Covenant Renewal

[daq]

Mark 10:1-5 KJV
1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

Exodus 32 ~ The golden molten calf incident breaks the covenant contract. The people have played the harlot and fornicated with other gods. The first set of tablets are broken by Mosheh beneath the mount, (Exodus 32:19, the same place where the covenant contract was agreed upon, Exodus 24:4-8). The covenant is immediately dissolved in Exodus 32.

However, Elohim in the abundance of His mercy does not outright slay them all, no, instead He renews the covenant. However He does not dissolve His Word, no, the covenant is renewed with the same words, with the exception of some additions and a different tenor of the words. Divorce is one of those new additions: and the people forced this upon Mosheh because of their unbelief, just as the Master says in the Mark passage quoted above herein. In the second ascent of Mosheh into the mountain we read the following statement.

Exodus 34:27-28 KJV
27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

The covenant has thus been renewed with the same language: but what has changed in the renewal? The tenor of the words has changed.

Deuteronomy 32:6 KJV
6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?

No more wifey...

Will you not from that time call Me Abbi? (that is, "my Father", Jeremiah 3:4), and the Prophet Yirmeyah expounds this renewal of the covenant in Jeremiah 3 and Jeremiah 31. Thanks be to the Messiah who pointed me to these things in Mark 10:5.

Jeremiah 3:19
19 But I said, How shall I put you among the sons, and give you a pleasant land, a goodly heritage among the hosts of nations? and I said, You shall call Me Abbi, (my Father), and shall not turn away from Me.

No more wifey...

 

[daq]

Moreover a strange thing happens in the Torah passage quoted above: the Father says to Mosheh, "for according to the tenor of these words I have cut covenant with you, and with Yisrael." But what happens when Mosheh comes back down the mountain to the people? This time the skin of his face shone with glory so much that the people could not look upon the skin of his face when he spoke to them. So he covers his face with a vail, and Paul expounds this for us: it means the people did not understand and in fact it was them who had the vail over the heart, mind, and eyes, which is only done away "in Messiah" (or "in Christ").

For this reason Mosheh in the Torah does not expound the renewed covenant in its entirety, for it is for a time to come for the people of Yisrael, and the time to come was to be the advent of the Messiah, which is precisely what happened, which we have before us in the Gospel accounts.

Exodus 34:27-35 KJV
27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
31 And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them.
32 And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai.
33 And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face.
34 But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded.
35 And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

Therefore the Prophets expound the renewal of the covenant as though it is for a time to come, when Messiah comes, because that is what is foretold in how it is expounded in the Torah, (and Mosheh hardly speaks of the Most High as our Father in the Torah, probably for this reason).

Hebrews 8:8-9 The Scriptures (ISR 1998)
8 For finding fault with them, He says, “See, the days are coming,” says יהוה, “when I shall conclude with the house of Yisra’ĕl and with the house of Yehuḏah a renewed covenant,
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 Mitsrayim, because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them,” says יהוה.

The covenant wherein He "took them by the hand to lead them out of Mitzraim, (Egypt)", is not the second set of tablets, no, it is the first which were broken in Exodus 32, and which covenant was immediately renewed.

Note that the above translation says "conclude with the house of Yisrael and the house of Yhudah a renewed covenant". This word in the Greek text is not what we find in the LXX-Septuagint version of Jeremaih 31:31. The author corrects this reading to drive the point home: the Greek word in Hebrews 8:8 is συντελεσω which means to entirely complete while at the same time is also used in the sense of "to fully execute". This is because the process was begun long ago under Mosheh in the Torah, in Exodus 34:27, where the Father says to him first, "according to the tenor of these words I have cut covenant with you".

Matthew 26:27-28 ASV
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Mark 14:23-24 ASV
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

In the Luke companion passage the covenant "for many", that is, the first cup in the Matthew and Mark passages above, is mentioned only in passing without saying which covenant it concerns.

The statement containing the phrase "new (renewed) covenant" in Luke22:20 does not speak of the same cup or the same covenant as Matthew and Mark. The first cup mentioned in Luke is that of Matthew and Mark, the covenant for many: the second cup mentioned in Luke is the new-renewed covenant "for you", (the apostles, and then to each of us in his or her own appointed times), just as it was said by the Father to Mosheh in Exodus 34:27, "with you", "to you", for the Gospel is personal and individual, to each in his or her own appointed times, the time appointed of the Father.

