Galatians 4 two opposing covenants.

[GDL]

"his ultimate desire for obedience" can be accomplished.

Will be accomplished which accomplishment is well in process in those who are His in His Son.

 

[Clare73]

Will be accomplished which accomplishment is well in process in those who are His in His Son.

But could not be without his atonement on the cross to pay for sin, right?

 

[GDL]

But could not be without his atonement on the cross to pay for sin, right?

That's part of why we can be "in His Son."

 

[BrotherJJ]

That would be "God's Law" promoters. IOW promoters of the eternal righteousness of God that His Son - our first-born Brother and Lord - exemplified and that God is conforming us to in His Son in Spirit pursuant to His New Covenant writing of His Law in our minds and on our hearts as He who is Love makes us more and more like Himself. And yes, this is through Faith in Him.

Actually, you've paid enough attention to our posts to erroneously think you needed to give us part of the Gospel (which Gospel BTW also covers things @Studyman and I are discussing), but not enough for you to know we've made our discussion more about the things of the Scriptures than about ourselves.

Thanks for starting the thread that brought us together. You have been productive. An unintended good work, maybe.

I placed a post (#58) that wasn't addressed to you. You replied to me in post #62 & insinuated I was attempting to derail a conversation you were in. And advised me just how pertinent your discussion was (LOL) get over yourself! You also said you could ignore me. ""Your idea"" & I liked it!

In post #71 you said "Too bad you can't take your ball and go home". I'm not going anywhere.

As far as paying attention to your postings. You'd be wrong again, I've had several unfruitful changes with you. I've never started a discussion with you or studymen, never trolled any post either of you wrote. In the spirit of open forum debate I have replied to you both.

 

[Studyman]

You're preaching to the choir as they say. I doubt you take this any more seriously than I and some to many others do. But you seem to be drifting off course into Law, which I so far see as being in agreement with you about, and away from detailing the issues of Covenants.

I certainly don't intend drift off course. I guess I thought I detailed my understanding of the Covenant we are discussing. I am sorry if I haven't.

But the issue isn't about various covenants in my view. It's about 1 Covenant, that God made with Israel instead of wiping them out and building a new nation with Moses. I thought I explained my take on this in great detail, posting the Scriptures for your review and examination, along with my comments disclosing my understanding of them. I will work to be clearer as we move forward.

FWIW, I don't need several translations. I have 11 English translations and 2-3 Greek manuscripts and a Hebrew manuscript on screen whenever I'm dealing with Scripture.
At minimum they heard it read from Scripture and they discussed it. Every 7 years the nation was to assemble and hear it read by the Priests. Kings were to copy from the scroll the Priests had - to write their own copy and read it every day. And so on.

So then, the answer to the question I asked you is Yes? The only place to hear God's instruction in righteousness before "After those days" was from a Levite Priest or Elders of Israel? But in the New covenant, that changed.

Is "God's Laws" synonymous with the Law of Moses?

This is an interesting question. I was not aware that Moses created any Law. In my understanding, God gave Moses "HIS LAWS", in the same way that God gave Abraham "His Laws". Am I missing something in Scriptures where Moses created Law?

Ex. 20: 1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Ect., Ect.

Are we as Christians responsible for all of the Law of Moses?

Certainly not all Laws of God that HE gave to Moses were written for the common man, specifically me. But I am certainly persuaded that God's Laws that were made for men, I am happy to "Yield myself" servants to obey, as my brother Paul instructs.

Rom. 6: Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin (disobedience) unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

The people were to sacrifice various things for various reasons.
#1 Do we not also read it and have it read to us from God's Word? Do we need a Priest? No.
#2 Agree. No more sacrifices. 1 John 1 and other Scriptures apply for forgiveness of sins and cleansing from all unrighteousness.

Yes, this is true. The manner in which we receive God's instruction in righteousness, and the manner in which sins are forgiven, are the only 2 things God's "New Covenant" addressed, at least according to all the translations I have studied, which like you have been many. And both of those things were duties of the Priesthood prior to the arrival of Messiah, as you also confirm.

Neither of these things addressed any change, or "Taking away" of God's Law. So then in the Hebrew Scriptures I posted,

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

where is the teaching, suggestion or even implication in these scriptures, that it was God's Law that was taken away, and not the Sacrificial "Works of the Law" of the Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron"?

But you haven't answered all of my questions, nor have you responded to points of sacrificial atonement for sins prior to Moses' later trip up the mountain for atonement of the great sin of the nation. and prior to that great sin.

I asked once for you to provide me with Scriptures, or evidence that prior to the breaking of God's Covenant, there were commands given by God requiring the common man to bring a goat to the Levite Priest and Kill it for the atonement of his sins.

