Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Doug Brents]

I am prepared to argue that Paul believes that God gave the Law to Israel for a very specific purpose. Because the Law has this mysterious and counter-intuitive property of actually energizing and stimulating the inner sinful impulses of the Jew, the Law effectively draws - lures if you will - the power of sin into the nation of Israel. From there, it is transferred from the nation of Israel into the body of one man, Jesus. Sin has now been "tricked" into taking up residence within the body of Jesus. And then, "cornered" in Jesus, sin is then condemned on the cross.

On this model, we are not forced into the weird and arguably infantile notion that Jesus has to punish an innocent Jesus to forgive sin. What an odd idea that is. No, Jesus dies on the cross as a side-effect of God venting His righteous anger on the true enemy - the power of sin.

Why is this relevant. Well, with the victory won over sin at the Cross, God no longer needs to use Israel as the "lure" that ultimately leads to sin being concentrated in Jesus and then defeated:

sin in the broader world - > sin concentrated in Israel -> sin focused onto Jesus -> sin defeated.

The food laws were never about health, I suggest. There were part of a brilliant plan whereby God used the Law to mark out a special people - the Jews - as the people who would be used by God to defeat sin. With sin defeated, the entire Law, food laws included, has served its purpose and can be retired.

Notice how this model makes perfect sense of the text from Leviticus, above, where God says the food laws function to set the Jew apart from the nations. Yes, the Law indeed sets the Jew apart from the rest of the world, precisely since this is necessary for the plan to work. With the mission successfully achieved on the cross, the Law is retired with honor.

This is a very interesting idea, and I find no fault with it on initial review. It makes sense in light of what Paul said in Rom 7:7-13. I will have to study this idea more, but it seems to be reasonable, at least at first glance.

 

[expos4ever]

This is a very interesting idea, and I find no fault with it on initial review. It makes sense in light of what Paul said in Rom 7:7-13. I will have to study this idea more, but it seems to be reasonable, at least at first glance.

True Confession: I shamelessly stole this idea from theologian NT Wright. I am pretty confident I am accurately restating his views, but it is possible I am introducing some distortions. If you think about it, Wright's theory explains so much:

1. It makes sense of the otherwise puzzling fact that Paul says the law energizes and empowers sin.

2. It offers an explanation of how Israel ended up being a blessing to the nations as God promised she would be. More specifically, Israel was "hardened" by the law for the sake of the world.

3. It adds strength to the argument that the law has been set aside. After all, if the law has fulfilled this strange role, it is no longer needed.

If one reads Romans 9 through 11 with this general theory in mind, the text gains a whole lot of coherence it would otherwise lack.

 

[safswan]

Those you know are free to protect any animal they want, since there is no law against it, and it has nothing to do with salvation.

I'll try to make it simpler because what you wrote (Clean or Unclean parts 1-3) isn't new and has already been responded to by someone else, which you may have also read.

We know that the New Testament is entirely comprised of letters to churches, not parables (except Revelation, imo). If their letters require further clarification, as you have presented, the Bible will not end with 66 books. What you've shared here is rather clear-cut: "There are missing points in the NT that should be updated." For example, you suggested that the ordinances described in Col 2 do not cover all of the ordinances given by God. Perhaps you'll suggest that the term "law ended with the cross" (Rom 10:4) does not apply to all written law. Did I hear you correctly?

Let me be very frank with you. I am not inclined to waste my time with anyone who is devoid of basic honesty and understanding.

There are several things that cannot be contradicted, that were presented in the, “Clean or Unclean”, study. If someone has responded to the contents of the study, then they did not do a very good job, as I have seen nothing which could refute anything in the study.

The dispute in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, had nothing to do with clean or unclean foods. They were concerned with eating with dirty hands.

This is further supported by the fact that, when Peter received the dream about the animals in the sheet, he had no inclination nor idea that animals should no longer be classified as unclean. If Jesus had declared all animals as clean, this should not be so.

Anyone using this dream, to say God had declared animals as clean, is going against the clear interpretation Peter gave, as he recounted the incidence. Peter said:

Acts 10:
28And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Such persons cannot be taken seriously in anything they say about the scriptures.

Also an angel in Revelation 18, still regarded animals as unclean, long after Jesus’ first advent.

