O.T. Circumcision a foreshadow of N.T. Water Baptism
- Thread starter Wansvic
- Start date
-
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.
I see nothing of a 'bloody husband' in that verse.
That's not a parable, it isn't even an allegory. It's actual history.
Actually it had to do with purification/sanctification to the priesthood. (v.1)
Jesus didn't become High Priest until His death...
Hebrews 9:11-12 (KJV) But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Not sure what you mean here, but the Office of High Priest stayed with a Jew...Jesus.
That's not a parable, it isn't even an allegory. It's actual history.
Actually it had to do with purification/sanctification to the priesthood. (v.1)
Jesus didn't become High Priest until His death...
Hebrews 9:11-12 (KJV) But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Not sure what you mean here, but the Office of High Priest stayed with a Jew...Jesus.
Not water baptism but the New Birth.
For Israel natural birth was followed by circumcision, which was a removal the "the flesh" (actually and metaphorically): I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh...
Under the New Covenant, circumcision is equal to the new heart which God gives to the one who is born again. Not water baptism which follows regeneration.
Then will I sprinkle clean water [the baptism with Holy Spirit] upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: [regeneration] and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, [spiritual circumcision] and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit [the Holy Spirit] within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. (Ezek 36:25-27)
For Israel natural birth was followed by circumcision, which was a removal the "the flesh" (actually and metaphorically): I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh...
Under the New Covenant, circumcision is equal to the new heart which God gives to the one who is born again. Not water baptism which follows regeneration.
Then will I sprinkle clean water [the baptism with Holy Spirit] upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: [regeneration] and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, [spiritual circumcision] and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit [the Holy Spirit] within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. (Ezek 36:25-27)
-
2
- Show all
do you baptize children or not?
historically no one ever made the argument that that circumcision = baptism until the presbyterian movement, and it was to justify baptizing infants, a practice which was already being done.
the baptism of infants has been practiced since at least 2nd or 3rd century, and we know this because we have writings of early church fathers arguing against it. at that time it was done because people were believing that it was a mystical act which saved whoever it was done to -- irregardless of repentance or faith.
at the time of Augustine, who taught the church original sin, it was believed to specifically remove the sin nature - regardless of faith or repentance, and tho infants were still being baptized, very often actual believers were putting off their baptism until late in life, believing that sins after baptism were much harder to forgive than sins before -- and that the act of baptism forgave sins. they were not saying it was equal to circumcision.
the church historically never made these covenant-theology statements equating baptism with circumcision until the last few centuries, and they were trying to justify a practice already in place by doing so: infant baptism.
what is being described is a baptism that is completely removed from faith, from repentance, and from belief -- on the part of the one being baptized. a baptism that means nothing to the one being baptized, and is only symbolic of the parents of a child making a vow to raise their children with best moral intentions. i don't see this as the way baptism is presented in scripture, at all.
if you are willing to devote about 25 hours of study, here is a very informative and thorough series of lectures on the subject going painstakingly through the history, the theology, and all the scriptures pedobaptists use to justify their practice:
https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....+Is+Wrong&keyword=Why+Infant+Baptism+Is+Wrong
historically no one ever made the argument that that circumcision = baptism until the presbyterian movement, and it was to justify baptizing infants, a practice which was already being done.
the baptism of infants has been practiced since at least 2nd or 3rd century, and we know this because we have writings of early church fathers arguing against it. at that time it was done because people were believing that it was a mystical act which saved whoever it was done to -- irregardless of repentance or faith.
at the time of Augustine, who taught the church original sin, it was believed to specifically remove the sin nature - regardless of faith or repentance, and tho infants were still being baptized, very often actual believers were putting off their baptism until late in life, believing that sins after baptism were much harder to forgive than sins before -- and that the act of baptism forgave sins. they were not saying it was equal to circumcision.
the church historically never made these covenant-theology statements equating baptism with circumcision until the last few centuries, and they were trying to justify a practice already in place by doing so: infant baptism.
what is being described is a baptism that is completely removed from faith, from repentance, and from belief -- on the part of the one being baptized. a baptism that means nothing to the one being baptized, and is only symbolic of the parents of a child making a vow to raise their children with best moral intentions. i don't see this as the way baptism is presented in scripture, at all.
if you are willing to devote about 25 hours of study, here is a very informative and thorough series of lectures on the subject going painstakingly through the history, the theology, and all the scriptures pedobaptists use to justify their practice:
https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....+Is+Wrong&keyword=Why+Infant+Baptism+Is+Wrong
-
1
- Show all
Circumcision of the flesh has become the circumcision of the heart today. The circumcision faction of the first century assembly was trying to convert the new converts to Jewdaisum and supplant the Kingdom of Elohim. It's the same story today. Abraham believed YHWH and credits him with righteousness. Because Abraham remained faithful YHWH Elohim made a blood covenant with him saying he would remain faithful. The baptism through immersion is record the remission of sin. In another way it is a lesson on obedience to the will of the Father through His way. It is s picture of the death and resurrection. As well it is a picture of immersion into the full truth. He didn't only take our punishment, he also took away the condemnation so we may now be set apart through obedience to the Father's instructions
-
1
-
1
- Show all
What you say about churches with early baptism I see expressed as a way to live, even here at this Christian site. Posters often take Paul's teaching as against what they call obedience to all law. Paul would be shocked and hurt at these people.
