The Ten Commandments are the Covenant, did you know?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
All of them were changed. Answer my question. Which verses are you referring to?
Its right there....

Which law are they speaking of?

Heb7: 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

The priesthood and why did it have to change?

13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has [b]officiated at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning [c]priesthood.

Jesus came from the tribe of Judah for which no man has officiated at the alter. Why because the law said the priesthood had to come from the tribe of Levi but Jesus came from the tribe of Judah why the law of the priesthood had to change so Jesus could be our High Priest in the New Covenant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vassal
No. The New Covenant is NOT based upon the Old Covenant laws and commandments just residing in a different place.
Christ was from the tribe of Juda and became the new eternal high priest of a New Covenant; He was not from the tribe of Levi - the tribe from which the priests of the Old Covenant were taken. The purpose of the high priest was/is to minister only for those laws for which he was a priest. By necessity, therefore, along with a new high priest (Christ), came new commandments and laws upon which He was to minister. For those whom God places under the New Covenant through Christ, the Old Covenant law and commandments by Him were ended - all were invalidated and superseded in/by Christ.

[Heb 7:12-16, 18-19, 24 KJV]
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. ...
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God. ...
24 But this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

The heart of the error is simple: you are turning a change of priesthood into the cancellation of God’s moral commands. Jesus never did that. God never said that.
First, Melchizedek proves your claim wrong before Christ even arrives. He was priest of God before Levi existed(Genesis 14:18). That means priesthood does not depend on the Sinai system. So a priest outside Levi does not require God to erase His commandments. That idea is added, not taught.

Second, Jesus directly contradicts your conclusion:
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17, KJV)
If the law was “ended, invalidated, and superseded,” then Jesus either misspoke or misled. Neither is acceptable.

Third, Jesus defines what remains binding after His coming:
“Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19, KJV)
That alone kills the idea that all commandments were invalidated.

Fourth, the New Covenant was already defined by God, not by later arguments:
“I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.” (Jeremiah 31:33, KJV)
Notice what God says.
Not “new laws.”
Not “no laws.”
My law, written on the heart.

Fifth, Jesus explains the real change. Not law removed, but law deepened:
“Ye have heard… but I say unto you…” (Matthew 5)
He does not cancel commands. He strips away loopholes and hypocrisy and goes straight to the heart.

Finally, the priesthood argument only applies to sacrificial and temple administration, not to God’s definition of sin, righteousness, love, or obedience. Jesus never sacrificed animals, never taught animal sacrifice, and never told people God’s commandments were void.

If your conclusion were true, Jesus would not say:
“If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matthew 19:17, KJV)

The New Covenant did not erase God’s standard.
It removed forgiveness without obedience and religion without transformation.

Change of priesthood? Yes.
Change of sacrifices? Yes.
Abolition of God’s commandments? Absolutely not.
That idea comes from reading theology into Christ instead of listening to Him.
 
Its right there....

Which law are they speaking of?

Heb7: 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

The priesthood and why did it have to change?

13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has [b]officiated at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning [c]priesthood.

Jesus came from the tribe of Judah for which no man has officiated at the alter. Why because the law said the priesthood had to come from the tribe of Levi but Jesus came from the tribe of Judah why the law of the priesthood had to change so Jesus could be our High Priest in the New Covenant.

The OC law had to change because God had promised salvation through Christ alone and not by the keeping of law.
So, you are agreeing that Old Covenant law and commandments have ended and have no efficacy whatsoever regarding salvation due to the New Covenant and Christ?
 
The OC law had to change because God had promised salvation through Christ alone and not by the keeping of law.
So, you are agreeing that Old Covenant law and commandments have ended and have no efficacy whatsoever regarding salvation due to the New Covenant and Christ?
Jesus never said we didn't have to keep any laws. He plainly taught not to break or teach others to break the least of these commandments Mat5:19-30 breaking the law of God leads those who teach and follow this teaching into a ditch according to Jesus Mat15:3-14

Salvation has never been about law keeping, its about faith. The law is kept not to be saved because someone who is saved doesn't live like someone who is lost.

Rev 14:12 Here is the [a]patience of the saints; here[b] are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

I am OK agreeing to disagree. I guess we shall find out soon enough.
 
The OC law had to change because God had promised salvation through Christ alone and not by the keeping of law.
So, you are agreeing that Old Covenant law and commandments have ended and have no efficacy whatsoever regarding salvation due to the New Covenant and Christ?
Then you deny jesus who said clearly to Keep the Commandments.

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Mat 19:17)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my word, he shall never see death.
(John 8:51)
 
he heart of the error is simple: you are turning a change of priesthood into the cancellation of God’s moral commands. Jesus never did that. God never said that.
First, Melchizedek proves your claim wrong before Christ even arrives. He was priest of God before Levi existed(Genesis 14:18). That means priesthood does not depend on the Sinai system. So a priest outside Levi does not require God to erase His commandments. That idea is added, not taught.

