If you believe all scriptures, how is it that you refuse to accept and believe the scriptures in Hebrews 8 which says that the covenant that God made with the children of Israel in the day when God took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, with Moses as mediator, had been made obsolete, having been replaced by the new covenant in Christ, not only some parts or constituents of the covenant, but the covenant as a whole? It's not me saying that the former covenant was replaced by a new covenant, but scriptures. Well, I think I know why you don't accept and believe those scriptures.First and foremost, the scriptures I shared with you and you quoted above are from the new covenant New Testament, which itself up to the last book and chapter identifies God's own as those who keep His commandments and have the faith of Jesus. As I have already stated, the new covenant scriptures address what has changed or been done away with or not in this new covenant era. You simply refuse to acknowledge that the new covenant scriptures still hold the commandments of God up as the standard, insisting they are part of what was done away with, apparently choosing to ignore these scriptures.
If you believe all scriptures, how is it that you refuse to accept and believe the scriptures in Acts 15, that the apostles gave no such commandment to converts as follows: "Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law".
If you believe all scriptures, how is it that you refuse to accept and believe the scriptures in Acts 15, that the things of the law, such as the things they instructed there, the abstaining from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, are taken by the apostles and elders as being BURDENS?
And Amo, why do you not answer the question: would you say that the law of circumcision in the OT is done away with? If yes, why do you say so? If no, why do you say so?
The exact context of Hebrews 8 is in relation to the sanctuary, sacrifices, and high priestly ministry of the old covenant being replaced by Jesus Christ the true sacrifice and LAMB OF GOD, our true new covenant High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary built without hands, and the corner stone of the new covenant temple of God. Even in these scriptures, it is the old covenant that is done away with, not specifically God's law or commandments as you wish to suggest apparently. To the contrary, these scriptures reference to the law is concerning establishing God's law by writing them upon our hearts, not just tables of stone. This is hardly doing away with them, but definitely establishing them.
First, I do not ignore NT scriptures Amo. It is that I believe them that brings me to this argument. On the opposite, it is you who ignore scriptures, if not, read them to mean what you say. A clear example is that the OT and the NT says that it is the covenant that will be made new. But you want them to mean that, it is not really the covenant, but only most part of it. That's not rightly dividing the word, changing what scriptures meant to say, and there is the problem.
I'll show you. Prior to the coming of Christ, this is what scriptures says:Jer. 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:
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.
What will be made new? It is the covenant that God made with the children of Israel when God took them out of the land of Egypt. So, it's clearly the covenant, not only some part of it. What is this covenant to be made new? It's in your Bible, and it includes the ten commandments and all that is written in the book of the law, which are the covenant laws (These covenant laws, you separated and make it appear, as not part of the covenant). Also, in this covenant, is included the the sanctuary, sacrifices, and high priestly ministry. The OT people acknowledged and knew the covenant includes all of that Amo.
Read Jer. 31:33, it says "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.."
. Do you not see? I have boldenned them for you. In making the covenant, what is the very first thing involved and included? That's right, the giving and writing of the LAW, the covenant Law. It is not I who says the law are part of the covenant Amo. It is scriptures. Why would you not want to acknowledge that and seems to suggest that the law is separate from the covenant or not part of it?
That is the OT scriptures that the NT scriptures in Hebrews 8 says had come to pass. While NT scriptures speaks in detail about some of those which were changed, it does not mean that those which the NT did not speak in detail were not changed or were not part of the covenant. Such conclusion is definitely erroneous. That's not rightly dividing the word.
So, in the new covenant, God writes His Law in minds and hearts. If you claim to be in the new covenant, then you would certainly know what God had written in your heart. And considering what you have been saying, what is clear to me that is written in your heart are the ten commandments. The others, if there is more, I don't know unless you tell. And by that, you take that as to mean that the ten commandments were not done away with, even while such position stands contrary to scriptures. That's not rightly dividing the word. 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.
It's hard apparently for you, and is unthinkable for you that the ten commandments were done away with by that. But that is the truth. It is not as though, when they are said to have been made old and done away with, that they were not made new, changed with a better one, and far much better I have to point out. From shadows to the substance. Notice these things. The Levitical priesthood was done away with, but not without putting a better priesthood ~ the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ. The system for the atonement for sin was done away with, but not without the putting of a better one ~ atonement by the offering of a better sacrifice, a once and for all sacrifice for sin. The earthly sanctuary was done away with, but not without putting a better one ~ a heavenly sanctuary. The Old covenant Law (including the ten commandments) was done away with, but not without putting a better Law ~ the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Even the promised land, an earthly country, to a much better one ~ a heavenly country. From shadow to the substance.
You seemed so attached to the ten commandments and other OT laws perhaps, that you seem to prefer them over the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. So, as it is then, you have the ten commandments and some undisclosed OT laws given by God to the children of Israel as to be what is written in your mind and heart. You walked according to that law. On the other hand, what is written in my mind and heart is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. I walk according to that law. That is where we differ the most.
