[Hebrews 9:1-10] [...]
Apparently you have not observed, even from the passage that you quoted, that both the Old and the New Testament use the word "covenant" when referring to the Ten Commandments:
Hebrews 9:4To treat the statement that "the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary." (Hebrew 9:1) as if it were a comprehensive, exclusive definition of the old covenant does not even make sense, besides being contrary to Scriptural terminology and usage.
4 having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.
Some teach that the Old Covenant was the Ten Commandments but as we can see here by the words of Paul the Old Covenant had a Tabernacle, ordinances of service and a sanctuary. They would also teach that the Ten Commandments have been done away with, but according to Paul.....the things that were done away with were the ordinances of the Levitical Priesthood, the special washings and the animal sacrifices.
Paul nowhere limits what was done away with to he ordinances of the Levitical Priesthood, the special washings and the animal sacrifices. This distinction is entirely a figment of your imagination. In fact, he explicitly says otherwise here in Hebrew 9:4 with, "the tablets of the covenant"; and he says in Corinthians that whatever was written on the table of stone was what was done away with. You claim is contradicted by Paul. If the the things that were done away with were the ordinances of the Levitical Priesthood, the special washings and the animal sacrifices then so were the tablets of the covenant.
Moreover, in the same chapter you quote, Hebrews 9, Paul compares the Covenants to a last will and testament:
16In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.Your claims are like that of a person who comes into Probate Court with will that has been subsequently revoked by another codicil, but still insisting that the Court administer the estate under the old codicil. It isn't going to happen, my FRiend. The old will is not in force. It will not be admitted to Probate, and it will not be administered.
You cannot escape or overcome the fact that both the Old and New Testament use the word "covenant" when referring to the Ten Commandments:
Cordially,
Every time The Lord made a contract with His children (If they would do this.....He would do that) The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of scripture to call it a "Covenant".
To treat the statement that "the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary." (Hebrew 9:1) as if it were a comprehensive, exclusive definition of the old covenant does not even make sense, besides being contrary to Scriptural terminology and usage.
It was a comprehensive, exclusive definition of the Old Covenant that was done away with....i.e. replaced by Our Lord's sacrifice. I think the Apostle's exact words were: [Hebrews 10:4] "For it is impossible for blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."
There is but one scripture that uses the expression, "Nailed it to the cross" [Colossians 2:13-14] 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
What does this not say? It does not say The Ten Commandments have been nailed to the cross. It says....the handwriting of ordinances have been nailed to the cross. What are these ordinances?
But first, let's look at [Revelation 22:14] 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Since the only folks that are allowed to enter His city are those that do His commandments, obviously the Commandments could not be contrary to us.....could they? They also could not possibly be the handwriting of ordinances Paul speaks of.....that were against us.....could they?
So....if it wasn't the Ten Commandments that was nailed to the cross.....what was it? Let's look again at what is actually said in Colossians: "Blotting out (wiping out) the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." The "handwriting of ordinances, also called "handwriting of requirements" is a legal Greek term that signifies the penalty which a lawbreaker was required to pay. It did not signify the law to be obeyed....only the penalty to be paid. When Our Lord was sacrificed that penalty was paid in full....wiped out.
Here is what "Matthew Henry's Commentary" has to say on the subject: Whatever was in force against us is taken out of the way. He has obtained for us a legal discharge from the hand-writing of ordinances, which was against us (v. 14), which may be understood. Of that obligation to punishment in which consists the guilt of sin. The curse of the law is the hand-writing against us, like the hand-writing on Belshazzar's wall. Cursed is every one who continues not in every thing. This was a hand-writing which was against us, and contrary to us; for it threatened our eternal ruin. This was removed when he redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, Gal 3:13. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)
The Greek word used for "Blotted out" or in some translations "Wiped out" is EXALEIPHO and it means....to smear out; obiterate; (erase tears, figuratively, pardon sin). In other words....it has to do with wiping away sins as in [Acts 3:19] Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
It is the sin that is to be blotted out and its related penalties....not the Law of God. Sin is lawlessness [John 3:4-5] and Paul says in [Romans 6:1-2] 1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
The New Testament makes it very clear that the Law of God would continue.....thus it was not nailed to the cross. But on the other hand, the Levitical priesthood was "Blotted Out" with all its requirements which were the penalty for sin [Hebrews 9:1-10].....because the blood of bulls and goats do not take away sin..............
Our Lord's sacrifice was and is sufficient........ and animal sacrifice is no longer required.
I'm sorry my FRiend for taking so long to get back. I got involved in another thread for a few days.....you know how that goes. I saw someone write in a thread somewhere a while back that communicating on FRee Republic is almost like two people sitting in different boxcars on two approaching trains and attempting to pass each other a note as the trains converge......LOL.