• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

New not renewed Covenant

under grace1

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2026
627
70
68
Worcester
✟17,195.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Paul is quite clear as to what is involved in obeying the Tenth Commandment:
I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence/sexual desire KJV

The tenth commandment can be broken without any outward act, it concerns what goes on, on the inside of man, his thoughts/desires/coveting
 
Upvote 0

Studyman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
3,042
807
67
Michigan
✟600,473.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
(Staff edit)Let's take a look at Chadash, chadesh.

Without me watching an hour and a half video to find your evidence. I assume the leg you stand on is the Masoretic text use of the vowel marks is incorrect because the Scrolls found Quran caves do not support it. Am I right?

That my friend poses a serious issue.

If my search engine is correct, the Holy Writ in respect to "Chadesh" has 63 Occurrences if we do away with the vowel marks. That leaves us in the dark; subject to our own interpretation, or us thinking we are led by God's Spirit or prayerfully us being led by God's Holy Spirit. And or us relying on the LXX as the given interpretation, through our own interpretation of it or through God's Spirit. Which is still subject to ours's at times, as is the Masoretic due to not hearing God's voice at times or not at all as we might be caught up in ourselves.

Out of the 63 only 20 use the suffix ה in the spelling חֲדָשָׁה֙. As you might know the suffix denotes permanence, state of being. In other words makes the word a noun not a verb. Here they are.

Lev 23:16 עַ֣ד ʿa֣ḏ Even unto מִֽ mīֽמָּחֳרַ֤ת moḥŏra֤ṯ the morrow הַ haשַּׁבָּת֙ śּaboṯ֙ sabbath הַ haשְּׁבִיעִ֔ת śּəḇîʿī֔ṯ after the seventh תִּסְפְּר֖וּ tīsəpər֖ûi shall ye number חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים ḥămīśּī֣ym fifty י֑וֹם y֑ôm days וְ wəהִקְרַבְתֶּ֛ם hīqəraḇəte֛m and ye shall offer מִנְחָ֥ה mīnəḥo֥h meat offering חֲדָשָׁ֖ה ḥăḏośo֖h a new לַ laיהוָֽה׃ yhwoֽh. unto the LORD

A new meat offering not renewed

Num 28:26 וּ ûiבְ ḇəי֣וֹם y֣ôm Also in the day הַ haבִּכּוּרִ֗ים bīkûirī֗ym of the firstfruits בְּ bəהַקְרִ֨יבְ haqərī֨yḇəכֶ֜ם ḵe֜m when ye bring מִנְחָ֤ה mīnəḥo֤h meat offering חֲדָשָׁה֙ ḥăḏośâ֙ a new לַֽ laֽיהוָ֔ה yhwo֔h unto the LORD בְּ bəשָׁבֻעֹ֖תֵי śoḇūʿō֖ṯêכֶ֑ם ḵe֑m after your weeks מִֽקְרָא־ mīֽqəroʾ- convocation קֹ֙דֶשׁ֙ qō֙ḏeś֙ [be out] ye shall have an holy יִהְיֶ֣ה yīhəye֣h shall have לָ loכֶ֔ם ḵe֔m כָּל־ kol- all manner מְלֶ֥אכֶת məle֥ʾḵeṯ work עֲבֹדָ֖ה ʿăḇōḏo֖h no servile לֹ֥א lō֥ʾ not תַעֲשֽׂוּ׃ ṯaʿăšֽûi. ye shall do


This is an interesting perspective. But it seems the author, or search engine may not have considered a few things, or perhaps maybe I am missing something. If you don't mind, I would like to share a few things my studies has shown.

First, Abraham's Children were under God's Promise and Covenant God made with Abraham even after Joseph was sold to Egypt, and later when Jacob came to live there as well.

Gen. 17: 1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

Gen. 18: 17 And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; 18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep "the way of the LORD", to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him ( God's Covenant with Abraham)

Gen. 26: 1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar. 2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: 3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for "unto thee, and unto thy seed", I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;

4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in "thy seed" shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

But Israel was in Egypt for 400 years, and had forgotten "The Way of the Lord". And God heard their cries, and came to deliver them. And offered to them the Same Covenant God made with Abraham.