I can only assume that you can't find any, for the same reason I can't find them, because such a LAW did not exist until after Moses went up to God the 2nd time, after the great transgression. This is no surprise to me, as Paul said this "LAW" was ADDED, "Because of Transgressions, Till the SEED should Come. And of course it was. Why continue killing animals for the forgiveness of sins, after the Lamb of God has come? After all, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.".

I am glad for you to provide me such evidence, and perhaps you can. And if you can, I stand corrected with a big "Thank You"! But to date, no evidence has been given.

Are there any other questions you'd like me to answer?

Any questions that I asked, are in my posts. I would hope you would answer all of them, as I have tried to answer yours. If I miss one, please ask again. It is my intent and purpose to answer any question I am asked.

Just because I'm asking you for some details does not mean that I'm attacking you. You make a lot of points. They should stand up under questioning based in and from Scripture. Honestly, I'd like to see you have some understanding that would plug some holes and lead to some solid conclusions of age-old debate.

As I said, I relish the discussion, and am eager to answer questions. But I cannot be responsible for plugging Holes that may not exist within scriptures, but only in this world's religious philosophies we were born into or are surrounded by. Sometime, for me at least, the line between them can become blurred. May the Christ of the Bible, separate them for us, as we seek HIS Truth from the heart.

FWIW, I don't care where Truth comes from as long as it is Truth. This not meant towards you as it can just as easily be towards me and all of us, but God spoke through a donkey once to get His point across. We have a few in our neighborhood. Sometimes I walk past them and seek some insight from them after I've been on this forum too long.

You are not alone my friend. Amen to all this.

 

[Studyman]

Thanks. Same for me.

I fully understand the battle-weary syndrome especially when one wants to discuss Scripture and the majority of responses are denominationally based with many variations within a few major frameworks.

I used the connection because, as I pointed out, the writer of Hebrews used in one sentence 2 of the main words used in that method to describe that method. I think I can see a slight attack against Greek Philosophy in those verses as I and others see in the Logos discussions from John.

Both of these take a point where Greek Philosophy deals with some "deep" concept of existence and separates it from God. John brings the Logos back to God and essentially says it's not some philosophical theory of beginnings that we can't know, but He's a Person we walked and talked with and touched.

Hebrews 11:1-3 not only use these words from the Socratic Method but also use a word that speaks of Christ's essence in Heb1:3 and it speaks of seeing unseen things and the words of God preparing the ages.

These verses say that this is what our Faith is. This is some deep thinking that IMO stands up against the theoretical deep thinkers of the age and ties all the truly deep thought to Biblical Faith and the reasoning in Faith that can understand these things. It therefore also says we of the Faith should consider that these things of God will hold up under scrutiny and not be eliminated through human reasoning if they are Biblically accurate.

That was my point. Whether you know it or not, I think you have pulled back from what you call "religions" to seek what these verses speak of. It's back to the concept of the Bereans testing what they heard by comparing it to Scripture no matter who came to town professing to be the authority.

Hopefully what I said above will clarify. We're dealing with Scripture and Faith and God, not the chaotic waves of teaching that change with the times.

I once heard a dedicated teacher say, 'Teaching is the last phase of learning.' Time and experience proved this to be true. If one cannot articulate it, then they do not really understand it. It's easy to convince ourselves otherwise when it remains circulating in our head. Moses in essence told Israel to put the instruction in their minds and in their mouths. IMO, this is what he meant by that. We must understand what Scripture means. If we do, then we can articulate it. The better the understanding the fewer words it may take to explain it.

Thanks also for your last sentence. That's the way I saw this discussion also.

Yes, thank you for the added explanation. I do appreciate both your tone, and your zeal. And will consider your perspective regarding Heb. 11, which had a huge impact on me early on when I first began to realize what it meant, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"

 

[GDL]

I certainly don't intend drift off course. I guess I thought I detailed my understanding of the Covenant we are discussing. I am sorry if I haven't.

But the issue isn't about various covenants in my view. It's about 1 Covenant, that God made with Israel instead of wiping them out and building a new nation with Moses. I thought I explained my take on this in great detail, posting the Scriptures for your review and examination, along with my comments disclosing my understanding of them. I will work to be clearer as we move forward.

I'd like to see how the Priesthood Covenant plays out in the Hebrews discussion of Covenants. I think I recall your having thoughts on this and how it might play out specifically in Hebrews.

So then, the answer to the question I asked you is Yes? The only place to hear God's instruction in righteousness before "After those days" was from a Levite Priest or Elders of Israel? But in the New covenant, that changed.

