Justly Resolved

Hebrew 8:7 and Deuteronomy 4:13, Exodus 34:27-28 part 3

2010-04-01T08:17:00.004+07:00

[Originally posted by the same author at Ang Tinig Sa Ilang website]

NOT A SOUND DOCTRINE

The teaching that the Ten Commandments is flawed, inefficient and insufficient leads to many inconsistencies and disagreement with the fundamental teachings of the Bible.

It Attacks God’s Attribute As The Supreme Intelligent Being

Do you think a perfect God will create a defective moral law, a law that reveals His character and serves as His standard of morality?

Our critics argument here directly violates one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, that God is Omniscient (All-Knowing). God knows everything, and that includes the future, that is why He is able to create a law that serves as a standard for all humanity in all ages. After all, God’s standard of morality should never change even if its subjects changed their perception or relationship with God.

Sad to say, our critics who claim to be true Christians are not aware of their perfectly unsound and blasphemous doctrine.

To say that God’s law is flawed and insufficient is the same as saying that God’s way of thinking and planning is not perfect at all. It indirectly says that God is not all-knowing and lacks mastery in planning. As a professed Christian, will you agree with that?

My appeal to our critics and their fanatic members is this: after you laid out your reasoning and doctrines, please look over at it again. This time study it in wide perspective and see if it violates [your] fundamental teachings.

It Suggests That God is Not Fair

Others argued that God gave different laws for different people in different ages or times. They said that God gave different set of laws for the generation of Adam and Eve, another law in the time of Noah, and another law for the Christians, etc. The Ten Commandments were the laws given for the Jews and only during their time is what they claim.

True enough, God gave specific laws to individuals or groups of people in different times for a particular purpose. But what do we think is the purpose of the Ten Commandments of God? Is it to make wise the Jews alone?

What we are talking here is the set of laws for His standard of morality, a law that transcends all ages of humanity; and that’s what we can see in the Ten Commandments. In letter and principle, it contains the summary of God’s character the first four commandments is showing respect and love for God, the rest are respect and love for other creatures. So God’s Moral Law is actually summarized into two: love for God and love for others; which again can be concluded in one word: LOVE. (Matthew 22:36-40)

If God’s Moral Law is all about love why give it exclusively only for the Jews? If “the law is good” (1 Tim 1:8) why give it only for the Jews? You see, our critics reasoning that God’s Moral Law is only for the Jews doesn’t really makes sense. Indirectly, they are telling us that God is not fair.

It Tells That God’s Character or Standard of Morality Is Changeable

Others reasoned out that in the Old Testament people can look at women with lustful intent and yet will not sin since it was only during Jesus time that this “looking at woman with lustful intent” was mentioned by Christ as a sinful act.

And they go further by saying that "dishonoring grandparents, great grandparents, or granddaughters" are not yet considered a sin in the Old Testament since it was only the "father and mother" that was mentioned in the fifth commandment. (Please read the Right Attitude to God's Law)

This really sounds too narrowly-minded but honestly it's real. They really use that reasoning just to prove that "there really a change in God's Law".

Again, this teaching makes our God a foolish god. Or should I say their perception to their god is a weak, foolish, and silly god. It's okay if they don't consider themselves as Christians. But their claim is the contrary! They even boasting that they are the true Church of God..and yet unknowingly (or maybe intentionally) they make their god an object of Satan's laughter!

Their teaching leads to direct assault of God’s character. It tells that God’s standard of character or morality can be pulled or pushed or swayed in different times, which suggests that God does not have the power to stand with His own words, that God’s law can be changed depending on the people’s acceptance of it.

Satan Laughs Out Loud

Our critics teaching is very much consistent with what Satan wants us to believe: that God cannot be trusted since He easily change His words or standards.

But that’s not the case with our God. “I change not” declared by Him (Mal 3:6). What was considered as a sin in the Old Testament must still be a sin even in this modern generation, else God will be tagged as a double-standard God; after all we are all in the same humanity and from one family and one Source.

Pro 24:21-22 “My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change: for their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?”

It Shows Our Critics’ False Impression and Attitude Towards God’s Moral Law

Our critics’ claim displays their total indifference with the godly people of God, both from Old and New Testament, when it comes to the attitude towards God’s law.

