Why Sunday

[Tithesmeister]

Cont.

So to summarize the author’s position above, the first covenant became the old covenant, after only three days. Even though the Ten Commandments were given within three days of the supposed “old covenant”, the first covenant was already the old one, about thirteen hundred years before Hebrews was written. It may seem that I am making this up in order to ridicule the author, but that is really what his position would have you to believe.

There are a couple of other things that I would like to draw attention to. One is the “if this, then that” aspect of the language in Exodus 19. God tells the Israelites that IF they will obey his voice, then He will be their God.

[5] 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:

The if you do this I will do that, does not indicate that a contract or covenant has been entered yet. If there had been a covenant entered into already, then the proposal becomes law.

To use the analogy I used earlier about the bridge to Cuba, if I tendered a proposal, then I and the other party of the contract executed a contract, then that contract is a legal document. It becomes law.

In the case of the Ten Commandments (as well as the body of law that accompanied it) when the covenant was sprinkled with blood, it became law. Bear in mind that the other covenant that the author says was made, has no record of being sprinkled with blood. This is further proof that it was NOT a separate covenant, but was part of the covenant that was the Ten Commandments. Now let’s go to Hebrews 9 for further evidence.

Heb.9

[1] Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
[2] For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
[3] And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
[4] Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Notice in verse one that this covenant is referred to as the first. So when we read the subsequent verses, we are reading the details of the first covenant. In verse four which contains the inventory of the ark of the covenant, we see that it contains the tables of stone, which are referred to as the covenant, or Ten Commandments multiple times in the Bible.

Now let’s go further in the ninth chapter of Hebrews. Remember that Moses sprinkled blood on the people and the ark of the covenant etc. in Exodus. Let’s read . . .

[18] Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
[19] For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

This FIRST testament (or covenant) was sprinkled with the blood of goats etc., but the new one of course, with the blood of Jesus. We don’t have any record of another covenant being consummated in Exodus. This is describing the consummation of the covenant that includes the Ten Commandments. It is impossible for it to be another covenant, because it refers to the ark of the covenant in verse four. And we KNOW what went into the ark of the covenant! It was the covenant, also known as, the Ten Commandments. The ark of the covenant was custom built to God’s specifications, specifically to house the Ten Commandments, which are also known as the first covenant.

So this should prove that the Ten Commandments WERE the OLD covenant. This is the one referred to in Hebrews 8:13. It IS the one that was ready to vanish away almost two thousand years ago!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Cont.

So to summarize the author’s position above, the first covenant became the old covenant, after only three days. Even though the Ten Commandments were given within three days of the supposed “old covenant”, the first covenant was already the old one, about thirteen hundred years before Hebrews was written. It may seem that I am making this up in order to ridicule the author, but that is really what his position would have you to believe.

There are a couple of other things that I would like to draw attention to. One is the “if this, then that” aspect of the language in Exodus 19. God tells the Israelites that IF they will obey his voice, then He will be their God.

[5] 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:

The if you do this I will do that, does not indicate that a contract or covenant has been entered yet. If there had been a covenant entered into already, then the proposal becomes law.

To use the analogy I used earlier about the bridge to Cuba, if I tendered a proposal, then I and the other party of the contract executed a contract, then that contract is a legal document. It becomes law.

In the case of the Ten Commandments (as well as the body of law that accompanied it) when the covenant was sprinkled with blood, it became law. Bear in mind that the other covenant that the author says was made, has no record of being sprinkled with blood. This is further proof that it was NOT a separate covenant, but was part of the covenant that was the Ten Commandments. Now let’s go to Hebrews 9 for further evidence.

Heb.9

[1] Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
[2] For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
[3] And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
[4] Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Notice in verse one that this covenant is referred to as the first. So when we read the subsequent verses, we are reading the details of the first covenant. In verse four which contains the inventory of the ark of the covenant, we see that it contains the tables of stone, which are referred to as the covenant, or Ten Commandments multiple times in the Bible.

Now let’s go further in the ninth chapter of Hebrews. Remember that Moses sprinkled blood on the people and the ark of the covenant etc. in Exodus. Let’s read . . .

