Why does most of all SDA proof text....

[VictorC]

It isn't conducive to a conversation when a post is written in complete disregard to what you quoted from me. This is yet another example of denial of context in action...

Jesus, the Iam, wrote the 10 Commandments, that is the ultimate authority. Even Moses is subordinated to that. The earthly sanctuary was modeled after the heavenly. In the earthly sanctuary inside the ark of the covenant was the two tablets with the 10 Commandments written on them.

Hebrews 8 does describe Moses being shown the sanctuary in heaven, and being instructed to make a copy of it when he embarked on the fabrication of the tabernacle, the tent that was later replaced by Solomon's temple. It doesn't infer that there was a covenant comprised of the ten commandments, for the reason that the ten commandments are not a part of the sanctuary.

Therefore, we can conclude that from Hebrews 8 where it states clearly that everything in the earthly was made according to the pattern of the heavenly, that the Rev. 11:19 describes is where the original tablets are stored.

Revelation 11:19 describes the temple being opened in heaven, and the narrative describes the appearance of the interior from a vantage outside the temple. There are a couple of items missing from the description:

• There is no curtain seperating a division of the HP and the MHP where the ark of the covenant was contained in the earthly example, and was only seen once a year by one individual.
• There is no appearance of the book of the law that is placed outside of the ark of the covenant, and it is that book of the law we read the ten commandments from and was to remain as a witness against Israel, as recorded in Deuteronomy 31:26.

Where there is no law remaining as a witness against Israel, there is no reason to assume that the tables of stone are inside the ark of God's testimony, and there is no text that suggests that they are. The tables of stone were only for God's vassal Israel in the covenant relationship that existed only on earth. The covenant (Deuteronomy 4:12-13) was made with a people on earth - not in heaven (Deuteronomy 5:2-3). The covenant comprised by the ten commandments was not made with any other nation (Deuteronomy 4:8), and that includes anyone off the planet earth.

And why wouldn't they be there? God's Law is will stand forever.

Making a claim that the ten commandments will stand forever isn't cognizant of the temporal nature of the first covenant, which was the ten commandments. We know the origin of the ten commandments, which was initially given through Moses and wasn't made with anyone in a generation prior to Moses (Deuteronomy 5:2-3). We also know the termination of the ten commandments, which was abolished as far as jurisdiction over God's redeemed children was concerned when God made a new covenant to replace the former (Hebrews 8:13). An entity with a known origin and disposition isn't eternal, and your claim isn't compliant with Scripture.

You are in denial of the most compelling evidence as to the enduring nature of God's holy law. SDAs didn't make this up, its all in the Bible. With all of the lawlessness is very puzzling why so many evangelicals want to do away with God's law!

Claiming that God's Hand that took away the first covenant (Hebrews 10:9) is comprised of the Evangelical community is misplacing Who God is. God is Sovereign, and He has every right to abolish the temporal "ministry of death" (2 Corinthians 3:7) that He created in the first place.

Let's return to the topic of context, shall we?
I made this statement in the post you responded to:

Note too that Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:5 as the greatest commandment in the entire law. If you would return to the context where this quote comes from, you would confirm for yourself that the greatest commandment in the entire law was spoken by Moses; not God, and not what God wrote onto tables of stone.

The first covenant was a single entity that stands or falls as a unit of the entire "one law" (Numbers 15:16) that comprised it. Diverting attention to the ten commandments does not answer the point above that the greatest commandment was spoken by Moses.

 

[tall73]

Jesus had already spoken those two commandments before hand.

Can you explain what you mean here?

They have always been a summation of the law.

They are the PRINCIPLE that the law flows from...love for God and love for neighbor.

Everything hangs on them.

I think Jesus was trying to take the minds of the people off of being legalistic. I believe that's why He said it as such. You don't have to love your neighbor or God for that matter to keep His commandments in a legalistic fashion.You simply have turned to trying to earn your salvation by your own works.

Which would mean that the two are greater. They are what undergird everything else.

