Are you suggesting Jesus would not have obeyed the voice of God if He were in Moses' place? In other words, if Jesus had inquired of God whether to stone the guy to death or not, would Jesus have disregarded God's command and have forgiven him instead?

Hi MM,

Actually in the ceremonial service we find the remedy for sin. We have the High priest representing Christ as our mediator, the sacrifice representing Christ as our substitute and surety, the tabernacle representing God dwelling in and among us, the feast as a compacted prophecy of the plan of salvation through Jesus. I would say that the only thing in the ceremonies that “were against us” was our misunderstanding of them by thinking it was our obedience to the ceremonies that secured our salvation rather than the righteousness and mercy of God.

What really condemned us are the 10 Commandments. There is no remedy in them! They represent the standard of righteousness and sit in judgment on us as we see how short we fall. But over all I would say that the “written code” is the whole covenant that God made with Israel that we call the Old Covenant. That covenant condemned Israel because Israel failed to understand what it taught and actually believed exactly the opposite of what God was trying to do though it. Its purpose was to lead us down through history to Jesus! And the Jews so missed the point that they killed their Messiah when He came.

What Paul is saying here is that we were dead believing that our circumcision and law keeping were going to save us. But God’s forgiveness has brought us back to life and canceled out the damage that our misunderstanding of the law caused. That written code was nailed to the cross because it was a picture of Christ being nailed to the cross. It was a compacted prophecy of Christ and once He had come the wisdom and salvation of God was made manifest in Christ Jesus. What the law couldn’t do, lead us to love God, because our faith was weak Christ, dying on the cross so manifested His love that we are made alive in the love of God.

scott

Isn't that exactly what Jesus did? Jesus and the Father are one and Jesus never killed anyone caught in sin. Are you saying that Jesus isn't God or that God changed when He revealed His will to Jesus? Was Jesus just a PR man for God or was He God in the flesh? Is it God's way to command men to kill, but not get His hands dirty while His journey as a man?

You are saying that God insisted on Moses killing those breaking the law so why didn't God insist that the men who caught the woman in adultery kill her? Why did God in Jesus suddenly show mercy, but was exacting through Moses.

You might not realize it, but you are the one sugesting that God is fickle!

scott

Are you saying that the text says that we no longer need the 10 Commandments since we now know Christ’s character?

I find it interesting how you dissect the Old Covenant into whatever part fits your theology.

Hebrews systematically walks us through every aspect of the Old Covenant and shows us that Christ is “better than”. Greater than Moses, built a greater tabernacle made of living stones, better that Aaron, better than the earthly High Priest, even a better priesthood, better sacrifice, and concluding in chapter 8 that Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant based on better promises and the Old Covenant that was just a shadow of Jesus’ ministry has become obsolete and ready to vanish.

In the Bible the writings of Moses are called “The Law” and the rest of the Bible is referred to as “The Prophets”. The Testimony of the Law and the Prophets are what we call the Old Testament. And the word “testament” is just the Latin form of the word “covenant”. So, according to the word, there is no distinction between “New Covenant” and “New Testament”. It is the same words, just different languages or translations.

Every word in the OT was written by an Israelite of the flesh. The whole OT is a historic account of God’s covenant with Israel that we call the Old Covenant or Old Testament.

While you are supposing what part of the law applies to the verse and what part of the law doesn’t apply doesn’t it occur to you to find out what the writers meant by the words they used rather that guessing.

scott

Not according to Jesus’ words. Jesus said “you have heard, but I say”. That is very clear language that what Moses said was different that was Jesus was saying. The word “but” is called an adversative or continuative. It can mean “but” or “moreover”, something adverse to or addition to. The only way to interpret it is though the context and the context is adversative. Jesus is comparing what they heard from Moses with what He was teaching. Jesus claimed authority over Moses many times, but not to undermine Moses. He saw Himself as the fulfillment of what Moses was called to start.

