the heavenly sanctuary doctrine (and the sabbath)

[mrasell]

27 'Anyone who touches its flesh will become consecrated; and when any of its blood splashes on a garment, in a holy place you shall wash what was splashed on.
28 'Also the earthenware vessel in which it was boiled shall be broken; and if it was boiled in a bronze vessel, then it shall be scoured and rinsed in water.
29 'Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most holy.
30 'But no sin offering of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place shall be eaten; it shall be burned with fire.​

In these verses, although the flesh made holy, notice that if the blood touched anything it had to be washed, suggesting defilement.
This is part of the paradox of the sacrificial service, that cleaning and defilement could result from the sacrifice, the cleaning of the sinner, but the defilement of the sanctuary.
​

This is why the sanctuary itself needed to be cleansed on the Day of Atonement.
​

 

[mrasell]

Victor

The weight of evidence suggests that the Sabbath began at Creation, that is the bottom line. The Ten Commandments are in the heavenly temple, unchanged. Man cannot alter God's law, rather sinful man needs to alter his own life to God's law. It is not God that needs to change, it is man.
The atonement is based upon forgiveness for breaking the law, not forgiveness as a license to sin.

 

[bugkiller]

Victor

The weight of evidence suggests that the Sabbath began at Creation, that is the bottom line. The Ten Commandments are in the heavenly temple, unchanged. Man cannot alter God's law, rather sinful man needs to alter his own life to God's law. It is not God that needs to change, it is man.
The atonement is based upon forgiveness for breaking the law, not forgiveness as a license to sin.

Do you have any scripture to back up your thesis about:

• sabbath began at creation
• ten commandments being in heavenly temple
• ten commandments unchanged
• atonement based on forgivness

And where do you get that anyone might be using forgiveness as a license to sin?

Inquiring minds wish to know.

bugkiller

 

[VictorC]

Victor

The weight of evidence suggests that the Sabbath began at Creation, that is the bottom line.

That's your bottom line, which you concluded in deference to Scripture's testimony to the contrary. That was pointed out in my first post on this thread:

When we look at Genesis 2:2-3, we find the origin of God's "My rest" that Hebrews 4 speaks of so eloquently. As Hebrews reminds us, this rest was a promise yet to be attained by the people who were already observing the sabbath.

1 ¶ Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.
2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, `They shall not enter My rest,'" although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works";
5 and again in this place: "They shall not enter My rest."
6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
7 again He designates a certain day, saying in David, "Today," after such a long time, as it has been said: "Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts."
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.
9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.

"That" rest speaks of an eternal rest the sabbath never provided, and it is that rest "we who have believed do enter", which is delineated from the sabbath that Jesus clearly stated was "made for man" in Mark 2:27.

Hebrews 4:4 is a direct quote from Genesis 2:2.
The seventh day was God's rest, and not man's rest. The sabbath didn't exist until it was ordained thousands of years later. Moreover, the rest documented on the seventh day never repeated nor ended. The sabbath repeated every week, and was a mere shadow of God's rest that was not attained by the sabbath: "a promise remains of entering His rest", a comment directed to those who already had the sabbath.

The Ten Commandments are in the heavenly temple, unchanged.

This is speculative, and Scripture testifies otherwise in this case as well.

Moses was instructed to pattern everything in the sanctuary that he saw, but Moses did not make the first tablets of stone. Moses was instructed to make the second pair, referring to the first pair as his example in Exodus 34:1: "Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke". That instruction came directly from God, Who referred to the previous pair given to Moses as the first tablets with the ten commandments. There were no tablets of stone inscribed with the ten commandments before the first pair. The ten commandments are not in the heavenly temple.

• Moses testifed that no one other than the children of Israel had the ten commandments, Deuteronomy 4:8.
• Moses testified that prior to his own generation, the ten commandments didn't exist, Deuteronomy 5:2-3.
• Paul testified that the ten commandments were not made for righteous men, and it follows that they were never made for anyone in heaven, where righteousness dwells, 1 Timothy 1:9.
• Jesus testified that the sabbath was made for man - not for God, not for angels, not for space aliens, not for anyone other than man, Mark 2:27.
• God testified through Isaiah that Israel's covenant with death would be annulled (Isaiah 28:18), and the author of Hebrews confirmed that it was (Hebrews 7:18). That covenant was the ten commandments, called the ministry of death (2 Corinthians 3:7) by Paul for the reason that they conveyed a death sentence on anyone who violated it (Romans 7:10), and so did the sabbath as God testified in Exodus 31:14.

