Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Studyman]

Israel will always be a light to the nations either by being an example of what we should do or of what we should avoid doing, and Israel's disobedience to the Mosaic Law is an example of what we should avoid doing.




In Acts 5:32, the Spirit is given to those who obey God, so obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit, however, Galatians 3:1-2, it denies that works of the law is part of the way to receive the Spirit, therefore the phrase "works of the law" does not refer to the Law of Moses. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith, and a law that our faith upholds can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-11. In contrast, in Romans 2:13, Paul said that only doers of the Law of Moses will be declared righteous, so it does make a person righteous before God through faith.



Nowhere does the Bible say that the purpose of the Law of Moses is to demonstrate to us that we could not keep it it perfectly, nor does the Bible ever require us to keep it perfectly. The Law of Moses came with instructions for what to do when the people sinned and the fact that repentance has value demonstrates that it did not require perfect obedience. The consistent call of the prophets was for people to repent, not the call for perfect obedience. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, God's word says that the Law of Moses is not too difficult for us to obey and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it was presented as a possibility and as a choice, not as the need for perfect obedience. Even if someone did manage to have perfect obedience, then they still would not earn their righteousness as a wage (Romans 4:5).

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him His way that he might know Him and Israel too, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing God and Jesus is the goal of the law, which is eternal life (John 17:3), so obedience to the Law of Moses is about knowing God, not about trying to earn our salvation through perfect obedience. Likewise, in Matthew 19:17 and Luke 10:25-28, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments. In Romans 2:6-7, eternal life is given to those who persist in doing good. In Romans 6:19-23, we are no longer to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin, but are now to present ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, which is the gift of God, so obedience to the Law of Moses is the content of His gift of eternal life. In Revelation 22:14, it is those who obeyed God's commandments who are given the right to eat from the Tree of Life. So it is false that it does not give us life.

Someone who disregarded everything that their schoolmaster taught them after they graduated would be missing the whole point of a schoolmaster. The Law of Moses leads us to Christ because it teaches us how to know him, or in other words, how to have a relationship with him, but it does not lead us to Christ so that we can reject what he taught and go back to living in sin.

In regard to Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, being in Christ, through faith, being children of Abraham, and being heirs to the promise is all directly connected to living in obedience to God's law. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to God's law are not children of God. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, and he walked in obedience to the Law of Moses. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law of Moses. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works that he did. In Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he might teach his children and those of his household to walk in God's way by doing righteousness and justice that the Lord may bring to him all that He has promised, namely, in Genesis 26:4-5, God will multiply Abraham's children as the stars in the heaven, to his children He will give all of these lands, and through his children all of the nations of the earn will be blessed because Abraham heard God's voice and obeyed His statutes, commandments, and laws. In Deuteronomy 30:16, if they love God by walking in His way in obedience to His commandments, statutes, and laws, then they will live and multiply, and the Lord will bless them in the land that they go to possess. So all of the promises were made to Abraham and brought about because he walked in God's way in obedience to His law, he taught his children to do that, and because his children did that. God's way is how the children of Abraham knew how to live blessed lives (Psalms 119:1-3), so the way to inherit the promise through faith of being a blessing to the nations is by teaching the nations to turn from their wickedness and how to live blessed lives, and Jesus was sent as the fulfillment of that promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26).



The only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ, which is again supporting to the Law of Moses, which is not works of the law.



In Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves God putting the Law of Moses in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, the Law of Moses did not become obsolete along with it. We are still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same instructions for how to act in accordance with His nature. For example, God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His righteousness are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, and in Romans 15:18-19, Paul fulfilled the Gospel message by bringing Gentiles to full obedience in word and in deed, so fulfilling something does not refer to causing to no longer be relevant to believers.

In Matthew 4:17-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is. Likewise, Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of Moses is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20). Jesus did not establish the New Covenant in order to undermine everything that he spent his ministry teaching by word and by example and everything that he accomplished through the cross.


The Law of Moses came through through the son of the free woman, which completely undermines how you are trying to use this passage. Likewise, if God saved the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt in order to put them into slavery to the Law of Moses, then it would be for slavery that God sets us free, but Galatians 5:1 says that it is for freedom that God sets us free. In Psalms 119:142, the Law of Moses is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is sin in transgression of the Law of Moses that puts us in bondage while it is the truth that sets us free.


In Acts 15:8-11, it makes it clear that the yoke that they are unable to bear is an alternative to salvation by grace, not the Law of Moses. In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God's word says that the Law of Moses is not too difficult to obey, so if they were referring to the Law of Moses a being an yoke that they are unable to bear, then they would have been in direct disagreement with God.



If we look at Colossians 2:16 by itself, then it is ambiguous in regard to two possible situations:

1.) The Colossians were not keeping God's feasts, they were being judged by Jews because they were not keeping them, and Paul was encouraging not to let any man judge them for not keeping them.

2.) The Colossians were keeping God's feasts, they were being judged by pagans because they were keeping them, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them for keeping them.

If we look at the context of what Paul described of the views of the people who were judging them, then it becomes clear that the 2nd situation is the case in that they were being judged by pagans, such as saying in Colossians 2:20-23 that they were promoting human precepts and traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity of the body. We must obey God rather than man, so we should be careful not to mistake what was only said against obeying the teaching of men as being against obeying the commands of God, especially when the point that Paul was making was that we shouldn’t let anyone prevent us from obeying the commands of God.


In Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people people have done, which has nothing in particular to do with obeying it perfectly. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it, so fulfilling the law should not be interpreted as meaning essentially the same thing as abolishing it.


In Hebrews 3:18-19, they did not enter into God's rest because of their unbelief/disobedience, and in 4:11, we should strive to enter into God's rest so that no one may fall away by the same sort of disobedience, so that passage should not be used to try to justify the same sort of disobedience. The Law of Moses had nothing to do with trying to be "good enough" or with us keeping it perfectly. Jesus live in obedience to the Law of Moses, and in Matthew 11:28-30, he invited people to come to him for rest and to learn from him, not inviting people to reject his example. By Jesus saying that we would find rest for our souls, he was refencing Jeremiah 6:16-19, where the Law of Moses is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls, but if it were about trying to be "good enough", then it wouldn't be the way where we will find rest for our souls.

What a wonderful and thoughtful and truthful post.

Thank you for it.

 

[daq]

No one will admit to their errors and believe me there are errors on both sides of the discussion.

I understand your desire to be arbiter of truth but I already have one.

 

[Studyman]

So when was the last time you sacrificed a bull, or a goat, or a lamb, or a dove, or grain, or wine, or oil on the alter in the Temple in Jerusalem?

Jesus walked in His Father's Commandments, even you must believe HE was Sinless. He Honored God in His Sabbath. He Honored God In His Feasts, HE understood the difference between sheep and swine. Clearly all these things are Biblically true. HE forgave the sins of men, and healed Leprosy. Can you deny any of these things and support your denial with Scriptures?

And yet HE never once instructed a man to bring a goat to a Levite Priest and kill it for forgiveness of sin, even though the Pharisees were still requiring these "works of the Law" for justification.

Why did Jesus walk in all His Father's Law, "perfectly", which made Him Perfect, "Obedient unto Death, even the death of the Cross", but never partook of the "Works of the Law" of the Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi? This is because the "covenant" that was changed, was the Priesthood Covenant, not the Laws God places on the faithful's heart, as HE did for them man Jesus. Consider the Words of the very God you profess to know.

Jer. 31: 31 (CLV) Lo, days are coming, an affirmation of Yahweh, And I have made with the house of Israel And with the house of Judah a new covenant, 32 Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day of My laying hold on their hand, To bring them out of the land of Egypt, In that they made void My covenant, And I ruled over them--an affirmation of Yahweh."

Jer. 31:32 (KJV) 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; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

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

What Temporary, Carnal Covenant did God make on Israel's behalf, "Because they Transgressed", which was to be in place "Til the Seed (God's Prophesied Priest) should come?? What did the Levitical Priesthood "foreshadow", if not the Prophesied Priesthood "After the Order of Melchizedek"? And if this Priesthood was a Shadow of what the Messiah would do for His People, was it then not to Lead them to the Christ for the remission of Sins? Did this not happen for the faithful like Zacharias and Simeon? did they not know exactly why Jesus came, and who HE was when HE came?

And so, what would become of the Priesthood Covenant "After the Order of Aaron", once God's Prophesied Priest came? Is the Christ not a "Better Priest" to administer to God in His Priesthood? Wouldn't it follow then, that the First Priesthood Covenant would grow old, making the carnal Sacrifices you mentioned "Obsolete?

Why would Jesus, or anyone faithful to Him, continue in the temporary sacrificial "works of the Law" of a Priesthood Prophesied which was to change from it's conception?

The truth is, Jesus didn't, and neither did those who were faithful to Him. But they all still walked in God's Good, Just and holy Commandments and Statutes, as Paul taught the Body of Christ.

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

And like Paul, those who have "Yielded themselves" to Obey God;

Phil. 3: 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

Obviously this wouldn't include the obsolete "works" of an old and changed Priesthood.

When was the last time you brought your peace offering, or your path offering, or any of the other offerings commanded by God to the Levites?