The dispute in Romans 14 also, was about eating flesh, versus eating herbs, and again had nothing to do with unclean animals.

These are some very simple signs, that show there are discrepancies in your beliefs, and they carry over into other areas. You and others, miss or take lightly, the warning Peter gives about Paul’s writings, and hence you end up with the errors, you exhibit in your presentations.

II Peter 3:
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

[safswan]

Old Covenant commandments that He took, enhanced, and made part of the New Covenant. But throughout the NT, there is no commandment to keep the sabbath.

Just reminding, this is not entirely true. I TIMOTHY 1:8-11,EXPLAINED

 

[safswan]

Those you know are free to protect any animal they want, since there is no law against it, and it has nothing to do with salvation.

I'll try to make it simpler because what you wrote (Clean or Unclean parts 1-3) isn't new and has already been responded to by someone else, which you may have also read.

We know that the New Testament is entirely comprised of letters to churches, not parables (except Revelation, imo). If their letters require further clarification, as you have presented, the Bible will not end with 66 books. What you've shared here is rather clear-cut: "There are missing points in the NT that should be updated." For example, you suggested that the ordinances described in Col 2 do not cover all of the ordinances given by God. Perhaps you'll suggest that the term "law ended with the cross" (Rom 10:4) does not apply to all written law. Did I hear you correctly?

THE REAL SHADOW​

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."[Colossians 2:16,17]

This scripture is the one most easily used to say, the Sabbath is no longer to be observed as this was only a shadow of things to come. It is also used to say that the food laws are no longer applicable. Whereas they can point to the food laws, of Leviticus 11, and Deuteronomy 14, no one has been able to tell, what laws there were, about drinking.

An examination of the context however, will reveal clearly that the Sabbath mentioned in the passage could not be a reference to the weekly Sabbath.

The scriptures do show Paul affirming the ten commandments and the law in general as being used by the Christian to identify sin and for us to know what is love.[Romans 13:8-9;7:7;I Timothy 1:8-11]

How could he, in Colossians 2:16,17, be proscribing Sabbath observance. This would be contradictory not only to his own writings but also to the whole counsel of scripture.[Matthew 5:17-20;19:16-19;I John 3:4; James 2:9-12; Romans 2:11-13]

Paul in Colossians 2, is explaining the value of Christ to those who have believed in him. He says:

"And ye are complete in him....In whom also ye are circumcised....,in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.[Colossians 2:10,11]

He elaborates:

"And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross."[Colossians 2:13,14]

From the above, we see that Jesus, by His death on the cross has caused our sins to be forgiven. This happened because His death, caused the handwriting of ordinances, which were against us to be blotted out. But what are these handwriting of ordinances?

The passage implies, sins were committed, which put into effect ordinances, which were against us because of these sins.

Some claim they were the ten commandments ie. get rid of the law and apparently you will get rid of sin. If this was so then there would be no need for Christ to die. Others say they were the written records of our sins. The text and scriptures do not support either claim.

handwriting - cheirographos(Grk),something hand written ie.,a manuscript, spec. a legal document or bond ie. a covenant or binding agreement.

ordinances - dogma(Grk),a law.

Without various human philosophies, which try to interpret this phrase, the meaning is clear. The handwriting of ordinances, which were against us, refers to a legal document or a law by which persons are bound, and which had to do with our sins.

Were the ten commandments against us because they show us our sins? No.[Romans 7:7-13;I John 5:3]

"For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy just and good."[Romans 7:11,12]

The problem is sin, and the fact that sin brings a curse and death which was prescribed by the law. These are the handwriting of ordinances which were against us. The most far reaching of these ordinances was found in Deuteronomy 27:26:

"Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of the law to do them. And all the people shall say amen."[See also, Deuteronomy 27:1-26;Ezekiel 18:4,20]

Paul in commenting on this said:

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."[Galatians 3:13;see,vs.10-12]

Surely a curse is against us and would require either the life of the sinner or of some suitable substitute. Christ is now that substitute according to the apostle Paul.[Colossians 2:13,14;Galatians 3:13.] Prior to Christ, how was this done?

