A Law and A Covenant

Contents

1. Introduction 2. What is The Law? 3. What is The Covenant? 4. Counclusion: Two Walking Together”

Introduction

Happy Rock: Loving Father,

We thank you for the time of cleansing and a time of reflection.  We praise you for the blessings of this week.

We ask that as we study this hour that your will be done in our lives.  May your Spirit enlighten us as to who we are and the reason we are here.  Help us to be that perfect example in this world of darkness. Let your light enlighten us as we study Law and Covenant this hour we pray in Yahshua’s name.  Amen.

Jody: Amen.
Naraiel: Amen.
Guerline: Amen.
Barb: Amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Daphna: Amen.
Peterson: Amen.

Zahakiel: Today we will be covering a topic that I think is a pretty interesting one, and I don’t think will need a lot of time or many verses to establish.  It’s something that… it’s not exactly basic, but it is foundational to our position as CSDAs, and Adventists in general.  I think it is something that commandment-keepers need to be educated about, so that we can properly explain our standpoint to the vast majority of those who call themselves “Christians,” since they believe that the Law, and various other instructions by Yahweh, has somehow been abolished or lessened at the Cross, even though Christ Himself made it very clear that He came not to destroy that Law, but to fulfill it (and from that verse – Matthew 5:17 – it is clear that “fulfill” and “destroy” are not the same).

In the past couple weeks I have referred several times to a conversation that I had with some evangelists from a Sunday-keeping church that is doing missionary work in my home town.  And the reason is because that talk made quite an impression on me, in that I have been made aware of a need.  In explaining this need, I am going to be using the 7^th Day Sabbath as the primary example, although really this is just the most noticeable symptom.  Most people, most Christians, are fine with most of the 10 Commandments; it is the Sabbath – the only commandment that tells us to “remember” it, and the only commandment that contains both Yah’s name, jurisdiction and mark of authority, that Satan has tried especially hard to get us to forget, and ignore.

In presenting the Sabbath to people, we have been able to show its importance from a number of different angles that I will briefly review here:

a) The continuing validity of the Law

Adventists, and those with similar belief systems, believe that the Law, just like the Law-giver, is eternal in nature.  We believe that the Law is not something that was given as a punishment to mankind, but rather as a blessing, to show what “righteousness” is to Yahweh, and what “sin” is to Him as well.  We can actually show that most clearly, not from the Old Testament where it was given, but from the New Testament, where John writes, “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law.” (1John 3:4)  And then we show that the phrase “transgression of the law” is a single word in Greek, anomia, which means, essentially, “lawlessness,” a state of being in disharmony with the Law.

This is the only verse in the entire Bible that says what sin IS, and it is tied, both before and after the cross, to the concept of the Law.

When we do go to the Old Testament, we find passages like the following: “I will set His hand also in the sea, and His right hand in the rivers.  He shall cry unto me, ‘Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’  Also I will make him my  Firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.  My mercy will I keep for Him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with Him. 

“His seed also will I make to endure forever, and His throne as the days of heaven.  If His children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments, if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments, then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.” (Psalm 89:25-32)

There is a misconception among some Bible students that when the New Testament speaks about the “commandments,” it is speaking only about the instructions that Christ gave to His disciples, and that they have nothing to do with the Decalogue.  However, clearly from this passage a prophecy is being made of Christ and His “children” who are the Christians. And Yahweh, in that very same Old Testament in which the 10 Commandments were given, speaks about “law” and “commandments” being important to the Christian’s life.  No other Law, and no new commandments, can possibly be meant in this passage.

Now to be clear, we are not saying that we are “under the Law” in the sense of a punishment and reward system.  It is not quite that way, and the New Testament does make it clear that Christ is “the end of the law for righteousness.” (Rom 10:4)  What we maintain is that the Law shows us what right and wrong are; they indicate to us what righteousness and sin are, so that once we accept the truth, that “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,” (1John 3:9) we find that we are able to intelligently choose to be in harmony with this Scripture in every aspect of our lives.

As I shared with the Church in my last sermon, “Word in Wickedness,” the purpose of the Hebrew nation was to teach the earth about Yahweh and His Law, and thereby “consume” the nations by (ideally) absorbing all the faithful of every land into itself.

Are there any questions about this first line of thought regarding the Sabbath, the continuing validity of the Law?

