God changed Seventh Day Sabbath Worship to First Day of the Week

[rstrats]

[QUOTE="Curtis,



Note also that the two love commands which superseded the old ten, have no required day to keep at all, leaving us free to assemble together on any day we want - the apostles chose the Lords day, the first day of the week, since He rose on that day.

[/QUOTE]


I'm not aware of any scripture which says that the apostles assembled on the first day of the week because of the resurrection. What do you have in mind?

 

[BarneyFife]

the two love commands which superseded the old ten,

Nowhere in the Bible does it say this. "The two love commands" are from the writings of Moses.

 

[Samara777]

I think it's clear to anyone without an agenda that the seventh day is the sabbath.
Happy rest day, happy rest day, to you.
It's the best day, it's a blessed day, all the way through.
It's a feast day, made by Yahweh, for me and you.
Happy rest day, happy rest day, to you!

According to old Jewish law. Happy Saturday I'll see you guys on Sunday The Lord's Day

 

[rstrats]

According to old Jewish law. Happy Saturday I'll see you guys on Sunday The Lord's Day

Just so it's understood that scripture never refers to the 1st day of the week as the Lord's Day.

 

[Truman]

According to old Jewish law. Happy Saturday I'll see you guys on Sunday The Lord's Day

You may disagree with me but I'll defend your right to disagree with me. - Luke 6:31...the law of love!

 

[Stumpmaster]

What does bound by "OT law" mean? I know what "bound by the other nine commandments" means. It doesn't mean shackled.

See defeinition of Religion:
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
[1150- 1200; religioun < Latin religiō conscientiousness, piety <religāre to tie, fasten (re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; compare ligament)]

 

[JunChosen]

The only day that has ever been attributed as especially belonging to the LORD is the SABBATH.

This of course is a FALSE statement! The Day of the Lord is also attributed as per Isaiah 11:6,9 and many other such passages, too many to write herein.

Christ RESTED in the grave during the SABBATH.

YOU did Not know this idea until I pointed this out in this thread. But I won't take credit for it as this idea has been written in Scripture since two thousand years past.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Curtis]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say this. "The two love commands" are from the writings of Moses.

Jesus says it, and Paul says it - love fulfills all the law and the prophets.

The two love commands are in the Old Testament, but are not called THE COVENANT as the Decalogue is.

The two love commands are the essence and substance of Gods law, the Decalogue was not, the Decalogue brings death, but the spirit brings life.

You need to read 2 Corinthians chapter three, where Paul says the apostles are the ministers of the new covenant and the law of the Spirit that gives life, which he compares with the ten commands, given to Moses on the mountain, that brings death and have passed away.


The Ten Commands are called the ministration of DEATH, the letter which KILLS, and the ministration of CONDEMNATION.


2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the NEW testament; not of the letter, but of the SPIRIT : for the letter KILLETH , but the spirit giveth life.

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration OF DEATH written and engraved in stones (The Ten Commandments) was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be DONE AWAY:

2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

2Co 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

2Co 3:11 For if that which is DONE AWAY was glorious, much more that which remaineth isglorious.

The Decalogue has been ended, being replaced by the essence of Gods law the law of love - there’s not one drop of love for your neighbor in any of the ten commands.

The reason the Ten commands kills, brings death, and condemnation, and has been done away, is due to the fact that the penalty under the law for breaking any of the Ten, was being put to death by stoning.


The penalty for homicide - being put to death by stoning:

Exo 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.


The penalty for not honoring your mother and father: put to death by stoning:

Lev 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put todeath: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall beupon him.


The penalty for adultery: put to death by stoning:

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with anotherman's wife, even hethat committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


The penalty for breaking the sabbath by doing any work, such as picking up sticks for kindling: put to death by stoning:

Exo 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it isholy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth anywork therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.


If the Ten Commands are still in effect, then the penalty for breaking them is still in effect as called for BY the law, thus those who insist on keeping the ended covenant that contained the Ten Commands, are breaking the law themselves, by not stoning to death those who break the commands.

 

[Curtis]

THE TWO LOVE COMMANDS VS THE DECALOGUE (TEN COMMANDS)


The argument is frequently made that the two love commands, which have replaced the Decalogue, just restate the ten commands, as if they are equivalent to each.other.


This is not so.


The first obvious difference is there are no days commanded to be kept in the two love commands.


But the most glaring difference between them isn’t readily apparent, but is a huge difference indeed.


So let’s compare them.


If you keep the two love commands you keep some of the ten commands, but in reality the two love commands far exceed the ten.


