You are not logged in.
Bob said: The Old Covenant was the Ten Commandments and all it's detail given with 613 Laws, it is a whole not segmented as you and tSDAs do. In effect until the "Seed" shall come and die.
I say: Bob, why do you persist in re-stating this same error over and over again? To say that the 10 commandment was the Old Covenant is simply a very hollow and misleading representation; one that carries all sorts of ramifications and contradicts the greater witness of Scripture on the subject.
I have offered you the opportunity to prove this theory on the below thread and all you could do was restate the same thing without providing any clear reasoning to refute what I have posted.
http://www.atomorrow.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=799
In truth, the issue here is not my correctness on the matter, but rather the simple fact that you have not provided a clear explanation for your insistence that the 10 commandment are in fact THE Old Covenant. You keep reposting the same two texts that you assume supports your view, all the while ignoring the greater witness of Scripture on the subject. One is left to wonder if this is calculated because you have not actually studied the subject in depth and are simply spewing out what you have been taught by one of your “NCT Scholars”. If such is true, why come on here and promote this dubious doctrine as though it were a subject you actually understand.
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
Dexter when you can give texts as clear as these about the Old and New Covenants, I'll sit up and take notice:
1. Exodus 34:28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.
2. Deut 5: 1 Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.
3, Luke 24:44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."
4. Eph 2:11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
5. Col 2: 13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
6. Heb 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Dexter, Say it as plain as that and we'll have something to talk about.
Show me texts and scholars that preach a Reformed Sabbath.
Last edited by bob_2 (10-14-10 11:18 pm)
Offline
It is impossible to be more explicitly clear than the texts Bob gives above. '
The Ten Commandments, along with the many laws given in the Torah, was made with the Israelites at Sinai, and not with anyone before "not with our forefathers." This was the Covenant which was replaced and made obsolete with the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah. A new covenant replaces and makes obsolete a former covenant--there cannot be two very different covenants side-by-side. There were different conditions under each covenant and the new covenant was inaugurated at Christ's death, making the old one (letters written in stone) obsolete.
To maintain that the Old Covenant law is still in effect is to ignore the NT scriptures explaining the reason for Christ's death and how His death effected a radical change, no longer with the Jews exclusively, but with everyone: Jew and Greek, Free and Slave, Male and Female. What is not clear by all these texts? Only a preconceived concept can dismiss them or try to explain away their meaning: something Adventists have been taught from the cradle, who alone have this unique interpretation unlike any of the Christian world.
When a covenant is made between two parties, it is only valid as long as the conditions have not been met. Once they have been met, as Jesus did, the covenant conditions have been "fulfilled" and is no longer operational.
Offline
Elaine, enjoyed your last post!! Elaine, I know you are more accepted at Spectrum than I have been, but what happens at Spectrum when you prexent this same message. How do Dwyer, Carpenter, Larsen and Scriven take what you say?
Offline
I am not the only one posting such comments on the Spectrum blog. As long as I am objective and never attack an individual, no one has called for my ejection. I feel free to express my opinions, as do many others there and on the AToday site.
Blogs that have both extremes and a variety of opinions are the only ones that people find worth their time. If everyone has the same ideas and opinions, no thinking is being done.
Offline
Elaine, Oh no, AToday, I felt like I was having a discussion in slow motion since there new censoring policy, what it takes about 2 days for a post to be moderated? How can you stand it????
Offline
My comments are posted immediately.
Offline
Elaine said: It is impossible to be more explicitly clear than the texts Bob gives above.
I say: It’s not that it’s impossible, it’s actually pretty easy once you understands a few basics on the concept of a covenant.
What I have put forth in my post in the link above is that a covenant is an agreement; a contract if you will
Here is Webster on the word covenant:
Definition of COVENANT
1: a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement : compact
2a : a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action
b : the common-law action to recover damages for breach of such a contract.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/covenant
As such, when one attempts a study on the subject of the Old Covenant, you have to be able to sift through all the verbiage of the covenant and find the “agreement”. Thus any meaningful study of the covenants MUST begin with the question: WHAT WAS THE COVENANT or AGREEMENT?
Up until now, neither Bob nor you have stated what this “agreement” between God and the Children of Israel was. I have not seen a single reference to this agreement in all your antinomian and anti-Sabbath ranting.
