What is "the handwriting of ordinances" that Christ nailed to the cross?

[8thdaypriest]

9 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I doubt I have stated that, since I don't talk about the millennial kingdom. 

What I do believe is that Moses was telling the truth about when he said the sacrifices were to be offered "throughout your generations", and that Jesus was telling the truth when he said not a stroke of the portion of Scripture known as "the Law" would disappear until heaven and earth pass away, and that if God has changed his mind about the sacrifices he is very capable of telling people so in the same scope and with the same authority that the original instructions were given (as God did when he wanted Abraham to stop sacrificing Isaac).

God did not "change His mind" (as you say).  It was HIS plan, to bring in a "better way" - a "new way" to receive "atonement".

I think HE did.  HE allowed the Temple to be destroyed completely.  HE allowed the Romans and then the Muslims to take over the Mount.  The Romans and then Muslims were acting as the "arm" of the LORD, just as the Babylonians once were.

There has been no "house of the LORD" in which to offer sacrifices for 1946 years.   

The "first tabernacle" (Heb 9::8), the "copy and shadow of the heavenly things" (Heb 8:5) is GONE.  The LORD is not there.  " Your house is left to you desolate" (Luk 13:35).

[Myron]

I am going to ignore the main body of your point here and go off on a tangent because there is a point to be made here about the hypocrisy of this denomination, if not the entire church.

On 8/14/2016 at 11:34 PM, Green Cochoa said:

 

Reference	Authorized Version (KJV)	Not-Inspired Version (NIV)
Ephesians 2:15	Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;	by 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,
Colossians 2:14	Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;	having 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.
Colossians 3:6	For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:	Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.

 

 

You have proven yourself to be quite a nit-picker throughout this thread where other people are concerned yet consistently make rather small errors in your own thinking and writing that are of little, or worse, no concern to you, even when someone points them out to you.  The Pharisees engaged in this kind of nit-picking as a matter of course.  It was this Jesus referred to when he said,

Quote

“And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.’”

10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand.11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

In the words of Stephen E. Jones, these "teachers" of the law tortured the word of God to say precisely what they wanted it to say, and Jesus never put away the law; he put away their interpretation of it.  He goes on to state that those legalists who nit-pick at the law in the way you demonstrate here and in your other posts put away the law every time.  They do this because to them the law is not spiritual as Paul tells us it is (Romans 7:14) but is simply a set of words to be manipulated and twisted to prove they do or don't apply in this way or that way so that we can violate this spirit with impunity.

You seem to believe the line of thought that, although it has always existed in Adventism was mostly taught against in my academy and college days that the law itself was what was nailed to the cross.  This view was mostly considered false when I was in school but seems widely and openly taught now.  Most seem to believe as does Danny Shelton that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught that the 10 commandments still held, but the law of Moses was abolished even at that time (or maybe he says Jesus taught that they would be abolished when he died.  I honestly don't remember because it has been so long since I read his book or watched his 3ABN network.)  It is no surprise that so much of the church believes what he and his colleagues teach on that network which has a world-wide reach.  Unfortunately for them it is a simple matter to read Matthew 5, see that Jesus looked at six laws in that sermon and only three of them were from the 10 Commandments.  He showed all of them are still valid, including the ones from the so called Law of Moses, and stated that none of them would pass until all were fulfilled.  Oh, wait.  Didn't you already quote this text?  You provide for us the proof of your lie while at the same time claiming it as the proof of the lie you claim as truth, and you did this in numerous posts.  This is how the strongly deluded mind works as it twists scripture to its own purposes (2 Thes 2:11).

The story goes on:

Quote

12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides.[d] If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

Jesus was well aware that he offended the Pharisees and furthermore, when questioned he told the disciples he did it intentionally.  That is the meaning of this passage.  I know I am offending you and have offended others on this site in the past, and it is a rare thing that I am not fully aware of how offensive I am being when I do this.  The only time I am aware that I have been justly criticized on this site for having done this was when I attempted to soften an offense against 8th day priest by calling her lazy when I provided scriptures to prove her and her favored rabbis wrong on a matter and she refused to accept the word of scripture.  Many people came to her defense because she is clearly not lazy.  She wastes a considerable amount of time searching the writings of rabbis and their successors who God clearly judged against twice for the sins they were committing in "His" temple, and who are obviously still under that judgment because they have not yet been allowed to rebuild their temple to continue those same detestable practices.  Since I did not bother correcting myself in that instance and instead point out the open rebellion against God and his word in scripture which she refused openly to review because it proved her wrong she no longer speaks to me and I lost credibility among her friends.

But we are not talking about her here, I am addressing you and only using this as an example.  I know I am offending you, just as Paul, and sometimes Peter offended both the Jews and other early Christians without apology.  God's word is an offense to those who refuse to obey (1 Peter 2:8) and foolishness to those who prefer the ways of the world (1 Cor 1:18-27).  While Paul counseled us to avoid offense where possible until the day of the Lord (which can mean the day of the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20 or can mean any day of judgment before which he raises up a prophet who is to teach a specific word of offense to sinners) he never shied away from offending those who were being disobedient when God called on him to call them out.  My problem with 8th Day Priest is not that I called her out on that matter, but that I disobeyed God by attempting to soft pedal the matter.  The word given through me was no longer God's word through me but was my word to her, and thus was a sin against both, but because it was my word, not because it was an offense to her.  I have learned my lesson and I won't soft pedal.

Finally we come to the specific hypocrisy shown by the quoted example above.  I cannot say for sure that you are one of those anti-Catholic Adventists that always claims any doctrine others teach with which they do not agree is a Catholic doctrine (even when it directly opposes anything Catholics have ever taught) and is to be automatically rejected on those grounds, but I can make an educated guess based on the fact that so many Adventists are anti-Catholic and that those with the most virulent anti-Catholic attitudes have a great many other beliefs that are so similar to yours.  I am guessing that you hate and claim to detest anything Catholic (except this mosaic law nailed to the cross doctrine which is a Catholic interpretation -- it was not Paul's as several proved to you here with varying levels of effectiveness).  Yet you are stupid enough to make a claim that the KJV (as you point out the "Authorized Version) is superior to any other English translation of the Bible.  

You make a claim that this authorization proves this version of the Bible to be superior to all others and that it is God's inspired word, but let's take a look at why this is called the authorized version.  Who authorized it?  King James II of England.  Who was he?  He was the successor to Elizabeth I and he was Catholic.  A number of years before his second predecessor, King Henry VIII wanted a divorce so he could marry his third or fourth wife.  The Pope refused, so Henry left the Catholic Church and took England with him, installing himself as the first prelate of the Church of England.  James apparently was not a very good Catholic because even as the head of the Church of England he was not able to bring England back into the Catholic fold and end the Anglican Church.  Still he was Catholic and he commissioned this English translation of the Bible.  

This was not the first English translation of the Bible, but the other translations had been banned by the Catholic church and destroyed anytime they were found so few copies were available.  This one probably could not have been authorized had Henry not rebelled against the church all those years before because the church had a vested interest in keeping the people ignorant of what the scriptures really say.  (They had no real understanding of human psychology and the lengths to which most people would go to convince themselves that what those in authority tell them is really true, so it did not much matter whether the people had the actual word of God there to twist or not.)

So this Catholic translation of the Bible is authorized by a Catholic king and for this reason was not destroyed by the Catholic Church.  Why is it that you consider this to be the best translation out there instead of some detestable piece of Catholic propaganda to be abhorred and avoided at all costs?  Let me tell you something else about this translation.  Even though it is the first English translation of the Bible that was translated from Greek and Hebrew texts instead of the Latin Vulgate it was still not a very accurate translation.  There are over 20,000 easily verifiable translation errors in this document and some of those errors were quite intentional.  

You see, at the time the study of Greek and Hebrew was a relatively new thing in Western Europe.  In the 1453 when the Ottomans captured Constantinople the Eastern Roman Empire fell, and many Christian Scholars and clerics fled west to escape Muslim rule, bringing their manuscripts with them.  So during the time the King James Version was being translated the study of Greek was relatively new in the west and there was much that was not known about this long dead language, leading to many of the translation errors that exist.  But as I said, some were quite intentional.