Naraiel: No.
Barb: None here.
Jody: No.
Guerline: No.
Happy Rock: No.

Zahakiel: Okay then.  Next is:

b) The Example of the New Testament

We can easily show from the New Testament that Christ, our example, was a faithful Sabbathkeeper.  And some have said, “That’s true, but this is because He was born under the law.”  But if that is so, then what of His followers who were made “free” by His death?  Why did they continue to keep the Sabbath after His crucifixion? So many people think that 9 of the commandments were mentioned in the New Testament, the exception being the fourth. And yet, by my count, the Sabbath is the most, and most clearly, mentioned of all 10 commandments between the books of Matthew and Revelation!

Luke 23:56 speaks about Christians keeping the Sabbath “according to the Commandment” after Yahshua’s death.

Yahshua said that the day was made “for man” and not “For Jews” or “For Israel.” (Mark 2:27)

The Book of Acts speaks about the Christians being instructed to learn about Moses at the Synagogues on Sabbaths. (Acts 15:21)

That same book also speaks about the Christians stopping to rest on Sabbaths in their journeys. (Acts 16:13)  The frequent and unambiguous mention of Sabbath keeping in the Books of Luke and Acts in particular is made all the more impressive by the fact they were written by a Gentile physician… it is almost as if he wished to emphasize something.

Colossians 2 informs us that we are not to let any man judge us in Sabbaths, New Moons and so on “but the body of Christ,” or the Church – if this verse is properly understood without the English translators’ unwarranted changes to the wording.

The Book of Hebrews actually invents a word in Greek to tell us that there “remaineth a keeping of the Sabbath” for God’s people, long after the death of the Messiah.  It really couldn’t be any clearer for those who truly wish to know what Christians did in relation to the Law, even though they were made “free.”  They did not use their freedom to transgress the law (and thus, according to John, “sin”) but rather they used their freedom to joyfully render obedience to the commandments and instructions of Yahweh through His Son… and this was not a matter of any “new commandment” at all.

Questions about this part?

Barb: No.
Naraiel: No.
Happy Rock: No.
Jody: No.
Guerline: No.
Peterson: No.

Daphna: What is the word?

Zahakiel: You mean the word that is invented in the New Testament?

The word is Sabbatismos, which is translated in the KJV just as “rest” in Hebrews 4:9. But if you look in a concordance you see it is a unique term.  It means, literally, “A keeping of the Sabbath day.”

Daphna: Ok.  Thanks.

Zahakiel: All right.  Next we have:

c) The Authority of Prophecy in Both Testaments

We have already seen the prophecy of Christ and His followers in the book of Psalms, but there are a couple other really clear prophecies about the Christian era that specifically mention Sabbath keeping.  One is in each Testament.

The first is found here: “‘For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me,’ saith Yahweh, ‘so shall your seed and your name remain.  And it shall come to pass, that from one New Moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me,’ saith Yahweh.” (Isa 66:22, 23)

Even in the NEW Heavens and New Earth, in which ALL sickness, sorrow, all punishment and penalty will be done-away, we have the Sabbath being kept.  Even when all are holy, and there is no more purpose to rules and regulations… we find the Sabbath remains. And why?  Because the Sabbath day was never intended to be a rule! From the beginning, Yahweh “blessed” the Seventh Day and “hallowed” it, or made it holy. It was, and was always intended to be, a celebration of the creative power of the Almighty, a blessing for humanity.  Now, after the entrance of sin into the human experience, this time of spiritual rest became a blessing that is necessary for our growth and sanctification… but do we reject the blessing, or appreciate it less, because it has become necessary for our spiritual lives?  I would think that we should appreciate it even more.  Even when there is no more need for redemption, the Sabbath will continue to be “necessary,” in a sense, to maintain worship in Eternity.

The New Testament prophecy is spoken by Christ Himself, and it is of the very end times. We read, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains.  Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.  And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!  But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath Day; for then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” (Mat 24:15-21)

Now typically, when presented with this passage, Sunday keeping Christians will say, “Oh, this is because the gates of Jerusalem were shut at the beginning of Sabbath, and so if there was destruction in the city, they would not have been able to leave.”  They base this belief on a passage from Nehemiah (Neh 13:19) where the reformer made it a habit of closing Jerusalem’s gates on Friday evenings to prevent the merchants from coming to tempt the Israelites with their wares.

But as I point out to these individuals, there is absolutely no evidence that this practice continued past the time of Nehemiah.  There is nothing in the Bible, or in the writings of any historian (and believe me, I looked) that indicates that the gates of Jerusalem were shut on the Sabbaths during the time of Christ or any time thereafter.

But, and I just noticed this recently, a careful reading of this passage makes even that defense unnecessary.  The careful reader might notice that Yahshua does not say, “Let them which be in Jerusalem flee to the mountains… and pray your flight won’t be in the winter or on Sabbaths.”  Instead, He is speaking to those who are in Judea – and that is, the entire region of Palestine in which the Jews had settled.  This passage cannot possibly be referring to physical hardships imposed upon fleeing Christians by the gates of any one city (and some are out in the “fields” anyway)… it is speaking purely about the respect that Yahshua’s followers are to have for that day, regardless of how dire the circumstances may be.

Are there any questions about this part?

Barb: No.
Happy Rock: No.
Daphna: No.
Peterson: No.
Guerline: No.

Naraiel: It seems Nominal Christians think a lot about the temple. Nominal Christians also believe that Jerusalem in the prophetic passage of the Seventy Weeks refers to the Temple, and not the city.

Zahakiel: Ok. Yes, that’s true. And that would make the words of Christ there even less likely to refer to a specific place to “flee” from.

All right.  The final section of our little review is:

d) The Testimony of Ecclesiastical History

I found, a few years ago, a book in my father’s library that was written by the Watchtower Society, that puts out publications for the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  It was a book about Bible study, and of course I was curious to see what they would have to say about the Sabbath.  They gave many of the “standard” reasons, most of which I cover above, and then drew the conclusion that it was an archaic and unnecessary practice for the Christian.

In an article that I wrote covering the arguments found in that book (which may be found here), I concluded with a survey of historical sources and early Christian commentators indicating clearly that for hundreds of years after Christ’s death, Christians were keeping the Seventh Day Sabbath… until the seat of power shifted to Rome, and then things began to fall apart.  The quotations from some of these sources include the following:

“The ancient Christians were very careful in the observance of Saturday, or the seventh day...It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival... Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assembles on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same.” [Antiquities of the Christian Church, Vol.II Book XX, chap. 3, sec.1, 66. 1137,1138.]

“For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrated the sacred mysteries (the Lord’s Supper) on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this.” [Ecclestical History, Socrates, Book 5, chap. 22, p. 289]

“The Gentile Christians observed also the Sabbath.” [Church History, Gieseler, Vol.1, ch. 2, par. 30, 93]

“Widespread and enduring was the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath among the believers of the Church of the East and the St. Thomas Christians of India, who never were connected with Rome. It also was maintained among those bodies which broke off from Rome after the Council of Chalcedon namely, the Abyssinians, the Jacobites, the Maronites, and the Armenians.” [The New Enclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, Schaff-Herzog, emphasis mine]

“The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the Apostles themselves, as appears by several scriptures to the purpose.” [Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 189. Dr. T.H. Morer, London: 1701]

Zahakiel: So all this is a fairly comprehensive summary of what we teach regarding the validity of the Law, and specifically the Sabbath day, which is certainly the most maligned article of that Law.  In fact, if you wanted to give someone a crash course in Biblical support for Sabbath keeping, this first section of the New Moon study transcript might be a good thing for you to give people.  And yet, for all this clarity, we don’t find all that much success in convincing people – who otherwise claim to be Bible-believing Christians – that this is something Yahweh intended for our continuing good.

And I think that perhaps I can help with that in this study, because a part of the confusion comes about in the lack of distinction between two key terms: a Law, and a Covenant.

It is true, absolutely true, that there is a New Covenant.  But many Bible teachers, including the evangelists with whom I recently spoke, take this to mean that there is a new Law.  This is false. This is completely and horribly wrong, and we must be able to explain to semi-educated Bible students (many of whom consider themselves to be Bible teachers!) that the Scriptures use these terms in very different ways.

What is The Law?

Zahakiel: So what is the Law? Now that I have spent a lot of time setting this up, I don’t think we need to take very long to define what the Law actually is. We read simply this:

“Thy righteousness [is] an everlasting righteousness, and thy law [is] the truth.” (Psalm 119:142)  Normally I remove those [square brackets], but I left them in this time to show how the word “is,” just as it does in Colossians 2, tends to undermine or weaken the focus of a verse if it is thrown in haphazardly.  What this verse actually says is: “Thy righteousness an everlasting righteousness, and thy Law the truth.”  It is not that the law is a kind of truth, or an example of truth… the Law IS “the truth” in the sense that there is no truth that is incompatible with the Law. If one makes a statement that would indicate even indirectly that the Law is false, that statement itself is not within the boundaries of “the truth.”

The prophets certainly believed this to be so, for we read in Isaiah, “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isa 8:20)  But these days, a lot of the supposed “seed” of Christ make statements in private, and from the pulpits, that are incompatible with the Law and the testimonies of the inspired.  What shall we say about that?

So, the Law is truth. And you know what else is called “truth” in the Scriptures?

“Into thine hand I commit my spirit; thou hast redeemed me, O Yahweh, Elohim of truth.” (Psa 31:5)  The very verse Yahshua quotes at His death reveals it.

Yahshua, who was the “express Image” of the Father, said of Himself, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” (John 14:6)

The Law is Truth, and the Law, the Truth, is the most perfect expression of the unchanging will of Yahweh.  Yahshua said, and again, some of the most eloquent statements that establish the eternal nature of the Law come from the New, and not the Old, Testament: “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” (Luke 16:17)  Now again, this verse was recorded by the Gentile Luke, and it is also just as significant that it was spoken to a primarily Jewish audience, who would understand from the term “law” not some new system of morality and behavior that Christ was just starting up, but the Law that they had been taught from birth in the Synagogues of Judea.  This, then is the Law according to the Bible.

Are there any questions about the nature of the Law?

Naraiel: No.
Jody: No.
Barb: No.
Guerline: No.
Daphna: No.
Happy Rock: No.
Peterson: No.

What is The Covenant?

Zahakiel: Ok, so we now know what the Law is.  It is Truth, it is an expression of the will of Yahweh and Yahshua.  It is eternal.  It shows us what “sin” is and what “righteousness” looks like.  So what is a “covenant?”

Well, while the word “law” in the Bible means just what we have described above, the word “covenant” means simply “an agreement.”  Now there are some verses where it appears that these words are used interchangeably, but there is a subtle difference that we must take into account, as I will explain in a moment.

You will notice that the 10 commandments contain instructions for human thought and behavior.  But what many people do not realize is that the Decalogue does not contain a list of penalties for breaking those commandments.  It does not, except in one case, give rewards for keeping them.  It doesn’t generally say HOW to keep them, except for the more extensive details given for the Sabbath (ironically enough).  These details, actually, are a part of the Covenant… a part of the agreement whose foundation is that Law.

Yahweh says, and we may read it for ourselves: “And I prayed unto Yahweh my Elohim, and made my confession, and said, ‘O Adonai, the great and dreadful Elohim, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love Him, and to them that keep His commandments.” (Dan 9:4)

Yahweh says many times to the Israelites: This is my covenant with you – I will be your God, and you will be my people. That is the covenant, that is the “agreement.” And the sign of that agreement is the obedience to the commandments of the Law.  Now, you do not “obey” a covenant… you keep a covenant. And you do not “keep” a law in the strictest sense (although the term can be used that way today) but if we are going to be really precise with our wording, you actually obey the law (or disobey it).  Those who obeyed the Law kept the covenant. And those who disobeyed the Law broke the covenant. Do you understand what I mean?  They are related, but not the same.

Jody: Yes.
Happy Rock: OK.
Barb: Yes, we understand.
Guerline: Yes.
Daphna: Yes.

Naraiel: Keeping the Covenant is a result of obeying the law, the truth.

Zahakiel: Right.

In fact, the Law may be called “the words of the Covenant,” because the Law Yahweh gave to Moses was the foundation for their agreement. And the Law of God, including the terms of the Covenant, were all put together into one collection of knowledge called “The Law of Moses.”  Now this is where things get tricky for some people, but it need not be so.

Circumcision is called a part of “the Law of Moses,” (John 7:23) and even some parts of the Psalms are called “the Law” because they contained elements of the Covenant whose foundation was the Law itself. But the Law of Yahweh does not, for example, say “Stone adulterers.” The COVENANT says, “If they break the law regarding adultery, they must be stoned.” I hope the distinction is becoming clear.

Although the terms “law” and “covenant” are sometimes used to refer to each other, they are not the same at all.  And to get to the point I am making today… you find written “the New Covenant” in several places, which I will reference below… but you NEVER find the phrase “new Law” or “new commandment.” Only John uses the phrase “new commandment;” and every time he does, he is quick to explain, “I don’t really mean a NEW commandment, I am merely repeating what you have heard from the beginning in this new setting.”

So then we may speak of a New Covenant, or a New Testament, yes. But there is no New Law and certainly no New Commandment. And why? Because the foundation of any covenant Yahweh makes with mankind, regardless of the era, epoch, generation or dispensation, is always founded squarely in that same Law, that same eternal expression of His will.  If we can explain this to people, and show it with appropriate Scriptures, and if they are willing to look at how the Word of God uses these terms, then I think we can get somewhere with them.  I really do.

We may read, to underscore the differences: “‘Behold, the days come,’ saith Yahweh, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an Husband unto them,’ saith Yahweh.  ‘But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days,’ saith Yahweh, ‘I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.’” (Jer 31:31-33)

So, as I had said, the covenant, the agreement, is “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”  This is similar to the first covenant with Israel, “which my covenant they brake.”  But the foundation for the covenant is not a new law… but the same law, re-written “in their hearts,” and “in their inward parts.”  So then, yes, the first covenant, the ministry of which was written on stone, has passed away, as the New Testament Scriptures indicate. (2Cor 3:7-18)  Has the Law?  No, for while the agreement has changed, it is still that same Law (as described in the Old Testament) that is written on our hearts.  The agreement has changed, and sometimes people will mock and say, “Well, if you are going to keep the Sabbath, why aren’t you keeping the whole law? Why don’t you stone adulterers and Sabbath breakers?  Why don’t you wear tassels, and avoid certain fabrics in your clothing?”  Well, for one thing, the New Testament does make it clear that the outward signs of Judaism are done away. (Rom 10:12)

It says, in one place, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” (1Cor 7:19)

So, was circumcision a sign of the Law, or a sign of the Covenant?

Naraiel: A sign of the covenant, which they brake?

Abraham: A sign of the covenant made with Abraham.

Zahakiel: That’s right; it was a token of the covenant made with Abraham and his offspring to keep the law.  It was not a token of the Law itself.

Now you understand the point, I think. While the covenants, the agreements, can change, the Law does not!  It is not the Divine Law that says “Stone adulterers.”  It was the Old Covenant with Moses and the Israelites, which may legitimately be called “the Law of Moses,” that indicated those things. But Christians are not bound to the Law of Moses… no… we are bound to the Law of God, and its commandments. We do have a New Covenant, a New Agreement, and in it we have instructions for how to keep that Law, and penalties for not keeping them, although these penalties are generally handled by Yahweh Himself through cause-and-effect, providence, and the final Judgment.  We are not under a theocracy at this point in human history, and it is as Yahweh would have it.

So this, then is our answer to those who ask, “Why don’t you stone adulterers and disobedient children, according to the Law?”  The answer is: That was a part of the Old Covenant, and the Law of Moses, not the Law of God, which is still the foundation for our New Covenant (the Law still does say “thou shalt not” do those things), but which does not include those physical penalties.  The New Covenant does not make adultery or murder acceptable… not at all, but the judgment of these things is by and large taken out of the hands of humans, and placed in the hands of the One who, by His death and resurrection, was appointed the proper Final-Judge of humanity.  If we can understand this distinction, then we can make it plain to others… at least, those interested in actually learning something.

And you can very easily tell the difference between the Law of Yahweh and the Covenant He established on that Law.  The word for Covenant in Hebrew is never translated as Law.  And the word for Law in Hebrew is never translated as Covenant.  They are very distinct in the language. And in terms of verses and contexts, one of the many ways you can tell them apart is this: the first (containing principles and instructions) was written, first on stone and now on our hearts. The other (containing penalties, specifics and benefits) was written on parchment in the “book of the law,” and merely placed in the sides of the Ark. (Deu 31:26)

Is that clear to everyone?

Naraiel: Yes.
Guerline: Yes.
Peterson: Yes.
Happy Rock: Yes.
Barb: Yes.
Jody: Yes.
Daphna:  Yes.

Guerline: What about those that remove the emphasis from the law to put it on the new covenant with Yahshua?

Zahakiel: These are the ones I was talking about earlier, that cannot make that distinction between the Law and the Covenant.  They think New Covenant = New Law. But in reality, Biblically, there is no transfer of emphasis; there is just a new agreement between Yahweh and men about the Law. 

Guerline: So the difference between law and covenant is crucial.  Yes.

Zahakiel: Very much so. Subtle, in some ways, but absolutely necessary to understand either the Law or the Covenant(s).

Now, if we follow this simple idea to its logical conclusion, we can explain, easily, EVERY one of those “difficult” verses that appears in both Testaments about the Law. For example, we have seen that the Law cannot be changed, and not even a jot or tittle of it will fail.  But Hebrews says, and let me quote it for you, “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” (Heb 7:12)

Now this is the only verse that says anything like that… but we do not ignore it simply because it is not witnessed by a second verse.  We understand every verse, and love the truth of every verse.  So then we look at it and we ask, “What Law is Hebrews talking about?”  If you keep reading, we find that the chapter is speaking about the Levitical rules governing sacrifice and the Temple rituals.

Naraiel: About the law that represented Christ as a Lamb and as a Priest. No?

Zahakiel: Yes.  Christians do not have an earthly, physical temple of sacrifice.  So obviously, if there is a change in the priesthood, there will be a change in the Law governing that priesthood. But the Law of God, the Commandments of God, they were for all men, not only the priests. The law of the priesthood was a part of the Covenant based on the Law of God, and was subject to change with everything else relating exclusively to that Covenant.

So if we speak, at any point, of changes to the law, we need to determine if we are discussing the Law of God, or a part of the larger, more general “Law” that included specifics, instructions, and penalties that Moses recorded as the Law for Israel, or the “Law of Moses.”  Adventists generally speak about the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law, and I think that this is a good basic approach. But I also believe that in this last generation we can grasp more subtle points, and we can therefore be even more specific about our meaning.  We can explain ourselves very well if we truly come to understand the distinction between the Law of Yahweh as it stands in its purity, and may be observed equally well by angels and humans… and the Laws pertaining to the specific Covenants that Yahweh makes with individuals or with nations.

Conclusion: Two Walking Together

Zahakiel: The most important thing is for us to “agree” with Yahweh.

Guerline: Amen.

Zahakiel: You may remember from a previous study, that this is the highest level of obedience, even more sanctifying that trusting and following.  But then, if the foundation for all His Covenants, including both the Old and New ones, is the Law, then it must be that those who agree with Yahweh will be in harmony with His Law. It can’t be any other way, or Yahweh Himself must have changed between Covenants… and this we cannot accept as anything like a Biblical teaching.

And the Law of Yahweh, while it may be expressed in 10 Commandments and their reasonable implications (e.g., if you hate your brother in your heart, you are spiritually guilty of murder) it is actually something very basic and simple.  The fulfillment of the Law (and remember, fulfillment and destruction are not the same) is Agape-love.

We read, even in the supposedly law-oriented Old Testament, “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Yahweh require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Mic 6:8)  These are all aspects of Agape, and these are the requirements of Yahweh.  Now, those who met those requirements would, indeed, obey the Law… but as a consequence, and not as an “entrance fee” into Heaven.  Those who truly knew Yahweh, you see, understood even back then that the Law does not cause righteousness, because it merely pointed forward to Christ, whose actions demonstrated an end to that arrangement.

Today it is even clearer.  We follow Christ Yahshua, His teachings, and His example. And that includes being channels for Yahweh’s grace, and walking purely by faith.  But “walking by faith” does necessarily indicate a certain kind of life, and it will be a life that is obedient to the Law, and in keeping with the Covenant.

We read, “He that saith he abideth in [Christ] ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked.” (1John 2:6)  “And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.” (Gen 5:24) But then, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3)

The goal for all the saints in this generation is a life like that of Enoch, obtained through the grace and power of Yahshua the Messiah.  But here we see that it is as I said… trustful obedience is not the highest form of communion with Yahweh.  It is to “walk” with Him, not to follow along (blindly or otherwise).  And in order to walk with Him, as a friend with a Friend, it is necessary to “be agreed.”  This involves being in a covenant, with its requirements, principles and tokens, for Yahweh is not One who makes casual agreements, but does all things with infinite care, and infinite order.  And the foundation of that order is, in fact, His Law.

As it relates to the spiritual life, agreement involves doing righteousness through faith, believing righteousness BY faith, and understanding why it is we believe and do as we do.  I pray that, with this study showing the subtle but important difference between the Law and the Covenants based upon that Law (even though a few verses appear at first to overlap their meanings) we are brought a step closer to that perfect understanding.

Are there any questions before we close?

Barb: None here.
Happy Rock: No.
Guerline: No.
Daphna:  No.
Jody: No.

Naraiel: I understood :)

Is the New Moon part of the covenant? If the New Moon came as a result of man’s fall to sanctify us.

We are keeping the new noon after sin is destroyed to keep us humble, and in a way to avoid Lucifer’s pride and rebellion?

Zahakiel: Yes (to both questions). From the Scriptures we know it was part of the Old Covenant. From prophecy we see it is going to be kept in Heaven and the new Earth. Paul includes New Moons as well as Sabbath as parts of the Christian Covenant that the “Body of Christ” can explain and understand.

If it was not part of the New Covenant, it would have nothing to do with the “Body of Christ,” but would have ended with the Israelite/Moses agreement.

Abraham: Exodus 34:28 says, “And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.”

Zahakiel: Yes, I covered that above. Let me get the part I quoted on that...

I had said: “In fact, the Law may be called ‘the words of the Covenant,’ because the Law Yahweh gave to Moses was the foundation for their agreement. And the Law of God, including the terms of the Covenant, were all put together into one collection of knowledge called ‘The Law of Moses.’”

That is the part that might be confusing to people, because they will think, “See, it is the same thing.” But the Commandments are the foundation of the Covenant, not the whole thing, which includes the other parts like penalties, rewards, and so on.

Abraham: I am not in disagreement with you, but was just asking for your response on that. Also, in Dt. 29:12 is exactly what you were saying.

Zahakiel: That verse says, “That thou shouldest enter into covenant with Yahweh thy God, and into His oath, which Yahweh thy Elohim maketh with thee this day.”  Right, yes... exactly. We enter into the Covenant, the agreement.

Any other questions or comments?

Jody: Are the statues, judgments etc. part of the covenant? As well as the feasts?

Zahakiel: Right, yes. The Law does not, for example, include the feasts. But that is an “agreement” we make based upon the principles of the Law.  And like Naraiel’s question about New Moon, “holy days” are included in Paul’s description of the covenant held by the Body of Christ.  And I am glad to see this topic inspiring interest, and more questions than usual :)

Naraiel: I was just going to say, regarding Jody’s question, that the gift of prophecy is another sign of the covenant, as the feasts and statutes, etc.

Zahakiel: Yes.

Jody: Thank you.

Zahakiel: Are we satisfied? I think, though, that this is a topic that is worthy of a deep study on an individual level.

Daphna:  Yes. Absolutely.
Barb: We are satisfied.
Jody: Yes.
Guerline: Yes.
Daphna: Yes.
Naraiel: Yes.
Peterson: Yes.

Happy Rock: I just want to say that I see Yah Love in this all where He places it all in our hearts so that we can have an intimate relationship with Him and He with us.

Zahakiel: Yes.

Ok, I’ll ask bro. Abe to offer a closing prayer :)

Abraham: Our Dear, Loving, Father in Heaven,

As always we come to you in Yahshua’s name with thankfulness for the privilege of being One with Yah and the family, and for the discussion of the Law and the Covenant, which is to many confusing, but is now laid plainly before all.

We give thanks and ask your blessing on all that have heard and on Brother David, the presenter. May Your will be accomplished through us all.  In Yahshua’s Holy Name, Amen.

Barb: Amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Happy Rock: Amen.
Jody: Amen.
Naraiel: Amen.
Guerline: Amen.

Zahakiel: Thank you all for being here. I truly enjoyed preparing and presenting this study, and I appreciate your interest as shown by your comments and questions. I hope we keep it up :)

I should have the transcript posted later today.