Can a person love without the Ten Commandments

[VictorC]

Well, well, well brother Victor it seems these simple questions are like a bad tooth.
I'll try to rephrase them to make them easier to answer.
Can you steal, lie and commit adultery?

If you can, tell my why you can.

If you can't, tell me why you can't.
I guess I can't make them any easier.

The questions that you ask -and have no answer for yourself- are borne in the fact that you are a sinner and continue to sin, making the premise you ask from a fallacy. You somehow think you're going to attain sinless perfection, and you aren't going to attain anything respected before a holy God.

That, and every time I try to answer this line of fallacious questioning, brother Paul stumbles up to the podium and yanks the microphone out of my hands, so that he may speak:
Romans 3:5-10
5: But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
6: God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
7: For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
8: And not rather, as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
9: What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10: As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one...

Now tell me what your hope is in, since you deserve damnation, and you're no better than the rest of us sinners in desparate need of redemption.

I sense a flaw in your belief system.
Have you built your house on sand?

My house is on the Rock.
Meanwhile, I would think you are having a few problems you need to address, since these are still waiting for your answer or acknowledgement:

Ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
the second answer
unworthy servants versus sons of the promise
build upon this foundation gold or wood/hay/stubble
cast out the slave woman and her children

Victor

 

[k4c]

The questions that you ask -and have no answer for yourself- are borne in the fact that you are a sinner and continue to sin, making the premise you ask from a fallacy. You somehow think you're going to attain sinless perfection, and you aren't going to attain anything respected before a holy God.

That, and every time I try to answer this line of fallacious questioning, brother Paul stumbles up to the podium and yanks the microphone out of my hands, so that he may speak:
Romans 3:5-10
5: But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
6: God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
7: For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
8: And not rather, as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
9: What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10: As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one...

Now tell me what your hope is in, since you deserve damnation, and you're no better than the rest of us sinners in desparate need of redemption.


My house is on the Rock.
Meanwhile, I would think you are having a few problems you need to address, since these are still waiting for your answer or acknowledgement:

Ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
the second answer
unworthy servants versus sons of the promise
build upon this foundation gold or wood/hay/stubble
cast out the slave woman and her children

Victor

Once again you have wiggled your way out of answering my questions so I will post them one more time and maybe, just maybe, I can get an answer.

Can you steal, lie and commit adultery?

If you can, tell my why you can.

If you can't, tell me why you can't.

Now as far as the list of things you keep posting, of which I answered many many times already, I will answer once more.

I don't keep the law as a means to be saved, but rather, because I am saved.

If I was keeping the law as a means to be saved then I would be desiring to be under the so that I may boast. But I do not boast of anything in myself but in Christ.

I am a son of God and not a servant. Since the law is a reflection of my Father's character I will keep the law not to be a son, but rather, because I'm a son. like Father like Son.

If I was using my works as a means to be saved they would be hay and stubble but I don't. Christ is my righteousness which now allows me to delight in the law as a son.

I have cast out the slave woman when I received Christ as my righteousness. Now I keep the law as a means to express godly love and true worship not as a means to obtain righteousness.

 

[VictorC]

Once again you have wiggled your way out of answering my questions so I will post them one more time and maybe, just maybe, I can get an answer.

Can you steal, lie and commit adultery?
If you can, tell my why you can
If you can't, tell me why you can't

I mentioned before that the premise that you have in mind is a fallacy, and Proverbs 26:4 is my guidance in answering you.
You are yourself guilty of the very things you ask if you can or not continue in, and yet you excuse yourself for continuing in them.
The answer is one you need to wrestle with.

Now as far as the list of things you keep posting, of which I answered many many times already, I will answer once more.

No, there are many posts you have failed to address, and they are specific answers to your many objections over the Gospel. You haven't answered.

I don't keep the law as a means to be saved, but rather, because I am saved.

So now that you're saved, as you say, why is it that you do not keep the law?

If I was keeping the law as a means to be saved then I would be desiring to be under the so that I may boast. But I do not boast of anything in myself but in Christ.

So now that you offer a reason for "keeping" the law that is nowhere to be found in Scripture, why do you make yourself a servant of Moses instead of Christ, thereby excusing yourself in your continued practice of adultery according to Romans 7:1-4?

I am a son of God and not a servant. Since the law is a reflection of my Father's character I will keep the law not to be a son, but rather, because I'm a son. like Father like Son.