Ex. 6: 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.

6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, (SIN) and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:

7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 And I will bring you in unto the land, "concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob"; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.

And God kept his Word, and delivered them from Egypt (Sin), and brought them into a land in which they were strangers, just as God's Covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob declared.

And when God brought them to Mt. Sinai, HE gave them His Great Judgments, just as HE promised in His Covenant with Abraham.

Ex. 19: 4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. 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: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

This is God's Covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And God gave His Great Judgments, Statutes and Laws. Chose Levi to administer to Him in the Priest's office. Detailed the duties of the Priesthood, and that Moses, the High Priest who appointed Aaron and his sons, concerning sacrifices.

Ex. 29: 1 And this is the thing that thou (Moses) shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto me in the priest's office: Take one young bullock, and two rams without blemish,

10 And thou shalt cause a bullock to be brought before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bullock.

11 And thou (Moses) shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

12 And thou (Moses) shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom of the altar.

13 And thou (Moses) shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul that is above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and burn them upon the altar. 14 But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering.

But Israel broke this Covenant God had with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with the golden calf event. And god was going to wipe them all out and make a great nation out of Moses. But Moses pleaded with God, and HE relented, and allowed Moses to come up a second time, to secure a Covenant. Now that Judgments were the same as before, but there was a LAW "ADDED" that didn't exist in the Covenant of Abraham that Israel Broke. It was ADDED 430 years after Abraham, because of Transgressions, and was only to be in force "Till the Prophesied "SEED" should come.

This Added Law was the requirement for a man who sinned to bring for his own sin, an animal like a goat or a bull. And "Kill it" in front of a Levite Priest, before the Priest would provide for the Forgiveness of his Sins. You can read about this in Lev. 4.

Jeremiah confirms this.

Jer. 7: 21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.

22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:

23 But "this thing commanded I them", saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. (Same exact thing HE commanded Abraham)

24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. 25 Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day "I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them": 26 Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers.

So what did God promise to do?

Jer. 31: 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant "with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah":

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (God's Covenant with Abraham); which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make "with the house of Israel"; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (Like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob)

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for (because) "I will" forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

How was Abraham, Isaac or Jacob's Sins forgiven? Didn't Abraham "See" the Christ's day and was glad? Consider Abraham's words to his young son Isaac.

Gen. 22: 7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? 8 And Abraham said, My son, "God will provide himself" a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Acts 3: 13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.

24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, "saying unto Abraham", And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

So sorry so long, but in conclusion, Abraham talked to the High Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek". This same Christ, with no beginning and no end, forgave Abraham's Sin. Abraham "Yielded himself a servant to obey God". Abraham didn't need someone else to teach him God's Judgments and Commandments, because the Word of God was right there with Abraham.

But in the covenant God made with Israel, after the golden calf event, God's Judgments and Oracles could only be heard through corruptible Levite Priests. And sins were forgiven by bring a sacrifice to a Levite Priest and killing it, before the Priest would provide for the remission of sins.

But look at you and I. We have the Oracles of God, the "Word of God", in our own home, and can access them anytime we want. We don't have to go to another human to know God, as they did after the "ADDED" Law, Just like Abraham. We don't have to, by requirement of Law, bring a goat to a Levite Priest and kill it, before our sins can be forgiven, just like Abraham.

For me, to imply or suggest that God's Covenant with Abraham was insufficient to the point of God completely rejecting it, and making a "New One", doesn't align with the Whole of the Scriptures, in my view. But it would certainly be true, that God's Promised "New Covenant" with the "with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah", would certainly be NEW to them.
 
Upvote 0

HIM

Friend
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2018
5,336
2,159
60
Alabama
Visit site
✟670,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is an interesting perspective. But it seems the author, or search engine may not have considered a few things, or perhaps maybe I am missing something. If you don't mind, I would like to share a few things my studies has shown.
Okay thank you. The studies above are mine prayerfully given to me by and through God. My search engine would be Lexicons and concordances on my computer through a Bible program called "theword". I woke up late so I am late in starting my devotion. I will try to use what you share as a basis as I open our Lord God's Word today. Thanks
 
Upvote 0

HIM

Friend
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2018
5,336
2,159
60
Alabama
Visit site
✟670,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
old is not enough and lacks transparency of the text, if you disagree with "obsolete" that's fine, but you need to take more time to unpack the context more and it can't be left at "old". We also need to appreciate that "obsolete" may still be a reasonable translation for "πεπαλαίωκεν" and no perfect word exists (old is certainly not it either) as each translated word carries a drifting nuance. Call it what you want, but it is a completed action of "making old" by Christ.
Yes making old, or obsolete if you must. Not obsolete, making obsolete, near to disappearing, not disappeared.