See above

When was the last time you went to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, or any of the other festivals commanded to be celebrated in Jerusalem?

Lev. 23: 4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. 5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.

No such command is given. Only in the imaginations of men. Dak is right. You only know the Traditions of the Pharisees, not the Oracles of God.

You see, it is not the Law of God to which you so desperately cling, it is to this one day.

I have read this entire thread, and this proclamation you make, is a false one, as have been many of your accusations.

Perhaps a conversation with the Jesus of the Bible and removing beams from your own eyes are in order. It's only painful for awhile, but it is worth the humiliation which would bring being able see justly.

 

[Doug Brents]

Jesus walked in His Father's Commandments, even you must believe HE was Sinless. He Honored God in His Sabbath. He Honored God In His Feasts, HE understood the difference between sheep and swine. Clearly all these things are Biblically true. HE forgave the sins of men, and healed Leprosy. Can you deny any of these things and support your denial with Scriptures?

Agreed. All of this is Biblically accurate.

And yet HE never once instructed a man to bring a goat to a Levite Priest and kill it for forgiveness of sin, even though the Pharisees were still requiring these "works of the Law" for justification.

You are correct, He never “instructed a man to bring a goat to a Levite Priest and kill it for forgiveness of sin”. There are two reasons for this: first, He expected people to be keeping the Law (Matt 5:23-24), and second, the sin offering was not to forgive the sin, but to roll the sin forward to Christ (Heb 10).

Why did Jesus walk in all His Father's Law, "perfectly", which made Him Perfect, "Obedient unto Death, even the death of the Cross", but never partook of the "Works of the Law" of the Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi?

This is not an accurate statement. Christ did bring the sacrifices required of the Law, because He kept the Law perfectly. Of the following list of sacrifices, some are voluntary and some are required of every Israelite every year. These are not part of the Pharisees’ addition to the Law that are not part of God’s Covenant. These are part of God’s Law of Moses.
There are five main types of sacrifices, or offerings, in the Old Testament. The burnt offering (Leviticus 1; 6:8–13; 8:18-21; 16:24), the grain offering (Leviticus 2; 6:14–23), the peace offering (Leviticus 3; 7:11–34), the sin offering (Leviticus 4; 5:1–13; 6:24–30; 8:14–17; 16:3–22), and the trespass offering (Leviticus 5:14–19; 6:1–7; 7:1–6). Each of these sacrifices involved certain elements, either animal or fruit of the field, and had a specific purpose. Most were split into two or three portions—God’s portion, the portion for the Levites or priests, and, if there was a third, a portion kept by the person offering the sacrifice. The sacrifices can be broadly categorized as either voluntary or mandatory offerings.

Voluntary Sacrifices
There were three voluntary offerings.
The first was the burnt offering, a voluntary act of worship to express devotion or commitment to God.
The second voluntary offering was the grain offering, in which the fruit of the field was offered in the form of a cake or baked bread made of grain, fine flour, and oil and salt.
The third voluntary offering was the peace offering, which consisted of any unblemished animal from the worshiper’s herd, and/or various grains or breads.

Mandatory Sacrifices
There were two mandatory sacrifices in the Old Testament Law. The first was the sin offering. The purpose of the sin offering was to atone for sin and cleanse from defilement. There were five possible elements of a sin sacrifice—a young bull, a male goat, a female goat, a dove/pigeon, or 1/10 ephah of fine flour. The type of animal depended on the identity and financial situation of the giver. A female goat was the sin offering for the common person, fine flour was the sacrifice of the very poor, a young bull was offered for the high priest and the congregation as a whole, and so on. These sacrifices each had specific instructions for what to do with the blood of the animal during the ceremony. The fatty portions and lobe of the liver and kidneys were given to God (burnt); the rest of the animal was either totally burned on the altar and the ashes thrown outside the camp (in atoning for the high priest and congregation), or eaten within the tabernacle court.

The other mandatory sacrifice was the trespass offering, and this sacrifice was exclusively a ram. The trespass offering was given as atonement for unintentional sins that required reimbursement to an offended party, and also as a cleansing from defiling sins or physical maladies. Again, the fat portions, kidneys, and liver were offered to God, and the remainder of the ram had to be eaten inside the court of the tabernacle.

This is because the "covenant" that was changed, was the Priesthood Covenant, not the Laws God places on the faithful's heart, as HE did for them man Jesus.

The law placed on the hearts did not happen until the New Covenant began (at Jesus’ death). The Covenant that was changed was ALL of the covenant that began with Adam, and was confirmed with Noah, and confirmed with Abraham, and renewed with Isaac, and renewed with Jacob, and renewed with Moses, and expanded and codified at Sinai. This is the covenant that Col 4 says is likened to Hagar and was cast out.

Consider the Words of the very God you profess to know.

Jer. 31: 31 (CLV) Lo, days are coming, an affirmation of Yahweh, And I have made with the house of Israel And with the house of Judah a new covenant, 32 Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day of My laying hold on their hand, To bring them out of the land of Egypt, In that they made void My covenant, And I ruled over them--an affirmation of Yahweh."

Jer. 31:32 (KJV) 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; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

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

What Temporary, Carnal Covenant did God make on Israel's behalf, "Because they Transgressed", which was to be in place "Til the Seed (God's Prophesied Priest) should come?? What did the Levitical Priesthood "foreshadow", if not the Prophesied Priesthood "After the Order of Melchizedek"? And if this Priesthood was a Shadow of what the Messiah would do for His People, was it then not to Lead them to the Christ for the remission of Sins? Did this not happen for the faithful like Zacharias and Simeon? did they not know exactly why Jesus came, and who HE was when HE came?

They did not know who He was when He came. They realized who He was after He was resurrected, but even then, many of them were looking for a physical kingdom and a revolution against Rome. They were not looking for the spiritual Kingdom that we know Christ came to establish. The Levite priesthood was not the only part of the Old Covenant, nor was it the only part that was removed and made new with the New Covenant.

And so, what would become of the Priesthood Covenant "After the Order of Aaron", once God's Prophesied Priest came? Is the Christ not a "Better Priest" to administer to God in His Priesthood? Wouldn't it follow then, that the First Priesthood Covenant would grow old, making the carnal Sacrifices you mentioned "Obsolete?

Of course it would. But you are placing limitations that Scripture does not place on what was canceled. Scripture doesn’t say just the priesthood was changed (although it does make the point that the priesthood was changed). Scripture doesn’t say just the sacrifices we’re changed (although it does make the point that the sacrifices were changed). Scripture says that the Covenant that came from Sinai was canceled. It says the Old Covenant was made obsolete, because a New Covenant was made. No mention is made of a “part” of a covenant.

Why would Jesus, or anyone faithful to Him, continue in the temporary sacrificial "works of the Law" of a Priesthood Prophesied which was to change from its conception?

The truth is, Jesus didn't, and neither did those who were faithful to Him.

They wouldn’t, unless they were still seeking to be justified by the Law as many (the Judaizers) were in the first century, and some still do today.

But they all still walked in God's Good, Just and holy Commandments and Statutes, as Paul taught the Body of Christ.

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

And like Paul, those who have "Yielded themselves" to Obey God;

Phil. 3: 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

Obviously this wouldn't include the obsolete "works" of an old and changed Priesthood.

Nor of the rest of the obsolete Old Covenant.

Lev. 23: 4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. 5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.

No such command is given. Only in the imaginations of men. Dak is right. You only know the Traditions of the Pharisees, not the Oracles of God.

So, just for clarification, you are saying that Exo 23:14-17, Exo 34:23, and Deut 16:16-17, “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God at the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Booths; and they are not to appear before the Lord empty-handed. 17 Everyone shall give as he is able, in accordance with the blessing of the Lord your God which He has given you.” are not God’s commands, but are man’s additions to Scripture? I just want to be clear here, because you (or others who argue your side of this) keep accusing me of adding to or taking away from Scripture. I just want to make sure we are on the same page. These are God’s words here, right?

I have read this entire thread, and this proclamation you make, is a false one, as have been many of your accusations.

Perhaps a conversation with the Jesus of the Bible and removing beams from your own eyes are in order. It's only painful for awhile, but it is worth the humiliation which would bring being able see justly.

I am very well aware that I am not perfect, and I have been found to be in the wrong on several of the beliefs I have held. And when that is the case, I have admitted so. But I have not found that to be the case in this thread yet. You have made some good points in some of your comments, and I am continuing my study in this and several other areas. God is not finished with His molding of me, that is for sure, but there are some things that I am learning in my studies, and I trust that He will continue shape my understanding with His wisdom.

 

[Studyman]

Agreed. All of this is Biblically accurate.

You are correct, He never “instructed a man to bring a goat to a Levite Priest and kill it for forgiveness of sin”. There are two reasons for this: first, He expected people to be keeping the Law (Matt 5:23-24),
and second, the sin offering was not to forgive the sin, but to roll the sin forward to Christ (Heb 10).

While it is true Jesus never partook of or promoted the Levitical Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron", the reasons to attribute to Him for His refusal to partake of it are questionable, and in the spirit of Brotherly Love, I would share with you my understanding of why the Christ came.

