Understanding the New Covenant

[RND]

The same way I do anything else.
I have no idea what the first question means.

You are an enigma unto yourself.

 

[ricker]

True ceremonial sabbaths did for sure. Since the 7th day Sabbath or Day of the Lord was instituted before sin entered the world it did not. At least not when it was created because there was no need for salvation until sin entered the world.

God did indeed rest and bless and sanctify the seventh day of creation. To say more is to jump to conclusions.

Yes and we still need to be circumcized in our hearts of flesh now. Outward circumcision was a sign back then inward circumcision is the sign now just as the laws are now written on our hearts now instead of on stone.

Sounds about right.

The covenant God made with Israel involved Sabbath observance there is no doubt. However, it went far beyond that and included a host of other things that had to do with righteous living and the sacrificial system which was a temporary thing pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of God on the cross.

True, the Sabbath explicitly being called a sign and covenant with Israel.

When you keep saying "ceremonial sign" I get the feeling you are placing Sabbath observance into a narrow range of orchestated ceremonies that were meant only for and practiced once a week by the ancient nation of Israel . The observance of the Sabbath is much more than that and even though there has probably always been special things to be done on the Sabbath even in the ceremonies of old and now in our worship services it is not just a ceremonial sign. It's a day to celebrate our creation and to glorify Him that made the heaven and the earth and the fountains of waters. It's a day to rest not only from our physical labors but to remind us that we are to rest from our labors to save ourselves as well. We need the 7th day Sabbath more today than ever before.

Does the Bible give the Sabbath command to anyone besides Israel as their sign and covenant?

In the Bible it tells us that we should keep all of the commandments. The text that is very clear for that is James 2:10 then we have Deut. 27:26 saying basically the same thing. The text I feel is the clearest on the Sabbath is in Mark where Christ specifically says the Sabbath was made for man. There is nothing in God's laws that we should throw out but those that were nailed to the cross.

James 2 says:

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. 12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

When I read this I understand it to mean all are under condemnation of the law, but as Christians we are to live under the law of freedom that says we are to love our neighbors as ourselves.
The passage from Mark does not say mankind. It can be understood that way, and it can be understood as pertaining to His Jewish audience in context.

There were also laws that were specifically given for Israel at that time only. Things that had to do with the way they lived and the culture they had at that time. One law was the beard law. I am kind of researching that right now. If you want to check out one web-site I found on this look here:

http://www.bibleresearch.org/articles/alw5.htm

Anyway, there were a lot of things that may or may not be something we need to be doing now that God commanded Israel to do. However, the ten commandments were for all mankind and they apply to us today.

Then again the ten were given exclusively to Israel according to the Bible. Deut. 4 says in reference to the COI:

He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. 14 And the LORD directed me at that time to teach you the decrees and laws you are to follow in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess.

It would sure clear things up if you could find somewhere in the Bible where it says the ten commandments specifically as a whole were for all of God's people including Gentiles or to be kept as a unit by the Christian church under the new covenant.

I see a recurring weekly cycle in which the 7th day comes every seventh day of the week. If God made it holy and set it aside for holy use at creation and only intended for it to be used on one occasion why do we see it mentioned in Ex 20: 8-11 as the memorial of creation? Why do we see it mentioned in nearly every book of the Bible? Why did the Son of God keep it while He was here? Why is it mentioned in the new earth?

The feast of tabernackles comes every year also. God's authorization of the Sabbath command also is based on tthe COI being delivered from Egypt, too.
The Sabbath was very important to the COI, there is no question. It was the sign of their covenant. Jesus of course was a Jew and was not a lawbreaker, even of the old covenant.
Why is it mentioned in the same passage you are referencing about the Sabbath being kept in heaven that we will be keeping the monthly "sabbaths" too?
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

It was the sign of their covenant.

I have a question ricker. In general, do you accept the provisions of that covenant as being good to observe for everyone, even non-Israelites?

If so, how do you read the following verses to say:

Isa 56:6 ¶
Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [shall be] accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather [others] to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

 

[ricker]

I have a question ricker. In general, do you accept the provisions of that covenant as being good to observe for everyone, even non-Israelites?