The old didn't need to be renewed; it was never revoked. It was simply made obsolete by a new and better covenant that could actually accomplish in us what the old rightfully demanded-but could never accomplish.
It was not made obsolete it was made old. How do we know because if it were obsolete then it would not be becoming obsolete, GROWING OLD near to disappearing as the text states. It would obsolete good for nothing, gone.

(LEB) Heb 8:13 In calling it new, he has declared the former to be old. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is near to disappearing.
 
Upvote 0

HIM

Friend
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2018
5,336
2,159
60
Alabama
Visit site
✟670,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The old didn't need to be renewed; it was never revoked. It was simply made obsolete by a new and better covenant that could actually accomplish in us what the old rightfully demanded-but could never accomplish.
It was not made obsolete it was made old. How do we know because if it were obsolete then it would not be becoming obsolete (old), GROWING OLD near to disappearing as the text states. It would be obsolete good for nothing, gone, disappeared.

(LEB) Heb 8:13 In calling it new, he has declared the former to be old. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is near to disappearing.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
17,177
4,269
✟428,755.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It was not made obsolete it was made old. How do we know because if it were obsolete then it would not be becoming obsolete (old), GROWING OLD near to disappearing as the text states. It would be obsolete good for nothing, gone, disappeared.

(LEB) Heb 8:13 In calling it new, he has declared the former to be old. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is near to disappearing.
Ok? Maybe you could explain the significance of the distinction you’re making here. I’m not seeing it.
 
Upvote 0

HIM

Friend
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2018
5,336
2,159
60
Alabama
Visit site
✟670,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ok? Maybe you could explain the significance of the distinction you’re making here. I’m not seeing it.
You said it was made obsolete. It is old. It isn't obsolete, it is being made obsolete according to the grammar of the text. It can't be obsolete if it is being made obsolete.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
17,177
4,269
✟428,755.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You said it was made obsolete. It is old. It isn't obsolete, it is being made obsolete according to the grammar of the text. It can't be obsolete if it is being made obsolete.
It'd be best to start with the difference between the old and the new: why God needed to make a new covenant to begin with. In the new, per Jer 31:
1) our sins are forgiven
2) we become His people
3) He puts His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts

As we become His people, God moves us to obey, as per Ez 36, giving new hearts and spirits. It's all about becoming connected to the Vine, first.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: under grace1
Upvote 0

HIM

Friend
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2018
5,336
2,159
60
Alabama
Visit site
✟670,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It'd be best to start with the difference between the old and the new: why God needed to make a new covenant to begin with. In the new, per Jer 31:
1) our sins are forgiven
2) we become His people
3) He puts His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts

As we become His people, God moves us to obey, as per Ez 36, giving new hearts and spirits. It's all about becoming connected to the Vine, first.
Amen but Please focus. We were speaking on Heb 8:13. That is where we are at in our conversation. You said it said something it does not. You said it said the Old was obsolete. I showed you it can't be because the text says it is growing obsoleted.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
10,475
3,490
✟1,105,879.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes making old, or obsolete if you must. Not obsolete, making obsolete, near to disappearing, not disappeared.


It was not made obsolete it was made old. How do we know because if it were obsolete then it would not be becoming obsolete, GROWING OLD near to disappearing as the text states. It would obsolete good for nothing, gone.

(LEB) Heb 8:13 In calling it new, he has declared the former to be old. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is near to disappearing.
"In saying 'new,' he has made the first obsolete (πεπαλαίωκεν). And what is becoming obsolete (παλαιούμενον) and growing old (γηράσκον) is near to disappearing."