OUR BIBLE	THE CRITICS
King David (Old Testament) “The Law of Jehovah is perfect, converting the soul..” Psalm 19:7 MKJV	No, it’s limited. Aren’t you aware that it’s only TEN?!
Apostle James (New Testament) “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” James 1:25 KJV	No way! The law is actually a cursed! I’d rather believe the Pharisees who made the law a burden.
King David again “I have seen a limit to all perfection, but your commandment is exceedingly broad. Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day.” Psalms 119:96-97 KJV	Oh how I hate your law! We’re proud to be lawbreakers!
Jesus said “Think not that I come to destroy the law..” Matthew 5:17 KJV	No, you abolished it actually!

Bottomline

The old covenant in Hebrew 8:7 is not the Ten Commandments, rather it is the agreement between God and Israel which happened after the Israel were led out of Egypt..and is recorded in Exodus 19. An agreement needs at least two parties involved.

The people and not the Ten Commandments came short that is why the old agreement or covenant was found to be flawed.

Although chapter 8 is enough, but our linking of Hebrews 8:7-onwards to Exodus 19 helped us understand more the right meaning of Hebrew 8:7. This interpretation does not violate any fundamental teachings of the Bible, rather upholds God’s all-knowing attribute. God never change His standard.

Adopt our critics chaining of Hebrew 8:7 to Deut 4:13 and Exo 34:27-28 and you will experience big discrepancies to the already laid out fundamental truths of the Bible.

Praise God for His Truth!

“Hold your laughing, Satan. The truth will always stand out and will never set you free again!”

Please write your comments here or here.

Hebrew 8:7 and Deuteronomy 4:13, Exodus 34:27-28 part 2

2010-04-01T08:12:00.009+07:00

[Originally posted by the same author at Ang Tinig Sa Ilang website]

In part 1 of this series we learned that the word "covenant" in Hebrew 8:7 is NOT the same meaning of the word "covenant" in Deuteronomy 4:13 or Exodus 34:27-28, thus those verses should not be connected in interpreting the "covenant that became faulty" in Hebrew 8:7.

We also found out that Exodus 19:1-8 is the best and reasonable passage to link with Hebrews 8:7-onwards. Let’s continue…

So What Is The Real Message of Hebrew 8:7?

Yes, there’s no need to jump away from the book of Hebrews to get the real message of Hebrew 8:7-13. If one can’t get the message for a particular verse, try to read the surrounding verses, or other books written by the same author first.

What our critics did is that they read Hebrew 8:7-onwards and immediately linked it to Deut 4:13 or Exodus 34:27-28 without taking the real message of Hebrew 8:7 first! If only they adhere to the real message of Hebrew 8:7 (and onwards) it would not be necessary to use outside Hebrew verses.

The chapters of Hebrew 7-10 are enough to get the real meaning of Hebrew 8:7, and we can summarize it this way:

“That the old covenant was flawed because of the people’s laxity in fulfilling their promise (8:7). That is why there’s a need to renew the covenant so that humanity can still have the hope of salvation (8:8, 10). The ceremonies in the earthly sanctuary were symbols used so that men can grasp God’s way of salvation. When the new covenant came these symbols were taken over by the real ones–not by symbols anymore (7:12; 9:1).

So now in the new covenant we have a High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary and that is no other than Jesus Christ. He is now the Lamb that was sacrificed once and for all (7:27; 9:12). His blood completed that covenant (9:14). In this new covenant it is the same law that God wants us to follow. He even wrote it in our minds and hearts instead of putting it away (8:10).”

As we noticed, there is no indication of a "Ten Commandments that was flawed and thus abolished" in the passages above. To come up with that interpretation one will move away from Hebrew 8, and take the word "covenant" in Hebrew 8:7 OUT OF ITS CONTEXT.

OUT OF CONTEXT

Now let's look closer at our critics' interpretation of Hebrew 8:7 and see if it's really in accordance with what the author is saying. Again, this is how they crafted their reasoning.

First, they will emphasize the word "covenant" in Heb 8:7

Heb 8:7-13 “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second…”

After reading completely the whole verses (they are doing this to point out indirectly that they are not omitting or neglecting any part of the verse, which is fine but kind of hypocritical because they will still intentionally use the wrong emphasis), the next importance that they will point out is this verse...

Heb 8:9 "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.."

They also use that verse above to bridge it with the verses from the Old Testament, and then eventually landed on...

Deu 4:13 “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. “

Exo 34:27-28 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.”

So now they will conclude that it is the "Ten Commandments-covenant that was flawed" in Hebrew 8:7 and thus abolished.

But we found out above (the real meaning of Hebrew 8) that NOTHING, even in the whole chapter of Hebrew 8, suggests about a "Ten Commandments that was flawed and thus abolished". Instead, in Hebrew 8:10, God's law is written in hearts and mind instead of abolishing it.

