Why Sunday

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Where did Paul EXPLAIN this interpretation?

You misunderstood my point. I meant to say that when Paul wrote ...

Heb 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.

...he was explaining that when a Covenant is compared to another covenant that is NEW, that first covenant is then immiedately considered to be OLD. What else can it be if it's compared to a NEW COVENANT? When you talk to someobody about any given object, and explain that you are getting a NEW one, then that object first referenced is automatically considered to be OLD. And when people from that point on consider it to be old, they know it's soon going to be gone.

Likewise, when Jeremiah wrote that a new covenant was coming, all of his readers at THAT MOMENT of reading understood the Covenant from Sinai as an OLD one, and one that would soon be gone. When would it be gone? When the NEW one arrived.

Like this explaination:


JAMIESON,FAUSSET AND BROWN

made ... old — “hath (at the time of speaking the prophecy) antiquated the first covenant.” From the time of God’s mention of a NEW covenant (since God’s words are all realities) the first covenant might be regarded as ever dwindling away, until its complete abolition on the actual introduction of the Gospel. Both covenants cannot exist side by side. Mark how verbal inspiration is proved in Paul’s argument turning wholly on the one word “NEW” (covenant), occurring but once in the Old Testament.

that which decayeth — Greek, “that which is being antiquated,” namely, at the time when Jeremiah spake. For in Paul’s time, according to his view, the new had absolutely set aside the old covenant. The Greek for (Kaine) New (Testament) implies that it is of a different kind and supersedes the old: not merely recent (Greek, “nea”). Compare Hos 3:4, Hos 3:5.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

Already addressed previously, "works of the law" is now and was then a Jewish idiom for rabbinic halacha, not the written commandments of the Pentateuch. Not understanding the actual meaning of terms used in the Bible leads to faulty conclusions. Paul was not saying those who obey God's commandments are under a curse. The subject in Galatians is JUSTIFICATION, not "shall we obey God?"

I did not say that he said obedience to the commandments puts on under a curse. I meant that one cannot obey the commandments, which is why Paul substantiated his claim that anyone under law is under a curse. For him to say that the law made a declaration that failure to keep it puts one under a curse, and then say anyone under law is under a curse, is to actually say that nobody is able to keep it without failure.

And by the way, Paul's point is those who are "of the works of the law" DO NOT OBEY GOD.

Amen. Which means no one can try to keep the law and succeed.

That's why they are under the curse, they seek justification by legal means apart from Christ, which is an impossibility. But again, the subject is NOT "why Christians are free to disobey God's instructions".

No. If they could keep it, they would LIVE. Paul contrasts LIFE from DEATH all through Romans 7 and he did the same thing in Gal 3 becuase he is basing his terms on Lev 18:5. Keep the law perfectly AND YOU WILL LIVE. That is why it do's undos strange to us to read that the law was used by sin to be a weapon to kill Paul, and yet we know Paul was writing, so how could sin have killed him? The DEATH here is the same death Ep 2:1 speaks about. Dead in trespasses and sins. And instead of dying, you willl live if you successfully keep the law according to Lev 18:5. I do not know how in the world this Halacha Judaic idea ever crept into the fray.

No one said we are free to disobey law.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

Already addressed previously, "works of the law" is now and was then a Jewish idiom for rabbinic halacha, not the written commandments of the Pentateuch. Not understanding the actual meaning of terms used in the Bible leads to faulty conclusions. Paul was not saying those who obey God's commandments are under a curse. The subject in Galatians is JUSTIFICATION, not "shall we obey God?"

I did not say that he said obedience to the commandments puts one under a curse. I meant that one cannot obey the commandments, which is why Paul substantiated his claim that anyone under law is under a curse. For him to say that the law made a declaration that failure to keep it puts one under a curse, and then say anyone under law is under a curse, is to actually say that nobody is able to keep it without failure.

And by the way, Paul's point is those who are "of the works of the law" DO NOT OBEY GOD.

Amen. Which means no one can try to keep the law and succeed.

That's why they are under the curse, they seek justification by legal means apart from Christ, which is an impossibility. But again, the subject is NOT "why Christians are free to disobey God's instructions".

No. If they could keep it, they would LIVE. Paul contrasts LIFE from DEATH all through Romans 7 and he did the same thing in Gal 3 becuase he is basing his terms on Lev 18:5. Keep the law perfectly AND YOU WILL LIVE. That is why it do's undos strange to us to read that the law was used by sin to be a weapon to kill Paul, and yet we know Paul was writing, so how could sin have killed him? The DEATH here is the same death Ep 2:1 speaks about. Dead in trespasses and sins. And instead of dying, you willl live if you successfully keep the law according to Lev 18:5. I do not know how in the world this Halacha Judaic idea ever crept into the fray.

No one said we are free to disobey law.

Try to imagine that I am right and that Paul had to deal with the same accusations and misunderstandings thatI am getting from you when he wrote:

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
Rom 3:8 And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You misunderstood my point. I meant to say that when Paul wrote ...

Heb 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.

...he was explaining that when a Covenant is compared to another covenant that is NEW, that first covenant is then immiedately considered to be OLD. What else can it be if it's compared to a NEW COVENANT? When you talk to someobody about any given object, and explain that you are getting a NEW one, then that object first referenced is automatically considered to be OLD. And when people from that point on consider it to be old, they know it's soon going to be gone.

Likewise, when Jeremiah wrote that a new covenant was coming, all of his readers at THAT MOMENT of reading understood the Covenant from Sinai as an OLD one, and one that would soon be gone. When would it be gone? When the NEW one arrived.

Like this explaination:


JAMIESON,FAUSSET AND BROWN

made ... old — “hath (at the time of speaking the prophecy) antiquated the first covenant.” From the time of God’s mention of a NEW covenant (since God’s words are all realities) the first covenant might be regarded as ever dwindling away, until its complete abolition on the actual introduction of the Gospel. Both covenants cannot exist side by side. Mark how verbal inspiration is proved in Paul’s argument turning wholly on the one word “NEW” (covenant), occurring but once in the Old Testament.

that which decayeth — Greek, “that which is being antiquated,” namely, at the time when Jeremiah spake. For in Paul’s time, according to his view, the new had absolutely set aside the old covenant. The Greek for (Kaine) New (Testament) implies that it is of a different kind and supersedes the old: not merely recent (Greek, “nea”). Compare Hos 3:4, Hos 3:5.

Thank you! This is basically what I was hoping you would elaborate on.

When God said through Jeremiah that He was going to make a new covenant, it is clear that God reckoned the existing covenant as old. Not just old in age, or in the fact it was "before" the new covenant, but that it was old in the sense of - as Paul says - becoming old and feeble and ready to be set aside. The reason is because Israel was constantly breaking the covenant, it was basically doing them no good. They had themselves rendered it essentially useless by their shenanigans and disobedience. Thus, the need for a new one that could actually get something done.

[Esaias]

Thank you for the clarifications, brother Blume. I must say that I wholeheartedly disagree with your position that man has a natural inability to obey God, rather than a moral inability. The fact that you are not a full blown 5 point Calvinist is inconsistent with your denial of moral inability.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

No one said we are free to disobey law.

Good, then you agree we are not free to fail to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The mistake that I think you're making is saying that God commanded man to have a day of rest on the 7th day back in Genesis when God himself rested on the seventh day. But we don't read a command ever given to man to rest at that time. Personally, I think, because Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, numbers, and Deuteronomy, that he inserted the point here that it was made sacred. But you don't read of God commanding any man to keep that day, anyway. You just read that God rested. But then in Moses day man is invited to rest that day for the first time. Never before that do you ever read of man being commanded to take that day and rest. Since Moses wrote Genesis, and commented that God had made it a holy day, that was to prepare people for the law that he was bringing to them in his day. But the fact remains, that God never commanded a man to keep that day when he rested himself on it. Man was invited for the first time to do so in the law of Moses.

[Amanah]

I am not convinced that the Sabbath is moral law,

moral law in that if I don't go to church on the Sabbath, and only on the Sabbath, I'm sinning.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I am not convinced that the Sabbath is moral law,

moral law in that if I don't go to church on the Sabbath, and only on the Sabbath, I'm sinning.

The 4th commandment doesn't say "Go to church on the Sabbath, and only on the Sabbath."

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I am not convinced that the Sabbath is moral law,

moral law in that if I don't go to church on the Sabbath, and only on the Sabbath, I'm sinning.

Are you convinced that you will have no other gods before God is a moral law?
The rule to not taking the Lord’s name in vain? Is that a moral law?