When the Latin Vulgate was translated by Jerome it was being done by someone who did not know the Greek language especially well.  For the most part he was conscientious in his work but his lack of understanding of both Greek and Christian theology hampered his work and introduced error into his translation.  He recognized his failure in this regard and occasionally went to the current Bishop of Rome for advice in how these passages should be translated.  Occasionally he knew the Pope's interpretation was not correct, but in many of these cases he deferred to the Popes opinion anyway.  One of these was the discussion of the divorce law and Jesus commentary on it.  Because the church officially frowned on divorce it was determined that this passage was to be written such that it appeared Jesus condemned divorce itself instead of the current practice which followed the law of Babylon, allowing a husband to state three times, "I divorce you," and not provide a writ of divorce as God's law required.  The Greek text reveals the correction of this practice of the Jews, but Jerome translated it to show Jesus making a change in the Law of God.  The translators of the KJV saw this mistranslation for what it was, but refused to correct it.  From what I have read they apparently discussed this matter at length and made reference to it in their notes.  These scholars working for a Catholic king chose to leave an error they knew existed in their book in order to please the church and the people who had been lied to for 1200 years concerning this doctrine rather than face the backlash that always comes with the correction of a cherished falsehood.  How many other doctrines were treated in this manner?  To my knowledge there has yet to be any English translation anywhere that makes this correction, even though many have made a large number of other corrections in their texts.

So really, tell me why it is that you and so many other Adventists don't treat this version of the Bible with the same vitriol that you treat everything else that you perceive as being "Catholic".  Clearly this translation of the Bible is just as "Catholic" as what we call the "Catholic" version (There are more than one translation of those as well by the way) and it does not matter that the KJV lacks the Apocrypha and uses the canon determined by the Protestant leaders. The translational bias and the inaccuracy it causes is still present and very easy to prove and many Protestants still to this day incorporate such doctrinal errors into their own denominations as well as introducing their own, and this includes SDAs.  Such hypocrisy could be extremely amusing if it was not so terribly tragic.

 

I will give further proof of this in the next post.

[Myron]

Matthew 7:1-5 says, 

Quote

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ² For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

³ “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? ⁴ How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

I know you will take offense that I used the Not Inspired Version here (Not the KJV which has over 20000 easily verifiable translation errors) but in this instance both every accurately transmit the same information.  The problem is most people want to end their study of this passage at verse 1 and skip everything else.  This verse is not telling us we are not to judge, it is telling us that we are to learn God's law and judge righteously and until we can judge righteously it is better not to judge at all because God and any righteous judge he sends against us will use our own unrighteous standard of judgment when they judge us.

If you are going to insist on being such a nit-picker with other people's thinking and proofs you need to apply that same standard to your own, and not be so dismissive when they point out an error.  It is not simply a matter of semantics when you do it and utter proof of error when they do it.  It is absolute proof of your hypocrisy and refusal to obey the spirit of God's law.  Nor can you get away with the excuse that the Law of Moses ever was "lesser law" than the 10 Commandments.  

Quote

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.  Matthew 5

It is a very small thing to prove what Jesus meant when he spoke of the law in this manner and it was not just the 10 Commandments.  First we go to John 10

Quote

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

The law Jesus quoted here is found in Psalm 82:6.  In this gathering of Lawyers who were attempting to try Jesus for blasphemy and execute him Jesus quoted a Psalm as law and none of these lawyers "corrected" him.  Thus it is obvious that they considered this to be law.  If we do a detailed study we find that in their view all scripture was law and we find that many major points of law are illustrated even in the histories and it becomes easy to understand why they considered all scripture to be law.  

Next we look again at Jesus statement.  He says he has not come to abolish the law or the prophets.  Moses was a prophet, thus his writings are not abolished by Jesus.  Indeed we can find many statements in his teachings that all the laws were prophecies about him and that in fulfilling the law he was fulfilling prophecy.  This principle is carried into the writings of Ellen White.  She stated at least 10 times in her writings and in various ways, "The entire Hebrew (Jewish) law (economy) is a prophecy of the Plan of Salvation."   She did not really believe this herself because she never obeyed the command implicit in such a statement to study such prophecy and include it in her teachings.  In fact, she did much in her writings to minimize the importance of these prophecies and our need to study them and put them into practice in our own lives.  Yet we also can know from her writings that not one of them can possibly have passed because not all of them have been fulfilled.  

Quote

The slaying of the Passover lamb was a shadow of the death of Christ. Says Paul: “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.” 1 Corinthians 5:7. The sheaf of first fruits, which at the time of the Passover was waved before the Lord, was typical of the resurrection of Christ. Paul says, in speaking of the resurrection of the Lord and of all His people: “Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming.” 1 Corinthians 15:23. Like the wave sheaf, which was the first ripe grain gathered before the harvest, Christ is the first fruits of that immortal harvest of redeemed ones that at the future resurrection shall be gathered into the garner of God.

These types were fulfilled, not only as to the event, but as to the time. On the fourteenth day of the first Jewish month, the very day and month on which for fifteen long centuries the Passover lamb had been slain, Christ, having eaten the Passover with His disciples, instituted that feast which was to commemorate His own death as “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” That same night He was taken by wicked hands to be crucified and slain. And as the antitype of the wave sheaf our Lord was raised from the dead on the third day, “the first fruits of them that slept,” a sample of all the resurrected just, whose “vile body” shall be changed, and “fashioned like unto His glorious body.” Verse 20; Philippians 3:21.

In like manner the types which relate to the second advent must be fulfilled at the time pointed out in the symbolic service. Under the Mosaic system the cleansing of the sanctuary, or the great Day of Atonement, occurred on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month (Leviticus 16:29-34), when the high priest, having made an atonement for all Israel, and thus removed their sins from the sanctuary, came forth and blessed the people. So it was believed that Christ, our great High Priest, would appear to purify the earth by the destruction of sin and sinners, and to bless His waiting people with immortality. The tenth day of the seventh month, the great Day of Atonement, the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, which in the year 1844 fell upon the twenty-second of October, was regarded as the time of the Lord’s coming. This was in harmony with the proofs already presented that the 2300 days would terminate in the autumn, and the conclusion seemed irresistible. 

Ellen White glosses over much here because of her apparent ignorance of the details of many of these laws, and more importantly how they relate to the fulfillment of the autumn feasts.  This is a principle that is well stated and conclusively proves that two of Adventism's most basic prophetic interpretations cannot possibly be correct, but that is a matter for another study.  The spring feasts (all of them including Pentecost) were fulfilled on the same day in the same year and at the same time of day the types were being performed in the temple, and the autumn feasts must all be fulfilled in the same year on the exact day and time the types would be fulfilled in the earthly temple were it still be in operation.  Adventists cannot state such a fulfillment for the Feast of Trumpets, which is traditionally stated to be an antitype of the Resurrection of the Righteous, cannot be that exact with the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement, meaning the the investigative judgment, which many admit is not biblical anyway, is not a fulfillment of this feast, and cannot show anything pointing to the manner in which the Feast of Tabernacles will be fulfilled, much less a specific event that shows it was fulfilled in 1844.  Ellen White (Harmon at the time) was not even aware that her very first vision pointed to the fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles, to my knowledge never wrote anything that indicated that she ever became aware of this and I have never met any other Adventists who have indicated that they have come to this understanding.)  Thus since these feasts have not been fulfilled none of the law has passed away, or been put away or been nailed to the cross.

And once again we go back to the teaching of Jesus for the final word on this matter.  The Law of Moses is not a lesser law than the 10 Commandments.  It is actually a greater law.  When one of the teachers of the law tried to test Jesus he asked which is the greatest commandment.  This story is found in Matthew 22 and Mark 12.  In Matthew 22 we read,

Quote

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Instead of giving them only the single greatest or most important commandment in all the law Jesus gave two.  Most Adventists, like most other Christians, completely ignore the fact that these two are direct quotes from the Law of Moses.  The usual explanation is that Jesus simply looked at the 10 commandments and summarized the first four as the first of these laws and the last six as the second of these laws.  Nevermind the ignorance of the traditional Jewish teaching that the first five commandments were on the first tablet and that the presence there of the command to honor father and mother proves that we are to see God as our father.  This concept has always been a stumbling block to the Jews so for now we will accept the Christian teaching regarding this even though it is more consistent with the Jewish teaching that we cannot call ourselves God's sons and it is blasphemy to do so.  The Christian explanation also ignores something that all well trained pastors and theologians now all too well but chose to teach against anyway, These two greatest commandments come directly out of the Law of Moses.  The first is found in Deuteronomy 6:5 as part of the Shema (Hear/obey) O Israel, and the second is found in Leviticus 19:18.  Jesus said all the law and prophets (including the 10 Commandments) hang on these two.  If these two commandments from the Law of Moses are greater and more important than the 10 Commandments doesn't it stand to reason that perhaps others may be as well?  That perhaps, God forbid, maybe even the entire Law of Moses is more important than the 10 Commandments?

Let's examine that for a moment.  Christians claim that the fact that the 10 were spoken in the hearing of the people, were written on stone, and were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant are all proofs that the 10 Commandments are greater than the Law of Moses.  These explanations are entirely fleshly, entirely ignore the word of scripture and are nothing more than fig leaves (self-justification) for continued refusal to hear God and obey him.  The word of scripture gives explanation for all of these things.  Exodus 20:18-21 tells us that the upon hearing God's voice speaking directly to them the people ran and refused to directly hear any more than these first 10 terms of the Covenant directly from God.  In other words, they refused to hear God's voice after these 10.  Since faith comes by hearing and obeying (shema means both and both are necessary to faith) these people could never move forward into any deep level of faith and as a result could not enter into the promised land a year and a half later when God brought them to the border and commanded them to enter in.  Likewise, if we refuse to listen any further to God's voice we cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and rule with Jesus during the 1000 years (Revelation 20).  This is what all Adventist claim as their goal, and few if any that I know can possibly enter in.  The number is much less than the 1 in 22 that Ellen White often claimed.

Ezekiel gives us full explanation why the 10 Commandments were written on stone and the rest of the law was written on parchment (flesh) in chapters 11 and 36.  Paul makes reference to it in 2 Corinthians 3:3.  The sinful and/or fearful human heart is described many times in scripture as being a heart of stone.  The New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34 and quoted by Paul in Hebrews 8) tells us that God will write his law on our hearts.  The three passages first referenced here tell of God writing his law on our hearts and thereby placing a new spirit (his spirit) within us.  The two passages in Ezekiel specifically state that in so doing God removes the heart of stone from within us and replaces it with a heart of flesh.  Once that heart of stone is removed we are finally able to hear more than just the first 10 Commandments, have others which more thoroughly define the character of God written into our hearts of flesh, and as a result more thoroughly manifest his spirit.  We move into a higher level of faith and are eventually able to move into the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is also demonstrated by the placing of the 10 Commandments inside the Ark of the Covenant (Testimony).  The temple of God represents a number of things on a number of different levels.  On one level it is the corporate body of Christ, so Paul tells us, "Ye (the plural form of you) are the temple of the Holy Spirit," but at another time he states the same thing individually saying, "You (the singular form) are the temple of the Holy Spirit.)  (Peter makes reference to each of us as living stones in the corporate temple, thus avoiding the multiple levels of the same symbol).  As an individual temple my heart is both the most holy place of this temple and the altars of this temple.  You could say the bronze altar is the the heart of stone and the altar of incense is the heart of flesh, but on some level the ark of the covenant is also a representation of the heart.  When the 10 Commandments are placed inside the ark they are working on the heart of flesh and there is no outward manifestation of this work in the life of the individual.  All of you see and hear of this all the time when someone makes reference to that person who has made a public declaration of giving his life to the Lord, but you never see any change in him.  

We usually claim that his conversion is not genuine, but until God gives us eyes to look upon someone's heart we are completely unqualified to make such a judgment.  That person still has a heart of stone and we have no way of seeing how that stone is being etched or softened.  In such cases God demands that until He bears witness we give this person the benefit of the doubt (This is one of the moral, not ceremonial, laws found in the parchments -- Deuteronomy 17 and 19).  Not many Christians are willing to do so, and thus bear false witness against this brother.  Later, as our hearts soften and God begins replacing the stone with flesh he writes some of these other laws on our hearts.  These always have an outward manifestation in our behavior and everyone can see them and the change within us.  Of course many are still not willing to admit a genuine change and continue their false witness against that brother, noting past (forgiven) sins as proof that he really is the same old sinner.  We all suffer from this sinful behavior from time to time, and if you tell me you never behave that way I will tell you that you are a liar.  Yet if we are following the counsel of Matthew 7:1-5 we will catch ourselves and check this sin at the door before we take up our judgment seats.  

So we see that in each of these ways that Christians use to claim the superiority of the 10 Commandments and justify their refusal to follow God into the higher levels of faith we find that the actual biblical example is that the 10 Commandments are only a bare beginning and that the greater commandments are those we find written on/in the flesh after the 10 Commandments have finally done their work of removing the heart of stone.  The person picking at nits to prove this law applies against that person or that law does not apply to him is avoiding the spirit of the law and is driving away the Spirit of God, thus refusing to enter the Kingdom of Heaven himself and refusing to allow anyone else to enter (Matthew 23:13) and that as a result of this behavior the Pharisees are not really righteous at all, so that it is not all that difficult to exceed their righteousness (Matthew 5:20).

[Ron Amnsn]

18 hours ago, jackson said:

If you think the ceremonial law with its feast days, minus the sacrifices, is still obligatory for the Christian then how do you explain the following:

I don't think I would describe God's Feast days as "obligatory". God's appointed times are still valid and those who choose to ignore them miss out on the blessings and the insights into Scripture and prophecy that they provide.  Of course, there may be serious consequences later for those who ignore any of God's instructions, since God has not given us permission to ignore those instructions.

18 hours ago, jackson said:

1. John called them feasts of the Jews and Passover of the Jews -   John 2:13; 5:1; 5:4; 7:2; 11:55

At the time of Jesus the different sects celebrated the feasts at different times and different places in Israel.  The Samaritans celebrated in Samaria according to their calendar, the Qumran community celebrated at their community according to their calendar, and the Judeans celebrated in Jerusalem on the Judean calendar.  The word "Jews" also means "Judeans" and John uses the term "feast of the Judeans" in the story only when Jesus is away from Jerusalem, probably to make it clear that he is speaking of the feasts that were celebrated in Jerusalem, and not the feasts that were celebrated elsewhere.

18 hours ago, jackson said:

2. Paul did not  religiously keep the feasts  - Acts 18:11

Acts 18:11 says that Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half. It doesn't say that Paul neglected to celebrate the feasts while he was in Corinth. 

The command for men to go to Jerusalem for Passover, Weeks, and Booths seems to apply only to people who are within the land of Israel.  That is deduced from things such as the provision for the second Passover for travelers away from the land, and the fact that the prophets never rebuked the Israelite exiles for neglecting to travel to Jerusalem for the feasts.  If God required an Israelite living in Rome to attend the feasts in Jerusalem every year, they would have been almost constantly on the road and not home long enough to grow and harvest crops.  Those living outside the land of Israel would keep the feasts in a manner similar to how women (who were never required to go to Jerusalem) could keep the feasts in their hometowns in Israel.

18 hours ago, jackson said:

3. Hebrews calls them carnal ordinances imposed until the reformation, while he called the Law of God, spiritual  -  Heb 9:9-10 vs Rom 7:14

Hebrews 9 doesn't tell us when the time of "reformation" occurs, whether in the past or the future.  Since the Greek word means "setting things straight" it seems it must still be future because there are many things that are not yet set straight in the world.  A future date would also correspond with the time when Jesus said changes could be made in the Law.

The word "carnal" just means something that has to do with flesh.  God gave many instructions related to how the flesh of animal sacrifices was to be handled.  Romans 7:14 is talking about the whole Law of God, including the instructions that had to do with animal sacrifices.  Lot's of people get misled by the Catholic baggage that man-made traditions added to the word "carnal".

18 hours ago, jackson said:

4.Peter called them a yoke which was hard to bear - Acts 15:10

Peter was talking about the man-made rules of traditional "oral law" that the Gentile proselytes had been required to vow/covenant to observe for the rest of their lives.  That vow/covenant was part of the proselyte training program that the Jewish sages had developed to save Gentiles by supposedly turning them into Jews.  That proselyte training program was the way Gentiles had been brought into Judaism as far back as anyone could remember.  It was the status quo at the time of Acts 15, so it provides the unspoken context of the whole debate.  Everyone at that time knew what was done previously to convert Gentiles, so it wasn't written into the narrative.  Almost nobody today knows what was done, so they usually interpret Acts 15 without the pertinent context. 

There are many clues within Acts 15 that let us know that the unbearable yoke that Peter spoke of was not God's Law of Moses.  One of the more obvious clues is that James says "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him" but the Jerusalem Council didn't send their letter to the Gentiles in every city -- they sent it only to the cities where the unauthorized men had stirred up trouble.  If the Law of Moses had been the problem, James would have known that the letter needed to be sent to Gentiles in every city where Moses was being taught.  During Paul's journeys he met Gentiles in virtually every synagogue he visited. Those Gentiles were learning the Law of Moses each week as James mentioned, yet Paul never warns those Gentiles against learning anything that is in God's Word.  Instead Paul recommends "all Scripture" as being profitable for instruction and correction.  Another clue is that Moses said that the Law was not difficult to live by (Deut 30:11).  Do you think Peter was calling Moses a liar?  There's not a chance Peter would do that in a congregation that is described as "they are all zealous of the law" of Moses (Acts 21).  Obviously it wasn't the Law of Moses that was the unbearable yoke because the whole congregation of Jewish believers was zealous in keeping it.  That wouldn't have been the case if they had been "unable to bear" the Law of Moses.  Also Luke 1 tells us that the parents of John the Immerser "were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."  Obviously they were able to "bear" all of God's Law.  I will skip the rest of the clues in Acts 15 for now.  The more significant evidence is found in Matt 5:17-18 where Jesus commanded,"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."  All of God's Law of Moses is contained within the portion of Scripture that the Jews and Jesus referred to as "the law", which Jesus said would not pass away until certain things happen that have not yet happened.

18 hours ago, jackson said:

5. James said to not trouble the gentile converts with the ceremonial law - Acts 15:19

James didn't say anything about "ceremonial law".  Nowhere does the Bible designate any of God's Law of Moses as "ceremonial law" -- that is just a man-made device invented by those who desire to set aside God's Law.  Those who speak of "ceremonial law" can't even agree which of God's instructions are supposedly "ceremonial" and which are not. 

The so-called "ceremonial law" is part of the teachings of Moses that James says were already being taught each Sabbath in the synagogues, where the Gentiles were meeting with the Jews.  And James spoke of those teachings of Moses as part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

The decision of the Jerusalem Council did not apply at all to Jewish believers -- it was only sent to the Gentile believers.  If the Jerusalem Council had decided against the so-called "ceremonial laws", they would have needed to instruct the Jewish believers who were all zealous for God's Law of Moses.  When the Jewish believers followed Paul's instructions in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to profitably use all Scripture for instruction, reproof, and correction the Gentile believers would have also been reproved, corrected, and instructed using what you call the "ceremonial law" (as Paul intended).

Do you think Paul would have allowed the Council to make a permanent distinction between Gentile and Jewish believers?  Paul taught that there were the same before God because the Gentiles were grafted into Israel.  How would they have maintained any unity in congregations where the Jewish believers were all zealous for God's Law of Moses and the Gentiles weren't supposed to be bothered with large portions of it?

I think James was actually referring to the man-made traditions of Jewish "oral law" which Gentile proselytes had been required to learn and vow to keep, up until the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

18 hours ago, jackson said:

6. Why were the commandments written by God in stone , denoting their immutability while the Law of Moses was written on parchment by the hand of Moses, noting its impermanence  Psm 11:8 vs Heb 7:12

There is no Psalm 11:8 (except in Jewish copies of the Psalms where the introductory header is verse 1 and all the subsequent verse numbers are incremented by 1).

Is there another verse you were intending, which actually says something about the stone representing immutability and the parchment representing impermanence?  I have looked for such a verse and never found one.  As far as I can tell, the Bible does not tell us that the stone and parchment represent anything like immutability or impermanence -- that is just another man-made theory invented by those who want to set aside God's Law.

In Hebrews 7:12 the "change" that is mentioned is one that is "made of necessity" due to a change of the priesthood.  The specific change required by the Law is a change of physical location of the Melchizedekian priesthood. The next two verses start the explanation, "For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."  Hebrews 8:4 specifies why the change of location is actually a necessity, "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law."  According to this verse, the laws that specify who can be a priest on earth were still valid when Hebrews was written, decades after the veil of the Temple was torn.

[Ron Amnsn]

8 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I think HE did.  HE allowed the Temple to be destroyed completely.  HE allowed the Romans and then the Muslims to take over the Mount.  The Romans and then Muslims were acting as the "arm" of the LORD, just as the Babylonians once were.

Since the first destruction of the temple by the Babylonians did not signify the end of the Levitical priesthood or the end of sacrifices, why would you assume that the second destruction of the temple by the Romans would signify that?

If the covenant was obsolete, why would the "arm" of the Lord be acting in Israel at all?  That sounds like classical Christian anti-semitism where Christians supposedly get the new covenant while the Jews get to keep the curses of the old covenant.  Logically, if the curses of the covenant are still valid, the covenant itself must still be valid.

[Myron]

As all can see from the proofs given in the previous two posts I fully reject the idea that Paul was talking about the Law of Moses when he claimed the handwriting of the law that was against us.  As many others have already pointed out the 10 Commandments, as they were written on the stone were said to be written by the hand (specifically finger) of God and if you claim the handwriting of ordinances for what Moses wrote you could claim it even more so for what God wrote.  

It must never be forgotten that Paul was trained as an attorney at law.  That is what the Pharisees and other teachers of the law were.  They trained primarily in the law of God, but also in Roman and Greek law, both of which in their society were actually above the Law of God in most matters because of their having been sold into bondage to the beast systems of the world, whose laws they preferred over the law of God.  They did give lip service to the law of God, as their forefathers had before them, but if they had really been keeping the law of God from the beginning they would never have been sold into bondage in the first place (Judges 2:14, 3:8, 4:2, 10:7, Jeremiah 25.)  In Jeremiah 25 God does not actually call this a sale as the bondages in Judges were called, but the Law of Tribulation (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28) do call this kind of captivity a sale, and Jeremiah 25 say Nebuchadnezzar is God's servant called to punish Judah for their rebellion against God.  Daniel 2, 7 and 10-12 show that this captivity is to be extended under other beasts, sometimes as an Iron Yoke (defined in Deuteronomy 28:48) and sometimes in a wooden yoke (defined in Jeremiah 28).  All of these beasts are the Babylonian system.  But I digress.  Because of this captivity, which was a wooden yoke at the time, all Jewish attorneys also had to be trained to practice in Roman and Greek courts as well.  

Paul was an attorney.  Any real attorney understands the importance of specific legal terminology.  It tells you precisely which laws and systems of laws are in play at any specific time.  It is not simply a matter of semantics; words matter a great deal and only a fool would go into a court claiming that "what this means to me" matters at all to the judge.  He has case law and past rulings telling him what this HAS to mean to the court.  The Greek term that is here translated as the handwriting of the ordinances which was against us is a specific reference to a specific document.  That document was the sentencing document.  Once the judge made his ruling of guilt or innocence there was still the matter of having to assess the penalty for this particular infraction.  Man's courts work differently than God's court, and Greek courts work differently than American courts, but there are some similarities to all which we can point to in an effort to increase our understanding of the matters and because I understand American courts much more than ancient Greek courts I will change to using them for the rest of the analogy.  

Things are handled differently in US courts for criminal and civil matters as well, but again there are some major similarities.  I will use the criminal court system where various parts of the process are done in separate proceedings before the judge.  First the criminal is charged, then a bond is set in misdemeanor cases if he does not promptly plead guilty.  In a misdemeanor case where there is a prompt guilty plea the judge has the option of sentencing immediately or deferring the sentencing for a pre-sentence investigation.  In felony cases a judge generally will not accept any plea but not guilty the preliminary hearing because many other phases of investigation are required to make sure justice is done.  God's court has similar requirements for investigation, but different procedures for causing them.  After all the investigations are complete and a plea agreement is reached or a trial has been conducted the judge hands down a verdict of guilt or innocence, but he does not yet hand down a sentence.  Further investigation is done to find out precisely what level of penance and restitution must be required.  In a civil case it is generally only about restitution.  At the end of this proceeding the judge hands down a document that closes the case in an American court system (although appeals or garnishments, etc. can extend the proceedings in certain ways) and this document lists the full demands of the court for penance and restitution.  In a criminal court proceeding this document is called a sentencing document.  

In God's court system an additional hearing is required to close the case, and that hearing determines that the restitution has been paid in full.  Because Jesus paid our restitution if full on the cross the sentencing document itself was nailed to the cross.  We then go with Jesus as our kinsman redeemer to that final court hearing where he (and our victim(s)) tells the judge that he has paid the restitution in full, and provide the judge with documentation of this payment and the judge declare that we are no longer under the law (this terminology means there is no further penalty imposed on us by the courts according to the demands of the law, not that we no longer need to abide by the terms of the law. -- again specific terminology has very specific meaning.)

Many commentaries, including the SDA Bible Commentary tell us that this is what that terminology meant in Paul's day in Greek courts.  They nearly all prefer to argue in some way that this attorney, trained and probably licensed to practice law in both the Greek courts and the temple (supreme court) in Jerusalem actually meant something else theologically when he used this terminology.  While Paul was later trained on Mt Sinai by God himself, NOT the apostles, in the laws of the Kingdom of Heaven (Galatians 1:11-24, 4:25) which bear some resemblance to the 10 Commandments and the Law of Moses before the tampering and twisting of man is applied to them.  Paul then followed Jesus example in attempting to correct man's understanding of God's laws, and as in this particular example he attempted to relate them to court proceedings they could see in practice every day in their town squares/gates and using that terminology that they understood well.  Given that, it is foolish in the extreme to make a claim that Paul took this familiar terminology and tried to twist and turn it with new definitions to "prove" that the law of God was no longer valid.

For that matter, even though Christians today constantly claim that Paul did more than any other apostle to set aside the law of God they only prove their own ignorance and that they have never really read Paul's writings, only cherry picked a few convenient verses to "prove" their own personal and unbibilical beliefs.  No apostle did more than Paul to uphold the Law of God, including the Law of Moses.  It is also true that Paul did more than any other apostle to move people away from the types and shadows, wean them off those children's toys, that milk, and get them into the solid food of spiritual reality, to grow up and be fully mature sons of God.  Most of the people and many of the apostles resisted him at every turn until God forced their hand by destroying the physical temple.  Still, rather than accepting that they are now the temple of God, both as individuals and as a corporate body they prefer to "go to church" instead of be the church and allow God to indwell them, to allow themselves to be his house, the place where He has placed His name.  Most of the arguments we find in these forums are a complete waste of time because in nearly every case most, if not all the people are in some way trying to force a going back to the types and shadows rather than moving into the reality; blocking others from moving away from some type or shadow into reality instead of helping them to grow into that reality -- refusing to enter into the kingdom of heaven themselves and preventing those who are trying to enter from doing so (Matthew 23:13) or simply claiming that the law is now of no authority at all, which has a very similar effect.

Paul's point was never that the law has been put away, and it was never that its penalties are no longer assessed.  The entire book of Hebrews is a full treatise that the blood of bulls and rams were never effective, but that it has always been necessary for us to take the blood of Jesus into the temple and minister it in the most holy place.  We are that temple.  The most holy place in that temple is our hearts.  It is defiled by the spirit and soul that are there now.  The nephesh (soul, not life as is often translated) of the creature is in its blood (Gen 9:4,5, Lev 17:11, 14, Deut 12:23.)  If we do not take the blood (soul) of Jesus into our hearts and use it as a covering for our own soul we are guilty of his blood if we claim his life as a sacrifice for our own.  The procedure is still there, only the symbol has been replaced with the reality.  

If we do not understand the difference between procedure, which remains, and symbolism, which must be replaced with the reality, we should be keeping our mouths shut on these matters and making absolutely no attempt to teach on them.  Why?  

Quote

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  Matthew 5

You don't lose your salvation as a result of this stupidity as some teach, but you are relegated to the lowliest places in the Kingdom.  You will be as the Gibbeonites in the temple, relegated to carrying "firewood" and "water", whatever those realities may be.  These were still important jobs.  The sacrifices cannot be made without either one, but they were the lowest status jobs in the temple and these people of levitical status never got to actually teach the people of God.  

Why else don't you want to be teaching people to put away these laws instead of perform them with the reality instead of the symbols?

Quote

4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.  Genesis 9

Quote

17 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelites and say to them: ‘This is what the Lord has commanded: 3 Any Israelite who sacrifices an ox, a lamb or a goat in the camp or outside of it 4 instead of bringing it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord—that person shall be considered guilty of bloodshed; they have shed blood and must be cut off from their people. 5 This is so the Israelites will bring to the Lord the sacrifices they are now making in the open fields. They must bring them to the priest, that is, to the Lord, at the entrance to the tent of meeting and sacrifice them as fellowship offerings. 6 The priest is to splash the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting and burn the fat as an aroma pleasing to the Lord. 7 They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for the generations to come.’

8 “Say to them: ‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice 9 and does not bring it to the entrance to the tent of meeting to sacrifice it to the Lord must be cut off from the people of Israel.

10 “‘I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. 11 For the life (soul) of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.[c] 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, “None of you may eat blood, nor may any foreigner residing among you eat blood.”

13 “‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14 because the life (soul) of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life (soul) of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.”  Leviticus 17

Anyone who does not properly treat the blood (soul) of the sacrifice (or any animal they have killed for any reason) is guilty of the blood of that animal and God requires an accounting.  Remove the symbols from this and go with the reality and we begin to get into the laws of the watchmen which God states in Ezekiel 3 and 33 as well as other laws where he makes us responsible in some way for the salvation of someone else.  This, along with the law of the sin offering is why Jesus said, "23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you,24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift," Matthew 5.  This is speaking of the sin offering, and there is similar language in the text of that law in Leviticus 5-7. To go along with this text is another I have read a few times but have not been able to locate again in the last few years which says if you bring a sacrifice to the temple to cover your sins but you intentionally continue in those sins you are guilty of the blood of that sacrifice as well.  This is why Paul says we are not to sin freely so that grace may abound.  We will be required to make an accounting for the blood (soul) of our sacrifice, which is Jesus.  

Wine is also a symbol for the blood (soul) and except in the Passover seder the sacrificial wine was never to be ingested by either the priest or the supplicant.  It was to be ministered as the blood was usually pouring most of it out beside the altar of sacrifice, but occasionally with some taken into the holy place and placed on the horns of the altar of incense (which in Hebrews Paul says is part of the furnishings of the Most Holy Place; this is not an error on his part, but is a discrepancy not easily understood) and on the veil separating the direct presence of God in the Most Holy Place from the holy place.  

I do not know all the realities illustrated by these symbols.  In my years of detailed study of the Law of God I have had a specialty assigned to me by God that does not require a very detailed understanding of the sacrificial system and its realities, but I do pick up some things.  I know the altar is the heart, I know the blood is the soul; I know that the soul and the spirit are NOT the same thing as those teaching from a Greek, Egyptian and Manichean perspective seem to believe.  So I can only give you a vague outline of how these realities work, but that in no way diminishes my understanding of how important it is that those who have the responsibility for ministering the "blood (soul)" of the sacrifice for those placed under your care really is.  I am not going to be teaching anyone to disregard the proper procedure by saying these laws no longer apply simply because the symbols do not now, and never really did have any power in themselves.  When I do that, as most pastors and theologians and even lay people on these forums do, I make myself responsible to God for their souls, most especially if those souls are lost. Better to keep your mouth shut about things you know little or nothing about than to lead them into sin and the violation of God's law.

[Ron Amnsn]

8 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

God did not "change His mind" (as you say).  It was HIS plan, to bring in a "better way" - a "new way" to receive "atonement".

I agree that God did not change His mind.

However, if it was God's plan all along to do away with the Levitical priesthood when Messiah died, then we have a serious, serious problem.

If that was actually God's intention, then God would have been dealing very dishonestly with Aaron, Phinehas, the priests, and the Levites.  God promised them and their descendants a perpetual priesthood and a share of the sanctuary gifts and offerings as their inheritance throughout their generations (in lieu of tribal territory).  And if you are correct, God would have made these promises and covenants while already knowing that he did not plan to honor what he was promising while he was promising it.  And not only that, it would also mean that when God was reaffirming His covenants and strengthening His promises to the Levitical priests and Levites and their descendants through Jeremiah the prophet, God did so while knowing that he still did not intend to honor the original promises and covenants He had made to Aaron and Phinehas and to their descendants, and that He had no intention of keeping the new promises and affirmations that he was currently giving through Jeremiah (See Jeremiah 30:14-22).  I certainly do not believe God could do this, and I think those who teach this are bearing false witness against YHWH.  Yet this is the inescapable logical outcome of the teachings of most Christian denominations -- that God does not keep his covenants or promises and that He never intended to keep them even as He was speaking them.

If God would do this to the Levitical priests and Levites, as you seem to believe, what makes you think God has better intentions for those who inherit the "new covenant"?  How do you know God will not renege on the "new covenant" a few days, years, or decades after you reach the streets of gold?

No! No! Absolutely not!  What you are saying about YHWH cannot possibly be true. God faithfully keeps his promises and covenants.  God keeps his covenants, even after the men who received those covenants are long dead. 

It makes me shudder to realize that I used to accept the erroneous teachings that inevitably lead to the horrendous conclusions I have outlined above.

[Ron Amnsn]

11 hours ago, jackson said:

i agree with Paul when he refers to the shadow of things to come as what was nailed to the cross, and those shadows were the ceremonial law.

But what if Paul was intending to say they are an "outline of things to come"? 

if Paul's single statement about the continuing usefulness of the appointed times wasn't meant to disagree with what God commanded regarding the appointed times that are memorials?

What if Paul doesn't have the authority to overturn the Word of God given through Moses?

It seems you are making big assumptions that are not supported by Scripture.

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Since the first destruction of the temple by the Babylonians did not signify the end of the Levitical priesthood or the end of sacrifices, why would you assume that the second destruction of the temple by the Romans would signify that?

Before the Babylonian destruction, the LORD said it would only be for 70 years.  He did not give an end point for the Roman destruction and so on. 

Satan WANTED to bring an end to that Covenant, so that Messiah could not be born in Bethlehem, born "under the Law".  He had to be "born under the Law" (Sinai Covenant) in order to receive the reward (promise) by that law - that being "the land promised".  He fulfilled the condition (perfect obedience) and will receive the reward  (dominion).

The LORD preserved Judah so that Messiah could come in fulfillment of the prophecies.

Evangelicals teach that prophecies of Israel's return to the land, are now being fulfilled in the current nation of called Israel.  They teach that the LORD is bringing all of this about.  I totally disagree. 

I believe it is all part of Satan's plan to deceive the whole world.  I'm reading a book, "When A Jew Rules the World".  In my opinion the author places everything in the 7th millennium (restored nation of Israel ruling the world, Israel as only DNA descendants of Jacob and those who go through physical circumcision and training in Judaism, Messiah reigning from the Temple at Jerusalem) that actually belongs in the 8th millennium.  It is a perfect set-up for Satan to defeat the Muslims (the counterfeit Antichrist) and then appear in the rebuilt Temple as Messiah.  It will be a perfect deception! 

 

[8thdaypriest]

17 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

If the covenant was obsolete, why would the "arm" of the Lord be acting in Israel at all?  That sounds like classical Christian anti-semitism where Christians supposedly get the new covenant while the Jews get to keep the curses of the old covenant.  Logically, if the curses of the covenant are still valid, the covenant itself must still be valid.

Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father, but through me."  

And no nation receives "blessings" from the LORD, except through Jesus either.  He is the "one mediator".  85 to 90% of Jews living in the current nation called Israel are SECULAR.  They do not even believe that God exists, much less pray in the name of Jesus.  And I'm supposed to believe that God the Father is protecting them, and blessing them.  I don't think so. 

So many folks today throw out the "antisemitism" or racist or Islamaphobe charge/label, when faced with logic they don't have an answer for. 

I am NOT against anyone.  I would seek to help anyone of any race.  But I will teach what I believe to be truth - regardless of the nationality or religion of those who hear my teaching.

The Olive Tree is Israel.  Branches were broken off, because of unbelief IN CHRIST.  The tree continues to live.  Gentiles believers are "grafted in" to THAT TREE.  So today - most of the branches on that Olive Tree were originally "wild branches".  Yes!  That doesn't mean ALL of the branches were "wild".  There WERE  "natural branches" that remained attached, and there were "natural branches" that were broken off, and then "grafted in again". 

This is NOT about RACE.  I am just as surely a daughter of Abraham as any DNA Jew, because I am "adopted in the beloved" - "grafted in" to THAT TREE.

Redeemed Israel will "inherit the land" because she belongs to Christ - NOT because her people descended from Jacob. 

[joeb]

On 8/25/2016 at 9:30 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

OK.  Let's read Chapter 5.

NKJ  Deuteronomy 5:1 And Moses called all Israel, and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your hearing today, that you may learn them and be careful to observe them. 2 "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 "The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive. 4 "The LORD talked with you face to face on the mountain from the midst of the fire. 5 "I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up the mountain. He said: 6 `I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

7 `You shall have no other gods before Me.

8 `You shall not make for yourself a carved image-- any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 9 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 10 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

11 `You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

12 `Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

14 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

16 `Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may be well with you in the land which the LORD your God is giving you.

17 `You shall not murder.

18 `You shall not commit adultery.

19 `You shall not steal.

20 `You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

21 `You shall not covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.'

This IS the Covenant which the LORD made with Israel just before they crossed into the promised land.  THIS is the Covenant with the blessings and curses. 

Moses wrote it on a scroll - so they could later hear it read every seven years.  (They could not get the original out of the Ark.)

Israel had broken this Covenant many, many times.  The LORD did not wipe out those who broke this Covenant.  He provided a means of atonement - the sacrificial system and Aaronic priesthood, which were symbolic, and pointed forward to THE TRUE means of atonement - Jesus.  When the true MEANS was in place, the old means (priesthood/sacrifices) was "changed". 

Changing the priesthood (therefore the sacrifices) does NOT do away with the Feasts of the LORD.

Chapters 1-5 of Deuteronomy is Moses repeating the history of how God had dealt with the COI and how they had rebelled against Him multiple times since being delivered from Egypt.  Moses repeating the 10 commandments is simply a continuation of that narrative.  

The new covenant/law is going to give does not begin until into chapter 6, but the preface to it begins with Deuteronomy 5:27.

Quote

Dueteronomy 5: 27 Go thou near, and hear all that the Lord our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.
  28 And the Lord heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the Lord said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.
  29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!
  30 Go say to them, Get you into your tents again.
  31 But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.
  32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.
  33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.

Notice the language in verses 27 and 31:  "God shall say" and " I will speak".  Both phrases can never be seen as referring to past events.  Those verbs are future tense and refer to actions yet to take place.

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/27/2016 at 9:53 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

As you know, you are making this up.  It does not say this in Scripture.

In Revelation 11:19 it says, "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple."  Which covenant is contained within that ark?

The Ten Commands are a promise of what the LORD will write on our hearts.  So you could say the New Covenant is presently contained in the Ark. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/28/2016 at 11:25 AM, Ron Amnsn said:

It looks like you are trying to get "annulled" from Hebrews 9:10, by pulling the "time of setting things right" from the future into the present or past.  As we can see from what Jesus said in Matthew 24, he did not expect things to be set right at his first coming.

So Ron, you would equate "all is fulfilled" with the "time of setting things right" ??  WHEN is THAT TIME - in your opinion?  It must be some times AFTER "heaven and earth shall pass away" - so that would put it AFTER the Second Coming.  Right?

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/27/2016 at 11:55 PM, jackson said:

Are you saying that OT people were preventing from loving and keeping the Law, and now NT people have the great advantage of being able  to love and keep the law?

 

 

Psalms 119:165,Great peace have they which love Thy law: and nothing shall offend them" 1:2   But his delight [is] in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

 

 119:86   All thy commandments [are] faithful: 

 

119:151   Thou [art] near, O LORD; and all thy commandments [are] truth.  119:172 for all thy commandments [are] righteousness.

 

 

 The commandments are only a yoke of bondage to those who don't love them and wish to do their own will.

Ask Daniel, Noah, Enoch , Elijah, David,, Joshua, Caleb etc  if the Commandments were a yoke of bondage to them.

 

 

If you think the ceremonial law with its feast days, minus the sacrifices, is still obligatory for the Christian then how do you explain the following:

 

 

1. John called them feasts of the Jews and Passover of the Jews -   John 2:13; 5:1; 5:4; 7:2; 11:55

 

 

2. Paul did not  religiously keep the feasts  - Acts 18:11

 

 

3. Hebrews calls them carnal ordinances imposed until the reformation, while he called the Law of God, spiritual  -  Heb 9:9-10 vs Rom 7:14

 

 

4.Peter called them a yoke which was hard to bear - Acts 15:10

 

 

5. James said to not trouble the gentile converts with the ceremonial law - Acts 15:19

 

 

6. Why were the commandments written by God in stone , denoting their immutability while the Law of Moses was written on parchment by the hand of Moses, noting its impermanence  Psm 11:8 vs Heb 7:12

 

 

IF ones does NOT have the Spirit in ones heart - THEN God's Law is a burden and hard to bear.  Any person would sink under it. 

Only to one in whose heart it is written - is it a "delight".  David was such a person, but even he failed, and the "curse of the law " found him too. 

[LifeHiscost]

I did not start to grow in grace until I accepted and began focusing on this as a Divine principle, ever effective.

…29Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” ....Matthew 11

When coupled with this, insurmountable things can be accomplished.

4Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud 5or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. 6It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. 7Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.....1 Corinthians 13

.....2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

      3 For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

 

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  

[8thdaypriest]

21 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I agree that God did not change His mind.

However, if it was God's plan all along to do away with the Levitical priesthood when Messiah died, then we have a serious, serious problem.

If that was actually God's intention, then God would have been dealing very dishonestly with Aaron, Phinehas, the priests, and the Levites.  God promised them and their descendants a perpetual priesthood and a share of the sanctuary gifts and offerings as their inheritance throughout their generations (in lieu of tribal territory).  And if you are correct, God would have made these promises and covenants while already knowing that he did not plan to honor what he was promising while he was promising it.  And not only that, it would also mean that when God was reaffirming His covenants and strengthening His promises to the Levitical priests and Levites and their descendants through Jeremiah the prophet, God did so while knowing that he still did not intend to honor the original promises and covenants He had made to Aaron and Phinehas and to their descendants, and that He had no intention of keeping the new promises and affirmations that he was currently giving through Jeremiah (See Jeremiah 30:14-22).  I certainly do not believe God could do this, and I think those who teach this are bearing false witness against YHWH.  Yet this is the inescapable logical outcome of the teachings of most Christian denominations -- that God does not keep his covenants or promises and that He never intended to keep them even as He was speaking them.

If God would do this to the Levitical priests and Levites, as you seem to believe, what makes you think God has better intentions for those who inherit the "new covenant"?  How do you know God will not renege on the "new covenant" a few days, years, or decades after you reach the streets of gold?

No! No! Absolutely not!  What you are saying about YHWH cannot possibly be true. God faithfully keeps his promises and covenants.  God keeps his covenants, even after the men who received those covenants are long dead. 

It makes me shudder to realize that I used to accept the erroneous teachings that inevitably lead to the horrendous conclusions I have outlined above.

Ron,

All of those who rise to eternal life at the "first resurrection" (at the Second Coming) will become "priests of God and of Christ".  I would think that many faithful priests of Yahweh, from years past, will come up in that resurrection.  They WILL receive the promised reward.  But so will all of the faithful, who will also become "priests of God and of Christ".  The reward promised is for ALL of the faithful - not exclusively for Levite priests. 

You make some very good arguments Ron.  Very good.  The problem I have is concerning the timing of the NEW Covenant with Israel.  WHEN did it/does it START? 

How can we be "married" to the LORD as partakers of the Sinai Covenant, while we are "betrothed to another" husband - the One who rose from the dead, by a New marriage covenant? 

Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (NKJ)

Exactly WHAT is included in "all" (til all is fulfilled).  Does "all" include every prophecy concerning Christ's death?  My answer would be yes.

Does "all" include all of the Fall Feast prophecies?  Possibly.  (The Feasts WERE acted prophecy of those things Christ would do.)  If that is the case, then not a jot or a tittle has passed from the law, and those of us "grafted in" to Israel, are STILL under that Sinai Covenant, with every jot and tittle. 

Does "all" include every prophecy concerning the future Kingdom of Messiah in the New Earth ?  Yes!

Jesus said two things:  "til heaven and earth pass away"  AND "til all is fulfilled".  I think we probably can equate the two. 

So WHEN exactly does "heaven and earth pass away"?  Doesn't that happen at the Second Coming? 

2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

No human beings - left on the earth - will survive this!  I absolutely do NOT believe that redeemed Israel will rule over "the nations" who survived the last plagues, during the 7th millennium.   But that's a different subject.  

So Ron, are you OK with a few jots and tittles passing from the Law at the Second Coming? 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

Hebrews 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law."

A "change of location" from earth to Heaven, would NOT really change the Law - would it.

It sure looks like a jot or tittle was "changed" here Ron.  In which case the "all" WAS "fulfilled" at Jesus' death.

Can you explain this verse some other way, so there is not really a "change of the law" ? 

I'm listening.

[Ron Amnsn]

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The Ten Commands are a promise of what the LORD will write on our hearts.  So you could say the New Covenant is presently contained in the Ark. 

I suppose you "could say" just about anything to try to weasel out of believing that God keeps his covenants with Israel.

Nevertheless, it looks like we agree that the covenant document contained in the ark of his covenant that is seen in heaven in Revelation 11:19 records the same covenant that was in the ark of the covenant in the earthly tabernacle that was set up at Sinai.  Since the words of that covenant start with "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery" and God is keeping the ark containing that covenant in the heavenly temple at the time the seventh trumpet sounds, it is evident that God is still keeping that covenant with the nation he brought out of Egypt.

Of course this evidence in Revelation agrees with the teaching of Jesus that not a stroke of the Law will pass away until certain events take place.  God's covenant with Israel happens to be recorded in that portion of Scripture that Jesus and the Jews referred to as "the Law".

So, when are you going to acknowledge that Jesus commanded you to specifically NOT think that he came to annul that covenant or to make it obsolete?

[8thdaypriest]

9 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I suppose you "could say" just about anything to try to weasel out of believing that God keeps his covenants with Israel.

 

Now you're accusing me of some devious intent.  Please Ron, don't get into that spirit.  I really want to sort through, looking for the truth.

[8thdaypriest]

I've been asking myself since yesterday IF there was any part of the law that WAS "all" fulfilled.  And I would have to say YES - the Law of Sacrifices.

The Law of Sacrifices, had existed from the gate of Eden, and it WAS "all" (completely and totally) fulfilled in the death of Jesus.  Jesus is not going to die again during the coming fulfillment of the Fall Feasts.  He will be acting as High Priest on the coming Day of Atonement, but He will NOT die again.  I think that was the point being made in the Letter to the Hebrews. 

And a thought occurred to me last night.  That veil, 3 inches thick and 80 ft high, at the entrance to the Temple - on that veil was a gorgeous depiction of "heaven and earth".  That veil was torn in two by God the Father, when Jesus died.  Thus - "heaven and earth" did "pass". 

Jesus did NOT SAY "the law will not pass til all is fulfilled'.  He said  "one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law".  His words suggest that some PART of the Law will "pass" out of the Law as a whole.  That PART is the Law of Sacrifices.  Because that PART was "all" fulfilled. 

That PART is not the Feasts because they were NOT "all" fulfilled.  Jesus still has His part to play as High Priest in the coming Fall Feasts.  And the Feasts will be kept in the New Earth - as memorials of the great events in God's plan of salvation.

 

 

[Ron Amnsn]

15 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

I did not start to grow in grace until I accepted and began focusing on this as a Divine principle, ever effective.

…29Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” ....Matthew 11

Yes, it's true.  Now, which "yoke" was Jesus living by when he said this?  The same one of which Jesus told Moses to say,

"For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’  Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’  But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it."  Deuteronomy 30:11-14

[joeb]

On 8/23/2016 at 10:47 PM, jackson said:

Thanks Joeb for the recommendation. But I have his books . i say books because in addition to the  book you mention, i have his. two book set titled  "Practical lessons fo the Church of Today".

I have found them very interesting and his insights into the Jewish culture, economy and language are very helpful in Bible study.I will open them again and see what he says about what he thinks was nailed to the cross that was"against us"

By the way, there is an interesting verse in Daniel which clearly differentiates the Moral Law from the Law of Moses regarding cursings.