Just as the Apostle Paul testifies concerning one of the main purposes of Christ's life for us -
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
God's law has, does, and will continue to condemn all who choose to remain outside of the salvation provided in Jesus Christ alone. Those only who have accepted the atoning sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be saved from the condemnation of God's law, because the authority of that law has never been nullified. Christ's own are and have been admonished by Christ Himself and His Apostles to keep God's commandments in this new covenant era. You simply refuse this straight testimony because you do not want to keep one of God's commandments. Unless of course you do not want to keep others as well, I do not know. How can one who is supposed to have God's law written upon their heart, not want to keep it?
That's right, "God's law has, does, and will continue to condemn all who choose to remain outside of the salvation provided in Jesus Christ alone." But are you one of them? The Christian is not among them right? And so, God's law will not condemn the Christian. Why? Exactly because the Christian is not under the law. To the Christian, the law is done away with.
About the keeping of God's law, no Christian would say to not keep the law of God. We should, for a lot good reasons. That is not an issue. The issue is, what is God's Law in the New Covenant. What we believe that is, is what we should keep and walk according to. You have the ten commandments and others, I have the law of the Spirit. Do you want to know about the law of the Spirit? You want to keep the shadow, I keep the substance. An example of a shadow you keep, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." And the substance I keep, "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Another shadow "Thou shalt not kill." The substance, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer". If you'll observe, the shadow is work, and the substance is spirit. As such, your law is of works and my law is of the spirit. That is the big difference between us.
As far as circumcision goes I have already shared scripture from the Apostle Paul addressing this issue for the new covenant. Why do you reject his testimony?
Rom 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast in the law, dost thou dishonor God through breaking the law? 24 For, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you,” as it is written. 25 For circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the Uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision, which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who having the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and whose circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, and whose praise is not from men, but from God.(KJ21)
What law is the above scripture referring to which the uncircumcised can keep which will be counted as circumcision? Is it not the law or commandments of God as Paul teaches elsewhere? Yes it is. Paul differentiates the two in verse 27 when he states that the Jew has the letter of God's law, and circumcision. Then points out that true circumcision which is a sign that one is God's, is of the heart and not the letter. That is to say, the one who actually fulfills the righteousness of the law is truly circumcised of the spirit and not just the letter. Again this is about establishing God's law and commandments, not doing away with them as you wrongly conclude. Thus do you refuse to make any difference between the law given to humanity directly by the mouth and finger of God, and those meant to change over time and circumstance such as those given to literal Israel of the old covenant by the hand and mouth of Moses, such as circumcision. As Paul plainly testifies in the following scriptures.
1 For 7:18 Is any man called, being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called, being uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let every man abide in the same calling as when he was called.(KJ21)
Of course I don't reject the testimony of Paul. If there is anything I reject, it is not scriptures, but other's wrong interpretation of it. So, we have those scriptures. But my question to you is, would you say that the law of circumcision in the OT is done away with? And because you gave those scriptures as your answer, then I would be guessing what it is you are saying with that scriptures, making the exchange more difficult. It seems to me your answer to my question is yes. And if so, was it not because it was part of the covenant that was made new? Now, what is the significance of circumcision in the Old covenant? Is it not a token of the covenant between God and Abraham and is a seal of the righteousness of the faith that Abraham had when he was yet uncircumcised? What does it mean to be uncircumcised but that he does not take part of the covenant? The Israelites were circumcised, and so they were part of the covenant between God and Abraham. What then is wrong with being circumcised, that it was done away with? Nothing at all, yet it was done away with, right? In the same sense, the Law is good and there was nothing wrong with it, but was done away with. There's nothing to be offended about that. They were done away with, not because they are no good, but because, the substance for which they are a shadow of, had come. They were done away with to be changed by the substance that they foreshadow, the realities, which were far better of course. The circumcision of the flesh was replaced by the circumcision that is of the heart, in the spirit, by Jesus Christ.
The very scriptures you quoted says of circumcision "For circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law". What law is in view here, but the Old Covenant Law which includes the ten commandments? Paul says that circumcision has value if you keep the law. Clearly, circumcision binds one to keep the law. Paul made this clear elsewhere saying that, one who lets himself be circumcised, he is obligated to obey the whole law. So, circumcision is good, right? For it is about keeping the law, and there's definitely nothing wrong with that. It's about keeping God's laws, the ten commandments especially. But then, Paul said elsewhere to the Christians, if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Ask yourself this question, Why will Christ be of no value to the Christian who lets himself be circumcised, when one who becomes circumcised is to keep the Law?
Why do you reject these new covenant scriptural teachings and others I have already shared with you, and wrongly divide other scriptures to contradict their testimony? Is it not because you do not wish to keep one or more of the commandments of God?
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Why do you reject the above testimony of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is verily God? So be it.
As I said, I and no Christian I believe would not want to keep God's Law. That is not the issue. As I said, the issue is, what is God's Law in the New Covenant, for the Christian. The Christian should seek to keep God's law in the New covenant, and not that of the Old covenant.
Definitely, Jesus did not come to destroy the Law or the prophets, but to fulfill.
Concerning the Law, Jesus said "verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." A question for you, had not Jesus fulfilled the law?
Yes, I believe he sure had. If you say otherwise, then what is it that Jesus had not yet fulfilled in the law? And tell us why Paul said "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."