The focus of Paul in Colossians 2:10-15, is to show that the work of Christ, is sufficient to make us righteous in God's sight. The curse is removed and those practices which mitigated against the curse are now no longer necessary because of Christ's death also. Hence Paul says:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat and drink....."[Colossians 2:16,17]

The offerings and sacrifices made in the old covenant to mitigate against the curse are replaced by the one and perfect sacrifice of Christ.

"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 it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins."[Hebrews 10:1-4]

"Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. [Hebrews 9:9-12]

It is the sacrifices and feasts in which they took place year by year that are the shadows of Colossians 2:16,17.[See, Leviticus 23]

"These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, everything upon His day."[Leviticus 23:37;Hebrews 9:6-10]

These yearly feasts had Sabbaths attached to them, (holy convocations) and it is these which are being referred to in Colossians 2:16,17, not the Sabbath of the ten commandments. Special sacrifices and activities also took place on the new moon which was important in determining the times for the feasts.[Numbers 10:10;28:11]

Paul is simply trying to show that, the Lord Jesus has replaced those sacrifices and hence we longer have to perform them, nor keep the feasts and days in which these were scheduled to occur.

Note that the weekly Sabbath was made long before Israel, and before sin came into the world, whereas the feasts and associated Sabbaths were introduced because of sin and the need to atone for the same.[Jeremiah 7:21-23;Galatians 3:19:Genesis 2:1,2;Mark 2:27.]

 

[Cornelius8L]

Let me be very frank with you. I am not inclined to waste my time with anyone who is devoid of basic honesty and understanding.

There are several things that cannot be contradicted, that were presented in the, “Clean or Unclean”, study. If someone has responded to the contents of the study, then they did not do a very good job, as I have seen nothing which could refute anything in the study.

The dispute in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, had nothing to do with clean or unclean foods. They were concerned with eating with dirty hands.

This is further supported by the fact that, when Peter received the dream about the animals in the sheet, he had no inclination nor idea that animals should no longer be classified as unclean. If Jesus had declared all animals as clean, this should not be so.

Anyone using this dream, to say God had declared animals as clean, is going against the clear interpretation Peter gave, as he recounted the incidence. Peter said:

Acts 10:
28And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Such persons cannot be taken seriously in anything they say about the scriptures.

Also an angel in Revelation 18, still regarded animals as unclean, long after Jesus’ first advent.

The dispute in Romans 14 also, was about eating flesh, versus eating herbs, and again had nothing to do with unclean animals.

These are some very simple signs, that show there are discrepancies in your beliefs, and they carry over into other areas. You and others, miss or take lightly, the warning Peter gives about Paul’s writings, and hence you end up with the errors, you exhibit in your presentations.

II Peter 3:
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

THE REAL SHADOW​

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."[Colossians 2:16,17]

This scripture is the one most easily used to say, the Sabbath is no longer to be observed as this was only a shadow of things to come. It is also used to say that the food laws are no longer applicable. Whereas they can point to the food laws, of Leviticus 11, and Deuteronomy 14, no one has been able to tell, what laws there were, about drinking.

An examination of the context however, will reveal clearly that the Sabbath mentioned in the passage could not be a reference to the weekly Sabbath.

The scriptures do show Paul affirming the ten commandments and the law in general as being used by the Christian to identify sin and for us to know what is love.[Romans 13:8-9;7:7;I Timothy 1:8-11]

How could he, in Colossians 2:16,17, be proscribing Sabbath observance. This would be contradictory not only to his own writings but also to the whole counsel of scripture.[Matthew 5:17-20;19:16-19;I John 3:4; James 2:9-12; Romans 2:11-13]

Paul in Colossians 2, is explaining the value of Christ to those who have believed in him. He says:

"And ye are complete in him....In whom also ye are circumcised....,in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.[Colossians 2:10,11]

He elaborates:

"And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross."[Colossians 2:13,14]

From the above, we see that Jesus, by His death on the cross has caused our sins to be forgiven. This happened because His death, caused the handwriting of ordinances, which were against us to be blotted out. But what are these handwriting of ordinances?

The passage implies, sins were committed, which put into effect ordinances, which were against us because of these sins.

