The relationship between the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, and the New Covenant

JesusFollowerForever · Sunday at 11:03 AM

The relationship between the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, and the New Covenant is a profound subject with significant implications for biblical theology and Christian practice.
At the heart of this discussion lies the assertion that the Decalogue, as articulated in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13, constitutes the very covenant God established with Israel. The text is explicit: “He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.” This identification of the commandments with the covenant itself underscores their enduring and foundational significance within the biblical narrative.
Jeremiah 31:31-33 introduces the prophetic promise of a “new covenant,” one that is distinguished not by a new set of laws, but by the internalization of God’s existing law. The prophet declares, “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” This passage does not suggest the abrogation of the law, but rather its transformation from an external code to an internalized moral compass, written upon the very minds and hearts of God’s people.
Within this framework, the Sabbath commandment emerges as a critical test case. It is not merely one precept among many, but is uniquely described in Exodus 31:16-17 as a “perpetual covenant” and a “sign forever” between God and His people. The language of perpetuity and covenantal signification elevates the Sabbath to a status of enduring theological importance.
As the biblical texts confirms, the Ten Commandments are the covenant and the new covenant is characterized by the internalization of these laws, then the Sabbath, as an integral part of the Decalogue, must also be understood as retaining its relevance and authority. The new covenant does not negate the Sabbath, but rather inscribes its meaning more deeply within the believer’s consciousness and spiritual identity.
In conclusion, the theological logic that flows from the identification of the Ten Commandments as the covenant, and the new covenant as the internalization of God’s law, leads to the affirmation that the Sabbath is indeed a perpetual ordinance. Its observance, whether literal or spiritualized, remains a sign of the covenant relationship between God and His people, now written not on tablets of stone, but on the tablets of human hearts. This enduring principle invites continual reflection on the nature of divine law, covenant fidelity, and the rhythm of sacred time in the life of faith. The sabbath Command is for all of God's people, those who love Him and do his will.

timothyu · Sunday at 12:24 PM

One must remember that the later Gentile alteration of the original Jewish Christianity was cultural appropriation of what could be used to create a new human dynasty with Hellenistic influence that eventually fit in with and served the unification needs of the Roman Empire. That's what happens when politics and human institutional thinking comes into play dragging spirituality back into the material world as another form of government. Even the Jews used religion to control the people. The institution changed while for the most part, scripture remained the same. Fortunately for us the focus was so intent in the institution, they forgot the truth in the scriptures which would always be a thorn in their sides if people actually read them.

The Jesus movement had no problem post Jesus, in observing both the Sabbath and what became know as the Lord's day based on resurrection, but it was only the Sabbath where they rested. A non-Jewish movement of course would eventually become intent on eliminating non-gentile connections in making the religion over in their own human image. They saw themselves as the new chosen, God belongs to us now, forgetting the Kingdom was not a worldly place but a mindset that spoke to the heart, not the identities of man. Yet none of this could truly alter God's will and those who follow His truth, although mankind has always been intent on following our will, not His. Even the original Christians were outside of the official religious hierarchy of the Hebrew people. It was, is, and always should be that way. God's truth is in the scriptures, not in the ever changing institutions of mankind. Seek God's truth and rise above the institutions that serve the world rather than the Kingdom.

Leaf473 · Sunday at 5:50 PM

JesusFollowerForever said:
The relationship between the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, and the New Covenant is a profound subject with significant implications for biblical theology and Christian practice.
At the heart of this discussion lies the assertion that the Decalogue, as articulated in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13, constitutes the very covenant God established with Israel. The text is explicit: “He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.” This identification of the commandments with the covenant itself underscores their enduring and foundational significance within the biblical narrative.
Jeremiah 31:31-33 introduces the prophetic promise of a “new covenant,” one that is distinguished not by a new set of laws, but by the internalization of God’s existing law. The prophet declares, “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” This passage does not suggest the abrogation of the law, but rather...

JesusFollowerForever said:
...its transformation from an external code to an internalized moral compass,

Yes, amen!

JesusFollowerForever said:
...written upon the very minds and hearts of God’s people.
Within this framework, the Sabbath commandment emerges as a critical test case. It is not merely one precept among many, but is uniquely described in Exodus 31:16-17 as a “perpetual covenant” and a “sign forever” between God and His people. The language of perpetuity and covenantal signification elevates the Sabbath to a status of enduring theological importance.
As the biblical texts confirms, the Ten Commandments are the covenant and the new covenant is...

JesusFollowerForever said:
...characterized by the internalization of these laws,

Amen again

JesusFollowerForever said:
...then the Sabbath, as an integral part of the Decalogue, must also be understood as retaining its relevance and authority. The new covenant does not negate the Sabbath, but rather inscribes its meaning more deeply within the believer’s consciousness and spiritual identity.
In conclusion, the theological logic that flows from the identification of the Ten Commandments as the covenant, and the new covenant as the internalization of God’s law, leads to the affirmation that the Sabbath is indeed a perpetual ordinance.

JesusFollowerForever said:
Its observance, whether literal or spiritualized,

Awesome!

JesusFollowerForever said:
...remains a sign of the covenant relationship between God and His people, now written not on tablets of stone, but on the tablets of human hearts. This enduring principle invites continual reflection on the nature of divine law, covenant fidelity, and the rhythm of sacred time in the life of faith. The sabbath Command is for all of God's people, those who love Him and do his will.

Great post, JFF

Blessings!

