How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

Isaiah; Sabbath not civil; Heb.4
The last chapter in Isaiah depicts the events of Yahshua’s first advent leading to the object of the church age and introduces some essential elements of the eternal state to come after. In essence the text is prophesy that HAS BEEN or IS BEING fulfilled, with the exception of the “eternal” state of the new heavens and new earth still to come. My response exposed your import of conditionalism into the text as totally unwarranted.

Again, the text is anything but conditional because it parallels exactly what occurred when heavenly Sion brought forth the man child, Yahshua, to initiate the flow of the Gentiles to heavenly Sion or New Jerusalem during the church age we now abide in. The church age is “a” prelude to the “eternal state” and during this time we: come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant… Hebrews 12:22-24.

Yet, there are literal and spiritual elements to this event. New Jerusalem is not a building but is composed of the actual covenant people who are in Yahshua: Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:5.

I find nothing in your response that overcomes the literal aspect of the universal setting apart of one day out of the week for the purpose of worshiping Yahweh in the prediction of the “eternal state”, being that there are literal and spiritual aspects to all scripture. The idiom “from one new moon to another” is just tautology for “the cycles of the moon” to which the Hebrews fixed their calendar and which still has relevancy today. The term “new moon” is still used to convey something “periodic” and NOT the contrasting concept of “interminableness”. In context the new moons and the Sabbath are something “periodic” within something that is interminable: “eternity”. It is clear that you are importing alien ideas or confusion into the terms “new moon” and Sabbath. Both the Sabbath and new moons convey something “periodic” and NOT something “interminable” and are not to be confused. Your confusion is unwarranted in any proper exegesis.

This is also the case in your confusion concerning the fourth commandment and the theocracy of ancient Israel. Every “thing” belongs to Yah but that did not rule out a “periodic” dedication of one day out of the week to Yah. The call for their “interminable” dedication to Yah did not rule out a “periodic” dedication of one day out of the week. And what does a physical theocracy mean? and it certainly does not have any bearing upon the Sabbath being civil or strictly confined to the OC. And what does a tight physical theocracy mean? you do like to make up terms and invent new definitions such as “periodic” meaning “interminable”. You have yet to prove that the fourth commandment was an unprofitable shadow cancelled by the cross so the aforementioned is mere rhetoric and proves nothing.

It is simply untenable to imply that a day dedicated to Yah rules out that it also can be for man. There is nothing in the scriptures that even comes close to suggesting that it can’t be for both reasons at the same time, especially when the scripture are rife with evidence that men used it for their physical rest and worship to Yah. Again, this is rhetoric and meaningless banter that lends nothing to the controversy.

At least your right about something in your last response, Hebrews chapter four says nothing about the rest in Yahshua replacing anything—physical or otherwise! The rest in Yahshua ran concurrent with Yah’s rest at creation! The text cannot be used whatsoever to uphold that the fourth commandment was an ephemeral part of the OC. In truth, the only thing that can be extrapolated from the aforementioned text is that Yah’s rest is equated to what is profitable and perfect: the rest in Yahshua! This means that Yah’s rest at creation was profitable and perfect and since it was the basis of the fourth commandment, it then lends credence to the truth that the fourth commandment is profitable and perfect as the SIGN to Israel and the reason Yahshua is the Lord of the Sabbath.

Olivet reference
You need to read the definition of “equivocation” because that is exactly what you were doing by bringing an argument in and stating not to hold you to it at the same time.

Your counter point doesn’t work because they had to consider winter as well as the Sabbath in this event, which gave them both importance and/or relevancy some forty years after the cross, but not for the exact reasons. Winter or the “periodic cyclical” nature of weather didn’t end and neither did the Sabbath in Yahshua’s perception. They were to PRAY and plan around both winter and the Sabbath, which still upholds the sanctity of one day out of the week forty years after the cross. As I stated clinging to any false notions concerning the ceremonies that held legitimacy in the temple would only have led to their demise, so this relegates your “restrictions” theory to rationalizations. It is clearly a poor rationalization to suggest that the disciples, some forty years later, would be restricted or upholding false notions on the law that Yahshua had already specifically addressed and corrected. Moreover, the book to the Hebrews, the last of the written NT by many accounts, was written prior to this event and if the Sabbath were cancelled under the criterion in said book then the Spirit, having foreknowledge of the aforementioned, WOULD NOT have led Yahshua to emphasize the continued importance of one day out of the week at the very time the Jews should divorce themselves from the law that ended or was cancelled at the cross.