Where, oh where, does Scripture tell us that the Mosaic covenant is a reflection of God's character? For even 1 Timothy 1:9 tells us that the law wasn't created for a righteous man, thereby translating your comment into an accusation that God isn't righteous.
Furthermore, Galatians 3:19 tells us that the law was an addition made to cage transgressions, and didn't exist before Moses in verse 17.

And since you claim the adoption of a son, why then do you continue in the servitude of a slave to Moses? For even Jesus taught what the adoption of His sons and daughters would accomplish in giving them the same immunity from the created law the Sovereign enjoys, in Matthew 17:24-26:

24: And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
25: He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26: Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

If you continue as a slave to Moses, you identify yourself as a stranger to God, and not His son.

If I was using my works as a means to be saved they would be hay and stubble but I don't. Christ is my righteousness which now allows me to delight in the law as a son.

You can delight in traditions you don't fathom, since we have no grounds to judge another's day of observance - because the ordinances governing them are abolished with the first covenant.

But your delight isn't in the law, for even David also rejoiced and still sought a Redeemer, as it is written in Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer

I have cast out the slave woman when I received Christ as my righteousness. Now I keep the law as a means to express godly love and true worship not as a means to obtain righteousness.

So now that you have cast out the law given at Sinai, how is it you still claim to keep the law?
For, Hagar is identified to be that covenant from Sinai, which is the ten commandments, in Galatians 4:24-25:

24: Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Hagar.
25: For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

You're so infatuated with Hagar you can't let go of her, and you remain a slave as she is. But what saith the Scripture? In Galatians 4:30 it reads very clearly:
Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

That's the conclusion of your continued adultery with Moses.
It leaves you a stranger, and you aren't promised an inheritance with the adopted sons and daughters of the Most High.

I am saddened that you have never been taught what redemption is a purchase from. Atonement reconciles us to God, not the covenant of Moses that propitiation completed and purchased us from.

Victor

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Can you steal, lie and commit adultery?

If you can, tell my why you can.

If you can't, tell me why you can't.

It knows you did not ask daimonizomai nor do you care what it has to say but it bes answer anyways. It answers in the Spirit of the Living God and by His Name and His TRUTH!!! JESUS CHRIST BES LORD.

Yes, it CAN. It CAN ALL IT WANTS and it can count on being forgiven EVERY SINGLE TIME.

That does not mean it DOES or that it WILL. Because the fact of the matter bes, IT DOES NOT WANT TO. It has no interest in doing those things.

Clear enough answer?

 

[k4c]

I mentioned before that the premise that you have in mind is a fallacy, and Proverbs 26:4 is my guidance in answering you.
You are yourself guilty of the very things you ask if you can or not continue in, and yet you excuse yourself for continuing in them.
The answer is one you need to wrestle with.

No, there are many posts you have failed to address, and they are specific answers to your many objections over the Gospel. You haven't answered.

So now that you're saved, as you say, why is it that you do not keep the law?

So now that you offer a reason for "keeping" the law that is nowhere to be found in Scripture, why do you make yourself a servant of Moses instead of Christ, thereby excusing yourself in your continued practice of adultery according to Romans 7:1-4?

Where, oh where, does Scripture tell us that the Mosaic covenant is a reflection of God's character? For even 1 Timothy 1:9 tells us that the law wasn't created for a righteous man, thereby translating your comment into an accusation that God isn't righteous.
Furthermore, Galatians 3:19 tells us that the law was an addition made to cage transgressions, and didn't exist before Moses in verse 17.

And since you claim the adoption of a son, why then do you continue in the servitude of a slave to Moses? For even Jesus taught what the adoption of His sons and daughters would accomplish in giving them the same immunity from the created law the Sovereign enjoys, in Matthew 17:24-26:

24: And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
25: He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26: Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

If you continue as a slave to Moses, you identify yourself as a stranger to God, and not His son.

You can delight in traditions you don't fathom, since we have no grounds to judge another's day of observance - because the ordinances governing them are abolished with the first covenant.