Moreover, to side-step this elementary question as one approach a study of the Old Covenant is rash and immature. What you end up with is making this “explicitly” flawed assumption that the terms of the Covenant (all the laws of the Torah – and particularly the 10 commandments in this case) was the covenant itself, hence your position.
But this is wrong and here is why. The problem both you and Bob are having is that you seize upon a passage(s) of Scripture that speaks of the 10commandments in the context of the Old Covenant and come away thinking that they are the covenant in proper. But this is incorrect.
While it might be well fitting for a writer, immersed in the culture and nuances of the Covenanted people, to make such a statement – because the 10commandments were in fact a pinnacle attribute of the cultural experience of the writer and his intended audience as they relate to the covenant – such a statement must be understood and related to in this empirical sense and NOT in the principal sense of the topic of the Old Covenant.
How is it you’ve both missed this point? And yet you speak of a “preconceived concept” that tries to explain away a text? This is quite bogus.
But not only is this view very wrong, it is also very suspect. Why would anyone ignore such an elementary questions and then propose that it is “impossible to be more explicitly clear” than to assume the 10 commandments was THE agreement? Laughable!
Elaine said: The Ten Commandments, along with the many laws given in the Torah, was made with the Israelites at Sinai, and not with anyone before "not with our forefathers." This was the Covenant which was replaced and made obsolete with the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah.
I say: Sorry Elaine, but until you can be “more explicitly clear” on exactly what the agreement was between God and His people, nothing you say on this subject would make much sense. As for your reference to Jeremiah to support your conclusion, let’s have a look.
Jer. 31:31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
Jer. 31:32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares the LORD.
Jer. 31:33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
Jer. 31:34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."
Notice the language used in the text which describes the new covenant the Lord will make with the house of Israel “after that time”. No longer is the Lord leaving it up to the people to make good on their end of the covenant and “internalize” obedience to His will (whatever that will might be and in whatever laws they may be expressed), He is now taking the initiative to write His law on our hearts and He will be our God.
This all became a reality through the person and work of Christ. Because of Him and faith in the Gospel (which reveals a righteousness of God [Rom. 1:17]), we each, in effect, fulfill this “new covenant” and become children of God.
But to say or assume that this new covenant is simply a new set of laws and not rather an agreement on which the laws (whatever laws they might be) are based, is a very superficial reading.
So let me end by asking you both once again. What was the agreement in the Old Covenant? And what is the agreement in the New Covenant?
And please, be “explicitly clear” in your answer.
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
Dexter, this author says it better than I can:
Offline
Bob, that's a very conclusive exposition of the covenants. How anyone can doubt that there are two separate covenants, and the second cannot be merely an extension of the first, is hard to understand.
Why is it so difficult for Adventists to see the difference when the other religions do not? Is it because it's so ingrained with years of SDA teachings that they literally "read" the Bible with a preconceived bias?
All the many texts in your link could not be made more plain.
Offline
It must be that SDAs really have different visual, or eyesight problems. They can read not one NT text telling Christians that the Sabbath is to be observed forever, and yet contend that it was meant for everyone, although it was never given to any but the Israelites and no one kept it until Sinai. It an "assumption" and everyone should know what's between "assume."
Offline
Dexter,
The text:
"The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah."
The first covenant was directed to the "house of Israel and Judah" and was given solely to the Jewish people, never to Christians.
WE do not fulfill the covenant. Christ fulfilled it with his life, death and resurrection. The Israelites failed in keeping their covenant.
"Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary....And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ARK OF THE COVENANT....holding the TABLES OF THE COVENANT" (Heb. 9:1-4)
"You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ...written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the Living God, not on TABLETS OF STONE, BUT ON TABLETS OF HUMAN HEARTS....who also made us adequate as servantgs of a NEW COVENANT, NOT OF THE LETTER, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of deth, in letters ENGRAVED ON STONES, came with glory...."(2 Cor. 3:2-7).
Clearly, the Old Covenant was on "tablets of stone" but also written with ink--a reference to the "book of the covenant."
JESUS: THE NEW COVENANT
Is a better revelation of truth (Heb. 1:1-3).
Is better than the angels (Heb. 1:3-14).
Is worthy of more glory than Moses (Heb. 3:1-3) Moses is often used to mean the Law, or Torah.
Gives a better hope (Heb. 6:9-11).