Some claim they were the ten commandments ie. get rid of the law and apparently you will get rid of sin. If this was so then there would be no need for Christ to die. Others say they were the written records of our sins. The text and scriptures do not support either claim.

handwriting - cheirographos(Grk),something hand written ie.,a manuscript, spec. a legal document or bond ie. a covenant or binding agreement.

ordinances - dogma(Grk),a law.

Without various human philosophies, which try to interpret this phrase, the meaning is clear. The handwriting of ordinances, which were against us, refers to a legal document or a law by which persons are bound, and which had to do with our sins.

Were the ten commandments against us because they show us our sins? No.[Romans 7:7-13;I John 5:3]

"For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy just and good."[Romans 7:11,12]

The problem is sin, and the fact that sin brings a curse and death which was prescribed by the law. These are the handwriting of ordinances which were against us. The most far reaching of these ordinances was found in Deuteronomy 27:26:

"Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of the law to do them. And all the people shall say amen."[See also, Deuteronomy 27:1-26;Ezekiel 18:4,20]

Paul in commenting on this said:

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."[Galatians 3:13;see,vs.10-12]

Surely a curse is against us and would require either the life of the sinner or of some suitable substitute. Christ is now that substitute according to the apostle Paul.[Colossians 2:13,14;Galatians 3:13.] Prior to Christ, how was this done?

The focus of Paul in Colossians 2:10-15, is to show that the work of Christ, is sufficient to make us righteous in God's sight. The curse is removed and those practices which mitigated against the curse are now no longer necessary because of Christ's death also. Hence Paul says:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat and drink....."[Colossians 2:16,17]

The offerings and sacrifices made in the old covenant to mitigate against the curse are replaced by the one and perfect sacrifice of Christ.

"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 it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins."[Hebrews 10:1-4]

"Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. [Hebrews 9:9-12]

It is the sacrifices and feasts in which they took place year by year that are the shadows of Colossians 2:16,17.[See, Leviticus 23]

"These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, everything upon His day."[Leviticus 23:37;Hebrews 9:6-10]

These yearly feasts had Sabbaths attached to them, (holy convocations) and it is these which are being referred to in Colossians 2:16,17, not the Sabbath of the ten commandments. Special sacrifices and activities also took place on the new moon which was important in determining the times for the feasts.[Numbers 10:10;28:11]

Paul is simply trying to show that, the Lord Jesus has replaced those sacrifices and hence we longer have to perform them, nor keep the feasts and days in which these were scheduled to occur.

Note that the weekly Sabbath was made long before Israel, and before sin came into the world, whereas the feasts and associated Sabbaths were introduced because of sin and the need to atone for the same.[Jeremiah 7:21-23;Galatians 3:19:Genesis 2:1,2;Mark 2:27.]

The handwriting of ordinances, which were against us, refers to a legal document or a law by which persons are bound, and which had to do with our sins.

Your explanations indicate that the handwriting of ordinances against us has to do with sins, and yet your post revolves around "clean and unclean" being unlawful. So, if the handwritten ordinances that were "against us" and "contrary to us" were removed, and neither eating nor not eating "clean and unclean" harms others but is simply an offense against us to make us sinful, which is also part of the handwritten ordinances (you agreed that handwritten ordinances were removed), then your judgement against us today is without basis. Your reasoning contradicts itself. (devoid of basic honesty and understanding)

It is irrelevant whether Matt 15 and Mark 7 speak about clean or unclean foods because the old covenant was retired after Christ's resurrection. It also does not support your view on Peter's vision because the Apostles, who carry human weakness (including Peter, who denied Jesus three times), were the firsthand receivers of the new covenant. Anyone who has adopted your view is unable to explain who the unclean animals in Peter's vision represent, if the clean would refer to both Jews and gentiles. Can you explain it? Otherwise, your narrative is defective, and your teaching about your own verdict is against you, making you someone who cannot be taken seriously in anything he says about the Scriptures. “The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is not subject to anyone’s judgment (1 Cor 2:15).”

Rev 19 is a prophecy, and God has said from the beginning that prophecies are riddles (Num 12:6-8). If Jesus in Revelation has blazing fire eyes and bronze feet, does Jesus on Earth have blazing fire eyes and bronze feet as well? You also misquoted 2 Peter 3:15-16, which talks about hard thing rather than the simple things you described. One example of a hard thing, why was Jesus compared to Melchizedek, who was not instructed about keeping any law or being circumcised but nonetheless was a priest of the Most High? When Abraham met Melchizedek, no one had been circumcised.

