How the Law Changed? Heb. 7:12

And the reason some laws passed is very much tied into the "character" of the Law, which you do not seem to understand. So those other passages ARE addressing the change as well. Here's another one: Romans 8:3 "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: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit".
According to you, "weak" could only be the "ceremonial commands", but in the previous chapter, he mentions "I had not known lust, except the law had said, 'You shall not covet'" (v.7), then he continues discussing the same Law. Of course, now you will say "but that is just the character of the Law". But we see there Paul is talking about the whole system. The fact that he in the same sentences states "Is the law sin? God forbid" and "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin." (v.12-14) shows us one aspect of the Law that is "weak", and another that is perennial, but not the distinction that you have drawn, of "ceremonial" versus "the Ten Commandments". The whole code is what was "weak", and "now we are delivered from" (7:6) and was sent to point out sin (v.13). However, it does contain some universal precepts which we are to still keep. So then continuing in ch.8, we get what else, but "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and
death". "Sin and death" is what he elsewhere calls "the letter".

You at will, simply reject all of these other scriptures as "extraneous" and take one chapter in isolation, but they all work TOGETHER, and it's your BELIEF SYSTEM that is forced to make this outrageous claim that this single chapter is THE only one "according to scripture". What other scripture anywhere says "Hebrews chapter seven is THE sole text describing the change in the Law"? That, my friend is YOUR "belief system"

Let me pull you back to the point that I nver denied that this chapter teaches that distinction in the Law; the debate is to whether that is the ONLY one dealing with it, and therefore only the ceremonies "weak". Even you say "throughout the NT", so there ARE other scriptures on the issue besides this one.

And you keep saying "natural law", but that is a gross misconstruction of what I have said, and your side deliberately keeps using it to try to turn it into something else. I did not say "NATURAL". I said "UNIVERSAL". There is a BIG DIFFERENCE! Natural law is about NATURE, and you know it, so by using that; you are attempting to turn my argument into something totally foreign to the discussion of MORALITY and SPIRITUALITY. "Universal" is the same thing as your "perennial".

You keep saying "It is THIS law that Yah writes in the heart and mind", but that IS the UNIVERSAL or perennial (not "NATURAL") Law, and while mankind without the spirit knows that killing, stealing, lying and adultery are wrong he would never figure out that he needed to keep a sabbath even if he knew which day. It is not written on the conscience. And even those WITH the Spirit, are convicted of all the SAME LAWS, plus more; but NOT the sabbath. It is NOT written on our HEARTS. That is, UNLESS, you are willing to conclude that every Christian outside sabbathkeeping sects has quenched the spirit, and you all don't like to be accused of saying that, even though it would be consistent with your belief system.

This right here, by your own criterion, proves it is not apart of the law that is perennial.
And you keep saying not to discuss those outside Israel/Sinai/the covenant; but you cannot say they had no law from God of ANY kind, because then; they would not be guilty of "sin"! The fact that God condemns them means he does have a standard they are held accountable to, and it is not the Law of Israel until they actually join Israel (which never did come true, as Israel herself broke the covenant), yet outside of Israel, He did still have basic laws they were to keep.

Once again, you said Hebrews 7 was THE text that dealt with this. Now you're coming up with other stuff, because circumcision was not mentioned there. So you need to rethink that "THE text" statement.
Even still, it does not meet the criteria you have given based on Heb7. Circumcision and the civil laws were NOT "shadow sacrifices offered yearly or periodically for the transgression of sin", which you said were the sole criteria. (You forget all of these broad statements you make, and now you contradict them, admitting oh, there are other criteria after all). This shows that there ARE some other LAWS BESIDES sacrifices mentioned in Heb7. that ARE "Weak shadows" after all!

You have yet to show that those criteria are what SCRIPTURE says determines the perennial laws from the weak shadows. Even Hebrews does not say that, but actually included the "tables" inside the ark with the very "tabernacle" system it says was passing away.