Has a better guarantee in Christ (Heb. 7:22).
Has a better mediator in Christ (Heb. 8:6).
Cleansed with better sacrifices (Heb. 9:23).
Promises a better country (Heb. 11:16).
Promises a better resurrection (Heb. 11:35).
Gives us something better (Heb. 11:40).
Speaks with better blood (Heb. 12:24).
"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as HE is also the mediator of a BETTER COVENANT which has been enacted on better promises" (Heb. 8:6).
Throughout the Gospels the constant endeavor is to move the focus of the people away from Sinai to Jesus because God no longer dwelt in the tent of the tabernacle, but is tabernacling in the person of His Son, Jesus. Consistently in the Gospels, Jesus mentions the Law, and then changes it by saying "But I say unto you," indicating that now He is superior to the Law which was given until the promised seed had come.
"You have heard that the ancients were told 'You shall not commit murder'....But I say to you the every one who is angry with his brother shall be guilty" (Matt. 5:27,28)
This is repeated at least six times in the Gospel of Matthew where Jesus cites the Law and then says, "But I say unto you" amplifying the Law, as He is now the better exponent of the Law and has authority over the law and interprets it anew.
The Law was the center lead and guide for the Jews but when Christ came he replaced the Law.
He commanded that we love one another--something never mentioned in the Law--the Law could not command love, but Jesus has the authority over the Law
Galatians explains it again: "the Law was a tutor to bring us to Christ and now that He has come, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A TUTOR for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus."
The Law was given only to the Jews, but now "There is neither Jew nor Greek, ther is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all ONE in Christ Jesus."
Offline
Elaine, there is movement within Protestant churches to recognize the New Covenant is separate from the fulfilled Old Covenant. Which means the 10 Commandments are strickly a Jewish document, which surprises all those religious people who argue for the Christian 10 Commandment to be placed in the public places. So of Christ's Law of the second Covenant look similar but not the same.
Those that recognize this make it very clear that the Sabbath is not part of the New Covenant, it is not an issue in the Gospel. Tom calling the Sabbath a Reformed Sabbath is mind boggling. All Christ did was clarify how the Old Covenant Sabbath was to be kept. Before His ascension when He was on earth, he never said anything about a New Covenant Sabbath, and even met with the disciples on a Sunday night, not because Sunday is the Sabbath, but they had gathered, and were afraid of the Jews and why wouldn't they be when the Jews just had Jesus killed, and they, as best they could , believed Him to be the Messiah.
Notice these verses, Christ speaking to His follewers. Notice he had to open their minds to understand what had just happened:
Luke 24: 44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."
Last edited by bob_2 (10-17-10 6:31 pm)
Offline
Five posts, a whole lot of pointless chatter about law and not a SINGLE reference to WHAT the covenant or agreement was between God and the house of Israel? Remarkable. Sad.
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
Dexter, because of Abraham us Gentiles will be enabled to be part of the New Covenant. Only a remanant of the Jews will accept the Messiah. We will never be totally without law and behavior standard until heaven. You can't read the New Testament without seeing the New Covenant Law of Christ.
Dexter, having trouble with your glasses, this is right at the opening of Elaines post:
"The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah."
Also, an abudance of texts to check us out in Elaine and my post.
Offline
There is no need to know all that was included in the old covenant, as Christ has replaced it with the new covenant that is the Christian's guide.
Just as there is no need to understand an old contract when you have in your hands a new contract that is the one that has replaced the old one.
Attempts to adhere to parts of the old covenant is like trying to replace new car parts with old, and the Bible defines it as putting new wine into old skins--it doesn't work.
Offline
Bob_2 said: Dexter, because of Abraham us Gentiles will be enabled to be part of the New Covenant. Only a remanant of the Jews will accept the Messiah. We will never be totally without law and behavior standard until heaven. You can't read the New Testament without seeing the New Covenant Law of Christ.
Dexter, having trouble with your glasses, this is right at the opening of Elaines post:
"The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah."
Also, an abudance of texts to check us out in Elaine and my post.
I say: It seems I’ll have to come to my own conclusion on what you and Elaine think the actual agreement was in the Old Covenant, and New Covenants as well for that matter. This is unfortunate. Particularly in light of the fact that I have asked this question at least twice and have not been given a single “explicitly clear” response.