Love for God inspires faith and trust and obedience. As such when you are in love with God and being lead by the Spirit, you are being brought into alignment with His commandments.

Stryder when you are in love with God you bear the fruit of the Spirit, and against such things there is no law:

Gal 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions,
Gal 5:21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

 

[tall73]

And perhaps you should take careful notice of what Paul is saying. He says if that which has come to an end had glory, what is permanent will have more glory.

Did the ten commandments come to an end? Or is it possible that Paul is talking about the sacrificial ordinances?

Stryder look at the text again:

2Co 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,
2Co 3:8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?

Which in the text has more glory Stryder?

The ministry of death CARVED IN LETTERS OF STONE came with glory.

But he says, will not the ministry of the SPIRIT have even more glory?

The ministry of death, carved on letters of stone is talking about the old covenant, epitomized by the letters on stone, the ten commandments. The old covenant, with the ten commandments at the heart of it, used to have glory. Now that ministry has no glory at all compared to the ministry of the Spirit.

The text explains itself if you will allow it to.


2Co 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.
2Co 3:10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it.


This was explained in the verses above. The ministry at which the ten commandments was at the heart, the ministry of death, carved in letters of stone, has no glory at all. The ministry of the Spirit has surpassed it. That which once had glory...the covenant with the ten commandments at the heart, which came with glory, now has no glory.

2Co 3:11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.


The ministry of the Spirit is permanent. The ministry of death, in letters on stone, a clear reference to the ten commandments and the covenant of which they were a central part, has come to an end.

 

[tall73]

Many people apply the notion that stone things are hard and enduring and not easy to deface, so when they see that God made tablets of stone He meant these laws were to be lasting. That is not necessarily a bad deduction. Certainly God intended the stone tablets to be durable. But the better question to ask is what did these tablets mean in the culture at the time? How would they understand these tablets?

The covenant document or words of the covenant were a witness between the two parties of the terms of the agreement. The covenant with Israel is a covenant between a Greater party and a lesser one. God dictated His terms and promised blessings, they agreed to do what the Lord asked.

When archaeologists have studied the surrounding cultures they have found covenants where the stronger nation subdues a weaker nation. The stronger king was known as the suzerain, and the weaker king was his vassal, bound to serve him. We see such arrangements occasionally in the Scriptures too where a weaker king would pay tribute to a stronger one and become the stronger king's vassal.

Notice this text for instance:

2Ki 17:3 Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria. And Hoshea became his vassal and paid him tribute.


Those who study such things have found that they would at times, as part of these agreements, make two copies of the covenant stipulations and each would possess a copy, often in the temple of their respective gods.

In the case of Israel we have God delivering them from Egypt and they become His people. Since He is their God, their righteous King, He dictates the terms of the covenant. They agree to do His will. He is their God so they have a common temple.The covenant document, the ten commandments, is stored in the sanctuary of their God to witness to the covenant.

Exo 34:27 And the LORD said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
Exo 34:28 So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments


The covenant then is the agreement made with Israel, defining God's relationship to them. The covenant document is the testimony (the tablets of the testimony) to the agreement.

Check out this link, scroll to the bottom where the appendix is listed and read the elements of the suzerainty covenants for more background:

http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/Atone-coverHS.html

While some of the principles in the law given to Israel are doubtless enduring moral principles, the specifics of the covenant with Israel are not enduring. Instead that covenant came to an end. But the ministry of the Spirit is permanent.

 

[archierieus]

Hmmm, it may fit fine into SDA commentary, but the fact is; Jesus differentiated between what was given to Moses for the Children of Israel and what He was commanding at the sermon on the mount.

Since you seem to be referring to Mt. 5, please quote where Jesus said what you are saying in Mt. 5.

 

[archierieus]

The ministry of death, in letters on stone, a clear reference to the ten commandments and the covenant of which they were a central part, has come to an end.

How do you define the old covenant? Where is it found in Scripture?