 

And Jesus also fulfilled the sacrifices, by BEING the sacrifice. He fulfilled circumcision in us be circumcising our ears and hearts. Once again, these other laws were not just thrown out without any sort of fulfillment.

I don't get what you're trying to do, when you deny mentioning the fourth commandment, but then go on and discuss God's rest at Creation, which you tie to the fourth commandment, and the claim it didn't point to anything which is supposed to prove the fourth commandment is still in effect.

You seem to be admitting that the "rest" there is the spiritual rest. yet you keep trying to tie it to the literal sabbath day rest. And even though they had both under the Old Covenant; still, as was stated, the law was added because of sin until the promise. You point out that they always had "salvation by faith" and looked forward to a Messiah, but they at the same time still had those "weak" physical sacrifices to remind them. I also can point out that God always expected them to be "circumcised in the heart and ears" yet they still had the practice of physical circumcision. So something coexisting with its spiritual reality does not prove it is not at the same time still a shadow of it, and don't give me that "shadow means forward in time" argument either. We see in these other examples that they DO coexist, and what was in the future was the NEW covenant when the realites would REPLACE the letter of the physical shadows for good because of Christ.

I don't see where you got the idea I was denying there was standing in the Kingdom. And I don't deny standing in the Law either. The issue is, that you're snatching up another diminuative term you see in the passage and pasting it together with standing in the Kingdom. By Least commandments"; Christ is not saying anything about the sacrifices or whichever other Laws you believe were "Least" That is not the discussion there! That is NOT the discussion there! You cannot find that anywhere in the CONTEXT.

I don't belive it is a sin to be on the internet on Saturday. You're the one who belives there are restrictions on the day's activities, only you seem to be picking and choosing which, and I don't see where they match up with Jesus' example and testimony. Jesus did not spend the day writing letters arguing with other believers over the sabbath. (that would be the closes thing back then to the Internet). that could wait. Direct interaction with people is what he did. Internet boards are usually recreation.
My going to work for my household is "good" also, so under that criteria, there should not be an argument at all over the sabbath. Even Gerhard and I came to that agreement a while back.

But I'll for now grant you all of this, yet now show you how it ultimately proves my point.
So we see with this "doing good" clause that technical 'work' is OK on sabbath, so you can go on this board and argue about the sabbath (as mentally exhausting as this can be), and to you this is the same as plucking ears of grain to feed yourself, healing someone, and lifting an ox out of the ditch, the priest in the Temple, etc. just as long as it is "good".
Then by your own testimony and example, as well as the principles Jesus was giving, here is your proof that the sabbath IS "weak and unprofitable" —IN THE LETTER! The command says "REST" and "NO WORK". But THAT is UNPROFITABLE, because there is GOOD that needs to be done for the Kingdom! What does this leave us with? Physical rest on a particular day of the week is NOT the perfect, profitable intent of the Law. This is all I have been saying, and it the ultimate proof that all the judging over the day is unscriptural. (While not telling them not to keep the day at that [pre-Cross] point, Jesus was showing in principle that it was not perennial).

 

God shows that HE created something for MANKIND on each day of creation WEEK - including the Seventh day "made Holy FOR MANKIND".

Recall that in Gen 2:3 there is only Adam and Eve as "mankind".

And there is where the 7th day of the week given to mankind finds it's origin!

Hence Christ said it was "MADE FOR mankind" Mark 2:27


But Eric says

 

We see in Isaiah 66 that the Holy Day of Christ the creator called "the Day of the LORD" in Isaiah 58 - is CONTINUED in the New Heavens and the New Earth for ALL MAKIND "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND" come before Me to Worship.

Hence it is obvious that Christ the Creator did not "Abolish" His own Holy day in the New Covenant.

 

You have forgotten already the example of marriage, which was also "made holy at Creation", and "for mankind", but not all are obligated to participate in it.