First, Jesus came to save sinners, "Men who were not keeping God's Laws", at least according to the Jesus of the Bible. This implies that HE knew, or certainly expected men would be breaking God's Law when HE came, not keeping them. Those keeping them were righteous, and HE didn't come to Save the Righteous.

Second, I agree that the blood of goats did not take away sin, but was to lead men to the Blood that would. Like it did Zacharias and Simeon. I believe Jesus was this man spoken of in the Law and Prophets. Did Jesus Deny Himself? Of course not, therefore "He never instructed a man to bring a goat to a Levite Priest and kill it for forgiveness of sin”. That Priesthood Covenant, "After the Order of Aaron", which was Carnal and Temporary in its conception, and expired at the arrival of God's Prophesied Priest.

At least according to Scriptures in my view. I am open to correction, if you can provide the Scriptures which would support it.

This is not an accurate statement. Christ did bring the sacrifices required of the Law, because He kept the Law perfectly. Of the following list of sacrifices, some are voluntary and some are required of every Israelite every year. These are not part of the Pharisees’ addition to the Law that are not part of God’s Covenant. These are part of God’s Law of Moses.
There are five main types of sacrifices, or offerings, in the Old Testament. The burnt offering (Leviticus 1; 6:8–13; 8:18-21; 16:24), the grain offering (Leviticus 2; 6:14–23), the peace offering (Leviticus 3; 7:11–34), the sin offering (Leviticus 4; 5:1–13; 6:24–30; 8:14–17; 16:3–22), and the trespass offering (Leviticus 5:14–19; 6:1–7; 7:1–6). Each of these sacrifices involved certain elements, either animal or fruit of the field, and had a specific purpose. Most were split into two or three portions—God’s portion, the portion for the Levites or priests, and, if there was a third, a portion kept by the person offering the sacrifice. The sacrifices can be broadly categorized as either voluntary or mandatory offerings.

You just said, "You are correct, He never “instructed a man to bring a goat to a Levite Priest and kill it for forgiveness of sin”.

And of course HE didn't, He wasn't a Priest, "After the Order of Aaron" but "After the Order of Melchizedek". But now you are seemingly flip flopping, stating that Jesus "was" promoting these Priesthood Laws that were "ADDED" "Till the Seed should come".

Either Jesus Promoted the "works of the Law" of the Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi, or HE didn't. You can't have it both ways in my view.

Please consider the scriptures, and come to terms with the question, "Did Jesus Promote the "works" of the Levitical Priesthood while He dwelt among men?"

Voluntary Sacrifices
There were three voluntary offerings.
The first was the burnt offering, a voluntary act of worship to express devotion or commitment to God.
The second voluntary offering was the grain offering, in which the fruit of the field was offered in the form of a cake or baked bread made of grain, fine flour, and oil and salt.
The third voluntary offering was the peace offering, which consisted of any unblemished animal from the worshiper’s herd, and/or various grains or breads.

Mandatory Sacrifices
There were two mandatory sacrifices in the Old Testament Law. The first was the sin offering. The purpose of the sin offering was to atone for sin and cleanse from defilement. There were five possible elements of a sin sacrifice—a young bull, a male goat, a female goat, a dove/pigeon, or 1/10 ephah of fine flour. The type of animal depended on the identity and financial situation of the giver. A female goat was the sin offering for the common person, fine flour was the sacrifice of the very poor, a young bull was offered for the high priest and the congregation as a whole, and so on. These sacrifices each had specific instructions for what to do with the blood of the animal during the ceremony. The fatty portions and lobe of the liver and kidneys were given to God (burnt); the rest of the animal was either totally burned on the altar and the ashes thrown outside the camp (in atoning for the high priest and congregation), or eaten within the tabernacle court.
The other mandatory sacrifice was the trespass offering, and this sacrifice was exclusively a ram. The trespass offering was given as atonement for unintentional sins that required reimbursement to an offended party, and also as a cleansing from defiling sins or physical maladies. Again, the fat portions, kidneys, and liver were offered to God, and the remainder of the ram had to be eaten inside the court of the tabernacle.

I'm sure you believe those who you copied and pasted this sermon from.

And no one is saying these Priesthood "works of the Law" didn't foreshadow something. What you are missing it seems, is the Biblical fact that this Priesthood was a teacher that was only to be in place "Till the Seed should come". HE Came Brent. While the Laws, Commandments, Statutes and Judgments which God had written for the Admonition of men who lived "After the Resurrection of Christ", are "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

That is why Jesus still walked in all of God's Commandments, Statutes, and Laws, but didn't continue promoting the Priesthood "works of the law" "After the Order of Aaron".

The law placed on the hearts did not happen until the New Covenant began (at Jesus’ death). The Covenant that was changed was ALL of the covenant that began with Adam, and was confirmed with Noah, and confirmed with Abraham, and renewed with Isaac, and renewed with Jacob, and renewed with Moses, and expanded and codified at Sinai. This is the covenant that Col 4 says is likened to Hagar and was cast out.

This is what the religions which surround us in the Lands God placed us in preach. But we are warned about listening to them and are to test the spirits. God didn't "ADDED" all these covenants to Israel "Because of Transgressions" "Till the Seed should come". To preach such a thing is foolishness.

Consider the Scriptures.

Jer. 7: 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.

And what did God tell Abraham.

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.

This is God's Everlasting Covenant that Israel Broke. Did God kill all Israel with a Flood, like in Noah's Time? Did HE Rain fire and Brimstone on them, destroying them, as in Abraham's Time? Did HE wipe them out and make a great nation out of Moses? No, Moses stood between the people and God and sought for their atonement. So God, in His Mercy, "ADDED" to His Laws, Commandments, and Statues that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph walked in, A Priesthood Covenant with Levi, "concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices" for atonement that Abraham never had. This is Hagar, who was only around for a time, and then "Cast out", just as the Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron" was cast out, at the arrival of God's Prophesied Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek". His true Son.

But the Laws, Commandments Statutes and Judgments that Noah and Abraham walked in, are to be written on the hearts of His People, not cast out, as "many" who come in Christ's Name preach.

This is why Jesus walked in God's Commandments, but didn't promote the Temporary, Carnal "Levitical Priesthood".

They did not know who He was when He came. They realized who He was after He was resurrected, but even then, many of them were looking for a physical kingdom and a revolution against Rome. They were not looking for the spiritual Kingdom that we know Christ came to establish. The Levite priesthood was not the only part of the Old Covenant, nor was it the only part that was removed and made new with the New Covenant.

Zacharias knew Him when HE came, but he wasn't a "Babe in Christ". Simeon knew who HE was, but he had also grown past the milk of the Word. The Wise men knew who HE was, before HE was murdered. But they too, "MEN" of God, not children still learning how to walk.

This is all in everyone's own Bible, but like Eve, "many" have been convinced they are already there. Already immortal and the "knower of all things".

I can show you a dozen places in the Bible where the Priesthood was Prophesied to change. But there isn't ONE place, where God foretells of a Time, when His Laws will become obsolete. According to HIS OWN Definition of the New Covenant, only 2 things changed.

#1. The manner in which God's Laws are administered. (No more "Receiving the Law" exclusively through Levite Priests Heb. 7:11)

#2. The Manner in which sins are forgiven. (No more taking a goat to the Levite Priest.)

The preaching that God's instruction in Righteousness became obsolete at Calvery, is a doctrine of this world. Don't be deceived Brent. If the Scriptures were trustworthy 14 years after the death and resurrection of the Lord's Christ, then they are still trustworthy today.

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Of course it would. But you are placing limitations that Scripture does not place on what was canceled. Scripture doesn’t say just the priesthood was changed (although it does make the point that the priesthood was changed). Scripture doesn’t say just the sacrifices we’re changed (although it does make the point that the sacrifices were changed). Scripture says that the Covenant that came from Sinai was canceled. It says the Old Covenant was made obsolete, because a New Covenant was made. No mention is made of a “part” of a covenant.

But wait a minute here. You just said there were two covenants. And only ONE, "Hagar", was cast out. The Priesthood and the sacrificial "works of the Law" are all part of the Same Temporary, Carnal Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi, on Iseral's behalf. The "covenant" Israel broke, was the Good, Just, Holy and Perfect Laws of God Abraham walked in, and Moses gave before the Golden calf.

These two Covenants are not the "Same" Covenant. One was "ADDED" because of transgressions of the other. (Gal. 3) One was "Cast out", the other remains.

Open your mind Brent, consider all the warnings of the Christ Himself, regarding deceivers "who come in Christ's Name". Trust the Scriptures.

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

Ex. 32: 26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

 

[Studyman]

They wouldn’t, unless they were still seeking to be justified by the Law as many (the Judaizers) were in the first century, and some still do today.

Rom. 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Please, for the purpose of honest examination and discussion of Scriptures, answer a few questions for me.

After the Golden Calf, when a man's Sins were made known to him, what "works" did Moses require in order for the Priest to secure forgiveness from God?

Did Moses say, "If a man sins, and his sin is made known to him, he shall "Love his neighbor as himself", and the Priest shall provide atonement for him?

Did Moses say, "If a man sins, and his Sin is made known to him, he shall keep the Sabbath Holy, and his sins are forgiven?

What were the "works of the Law" that Moses required, before the Priest would secure forgiveness for a man?