Luke 22:17-20 ASV
17 And he received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
18 for I say unto you, I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

 

[BobRyan]

Jer 31:31-34 - New Covenant
31 “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.”

Unchanged - verbatim in the NT - Heb 8:6-12

only one Gospel in all of time - Gal 1:6-9
And that one Gospel "was preached to Abraham" - Gal 3:8
And the one Gospel Covenant - is the NEW Covenant of Jer 31.

 

[daq]

Unchanged - verbatim in the NT - Heb 8:6-12

The point, (if this is what you mean by what you have said), was concerning what is in the Greek text of the LXX because typically when we see a quote such as this it is taken verbatim or nearly verbatim from the Greek LXX. This isn't the case here in this passage and I agree with what the author of Hebrews does with the text compared to what I see in the LXX.

Jeremiah 31:31 OG LXX
31 (38:31) ιδου ημεραι ερχονται φησιν κυριος και διαθησομαι [G1303 diatithemai] τω οικω ισραηλ και τω οικω ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

Hebrews 8:8 N/A - W/H
8 μεμφομενος γαρ αυτους λεγει ιδου ημεραι ερχονται λεγει κυριος και συντελεσω επι τον οικον ισραηλ και επι τον οικον ιουδα διαθηκην καινην

Or he may have been reading straight from the Hebrew text instead of quoting the LXX, (???).

 

[BABerean2]

The covenant has thus been renewed with the same language: but what has changed in the renewal? The tenor of the words has changed.

If you were correct, the contrast between the covenants found below would not exist.
Paul called the Sinai Covenant the "ministry of death written and engraved on stones" which "was" glorius. (Note the word "was" is past tense.)

2Co 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2Co 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,
2Co 3:8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?


Paul also contrasts the two covenants in Galatians 4:24-31 and tells the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage".


Another contrast is found in Hebrews 12:18-24.
We are not come to Mount Sinai in verse 18 but are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Zion in verses 22-24.

.

 

[daq]

If you were correct, the contrast between the covenants found below would not exist.
Paul called the Sinai Covenant the "ministry of death written and engraved on stones" which "was" glorius. (Note the word "was" is past tense.)

2Co 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2Co 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,
2Co 3:8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?


Paul also contrasts the two covenants in Galatians 4:24-31 and tells the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage".


Another contrast is found in Hebrews 12:18-24.
We are not come to Mount Sinai in verse 18 but are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Zion in verses 22-24.

.

This again is the same juxtapositioning of "the flesh -vs- the Spirit" as explained in the previous thread, (which is unfortunately now closed), linked in post #109 here, #111 here, and #120 here.

What does Paul actually say was to be done away? It's right there in the text: the flesh, for it was the skin of the face of Mosheh which shone with glory. That's the whole reason why Mosheh put a vail over his face: for the people could not look upon his face because the skin of his face shone with glory.

Paul says they could not steadfastly behold the face of Mosheh because of the glory of his countenance: which glory was to be done away. What glory was that again? The glory that shone in the skin of his face: the flesh. That doesn't mean the Torah was to be done away: that means the flesh of the skin of the face of Mosheh was going the way of all flesh.

2 Corinthians 3:7-16 KJV
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

It is just as portrayed here in this thread.

Verse 7 ~ ...the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; (the flesh) which glory was to be done away...(the flesh).

Verse 11 ~ For if that which is done away was glorious, (the flesh), much more that which remaineth is glorious, (the Spirit).

Verse 13 ~ ...Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: (the flesh, the skin of his face which shone with glory).

It is the same juxtaposition of the flesh -vs- the Spirit as already explained in our discussion about Gal 4 in the other thread linked above. Paul does this a lot more than people seem to realize.

Moreover, again, the goal according to Paul in this very same passage above is not to abolish the Torah but to have the vail removed from the heart, eyes, and mind so as to understand it when we read and study it: and that vail is only removed "in Messiah", which necessarily means understanding and walking in his Testimony freely offered unto us in the Gospel accounts where he expounds all things Torah, Prophets, and Writings, (not that he expounds every jot and tittle but that we are given everything we need to understand the whole, which is an age-long walk).

 

[BABerean2]

This again is the same juxtapositioning of "the flesh -vs- the Spirit" as explained in the previous thread, (which is unfortunately now closed), linked in post #109 here, #111 here, and #120 here.