The conditional Milennium under OC Israel has nothing to do with us, now, even if it wasn't derailed by Israel's breaking of the covenant, and God turning to all nations in spite of them.
And ACTUALLY, here's another point: That passage does not say they were RESTing on the day; only coming to worship.

Answer me this.
Man knows that murder and stealing are wrong, but tells us all over the Bible, in both Testemants that it is sin. Man would not know anything about a sabbath except for reading the Law of Moses, and today, people are still not naturally convicted of it.
So why then do we get all of this indirectness in conveying that it's still in effect? We are supposed to figure that
"It was made holy at Creation"
+"God pointed back to this when commanding it to the Israelites"
+"He prophesied it being kept in the Kingdom under Israel"
+"Jesus said it was made for mankind"
="It is still in effect for us now"

How come God is not so indirect with any other command?

 

Once again, "How" and "why" are very much tied together here. It seems you're nitpicking with semantics now. The reason it changes is based on the character. God did not just arbitrarily decide to cancel some laws or one arbitrary category of laws ("ceremonial"). You are the one who keeps emphasizing "weak and unprofitable'. That is CHARACTER, and speaks to WHY it changes as well as HOW. Once again, you make up these concepts of distinction that are just not there.

Ah, Romans 2. That was coming up next in my response anyway, and don't forget chapter 1, which goes along with it.
The Laws being "written on the heart" there as well came from God. They are HIS Laws. Man did not write any Laws on his own heart or conscience. Man is fallen for one thing, and only gravititates towards sin anyway, And even when he wasn't fallen, still, the commandments he was to keep came from God who created man.

Obviously these laws that God held even the lost gentiles up to were universal (or perennial) in scope. The same laws would naturally be included in the legal code given to Israel, along with the ceremonial and civil commands of that nation. That is all I have been pointing out, yet you keep denying it, and insisting that the Ten Commandments, no more and no less, are what God writed on man's heart or conscience, then and now. But once again, the sabbath is not written on men's hearts, and even though it was given a high "standing" in the Legal code of Moses, it is still a civil law for that nation only, and you cannot transfer it to everyone else (inclusing "spiritual" Israel). The proof is in the fact that it is not written on our hearts.

You are completely misunderstanding what I was saying regarding "quencuing the Spirit". By trying to turn around an "accussation" tback to me, you must think I was accusing you of quenching the Spirit. Thatis not what I said. What I was saying was that you insist the sabbath is a part of the laws that God writes on our (believers') hearts, but God had not written it on our hearts. That leaves two choices. Either it is not a law that God writes on the heart (and therefore not universal or perennial), or God is trying to write it on our hearts, but WE (all non-sabbathkeeping Christians) are quenching the Spirit through which He writes it (or never had the Spirit to begin with).
And of course, God is not capricious about the Law and its standing, but we are having a misunderstanding about the criterion involved.

 

What? Where do you get that from? It is not even mentioned in those chapters. Circumcision goes back even before Sinai and the Passover to Abraham. I do believe they were joined to the Law of Moses, and with the concept of universal vs. Mosaic laws can show how they were cancelled together with it. But in your system, where you try to rescue the sabbath out of this, you have to come up with these other systems of division, and they just are not working.

Yes, Jesus fulfilled them in the letter when He was alive; and He fulfilled them in the spirit for good when He died. And you keep denying "universal law", but all that is is what is "perfect and profitable". You also called it "perennial". So this is all semantics.

I don't think others will understand. Notice, with one recent exception, everyone else has bowed out of the discussion. You are saying a lot of things that don't make sense, and then misunderstand some things I say. So it is not my understanding that is the problem.