DamianWarS · Sunday at 11:57 PM

JesusFollowerForever said:
The relationship between the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, and the New Covenant is a profound subject with significant implications for biblical theology and Christian practice.
At the heart of this discussion lies the assertion that the Decalogue, as articulated in Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13, constitutes the very covenant God established with Israel. The text is explicit: “He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.” This identification of the commandments with the covenant itself underscores their enduring and foundational significance within the biblical narrative.
Jeremiah 31:31-33 introduces the prophetic promise of a “new covenant,” one that is distinguished not by a new set of laws, but by the internalization of God’s existing law. The prophet declares, “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” This passage does not suggest the abrogation of the law, but rather its transformation from an external code to an internalized moral compass, written upon the very minds and hearts of God’s people.
Within this framework, the Sabbath commandment emerges as a critical test case. It is not merely one precept among many, but is uniquely described in Exodus 31:16-17 as a “perpetual covenant” and a “sign forever” between God and His people. The language of perpetuity and covenantal signification elevates the Sabbath to a status of enduring theological importance.
As the biblical texts confirms, the Ten Commandments are the covenant and the new covenant is characterized by the internalization of these laws, then the Sabbath, as an integral part of the Decalogue, must also be understood as retaining its relevance and authority. The new covenant does not negate the Sabbath, but rather inscribes its meaning more deeply within the believer’s consciousness and spiritual identity.
In conclusion, the theological logic that flows from the identification of the Ten Commandments as the covenant, and the new covenant as the internalization of God’s law, leads to the affirmation that the Sabbath is indeed a perpetual ordinance. Its observance, whether literal or spiritualized, remains a sign of the covenant relationship between God and His people, now written not on tablets of stone, but on the tablets of human hearts. This enduring principle invites continual reflection on the nature of divine law, covenant fidelity, and the rhythm of sacred time in the life of faith. The sabbath Command is for all of God's people, those who love Him and do his will.

Sabbath is not the only sign of a perpetual covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is the same.

Who is the Abrahamic covenant for?
Gen 17:7 details "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.".

What is its sign?
Gen 17:11-12 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised,

Did Abrahmic understand circumcision as a spiritual value?
I'm not sure to what degree, but the commandment is clear that it is in the flesh:
Gen 17:13-14 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

the language for the Sabbath is as follows:
Ex 31:16-17
The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

so although it pre-dates the nation of Israel, the Abrahamic covenant was as much for them as it was for Abraham. Moses didn't value it as he should have, and it almost cost him his life. (Ex 4:24-26) I don't mean to hi-jack your thread with a competing idea but the way I approach circumcision law is the same way I approach Sabbath law. Both are signs of their everlasting covenants (the language "everlasting/eternal/perpetual" is the same word in both covenants), both with mandatory physical instruction, both types of ritual with deep spiritual meaning and both we should emphasize the spiritual over the physical in the new covenant.

I do recognize your language of "whether literal or spiritualized" but I would still push back and to say the physical aspect of the Sabbath can only give us a physical blessing, but cannot give us a spiritual blessing. So it is not literal or spiritual like you may pick one or the other but it must be spiritual that may be optionally expressed through the physical, just as it is with circumcision but it definitely is an obligation for the spiritual value.

2 Cor 3:7-11
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

This shows us the temporary aspect of the 10. the glory perhaps hasn't changed, but the spirit surpasses it to such a degree that it pales in comparison, like the former has no glory at all, showing to value the spirit over the law. Should the spirit and the law ever disagree? not by its true nature, but by letter it may as Christ himself shows, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath which is not highlighted in the 4th commandment. Christ shows us that goodness itself surpasses the requirement of the letter so we may practice goodness over the requirement of the letter and still be lawful. Further NT teaching shows us how we are to walk with the Spirit to be that guide, but indeed, the Spirit may call us out of practice from the letter. I don't mean the spirit will call us to murder, lie, steal or sleep with our nieghbour's wife which would be a strawman but let's call a spade a spade here, the sabbath is a ritual practice deep with meaning, the Spirit must be given precedence so that the meaning of the Sabbath may come alive so that others may experience the glorious rest of Christ as well and this may be a call to break our rest, as it is with rescusing sheep in Mat 12:11-12

daq · Monday at 4:00 AM

DamianWarS said:
Sabbath is not the only sign of a perpetual covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is the same.

Who is the Abrahamic covenant for?
Gen 17:7 details "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.".

What is its sign?
Gen 17:11-12 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised,

Did Abrahmic understand circumcision as a spiritual value?
I'm not sure to what degree, but the commandment is clear that it is in the flesh:
Gen 17:13-14 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

the language for the Sabbath is as follows:
Ex 31:16-17
The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

so although it pre-dates the nation of Israel, the Abrahamic covenant was as much for them as it was for Abraham. Moses didn't value it as he should have, and it almost cost him his life. (Ex 4:24-26) I don't mean to hi-jack your thread with a competing idea but the way I approach circumcision law is the same way I approach Sabbath law. Both are signs of their everlasting covenants (the language "everlasting/eternal/perpetual" is the same word in both covenants), both with mandatory physical instruction, both types of ritual with deep spiritual meaning and both we should emphasize the spiritual over the physical in the new covenant.

I do recognize your language of "whether literal or spiritualized" but I would still push back and to say the physical aspect of the Sabbath can only give us a physical blessing, but cannot give us a spiritual blessing. So it is not literal or spiritual like you may pick one or the other but it must be spiritual that may be optionally expressed through the physical, just as it is with circumcision but it definitely is an obligation for the spiritual value.

Deuteronomy 10:12-16 KJV
12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
13 To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?
14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.
15 Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.
16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Is your heart not flesh? Will you now therefore cleave open your chest and circumcise your heart in order to show how keeping the physical helps to explain the spiritual? According to the same book it is much more like so:

Deuteronomy 30:1-6 KJV
1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee,
2 And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul;
3 That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.
4 If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:
5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.
6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

(Note: Deut 30:4 LXX = Matt 24:31, "If thy dispersion be from one end of heaven to the other, thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and thence will the Lord thy God take thee. Deut 30:4 LXX)

Therefore everyone who studies the Torah has a decision to make and that decision is between life and good vs. death and evil, and between life and death, and between blessing and cursing, spoken also in the same book and even the same passage as the above quote from Deut 30:1-6.

