Why Sunday

[Tithesmeister]

Cont.

So to summarize the author’s position above, the first covenant became the old covenant, after only three days. Even though the Ten Commandments were given within three days of the supposed “old covenant”, the first covenant was already the old one, about thirteen hundred years before Hebrews was written. It may seem that I am making this up in order to ridicule the author, but that is really what his position would have you to believe.

There are a couple of other things that I would like to draw attention to. One is the “if this, then that” aspect of the language in Exodus 19. God tells the Israelites that IF they will obey his voice, then He will be their God.

[5] Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

The if you do this I will do that, does not indicate that a contract or covenant has been entered yet. If there had been a covenant entered into already, then the proposal becomes law.

To use the analogy I used earlier about the bridge to Cuba, if I tendered a proposal, then I and the other party of the contract executed a contract, then that contract is a legal document. It becomes law.

In the case of the Ten Commandments (as well as the body of law that accompanied it) when the covenant was sprinkled with blood, it became law. Bear in mind that the other covenant that the author says was made, has no record of being sprinkled with blood. This is further proof that it was NOT a separate covenant, but was part of the covenant that was the Ten Commandments. Now let’s go to Hebrews 9 for further evidence.

Heb.9

[1] Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
[2] For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
[3] And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
[4] Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Notice in verse one that this covenant is referred to as the first. So when we read the subsequent verses, we are reading the details of the first covenant. In verse four which contains the inventory of the ark of the covenant, we see that it contains the tables of stone, which are referred to as the covenant, or Ten Commandments multiple times in the Bible.

Now let’s go further in the ninth chapter of Hebrews. Remember that Moses sprinkled blood on the people and the ark of the covenant etc. in Exodus. Let’s read . . .

[18] Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
[19] For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

This FIRST testament (or covenant) was sprinkled with the blood of goats etc., but the new one of course, with the blood of Jesus. We don’t have any record of another covenant being consummated in Exodus. This is describing the consummation of the covenant that includes the Ten Commandments. It is impossible for it to be another covenant, because it refers to the ark of the covenant in verse four. And we KNOW what went into the ark of the covenant! It was the covenant, also known as, the Ten Commandments. The ark of the covenant was custom built to God’s specifications, specifically to house the Ten Commandments, which are also known as the first covenant.

So this should prove that the Ten Commandments WERE the OLD covenant. This is the one referred to in Hebrews 8:13. It IS the one that was ready to vanish away almost two thousand years ago!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Cont.

So to summarize the author’s position above, the first covenant became the old covenant, after only three days. Even though the Ten Commandments were given within three days of the supposed “old covenant”, the first covenant was already the old one, about thirteen hundred years before Hebrews was written. It may seem that I am making this up in order to ridicule the author, but that is really what his position would have you to believe.

There are a couple of other things that I would like to draw attention to. One is the “if this, then that” aspect of the language in Exodus 19. God tells the Israelites that IF they will obey his voice, then He will be their God.

[5] Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

The if you do this I will do that, does not indicate that a contract or covenant has been entered yet. If there had been a covenant entered into already, then the proposal becomes law.

To use the analogy I used earlier about the bridge to Cuba, if I tendered a proposal, then I and the other party of the contract executed a contract, then that contract is a legal document. It becomes law.

In the case of the Ten Commandments (as well as the body of law that accompanied it) when the covenant was sprinkled with blood, it became law. Bear in mind that the other covenant that the author says was made, has no record of being sprinkled with blood. This is further proof that it was NOT a separate covenant, but was part of the covenant that was the Ten Commandments. Now let’s go to Hebrews 9 for further evidence.

Heb.9

[1] Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
[2] For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
[3] And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
[4] Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Notice in verse one that this covenant is referred to as the first. So when we read the subsequent verses, we are reading the details of the first covenant. In verse four which contains the inventory of the ark of the covenant, we see that it contains the tables of stone, which are referred to as the covenant, or Ten Commandments multiple times in the Bible.

Now let’s go further in the ninth chapter of Hebrews. Remember that Moses sprinkled blood on the people and the ark of the covenant etc. in Exodus. Let’s read . . .

[18] Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
[19] For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

This FIRST testament (or covenant) was sprinkled with the blood of goats etc., but the new one of course, with the blood of Jesus. We don’t have any record of another covenant being consummated in Exodus. This is describing the consummation of the covenant that includes the Ten Commandments. It is impossible for it to be another covenant, because it refers to the ark of the covenant in verse four. And we KNOW what went into the ark of the covenant! It was the covenant, also known as, the Ten Commandments.

So this should prove that the Ten Commandments WERE the OLD covenant. This is the one referred to in Hebrews 8:13. It IS the one that was ready to vanish away almost two thousand years ago!

You should write a book on this as well!

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

So to summarize the author’s position above, the first covenant became the old covenant, after only three days. Even though the Ten Commandments were given within three days of the supposed “old covenant”, the first covenant was already the old one, about thirteen hundred years before Hebrews was written. It may seem that I am making this up in order to ridicule the author, but that is really what his position would have you to believe. away almost two thousand.

Please quote the covenant being called old before we have the NT distinction of old and new covenants.

It looks like you are missing the fundamental chronological logic involved.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

There are a couple of other things that I would like to draw attention to. One is the “if this, then that” aspect of the language in Exodus 19. God tells the Israelites that IF they will obey his voice, then He will be their God.

[5] Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

The if you do this I will do that, does not indicate that a contract or covenant has been entered yet. If there had been a covenant entered into already, then the proposal becomes law.

The covenant was clearly accepted in verse 8.

Exodus 19:8 (AV)
And all the people answered together, and said,
All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.
And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.