The ten commands - as they pertain to our relationship with other people - are negative commands: they only limit BAD behavior, by telling us what harm we CANT do to others - yet they don’t promote ANY positive acts of good will and good behavior towards your neighbor.


And they were kept out of fear of punishment - they had the death penalty by stoning, for breaking them.


And there’s not one drop of love for your neighbor, found in the Decalogue.


Whereas in comparison, the two love commands are positive commands, instead of negative.


If you love your neighbor as yourself, you won’t kill him, steal from him, or lie against him, etc, and therefore in effect keep 6 of ten.


But when you love your neighbor as yourself, you’ll go far beyond a mere six negative commands, that only tell you what harm you CAN’T do to your neighbor.


You won’t gossip about him for just one example - and there’s no command that says thou shalt not gossip about your neighbor.


In fact you won’t do ANY of the things that would do some kind of harm to your neighbor, which far exceeds a mere 6 limitations.


Jesus didn’t say, “love does none of the 6 things to harm your neighbor prohibited by the ten commands, thus love fulfills the law”.


He said instead, that love does NO HARM to your neighbor, so love fulfills the law.


Get the difference?


The two love commands go far beyond the ten commands in how well you treat your fellow man - instead of only limiting any harm you’d do to your neighbor to six, if you love him you won’t do ANY HARM to him in any way, shape or form.


And the two love commands also go far beyond not doing any kind of harm to your neighbor - if you love him as yourself, besides not harming him, you will HELP him in every kind of way.


If you love your neighbor you’ll mow his lawn when he breaks his leg, and feed him when he’s hungry, for two examples.


If you’re just keeping the Decalogue, you can do things harmful to him NOT prohibited by the 6 limitations in it, and ignore any dire needs he has - yet still pat yourself on the back for keeping the Ten commands to a tee.


That’s why the two love commands are far superior to the very limited ten commands, and they’re kept for a very different motive than fear of being stoned to death under the law.


Thus you really can’t equate the ten commands to the two love commands, nor claim that the two merely restate the ten - when in reality they are far different - as different as night and day.

 

[Curtis]

I am very much in agreement with that BIRD... FINALLY we are of one mind... LOL

I have the evidence or I wouldn’t have said it.

That reply was not meant to be definitive proof of what I said.

If he challenges and lists the specific claims he demands proof of, proof will be provided to him.

 

[Truman]

This is how one fulfills the ten commandments under the new covenant.
It is done through the daily cross sanctification process via the power of the Holy Spirit.
It is not adding to Christ's finished work on the cross. It's employing it.
It is not re-crucifying Christ.
It is...apostolic discipling. It's in scripture.
I die with Christ and I'm resurrected with Christ.
Give God the glory!

 

[Brakelite]

There’s no need to explain Acts, because it’s so clear that Paul didn’t travel from city to city to attend the synagogues of the Jews just to fill a pew, but to preach to them that Jesus is their Messiah, and he had to be there when they were there to hear him, which was on the sabbath.

The assumption here is that Paul's attendance at the synagogue in order to preach the gospel was not related in any way to observing the Sabbath. On Sabbath he didn't always go to the synagogue. He would meet in houses, he would go to a local river, he would go anywhere where there were like minded believers worshipping. Of all the complaints against Paul for sedition, speaking against the temple and the laws of Moses, and numerous other charges and accusations, yet not once was any accusation of breaking the Sabbath. In fact that accusation was never made against any Christian in all scripture.
KJV Acts 25:7-11
7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.
9 But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?
10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, ( like disobeying the 4th Commandment) I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.

the rest for Israel was physical in the old covenant, but spiritual in the new.

So no spiritual rest for Israel in the OT? That's all assumption. No physical rest for believers in the NT? That's also an assumption.

Jesus is our rest 24 7 in the new covenant, Matthew 11:28-29, so now our rest, which is what sabbath means, is no longer on a ceremonial day, but is found in Jesus.

Yes we rest in Christ's sufficiency in justifying us through His shed blood. That Israel's Sabbath rest in the OT was a shadow of this is another assumption. That it displaces the Commandment is another.

Scripture says the sabbath was just a shadow of Jesus

Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

That the weekly Sabbath was included in the sabbaths that were shadows is another assumption.

the apostles chose the Lords day, the first day of the week, since He rose on that day.

The biggest assumption of them all.

If he challenges and lists the specific claims he demands proof of, proof will be provided to him

You must have assumed I want going to ask, seeing there is no proof or genuine scriptural foundation for any of the above declarations.

 

[BarneyFife]

This of course is a FALSE statement! The Day of the Lord is also attributed as per Isaiah 11:6,9 and many other such passages, too many to write herein.