More so now with computers and search capabilities. But still we struggle. This shows Who is really in control for revelation and human capacity for thought. Some Scriptures substantiate it.

This is an interesting question. I was not aware that Moses created any Law. In my understanding, God gave Moses "HIS LAWS", in the same way that God gave Abraham "His Laws". Am I missing something in Scriptures where Moses created Law?

Ex. 20: 1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Ect., Ect.

It's not a matter of who created, but of how Law is identified. Search the "Law of Moses" and the "Law of God."

Certainly not all Laws of God that HE gave to Moses were written for the common man, specifically me. But I am certainly persuaded that God's Laws that were made for men, I am happy to "Yield myself" servants to obey, as my brother Paul instructs.

Rom. 6: Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin (disobedience) unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

By "common man" I assume you mean non-Jews. Since there remains a question about the terminology "Law of Moses" maybe you can't answer this question, but are Christians responsible to obey the Law of Moses, or is "God's Eternal Law" the Law God gave Moses, or a part of the Law God gave Moses or???

Yes, this is true. The manner in which we receive God's instruction in righteousness, and the manner in which sins are forgiven, are the only 2 things God's "New Covenant" addressed, at least according to all the translations I have studied, which like you have been many. And both of those things were duties of the Priesthood prior to the arrival of Messiah, as you also confirm.

Neither of these things addressed any change, or "Taking away" of God's Law. So then in the Hebrew Scriptures I posted,

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. 8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

where is the teaching, suggestion or even implication in these scriptures, that it was God's Law that was taken away, and not the Sacrificial "Works of the Law" of the Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron"?

I'm going to leave this one for now, because 'Sacrificial "works of [the] law" of the Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron"' is more language I would have you substantiate from Scripture. I have not seen "works of [the] law" narrowed down to that concept. This may derive from your focus on the Priesthood Covenant, which is what we should look at more closely. As I said above, tracking the concept through Hebrews would be my suggestion.

I asked once for you to provide me with Scriptures, or evidence that prior to the breaking of God's Covenant, there were commands given by God requiring the common man to bring a goat to the Levite Priest and Kill it for the atonement of his sins.

I can only assume that you can't find any, for the same reason I can't find them, because such a LAW did not exist until after Moses went up to God the 2nd time, after the great transgression. This is no surprise to me, as Paul said this "LAW" was ADDED, "Because of Transgressions, Till the SEED should Come. And of course it was. Why continue killing animals for the forgiveness of sins, after the Lamb of God has come? After all, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.".

I am glad for you to provide me such evidence, and perhaps you can. And if you can, I stand corrected with a big "Thank You"! But to date, no evidence has been given.

I did provide you with some verses regarding sacrifices for atonement for sin that were prior to the golden calf. Here's the link #59 I did not focus on goats when I searched for atonement sacrifices done before the golden calf.

Any questions that I asked, are in my posts. I would hope you would answer all of them, as I have tried to answer yours. If I miss one, please ask again. It is my intent and purpose to answer any question I am asked.

Same goes for me although I may defer on subjects I don't want to get into. So far you and I are not working in that realm.

As I said, I relish the discussion, and am eager to answer questions. But I cannot be responsible for plugging Holes that may not exist within scriptures, but only in this world's religious philosophies we were born into or are surrounded by. Sometime, for me at least, the line between them can become blurred. May the Christ of the Bible, separate them for us, as we seek HIS Truth from the heart.

A theory may work out to be wrong or may work out to be a piece of the puzzle that makes other pieces fall into place. I think I read you say something about how the Priesthood Covenant when understood makes other verses easy to understand.

You are not alone my friend. Amen to all this.

So, you also seek insights a donkey may voice. Glad I got an Amen.

 

[Studyman]

I'd like to see how the Priesthood Covenant plays out in the Hebrews discussion of Covenants. I think I recall your having thoughts on this and how it might play out specifically in Hebrews.

For me, discerning the truth about Hebrews depends on discerning what Covenant God is speaking to in Jer. 31. That is why I posted and attempted to discuss EX. 32.

There was a Covenant in place, whether it was Abraham's Covenant passed on to Israel, or a Covenant God made specifically with Israel, whatever Covenant that existed prior to the Golden Calf, was broken. I understand the RCC and her protestant daughters don't teach this, but that's not surprising given the warning of Jesus regarding future men who come in His Name to deceive. But when a man reads the account for themselves it is clear, Israel was done, and God was going to wipe her out. Whatever Covenant that was in place, was violated, broken and gone. The Tables of Stone wherein God's Law was written by His Own Finger, smashed. There was no atonement, The Passover Lamb had already been slain, God's covenant with them had been destroyed. For Israel to continue as God's People, Moses had to go up a 2nd time, and work out another Covenant. And in this Covenant, that was "ADDED" because of Transgressions, of course included God's Ten Commandments and Laws defining what they meant. (How to Love and Honor God, and how to treat each other), which I believe to be God's "Eternal Law" as my dumb old cowboy mind describes it.