Everywhere we turn in Scripture we find that the original ten commandments were the pair of tablets handed to Moses, as God testified in Exodus 24:12. That same first covenant came to an end when the same Hand of God that wrote on the tables of stone took them away, as Hebrews 10:9 states.

Man cannot alter God's law, rather sinful man needs to alter his own life to God's law. It is not God that needs to change, it is man.

You have confused the Creator with the law He created, and Hebrews testifies against your conclusion.

• Hebrews 7:12 specifies the law was changed to allow a priesthood not authorized under Moses.
• Hebrews 7:18-19 specifies the law was annulled because it made nothing perfect, and another means of approaching God replaced the law.
• Hebrews 8:7 tells us the faulty nature of the first covenant was the reason a new covenant was established.
• Hebrews 8:13 specifies the new covenant made the first covenant obsolete.
• Hebrews 10:9 is specific when it tells us Jesus took the first covenant away to establish the new (second) covenant.

When Hebrews 8:13 tells us the old was ready to vanish, it wasn't the people that vanished. It was the law. It wasn't the people that God concluded needed to change, but the law itself.

The atonement is based upon forgiveness for breaking the law, not forgiveness as a license to sin.

Yet the Adventist model of atonement is incomplete, referring to 1844 as a time a "second and final phase of atonement" was added. Moreover, Hebrews 9:15 is specific when it tells us that atonement's purpose was "for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant". The fact that we have forgiveness in the present reality of our continued sin is the very reason God gave us His promise "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more".

1844 is so very precious to Adventism that Scripture is relegated to the back seat and fundamental doctrines core to Christianity are discarded in order to protect this date when nothing happened. The SDA Sanctuary Doctrine is an obnoxious affront to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[mrasell]

These texts do not support the idea that sins were transferred to the sanctuary by the priests’ eating of the meat of the sin offering. The Bible says repeatedly that the meat of any sin offering for which blood was not taken into the holy place was most holy and had to be eaten in a holy place. Anyone who touched it became consecrated, not defiled. Moreover, the priests didn't eat blood. The flesh that was given to the priests had been made holy, not defiled, by the shedding and pouring out of the blood. Sacrificial blood was an instrument of cleansing, not a vehicle to transfer sin to the sanctuary.

Athough the sin offering was holy and consecrated those who touched it, it also says the priest who ate it bore the iniquities (Lev. 10:17).

In addition to that whatever material thing the offering or blood touched needed to be cleansed or broken according to Lev. 6:27-28, so it defiled.

In Numbers it says Aaron bore the iniquities of the guilt offerings in his forehead.

The end result was the the sinner was forgiven (Lev. 4) but the sanctuary needed cleansing.

Some sin offerings required the blood to be transferred to the sanctuary (for priests and the congregation), in these cases the flesh was not eaten by the priest (Lev. 6:30). This is probably because the priest was involved in the sin.

What we see is that the sin offering provided cleansing for the sinner, it was carried by the priest who remained holy, and defiled the sanctuary. It provided both cleansing and defilement. This all teaches us about Jesus and his ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.

 

[Sophia7]

Athough the sin offering was holy and consecrated those who touched it, it also says the priest who ate it bore the iniquities (Lev. 10:17).

In addition to that whatever material thing the offering or blood touched needed to be cleansed or broken according to Lev. 6:27-28, so it defiled.

In Numbers it says Aaron bore the iniquities of the guilt offerings in his forehead.

The end result was the the sinner was forgiven (Lev. 4) but the sanctuary needed cleansing.

Some sin offerings required the blood to be transferred to the sanctuary (for priests and the congregation), in these cases the flesh was not eaten by the priest (Lev. 6:30). This is probably because the priest was involved in the sin.

What we see is that the sin offering provided cleansing for the sinner, it was carried by the priest who remained holy, and defiled the sanctuary. It provided both cleansing and defilement. This all teaches us about Jesus and his ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.

On the contrary, we do not see any indication in the Bible that sacrificial blood ever defiled. Sin defiled. Blood cleansed. I see that you are participating in the GT discussion on this topic, and Tall also addressed this issue there.