But your delight isn't in the law, for even David also rejoiced and still sought a Redeemer, as it is written in Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer

So now that you have cast out the law given at Sinai, how is it you still claim to keep the law?
For, Hagar is identified to be that covenant from Sinai, which is the ten commandments, in Galatians 4:24-25:

24: Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Hagar.
25: For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

You're so infatuated with Hagar you can't let go of her, and you remain a slave as she is. But what saith the Scripture? In Galatians 4:30 it reads very clearly:
Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

That's the conclusion of your continued adultery with Moses.
It leaves you a stranger, and you aren't promised an inheritance with the adopted sons and daughters of the Most High.

I am saddened that you have never been taught what redemption is a purchase from. Atonement reconciles us to God, not the covenant of Moses that propitiation completed and purchased us from.

Victor

Now that you once again said I was wrong can you answer my questions so I can get an idea where you're coming from?

Can you steal, lie and commit adultery?

If you can, tell my why you can.

If you can't, tell me why you can't.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Once more with feeling:

Yes, we CAN. We CAN ALL WE WANT and we can count on being forgiven EVERY SINGLE TIME. "Where sin doth abound, grace doth much more abound."

That does not mean it DOES or that it WILL. Because the fact of the matter bes, IT DOES NOT WANT TO. It has no interest in doing those things.

Clear enough answer?

 

[k4c]

Once more with feeling:

Yes, we CAN. We CAN ALL WE WANT and we can count on being forgiven EVERY SINGLE TIME. "Where sin doth abound, grace doth much more abound."

That does not mean it DOES or that it WILL. Because the fact of the matter bes, IT DOES NOT WANT TO. It has no interest in doing those things.

Clear enough answer?

Hebrews 10:26-29 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

In the name of Jesus Christ, may the Lord rebuke the voice of the Accuser and Tormentor and may He have infinite mercy on the vessel so despitefully used to lend expression thereunto.

 

[VictorC]

Hebrews 10:26-29 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

I question that translation, as the rejecting of the law of Moses is a contrast against the worse punishment due on those who have rejected the Blood of the new covenant and done dispite against the Spirit of grace. This translation is incorrect in rendering the rejection of Moses in the present tense.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

If the law of Moses killed without mercy, what hope have you in rejecting the new covenant?

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Precisely Victor. Wow, it really bes true that spiritual things bes spiritually discerned. (*awestruck*)

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

As for Moriah, who has defiled its way before God in a league to make Manasseh appear a mere polycultural dabbler (but for his position among the children of men), it will take its chances gladly at Jesus' precious feet with its face to the ground, begging His mercy anyway, and trusting in the One that taught a LOVE so perfect it takes away ALL fear, the One what gives power, and love, and a sound mind.

It has no hope in the condemnation of the law. It knows its sentence bes just. It has hope only in the eternal mercy of an infinite God. What? Did you not know that His mercy endures forever???

Psalm 118

1 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: because his mercy endureth for ever.
2 Let Israel now say, that his mercy endureth for ever.
3 Let the house of Aaron now say, that his mercy endureth for ever.
4 Let them now that fear the LORD say, that his mercy endureth for ever.
5 I called upon the LORD in distress: the LORD answered me, and set me in a large place.
6 The LORD is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me?
7 The LORD taketh my part with them that help me: therefore shall I see my desire upon them that hate me.
8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.
10 All nations compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD will I destroy them.
11 They compassed me about; yea, they compassed me about: but in the name of the LORD I will destroy them.
12 They compassed me about like bees: they are quenched as the fire of thorns: for in the name of the LORD I will destroy them.
13 Thou hast thrust sore at me that I might fall: but the LORD helped me.
14 The LORD is my strength and song, and is become my salvation.
15 The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly.
16 The right hand of the LORD is exalted: the right hand of the LORD doeth valiantly.
17 I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD.
18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death.
19 Open to me the gates of righteousness: I will go into them, and I will praise the LORD:
20 This gate of the LORD, into which the righteous shall enter.
21 I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation.
22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
23 This is the LORD's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.
24 This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.
25 Save now, I beseech thee, O LORD: O LORD, I beseech thee, send now prosperity.
26 Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the LORD: we have blessed you out of the house of the LORD.
27 God is the LORD, which hath shewed us light: bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar.
28 Thou art my God, and I will praise thee: thou art my God, I will exalt thee.
29 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
​

Amen.

 

[VictorC]

Now that you once again said I was wrong can you answer my questions so I can get an idea where you're coming from?

You know precisely where I'm coming from.
You're merely using this tactic to dismiss the many Scriptures that expose your fallacious view of the Gospel.