Once again, I never said thet God's original rest was a shadow of our spiritual rest. Why do you keep insinuating that? What I said was that it was the model for the literal rest commanded in the Law given to moses/Israel, and that it was this literal rest man was commanded that is a shadow of the spiritual rest. And yes, the shadow and the reality could exist at the same time, just like all the other shadows existed with the realities they pointed to, which one back then could find if they looked hard enough. Physical laws like the sabbaths, sacrifices and circumcision were reminders of the reality, which the people nevertheless often missed (especially when focusing on the letter). That was the point. All throughout Paul's writings and Hebrews, we see that people described as being "under the condemnation of the Law", because they kept missing the reality. But now, it is brought out in focus for us. So we are said to have something they did not have; something BETTER; not just a rehash of all the same laws, only with the sacrifices and civil laws removed. All of this stuff was a tutor to bring us to Christ, and now that we have christ, we are no longer under that tutor of physical do's or don'ts other than the perennial moral commandments of how to love God and our neighbor.
(You earlier tried to say that the sabbath was "abstinence" only, but it is not, because to keep it, many of us have to get up and do something; either find a new job, or in my case, because I am civil service, but don't have seniority to pick Saturdays off; I would end up being forced to midnights (a provision mde for sabbathkeepers without seniority), which, rather than me even getting physical "rest"; I would be jacked up every day, because I cannot sleep during the day and don't recover from being up all night. While this would have been no excuse under the Old Covenant, still, that was Israel's own nation (where they made their own work schdule, and not working for people who did not regard the day), and such law was clearly bound to that nation (Ex.31:13), and therefore would have passed with "the crown" as well as the others, as you said. (we are not a physical nation, so that does not pass over to the "new covenant", even though we do inherit the the position of eing "the people of the covenant"). So putting ones self through this has nothing to do with loving God, or any "moral" principle, --ESPECIALLY if man is not made for the day, but the day made for man-- and is obviously a "tutor" shadow given to Israel to represent the rest we have that most of them didn't).

No, because it did not matter which law you broke, because if you could break this supposed "least" one and be least in the kingdom, then if you broke a "greater" one, you would still be least in the Kingdom. So the standing of the Law is not even the subject there, because it has no bearing on the results.
But since you insist on taking that word so literally, then Jesus must have had a particular law in mind as "the least". Do you know which one it was? Perhaps Lev.22:27? Or maybe Ex.29:31?

And now you show a continuation of a legalist concept, which does not withstand the principles Jesus gave, as well as your own reasoning. You now go to the letter of the Law when it suits you, but when shown that you are bending it, then you try to go to the spirit of the Law. (i.e. some physical 'work' IS OK, only if it is in the name of God). Why is working for my household "my own pleasure" or "personal gain/profit", but going on some internet debate which could easily be done any other day is not? You forget the priests in the Temple, and today, the pastors in 7th Day Churches (who generally "profit" personally from it far more than I do). Providing for my household is a "good" God has commanded us to do; just as testifying about God is (and it is the holiness of God that should be the focus of our testimony! We do not worship a DAY!!!) I am not "gaining" anything but food and shelter. i would be not much good for the Kingdom on the streets, (or messed up from working midnights). To flip it around, going to work is God's will, going on this board to just announce to everyone how they are breaking the law and only you are keeping "all the commandments" is your own profit and personal gain as well. (Especially if your doctrine is not even correct!)
God is supposed to be Lord of EVERY day-- our WHOLE lives; not just one day, or particular activities. (which is probably what Jesus would have said if He had extended His "magnification" of the Law on the Sermon on the Mount to the sabbath). So your division of "commerce" and "the Kingdom" just is not as great as you think it is. We are ALWAYs supposed to be doing His will.

Once again, the burden is on you to show that the letter of this is a universal (perennial) necessity in order to love God OR be "moral". Just assuming "all Ten of the Ten commandments are perennial and only the ceremonies were unprofitable" just doesn't do it. As I have asked elsewhere, why isn't it ever a subject of teaching in the NT? Why wasn't anyone keeping it wrong, and being instructed on how to keep it right? Why isn't anyone warned about not keeping it? With all the Gentiles, who had never been accustomed to keeping it now in the fold, and their masters probably not honoring it and making them work, we would have more than just the reference in Heb.4. I know you all like to make this "the test of faith", but clearly it is absent from the NT, depite paltry attempts to read it into Revelation.

