Why Sunday

[Tithesmeister]

Cont. How many covenants?

I will present evidence of two covenants, the old and the new. I will do so from the perspective of the Hebrews, who were party to the old covenant, and as a party to the old, were more qualified to understand it than we are, two thousand- three thousand years later.

First allow me to post scripture from Jeremiah 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:
[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: . . .

I think it is important to realize that in every case this passage is referring to the covenants (new and old) in the singular sense. They are never referred to as the covenants. This seems to cast doubt on the theory that there were two covenants consummated in Exodus. If someone can post a scripture that refers to the Exodus covenants (plural) that would be helpful in proving their case.

The language in Hebrews is nearly verbatim in describing the old covenant. Likewise it never mentions multiple covenants that were entered in Exodus.

[7] For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
[8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
[9] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Once again we have the old and new covenants referred to in singular context. Also we have the reference in verse seven of Hebrews chapter eight, to the second (as in second covenant). This reference in verse seven to the second covenant, appears to mean the NEW covenant.

If in fact, the second covenant reference in verse seven is referring to the new covenant, that would preclude there being two covenants in Exodus. Because if there were two covenants in Exodus, it would necessarily follow that the new covenant would be the third.

Now I will skip to chapter 10 to reinforce the doctrine of two covenants, one new, and one old.

Hebrews 10
[6] In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
[7] Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
[8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
[9] Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
[10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This passage seems to put to rest the theory that there are multiple covenants in Exodus (at least from the perspective of the Hebrews). This passage mentions the first and second covenants (once again in singular context, absolutely consistent with the others).

But notice verse 10. It identifies the second covenant at the end of verse 9, as the new covenant. Because we know that the new covenant was consecrated by the offering of the body of Christ through the crucifixion. That means that there are not two covenants in Exodus, because if there were, the new covenant would (once again) have to be (at the least) the third.

Also, if you notice verse 9, it says that He (Jesus), came to do the will of God. Then it continues that when He taketh away the first (the old covenant which contains the Ten Commandments) that He may establish the second. This brings about a whole new possibility.

Is it harmless that some want to believe in dual covenant theology?

Is it a matter of the Israelites pining for the garlic and leeks of Egypt?

Or is it more serious than that?

Are the people who try to cling to the Ten Commandments unwittingly attempting to subvert the will of God?

Which would be a serious matter indeed!

[Esaias]

"Are the people who try to cling to the Ten Commandments unwittingly attempting to subvert the will of God?"

Bitterly clinging to their Bibles and guns...

Sounds like you are in favor of everything the ten commandments are against, and against everything the ten commandments are for.

Hebrews 10:5-9 KJV
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: [6] In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. [7] Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. [8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein ; which are offered by the law; [9] Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Interestingly, you failed to read your own citation. It isn't the ten commandments God had no delight in, which were "taken away" to establish some antinomian utopia. Rather it is the SACRIFICE AND BURNT OFFERINGS which God had no liking to.

But anyway, the post was pretty good, until you ruined it with the insane final little bit where you seemed to be channeling the average "progressive" pinko commie,

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"Are the people who try to cling to the Ten Commandments unwittingly attempting to subvert the will of God?"

Bitterly clinging to their Bibles and guns...

Sounds like you are in favor of everything the ten commandments are against, and against everything the ten commandments are for.

Hebrews 10:5-9 KJV
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: [6] In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. [7] Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. [8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein ; which are offered by the law; [9] Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Interestingly, you failed to read your own citation. It isn't the ten commandments God had no delight in, which were "taken away" to establish some antinomian utopia. Rather it is the SACRIFICE AND BURNT OFFERINGS which God had no liking to.

But anyway, the post was pretty good, until you ruined it with the insane final little bit where you seemed to be channeling the average "progressive" pinko commie,

Esaias, here is the problem with your position (as I see it anyway). If there is only one covenant in Exodus, this covenant would have to include the Ten Commandments. Because the Ten Commandments, in your Bible and mine, are referred to as “the covenant” and referenced as “the covenant” and described as “the covenant” many times.