 

[tall73]

How do you define the old covenant? Where is it found in Scripture?

A covenant is an agreement with promises on both sides. In this case the covenant is the agreement that defines the relationship between Israel and God.

Ex. 19 is a good place to look as it records promises between God and the people.

Those promises then led into the proclamation of the 10 commandments from heaven, and then the giving of other dictates as well.

The covenant includes the covenant curses and blessings spelled out later, etc.

In Deuteronomy we see the instructions given a second time, and written down in a book that is places along side the ark as a witness against the people.

As to the term "old" covenant it is applied because of the new covenant of Christ which has surpassed it:

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


2Co 3:12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold,
2Co 3:13 not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end.
2Co 3:14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.
2Co 3:15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts.

 

[archierieus]

A covenant is an agreement with promises on both sides. In this case the covenant is the agreement that defines the relationship between Israel and God.

Ex. 19 is the first place to look as it records promises between God and the people.

It led into the proclamation of the 10 commandments from heaven, and then the giving of other dictates as well.

It includes the covenant curses and blessings spelled out later, etc.

In Deuteronomy we see the instructions given a second time, and written down in a book that is places along side the ark as a witness against the people.


In this case the term "old" covenant is applied because of the new covenant of Christ which has surpassed it:

Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


The term is probably not the most precise but it usually gets across the idea of what is being referenced.

Yes, I would agree that the Old Covenant is found in Exodus 19:1 - 8. It terms are, 1) if you will keep My covenant, you will be a kingdom of priests and an holy nation. 2) 'All that the Lord has said, we will do.'

You mention the Ten Commandments. They, themselves, are not the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant does however pertain to keeping them as well as various other precepts. That is, on its face, the abolition of the Old Covenant does not, by itself, negate the laws promised to be kept. Id does negate the mutual promises which constituted the covenant.

What is the New Covenant, and where is it found?

 

[tall73]

Yes, I would agree that the Old Covenant is found in Exodus 19:1 - 8. It terms are, 1) if you will keep My covenant, you will be a kingdom of priests and an holy nation. 2) 'All that the Lord has said, we will do.'

You mention the Ten Commandments. They, themselves, are not the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant does however pertain to keeping them as well as various other precepts. That is, on its face, the abolition of the Old Covenant does not, by itself, negate the laws promised to be kept. Id does negate the mutual promises which constituted the covenant.

What is the New Covenant, and where is it found?

Yes, the promises are the covenant. Yet the 10 commandments are the words of the covenant, and are central to it. But they do not constitute the covenant entirely. When Paul speaks about the ministry of death, engraved on tablets of stone it is clear that there is a reference to the covenant involving the 10 commandments and that this ministry does not endure.

The new covenant is found in Jeremiah.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


It is further elaborated in Hebrews.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, ....



The problem with the first covenant was that God found fault with the people. The new covenant is built on better promises.

Instead of them pledging in the new covenant to do all that God requires He writes the law on the heart and in their minds.

Now the question that is up for debate often around here is whether the law in the new covenant is the same as that in the old, or something different.

 

[tall73]

That is, on its face, the abolition of the Old Covenant does not, by itself, negate the laws promised to be kept.

Agreed.

There is a law written on the heart in the new covenant.

Now there are a number of issues surrounding that.

A. Which law? The same law?

B. The covenant is made with Israel and Judah. What of the gentiles? What of the relation of Acts 15 to this new covenant?

Etc.

It is a complex topic.

 

[BrightCandle]

The problem with the first covenant was that God found fault with the people. The new covenant is built on better promises.

Instead of them pledging in the new covenant to do all that God requires He writes the law on the heart and in their minds.

Now the question that is up for debate often around here is whether the law in the new covenant is the same as that in the old, or something different.

Tall73: In ancient times and well as modern times fallen human beings have the same problem--Sin! The 10 Commandments define sin, so why would God plays games with people and change any of his moral laws? Didn't the fact that Jesus wrote the 10 Laws in stone evidence enough as to their enduring nature?

 

[tall73]

It is a complex topic.

It is late here and I have work tomorrow. So I look forward to further discussion with you αρχιερευς.

 

[tall73]

Tall73: In ancient times and well as modern times fallen human beings have the same problem--Sin! The 10 Commandments define sin, so why would God plays games with people and change any of his moral laws? Didn't the fact that Jesus wrote the 10 Laws in stone evidence enough as to their enduring nature?

Many of the laws in the old covenant defined sin, not just the 10. And you would agree that some of the law given to Israel is no longer in effect.

In fact, looking at Hebrews:

Heb 7:12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

 

[BrightCandle]

Agreed.

There is a law written on the heart in the new covenant.

Now there are a number of issues surrounding that.

A. Which law? The same law?

B. The covenant is made with Israel and Judah. What of the gentiles? What of the relation of Acts 15 to this new covenant?

Etc.

It is a complex topic.

Its a complex topic only when you try to make it complex with complicated arguments. The Jews and Gentiles all had the same problem, they were sinners and needed a Savior. The scenario is the same for us now living in 2009. Are men and women still sinning in 2009? Yes, of course they are, therefore they need to know what God's Holy Law is! They don't need to be told that is has been done away with, or has been diluted to the point where it is of non effect.

 

[BrightCandle]

Many of the laws in the old covenant defined sin, not just the 10.

They were dealing with specific issues. The 10 Commandments form the basis for all moral relations between man and God. Any specific and unique laws from the old covenant were based on one or more the 10 Commandments at least in principle.

 

[tall73]

Its a complex topic only when you try to make it complex with complicated arguments. The Jews and Gentiles all had the same problem, they were sinners and needed a Savior. The scenario is the same for us now living in 2009. Are men and women still sinning in 2009? Yes, of course they, therefore they need to know what God's Holy Law is! They don't need to be told that is has been done away with or has been diluted to the point where it is on non effect.

Brightcandle, you do realize they needed a church council complete with a Spirit endorsed message to resolve that topic that you say is not comlex, right? It is not in fact a simple thing to make sense of all the statements in Scripture regarding the law.

One complexity right out of the gate is why you exclude the ten from the rest of the law in the covenant of which they are a part.


But as I said I am off to bed. I can discuss it with you later too.

 

[BrightCandle]

Many of the laws in the old covenant defined sin, not just the 10. And you would agree that some of the law given to Israel is no longer in effect.

In fact, looking at Hebrews:

Heb 7:12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

Yes, of course some of them are longer relevant. But, how could that fact make any of the 10 Commandments irrelevant? They are moral in nature and still applicable to human beings.

 

[BrightCandle]

Brightcandle, you do realize they needed a church council complete with a Spirit endorsed message to resolve that topic that you say is not comlex, right? It is not in fact a simple thing to make sense of all the statements in Scripture regarding the law.

One complexity right out of the gate is why you exclude the ten from the rest of the law in the covenant of which they are a part.


But as I said I am off to bed. I can discuss it with you later too.

Have a good night sleep. When you awake, here is my answer. Jesus differentiated the 10 Commandments by only writing them in stone. The rest of the laws were wrote on paper.

 

[BrightCandle]

Brightcandle, you do realize they needed a church council complete with a Spirit endorsed message to resolve that topic that you say is not comlex, right? It is not in fact a simple thing to make sense of all the statements in Scripture regarding the law.
One complexity right out of the gate is why you exclude the ten from the rest of the law in the covenant of which they are a part.
But as I said I am off to bed. I can discuss it with you later too.

Tall73: I assume you are referring to Acts 15. That council was only dealing with specific problems that arose with large influx of Gentile Christian and the problems that arose when they fellowshipped with Jewish Christians. They were not debating the issue of doing away with the 10 Commandments. Paul would have flipped out if they decreed that.

 

[archierieus]

It is late here and I have work tomorrow. So I look forward to further discussion with you αρχιερευς.

I look forward to it. Have a good sleep.