[Heb 7:18 KJV] 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Second, Jesus directly contradicts your conclusion:
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17, KJV)
If the law was “ended, invalidated, and superseded,” then Jesus either misspoke or misled. Neither is acceptable.

The verse says that Christ fulfilled the laws, not that man must. You can't only take the "a' part of the verse and ignore the "b" part of it.

Third, Jesus defines what remains binding after His coming:
“Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19, KJV)
That alone kills the idea that all commandments were invalidated.

The commandment He is speaking of is that He fulfilled all of the law; that is, if anyone says that Christ did not satisfy it all, then they shall be called "least". You impose upon the verse the meanings of its words as you want them to be, but not as intended by the complete verse.

Fourth, the New Covenant was already defined by God, not by later arguments:
“I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.” (Jeremiah 31:33, KJV)
Notice what God says.
Not “new laws.”
Not “no laws.”
My law, written on the heart.

God's law changed as was realized by the coming of Christ as high priest. See the following verses. It is clearly spelled out there.

[Heb 7:16-19, 22 KJV]
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God. ...
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

All the remainder of your post is wrong because you see everything through the lens of the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant, which New Covenant was satisfied solely by Christ. You are spiritually blind to this so I am not going to go through your errors to correct them. If you don't see Christ completely as THE Savior, then you deny Christ.
 
[Heb 7:18 KJV] 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.



The verse says that Christ fulfilled the laws, not that man must. You can't only take the "a' part of the verse and ignore the "b" part of it.



The commandment He is speaking of is that He fulfilled all of the law; that is, if anyone says that Christ did not satisfy it all, then they shall be called "least". You impose upon the verse the meanings of its words as you want them to be, but not as intended by the complete verse.



God's law changed as was realized by the coming of Christ as high priest. See the following verses. It is clearly spelled out there.

[Heb 7:16-19, 22 KJV]
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God. ...
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

All the remainder of your post is wrong because you see everything through the lens of the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant, which New Covenant was satisfied solely by Christ. You are spiritually blind to this so I am not going to go through your errors to correct them. If you don't see Christ completely as THE Savior, then you deny Christ.

Well you can debate all this to Jesus our Lord later on. You know that we shall be judged by HIS words and His alone, right?
 
If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. (Mat 19:17)

Wrong. Jesus is saying to him that if he would enter into life based upon his own works, not upon Christ saving him, then he must keep all of the commandments.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my word, he shall never see death.(John 8:51)

That is, to keep that Christ is the Savior - not that they must satisfy the law. Only those who have been saved and have been given true
faith in Christ can keep His word. He is giving edification, not requirements for them to satisfy
 
Well you can debate all this to Jesus our Lord later on. You know that we shall be judged by HIS words and His alone, right?

Definitely I know that and I also know that He alone is the Savior, and as such, salvation is through/by He alone and in no way by
our keeping of law, otherwise, no one could/would ever become saved.
 
Wrong. Jesus is saying to him that if he would enter into life based upon his own works, not upon Christ saving him, then he must keep all of the commandments.


That is, to keep that Christ is the Savior - not that they must satisfy the law. Only those who have been saved and have been given true
faith in Christ can keep His word.
Did jesus satisfy the law?, was he not an example to us all? God wants us to he Holy as he is Holy, he made us in his image..... need I say more?
 
Did jesus satisfy the law?, was he not an example to us all? God wants us to he Holy as he is Holy, he made us in his image..... need I say more?

Can't be both at the same time. If He satisfied law, which He did, then there is no need for those He saves to do so for their salvation, otherwise, if was still a requirement for us to accomplish, then Jesus couldn't have satisfied it as we are told that He did.
 
Read carefully (Jeremiah 31:31:34) and pay attention to identify correctly the context relative to the timing for this prophecy another important point that complements this prophecy is the parable of the mustard seed.(Matthew 13:31-35) this will answer your question.

The mustard seed is Jeremiah 31:34 which is cited in Hebrews 8:8 and Hebrews 10:16-17, which refer back to Jeremiah 31:33 and 34 This is the covenant he writes on our hearts and our minds, it is the covenant of Love, that 'their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." That is the mustard seed that grows into loving the Lord with all our heart, and all our mind, and all our strength.

I can afford a bit of speculation on this forum, seeing that much of it does go on throughout the various topics, so I will take the liberty, that is plainly afforded, to indulge here and there in it. I wonder how far off I might be to think that Jesus drew hearts in the sand as he challenged the crowd gathered to stone the adulteress.
 
