Much like the constitution of the USA, God's covenant has been amended several times. Do we in the USA have a new constitution today that has replace the original?
Our Constitution was a new Constitution. We ditched England's, taking only those parts we liked. Nevertheless, yes, I see your point that provisions were made for amending it over time.
I understand the concept of a Renewed Covenant, but that does not mean it is true. Just because an idea makes sense does not mean that it is true.
God's word speaks of two covenants in Galatians 4. Thus far, you have not dealt with that.
Put yourself in the place of the Judaizers. They loved the Torah. Paul would tell them that we are saved by grace apart from the works of Torah. Then they would pull out Torah and read the following:
Genesis 17:9-14
(9) And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
(10) This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
(11) And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
(12) And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
(13) 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.
(14) 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.
They probably pointed out how this came BEFORE Torah. They probably also pointed out how even Moses could not get away without circumcision. So how does Paul answer them? Does he tell them that God amended the covenant to make circumcision optional? Or does he argue that there is a NEW covenant based on a completely different covenant? I think Galatians 4 says there were two covenants.
Galatians 4:22-24
(22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
(23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
(24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
The same concept is found in Romans 7, where Paul tells them that they should be "married to another":
Romans 7:4
(4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
I could bring up some other passages, but I don't want to complicate the discussion. My point is that you do not seem to be making your case in the same way as Paul. If you are going to stick to your perspective, please explain for us what Paul was teaching in these passages. Thus far, it seems to me that you simply contradict and deny Paul's perspective.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