 

[mrasell]

If anyone wants to look at the first book online its available at Adventist Enterprises - Home and two chapters of the second book can be read online there.

 

[VictorC]

If anyone wants to look at the first book online its available at Adventist Enterprises - Home and two chapters of the second book can be read online there.

We have a semi-captive audience with the author here, who has not reconciled a lot of problems with Scripture. Why would we take an interest in this author's work when it becomes evident he doesn't quite comprehend the subject material, and can't reconcile the problems he continues to promote with the Bible?

 

[bugkiller]

We have a semi-captive audience with the author here, who has not reconciled a lot of problems with Scripture. Why would we take an interest in this author's work when it becomes evident he doesn't quite comprehend the subject material, and can't reconcile the problems he continues to promote with the Bible?

bugkiller

 

[mrasell]

We have a semi-captive audience with the author here, who has not reconciled a lot of problems with Scripture. Why would we take an interest in this author's work when it becomes evident he doesn't quite comprehend the subject material, and can't reconcile the problems he continues to promote with the Bible?

Many people oppose Sabbath keeping, not because of the theological arguments but because they fear the consequences of keeping the Sabbath - possible loss of employment or being rejected.

Is that a factor in your stance on the Sabbath?

 

[Sophia7]

Many people oppose Sabbath keeping, not because of the theological arguments but because they fear the consequences of keeping the Sabbath - possible loss of employment or being rejected.

Is that a factor in your stance on the Sabbath?

And many people actually do oppose the Adventist Sabbath doctrine for theological reasons.

When I began questioning that doctrine, I knew that if I ended up disagreeing with it, I would face rejection by friends and family members (who care much more about the Sabbath than they do the IJ). My hubby's job was at stake, also, because of our questions on Adventist doctrine (primarily the IJ). We have three young children to support, and we were facing loss of income, loss of our home (because it was a parsonage), and condemnation from friends and family, among other things. I feared those consequences, but we had to accept them anyway.

You have no idea how much I wanted the Adventist beliefs that I had been taught my whole life to be true. I had every reason to hang onto the Sabbath and other Adventist doctrines--except for the most important reason, which was that some of those doctrines were irreconcilable with the Bible. If the factors that you mentioned had been allowed to determine my stance on the Sabbath, I would never have left Adventism.

 

[VictorC]

Many people oppose Sabbath keeping, not because of the theological arguments but because they fear the consequences of keeping the Sabbath - possible loss of employment or being rejected.

Of course you realize that this is speculation on your part, don't you?

Is that a factor in your stance on the Sabbath?

As a former sabbatarian I know the perception held by the typical sabbatarian better than the group of "many people" you alluded to above. They believe they are abiding by God's will, and usually encourage others to do the same thing. It is only after learning the nature of the law that I realized that I wasn't compliant with the sabbath, and holding onto it was actually dishonoring God's redemption from it.

And so I stopped pretending that "keeping" the sabbath honored God, and embarked on a path dictated by a desire for integrity. As Romans 2:23 says, "You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?". Stop dishonoring God while deluding yourself by your boast in the law. You haven't kept the sabbath once your entire life, as the SDA rendition is a mere truncated version not found in the law. Ascribing an origin for the sabbath that is at variance to Scripture further dishonors God.

Asking the question that you do avoids the many theological reasons that I have written on this thread in posts you have no answers for. You fail to acknowledge that Biblical Christianity doesn't affirm a sabbath -any sabbath- because it was a shadow that led us into the reality of God's eternal rest that those burdened with the sabbath had not attained. In the same tenor of the SDA Sanctuary Doctrine, the theological goal of the seventh-day Adventist church is to reject God's redemption.

A functional knowledge of Scripture and a commitment to integrity does not allow this departure from the Gospel of Jesus Christ to continue.

 

[bugkiller]

Of course you realize that this is speculation on your part, don't you?

As a former sabbatarian I know the perception held by the typical sabbatarian better than the group of "many people" you alluded to above. They believe they are abiding by God's will, and usually encourage others to do the same thing. It is only after learning the nature of the law that I realized that I wasn't compliant with the sabbath, and holding onto it was actually dishonoring God's redemption from it.

And so I stopped pretending that "keeping" the sabbath honored God, and embarked on a path dictated by a desire for integrity. As Romans 2:23 says, "You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?". Stop dishonoring God while deluding yourself by your boast in the law. You haven't kept the sabbath once your entire life, as the SDA rendition is a mere truncated version not found in the law. Ascribing an origin for the sabbath that is at variance to Scripture further dishonors God.