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

I don't want to write a book here but would like to show one thing to further drive home what "LAW" was ADDED. This is what God asked of Israel for a free will offering before the Golden calf.

Ex. 25: 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering. 3 And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass, 4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair, 5 And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tim wood, 6 Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense, 7 Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate. 8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

And here is the same God, speaking to the same offering, after the Golden calf.

Lev. 1: 1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock. 3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD. 4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. 5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

This is the Covenant God made with Israel, because they broke His Covenant.

Heb. 8: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

I'm not asking you to believe me, as I am just an **s, but I would appreciate your acknowledgment that you read this and understand why I believe that God's LAW defining His righteousness never changed from Adam to Revelation. But the Priesthood Covenant that was "ADDED" because of Transgressions, Till the prophesied Christ should come, is the LAW Paul is speaking to in Gal. 3, and is what the Hebrews author spoke to in Hebrews 7-10.

I look forward to your take.

 

[GDL]

For me, discerning the truth about Hebrews depends on discerning what Covenant God is speaking to in Jer. 31. That is why I posted and attempted to discuss EX. 32.

There was a Covenant in place, whether it was Abraham's Covenant passed on to Israel, or a Covenant God made specifically with Israel, whatever Covenant that existed prior to the Golden Calf, was broken. I understand the RCC and her protestant daughters don't teach this, but that's not surprising given the warning of Jesus regarding future men who come in His Name to deceive. But when a man reads the account for themselves it is clear, Israel was done, and God was going to wipe her out. Whatever Covenant that was in place, was violated, broken and gone. The Tables of Stone wherein God's Law was written by His Own Finger, smashed. There was no atonement, The Passover Lamb had already been slain, God's covenant with them had been destroyed. For Israel to continue as God's People, Moses had to go up a 2nd time, and work out another Covenant. And in this Covenant, that was "ADDED" because of Transgressions, of course included God's Ten Commandments and Laws defining what they meant. (How to Love and Honor God, and how to treat each other), which I believe to be God's "Eternal Law" as my dumb old cowboy mind describes it.

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

I don't want to write a book here but would like to show one thing to further drive home what "LAW" was ADDED. This is what God asked of Israel for a free will offering before the Golden calf.

Ex. 25: 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering. 3 And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass, 4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair, 5 And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tim wood, 6 Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense, 7 Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate. 8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.

And here is the same God, speaking to the same offering, after the Golden calf.

Lev. 1: 1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock. 3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD. 4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. 5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

This is the Covenant God made with Israel, because they broke His Covenant.

Heb. 8: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

I'm not asking you to believe me, as I am just an **s, but I would appreciate your acknowledgment that you read this and understand why I believe that God's LAW defining His righteousness never changed from Adam to Revelation. But the Priesthood Covenant that was "ADDED" because of Transgressions, Till the prophesied Christ should come, is the LAW Paul is speaking to in Gal. 3, and is what the Hebrews author spoke to in Hebrews 7-10.

I look forward to your take.

You'll have to bear with me as I work on this. I'm getting closer to following you but I'm working from scratch. I was taught the Covenants by the systems you've spoken of but have never gone back and done my own work.

I'll tell you a couple things interesting me as I do some research in the Text to better follow you:

• Going back through and just doing a basic search of the word covenant* it shows up in 298 verses in the NKJ (which I'm used to using & will usually begin with).
  • When it comes to God dealing with Moses and Aaron in Exodus, "covenant" pertaining to Aaron or Levi does not show up. Yet, as you've pointed out in Mal2:4 (maybe more pivotal than Jer7), God surely made a covenant with Levi:

So Moses went up to God a second time. And HE made a Priesthood Covenant with Israel, as a stand alone people. So that HE might keep the promises HE made to Abraham.

Mal. 2: 4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. 5 My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name. EX. 32:26!

This is the Covenant that was Prophesied to Change "After those days" as Hebrews recalls.

Heb. 8: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Not according to the Covenant HE made with Israel "Because they Transgressed" the Covenant HE passed onto them from their father Abraham.

This was the First Covenant God made with the Children of Israel.