Deuteronomy 30:8-19 KJV
8 And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.
9 And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers:
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.
11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
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? [Rom 10:6]
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? [Rom 10:7]
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. [Rom 10:8]
15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

DamianWarS · Monday at 6:13 AM

daq said:
Deuteronomy 10:12-16 KJV
12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
13 To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?
14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.
15 Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.
16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Is your heart not flesh? Will you now therefore cleave open your chest and circumcise your heart in order to show how keeping the physical helps to explain the spiritual? According to the same book it is much more like so:

Deuteronomy 30:1-6 KJV
1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee,
2 And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul;
3 That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.
4 If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:
5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.
6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

(Note: Deut 30:4 LXX = Matt 24:31, "If thy dispersion be from one end of heaven to the other, thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and thence will the Lord thy God take thee. Deut 30:4 LXX)

Therefore everyone who studies the Torah has a decision to make and that decision is between life and good vs. death and evil, and between life and death, and between blessing and cursing, spoken also in the same book and even the same passage as the above quote from Deut 30:1-6.

Deuteronomy 30:8-19 KJV
8 And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.
9 And the LORD thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers:
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.
11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
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? [Rom 10:6]
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? [Rom 10:7]
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. [Rom 10:8]
15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Circumsion of the heart is of abstract quality not of fleshy quality. We do not cleave open our chest and remove an outer layer of skin of the heart. Even your words are used metaphorically and you never intend them to be literal. The flesh requirement is clear in Gen 17, that same requirement was upon Israel even if spiritual components were revealed along with it. Christ understood the role of circumsion more than any, and even he was circumsized according to this standard of flesh set by the Abrahamic covenant.

You're speaking in a lot of platidudes and it would seem arbitrarily superimposing over one but not the other. The challenge I present is why is one everlasting covenant relegated and the other put on a pedestal. Are not both the word of God? Are not both worthy?

JesusFollowerForever · Monday at 7:57 AM

DamianWarS said:
Sabbath is not the only sign of a perpetual covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is the same.

Who is the Abrahamic covenant for?
Gen 17:7 details "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.".

What is its sign?
Gen 17:11-12 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised,

Did Abrahmic understand circumcision as a spiritual value?
I'm not sure to what degree, but the commandment is clear that it is in the flesh:
Gen 17:13-14 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

the language for the Sabbath is as follows:
Ex 31:16-17
The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

so although it pre-dates the nation of Israel, the Abrahamic covenant was as much for them as it was for Abraham. Moses didn't value it as he should have, and it almost cost him his life. (Ex 4:24-26) I don't mean to hi-jack your thread with a competing idea but the way I approach circumcision law is the same way I approach Sabbath law. Both are signs of their everlasting covenants (the language "everlasting/eternal/perpetual" is the same word in both covenants), both with mandatory physical instruction, both types of ritual with deep spiritual meaning and both we should emphasize the spiritual over the physical in the new covenant.

I do recognize your language of "whether literal or spiritualized" but I would still push back and to say the physical aspect of the Sabbath can only give us a physical blessing, but cannot give us a spiritual blessing. So it is not literal or spiritual like you may pick one or the other but it must be spiritual that may be optionally expressed through the physical, just as it is with circumcision but it definitely is an obligation for the spiritual value.

2 Cor 3:7-11
Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

This shows us the temporary aspect of the 10. the glory perhaps hasn't changed, but the spirit surpasses it to such a degree that it pales in comparison, like the former has no glory at all, showing to value the spirit over the law. Should the spirit and the law ever disagree? not by its true nature, but by letter it may as Christ himself shows, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath which is not highlighted in the 4th commandment. Christ shows us that goodness itself surpasses the requirement of the letter so we may practice goodness over the requirement of the letter and still be lawful. Further NT teaching shows us how we are to walk with the Spirit to be that guide, but indeed, the Spirit may call us out of practice from the letter. I don't mean the spirit will call us to murder, lie, steal or sleep with our nieghbour's wife which would be a strawman but let's call a spade a spade here, the sabbath is a ritual practice deep with meaning, the Spirit must be given precedence so that the meaning of the Sabbath may come alive so that others may experience the glorious rest of Christ as well and this may be a call to break our rest, as it is with rescusing sheep in Mat 12:11-12

Why do you always come back with the Abrahamic covenant, is is not the purpose of this thread. If you want to start a thread about it, please go ahead. So you remember we have discussed this in the past, not fully but we did.

The New Covenant was instituted by Jesus, and was sealed by His Blood but for who? For the people who love God and do his will. Do you understand this?

I would like to gently offer another perspective, one that sees the Ten Commandments not as something fading away, but as a living, holy foundation that the Spirit actually confirms and writes on our hearts rather than sets aside.
First, Jesus Himself said clearly:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill."
(Matthew 5:17, NKJV)

To fulfill does not mean to cancel or end—it means to complete, to show its full meaning and purpose. In fact, He goes on to say:

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
(Matthew 5:18, NKJV)

Heaven and earth are still here, so is God’s law.

Now regarding 2 Corinthians 3:7–11, many take Paul’s comparison between the “ministry of death” and the “ministry of the Spirit” to mean that the commandments themselves are the problem. But look closer. The commandments were glorious, because they came directly from God. The “ministry of death” refers to how the letter of the law alone—without the Spirit—could only condemn us because of sin. The problem was never the law, but the hardened hearts of the people. That’s why God promised a new covenant, not without the law, but with the law written inside us:

“I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
(Jeremiah 31:33, NKJV)

Jesus never lowered the standard of the law—He actually raised it. For example, not just do not murder, but do not be angry without cause (Matthew 5:21–22). Not just do not commit adultery, but do not even lust (Matthew 5:27–28). That’s the Spirit of the law.

About the Sabbath—you said something very important: that Jesus showed it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:11–12). That doesn’t mean the Sabbath is cancelled or done away with. It means we must understand it in the way God intended from the beginning: as a day of rest, mercy, healing, and doing good. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8), not to abolish it, but to teach us how to keep it rightly, with love and compassion.

The Sabbath is more than a ritual. It was made at Creation (Genesis 2:3), blessed and set apart before there was sin, before there was Israel. It is part of God’s eternal rhythm. In Isaiah 66, God speaks of a time when:

“From one Sabbath to another, all flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the LORD.
(Isaiah 66:23, NKJV)

That’s in the new heaven and the new earth—after everything is restored.

