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.
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". [emphasis mine]
Thank you for the concordance link.
Your characterization of the Old Covenant is lacking. There are many significant differences between a contract and a covenant, particularly in this case where the covenant is not between men and men, but is one made by God with men. One of the major differences is that the latter is not a mutual agreement between independent contracting parties of equal position:
COVENANT, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
1. Essential Idea:As already noted, the idea of covenants between God and men doubtless arose from the idea of covenants between men. Hence, the general thought is similar. It cannot in this case, however, be an agreement between contracting parties who stand on an equality, but God, the superior, always takes the initiative. To some extent, however, varying in different cases, is regarded as a mutual agreement; God with His commands makes certain promises, and men agree to keep the commands, or, at any rate, the promises are conditioned on human obedience. In general, the covenant of God with men is a Divine ordinance, with signs and pledges on God's part, and with promises for human obedience and penalties for disobedience, which ordinance is accepted by men. In one passage (Psalms 25:14), it is used in a more general way of an alliance of friendship between God and man.
And Fausset's Bible Dictionary (Covenant) has this:
[...]"Covenant" in the strict sense, as requiring two independent contracting parties, cannot apply to a covenant between God and man. His covenant must be essentially one of gratuitous promise, an act of pure grace on His part (Galatians 3:15, etc.). So in Psalm 89:28 "covenant" is explained by the parallel word "mercy." So God's covenant not to destroy the earth again by water (Genesis 9; Jeremiah 33:20). But the covenant, on God's part gratuitous, requires man's acceptance of and obedience to it, as the consequence of His grace experienced, and the end which He designs to His glory, not that it is the meritorious condition of it. The Septuagint renders berit by diatheekee (not suntheekee, "a mutual compact"), i.e. a gracious disposal by His own sovereign will. So Luke 22:29, "I appoint (diatithemai, cognate to diatheekee, by testamentary or gratuitous disposition) unto you a kingdom." [...]
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."
You put the sacrifices as a part for the whole, but Scripture does not. Scripture never does that, but REPEATEDLY puts the Ten Commandments as the part for the whole, for the simple reason that the Ten Commandments were the Covenant document. I have repeatedly proved here that the Ten Commandments constituted the Old Covenant; the Old Covenant is actually in Scripture a synonym for the Ten Commandments, the Covenant document that represents the entire law of Moses as a singular undivided unit. Paul as well treats "covenant" and "law" as synonymous, showing that the law was the covenant.
Both the Old and the New Testament use the word "covenant" when referring to the Ten Commandments, so any attempt to separate the laws of sacrifice and the Levitical priesthood from the rest of the one law that God gave to Moses, mischaracterizizing those as constituting the entire Old Covenant that was done away with is completely unjustified, unscripural and false. Scripture never instructs you to separate the Ten Commandments from the rest of the Old Covenant. Scripture itself NEVER does such a thing. The entire Law of the Old Covenant is ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE in Scripture treated as a single unit. The Jews did not treat the law of Moses the way you do. The Lord Jesus Christ did not treat the law of Moses the way you do, and neither does the rest of Scripture. The "Ten Commandments", (NOT "the animal sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood") are called "the covenant," that was given at Sinai or Horeb.
The Old Covenant was a package deal. It was the whole ball of wax for Israel, in the same way that a last will and testament is. "The law" includes the whole Mosaic law. Look at the term "law," in any Bible concordance, or in any Bible lexicon or encyclopedia. Here's a sample from Smith's Bible Dictionary:
Law
So, as has been previously proved on this thread, "the law of God" was not simply the Ten Commandments, but the whole law of Moses. Not only that, but "the Law" was given by Moses and the "Law of Moses" included the Ten Commandments, so if you want to keep a part of that law, then as as Paul says in Galatians, you bring yourself under obligation to "keep the whole law."The word is properly used, in Scripture as elsewhere, to express a definite commandment laid down by any recognized authority; but when the word is used with the article, and without any words of limitation, it refers to the expressed will to God, and in nine cases out of ten to the Mosaic law, or to the Pentateuch of which it forms the chief portion. The Hebrew word torah (law) lays more stress on its moral authority, as teaching the truth and guiding in the right way; the Greek nomos (law), on its constraining power as imposed and enforced by a recognized authority. The sense of the word, however, extends its scope and assumes a more abstracts character in the writings of St. Paul. Nomos , when used by him with the article, still refers in general to the law of Moses; but when used without the article, so as to embrace any manifestation of "law," it includes all powers which act on the will of man by compulsion, or by the pressure of external motives, whether their commands be or be not expressed in definite forms. The occasional use of the word "law" (as in (Romans 3:27) "law of faith") to denote an internal principle of action does not really mitigate against the general rule. It should also be noticed that the title "the Law" is occasionally used loosely to refer to the whole of the Old Testament, as in (John 10:34) referring to (Psalms 82:6) in (John 15:25) referring to (Psalms 35:19) and in (1 Corinthians 14:21) referring to (Isaiah 28:11,12)
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;
[color emphasis mine]
1. Who is the "us" referred to there (in blue), and what is the tense of the verb (in red)?
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?
What are these ordinances? Glad you asked. The Ten Commandments themselves are referred to in the Old Testament so many times as "statutes", "ordinances" and "decrees", interchangeably, and without any distinction to or from any other of God's statutes, ordinances and decrees, that it's useless to try to deny it. Your severing of the law of Moses into pieces is nothing but a product of your imagination. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but your dissection is actually antithetical to the way Scripture uses the words.
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?
Once again you are engaged in circular reasoning, assuming the very thing you need to prove; namely, that the commandments referred to by John in Revelation are the Ten Commandments. I cannot find in all John's writings, that he ever in a single case uses the word "commandments," to refer to the Ten Commandments; but I do find that nearly in every case, if not all, he uses the word to refer to the commandments of Jesus. For example, John 14:15,21; 15:10; 1 John 2:1-5; 3:22-24; 4:21; 5:1-3. There is nothing in Revelation 22:14. that indicates otherwise.
Cordially,