Friday, March 04, 2016

THE COPS HAD A QUESTION FOR JOHN-  The cops had a question
.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  I think he did it  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.
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?
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.
 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.
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.
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.

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.


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]
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.

Judaism in transition.
Did they ‘move on’ ?
Who was Elazar ben Yair?

End notes of chapter-


 ‘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.

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”
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’-
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’.
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,

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
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