In it, God gave the same 10 Commandments. He kept Levi to minister before Him in the Priest's Office. But HE "ADDED", for the first time, a LAW requiring a man who sinned, to bring a goat to a Levite Priest, and Kill it, before the Priest could provide for the atonement of his sin. This "LAW", that was "ADDED" because of Transgressions, was to be in place until the Prophesied "Lamb of God" should come.

So the 2 Covenants in question, are the Priesthoods. The first one, carnal, Temporary, the Levitical Priesthood, "After the Order of Aaron" and the second Priesthood, which was to come "After those days", "After the Order of Melchizedek and not "After the Order of Aaron, is eternal. There is no mention in the Promise of a New Covenant regarding the abolition of God's Laws, Judgments or Commandments. In fact, there isn't one Prophesy in any translation that prophesies about the abolition of God's Laws. Only 2 things were prophesied to change.

• What's also interesting is that I do not recall this covenant in my training. But it's been a long time so who knows, and I have let go of all of my old books so I can't go back to them. It was a part of my purge so I could just focus on my own work and reach out for some reading material here and there if/when desired. So, I did a quick search on covenants online to see what various groups would say. Most identify 5 or 7 covenants. None of them that I saw in a brief search identify this one with Levi from whom comes Abraham and Moses (Ex6:16-20).
• More re: this Priesthood can be seen in Num25:10-13; it's spoken of in Jer33:21-22, which as you know is loaded with covenants discussion, it's repeated in Mal2:8

So, I still find this interesting even if it's coming from a self-confessed dumb old cowboy self-equated with a donkey.

With that said, what are you doing with the Covenant language of Ex19:5, the 10 Words (Commandments) and all the judgments from Ex20-23, the Book of the Covenant language re; the children of Israel in Ex24:7-8, all the tabernacle and Aaronic Priesthood detail in Ex25-30, then the first time of the Tablets to Moses in Ex31 - all being prior to the golden calf idolatry/great sin in Ex32 - then the covenant language of Ex34 and so on?

I recently read something about the Tablets that may have been new to me. The first time the Lord supplied them. The second time Moses had to supply them. This was correlated to an original marriage and then a husband of an adulterous wife taking her back. So the breaking of a marriage covenant and then the making of a new or renewed marriage covenant.

 

[Valletta]

For me, discerning the truth about Hebrews depends on discerning what Covenant God is speaking to in Jer. 31. That is why I posted and attempted to discuss EX. 32.

There was a Covenant in place, whether it was Abraham's Covenant passed on to Israel, or a Covenant God made specifically with Israel, whatever Covenant that existed prior to the Golden Calf, was broken. I understand the RCC and her protestant daughters don't teach this, but that's not surprising given the warning of Jesus regarding future men who come in His Name to deceive.

Please remember to show respect for others in your postings. As I Catholic I can tell you that God made six covenants, three before Moses: with Adam and Eve, with Noah, and with Abraham and his descendants.

 

[Studyman]

Please remember to show respect for others in your postings. As I Catholic I can tell you that God made six covenants, three before Moses: with Adam and Eve, with Noah, and with Abraham and his descendants.

Saying something that is true, isn't disrespect, in my view. God never promised to change every covenant HE made in the Law and Prophets in Jer. 31. This is simply Biblical Truth. There is a covenant He promised to change. My post is exploring what this covenant is. Not based on the religious philosophies of ancient religious philosophers like Gamiliel or the council of Nicaea or John Huss. But what the Scriptures teach, as Paul instructs.

 

[Studyman]

You'll have to bear with me as I work on this. I'm getting closer to following you but I'm working from scratch. I was taught the Covenants by the systems you've spoken of but have never gone back and done my own work.

I'll tell you a couple things interesting me as I do some research in the Text to better follow you:

• Going back through and just doing a basic search of the word covenant* it shows up in 298 verses in the NKJ (which I'm used to using & will usually begin with).
  • When it comes to God dealing with Moses and Aaron in Exodus, "covenant" pertaining to Aaron or Levi does not show up. Yet, as you've pointed out in Mal2:4 (maybe more pivotal than Jer7), God surely made a covenant with Levi:

Early on in my seeking, it became clear to me that I was burdened with many teachings in my mind from establishment religions which existed in the world God placed me in. I finally came to the conclusion that it wasn't the scriptures themselves that caused my confusion, but the life experiences and religious influence I grew up under. I have come to understand that this is the "Cross" Jesus spoke of, that I would pick up and carry, as I denied myself and followed Him. It seems Abraham, certainly Israel, and all examples of Faithful men in the Bible, experienced the same "Cross". Abraham was 75 years old, when God told him to "Deny himself, pick up his cross, and follow HIM." I believe all men are to partake of this "Exodus" as God provides them with the Passover Lamb, while they were yet in sin, (Egypt) to begin their journey into becoming the New Man, "which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."