So rather than seeing the commandments as something fading or obsolete, we can see them as eternal, beautiful, and now living through the Spirit. The Spirit doesn’t lead us away from God’s law, but into it more deeply, so we obey not out of obligation, but out of love:

“If you love Me, keep My commandments.”
(John 14:15, NKJV)

The Spirit and the law are not at odds. The Spirit brings life to the law. It turns stone into living flesh. Can you understand this and agree?

The Ten Commandments—including the Sabbath—are not a burden. They are a gift, a mirror of God's character. The more we walk in the Spirit, the more we reflect that same character: love, holiness, faithfulness, and rest. So let us not separate and forget what God has joined: His law and His Spirit, His truth and His grace.

daq · Monday at 7:59 AM

DamianWarS said:
Circumsion of the heart is of abstract quality not of fleshy quality. We do not cleave open our chest and remove an outer layer of skin of the heart. Even your words are used metaphorically and you never intend them to be literal. The flesh requirement is clear in Gen 17, that same requirement was upon Israel even if spiritual components were revealed along with it. Christ understood the role of circumsion more than any, and even he was circumsized according to this standard of flesh set by the Abrahamic covenant.

No, your view of Gen 17 is only clear to the natural mind, which is why the Pharisees, Saddusees, and Scribes interpreted it the same way you do. The so called "flesh requirement", (to quote your words), may apply equally to both the male private member and the heart: both are flesh, and according to the statement in Deut 10:16, quoted previously above, the heart also has a foreskin. Moreover now you are in stark disagreement with Paul, who says plainly:

Romans 2:27-29 KJV
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

1) Physical circumcision transgresses the Torah, (Lev 19:28, Lev 21:5 , Rom 2:27).
2) Circumcision is not outwardly in the flesh, (Deut 10:16, Deut 30:6, Deut 30:8-19, (Rom 10:6-8), Rom 2:28).
3) Circumcision is of the heart, and is inwardly, (Deut 10:16, Deut 30:6, Rom 2:29).
4) Because just as Paul says, the Torah is spiritual, (Rom 7:14).

And Paul also says this:

Romans 8:4-8 KJV
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

The carnal or natural mind cannot please Elohim because it cannot be subject to His Torah. And that is true because the natural mind sees all things as according to the flesh while the Torah is spiritual, (Rom 7:14).

Loose the doctrines of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, and choose life, (Deut 30:8-19). There will be no excuse because Meshiah and his Apostles, (including Paul), teach the spiritual and supernal understandings of the Torah by the mind of Elohim.

DamianWarS said:
You're speaking in a lot of platidudes and it would seem arbitrarily superimposing over one but not the other. The challenge I present is why is one everlasting covenant relegated and the other put on a pedestal. Are not both the word of God? Are not both worthy?

The Shabbat is an everlasting-perpetual covenant and a sign between Elohim and His people according to the scripture which was already posted in the OP. Why should that necessarily mean that the OP should have then posted every occurrence in the scripture where the phrase everlasting or perpetual covenant appears? That seems to be just your own unwarranted demand.

Bob S · Monday at 9:02 AM

Trying to establish the new and better covenant as the Sinai covenant warmed over is a fallacy. There were over 600 special laws in the Sinai covenant. Those laws pertained to only one nation, Israel. To try to make the old covenant work in the new covenant era is impossible; it didn't work for the Israelites to whom it was intended. They profaned the covenant and God, in His mercy, established a new and better covenant not like the one given only to Israel. The old covenant couldn't give eternal life. All it could do was "if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” Ex 19:5-6 The covenant had no redemptive value. There was nothing in it that offered salvation. The covenant was made to teach slaves a way to live in the promised land. The sacrificial system couldn't save, it was to teach the Israelites of the future ultimate sacrifice at Calvary.

The Sinai covenant was an "if" covenant. Keeping it depended on performance. The new covenant is an eternal covenant with the promise from God; 24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Jude 1

Leaf473 · Monday at 9:04 AM

JesusFollowerForever said:
Why do you always come back with the Abrahamic covenant, is is not the purpose of this thread.

I post this as a way of promoting understanding, that's the intent

The reason why something like the Covenant with Abraham is brought up is because if the Ten commandments are talked about in isolation, a great case can be made for keeping them literally

It's when other passages from the scriptures are introduced that what appeared to be a rock-solid case brings up some real questions

Blessings!

JesusFollowerForever said:
If you want to start a thread about it, please go ahead. So you remember we have discussed this in the past, not fully but we did.

The New Covenant was instituted by Jesus, and was sealed by His Blood but for who? For the people who love God and do his will. Do you understand this?

I would like to gently offer another perspective, one that sees the Ten Commandments not as something fading away, but as a living, holy foundation that the Spirit actually confirms and writes on our hearts rather than sets aside.
First, Jesus Himself said clearly:

To fulfill does not mean to cancel or end—it means to complete, to show its full meaning and purpose. In fact, He goes on to say:

Heaven and earth are still here, so is God’s law.

Now regarding 2 Corinthians 3:7–11, many take Paul’s comparison between the “ministry of death” and the “ministry of the Spirit” to mean that the commandments themselves are the problem. But look closer. The commandments were glorious, because they came directly from God. The “ministry of death” refers to how the letter of the law alone—without the Spirit—could only condemn us because of sin. The problem was never the law, but the hardened hearts of the people. That’s why God promised a new covenant, not without the law, but with the law written inside us:

Jesus never lowered the standard of the law—He actually raised it. For example, not just do not murder, but do not be angry without cause (Matthew 5:21–22). Not just do not commit adultery, but do not even lust (Matthew 5:27–28). That’s the Spirit of the law.

About the Sabbath—you said something very important: that Jesus showed it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:11–12). That doesn’t mean the Sabbath is cancelled or done away with. It means we must understand it in the way God intended from the beginning: as a day of rest, mercy, healing, and doing good. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8), not to abolish it, but to teach us how to keep it rightly, with love and compassion.

The Sabbath is more than a ritual. It was made at Creation (Genesis 2:3), blessed and set apart before there was sin, before there was Israel. It is part of God’s eternal rhythm. In Isaiah 66, God speaks of a time when:

That’s in the new heaven and the new earth—after everything is restored.

So rather than seeing the commandments as something fading or obsolete, we can see them as eternal, beautiful, and now living through the Spirit. The Spirit doesn’t lead us away from God’s law, but into it more deeply, so we obey not out of obligation, but out of love:

The Spirit and the law are not at odds. The Spirit brings life to the law. It turns stone into living flesh. Can you understand this and agree?

The Ten Commandments—including the Sabbath—are not a burden. They are a gift, a mirror of God's character. The more we walk in the Spirit, the more we reflect that same character: love, holiness, faithfulness, and rest. So let us not separate and forget what God has joined: His law and His Spirit, His truth and His grace.

SabbathBlessings · Monday at 9:18 AM

JesusFollowerForever said:
About the Sabbath—you said something very important: that Jesus showed it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:11–12). His law and His Spirit, His truth and His grace.

Yes, this is a very important teaching from Jesus, one He is confirming (again) the Sabbath is law. Doing good on the Sabbath like the example Jesus showed tending to the poor and needy in addition to going to the Temple sharing our faith and reading from God's Word as Jesus showed us Luke 4:16-30. But this also means there are things that are unlawful on the Sabbath, because God doesn't view this commandment any different than the other 9. We are told not to follow in the same path of disobedience from those that came before us Heb 4:11 Eze 20:13, 24 etc. Jesus doesn't show partiality and either are we supposed to on what God said James 2:8-12

Great post!

DamianWarS · Monday at 9:23 AM

daq said:
No, your view of Gen 17 is only clear to the natural mind, which is why the Pharisees, Saddusees, and Scribes interpreted it the same way you do. The so called "flesh requirement", (to quote your words), may apply equally to both the male private member and the heart: both are flesh, and according to the statement in Deut 10:16, quoted previously above, the heart also has a foreskin. Moreover now you are in stark disagreement with Paul, who says plainly:

We may claim the heart has a foreskin based on this verse but no one engages in the practice of opening their chest and removing this flesh of their heart. This is a strawman argument.

The circumcision of the heart is of a spiritual substance not intended as a literal instruction to peel the skin off the heart. You're not intending that meaning either, no one is reading that meaning and the passage is not intending that meaning.

Where the passage addresses physical things, (foreskin, heart) it does so abstractly and for spiritual application. This application may involve physical action but that action is nothing to do with physical foreskin being removed from the physical heart.

daq said:
The carnal or natural mind cannot please Elohim because it cannot be subject to His Torah. And that is true because the natural mind sees all things as according to the flesh while the Torah is spiritual, (Rom 7:14).

Loose the doctrines of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, and choose life, (Deut 30:8-19). There will be no excuse because Meshiah and his Apostles, (including Paul), teach the spiritual and supernal understandings of the Torah by the mind of Elohim

I don't put a lot of value into physical circumcision. My position regarding it is very different than that of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes. I look to the spiritual value over the physical and I would discourage anyone to get the practice done unless there wasn't a missional purpose for it.

daq said:
The Shabbat is an everlasting-perpetual covenant and a sign between Elohim and His people according to the scripture which was already posted in the OP. Why should that necessarily mean that the OP should have then posted every occurrence in the scripture where the phrase everlasting or perpetual covenant appears? That seems to be just your own unwarranted demand.

The sabbath is a sign of an everlasting covenant, the same language is used for circumcision. I would welcome any other examples of the same as it would be a part of responsible study.

I am drawing a parallel between two signs of everlasting covenants (circumcision and sabbath) and challenging the op (and yourself) why relegate one and promote the other? Should we not treat them the same? In this I mean if we keep to the letter of the Sabbath law should we not keep to the letter of circumcision law? Deu 10:16 is in addition to physical circumsion it is not in replacement of it.

JesusFollowerForever · Monday at 9:36 AM

DamianWarS said:
We may claim the heart has a foreskin based on this verse but no one engages in the practice of opening their chest and removing this flesh of their heart. This is a starman argument.

The circumcision of the heart is of a spiritual substance not intended as a literal instruction to peel the skin off the heart. You're not intending that meaning either, no one is reading that meaning and the passage is not intending that meaning.

Where the passage addresses physical things, (foreskin, heart) it does so abstractly and for spiritual application. This application may involve physical action but that action is nothing to do with physical foreskin being removed from the physical heart.

I don't put a lot of value into physical circumcision. My position regarding it is very different than that of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes. I look to the spiritual value over the physical and I would discourage anyone to get the practice done unless there wasn't a missional purpose for it.

The sabbath is a sign of an everlasting covenant, the same language is used for circumcision. I would welcome any other examples of the same as it would be a part of responsible study.

I am drawing a parallel between two signs of everlasting covenants (circumcision and sabbath) and challenging the op (and yourself) why relegate one and promote the other? Should we not treat them the same? In this I mean if we keep to the letter of the Sabbath law should we not keep to the letter of circumcision law? Deu 10:16 is in addition to physical circumsion it is not in replacement of it.

Please see;

The Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants: Two Distinct Pillars of God's Plan

The Abrahamic and Sinai Covenants: Two Distinct Pillars of God's Plan Many today wonder whether the covenant made with Abraham is the same as the one given at Mount Sinai, or whether one replaces the other. According to Scripture, the Abrahamic Covenant and the Sinai Covenant are two distinct...

www.christianforums.com

Bob S · Monday at 9:52 AM

If the Law that is written in our hearts is the Ten Commandments, as some try to establish, then why is it that almost no one, on their own, heeds the command to observe it? The SDA church, as an example, spends millions holding seminars to convince attendees that the Sabbath is salvational and everyone else is wrong for worshipping on Sunday. Even when people are persuaded to join their church, it only takes time before most of them see the real truth and leave by the back door.

The real truth is that God has never demanded that Gentiles become Sabbath observers and Jews failed to keep their part of the requirements of the covenant, thus voiding the covenant, and as Paul wrote in 2Cor 3:6-11, the Ten Commandments have been done away.

The Jews are not subject to the old covenant's requirements either.

The Sinai covenant could only have been everlasting if Israel had not broken it. Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

JesusFollowerForever · Monday at 10:02 AM

Bob S said:
If the Law that is written in our hearts is the Ten Commandments, as some try to establish, then why is it that almost no one, on their own, heeds the command to observe it? The SDA church, as an example, spends millions holding seminars to convince attendees that the Sabbath is salvational and everyone else is wrong for worshipping on Sunday. Even when people are persuaded to join their church, it only takes time before most of them see the real truth and leave by the back door.

The real truth is that God has never demanded that Gentiles become Sabbath observers and Jews failed to keep their part of the requirements of the covenant, thus voiding the covenant, and as Paul wrote in 2Cor 3:6-11, the Ten Commandments have been done away.

The Jews are not subject to the old covenant's requirements either.

The Sinai covenant could only have been everlasting if Israel had not broken it. Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Bob, I have prepared a reply but have started a thread with it, please see;

Do the Ten Commandments still apply under the new covenant today?

Many today question whether the Ten Commandments still apply under the new covenant. Some believe they were temporary, pointing to writings that describe the law as a ministry that brought death and condemnation. But when we look deeper into the words of Jesus and the prophets, we find a...

www.christianforums.com

I believe it will answer your questions bases on scripture, please keep in mind I am discussing here the ten commandments that are the covenant not the laws of Moses.

SabbathBlessings · Monday at 10:03 AM

The SDA church does not teach that we are saved by keeping the Sabbath. No more than we are saved by not murdering our neighbor.

No law can't save us since all of us have broke God's law and sinned. We are only saved by the gift of God, His grace through faith.

That said, we keep God's commandments including the 4th commandment, not to be saved but because we love Jesus and obey God and believe Him at His Word John 14:15 Exo 20:6 , obeying God is a consequence of faith Rom 3:31, not a means to salvation, but this is the faith that reconciles Rev 14:12 Rev 22:14 hearing His Word but not doing is not an example of faith James 1:22

That said, while we are not saved by law-keeping, according to Jesus Christ no is saved by continuing in the path of sin (breaking God's law 1 John 3:4 James 2:11-12) Heb 10:26-30 Mat 7:21-23 Rev 22:14 , without a conversion, meaning a change in direction, no longer living for self- but living to serve God and by His every Word. Mat 4:4

DamianWarS · Monday at 10:16 AM

JesusFollowerForever said:
Why do you always come back with the Abrahamic covenant, is is not the purpose of this thread. If you want to start a thread about it, please go ahead. So you remember we have discussed this in the past, not fully but we did.

Because it's a logic problem. The is no reason to relegate one while promoting the other.

JesusFollowerForever said:
I would like to gently offer another perspective, one that sees the Ten Commandments not as something fading away, but as a living, holy foundation that the Spirit actually confirms and writes on our hearts rather than sets aside.
First, Jesus Himself said clearly:

Christ clearly said the law and the prophets. He does not isolate only the 10. My issue how this is used to extract the 10. I'm sure you reject the language but is that now what is happening in practice?

JesusFollowerForever said:
To fulfill does not mean to cancel or end—it means to complete, to show its full meaning and purpose. In fact, He goes on to say:

Did Christ fulfill the sacrafical system? What does that "complete" mean to us? could that same complete be used on the Sabbath? I get the knee jerk reactions to not identify law with something synonymous with abolish/destroy. So I then bank on the language you would use for the sacrafical system that has been fulfilled through Christ. Or for that matter circumcision that has been fulfilled through Christ. In the same manner, Sabbath law, also fulfilled through Christ.

How does the text inform you to treat a group of laws differently from another group?

JesusFollowerForever said:
Now regarding 2 Corinthians 3:7–11, many take Paul’s comparison between the “ministry of death” and the “ministry of the Spirit” to mean that the commandments themselves are the problem. But look closer. The commandments were glorious, because they came directly from God. The “ministry of death” refers to how the letter of the law alone—without the Spirit—could only condemn us because of sin. The problem was never the law, but the hardened hearts of the people. That’s why God promised a new covenant, not without the law, but with the law written inside us:

v9 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious
V10 for what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory

The letters of stone are indeed glorious but surpassed by the glory of the spirit to such a point that it's hard to even call them glorious.

JesusFollowerForever said:
Jesus never lowered the standard of the law—He actually raised it. For example, not just do not murder, but do not be angry without cause (Matthew 5:21–22). Not just do not commit adultery, but do not even lust (Matthew 5:27–28). That’s the Spirit of the law.

JesusFollowerForever said:
About the Sabbath—you said something very important: that Jesus showed it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:11–12). That doesn’t mean the Sabbath is cancelled or done away with. It means we must understand it in the way God intended from the beginning: as a day of rest, mercy, healing, and doing good. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8), not to abolish it, but to teach us how to keep it rightly, with love and compassion.

...even if involves work. The net value here is do goodness, don't worry about if by doing goodness you also do work. This should be a goal for each day, not just one.

JesusFollowerForever said:
The Sabbath is more than a ritual. It was made at Creation (Genesis 2:3), blessed and set apart before there was sin, before there was Israel. It is part of God’s eternal rhythm. In Isaiah 66, God speaks of a time when:

Sabbath law is a remeberance through a rest ritual of the 7th day of creation. The 7th day is not the Sabbath law. The Sabbath law is not the 7th day. The 7th day is not a ritual, the 4th commandment is.

JesusFollowerForever said:
That’s in the new heaven and the new earth—after everything is restored.

So rather than seeing the commandments as something fading or obsolete, we can see them as eternal, beautiful, and now living through the Spirit. The Spirit doesn’t lead us away from God’s law, but into it more deeply, so we obey not out of obligation, but out of love:

Indeed, including circumcision and how the Spirit has led elevated it.

JesusFollowerForever said:
The Spirit and the law are not at odds. The Spirit brings life to the law. It turns stone into living flesh. Can you understand this and agree?

The Ten Commandments—including the Sabbath—are not a burden. They are a gift, a mirror of God's character. The more we walk in the Spirit, the more we reflect that same character: love, holiness, faithfulness, and rest. So let us not separate and forget what God has joined: His law and His Spirit, His truth and His grace.

The letter is missing the goodness parts. So if I pull a sheep out of a pit, the pulling part is in violation of the surface letter of the law which is only my point as it does not qualify goodness as something that can override the requirement to cease work. Is it implicit? Perhaps, but Christ felt the need to call it out. Of course the intent of the law is not to avoid goodness so the spirit is always in agreement with these deeper meanings. But that's the point, the deeper meanings are a better focus. The spirit does not go against circumcision or the sacrafical system either, or any of the law and the prophets, yet the net value is we no longer participate in these physical requirements of these aspects.

Christ identified what was always been regardless if it is articulated or not but what he also identifies is a new perspective of lawful action which is completely consistent with Christ's law without the need to add inbetween the line remarks. If I love God, and I love others (yet do not keep the rituals), I do not break law, I keep it.

daq · Monday at 10:49 AM

DamianWarS said:
We may claim the heart has a foreskin based on this verse but no one engages in the practice of opening their chest and removing this flesh of their heart. This is a starman argument.

Still missing the point? A physical interpretation of circumcision in Gen 17 is proven to be incorrect by the scripture and the logos-logic therein. Those were not my words but the words of Mosheh and Paul speaking by the Spirit of the Most High. They are neither a "starman (or strawman) argument" nor "platitudes".

DamianWarS said:
The circumcision of the heart is of a spiritual substance not intended as a literal instruction to peel the skin off the heart. You're not intending that meaning either, no one is reading that meaning and the passage is not intending that meaning.

Then by what authority do you claim that Gen 17 cannot be speaking of circumcision of the heart and must absolutely be speaking of circumcision of the male private member? Your own authority? I do not accept personal opinions as having any authority over the scripture. The only authority you actually have, as already made clear, is the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, who came long before you did, and already forced that same incorrect interpretation upon the people by way of Sanhedrin handwritten letters, dogmas, and decrees.

DamianWarS said:
Where the passage addresses physical things, (foreskin, heart) it does so abstractly and for spiritual application. This application may involve physical action but that action is nothing to do with physical foreskin being removed from the physical heart.

Then again, by what authority do you claim your opinion about circumcision in Gen 17 to be correct? It's really nothing more than your own personal view which holds no water against the testimonies of Mosheh and Paul, (the scripture).

DamianWarS said:
I don't put a lot of value into physical circumcision. My position regarding it is very different than that of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes. I look to the spiritual value over the physical and I would discourage anyone to get the practice done unless there wasn't a missional purpose for it.

Exactly: you do not practice or uphold your own teaching on circumcision in Gen 17 and yet insist that your view is indeed what it means, physical circumcision of the outward male private member. Thus you nullify the meaning and misunderstand all of Paul's other statements in other passages about circumcision. You may think you have come up with a clever way to excuse yourself from the commandment but your own interpretation of it binds you to fulfill it or be counted as an unrepentant transgressor of the Torah, claiming to know what you speak of concerning the circumcision given to Abraham, and yet refusing to fulfill it according to your own interpretation of it. That is indeed different from the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, for at least they fulfilled the commandment according to their incorrect, natural minded, interpretation of it, which was the same as your interpretation.

Moreover Paul's words in Romans 2:28-29 are emphatic statements, there are no if's, and's, or but's about what he says, and he mentions nothing about how it used to be or this is now a new change or this is now the new interpretation: no, the way he says it is in that two-verse statement is how it always was intended to be, (already proven from the Torah itself), and how it remains to this day.

Moreover the reason Paul is so adamant against physical circumcision is because it is indeed a seal, but in the case with the Pharisees, it is the entrance door into learning, heeding, and observing ALL of their interpretations of the Torah. This is why he says that if you become circumcised according to flesh and the Pharisee way then Meshiah will profit you nothing: and that is because you cannot serve two Masters, and the Pharisee natural minded way is vehemently opposed to the supernal and spiritual Testimony of the Master, whose words are Spirit and they are Life, (Jhn 6:63). You cannot have it both ways.

DamianWarS said:
The sabbath is a sign of an everlasting covenant, the same language is used for circumcision. I would welcome any other examples of the same as it would be a part of responsible study.

I am drawing a parallel between two signs of everlasting covenants (circumcision and sabbath) and challenging the op (and yourself) why relegate one and promote the other?

I have not relegated anything.

DamianWarS said:
Should we not treat them the same?

Yes, but circumcision was not supposed to be the topic of this thread.

DamianWarS said:
In this I mean if we keep to the letter of the Sabbath law should we not keep to the letter of circumcision law?

Apparently we do not agree on what Paul means when he speaks of "the letter".

Leaf473 · Monday at 11:13 AM

daq said:
Still missing the point? A physical interpretation of circumcision in Gen 17 is proven to be incorrect by the scripture and the logos-logic therein.

Do any commandments in Scripture have a physical interpretation?

My soul longs, and even faints for the courts of the Lord. My heart and my flesh cry out for the living God Psalm 84

daq said:
Those were not my words but the words of Mosheh and Paul speaking by the Spirit of the Most High. They are neither a "starman (or strawman) argument" nor "platitudes".

Then by what authority do you claim that Gen 17 cannot be speaking of circumcision of the heart and must absolutely be speaking of circumcision of the male private member? Your own authority? I do not accept personal opinions as having any authority over the scripture. The only authority you actually have, as already made clear, is the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, who came long before you did, and already forced that same incorrect interpretation upon the people by way of Sanhedrin handwritten letters, dogmas, and decrees.

Then again, by what authority do you claim your opinion about circumcision in Gen 17 to be correct? It's really nothing more than your own personal view which holds no water against the testimonies of Mosheh and Paul, (the scripture).