I agree that what Jesus said was inherent in the law of Moses only in principle. In other words the principles that Moses’ laws were based on were the same principles that Jesus’ word was based on. The difference being the revelation of God that Jesus came to show us. Jesus is the exegesis of the OT. He explains it and not the other way around. It testifies of Him and He verifies its meaning. If you want prophetic proof that Jesus is the Messiah you go the the OT, but if you want to know what the OT was all about all we have to do is know God through Jesus. We don’t look at the OT as a revelation of God. It was a revelation of our affiliation with sin and our condemnation. Jesus is the perfect image of the Father and the only full revelation of truth this world has ever seen.

scott

Hi MM,

Paul calls the 10 Commandment (engraved in letters on stone) “the ministry that condemns” and says that it is “fading away”. He also says that "the ministry of death", the 10 Commandments that bring condemnation, have no glory compared to the ministry of the Spirit that brings righteousness.

What do you mean by “no longer binding”

Didn’t you just say that the 10 Commandments, in Galatians 3, are the schoolmaster who led us to Christ of which we are no longer under?

What does “no longer under”, “ministry of death”, and “fading away” mean to you?

scott

Now you're misrepresenting what you yourself wrote! I'm glad to know it's not something personal! Reread what you wrote, and where I made my comment, and it should be clear what I'm suggesting.



My point has been that God was dealing with a backward and stiffnecked people, and so had to make accommodations for them. This is just one example of that.



But the same thing would apply to men. Why shouldn't men's hands be cut off? Why only women's?



According to the statement I've cited a number of times now, polygamy is a sin, contrary to the law of God, never sanctioned in a single instance. Aren't you suggesting that the law of Moses sanctioned it?

God's "strange act" is his giving someone up for destruction. The fiery serpents are an example of that.



We've been through this several times already. You've asked me to provide examples, and I did. If you don't like the examples, fine, but there's no point in just asking for the same thing over and over again.

Regarding if I believe God does things like sending fiery serpents to punish people, I do. You know what happened, don't you?



You were being sarcastic when you wrote "Thank you for stating the obvious."

Here's an EGW statement:



Using this definition for sin, I would say no, not guilty of sinning.

Better start actually quoting your Greek and Hebrew here, with their Strong's numbers so that I can look them up. Otherwise, I have nothing to go on other than somebody's say-so--which is never considered safe.

You certainly weren't using the Greek and Hebrew to make your points earlier--and I'm telling you that the NIV will not make points with me. Do your Greek and Hebrew texts omit verses of the Bible because they mention "fasting"? Do they change the word "Joseph" to "father"? Do they omit articles so that "the Sabbath" is just "a sabbath?" I doubt it. What's more, I will not accept that the entire law was done away with.

IF THE LAW WAS ABOLISHED, THEN CHRIST'S DEATH ON THE CROSS WAS SATAN'S VICTORY, NOT GOD'S.

This is just common sense. Satan has been waging war with God OVER THE LAW, from the very beginning.

It is because people try to contradict themselves by saying that the Old Testament was "nailed to the cross" and that the New Testament is new and different and the only thing valid today, that we have issues over things like the laws of Moses which we are discussing now.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your statements in this last post quite strongly. I find them to be falsehoods which many are deceived by.

The "Old Covenant" is misunderstood largely because of the modern versions of the Bible. People were not discussing the "old covenant" versus the "new" nearly so much before the NIV came out and misrepresented the issue.

For a few facts:

1) THE Covenant did not begin with the children of Israel.
2) THE Covenant has been further clarified, strengthened, and renewed with each successive presentation of it through the Bible.
3) THE Covenant, whether you call it "Old" or "New," is the same covenant throughout the Scriptures.

Does God ever break a promise? Of course not! That would be tantamount to lying--especially from a Being who knows the future! Does God ever make anything less than perfect? Does He speak haphazardly, or do anything without thought? But then, how would you interpret this?

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (Hebrews 8:6-7, KJV)

If you miss the point Paul is making here, then you will easily miss the whole discussion. Many have been led astray here.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.