Paul's hard teachings include ending the ten commandments and the old covenant (2 Corinthians 3:7–11 and Hebrews 8:13). Because the Holy Spirit of wisdom leads us, we naturally wouldn't do anything negative to other people. Galatians 4:21–31 has Paul's direct response to you. Also, the weekly Sabbath includes special sacrifices (Lev. 28:9–10). Before the Israelites, there were no guidelines about the Sabbath.

The mind of Christ, Jesus not abolishing the law (Matt 5:17-20), is demonstrated by His 40 days in the wilderness, during which He does not observe what the law requires customarily. In not abolishing the law, Christ's mind is what the law meant spiritually, not customarily. If the law was intended to be customary, Jesus' sacrifice cannot replace the animal sacrifice, which affects your view of Col 2:10-14. And perhaps you could consider whether God's finger-writing is handwriting because God does not require a pen to write.

 

[Doug Brents]

Just reminding, this is not entirely true. I TIMOTHY 1:8-11,EXPLAINED

Your explanation is accurate as far as the rest of the commandments are concerned because they are all restated elsewhere in the NT. However, to conflate those who profane and pollute with those who do not keep the sabbath today is to contradict Scripture.

The keeping of the sabbath is not a command that must be kept in the NT. We are told directly that those who honor all days day are equally as honored by God as those who keep a particular day sacred (Heb 14:5).

Further, remember that the Sabbath was one of the things that separated the Jews from the Gentiles (and the Gentiles were NEVER required to keep the sabbath, nor were they criticized anywhere in Scripture for not keeping it). And also remember that there is now no difference between Jew and Gentile. We are all the same with regard to God and His mercy, grace, commands, and obedience. So if there is no longer a division between the former groups, what need is there for keeping a command designed to divide the groups?

 

[Cornelius8L]

Your explanations indicate that the handwriting of ordinances against us has to do with sins, and yet your post revolves around "clean and unclean" being unlawful. So, if the handwritten ordinances that were "against us" and "contrary to us" were removed, and neither eating nor not eating "clean and unclean" harms others but is simply an offense against us to make us sinful, which is also part of the handwritten ordinances (you agreed that handwritten ordinances were removed), then your judgement against us today is without basis. Your reasoning contradicts itself. (devoid of basic honesty and understanding)

It is irrelevant whether Matt 15 and Mark 7 speak about clean or unclean foods because the old covenant was retired after Christ's resurrection. It also does not support your view on Peter's vision because the Apostles, who carry human weakness (including Peter, who denied Jesus three times), were the firsthand receivers of the new covenant. Anyone who has adopted your view is unable to explain who the unclean animals in Peter's vision represent, if the clean would refer to both Jews and gentiles. Can you explain it? Otherwise, your narrative is defective, and your teaching about your own verdict is against you, making you someone who cannot be taken seriously in anything he says about the Scriptures. “The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is not subject to anyone’s judgment (1 Cor 2:15).”

Rev 19 is a prophecy, and God has said from the beginning that prophecies are riddles (Num 12:6-8). If Jesus in Revelation has blazing fire eyes and bronze feet, does Jesus on Earth have blazing fire eyes and bronze feet as well? You also misquoted 2 Peter 3:15-16, which talks about hard thing rather than the simple things you described. One example of a hard thing, why was Jesus compared to Melchizedek, who was not instructed about keeping any law or being circumcised but nonetheless was a priest of the Most High? When Abraham met Melchizedek, no one had been circumcised.

Paul's hard teachings include ending the ten commandments and the old covenant (2 Corinthians 3:7–11 and Hebrews 8:13). Because the Holy Spirit of wisdom leads us, we naturally wouldn't do anything negative to other people. Galatians 4:21–31 has Paul's direct response to you. Also, the weekly Sabbath includes special sacrifices (Lev. 28:9–10). Before the Israelites, there were no guidelines about the Sabbath.