If you read the description of the old covenant in Hebrews, and you can’t see that it refers to the Ten Commandments, I really don’t know what to say. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Read the description of Moses sprinkling the blood on the people and the covenant and the ark of the covenant in Hebrews, and then read the similar description in Exodus. Tell me they aren’t describing the same event!

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Regarding the bolded, it seems you aren't actually reading my posts.

I’m sorry. I must have lumped you in to the two covenants crowd. I certainly want to be careful about expressing someone else’s belief. I don’t want to misrepresent you.

So if you don’t believe there are two covenants. Did only part of the one covenant pass away?

Is that your belief?

If it is, can you post scripture that specifically says that only PART of a covenant vanished, and part is retained?

It seems that IIRC, you believe (or at least did at one point) that if the old covenant wasn’t refuted point by point, that whatever was not specifically refuted remains in effect.

Why don’t you put it in your own words, so I don’t butcher it again?

Thanks

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"Are the people who try to cling to the Ten Commandments unwittingly attempting to subvert the will of God?"

Bitterly clinging to their Bibles and guns...

Brother, it sounds like you are comparing me to Obama. It’s funny. I can assure you that I am not anything near like him.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sounds like you are in favor of everything the ten commandments are against, and against everything the ten commandments are for.

Actually, you seem to have read me all wrong. There was a time in my life that the check the box mentality of the old covenant appealed to me. I liked the idea that I could go down the list and check to make sure I did this and didn’t do that and I would be saved and go to heaven based on my own efforts and righteousness and holiness. I never believed that it was the case, but I kind of wished it were. Kind of like a contest, where if you won, (by your own works) you won the trophy, which was admittance to heaven. I’m not saying this is you, I’m saying that it WAS me. So I’m not a complete stranger to the concept.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Hebrews 10:5-9 KJV
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: [6] In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. [7] Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. [8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein ; which are offered by the law; [9] Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Interestingly, you failed to read your own citation. It isn't the ten commandments God had no delight in, which were "taken away" to establish some antinomian utopia. Rather it is the SACRIFICE AND BURNT OFFERINGS which God had no liking to.

I understand that God had no pleasure in the sacrifices. But the sacrifices were part of the one covenant that Hebrews describes. So were the Ten Commandments. The covenant waxing old and ready to vanish contained the Ten Commandments as well as the laws of sacrifices, dietary laws, moral laws etc.. it doesn’t mean it’s okay to do all these things. Some of these things are covered in the new covenant (New Testament).

Originally Posted by Esaias

But anyway, the post was pretty good, until you ruined it with the insane final little bit where you seemed to be channeling the average "progressive" pinko commie,

I’ll thank you for the pretty good part and try to defend against the crazy pinko commie part. I’m really generally conservative in my unbiased opinion.

I may be crazy but it keeps me from going insane. Who said that?

Seriously tho. I have an idea that I’ve been thinking about. Tell me what you think. It is that we conservatives, accuse liberals of being of the mindset that believes that anything that isn’t outlawed, should be made mandatory. It seems to be pretty accurate politically speaking at least.

But it has occurred to me that, in the context of churches it seems to flip. It is the conservatives that want to make mandatory what is not outlawed. Think about it.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I do not engage in debate tricks. I do not know of any, to be honest. Sorry, if it appeared so. I will check over my notes and see what you're referring to.

Post 381.

[Amanah]

Let me try to sum up positions, please correct my errors.

*Brother Blume and Bro Tithes believe that the old covenant has been replaced by the new covenant: God's law written in stone replaced by God's law written in the heart. This leads to a spiritual application, being led of the Spirit to produce the fruit of the Spirit and not fulfill the works of the flesh. The Sabbath is now replaced with Spiritual Rest in the Holy Ghost.

*Brother Avery believes the above with the exception of the Ten Commandments (Royal Law) because they were placed inside the Ark, while the others were placed along side of the Ark. The Sabbath is to be observed as part of the Royal Law.

*Brother Esaias believes that the mosaic moral law is in full effect, only the ceremonial law and sacrificial system have been fulfilled in Christ, and advocates Sabbath keeping and a return to mosaic legislation.