Here we can see that the word "covenant" in Hebrew 8:7 was taken out of its context by our critics to come up with their crafted doctrine (Ten Commandments was abolished) which is totally not the topic even in the whole chapter of Hebrew 8.

ALMOST NEAR AND YET SO FAR

Their chaining of these verses are very convincing, since most verses talk of the same event and with the same "covenant" words.

In my personal study of this, I temporarily accept their interpretation and see for myself if it will not violate any already laid out fundamental teachings of the Bible..meaning I checked if their interpretation is sound or not. Even with just little research, I found so many errors that violates the fundamental teachings of the Bible. These errors were discussed in part 3 of this series.

So I go back to their chaining of verses and find the problem in their reasoning. Fortunately, the ultimate author of the book of Hebrews, the Holy Spirit, guides me on this and this is what I am sharing now with you.

Now let's use the words of the author of Hebrew himself to expose the poisons of our critics' interpretation. Some of these were already discussed.

God Found Fault in the People, not in the Covenant-Ten Commandments

Again with our critics reasoning, the covenant-Ten Commandments is the one that was found to be flawed, imperfect, lacking so many laws, etc. They even mock us “Where is the law against sniffing cocaine in the Ten Commandments?” Certainly, this kind of thinking asserts their claim that the Ten Commandments lack so many things. That is why for them the Ten Commandments is the covenant that is found to be flawed.

Maybe it’s already obvious for you where to get the truth to iron out this erroneous statements. Yes it’s the immediate verses of Hebrew 8:7!

Heb 8:8-9 “For finding fault with them…because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.”

This is a slumdunk truth against our critics claim. Clearly, it is not the Ten Commandments that is faulty. God found fault in the people that is why the old covenant was flawed. Immediate verses answer our critics’ stand.

The Law Is Written In Our Hearts

Moreover..

Heb 8:10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people”

I think there is no need for further explanation. Amen! The verse speaks for itself unless the reader has preconceived thinking against it.

A New Set of Laws?

Now some may argue that the “law” above refers to the “new set of laws started by Jesus”.

Firstly, it’s not written in the verse that this law is a new law.
Secondly, let’s all remember that the author of Hebrew was explaining what was prophesied by prophet Jeremiah (31:31). Upon his expounding of this prophecy, the author of Hebrews NEVER gave a hint that this law is a new set of laws! It was his opportunity to tell us that God is giving a new set of law as replacement to the Ten Commandments, but he never did.

Exo 19:5 “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant [Ten Commandments--Deut 4:13], then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: “

The basis of Israel’s being faithful to their covenant with God is their obedience to God’s words, especially the Ten Commandments. In the new covenant it is still the same set of laws, the Ten Commandments, where God wants us to follow. He is putting it in our hearts and mind. Our critics want to take it away from us!

Part 3 of this series talks about the dangers of our critics interpretation of Heb 8:7.

Please write your comments here or here.

Hebrew 8:7 and Deuteronomy 4:13, Exodus 34:27-28 part 1

2010-04-01T07:58:00.013+07:00

[Originally posted by the same author at Ang Tinig Sa Ilang website]

Many are connecting Hebrews 8:7 to Deuteronomy 4:13 to prove that the “covenant that is faulty” is the Ten Commandments, thus, the Ten Commandments was made obsolete and are no longer binding in the Christian era.

I personally heard this teaching from Mr. Eliseo Soriano, the Filipino preacher and leader of the Members of the Church of God International commonly known as The Old Path (Ang Dating Daan) who boasts of being a sensible preacher. He even mocks us by asking “Where is baptism in the Ten Commandments? Where is the law against sniffing cocaine and watching x-rated films in the Ten Commandments?” Surely enough, these kinds of reasoning support his claim that the Ten Commandments lack so many laws. And unsurprisingly he used exactly Hebrew 8:7 and Deuteronomy 4:13 to come up with his deceiving crafts.

Another group that adheres to this kind of reasoning is from this website. If you read the first paragraphs of their article you’ll clearly see that they too used Hebrews 8:7 and connected it with the verses in the Old Testament that point to the Ten Commandments as the “covenant” (Exo 34:27-28).

Let’s read the verses again:

Heb 8:7-13 “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second…”

Deu 4:13 “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. “

Hmmm…it seems that they are correct; after all those verses talk about the word “covenant”.

Related But Not Of The Same Meaning

The main problem of our critics’ argument is that the “covenant” in Heb 8:7 is not the same “covenant” in Deut 4:13. The two verses are related but are not of the same meaning.

Deut 4:13 talks about the Ten Commandments as the covenant. This covenant is a thing—a two-table-of-stones.

Hebrew 8:7 talks about a covenant in a broader perspective. It is not a thing that we can touch by our bare hands. It is an agreement, an event where God and Israel declared their promises.

Let’s look at the context of Hebrew 8

Heb 8:8 “For he finds fault with them… not like the covenant that I made with their fathers.. For they did not continue in my covenant..”

Here we can see that this covenant involved two parties: “them” (the Israel) and “I” (God). Even in the new covenant these two parties are still involved.

Heb 8:10 ” For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel.”

So, contextually the covenant in Heb 8:7 is not just a thing. It is an agreement between God and Israel, a covenant in a wider perspective.Therefore it is not wise to connect the covenant in Heb 8:7 with the covenant in Deut 4:13 because the two verses are not pertaining to the same meaning of words.

What Is The Proper Verse From Old Testament To Associate With Heb 8:7?

Let’s get the clue from Hebrew 8:9

“not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”

So now this covenant that was found to be faulty happened after the Israelites were immediately led out of Egypt. The proper verse to go to (if really necessary) is Exodus 19:1-8 and onwards:

“On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai. They set out from Rephidim and came into the wilderness of Sinai, and they encamped in the wilderness.”

That is the link from Heb 8:7 to Exo 19. Moving on..

Exo 19:3-8 “..while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.”

So Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the LORD had commanded him. All the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do.” And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.

This is the exact covenant that the author of Hebrews was talking about in 8:7. Here we can see two parties involved giving each other’s promises. Remember a covenant is generally an agreement in its deepest and most valued sense between at least two parties.

A Reasonable Linking of Verses?

Now let’s go back to Hebrews 8:7 and see if that event, the agreement-covenant happened in Exodus 19:1-8, is really the covenant that the author of Hebrews was talking about. Let's read the whole passage first...

Heb 8:7 “For if that first covenant [agreement] had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant [agreement] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant [agreement] that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant [can be the ten commandments (Deut4:13)], and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant [agreement] that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

Now, let's analyze it slowly...

Heb 8:7-8 “For if that first covenant [agreement] had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second....Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant [agreement] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.."

Can you see, so far, any out-of-context or contradictions from our interpretation to what the author of Hebrews is actually saying? I believe none. Rather, we are actually affirming his words.

Since the first faulty covenant is an "agreement" then the covenant to be made should also be an "agreement", as a replacement to the old agreement!

Let's move on...

Heb 8:10-11 "For this is the covenant [agreement] that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, And on their heart also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, And they shall be to me a people...."

Any contradictions now? Again, I believe none. Rather, we are still affirming the writer's words..that "in the new agreement, God will put His laws into their mind and heart". Smoothly, no complications, no contradictions.

"God Does Everything In The New Covenant"

"An agreement needs the promises or words of at least two parties, but in the new covenant (Heb 8:10-11) it is God who does it all. So the word 'covenant' in that verse cannot be an agreement", that's the claim of our critics.

Our answer:

It is true that in the new covenant "God does it all"...for HIS PEOPLE. I highlighted those words to emphasize that God's promises in the new covenant applies only for all those people who positively responded to His calling (John 3:16). The sanctification that is being carried out by the Holy Spirit in the new covenant does not apply to those who willfully, intentionally, and wholeheartedly disobey God (Eph 4:30; Matt 12:31-32).

So this means that a person should take his efforts (respond positively to God's calling) in order for him to be part of God's people, where "God does all the workings". To respond positively is to say "yes" or "no". This is where the "agreement" comes.

Therefore, the word "covenant" in Heb 8:10-11 is still applicable to "agreement" since God wants us to "agree" with His words first, instead of forcing anyone to be with Him.

Part 2 of this series gives the exact meaning of Hebrew 8:7 contextually, without the need of using outside verses from the book of Hebrew, thus ironing out the twisting of truths that our critics did. We will also expose the errors of reasoning used by our critics in interpreting Heb 8:7. We will also expose the weirdness of the end results of their interpretation of the said verse. Hope to see you there!

Please write your comments here or here.

Family-Friendly FM Stations

2009-11-29T13:11:00.005+07:00

When my dad passed away last June 25 2009, I was literally devastated inside. One thing God used to help me recover and stay in focus is by listening to godly music; music with lyrics that really inspire me to move on.

Today, I'm going to share to you some of the great Internet-radio stations that you can listen while online. To get started..

Click this site AR On The Air
Choose a station from the list. Yes there are bunch of good family-friendly FM stations on that site.

89.5FM KTSY

Just click the "Listen Now" link from that site and you're done! Of course, you need media player installed in your machine.

In my case I installed a Firefox toolbar which makes it easier for me to listen to those stations.

Download and install this excellent and free program from Applian Technologies: Freecorder
Once the toolbar is in your browser (please do not use Internet Explorer as a support to the Open Source community), you have to add the URL of the stations you want.
So go back to the AR On The Air page
Click "Listen Now" button-link. It will open a new browser window and a media player installed in your computer.
Copy the URL from your browser's address bar

Click the dropdown list in your Freecorder toolbar to add the URL of your station

Click Define Your Own Station button

Paste the URL in the URL box
Write the name of the FM station, not necessarily the exact name of the FM station
Choose Windows Media Player (or whatever media player you have in your machine)
Click OK.

That's all. Happy listening while browsing the net! :) By the way, A BIG THANKS for all who prayed for me and my family during those hard days.

Right Attitude To God's Law

2009-11-28T06:59:00.010+07:00

“The Ten Commandments is so incomplete. There are sins that are not covered in it, such as drug abuse, gluttony, abortion, dishonoring grandparents, etc.”

"Where is the mandate to be baptized in the Ten Commandments?"

The Letters Of The Law
The statements above are so common for preachers who avoid the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath. The Sabbath is in the middle of the Ten Commandments, and thus to avoid it is to get rid of God's Moral Law.

When I was young I never heard of a preacher that considered the Ten Commandments as literally ten precepts alone. Even at that age, I understood that it is not only the letter that one should follow but also the spirit of the law (principles behind each precept). Maybe I'm not yet exposed to those kind of teachings then.

This legalistic view of the law, strictly following every letter of the law without considering its spirit, is actually an old problem of humanity. Man always wanted to enumerate the "do's and dont's" and try to find holes in it.

This was exactly the mentality of the people when Christ came to this earth. Obeying the law became a burden to them. Consider the story of the rich young man in Matthew 19:16-30 and another story with the one "well-versed in the Law" in Matthew 22:35-40.

Young Man: “What good things should i do to have eternal life?”
Jesus: “..keep the commandments.”
Young Man: “which?”
(In Tagalog, “Alin-alin?”)

Pharisee: “Which of the commandments are the most important?”

You see? That is how most humans regarded the law. They want it to be enumerated to them, just like a checklist. But that is not what God wants us to do. God wants us to obey His law in SPIRIT and in TRUTH (John 4:23).

It is the 10th commandment that the young man disobeyed.

Exodus 20:17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." KJV

Maybe somebody will ask, "Where is the 'giving of wealth to the poor' in the 10th commandment?" Yes, we cannot read it word-for-word but the essence, the spirit, the principle is there. The 10th commandment is about contentment or being satisfied.

Jesus followed the young man's way of thinking toward God's law by enumerating it for him, and immediately the young man said "All these things have I kept from my youth up..". At this very moment it is evident that the young man regarded the law in letters only.

When the young man continued with "what lack I yet?", Jesus steered his mind towards the "keeping of the law in spirit". The story tells us that the young man "had great possessions". So Jesus told the young man to "go and give your wealth to the poor", the young man was saddened.

Thus, the story tells us that giving wealth to the poor is another way of obeying the 10th commandment. If we are satisfied to the blessings that God is giving us, then don't "covet others' possessions". It means be satisfied. And the result of this is by "giving our wealth to the poor" especially if we are "in great possessions". This is how the spirit of the law works.

The Spirit of the Law
James told us that the Moral Law should be regarded as one entity (James 2:10). The first four is about loving God, and the next six is loving co-creatures. So the Moral Law is all about love. “Love your God..and your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-40). This is the ultimate spirit of the law: LOVE.

Many said that this is the new commandment of Christ as a replacement to the Ten Commandments. But it is not.

Deut. 6:5 “Love Jehovah thy God with all your heart..”
Lev. 19:18 “..love thy neighbor as thyself”.
Lev. 19:34 “..the stranger that journeys with you..thou shall love him as thyself.”
Zech. 8:17 “..and let none of you devise evil in your hearts against your neighbor..”

These are texts from the Old Testament, and Christ connected it to the Moral Law as what we had read from Matthew chapters 19 and 22. So both in the Old and New Testament, the spirit and letters of the law are in effect.

The Example of Jesus
Isaiah 42:21 "The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable."

Matthew 5:17-19 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.."

Keep this in mind: Destroying or abolishing the law (Ten Commandments) is not making it honourable.

Examples of the Godly Man Both From Old and New Testament
David: “Great peace have those who love Your law..nothing causes them to stumble..Your law is my delight. The law is perfect, converting the soul..” Ps 119:165,174; 19:7.

Paul – “the law is holy, just, and good. For I delight in the law of God.” Rom 7:12,22

James – ‘it’s the law of liberty.” James 1:25

How did they arrive in such statements if their thinking of the Moral law is that it is limited and burdensome? The answer?

They viewed the Ten Commandments in a broader sense, not word-by-word, not as checklist, but even in its spirit. This is how God expects us to view it also.

Mr. Eli Soriano and his 2010 Prediction - Contradiction

2009-11-27T06:07:00.009+07:00

Mr. Eli Soriano (before): "I don't believe that we will still be there for that very long time (referring to year 2010)".

Mr. Eli Soriano (recently): "It is not true that the end of the world will be on 2010...Those people who are guessing or predicting that the end of the world will be on a specific time..is misled by their thinking. They are misguided, misinformed..it's another stupidity.."

Mr. Eli Soriano is the presiding minister of his founded group: Members Church of God International. They are commonly called in the Philippines as the "Ang Dating Daan" (The Old Path).

Whose end will it be when year 2010 comes? His group "Ang Dating Daan" (The Old Path)? or the world?

Either, the sure thing is that he set up a date, which is year 2010, and arrogantly proclaimed that it is his belief.

Another false prophet? See for yourself. Watch also my sources below if you wish.

TheOldPath
EliSORIANOsa2010

If you think i misquoted him or misinterpreted him, please show me your proof and if you're right I am willing to erase this article and the one in the YouTube. Thank you for being an open-minded children of God.

Meanwhile...
Countdown To Soriano's 2010

Galatians 4:9-10 and the Sabbath

2009-11-18T13:15:00.004+07:00

“But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years!” Galatians 4:9-10 ESV

Many pastors are using this passage to imply that Paul is criticizing the Galatians for keeping the [seventh-day] Sabbaths and other holy days. These pastors are putting their own words to Paul’s lips.

First, nowhere we can find a word “sabbath” in the book of Galatians. It’s quite ironic that those who never accept the word ‘rest’ in Genesis 2:2-3 as the ‘rest’ pertaining to seventh-day Sabbath by reasoning that the word ‘Sabbath’ is never mentioned in that verse, are strongly arguing that Galatians 4:9-10 pertains to the seventh-day Sabbath, where in fact the word ‘Sabbath’ is never mentioned in Galatians 4:9-10 nor in the whole epistle to the Galatians. That is why to come up with their own interpretation of Galatians 4:9-10, they took outside verses from the book of Galatians such as Colossians 2:16-17.

There is no problem with doing a “precept from here..and a precept from there” for as long as both precepts are having of the same context or thought, and that the final thought will not contradict the fundamental truths.

Galatians 4:9-10 and Colossians 2:16-17 are not of the same thought or topic. This erroneous method is what we call “OUT-OF-CONTEXT”, taking the verse out of its original or real context. Colossians 2:16-17 pertains to the ceremonial days observed by the Jews. Yes, there is a word “sabbath” in that verse but it is the ceremonial sabbath. A separate article gives more details about this.

Galatians 4:9-10, however, talks about pagan holidays.Verse 8 gives us the clue.

Gal 4:8 “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.” ESV

Here we can see that Paul’s audience were not of Jewish background, people who observed sabbaths. Rather were converts but of pagan origin, people who observed days, months, and years for their pagan gods and goddesses. In verses 9-10, Paul continued with this

“…how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years!..”

Paul’s audience can only turn back to what they had previously, and that is not the sabbath-keeping. They were pagans so they can only turn back to pagan holidays. Therefore, it is only sensible to conclude that the “worthless and elementary principles of the world”, the observing of days, months, seasons, and years are not the sabbaths but rather the pagan holidays.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Let’s look at the life of Paul. He was an enthusiast Jew, so no doubt he respected the Sabbath so much (Acts 17:2). But how was his attitude towards the Sabbath after his conversion to Christianity?

On his first journey (around 46-48 AD), Paul visited several cities within Galatia (Turkey today). He wrote his epistle to the Galatians at some point after that first journey. This means that Paul was already converted to Christianity on this account. Another writer, Luke, recorded interesting facts regarding Paul’s journey; and from there we can see Paul’s attitude towards Sabbath after his conversion to Christianity. Acts 13:

Paul participated in Sabbath services at the local synagogue (v14).
Paul, as a guest and scholar, teaches in the synagogue (v15-41).

So instead of condemning or reprimanding the believers on their Sabbath-keeping, Paul even used their Sabbath-keeping to participate and teach them about God’s kingdom. Let’s continue..

At the conclusion of the service, “the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath” (v42).
When that next Sabbath arrived, “almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God” from Paul and Barnabas (v44).

If one assumes that Galatians 4:9-10 condemns Sabbath-keeping, the following will be their headaches:

Why would Paul participated and taught both Jews and Gentiles on the Sabbath and then, after departing, write a letter reprimanding them for observing the Sabbath day?
When the Gentiles “begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath,” why didn’t Paul simply tell them he would teach them the very next day—Sunday—or any other day since Sabbath-keeping is already a bondage?

If in Galatians 4:9-10 Paul was attempting to condemn Sabbath-keeping as bondage, then his actions in Acts 13 will show that Paul would be very confused or hypocritical.

Ceremonial Laws Are “Weak and Miserable Principles”?

Again, some see Paul’s reference to “days and months and seasons and years” as pointing to the sabbaths, festivals, and jubilee years given in the Old Testament (Leviticus 23, 25).

They view these God-given ceremonies or observances as the “weak and worthless elementary principles” to which the Galatians were “turning again” and becoming “in bondage” (v9).

Although I agree that ceremonial laws of the old covenant are not binding anymore, but this kind of thinking reminds me of what happened during the fall of men where “Adam pointed the fault to Eve, and Eve to the snake, and the snake to its Creator (impliedly)”; all faults pointed back to God.

Likewise, with the way these pastors are interpreting Galatians 4:9-10, it appears that Paul is attacking God’s way of planning and thinking. How arrogant Paul would be if he referred to these God-given ceremonies (though obsolete already) as “weak and miserable principles”! Yes, he called it “nailed to the cross” and “shadows of things to come”, but never he referred to it as “weak and miserable principles”. Indeed, Galatians 4:9-10 never refers to Jewish ceremonial laws.

“Years” As The Sabbatical Years

Again, some assume that the “years” referred to in Galatians 4:10 are the sabbatical and jubilee years described in Leviticus 25. I might say that this is wrong for the following reasons:

The jubilee year was never observed anywhere in Paul’s day.
The sabbatical year was not being observed in areas outside Palestine (Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 14, p. 582, and Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 666, “Sabbatical Year and Jubilee”).
The fact that Galatia was in pagan Asia Minor, far outside the land of Israel, makes it illogical to imagine Paul could have been referring to the sabbatical and jubilee years.

So how can Paul condemned believers in Galatians for returning to “observing of sabbatical and jubilee years” where in fact it was never observed during his days?

Civil Periods of Time

The Greek words Paul used for “days and months and seasons and years” are also used throughout the New Testament in describing normal, civil periods of time.

When Paul refers to “years” in Colossians 2:16 specifying the ceremonial sabbaths and other festivities, he used very different Greek words compared to the words he used in Galatians—a clear indication that he was discussing altogether different subjects.

Bottomline

Using immediate verse (verse 8), we saw it plainly that it is not logical to conclude that Paul was criticizing the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, since his audience were of pagan background. Instead, he was attacking erroneous efforts to achieve salvation through unnecessary superstitious pagan observances.

If your pastors are using Galatians 4:9-10 to prove that Paul is condemning seventh-day Sabbath-keeping, then please wake up. You don’t need to move farther away from Galatians 4:9-10 to get the real meaning of the context. Verse 8 is enough. Don’t be fooled by their chaining of unrelated verses to come up with their twisted doctrine.

The Purpose of Israel

2009-11-18T13:10:00.007+07:00

Rom 3:1-2 "What advantage, then, does the Jew have, or what value is there in circumcision? There are all kinds of advantages! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the utterances of God."

Exodus 19:3-5 “..Say to the children of Israel, if thou shall hear my voice, and keep my covenant..ye shall be my own possession’..”.

No doubt, God had chosen the Israel from the very start through Abraham (Genesis 17:4-5). God entrusted them to be the keeper of His laws and covenants. Immediately after the bondage from Egypt, God gave them instructions and ordinances for them to exist as a nation even before they entered Canaan. God does not want disharmony and lawlessness for His chosen people. From religious activities, to healthful living, to civil orderliness God gave them all they needed for them to be a nation, a model nation indeed.

These laws (moral, ceremonials, dietary, civil, etc.) were all written into a book. All of these were put in a book and was sometimes called as “laws of God” or “laws of Moses”. In matters of giving distinctions between Moral and Ceremonial laws, the Bible is very clear on that that the moral laws can be separated with the ceremonial laws. (See “Moral Law vs Ceremonial Laws”)

The giving of the Moral law to the Jews after they were moved out of Egypt does not mean that the moral law started only that time, else it would only mean that God created the world without giving standards of behavior for mankind.

Others may argue that God gave "other laws" , not the moral itself, for each generation or period of time. They believe that God gave a separate moral law for Adam and Eve, another one for Noah and his generation, for Abraham's time, for Moses' time, for the new testament era, etc. But I believe that God has one set of standards for all humanity. A trustworthy judge should not have so many standards, after all we are all one family, i.e. the humanity.

What was God’s plan for the Jews?

Ezekiel 5:5 “.. This is Jerusalem; I HAVE SET THEM IN THE MIDST OF NATIONS, and countries are round about her..”

Why setting them in the midst of all nations?

Deuteronomy 4:6 “Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of all the peoples, that shall hear all these statutes, and say, surely this great nation is wise and understanding people.”

Isaiah 60:1-3 “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of Jehovah is risen upon thee...but Jehovah will arise upon thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee. And nations shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.”

Exodus 10:5-6 “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine own possession from among all peoples: for ALL the earth is mine. and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.

From the verses above it is clear that God had chosen the Jews to be "the light that shines among the nations", i.e. the model nation for humanity.

The other nations were not excluded in God’s plan of salvation. The choosing of the Jews is part of God’s plan for saving the fallen humanity.

Was the keeping of the laws for the Jews ALONE?
Leviticus 17:8, 10; 20:2 Ezek 47:22; 14:7

Leviticus 19:34 "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."

“For every one of the house of Israel, or of the STRANGERS THAT JOURNEY with them, that separates himself from me..I, Jehovah will answer him by myself..”

The laws were not meant for the Jews alone. They were supposedly to keep it as an example for other nations, so that even the strangers will proclaim that Jehovah is God.

Ruth, as well as Rahab and her family were some of the ‘fruits’ from the Israel’s ‘evangelization’ of the other countries. In Jonah's time, Nineveh (a gentile nation) was spared from punishment because they turned back to God. God sent Obadiah as a prophet for the Edomites, not Jews.

Read the books of Jeremiah and other minor prophets (as what they called it). You might be surprised that most of the contents of these books are warnings and admonitions to the gentile nations. And the reason why God rebuked them is that these nations did not adhere to the message of salvation; and it is all evident by their actions which were all against the universal law of God, the Ten Commandments.

If the set of the Ten Commandments were not meant for the gentile nations as well, then there's no reason for God to rebuke these nations THROUGH the prophets from His chosen nation, the Israel.

If God has separate standard of character for the gentile nations then God should use the gentiles' prophets and prophetesses in rebuking them.

The strangers were part of the blessings and curses that come from obeying or disobeying God's moral law.

Of course, there were also civil laws in the Jewish nation which were made only after they were moved out of Egypt which only apply to its citizens. As such other nations were not obligated to obey it. But the Moral law is a standard that shows God's characters and He gave it to humanity even from the very start of this world. Not a single Jew even existed then. (See The Ten Commandments Exist Even Before the Israelites)

Israel Failed To Keep Its Promise
Israel should have acted as a role model. As such, they had the responsibilities; and some of these were the keeping of the Moral Law, observing Hygienic and Dietary laws, etc.

Time came that this entrustment of God's covenant to the Israel came to an end. See Hebrew 8:7-13. The Israel failed to hold on to their promise of keeping it.

So whose group are now expecting by God to be the role model for this earth?

1Peter 2:9 “But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:”

Matthew 5:14, 16 “Let your light shines upon all men that they might see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.”

One can only show "good works" by fulfilling the moral law of God.

The Jews were chosen by God as a model. As such they were entrusted with God's standard of character, the Moral law. It is not for them alone. But since they failed in keeping their promise, God is calling us, Christians, to continue to the obedience of His Moral law. By obeying God's law, Christians are reflecting His light to this darkened world.