There has been a whole lot of dillydallying and side-stepping the question, but no answer. Perhaps you wondered why I said your approach to this topic is very suspect. But in light of this intentional blurring of the issue and avoidance of answering what is a very basic and fundamental question on the subject of a covenant, to say that your approach is suspect is to put it mildly.
So here is what I have concluded about both yours and Elaine’s position. It seems to me that both of you take the position that the Old Covenant was the Torah, the “essence” of which is summed up in the 10 Commandments. Since this is the one point that comes through all you have both posted thus far I think this is a fair conclusion.
The problem with this conclusion – and in particular with regard to how you both relate to it – is that it does not take into account the very fundamental question of WHAT WAS THE AGREEMENT between the Lord and the house of Israel that defined the covenant and which was meant to shape their appropriation of the “words of the covenant” in the Torah.
In this way (because no “explicitly clear” definition or explanation has been given on what the actual agreement was), one comes away thinking that there isn’t really a difference in the agreements between the Old and New Covenants, but simply a change in the “words of the covenant” from the Torah to the Law of Christ. Thus Jesus is really just another Moses, albeit a “better” version as per the book of Hebrews.
However, on the most fundamental level, this view is incorrect and explains why you both struggle with grasping any true understanding of many of the important and meaningful attributes to the Old Covenant.
A good example of this lack of understanding on this subject shines through Elaine’s comment:
There is no need to know all that was included in the old covenant, as Christ has replaced it with the new covenant that is the Christian's guide.
Just as there is no need to understand an old contract when you have in your hands a new contract that is the one that has replaced the old one.
The fact that she thinks there is “no need to understand an old contract” in light of this subject is to grossly miss the entire point of much of the Old Testament as well as to miss the grander object lesson of that Covenant as it pertains to fallen humanity.
Hence the apostle’s teaching that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable…” does not hold true on account of a huge portion of the Old Testament, per her statement.
Yet you both continue this foolish ranting and try marginalize my view by playing some “guilt by association” card in painting my views in the light of Adventism. This is not only funny, it is petty and anyone with any good “glasses” can see right through it.
Moreover, the point and the reason for my very simple and direct question on what was the actual agreement in the covenant is this. The bible teaches that the differences between the Old and New Covenants isn’t simply a change in the “words of the covenant” but a change in the agreement itself.
The Old Covenant agreement vs. the New Covenant agreement
The bible teaches that there is a change in the agreement in both covenants. The agreement in the Old Covenant is summed up in the following texts:
Ex. 19:1 In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt—on the very day—they came to the Desert of Sinai.
Ex. 19:2 After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.
Ex. 19:3 Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel:
Ex. 19:4 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
Ex. 19:5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine,
Ex. 19:6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."
Ex. 19:7 So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the LORD had commanded him to speak.
Ex. 19:8 The people all responded together, "We will do everything the LORD has said." So Moses brought their answer back to the LORD.
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.
Deut. 29:2 Moses summoned all the Israelites and said to them:
Your eyes have seen all that the LORD did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land.
Deut. 29:3 With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those miraculous signs and great wonders.
Deut. 29:4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.
Deut. 29:5 During the forty years that I led you through the desert, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet. Deut. 29:6 You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the LORD your God.
(Read Deut. 29:7 – 30:14)
Deut. 30:15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction.
Deut. 30:16 For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
Jer. 11:1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD :
Jer. 11:2 "Listen to the terms of this covenant and tell them to the people of Judah and to those who live in Jerusalem.
Jer. 11:3 Tell them that this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Cursed is the man who does not obey the terms of this covenant-
Jer. 11:4 the terms I commanded your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the iron-smelting furnace.' I said, 'Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people, and I will be your God.
Jer. 11:5 Then I will fulfill the oath I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey'-the land you possess today."
I answered, "Amen, LORD."
Thus the “agreement” of the Old Covenant was clear between the Lord and the house of Israel: “Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people, and I will be your God”
In this way, a failure to hold up their end in following through on ANY of God’s commands or laws would be a failure to live up to their end of the “agreement”, but the agreement is NOT the commands is as much as the laws were NOT the agreement.
This clear distinction must be made or there is no way to truly see one of the principal points of the Old Covenant – man’s inability to render perfect loving obedience to God’s will.
The following texts describe the agreement in the New Covenant:
Jer. 31:31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
Jer. 31:32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares the LORD.