The cause of this breakdown is partly that scripture as read as EITHER history or spiritual. In fact, God uses all history to teach the spiritual. Almost always there is history in spiritual teaching.
I think the main cause of the breakdown of people wanting to live for Christ by how they act is expressed often in the responses to this thread. First, there is a disconnect between the OT and the new. Actually, there is always a sameness in the ways of God expressed in the OT and in the NT. God is eternal, and over and over I read how there was such a change in God from old to new. There was, I am sure it is a fact, that there is no change.
Back to circumcision: Many of these posts put in their own way of understanding it. God is very clear about what circumcision means is explained in the OT. It needs no interpretation, nothing to add to it. It is required of us, and the physical cutting does not need to be done when we are circumcised. All that is needed today is to read what the eternal God tells us about it in the OT and accept that as from God, not from any foreign God but the same as Christ speaking for they are one.
The cause of this breakdown is partly that scripture as read as EITHER history or spiritual. In fact, God uses all history to teach the spiritual. Almost always there is history in spiritual teaching.
I think the main cause of the breakdown of people wanting to live for Christ by how they act is expressed often in the responses to this thread. First, there is a disconnect between the OT and the new. Actually, there is always a sameness in the ways of God expressed in the OT and in the NT. God is eternal, and over and over I read how there was such a change in God from old to new. There was, I am sure it is a fact, that there is no change.
Back to circumcision: Many of these posts put in their own way of understanding it. God is very clear about what circumcision means is explained in the OT. It needs no interpretation, nothing to add to it. It is required of us, and the physical cutting does not need to be done when we are circumcised. All that is needed today is to read what the eternal God tells us about it in the OT and accept that as from God, not from any foreign God but the same as Christ speaking for they are one.
-
1
- Show all
Well there is history and there is inspired history. I don't see infant baptism taught in Scripture, especially as a means of regeneration.
There is no change in God's character from the OT to the NT but there are changes in His dealings with man He had the Israelites do certain things that He has not instructed the Gentiles to do ( e.g. See Acts 15).
Sure I read of circumcision in the OT and realize it may be a figure of our being cut off from this world sin and the flesh through the operation made without hands (Col 2:11), but I watch my language making sure young Christians don't get confused that we are now Jews or are under obligations of the Jewish OT rites, ceremonies, feasts and local ordinances.
There is no change in God's character from the OT to the NT but there are changes in His dealings with man He had the Israelites do certain things that He has not instructed the Gentiles to do ( e.g. See Acts 15).
Sure I read of circumcision in the OT and realize it may be a figure of our being cut off from this world sin and the flesh through the operation made without hands (Col 2:11), but I watch my language making sure young Christians don't get confused that we are now Jews or are under obligations of the Jewish OT rites, ceremonies, feasts and local ordinances.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
You stopped reading and therefore you missed the scriptures associated with the posts point:
"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.” Genesis 17:10-14
Moses was also told to circumcise all male children. His disobedience almost cost him his life:
“And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.
Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.” Exodus 4:24-26
"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.” Genesis 17:10-14
Moses was also told to circumcise all male children. His disobedience almost cost him his life:
“And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.
Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.” Exodus 4:24-26
-
1
-
1
- Show all
"crossnote, post: 3875776, member: 145370"You said: "]Well there is history and there is inspired history. I don't see infant baptism taught in Scripture, especially as a means of regeneration."
I am saying that ALL history given in scripture has spiritual teaching for us. Not there is some inspired, but all inspired. And I do think infant baptism is taught in the teaching to bring up children in the Lord. That is what is meant when infant baptism is used. Also, they are aware that something of God happens when we become baptized, and hope for this for their children. Always the child is to speak for himself when he gets older.
You said: "There is no change in God's character from the OT to the NT but there are changes in His dealings with man He had the Israelites do certain things that He has not instructed the Gentiles to do" ( e.g. See Acts 15).
I see the sameness in how God deals with man, it seems to me that it takes this understanding to be able to understand God. We need to know the sameness in all God's covenants with us I think. We need the sacrificial system explaining in our minds to fully understand Christ, what water stood for to understand water's place in the rituals we are to do, what the duties were of the priests to understand Christ.
You said "Sure I read of circumcision in the OT and realize it may be a figure of our being cut off from this world sin and the flesh through the operation made without hands (Col 2:11), but I watch my language making sure young Christians don't get confused that we are now Jews or are under obligations of the Jewish OT rites, ceremonies, feasts and local ordinances."
I think you are getting hung up on that it was an operation of the flesh, and God does not get hung up on the fleshly part so to understand you need to clear it out of your mind as you read what it meant in the OT. Circumcision means exactly the same today as it meant then. No maybe, or just part of what it meant but the entire shebang if you take out the physical cutting part.
I am saying that ALL history given in scripture has spiritual teaching for us. Not there is some inspired, but all inspired. And I do think infant baptism is taught in the teaching to bring up children in the Lord. That is what is meant when infant baptism is used. Also, they are aware that something of God happens when we become baptized, and hope for this for their children. Always the child is to speak for himself when he gets older.
You said: "There is no change in God's character from the OT to the NT but there are changes in His dealings with man He had the Israelites do certain things that He has not instructed the Gentiles to do" ( e.g. See Acts 15).
I see the sameness in how God deals with man, it seems to me that it takes this understanding to be able to understand God. We need to know the sameness in all God's covenants with us I think. We need the sacrificial system explaining in our minds to fully understand Christ, what water stood for to understand water's place in the rituals we are to do, what the duties were of the priests to understand Christ.
You said "Sure I read of circumcision in the OT and realize it may be a figure of our being cut off from this world sin and the flesh through the operation made without hands (Col 2:11), but I watch my language making sure young Christians don't get confused that we are now Jews or are under obligations of the Jewish OT rites, ceremonies, feasts and local ordinances."
I think you are getting hung up on that it was an operation of the flesh, and God does not get hung up on the fleshly part so to understand you need to clear it out of your mind as you read what it meant in the OT. Circumcision means exactly the same today as it meant then. No maybe, or just part of what it meant but the entire shebang if you take out the physical cutting part.
-
1
- Show all
Yes all Scripture and the history found in it is inspired but our interpretation of it is not.
OT types and shadows do not 'more fully reveal the sun (Son) of the NT.
i used flesh, not in the physical sense, but meaning human strength and effort done without God. Two different things. OT circumcision was a picture of the removal of us doing things in our own strength and totally relying on God, as we are commanded in the NT.
OT types and shadows do not 'more fully reveal the sun (Son) of the NT.
i used flesh, not in the physical sense, but meaning human strength and effort done without God. Two different things. OT circumcision was a picture of the removal of us doing things in our own strength and totally relying on God, as we are commanded in the NT.
I can not believe that God would tell people at one time to not totally depend on Him and in another time to totally depend on Him. I think we have to know that Christ died for our sins and was set up as soon as Adam fell but Christ was God and did not change God in the least tiniest bit.
God tried to train people in the OT, and the people who wandered in the wilderness were an almost totally Egyptian trained. At one point God almost gave up on them. But the God who worked with people in the OT and Christ, the God who works with people in the NT is the very same God with the same characteristics.
What happens when we keep in mind that the OT only had shadows, God was training these people and using symbols as God does with us, we are not to get caught up on the symbols being "only" shadows, not good enough for us. If we see a shadow we know that the real complete thing is attached to that shadow. The shadow is as real as what it is a shadow of.
God tried to train people in the OT, and the people who wandered in the wilderness were an almost totally Egyptian trained. At one point God almost gave up on them. But the God who worked with people in the OT and Christ, the God who works with people in the NT is the very same God with the same characteristics.
What happens when we keep in mind that the OT only had shadows, God was training these people and using symbols as God does with us, we are not to get caught up on the symbols being "only" shadows, not good enough for us. If we see a shadow we know that the real complete thing is attached to that shadow. The shadow is as real as what it is a shadow of.
-
2
- Show all
That's right, men of faith, like Abraham believed God and not in their own strength...in both periods.
You do hold there were different Covenants, correct? The Abrahamic (unconditional covenant) and the Mosaic (conditional covenant).
Only in an imaginary world. Is your shadow as real as you are? Or would you rather kiss your wife's photo rather than your wife?
You do hold there were different Covenants, correct? The Abrahamic (unconditional covenant) and the Mosaic (conditional covenant).
Only in an imaginary world. Is your shadow as real as you are? Or would you rather kiss your wife's photo rather than your wife?
="crossnote, post: 3876007, member: 145370"]That's right, men of faith, like Abraham believed God and not in their own strength...in both periods.
Terrific point.