Asking the question that you do avoids the many theological reasons that I have written on this thread in posts you have no answers for. You fail to acknowledge that Biblical Christianity doesn't affirm a sabbath -any sabbath- because it was a shadow that led us into the reality of God's eternal rest that those burdened with the sabbath had not attained. In the same tenor of the SDA Sanctuary Doctrine, the theological goal of the seventh-day Adventist church is to reject God's redemption.

A functional knowledge of Scripture and a commitment to integrity does not allow this departure from the Gospel of Jesus Christ to continue.

bugkiller

 

[VictorC]

Victor

The weight of evidence suggests that the Sabbath began at Creation, that is the bottom line.

That's your bottom line, which you concluded in deference to Scripture's testimony to the contrary. That was pointed out in my first post on this thread:

When we look at Genesis 2:2-3, we find the origin of God's "My rest" that Hebrews 4 speaks of so eloquently. As Hebrews reminds us, this rest was a promise yet to be attained by the people who were already observing the sabbath.

1 ¶ Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it.
2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.
3 For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, `They shall not enter My rest,'" although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works";
5 and again in this place: "They shall not enter My rest."
6 Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience,
7 again He designates a certain day, saying in David, "Today," after such a long time, as it has been said: "Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts."
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day.
9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.

"That" rest speaks of an eternal rest the sabbath never provided, and it is that rest "we who have believed do enter", which is delineated from the sabbath that Jesus clearly stated was "made for man" in Mark 2:27.

Hebrews 4:4 is a direct quote from Genesis 2:2.
The seventh day was God's rest, and not man's rest. The sabbath didn't exist until it was ordained thousands of years later. Moreover, the rest documented on the seventh day never repeated nor ended. The sabbath repeated every week, and was a mere shadow of God's rest that was not attained by the sabbath: "a promise remains of entering His rest", a comment directed to those who already had the sabbath.

The Ten Commandments are in the heavenly temple, unchanged.

This is speculative, and Scripture testifies otherwise in this case as well.

Moses was instructed to pattern everything in the sanctuary that he saw, but Moses did not make the first tablets of stone. Moses was instructed to make the second pair, referring to the first pair as his example in Exodus 34:1: "Cut two tablets of stone like the first ones, and I will write on these tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you broke". That instruction came directly from God, Who referred to the previous pair given to Moses as the first tablets with the ten commandments. There were no tablets of stone inscribed with the ten commandments before the first pair. The ten commandments are not in the heavenly temple.

• Moses testifed that no one other than the children of Israel had the ten commandments, Deuteronomy 4:8.
• Moses testified that prior to his own generation, the ten commandments didn't exist, Deuteronomy 5:2-3.
• Paul testified that the ten commandments were not made for righteous men, and it follows that they were never made for anyone in heaven, where righteousness dwells, 1 Timothy 1:9.
• Jesus testified that the sabbath was made for man - not for God, not for angels, not for space aliens, not for anyone other than man, Mark 2:27.
• God testified through Isaiah that Israel's covenant with death would be annulled (Isaiah 28:18), and the author of Hebrews confirmed that it was (Hebrews 7:18). That covenant was the ten commandments, called the ministry of death (2 Corinthians 3:7) by Paul for the reason that they conveyed a death sentence on anyone who violated it (Romans 7:10), and so did the sabbath as God testified in Exodus 31:14.

Everywhere we turn in Scripture we find that the original ten commandments were the pair of tablets handed to Moses, as God testified in Exodus 24:12. That same first covenant came to an end when the same Hand of God that wrote on the tables of stone took them away, as Hebrews 10:9 states.

Man cannot alter God's law, rather sinful man needs to alter his own life to God's law. It is not God that needs to change, it is man.

You have confused the Creator with the law He created, and Hebrews testifies against your conclusion.

• Hebrews 7:12 specifies the law was changed to allow a priesthood not authorized under Moses.
• Hebrews 7:18-19 specifies the law was annulled because it made nothing perfect, and another means of approaching God replaced the law.
• Hebrews 8:7 tells us the faulty nature of the first covenant was the reason a new covenant was established.
• Hebrews 8:13 specifies the new covenant made the first covenant obsolete.
• Hebrews 10:9 is specific when it tells us Jesus took the first covenant away to establish the new (second) covenant.

