To whom and why God gave the Sabbaths?

[Ken Rank]

Exo 1:8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.

Deu 22:8 "When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it.

Deu 24:5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.

Deu 32:17 They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded.

Jdg 15:13 They said to him, "No; we will only bind you and give you into their hands. We will surely not kill you." So they bound him with two new ropes and brought him up from the rock.

Jdg 16:11 And he said to her, "If they bind me with new ropes that have not been used, then I shall become weak and be like any other man."

1Sa 6:7 Now then, take and prepare a new cart and two milk cows on which there has never come a yoke, and yoke the cows to the cart, but take their calves home, away from them.

Jer 31:22 How long will you waver, O faithless daughter? For the LORD has created a new thing on the earth: a woman encircles a man."

Your assertion doesn't meet the usage test.

Did you read the Hebrew or are you just copying and pasting English? I don't have time to go through them all, but I can tell you right now that Jer. 31:22 is chadashah which is the adjective form of the verb that means to renew. The covenant is not new... it is an everlasting covenant that God is renewing. It says this in Hebrew and Greek and that remains consistent with the idea of "everlasting." Otherwise, God made a covenant, called it everlasting, and then what? Either changed His mind (which means He can change it again) or saw a flaw in it which means the perfect God isn't perfect. Either way your conclusion detracts from God. Blessings.

 

[Cribstyl]

You know what got me looking at the Sabbath for the first time? I looked at the Creation account and I saw >>GOD<< the all powerful, all knowing, all everything, and everlasting God... needing to rest? Not a chance... He is God, why would He need to rest? When I asked myself that I realized something, He was setting an example. He was not tired, He was showing us what He expects of those He created.

Sounds twisted to me. Let's look again for the first time together. (Tell me where I'm wrong.) Take a deep breathe, inhale, exhale. The Hebrew word for "rest" is shabath, is a verb that primarily means "to cease" and it never implies that God was tired and in need of rest. Secondly, all 3 the scriptures tells us WHY God rested on the seventh day. To suggest that He was setting an example make no sense if He cease from all His work. Gen 2:1 said......
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
(God was finished with all His work. No more work)
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (God ended His work. No more work.)
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (God rested from all His work. No more work.)
The question whether God was tired is part of misinformation. The question whether God set a example is also misinformation, because God rested from all His work. No more work is reinforced in each verse.

There were no "Jews" for those who want to pin Sabbath on Judaism... it was only God at that point, of course there was Adam who was less than a week old... perhaps Eve.... but that was it.

Another set of straw arguments spun by those who don't apply what is written.
#1. God's rest was not a Sabbath-keeping (weekly rest from labor) because He was finished all His work.
#2. The place of God's rest is the heavens not the earth.
#3.Adam did not rest with God because God Has never put foot on earth.

Now when I saw this I began to study and the first thing that jumped out to me was Leviticus 23. There we find all the feasts, the Sabbaths... all the set-apart days. And these days are called by God, "my feasts," and "the feasts of the LORD." Not Jewish feasts, they do them... as all Israel should. But these belong to HIM. That changes the perception one has when reading what follows. And what follows FIRST? The weekly Sabbath... then the rest of the appointed days.

So, "To whom did God give the Sabbaths?" All of His people.

"Why did He give them?" As a memorial for things He has done, things He is doing, and things He will do. These are days of rest but they are also teaching tools that reveal His intention including all the work of Messiah. He said, "the scriptures testify of me" and seeing there was no NT back then... well...

Blessings.
Ken

It's obvious when and to whom God gave the Sabbaths.

 

[Ken Rank]

Sounds twisted to me. Let's look again for the first time together. (Tell me where I'm wrong.) Take a deep breathe, inhale, exhale. The Hebrew word for "rest" is shabath, is a verb that primarily means "to cease" and it never implies that God was tired and in need of rest. Secondly, all 3 the scriptures tells us WHY God rested on the seventh day. To suggest that He was setting an example make no sense if He cease from all His work. Gen 2:1 said......
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
(God was finished with all His work. No more work)
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (God ended His work. No more work.)
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (God rested from all His work. No more work.)
The question whether God was tired is part of misinformation. The question whether God set a example is also misinformation, because God rested from all His work. No more work is reinforced in each verse.