If so, how do you read the following verses to say:

Isa 56:6 ¶
Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [shall be] accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. 8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather [others] to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

This is an interesting passage. "Strangers" could join with Israel as prosylites, and enter into the covenant God had with them. These "converts" are never referred to as Jews.
God chose the Israelites to be His special people. I'm no Bible scholar on the subject, but I believe the Jewish nation was rejected as God's chosen people after Christ's death and now under the new covenant both Jews and Gentiles are equal inheritors of the promise. I'm sure you disagree somehow, so fire away with your thoughts.
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

This is an interesting passage. "Strangers" could join with Israel as prosylites, and enter into the covenant God had with them. These "converts" are never referred to as Jews.

Stranger #5236/nekar - ' from 'nakar' (5234); foreign, or (concretely) a foreigner, or (abstractly) heathendom:--alien, strange (+ -er).

Join #3867/ lavah - a primitive root; properly, to twine, i.e. (by implication) to unite, to remain; also to borrow (as a form of obligation) or (caus.) to lend:--abide with, borrow(-er), cleave, join (self), lend(-er).

It seems to say to me that heathens could "unite" with the Lord and His covenant. Kinda the way it is prescribed in the "law."

Exd 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. 50 ¶ Thus did all the children of Israel; as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. 51 And it came to pass the selfsame day, [that] the LORD did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.

Wouldn't you say, from an allegorical standpoint, that by accepting the Lord and taking communion (Luke 22:19) that we are keeping the "spiritual" passover?

God chose the Israelites to be His special people. I'm no Bible scholar on the subject, but I believe the Jewish nation was rejected as God's chosen people after Christ's death and now under the new covenant both Jews and Gentiles are equal inheritors of the promise. I'm sure you disagree somehow, so fire away with your thoughts.

No I agree just fine. It's an excellent point. All who accept Jesus become part of the larger, spiritual body of Israel.

But I didn't see you answer this question ricker: "In general, do you accept the provisions of that covenant as being good to observe for everyone, even non-Israelites?" Yes or no.

I'll give you an example. Part of that covenant saiys, "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not lie," "Do not take the Lord's name in vain," "Do not worship Idols,"etc. Do you think those general provision of the covenant are good to observe?

 

[Jimlarmore]

Does the Bible give the Sabbath command to anyone besides Israel as their sign and covenant?

Indirectly yes it does. What we find in scripture is that we can see that you didn't have to be a Jew or an Israelite necessarily to receive the blessings of God thru the Sabbath. Even in Ex 20:8-11 we see that the "stranger within thy gates" spoken of is someone that is not considered a Jew or Israelite. Also, we find that in the texts that I gave you concerning the evengelical work that Israel was supposed to be doing included the command to be "a light to the Gentiles" i.e. Isa 49:6, Acts 13:47. This to me included all of God's plan of salvation which included His ten commandment laws.

James 2 says:


When I read this I understand it to mean all are under condemnation of the law, but as Christians we are to live under the law of freedom that says we are to love our neighbors as ourselves.
The passage from Mark does not say mankind. It can be understood that way, and it can be understood as pertaining to His Jewish audience in context.

What you have to understand is that Christ was very adament that the gospel was to be preached first to the lost house of Israel and then to the whole world. If Christ meant this to apply only to Israel then He would have said it here. The truth is that there was no Israel when the Sabbath was instituted. There was only one man and one woman. This is the scene Christ was referring to when He said that the Sabbath was made for man.

Then again the ten were given exclusively to Israel according to the Bible. Deut. 4 says in reference to the COI:
It would sure clear things up if you could find somewhere in the Bible where it says the ten commandments specifically as a whole were for all of God's people including Gentiles or to be kept as a unit by the Christian church under the new covenant.

The grafting in spoken of by Paul in Romans 11 is an example. The texts in the old testament like this in Isa 49:21-22

21

Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and removing to and fro? and who hath brought up these? Behold, I was left alone; these, where had they been?
22

Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.

And this in Isa 56:1-8

1

Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
2

Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.
3


Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
4

For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
5

Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
6

Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
7

Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
Matt 21:13 Mark 11:17 Luke 19:46
8

The Lord GOD, which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

Here clearly the stranger and eunuchs are Gentiles and not COI.

The feast of tabernackles comes every year also. God's authorization of the Sabbath command also is based on tthe COI being delivered from Egypt, too.
The Sabbath was very important to the COI, there is no question. It was the sign of their covenant. Jesus of course was a Jew and was not a lawbreaker, even of the old covenant.
Why is it mentioned in the same passage you are referencing about the Sabbath being kept in heaven that we will be keeping the monthly "sabbaths" too?
God bless! Ricker

It's not mentioned that we will be keeping the monthly Sabbaths. It says from one new moon to another. To me this is saying that the monthly cycle will be a time for us to come together before the Lord.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[ricker]

Stranger #5236/nekar - ' from 'nakar' (5234); foreign, or (concretely) a foreigner, or (abstractly) heathendom:--alien, strange (+ -er).

Join #3867/ lavah - a primitive root; properly, to twine, i.e. (by implication) to unite, to remain; also to borrow (as a form of obligation) or (caus.) to lend:--abide with, borrow(-er), cleave, join (self), lend(-er).

It seems to say to me that heathens could "unite" with the Lord and His covenant. Kinda the way it is prescribed in the "law."

Exd 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. 50 ¶ Thus did all the children of Israel; as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they. 51 And it came to pass the selfsame day, [that] the LORD did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.

Wouldn't you say, from an allegorical standpoint, that by accepting the Lord and taking communion (Luke 22:19) that we are keeping the "spiritual" passover?

I suppose one could look at it as a "spiritual passover" if you choose to. This is not what Jesus said when He instituted it as the sign of the new covenant, however.

No I agree just fine. It's an excellent point. All who accept Jesus become part of the larger, spiritual body of Israel.

By accepting Jesus we become part of the body of Christ under the new covenant.

But I didn't see you answer this question ricker: "In general, do you accept the provisions of that covenant as being good to observe for everyone, even non-Israelites?" Yes or no.

I'll give you an example. Part of that covenant saiys, "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not lie," "Do not take the Lord's name in vain," "Do not worship Idols,"etc. Do you think those general provision of the covenant are good to observe?

There are indeed good moral laws and commands given under the old covenant that it are good for us to follow now.
I like the comparison of moving from one country to another. The laws in both probably condemn theft and murder and such, but just because there are similarities does not mean they are the same in every respect. In the same way, God's old covenant with Israel can have ceremonial or sacrificial rules that are not still in effect under the new covenant. The sign of this covenant, the Sabbath command, given to Israel could well be one of these. I would like you to show me it was also given to Christians under the new. It was, after all, definitley given as a sign to the Israelites and would not necessarily follow into the new covenant as such.
There are many instructions to the new Christian church on what God expects of us under the new covenant. There is precious little moral instruction not covered there.
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

I suppose one could look at it as a "spiritual passover" if you choose to.

When you take communion and eat the bread and drink the grape juice are you not partaking in "eating the passover lamb."

John 1:36
And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

This is not what Jesus said when He instituted it as the sign of the new covenant, however.

What did He say ricker, I'd be interested to know? I mean, I don't believe Jesus mentioned a "new covenant" with anyone.

John 6:53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

He did mention a "New Testament" or a "New Testimony" however.

Mat 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

By accepting Jesus we become part of the body of Christ under the new covenant.

No doubt.

There are indeed good moral laws and commands given under the old covenant that it are good for us to follow now.
I like the comparison of moving from one country to another. The laws in both probably condemn theft and murder and such, but just because there are similarities does not mean they are the same in every respect.

So what your saying is that there are different opinions of God's law in different country's?

I thought murder, lying, stealing, etc., were the same in every country.

In the same way, God's old covenant with Israel can have ceremonial or sacrificial rules that are not still in effect under the new covenant.

But this is obvious. Especially when you consider we don't make "physical" sacrifices anymore, nor are they worth anything.

Dan 9:27
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Hosea 6:6
For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

The sign of this covenant, the Sabbath command, given to Israel could well be one of these.

But the sabbath wasn't the only part of the covenant ricker, it was the whole Ten Commandments.

I would like you to show me it was also given to Christians under the new. It was, after all, definitley given as a sign to the Israelites and would not necessarily follow into the new covenant as such.

Ricker, I think you've been shown this over and over and over again by myself and others.

There are many instructions to the new Christian church on what God expects of us under the new covenant. There is precious little moral instruction not covered there.

So if we can assume that under the "new" covenant some of the moral laws are the same as under the "old" can we assume that the "rules" didn't change?

For example, if lying was wrong then and it's wrong now, then it's always been wrong, right?

 

[ricker]

What did He say ricker, I'd be interested to know? I mean, I don't believe Jesus mentioned a "new covenant" with anyone.

Matt. 26:28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:24"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.

Luke 22:
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

John 6:53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

He did mention a "New Testament" or a "New Testimony" however.

I've always heard "testament" and "covenant" mean the same thing.

So what your saying is that there are different opinions of God's law in different country's?

I thought murder, lying, stealing, etc., were the same in every country.

Are you really that dense or are you try just trying to confuse yourself? Some of the laws can be similar under different jurisdictions but that doesn't mean all laws are the same under different jurisdictions. Quit trying to be cute. This is why I can carry on a conversation with Jim, but not always very well with you.

But the sabbath wasn't the only part of the covenant ricker, it was the whole Ten Commandments.

The Sabbath command itself was a sign and a covenant with Israel according to Exodus 31

So if we can assume that under the "new" covenant some of the moral laws are the same as under the "old" can we assume that the "rules" didn't change?

We can see some of the rules are the same under the new covenant. We also know that some are not.
God bless! ricker

 

[Jimlarmore]

There are indeed good moral laws and commands given under the old covenant that it are good for us to follow now.
I like the comparison of moving from one country to another. The laws in both probably condemn theft and murder and such, but just because there are similarities does not mean they are the same in every respect. In the same way, God's old covenant with Israel can have ceremonial or sacrificial rules that are not still in effect under the new covenant. The sign of this covenant, the Sabbath command, given to Israel could well be one of these. I would like you to show me it was also given to Christians under the new. It was, after all, definitley given as a sign to the Israelites and would not necessarily follow into the new covenant as such.
There are many instructions to the new Christian church on what God expects of us under the new covenant. There is precious little moral instruction not covered there.
God bless! Ricker

I don't think you will find anything in the new covenant that says the law is done away with. In fact Paul clearly says we don't live in sin that grace may abound. What he says is that we , as new covenant Christians, "establish the law." In the new covenant many of those who would say the ten are gone say the new laws are to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. The only problem with that is that this so called new law encompasses the ten in every way. How can you love God with all your heart and step on His holy day or make idols to worship instead of Him, or curse His name? How can you love your neighbor as yourself and steal from him, or murder him or comit adultery with his wife, etc.?

The only commandment that all of this debate is over is the Sabbath commandment. In the new testament we see where Paul preached on the Sabbath to Gentiles. Isn't that observing the Sabbath? In Hebrews 4 we clearly see God mentioning the 7th day Sabbath as the rest of God and that we should labor to enter into that rest. What more do we need brother?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[ricker]

I don't think you will find anything in the new covenant that says the law is done away with. In fact Paul clearly says we don't live in sin that grace may abound. What he says is that we , as new covenant Christians, "establish the law." In the new covenant many of those who would say the ten are gone say the new laws are to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. The only problem with that is that this so called new law encompasses the ten in every way. How can you love God with all your heart and step on His holy day or make idols to worship instead of Him, or curse His name? How can you love your neighbor as yourself and steal from him, or murder him or comit adultery with his wife, etc.?

The only commandment that all of this debate is over is the Sabbath commandment. In the new testament we see where Paul preached on the Sabbath to Gentiles. Isn't that observing the Sabbath? In Hebrews 4 we clearly see God mentioning the 7th day Sabbath as the rest of God and that we should labor to enter into that rest. What more do we need brother?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

I can see your point, Jim.
I currently am a Lutheran Christian, and we/they believe the ten commandments contain instruction for our lives as God's followers. It is also written in the Augsburg confession in 1530 that: "For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord's Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted."
This is why Sabbath observance is the only sticking point, so to speak, in the ten commandments. Some believe it is a ceremonial sign given to the Israelites only. Lutherans and other Christians don't think it is OK to bear false witness or whatever, they just believe the Sabbath command was part of the ceremonies nailed to the cross. This is why I am reluctant to get into useless discussions of the law. There are indeed moral imperatives we should try to follow with God's help.
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

Matt. 26:28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:24"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.

Luke 22:
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

So it depends on what translation we use.

I've always heard "testament" and "covenant" mean the same thing.

Yeah, I always heard that too. And of course the usage seems to indicate as much.

Are you really that dense or are you try just trying to confuse yourself?

Ricker, that was unnecessary.

Some of the laws can be similar under different jurisdictions but that doesn't mean all laws are the same under different jurisdictions. Quit trying to be cute. This is why I can carry on a conversation with Jim, but not always very well with you.

You would need to give me an example. Murder is murder everywhere, same with lying, stealing. Now the "punishment" may be different in other areas but the definitions of the crimes aren't.

The Sabbath command itself was a sign and a covenant with Israel according to Exodus 31

The sabbth in Exodus 31 is used as a "sign" for the acceptance of the covenant.

Exd 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant. 17 It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

The totality of the covenant was based on the Ten Commandments.

Exd 34:28
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.

Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

We can see some of the rules are the same under the new covenant. We also know that some are not.

Which ones?

Having other Gods? No, that hasn't changed.
Idol worship? No, that hasn't changed.
Using the Lord's name in vain? No, that hasn't changed.
Dishonoring parents? No, that hasn't changed.
Murder? No, that hasn't changed.
Bearing false witness and lying? No, that hasn't changed.
Adultery and fornication? No, that hasn't changed.
Stealing? No, that hasn't changed.
Coveting? No, that hasn't changed.

Ricker, do you suppose the only one that changed was the one that said, "Remember....?"

 

[ricker]

So it depends on what translation we use.

I guess. I usually use the NIV. I didn't look at any others.

Ricker, that was unnecessary.

Your right, sorry.

You would need to give me an example. Murder is murder everywhere, same with lying, stealing. Now the "punishment" may be different in other areas but the definitions of the crimes aren't.

In the US it is legal to privately own a mac 10 rifle, as long as it isn't fully automatic. In Canada possession of this firearm will get you thrown in jail. In Canada the use of medicinal marijuana is legal, in the US, it is federally prohibited. In both countries strangling your barber for fun would be against the law. Do you want more? Many laws may be the same, some may be different. I didn't think this was such a difficult concept, but maybe I just explain it badly. (giving you the benefit of the doubt).

The sabbth in Exodus 31 is used as a "sign" for the acceptance of the covenant.

Exd 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant. 17 It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

The totality of the covenant was based on the Ten Commandments.

Exd 34:28
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.

Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

The covenant with Israel included all His commands, not just the ten.
Here is a good example of another aspect of the covenant.
Numbers 18:
19 Whatever is set aside from the holy offerings the Israelites present to the LORD I give to you and your sons and daughters as your regular share. It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD for both you and your offspring."

God added to His covenant with Israel in Deut. 29:1 These are the terms of the covenant the LORD commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb.

Which ones?

Having other Gods? No, that hasn't changed.
Idol worship? No, that hasn't changed.
Using the Lord's name in vain? No, that hasn't changed.
Dishonoring parents? No, that hasn't changed.
Murder? No, that hasn't changed.
Bearing false witness and lying? No, that hasn't changed.
Adultery and fornication? No, that hasn't changed.
Stealing? No, that hasn't changed.
Coveting? No, that hasn't changed.

Ricker, do you suppose the only one that changed was the one that said, "Remember....?"

15 " 'From the day after the Sabbath, the day you brought the sheaf of the wave offering, count off seven full weeks. 16 Count off fifty days up to the day after the seventh Sabbath, and then present an offering of new grain to the LORD.

Done that lately? Has the law changed?

16 Three times a year all your men must appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Tabernacles. No man should appear before the LORD empty-handed:

Done this lately? Has the law changed?

The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.

Have you practiced this faithfully? Has this law changed?

9 "When anyone has an infectious skin disease, he must be brought to the priest.

Do you and yours practice this?

11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

Still in effect?

Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.

How about this one?

You may have reasons you believe some of these are no longer in effect, making my point. These are all laws given to Israel by God as part of the old covenant.
God bless! Ricker

 

[Jimlarmore]

I can see your point, Jim.
I currently am a Lutheran Christian, and we/they believe the ten commandments contain instruction for our lives as God's followers. It is also written in the Augsburg confession in 1530 that: "For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord's Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted."
This is why Sabbath observance is the only sticking point, so to speak, in the ten commandments. Some believe it is a ceremonial sign given to the Israelites only. Lutherans and other Christians don't think it is OK to bear false witness or whatever, they just believe the Sabbath command was part of the ceremonies nailed to the cross. This is why I am reluctant to get into useless discussions of the law. There are indeed moral imperatives we should try to follow with God's help.
God bless! Ricker

When something is abrogated it is annulled by an authoritative act. Your post says by the Augsburg confession of 1530 they decided to do this because of scripture. Yet the scripture they use is not given. I'd be interested in seeing which ones they use to show the 7th day Sabbath was ceremonial and nailed to the cross. If your church was founded by Martin Luther then it should be a solo scriptura church and not follow after the traditions of man.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[ricker]

When something is abrogated it is annulled by an authoritative act. Your post says by the Augsburg confession of 1530 they decided to do this because of scripture. Yet the scripture they use is not given. I'd be interested in seeing which ones they use to show the 7th day Sabbath was ceremonial and nailed to the cross. If your church was founded by Martin Luther then it should be a solo scriptura church and not follow after the traditions of man.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Good point. I know Luther did not shy away from the ten commandments, they are taught in his small catechism, but also believed we are not required to observe a Sabbath day. Luther was still very much a force in the reformation in 1530, as it was just starting. The Lutheran church accepts the Augsburg confession as authoratative (maybe not the right word, should I say "statement of faith"?). I will look into this, it could be interesting. The Lutheran church takes a lot of pride in being sola scriptura, and of course sola fide and sola gratia.
God bless! Ricker

 

[RND]

I guess. I usually use the NIV. I didn't look at any others.

I think it does.

Your right, sorry.

Thank you.

In the US it is legal to privately own a mac 10 rifle, as long as it isn't fully automatic. In Canada possession of this firearm will get you thrown in jail. In Canada the use of medicinal marijuana is legal, in the US, it is federally prohibited. In both countries strangling your barber for fun would be against the law. Do you want more? Many laws may be the same, some may be different. I didn't think this was such a difficult concept, but maybe I just explain it badly. (giving you the benefit of the doubt).

Ricker, there are no "gun laws" in the Bible. But there are laws against murder, stealing, lying, etc. While certain laws may indeed be different in different countries, the Ten Commandments are the same everywhere.

The covenant with Israel included all His commands, not just the ten.

Well, obviously I would have to disagree.

Here is a good example of another aspect of the covenant.
Numbers 18:
19 Whatever is set aside from the holy offerings the Israelites present to the LORD I give to you and your sons and daughters as your regular share. It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD for both you and your offspring."

But this isn't part of the Ten Commandments.

God added to His covenant with Israel in Deut. 29:1 These are the terms of the covenant the LORD commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb.

Yet, if the stranger wanted to be a part of this covenant he could enter into it.

Done that lately? Has the law changed?

Law of Moses, not the Ten Commandments.

Done this lately? Has the law changed?

Law of Moses, not the Ten Commandments.

Have you practiced this faithfully? Has this law changed?
Do you and yours practice this?

Law of Moses, not the Ten Commandments.

Still in effect?
How about this one?

Law of Moses, not the Ten Commandments.

You may have reasons you believe some of these are no longer in effect, making my point. These are all laws given to Israel by God as part of the old covenant.

But none of the laws you mentioned were part of the Ten Commandments. So apparently, the only one of the Ten Commandments is the 4th. The one God said to remember is the one everyone forgot.

 

[ricker]

Ricker, there are no "gun laws" in the Bible. But there are laws against murder, stealing, lying, etc. While certain laws may indeed be different in different countries, the Ten Commandments are the same everywhere.

My point is, of course, there can be diferences in the laws in the different covenants. We are not under the old covenant, just as you would not be under the laws of the USA if you moved to Canada, but some of the laws might be remarkably similar.

But this isn't part of the Ten Commandments.
Yet, if the stranger wanted to be a part of this covenant he could enter into it.
Law of Moses, not the Ten Commandments.
Law of Moses, not the Ten Commandments.
Law of Moses, not the Ten Commandments.
Law of Moses, not the Ten Commandments.
But none of the laws you mentioned were part of the Ten Commandments. So apparently, the only one of the Ten Commandments is the 4th. The one God said to remember is the one everyone forgot.

When I first said some of the law changed, I didn't say only ten commandment law.

Deut. 29:1 These are the terms of the covenant the LORD commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb.
Did Moses come up with the laws himself?

The fourth commandment is the only one in the ten called a sign to Israel. It is the only one that can be considered ceremonial. It is the only one not repeated in the new covenant for believers. Is there any wonder why there is a question if it is still required?
Your brother in Christ! Ricker

 

[RND]

My point is, of course, there can be diferences in the laws in the different covenants. We are not under the old covenant, just as you would not be under the laws of the USA if you moved to Canada, but some of the laws might be remarkably similar.

Ricker, do they have laws against murder in Canada? Sweden? Iran? Japan? China? USA?

When I first said some of the law changed, I didn't say only ten commandment law.

Well ricker don't you think it might be proper to make a distinction?

Did Moses come up with the laws himself?

No, they were dictated to him.

The fourth commandment is the only one in the ten called a sign to Israel.

Then why were strangers and sojourners required to keep it?

It is the only one that can be considered ceremonial.

Really, what ceremonies are listed for it? What do those ceremonies point to?

It is the only one not repeated in the new covenant for believers.

Really? So when God said "remember" he knew one day it would be forgetten or was meant to be forgotten? What about Hebrews 4:9?

Hbr 4:9
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

What about the fact that Jesus kept the Sabbath and He is our example?

Doesn't Col. 2:16 say something about the sabbath?

But then again, didn't Jesus compare hatred to murder and lust to actual adultery? Sounds as if the "law" has been taken higher, not brought down to a lower level.

Is there any wonder why there is a question if it is still required?

I don't know. I don't question God's moral law.

 

[ricker]

When something is abrogated it is annulled by an authoritative act. Your post says by the Augsburg confession of 1530 they decided to do this because of scripture. Yet the scripture they use is not given. I'd be interested in seeing which ones they use to show the 7th day Sabbath was ceremonial and nailed to the cross. If your church was founded by Martin Luther then it should be a solo scriptura church and not follow after the traditions of man.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Here is a more complete quote from the Augsburg confession.


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Again, the authors of traditions do contrary to the command of God when they find matters of sin in foods, in days, and like things, and burden the Church with bondage of the law, as if there ought to be among Christians, in order to merit justification a service like the Levitical, the arrangement of which God had committed to the Apostles and bishops. For thus some of them write; and the Pontiffs in some measure seem to be misled by the example of the law of Moses. Hence are such burdens, as that they make it mortal sin, even without offense to others, to do manual labor on holy-days, a mortal sin to omit the Canonical Hours, that certain foods defile the conscience that fastings are works which appease God that sin in a reserved case cannot be forgiven but by the authority of him who reserved it; whereas the Canons themselves speak only of the reserving of the ecclesiastical penalty, and not of the reserving of the guilt. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Whence have the bishops the right to lay these traditions upon the Church for the ensnaring of consciences, when Peter, Acts 15, 10, forbids to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, and Paul says, 2 Cor. 13, 10, that the power given him was to edification not to destruction? Why, therefore, do they increase sins by these traditions? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But there are clear testimonies which prohibit the making of such traditions, as though they merited grace or were necessary to salvation. Paul says, Col. 2, 16-23: Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days.If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (touch not; taste not; handle not, which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men! which things have indeed a show of wisdom. Also in Titus 1, 14 he openly forbids traditions: Not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men that turn from the truth. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And Christ, Matt. 15, 14. 13, says of those who require traditions: Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind; and He rejects such services: Every plant which My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be plucked up. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If bishops have the right to burden churches with infinite traditions, and to ensnare consciences, why does Scripture so often prohibit to make, and to listen to, traditions? Why does it call them "doctrines of devils"? 1 Tim. 4, 1. Did the Holy Ghost in vain forewarn of these things? [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since, therefore, ordinances instituted as things necessary, or with an opinion of meriting grace, are contrary to the Gospel, it follows that it is not lawful for any bishop to institute or exact such services. For it is necessary that the doctrine of Christian liberty be preserved in the churches, namely, that the bondage of the Law is not necessary to justification, as it is written in the Epistle to the Galatians, 5, 1: Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. It is necessary that the chief article of the Gospel be preserved, to wit, that we obtain grace freely by faith in Christ, and not for certain observances or acts of worship devised by men. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What, then, are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of God? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin to break them without offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor. 11, 5, that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14, 30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is proper that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquillity, so far that one do not offend another, that all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion, 1 Cor. 14, 40; comp. Phil. 2, 14; but so that consciences be not burdened to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin when they break them without offense to others; as no one will say that a woman sins who goes out in public with her head uncovered provided only that no offense be given. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of this kind is the observance of the Lord's Day, Easter, Pentecost, and like holy-days and rites. For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord's Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And yet, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church designated the Lord's Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are monstrous disputations concerning the changing of the law, the ceremonies of the new law, the changing of the Sabbath-day, which all have sprung from the false belief that there must needs be in the Church a service like to the Levitical, and that Christ had given commission to the Apostles and bishops to devise new ceremonies as necessary to salvation. These errors crept into the Church when the righteousness of faith was not taught clearly enough. Some dispute that the keeping of the Lord's Day is not indeed of divine right, but in a manner so. They prescribe concerning holy-days, how far it is lawful to work. What else are such disputations than snares of consciences? For although they endeavor to modify the traditions, yet the mitigation can never be perceived as long as the opinion remains that they are necessary, which must needs remain where the righteousness of faith and Christian liberty are not known. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Apostles commanded Acts 15, 20 to abstain from blood. Who does now observe it? And yet they that do it not sin not; for not even the Apostles themselves wanted to burden consciences with such bondage; but they forbade it for a time, to avoid offense. For in this decree we must perpetually consider what the aim of the Gospel is. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Scarcely any Canons are kept with exactness, and from day to day many go out of use even among those who are the most zealous advocates of traditions. Neither can due regard be paid to consciences unless this mitigation be observed, that we know that the Canons are kept without holding them to be necessary, and that no harm is done consciences, even though traditions go out of use.[/FONT]



I know I have seen more things specifically on the Sabbath issue, I will try to find them.
God bless! Ricker

 

[Jimlarmore]

I think it's time to draw any distinctions that may exist between the old and new covenants. This thread has gone on for over one hundred posts and I don't think that has been done. Out of courtesy to my brother Ricker I will allow him to begin with his ideas on this.
If it's ok with everyone can we kind of keep our discussions within the confines of a few important questions on this? I will start out with some and if anyone has more please add them.

1. What was the purpose of the Old Covenant?

2. What was the purpose of the New Covenant?

3. What were the key components of the Old Covenant?

4. What were the key components of the New Covenant?

5. What relationship did the sancturary have with the old covenant?

6. What relationship did the sancturary have with the new covenant?

7. What places were the old Covenant written?

8. What places were the New Covenant written?

9. What is the theme of the Old Covenant?

10. What is the theme of the New Covenant?

This is ten questions. Some may come up with more but let's start to put all of this together. I know the majority of this discussion has been over the Sabbath so far and that is ok but we need to establish if the Sabbath was or is a part of the new covenant or not. So Brother Ricker, do your thing on this and I will do mine as well.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

5.