When Hebrews 8:13 tells us the old was ready to vanish, it wasn't the people that vanished. It was the law. It wasn't the people that God concluded needed to change, but the law itself.

The atonement is based upon forgiveness for breaking the law, not forgiveness as a license to sin.

Yet the Adventist model of atonement is incomplete, referring to 1844 as a time a "second and final phase of atonement" was added. Moreover, Hebrews 9:15 is specific when it tells us that atonement's purpose was "for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant". The fact that we have forgiveness in the present reality of our continued sin is the very reason God gave us His promise "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more".

1844 is so very precious to Adventism that Scripture is relegated to the back seat and fundamental doctrines core to Christianity are discarded in order to protect this date when nothing happened. The SDA Sanctuary Doctrine is an obnoxious affront to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[mrasell]

Hebrews says nothing of the abolition of the Sabbath:
The term “shadow” is applied to the ritual parts of the law (Hebrews 10:1) because when Christ came as the reality they were no longer needed. This cannot be applied to the weekly Sabbath because it was instituted as an eternal memorial of Creation and will also be celebrated in the New Earth (Isaiah 66:22-23), a shadow cannot point to a shadow. The weekly Sabbath was given before the fall, so it does not require animal sacrifices and therefore is not part of the ritual law. The principles of the Ten Commandments existed before they were given in written form. Clearly, the Patriarchs knew the principles of the law: Jacob refused to commit adultery (Gen. 39:9), his brothers knew that stealing was wrong (Gen. 44:8), and when Cain murdered Abel it was regarded as a sin by God (Gen. 4:8-11). Abraham is said to have kept God’s commandments (Gen. 26:5) which gives further evidence that the law existed before the time of Moses.

The fact that something is a symbol does not necessarily mean it is a temporary type. This principle applies to the institution of marriage which is a symbol of our relationship with Christ (John 3:29; Ephesians 5:25-27), yet is still a valid institution today. It is the temple services and the rituals that ended at the cross, not the moral codes which are the foundation of God’s government.

Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17-19). The law points out our sins (Romans 3:20) and this should lead to an acknowledgement of our sinfulness and trusting in Christ for salvation. The law is a mirror which points out our sins but has no power to save us (James 1:22-25); however, the law itself is holy, just and good (Romans 7:12). The problem is not with God’s moral code but with our own sinful hearts (Jeremiah 17:9). In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus showed the depths of the law; it is a sin to murder but even being angry with someone can be a sin. This is why only love can fulfil the law (Romans 13:10). The Greek word “pleroo” used for “fulfil” in Matthew 5:17 can mean either to abolish or to fill something up. The wording, “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil”, shows it is being used in the latter sense. The common non-Biblical usage of this word was literally “to fill”, for example to fill up a bottle; it used in this sense in the New Testament about the disciples being filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:52) and of Jesus being filled with wisdom in childhood (Luke 2:40). Jesus filled up the law, showing its depths, He was not saying that we are free to murder or break the moral precepts of the law. Jesus Himself said that He had kept His Father’s commandments (John 15:10).

 

[VictorC]

Hebrews says nothing of the abolition of the Sabbath:

From this point it becomes clear that Marc's book is being pasted into the post, instead of answering anything that has been presented.

The term “shadow” is applied to the ritual parts of the law (Hebrews 10:1) because when Christ came as the reality they were no longer needed.

This notion that the law was divided into "ceremonial" and "moral" parts is impossible to apply to the sabbath, since it was a ceremonial observance demanding burnt offerings, and is spread throughout the law in areas where you are forced to relegate prostitution and honest weights and measures to mere ceremonies - these sandwich the sabbath where it appears in Leviticus 19.

Hebrews 10:1-9 performs a double-whammy to end the weekly sabbath. It shows an end to all ordinances that required burnt offerings God has no pleasure in (including the sabbath), and then verse 9 ends the first covenant that Christ took away in order to establish the second (new) covenant in His blood. The sabbath was a component of the first covenant (ten commandments), and was taken away with that covenant, burnt offerings and all.

This cannot be applied to the weekly Sabbath because it was instituted as an eternal memorial of Creation and will also be celebrated in the New Earth (Isaiah 66:22-23), a shadow cannot point to a shadow.

The sabbath was called a shadow because it pointed forward to the reality found in Jesus Christ and entrance into His eternal rest. There is nothing eternal about the sabbath, and the nature of it ending after one day only to repeat a week later should have made that obvious to you. Ascribing the measurement of time in a place where you're tripping over dead bodies isn't going to help your case any.

The weekly Sabbath was given before the fall, so it does not require animal sacrifices and therefore is not part of the ritual law.

Ascribing an origin for the sabbath apart from Scripture's testimony isn't going to help your case.

The principles of the Ten Commandments existed before they were given in written form. Clearly, the Patriarchs knew the principles of the law: Jacob refused to commit adultery (Gen. 39:9), his brothers knew that stealing was wrong (Gen. 44:8), and when Cain murdered Abel it was regarded as a sin by God (Gen. 4:8-11). Abraham is said to have kept God’s commandments (Gen. 26:5) which gives further evidence that the law existed before the time of Moses.

Ascribing "principles" to a law that Moses testified didn't exist before his generation in Deuteronomy 5:2-3 isn't going to help your case.

The fact that something is a symbol does not necessarily mean it is a temporary type. This principle applies to the institution of marriage which is a symbol of our relationship with Christ (John 3:29; Ephesians 5:25-27), yet is still a valid institution today. It is the temple services and the rituals that ended at the cross, not the moral codes which are the foundation of God’s government.

The relation you assert between the sabbath and marriage doesn't exist, since they have documented origins at least 2500 years apart.

Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17-19).

He claimed that He was going to fulfill everything the law and the prophets foretold of Him, and it is your assertion that He did not fulfill the law. Adventism doesn't accept Christ's propitiation that fulfilled the law, consistent with their Fundamental Belief #24 asserting an addition to His atonement nowhere supported in Scripture in order to prop up a non-event in 1844.

The Greek word “pleroo” used for “fulfil” in Matthew 5:17 can mean either to abolish or to fill something up. The wording, “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil”, shows it is being used in the latter sense.

Return to Thayer's lexicon and see that pleroo indicates completion. Jesus fulfilled the dictates of the law as a Lamb without spot or blemish (which you are not qualified to do), and completed it.

Jesus filled up the law, showing its depths, He was not saying that we are free to murder or break the moral precepts of the law.

By this you condemn the apostle Paul, a confirmed murderer (Acts 22:20) that God saw fit to save apart from the law.

 

[mrasell]

Paul makes a disctinction between moral and ceremonial in 1 Cor. 7:19
"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God."

 

[VictorC]

Paul makes a disctinction between moral and ceremonial in 1 Cor. 7:19
"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God."

Calling the entrance fee into the covenant from Mount Sinai made for no one else "nothing" relegates that covenant and the entire bok of the law to nothingness. It would seem the commandments of God aren't from that covenant anymore, and Adventism is one of the unique groups that has a theological outlook that denies them.

From my previous post:

This notion that the law was divided into "ceremonial" and "moral" parts is impossible to apply to the sabbath, since it was a ceremonial observance demanding burnt offerings, and is spread throughout the law in areas where you are forced to relegate prostitution and honest weights and measures to mere ceremonies - these sandwich the sabbath where it appears in Leviticus 19.

Hebrews 10:1-9 performs a double-whammy to end the weekly sabbath. It shows an end to all ordinances that required burnt offerings God has no pleasure in (including the sabbath), and then verse 9 ends the first covenant that Christ took away in order to establish the second (new) covenant in His blood. The sabbath was a component of the first covenant (ten commandments), and was taken away with that covenant, burnt offerings and all.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Paul makes a disctinction between moral and ceremonial in 1 Cor. 7:19
"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God."

Where can I find the words "moral" and "ceremonial" in 1 Corinthians?

These are man-made terms to describe laws -- correct?

BFA

 

[mrasell]

Hebrews 10:1-9 performs a double-whammy to end the weekly sabbath. It shows an end to all ordinances that required burnt offerings God has no pleasure in (including the sabbath), and then verse 9 ends the first covenant that Christ took away in order to establish the second (new) covenant in His blood. The sabbath was a component of the first covenant (ten commandments), and was taken away with that covenant, burnt offerings and all.

The original Sabbath in Eden did not require burnt offerings, that was introduced later, and removed at the death of Christ. Which is why the Sabbath will be celebrated in the new earth - Isa. 66:22-23