[Steven Avery]

The 10 Commandments are included as an essential part of the old (first) and new covenants. You have omitted the pages where the inability to sever the 10 Commandments from the new covenant is covered.

The fallacy which is tripping you up is the fallacy of composition.

One part of the old covenant, the Mosaic ordinances, or law, agreed in the covenant of Exodus 19, may be seen as subject to waxing and decay. This however does not apply to the 10 Commandments, the royal law, which is eternal and immutable.

In fact, in Hebrews 8 it was the covenant that was agreed to without full purity and sincerity by the Israelites that was in decay. This verse does not address ordinances.

Hebrews 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The 10 Commandments are included as an essential part of the old (first) and new covenants. You have omitted the pages where the inability to sever the 10 Commandments from the new covenant is covered.

The fallacy which is tripping you up is the fallacy of composition.

One part of the old covenant, the Mosaic ordinances, or law, agreed in the covenant of Exodus 19, may be seen as subject to waxing and decay. This however does not apply to the 10 Commandments, the royal law, which is eternal and immutable.

In fact, in Hebrews 8 it was the covenant that was agreed to without full purity and sincerity by the Israelites that was in decay. This verse does not address ordinances.

Hebrews 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The Royal law of loving your neighbour as yourselves is not the Ten Commandments, because Jesus said the 10 commandments hang from this law. In other words, it's separating and distinguishing The Ten Commandments from the Royal law... Saying that all the Commandments hang on that principle as well as living God. So it's above the Ten Commandments, and the Ten Commandments are based on it.

But if this author is saying that there's a law in Exodus 19 and its distinguished from the law in Exodus 20, and there's only that one in Exodus that Paul said was passing are fading away, that is absolutely incorrect. It reminds me of dispensationalists who say that the law of God is distinct and different from the law of Moses. And they say that Jeremiah 31 verse 31 is not the same new covenant that we now enjoy, as though there something for Israel and Judah that's not for the church, according to them. I know that's not what you're saying, but I'm saying there's a similarity because they're talking about two different new covenants with a dispensationalist, and now you're talking about two Old Covenant with Israel.

[Esaias]

From an older thread:

Originally Posted by Esaias

That the entire word of God is God's "law" is not just a theonomist's opinion, but it is the opinion of the bible itself:

Luke 4:4 KJV And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Here, Jesus affirms that every word of God is the rule of faith and practice. Man is to be governed by "every word of God". What is "law"? It is a rule of conduct, a rule that governs activity. If every word of God is to govern man's activity, then every word of God constitutes the "law of God."

James 1:21-25 KJV Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. (22) But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. (23) For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: (24) For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. (25) But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.



Here, the word of God is identified as the "perfect law of liberty". This "perfect law of liberty" is further identified as "the royal law":

James 2:8-12 KJV If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: (9) But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. (10) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (11) For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. (12) So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.


The Scripture referred to is Leviticus 19:18. Obeying Leviticus 19:18 is fulfilling the "royal law", which is also identified as the "law of liberty". We saw in chapter 1 of James that the "law of liberty" is the word, which we are to DO and not just hear.

Paul said something about hearing vs doing:

Romans 2:13 KJV (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Thus, the law of God is the entire word of God, which we must do, and not merely "hear" (or read, study, concoct wonderful sermons and bible studies from, etc). We must do the word of God, we must live by every word of God. This means that everything the word of God has to say about any particular subject is the sum total of God's law on that subject. And this of course means the law of God is not restricted merely to the Pentateuch, or various portions thereof, but includes the entire Old Testament scriptures as well as the New Testament scriptures (which may be considered as an authoritative commentary on the law of God, since the "word of God" according to the new testament would be what we today call the old testament scriptures).

Hence it necessarily follows, that anything not expressly repealed or altered in the new testament stands as written in the old testament.

[Steven Avery]

The Old and New Covenants – The Two Covenants
http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/...covenants.html

Very close to the Allen Walker section.

Next I want to look up Moses Hull, writing about 1860.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The Old and New Covenants – The Two Covenants
http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/...covenants.html

Very close to the Allen Walker section.

I have a question, it may be a dumb question. Why is the discussion wrapped around Moses, at the time when he gave the children of Israel the Ten Commandments, some are saying that’s the start of the covenant. What about his covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15? The Lord told Abraham, his people were going to be in bondage and released after so many years. Remember they refer to him as Father Abraham, the covenant started with him, not with Moses or even the children of Israel.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Please quote the covenant being called old before we have the NT distinction of old and new covenants.

It looks like you are missing the fundamental chronological logic involved.

The verse you quoted in Hebrews 8 . . .

[13] In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Is preceded by verse 8

Hebrews 8:8 KJV

[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:

Which is a quote 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:

So the NEW COVENANT spoken of in Hebrews 8:13, is prophesied of in Jeremiah 31, which as you know is in the OT.

But if you are asking how the covenant mentioned in Exodus 19 came to be referred to as the OLD COVENANT my answer to that is that the author of the book you posted on here (Allen Walker?) is the one who said that it was the old covenant.

I say that it became the OLD COVENANT by applying the rule in Hebrews 8:13. When he saith a new covenant . . .

If there is a new covenant, then by default, the pre-existing covenant would become old.

Therefore, if the covenant made in Exodus 20 was different than the one in Exodus 19, as Allen Walker claims, and not part of the covenant that contains the Ten Commandments (as I believe) then the previous one (chapter 19) would be old already, even though it is only three days old. This is completely illogical to me.

Do you believe that the covenant mentioned in Exodus 19 is separate from the covenant sprinkled with blood in Exodus 24?

I do not.

Remember the distinction of chapter numbers was added to the Bible. If you take away the chapter numbers, and simply read the book of Exodus, it will look like one story, about one covenant. The structure of that covenant is the Ten Commandments.