I say these things only as encouragement to you, to consider that all men of faith are subject to the same influence as we were, and God brought those who sought Him to the knowledge of the truth.

He will honor the same promises to us as well, in my view.

• What's also interesting is that I do not recall this covenant in my training. But it's been a long time so who knows, and I have let go of all of my old books so I can't go back to them. It was a part of my purge so I could just focus on my own work and reach out for some reading material here and there if/when desired. So, I did a quick search on covenants online to see what various groups would say. Most identify 5 or 7 covenants. None of them that I saw in a brief search identify this one with Levi from whom comes Abraham and Moses (Ex6:16-20).
• More re: this Priesthood can be seen in Num25:10-13; it's spoken of in Jer33:21-22, which as you know is loaded with covenants discussion, it's repeated in Mal2:8

So, I still find this interesting even if it's coming from a self-confessed dumb old cowboy self-equated with a donkey.

With that said, what are you doing with the Covenant language of Ex19:5, the 10 Words (Commandments) and all the judgments from Ex20-23, the Book of the Covenant language re; the children of Israel in Ex24:7-8, all the tabernacle and Aaronic Priesthood detail in Ex25-30, then the first time of the Tablets to Moses in Ex31 - all being prior to the golden calf idolatry/great sin in Ex32 - then the covenant language of Ex34 and so on?

God said Israel broke this Covenant. It was destroyed. Gone! And God was going to make a whole new nation out of Moses. It was only Moses standing before God, pleading on Israel's behalf, that a NEW Covenant with Israel was made. It was this Covenant that was Prophesied to change. Not the Laws which define Righteousness within it, but the Manner in which those Laws were delivered, and the Manner in which disobedience to those Laws were forgiven. At least this is what the scriptures teach in my understanding. I wasn't taught this either from the religions which existed that I was raised in.

I recently read something about the Tablets that may have been new to me. The first time the Lord supplied them. The second time Moses had to supply them. This was correlated to an original marriage and then a husband of an adulterous wife taking her back. So the breaking of a marriage covenant and then the making of a new or renewed marriage covenant.

Interesting theory. My first thought is that God doesn't marry a Harlot, Ever. He divorces them. But if the Harlot "Crucifies her old self", and destroys the Harlot, becoming a NEW Woman, one that is not a Harlot, then yes, God would marry her.

In the issue of Moses and the Tables of Stone, that is interesting, I never saw that before. It seems to correlate between God giving His LAWS to people from HIS OWN Mouth, or giving His Same Laws to people, through the Mouths of His Prophets.

This is why I so enjoy our conversations. Great catch regarding the Tables of Stone.

 

[GDL]

I say these things only as encouragement to you, to consider that all men of faith are subject to the same influence as we were, and God brought those who sought Him to the knowledge of the truth.

Thanks. My encouragement level for all things Christ and Scripture is quite high. It's been my primary focus for decades and made me quit a business career.

God said Israel broke this Covenant. It was destroyed. Gone! And God was going to make a whole new nation out of Moses. It was only Moses standing before God, pleading on Israel's behalf, that a NEW Covenant with Israel was made. It was this Covenant that was Prophesied to change. Not the Laws which define Righteousness within it, but the Manner in which those Laws were delivered, and the Manner in which disobedience to those Laws were forgiven. At least this is what the scriptures teach in my understanding. I wasn't taught this either from the religions which existed that I was raised in.

We're in the same basic mindset. I have to flush out the details. This is a good exercise for me. It's taking me back through covenants and priesthoods which I haven't looked at for some time.

Question for you, which you've likely answered already but it's prompted gain by what you say above re: Laws which define Righteousness: At the end of all the work, isn't that what it's all about - the Laws which define Righteousness are Eternal and have never been set aside - it is rather only the Priesthood that has changed?

I noted you mentioned your observance of Sabbath last Saturday, so the 10 Commandments are all in place for Christians? How about the rest of the Laws given to the Children of Israel through Moses (excepting the Priesthood & sacrifices codes)? Anything else excepted?

 

[Valletta]

Saying something that is true, isn't disrespect, in my view. God never promised to change every covenant HE made in the Law and Prophets in Jer. 31. This is simply Biblical Truth. There is a covenant He promised to change. My post is exploring what this covenant is. Not based on the religious philosophies of ancient religious philosophers like Gamiliel or the council of Nicaea or John Huss. But what the Scriptures teach, as Paul instructs.

Suggesting another religion has come to deceive is a personal opinion, such negative commentary on other religions is not allowed.

 

[Clare73]

Going back through and just doing a basic search of the word covenant* it shows up in 298 verses in the NKJ (which I'm used to using & will usually begin with).

• When it comes to God dealing with Moses and Aaron in Exodus, "covenant" pertaining to Aaron or Levi does not show up. Yet, as you've pointed out in Mal2:4 (maybe more pivotal than Jer7), God surely made a covenant with Levi:
• What's also interesting is that I do not recall this covenant in my training.

EDIT:

The "covenant with Levi" (Mal 2:4-5) refers to Nu 25:10, God's "covenant of peace" (Nu 25:12, Mal 2:5) with Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, to maintain the family of Phinehas in a "lasting priesthood," implicitly a pledge to Israel to provide her forever with a faithful priesthood, of Christ.

• But it's been a long time so who knows, and I have let go of all my old books so I can't go back to them. It was a part of my purge so I could just focus on my own work and reach out for some reading material here and there if/when desired. So, I did a quick search on covenants online to see what various groups would say. Most identify 5 or 7 covenants. None of them that I saw in a brief search identify this one with Levi from whom comes Abraham and Moses (Ex6:16-20).
• More re: this Priesthood can be seen in Num25:10-13; it's spoken of in Jer33:21-22, which as you know is loaded with covenants discussion, it's repeated in Mal2:8
  So, I still find this interesting even if it's coming from a self-confessed dumb old cowboy self-equated with a donkey.
  
  With that said, what are you doing with the Covenant language of Ex19:5, the 10 Words (Commandments) and all the judgments from Ex20-23, the Book of the Covenant language re; the children of Israel in Ex24:7-8, all the tabernacle and Aaronic Priesthood detail in Ex25-30, then the first time of the Tablets to Moses in Ex31 - all being prior to the golden calf idolatry/great sin in Ex32 - then the covenant language of Ex34 and so on?
  
  I recently read something about the Tablets that may have been new to me. The first time the Lord supplied them. The second time Moses had to supply them. This was correlated to an original marriage and then a husband of an adulterous wife taking her back. So the breaking of a marriage covenant and then the making of a new or renewed marriage covenant.

 

[Studyman]

Thanks. My encouragement level for all things Christ and Scripture is quite high. It's been my primary focus for decades and made me quit a business career.

I wasn't insinuating otherwise my friend. I didn't have much encouragement from others when I was seeking, I'm sorry if it came out wrong. That wasn't my intent to suggest anything otherwise.

We're in the same basic mindset. I have to flush out the details. This is a good exercise for me. It's taking me back through covenants and priesthoods which I haven't looked at for some time.

Question for you, which you've likely answered already but it's prompted gain by what you say above re: Laws which define Righteousness: At the end of all the work, isn't that what it's all about - the Laws which define Righteousness are Eternal and have never been set aside - it is rather only the Priesthood that has changed?

That is what "ALL" Contention in this world's religions is about, Yes? God's instruction in righteousness? EVERY contention in the Bible, from Adam, to the devil itself, is founded on rebellion and disbelief in God and His instruction. This is why we are told to study "to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

I noted you mentioned your observance of Sabbath last Saturday, so the 10 Commandments are all in place for Christians? How about the rest of the Laws given to the Children of Israel through Moses (excepting the Priesthood & sacrifices codes)? Anything else excepted?

I would defer to Paul's words on this question.

1 Cor. 9: 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

So here is Paul, Years into God's New Covenant, that most every religious sect or franchise of this world, who come in Christ's Name, preach is become obsolete as it was the Old Covenant, speaking to both Jew and Gentile in the Body of Christ, teaching that this seemingly innocuous "LAW" which seems to speak only to those men who own an OX, were in Fact, Inspired by the God and Father of the Lord's Christ, specifically for the members of the Body of Christ, AFTER the death and resurrection of HIS Son.

So what "LAW" of God wouldn't apply here? (excepting the Priesthood & sacrifices codes)

I noticed you left off responding to my reply of your marriage covenant comment. I was looking forward to your take on that.

 

[Studyman]

Suggesting another religion has come to deceive is a personal opinion, such negative commentary on other religions is not allowed.

Matt. 24: 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I (Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.

My apologies, I didn't consider it "my opinion" that there are religions who come in Christ's Name to deceive. I thought this was the very reason why there are so many different religious sects and franchises existing in this world God placed me in. It was Jesus' Suggestion, I simply believed Him.

I will be more careful going forward.

 

[ralliann]

For me, discerning the truth about Hebrews depends on discerning what Covenant God is speaking to in Jer. 31. That is why I posted and attempted to discuss EX. 32.