Now, given what we know about the temple in Christ's days, what "works" of the Law were the Pharisees promoting for justification?

Be honest here, don't just work to justify a certain religious theory you may have adopted. Be honest with yourself, and others, and answer these questions with Scriptures that address them.

It's simple, it's just that the religions of this world Jesus and Paul warned about, the religions both you and I are surrounded by, in the Lands God placed us in, don't teach these truths.

Nor of the rest of the obsolete Old Covenant.

Jesus said the Law and Prophets would be in force "till all is fulfilled". It is the Law and Prophets who Prophesy of the end of the Priesthood Covenant with Levi. Where is the Prophesy of the end of God's Commandments, Statutes and Judgments?

Surely you are not snared by the same popular religious philosophy of this world, that Jesus already "fulfilled" ALL THINGS?

Has Abraham received the Promise Yet?

So, just for clarification, you are saying that Exo 23:14-17, Exo 34:23, and Deut 16:16-17, “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God at the place which He chooses: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Booths; and they are not to appear before the Lord empty-handed. 17 Everyone shall give as he is able, in accordance with the blessing of the Lord your God which He has given you.” are not God’s commands, but are man’s additions to Scripture? I just want to be clear here, because you (or others who argue your side of this) keep accusing me of adding to or taking away from Scripture. I just want to make sure we are on the same page. These are God’s words here, right?

I was replying to your question. "When was the last time you went to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, or any of the other festivals commanded to be celebrated in Jerusalem?"

The Scriptures I posted, and the ones you posted, were given before Israel even knew of Jerusalem. There is no "LAW" to observe the Passover, or other of the Feasts of the Lord, in Jerusalem. The temple wasn't even built until centuries later. So your preaching that God Commanded the Israelites to gather in Jerusalem to observe His Passover is false. It is widely taught in the religions of the lands which surround us. But if we would just humble yourself for a minute, and actually read what you posted, we would find that your own post, exposes the falsehood in your own statement.

You should consider Dak's admonishment. You are looking at God's Laws through the mind of the Pharisees who were children of the devil. They were lairs and murderers. Where is God's Temple? It's in the Place He Chooses to place it, Yes? When was this ever not the case?

Please my friend, don't cling to this world's religious philosophies and traditions, or seek out men to teach you. Trust in the Scriptures, and the God that Inspired them, especially those Scriptures that the prince of this world preaches are obsolete.

I am very well aware that I am not perfect, and I have been found to be in the wrong on several of the beliefs I have held. And when that is the case, I have admitted so. But I have not found that to be the case in this thread yet. You have made some good points in some of your comments, and I am continuing my study in this and several other areas. God is not finished with His molding of me, that is for sure, but there are some things that I am learning in my studies, and I trust that He will continue shape my understanding with His wisdom.

This is good, as Paul also believed. "I press towards to mark of the High calling of God, in Christ Jesus".

I will impart some advice I learned the hard way, in love of the brethren. When the Scriptures say to "Prove all things", it doesn't mean to "Prove all my words right". And yet, that is what I did early on in my studies. I had biases and preconceived ideas adopted by the religions that surrounded me and spent my time cherry picking scriptures to "prove" them right. Like Jesus said, I loved my darkness and refused to accept "ALL" that was written, in my attempts to preserve my own religion, my own religious traditions. In His Mercy, He taught me to trust the Scriptures (Light) for the very purpose of exposing my darkness. This was painful, humiliating especially dealing with men who watched me cherry pick scriptures to justify what turned out to be falsehoods. But this was 30 years ago, and my understanding has changed, just as HE inspired it to be written.

1 Pet. 5: 6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:

7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.

8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.

10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

11 To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

I wish you God's Speed in the Race God has placed before you.

 

[Doug Brents]

While it is true Jesus never partook of or promoted the Levitical Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron", the reasons to attribute to Him for His refusal to partake of it are questionable, and in the spirit of Brotherly Love, I would share with you my understanding of why the Christ came.

First, Jesus came to save sinners, "Men who were not keeping God's Laws", at least according to the Jesus of the Bible. This implies that HE knew, or certainly expected men would be breaking God's Law when HE came, not keeping them. Those keeping them were righteous, and HE didn't come to Save the Righteous.

There is none righteous, no not even one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Jesus came to save everyone, but His statement you alluded to above was aimed at the Pharisees. They didn’t think they were sinners. They thought they were righteous because of their adherence to the Law of Moses, but in reality they were as sinful as the rest of us.

Second, I agree that the blood of goats did not take away sin, but was to lead men to the Blood that would. Like it did Zacharias and Simeon. I believe Jesus was this man spoken of in the Law and Prophets. Did Jesus Deny Himself? Of course not, therefore "He never instructed a man to bring a goat to a Levite Priest and kill it for forgiveness of sin”. That Priesthood Covenant, "After the Order of Aaron", which was Carnal and Temporary in its conception, and expired at the arrival of God's Prophesied Priest.

At least according to Scriptures in my view. I am open to correction, if you can provide the Scriptures which would support it.

As noted in my previous post, it was a command of God, not a man made order, for the Levites to oversee all of the Tabernacle (and later the Temple) of the Law of Moses, and the family of Aaron (a family inside the tribe of Levi) to be priests over the sacrifices. Yes, this was temporary because it was canceled with the rest of the Old Covenant.

You just said, "You are correct, He never “instructed a man to bring a goat to a Levite Priest and kill it for forgiveness of sin”.

And of course HE didn't, He wasn't a Priest, "After the Order of Aaron" but "After the Order of Melchizedek". But now you are seemingly flip flopping, stating that Jesus "was" promoting these Priesthood Laws that were "ADDED" "Till the Seed should come".

Either Jesus Promoted the "works of the Law" of the Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi, or HE didn't. You can't have it both ways in my view.

Jesus maintained adherence to the Law all of His life, because He was born (and lived His entire life) UNDER THE LAW. But at His death the Law, and the Aaronic priesthood, was abolished. Jesus is our new High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, because He is both King and High Priest. But He is not able to be a priest under the Old Covenant because He is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, not Levi.

Please consider the scriptures, and come to terms with the question, "Did Jesus Promote the "works" of the Levitical Priesthood while He dwelt among men?"

Absolutely He did, for the 33+ years of His life. He went to Jerusalem three times annually as the Law commands. He made sacrifices at the Temple (although these are not recorded in Scripture). And how do we know? Because He was under the Law, and these sacrifices were commands of the Law, and He was sinless His while life.

I'm sure you believe those who you copied and pasted this sermon from.

And no one is saying these Priesthood "works of the Law" didn't foreshadow something. What you are missing it seems, is the Biblical fact that this Priesthood was a teacher that was only to be in place "Till the Seed should come". HE Came Brent. While the Laws, Commandments, Statutes and Judgments which God had written for the Admonition of men who lived "After the Resurrection of Christ", are "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Absolutely I see that the Levitic priesthood foreshadows Jesus’ priesthood, and their sacrifices foreshadow Jesus’ sacrifice. And I know that they have been abolished. That was my point to the other poster. The sacrificial system of the Old Covenant has been cancelled which makes it completely impossible to keep the Old Covenant perfectly today. But to be justified by the Old Covenant you have to keep it perfectly, so it is totally and completely impossible to be justified under the Law today. Even Jesus couldn’t do it today, because there are no more Aaronic priests to whom one would take their sacrifices.

This is what the religions which surround us in the Lands God placed us in preach. But we are warned about listening to them and are to test the spirits. God didn't "ADDED" all these covenants to Israel "Because of Transgressions" "Till the Seed should come". To preach such a thing is foolishness.

Consider the Scriptures.

Jer. 7: 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.

What is God saying here? He is obviously not saying that He didn’t command sacrifices, because a very cursory reading of the handing down of the Law shows that for each commandment given He gives punishment for breaking it, and a sacrifice for becoming right with God again. But earlier in Jer 7 we are told that the Jews were using the sacrifices to excuse flagrant violations of the Law. But God says, as He has Paul write later, sacrifices do not excuse law-breaking; shall we go on sinning that grace may abound? So no, the purpose of giving the Law was not to have sacrifices to excuse violation of the commandments; the Law was given to be obeyed.

And what did God tell Abraham.

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.

This is God's Everlasting Covenant that Israel Broke. Did God kill all Israel with a Flood, like in Noah's Time? Did HE Rain fire and Brimstone on them, destroying them, as in Abraham's Time? Did HE wipe them out and make a great nation out of Moses? No, Moses stood between the people and God and sought for their atonement. So God, in His Mercy, "ADDED" to His Laws, Commandments, and Statues that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph walked in, A Priesthood Covenant with Levi, "concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices" for atonement that Abraham never had. This is Hagar, who was only around for a time, and then "Cast out", just as the Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron" was cast out, at the arrival of God's Prophesied Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek". His true Son.

No, the sacrificial system and priesthood was not added to the Law. It was an intrinsic part of the Law of Moses. Yes, it was added in Moses’ day, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not have the Law. And yes, it was intended to be temporary until Jesus came to be our perfect sacrifice of a perfect Covenant.

But the sacrificial system was not the point of the Law. Just as with us today, we are not to deliberately live a life of sin thinking that God’s grace will continually cleanse us no matter what we do. That is not “walking in the Light”, but deliberately provoking God, as the Jews were doing in Jeremiah 7.

But the Laws, Commandments Statutes and Judgments that Noah and Abraham walked in, are to be written on the hearts of His People, not cast out, as "many" who come in Christ's Name preach.

And in the New Covenant God’s laws ARE written on our hearts, not on tablets of stone, or on scrolls.

Zacharias knew Him when HE came, but he wasn't a "Babe in Christ". Simeon knew who HE was, but he had also grown past the milk of the Word. The Wise men knew who HE was, before HE was murdered. But they too, "MEN" of God, not children still learning how to walk.

True, there were many to whom God revealed who Jesus was.

The “wise men” weren’t even Jewish (I think they were the advisers to the King from Babylon who had access to the prophecies of Daniel who tracked the signs of those prophecies to the time of the Christ).

I can show you a dozen places in the Bible where the Priesthood was Prophesied to change. But there isn't ONE place, where God foretells of a Time, when His Laws will become obsolete. According to HIS OWN Definition of the New Covenant, only 2 things changed.

#1. The manner in which God's Laws are administered. (No more "Receiving the Law" exclusively through Levite Priests Heb. 7:11)

You make a good point, but you must have missed Heb 7:12: if there is a change in priesthood, then of necessity there must be a change of Law, because the Levitical priesthood is of the Law.

#2. The Manner in which sins are forgiven. (No more taking a goat to the Levite Priest.)

The preaching that God's instruction in Righteousness became obsolete at Calvery, is a doctrine of this world. Don't be deceived Brent. If the Scriptures were trustworthy 14 years after the death and resurrection of the Lord's Christ, then they are still trustworthy today.

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Agreed, and this passage was originally referencing only the OT Scriptures. Since then however, I believe, all of the New Testament Scriptures were written, and where there is a discrepancy between them, the New Covenant Scripture takes precedence. In other words, when the New Covenant Scriptures say that all animal flesh is ok to eat, and the Old Covenant Scriptures (from Moses to Christ’s death) say we can only eat “clean” animals, then the NT is applicable to us today.

Please note that the sabbath was first mentioned in Genesis 2, but was not mentioned again, and not given as a command, until almost 2000 years later at Mt Sinai. Adam did not keep sabbath, Noah did not keep sabbath, Abraham did not keep sabbath, and Moses did not keep sabbath for the first 80 years of his life.
Noah was given “Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I have given everything to you, as I gave the green plant.” (Gen 9:3).

But wait a minute here. You just said there were two covenants. And only ONE, "Hagar", was cast out. The Priesthood and the sacrificial "works of the Law" are all part of the Same Temporary, Carnal Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi, on Iseral's behalf. The "covenant" Israel broke, was the Good, Just, Holy and Perfect Laws of God Abraham walked in, and Moses gave before the Golden calf.

These two Covenants are not the "Same" Covenant. One was "ADDED" because of transgressions of the other. (Gal. 3) One was "Cast out", the other remains.

No. The covenant with Abraham and the Laws that came from Mt Sinai with the priesthood of Levi and the sacrifices at the Tabernacle (and later the Temple) was part of the same covenant, the first covenant: the Old Covenant that was made obsolete.

The New Covenant (the second covenant) did not come into being until Jesus’ death.

Open your mind Brent, consider all the warnings of the Christ Himself, regarding deceivers "who come in Christ's Name". Trust the Scriptures.

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

Ex. 32: 26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

The love of the Lord God is my only motivation. I am not here to deceive or to lead anyone astray. If you can show me that the Old Covenant (from Genesis to Malachi) are still binding on the New Testament Christian, then I will gladly submit myself to the Old Covenant. But, so far, I see that we are not subject to any of the Old Covenant, because all of the moral judgements have been restated in the New Covenant books and letters (Matthew to Revelation). Only the commandments in these writings are commands to the NT Christian (so far as I can tell from my continuing study).

 

[Icyspark]

I am not the one who said that God found fault with His Old Covenant; He did. The Old Covenant was made on good promises, and was good. But God made a New Covenant based on better promises (not my words, God’s!).

Hi Doug Brents,

Where God found fault is expressly stated in the text we've been discussing but you seem to have a predetermined agenda to make the fault lie with God. You say, "I am not the one who said that God found fault with His Old Covenant, He did." This is just mind-boggling. It says it right in Hebrews 8:8 that the fault with the Old Covenant was with "THE PEOPLE." This is such an amazing exercise in futility. God spells out where the fault in the Old Covenant was but you reject that and insist that you can make it say something completely different. Ultimately you're placing blame on God.

In your last paragraph, you argue that the 10 commandments are not a part of the Old Covenant because the thing agreed upon is not part of the agreement (where you get that nonsense I have no idea, but you are welcome to your opinion). But now you argue that they are part of the Covenant? Make up your mind; it cannot be both ways.

I'm sure I never intimated that "the 10 commandments are not part of the Old Covenant." I think this is you again conflating the agreement (which was faulty) with what was agreed upon (which is perfect). You're actually the one tryna have it both ways. Is the law perfect as the Bible says, or is it faulty, as you says? Or is it both and?

Yes, the 10 commandments were a covenant, added to, and rolled into the Old Covenant (the one made originally with Abraham). But let’s say I am wrong, and the 10 commandments are a stand-alone covenant. Then Gal 4:21-31 is speaking DIRECTLY to the 10 commandments (being the covenant that came from Sinai) and what does verse 30 say? “Drive out the slave woman and her son, For the son of the slave woman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.”
The slave woman is the 10 commandments that came from Sinai, and her children will not be heirs with the son of the free woman (the New Covenant).

Clearly you are adding to the covenant which has a restricting number. It's as if the numeral 10 serves zero purpose. Please explain what you believe is the purpose of placing a numeral with the commandments God wrote with His own finger?

Deuteronomy 4:2​

DO NOT ADD to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.​

You clearly have no problem rejecting this admonition. Why is that?

Speaking of the Ten Commandment covenant Moses records that after God gave them that "He added nothing more." Yet somehow you feel free to mix them in with not only the rest of the 603 stipulations, decrees and laws (from which God chose to keep His Ten separate), but also adding this covenant to every other random covenant as if they're all the same agreement.

Deuteronomy 5:22​

These are the commandments the Lord proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and HE ADDED NOTHING MORE. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.​

If God "added nothing more" and He says "do not add to what I command," don't you think it's pretty brazen to claim that you can add where He didn't and also clearly says not to go there?

I have been taking the Old Covenant back just to Abraham, but many of the promises that were included in the Old Covenant were originally made to Adam, and again to Noah, and then to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and then Moses. Same promises, same Covenant. Jesus fulfills ALL of those promises, and inaugurates a New Covenant.

You're making assertions here with no appeal to biblical support.

Again, I am not the one accusing God of making a “bad” covenant. I am simply repeating what God Himself said.

No, you're definitely ignoring where God placed the blame and are choosing to reject what He said and apparently insisting He is part of the problem. Is that the case? Is your conflation argumentation a condemnation of God's communication? Let's hear your explanation.

Yes, His promises are always fulfilled. But even He changes His mind. His essence in unchanging, His eternal attributes are unchanging, but He does have the ability to change His mind. And when He says that the promises of the New Covenant are better than those of the Old, we MUST believe that this is so, unless you believe that this passage of Scripture is not really part of God’s Word. Is that the case? [I believe what the Bible says. See below]

God didn't change His mind when He identified where the sole problem was with the old agreement. "God found fault with THE PEOPLE." You keep ignoring this clear statement in favor of your apparently predetermined belief that the law is the same thing as the covenant (i.e. conflation). God did not find fault with any of the law He said is perfect. Do you agree with that?

When God says "that the promises of the New Covenant are better than those of the Old, we MUST believe that this is so" is true in the case that I've already pointed out to you several times.

1. Does God make anything less than perfect promises?
2. Did "the people" make bad promises?
3. Is there an explicit Bible example of "the people" making a collective promise to obey all that the Lord had said and to be obedient?
4. Were the promises of "the people" good, bad or ugly?
5. I've showed you where to locate what the author of Hebrews identifies as fault with the people. Can you show where you find faulty promises which are different than the promises of "the people"?

Yes, I am was a sinner.
Sin is any violation of God’s law as it stands during the life of the individual (God’s law was different for Adam before the Fall, than it was for Abraham, than it was for Elisha, than it is for you and me).

You are still not appealing to Scripture. The Bible provides several definitions of sin. Why are you avoiding use of any of those?

Romans 5:13​

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.​

Your premise about the law being different for different ages is unbiblical (as can be seen by the fact that you make assertions rather than attempt to provide biblical support). Prior to Cain murdering his brother God confronted him and said that "sin is lurking at the door; and its desire is for you...” It's apparent that Cain knew it was a sin for him to murder his brother even though this is before the codification of the law in Exodus (i.e. sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law). Apparently law was known in order for sin to be charged against Cain's account.

Without the law there is no sin, no matter what time period you're in.