One cannot have it both ways as your belief system suggests! And again, since it was to the disciples, it was to the church to all intents and purposes, unless one attempts to uphold the untenable position of the Dispensationalists that there is one covenant for the Gentiles and another for the Jews.

We find a marked conflict in exegesis and logic when one attempts to assert that Colossians confirms that the seventh-day Sabbath was cancelled at the cross when Yahshua declared the commandment continued to have relevance or standing AFTER the cross in the Olivet Discourse.

Circumcision
Nevertheless, we are addressing the specific law that addressed circumcision in the Mosaic covenant and we’ve already addressed this and the implications. Circumcision was bound to the shadow law of the Passover and the eighth-day at birth.

 

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

Covenant people
Your insistence on misrepresenting me is based upon a gross misapprehension of consistency. For the same reasons that the call for “interminable” dedication to Yah does not rule out a “periodic” dedication of one day out of the week—I can uphold that the Old Covenant changed and ended but still establishes the Ten Commandment Law as it establishes the laws of incest, while the ceremonial law was cancelled. By the fact that I uphold the end of some law and the continuation of others shows I advocate the distinctiveness of one covenant from the other and that you have a gross misapprehension of consistency.

And this also exposes your misapprehensions of the New Covenant “turning to the Ethnos.” It cannot be suggested that Yah has turned to the heathen but to the Gentles that are gathered into New Jerusalem and in Yahshua. Paul addresses the heathen heart in Romans chapter two, but the covenant people of New Jerusalem still establish the law. The New Covenant is not incompatible with the Ten Commandments or the laws of incest, nor have you proven any such thing.

I’m going to request once more in humility that you stop misrepresenting me by stating that I’m uphold the Old Covenant as the New Covenant or I must continue to question your sincerity. And it is my scriptural understanding that leads me to believe you are in error on the New Covenant law and attempting to impose your belief system, thus the mirror comment. If you don’t want me to use it then desist in attempting to accuse me of upholding the law unlawfully, when I’m merely expounding upon the doctrine that the fourth commandment has not lost it lawful standing. You have totally failed in overcoming any scripture that supports my doctrine so don’t presume the text in Timothy applies to me.

standing vs. Placement
It’s a simple matter of acknowledging that I’ve presented many arguments beyond STANDING in support of my original premise, plain and simple. Standing is merely in support of my main premise. The evidence is NOT in your favor; that is presumption. Hebrews is the most important book that expounds upon how the law changed and by what criterion and we’ve been back and forth that the fourth commandments does not meet the criterion, nor have you been able to import other criterion from other texts that are not merely dealing with the character of the law and not precisely how it changed.

Michael

 

Order and Rank also Written on the Heart

Isaiah; Sabbath not civil; Heb.4
Conditionalism would necessitate that the prediction in Isaiah could only be fulfilled upon obedience, which is not the case at all. To the contrary, the prediction is fulfilled precisely because the Jews chose that which did not delight Yah, disobedience, and cast out Yahshua and the disciples because they trembled at Yah’s word (verses 3-5). The text concerns the plan for the rejection of the stone that becomes the head corner and parallels exactly what happen when heavenly Sion brought forth the man child Yahshua, which means there is NOTHING conditional about it at all. And how is the prediction of the new heavens and earth conditional? How is the prediction of the continued cycles of the moon which means it continues to revolve around the earth in eternity conditional? Or how is the prediction of the eternal consequences of vessels fit for destruction conditional. And how does one twist the meaning of something that is “periodic” into something “interminable” without importing confusion into the very language by with the scriptures relate Yah’s will?

And where do you get this stuff that something literal is conditional? It’s not the scriptures! Baptism is a physical and literal oblation that is also spiritual and evidence of obedience and acceptance of the covenant in Yahshua. The supper of Yahshua is a physical and literal oblation that is also spiritual and evidence of obedience and acceptance of the covenant in Yahshua. There is no such criterion for conditionalism whatsoever; you just make that up. And the cycle of the new moons in chapter in question mentions NOTHING about bullocks either; you imported that into the text. What the text actually relays, without adding to or taking away, is that in eternity the Sabbath, the universal setting apart of one day out of the week for the purpose of worshiping Yahweh, shall be as dependable as the moon that revolves around the earth.