Jer. 31:33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
Jer. 31:34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."
Heb. 8:6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
Heb. 8:7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Heb. 8:8 But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
Heb. 8:9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
Heb. 8:10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
Heb. 8:11 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
Heb. 8:12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."
Heb. 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Thus the agreement in the New Covenant is the PROMISE that God will put His laws in our hearts and write them on our minds. This, we understand from the teaching of the New Testament, is affected by faith in the Gospel of Christ. Thus it is we fulfill our end of this new agreement by faith in Christ.
In essence, this is why the difference between the Old and New Covenants is properly described as the difference between Law and Promise. One is based on man’s loving obedience to all of God’s commands – Law; the other on God’s promise to apply the righteousness of perfect obedience to the sinner’s account through his faith in Christ – Promise.
Furthermore, this entire debate is actually another instance in which distinction to the various elements to the “Law” or Torah must be made in their distinct applications. While the complete “package” is rightly viewed as a whole, understanding and giving distinction to its various components is necessary. And such is the case in distinguishing the agreement in the Old Covenant from the words of that covenant.
Moreover, not only is seeing this distinction between the agreement of the covenant versus the words of the covenant a very necessary and important principle when studying the Covenants, but also is giving the agreement the right position as the chief attribute of the covenant. This also is necessary.
In fact, it is this proper appropriation of the agreement as chief is what gives meaning and definition to Jehovah’s rebukes in the following:
Is. 29:13 The Lord says:
"These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.
Is. 46:12 Listen to me, you stubborn-hearted,
you who are far from righteousness.
Without making the agreement of the covenant (loving obedience to all of God’s will) the chief component as one related to God on the basis of that covenant was what constituted vain worship and to be “far from righteousness.”
How is it you both fail to see this in much of God’s dealings with the children of Israel in the Old Testament, as well as the lessons derived from it being used by the apostles in the New Testament is quite telling.
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
Elaine, is Dexter a real person or a pseudo for Tom Norris? The length of the post and the testiness smells like Tom. what do your think? He is one other than Tom that believes in a Reformed Sabbath. If so why don't the join the Reformed SDA Church? eh???
The problem people have with "the law being written in the heart" they believe, Jeremiah being an OT/OC text, that it must be the 10 Commandment Law. That is a wrong assumption. Jeremiah had no idea of things to come and whether the Law would be fulfilled in Christ. Most OT believers thought Christ was coming to conquer the Romans or any enemy they had, at any given time. But the failure of the Jews in their unbelief, Jesus still gives them the first opportunity to accept the Messiah and His new ways. But only a remnant did.
Offline
Bob, are you completely devoid of understanding? I remember asking you once before, but it seems this question is still a very valid one: are you really this dull?
Do you see a single reference in my post to the Reformed Sabbath or of the 10 commandment law - other than the usage at it related to yours posts?
Are you really incapable of reading and then answering a simple question?
What is your real objective in all of this? Please tell me there is more to you than what you are showing here on the internet!
And as for your “pseudo for Tom Norris” comment, there is no need to bestow on me such honor. I am simply asking a direct question and have not been given the slightest hint of a direct answer. As such, it is clear to me that neither you nor Elaine have a grasp on what you claim to understand – the covenants.
What a marvel is your lack of attention.
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Offline
Dexter said:
In truth, the issue here is not my correctness on the matter, but rather the simple fact that you have not provided a clear explanation for your insistence that the 10 commandment are in fact THE Old Covenant. You keep reposting the same two texts that you assume supports your view, all the while ignoring the greater witness of Scripture on the subject. One is left to wonder if this is calculated because you have not actually studied the subject in depth and are simply spewing out what you have been taught by one of your “NCT Scholars”. If such is true, why come on here and promote this dubious doctrine as though it were a subject you actually understand.
1. Dexter, buddy, what does Exodus 34:28 say??? Dexter have you had secret visions or revelation on this we should know about????
2. I'll let the scripture in that article speak for themselves.
Offline
To make it simple here is Ex. 34:27-28:
"Then the Lord said to Moses Write down these, for in accordance with the words I have made a COVENANT with you and Israel.
"So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets THE WORDS OF THE COVENANT, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS."
Offline
Elaine said: What we have here is a failure to communicate.