Exactly: you do not practice or uphold your own teaching on circumcision in Gen 17 and yet insist that your view is indeed what it means, physical circumcision of the outward male private member. Thus you nullify the meaning and misunderstand all of Paul's other statements in other passages about circumcision. You may think you have come up with a clever way to excuse yourself from the commandment but your own interpretation of it binds you to fulfill it or be counted as an unrepentant transgressor of the Torah, claiming to know what you speak of concerning the circumcision given to Abraham, and yet refusing to fulfill it according to your own interpretation of it. That is indeed different from the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, for at least they fulfilled the commandment according to their incorrect, natural minded, interpretation of it, which was the same as your interpretation.

Moreover Paul's words in Romans 2:28-29 are emphatic statements, there are no if's, and's, or but's about what he says, and he mentions nothing about how it used to be or this is now a new change or this is now the new interpretation: no, the way he says it is in that two-verse statement is how it always was intended to be, (already proven from the Torah itself), and how it remains to this day.

Moreover the reason Paul is so adamant against physical circumcision is because it is indeed a seal, but in the case with the Pharisees, it is the entrance door into learning, heeding, and observing ALL of their interpretations of the Torah. This is why he says that if you become circumcised according to flesh and the Pharisee way then Meshiah will profit you nothing: and that is because you cannot serve two Masters, and the Pharisee natural minded way is vehemently opposed to the supernal and spiritual Testimony of the Master, whose words are Spirit and they are Life, (Jhn 6:63). You cannot have it both ways.

I have not relegated anything.

Yes, but circumcision was not supposed to be the topic of this thread.

Apparently we do not agree on what Paul means when he speaks of "the letter".

DamianWarS · Monday at 12:14 PM

daq said:
Still missing the point? A physical interpretation of circumcision in Gen 17 is proven to be incorrect by the scripture and the logos-logic therein. Those were not my words but the words of Mosheh and Paul speaking by the Spirit of the Most High. They are neither a "starman (or strawman) argument" nor "platitudes".

My point is not to bolster a physical interpretation of circumcision, or of any of the law. My point to to show we must interpret it spiritually.

If not platitudial then why not apply the words of Musaa and Bulus to circumsion too?

Ps. Thanks for correcting my typo

daq said:
Then by what authority do you claim that Gen 17 cannot be speaking of circumcision of the heart and must absolutely be speaking of circumcision of the male private member? Your own authority? I do not accept personal opinions as having any authority over the scripture. The only authority you actually have, as already made clear, is the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, who came long before you did, and already forced that same incorrect interpretation upon the people by way of Sanhedrin handwritten letters, dogmas, and decrees.

It's not my authority, it's written in plain sight in the passage.

daq said:
Then again, by what authority do you claim your opinion about circumcision in Gen 17 to be correct? It's really nothing more than your own personal view which holds no water against the testimonies of Mosheh and Paul, (the scripture).

Not my authorty. Paul calls circumcision nothing on a few occasions (1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6, Gal 6:15). I suppose there is some interpretation in that Paul meant circumcision in the physical but certainly not a controversial claim, especially when Paul also shows his value of spiritual circumcision in Col 2

daq said:
Exactly: you do not practice or uphold your own teaching on circumcision in Gen 17 and yet insist that your view is indeed what it means, physical circumcision of the outward male private member. Thus you nullify the meaning and misunderstand all of Paul's other statements in other passages about circumcision. You may think you have come up with a clever way to excuse yourself from the commandment but your own interpretation of it binds you to fulfill it or be counted as an unrepentant transgressor of the Torah, claiming to know what you speak of concerning the circumcision given to Abraham, and yet refusing to fulfill it according to your own interpretation of it. That is indeed different from the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, for at least they fulfilled the commandment according to their incorrect, natural minded, interpretation of it, which was the same as your interpretation.

As I've stated I don't bolster physical circumcision. I get my direction to do so not from personal opinion but from NT teaching. The question I pose is if we view circumcision this way in the spiritual and not in the physical (which we do) then why not sabbath?

daq said:
Moreover Paul's words in Romans 2:28-29 are emphatic statements, there are no if's, and's, or but's about what he says, and he mentions nothing about how it used to be or this is now a new change or this is now the new interpretation: no, the way he says it is in that two-verse statement is how it always was intended to be, (already proven from the Torah itself), and how it remains to this day.

Yes, I agree with Paul's statements. What he also brings up is a contrast between that which is written upon our hearts of the spirit and that which is of written code. Showing that the former is not the same as the latter, at least superficially speaking.

daq said:
Moreover the reason Paul is so adamant against physical circumcision is because it is indeed a seal, but in the case with the Pharisees, it is the entrance door into learning, heeding, and observing ALL of their interpretations of the Torah. This is why he says that if you become circumcised according to flesh and the Pharisee way then Meshiah will profit you nothing: and that is because you cannot serve two Masters, and the Pharisee natural minded way is vehemently opposed to the supernal and spiritual Testimony of the Master, whose words are Spirit and they are Life, (Jhn 6:63). You cannot have it both ways.

Paul also circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3) His motivation is missional, not anti-pharisaical. 1 Cor 9:23 sums up Paul's missonal motivation "I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." Paul didn't want people to get circumcised for superficial reasons so he broadly discouraged it, but maintained a higher missional calling that if we are so called to do so, we should contextualize ourselves so that we may minister to the people we are speaking to and in Timothy's case this involved circumsion

daq said:
I have not relegated anything.

Then we need to treat the Sinaic covenant with Sabbath as it's sign and the Abrahamic covenant with circumcision as it's sign the same way. If we cannot treat them equally we arbitrarily are focusing on one over the other.

daq said:
Yes, but circumcision was not supposed to be the topic of this thread.

how we view Sabbath law should be the same as how we view Circumcision law. Or how we view circumcision law should be how we view Sabbath law. So the two can be related.

daq said:
Apparently we do not agree on what Paul means when he speaks of "the letter".

It was not a comment on any Pauline use of "letter". I was using letter to represent the explicit text of said commandments and with that the explicit physical requirements so as to differentiate it with according to the spirit .

The relationship between the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath, and the New Covenant

Disciple of Jesus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Messianic

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Disciple of Jesus

Messianic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Disciple of Jesus

Well-Known Member

Disciple of Jesus

Well-Known Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Messianic

Well-Known Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Similar threads