 

This does not answer my point that all moral laws come from God. Man did not write the laws aginst kippling or stealn on his own heart, so your distinction between "universal law" and "God's LAws is what is frivolous.

This does not answer my point that the sabbath is not written on the heart. So even with your "distinction of "My [God's] Laws" versus man's laws, it does not fit the description. Your side's doctrine is not sound at all, but based on inference piled up on top of inference. You have absolutely no scriptural proof that the sabbath is still binding today. Even Isaiah 66 does not say they would be refraining from work then.

I;m not the one getting off the point. You are the one claiming circumcision is apart of the Passover, and you do not show this, you just assert it. You haven't even given a single proof-text for this assertion.

This still does not answer my points that even though the covenant passed, and the laws were "cancelled"; they were still not just thrown away with no sort of fulfillment. You then go back to the debate of "relaxation versus cancellation"; But I was not even discussing that, at this point. What you seem to be arguing now sounds like it would suggest then that the sacrifices were not even shadows of Jesus. They were just dumped altogether and Jesus had nothing to do with them.

Again, you gloss over what I have actually said and inject your own words into my mouth. I did not say God's rest prefigured rest in Jesus; and I explained how the literal rest and spiritual rest could exist at the same time and one still ebe a temporary shadow "reminder" of the other. (and it's your side that keeps saying the sabbath commandment is in the chapter).

You have skirted over all the above issues now, and are just repeating the same disproven things. That is not sound doctrine.

 

Well, at least in this area, we are getting somewhere outside of the same old cycle.
The unpardonable sin was not just any blasphemy; but blasphemy against the Spirit. Look where He even says there that blasphemy aginast the Son shall be forgive. Blasphemy against the Spirit was denying the power, by which they would cut off all acess to God's regeneration and salvation.
And even the distinction between the greatest Two commandments says nothing about the ceremonies, or that this "standing" is why some laws woudl pass.

So now salvation rests on one putting thelselves through that "hardship" in the name of "the cross". But once they do, they can spend the day on the computer in almost fruitless debates about the sabbath, and as long as it is about God, it is not personal recreation. This sounds so much like the meticulous rationalization schemes the Jews used to set their standards on the sabbath and the rest of the Law, and we know what Jesus said about them. The only difference is, yours is less "restrictive". But it is restrictive enough to cause problems, yet once again, I do not see this ever as such a problem in the NT, which it would be if all those gentiles all of a sudden had to start keeping the sabbath.
Since you reject the concept of the spirit vs. the letter and how it is being addressed in Heb4, you continue to make this discrtinction of "commerce" and "the Kingdom", but in a very spiritual sense, we are in the Kingdom, and the two areas have combined, as God is to be Lord of our whole lives, meaning every day, not just one day. Focusing on the letter, you miss this, and still have lists of accepatable and unacceptable activities, which are set in a way to be "hard" enough that you can boast of "hardship for the Cross" and judge others, but still convenient enough where you want it to be. But in all this, you forget that "by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified". And not just any hardship one putes themselves through is really of the Cross. Look at many other religions that think and live that way.

 

We see in Isaiah 66 that the Holy Day of Christ the creator called "the Day of the LORD" in Isaiah 58 - is CONTINUED in the New Heavens and the New Earth for ALL MAKIND "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND" come before Me to Worship.

Hence it is obvious that Christ the Creator did not "Abolish" His own Holy day in the New Covenant.

God shows that HE created something for MANKIND on each day of creation WEEK - including the Seventh day "made Holy FOR MANKIND".

Recall that in Gen 2:3 there is only Adam and Eve as "mankind".

Quote:
Genesis 2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.


And there is where the 7th day of the week given to mankind finds it's origin!

Hence Christ said it was "MADE FOR mankind" Mark 2:27


But Eric says

Quote:
"Make holy" still does not equate "command everyone else to cease from work on that day immediately and forever".