I say: For the most part I actually wish this were true. However, it becomes apparent the more you and Bob resist the facts that this is not simply a communication issue, but either intentional blindness or very bad hermeneutics.
Elaine said: To make it simple here is Ex. 34:27-28:
"Then the Lord said to Moses Write down these, for in accordance with the words I have made a COVENANT with you and Israel.
"So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets THE WORDS OF THE COVENANT, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS."
I say: Here is a perfect example why I say this is not a matter of “failure to communicate.” The wonderment about your last post is that it supports what I have been saying thus far – that the 10 Commandment as well as all the other laws of the Torah were the “words of the covenant” and NOT the covenant or agreement itself.
Unfortunately, it also seems clear that either you are both unwilling to relinquish your positions regardless of the fact that is fundamentally incorrect, or you are so encased in seeing things your own way that any other view is simply ignored. As such, unless someone else chimes in on this subject, this will be my final post.
Let me employ the use of an example to “simplify” what I am saying and what I believe the bible teaches on this subject.
Let’s just say that both you and Bob were in a financial crisis and needing someone wealthy to come to your aid. Your backs are against the wall and you have nowhere else to turn. All you can do is pray for some miraculous deliverance from this plight.
Suddenly, Billionaire Dexter comes to your both your rescue – an act he is willing to perform because he had previously promised your parents that should you ever get yourselves into such a situation, he would help.
So Billionaire Dexter pays off your debt and does it in such a way you are both left awestruck and elated with joy at the relief of being delivered from such a burdensome and utterly destitute situation.
Now say Dexter wants to go a step further and actually give your both enough money that not only would you never find yourselves in such a bind again, but you will be financially wealthy for the rest of your lives.
However, Dexter, being an accountant himself, knows that what landed Bob and Elaine in the trouble they were in to begin with was a lack of fiscal responsibility. So he says to them both, “Bob and Elaine, I am going to enter into a covenant with you. I am going to give you both enough money so that you will never want for anything and be wealthy for the rest of your lives. BUT, you have to follow everything I tell you as it relate to money management.”
Both you and Bob, already elated to have been rescued, by Dexter, from your dire situation and knowing fully well that Dexter is more than able to do what he just stipulated, agrees whole heartedly to the covenant. At this point, YOU HAVE BOTH ENTERED A COVENANT RELATIONSHIP WITH DEXTER. The COVENANT is this: If you follow everything I tell you as it relate to money management, I will make you wealthy for the rest of your lives.
Henceforth, it doesn’t matter what instructions Dexter applies to you both at it relates to money management, in order for you both the hold up your end of the covenant YOU MUST FOLLOW THOSE INSTRUCTIONS. But the instructions are NOT the covenant!
THIS, Bob and Elaine, is what we see in Exodus 19: 1-8. Here is it again:
Ex. 19: 1 In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt—on the very day—they came to the Desert of Sinai.
Ex. 19:2 After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.
Ex. 19:3 Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel:
Ex. 19:4 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
Ex. 19:5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine,
Ex. 19:6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."
Ex. 19:7 So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the LORD had commanded him to speak.
Ex. 19:8 The people all responded together, "We will do everything the LORD has said." So Moses brought their answer back to the LORD.
Observe the following:
1. The Lord delivers the children of Israel from the Egyptian bondage (vs. 1)
2. The people are amazed by God acts and power through the deliverance (vs. 4)
3. The Lord initiates a covenant with them that they will be His treasured possession IF they would obey Him fully and keep His covenant (vs. 5, 6)
4. The people responds and agrees to the covenant (vs. 8)
Notice, that at this point there were no other stipulations added to the covenant. No specific law, no particular decree, no direct command – just the covenant. However, at this point, it didn’t matter what God stipulates going forward. They have already agreed to the terms of the covenant to obey God fully. This is also why the Lord wanted their response to the covenant (vs.8) before proceeding with any other “words of the covenant” or stipulations. He wanted them (and all else reading these words) to be clear on what the actual covenant was that He was making with the children of Israel
In fact, at this stage, it was really an open ended covenant. God could have (and did) added various “words to the covenant” each to address specific particulars to the life of the children of Israel, and the single response from them would have to be “All that the Lord have said, we will do.”
Now back to my example.
If at some later time, after I have provided some instructions for you and Bob to follow, you both begin to find the instructions a bit tedious and you complain to each other. Say for example, I did a budget for you both and stipulated that you must live within that budget so that you practice financial constraints and not go out and splurge on your money. But you both find it difficult and too restrictive (because you have grown accustomed to an extravagant lifestyle), and begin to complain to each other – in talking about the budget I did for you guys – and say, “I am really not liking this covenant one bit!” This empirical statement (at it relates to the covenant) is readily understood by you and Bob and also fitting for you both to say because you both understand the over-arching covenant agreement you entered into with me.
But if an outsider or someone other person who is not familiar with the covenant I made with you and Bob, overheard you and Bob complaining (about the budget and its stipulations) and asks, “What is this covenant you are complaining about?” The answer to that question is NOT the budget and its related stipulations, but the AGREEMENT that was made between you both and the Billionaire Dexter – that he will make you wealthy IF you would follow all his instructions as it relate to money management.
And so it is, when you approach the subject of the Old Covenant, or ANY covenant for that matter. You have to first ask what was the Covenant or Agreement, before you get entangled in all the other words and stipulations of that covenant.
I hope this was clear enough for you both.
Last edited by Dexter (10-21-10 7:34 am)
Let every lamp be burning bright, the darkest hour is nearing...
Offline
I'm for Dexter taking up Synagogue worship and the whole animal sacrifice system. You might wan to check your local ordinance though. TIC
Offline
To whom it may concern:
Please pardon this interruption, but let me offer my viewpoint:
When God gave the covenant to Adam and Eve, He said: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman,..." Genesis 3:15. This was the "New Covenant" which means that it was what God would do (PP 370). In Genesis 17 the covenant was given to Abraham in more detail, again called the "New Covenant" (PP 370. These were promises of what God would do through Abraham and his descendants. Promises that could be given only through the authority of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary.
When Moses came before God in the burning bush, God referenced the covenant given to Abraham in the words: "the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob" three times in the one chapter (Exodus 3). Moses and Aaron returned to Egypt, called the elders of Israel together and spoke of all that God has said at the burning bush -- they repeated the Abrahamic covenant (Exodus 4:29-31). After Moses and Aaron confronted Pharaoh and were repulsed (Exodus 5:2) Moses spoke again before the people, giving the Abrahamic covenant again in the words "to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob" (Exodus 6:6-8).
The context here is that the Abrahamic covenant is emphasized and given momentum. It was and is the covenant that God has made with His chosen people. The covenant of Exodus 19:4-6 is clearly given as a covenant. It is reasonable to see this as another presentation of the Abrahamic covenant. God expected and desired the response of faith and acceptance.
The people responded with "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do" (Exodus 19:8). This was a good response and God was pleased. However, it was given in ignorance and presumption (Deuteronomy 5:28-29). It was an indication that the people intended to themselves fulfill the covenant. They bypassed the promise of grace (Exodus 19:4) in the covenant that God offered. There was no forgiveness in the promises the people made (Exodus 23:20-23). Their covenant of human promises was ratified by a ceremony in Exodus 24:3-8. In this, their promises were repeated twice, and nothing was said about grace.
This was the "historical old covenant." It was a covenant of man's attempt to save himself from his own effort. The fault lay not so much in their actions as in their attitude. Moses was then in the mount with God for 47 days, and by that time the people entered into a rebellious heathen festival at the base of the mountain, and broke their covenant. Apparently this covenant made a deep impression on the people as they too often in the future related to God on its terms.
After four intense intercedings of Moses with God, the covenant was renewed (Exodus 34:9-11). In context, it was the Abrahamic covenant that was renewed, and under which Israel lived throughout their history. It was the covenant that was confirmed by Christ on Calvary. It was the covenant of grace that was made new again at the Last Supper. It is the covenant that the New Testament covenant people are living under today (1 Peter 2:9).
To complicate matters, the old covenant did not die at Sinai. People began to look on the sacrifices and sanctuary services as their means of salvation. They forgot the Messiah to which these things pointed. By the time of Christ, they also looked on their lineage from Abraham and their meticulous keeping of the law as their method of salvation. This old covenant mindset was predominant at Jesus' time, and was a major factor in their rejecting Him as Messiah.
Even the early Christian church had to deal with this mindset in the "Judaizers" who held onto their belief in the temple services as necessary to salvation. Is a form of the old covenant, an attempt for men to "save themselves" still alive today?
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline