All Foods Clean?

[LifeHiscost]

2 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Those are all good Bible texts that proclaim great truths.  But LHC, so often the texts you share seem so disconnected from what you've been saying, I can't tell how the texts might support your viewpoint.

It sounds like you think God gave just ten commandments.  God gave "Ten Words" or "Ten Utterances" (That's what the Hebrew and Greek call them).  Along with those God gave a multitude of commandments throughout the Law of Moses.  All those commandments support the "Ten Words".  Jesus picked two of those commandments from the Law of Moses as the "greatest" and "second greatest" commandments (Deut. 6:4-5 and Lev 19:18) and told us, "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matt 22:40)  In those days, the Law and the Prophets were on scrolls and each scroll was wrapped around two rods from which the scrolls hung while being read and handled.  Jesus was using that imagery to tell us that those two rods that carried the scrolls represented the two greatest commandments.  Some people like to think that the rods replaced the scrolls, but that isn't what Jesus actually said.  The Law and the Prophets hang on those two commandments. Wherever you take the rods, the scrolls go too.

Some people have devised other schemes and theories to try set aside God's Law.  The "moral law" vs "ceremonial law" is one of those man-made theories that sounds convincing but is never taught in Scripture.

So I'm assuming you do not take the rending of the curtain that kept the most holy place hidden from the people,  that happened at the moment Jesus voiced the words, "It is finished" , a curtain 6" thick and most certainly torn by Divine means, has any meaning re: the ceremonial laws that were designed to point forward to the Lamb of God Who has finished the heavenly sacrifice for all mankind, even though now being open to unholy view?

…27Just as man is appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so also Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await Him....Hebrews 9

God is Love!~Jesus saves!      

[Ron Amnsn]

12 hours ago, LifeHiscost said:

So I'm assuming you do not take the rending of the curtain that kept the most holy place hidden from the people,  that happened at the moment Jesus voiced the words, "It is finished" , a curtain 6" thick and most certainly torn by Divine means, has any meaning re: the ceremonial laws that were designed to point forward to the Lamb of God Who has finished the heavenly sacrifice for all mankind, even though now being open to unholy view?

First, I believe everything that the Bible actually teaches about the tearing of the veil.  So, I believe:

• the veil was torn
• the torn veil represents the flesh of Messiah (Hebrews 10:20).

All other teachings about the tearing of the veil and about the meaning or significance of that event are not found in Scripture.  They are apparently all man-made speculation.

There are no laws that the Bible itself designates as "ceremonial laws". That is a man-made designation invented by people who were not following the example or teachings of Jesus -- people who had never even considered following God's Law of Moses as Jesus did.  The theologians and others who talk about the so-called ceremonial laws can't agree on which laws are actually "ceremonial" and which are not, because there is no Biblical criteria for determining what is "ceremonial" and what is not.

However, there are Biblical criteria for determining which laws would end at the coming of Messiah, but the people who talk about "ceremonial laws" don't like to use those criteria, or to even acknowledge that such criteria exist.

The first Biblical criteria is what God specified about the duration of the laws when the laws were given. For many laws in the Law of Moses, God specified that they should be done "forever" and/or "throughout your generations".  God did not specify that any laws were to be followed only "until Messiah dies".  The followers of God in New Testament times would assume that those original instructions that God gave still stand until God himself specifically gives different instructions with the same scope and authority with which the original instructions were given.  If God gave the original instructions to the whole assembly of the Israelites through Moses, then we should expect that God would also give any changes to the whole assembly of Israelites through a designated leader of Israel.  (Paul's letters were written decades after the veil was torn, and were accessible only to small groups of people, usually in cities distant from Jerusalem.  Paul never told the priests who were officiating at the temple, many of whom were believers in Jesus, that God wanted them to stop offering sacrifices.  Instead, Paul himself went up to the Temple intending to offer sacrifices.)

The second Biblical criteria for determining which laws would end at the coming of Messiah is what Jesus himself taught about the duration of the Law.  We find this in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:17-19:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
The "Law and the Prophets" is what the Jews commonly called the Old Testament (These were the two major sections of the OT, the other section was "the Writings" which included the scrolls of literature like Psalms and the histories like Kings and Chronicles.)  There are still many prophecies in the Prophets that are not yet fulfilled or accomplished, some of which pertain to Messiah himself. Some people try to dismiss those unfulfilled prophecies as "conditional", but after his resurrection Jesus taught that "everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)   So neither the "until all is accomplished" condition nor the "until heaven and earth pass away" condition have been met that would allow any letter or stroke of the Law to expire.

In the very first Scripture lesson after the Creation account God taught that his Word should be trusted rather than believing messages that contradict what God himself has said previously.  We often hear Christians lamenting the decision of Eve to believe the serpent, yet Christians are eager to set aside God's Word and his Law of Moses when they hear some smooth-sounding theory (like the "ceremonial law" theory) that sets aside God's Word given in the past.

[8thdaypriest]

I don't remember now - the name of the thread, but I remember Ron and I debated on the end/or not of animal sacrifices, to a standoff.  We finally just agreed to disagree. 

Here's a couple of links to studies at my website:

1.  The End of Sacrifice

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

2.  New Covenant or Renewed Covenant?  The Marriage and Re-Marriage of Israel

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

[8thdaypriest]

That thread WAS headed "An End to Sacrifices".  I just found it.

[Ron Amnsn]

The topic of sacrifices is only a subset of the discussion about the "ceremonial law".

[JoeMo]

On ‎7‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 2:38 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

If Paul had actually taught as you say he taught, then yes, he would have been a false teacher.  The Bereans would never have been able to confirm such teachings by searching the Old Testament Scriptures to see whether Paul's teachings were true.
 

"Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.   Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. ⁴ You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Gal. 5:2-4.)

It certainly appears to me that Paul taught as I say.  So in your mind, is he a false teacher?

 

[Tom Wetmore]

Echoing the parenthetical in the verse in the OP, Paul similarly declared in Romans 14:14 "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean."

[Ron Amnsn]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

"Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.   Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. ⁴ You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Gal. 5:2-4.)

It certainly appears to me that Paul taught as I say.  So in your mind, is he a false teacher?

Well, for starters you said "Paul declared that circumcision was no longer required (contrary to God's OT Law);" but provided nothing to substantiate that claim.  None of Paul's passages that are commonly interpreted to be against circumcision were applicable to 8-day old babies because they are all addressed to men old enough to make their own choices.  For instance, in the passage above Paul says, "if you let yourselves be circumcised" and "every man who lets himself be circumcised." neither of which could pertain to the 8-day old babies that are required to be circumcised by both the covenant of Abraham and the Law of Moses. Does an eight-day old baby boy choose for himself whether to receive circumcision?  Because Jewish men were usually circumcised at the age of eight days, Paul's statements would not apply to normal Jews at all.

In Acts 21:20-24, after Paul made a full report to the elders in Jerusalem, they told Paul of a rumor that was being circulated against Paul in Jerusalem which said, "that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, or walk according to our customs," then three verses later they make it clear that there was nothing truthful in the rumor.  Your assertion about Paul seems have some elements in common with the false rumor.  Somehow most modern Christians don't seem to be aware of the two things that the elders said "everyone will know" about the rumor and about Paul.  Perhaps that's because they aren't aware of the full context of the situations that Paul was addressing in their Jewish context, or because they aren't understanding what Paul wrote in the same way that the Jewish followers of Jesus (who were all zealous for the Law) understood it?

Also, you said, "indeed - that if Gentile Christians submitted to circumcision for religious reasons, they were cutting themselves off from grace (Gal. 3:1 and 5:2)."  The people who Paul said had "fallen away from grace" as a result of circumcision were trying to "be justified by the law".  That is just one possible religious motivation. There are many other religious reasons why a Gentile man would choose circumcision. For example, to be like Jesus, or to accompany Paul on a missionary journey among Jews, or to celebrate Passover, or to honor God in obedience because they have already been justified by Jesus.  Gentiles who "let" themselves be circumcised were apparently being pressured by someone to be circumcised for a specific reason. Was Paul addressing men who wanted to be circumcised as a result of having God's Torah written on their hearts? I think not. Paul certainly wasn't addressing Timothy, who let Paul, or asked Paul, to circumcise him.

Another thing that many people don't seem to realize when they read Paul's statements about circumcision is that there was more than one kind of circumcision.  We've already mentioned the circumcision of 8-day-old boys, and the circumcision of Timothy.  There was also the traditional proselyte training program for Gentiles that had been developed by Jewish sages that supposedly turned a Gentile into a Jew so that he could be saved. That proselyte training program had been the status quo for generations, and was apparently practiced among the followers of Jesus until the Jerusalem Council ruled against it in Acts 15.  Because this traditional proselyte training program culminated in circumcision done according to the man-made traditions of the Jews, and because it had been the customary way that Gentiles reached circumcision, the whole proselyte training program may have come to be referred to as "Circumcision" when speaking in the context of Gentiles coming into Judaism.  (The followers of Jesus were considered a sect within Judaism). 

The problems with this traditional "Circumcision" program for proselytes that Paul could have objected to (while still faithfully upholding God's Law of Moses) were:

• the erroneous motivation for the program (to become "saved" through becoming "a Jew" )
• the length of time required (a year or more)
• the status within the congregation of those going through the program (not fully accepted as members of the community)
• the required training in the man-made traditions of oral Jewish law (the "fence laws")
• the solemn vow before God to always live according to the man-made traditions of Jewish oral law. (This vow to keep the fence laws was was never required of those born Jewish.)
• the requirement of re-circumcision for Gentiles who had already been circumcised, but not according to the requirements of Jewish tradition. (They were considered "uncircumcised" and were required to be circumcised again, which would be mutilation of the flesh rather than removal of the foreskin.)

So no, I definitely do not think Paul was a false teacher.  I believe he was completely truthful when he testified before Festus, " I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets," (Acts 24:14) a statement which provides one of the parameters for correctly interpreting everything Paul wrote.

[Ron Amnsn]

11 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

(This vow to keep the fence laws was was never required of those born Jewish.)

This isn't completely true.  The Jews who joined some religious communities made a vow to keep "the works of the law" that were required by the community.  These "works of the law" that were required by the community that preserved the Dead Sea Scrolls are mentioned in a few places in those scrolls.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Ron Amnsn

[Ron Amnsn]

3 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Echoing the parenthetical in the verse in the OP, Paul similarly declared in Romans 14:14 "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean."

If Paul was referring to pork, kittens, and human excrement in this verse, then it would support the parenthetical statement inserted by the translators into Mark 7:19.  But such a teaching would have been rejected by the Bereans who searched the Old Testament Scriptures to determine whether Paul's teachings were true.  Such a teaching would also make Paul a liar and a hypocrite when he led people to believe he was living according to the Law.

It's far more likely that Paul was referring to clean meat that may have been sacrificed to idols when it was butchered, as Paul addressed in a parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.

[Ron Amnsn]

36 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

I believe he was completely truthful when he testified before Festus,

Another mistake.  It was Felix, not Festus, that Paul was talking to.

[LifeHiscost]

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.....Colossians 2

God is Love!~Jesus saves!  

[8thdaypriest]

    Ezekiel 44:9 “Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner who is among the children of Israel.’”

Only those who are circumcised in HEART and in FLESH will be allowed to enter this future Temple. 

Those who died believing in Jesus Christ, while uncircumcised in flesh, WILL be circumcised when they are "changed in a moment".  The old FLESH will be gone.  They will then live again in spiritual bodies.  This change - from flesh body to immortal  spiritual body - will be the fulfillment of the circumcision symbolism. 

[8thdaypriest]

Hebrews 7:12 "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." (NRS)

Ron,  your arguments all seem to be based on a belief that no part of the Torah (Law) could ever, or can ever be changed.  But the author of the Letter to the Hebrews says there has been "a change in the law". 

Do you believe the Letter to the Hebrews belongs with the Apostolic Writings? 

If there has been "a change in the law" then is it not possible that physical circumcision (a type of sacrifice) was also changed.  It is my understanding that the amputated foreskins were always burned in fire.  Can you tell me how they are disposed of by Jews today?

[Tom Wetmore]

13 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

If Paul was referring to pork, kittens, and human excrement in this verse, then it would support the parenthetical statement inserted by the translators into Mark 7:19.  But such a teaching would have been rejected by the Bereans who searched the Old Testament Scriptures to determine whether Paul's teachings were true.  Such a teaching would also make Paul a liar and a hypocrite when he led people to believe he was living according to the Law.

It's far more likely that Paul was referring to clean meat that may have been sacrificed to idols when it was butchered, as Paul addressed in a parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.

Ron, this isn't a hill I would die on...  But here is the way I see it.  I am trying very hard to let the Scripture speak for itself and not to read anything into it that is not clearly there in the text and the immediate context.  I am just reading it in context of what Paul wrote to the Romans.  To assume he is addressing the same issues among the Roman believers as the believers in Corinth, without some clear evidence in the text is to fail to carefully exegete the text. (I would prefer not to fall into an eisegetical trap of imprinting my own sensibilities and beliefs on the text in order to reconcile it with my comfort or standards.)  I think the common thread in both passages in Romans and Corinthians is the idea that we ought to be sensitive to the conscience of our fellow believers. We who feel more free should not be a stumbling block by our own practices that may be offensive to another.  The specific beliefs and practices in question are secondary, and perhaps serve as practical examples of what the people to which he is addressing each passage would be quite familiar.  It was pragmatic counsel to bring and keep the community of believers and various stage of growth in harmony.

I take seriously Paul's admonition that that whatever I in good faith conclude, I should keep it between myself and God.  So at the risk of seeming to violate that, let me compare the two passages.  First of all, the situation in Corinth was quite clear that the pagan temples of which there were at least a dozen in Corinth and food sacrificed to idols was apparently a serious issue. (I am not sure it was the same set of concerns in Rome.) It is generally accepted that Paul wrote Romans just a couple years after he wrote the letter to the Corinthians, and that he wrote it from Corinth.  It is clear that he was very specific to the Corinthians repeatedly and expressly addressing food offered to idols. (The Greek word used means more generally "food", not just flesh food. He even broadly refers to "things" offered to idols which a Jew would not touch even if it was other wise clean.)  The letter to the Romans makes no mention of food offered to idols.  It is more broad and general terms even appearing to be more extreme of vegetarian vs not vegetarian or wine drinking or not.  Given context of the short time frame of the writing by the same author and that he likely was writing to the Romans from Corinth, it seems logical that if he was only talking about food offered to idols in his letter to the Romans, he would have said so specifically.  It certainly would have been still quite fresh in his memory, if not still an issue in Corinth at the time of the letter to the Romans.  If that had also been the specific issue in Rome I think he would have said so.  But it seems from the text itself is about a  broader issue of contention in Rome.  It may well have included food offered to idols but it appears to be more than just that.  The simple point is that the text in Romans 14 makes no mention of food offered to idols, not even a hint.

 

[pierrepaul]

I'm no NT expert but I read the texts as Tom explained above. I also see 1 Corinthians 10:23 as relevant. "I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but not everything is constructive. (NIV).

For me, eating pork is not beneficial, so I refrain from eating it.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 7/12/2016 at 9:01 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Ron,  your arguments all seem to be based on a belief that no part of the Torah (Law) could ever, or can ever be changed.

I think you missed part of what I wrote above:

On 7/11/2016 at 10:16 AM, Ron Amnsn said:

The followers of God in New Testament times would assume that those original instructions that God gave still stand until God himself specifically gives different instructions with the same scope and authority with which the original instructions were given.  If God gave the original instructions to the whole assembly of the Israelites through Moses, then we should expect that God would also give any changes to the whole assembly of Israelites through a designated leader of Israel.

I'll answer your question about Hebrews in my next post.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 7/12/2016 at 9:01 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Hebrews 7:12 "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." (NRS)

Ron,  your arguments all seem to be based on a belief that no part of the Torah (Law) could ever, or can ever be changed.  But the author of the Letter to the Hebrews says there has been "a change in the law". 

Do you believe the Letter to the Hebrews belongs with the Apostolic Writings? 

If there has been "a change in the law" then is it not possible that physical circumcision (a type of sacrifice) was also changed.  It is my understanding that the amputated foreskins were always burned in fire.  Can you tell me how they are disposed of by Jews today?

I do believe that Hebrews belongs with the Apostolic Writings.  But I guess I don't believe in a "cannon" of Scripture the way some people seem to.  This posting is off topic and should probably be moved to a topic on how to test our interpretations of Scripture.

Ever since the Garden of Eden, each prophet or teaching that came along was to be tested by what God had said earlier. 

This testing is what the Bereans were commended for doing.  Even though they had the Apostle Paul in person in their synagogue teaching the inspired gospel, they still needed to search the Old Testament Scriptures each day to see whether Paul's teachings were true.

This testing is also what Eve failed to do.  She knew what God had said previously, yet she accepted the assertions of the serpent even though they contradicted God's previous revelation. 

This testing is what the people who followed God in the time of Jesus were using to determine whether they might accept Jesus as the Messiah.  This testing is also what the followers of Jesus used to determine whether Paul's writings were true.

Many people seem to believe that once a person's writings have been accepted as authoritative and put into the "cannon" of Scripture, then the words of those writings (or the words of the [necessarily faulty] translations of those writings) can be re-interpreted in whatever way they want, even if those new interpretations would cause those writings to fail the test that was originally used to determine whether the writings should be accepted as the authoritative Word of God and be included in the "cannon" of Scripture. 

Because God's previous revelations are used to test prophets and teachings before accepting those prophets or teachings as the Word of God, we must also use that same test to determine whether our interpretation of each passage of Scripture is in agreement with what was revealed in God's Word prior to the writings of the author of the passage.  If our interpretation fails the test, then we need to look for an interpretation that does pass the test. 

[Of course, this is assuming that the followers of God who lived at the same time as the author of the passage would (or should) have been using this same test back when the complete cultural and historic context of the passage was fully known.  If they weren't faithfully doing this testing, then interpretations that now fail this test may actually be what the author intended -- which would show that the passage was not properly tested before being accepted as God's Word.  Personally, I don't think any books of the Bible should be discarded.  I believe that each of the 66 books of the Bible was correctly tested by the peers of the author.]

I'm sure many people will object to this method of testing because it gives the most authority to the oldest books of the Bible, while they would prefer instead that their own private interpretations of the New Testament would have enough authority to overthrow what God revealed in his Word long ago. (This desire to overthrow God's Word should be a huge, huge warning flag for us.)

In my next post I will attempt to show how Hebrews 7:12 could be interpreted in a way that would allow it to pass the test.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 7/12/2016 at 9:01 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

Hebrews 7:12 "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." (NRS)

We can tell something important about the change that took place in the law just by looking at the plain English meaning of the verse you quoted. The change was a change that was necessary due to the change in the priesthood. 
Would a change in the priesthood necessitate a change in clean and unclean foods? No.
Would it necessitate a change in the Sabbath or Feasts? No.
Would it necessitate a change to circumcision? No.
Would it necessitate a change in the definition of sin? No.  The laws of marriage? No.  The agriculture laws? No.
Well then, what change would actually be necessary if Jesus were to lawfully become a priest?

The next two verses gives us pertinent information.  Let's look at them --
"13 Now the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

Oh, that's something that might be necessary to change.  Moses wrote down the Law that specifies who can serve as a Levitical priest at the altar of the Sanctuary/Temple and he didn't say anything that would allow someone from the tribe of Judah to serve as a Levitical priest.  According to God's Law of Moses Jesus cannot serve as a priest in the earthly Temple.  The author of Hebrews confirms this is still true in Hebrews 8:4 --
4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.

The author says that the Law regarding the Levitical priests offering gifts was still valid at the time Hebrews was written (a few decades after the veil of the Temple was torn). So that part of the Law didn't change.  And Jesus never did serve as a Levitical priest at the Temple on earth, so there is no change necessary to the part of the Law that governs who can be a Levitical priest.

Let's look at the context again.  At the end of chapter 6 the author tells us that Jesus is a priest forever in the type of priesthood like Melchizedek.  Does the Law of Moses allow Jesus to actually be a Melchizedekian priest?  Where do we find the laws that govern who can be a Melchizedekian priest?  Uh ... not in the Law of Moses.  It's useless for that.  It mentions Melchzedek in Genesis but he lived before the laws for the Levitical priesthood were given, and Genesis doesn't tell us anything about what qualified Melchizedek to be a priest.  It looks like it will be necessary to use a different law than the Law of Moses to govern a different priesthood (the Melchizedekian priesthood) that functions in a different location (not on earth).  The Law of Moses still has jurisdiction on earth, but a different law has jurisdiction over the priesthood of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary.  That was the necessary change of law.

The Greek of Hebrews 7:12 may confirm that the necessary change in the law had to do with location.  The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) indicates that the Greek word (Strongs #3331) that is translated as "changed" in the phrase "The priesthood being changed" (KJV) can have the connotation of a change of physical location. My Greek skills are far too weak to be able to tell if that connotation is actually present in the Greek of this verse.  However, that connotation would fit into this context because the location of Jesus' ministry was changed when compared to the Levitical priesthood on earth that Jesus doesn't qualify for because of his ancestry.  The Melchizedekian priesthood of Jesus functions in a jurisdiction outside where the Law of Moses applies.

[8thdaypriest]

The "Law of Moses" was the Sinai Covenant - a MARRIAGE COVENANT made with Israel.  Israel was "married" to the LORD. 

Later the LORD gave to the 10 Northern tribes (known as Israel) a "bill of divorcement". 

Still later, what remained of the original "Israel" was WIDOWED when her "husband" died by crucifixion. 

When a husband dies, his wife is then FREE FROM THE LAW - concerning her husband (Romans 7:3).

This necessitates a NEW MARRIAGE COVENANT.  Paul says we are betrothed under this New Covenant. 

Does the NEW marriage covenant cover/include every command from the first/Sinai covenant? 

1.  Every one of the original 10 Commandments is repeated in the NT.  So those I believe ARE included in the New Covenant.  They will be written on our hearts. 

2.  Scavenger and carnivorous animals are STILL presently unfit for food.  I seriously doubt there will be any such animals in the new earth.  "The lion will eat straw like the ox."

3.  I do not believe the "new covenant" will include animal sacrifice. 

4.  Under the New Covenant, every redeemed Israelite will become a priest - of the order of Melchizedek.  (Rev. 20:6).

5.  Jerusalem will STILL be the place of "the House of the LORD". 

6.  No one will visit the Ark of the Covenant, or even remember it. 

"In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb 8:13). 

My point is that a NEW Covenant allows for changes. 

[JoeMo]

I'm still undecided about animal sacrifices in the Kingdom.  While it is true that the lion will eat straw like an ox, that doesn't necessarily mean that we humans won't eat animals.  I can smell the ribs and steaks cooking on the heavenly grill right now (YUM!!).

While steak may be fanciful speculation, there is biblical evidence that we will still eat fish.  Look at Ezekiel 47:

"Then he led me back to the bank of the river. ⁷ When I arrived there, I saw a great number of trees on each side of the river. ⁸ He said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah,^[b] where it enters the Dead Sea. When it empties into the sea, the salty water there becomes fresh. ⁹ Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the river flows. There will be large numbers of fish, because this water flows there and makes the salt water fresh; so where the river flows everything will live. Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets."  (vs. 6 - 10) 

If the lion is no longer a scavenger or a carnivore, will that make him "clean"?  Not that I'm wanting to eat lion ...

[Buzzards]

On 7/13/2016 at 11:53 AM, Ron Amnsn said:

I do believe that Hebrews belongs with the Apostolic Writings.  But I guess I don't believe in a "cannon" of Scripture the way some people seem to.  This posting is off topic and should probably be moved to a topic on how to test our interpretations of Scripture.

Ever since the Garden of Eden, each prophet or teaching that came along was to be tested by what God had said earlier. 

 

Exactly; and what or ""WHO"" was the 1st witness that began to write ?????

Thats right  ==== Moses

every thing must be tested by  ??????????

who did you say ??????  --- if you answered Moses you would be correct

[8thdaypriest]

39 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I'm still undecided about animal sacrifices in the Kingdom.  While it is true that the lion will eat straw like an ox, that doesn't necessarily mean that we humans won't eat animals.  I can smell the ribs and steaks cooking on the heavenly grill right now (YUM!!).

While steak may be fanciful speculation, there is biblical evidence that we will still eat fish.  Look at Ezekiel 47:

"Then he led me back to the bank of the river. ⁷ When I arrived there, I saw a great number of trees on each side of the river. ⁸ He said to me, “This water flows toward the eastern region and goes down into the Arabah,^[b] where it enters the Dead Sea. When it empties into the sea, the salty water there becomes fresh. ⁹ Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the river flows. There will be large numbers of fish, because this water flows there and makes the salt water fresh; so where the river flows everything will live. Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets."  (vs. 6 - 10) 

If the lion is no longer a scavenger or a carnivore, will that make him "clean"?  Not that I'm wanting to eat lion ...

"I will make you FISHERS of MEN." 

The river giving life flows out.  Yes.  The we - the redeemed priests of God, will stand along this river to FISH for those who are resurrected as "the rest of the dead". 

Ezekiel's vision could be symbolic - rather than all literal.

[Buzzards]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

Fishermen will stand along the shore; from En Gedi to En Eglaim there will be places for spreading nets."  (vs. 6 - 10) 

there will be places for spreading nets.

 

Matt.13:47

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net,

that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:

[Ron Amnsn]

7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

When a husband dies, his wife is then FREE FROM THE LAW - concerning her husband (Romans 7:3).

This necessitates a NEW MARRIAGE COVENANT.  Paul says we are betrothed under this New Covenant.

So if your husband died and was resurrected within three days, you'd consider yourself widowed and free to marry another man?