Another set of straw arguments spun by those who don't apply what is written.
#1. God's rest was not a Sabbath-keeping (weekly rest from labor) because He was finished all His work.
#2. The place of God's rest is the heavens not the earth.
#3.Adam did not rest with God because God Has never put foot on earth.
It's obvious when and to whom God gave the Sabbaths.

I will make this simple, I don't mind not agreeing with folks, but condescension is something I won't tolerate. "Inhale, exhale?" Or "sounds twisted." You wouldn't read anything I wrote to you if I started off with a post like that and you expect me to read what you have shared? That isn't how it works! Don't agree? Fine, but be nice! If your next post to me isn't at least brotherly, then you'll simply join my growing ignore list. I don't have time for theological urinating matches. We can share and glean, accept or reject...but do so with love as brothers. Otherwise, I am done with whoever calls themselves a Christian and can't act with love.

As for "finished," you can take that as "no more work ever again," or "the work that I just set out to do is finished." Neither matters to me, all that matters, in relation to this topic, is that He worked 6 days, rested one, and set THAT DAY apart from the rest. So important was it to Him, that He made it "the sign between you and me (Israel)." Nothing in the Scripture, nothing.... says it is completed as in does not need to be observed, and nothing in Scripture, nothing.... moves it to Sunday. Yeshua kept it on the proper day, He is the model we are to follow... so I will take my twisted little self and follow after my master. You do whatever you are convicted of.

 

[Cribstyl]

I will make this simple, I don't mind not agreeing with folks, but condescension is something I won't tolerate. "Inhale, exhale?" Or "sounds twisted." You wouldn't read anything I wrote to you if I started off with a post like that and you expect me to read what you have shared? That isn't how it works! Don't agree? Fine, but be nice! If your next post to me isn't at least brotherly, then you'll simply join my growing ignore list. I don't have time for theological urinating matches. We can share and glean, accept or reject...but do so with love as brothers. Otherwise, I am done with whoever calls themselves a Christian and can't act with love.

As for "finished," you can take that as "no more work ever again," or "the work that I just set out to do is finished." Neither matters to me, all that matters, in relation to this topic, is that He worked 6 days, rested one, and set THAT DAY apart from the rest. So important was it to Him, that He made it "the sign between you and me (Israel)." Nothing in the Scripture, nothing.... says it is completed as in does not need to be observed, and nothing in Scripture, nothing.... moves it to Sunday. Yeshua kept it on the proper day, He is the model we are to follow... so I will take my twisted little self and follow after my master. You do whatever you are convicted of.

Humor was intended not insult.
Don't take yourself so serious........ I don't. You've raised several arguments that you're not proving any. End of discussion.

 

[Ken Rank]

Humor was intended not insult.

Really? You don't know me, you don't know what my limits are, you don't know anything and you use condescension as humor with people you don't know? I really don't think you were joking, but I will let it go. Take care.

 

[bugkiller]

Did you read the Hebrew or are you just copying and pasting English? I don't have time to go through them all, but I can tell you right now that Jer. 31:22 is chadashah which is the adjective form of the verb that means to renew. The covenant is not new... it is an everlasting covenant that God is renewing. It says this in Hebrew and Greek and that remains consistent with the idea of "everlasting." Otherwise, God made a covenant, called it everlasting, and then what? Either changed His mind (which means He can change it again) or saw a flaw in it which means the perfect God isn't perfect. Either way your conclusion detracts from God. Blessings.

I will tell you right now that is not true about Jer 31:22 and 31. The word is chadash (khä·däsh') Strong's 2319. There is another word chadash (khä·dash') 2318 with your definition. Note the pronunciation is different. I've been here before and done this for years. You need it to say renew to avoid the NC making it nothing more than an extension of the OC.

Jesus uses the word "kainos" in Mat 26:28 meaning new. The same goes for Mark and Luke in reference to the same.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I will make this simple, I don't mind not agreeing with folks, but condescension is something I won't tolerate. "Inhale, exhale?" Or "sounds twisted." You wouldn't read anything I wrote to you if I started off with a post like that and you expect me to read what you have shared? That isn't how it works! Don't agree? Fine, but be nice! If your next post to me isn't at least brotherly, then you'll simply join my growing ignore list. I don't have time for theological urinating matches. We can share and glean, accept or reject...but do so with love as brothers. Otherwise, I am done with whoever calls themselves a Christian and can't act with love.