The mind of Christ, Jesus not abolishing the law (Matt 5:17-20), is demonstrated by His 40 days in the wilderness, during which He does not observe what the law requires customarily. In not abolishing the law, Christ's mind is what the law meant spiritually, not customarily. If the law was intended to be customary, Jesus' sacrifice cannot replace the animal sacrifice, which affects your view of Col 2:10-14. And perhaps you could consider whether God's finger-writing is handwriting because God does not require a pen to write.

(continue...)

I'm not sure if you follow the law concerning circumcision (Lev 12:3) like Jesus did. Abraham was circumcised at the age of 99 in Gen 17:9-11, yet he met Melchizedek much earlier in Gen 14:17-18, who, btw, drank wine. So, is Melchizedek circumcised? Why wasn't Abraham circumcised sooner if Melchizedek had the instructions about circumcision? If the instructions about circumcision were revealed to Abraham when he was 99 years old, why was Melchizedek the priest of the Most High before the practice of circumcision even existed? So, in your understanding, what set of laws did Melchizedek follow in order to become the priest of the Most High?

If the law given to Melchizedek, a priest of the Most High, was later replaced with Mosaic law so that Levi may become priests, how sure are we that the law Melchizedek received contains the same customary law as the old covenant of Israel?

 

[AbbaLove]

If the law given to Melchizedek, a priest of the Most High, was later replaced with Mosaic law so that Levi may become priests, how sure are we that the law Melchizedek received contains the same customary law as the old covenant of Israel?

Surely you jest ... so after 40 pages this is your concluding summation?

 

[BobRyan]

The same moral laws that existed under the Old Covenant also exist under the New Covenant -- so then it is still a sin to take God's name in vain - even when Christians do it.

Eph 6:2 "'Honor your father and mother' is the first commandment with a promise" in that still-valid unit of Ten applicable to all people ... Christian or not.

Christ quotes from the Law of Moses in Matt - the two greatest commandments in the Law of Moses
Christ quotes from the Law of Moses in Matt 19
Paul quotes from the Law of Moses in Eph 6:2
Paul quotes from the Law of Moses in Rom 13, and Romans 7
James quotes from the Law of Moses in James 2
...

========================================

In the Rom 2:19-20 and the Gal 3 context - all humans are lost under the Old Covenant "Obey and Live" as Galatians 3 points out.
However as we see in Jer 31:31-33 "New Covenant" all that are saved are saved under the one and only Gospel covenant Gal 1:6-9 as was true of Moses and Elijah in Matt 17 and is true of all the saints still today.

For both groups - it is a sin to take God's name in vain and as 1 John 3:4 points out "Sin is transgression of the LAW" where "'Honor your father and mother' is the first commandment with a promise" in that still-valid unit of Ten

The Bible does not change.

The same moral law of God (that includes the TEN) that condemns all makind Rom 3:19-20, 23 is that which is written on the heart under the NEW Covenant Jer 31:31-34. And Deut 5:22 confirms that this included the TEN.

The OLD covenant also has the TEN - because they define what sin is 1 John 3:4 "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" - that "obey and live" covenant condemns all mankind as Rom 3 reminds us.

But under the Jer 31 - New Covenant we have forgiveness of sins, adoption and the Law of God written on the heart - no longer merely "external" where it can only condemn.

 

[expos4ever]

The Bible does not change.

What? Are you serious?

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
...
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.
...
In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
...
who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
...
For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second.
...
When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear.
....
and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Any notion that scripture does not present us with an evolving story is, frankly, laughable.

 

[Valletta]

What? Are you serious?

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
...
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.
...
In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
...
who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
...
For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second.
...
When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear.
....
and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Any notion that scripture does not present us with an evolving story is, frankly, laughable.

Jesus IS the New Covenant.

 

[HIM]

What? Are you serious?

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
...
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.
...
In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
...
who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
...
For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second.
...
When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear.
....
and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

Any notion that scripture does not present us with an evolving story is, frankly, laughable.

Deut 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.

A covenant besides the one given in Horeb. A new covenant which was not that new in the giving by the time Jeremiah revisited it just in the receiving. Paul knew this that is why he paraphrased Deut 30 in Romans 10:6-8.

Deut 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Deut 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deut 30:12 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?
Deut 30:13 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?
Deut 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Surely you jest ... so after 40 pages this is your concluding summation?