[18] Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
[19] For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

This FIRST testament (or covenant) was sprinkled with the blood of goats etc., but the new one of course, with the blood of Jesus. We don’t have any record of another covenant being consummated in Exodus. This is describing the consummation of the covenant that includes the Ten Commandments. It is impossible for it to be another covenant, because it refers to the ark of the covenant in verse four. And we KNOW what went into the ark of the covenant! It was the covenant, also known as, the Ten Commandments.

So this should prove that the Ten Commandments WERE the OLD covenant. This is the one referred to in Hebrews 8:13. It IS the one that was ready to vanish away almost two thousand years ago!

You should write a book on this as well!

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

So to summarize the author’s position above, the first covenant became the old covenant, after only three days. Even though the Ten Commandments were given within three days of the supposed “old covenant”, the first covenant was already the old one, about thirteen hundred years before Hebrews was written. It may seem that I am making this up in order to ridicule the author, but that is really what his position would have you to believe. away almost two thousand.

Please quote the covenant being called old before we have the NT distinction of old and new covenants.

It looks like you are missing the fundamental chronological logic involved.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Please quote the covenant being called old before we have the NT distinction of old and new covenants.

It looks like you are missing the fundamental chronological logic involved.

The verse you quoted in Hebrews 8 . . .

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

Is preceded by verse 8

Hebrews 8:8 KJV

[8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Which is a quote from Jeremiah 31 . . .

[31] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
[32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

So the NEW COVENANT spoken of in Hebrews 8:13, is prophesied of in Jeremiah 31, which as you know is in the OT.

But if you are asking how the covenant mentioned in Exodus 19 came to be referred to as the OLD COVENANT my answer to that is that the author of the book you posted on here (Allen Walker?) is the one who said that it was the old covenant.

I say that it became the OLD COVENANT by applying the rule in Hebrews 8:13. When he saith a new covenant . . .

If there is a new covenant, then by default, the pre-existing covenant would become old.

Therefore, if the covenant made in Exodus 20 was different than the one in Exodus 19, as Allen Walker claims, and not part of the covenant that contains the Ten Commandments (as I believe) then the previous one (chapter 19) would be old already, even though it is only three days old. This is completely illogical to me.

Do you believe that the covenant mentioned in Exodus 19 is separate from the covenant sprinkled with blood in Exodus 24?

I do not.

Remember the distinction of chapter numbers was added to the Bible. If you take away the chapter numbers, and simply read the book of Exodus, it will look like one story, about one covenant. The structure of that covenant is the Ten Commandments.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

The verse you quoted in Hebrews 8 . . .

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

Is preceded by verse 8

Hebrews 8:8 KJV

[8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Which is a quote from Jeremiah 31 . . .

[31] Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
[32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

So the NEW COVENANT spoken of in Hebrews 8:13, is prophesied of in Jeremiah 31, which as you know is in the OT.

But if you are asking how the covenant mentioned in Exodus 19 came to be referred to as the OLD COVENANT my answer to that is that the author of the book you posted on here (Allen Walker?) is the one who said that it was the old covenant.

I say that it became the OLD COVENANT by applying the rule in Hebrews 8:13. When he saith a new covenant . . .

If there is a new covenant, then by default, the pre-existing covenant would become old.

Therefore, if the covenant made in Exodus 20 was different than the one in Exodus 19, as Allen Walker claims, and not part of the covenant that contains the Ten Commandments (as I believe) then the previous one (chapter 19) would be old already, even though it is only three days old. This is completely illogical to me.

Do you believe that the covenant mentioned in Exodus 19 is separate from the covenant sprinkled with blood in Exodus 24?

I do not.

Remember the distinction of chapter numbers was added to the Bible. If you take away the chapter numbers, and simply read the book of Exodus, it will look like one story, about one covenant. The structure of that covenant is the Ten Commandments.

Very good points!

And this brings to mind a very good point. Jeremiah 31 teaches us that the old Covenant was unable to be kept. And that includes the Ten Commandments, just as Paul explained in Romans chapter 7 that he tried to obey the Covenant commandment to not covet, and found that the letter of the law was used by Sin as a weapon to kill him. In other words he was saying exactly the same thing Jeremiah said. People couldn't keep it. And Paul again explained that we are now led by the spirit in the law of the spirit of Life, which does cause the law of sin and death to be overcome, whereas the Mosaic law of Commandments was unable to do that.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Very good points!

And this brings to mind a very good point. Jeremiah 31 teaches us that the old Covenant was unable to be kept. And that includes the Ten Commandments, just as Paul explained in Romans chapter 7 that he tried to obey the Covenant commandment to not covet, and found that the letter of the law was used by Sin as a weapon to kill him. In other words he was saying exactly the same thing Jeremiah said. People couldn't keep it. And Paul again explained that we are now led by the spirit in the law of the spirit of Life, which does cause the law of sin and death to be overcome, whereas the Mosaic law of Commandments was unable to do that.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 KJV
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord , that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord : [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord , I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord : for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Jeremiah says nothing about anyone's ability to keep the covenant, only that Israel and Judah broke it (did not keep it).

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jeremiah 31:31-34 KJV
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord , that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord : [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord , I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord : for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Jeremiah says nothing about anyone's ability to keep the covenant, only that Israel and Judah broke it (did not keep it).

This is true Esaias. I was looking for that myself and didn’t see it. Perhaps a better scripture along this line would be this:

Acts.15

[10] Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Regardless, it is impossible for you to keep the law in Texas. Some parts of the law require living in the promised land.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

This is true Esaias. I was looking for that myself and didn’t see it. Perhaps a better scripture along this line would be this:

Acts.15

[10] Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Regardless, it is impossible for you to keep the law in Texas. Some parts of the law require living in the promised land.

Being unable to bear doesn’t mean unable to keep.
John’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, including Paul himself kept the law and considered blameless. Sometimes it looks like we are accusing God of unfairness. Which He created a law system which no one could follow. Then when they fail at it, they are severely punished? Adam and Eve weren’t given a law which was impossible to keep. Don’t eat from this one tree. Yet, a series of events caused the transgression. Same with the nation of Israel. No, Peter isn’t talking about impossibility of law keeping, but heaviness of law keeping.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Jeremiah 31:31-34 KJV
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord , that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord : [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord , I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord : for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Jeremiah says nothing about anyone's ability to keep the covenant, only that Israel and Judah broke it (did not keep it).

Not true.

Hebrews rephrases it so we get the true meaning.

Hebrews 8:9.. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

And if that was the problem with the old covenant, since it had fault, then the writing of the law in our hearts is the solution so WE CAN CONTINUE IN IT.

Paul describes the inability to keep it since he describing one who tried, had the will to perform but not the power to perform. He could not continue in it. Just read Romans 7.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not true.

Hebrews rephrases it so we get the true meaning.

Hebrews 8:9.. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

And if that was the problem with the old covenant, since it had fault, then the writing of the law in our hearts is the solution so WE CAN CONTINUE IN IT.

Paul describes the inability to keep it since he describing one who tried, had the will to perform but not the power to perform. He could not continue in it. Just read Romans 7.

They did not continue in His covenant does not equate to they could not obey Me by a natural inability.

Neither Jeremiah 31 nor Hebrews 8 says anything about ability, they only state the obvious: Israel and Judah failed to keep the covenant. I'm not arguing that God didn't promise to write His laws in the hearts of His people in order to cause them to be faithful and obedient. I am saying neither verse you posted speaks about ability.

Paul describes the bondslave of sin in Romans 7. But explains how the bondslave became enslaved in chapter 6. Here, read it:

Romans 6:16-23 KJV
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? [17] But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. [18] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. [19] I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. [20] For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. [21] What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. [22] But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. [23] For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The sinner is in bondage because he yields himself to obey sin. Sin is voluntary, otherwise it wouldn't be a crime but a mere disease, and since God wills that none perish, universalism would be the necessary conclusion. Either that or limited atonement and election of the majority to damnation, aka Calvinism.