Marriage was MADE for mankind. That means that ALL must respect and honor Marriage. ALL are "Children" of parents (as it turns out). ALL must honor and respect the marriage of OTHERS and of their parents.

For marriage was made FOR mankind as a blessing. However God does not say of marriage the SAME sweeping statements that he makes for HIS OWN Seventh-day Holy day!

In the case of the Seventh day God says "From Sabbath to Sabbath SHALL ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

He does not say "From Year to year shall ALL MANKIND come before me to be married or renew marriage vows".

God says "that as GOD rested on the Seventh-day" - SO shall you BECAUSE of the Gen 2:3 fact "alone" where God "MADE the Day Holy"!

God does not say "For as Adam was joined to Eve in Marriage so must you all do likewise" - rather he argues that those WHO DO participate in marriage must follow the "for all mankind" model when they do it and those who DO NOT participate in it must still show the honor and respect for the institution that all must have.

As Isaiah 66 shows this "does not change in the future" of the New Heavens and New Earth. Exegesis demands that we admit that Isaiah's concept of "Sabbath" was every bit what John the baptizer, David, and Adam would have had OT!

 

It is amazing how you are just make up this concept by fiat to justify your doctrine.
You seem to be trying to prove that even the person who does not participate in marriage is still "participating" in a way, or "honoring" it in the same way that a person "honors" the sabbath; as if he is under the "Law of marriage". And "honoring" one's parents' marriage? That is still not "participating" in what God made "for mankind".
All of that is not how the Bible defines "honoring" marriage. Romans 7:2-3 says "The woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband...she is free from that Law so that she is no adulteress though she be married to another man".

But Bob says "NO! She is STILL BOUND to the law of marriage, because she must 'honor' her parent's marriage, and everyone else's marriage". We must use scriptures definitions of its own concepts, Bob!

You missed where I said above to Michael "Even Isaiah 66 does not say they would be refraining from work then". He says "come before Me"; that alone is not "KEEPing" it in the sense that He commanded Israel. And you've repeatedly missed where I have said that to apply God's original "rest" to man is no comparison, because man was not creating, and God did not go back to work on the eighth day! There is no comparison. That was not a command for man to do likewise; and none was given until Exodus. God does not say "As I commanded all mankind, and all the faithful since Adam have kept the day since I sanctified it at Creation; so are you to rest". It was something He was giving them for the first time.

It's amzing that you can come up with such "mental gymnastics" (as one of the Cocers says), and think you really have a case against all non-sabbathkeepers.

 

A couple of pertinent points I forgot from this morning, in the rush:

1) People will be lost because of lawlessness; not legalism; Let us error on the side of the law and not on the side of lawlessness.

This is precisely the mindset of the Jews, and precisely why they added so many "manmade restrictions" (which you all take care disclaim), in the first place! In fact, we can even see the latent lawlessness in the claim that it is actually OK to "error"; just as long as it is "on the side of Law". That is actually a form of lawlessness! Only the person comitting it decides for himself what is bends or does not bend the law; just like "corban".This is precisely the mindset that Christ and Paul attacked all ovetr the NT. AND; it also is precisely what the "rest in Christ" in Heb.4 is NOT! This "just to be on the safe side" mentality is exactly what the "rest" is FROM.
Ironic that claims of "legalism" were actually thrown at me for a long while; but this makes it further clear who the legalist really is!

2)using hardships as an excuse not to take up the cross

Once again, in the rush, I forgot to mention the obvious point that I have been through this "hardship" before, leaving one job, and losing another over it. So I am not just justifying avoiding a hardship. I have endure it before. I would not have abandened the practice if the argumentation used for it had not been so flawed; as someone showed me back then. These arguments are purely FLIMSY, and as I have said; it all boils down to mere inferences. You all have produced no scripture talling us to put ourselves through this burden today. Just Creation; Exodus, and Isaiah. Everything BUT NT instruction!