I have stolen, had sex with my both my wives before we were married (1st died before I met the 2nd), I have been addicted to inappropriate content, and other sins (1 Cor 6:9-11)
But I have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. I was baptized into Christ when I was 14, when I was convicted of sin in my life and in baptism surrendered my life to Him. Since then, as mentioned above, I have stumbled, but I constantly turn back to Christ (as David did when he sinned) and the blood of Christ continually cleanses me from all sin (1 John 1:7).

Forgiveness isn't one and done. John says if we confess our sins (plural and implied ongoing) that God is faithful and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from our unrighteousness. "We MUST believe that this is so, unless you believe that this passage of Scripture is not really part of God’s Word. Is that the case?" Why would you need to confess your sins if they're already forgiven?

Now, if I were under the Old Covenant the list of my sins would be much longer: I did not eat a Passover meal until I was in my mid 40s, I do not keep the 7th day as a day of rest, I do not make pilgrimage to Jerusalem annually (never been there), I don’t make sacrifices at the Temple there (no one has in almost 2000 years). These, and many more I am sure, of the many laws of the Old Covenant have I disregarded because they are no longer relevant to the New Testament Christian (Gentile or Jew) as far as salvation goes.

I'm just wondering, are you part of the New Covenant?

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Studyman]

There is none righteous, no not even one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Jesus came to save everyone, but His statement you alluded to above was aimed at the Pharisees. They didn’t think they were sinners. They thought they were righteous because of their adherence to the Law of Moses, but in reality they were as sinful as the rest of us.

I think just promoting religious talking points from one religious sect or another, doesn't edify. We should seek God's Truth, not simply repeat popular religious slogans. I have heard this popular religious philosophy that there was no difference between the Pharisees, and the Faithful. Lets see what Paul and David actually said in the snippet you quoted to correct me. "

There is none righteous, no not even one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Rom. 3: 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

So if I understand the religious philosophy you are promoting here, you are preaching that Paul is saying, even after over 14 years since Jesus Ascended, after the Holy Spirit came upon those members of the First Church of God under God's New Priesthood, that the Body of Christ's tongues are still used for deceit, just as the Pharisees who persecuted God's Church, there is no difference between the two. That Jesus wasn't able, even after over 14 years, to bring "ONE" person, "NO NOT ONE" into a Righteousness that exceeds the Righteousness of the Pharisees. I have always been fascinated by how "many" who call Jesus Lord, preach this heresy about Paul and the Body of Christ. We should "test the spirits" of this popular religious philosophy of this world.

Paul quoted David in Psalms 14 and 5. In the interest of seeking what Paul was actually teaching, it seems only prudent to examine these scriptures he quoted. Maybe not for those who are simply promoting a specific religious franchise, or religious sect of this world, but for those who hunger For God's truth, let's look are what The Spirit of Christ inspired David to write, that Paul thought important enough to quote him in rom. 3..

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They (children of men) are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD. 5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

So Brent, seeing you are a preacher, correcting and rebuking me and others on this forum, can you tell me who "God's People" are here? Are they "workers of iniquity"? And since you are proclaiming that "there is no one Righteous, no not one", then is God, David and the Christ promoting lies here? And the "Generation of the Righteous" is a false doctrine, a non-existent people?? Or is it possible that you have been led astray as to what Paul and David are really teaching? But just to be certain I am not missing something here, Paul also quoted Psalms 5. So let's look at these inspired Words of the Christ as well.

Psalms 5: 4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. 5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. 6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man. 7 But as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple. 8 Lead me, O LORD, in thy righteousness because of mine enemies; make thy way straight before my face. 9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue. 10 Destroy thou them, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; cast them out in the multitude of their transgressions; for they have rebelled against thee.

So your declaration, "There is none righteous, no not even one", by itself, can be and is used to justify sinners. As you did. But when a person considers "Every Word" which Proceeds from the mouth of God, HIS Truth is revealed, and the context in which you used Paul's Words are exposed as false.

This is a perfect example of men "Wresting" Paul's Words, to their own destruction. And so as to be sure I am also not in Error, are there other examples of men, who "sinned", fell short of the Glory of God, repented and "by patient continuance in well doing" became Servants of God's Righteousness? Let's see how Gods Word answers this question.

Gen. 6: 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Gen. 26: 5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Num. 14: 24 But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.

2 Kings 18: 2 Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. 3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. 4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. 5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. 6 For he clave to the LORD, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses.

Luke 1: 5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

God is in and has always been in the Generation of the Righteous. For you to preach "There is none righteous, no not even one", without also providing the Biblical truth about those who "Yield themselves" to Obey God, is deceptive. You don't mean it that way, no one does. Thats the point about being deceived. Eve didn't set out to cause so much trouble for Adam. The Pharisees didn't realize they were children of the devil. You can't see the folly in your statement "They thought they were righteous because of their adherence to the Law of Moses, but in reality they were as sinful as the rest of us.

Neither Paul, nor David, and certainly not the Spirit of Christ which inspired them, teaches this religious philosophy. It is taught, but not by the Spirit of Christ.

In the Pharisees case, they had been told by Moses, the Prophets, and Even the Son of God, that they were disobedient. That they were promoting doctrines of devils, and commandments of men. But they didn't believe Moses, or the God who gave Him his Words, and as a result, they Didn't believe Jesus, who brought the same Words from the same God.

So the next time you hear that voice in your head justifying your religious philosophy by saying "There is none righteous, no not even one. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. in reality they were as sinful as the rest of us."

You remind yourself, "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

 

[Lulav]

Where God found fault is expressly stated in the text we've been discussing but you seem to have a predetermined agenda to make the fault lie with God. You say, "I am not the one who said that God found fault with His Old Covenant, He did." This is just mind-boggling. It says it right in Hebrews 8:8 that the fault with the Old Covenant was with "THE PEOPLE." This is such an amazing exercise in futility. God spells out where the fault in the Old Covenant was but you reject that and insist that you can make it say something completely different. Ultimately you're placing blame on God.

cognitive dissonance? I can never understand how someone says that they love Gd and follow him yet think they are superior to him and can blame things on him.

Deuteronomy 4:2DO NOT ADD to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.
You clearly have no problem rejecting this admonition. Why is that?

I've always noticed that there in Torah we read this which is direct communication between God and man just as in the book of Revelation where it carried the same admonition along with the penalty for doing so. Either some folks don't think this applies to them or maybe under the 'great delusion'.

No, you're definitely ignoring where God placed the blame and are choosing to reject what He said and apparently insisting He is part of the problem. Is that the case?

The LORD is perfect in all his ways wither we understand them or not, as he says:
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord."

God didn't change His mind when He identified where the sole problem was with the old agreement. "God found fault with THE PEOPLE." You keep ignoring this clear statement in favor of your apparently predetermined belief that the law is the same thing as the covenant (i.e. conflation). God did not find fault with any of the law He said is perfect.

And King David extolled those same things about the law. He is the biggest 'promoter' of Gods laws in the whole Bible.

 

[Lulav]

Paul quoted David in Psalms 14 and 5. In the interest of seeking what Paul was actually teaching, it seems only prudent to examine these scriptures he quoted. Maybe not for those who are simply promoting a specific religious franchise, or religious sect of this world, but for those who hunger For God's truth, let's look are what The Spirit of Christ inspired David to write, that Paul thought important enough to quote him in rom. 3..

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Indeed the quote was incomplete.

Here it is from Romans:

All Have Sinned​

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. ​

​

10 As it is written:​

“There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
13 “Their throat is an open [d]tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”​

Seems Paul taught an incomplete quote of not one instance of the the Psalm but Two. But Both have the subject in the very first part so we know who David is speaking of................

Psalms 14 :
1 {To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.} The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.
5 There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.
7 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.

Psalms 53
1 The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity;
There is none who does good.

2 God looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 Every one of them has turned aside;
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.

4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge,
Who eat up my people as they eat bread,
And do not call upon God?
5 There they are in great fear
Where no fear was,
For God has scattered the bones of him who encamps against you;
You have put them to shame,
Because God has despised them.

6 Oh, that the salvation of Israel would come out of Zion!
When God brings back the captivity of His people,
Let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad.

 

[Lulav]

I did not intend to offend you in doing so. The Holy Days are among the festivals and holidays that were expressly excluded from being mandatory in the New Covenant (Col 2:16). Those days and festivals are no longer Holy, but are kept today because of the traditions of men. Please forgive me for offending you in this.

How does someone saying not to judge another cancel these days as well?

Thanks for bringing that up because you are under the impression that all is done away with and Jesus fulfilled everything int he Torah and Prophets, but that's not really true.

Three of the seven are still not fulfilled.

Yom Teruah - The day of blowing the shofar, done when announcing the crowning of the King
Yom Kippur - the day of Atonement
Sukkot - the day of in-gathering, of tabernacling with the King

And quit insulting the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, His HOLY MOEDIM (Appointments with his people ) are still HOLY. They may be celebrated by some with traditions, but not because of them.

And I suppose that His writing in stone with his finger makes His command more meaningful than His word, or His inspiration through a human writer? Hmmm, interesting?

That's really a no-brainer , Written in stone and placed inside the Ark, Called the Ark of the Covenant, God's Holy throne and now in Heaven as a witness against all who know and either obey them or don't.
Carved in stone and gaurded by angels where no man can twist them or proclaim they are done away with sounds like the way to go and also makes them exceptionally HOLY. (Set- Apart)

 

[Bob S]

How does someone saying not to judge another cancel these days as well?

Because of the remainder of the facts. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

 

[safswan]

I understand your desire to be arbiter of truth but I already have one.

You misunderstand. Not trying to be an arbiter, just amazed at, and trying to see how best, one can avoid wasting time, trying to convince one who will not change, even when their error is so obvious.

 

[Studyman]

Digital error

 

[daq]

You misunderstand. Not trying to be an arbiter, just amazed at, and trying to see how best, one can avoid wasting time, trying to convince one who will not change, even when their error is so obvious.

You went on a lengthy rant about circumcision, which I did indeed speak of in a particular post, but in your lengthy post you did not even address what I actually said about circumcision still being a requirement and rather went off on physical circumcision which isn't even the interpretation of circumcision according to both the Torah and Paul.

Moreover at the end of your post you state the following:

Sorry to be so negative but, I have been there and done that and I hate to see us waste our time. Just post your beliefs and understanding of scripture and move on. No need to discuss the beliefs or understanding of others nor entertain any questions about your beliefs. This will reduce the possibility for contention and would certainly be less stressful.

Or at least, choose carefully, who to have discussions with.

Did you not read the OP? It has two names: the name of the one who posted this thread in the sidebar, within his profile information, and my screen name in the content of the opening post, which makes this essentially a call-out thread.

Moreover if you think I am wrong about something then please be specific about what that is, and address me, and address the error with scripture correction, rather than posting a wall of unrelated ranting and admonishing everyone just to believe you.

 

[sparow]

In a conversation with DAQ in another thread, the question moved from whether we were still required to keep the kosher laws of the Old Covenant to whether we were still required to keep any of the laws of the Old Covenant. Below is a summation of my understanding of the modern Christian's responsibility to the Old Covenant based on Scripture, New and Old.

What is the purpose of the Law today?
1 Cor 10:11 - "Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come."
The Old Covenant stories are an example to us and as instruction to us; they are history from which we learn.

Rom 15:4 - "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."
Again, the Old Covenant Scriptures are for our encouragement and instruction.

2 Tim 3:14-17 - "You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work."
The "sacred writings" and "all Scripture" here are the Old Covenant (the New Covenant having not yet been compiled as we have it today). The Old Covenant Scriptures are valuable "for teaching, for rebuking, for correction, and for training in righteousness". However, are they still binding on us today? Are we still bound to obey the Law of Moses? Is our salvation tied to keeping the Law? Or are we freed from the Law?


What then is the purpose of the Mosaic Law and the Old Covenant?
In Galatians 2, Paul tells of his confrontation with Peter. Before some of the Jews came to where Peter was, Peter was living and eating with Gentiles (presumably eating what the Gentiles ate), but when the Jews came Peter withdrew hypocritically from the Gentiles, and caused many of the Christian Jews with him to sin also (Gal 2:11-14).
Gal 2:15-21 - "“We are Jews by nature and not sinners from the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless, knowing that a person is not justified by works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by works of the Law no flesh will be justified. 17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Far from it! 18 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a wrongdoer. 19 For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and ]the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”"
The Law of Moses does not have the capability of making a person righteous before God.

The purpose of the Law was to show us what sin was, and to demonstrate to us that we could not keep the Law of God perfectly no matter how hard we try.
Gal 3:21-29 - "Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? Far from it! For if a law had been given that was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has confined everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the Law, being confined for the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. 26 For you are all sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise."
The Law was not given to make us righteous, nor was it able to give us life. It was given to be a guardian (some translations say schoolmaster), an educator that would teach us morality and bring us to Jesus when He came. But now that Jesus has come in the flesh, we are no longer under the guardian, but are now under Christ. And this makes us heirs to God's promise to Abraham.
Romans 3:19-20 restates this same point.
"Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin."

But we are told in Jeremiah 31:31-34 that someday a New Covenant would be made with Israel.
"“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.”"
This very passage was quoted by the writer of Hebrews in chapter 8. Right after the writer says that we have a High Priest greater than any High Priest of the past (the Old Covenant), who is not able to be a priest of the Old Covenant because He is not of the right House. But He is both our High Priest and King then and forever.
Heb 8:1-7 - "Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things by the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain.” 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, to the extent that He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second."
The OT priests (Levites) served a copy of the Heavenly things, but Jesus is the thing which they copied. But there was fault in the first (Old) Covenant, and so a second was required; a better Covenant based on better promises.
Heb 8:13 - "When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear."
When did He say that there was a New Covenant coming? In Jeremiah. The Old Covenant was made obsolete when Jeremiah was alive, but it did not disappear (cease to be relevant to believers in God) until Jesus came and fulfilled it.
Heb 10:1-10 - "For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the form of those things itself, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually every year, make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
“You have not desired sacrifice and offering,
But You have prepared a body for Me;
6 You have not taken pleasure in whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come
(It is written of Me in the scroll of the book)
To do Your will, O God.’”
8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time."
By His sacrifice on the Cross, Jesus took away the first order (the Old Covenant) to establish the second (New Covenant).
Finally, Gal 4:21-31 gives us a very clear picture from history to depict the reality of the two covenants.
"Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the Law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is speaking allegorically, for these women are two covenants: one coming from Mount Sinai giving birth to children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is enslaved with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written:
“Rejoice, infertile one, you who do not give birth;
Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor;
For the children of the desolate one are more numerous
Than those of the one who has a husband.”
28 And you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time the son who was born according to the flesh persecuted the one who was born according to the Spirit, so it is even now. 30 But what does the Scripture say?
“Drive out the slave woman and her son,
For the son of the slave woman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.”
31 So then, brothers and sisters, we are not children of a slave woman, but of the free woman."
The Old Covenant which came from Mt. Sinai is likened to Hagar, the slave mother of the slave son of Abraham who would not be heir.
The New Covenant in Christ is likened to Sarah, the free mother of the free son of Abraham who was heir to the promise.
As we have seen in Gal 3:29 above, those who believe in Christ are heirs to Abraham and the Promise, not those who cling to the Old Covenant.

What does this mean for us today?
Acts 15:8-11 - "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Since this is the case, why are you putting God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our forefathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”"
Peter, speaking here to the other Apostles and leaders in Jerusalem, asks a very pertinent question. Why would the Jews seek to put around the necks of the Gentiles a yolk that they themselves had been able to bear? The Jews were and are saved through the grace of Jesus just as the Gentiles of the first century were and are still today.
So then, it is clear when Paul speaks to the people at Colossi that he is telling them that they are not bound to the Law in what they eat, or what festivals they keep, or to keeping the sabbath.
Col 2:16-17 - "Therefore, no one is to act as your judge in regard to food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon, or a Sabbath day — 17 things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."
Let no one judge you or criticize you about what you eat or drink, or about a festival you keep or don't keep, or about keeping or not keeping the sabbath, because these things are only a shadow of the real thing, and the real thing is Christ.
Matt 5:17-18 - "“Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!""
Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (the Old Covenant). What does it mean that He "fulfilled" it?
1. He kept them perfectly
2. He fulfilled the prophecies about the Messiah that would come and save both Israel and the Nations.
3. He satisfied the Covenant with God, finishing all the requirements of the Law and making room for a New Covenant to be established that would accomplish the promise made to Abraham.

Heb 4:1-11 - "Therefore, we must fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also did; but the word they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united with those who listened with faith. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
“As I swore in My anger,
They certainly shall not enter My rest,”
although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; 5 and again in this passage, “They certainly shall not enter My rest.” 6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who previously had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,
“Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9 Consequently, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. 10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. 11 Therefore let’s make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following the same example of disobedience."
From this passage we see that the Israelites were given the sabbath as a rest, but many did not "enter into My rest". Why? Because of disobedience. But then He sets another day. What day? TODAY! Then verse 10 says that the One (Jesus) who has entered His rest has also rested from His works (salvation). So let us make every effort to enter into His (Jesus') rest.
But from what is it that Jesus is our rest? Jesus is our rest from our efforts to be "good enough" or to keep the Law perfectly. He kept the Law, and He offers us His perfection so that we can rest.
Thus, Jesus is the New Testament sabbath, and TODAY is the day to enter into Him.

I have difficulty with long posts, so I address the title of the thread.


Are we subject to the old covenant today; we shouldn't be; to be subject to the old covenant is to deny Jesus, but the differences between the old and the new are small and are summed up by words like “better”, because we have a person to relate to instead of a spirit; otherwise the terms of the covenant are the same; the Law and the Prophets unchanged; the King is the same; the Kingdom is the same; the confirmation is the same.

 

[safswan]

You went on a lengthy rant about circumcision, which I did indeed speak of in a particular post, but in your lengthy post you did not even address what I actually said about circumcision still being a requirement and rather went off on physical circumcision which isn't even the interpretation of circumcision according to both the Torah and Paul.

Moreover at the end of your post you state the following:



Did you not read the OP? It has two names: the name of the one who posted this thread in the sidebar, within his profile information, and my screen name in the content of the opening post, which makes this essentially a call-out thread.

Moreover if you think I am wrong about something then please be specific about what that is, and address me, and address the error with scripture correction, rather than posting a wall of unrelated ranting and admonishing everyone just to believe you.

