified, if they sin, they face judgment’. I have actually viewed this
chapter in different ways in the past. I never saw it as the Arminians, but I
have debated over whether or not Paul was saying ‘now that you are believers,
don’t think you can get away with sin, remember there is only one sacrifice, if
you keep sinning God will judge you’ [not hell, but chastening]. But I have
come to view it more along the lines of ‘those of you who are still in
transition, you have made a good profession, Jesus blood has sanctified
everyone [in a sense] so if you continue to sin [go back to the old system that
taught that continual sin was part of the plan. Remember, the law made
provision for continual sinning. This worldview of sin and judgment was unique
to the Jewish community of the day.
It really should
have been easier to convert Israel, they already had a ‘Jewish’ world view. But
one of the dangers of this world view was they had provision for ongoing sin.
The idea of ‘continuing to sin’ was engrained in their culture. Paul is warning
them that in Christ the fact that there is only one sacrifice means you cant
still live with the worldview of ‘I will continue to sin’] In essence Paul
seems to be saying ‘if you continue to sin, and think that the Cross is like
the old system, then you are fooling yourselves. The fact that the Cross
happened only once means that it is sufficient to truly cleanse you once and
for all from your sin’ to those who wanted to keep sinning, because it was fun,
Paul says ‘watch out, judgment awaits’. So in keeping with what I showed you in
chapter 6, I see this chapter continuing to appeal to Jews, some who have even
made an initial profession, but he still had to warn them about going back to
their old way of continuing to sin. Remember, there were many who were
preaching that the law was still necessary for salvation, Paul is telling them
it isn’t.
‘For if we sin
willfully [something that was expected under the law, that’s why they had all
the sacrifices!] after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there
remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of
judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries. He that
despised Moses law died without mercy under 2 or 3 witnesses: of how much sorer
punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot
the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was
sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?’
Once again Paul contrasts the severity of the law to the New Covenant. Remember
how earlier Paul showed that those who ‘neglect so great a salvation’ have more
to worry about than those who rejected ‘the word of angels’ [law] Here Paul
again says ‘Those who disrespected the old system died without mercy, how much worse
shall it be for those who disrespect the blood of the everlasting covenant’ I
see this being directed at those who never fully convert to Christ.
While Gods discipline is also harsh on
believers who continue to live in rebellion [Corinthians] this language is
never used of believers. So Paul is saying ‘beware, if you decide to walk away
from all that has been presented to you, you will bear a much harsher
punishment than those who sinned under the law’. What was the punishment of
those who sinned under law? They died. What is the punishment of those who
reject so great salvation? Eternal judgment. Let me add a note about ‘not
forsaking the assembling of ourselves together’. It is common to use this verse
to defend ‘Sunday church’ a lot of times it is used in this way to fight
against the house church movement. What is the context here? The Jews already
met together regularly before they believed in Christ. They had both temple and
synagogue. Paul is simply saying ‘after you convert, keep getting together’
this is not a verse for defending Sunday church! [It is OK to go to church on Sunday]. ‘For we know him
that hath said, vengeance belongeth unto me…the Lord shall judge his people’ In
context, remember how I already showed you that ‘his people’ and ‘holy
brethren’ and other terms like this in Hebrews can be speaking of 1st
century Israel in transition? They were still considered ‘his people’ at the
time the gospel was presented to them. Ultimately when they rejected Christ
they would lose that designation, but many of the terms in this letter speak to
Israel
this way. So ‘his people’ can most definitely describe believers. But in
context in this letter it more than likely is saying ‘don’t forget Israel , God
does judge his people. So don’t think that your natural heritage of ‘being his
people’ will get you out of the crunch this time!’
The Jews were
always appealing to their privileged position with God ‘we have Abraham as our
father’ they would always appeal to their ‘pure’ orthodox heritage, here Paul
says ‘God will judge all of us based on what we do with his Son, even ‘his
people’! ‘For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the
spoiling of your goods’ many of the Jews who were embracing Paul’s message did
suffer persecution. Historically we know many of them were plundered. They lost
their goods! It’s funny, Paul doesn’t say ‘get back what the enemy stole from
you’ [though you can!] but he says ‘don’t worry about the loss of your wealth
and stuff, you have a better inheritance of eternal things in heaven’. Most
modern preaching doesn’t even think about this. We are so consumed with
preaching a gospel that says ‘come to Jesus and you will be rich’ that we never
even give a second thought to these verses. We will read in the next chapter
how Moses ‘forsook the pleasures of Egypt so he could bear reproach
with Gods people’. Now I know that when they fled God gave ‘the treasures back’
but the point was Moses went thru a period of leaving all of it behind for a
higher calling. Don’t always tell people [to you preachers!] that the wealth of
the world is waiting at your doorstep if you receive Christ. They might be on
the verge of ‘getting their goods spoiled’ for a season knowing that in heaven
they have a better and enduring substance.