What does Paul actually say was to be done away? It's right there in the text: the flesh, for it was the skin of the face of Mosheh which shone with glory. That's the whole reason why Mosheh put a vail over his face: for the people could not look upon his face because the skin of his face shone with glory.

Paul says they could not steadfastly behold the face of Mosheh because of the glory of his countenance: which glory was to be done away. What glory was that again? The glory that shone in the skin of his face: the flesh. That doesn't mean the Torah was to be done away: that means the flesh of the skin of the face of Mosheh was going the way of all flesh.

2 Corinthians 3:7-16 KJV
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

It is just as portrayed here in this thread.

Verse 7 ~ ...the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; (the flesh) which glory was to be done away...(the flesh).

Verse 11 ~ For if that which is done away was glorious, (the flesh), much more that which remaineth is glorious, (the Spirit).

Verse 13 ~ ...Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: (the flesh, the skin of his face which shone with glory).

It is the same juxtaposition of the flesh -vs- the Spirit as already explained in our discussion about Gal 4 in the other thread linked above. Paul does this a lot more than people seem to realize.

Moreover, again, the goal according to Paul in this very same passage above is not to abolish the Torah but to have the vail removed from the heart, eyes, and mind so as to understand it when we read and study it: and that vail is only removed "in Messiah", which necessarily means understanding and walking in his Testimony freely offered unto us in the Gospel accounts where he expounds all things Torah, Prophets, and Writings, (not that he expounds every jot and tittle but that we are given everything we need to understand the whole, which is an age-long walk).

If you can keep the Old Covenant, why did Jesus have to die at Calvary? Can you save yourself?

You have never kept the Old Covenant perfectly at any time during your life. If you think you have, you do not understand the Gospel.


Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?
Gal 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?—
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

.

 

[daq]

If you can keep the Old Covenant, why did Jesus have to die at Calvary? Can you save yourself?

You have never kept the Old Covenant perfectly at any time during your life. If you think you have, you do not understand the Gospel.


Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?
Gal 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?—
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

.

The "works of the law" is an idiom for the old man natural minded way of understanding all things according to the natural mind of the natural man. It is not me who understands and views the Torah that way anymore because I understand it now according to the teachings of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts, and yes, according to the teachings of Paul. Moreover your insinuation by default also lays accusation against Peter, (Acts 10:14), Yakob and the elders, (Acts 21:18-26), and even Paul in that same passage.

If we do not walk according to the Spirit we cannot please Elohim. Neither can you do so by telling yourself that His Living Oracles have been abolished so that you don't need to study like the Bereans and come to understand His Word being taught by Elohim. Walking according to the Spirit is what Paul is talking about in the passage you have quoted: abolishing God's Word from your heart and mind is surely not walking according to the Spirit.

Paul says the Torah is spiritual, Romans 7:14a, and you would do well to believe him because it surely is, and you cannot abolish spirit. Stephen calls the Torah Living Oracles, (Acts 7:38, λογια ζωντα), and you would do well to believe him also.

Here is the reality, I walk in the Torah in Messiah according to the Spirit, even the Spirit of his Testimony which is Spirit, but I have never claimed to do so perfectly. You view and understand the Torah according to the old man carnal minded Pharisee way, but instead of accepting it as God's Word and attempting to walk in it according to "the works of the law", you are likely repulsed by it because of your carnal minded view, so instead you choose to abolish God's Word from your heart and mind.

The finger you've pointed at me is crooked and you still have three fingers of your own pointing back at you.

 

[daq]

You have never kept the Old Covenant perfectly at any time during your life. If you think you have, you do not understand the Gospel.

And your statement here reveals that you probably also do not believe what Paul says in the following passage.

Colossians 2:13-13 TS2009 W/Footnotes
13 And you, being dead in your trespassesc and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, Footnote: cEph 2:1.
14 having blotted out that which was written by hand against us – by the dogmasd – which stood against us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the stake. Footnote: dDogmas - also see Col 2:20 and Eph 2:15.
15 Having stripped the principalities and the authorities, He made a public display of them, having prevailed over them in it.
16 Let no one therefore judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths –
17 which are a shadow of what is to come – but the Body of the Messiah.e Footnote: eThe Body of Messiah is to give ruling on all matters, not the outsiders! See also Mat 18:15-20.