1. he has made the first obsolete (πεπαλαίωκεν)
2. is becoming obsolete (παλαιούμενον)
3. growing old (γηράσκον)

You've pulled your meaning from 2 and 3 but have ignored 1, which is a selective use of the context being presented; it's cherry picking and can be seen as deliberately suppressing to push a certain position and still lacks transparency. Christ has made the first obsolete; this is the first point, and clearly Christ has performed it. Regardless of what verbs you reject, the action is a completed action, not a progressive action. Christ has completed this action upon the old covenant. This is also the natural inference of the new and old by the nature of the adjectives used. The point is that there is something called a "new" then the former becomes the "old", but this is not an arbitrary declaration. Christ has ordained the former as "new" and ordained the latter as "old"; it is his action upon these covenants that has made them this way, not simply because one comes after the other or one was made earlier. This happens upon Christ's death and resurrection, where the new becomes the acting covenant and the former is "made old."

Obsolete works in context because that is the inference of making a new thing, then declaring the former thing old. That old thing is not "old" because of time; it is old because it was declared that way, and another was declared as a better way. All this is happening in v13, Christ declares what the new is and what the old is, and this action is complete.

2 & 3 is becoming old/aging. Hebrews is written while the Temple sacrifice/service was still being performed. The timing is often cited within the 60s and typically in the late 60s. 70 AD the temple was destroyed, and Temple sacrifice/service has not continued since. Upon Christ's death and resurrection, the temple system did not become null and void. Its practice continued and may still have carried authentic worship and service to God. There was a new covenant in place that did not require the old temple system, with the new being a better way, but the old was still functional in practice, albeit aging.

The text says it is becoming old/aging. Who is doing the "becoming old" or "aging"? This is not revealed as an action of Christ (Christ already made it old), this is more fitting of a natural aging process, the word itself is stated passively. We know temple practice stopped upon the destruction of the temple, so we have an exact moment when this ends, but even without the destruction of the temple, there is a transition of catching up to what Christ has already declared. Since Hebrews was written in the 60s (and probably in the late 60s), and the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, even if the system could have extended beyond 70 AD or still referred to as "aging" in practice, it stops and ceases to function, leaving only the new covenant system. If, upon Christ's death and resurrection to 70 AD we can say there was a dual covenant happening but from 70 AD + the former ceases to operate, leaving only the new as the only covenant system. Christ formally makes it old; that part is completed and is clear in the text. When the transition is complete from old to new may be ambiguous in the text of a "when"; however, we know the exact moment it stopped and was no longer functional, which is the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, so it doesn't seem productive to speak of it still as aging or debating how long it's aged or the arguing over the verbage (I'm not really sure the point you're pressing), since it has functionally ended in practice the new covenant is the only system we can and should be keeping. We cannot keep the old covenant even if we tried, because it hinges upon the temple system and failing that, it's always incomplete, and an incomplete covenant is a covenant that cannot be kept.

My problem with your view is that you seem to sweep Christ's completed action under a rug, as if it never happened. I'm admitting it's all there and reconciling it coherently and based on historic information, the first as a completed action and the second as a transition/natural aging. You're just crossing out the first and only accepting the latter, then telling me "obsolete" is the wrong word. I find your position doesn't embrace the complete text and lacks transparency, or at least you're not being truthful to yourself. You've read the same words I have, you've even given me praise for breaking down the Greek, yet you have chosen to ignore it and only address the latter, even using uppercase like that trumps Christ's completed action. If uppercase is the thing that works for you, then let me help you out "HE HAS MADE THE FIRST OBSOLETE." How much clearer do you need it to be?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HIM

Friend
Site Supporter
Mar 9, 2018
5,336
2,159
60
Alabama
Visit site
✟670,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"In saying 'new,' he has made the first obsolete (πεπαλαίωκεν). And what is becoming obsolete (παλαιούμενον) and growing old (γηράσκον) is near to disappearing."

1. he has made the first obsolete (πεπαλαίωκεν)
2. is becoming obsolete (παλαιούμενον)
3. growing old (γηράσκον)

You've pulled your meaning from 2 and 3 but have ignored 1, which is a selective use of the context being presented; it's cherry picking and can be seen as deliberately suppressing to push a certain position and still lacks transparency. Christ has made the first obsolete; this is the first point, and clearly Christ has performed it....My problem with your view is that you seem to sweep Christ's completed action under a rug, as if it never happened.

As if the sheer volume of words and accusations changes anything. The reason he states that it is old is because he is stating, calling the second New. If some thing is new there must be something that is old. So with that in mind, it is growing old and is ready to vanish away. Not vanished away, is vanishing away.

The Old Covenant is the law. It will be as long as sin is in this world for they tell us what sin is and are what bring us to Christ. Rom 3 and Gal 3
70 AD the temple was destroyed, and Temple sacrifice/service has not continued since. Upon Christ's death and resurrection, the temple system did not become null and void. Its practice continued and may still have carried authentic worship and service to God. There was a new covenant in place that did not require the old temple system, with the new being a better way, but the old was still functional in practice, albeit aging.

The text says it is becoming old/aging. Who is doing the "becoming old" or "aging"? This is not revealed as an action of Christ (Christ already made it old), this is more fitting of a natural aging process, the word itself is stated passively. We know temple practice stopped upon the destruction of the temple, so we have an exact moment when this ends, but even without the destruction of the temple, there is a transition of catching up to what Christ has already declared. Since Hebrews was written in the 60s (and probably in the late 60s), and the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, even if the system could have extended beyond 70 AD or still referred to as "aging" in practice, it stops and ceases to function, leaving only the new covenant system. If, upon Christ's death and resurrection to 70 AD we can say there was a dual covenant happening but from 70 AD + the former ceases to operate, leaving only the new as the only covenant system. Christ formally makes it old; that part is completed and is clear in the text. When the transition is complete from old to new may be ambiguous in the text of a "when"; however, we know the exact moment it stopped and was no longer functional, which is the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, so it doesn't seem productive to speak of it still as aging or debating how long it's aged or the arguing over the verbage (I'm not really sure the point you're pressing), since it has functionally ended in practice the new covenant is the only system we can and should be keeping. We cannot keep the old covenant even if we tried, because it hinges upon the temple system and failing that, it's always incomplete, and an incomplete covenant is a covenant that cannot be kept.
The destruction of the physical temple 70 ad has nothing to do with it.

Until people accept God's Spirit in their hearts there will be a need for that which was written on stone and parchment to lead them to Christ, so that which was without will be within.
 
Upvote 0

Studyman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 18, 2020
3,042
807
67
Michigan
✟600,473.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As if the sheer volume of words and accusations changes anything. The reason he states that it is old is because he is stating, calling the second New. If some thing is new there must be something that is old. So with that in mind, it is growing old and is ready to vanish away. Not vanished away, is vanishing away.

The Old Covenant is "the" law.

It seems prudent to point out a few things concerning this popular religious philosophy that exists in this world God placed us in. As it seems important to consider all that is written, in searching for God's Truth.

In Gal. 3, Paul talks about "A LAW", that Abraham didn't have, that was to lead Israel to Christ, "because of transgressions". (Scripture points to the Golden calf event that almost ended in their complete destruction) Paul said "this law", that was to lead Israel to Christ, wasn't "ADDED" until 430 years after God Said, "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Gen. 26:5) So the Covenant God promised to change, wasn't "The Law" of God, but "A Law" of God.

In. Rom. 3 the Jews were promoting "a law", not "the Law" to justify them of their willful sins. You can read about them in Isaiah 1:1-20. These men despised God's Judgments, full well rejected God's commandments that they might keep their own religious traditions, taught for doctrines the commandments of men, and went about establishing their own righteousness, refusing to Submit to the Righteousness of God. And yet every week they would offer to God for their willful transgression of "The LAW", the blood of an unblemished, innocent Life, as Per "A Law", Added 430 years after Abraham, to justify their wicked flesh.

So the teaching that the Old Covenant was "THE LAWS of GOD", although popular in this world God placed us in, doesn't reflect what is written in the actual Scriptures, as indicated above. In my understanding of Scriptures.

It will be as long as sin is in this world for they tell us what sin is and are what bring us to Christ. Rom 3 and Gal 3

Again, Israel was kept under "A Law" for the remission of sins, "Till the Seed should Come", as a Mercy after the Golden Calf. God could have wiped them all out and been justified, and made a great nation out of Moses. But HE showed them mercy, and placed them under a "Law of Works", Till the Seed, "After the Order of Melchizedek", (no beginning, no end) should come. A NEW Covenant for Israel.

Both Noah and Abraham sinned, just as other men, and were given God's Laws, Statutes Commandments and Judgments so as to know what sin is. What covenant were they under? How is it Noah, a man who sinned, walked with God, while other men who sinned were destroyed? How is it Abraham saw Christ's Day and was glad, but the men of Sodom, who were also given "The Law" to know what sin was, were destroyed by God?

I think you answered this question when you said, "Until people accept God's Spirit in their hearts", like Abel, Noah and Abraham did.

The "ADDED" Law that the Pharisees corrupted that Abraham didn't have, and were promoting to the Galatians and Gentile Converts in Acts 15, was their corrupted version of the Levitical Priesthood "after the Order of Aaron", with it sacrificial "works of the Law" for remission of sins, and their corrupted circumcision laws. But not everyone was deceived by them, even as Zacharias, Simeon and Anna, and no doubt others, were lead to Christ though the Levitical Priesthood.

The destruction of the physical temple 70 ad has nothing to do with it.

Until people accept God's Spirit in their hearts there will be a need for that which was written on stone and parchment to lead them to Christ, so that which was without will be within.

I don't believe it matters if God writes His Laws on Paper, parchment, stone, or simply tells men what His Instruction in righteousness is. Until a man from the heart, Glorifies God, "AS God", as Wisdom, as Light, their foolish heart will be darkened, in my view. As personal experience has shown me.

You and I, we have the Oracles of God in our own Homes. We don't need to go find a Levite Priest, or any preacher to know what Sin is, as in the Old Covenant. Consider the Words of the Christ, the Word of God through Moses.

Duet. 11: 16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them;

17 And then the LORD'S wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD giveth you.

18 Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul,(Like Abraham, Caleb, David and their Savior, Christ Jesus) and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.

19 And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

20 And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates:

21 That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth.

22 For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do them, to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto him;

23 Then will the LORD drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater nations and mightier than yourselves.

For me, the Kingdom of God Dwells within me, and the Temple of God is my mind. And the thoughts coming and going are the people of my Kingdom. And I am to bring "every thought" into captivity to the obedience of Christ, so as to discern between those thoughts that are wrought in God, and those that are not.

In this way, God's Laws are written on my heart, and through Christ all the thoughts and imaginations "Nations" (Traditions, lusts of the flesh, worldly influences and adopted false doctrines etc.) that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God are exposed so they can be ruled over. Thus God drives out these nations before me little by little, as promised.

This is the Covenant of Christ that I am under, in my understanding.

Gen. 17: 1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

And I press toward the mark for the prize of this high calling of God that was in Christ Jesus. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
17,177
4,269
✟428,755.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Amen but Please focus. We were speaking on Heb 8:13. That is where we are at in our conversation. You said it said something it does not. You said it said the Old was obsolete. I showed you it can't be because the text says it is growing obsoleted.
I understand what you’re getting at now-and the difference between our positions is only nuanced, I believe, at most. The ancient churches, as well as the mainstream Protestant churches later, continued to uphold the importance of the ten commandments- and the following teachings I’m familiar with should be consistent with those of all the ancient churches from the beginning.
*The terms “Old Law” and “New Law” are directly related to “Old Covenant” and “New Covenant”. Historically they've been used to describe the guiding principles behind each covenant.

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. The Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God's call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

"God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts." Augustine

1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a "law of concupiscence" in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.

1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. "The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come."17 It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, "types," and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.

There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law. Conversely, there exist carnal men under the New Covenant still distanced from the perfection of the New Law: the fear of punishment and certain temporal promises have been necessary, even under the New Covenant, to incite them to virtuous works. In any case, even though the Old Law prescribed charity [love], it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's charity has been poured into our hearts."18

1984 The Law of the Gospel fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection: its promises, through the Beatitudes of the Kingdom of heaven; its commandments, by reforming the heart, the root of human acts.

1985 The New Law is a law of love, a law of grace, a law of freedom.
 
Upvote 0