As for "finished," you can take that as "no more work ever again," or "the work that I just set out to do is finished." Neither matters to me, all that matters, in relation to this topic, is that He worked 6 days, rested one, and set THAT DAY apart from the rest. So important was it to Him, that He made it "the sign between you and me (Israel)." Nothing in the Scripture, nothing.... says it is completed as in does not need to be observed, and nothing in Scripture, nothing.... moves it to Sunday. Yeshua kept it on the proper day, He is the model we are to follow... so I will take my twisted little self and follow after my master. You do whatever you are convicted of.

With all due respect Ken we read every word and dot especially from someone making a fresh appearance here. What you said is checkable within seconds. So you must be correct when you post.

You further incite us with your "you and me (Israel)" stuff that you can not back with Scripture. We know as we have been there before. We don't even have to check.

Yes Lk 24:44 says it is completed. Jesus is directly referring to Mat 5:17-18. Note I did not use Paul.

John does not say anywhere we are to keep the law. Go ahead and post the verse about walk as He walked.

Your last sentence is really a slamming condemning insult.

BTW where are your Scripture references or quotes for support?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Bob, I decided not to spend much time on your other replies because you do misunderstood what I said, to try to unravel it is probably not something you want to sit through. So I decided to try one more time with this comment, something simple and small and if we have something of a discussion from it, great and if not we'll just part brothers. So... I have two points...

1. Yeshua said, "I have not been sent BUT to the lost sheep of the Israel." He also said, "my sheep hear my voice." Now, you can in faith, you heard his voice, and he was only sent (by his OWN WORDS) to the lost sheep of ISRAEL. My question is, who do you think you are? A gentile? No... when the word "gentile" was first used in the English language as a translation for ethnos, the definition was, "a pagan, a heathen, anyone who is not a Jew OR a Christian." (Source - Webster's 1828) The MODERN definition of a gentile is, "any believer who is not Jewish." You are not a gentile, forcing the modern definition onto gentile and applying it to us takes away from the context of Scripture. Ethnos means nations, pagan, heathen, anyone who is not Israel. Messiah said he had not been sent BUT to the Lost Sheep of Israel... and you will not find the word "gentile" attached to the word covenant....i.e. "covenant with the gentiles." The covenant you quote above says, "House of Judah (the Jews) and the House of Israel." Southern Kingdom and Northern Kingdom....

And finally, the new Jerusalem... it has no gate of the gentiles. 12 gates, 12 tribes of Israel. Again, who do you think you are?

2. The word for "new" covenant does not mean new.

There are two words in Greek translated as new. The first is Kainos and the second is nehos. Here is the Strong's entry for Kainos:

G2537 -
kahee-nos'
Of uncertain affinity; new (especially in freshness; while G3501 is properly so with respect to age): - new.

So kainos is "new especially in freshness." G3501, nehos, is new in respect to AGE, i.e. brand new. The "new covenant" is kainos, new in freshness, renewed. Remember, God made an "everlasting covenant" (Psalm 105:8-10) and everlasting means everlasting. So it would make sense contextually, that this is that covenant renewed. But, we need a second witness, right? Well, Hebrews 8:8-11 is Jeremiah 31:31-34 being quoted word for word. The word for "new" in new covenant in Jeremiah is chadashah (H2319) which is the adjective form of the verb chadash (H2318) which means "to renew." If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.

What makes it better Bob? That should be the question! And the answer is... "that which was on stone is being moved to the heart." The mark of the "new covenant" is that the law is being written on the mind and heart. What law? The law that was on stone... the one Christians teach is done away with. This is why Ezekiel 11:19 said that God will replace the stony heart and replace with a heart of flesh. This is why Deut. 30:1-6 promises Israel being cut off, brought back in, and having their heart circumcised. Read it... Paul writes of the circumcision of the heart... this isn't a new thing, he is quoting Deut. 30.

We'll see where this goes. Blessings.

You have kainos mixed up with neos which you misspelled. Kainos 2537 means new and neos 3501 means regenerate and used only once in Heb 6:6 a self defining verse.

There is no Scripture saying the law issued at Mt Sinai (10 Cs) is written on anyone heart.


The historical book of Acts does not record any gentile becoming a Jew to obtain or upon obtaining salvation.

The word translated gentile in Romans is Hellēn which is a literal Greek and are referred to as heathen pagans.

bugkiller

 

[tall73]

Did you read the Hebrew or are you just copying and pasting English? I don't have time to go through them all, but I can tell you right now that Jer. 31:22 is chadashah which is the adjective form of the verb that means to renew. The covenant is not new... it is an everlasting covenant that God is renewing. It says this in Hebrew and Greek and that remains consistent with the idea of "everlasting." Otherwise, God made a covenant, called it everlasting, and then what? Either changed His mind (which means He can change it again) or saw a flaw in it which means the perfect God isn't perfect. Either way your conclusion detracts from God. Blessings.

You can read them in English or Hebrew. Either way it is not talking about renewing. Let's look at one example since you don't have time to review all of them:

Exo 1:8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.


It was not the same king, but a new king. He did not know Joseph as the former Pharaoh knew him.

You can't just look at definitions of words. The usage trumps any definition.

Context also can be helpful. Hebrews quotes Jeremiah. However, it also adds additional information:

Heb 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

Heb 8:7 ει γαρ η πρωτη εκεινη ην αμεμπτος ουκ αν δευτερας εζητειτο τοπος



A better covenant, first and second, etc. is not talking about the same covenant renewed. There are better promises. If you change the promises, are you not changing the covenant?

And then it says:

Heb 8:13 In saying new, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Here again he contrasts the former, now becoming obsolete, and the new.

The former relied on the promises of the people to do all that He commanded. The new covenant is God saying He will write the law on the heart. It is God making all the promises. This is a unilateral covenant, different than the first.

It depends on Christ living in us, living out the fruit of the Spirit, and the promises are all on His side.

 

[pat34lee]

I rejoice in the new covenant. A better covenant with better promises.

And again, there are no gentile covenants. Those who reject adoption
into Israel have no part of any, including the 'new'.

God gave the Torah to Israel, period. He didn't give it to any other nation so why do you believe He gave it to you? Jesus gave Christians the law of love found in the new testament in 1Jn 3:19-24. The Torah has been set aside because there in no nation of Israel of the Old Testament and Messiah has come proclaiming a new priesthood and when there is a new priesthood there are also new laws.

Future tense, and still no place for gentiles who do not join Israel
and follow the commands, especially the Sabbath.

Why would any thinking person feel the need to dig up laws that have ended with Jesus and believe they can keep them any better that Israel did?

Irrelevant. What was the first verse I gave in the last post?

"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. "

And what did God tell Israel when he gave them the Torah, not just the 10 commandments?

"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."

Did God give Adam the Torah? Did He give Noah Torah, how about Abraham.

Right questions. Yes, he gave the commands to Adam. How else did mankind (beginning with Cain and Abel) know about making sacrifices to God? Adam taught his children for 900 years. Seth taught them, Noah, and Shem taught those after the flood. Remember Noah knew clean from unclean because he had to take seven each of all clean animals on board, not just two. Melchizedek, who Abram tithed to, may have been Shem.

Of course they were to keep Sabbath because they were under Sabbath law. Christians are under Grace and the Sabbath is now a mere shadow from a defunct Torah which was given to a now defunct nation.

Grace to do what, sin? That is license, not grace and not how God works. Call part of his laws dietary, but breaking them is the same as breaking the others. It is rebellion and sin against God.

Another part of the now defunct nation of Israel which gentiles were never ever under. Jesus even is quoted as saying it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles it is what comes out. Love your fellow man, that is what pleases Jesus not observing ritual days meant for only one nation that is now defunct.

That was talking about a Rabbinic tradition, not food. Speaking of which, when you say food, do you ever mean dirt, shoes, paper, plastic, etc? The dictionary of the NT is the Torah. Food is only what God permitted them to eat, so did not include swine, snakes, lizards, skunks, or anything else unclean.

 

[pat34lee]

Do you know what really pleases Jesus? Well, it is not trying to observe ritual laws given only to Israel.

As for only Israel, read Romans 11:11-31 and tell me what it means, who and why?

Luke 17
7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

1 Corinthians 6
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

How could anyone glorify God with a mouth full of something he calls abomination or detestable? And no, pork is not clean, any more than mold or mildew, which it also deals with in the Torah.

 

[Ken Rank]

You can read them in English or Hebrew. Either way it is not talking about renewing. Let's look at one example since you don't have time to review all of them:

Exo 1:8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.

I agree Tall, all words have multiple meanings and those who insist on one meaning per word have what I call, NDD, or "Narrow Definition Disorder." I didn't have the time yesterday to go over every verse you shared, like with you I am sure, time is precious. Half of the verses you sent probably mean "brand new," your example above is one of them. However, there were a number of them that mean renewed.

The new covenant IS one of them. This is not a brand new covenant, God made a covenant with Israel and called it Everlasting. That means it has no end and even if our theology cannot come up with an answer to reconcile "Everlasting covenant" with "For you are not My people, And I will not be your God," that doesn't alter the fact that God used the word "everlasting" and we need to reconcile it, not ignore it.

I am NOT speaking about you, I do not know you, ok? But I see Christians, all the time, deliberately ignore certain passages and even get aggressive and/or divisive when confronted with verses they don't have an ability to answer for. I know Pastors that won't teach from James because they are so centered on grace alone they simply can't answer for "faith without works is dead being alone." Others will avoid certain places within Ezekiel because the idea of a Millennial Kingdom with a Temple and sacrifices goes against the notion that Yeshua was the final sacrifice. Even the Jews do this Tall, most Orthodox Synagogues do not read Isaiah 53. Easier to ignore it than deal with it.

I am not that way. I learned from a good teacher to just confront it and let the chips fall wherever God desires them to fall.

Context also can be helpful. Hebrews quotes Jeremiah. However, it also adds additional information:

Heb 8:6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

Heb 8:7 ει γαρ η πρωτη εκεινη ην αμεμπτος ουκ αν δευτερας εζητειτο τοπος

A better covenant, first and second, etc. is not talking about the same covenant renewed. There are better promises. If you change the promises, are you not changing the covenant?

Adding something new to the covenant does not change the initial promise. You are Sophia's husband. If at your 20 year anniversary you buy her a new ring and stand before God and others and RENEW your vows.... to the point of not saying the same things you said before.... does that make the marriage covenant you made 20 years earlier null and void? Of course not.... now I can answer your points here, but will you fairly consider them? I have held your view for many years and have an answer now that covers more ground. Is it entirely without holes? Probably not... but it has less holes. I will play that off the next point as all these verses in Hebrews are joined anyway.

And then it says:

Heb 8:13 In saying new, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Here again he contrasts the former, now becoming obsolete, and the new.

God made an everlasting covenant (Psalm 105:8-10) and it was renewed every time an Israelite brought a sacrifice. Most Christians don't understand that because they don't study the sacrificial system. Anyway.... God makes this everlasting covenant and Israel through Solomon, for the most part, are living a fairly godly existence. Part of the covenant, a commandment within the law states that the law was to be kept on the heart by the people. In other words, if you can place yourself back then for perspective, YOU were expected to keep the law on your heart at all times. But the people were not able to do this.

Now, as the reign of Solomon wore on, the tribes that made up the Northern Kingdom were falling further and further away from the Lord. Finally, after Solomon, they divided into two nations, Judah to the south (the Southern Kingdom) and Israel to the north (the Northern Kingdom). Before going on I need to ask if it has even occurred to you that the verses you are quoting from in Hebrews that are stated first in Jeremiah are speaking about the House of JUDAH and the House of ISRAEL? The verses in question are not dealing with gentiles (pagans, heathen)... but rather JUDAH and ISRAEL. You see, once the Kingdoms divided, Israel fell even further away and eventually, around 722BC, the Assyrians were allowed to come in and take Israel captive (prophesied first in Deut. 30:1-6, repeated in full in Hosea 1). Once there, they did not repent and call out to the Lord, instead, they assimilated into the Assyrian culture and accepted their many gods. So, God "gave them up" to their idols and eventually scattered them into the nations telling them, "For you are not My people, And I will not be your God." Now in the nations, without giving God thought at all, they lost their identity as Israel and became like everyone else. These people, historically became known as, "The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel." Knowing this Tall, is a paradigm changer when you consider Matthew 15:24. Anyway.... the MOST PROPHESIED EVENT in the bible is what? Messiah coming? Nope... it is Israel coming back out of the nations and becoming one with Judah again, never again to be divided... you can read the whole story by reading only Hosea 1. So Messiah comes on the scene and his mission is to call the Lost Sheep of Israel back into the fold. Not that salvation isn't for all, it is... but the weight of his mission was on the lost sheep, again, Matt. 15:24.

He does his work, he dies without sin, the grave is not designed for perfection and cannot hold him and he raises and in the process earns the right to do a number of things. Perfect us is one of them but HOW DOES HE PERFECT US? He will perfect us by writing the law on our minds and hearts. Where the PEOPLE WERE EXPECTED to keep the law on their hearts and they failed... God will do that work for us. He will circumcise the hearts (Deut. 30:1-6)... He will replace the heart of stone with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19). Notice these seemingly "NT" concepts were spoken of first in the OT.

The covenant ("I will be your God and you will be my people" as the promise from God's side) is NOT NEW, what is new is that the Law, rather than being written by man on stone (or paper) will be written by God directly where He commanded we keep it in the first place. Do you understand? What makes it better is that the text is moved to a place where we will become unable to sin because it will become PART OF US.... as if or even literally part of our DNA. And that process has even begun in us but won't be completed until Yeshua's return.

This is why Kainos (renew) rather than nehos (brand new) is used in the NT everywhere you see the word "new" and "covenant" together.... save for ONE place. And in that one place the context is dealing with writing the law on the heart rather than on stone (or paper). That part is new, that part is BETTER, but the covenant itself is renewed.

 

[bugkiller]

And again, there are no gentile covenants. Those who reject adoption
into Israel have no part of any, including the 'new'.

Would you please show us where any convert to Christianity in the book of Acts joined Israel.

Eph 2 tells us we are fellow citizens with the saints. Abraham is considered a saint. Abraham was never a part of Israel. Israelites are not.

Future tense, and still no place for gentiles who do not join Israel
and follow the commands, especially the Sabbath.

Why do you not accept Genesis, Jeremiah, the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles?

Irrelevant. What was the first verse I gave in the last post?

"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. "

You and John are talking about different sets of commands and covenants.

And what did God tell Israel when he gave them the Torah, not just the 10 commandments?That they were for Israel and not the whole world.

"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."

This is addressed to Israel alone on Deut 30.

Right questions. Yes, he gave the commands to Adam. How else did mankind (beginning with Cain and Abel) know about making sacrifices to God? Adam taught his children for 900 years. Seth taught them, Noah, and Shem taught those after the flood. Remember Noah knew clean from unclean because he had to take seven each of all clean animals on board, not just two. Melchizedek, who Abram tithed to, may have been Shem.

No. Deut 5:1-3

Grace to do what, sin? That is license, not grace and not how God works. Call part of his laws dietary, but breaking them is the same as breaking the others. It is rebellion and sin against God.

Sorry that you think grace is license to sin.

That was talking about a Rabbinic tradition, not food. Speaking of which, when you say food, do you ever mean dirt, shoes, paper, plastic, etc? The dictionary of the NT is the Torah. Food is only what God permitted them to eat, so did not include swine, snakes, lizards, skunks, or anything else unclean.

Jesus gave them more than they asked for. Jesus clearly said what goes in does not defile and He was not talking about poop defiling an individual.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

As for only Israel, read Romans 11:11-31 and tell me what it means, who and why?

Please identify the Root. No where in Scripture is Israel identified as the/a root. It is also interesting Israel must also be graft into the Root. This means they are not part of the Root prior.

Luke 17
7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

Yes all your works are unprofitable. The wages of those works are death while the gift of God is life. Rom 6:23 The passage is not making reference to the temporal.

1 Corinthians 6
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

What is this price as if I did not know? If one is bought can they become owned property by some other means?

How could anyone glorify God with a mouth full of something he calls abomination or detestable? And no, pork is not clean, any more than mold or mildew, which it also deals with in the Torah.

The NC covenant is much easier and besides everyone but Israel is still under the covenant issued to Noah in this respect.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I agree Tall, all words have multiple meanings and those who insist on one meaning per word have what I call, NDD, or "Narrow Definition Disorder." I didn't have the time yesterday to go over every verse you shared, like with you I am sure, time is precious. Half of the verses you sent probably mean "brand new," your example above is one of them. However, there were a number of them that mean renewed.

The new covenant IS one of them. This is not a brand new covenant, God made a covenant with Israel and called it Everlasting. That means it has no end and even if our theology cannot come up with an answer to reconcile "Everlasting covenant" with "For you are not My people, And I will not be your God," that doesn't alter the fact that God used the word "everlasting" and we need to reconcile it, not ignore it.

I am NOT speaking about you, I do not know you, ok? But I see Christians, all the time, deliberately ignore certain passages and even get aggressive and/or divisive when confronted with verses they don't have an ability to answer for. I know Pastors that won't teach from James because they are so centered on grace alone they simply can't answer for "faith without works is dead being alone." Others will avoid certain places within Ezekiel because the idea of a Millennial Kingdom with a Temple and sacrifices goes against the notion that Yeshua was the final sacrifice. Even the Jews do this Tall, most Orthodox Synagogues do not read Isaiah 53. Easier to ignore it than deal with it.

I am not that way. I learned from a good teacher to just confront it and let the chips fall wherever God desires them to fall.



Adding something new to the covenant does not change the initial promise. You are Sophia's husband. If at your 20 year anniversary you buy her a new ring and stand before God and others and RENEW your vows.... to the point of not saying the same things you said before.... does that make the marriage covenant you made 20 years earlier null and void? Of course not.... now I can answer your points here, but will you fairly consider them? I have held your view for many years and have an answer now that covers more ground. Is it entirely without holes? Probably not... but it has less holes. I will play that off the next point as all these verses in Hebrews are joined anyway.



God made an everlasting covenant (Psalm 105:8-10) and it was renewed every time an Israelite brought a sacrifice. Most Christians don't understand that because they don't study the sacrificial system. Anyway.... God makes this everlasting covenant and Israel through Solomon, for the most part, are living a fairly godly existence. Part of the covenant, a commandment within the law states that the law was to be kept on the heart by the people. In other words, if you can place yourself back then for perspective, YOU were expected to keep the law on your heart at all times. But the people were not able to do this.

Now, as the reign of Solomon wore on, the tribes that made up the Northern Kingdom were falling further and further away from the Lord. Finally, after Solomon, they divided into two nations, Judah to the south (the Southern Kingdom) and Israel to the north (the Northern Kingdom). Before going on I need to ask if it has even occurred to you that the verses you are quoting from in Hebrews that are stated first in Jeremiah are speaking about the House of JUDAH and the House of ISRAEL? The verses in question are not dealing with gentiles (pagans, heathen)... but rather JUDAH and ISRAEL. You see, once the Kingdoms divided, Israel fell even further away and eventually, around 722BC, the Assyrians were allowed to come in and take Israel captive (prophesied first in Deut. 30:1-6, repeated in full in Hosea 1). Once there, they did not repent and call out to the Lord, instead, they assimilated into the Assyrian culture and accepted their many gods. So, God "gave them up" to their idols and eventually scattered them into the nations telling them, "For you are not My people, And I will not be your God." Now in the nations, without giving God thought at all, they lost their identity as Israel and became like everyone else. These people, historically became known as, "The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel." Knowing this Tall, is a paradigm changer when you consider Matthew 15:24. Anyway.... the MOST PROPHESIED EVENT in the bible is what? Messiah coming? Nope... it is Israel coming back out of the nations and becoming one with Judah again, never again to be divided... you can read the whole story by reading only Hosea 1. So Messiah comes on the scene and his mission is to call the Lost Sheep of Israel back into the fold. Not that salvation isn't for all, it is... but the weight of his mission was on the lost sheep, again, Matt. 15:24.

He does his work, he dies without sin, the grave is not designed for perfection and cannot hold him and he raises and in the process earns the right to do a number of things. Perfect us is one of them but HOW DOES HE PERFECT US? He will perfect us by writing the law on our minds and hearts. Where the PEOPLE WERE EXPECTED to keep the law on their hearts and they failed... God will do that work for us. He will circumcise the hearts (Deut. 30:1-6)... He will replace the heart of stone with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19). Notice these seemingly "NT" concepts were spoken of first in the OT.

The covenant ("I will be your God and you will be my people" as the promise from God's side) is NOT NEW, what is new is that the Law, rather than being written by man on stone (or paper) will be written by God directly where He commanded we keep it in the first place. Do you understand? What makes it better is that the text is moved to a place where we will become unable to sin because it will become PART OF US.... as if or even literally part of our DNA. And that process has even begun in us but won't be completed until Yeshua's return.

This is why Kainos (renew) rather than nehos (brand new) is used in the NT everywhere you see the word "new" and "covenant" together.... save for ONE place. And in that one place the context is dealing with writing the law on the heart rather than on stone (or paper). That part is new, that part is BETTER, but the covenant itself is renewed.

What is it about "Not according to ...." you do not seem to understand? Why do you seem to think moving the 10 Cs from stone to the heart makes them "new" - really refreshed?

bugkiller

 

[Cribstyl]

Really? You don't know me, you don't know what my limits are, you don't know anything and you use condescension as humor with people you don't know? I really don't think you were joking, but I will let it go. Take care.

From my perspective my responses were not condescending. Maybe you need to check your nasty attitude at the door as well.............. Saying take a deep breath and let's look at Gen 2:1-3 together is what I said and meant. Saying I find your remarks twisted is a fact because to me your claims are unfounded in the scriptures. If you want to discuss what the scriptures say about the Sabbath we can, but the rest of the noise wont be tolerated.

 

[Ken Rank]

From my perspective my responses were not condescending. Maybe you need to check your nasty attitude at the door as well.............. Saying take a deep breath and let's look at Gen 2:1-3 together is what I said and meant. Saying I find your remarks twisted is a fact because to me your claims are unfounded in the scriptures. If you want to discuss what the scriptures say about the Sabbath we can, but the rest of the noise wont be tolerated.

Saying to take a deep breath is saying I am somehow out of control and unable to focus properly on your words. Saying my words are twisted, even if my conclusion is wrong... shuts the door to communication. There is no reason for that, if you don't agree you don't agree. But to name call (saying my belief is twisted is name calling) is sophomoric.

Look, Paul wrote that "in all you do in word or deed, we are to do it in the NAME OF Yeshua." Do you know what that means? Do you read Hebrew Crib? The word in Hebrew for name is shem and it deals more with the name bearers character, reputation and authority than it does what we call that person. So to do something "in his name" means to do it in a manner consistent with his character, in line with his authority, and/or in a way that adds to his reputation. If we do not exude the fruits of the Spirit and we takes little shots at our brothers in Christ, we are not reflective his shem... we are profaning it because we cease reflecting his character in our words.

 

[Cribstyl]

Let it drop? You get your say and I don't have any chance for rebuttal?


You would really ask that? Jesus saves us from the second death. Jesus never ever has shielded mankind from temptation.



maybe you should restudy your thoughts. When I accepted Jesus as my Savior I started my journey into everlasting life. Jude 1:
24 Now all glory to God, who is able to keep you from falling away and will bring you with great joy into his glorious presence without a single fault. 25 All glory to him who alone is God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord. All glory, majesty, power, and authority are his before all time, and in the present, and beyond all time! Amen.

I truly believe that Jesus at this moment is sustaining me and keeping me until that day when He calls us home.

Amen!

Well said Bob, he does not follow up to our rebuttals on his claims.

 

[Ken Rank]

Why do some Christians seem to LOOK for ways to divide with anyone who doesn't look, act and think like they do? I can't imagine this pleases the Lord! We should understand that until we are perfected, none should be expected to be perfect. I am sure I have error, I am sure you all do too. But we LOVE THE LORD, and if we are known by the fruits and the fruits of the Spirit are love, peace, joy, patience, long-suffering (etc.) then we should interact with those fruits evident. We shouldn't be name calling or degrading others because we have reached a different conclusion. We're on the same team, part of the same one body and if we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, even love our ENEMIES... then why do some many Christians treat each other with disdain? Pride because you are not agreed with? I profane the name of the Lord when we act in a manner inconsistent with His character.

The world is watching and our lives might be the only bible they read!

 

[Cribstyl]

Saying to take a deep breath is saying I am somehow out of control and unable to focus properly on your words. Saying my words are twisted, even if my conclusion is wrong... shuts the door to communication. There is no reason for that, if you don't agree you don't agree. But to name call (saying my belief is twisted is name calling) is sophomoric.

For the last time, What I said and meant was; Take a breath and let's look at these scriptures together. (NOT you're outa control and unable to focus....) In your response to my OP in post #111, you first rambled on about the question whether or not, God needed to rest. (That's a half twist( joke)) Then you claimed that the reason that God rested was to set and example for the world. (That's 3 full twists(j)). Your claims are unsupported by scriptures. I responded with the scriptures and comments in hope of a dialog with you.

Look, Paul wrote that "in all you do in word or deed, we are to do it in the NAME OF Yeshua." Do you know what that means? Do you read Hebrew Crib? The word in Hebrew for name is shem and it deals more with the name bearers character, reputation and authority than it does what we call that person. So to do something "in his name" means to do it in a manner consistent with his character, in line with his authority, and/or in a way that adds to his reputation. If we do not exude the fruits of the Spirit and we takes little shots at our brothers in Christ, we are not reflective his shem... we are profaning it because we cease reflecting his character in our words.

You don't say? I don't want to ruffle you further, and apparently your character has been the Christian example to follow.