"You do hold there were different Covenants, correct? The Abrahamic (unconditional covenant) and the Mosaic (conditional covenant)."
My study of covenants leads me to think that a covenant is a relationship that God establishes with man and once it is established it is always so. God adds additions but God never cancels as way He relates to us. I think that if we lived at the time of the 613 laws, and our life and understanding was of that culture that the laws would reflect God for us. As an example, not mixing fibers doesn't work for us today, but the principle of not changing what God has created and how God created it to be has not changed. Don't use DDT, natural foods are best, etc.
I think God added the "new" covenant to us, and through that we all can receive the Holy Spirit, but this wonderful addition did not cancel all God was to man before God added this.
"Only in an imaginary world. Is your shadow as real as you are? Or would you rather kiss your wife's photo rather than your wife?"
A wife is just as real if she casts a shadow and you see that before you see her. You wouldn't kiss her shadow, but you wouldn't deny that it was a shadow of the real her and was attached to her.
And I would like to add a thank you to you for letting us discuss our differences of scripture interpretation so quietly. I have been called all sorts of "you fool" for reading scripture as I do. We both are fully convinced as Paul would put it.
Terrific point.
"You do hold there were different Covenants, correct? The Abrahamic (unconditional covenant) and the Mosaic (conditional covenant)."
My study of covenants leads me to think that a covenant is a relationship that God establishes with man and once it is established it is always so. God adds additions but God never cancels as way He relates to us. I think that if we lived at the time of the 613 laws, and our life and understanding was of that culture that the laws would reflect God for us. As an example, not mixing fibers doesn't work for us today, but the principle of not changing what God has created and how God created it to be has not changed. Don't use DDT, natural foods are best, etc.
I think God added the "new" covenant to us, and through that we all can receive the Holy Spirit, but this wonderful addition did not cancel all God was to man before God added this.
"Only in an imaginary world. Is your shadow as real as you are? Or would you rather kiss your wife's photo rather than your wife?"
A wife is just as real if she casts a shadow and you see that before you see her. You wouldn't kiss her shadow, but you wouldn't deny that it was a shadow of the real her and was attached to her.
And I would like to add a thank you to you for letting us discuss our differences of scripture interpretation so quietly. I have been called all sorts of "you fool" for reading scripture as I do. We both are fully convinced as Paul would put it.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
2 Corinthians 3:7-11 (NASB) But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory (Mosaic Covenant), in this case has no glory because of the glory (New Covenant) that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
Hebrews 8:7-13 (NASB) For if that first covenant (Mosaic Covenant) had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH; NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD. "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. "AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. "FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE." When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
Hebrews 8:7-13 (NASB) For if that first covenant (Mosaic Covenant) had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH; NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD. "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. "AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. "FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE." When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
="crossnote, post: 3876284, member: 145370"]2 Corinthians 3:7-11 (NASB) But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory (Mosaic Covenant), in this case has no glory because of the glory (New Covenant) that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
Yes, as scripture is telling us here, God's laws are everything David wrote in scripture that is the 119th Psalm. And the addition to the covenant God gave us is even better, for those laws are written in our hearts and we know not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law through the additional covenant God gave. It is written here.
Hebrews 8:7-13 (NASB) For if that first covenant (Mosaic Covenant) had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH; NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD. "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. "AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. "FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE." When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
We are told the reason for the additions to the way God relates to us. And what of the covenants has gotten old so it is obsolete? Think about it. Is God obsolete? Are the laws that God uses to operate out world by obsolete? No. Using animal blood is obsolete, we have Christ. The Levi's as priest is obsolete, we have Christ. The rituals are obsolete, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us.
You want to toss out all of God as God is explained in the bulk of scripture (OT)and only keep a small portion (NT). You want to change God for a new one who suits better. Truth has more beauty and glory as is told us in the scripture you gave us.
Yes, as scripture is telling us here, God's laws are everything David wrote in scripture that is the 119th Psalm. And the addition to the covenant God gave us is even better, for those laws are written in our hearts and we know not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law through the additional covenant God gave. It is written here.
Hebrews 8:7-13 (NASB) For if that first covenant (Mosaic Covenant) had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH; NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD. "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. "AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. "FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE." When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
We are told the reason for the additions to the way God relates to us. And what of the covenants has gotten old so it is obsolete? Think about it. Is God obsolete? Are the laws that God uses to operate out world by obsolete? No. Using animal blood is obsolete, we have Christ. The Levi's as priest is obsolete, we have Christ. The rituals are obsolete, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us.
You want to toss out all of God as God is explained in the bulk of scripture (OT)and only keep a small portion (NT). You want to change God for a new one who suits better. Truth has more beauty and glory as is told us in the scripture you gave us.
-
1
-
1
- Show all