Dan      9:11    Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that [is] written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.  
 

I think you misunderstood what I was referring to here.  Probably because I was ambigious. 

I was pointing out that much of what Jesus addressed was the Jew's reliance upon the Mishna and Gemarra over and above the Torah.  In other words they relied more on human thought than on divine revelation.  The texts you pointed out to me about the law were mostly referring to the writings in the Mishna and Gemara as they would often dismiss the laws given by God.  Examples are that if you needed to work on Sabbath if you gave enough money to the "temple" you would be held guiltless by the priests.  Another would be the law requiring children to support their parents.  If you gave the "temple" enough money you would be "released" from that obligation by the priests.  Any time Jesus said, you have heard it said, this is the type of thing he is referring to.  

One more thing on Colossians 2.  If you will read verses 15 to 23 you will find that after everything Paul says about shadows, sabbaths, etc...  he gets to the nub of things and talks about the "doctrines and commandments of men".  This is, to me, once again, Paul referring to the Jews reliance on the Oral law over and above scripture.  Jesus said exactly the same thing in Matthew 15:9.

I like the text from Daniel.  Good find. 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/28/2016 at 9:42 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

You seem to be saying that the Sinai Covenant is only "in the process" of vanishing.  It is STILL in effect.  We today are STILL under that covenant. 

I don't believe we can be "betrothed" to another WHILE we are still married to the former "husband". 

Paul calls the risen Christ "another" husband. 

Romans 7:2 "Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband."

Romans 7:4 "In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God."

We are not still bound to the former "husband" that Paul spoke of in the metaphor in Romans 7.  You are assuming that Paul meant it was God's covenant that we were bound to and were set free from.  But Paul clearly says it was something different than what you have assumed.

Look at Romans 6, which is part of the same discourse.

6:2  "By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?"
6:6  "We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin."
6:7  "For one who has died has been set free from sin."
6:11 "So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus."
6:12 "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions."
6:16 "Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?"
6:17 "But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed"
6:19 "For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification."
6:20 "For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness."
6:22 "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life."

Then someone inserted a bogus chapter-break in the middle of Paul's thought.

Notice that chapter 7 starts with "Or" which lets us know that Paul is continuing the same point but using another way to illustrate the same thing.  In the next few verses Paul uses "the law of marriage" to illustrate how someone is set free from something that has bound them, according to workings of a law that they were familiar with, and can become bound to something new.  Notice that after the husband dies, the woman is not free to become promiscuous, nor to become a harlot.  She is only free to become bound to a new husband, according to the same law that bound her to the first husband. 

So when Paul says in verse 3 "she is free from that law" he does not mean that the law has become invalid, and he makes that clear in the next phrase, "and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress."  What would make her "not an adulteress"? It is the same law of marriage that Paul is basing his illustration on -- that would have made her an adulteress before her husband died -- which now determines that she is not an adulteress.

So is the point of Paul's illustration that the woman has become "free from the law"?  No. Because the same law of marriage still binds her to her new husband, just as it did to the first husband.  The point of the illustration is that she became lawfully unbound from one thing and became lawfully bound to another thing.  That totally supports the point that Paul was making previously in Chapter 6, that once we die to sin through the death of Messiah, we are no longer bound to sin.  We are now free to be bound to Messiah and to righteousness.

[LifeHiscost]

5 hours ago, jackson said:

Ron , thanks for taking the time to answer point by point.

Now both  Jew and Gentile go directly to our  heavenly High Priest  for forgiveness of sin. The earthy Sanctuary and its services as well as  its accompanying feasts are obsolete. Yes, it is not a sin to observe the feast days, but as a part of the Law of Moses , it is terminated. 

 

 

Matthew Henry Commentary
9:20-27 An answer was immediately sent to Daniel's prayer, and it is a very memorable one. We cannot now expect that God should send answers to our  prayers by angels, but if we pray with fervency for that which God has promised, we may by faith take the promise as an immediate answer to the prayer; for He is faithful that has promised. Daniel had a far greater and more glorious redemption discovered to him, which God would work out for his church in the latter days. Those who would be acquainted with Christ and his grace, must be much in prayer. The evening offering was a type of the great sacrifice Christ was to offer in the evening of the world: in virtue of that sacrifice Daniel's prayer was accepted; and for the sake of that, this glorious discovery of redeeming love was made to him. We have, in verses 24-27, one of the most remarkable prophecies of Christ, of his coming and his salvation. It shows that the Jews are guilty of most obstinate unbelief, in expecting another Messiah, so long after the time expressly fixed for his coming. The seventy weeks mean a day for a year, or 490 years. About the end of this period a sacrifice would be offered, making full atonement for sin, and bringing in everlasting righteousness for the complete justification of every believer. Then the Jews, in the crucifixion of Jesus, would commit that crime by which the measure of their guilt would be filled up, and troubles would come upon their nation. All blessings bestowed on sinful man come through Christ's atoning sacrifice, who suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. Here is our way of access to the throne of grace, and of our entrance to heaven. This seals the sum of prophecy, and confirms the covenant with many; and while we rejoice in the blessings of salvation, we should remember what they cost the Redeemer. How can those escape who neglect so great salvation!

 

  

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  

[8thdaypriest]

21 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

We are not still bound to the former "husband" that Paul spoke of in the metaphor in Romans 7.  You are assuming that Paul meant it was God's covenant that we were bound to and were set free from.  But Paul clearly says it was something different than what you have assumed.

Look at Romans 6, which is part of the same discourse.

6:2  "By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?"
6:6  "We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin."
6:7  "For one who has died has been set free from sin."
6:11 "So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus."
6:12 "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions."
6:16 "Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?"
6:17 "But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed"
6:19 "For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification."
6:20 "For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness."
6:22 "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life."

Then someone inserted a bogus chapter-break in the middle of Paul's thought.

Notice that chapter 7 starts with "Or" which lets us know that Paul is continuing the same point but using another way to illustrate the same thing.  In the next few verses Paul uses "the law of marriage" to illustrate how someone is set free from something that has bound them, according to workings of a law that they were familiar with, and can become bound to something new.  Notice that after the husband dies, the woman is not free to become promiscuous, nor to become a harlot.  She is only free to become bound to a new husband, according to the same law that bound her to the first husband. 

So when Paul says in verse 3 "she is free from that law" he does not mean that the law has become invalid, and he makes that clear in the next phrase, "and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress."  What would make her "not an adulteress"? It is the same law of marriage that Paul is basing his illustration on -- that would have made her an adulteress before her husband died -- which now determines that she is not an adulteress.

So is the point of Paul's illustration that the woman has become "free from the law"?  No. Because the same law of marriage still binds her to her new husband, just as it did to the first husband.  The point of the illustration is that she became lawfully unbound from one thing and became lawfully bound to another thing.  That totally supports the point that Paul was making previously in Chapter 6, that once we die to sin through the death of Messiah, we are no longer bound to sin.  We are now free to be bound to Messiah and to righteousness.

Ron,

You seem to be saying that Israel was "married" to sin, or to Pharaoh.  If one is "enslaved" then she is being held against her will - NOT legally "married". 

Yes - the LORD sets us free from Pharaoh (Satan/slavery), but that is NOT freeing us from a "marriage".  Israel was never described as "married" to Pharaoh. 

Israel WAS "married" to the LORD.  (Betrothal IS the legally binding covenant of marriage.)

THE SINAI COVENANT (with Israel) WAS A MARRIAGE COVENANT
 
    Israel was not married to the LAW. She was betrothed to the pre-incarnate Son of God, who made a betrothal covenant with her. The Law detailed the terms of that marriage covenant, which is why idolatry was termed "adultery".

    Isaiah 54:5  “For your Maker is your husband, The LORD of hosts is His name; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel; He is called the God of the whole earth.”

    Jeremiah 3:14 “Return, O backsliding children,’ says the LORD; ‘for I am married to you.”

    Jeremiah 31:32 “‘the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.’”

Ezekiel 16:32  “You are an adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband.”

Non-Israelites were NOT included in that "marriage" unless they became Israelites by circumcision and instruction. 

Gentiles who came to faith in Jesus WERE simply freed from "slavery" - just as the Children of Israel once were.  They are now partakers of the New Marriage Covenant.  For them He is a husband, but not "another" husband.