Your unhelpful comments add nothing to your positions. All 40 pages do not directly answer my questions. Perhaps @BobRyan (who agrees with you) might like to give it a shot?

 

[BobRyan]

(continue...)

I'm not sure if you follow the law concerning circumcision (Lev 12:3) like Jesus did. Abraham was circumcised at the age of 99 in Gen 17:9-11, yet he met Melchizedek much earlier in Gen 14:17-18, who, btw, drank wine.

The term for wine is precisely "grape beverage" -- only context determines if it is fresh or fermented. Nothing in Gen 14:17-18 says is was fermented.

So, is Melchizedek circumcised?

Why would he be?

Why wasn't Abraham circumcised sooner if Melchizedek had the instructions about circumcision?

agreed.

So, in your understanding, what set of laws did Melchizedek follow in order to become the priest of the Most High?

1. God appointed him.
2. He had to follow the same sacrificial animal laws as we see in Gen 4 and Gen 8 and 9.
3. He had to follow the moral law of God ... so then "no taking God's name in vain".
4. He had to observe the set-apart sanctified 7th day of Gen 2:1-3

If the law given to Melchizedek, a priest of the Most High, was later replaced with Mosaic law

Those laws were not "replaced" at Sinai.

It was a sin to take God's name in vain in Gen 14 and it was still a sin to do it in Ex 20:7

Perhaps @BobRyan (who agrees with you) might like to give it a shot?

Thanks for the invitation.

My take on this thread topic is - #2

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus IS the New Covenant.

No text says that.

But we do have "THIS IS the NEW Covenant..." Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-12 -- verbatim the same in OT and NT

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
The Bible does not change.

What? Are you serious?

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

Yes I am serious. That is OT Jer 31:31-34 and it is also unchanged the same NT Heb 8:6-12 and it is scripture -- it does not change.

...
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.
...
In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

And AFTER that - we reminded in Heb 8 that the New Covenant is STILL just as Jeremiah stated it.

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear.
....
and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

That is not a statement about a 'CHANGE' in the Jer 31 "NEW Covenant" -- obviously.

It is about the OT fact that the New Covenant is NOT the Old Covenant.
It (The New Covenant) is not the "obey and live" Old Covenant of Gen 2 that Gal 3 says is still condemning all mankind as sinners (as Rom 3:19-20 also affirms)
It (the New Covenant of Jer 31) is also not the nation-church covenant of Sinai.

But it is the same, one and only Gospel covenant in the "Gospel preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8

 

[Valletta]

No text says that.

But we do have "THIS IS the NEW Covenant..." Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-12 -- verbatim the same in OT and NT

Incorrect:

Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[a]
RSVCE

The blood of Jesus is Jesus.

 

[Leaf473]

Incorrect:

Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[a]
RSVCE

The blood of Jesus is Jesus.

That's an interesting point, I've never looked at it that way.

 

[Cornelius8L]

The term for wine is precisely "grape beverage" -- only context determines if it is fresh or fermented. Nothing in Gen 14:17-18 says is was fermented.

Do you recall Genesis 9:21, which mentions Noah drinking wine and being drunk? The Bible can tell the difference between wine and grape juice (Isaiah 25:6, Proverbs 9:5). It is not appropriate to alter the text definition of the Bible and then claim to believe it.

Why would he be?

The circumcision law is found in Lev 12:3, and Jesus followed it. So, why didn't Melchizedek keep this? And why did Paul say we no longer needed to maintain it if the Bible never changed in the way you claimed?

1. God appointed him.
2. He had to follow the same sacrificial animal laws as we see in Gen 4 and Gen 8 and 9.
3. He had to follow the moral law of God ... so then "no taking God's name in vain".
4. He had to observe the set-apart sanctified 7th day of Gen 2:1-3

I was surprised that you listed what was not clearly defined as the law that Melchizedek got when you proposed the text "wine" as non-alcoholic when it was clearly understood as such.

Those laws were not "replaced" at Sinai.

It was a sin to take God's name in vain in Gen 14 and it was still a sin to do it in Ex 20:7

If not replaced, why does the priest of the Most High not need to be circumcised under Melchizedek's law but in Mosaic law?