"The day of the LORD" found in Scripture refers to the Second Coming of Christ--not the 1st day of the week.

YOU did Not know this idea until I pointed this out in this thread.

You have got to be kidding me. Now you're a mind reader? I've been a Sabbath-keeper for 31 years. Even if I hadn't found it myself long ago, don't you think one of my fellow Sabbath-keepers (there are millions of us, you know) would have pointed it out to me by now? Give me a break.

 

[BarneyFife]

See defeinition of Religion:
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
[1150- 1200; religioun < Latin religiō conscientiousness, piety <religāre to tie, fasten (re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; compare ligament)]

I hope this wasn't supposed to make any sense with regard to the discussion at hand.

 

[Brakelite]

If the Ten Commands are still in effect, then the penalty for breaking them is still in effect as called for BY the law, thus those who insist on keeping the ended covenant that contained the Ten Commands, are breaking the law themselves, by not stoning to death those who break the commands.

Are you aware of how extreme your stance is with regards the ten commandments? Are you aware how desperate you are to defend your hatred for God's commandments? Are you aware of how ridiculous your arguments are and how utterly illogical? Are you aware that the penalty for breaking the ten commandments is still death... See Romans 6:23.

 

[Stumpmaster]

I hope this wasn't supposed to make any sense with regard to the discussion at hand.

Religion binds.

 

[BarneyFife]

You need to read 2 Corinthians chapter three

I might have already read it once or twice:

Not of the letter. The contrast between “letter” and “spirit” in Scripture is peculiar to the apostle Paul (see on Rom. 2:27–29; 7:6). The one is outward, the other inward. Both Jews and Christians are in danger of stressing the “letter” to the exclusion of the “spirit.” The OT, as well as the NT, constitutes an inspired revelation by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:15–17). God intended Judaism to have both “letter” and “spirit”—a record of God’s revealed will and certain prescribed forms, translated into a living experience (see on John 4:23, 24). The same is true of Christianity. Formal creeds, theoretical theology, and the forms of worship have no power to save men from sin.

In that it had come from God the “letter” of the law as recorded in the writings of Moses was good. But God had intended the “letter,” the written record of the law, to be only a means to the higher end of establishing the “spirit” of the law in the hearts of the Jews. But, as a whole, the Israelites failed to translate the “letter” of the law into the “spirit” of the law, that is, into a living religious experience of personal salvation from sin by faith in the atonement to be provided by the Messiah. The literal observance, alone, of the law “killeth.” Only the “spirit” of the law can possibly give “life,” whether it be to Jew or to Christian. The practice of Christianity can easily degenerate into a mere “form of godliness” without “the power thereof” (2 Tim. 3:5), so that the “letter” of Christianity “killeth” those who rely on it for salvation.

In Paul’s day, Judaism had so far lost the “spirit” of true religion that its religious observances consisted only of the “letter.” As a system it had lost the power to impart life to its adherents (see on Mark 2:21, 22; John 1:17). On the other hand, Christianity was still young and virile, although in centuries to come it, too, was to become degenerate. Thus, when Paul wrote, Judaism was identified with the “letter,” and Christianity, in so far as it was free from the influence of the Judaizers, was identified with the “spirit.”

The argument of some that Paul here depreciates the OT and the Decalogue is without foundation in fact. Writing to Gentile Christians, Paul repeatedly affirms the biding force of the OT and the Decalogue upon Christians (see on Rom. 8:1–4; 2 Tim. 3:15–17; cf. on Matt. 5:17–19). Christ and the apostles had no other “scriptures” than the OT (see on John 5:39). The galaxy of the faithful whose names are recorded in Heb. 11, together with many thousands of believers in OT times, experienced the quickening work of the Holy Spirit in their lives, just as others did in NT times.

Every church and every creed has its “letter” as well as its “spirit.” The gospel of Jesus Christ has its “letter” and its “spirit.” Without the quickening power of the Holy Spirit, the gospel in any church inevitably becomes a dead letter. Thousands of professed Christians are satisfied with the “letter” and remain wholly without spiritual life. What God requires is not simply right action, but right action as the product and evidence of a right relationship with God and a right state of moral and spiritual being. To reduce Christian life and worship to compliance with a system of rules, rather than to make it a matter of reliance upon the living God, is to depend upon the service and ministry of the “letter.” The formal acts and ceremonies of religion, whether Jewish or Christian, are but a means to an end. If treated as ends in themselves, they immediately become a hindrance to true religious experience.

