Is the fourth commandment done away with? (Moved)

[Duckybill]

Should we keep the Sabbath commands? I hope not. The death penalty is part of the Sabbath commands.

Exodus 31:14-17 (NASB)
14 ~'Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 15 ~'For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. 16 ~'So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.' 17 "It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed."

Anyway it was for Israel, not NT Christians.

 

[bugkiller]

Sorry to hear about that. Reading and reading comprehension is very important in life.



I'll try. But can you show me where they DIDN'T mention we have to observe the 7th day? Can you show me where the sabbath was changed to Sunday?

For example, Paul, when he was on trial, was never accused of not keeping the sabbath. Had this been something Paul was accused of it would have brought up at his trial and he could have been punished under Hebrew law.

Now, Paul wrote to the Romans: "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression." (4:15)

So where there is a law, there must be transgression right?

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

.

It is.



Nope, they were convened for a specific purpose. Notice they didn't affirm many of the other laws found in the Ten Commandments such as murder, lying, stealing, etc. By not affirming those laws were they saying those laws were no longer in effect?



1 Jo 2:3
And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 1 Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1 Jo 5:2
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

Rev 14:12
Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rev 22:14
Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Ah but you left out a very important verse: And this is His (God's)commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He (Jesus) gave us commandment.

Notice there is only one commandment from God the Father, not ten.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Well, you know what they say about opinions. I look at it this way. God said "Remember...." and there's noting in the Bible that says "forget."

You are very correct but check out this verse. Hosea 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

Interesting enough the word cease here appears in Gen 2 as rested. The word is shabat always translated as a verb. The word for sabbath is shabbat. See any difference? I do. The verse in Genesis 2 also has the word ended giving validity to the definition I provided of the word shabat.

I wish to also bring for your consideration Jere 31:31, 32. Verse 31 uses the word new which is chadash pronounced khaw-dawsh and means specifically new as in not previously. Verse 32 uses the phrase not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers. The covenant that was made with their fathers is found in Deut 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

The not according to phrase mean not like or similar to.

Jesus' own testimony is this is My blood of the new testament Mat 26:28.

To further prove the old covenant with the COI is no longer in force I cite Heb 7:12 ...there is made of necessity a change also of the law. This effectively does away with the jots and tittles cited as a reason the law is still in force. I'll throw in Lk 24:44 for good measure. Here Jesus limits all things that must be fulfilled to things concerning Me.

bugkiller

 

[visionary]

You are very correct but check out this verse. Hosea 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

Interesting enough the word cease here appears in Gen 2 as rested. The word is shabat always translated as a verb. The word for sabbath is shabbat. See any difference? I do. The verse in Genesis 2 also has the word ended giving validity to the definition I provided of the word shabat.

I wish to also bring for your consideration Jere 31:31, 32. Verse 31 uses the word new which is chadash pronounced khaw-dawsh and means specifically new as in not previously. Verse 32 uses the phrase not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers. The covenant that was made with their fathers is found in Deut 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

The not according to phrase mean not like or similar to.

Jesus' own testimony is this is My blood of the new testament Mat 26:28.

To further prove the old covenant with the COI is no longer in force I cite Heb 7:12 ...there is made of necessity a change also of the law. This effectively does away with the jots and tittles cited as a reason the law is still in force. I'll throw in Lk 24:44 for good measure. Here Jesus limits all things that must be fulfilled to things concerning Me.

bugkiller

Please take note it does say "Her" not His. He didn't take away HIS

 

[A Brother In Christ]

gal 2:21

 

[bugkiller]

Please take note it does say "Her" not His. He didn't take away HIS

Visionary you are incredible. I certainly acknowledge "Her" in verse 11. Can you show that "Her" does not refer to the Sabbaths of the Lord thy God? I don't think so. What sabbaths were thye keeping? Show any verse that the Sabbath is not the Lord's. I am very interested in identifying these other sabbathe called 'her sabbaths.' Every place the word Sabbath appears in the OT it is the word, 'shabbat.' This includes Hosea 2:11. You are only looking for a way around a scripture you can not otherwise deal with. It is a simple matter really just deny.

bugkiller

 

[Kristin E]

There is different ways to view this... For me I feel the 7th days should be kept holy. And I feel in order to be a true Christian you should at least try to read/obey the 10 Commandments. I know God has the power to forgive, but Faith without works will get you no where but straight to hell. Even God says so in the Bible, you cannot have true Faith in less you are willing to put in the time and effort to follow in his ways and his teachings.