‘NOW THE JUST
SHALL LIVE BY FAITH, but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure
in him’. In the original bible you didn’t have chapter divisions. Sometimes the
divisions interfere with the meaning of the text. It is important to see that
right before Hebrews 11, Paul makes this famous statement on justification by
faith! He will go into chapter 11 with this theme in mind. We often read
chapter 11 as believers and see the great stories in it of the heroes of the
faith, but this is not the primary reason for the chapter. The main reason is
for Paul to make the case of law versus grace. He has just spent 10 chapters
explaining the superiority of grace over law. Now he will show Israel that all
of the great heroes of the faith PLEASED GOD BY FAITH! He will be laying out a
grand overview of the great Old Testament figures and be saying THEY ALL
RECEIVED A GOOD REPORT [JUSTIFIED] BY
FAITH.
It is real important for you to see this as we
head into the chapter. When you read it with this in mind, then you begin to
focus in on the statements of faith in a different way. While chapter 11 will
give all believers a great boost in faith, the primary reason behind it is to
say to Israel
‘look, all of our great forefathers [and fore mothers!] pleased God by faith,
not the works of the law. Some of them were even law breakers! [Rahab, Samson]
yet they were JUSTIFED [pleased God] by faith!’ Well, lets get into the chapter
before I preach the whole thing right here.
END NOTES-
IS THERE MEANING TO THE ACTUAL ORDER OF BIBLE VERSES?
HOW DID THE SPIRIT ‘TESTIFY’ TO THE FINAL SACRIFICE?
WHY DOES THE WRITER CONTINUE TO SAY THE NEW COVENANT IS HARSHER?
If the
sacrifices under the law were sufficient- then why did the priests keep
offering them?
The writer says
that’s proof they ‘didn’t really work’.
But Jesus
offered himself once- for all- and that shows us that his death was the final
one.
He quotes Psalms
40- and once again- like we saw earlier- he sees the actual order of the verses
in this Psalm as having meaning.
‘Sacrifice and
offering you do not want’ first
‘But a body you
have prepared for me’ second.
He then says
‘see- God took away the first’ [meaning the Old Law covenant is ending]
‘Then- he
established the 2nd’ [meaning the Body of Christ being offered].
He then says
‘the Holy Spirit also testifies to this”
How?
He quotes
Jeremiah 31-
‘I will make a
new deal with the people- not like the old one- in this deal [covenant] I will
not REMEMBER their sins any more’-
See?
If God had some
new covenant- in which HE would not remember the sins of the people- that shows
that in the new deal- there would be no more sacrifices.
Now- he exhorts
the reader ‘let us have faith- draw near to God with a clear conscience- having
our bodies WASHED WITH PURE WATER’.
Huh?
See- this is an
exhortation to COME INTO this covenant- he’s saying ‘believe- and be baptized’.
This letter is
not speaking to ALREADY BAPTIZED PERSONS.
We also see-
once again- the writer saying that this New Covenant is MUCH HARSHER than the
Old.
‘If those under
the law disobeyed- and died under 2 or 3 witnesses- how much worse will it be
for those who have the light [thru their Old Law- Christ was indeed in there-
thru types and images] and reject it.’
‘for if we/you
continue to sin- after having these truths revealed- there is no more sacrifice
left- but a fearful waiting for judgment’.
In time I’ll
develop this more- but in the New Testament letters- written to the Gentile
churches- you don’t read stuff like this.
You do see God
judging his people [in those letters- meaning Christians].
But you don’t
see the New Covenant compared to the Old Covenant in this way- saying ‘it’s
much harsher than the old’.
But- to those
outside of the covenant- to the ‘unbaptized- unbeliever’ then yes- this warning
holds true.
The theme thru
out Hebrews is ‘if the first century Jew does not BELIEVE in Christ as the
Messiah- then he in effect does disgrace to the Blood of Jesus’-
He will not find
repentance any more [under the old system]-
And he will face
a stricter punishment then those who rebelled under the law-
[They died
physically- but in this new covenant- if you reject Christ- you suffer
spiritual death- and the ultimate judgment of God].
One last note-
as we study the letters of the New Testament down the road- we see a theme- yes-
about how we should view earthly riches/wealth.
Here we read
‘you suffered the loss of your earthly goods- knowing that in heaven you have a
more enduring substance’.
The theme is
never ‘claim your covenant rights to wealth’.
But ‘the things
in this life- material wealth- are nothing to be compared to the spiritual
riches we have in Christ’.
And yes- this is
true.
Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears
hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
Psalm 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it
is written of me,
[parts]
VERSES-
Ezekiel
45:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove
violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions
from my people, saith the Lord GOD.Ezekiel 45:10 Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath.
Luke 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Luke 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Luke 3:9 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Luke 3:10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
Luke 3:11 He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
Luke 3:12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
Luke 3:13 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
Luke 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the
judgment: Heb. 9:27
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man
soweth, that shall he also reap. Gal. 6:7
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater
than John theBaptist: notwithstanding
he that is least in thekingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Matt. 11:11
facebook.com/john.chiarello.5
Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts-
re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks-
John.#
No comments:
Post a Comment