The Bible does present the Ten Commandments as the covenant itself. In Exodus 34:28, it is written:

"So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments."

"So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone (Deuteronomy 4:13, NKJV)

This clearly states that the Ten Commandments are the covenant. When we look at Jeremiah 31:31-33, we see God speaking of a new covenant, but notice what He says:

"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."


This passage does not say the law itself would change. Instead, it tells us that the ten commandments that are the covenant instead of being written on stone tablets, would be written in our hearts and minds. That means the law remains the same, but its place changes, from external tablets to internal conviction. This is why we see in the Gospels of John, Matthew, Luke and Mark, Jesus teaching the commandments and magnifying them.

Now, let's connect this with the Ark of the Covenant. In Deuteronomy 10:1-5, God commanded Moses to place the two tablets of the Ten Commandments inside the Ark:


"At that time the Lord said to me, ‘Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and come up to Me on the mountain, and make yourself an ark of wood... Then I turned and came down from the mountain, and put the tablets in the ark which I had made; and there they are, just as the Lord commanded me.’"

This shows the special place of the Ten Commandments, inside the Ark, symbolizing their central role in the covenant. But what about the rest of the law? In Deuteronomy 31:24-26, Moses wrote the book of the law and placed it beside the Ark:


"So it was, when Moses had completed writing the words of this law in a book, when they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying: ‘Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there as a witness against you.’”

This distinction is important. The Ten Commandments being described clearly as the Covenant were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, showing their eternal, unchanging nature as the foundation of the covenant. The rest of the law was placed beside the Ark, acting as a witness.

Now, when Jeremiah speaks of the law being written in our hearts, he is speaking of the same law, the Ten Commandments. The "new" part of the covenant is not that the law changes but that God Himself ensures it is within us, guiding us from within rather than being an external set of rules. This aligns perfectly with how Jesus upheld and fulfilled the law, always pointing back to love for God and neighbor as the foundation of obedience (Matthew 22:36-40).

So, the New Covenant is not about replacing the Ten Commandments but about making them part of who we are.

Blessings
I agree . The ten commandments are moral laws. They're timeless for the Christian and,in my view, imperative for a righteous path. The new covenant is enmeshed in the ten commandments.
 
This question already shows the mistake.
You are framing it as a choice Jesus never gave.
Jesus did not come asking people to pick between “the Law of Moses” or “the Law of Christ” as two opposing systems. That is a false split.
Jesus said plainly what He was doing:
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17, KJV)
Destroy means cancel. Replace. Abolish.
And "fulfill" means "bring to completion". If something has been brought to completion, why do you think you still need to add your obedience to it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NightTwister
The mustard seed is Jeremiah 31:34 which is cited in Hebrews 8:8 and Hebrews 10:16-17, which refer back to Jeremiah 31:33 and 34 This is the covenant he writes on our hearts and our minds, it is the covenant of Love, that 'their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." That is the mustard seed that grows into loving the Lord with all our heart, and all our mind, and all our strength.

I can afford a bit of speculation on this forum, seeing that much of it does go on throughout the various topics, so I will take the liberty, that is plainly afforded, to indulge here and there in it. I wonder how far off I might be to think that Jesus drew hearts in the sand as he challenged the crowd gathered to stone the adulteress.
good start, a bit late for me tonight but I will explain more tomorrow.
 
And "fulfill" means "bring to completion". If something has been brought to completion, why do you think you still need to add your obedience to it?
it is a bit late for me here but i will write back tomorrow
 
Can't be both at the same time. If He satisfied law, which He did, then there is no need for those He saves to do so for their salvation, otherwise, if was still a requirement for us to accomplish, then Jesus couldn't have satisfied it as we are told that He did.

Jesus did satisfy the law, but not so we could ignore it. He satisfied it as the perfect Son, not as a substitute for our obedience. He never said, “I obey so you don’t have to.” He said, “Follow Me.”
Salvation is not earned by law-keeping, but the life He saves is a life that walks as He walked. If obedience were no longer needed, Jesus would not command us to keep His words, bear fruit, deny ourselves, and live holy lives. He fulfilled the law to show what true obedience looks like, and to make a way for us to live it through Him, not apart from Him.
Grace removes condemnation, not discipleship.


Jesus gave His life to redeem us. Let us live in a way that honors His sacrifice!
 
So, what are you secure in? Surely, you suppose that you are secure in your sabbath keeping. Neat story, my granddaughter couldn't tell any better as such a tale.
I imagine you think you said something…just trolling along huh?
 
I imagine you think you said something…just trolling along huh?
Why are you so reluctant to plainly say which law you believe the believer is to follow? In my view, you would be better off just plainly stating what you believe, because people will only keep on asking, and they may wonder why you are so hesitant to answer