This translator actually understands the reading of the Greek text in verse seventeen: the phrase "but the body of the Messiah" should actually be read at the beginning of the statement, "Let no one but the body of the Messiah therefore judge you..."

And no doubt, by the body of the Messiah here, Paul means Yakob a.k.a. James and the brethren, whose Acts 15 letter he delivered to all the assemblies where he was sent to by Elohim. And the reason Paul says this is because the Sanhedrin handwritten ordinances, dogmas, and decrees, which were against the people, were overturned in the Testimony of the Messiah and at Golgotha: while you and yours instead want to claim that it was the whole Torah that was nailed to the stake. Paul is telling them that the Sanhedrin no longer has authority over them to tell them how to observe the Torah, which would have been according to your same natural minded Pharisaic understanding. That's probably really bad news for those such as yourself because Paul here very possibly defers to Yakob, lol, imagine that, tisk, tisk. And if it is not that then it would be the body of the Word, the volume of the Book, (Hebrews 10:5-7).

 

[BABerean2]

And your statement here reveals that you probably also do not believe what Paul says in the following passage.

Colossians 2:13-13 TS2009 W/Footnotes
13 And you, being dead in your trespassesc and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, Footnote: cEph 2:1.
14 having blotted out that which was written by hand against us – by the dogmasd – which stood against us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the stake. Footnote: dDogmas - also see Col 2:20 and Eph 2:15.
15 Having stripped the principalities and the authorities, He made a public display of them, having prevailed over them in it.
16 Let no one therefore judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths –
17 which are a shadow of what is to come – but the Body of the Messiah.e Footnote: eThe Body of Messiah is to give ruling on all matters, not the outsiders! See also Mat 18:15-20.

This translator actually understands the reading of the Greek text in verse seventeen: the phrase "but the body of the Messiah" should actually be read at the beginning of the statement, "Let no one but the body of the Messiah therefore judge you..."

Those who have to redefine the text of scripture to make their doctrine work have revealed the truth about what they are promoting.

There is no record in the Old Testament of anyone keeping a Sabbath day until after the children of Israel left Egypt. The Sabbath day was the "sign" of the Sinai Covenant.

Deu 5:1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them.
Deu 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
Deu 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

There is no commandment in the New Testament for Christians to observe a Sabbath day. We know Christ worked on the Sabbath day when He healed a man and told him to take up his bedroll.

Joh 5:16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.


For those of us who are in the New Covenant our Sabbath rest is Christ, instead of a day of the week. We rest in His works at Calvary.


Col 2:16 Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths,
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of the coming things, and the body is of the Christ; (YLT)


.

 

[daq]

Those who have to redefine the text of scripture to make their doctrine work have revealed the truth about what they are promoting.

Then I suggest you go find yourself a translation that doesn't do that so that someone else doesn't come along and fix it for you.

There is no record in the Old Testament of anyone keeping a Sabbath day until after the children of Israel left Egypt.

Yes, there is, study to show yourself approved. Cain and Habel brought their offerings at the end of the yamim. Does your favorite translation tell you that or does it need to be corrected in that place too? You can learn about the yamim here, (the teaching is contained in another one of those books you say are obsolete).

The Sabbath day was the "sign" of the Sinai Covenant

Yep, between Elohim and the all Yisrael of Elohim.

There is no commandment in the New Testament for Christians to observe a Sabbath day. We know Christ worked on the Sabbath day when He healed a man and told him to take up his bedroll.

Neither is there a commandment to observe any other day of the week. An argument from silence only works if you delete the portions of scripture that you wish to silence. Since you deleted the commandments to observe the Shabbat, and since those commandments are contained in Living Oracles in the Torah, I suppose that makes you a Living Word killer.

For those of us who are in the New Covenant our Sabbath rest is Christ, instead of a day of the week. We rest in His works at Calvary.

How can you have a new covenant when you deleted all the teachings, examples, and shadows for what is to come? There is nothing coming for you in such a case, you have your rewards: no laws, no rules, and no understanding of God's Word because you delete whatever you do not wish to believe. All you need to do now is love which means seven billion different things to seven billion different people on the planet. Eat, drink, love, and rise up to play.

 

[daq]

There is no record in the Old Testament of anyone keeping a Sabbath day until after the children of Israel left Egypt.

Gen 8:6a - ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום
And it came to pass at the end of forty yom

Gen 4:3a - ויהי מקץ ימים
And it came to pass at the end of [the] yamim

Exo 20:11a
כי ששת־ימים עשה יהוה את־השמים ואת־הארץ
For [in] six yamim YHWH made the heavens and the earth

The creation account is six yamim of creation, (Gen 1:1-31), and the seventh yom of Shabbat rest, (Gen 2:1-3), and these are the seven yamim of creation.

Cain and Habel therefore brought their offerings in the Shabbat, in the end of the yamim, showing that they were observing the Shabbat of creation and worshiping the Creator therein.

Torah means instruction, which is teaching, and Genesis is full of instruction from our Creator from the very beginning.

 

[BABerean2]

Gen 8:6a - ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום
And it came to pass at the end of forty yom

Gen 4:3a - ויהי מקץ ימים
And it came to pass at the end of [the] yamim

Exo 20:11a
כי ששת־ימים עשה יהוה את־השמים ואת־הארץ
For [in] six yamim YHWH made the heavens and the earth

The creation account is six yamim of creation, (Gen 1:1-31), and the seventh yom of Shabbat rest, (Gen 2:1-3), and these are the seven yamim of creation.

Cain and Habel therefore brought their offerings in the Shabbat, in the end of the yamim, showing that they were observing the Shabbat of creation and worshiping the Creator therein.

Torah means instruction, which is teaching, and Genesis is full of instruction from our Creator from the very beginning.

Forget what is found in Exodus 34:28, and Deuteronomy 5:1-3.

Instead, we have what you say in an attempt to hang onto the Sinai Covenant of 'bondage" in Galatians 4:24-31, which is now "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13.

.

 

[daq]

Forget what is found in Exodus 34:28, and Deuteronomy 5:1-3.

Strange, it is as if you have reduced yourself to pleading with me to forsake the Living Oracles of Elohim. But why? I haven't the slightest clue why you would need me to do that.

Instead, we have what you say in an attempt to hang onto the Sinai Covenant of 'bondage" in Galatians 4:24-31, which is now "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13.

Already addressed in a discussion with you in a previous thread. However, I'll add the following to what was said there.

Romans 7:14-25 KJV
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

This is where I received from Paul the understanding of Sinai -vs- Horeb, as was posted in one of those links to the other thread where we already discussed Galatians 4.

Therefore, just as Paul says in the above passage, the Torah is spiritual, and with the mind he says that he serves the torah-teaching-instruction of Elohim, which is Horeb, and of above, Torah of the mind: but with the flesh he says that he serves the torah-instruction-teaching of sin, which is Sinai, and of below, concerning the flesh.

You therefore do not even believe what he says in this passage: for if you did, you would rightly divide the Word of truth and use the torah-teaching-instruction of sin and death to mortify and put to death your members which concern the earth or things of below, (Colossians 3:5), just as Paul teaches according the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts, (if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out: if your hand or foot causes you to stumble, cut it off).

And in the very next chapter, (Romans 8), which is still the same context, Paul admonishes you to mortify or put to death the deeds of the body: how therefore can you stop doing what you would not if you do not understand the reasons and usage for the Torah in its rightly divided understandings and usages according to the teachings of Paul? The torah-instruction-teaching of sin and death is for you to use as a weapon to put to death sin in your members and rule them with a rod of iron, (and sin is always personified, especially in the Prophets). If you understood and used the Torah the way in which it is intended according to Paul then you might see that I and those like me are not "under" the Torah.

Most of what you post are merely the teachings of men who told you what to think and believe about the writings of Paul. Lose the teachings of men and be taught of Elohim, as the Master says we are to be, (quoting from Yeshayah the Prophet).

 

[BABerean2]

This is where I received from Paul the understanding of Sinai -vs- Horeb, as was posted in one of those links to the other thread where we already discussed Galatians 4.

Then you received something Paul did not say in the passage, and anyone who can read can check it for themselves.

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


.

 

[daq]

Then you received something Paul did not say in the passage, and anyone who can read can check it for themselves.

Repeating the same thing over and over again is going to change anything? Okay then, for the benefit of others, (since the other thread is now open again), here is the rehash.

You are correct. Hebrews 8:13 says the Old Covenant is now "obsolete". Do you know the difference between "deleted" and "obsolete"?

Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Is it right for translators to insert the word covenant in Hebrews 8:13, (and Hebrews 8:7), when it doesn't appear in Greek texts? That sure seems misleading to me: for what if the author is actually speaking about the old and the new-renewed interpretations of the covenant?

I understand your point.
However, Hebrews 8:6-13 is clearly about the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

The way in which kainos is used in the N/T, and in that passage, (comparing the LXX version of the Jeremiah passage with what is in the Hebrew text), tells me that kainos is used in the sense of renewed. That would mean that the author of Hebrews speaks of the old way of understanding in regards to what was about to pass away. That's the most likely reason why he omits the word for covenant in those two statements.

It says nothing about a "renewal" of a covenant.

Yes, it does.
H2319 hadash = G2537 kainos (LXX, Heb 8:8)

In Galatians 4:24-31 the Apostle Paul told the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage".

No, he didn't.

Galatians 4:26-27 KJV
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.[Isaiah 54:1]

Isaiah 54:1-3 KJV
1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.[Galatians 4:27]
2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
3 For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.

So then, according to Paul, Yerushalem of above is my mother covenant, and of course, the passage he quotes from here pictures Yerushalem as the Mishkan-Tabernacle of the Torah, the Tabernacle of Elohim.

Exodus 20:12 KJV
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


.

So you do not see that Sarah is being juxtaposed against Hagar? or that Sarah is being likened to Yerushalem of above? or that Yerushalem of above is being likened to the correct understanding of the two covenants which he is speaking about in this passage?

The answer is right there in what you quoted:

Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

It is the same juxtaposition of the flesh -vs- the Spirit which Paul speaks so much about in his writings. Those who view the covenant according to the flesh and the physical mindset either reject it entirely, as many here do, or they accept it according to the flesh and the mind of the flesh and end up doing the "works of the law" which cannot save them.

Those who view the covenant in the new-renewed way of understanding walk in the same Torah but according to the new-renewed Spirit also foretold in the Prophets, (Ezekiel 11:19-20, Ezekiel 36:26-27), by way of the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts.

The two are the same covenant but viewed through two different sets of eyes. The one who sees all things according to the eyes and mind of the natural and physical minded old man nature is the one who abides in Hagar because he or she walks according to the flesh and the mind of the flesh.

The one who is renewed in heart and mind, and made into a new creature, goes back into the womb of his or her mother, (Yerushalem of above, our mother, (covenant)), and begins the process of relearning all things according to the doctrine, teachings, and Testimony of the Messiah which is freely provided to us by the grace of Elohim in the Gospel accounts.

If Nicodemus the Teacher of Yisrael can do it, (John 19:39), and if Paul a Pharisee of Pharisees can do it, (Galatians 1:14-16), and if it is also true of even Timothy, (2 Timothy 3:15), then no doubt we can all do the same. Moreover this is not something new, for the Prophets Yeshayah and Yirmeyah also speak of these things, (Isaiah 44:2-24, Isaiah 49:1, Jeremiah 1:5).

Moreover the answer to Nicodemus in John 3:4-5 is literally "Amen, amen", and that is a double affirmation: the first amen literally means "So be it", and is therefore the answer to his question in John 3:4. The second amen, (verily or truly), pertains to what follows.

All one needs to do is actually understand and believe what Paul says in the Galatians passage you are quoting from: Yerushalem of above is indeed your mother, (covenant, because it is an allegory of the two covenants), and therefore you can indeed "go back into the womb of your mother" and relearn everything according to the new-renewed way that the Messiah has shown to us by his Testimony, doctrine, parables, proverbs, sayings, idioms, and teachings in the Gospel accounts. Moreover Paul teaches the commandments of the Master, just as he says in several places, (1 Corinthians 14:37, 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2).

I can see that Paul is comparing the Sinai Covenant to Hagar the bondwoman.

I can also see that Paul told the Galatian believers to "cast out" the bondwoman.

Others here can read just as well as I can, and I will let them read the text for themselves.

They can also read Hebrews 12:18-24.
We are not come to Mount Sinai in verse 18, but we are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Zion in verses 22-24.

.

This is what happens when we ignore the background context in the Torah. Paul is clearly leaving certain things out of the text, probably in hopes that the reader will do his or her own investigation into the things he is speaking about. Therefore I will offer what I see from the background context which I feel Paul has intentionally left out and let others decide whether or not they agree with what I offer here. Essentially then, because of how you have responded, I would like to point those reading this exchange to other important things that are in the background context.

Does Paul mention Sarah? No, but there is surely a juxtaposition here between Hagar and Sarah. The same goes for Yishmael: does he mention Yishmael? No, but there is surely a juxtaposition between Yishmael and Yitzhak, in fact, the whole reason for the "cast out the bondwoman" statement is because Sarah heard Yishmael mocking, (Genesis 21:9-10). All of the examples are the same, even though some are not mentioned by Paul in the passage, and all of them are what amounts to "the flesh -vs- the Spirit" argument.

From Torah background contexts:
Hagar -vs- Sarah
Yishmael -vs- Yitzhak
bondwoman -vs- freewoman
born after the flesh -vs- by the promise
Sinai (of below) -vs- Horeb (of above)
Yerushalem (of below) -vs- Yerushalem of above
the flesh -vs- the Spirit

It is quite clear in this manner that the covenant is renewed by way of the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts. There is no reason to do away with it, if one believes this, because the supernal understanding frees us from the bondage of the natural man understanding of the covenant which merely produces "the works of the law" according to the flesh. The whole point according to Paul is to have the veil lifted when we read the Torah, not to abolish it, and that veil over the heart, mind, and eyes can only be done away in Messiah: and he doesn't abolish the Torah, rather he expounds it for us in the supernal and spiritual way that is pleasing to the Father in all his discourse throughout the Gospel accounts.

-------------------------------------------

For anyone who may be interested this is where that conversation left off in the other thread.

 

[BABerean2]

No, he didn't.

Galatians 4:26-27 KJV
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.[Isaiah 54:1]

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


.

 

[daq]

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


.

By the way the apostolic authors are not cherry pickers, for example, when Paul quotes from Isaiah 54:1 in Galatians 4:27 it is a very old way of teaching called remez, which is to point the hearer or reader to a particular, (usually well known), passage of scripture by quoting a small portion of the text, (like a hint, remez).

Paul isn't just stealing from the Prophets and making up some new meaning to the texts he quotes: he is giving the reader background information for what he is talking about, and therefore the whole background context is brought into the teaching, not just the verse or statement that was quoted. That background information is critical and those who ignore it, especially when they do so knowingly, only do so in order to bypass the logos-reasoning of the authors and insert their own logos into what the authors have said and taught.

 

[BABerean2]

By the way the apostolic authors are not cherry pickers, for example, when Paul quotes from Isaiah 54:1 in Galatians 4:27 it is a very old way of teaching called remez, which is to point the hearer or reader to a particular, (usually well known), passage of scripture by quoting a small portion of the text, (like a hint, remez).

Paul isn't just stealing from the Prophets and making up some new meaning to the texts he quotes: he is giving the reader background information for what he is talking about, and therefore the whole background context is brought into the teaching, not just the verse or statement that was quoted. That background information is critical and those who ignore it, especially when they do so knowingly, only do so in order to bypass the logos-reasoning of the authors and insert their own logos into what the authors have said and taught.

Thank God that we have the Word of God so that the unbiased witnesses here can judge the truth for themselves.

All man-made doctrines are revealed by what must be ignored to make it work.

.

 

[daq]

Thank God that we the Word of God so that the unbiased witnesses here can judge the truth for themselves.

Amen!

Luke 5:37-39 ASV
37 And no man putteth new [νεος] wine into old wine-skins; else the new [νεος] wine will burst the skins and itself will be spilled, and the skins will perish.
38 But new [νεος] wine must be put into fresh [καινος] wine-skins.
39 And no man having drunk old wine desireth new; [νεος] for he saith, The old is good.

Testimony of the Son:
νεος = new
καινος = refreshed, renewed

The skin must be repurposed because, well, quite obviously, it formerly belonged to an animal, a goat or sheep, (usually a goat). The skin was carefully removed from the goat after its head and legs were cut off, (in order to avoid cutting the belly). Then the skin was tanned by soaking it in acidic vegetable oils, then the hair cut as short as possible or removed, and then the skin was rinsed in running water and sewed up and dried, and then filled with new wine, νεος-new wine. And since the wine created gas as it fermented within the skin, the wine skin was forced to stretch, and therefore could not be used again for new wine because the overstretching of the skin would cause it to burst.

The other companion passages are all the same, neos wine and kainos wine skins: there is no legitimate reason not to believe the Testimony of the Son of God in these passages. Are there excuses? Yes, plenty, but I think I have already heard them all before, unless of course you surprise me with something brand new, (neos).