Again I must say you misunderstand. The subjects I addressed were just used as examples of the futility in trying to change the position held by another although the evidence is clearly against that position. I had no intention of addressing anyone in particular.

Your success at responding to the, "call out thread", is evident and supports the point I am trying to make.

 

[Studyman]

Because of the remainder of the facts. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Obviously there are Prophesied events that are Yet to Come. Jesus has not yet fulfilled "All things", and unless HE returns as prophesied, the Faith of the Faithful is in vain.

So the "FACT" that you are omitting, is that the Holy "Feasts of the Lord", the Rock of Israel, are Shadows of things that are yet to come. This is why Paul was still honoring God in His Feasts over a decade after Jesus ascended, because he knew these instructions were regarding things that were yet to come.



17 (KJV) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

17 (RSV) These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

Colossians 2:17 (NLT) For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality.

Colossians 2:17 (ESV) These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Colossians 2:17 (GNT) All such things are only a shadow of things in the future; the reality is Christ.

Colossians 2:17 (RHE) Which are a shadow of things to come: but the body is of Christ.

Colossians 2:17 (WYC) which be shadow of things to coming [which be shadow of things to come]; for the body is of Christ.

Colossians 2:17 (YLT) which are a shadow of the coming things, and the body [is] of the Christ;

 

[Soyeong]

The discussion in this thread has been an interesting one. I find that, as usual, positions are not subject to change but are in fact set in rock.

No one will admit to their errors and believe me there are errors on both sides of the discussion.

These discussions need not go beyond one or two responses as the apostle Paul advised:

Titus 3:
10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

No need to waste more than the time recommended, as persons are able to see very early, whether or not one is willing to learn or only intends to teach what they believe.

The problem that Paul described in Titus 3:9-11 was not in regard to people who are only interested in teaching, but not in listening. Furthermore, people can be entrenched on one topic while being open to discuss other topics, so it is is not black and white that someone is either willing to learn or only intends to teach, and even one a topic where that is true for someone, then that is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, those who participate in formal debates tend to have done a lot of research on a particular topic, so they are justifiably entrenched, and their goal of interacting with their opponent is not to try to convince them, but to teach the audience. So even if it is doubtful that their discussion will bear fruit with their opponents they can still bear fruit with their audience, and in a similar manner, a discussion on a forum between two people where neither changes their mind can still have fruit for the other readers.

For example:

Scripture clearly tell us that physical circumcision is not a requirement of the new covenant:

Galatians 5:
6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

So there should be no discussion about whether or not physical circumcision was to be observed in the new covenant, Paul had this to say about the actual practice:

Galatians 2:
3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

But how can anyone even contemplate circumcision to be more important or more highly regarded than the Sabbath by God.

Either there are correct or incorrect reasons for becoming circumcised and Paul only spoke against the incorrect reasons, or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he has him circumcised in Acts 16:3 and Christ is of no value t roughly 80% of the men in the US, so there is easily room to interpret Paul as teaching against becoming circumcised for for incorrect reasons and not as teaching against obeying what God has commanded.

The same reasons in fact, would make it more highly regarded, than any of the other commands in the ten also. So if this is one of the reasons for dismissing the Sabbath, then it could be used to dismiss the nine which are accepted as part of the new covenant and especially the third command which is not repeated in the scriptures of the apostles.

The fact is that, the Sabbath along with the ten, received very special treatment by God.

They were the only commands spoken by God to the people of Israel and were a complete package, as it is said, at the completion, he spoke no more. He also wrote them on two tables of stone, not once, but twice. The second tables were then placed in the ark of the covenant. (Deuteronomy 5:4,22;10:1-5;Exodus 32:19;34:1-4,28)

How can anyone say they were not specially treated and remain a credible commentator?

The Lord Jesus was asked about eternal life and the encounter was instructive.

The young man asked:

Matthew 19:
16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

The Lord’s answer:

17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

He being aware of the many commands in the law then asked:

18He saith unto him, Which?

Did Jesus list out every single command he should observe or did He show the young man the category or type of commands?

The Lord’s answer:

18Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Again, a clear emphasis on the ten commandments. Nothing about circumcision. Could not be that important.

The apostle Paul also showed this inclination when he described a particular command as the first with a promise.

Ephesians 6:
1Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise

We should consider, of which group is this command, the first with a promise?

This statement implies Paul has the ten in mind and hence is endorsing the ten as being applicable to the Christian.

There is more, but these are hints of the continued validity of the ten in its entirety. Every single command does not have to be repeated for the continued relevance of the ten to be seen. It only takes a honest heart which is truly desiring to please the Almighty.

However the Lord in considering the cynics and those who may want to insist that the command must be repeated, left a witness which does declare Sabbath breaking, and also taking the Lords name in vain, as a sin and contrary to the gospel.

In I Timothy 1:8-11 is contained a much misunderstood passage of scripture. The apostle Paul in this passage describes persons who had committed certain sins. It is clear that Paul says those sins he mentioned were, "contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel..."[I Timothy 1:10,11]

Hence these sins must not be found among Christians. Some are easily identified, but others need careful examination to discern the fault Paul is identifying. When this passage is fully understood, it will be seen that Paul is identifying persons who broke the ten commandments, up to commandment 9 and in the same order as they were given in Exodus 20.

THE LIST OF COMMANDMENT BREAKERS.​

Lawless - Anomos (Gr.),without law, not having, knowing or acknowledging the law. (Shows opposition to or contempt for the will of God.)
Disobedient - Anupotaktos(Gr.),disobedient to authority(God's)
Ungodly - Asebes(Gr.),Godless, without fear or reverence to God ,one who practices the opposite of what the fear of God demands.
Sinners - Hamartolos(Gr.),a heinous and habitual sinner.

The above persons do not recognize the true God and His laws but have gods of their own. They end up making images in honour of these gods and offer worship to them contrary to the commands of the true God.[See, Romans 1:18-25;Proverbs 16:27;Deuteronomy 13:13;II Corinthians 6:14-18;I Samuel 2:12;Galatians 4:8; N.B. ,ungodly - sons of belial]

The persons above break commandments 1 & 2


Unholy - Anosios(Gr.),opposite of holy, profane.
Profane - Bebelos(Gr.),unhallowed, opposite of sacred, permitted to be trodden.

The above persons disregard or desecrate that which is holy. They take the Lord's name in vain and pollute the Sabbath.[See, Leviticus 18:21;19:12;Matthew 12:5;Nehemiah 13:17;Isaiah 58:13;56:6]

The persons above break commandments 3 & 4.

The rest are fairly straightforward and self-explanatory.

Murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers - Dishonour parents by killing them.

The persons above break commandment 5.



Manslayers - Kill others.

The persons above break commandment 6.


Whoremongers etc. - Commit adultery and various sexual sins.

The persons above break commandment 7.


Men stealers - Steal or kidnap men.

The persons above break commandment 8.


Liars and perjured persons - These persons lie, bear false witness.

The persons above break commandment 9.


Any other thing contrary to sound doctrine would include commandment 10,which must be transgressed before any other sin is committed.[See, James 1:14,15;I Corinthians 10:6;Matthew 15:19]


Hence Paul clearly affirms that the breaking of the ten commandment law is a sin and describes those who disregard the Sabbath as unholy and profane. In this passage, Paul states plainly that it is contrary to sound Christian doctrine, contrary to the gospel, to be unholy and profane ie. to disregard the Sabbath.[I Timothy 1:10,11]

It is no coincidence that this list follows the ten commandments list as was given in Exodus 20. This is stating that Sabbath breaking is a sin as is taking the Lord’s name in vain according to the new covenant.

The treatment of the vision of Peter, in Acts chapter 10, is also indicative of someone, who wrests the scriptures to their own demise. Discussing the scriptures with such persons cannot be profitable.

The dream is clearly interpreted by Peter as referring to humans whom God had called to receive salvation. He said:

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

Is it that all men are now to be considered clean? Peter helps us to understand to whom this applies:

Acts 10:
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

These are the persons whom God had cleansed and not every single person. Paul confirms this as he declares that persons who are unclean cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Ephesians 5:
5For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God

Hence unclean persons still exist today and to follow the so called rule about an analogy, then unclean animals still exist today as well. This is confirmed by the words of an angel.

Revelation 18:
2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

The fact is that, the passage is entirely about salvation coming to the Gentiles, and has nothing to do with unclean animals.

If someone cannot see that, then it makes no sense having a discussion about the scriptures with them.

In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus also said that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments, which are not listed in the Ten Commandments, though many see the greatest two commandments and the Ten Commandments as being inclusive of the other commandments. In lists like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Paul clearly refers to things other than what is listed in the Ten Commandments.

Sorry to be so negative but, I have been there and done that and I hate to see us waste our time. Just post your beliefs and understanding of scripture and move on. No need to discuss the beliefs or understanding of others nor entertain any questions about your beliefs. This will reduce the possibility for contention and would certainly be less stressful.

Or at least, choose carefully, who to have discussions with.

If someone is here just posts their beliefs and moves on without discussing them as you just recommended, then they would be here just to teach and not here to listen, which is what you were speaking against.