Oh, and you might want to look of the meaning of the words you are dealing with in the scriptures such as the Sabbath, which is defined as a “day” that is observed “periodically” in contrast to “interminably”. The Sabbath is something “periodic” within something that is interminable: “eternity”.

And this physical versus spiritual stuff about ancient Israel of yours is not in the scriptures either. Ancient Israel WAS a spiritual kingdom that was also literal: that IS the definition of a “theocracy”. The two are not opposed or incompatible as your definition implies which means you made it up. In truth your type of belief system is not too removed from what Gnosticism taught, then. And was Yah any stricter then as he is now? I thought that one of Yah’s attributes was immutability; He is the same yesterday, today and forever. This stricter stuff comes from a lack of understanding Yah and what the scriptures truly relay.

BTW, six days belong to man is just tautology for “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work.” But I guess one could make a case that it was a poor expression that confused you so I won’t do it again.

Hebrews chapter four DOES NOT relay that the literal Sabbath, as you called it, was replaced by anything. There is no act of “replacement” anywhere in the text. The text strictly relays how some things remained CONCURRENT which is a completely different subject matter than something proceeding AFTER OR LATER. If the text relayed something that proceeded AFTER Yah rested at creation then your interpretation might have some warrant, but it doesn’t. I accept what the text states without adding to taking away.

Olivet reference
If they were to consider the winter and the Sabbath in their flight then they were to account for them; it simply meant to avoid leaving during either. And you don’t have any express support for your “restrictions” being the impediments concerning the Sabbath forty years after Yahshua addressed these restrictions and dispelled them. But what is clearly relayed in the text is that if there was NO impediment concerning the Sabbath then it would not have mattered if they had taken flight on it, which renders Yahshua’s statement meaningless and that cannot be the case. Yahshua is still rendering the Sabbath importance or standing some forty years after the event of the cross in the Olivet Discourse and at the time in which fealty to any dead letter of the laws that held relevance in the temple would have meant their demise.

The Gentiles were instructed by the example of the disciples; the disciples kept the Sabbath; example is the best teacher.

Covenant people
But I don’t have to strictly use the Old Covenant to show that the New Covenant people establish the law and I’ve already shown this to you many times.

“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31

Paul IS NOT addressing the Old Covenant people here but addressing the New Covenant people whose faith DOES NOT make void the law. This includes the Gentiles that join the New Covenant, which we see from the context. And what are we to make of Paul, James and Peters instruction on the law in the New Testament if not that they were establishing what was perennial about the Old Covenant and reestablished in the New Covenant. The New covenant people still establish the law by instructing upon what was ephemeral and done away with under the Old Covenant and what was perennial and kept in the New Covenant such as “thou shalt not commit adultery”.

Your assertion that your “reversion” to this “Noahide concept” is superior to the view that “what was perennial was kept in the New Covenant” has by no means been proven by any superior exegesis! Quite the contrary. As I’ve continually stated, yours is a non sequitur and a contradiction to begin with because if ANY law under the Old Covenant was perennial, such as those against incest, they simple cannot have ended or been discarded with the Old Covenant. Clearly they are kept by grace in the New Covenant (for that matter they could only have been kept by grace in the Old). “Reversion” in itself implies going backwards to something that did not accomplish Yah’s aim in the first place. The covenants are progressive and not regressive. This seven law stuff is also mere theory and arbitrary concerning the Sabbath. You do not have any “express” scriptural evidence that Adam or Noah did not keep the Sabbath. There is just as great, if not greater, scriptural argument that they did keep the Sabbath, which relegates your “reversion” theory to unsound doctrine on the law.

As to the misrepresentation, in just one of your recent posts you stated: looks like an argument to prove that we have the same covenant with the same Laws. Whatever you want it to look like it is not the reality when I advocate the distinctiveness of one covenant from the other especially concerning the law. In truth the contention we have centers on the fourth commandment and yours is an exaggeration that I’m transferring everything, lock stock and barrel, from one to another! Like I stated, continue to misrepresent me like this and I shall question your sincerity and more. And as to the mirror comment, I only stated that if you desist I shall also. And the term “using the law unlawfully” would include being in error in ones belief about the law also. Don’t mention it or try to correct me concerning it again and neither shall I.

standing vs. Placement; Circumcision
I can respond that the evidence is not in your favor all I want, especially when I expound upon it with sound exegesis, like cricumcision. And circumcision IS met in the criterion because it was bound to the shadow law of the Passover and that is why you attempt to downplay the significance of that and the implications.

Michael