Sign in to follow this  
Key

One covenant, or two?

Recommended Posts

Been dwelling on thoughts based on a debate I was reading recently in the comments section of a Facebook post. (Of course, there's always a debate of some kind there.)

Thought I might get some better perspective here from my friends and brothers (and sisters).

A person commented that with the New Testament, there are only really two commandments:

1. Love thy neighbor as thou love thyself.

2. Honor God above all other gods.

The reason stated it was because the Old Testament was intended as a covenant with the Hebrews. Whereas the New Testament was a covenant with the Gentiles.

It goes further.

God initially gave ten commandments to the Hebrews, which were His laws for them to follow. Leviticus presented the Laws of Moses. Though it might be said it was divinely inspired, it could also be seen as laws of men. Which the Sarducci and Pharisee took to steps further, apparently. 

This lead to the hypocrisy that Christ took offense to and preached against to place focus back on God, not laws of men.

As He commanded that His teachings and good news be spread to the many nations, (meaning preaching to gentiles), He sought to bring about the inclusion of the gentiles without conversion to Judaism. He sought peaceful coexistence, though He knew conflict was still possible because of His radical thinking. 

Christ had stated He did not come to abolish the laws, but to fulfill them. He did not alter the Old Testament covenant with the Hebrews, but rather presented a new covenant for the gentiles in the New Testament, of which He became the sacrifice required for them.

The commenter stated that Christians use the Laws of Moses, though it was never intended to apply to them (as they are not Hebrew or Jewish), but often overlook the two commandments Jesus presented, when preaching their biases.

I can see some logic to this thinking, but am not formally educated on theological study.

Is he right, or even close? What do you think? (Preemptively, sorry for the inevitable opening of the can of worms here.)

Share this post


Link to post

Matthew 22:35-40 King James Version (KJV)

 "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

 This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

 

These are not presented as new commandments, but simply as distilations of the previous ones. The notion seems to be that as long as you are doing these things, the rest will take care of itself. If you love your neighbor, you won't murder him... That sort of thing.

 

Also...

Edited by mererdog
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Matt 19 16-22

 

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

“Why do you ask me about what is good?”Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

"Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.'"

 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.Then come, follow me.”

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, mererdog said:

Matthew 22:35-40 King James Version (KJV)

 "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

 This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

 

These are not presented as new commandments, but simply as distilations of the previous ones. The notion seems to be that as long as you are doing these things, the rest will take care of itself. If you love your neighbor, you won't murder him... That sort of thing.

 

Also...

Yeah, I always believed along that line of thinking.

But now, what of Leviticus? Are those laws still to be obeyed, or is it that the Commandments are only important?

If they are, then in this day and age, not sure anyone will be found innocent anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

The Sarducci, as in Guido???

 

Independent of how they are portrayed in Christian scripture, what do you really know about the Sadducees and the Pharisees?

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, RabbiO said:

The Sarducci, as in Guido???

 

Independent of how they are portrayed in Christian scripture, what do you really know about the Sadducees and the Pharisees?

My apologies on my error.

Outside of scripture, none. To be fair, that would be another good reason to be here to learn, wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post

Incidentally, RabbiO, I'd be most interested in your take on the fellow's interpretation, if you'd care to share, though I know you aren't Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/11/2018 at 5:31 AM, mererdog said:

Matthew 22:35-40 King James Version (KJV)

 "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

 

I know that I'm coming into this a little late, but DAMN the lawyers!  Always making things more complicated than they should be!

 

On 5/27/2018 at 10:57 AM, RabbiO said:

The Sarducci, as in Guido???

 

Hey!  I know that guy!  (anybody seen my Geritol?)

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/27/2018 at 11:57 AM, RabbiO said:

The Sarducci, as in Guido???

 

Independent of how they are portrayed in Christian scripture, what do you really know about the Sadducees and the Pharisees? 

 

 The pharisees and sadducees were different  sects within Judaism. Both held seats within the Sanhedrin.  The Sadducees gave authority only to the written word of God. The Pharisees however gave as much authority to oral tradition as they did to the written word. The Sadducees rejected a belief in the resurrection of the dead while the Pharisees did believe in resurrection. The Sadducees believed that the soul perished at death.  The pharisees did believe in an afterlife and appropriate rewars or punishments of the individual.  Sadducees did not believe in a spiritual realm where as the Pharisees taught of Angels and Demons in an unseen spiritual world. The chief priests and the high priest were Sadducees. The Sadducees also held the majority of seats in the  Sanhedrin. They were usually wealthy, while the Pharisees were more representative of the common man.  The Sadducees controlled the temple in Jerusalem and the Pharisees generally control the  Synagogues. The Sadducees pretty much ceased to exist after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.  The Pharisees went on to compile the Mishnah, Which laid the ground work for Modern day rabbinic Judaism.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/10/2018 at 1:59 PM, Key said:

 

Is he right, or even close? What do you think? (Preemptively, sorry for the inevitable opening of the can of worms here.)

 

 On some points I think he is right, however, there are more than two covenants described in The Bible. Certainly the nations were never under Moses law. From my readings however they were under the Noahide laws. Noahide law only had seven commandments. Six of which are very similar to those contained in the ten commandments of Moses. The seventh was a prohibition of eating the flesh of an animal that was still alive. 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

 The pharisees and sadducees were different  sects within Judaism. Both held seats within the Sanhedrin.  The Sadducees gave authority only to the written word of God. The Pharisees however gave as much authority to oral tradition as they did to the written word. The Sadducees rejected a belief in the resurrection of the dead while the Pharisees did believe in resurrection. The Sadducees believed that the soul perished at death.  The pharisees did believe in an afterlife and appropriate rewars or punishments of the individual.  Sadducees did not believe in a spiritual realm where as the Pharisees taught of Angels and Demons in an unseen spiritual world. The chief priests and the high priest were Sadducees. The Sadducees also held the majority of seats in the  Sanhedrin. They were usually wealthy, while the Pharisees were more representative of the common man.  The Sadducees controlled the temple in Jerusalem and the Pharisees generally control the  Synagogues. The Sadducees pretty much ceased to exist after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.  The Pharisees went on to compile the Mishnah, Which laid the ground work for Modern day rabbinic Judaism.

Thank you for this information. I understood a little bit of the Pharisees, but virtually nothing of the Sadducees. 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

 On some points I think he is right, however, there are more than two covenants described in The Bible. Certainly the nations were never under Moses law. From my readings however they were under the Noahide laws. Noahide law only had seven commandments. Six of which are very similar to those contained in the ten commandments of Moses. The seventh was a prohibition of eating the flesh of an animal that was still alive. 

Again, thanks. I'm gonna look up the Noahide laws now.

Incidentally, which points were right, in your view? Or did you mean he was right about Moses' Laws not applying to the gentiles?

Edited by Key
Adding thought.

Share this post


Link to post

Noahide Laws were interesting to look up. Also interesting was the fact some rabbinic sects, for lack of a better description coming to mind right now, have different view on which the seventh law was, due to it being judicial and not actually given by God. At least, from what I've been able to read up so far.

As I previously stated, I am not formally learned in theology. So, I find all of this helpful and intriguing in relation to comments of that FB poster.

Thank you very much for your contributions.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/28/2018 at 10:13 AM, Geordon said:

 

I know that I'm coming into this a little late, but DAMN the lawyers!  Always making things more complicated than they should be!

 

 

Hey!  I know that guy!  (anybody seen my Geritol?)

To be fair, I never said "Father Sarducci". 😉

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Key said:

To be fair, I never said "Father Sarducci". 😉

 

Granted, but I don't know of another Guido Sarducci. 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/30/2018 at 12:59 PM, Key said:

Again, thanks. I'm gonna look up the Noahide laws now.

Incidentally, which points were right, in your view? Or did you mean he was right about Moses' Laws not applying to the gentiles?

 

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you on this. My wife and I were on vacation when I made that last post and I haven't been online much. I'm just starting to catch up with my usual internet activities.

 

On 5/10/2018 at 12:59 PM, Key said:

Been dwelling on thoughts based on a debate I was reading recently in the comments section of a Facebook post. (Of course, there's always a debate of some kind there.)

Thought I might get some better perspective here from my friends and brothers (and sisters).

A person commented that with the New Testament, there are only really two commandments:

1. Love thy neighbor as thou love thyself.

2. Honor God above all other gods.

The reason stated it was because the Old Testament was intended as a covenant with the Hebrews. Whereas the New Testament was a covenant with the Gentiles.

It goes further.

God initially gave ten commandments to the Hebrews, which were His laws for them to follow. Leviticus presented the Laws of Moses. Though it might be said it was divinely inspired, it could also be seen as laws of men. Which the Sarducci and Pharisee took to steps further, apparently. 

This lead to the hypocrisy that Christ took offense to and preached against to place focus back on God, not laws of men.

As He commanded that His teachings and good news be spread to the many nations, (meaning preaching to gentiles), He sought to bring about the inclusion of the gentiles without conversion to Judaism. He sought peaceful coexistence, though He knew conflict was still possible because of His radical thinking. 

Christ had stated He did not come to abolish the laws, but to fulfill them. He did not alter the Old Testament covenant with the Hebrews, but rather presented a new covenant for the gentiles in the New Testament, of which He became the sacrifice required for them.

The commenter stated that Christians use the Laws of Moses, though it was never intended to apply to them (as they are not Hebrew or Jewish), but often overlook the two commandments Jesus presented, when preaching their biases.

I can see some logic to this thinking, but am not formally educated on theological study.

Is he right, or even close? What do you think? (Preemptively, sorry for the inevitable opening of the can of worms here.)

 

This is only my opinion so take it for what it is worth.

 

Yes, I agree that Moses laws were meant for the Hebrews. Noahide law was for the rest of us. I will also agree with him that Jesus gave only those two commandments, with the statement that in those two are the whole of the law.

 

I have to disagree with him about the Old Testament being strictly being about Hebrew covenant. The Ademic covenant and the Noahide covenant apply to all of mankind. The Abrahamic covenant, which was originally for his descendants (the Hebrews) has been opened to Christians through the New Testament.

 

I also have to disagree with him about the New Testament being strictly a covenant for the nation's. In Romans 1:16, Paul (the apostle to the gentiles), said first to the Jew, then to the Greek. It isn't well known but until the council of Nicea the majority of Christian leaders were Jews. It was after Rome took Christianity that Jews became unwelcome in the religion. ( I'm glad to see that is changing among some Christian groups.) However, I do agree with him that Jesus may have intended for there to be a welcoming of the gentiles into the family of YHWH.

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you on this. My wife and I were on vacation when I made that last post and I haven't been online much. I'm just starting to catch up with my usual internet activities.

 

 

This is only my opinion so take it for what it is worth.

 

Yes, I agree that Moses laws were meant for the Hebrews. Noahide law was for the rest of us. I will also agree with him that Jesus gave only those two commandments, with the statement that in those two are the whole of the law.

 

I have to disagree with him about the Old Testament being strictly being about Hebrew covenant. The Ademic covenant and the Noahide covenant apply to all of mankind. The Abrahamic covenant, which was originally for his descendants (the Hebrews) has been opened to Christians through the New Testament.

 

I also have to disagree with him about the New Testament being strictly a covenant for the nation's. In Romans 1:16, Paul (the apostle to the gentiles), said first to the Jew, then to the Greek. It isn't well known but until the council of Nicea the majority of Christian leaders were Jews. It was after Rome took Christianity that Jews became unwelcome in the religion. ( I'm glad to see that is changing among some Christian groups.) However, I do agree with him that Jesus may have intended for there to be a welcoming of the gentiles into the family of YHWH.

 

Hope you had a very nice vacation.

Thanks for your view. It certainly opens up perspectives.

For what it's worth? To me, a lot. I am often curious to differing views. It's like admiring the differences and similarities of the two sides of a coin. So, I learn some. Sometimes I learn a lot, and others...not so much, if at all.

Again, thanks for your contribution.

Share this post


Link to post

The Old Covenant was based on the Israelites promise to keep God's Law. They failed numerous times, so God sent His Son.

In the New Covenant the Ten Commandments still apply. There is only one definition of sin given in the Bible. 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

http://www.remnantofgod.org/The-Law.htm

Share this post


Link to post

Two covenants, two priesthoods.Priesthood of Levi (Aaron) and Priesthood of Melchizedek. Melchizedek is the higher priesthood because Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek.

The "old" and "new" covenant designations are a false dichotomy. 

Quote

And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises" (Hebrews 7:5-6).

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Hebrews 7:11-12).

 

Edited by zamber

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this