[Amanah]

In the old testament the Sabbath day was first instituted at creation when God rested from His works on the seventh day.
So the Sabbath transcends the law as it was before the law, and continues after the law. (whether literal or spiritual)

When Moses received the 10 commandments, the Sabbath was instituted for the Israelites as a day they could do no work, a day of rest.
Their worship was a daily worship and sacrificial system of animal offerings along with feasts and remembrances.

At the time of Jesus and the Apostles there was a daily sacrificial system along with Rabbis meeting with and teaching people in the temple daily.
Along with a Sabbath rest.

After the resurrection, the Apostles continued to teach and meet daily in the temple. And they observed the Sabbath.

After the temple was destroyed and diaspora, the Jews observed the Sabbath as a day of rest, fellowship, and ritual observances with prescribed candles and prayers, ect.

It is not clear to me how Christians transitioned after the destruction of the temple, other than what was decided at the Jerusalem Council.

But it does seem that the Jerusalem church observed the law.
http://www.fogwhistle.ca/acts/evidence.html

Acts 28:17 Three days later he called together the leaders of the Jews. When they had assembled,
Paul said to them: "My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors,
I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans.

After Constantine, Sunday was made the official day of Christian observance.

*************

Since the Bible is a history of the church, and the early Jerusalem Church is in transition, still keeping the law. it is difficult. The early church struggled to define the transition.

Also, they did not yet have a compiled New Testament, so their bible was the Hebrew scriptures.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Regarding the bolded, it seems you aren't actually reading my posts.

I agree. I believe the old covenant with Israel has vanished away. I believe you’ll agree Esaias that, like Paul said if the law was perfect then it would not need to be done away with. Understanding that Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and the Jews, because He gave them the conditional law that he institute to the Israelites, and they broke them all, they used it for their gain, they disregarded what he did for them. Jesus came and fulfilled what the law lacked.

Now, if I’m understanding what some are saying is, that we don't need to follow the old covenant. Ok, that’s fine the old covenant wasn't for you! It was for the Israelites, your not an Israelite, your a gentile. Now, does that mean we don't take the old covenant and use it for a school master and learn from that to interpret the New, I use the Old Testament all the time, it was the mind of God, for the Israelites. The Covenant we have is the Abrahamic Covenant, we are the seed of Abraham. That’s why he told the Pharisees your of your father the devil, your not of Abraham.

The Abrahamic covenant wasnt conditional, he told Abraham I’m going to do this for you, not if you do this, and you do that, then ill do this, that’s the covenant he made with the Israelites. So, if you want to follow the covenant that he wrote to the Israelites, that’s up to you, but to follow that covenant word for word you’ll be following a covenant that lacked what the New Covenant has. i used the old to to understand the new, I understand the sabbath was a physical day of rest, we now have rest 24 hours a day through his spirit. Does that mean you dont need to physically sit down and enjoy the sun, no but I know that the rest my soul needs is the Holy Ghost. I understand that lusting will cause Adultery in my heart, hating my brother or sister will cause me to be a murderer at heart.

Remember what Jesus told the rich young ruler....

Matthew 19:16-21
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? [17] And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. [18] He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, [19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [20] The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? [21] Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Jesus didn’t disagree with him, so I believe this man was a good man under the law, he was diligent to obey the law. Yet, like anyone that wants to follow the Old Covenant one thing thou lack.

Peter went through this transition from the old to the new.

Acts 10:10-16
And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, [11] And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: [12] Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. [13] And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. [14] But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. [15] And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. [16] This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

He saw all those animals, and he’s like Lord, my mouth has not touched anything that is common or unclean. I understand the greater revelation that gentiles were not considered as unclean or common, yet Peter had to go through this transition from the Old to the New. Paul did still keep some of the feasts and did that I believe to win the jews over to Christ.

I believe in 1 Covenant between Jesus and his bride the church.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

In the old testament the Sabbath day was first instituted at creation when God rested from His works on the seventh day.
So the Sabbath transcends the law as it was before the law, and continues after the law. (whether literal or spiritual)

It all sounds good sister. Until you actually think about it. Animal sacrifices were performed before the law as well. So should animal sacrifices transcend the law? How long has it been since you sacrificed a goat?