Old Covenant vs New Covenant

July 23, 2015

In the Now the Fallout thread about the GC's decision regarding ordination for women, Myron posted a comment that started out with this:

There are some serious underlying issues involved in this that I have never seen anyone else on any of the SDA forums willing to discuss. The matter of women's ordination is simply a symptom of the more basic discussion of Old Covenant vs. New Covenant. This denomination is very much an Old Covenant religion and nearly every major doctrinal vote since the beginning has come down on the side of the Old Covenant. The first major vote was 1888 and the Old Covenant believers won. We eventually did accept the doctrine of righteousness by faith (at least with lip service -- too many of us still believe and preach righteousness by our works only, even while claiming we are not doing so) so now God is using a separate issue that still indicates the greater underlying problem that none of us will discuss.

In order to keep from side-tracking the original discussion maybe we can discuss the covenants and the underlying problem here.

July 23, 2015

I don't know where you get your ideas, but the leading New Testament authority on the two covenants is Paul. He speaks at great length about these two covenants and he is the primary, but not only source of the Christian's information and understanding of these two covenants. He speaks of the contrast in them at considerable length in Romans, Galatians and Hebrews, and he is supposedly the one who says that unless we have kept the entire law perfectly our entire lives we cannot be saved under this covenant. I say supposedly because I do not recall an actual statement to that effect, and will not take the time to read his discourses on the covenants right now. It could be that this is simply one of those things the church has been teaching for so long as Biblical truth that people have come to believe it is really in there when it is not.

I have developed my ideas about the Old Covenant by reading the covenant itself and how God interacted with the people with whom the covenant was made. In addition to my other studies, I re-read the Bible every year or two specifically searching for evidence in context that might support all the man-made theories that get promoted by various flavors of Christians, including some theories that sound similar to yours. So far the evidence to support those theories is conspicuously lacking from the Bible. Instead it appears that the covenant God made with Israel is a very good covenant, just as the Bible says it is. So when people start talking about the "Old Covenant" as if it was something defective, I want to check out their evidence carefully.

Where exactly are the passages in Paul's epistles that supposedly "contrast" the Old Covenant against the New Covenant? If you read Paul with the assumption that the original covenant with Israel is defective and that there is a contrast between the two covenants, won't that assumption color what you read? Almost all of the translators of our English versions seemed to believe that the Old Covenant was defective, so when they chose which English words to use they often chose words that build contrasts. But what if Paul believed that the "Old Covenant" was very good (as is taught in Scripture) and his intent was to show that the New Covenant builds on the original covenant, rather than intending to contrast the two covenants?

Paul testified in Felix's court that he believed everything that agreed with the Law and was written in the Prophets. (Acts 24:14) Paul uses the terms "Law" and "Prophets" to refer to those divisions of the Hebrew scriptures. If Paul's teaching about the New Covenant was contrasted against the Old Covenant, how could he truthfully testify that what he believed was in agreement with the Law? I believe that Paul's testimony to Felix was absolutely true because it agrees with what Paul lived and wrote. And besides Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would give his followers the words to speak when they were brought before rulers. (Luke 12:11-12)

I believe that what you have identified as the essence of the Old Covenant cannot be supported within the context of the story. However, you may have identified a very real and valuable concept regarding how people relate to the covenant in an ineffective way-- but you may have identified that concept as the covenant itself when it is not. I will deal with that in a later post.

July 23, 2015

I believe that we live under a NEW Covenant - not simply a "renewed" covenant. Under the New Covenant with Yahweh, thru the blood of Yeshua, the exclusive Levite/Aaronic priesthood is rendered "obsolete" because the priesthood returns to the original/older Melchizedek order. The blood/flesh of animals is also rendered obsolete, because we offer the one true offering - the blood of Yeshua.

I will just post links to a few studies on my website.

http://prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/40-TWO COVENANTS.pdf

http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/39-The End of Sacrifices.pdf

http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/20-Kingdom of Priests.pdf

Rachel Cory, ProphecyViewpoint.com

July 23, 2015

Since 1888 and the Covenants were mentioned, I thought I'd quote a few statements.

“Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself and…others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented. Had you received the true light which shineth you would not have imitated or gone over the same manner of interpretation and misconstruing the Scriptures as did the Jews… The covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind, but I was brought where the Lord gave me an insight into this matter. You have turned from plain light…” (Ellen White, Letter to Uriah Smith, March 8, 1890)

“Now I tell you here before God, that the covenant question, as it has been presented, is the truth.” (E. G. White, Sermon, March 8, 1890, Battle Creek.)

Here's something Waggoner wrote on the subject:

The covenant and promise of God are one and the same. This is clearly seen from
Galatians 3:17, where Paul asserts that to disannul the covenant would be to make void
the promise. In Genesis 17 we read that God made a covenant with Abraham to give
him the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. Galatians 3:18 says that God
gave it to him by promise. God's covenants with men can be nothing else than
promises to them: "Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him
again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things." Romans 11:35, 36,
KJV

After the Flood God made a "covenant" with every beast of the earth, and with every
fowl but the beasts and the birds did not promise anything in return. Genesis 9:9-16.
They simply received the favor at the hand of God. That is all we can do--receive. God
promises us everything that we need, and more than we can ask, or think, as a gift. We
give Him ourselves, that is, nothing. And He gives us Himself, that is, everything. That
which makes all the trouble is that even when men are willing to recognize the Lord at
all they want to make bargains with Him. They want it to be an equal, "mutual" affair--a
transaction in which they can consider themselves on a par with God. But whoever
deals with God must deal with Him on His own terms, that is, on a basis of fact--that we
have nothing and are nothing, and He has everything and is everything and gives
everything. (The Glad Tidings)

July 23, 2015

Waggoner wrote a book called "The Everlasting Covenant", available on line for free, and everything he writes is based on Scripture.

July 25, 2015

The basis of the Old Covenant is found in Exodus 19:8 where we read, "And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do."

Your assertion that these words are "the basis" of the Old Covenant makes it sound like it was the people wrote the Old Covenant, rather what actually happened-- that God offered to make a covenant, wrote the covenant with his own finger, and commanded that the covenant document be placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, and then gave Moses the instructions to give to the covenant people.

I don't see how your assertion fits into the story when we pay attention to the order in which things happen. When the Israelites said this, they hadn't yet heard what the covenant would require of them. They were just responding to an offer to enter into a yet unknown covenant.

When we read Exodus 19 we already know what happens next -- the Ten Words given from Sinai with fire and thunder, and the history of Israelites recorded in the Bible. God was also well aware of the future covenant and all the future failures of the Israelites that would happen over the years. But the people of Israel didn't know what we know about the rest of the story when, in Exodus 19, they arrive at Sinai and Moses presents to them God's invitation to participate in a covenant with God.

This is the invitation that the Israelites were responding to:

Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you to Myself.
'Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of [owned by or presided over by] priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel." (Exodus 19:3-6)

The Israelites did know what had happened previously-- how God had honored his promises to Abraham by bringing the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt with a mighty hand.

What had the Israelites done to earn the redemption that had already been provided? Nothing. Simply by being born they had inherited the promises given to their ancestors.
What had the Israelites done to deserve being chosen by God to enter into the offered covenant? Nothing.
Had the Israelites asked for this covenant? No.
Did they negotiate the terms of the covenant to get themselves a better deal? No.

When the covenant was offered, they simply answered "All that YHWH has spoken we will do." These were words of surrender. The Israelites were agreeing with what God himself had spoken in his invitation. We do a very similar thing when we agree to become a bondservant of Jesus (That's what it means to call Jesus "Lord".) and are grafted in to the Israelites and receive a place in the New Covenant that God makes with the Israelites.

And because the words that were spoken by the Israelites were spoken in unison by the people, I suspect that the words they repeated were already well known in their culture as a proper response when a great and conquering king offers to make a treaty with a vassal nation. But this case was different. In this case the Great King did not already have a people who were the native race of the dominating kingdom -- instead God was offering to the Israelites that elite position of being the Great King's own native people. Could the Israelites have negotiated better terms than that for the upcoming covenant? No. What had the Israelites done to deserve this unprecedented opportunity to become God's covenant people? Nothing. That's why I say the "old" covenant was based on grace. The people hadn't done anything to deserve the redemption already provided. And they had done nothing to earn the right to be chosen as God's own people. This opportunity to become the nation that shared the Great King's native language, culture, heritage and religion (and to later provide genes to the Great King's own son) did not occur because of anything the Israelites had done. And God was already aware that the Israelites would not keep up their side of the covenant, yet the covenant was still offered. The offered covenant was not dependent on the ability of the Israelites to successfully follow through with their promise of obedience to the future covenant.

God's covenant was based on grace. The response of the Israelites may have been based on something else.

July 27, 2015

The Sinai Covenant, or Contract, was not, nor could be, completely fulfilled until Israel settled in the Promised Land where grains and animals could be raised to be used for offerings and sacrifices. The intent of the Covenant was to create a nation of servants who would serve YHVH and obey all of his requirements. Besides the Decalogue, there were numerous regulations directing the day-to-day lives of the people, some including infection control practices. The regulations for sacrifices and offerings were all laid out, plus there were several prohibitions, the violations of which were to result in the death penalty. Some of those included illicit sex, cursing or striking one's parents, murder, and irresponsibly allowing a dangerous animal to kill someone.

The main purpose of these laws was to prepare a nation of servants to stand before their creator, YHVH, without being destroyed because of impurity. It was no accident that Israel was a nation of slaves while in Egypt. Under the direction of YHVH, Israel's mission was to occupy the Promised Land, then slowly expand their borders until the whole world served the LORD. Of course, over time, Israel failed miserably, repeatedly forgetting their contract and wandering off the path of righteousness, that is, obedience to the LORD's requirements. Although the Sinai Covenant has been long forgotten and ignored, it still stands, and someday humans will consent to its terms.

As the scriptures state, the "Old Covenant" and the "New Covenant" are the same, except that the "New Covenant" in its entirety is downloaded into the minds of those chosen to join the Kingdom of YHVH so that they will not disobey its requirements. Once implanted in the mind, it will be impossible for humans to override the programming in order to disobey the commands of the LORD.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to Paul's letters. He was eating hallucinogenic mushrooms and was quite confused, resulting in his spewing out nonsense which someone later turned into the holy, inerrant word of God. After Christ left this world, his disciples unfortunately made the decision to not teach the requirements of the Sinai Covenant. This opened the door to many, many denominations that had no understanding of the Covenant and did little or nothing to promote or enforce its terms.

I don't know if it would be possible today to fulfill the Covenant in a world of large cities and people living a great distance from a non-existent Temple. I think that the Covenant with the LORD will be re-established if/when the Ark of the Covenant and other furniture and articles from the Tabernacle and Temples are found and communication with YHVH is re-established. This is just prior to the time when the Woman in Labor delivers a Son who will rule the world with a Rod of Iron.

In other words, the City of YHVH, or woman in labor, arrives here and resurrects the 144K who were all martyred, who then establish the Restored Kingdom of Israel. With advanced abilities and weapons, the 144K soon conquer and subjugate the whole world. All opposition is eliminated and the Covenant Laws are enforced, hence the "Iron Rod", in order to establish the Kingdom of YHVH on the Earth for 1K years.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Aliensanctuary

July 27, 2015

Hi Ron. I quoted Waggoner, so the assertions are his, not mine. As I have time, I'll try to respond.

July 27, 2015

Hi Ron. I quoted Waggoner, so the assertions are his, not mine. As I have time, I'll try to respond.

Hi Pnattmbtc. I haven't had a chance to respond to your post about Waggoner yet. I was responding to something Myron said in the other thread.

July 27, 2015

Hi Ron. This addresses one of the points you raised in regards to the establishment of the Old Covenant.

The two women, Hagar and Sarah, represent the two covenants. We read that Hagar
is Mount Sinai, "bearing children for slavery." Just as Hagar could bring forth only slave
children, so the law, even the law that God spoke from Sinai, cannot beget free men. It
can do nothing but hold them in bondage. "The law brings wrath," "since through the
law comes knowledge of sin. Romans 4:15; 3:20. At Sinai the people promised to kept
the given law. But in their own strength they had no power to keep the law. Mount
Sinai "bore children for slavery," since their promise to make themselves righteous by
their own works was not successful and can never be.

Consider the situation: The people were in the bondage of sin. They had no power to
break their chains. And the speaking of the law made no change in that condition. If a
man is in prison for crime, he does not gain release by hearing the statutes read to him.
Reading to him the law that put him there only makes his captivity more painful.
Then did not God Himself lead them into bondage? Not by any means, since He did
not induce them to make that covenant at Sinai. Four hundred and thirty years before
that time He had made a covenant with Abraham, which was sufficient for all purposes.
That covenant was confirmed in Christ, and therefore was a covenant from above. See
John 8:23. It promised righteousness as a free gift of God through faith, and it included
all nations. All the miracles that God had wrought in delivering the children of Israel
from Egyptian bondage were but demonstrations of His power to deliver them (and us)
from the bondage of sin. Yes, the deliverance from Egypt was itself a demonstration not
only of God's power but also of His desire to lead them from the bondage of sin.
So, when the people came to Sinai, God simply referred them to what He had already
done and then said, "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My
covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth
is Mine." Exodus 19:5, KJV. To what covenant did He refer? Evidently to the one
already in existence, His covenant with Abraham. If they would simply keep God's
covenant, keep the faith, and believe God's promise, they would be a "peculiar treasure"
unto God. As the possessor of all the earth, He was able to do for them all that He had
promised.

The fact that they in their self-sufficiency rashly took the whole responsibility upon
themselves does not prove that God had led them into making that covenant.

July 27, 2015

God's covenant was based on grace. The response of the Israelites may have been based on something else.

Given that God's covenant with Abraham had everything anybody would ever need, why would God not simply refer to that covenant? That's what Waggoner argued God did. The covenant was based on grace, and the response of the people on unbelief. They initiated a different covenant than what God had had in mind, and God went along with them, so that they could return to His Covenant, the covenant of grace, based on faith in Christ.

July 27, 2015

Given that God's covenant with Abraham had everything anybody would ever need, why would God not simply refer to that covenant? That's what Waggoner argued God did. The covenant was based on grace, and the response of the people on unbelief. They initiated a different covenant than what God had had in mind, and God went along with them, so that they could return to His Covenant, the covenant of grace, based on faith in Christ.

Sounds like a winner to me but I seem to remember something on the order of a "New Covenant", the old one based on what "we will do" at least partially, while the new one would be based entirely upon what Jesus would do, our only responsibility being submission to His grace.

5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.....John 15

…4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,… Ephesians 2

God is Love! Jesus saves!

July 27, 2015

Sounds like a winner to me but I seem to remember something on the order of a "New Covenant", the old one based on what "we will do" at least partially, while the new one would be based entirely upon what Jesus would do, our only responsibility being submission to His grace.

5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.....John 15

…4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,… Ephesians 2

God is Love! Jesus saves!

You've got the basic idea, it sounds to me.

The "New Covenant" is also called "The Everlasting Covenant", and is the one made to Abraham, from whom Paul develops his argument relating to justification by faith. It's a bit confusing that the "New Covenant" came into existance before the "Old" one. Ellen White writes that the "New Covenant" is called such because the blood by which it was ratified came after the blood used in the Old one.

In the New Covenant, the law is written in the heart and in the mind. This was a "new" thing in terms of time, as this is what happened to Abraham (and, indeed, as far back as Abel), and happens to any believer in Christ. Believing in Christ, being justified by faith, being born again, partaking of the New Covenant (or Everlasting Covenant) are all synonmyns.

In the Old Covenant, the people in their unbelief did not react as Abraham did (Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness), but "all that the Lord said, *we* will do". They rashly thought they could provide the requisite righteousness, so the Lord made that righteous as explicit as possible, in order to show them that they couldn't, that they might be led to Christ, who could, and back to the New Covenant wherein Abraham had been justified.

July 27, 2015

You've got the basic idea, it sounds to me.

The "New Covenant" is also called "The Everlasting Covenant", and is the one made to Abraham, from whom Paul develops his argument relating to justification by faith. It's a bit confusing that the "New Covenant" came into existance before the "Old" one. Ellen White writes that the "New Covenant" is called such because the blood by which it was ratified came after the blood used in the Old one.

In the New Covenant, the law is written in the heart and in the mind. This was a "new" thing in terms of time, as this is what happened to Abraham (and, indeed, as far back as Abel), and happens to any believer in Christ. Believing in Christ, being justified by faith, being born again, partaking of the New Covenant (or Everlasting Covenant) are all synonmyns.

In the Old Covenant, the people in their unbelief did not react as Abraham did (Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness), but "all that the Lord said, *we* will do". They rashly thought they could provide the requisite righteousness, so the Lord made that righteous as explicit as possible, in order to show them that they couldn't, that they might be led to Christ, who could, and back to the New Covenant wherein Abraham had been justified.

In fact I'm of the opinion the whole portion of the "Old Testament" was allowed to transpire as a lesson book to enable mankind to realize the utter futility of struggling to save themselves.

11Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.…1 Corinthians 10

12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.....Ephesian 6

There is a place for struggle, but it is not the super human strength of ourselves that suffices as some might believe but rather the moment by moment yielding to the Holy Spirit's prompting.

…28"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30"For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."....Matthew 11 Emphasis theirs' LHC

This is a point that I find to often overlooked when the brethren talk about the trials of the last days. The three Hebrew worthies is a perfect example for the ease of walking in the fires of affliction when suffering is needed for our spiritual growth, a difficult lesson most often to be learned in the lands of plenty.

God is love! Jesus saves!

July 27, 2015

…28"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30"For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."....Matthew 11

This is a great verse, one too often overlooked, often thought of as, "My yoke is hard, and My burden is heavy".

July 27, 2015

This is a great verse, one too often overlooked, often thought of as, "My yoke is hard, and My burden is heavy".

::like::

Keep looking up!

God is Love! Jesus saves!

July 27, 2015

In the Now the Fallout thread about the GC's decision regarding ordination for women, Myron posted a comment that started out with this:

In order to keep from side-tracking the original discussion maybe we can discuss the covenants and the underlying problem here.

Those who think this is an "Old Covenant" denomination may be expressing their confusion on what the Old vs New Covenant is.

First of all the New Covenant is "made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah" - Jer 31:31-33 and also in Heb 8.

What is more under the New Covenant the moral law that defines sin - the "Law of God" as known to Jeremiah's readers in Jer 31 - is "written on the mind and on the heart"

So given that we all understand that basic point regarding the New Covenant - what is it that seems "Old Covenant - not New Covenant" about this denomination's set of beliefs?

Edited July 27, 2015 by BobRyan

August 9, 2015

Ron,

You assume too much, both about what I do or do not know, and about what scripture actually says. Now I'm going to assume just a little bit. I may be wrong, but based upon what you said about how you study this issue and upon many of the things you say in your posts I do not believe I am very far from the mark.

First, you have never really studied this issue, regardless of your claim. Rereading the entire Bible every few years keeping an eye out for passages that may apply to some particular question, whether this comparison of the "two" covenants or something else is NOT Bible study on those issues and will not replace sitting down with a Bible, with a concordance or searchable Bible software and a willingness to go to other source materials as well and really dig in the dirt. You cannot find a buried treasure without digging. Just scratching the surface every few years won't get you to the depths to which the real treasure is hidden.

Second, I believe your mind is made up and you absolutely refuse to be convinced of anything else. Why else would you quote directly from passages Paul wrote showing the inadequacy of the Old Covenant and preparing the church which was still heavily clinging to its practice for the destruction of its temple? I never said the Old Covenant was defective. At the time you wrote that no one else in this immediate discussion had either, although I have regularly seen people make this claim. I regularly get grief from people because I teach you can never reach the New Covenant fulfillment without first passing through the Old Covenant. This statement is essentially a summary of what Paul says in Galatians 3. That covenant and its simplified form of God's law came about because it was necessary for Israel, and everyone else, to learn God's law before they could come into full maturity (Paul's word was christos).

A quick side note is in order here. Paul was not talking about the law bringing us to Jesus. Were that the case he would have worded the matter as he did a short time later when he said, "²⁶So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith." I have not studied Greek and do not know all the intricacies of the different grammatical forms of chistos and christus and whatever other forms are used. The word christ simply means anoint. In this passage Paul is speaking of the process leading up to our own anointing as fully mature sons of God. The KJV translators called it our adoption. That term is somewhat correct, but we cannot think of it as westerners think of adoption today. In the old middle eastern custom, still practiced in some places today, I can adopt anyone as a son, but it is a multi-step operation done over years. Furthermore, it is a right of passage that applies to blood sons, not simply strangers I choose to bring into my family. It is a process that takes years and much training. There is only one difference between the ceremonies followed with blood sons and with sons brought in from the outside. With the blood son I anoint (baptize) him and circumcise him on the 8th day after his birth, and this ceremony is not to be delayed for any reason, even the Sabbath day; it takes precedence over all else. The son from the outside goes through an ear piercing ceremony described in Exodus 21:5,6. These ceremonies coincide with Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread and the Firstfruits of the Barley Harvest.

Later another right of passage ceremony occurs. This ceremony is not found directly in scripture, but various references are made to it. It coincides with Pentecost, otherwise known as the Feast of Weeks or the Firstfruits of the Wheat Harvest. This ceremony is the Bar Mitzvah (son of the law) ceremony, and once a son goes through this ceremony he leaves his mother's apron strings and begins direct instruction under his father's care learning his father's business. In some sense the ear piercing ceremony contains elements of this feast as well because the man going through that ceremony has already been learning the business of his master for the years of his bond. He is now simply acknowledging that the master is more than just his bondholder, but is his father as well, and he now has a personal stake in this business. Normally this ceremony is held when a person is 12 years old. It marks his entry into youth (not manhood as is normally claimed) and this is the terminology used by John in his first letter when he addresses little children, young men (youth) and fathers or old men. From this time on a young man was also expected to attend all the feasts in the place where God placed his name -- first Shiloah and later Jerusalem.

The final right of passage in the adoption process is the ceremony at which the father gives full rights of sonship to his sons, whether adopted or biological. This is the ceremony Paul is referring to in Galatians 4:5 as well as Romans 8:23 and 9:4. Romans 8:15 and Ephesians 1:5 make reference to the entire process, especially the circumcision (of the heart) ceremony 8 days after our (spiritual) birth. This ceremony took place sometime after a son reached 20 years old if he was not a Levite and after he was 30 if he was a Levite. At this time the father gave the son a signet empowering him to call on the full wealth of the estate at anytime it was necessary for him to do so and for all practical purposes he received his full inheritance from his father. Because of Babylonian thinking most sons (and fathers) did not believe the sons were to actually obtain this full inheritance until the father died, and this thinking remains among us to this day. (We see this in the story of the prodigal son where one son (huios: fully mature (adopted)I son) demanded his share of the inheritance and later the father had to explain to his other son, "All I have is yours." In other words, "I do not have to throw you a party because you have full access to all of this at anytime and can throw your own party anytime you want.) Jesus adoption occurred on the Day of Atonement in his 30th year when he was baptized and the Father publicly stated, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." After that time Jesus acted with the full authority of the Father in all matters (John 5:16-47).

I have been told by people who have studied Greek that in every instance in the Bible christos refers to the person of Jesus and is translated as such. I have been unable to confirm this from my own study of Greek texts and this does not agree with the entry in Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words which gives many examples of cases in which christos simply refers to an anointed person and says that only ho christos (the anointed) is translated as a direct reference to Jesus. In Galatians 3:24 Paul does not say ho christos, and the passage is speaking of the process that leads up to that final step in the adoption process where we are anointed as fully mature sons of God receiving the fullness of the Holy Spirit and the glorified body which cannot sin. Therefore, in Galatians 3:24 Paul is telling us that the law leads us to our own anointing, not necessarily to Jesus, although all who are anointed as fully mature sons of God are joint heirs with him, and in the sense of redemption law are his sons, therefore we cannot be led into this anointing without first being led to him personally in some way.

So, the law is not defective, and I have never said that it is nor will I ever say that it is. The law is necessary and serves an important purpose, and we cannot be saved without it, at least not in terms of becoming fully mature sons of God and fulfilling the Feast of Tabernacles. However, with Paul I will say that the law is deficient. There is a big difference. The law has no power to save us and therefore we do not derive our righteousness from it;That righteousness and the first step in our salvation can only come from faith in the blood of Jesus Christ and the work it does within us. The law can only convict us of sin and teach us what sin is. The difference between the Old Covenant and New Covenant is our relationship to the law.

Here I must point out something that is not simply assumption on my part, but something you made absolutely clear. You do not know what a covenant is, more specifically you do not know what the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are. You believe them to be the law, and they are not. You said:

I believe that what you have identified as the essence of the Old Covenant cannot be supported within the context of the story. However, you may have identified a very real and valuable concept regarding how people relate to the covenant in an ineffective way-- but you may have identified that concept as the covenant itself when it is not. I will deal with that in a later post.

Since you don't know what either the Old or the New Covenant is and you believe them to be the law, your understanding that the New Covenant builds upon the Old, despite everything Paul says on the subject in Romans (a lot less than people believe), in Galatians and Hebrews (nearly the entire books -- both of which deal with the comparison of the Old and New Covenants and how the old has been fully abrogated by the death of Jesus on the cross) is in no way surprising. What I do not know is why you insist on holding this incorrect view and why you ignore and deny most of what Paul says in the matter and twist the rest to support your view.

When you made this statement I immediately thought of a statement made by Stephen E. Jones in his sermon, The Fatherhood of God, made at a conference in Oklahoma City on June 15, 2008. There he says: "Too often what we have done is we throw away the law and we live by the Old Covenant. We should have thrown out the Old Covenant and lived by the law." To some extent you are doing this yourself, although you have thrown away both covenants and set up the law in their place. This is as much a problem as the problem Dr. Jones has identified here.

There is much in this sermon that you need to hear regarding the Covenants and then go actually study them for yourself. Unfortunately the sermon is no longer available on-line since Stephen never included a copy of it on his website and the videographer who recorded it no longer has an active website and likely is no longer in business for himself. My copy is in .flv formant and I cannot find a converter that will convert it to something I can post someplace if Stephen will allow it. For this reason I made a transcript of the video and use that when the need arises. The need does not arise very often because I am well able to teach on this subject myself without having to refer to any source material other than scripture, the only source material that really matters. I can make that transcript available to you if you wish. In the meantime I will give you the following quotes from that sermon.

When we get such a view of God’s holiness that we cannot even stand up at all, we have no right to look into his face and speak with him face to face, or to come to him as a child would a parent, then there’s something wrong with our relationship. It may not be wrong so much, but it’s inadequate. We are not seeing him as he wants to be seen. There is a relationship with him that is personal and not impersonal. Old Covenant is impersonal relationship with God; New Covenant is a personal relationship. And that is one of the characteristics, the chief characteristics of this.

In the materials I have studied and written over the last three weeks I quote in their entirety both the Old and New Covenants since you do not know what they are. Don't feel too bad about this lack of knowledge; it is nearly universal in the church. I referred to the locations of full statement of the New Covenant in past posts in the other thread, but I am guessing you have yet to go read them. For some reason I had come to believe that a full statement of the Old Covenant did not exist anywhere in scripture, but I find that I am mistaken, and I am very familiar with that full text. But we all have our blind spots and all of us must deal with them from time to time. Worse, they tend to be fluid as we change the idols of the heart that we allow to have the most powerful sway over us.

The New Covenant is stated by God in full in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Paul quotes it in Hebrews 8. Go read it now. This shows you the proper form you need to be looking for to determine the full statement of the Old Covenant which is located in Exodus 19:3-5 for God's portion of the covenant and Exodus 19:8 for the people's part of the covenant. (Since you don't know what a covenant is you aren't simply going to take my word for this, but that is ok. This is only meant as a starting point. However, the full statement of the New Covenant, which is unconditional, and which places the full onus on God to fulfill his conditions regardless of anything man does or does not do, shows clearly that the law itself is not and cannot be the covenant, therefore the Old Covenant is not and cannot be the law as you believe it to be. Do your own study, put away every thing that various preachers in the past have taught you concerning the covenants. For that matter, the only thing you are allowed to take from me into your own study is the statement which summarizes Deuteronomy 13 (the law of the false prophet), "Question everything; believe nothing that is not proven from God's law first and the rest of God's revealed word afterward.")

The covenants define our relationship to God's law, which is every word that proceeds from his mouth, not just the 10 Commandments or the rest of the law, or the rest of scripture, but every word he ever has spoken. God's law is not simply a bunch of rules; it is his character and his very nature. The Old Covenant is an impersonal relationship with a set of rules imposed on us from the outside and obedience to many of them goes against everything we are, and everything we really believe, but we do them anyway to get the promised blessings, or we ignore them and claim they no longer apply to us. The New Covenant is a personal relationship with a Father with whom we speak daily -- not just me speaking to him, but me listening as he speaks back to me through many different forms, and as we learn from him his word is written on our hearts and his character slowly begins to overwrite our characters.

And we come to Mt. Sinai for Pentecost. And the day which they call Pentecost, Pentecost of course is a Greek term, the Hebrew is Shavuot, but the Pentecost is essentially the day commemorated where God came down on Mt. Sinai in fire and spoke, and everyone heard in their own language. That was Israel’s Pentecost. The problem back then was the people ran and they said, “Don’t let God speak with us lest we die.” They didn’t want to die, they didn’t realize that was the whole idea. The fire kills the flesh, and they were afraid. There was no need to be afraid, but in their minds their concept of God was that he was this great king out there that didn’t really know them very well, that didn’t understand them and that he was out to get them. It was not that God was that way, or even that his law was that way, but that was men’s perception of God, and they thought that his word would kill them. They were only half right.

Yes, it kills, but Moses went up into that fire, but they became afr… you see, they were all afraid of that fire, and they’ve been calling it hell ever since. It is not hell; it is the character of God. It’s his character. Every word that proceeds out of his mouth is in some way is a revelation of his character. It’s like he’s painting a picture and he puts himself into it. Every artist… every painting that an artist does is really a self-portrait, they say. It is no different with writing. Writing too, is a self-portrait. And when we understand this, then we no longer have to be afraid of the law. The only thing that was put away was the Old Covenant. The covenant is the manner in which you deal with the law; it is not the law itself.

The fire is God. When he appeared to Moses it was not the bush that was God, it was the fire that did not consume the bush that was God. Deuteronomy 33:2 describes God's word as a fiery law going forth out of his right hand, and many other texts refer to his word as being fire (Jeremiah 5:14, Jeremiah 20:9, Jeremiah 23:29, and even Isaiah 5:24, which says because the people despised his word fire (his word) would consume them. If they value the flesh more than God's word that word will still devour their flesh in the end; it will simply hurt much more because they must lose something they love more than that word, which they hate.

The law is very limited; the law is weak in that way because it cannot change the heart. But the Spirit of God, by this spiritual process, when we have an external law out here, which really is the whole word, when that is transferred from outside to inside by the power of the spirit then we become the living word, and that is what it’s all about. It’s not about how good can I act today; and oh, I’m going to restrain myself so I don’t steal today. I’m going to restrain myself so I don’t murder my enemy down the road or whatever the case is. I’m going to restrain myself so that I don’t covet. You know, all of that is good, but it’s not really the issue, but there is a place for it. There is a place for it. There’s a reason why God instituted that, and the reason was good because we come from a good God. God did not institute something that was evil. He instituted something that was inadequate so that we would learn its not going to work. It will not change the heart.

When a Pharisee… what is a Pharisee? I don’t mean the party of the Pharisees, but the attitude of the Pharisee was that we know all 613 laws, or whatever the case is, and we’ve got them all down theologically correct, and we’ve got our whole Talmud here that we have written that will expound upon this, and by the way, they torture these things into submission to say what they want them to say, and by their traditions they made the law of God to no effect. And Jesus gave examples of that. Jesus never put away the law, he put away their understanding of the law. Too often what we have done is we throw away the law and we live by the Old Covenant. We should have thrown out the Old Covenant and lived by the law. When I say the law I mean begin to conform to the outworking of what has already been accomplished at the cross on a positional basis. But just because he has made us righteous, has pronounced us righteous, it is an imputed righteousness according to Romans 4, the great passage that Martin Luther discovered. Imputation is defined in Romans 4. God is calling what is not as though it were. Part of that is he is calling what is not… it is not … as though it were. And it takes that second work of Christ here to bring us up to speed, so it’s no longer imputed, but its actually infused, or as the theologians say, transfused into us where it becomes a part of our nature.

There’s two things. The first work of Christ made us positionally righteous. The second work makes us actually righteous. And this process is expounded upon in types and shadows and in pictures all through the law and in the prophets. You can see it everywhere you go. And there’s many levels; you can approach it on all sorts of different levels. I tried to do that as much as I could in my book on the Laws of the Second Coming.

Paul is very clear on this issue throughout the book of Romans. The law is weak and has no ability to save us; it can only convict us of sin, and if we have an Old Covenant relationship with God and his law, rather than a New Covenant relationship with God and his law, the law also condemns us. Under the New Covenant relationship the law does not condemn us, but rather teaches us what sin is (What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid! Nay, I would not have known sin, but through the law; for I would not have known lust, except that the law had said, “Thou shalt not covet.” Romans 7:7) Thus once again we see that the Old Covenant is NOT the law and the New Covenant does not simply build on the Old Covenant by expanding the law as Jesus demonstrated in Matthew 5. That expansion, which does exist in the New Covenant simply makes it much more difficult for the power of our flesh to complete a task that was already impossible under the Old Covenant revelation of the law. If the law is the covenant as you claim, by that supposed adding to the Old Covenant by the New Covenant God simply guaranteed that no one other than Jesus will ever be saved. Your theology makes matters worse, not better, even taking grace into consideration, since we live in a society that refuses to grant grace and God's law forbids the granting of grace to any who refuse to grant grace to others (Matthew 18, James 2:13.)

This is law too, and it is law that defines when and how grace is to be granted. I don't know about you, but I do know SDAs do not believe in the law of Jubilee in its final fulfillment, in which grace will be granted to every person who has ever lived. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." This is a verse of scripture which the Church almost universally rejects and detests, no matter how much they claim otherwise. It is the same all in both cases -- no exceptions for any reason or God's word returns to him vain and unfulfilled. Either Jesus sacrifice is able to provide grace or it is not. If there is one person for whom this grace is denied, Jesus blood is powerless to provide that grace for anyone. Any person or organization which teaches otherwise does not show grace/mercy in their own judgment of others and therefore, according to God's law cannot be given mercy. Without a doctrine of Jubilee in which all judgment is limited and grace is eventually given to all none of this works, even the stuff you are teaching, which comes close to truth, but will never arrive at truth because you do not know the proper place to place these pieces in the puzzle. As I explained in my second post on the other thread, you and I are in full agreement that grace is the centerpiece of God's law, but the law of Jubilee grants grace to everyone; however the rest of the law demands that until the final Jubilee is declared no one who refuses grace to others will be granted grace, and that includes every prophet, preacher and denomination that preaches any form of everlasting punishment, no matter how much they claim to be keeping the Sabbath otherwise.

That is enough on my assumption number 1. It is more than I had intended to write, but for a start it was probably all necessary. Assumption number 2 was about the idols of your heart that seem to me to be there and strong enough to keep you from listening to anything else. Because of what those idols are perhaps I should have addressed that matter first. I made reference to this in the original study in the other thread when I spoke of things I simply will not discuss with Adventists because it is nothing more than wasted effort (unless God wishes that I hone my own skills and understanding of his word. He does require that we sharpen our swords from time to time, and none of us ever has a completely accurate understanding of his word. We need that sharpening that such discussion provides even if it feels like we are banging our foreheads against flint -- See Ezekiel 3:4-9)

Ezekiel 14:1-11 speaks of this and I have called this to your attention in the other thread but I did not look at that passage and its meaning. So we will take a moment here to examine this because it is on this basis that I determine whether I continue this discussion with you.

Some of the elders of Israel came to me and sat down in front of me. ²Then the word of the Lord came to me: ³“Son of man, these men have set up idols in their hearts and put wicked stumbling blocks before their faces. Should I let them inquire of me at all? ⁴Therefore speak to them and tell them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: When any of the Israelites set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet, I the Lord will answer them myself in keeping with their great idolatry. ⁵I will do this to recapture the hearts of the people of Israel, who have all deserted me for their idols.’

⁶“Therefore say to the people of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Repent! Turn from your idols and renounce all your detestable practices!

⁷“‘When any of the Israelites or any foreigner residing in Israel separate themselves from me and set up idols in their hearts and put a wicked stumbling block before their faces and then go to a prophet to inquire of me, I the Lord will answer them myself. ⁸I will set my face against them and make them an example and a byword. I will remove them from my people. Then you will know that I am the Lord.

⁹“‘And if the prophet is enticed to utter a prophecy, I the Lord have enticed that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and destroy him from among my people Israel. ¹⁰They will bear their guilt—the prophet will be as guilty as the one who consults him. ¹¹Then the people of Israel will no longer stray from me, nor will they defile themselves anymore with all their sins. They will be my people, and I will be their God, declares the Sovereign Lord.’”

This, along with Deuteronomy 13 is a passage that Adventists simply do not study because they both irrefutably and absolutely clearly point out major flaws in SDA doctrine concerning prophets and how God uses them and speaks through them. This is not the purpose for which I bring up this passage, but I will not resist the temptation to comment on it. Most Adventists who are not Ellen White teach that her writings are to be taken as the unerring word of God. Of course, those Adventists are ignoring a major counsel from her that she repeated many times:

Don't you quote Sister White. I don't want you ever to quote Sister White until you get your vantage ground where you know where you are. Quote the Bible. Talk the Bible. It is full of meat, full of fatness. Carry it right out in your life, and you will know more Bible than you know now. (Spaulding-Magan Collection, p. 174).

The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word.... Let all prove the positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God. (Evangelism, p. 256)

The Bible is our rule of faith and doctrine. (Gospel Workers, p. 249)

A great many Adventists prove they do not really believe in Ellen White and her message because they ignore this counsel so that they may continue to prove their own doctrinal beliefs from her writings, and even quite regularly use those writings to refute what the scriptures say, because quite frankly there are places where Ellen White's writings are in clear disagreement with scripture.

Deuteronomy 18, which SDAs teach in the prophet doctrines says that prophets accompanied by signs and wonders are always sent by God. There is nothing wrong with this doctrine; God said it. Deuteronomy 13 says that God will test us by sending prophets accompanied with signs and wonders who will teach the people falsely and everything every prophet says must be compared with what God has says before (most especially what he said through Moses -- Exodus 19:9) and if what the prophet says does not match that previous revelation the prophet and his (her) word must be rejected and the prophet must be stoned (subjected to instruction from the law of God.) Here SDA doctrine differs from scripture, although Ellen White herself still remains in substantial, if not complete agreement with it because she insists that we prove all things, even her own words, from scripture. Those SDAs, including pastors and evangelists -- and there are many, who insist on using Ellen White's writings to refute scripture, whether they are using her actual teachings (there are some that do not agree with scripture) or they are reinterpreting her as freely as they do scripture. We must be able to discern both these instances and we must obey God, not these prophets (and pastors and teachers) whom God sends to test us. Ezekiel 14 gives us a more detailed clue how this testing works.

Ezekiel 14 also teaches us that there are major problems with our interpretation of idols and idolatry. Most Adventists have some understanding that idols are something more than those statues they condemn the Catholics and non-Christians for including in their worship, but they have a very difficult time coming up with any definition of idol beyond these statues, money and television. Close examination of this passage and deep meditation on it reveals that these "idols of the heart" include any idea, doctrine or belief that we hold dear regardless of any available proof of their falsehood. When these heart idols come up and we go to consult with a prophet God himself speaks to us through that prophet but in such a way that the heart idols we hold so dear will freely reinterpret that word to be whatever we want it to be.

How is this possible? Several things are at play in these situations. First and foremost remember the proof I provided in my first post in the other thread that everything God speaks through a prophet is symbolism. This symbolism extends well beyond prophecy into things that are actual history which is demonstrated by Paul in Galatians 4 when he tells us that Abraham's two wives and two sons are allegory of the two covenants and uses these two pairs of people to compare and contrast the two covenants. Adventists have a very hard time accepting that everything a prophet says is symbolism, much less extending the symbolism to actual, literal events such as this, but Paul is absolutely clear that these lives are allegory for us in the study of the two covenants. It simply cannot be refuted if you accept that Paul's writings are scripture, but Adventists are nearly as adamant about this being impossible as you were that nowhere in Paul's writings does he compare and contrast the two covenants, much less reject the Old Covenant as a basis for salvation. Tell me -- Does your Bible contain the book of Galatians or is it just that your heart idol is too strong to allow you to see something that is so plain on its face? I know your Bible contains Hebrews (you quoted from it), which is just as plain, if just a bit less explicit about the matter, yet you cannot see the comparison of the covenants there, nor the proof of the inadequacy of the Old Covenant to save us that is the primary emphasis of about 2/3 or more of the book.

And that brings us to the second way in which God works it so that the heart idols will tell us exactly what we want to hear regardless of the word God speaks through the prophet we consult -- the strong delusion. But I am getting ahead of myself. We must first complete the examination of the symbolism aspect. Jesus answered this directly in Matthew 13 when "¹⁰The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

¹¹He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. ¹²Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. ¹³This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
    though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

¹⁴In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
    you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
¹⁵For this people’s heart has become calloused;
    they hardly hear with their ears,
    and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
    hear with their ears,
    understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’

What? Did he say, "I speak to them this way so that they won't see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their hearts and turn so that I would heal them?" Is that really what he said?. Jesus was quoting words he spoke to the prophet Isaiah 750 years before in his pre-incarnate form. Israel's blindness in part (Romans 11:25) was a major theme of the book of Isaiah and it turns out that the priests and prophets were a major cause of this blindness because God blinded them (Isaiah 29).

There is a factor of timing in the plan of salvation which we do not have the time do discuss in any detail here. The church does have a limited knowledge of that timing factor because Paul and many others speak of it (Paul most clearly, however), but they have almost no understanding of it. In 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 Paul says, "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ will all be made alive, but each in his own order (Gr.: tagma -- military squadron): the anointed first fruits, then those who are Christ's at his coming, then comes the end when he delivers up the Kingdom to the God and Father ... that God may be all in all." Because Christians have so little understanding of the prophecy of the three major feast days they also have no real understanding of these squadrons. On another SDA forum I have spoken of them often and in detail and I mentioned them in both posts in the other thread. For a more detailed study I recommend chapter 6 of Stephen Jones' book Creation's Jubilee. This book examines in detail the false doctrine mentioned above concerning the church's lack of grace, a doctrine which did not really become popular in the church until at least the 4th Century and perhaps as much as two centuries later, and which is still nearly universal in one form or another (including in this denomination) with considerable resistance to its correction.

Blindness in part is a major part of God's plan and he keeps us blind to prevent us from becoming aware and being healed before the proper time. Jesus continued in Matthew 13,

¹⁶But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. ¹⁷For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Yet they did not hear and see quite yet because Jesus then went on to tell them in plain language the meaning of the symbols in the parable of the sower.

When God speaks to us in symbol he is testing us. Yes, we have the ability to see and hear clearly, but will we put in the work to determine if we are properly defining these symbols. Very few people (including prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) will do so. They simply vomit out the same teachings that have been taught blindly and incorrectly for generations (Isaiah 28:7-13) and it becomes a curse that entraps the people and leads them into generational sin. Generational sin is a major issue in society and the church. God has used issues in my family (which I will not discuss publicly) to teach me some of the worst parts of this problem, and as a result I have a rather complete picture of the problem that I dare say most do not have, not so much because their own families lack these problems (although they may or may not be less severe in other families) but rather because 1) they will not look for the problems, and 2) they would not admit the problems even if they did look. The church is our family, and believe me, it has some extremely serious problems, and it absolutely refuses to face them (at least within one's own denomination) or to even admit the problems are there. It is true that most of us will give some kind of lip service to the concept of the church being a hospital for sinners instead of a showcase for saints, but we don't really believe it. Somehow the sins are always somebody else's and not our own; thus we violate the first law of judgment, remove the plank from your own eye so you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

As God speaks to us in symbol he is testing us to see if we really love him and will first examine ourselves to see if the problem being addressed is in us (whether in the symbolic form or the actual form) and whether we will test the word to see if we really do understand what the symbol is actually showing us. Very often this involves going to God for a further word of clarification, and this is where many fail and misinterpret what God said. One of the best examples of this that I know comes not from scripture, but from Herodotus Histories.

Near the end of History Number One Herodotus tells of the History of Cyrus (who God calls his anointed in Isaiah 45:1 and is thus a prophetic type of Jesus Christ, even though he did not know God, and did all the things he did without consulting God.) As Cyrus was marching in conquest of much of Asia, Croesus, the king of Lydia, a small empire in what is now Turkey feared his time would soon come (beginning in Histories, #1, paragraph 46). Seeking to ward of such a catastrophe he sent gifts along with tests for the gods to the temples of all the gods with the region seeking the one true God who could give him the best advice for dealing with Cyrus. Of course this was long after the temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed and before the new temple had been built so God chose to act through other means. Only the temples of Apollo in Delphi and Amphiaraos were able to pass the tests and provide acceptable signs and wonders that proved their god(s) able to give proper answers in the world of men. Croesus then sent more gifts along with the questions whether he should march against the Persians and whether he should ally himself with any other armies of men in doing so. The god answered if he should march against the Persians he would destroy a great empire, and if he were to do so he should find the strongest of the Greek cities and ally himself with them.

Croesus liked this answer and assumed it meant he would destroy Persia. Before going to war he consulted the Oracle again on another matter and the god cautioned him in the first matter saying, “But when it comes to pass that a mule of the Medes shall be monarch, then by the pebbly Hermos, O Lydian delicate-footed, flee and stay not, and be not ashamed to be called a coward.” Assuming that a mule would never be king over the Medes Croesus felt himself completely safe in attacking the Persians. Making assumptions when a god is speaking in symbol and vagaries is not a good thing.

Croesus went to war with Persia. As it turned out, Cyrus never was interested in Lydia at all and likely would never have attacked it had it not first attacked him. The war with Lydia delayed his plans to the north and angered him so that he dealt with Lydia a bit more harshly than he was known to deal with some other conquests.

After Sardis fell and Croesus was captured Cyrus himself prepared a test for the gods having heard that Croesus was a god-fearing man. He prepared a pyre and was going to see if any of the divine powers would save him. The fire was lit, Croesus had resigned himself to death and resisted what he perceived to be mocking from Cyrus, eventually was enticed into a conversation about certain matters. Cyrus repented of his efforts to burn Croesus, and ordered his men to extinguish the fire but by that time the fire had grown beyond their ability to control it yet had not reached Croesus. Seeing that Cyrus now intended to save him Croesus cried out to Apollo that if he had ever been acceptable to the god, please come save him and where the sky had been completely clear and calm there suddenly gathered clouds and a storm burst with violent showers extinguishing the fire. Cyrus then made him one of his most trusted advisors.

Later Cyrus allowed him to make another request of the god through the oracle of Delphi, and answer for why he was incited to war against Persia and why the god then enslaved him for doing the god’s will. Paragraphs 90 and 91 say,

Then Croesus sent certain of the Lydians to Delphi, enjoining them to lay the fetters upon the threshold of the temple and to ask the god whether he felt no shame that he had incited Croesus by his prophecies to march upon the Persians, persuading him that he should bring to an end the empire of Cyrus, seeing that these were the first-fruits of spoil which he had won from it. – at the same time point to to the fetters. This they were to ask, and moreover also whether it was thought right by the gods of the Hellenes to practice ingratitude.

When the Lydians came and repeated their message, it is related that the Pythian prophetess responded: “The fated destiny it is impossible even for a god to escape. And Croesus paid the debt due for the sin of his fifth ancestor, who being one of the spearmen of the Heracleidai driven by the treachery of a woman, and having slain his master took possession of his royal dignity, which did not properly belong to him. And although Loxias (Apollo) eagerly desired that the calamity of Sardis might come upon the sons of Croesus and not upon Croesus himself it was not possible for him to draw the Destinies aside from their course; but so much as these granted he brought to pass and gave it as a gift to Croesus. He put off the taking of Sardis for three years; and let Croesus be assured that he was taken prisoner later by these years than the fated time. Secondly, he assisted him when he was about to be burnt. And as to the oracle which was given, Croesus finds fault without good ground. Loxias told him beforehand that if he should march upon the Persians he should destroy a great empire. After hearing this, if he wished to take counsel well, he ought to have sent and asked further whether the god meant his own empire or that of Cyrus. Since he did not comprehend that which was uttered and did not ask again, let him pronounce himself to be the cause of that which followed. To him also when he consulted the Oracle for the last time Loxias said concerning a mule, but this also he failed to comprehend. Cyrus was in fact this mule, seeing that he was born of parents who were of two different races, his mother being of nobler descent and his father of less noble. She was a Median woman, daughter of Astyages the king of the Medes, but he was a Persian, one of a race subject to the Medes, and being inferior in all respects he was the husband of his royal mistress.”

I have been criticized in the past for using this example and I will not apologize for it. Christians reject much biblical truth concerning the way God works. Cyrus himself is called by God his messiah (anointed one) with even God admitting that Cyrus did not know God. We see God sending an evil spirit upon Saul (seven times between 1 Samuel 16 and 1 Samuel 18) and a lying spirit into the prophets of Ahab. God can work through the prophets of false gods if he so desires. Secondly, most if not all the points presented in this prophet presented in explanation fully fit the biblical counsel. I know SDAs do not really believe in the sovereignty of God (even though the give lip service to the concept) and all but completely reject any form of predestination, even though they do acknowledge Paul teaches the concept. The discussion concerning the fates largely follows biblical teaching concerning predestination and God’s sovereignty with some small changes to accommodate the belief system of a people who worshipped lesser spirits as also being gods rather than simply being ministering spirits as the Bible refers to them. There are other biblical points I could make concerning this and the added doctrines of men in Judaism and Christianity over the centuries, but this is not the place to take those on. Also the inability of even God to violate a previous vow as in the case mentioned concerning Croesus great-great-great grandfather is the same principle Paul uses in his discussion in Galatians 3 regarding the inability of the covenant of law (the Old Covenant) to invalidate the previous Abrahamic Covenant which is later equated with the New Covenant, neither of which relied upon obedience to any law to promise salvation to the whole world.

God spoke to Croesus through this prophet of a false god and he spoke truth, presenting many valid spiritual principles. That Croesus imposed his own interpretation on the symbols used by God was not God’s problem; it was simply a matter of testing Croesus to see if he would seek proper counsel or if he was just seeking “proof” of the answer he already believed. The idols of the heart can be very powerful things and if we love them more than truth a cryptic answer will not induce proper caution within us, and is more likely to encourage us in our belief of falsehood. God told Croesus his proper response in the first counsel should have been to come back and ask which empire would be destroyed, since there would be two in this battle, and in the second case if he could not understand the spiritual meaning of the symbol he also should have returned seeking clarification. Knowing that history tells us the oracle spoke only a few days each year and an answer to a follow up question must wait for a year one might understand why Croesus would be reluctant to wait for additional counsel, but his failure to do so cost him his empire even though God warned him of the danger and told him to flee it.

Then, of course as mentioned before there is the strong delusion. This is not to say the strong delusion was not already at work in the matter of the cryptic answer from God. By definition the idol of the heart is a strong delusion, but does not fully reveal itself as the man of sin (2 Thessalonians 2:3) until it becomes so strong that we cannot even see the statements that disprove it. There is a difference between someone seeing the 11 statements where Moses is either quoting God saying, “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart,” or simply saying God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and then saying, “But that’s not what that really means; see, these other four times is says Pharaoh hardened his own heart and that’s what Moses and God really meant,” and when seeing Galatians 4:21-31 saying, “Paul never compares or contrasts the two covenants and never says there is something wrong with the Old Covenant.” Of course I am paraphrasing your your response. Your actual response was:

I have developed my ideas about the Old Covenant by reading the covenant itself and how God interacted with the people with whom the covenant was made. In addition to my other studies, I re-read the Bible every year or two specifically searching for evidence in context that might support all the man-made theories that get promoted by various flavors of Christians, including some theories that sound similar to yours. So far the evidence to support those theories is conspicuously lacking from the Bible. Instead it appears that the covenant God made with Israel is a very good covenant, just as the Bible says it is. So when people start talking about the "Old Covenant" as if it was something defective, I want to check out their evidence carefully.

Once again I have never said it was defective. For that matter, although I do regularly teach that it was deficient (not the same thing as defective though most careless people would assume they mean the same thing) I never said this in any of the teaching I made in those two posts. You simply projected your own stuff on me so that you could raise your straw-man arguments that Paul never actually addressed this issue. It is too bad for you that your arguments against that deficiency (or defectiveness if you prefer) are so easily proven false.

²¹Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? ²²For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. ²³His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

²⁴These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. ²⁵Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. ²⁶But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. ²⁷For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,
    you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
    you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
    than of her who has a husband.”

²⁸Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. ²⁹At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. ³⁰But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” ³¹Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

-- Galatians 4

Paul cannot be any more clear than this. This is very much a comparison of the two covenants; this is very much a statement that the New Covenant is not simply an addition to the Old Covenant; this is very much a statement that only the New Covenant can save you. Paul goes on in Galatians 5 to say that you cannot live by both covenants at the same time. Either you live by the New Covenant and depend on it completely for your salvation because only the blood of Jesus can save you, or you return to the Old Covenant and live by all of its demands, not just the ones you happen to like because you are now bound by all of those laws. Oh, and by the way, forget about being saved because the law and that covenant have absolutely no power to save you, only to convict you of sin and as he tells us in Hebrews 10:4, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Um, isn't this statement proof of a deficiency in the Old Covenant? Or as you prefer to claim others are saying, a defect? If the purpose of the covenant is to save us from our sins and the sacrifice required by that covenant cannot take away the sins that condemn us and make our salvation necessary, is that not a defect or at least a deficiency? Where do you get this idol of the heart and why do you allow it to dictate to you what is and is not actually anywhere in the Bible?

True the difference twisting God's word to mean what you want it to say, and denying it is even in there is really only a matter of degree. Both are strong delusions, but one of these levels of delusion admits the word of God and simply tries to rework it so that it fits what the idol of the heart wants to believe and the other completely denies the existence of God’s word. True you quoted from Hebrews on a few occasions, although not this passage so I know you have read these words, but still you deny they even exist. This is the level of delusion I believe I am seeing in you, and if I am assuming correctly, discussing the matter with you at all is simply a waste of time. I pray that appearances are deceiving and that you are not so far gone, but I won’t hold my breath either.