There was a Covenant in place, whether it was Abraham's Covenant passed on to Israel, or a Covenant God made specifically with Israel, whatever Covenant that existed prior to the Golden Calf, was broken.

I hope you don't mind my focusing on your post without all the added commentary having nothing to do with this IMO. What covenant was in place prior, that they broke.

But when a man reads the account for themselves it is clear, Israel was done, and God was going to wipe her out. Whatever Covenant that was in place, was violated, broken and gone.

Again whatever covenant was in place, prior.

The Tables of Stone wherein God's Law was written by His Own Finger, smashed. There was no atonement, The Passover Lamb had already been slain, God's covenant with them had been destroyed.

True. This was the generation eventually wiped out after 40 years.

For Israel to continue as God's People, Moses had to go up a 2nd time, and work out another Covenant.

Another covenant? It appears the same words were given. 10 words

And in this Covenant, that was "ADDED" because of Transgressions, of course included God's Ten Commandments and Laws defining what they meant. (How to Love and Honor God, and how to treat each other), which I believe to be God's "Eternal Law" as my dumb old cowboy mind describes it.

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

I don't want to write a book here but would like to show one thing to further drive home what "LAW" was ADDED. This is what God asked of Israel for a free will offering before the Golden calf.
And here is the same God, speaking to the same offering, after the Golden calf.
This is the Covenant God made with Israel, because they broke His Covenant.

Heb. 8: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

What covenant was made with them prior? Which they broke? From the day they left Egypt
The covenant of circumcision....
Jos 5:2 At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.
3 And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.
4 And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.
5 Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.
6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: unto whom the LORD sware that he would not shew them the land, which the LORD sware unto their fathers that he would give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey.
7 And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.
They were rebellious from the day they left Egypt.
See the precedence of the covenant of their fathers
The Sabbath speaks of the Sinai covenant, a sign. The circumcision speaks of the Abrahamic covenant, a sign
Joh 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

The covenant made to the 4th generation of the Circumcision brought them out of Egpyt Gen 15.
Genesis 17, which is from the fathers distinctly is not just the land Gen 15 but Gen 17
I WILL BE THEIR GOD
Ge 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

 

[GDL]

The covenant with Levi refers to the firstborn sons of Israel being consecrated to God for full-time service to him (Ex 13:2).
Then God substituted the Levites and their livestock for consecration to his full-time service in place of the firstborn sons of Israel and their firstborn animals (Nu 3:9-13, 41, 44-51, 8:15-19), and
then gave to the Levites his right to ownership of all firstborn males, both men and animals (Nu 18:14-15),
therefore, all the firstborn sons of Israel had to be bought back (redeemed) from the Levites for five shekels of silver (Ex 13:13, 15, 30:12, 34:20, Nu 18:15-16).

I currently see this just a little differently. Some of the verses from Numbers you reference speak of God taking the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel. The initial covenant was with the children of Israel who were to be a kingdom of priests.

After the golden calf, this changed. The priesthood went through some phases and ultimately the tribe of Levi - the 22,000 males (Num3:39) were taken into service part of which was to be the protectorate of Aaron and sons and the sanctity of God. Part of this covenant with Levi language is seen in Mal2:5 that seems to tie back to Num25:12-13 (covenant of peace & an everlasting priesthood) where a Levite grandson of Aaron in zeal for the Lord killed 2 idolaters who were literally approaching the door of the tabernacle (Num25:6) as God in wrath was already killing the children of Israel - 24,000 of them - for their idolatry.

 

[Valletta]

I hope you don't mind my focusing on your post without all the added commentary having nothing to do with this IMO. What covenant was in place prior, that they broke.

Again whatever covenant was in place, prior.

True. This was the generation eventually wiped out after 40 years.

Another covenant? It appears the same words were given. 10 words



What covenant was made with them prior? Which they broke? From the day they left Egypt
The covenant of circumcision....
Jos 5:2 At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.
3 And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.
4 And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.
5 Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.
6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: unto whom the LORD sware that he would not shew them the land, which the LORD sware unto their fathers that he would give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey.
7 And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.
They were rebellious from the day they left Egypt.
See the precedence of the covenant of their fathers
The Sabbath speaks of the Sinai covenant, a sign. The circumcision speaks of the Abrahamic covenant, a sign
Joh 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

The covenant made to the 4th generation of the Circumcision brought them out of Egpyt Gen 15.
Genesis 17, which is from the fathers distinctly is not just the land Gen 15 but Gen 17
I WILL BE THEIR GOD
Ge 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Circumcision is the sign of that covenant.