 

[visionary]

Visionary you are incredible. I certainly acknowledge "Her" in verse 11. Can you show that "Her" dose not refer to the Sabbaths of the Lord thy God? I don't think so. What sabbaths were thye keeping? Show any verse that the Sabbath is not the Lord's. I am very interested in identifying these other sabbathe called 'her sabbaths.' Every place the word Sabbath appears in the OT it is the word, 'shabbat.' This includes Hosea 2:11. You are only looking for a way around a scripture you can not otherwise deal with. It is a simple matter really just deny.

bugkiller

Let's say that I am keeping the shabbat I want, the way I want but I call it my feast, my shabbat, etc... is it the Lord's?

 

[bugkiller]

Let's say that I am keeping the shabbat I want, the way I want but I call it my feast, my shabbat, etc... is it the Lord's?

How does your statement answer my question? I asked you to prove that Israel's Sabbaths are not the ones God gave her to keep. Which Sabbaths were Israel observing? Can you prove they were not the Sabbath's of the Lord thy (her) God?

I am pretty sure that your statement is exactly what you do? If you push it, I will drive the nail home.

bugkiller

 

[visionary]

How does your statement answer my question? I asked you to prove that Israel's Sabbaths are not the ones God gave her to keep. Which Sabbaths were Israel observing? Can you prove they were not the Sabbath's of the Lord thy (her) God?

I am pretty sure that your statement is exactly what you do? If you push it, I will drive the nail home.

bugkiller

ok.. let me explain it this way... Did our Lord have a controversy with the way the pharisee's were keeping or even understanding on how to keep the shabbat? So whose shabbat were the pharisees keeping if it was not the Lord's? The Law is spiritual and must be spiritual discerned. .. otherwise we are doing things by guess and gosh... and then depending on a man made system [in the Israel's case.. Oral Torah [see Jewish traditions here]. That is where scripture [our Lord] is making a distinction between 'her' and "his'....

Galatians 1:14
And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

Please notice in this verse where the exceedly zealous was for .. aka the traditions of my fathers... now compare...

Acts 21:20
And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Now born again.. these Jews switched from zealous for the traditions of fathers to zealous of the Law of God.... Even our Lord said He is Lord of the SABBATH. Yeshua made sure all understood that He did not come to do away with the Law but to establish it in its proper setting.

What the pharisees considered to be breaking the sabbath laws, was really traditions. When reading scriptures, you have to get into the scene being described before you. That mean you have to understand the setting so that you understand it in context.

Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

He expounded on how the traditional thinking was interfering with the true spirit of keeping the Law..

Matthew 12

1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.

2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

3But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

4How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

5Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

 

[bugkiller]

ok.. let me explain it this way... Did our Lord have a controversy with the way the pharisee's were keeping or even understanding on how to keep the shabbat? So whose shabbat were the pharisees keeping if it was not the Lord's? The Law is spiritual and must be spiritual discerned. .. otherwise we are doing things by guess and gosh... and then depending on a man made system [in the Israel's case.. Oral Torah [see Jewish traditions here]. That is where scripture [our Lord] is making a distinction between 'her' and "his'....

You are changing the focus of the discussion. The discussion is about the foruth being done away with not how one (past or present) observes the sabbath. Let me say it this way - you don't want to go there with me on this thread. I am very easliy provoked about what you are doing. And you are soliciting.

Galatians 1:14
And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

Please notice in this verse where the exceedly zealous was for .. aka the traditions of my fathers... now compare...

Is your insinuation that it only included the rabbinic oral traditions. Or can it not include the law of Moses also? I think Paul was referring to his past, not the present.

Acts 21:20
And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Now born again.. these Jews switched from zealous for the traditions of fathers to zealous of the Law of God.... Even our Lord said He is Lord of the SABBATH. Yeshua made sure all understood that He did not come to do away with the Law but to establish it in its proper setting.