If I am wrong we do have things to talk about. Your understanding of the law is not that much different from mine when we discuss it as law and not as being the covenant, and you have already caused me to take a closer look at some of my beliefs, reexamine their basis and correct them to be more in line with what Scripture actually says. Further discussion could be useful for both of us if we are not so stuck on our idols that we are not able to seek out and accept truth when God calls it to our attention, no matter who he uses as the vessel speaking that truth.

Yes, I have my idols too, and anyone who denies having idols of the heart is a liar. Yes, my idols blind me to various subjects and make my teaching and judgment much less effective. Yes, as it always is, my idols will be much more visible to you than they are to me, and in my self-examination to remove the planks from my eyes, I must rely heavily on the mirrors that are you and the rest of my brethren. Whether their accusations against me are true or not they will still give me major clues as to both my idols and their own and I must rely on those to guide me, both in my cleansing and the assistance I give them in their own cleansing process. So I have no problem hearing from you where you think I am wrong, so long as you provide scriptural proof as you have done thus far. So long as you continue bringing your sword to the fencing contest I have no objection to you calling the shots as you see necessary. I'm a big boy and even if I get stung a little bit from some thrust or parry that hits a bit too close to a vulnerable area I can recover and take care of myself.

I do have more to present in this discussion if we continue it. I have studied and written much on the matter in the last 3 weeks and I have also reviews a great deal of what I wrote on the matter in the past and will share some links to that as well if we continue this study together. However, I won’t be able to present what I have written in response to you as I have currently written it. When you study these things in any detail they become books very fast and that is just too much to present in a single post in a forum such as this. We will need to find a way to break things up a bit. Even this post is really way too much for a single offering on this kind of forum.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Myron
formatting changes

August 9, 2015

I have developed my ideas about the Old Covenant by reading the covenant itself and how God interacted with the people with whom the covenant was made. In addition to my other studies, I re-read the Bible every year or two specifically searching for evidence in context that might support all the man-made theories that get promoted by various flavors of Christians, including some theories that sound similar to yours. So far the evidence to support those theories is conspicuously lacking from the Bible. Instead it appears that the covenant God made with Israel is a very good covenant, just as the Bible says it is. So when people start talking about the "Old Covenant" as if it was something defective, I want to check out their evidence carefully.

Where exactly are the passages in Paul's epistles that supposedly "contrast" the Old Covenant against the New Covenant? If you read Paul with the assumption that the original covenant with Israel is defective and that there is a contrast between the two covenants, won't that assumption color what you read? Almost all of the translators of our English versions seemed to believe that the Old Covenant was defective, so when they chose which English words to use they often chose words that build contrasts. But what if Paul believed that the "Old Covenant" was very good (as is taught in Scripture) and his intent was to show that the New Covenant builds on the original covenant, rather than intending to contrast the two covenants?

Paul testified in Felix's court that he believed everything that agreed with the Law and was written in the Prophets. (Acts 24:14) Paul uses the terms "Law" and "Prophets" to refer to those divisions of the Hebrew scriptures. If Paul's teaching about the New Covenant was contrasted against the Old Covenant, how could he truthfully testify that what he believed was in agreement with the Law? I believe that Paul's testimony to Felix was absolutely true because it agrees with what Paul lived and wrote. And besides Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would give his followers the words to speak when they were brought before rulers. (Luke 12:11-12)

I believe that what you have identified as the essence of the Old Covenant cannot be supported within the context of the story. However, you may have identified a very real and valuable concept regarding how people relate to the covenant in an ineffective way-- but you may have identified that concept as the covenant itself when it is not. I will deal with that in a later post.

The Law of Moses was a gift that was good and perfect. It taught the faithful how to relate and live in a fallen world, and if they followed it, they would live in harmony with themselves, with each other, with the planet, and with God. God showed how to live in order, not chaos. It limited our fallen traits.

The Law of Moses is obsolete in the sense that it was designed for a regional theocracy. Israel and the knowledge of God was to go out to the whole world. That system is gone, and impossible to practice as commanded even if we wanted to. For example, the sabbath as instructed in the Torah is obsolete. We cant offer the sabbath sacrifice, we cant execute people for lighting a fire, we were not commanded to change calenders and time to a Hebrew calender. We dont have tribal land allowances, and cant give back land and debts based on a system we that is not in place. We need to understand the moral message of the particular law. It was designed for man, and was part of a whole to limit our greed and control over our lives. We cant practice, mimic, or cannonize the mechanical lessons that communicated the moral message.

Ritual unholiness obviously cant be practiced today-it would again be impossible to practice this system, and it would be heretical to do so. We are not unclean and unacceptable to be in the presence of God at certain times because of death that is inherit to ourselves. We do need to understand the moral message. We are not to mix life with death. We need to embrace life, and not embrace death. We should not embrace violent ideologies like Nazism or Zionism that promote death and slogans like 'who would Jesus bomb". We should not glorify guns and weapons as a first resort and a symbol of power, but only as a last ditch desperate resort. We should not embrace our sexuality where life is dreaded or is not supposed to take place. This turns the wheels of the abortion industry. We should not let greed or selfishness also get in the way of embracing life. The moral message of the Law of Moses is still in effect today. God is the author of life and order, not death and disorder.

The teaching of justification of faith alone is very misleading and confusing.. This is why most evangelical leaders are caught between legalism and lawlessness. It is a flawed doctrine when it is over simplified in this way. Jews were very good at a form of justification of faith and believed hey were justified by being born into a community of faith. They did combat idolatry after the first exile, but then they just elevated the mechanical aspects of the Law to justify themselves and just went through the motions. They had no love. This is the continuous message of the prophets that they did not take care of the orphans, or the widows.

Jesus elevated the moral message of the Law, and commands faith in Him with love to flow.

We dont have to practice our ritual purity

August 9, 2015

Where exactly are the passages in Paul's epistles that supposedly "contrast" the Old Covenant against the New Covenant?

2 Cor 3:7-18 and Gal 4:21-31

August 9, 2015

The Law of Moses is obsolete in the sense that it was designed for a regional theocracy

The law of Moses is the Pentateuch, the first, five books of the Old Testament. It includes the moral law. Has the moral law been made obsolete?

Edited August 9, 2015 by Robert

August 9, 2015

The law of Moses is the Pentateuch, the first, five books of the Old Testament. It includes the moral law. Has the moral law been made obsolete?

Would you be willing to read my post again? I think if you are asking me these questions you must have just glanced through it. The whole law of Moses was a moral law, and of wisdom

Edited August 9, 2015 by brotherly love

August 9, 2015

Would you be willing to read my post again? I think if you are asking me these questions you must have just glanced through it. The whole law of Moses was a moral law, and of wisdom

So it is obsolete?

August 9, 2015

So it is obsolete?

In its function-yes

Edited August 9, 2015 by brotherly love

August 10, 2015

You assume too much, both about what I do or do not know, and about what scripture actually says. Now I'm going to assume just a little bit. I may be wrong, but based upon what you said about how you study this issue and upon many of the things you say in your posts I do not believe I am very far from the mark.

**snipped 70+ paragraphs of post**

Even this post is really way too much for a single offering on this kind of forum.

Myron, may I suggest either being more concise in your comments, or dividing such lengthy posts into several separate comments? I highly doubt that more than 2 or 3 readers, if that, will wade through a 70+ paragraph novella....unless, of course, it described the Jumping Frog of Calaveras County, or Ben Hur's chariot race...

Sign In

Old Covenant vs New Covenant

Recommended Posts

Ron Amnsn

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

rudywoofs (Pam)

Ron Amnsn

pnattmbtc

Ron Amnsn

8thdaypriest

pnattmbtc

pnattmbtc

Ron Amnsn

Aliensanctuary

pnattmbtc

Ron Amnsn

pnattmbtc

pnattmbtc

LifeHiscost

pnattmbtc

LifeHiscost

pnattmbtc

LifeHiscost

BobRyan

Myron

brotherly love

Robert

Robert

brotherly love

Robert

brotherly love

rudywoofs (Pam)

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity