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

[joeb]

Deuteronomy 31: 26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of theLord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

[joeb]

What law was a witness against us?  The law placed in the side pocket of the ark of the covenant just before the COI entered the Promised Land.  No other law has this distinction.

[8thdaypriest]

2 minutes ago, joeb said:

Deuteronomy 30: 19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Hence my argument that the "curses" were "nailed to the cross". 

Galatians 3:13 “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us:”

    What is “the curse of the law” ?  Answer:  death
    Is the law itself a curse ?  Answer:  No!

The same Law proclaimed both blessings and curses.  Jesus took upon Himself the curses, leaving for us the blessings - of the Covenant. 

[8thdaypriest]

Deuteronomy 29:20-21 “The LORD would not spare him; for then the anger of the LORD and His jealousy would burn against that man, and every curse that is written in this book would settle on him, and the LORD would blot out his name from under heaven.  And the LORD would separate him from all the tribes of Israel for adversity, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this Book of the Law,”

    Daniel 9:11  “Yes, all Israel has transgressed Your law, and has departed so as not to obey Your voice; therefore the curse and the oath written in the Law of Moses the servant of God have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against Him.”

THE CURSE IS NOT CONFINED TO ISRAEL

    Isaiah 24:6  “The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants, Because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore the curse has devoured the earth, And those who dwell in it are desolate. Therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, And few men are left.”

[joeb]

18 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Hence my argument that the "curses" were "nailed to the cross". 

Galatians 3:13 “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us:”

    What is “the curse of the law” ?  Answer:  death
    Is the law itself a curse ?  Answer:  No!

The same Law proclaimed both blessings and curses.  Jesus took upon Himself the curses, leaving for us the blessings - of the Covenant. 

So, no matter how many times the Bible says that a particular set of laws was given as a "testimony against" the COI/Jews you just ignore it?  Just as I've been saying on another thread, the entire Bible must be taken into account to arive at truth.  Yes, Christ was made the curse of the law for us, but the Bible only defines one set of laws as a curse or a blessing.  And you find that insignificant?  I do not.  I simply cannot ignore it, nor get past the cognitive dissnance created by the belief that everything God used to teach the COI/Jews about the plan of salvation was a testimony against them.  If it was against them, so it is against us just to study the plan of salvation. 

[Unchained]

"He has destroyed what was against us, a certificate of indebtedness expressed in decrees opposed to us. He has taken it away by nailing it to the cross." - Colossians 2:14 NET

The word χειρόγραφον (ceirografon) used here is a technical term, it refers to a "legal bond", a "certificate of indebtedness". It's clear that it wasn't the law itself that was nailed to the cross, but the "ceirografon", the document of our debt.

[Green Cochoa]

6 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

"the handwriting of ordinances which were against us"

How were the LORD's appointed Feasts "against" the Israelites??

For the record: the above is a significant misquote of the scriptures, with the change of just one important word.  It should read instead:

"the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" (KJV).

Do you see the difference?  The ordinances were not "against us."  The handwriting was.  Knowing this little detail helps us to understand the usage of the word "against."  No one in his or her right mind would presume from this text that handwritten things were detrimental to us.  This then begs the question of what does "against" mean in the verse.  I have already explained this carefully, yet the myth persists that the laws of God would be against us.  Such could hardly be further from the truth.  Those laws have always been for our benefit.

Let's look again at the meaning of "against," courtesy of BlueLetterBible.org:

Blotting out ^G1813 the handwriting ^G5498 of ordinances ^G1378 that was against ^G2596 us, ^G2257 which ^G3739 was ^G2258 contrary ^G5227 to us, ^G2254 and ^G2532 took ^G142 it ^G846 out of ^G1537 the way, ^G3319nailing ^G4338 it ^G846 to his cross; ^G4716

 

Lexicon Results

Strong's G2596 - kata

κατά

Transliteration kata		Pronunciation kä-tä' (Key)
Part of Speech preposition		Root Word (Etymology) A primary particle
TDNT Reference n/a	Vines View Entry

Outline of Biblical Usage

1. down from, through out

2. according to, toward, along

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 480

AV — according to 107, after 61, against 58, in 36, by 27, daily + 2250 15, as11, misc 165

Of those words in that definition, I would choose "toward" as being a superior translation in the text in question.  In other words, the meaning of the word allows for the text to read as follows:

<< Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was toward us, which was opposite us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; >>

Words and definitions matter.

If you sit across from me, it does not mean that you cross me. 

If you sit opposed to me, it does not mean that you oppose me.

If you sit facing against me, it does not mean that you are against me.

…and if you are "against" me or my ideas, you definitely are not "kata" me.

 

[8thdaypriest]

Moses WROTE down the Law which the LORD dictated.  He put that Law in a pocket on the outside of the Ark - in the MHP. 

He told the Israelites that it would remain there, to serve as a "witness"  - should they rebel against this Law.  It would also "witness" to their obedience, and therefore right to the blessing, should obedience be the case. 

Jesus obeyed, and therefore this Law serves as "witness" FOR Him, that He may claim the promised blessing. 

It was proof they had been warned of the penalty for rebellion.  And it was proof the Law had been communicated. 

I don't understand how that Law could be "nailed to the cross".

[Green Cochoa]

4 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I don't understand how that Law could be "nailed to the cross".

Are you still sacrificing lambs on an altar and presenting the blood to atone for your sins?  Was not our Sacrifice nailed to the cross already in fulfillment of the law of sacrifices?  

[8thdaypriest]

Joeb began by saying that the written ordinances were placed "in the side of the Ark".  He said they were facing the Israelites and were facing "against" them. 

His argument is based on the physical positioning of the Written Torah, within the Tabernacle. 

First:  There was no instruction to put a pocket of any sort on the side of the Ark of the Covenant.  There is no record that the Ark had any pocket on its outside. 

The words translated "in the side of" just mean "next to" or "to the side of" - the Ark. 

Deuteronomy 31:26 “Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.” (KJV)

Deuteronomy 31:26 “Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;” (NKJ)

Deuteronomy 31:26 “Take this book of the Torah and put it next to the ark with the covenant of ADONAI your God, so that it can be there to witness against you.” (CJB)

“put it beside the ark”  (Deu 31:26 NRS)

“place it beside the ark” (Deu 31:26 NIV)

“place it beside the ark” (Deu 31:26 NAU)

 

[8thdaypriest]

21 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Are you still sacrificing lambs on an altar and presenting the blood to atone for your sins?  Was not our Sacrifice nailed to the cross already in fulfillment of the law of sacrifices?  

Green,

As I have explained, the way to show that animal sacrifice was rendered obsolete when Jesus died, is the "change" of the priesthood, from Aaronic to Melchizedek, under the NEW Covenant. 

And a NEW Covenant of Marriage was necessitated by the death of "the husband" of Israel. 

The particular verse we are discussing is not needed to END the sacrifice of lambs. 

[8thdaypriest]

Moses wrote down ALL the words he spoke to Israel.  They are preserved for us as the Torah - also called "The Books of Moses". 

I doubt whether a scroll that large would have fit in any small "pocket" on the side of the Ark of the Covenant.

Moses wrote down the words of his final address to Israel - recorded for us as the Book of Deuteronomy (excepting the final chapter following Moses death). 

"Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying:  'Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you.'" 

The Levites could not enter the Most Holy Place - ever.  Only the High Priest could enter there once a year - on the Day of Atonement.  Even then - touching the Ark meant death.  Even if the High Priest WAS going to place this Book of Moses next to the Ark in the MHP, he would have to wait six more months.  The Israelites crossed the Jordan into the Land of Canaan on Nissan 10, in the Spring, before Passover. 

It is much more likely that "next to the Ark" would mean in the Holy Place - inside of the Tabernacle.  (The writer of Hebrews puts the Alter of Incense in the MHP, because of its proximity to the Ark.)

That final address covered much more than the "ceremonial" or prophetic Law.  It reviewed the events of the wilderness wandering.  It talked about rebellions and their consequences.  Moses talked about idolatry and images.  He talked about tithe.  He reviewed the Ten Commands of the Covenant once again (Deut Cpt 5).  Moses wrote down the "First Commandment" - "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might."  Over and over Moses admonishes them to keep the Commands of the Covenant, and cautions them against disobedience of those Ten Commands.  This was all part of what Moses wrote down.  And on and on and on

I don't think you would say the Ten Commandments were "nailed to the cross" as most Evangelicals do.  They use our discussion verse to preach that "the Law" (the entire OT Law) was "nailed to the cross". 

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Green,

As I have explained, the way to show that animal sacrifice was rendered obsolete when Jesus died, is the "change" of the priesthood, from Aaronic to Melchizedek, under the NEW Covenant. 

And a NEW Covenant of Marriage was necessitated by the death of "the husband" of Israel. 

The particular verse we are discussing is not needed to END the sacrifice of lambs. 

The new covenant is the same as the everlasting covenant, and both was and is the same covenant by which the patriarchs must be saved.  You have yet to show otherwise.  Therefore, the "new" covenant changes nothing of significance.  The real change it makes is in our own perspectives: we do not save ourselves by our obedience, and we are not able to keep our promises to obey.  The new covenant tells us that God will put His laws in our hearts, and change our hearts--something we cannot do of ourselves.  But this covenant was described by Moses.

In Hebrews 8:10, we read of the "new" covenant that "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people."  But where did this covenant originate?  Certainly not in the New Testament.

Jeremiah 31:33 says "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

The "everlasting covenant" is mentioned in Genesis 9:16; 17:7,13,19; Leviticus 24:8; 2 Samuel 23:5; 1 Chronicles 16:17; Psalm 105:10; Isaiah 24:5; 55:3; 61:8; Jeremiah 32:40; Ezekiel 16:60; 37:26; and Hebrews 13:20.     Only the last one is in the New Testament.  So the "everlasting covenant" is definitely a concept preceding the New Testament.  The verse in Hebrews says: "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (Hebrews 13:20-21)  Paul here recognizes the "everlasting covenant" as being still valid.  It has not been abolished (as if something "everlasting" could be).  Go back, then, to the Old Testament to find out what it is.

[8thdaypriest]

9 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

The new covenant is the same as the everlasting covenant, and both was and is the same covenant by which the patriarchs must be saved.  You have yet to show otherwise.  Therefore, the "new" covenant changes nothing of significance.  The real change it makes is in our own perspectives: we do not save ourselves by our obedience, and we are not able to keep our promises to obey.  The new covenant tells us that God will put His laws in our hearts, and change our hearts--something we cannot do of ourselves.  But this covenant was described by Moses.

In Hebrews 8:10, we read of the "new" covenant that "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people."  But where did this covenant originate?  Certainly not in the New Testament.

Jeremiah 31:33 says "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

The "everlasting covenant" is mentioned in Genesis 9:16; 17:7,13,19; Leviticus 24:8; 2 Samuel 23:5; 1 Chronicles 16:17; Psalm 105:10; Isaiah 24:5; 55:3; 61:8; Jeremiah 32:40; Ezekiel 16:60; 37:26; and Hebrews 13:20.     Only the last one is in the New Testament.  So the "everlasting covenant" is definitely a concept preceding the New Testament.  The verse in Hebrews says: "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." (Hebrews 13:20-21)  Paul here recognizes the "everlasting covenant" as being still valid.  It has not been abolished (as if something "everlasting" could be).  Go back, then, to the Old Testament to find out what it is.

The "Everlasting Covenant" - the always was / always will be covenant, between God and every created sentient being,

essentially said, "I am your God, and you are my created beings.  You serve and worship Me, and I provide for you."  

The Everlasting Covenant worked by God's indwelling, of sentient beings with free will.   

The Everlasting Covenant included the possibility of rebellion, and separation from God.  Created beings could "brake" with that Covenant, but it contained NO PROVISION for return with healing.

Such rebellion/separation would end in death because God is the source of the continual input of energy necessary for the continuation of created (non-self-sustaining) LIFE.

Conclusion:  The original (before sin) Covenant between God and Adam/Eve WAS the "Everlasting Covenant".     Adam/Eve BROKE that Covenant. 

Isaiah 24:5 "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant."

THE QUESTION IS:  Was the Everlasting Covenant (between God and every created sentient being) THE SAME AS the Covenant made between God the Father and His Son?  This Covenant between God and His only Son was made BEFORE anything was created.  This covenant include the provision of the Son's incarnation and death IF sentient beings rebelled. 

I believe we are talking about TWO DIFFERENT COVENANTS.  1.  between God and created beings  2.  between God the Father and His Son

 

Created sentient beings were NOT AWARE of any rescue provision, in original Covenant with God.  Neither angels nor Adam were aware of a rescue provision.  

Therefore I would say that created beings were NOT party to the Covenant between God and His Son, which provided for rescue. 

 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

Continued:

The New Covenant is a THIRD covenant.  Parties to this Covenant are (1) God the Father and (2) willing created sentient beings. 

The TERMS of this New Covenant include repentance, sorrow for sin, recognition of God's Son as Savior and Master and King.

Human beings must CHOOSE to enter into The New Covenant.  OT believers did that by sacrifices (if their hearts were right).  NT believers do that through belief in Jesus as savior and king.

The NEW Covenant provides a way back - through a "savior".  The healing and restoration come through the infilling of God's spirit. 

The promise God made to Adam/Eve (after they sinned) of a "savior" - the promise God made to Abraham in the night vision, WAS the New Covenant promise.  But it was only a promise UNTIL the provision (death of God's Son) was met.  Yes - provision of the spirit was given to OT persons, based upon that promise, but it was STILL a promise. 

And STILL today, we have NOT YET realized the full-fillment (complete fulfillment) of the promise. 

The full realization of the New Covenant (the full infilling of the Spirit with full healing) will not come UNTIL we are "returned to the land". 

Look at the CONTEXT of Ezekiel 36:26 and Jeremiah 31:31-34

Ezekiel 36:24 "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 "Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God." (NKJ)

The gathering from all nations happens at the Second Coming resurrection.  The return to the land given to your ancestors (Adam and Eve) will happen when redeemed Israel is returned to this earth at the end of the 7th millennium. 

Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying,`Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (NKJ)

The Sinai Covenant (the TEN) did NOT include provision for healing and return.  The New Covenant does. 

The sacrificial system and Feast Days presented the promise of the New Covenant.  It's rather obvious the New Covenant has NOT YET been fully realized, because we are still teaching our neighbors, saying, "Know the LORD". 
 

[8thdaypriest]

13 minutes ago, jackson said:

You are mixing up the covenants. It is the New covenant that Jesus confirmed in the 70th week.

Confirming the Covenant

Gen 3:15      And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This is  the promise of the everlasting covenant given to Adam after the fall. It was renewed to Abraham as Christ was to come as a seed of Abraham.

Gen  22:18    And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Now this is also called the New Covenant because it is confirmed by the blood of Jesus and not the blood of animals which was of the Old Covenant.

Hope in the coming  Messiah Was counted for righteousness, but only the death and offering of Jesus' blood could  confirm the covenant

Dan 9:27       And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

In order for  Christ to confirm the covenant he had to not only shed his blood, but he had to live a spotless, sin free life- for only a lamb without blemish is worthy for the propitiation of sin. This he preformed in the 70th week, being sacrificed in the midst of the week, after three and one half years of ministry.

In summary, He confirmed the "New Covenant" in His three and one half year ministry by living out a perfect life and offering His body as a spotless propitiation for the sins of the world.

I don't think I'm "mixing up" anything Jackson.  You quoted the KJV because it translates as "confirm the covenant".  Compare these other translations. 

ASV  Daniel 9:27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week:

CJB  Daniel 9:27 He will make a strong covenant with leaders for one week

NAU  Daniel 9:27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week

NIV  Daniel 9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.'

NKJ  Daniel 9:27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;

NRS  Daniel 9:27 He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week

The one who takes away "sacrifice and offering" (the daily) IS the one who desecrates the Temple and sets up the "abomination of desolation". 

Daniel 11:31 Forces sent by him shall occupy and profane the temple and fortress. They shall abolish the regular burnt offering and set up the abomination that makes desolate. (Dan 11:31 NRS)

[8thdaypriest]

You just don't need to nail the prophetic Feasts and sacrifices to the cross, in order to END the sacrifice of animals. 

The Law required that every sacrifice be brought to “the priest” at “the place” where the LORD would “put His name”.  That place was later identified as the Temple at Jerusalem. (See Deut. 12:11-14, I Ki. 14:21, 2 Chr. 12:13).  It was a death penalty offense to sacrifice anywhere else! 

If you CHANGE the PRIESTHOOD, from Aaronic to Melchizedek - there is no place to offer an animal sacrifice! 

Besides, the ENTIRE Sinai Covenant is "obsolete".  All of it!!  It will pass away.  In the New Earth, no one will visit the Ark or have the Ten Commands posted anywhere.

Hebrews 8:13  “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear” (NIV).

The "husband" of Israel, is the same LORD to whom we are now "betrothed".  It is therefore logical (I am God - I change not) that He would desire the same behavior from His NEW bride.  But the behavior He desires from His New Jerusalem bride, goes above and beyond what he asked of Israel at Sinai.  "Love your enemies" - for instance.  "Rejoice when you suffer for my sake."  He would have to write that Law on her heart. 

The Ten Commands are repeated in the NT.  The 7th day Sabbath is confirmed by Isaiah 66:22-23.  Besides - the LORD declared the 7th day "holy" long before the Sinai Covenant. 

It just makes more sense - to me - for the handwriting that was against us, to be the charges against us - stemming from our violation of God's Law.  That's the Covenant Law which humans had broken.   

It was Roman custom to post, above the head of the executed, a hand written list of the charges against this person.  Paul is playing on this theme, to say that the charges against US were nailed to that cross.  The charges against us, were the REASON Jesus was executed. 

 

[Green Cochoa]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Hebrews 8:13  “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear” (NIV).

 

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

I think that's a bit different.  It should be noted, however, that when people come to God, they often make promises which they cannot keep.  This is represented as the "first covenant."  But the "first" covenant for us is the "second" one with God, whose first covenant with us is the eternal covenant of grace.  God calls it the "new" covenant.  The word "new" is not "neos" in the Greek, but rather "Kainos."  It can mean "anew" or "renewed" and should not be looked upon as strictly a non-pre-existent covenant.  It has always existed, but is made afresh as we renew the covenant with God.

For an example of how "kainos" is used that demonstrates its "renewed" meaning, consider the "new" commandment Jesus gave to His disciples.

"A new (kainos) commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." (John 13:34)

But where did Jesus get the "new" commandment?  According to Matthew 22:36-40 the commandment was not "new" at all, but rather the core principle of the law of God which had already been given.  In Leviticus 19:18 we read "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD."  Was this a "new" commandment when Jesus gave it to His disciples?  Hardly.  Neither is the "new covenant" new at all, but rather new to us.  It must be renewed with us, for we have broken the covenant, trying to keep it in our own strength.

[8thdaypriest]

Thank you for explaining how Messianics and Hebrew Roots believers interpret "new" to mean "renewed". 

The Covenant which was rendered "obsolete" is the Sinai Covenant -  "the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones" (2Co 3:7 KJV) - the first covenant of marriage with Israel.

It was forbidden for a man to re-marry a woman he had divorced.  He could not "renew" his marriage to her.  And Jesus cannot "renew" His covenant with Israel. 

Any covenant of marriage with Israel (redeemed) must be a NEW covenant with a NEW husband. 

Which is why Paul told the ancient Jewish believers that they were now "betrothed to another" - to the one who rose from the dead.  Technically, we would say the risen Christ was not "another" but by the Torah, death legally rendered Him "another" (Romans 7:3-4).

We know that Israel redeemed will be "the bride of Christ".  All who believe are "grafted in" to this "bride". 

This is why I say His New Covenant IS a NEW covenant of Marriage with a NEW "husband".  The "bride" is also "new".  Believers are also rendered "new" by baptism.  They "die" and are "raised to walk in newness of life".   

The Abrahamic covenant of grace did not need to be "renewed".  It never lapsed.  It was never rendered "obsolete". 

All of those who believe in Jesus are made partakers of the Covenant God made with Abraham.  Which we have agreed is the Covenant of Grace. 

[8thdaypriest]

THE FEASTS IN THE ETERNAL KINGDOM

I don't understand the desire to set aside forever, the "LORD's appointed feasts".  Author Samuele Bacchiocchi (well accepted in SDA circles) believes the Feasts will be celebrated as memorials in the coming kingdom.  He believes - as I do - that animal blood and burning carcasses will no longer be presented to God as offerings.

Many believe the LORD appeared to Abraham - in the night vision of the torch and lamb (Gen 15) at the "appointed time" which would later be called the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the night meal when the Passover lamb was eaten.  Israel came out of Egypt 430 years later "to the day"  (on Nissan 15).  

The LORD's appointed times, did NOT begin with the LORD's commands to Moses at Sinai.  Why would then END at the death of Messiah?  They have not all come to pass.  The Fall "appointed times" have yet to see their fulfillment. 

I was 40 years old when I first realized the "last supper" as a Passover Seder.  I just thought it was their "last" meal together, before His death.  I'm not sure how I missed that, except that Adventists don't pay much attention to the Feasts (except for the Day of Atonement back in 1844). 

[FLO]

This is a good study on this very topic:  http://lawincolossians.com/
 

[Leslie NL Miller]

http://www.3angelstube.com/video/1914/vbs-10-which-laws-were-done-away-when-part-1

http://www.3angelstube.com/video/1915/vbs-10-which-laws-were-done-away-when-part-2

 

[Ron Amnsn]

5 hours ago, FLO said:

This is a good study on this very topic:  http://lawincolossians.com/
 

While I don't agree with every conclusion in the study FLO linked above, it is more Biblical and far more sensible than most of what has been posted in this topic.  Frankly, what folks have posted in this thread shows that we are mostly zealous for man-made traditions -- like we're intent on forcing the Bible to agree with our theology, instead of interested in understanding what God's word actually says.

Carefully read the study linked above.  It was evidently written by someone who respects and understands the Bible and who respects Ellen White's writings.

[8thdaypriest]

8 hours ago, FLO said:

This is a good study on this very topic:  http://lawincolossians.com/
 

Great study!!!  Well worth the read.

[joeb]

On 8/19/2016 at 8:24 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Joeb began by saying that the written ordinances were placed "in the side of the Ark".  He said they were facing the Israelites and were facing "against" them. 

His argument is based on the physical positioning of the Written Torah, within the Tabernacle. 

First:  There was no instruction to put a pocket of any sort on the side of the Ark of the Covenant.  There is no record that the Ark had any pocket on its outside. 

 

 

That is not true.  I have given text after text that shows that God clearly said that the laws He gave to Moses, which were also called a covenant, had clearly defined blessings and curses written right into the law.  And, God said, this is to be a witness against you(the coi) because you are a rebellious people.  Moses repeated this several times the book of Deuteronomy and I've posted three examples of this here on this thread. 

That the Israelites and their decendants understood this is clearly demonstrated in IIKings chapters 22 and 23, and in IIChronicles chapters 34 and 35.  Both passages tell the same story, and in the prophetess Huldah's reply to the inquiry from King Josiah she says how God viewed all of the rebellion against Him.  God says He will destroy both Israel and Judah because of their wickedness and because of the covenant they had entered with Him just before they entered the promised land.

Josiah clearly understood the implications of the book of the law that the high priest had discovered in the temple.  He understood their nation to be under God's curse because they had disobeyed God.  

Why don't you investigate for yourself what was said and done?  Instead you're throwing up straw men.  The evidence for what I have said on this thread is pretty much indisputable.  The wording is too clear to be denied.