Can you steal, lie and commit adultery?
If you can, tell my why you can.
If you can't, tell me why you can't.

Have you wrestled with these yourself?

Is is okay for you to steal, lie, and commit adultery?
If it isn't, then why do you do these things?
If it is, then what happened to the law that condemned you without mercy?

Have you forgotten the text I previously provided from Romans 3:7-8?

7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
8 And not rather, as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say (k4c), Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Isn't your line of questioning a slander, just as you used it on Moriah (with an inaccurate rendering of Hebrews 10:28-29)?

Do you agree with Paul's assessment of your practice?

 

[VictorC]

I have cast out the slave woman when I received Christ as my righteousness. Now I keep the law as a means to express godly love and true worship not as a means to obtain righteousness.

So now that you have cast out the law given at Sinai, how is it you still claim to keep the law?
For, Hagar is identified to be that covenant from Sinai, which is the ten commandments, in Galatians 4:24-25:

24: Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Hagar.
25: For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

You're so infatuated with Hagar you can't let go of her, and you remain a slave as she is. But what saith the Scripture? In Galatians 4:30 it reads very clearly:
Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

When you have finished wrestling with your question about it being okay for you to continue in sin, this claim that you have cast out the slave woman needs to be revisited, as it is erroneous.

Victor

 

[Man-ofGod]

Point taken.

The law written into us isn't from Sinai, and that is in the very previous verse from your quotation. The context of Hebrews 8, which quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34, calls that covenant from Sinai faulty in Hebrews 8:7, and verse 13 explains that the covenant from Sinai is old, decaying, and ready to vanish away.
It can't be the ten commandments that is written into our hearts and minds.

While you claim that my theology is shy of defining what the law is (it isn't; I have linked you to my work twice on the subject), you have performed a theological conclusion that is nullified by the immediate context.

Here's my post on the subject God replaces the schoolmaster:

I agree that torah conveys the meaning of 'instruction' with force equal to the definition of 'ordinance'. There is a passage from Jeremiah and Hebrews that I haven't seen you show consideration for:

Jeremiah 31:31-32
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD.
Hebrews 8:6-9
6 ¶ But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Jeremiah makes it clear that the new covenant would not be according to the one made at Sinai.
Hebrews makes the very same assertion when it quotes Jeremiah, and further qualifies the reason the new covenant wouldn't be according to Sinai stems from the covenant made at Sinai contained a fault, specifically, it wasn't complied with by the recipients of that covenant, and did not justify anyone.

By the exclusion of the covenant made at Sinai, this excludes the ten commandments from taking a part in the new covenant. This is the reason that <a member on CARM> started his presentation with the identification of precisely what the covenant made at Sinai was: the ten commandments, as Deuteronomy 4:13 and Exodus 34:27-28 define it to be.

Now, you and I agree that torah means instruction as well as law. Consider where Jeremiah and Hebrews are leading us to after exclusion of the ten commandments from the new covenant:

Jeremiah 31:33-34
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Hebrews 8:10-11
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

The end result of the new covenant written into our hearts and minds is to know God, with no more need for instruction. The law of the new covenant doesn't fit into the description of a written ordinance, as that causes you to know only the created ordinance, and not the Author of that ordinance.

What is this law written into us? After exclusion of the covenant from Sinai, the ten commandments, clues are presented that should lead you to recognize that it is describing the entrance of God Himself, and not a written ordinance.

Hebrews 10:15-16
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

The Spirit of God is written in the present tense of His ability to witness to each of us personally, and this description is addressed to those who are already new covenant recipients.

This is as Ezekiel 36:26-27 presents the same concept, only it doesn't use the torah as a cause to know God - it reverses the roles to using God's Spirit as the cause to know His judgments and statutes. The Hebrew terms used here are choq and mishpat, neither of which are equivelant to torah:

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

There isn't an inclusion of a covenant based on the ten commandments already labelled as 'faulty' in the new covenant. The new covenant is God's Spirit.

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Victor

This is an old post that I will need to pickup tonight (when I have time.) so BUMP. Cannot let have VictorC get the last word ;-)

 

[Man-ofGod]

Victor C says:

Point taken.

The law written into us isn't from Sinai, and that is in the very previous verse from your quotation. The context of Hebrews 8, which quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34, calls that covenant from Sinai faulty in Hebrews 8:7, and verse 13 explains that the covenant from Sinai is old, decaying, and ready to vanish away.
It can't be the ten commandments that is written into our hearts and minds.

While you claim that my theology is shy of defining what the law is (it isn't; I have linked you to my work twice on the subject), you have performed a theological conclusion that is nullified by the immediate context.

Here's my post on the subject God replaces the schoolmaster:

I agree that torah conveys the meaning of 'instruction' with force equal to the definition of 'ordinance'. There is a passage from Jeremiah and Hebrews that I haven't seen you show consideration for:

Jeremiah 31:31-32
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD.
Hebrews 8:6-9
6 ¶ But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Jeremiah makes it clear that the new covenant would not be according to the one made at Sinai.
Hebrews makes the very same assertion when it quotes Jeremiah, and further qualifies the reason the new covenant wouldn't be according to Sinai stems from the covenant made at Sinai contained a fault, specifically, it wasn't complied with by the recipients of that covenant, and did not justify anyone.

By the exclusion of the covenant made at Sinai, this excludes the ten commandments from taking a part in the new covenant. This is the reason that <a member on CARM> started his presentation with the identification of precisely what the covenant made at Sinai was: the ten commandments, as Deuteronomy 4:13 and Exodus 34:27-28 define it to be.

Now, you and I agree that torah means instruction as well as law. Consider where Jeremiah and Hebrews are leading us to after exclusion of the ten commandments from the new covenant:

Jeremiah 31:33-34
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Hebrews 8:10-11
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

The end result of the new covenant written into our hearts and minds is to know God, with no more need for instruction. The law of the new covenant doesn't fit into the description of a written ordinance, as that causes you to know only the created ordinance, and not the Author of that ordinance.

What is this law written into us? After exclusion of the covenant from Sinai, the ten commandments, clues are presented that should lead you to recognize that it is describing the entrance of God Himself, and not a written ordinance.

Hebrews 10:15-16
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

The Spirit of God is written in the present tense of His ability to witness to each of us personally, and this description is addressed to those who are already new covenant recipients.

This is as Ezekiel 36:26-27 presents the same concept, only it doesn't use the torah as a cause to know God - it reverses the roles to using God's Spirit as the cause to know His judgments and statutes. The Hebrew terms used here are choq and mishpat, neither of which are equivelant to torah:

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

There isn't an inclusion of a covenant based on the ten commandments already labelled as 'faulty' in the new covenant. The new covenant is God's Spirit.

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Victor

Hey Victor! hope you get to see this!;-)

The problem lies in your interpretation of "Not according to the old covenant." The covenant was faulty not because of the commandments, but because of the Israelite in breaking the covenant. What is interesting is the Israelite at Mt. Sinai broke the covenant by worshiping the idol. God then, had to rewrite the commandments and renew the covenant. The old covenant was written on tables of stone and was sealed with the blood of animals. The new Covenant was written on our hearts and minds and was sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ.










​

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Hey Victor! hope you get to see this!;-)

I'm pretty sure that Victor does not post here any longer. However, if I've misunderstood, I'll certainly step aside and allow Victor to speak for himself.

The problem lies in your interpretation of "Not according to the old covenant." The covenant was faulty not because of the commandments, but because of the Israelite in breaking the covenant.

There is no question -- the fault was with the people. However, we also know this:

"But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another." Hebrews 8
​

What is interesting is the Israelite at Mt. Sinai broke the covenant by worshiping the idol.

That certainly is not the only commandment broken by Israelites!

God then, had to rewrite the commandments and renew the covenant. The old covenant was written on tables of stone and was sealed with the blood of animals.

Can you share the Scripture support for this statement?

Covenants usually contain signs. The sign of the Noahic covenant was the bow in the clouds (see Genesis 9:12-17). The sign of the Abrahmic covenant was circumcision (see Genesis 17:11). The sign of the old covenant was the seventh-day sabbath (see Exodus 31:12-18).

The new Covenant was written on our hearts and minds and was sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ.

If we are sealed with anything, we are sealed with the Spirit (see Ephesians 1:13-14, Ephesians 4:30, 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 and Romans 8:16). With that said, I agree with you that the blood of Christ eliminates any need for the blood of sacrifices and I note that practices that began during the days of Adam and Eve are not necessarily eternal.

BFA