What the pharisees considered to be breaking the sabbath laws, was really traditions. When reading scriptures, you have to get into the scene being described before you. That mean you have to understand the setting so that you understand it in context.

Your commentary adds to the scripture. I can find nowhere in the surrounding text any reference to the traditions of their fathers much less changing from ont to the other. These were Jews that believe and yes they were Christians. How long does it take you to change a life long habit and ideas. I have testimony that it has taken years to be free from wrong religious teaching. It took me over a year to quit taking an exit everytime it came ofter 20 years. My car just seemed to be on autopilot about which I could not turn off. I am stll tempted and fight it after 10 years of not getting off there.

I do not find any validity in your citation of Acts 21:20 as you have used it to build or reinforce your thesis.

Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

This has no revelence to the subject. There is no context about the sabbath.

He expounded on how the traditional thinking was interfering with the true spirit of keeping the Law..

Matthew 12

1At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.

2But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.

3But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

4How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

5Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

The subject of discussion here is not the Sabbath. Verse one is the setting which is incidental not the focus. Verse 2 is a personal attack and not about the sabbath. Again the sabbath here is incidental not the purpose. Verses 3 and four have nothing to do with the sabbath. The only thing I can gather from verse 5 is how the priests are blameless for profaning the sabbath. Which is also not about the sabbath.

bugkiller

 

[visionary]

You are changing the focus of the discussion. The discussion is about the foruth being done away with not how one (past or present) observes the sabbath. Let me say it this way - you don't want to go there with me on this thread. I am very easliy provoked about what you are doing. And you are soliciting.
Is your insinuation that it only included the rabbinic oral traditions. Or can it not include the law of Moses also? I think Paul was referring to his past, not the present.
Your commentary adds to the scripture. I can find nowhere in the surrounding text any reference to the traditions of their fathers much less changing from ont to the other. These were Jews that believe and yes they were Christians. How long does it take you to change a life long habit and ideas. I have testimony that it has taken years to be free from wrong religious teaching. It took me over a year to quit taking an exit everytime it came ofter 20 years. My car just seemed to be on autopilot about which I could not turn off. I am stll tempted and fight it after 10 years of not getting off there.

I do not find any validity in your citation of Acts 21:20 as you have used it to build or reinforce your thesis.
This has no revelence to the subject. There is no context about the sabbath.
The subject of discussion here is not the Sabbath. Verse one is the setting which is incidental not the focus. Verse 2 is a personal attack and not about the sabbath. Again the sabbath here is incidental not the purpose. Verses 3 and four have nothing to do with the sabbath. The only thing I can gather from verse 5 is how the priests are blameless for profaning the sabbath. Which is also not about the sabbath.

bugkiller

I see it differently and do believe that the decree of men years ago to remove all things Jewish from the faith was not of God... it was a roman thing. I believe originally the faith was a sect of Judaism and scriptures must be seen in this context. So yeah, what I have written may put a burr in your craw, especially since you have taken so many years to settle it in your own mind, it is a real pain for someone to bring up another perspective that upsets your apple cart. We should be more concerned about whether it is in line with God's thinking. Since God created Judaism as outlined on Mount Sinai, I would say that it is God who is looking for a people who can be spiritual Jews..

Romans 2:29 (King James Version)

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

[bugkiller]

I see it differently and do believe that the decree of men years ago to remove all things Jewish from the faith was not of God... it was a roman thing. I believe originally the faith was a sect of Judaism and scriptures must be seen in this context. So yeah, what I have written may put a burr in your craw, especially since you have taken so many years to settle it in your own mind, it is a real pain for someone to bring up another perspective that upsets your apple cart. We should be more concerned about whether it is in line with God's thinking. Since God created Judaism as outlined on Mount Sinai, I would say that it is God who is looking for a people who can be spiritual Jews..

Romans 2:29 (King James Version)

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

You are totally ignoring Jere 31:31 -33 and Heb 8:8-13.
The main words to pay attention to are chadash pronounced khaw-dawsh form Jere and kainos from Hebrews. They are direct equivalent words meaning new as in not previously. Both reverences back this up with not according to the covenant made with their fathers when He took them out of Egypt This would be what is mentioned in Deut 4:13. There is no escaping that it is the ten commandments that this new covenant is not like.

Christianity is not a subset or sect of Judaism. Christianity has a better covenant built on better promises Heb 8:6.

Concerning your Rom 2:29 reference. First it is divorced from the context to prove a point. This is known as prooftexting and in this case is used to deceive.

I point you to John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Clearly there will be a different fold from this fold.

And a somewhat weaker supporting verse Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the Root and fatness of the olive tree. With them partakest does mean become them.

Here is another favorite: Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek...: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. No Jew - No Israel. We are all what? One in What? Christ Jesus - not Israel.

bugkiller

 

[Norbert L]

Concerning your Rom 2:29 reference. First it is divorced from the context to prove a point. This is known as prooftexting and in this case is used to deceive.

Here's the wiki on prooftexting:

Prooftexting is the practice of using decontextualised quotations from a document (often, but not always, a book of the Bible) to establish a proposition. Critics of the technique note that often the document, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition.

Now when a person looks at the letter to the Romans as a whole, to argue on the point " Is the fourth commandment done away with?", it will depend on which proposition the points are being made from. More simply those who say yes may want to say those who say no are prooftexting and those who say no may want to say those who say yes are prooftexting.

Actually given the immediate context what Visionary is writing, it is not "First it is divorced from the context to prove a point", it is not prooftexting at all, but it confirms the point. It's context is clear and what is leading to Rm 2:29 does more to back up the point, "the forth commandment is NOT done away with".

Rom 2:23

"You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?"


Not to mention,

"For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;" (Rom 2:12-13)

 

[visionary]

You are totally ignoring Jere 31:31 -33 and Heb 8:8-13.
The main words to pay attention to are chadash pronounced khaw-dawsh form Jere and kainos from Hebrews. They are direct equivalent words meaning new as in not previously. Both reverences back this up with not according to the covenant made with their fathers when He took them out of Egypt This would be what is mentioned in Deut 4:13. There is no escaping that it is the ten commandments that this new covenant is not like.

Christianity is not a subset or sect of Judaism. Christianity has a better covenant built on better promises Heb 8:6.

Concerning your Rom 2:29 reference. First it is divorced from the context to prove a point. This is known as prooftexting and in this case is used to deceive.

I point you to John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Clearly there will be a different fold from this fold.

And a somewhat weaker supporting verse Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the Root and fatness of the olive tree. With them partakest does mean become them.

Here is another favorite: Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek...: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. No Jew - No Israel. We are all what? One in What? Christ Jesus - not Israel.

bugkiller

Biblically and known in apostalistic time as a sect of Judaism... with Paul as the ring leader.

Acts 24:5
"We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect

Of which Paul agrees with...

Acts 24:14
However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,

 

[Frogster]

I see it differently and do believe that the decree of men years ago to remove all things Jewish from the faith was not of God... it was a roman thing. I believe originally the faith was a sect of Judaism and scriptures must be seen in this context. So yeah, what I have written may put a burr in your craw, especially since you have taken so many years to settle it in your own mind, it is a real pain for someone to bring up another perspective that upsets your apple cart. We should be more concerned about whether it is in line with God's thinking. Since God created Judaism as outlined on Mount Sinai, I would say that it is God who is looking for a people who can be spiritual Jews..

Romans 2:29 (King James Version)

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

In context,that verse was written to jews.A gentile can't become jewish?

We are grafted into Abraham.

Gal 3;28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.


said again,Paul meant it.

Col 3;11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.

And here..

Romans 10:12
12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;


And here..


1 Corinthians 12:13
13For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

In all fairness visionary.

Most of the time,jewish bretheren seek for gentiles,to know the jewish ways,rather than seeking to establish oneness of spirit.

 

[Frogster]

Biblically and known in apostalistic time as a sect of Judaism... with Paul as the ring leader.

Acts 24:5
"We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect

Of which Paul agrees with...

Acts 24:14
However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,

Off corse Paul,and all of us agree with the OT..but in it a righteousness of god is revealed,that did not come by the law.Hab 2;4.

Question.

If Paul persecuted the Way,a group that must have displeased him alot,then he joins the Way,what does that tell you?

 

[Frogster]

Here's the wiki on prooftexting:

Prooftexting is the practice of using decontextualised quotations from a document (often, but not always, a book of the Bible) to establish a proposition. Critics of the technique note that often the document, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition.

Now when a person looks at the letter to the Romans as a whole, to argue on the point " Is the fourth commandment done away with?", it will depend on which proposition the points are being made from. More simply those who say yes may want to say those who say no are prooftexting and those who say no may want to say those who say yes are prooftexting.

Actually given the immediate context what Visionary is writing, it is not "First it is divorced from the context to prove a point", it is not prooftexting at all, but it confirms the point. It's context is clear and what is leading to Rm 2:29 does more to back up the point, "the forth commandment is NOT done away with".

Rom 2:23

"You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?"


Not to mention,

"For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;" (Rom 2:12-13)

Paul was showing hypocrisy in chapter 2.

Note the emphasis on "hearing the law"?

Sure,,they heard it every Sabbath,but did they keep it?

No..

That is why God's name was blasphemed among the gentiles.

Now we know that in no way,Paul was saying justification by law.so obviousley he was provimg a point..

Even a gentile,who keeps the law,could judge a jew for not keeping it.Rom 2;26..

sooooo..there ya go.

 

[visionary]

Off corse Paul,and all of us agree with the OT..but in it a righteousness of god is revealed,that did not come by the law.Hab 2;4.

Question.

If Paul persecuted the Way,a group that must have displeased him alot,then he joins the Way,what does that tell you?

Born again.. changes perspective. It didn't make Paul any less of a Jew but an more impressive one in Yeshua who is King of the Jews

 

[bugkiller]

Here's the wiki on prooftexting:

Prooftexting is the practice of using decontextualised quotations from a document (often, but not always, a book of the Bible) to establish a proposition. Critics of the technique note that often the document, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition.

Now when a person looks at the letter to the Romans as a whole, to argue on the point " Is the fourth commandment done away with?", it will depend on which proposition the points are being made from. More simply those who say yes may want to say those who say no are prooftexting and those who say no may want to say those who say yes are prooftexting.

Actually given the immediate context what Visionary is writing, it is not "First it is divorced from the context to prove a point", it is not prooftexting at all, but it confirms the point. It's context is clear and what is leading to Rm 2:29 does more to back up the point, "the forth commandment is NOT done away with".

Rom 2:23

"You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?"


Not to mention,

"For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law(for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;" (Rom 2:12-13)

Norbert what you say about prooftesting is right on target, and correct in my thinking.

First of all the Romans 2:29 is not used by either side primarily as a direct proof of/or for the/a covenant. It is used to promote that Christians are in fact at least spiritual Jews or Israel. This is a launching pad to support a no new covenant. It is used to support that the Old covenant is renwed as in chadash pronounced khaw-dash. This is in fact incorrect. The NT uses the word kainos which can not so easily be confused with the coresponding word neos.

If you have been reading you will find that I have carefully used the correct word chadash pronounced khaw-dawsh. As in the original. I have always backed this up with the following verse which reads not according to. And what is this not according to? Is it not 'the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out land of Egypt'? This unmistakably identifies when the covenant was given.

This covenant is clearly and unmistakably identified in Deut 4:13 as the ten commandments. And He declared unto you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and He wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Now back to Romans. If you care to read the second chapter you will not find that it is a discussion of circumcision of any kind promoting the idea of salvation. It is taking the idea that the Jews promoted that they were saved because they were circumcised. In otherwords they were boasting. Paul makes the point of their boasting meaningless and points out that they are incomplete because their outward proof had in fact no inward proof. Paul nowhere promotes circumcision. In fact he devalues it to dung. He can be quoted as saying that 'For in Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision.'

Romans 2:23 Is speaking to Jews that have obligated themselves to the law. Paul is talking about their Jewish hypocrisy in relationship to the new covenant. The whole chapter is about this very subject. So what is your purpose to use the verse? To condemn and thereby cause the unlearned to believe the Spirit is convicting them of sin? You provide no comentary and who you are provides the context to come to such a conclusion.

I can find no purpose for your follow up verses 12 and 13. Again you did not provide any comentary. Are you using this media as verse exchange?

bugkiller