The same is true of the law of God, the Decalogue. Formal compliance with its precepts, in the endeavor to earn salvation thereby, is futile. Only when obedience follows as the natural result of love for God and one’s fellow men is it of any value in God’s sight (see on Matt. 19:16–30). In the Sermon on the Mount our Lord stressed the principle that obedience to the “letter” of the law without the “spirit” of obedience falls short of meeting His standard of righteousness (see on Matt. 5:17–22). Contrary to certain modern exponents of Scripture, the “spirit” of the law does not abolish its “letter.” For instance, Jesus enjoined His followers, on the basis of the sixth commandment, not to be “angry” with their brethren (Matt. 5:22), but He did not thereby give a man license to violate the letter of the commandment by taking his brother’s life. The “spirit” of the sixth commandment obviously does not replace its “letter” and tends to “magnify” it (see on Isa. 42:21); The same may be said of each precept of the Decalogue, including the fourth commandment (see on Isa. 58:13; Mark 2:28).

The letter killeth. The “letter” was good, but it had no power to rescue the sinner from the sentence of death. In fact, it condemned him to death. As originally given by God, the law was designed to promote life (Rom. 7:10, 11), and thus it is said to be “holy, and just, and good” (v. 12). But life came with obedience, and death with disobedience. The law thus put the sinner to death, for the “soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Eze. 18:4, 20). “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), but the gospel was designed to forgive him, and give him life (ch. 8:1–3). The law sentences the commandment breaker to death, but the gospel redeems him and makes him live again. (Ps. 51).

 

[BarneyFife]

Giveth life. Literally, “makes alive.” The ministry of the “spirit” imparts supernatural power. The sentence of death imposed by the law is superseded by the gift of life in Christ (1 John 5:11, 12). When brought to the conscience of a converted man, the standard of God’s righteousness becomes the occasion of obedience and life. But when the law of God is brought to the conscience of the unregenerate man, it condemns him to death.

7. Ministration of death. That is, the Jewish religious system, which had become so perverted that it was lifeless and could not impart life to those who practiced it. In v. 9 Paul calls it “the ministration of condemnation.” Verses 7–18 are based on the experience of Moses recorded in Ex. 34:29–35. Paul here sets forth the superior glory of the ministration of the “spirit,” his purpose being to confute his opponents at Corinth, the Judaizers (see on 2 Cor. 11:22), whose ministry was of the “letter” and not of the “spirit.”

Written and engraven. Literally, “engraved in writing,” with emphasis on the idea that the writing was intended to remain and thus have permanent force. This is an obvious reference to the two tables of stone on which the Ten Commandments were written (Ex. 31:18). Compare the words of Christ in Matt. 4:4, 7, 10, “It is written,” meaning, “It stands written.” Paul here refers to the second inscription of the law on tables of stone (Ex. 34:1–7, 28–35).

Glory. See on Rom. 3:23. In 2 Cor. 3:7–18 the glory that remains is contrasted with the glory that fades away, the more glorious with the less glorious, the new with the old. In both, the “glory” is the glory of the presence of Christ. In the new there is a full revelation of God’s glory in the actual person and presence of Christ, who came to this world to be seen of men (see on John 1:14), which glory abides forever (see Heb. 7). In the Mosaic ministration Christ was seen only in types provided for by the ceremonial law, but the glory was nevertheless the reflected glory of Christ. The Redeemer was hidden behind a veil of types, symbols, rites, and ceremonies, but this veil was done away at the coming of the great Antitype (see Heb. 10:19, 20).

Done away. Some superficial readers have concluded from this statement that the law of God “was to be done away.” The verse clearly states, however, that it was the passing “glory” reflected in the face of Moses that “was to be done away.” That “glory” faded in a few hours, or days, at most, but the law of God, “written and engraven in stones,” remained in effect. It was the ministry of Moses and the Jewish system that was to pass away, not the law of God (see on Matt. 5:17, 18). The glory was not upon the tables of stone, and did not fade from them.

The fleeting glory on the face of Moses was the result of his fellowship with God on Sinai. It testified to those who saw it that Moses had been in the divine presence, and bore silent witness to his commission as God’s representative, and the obligation of the people to abide by its precepts. That glory was given to attest the divine source and thus the binding force of the law.

As Moses’ face reflected the glory of God, so the ceremonial law and the services of the earthly sanctuary reflected the presence of Christ. God intended that men in OT times should apprehend and experience the saving presence of Christ in the reflected glory of the typical system. But with the coming of Christ men were privileged to behold the glory of the Antitype (see on John 1:14), and no longer needed the lesser, reflected glory that attended the type. In OT times sinners found salvation by faith in Christ, the One who was to come, as surely as they have in Christian times.

It is for this reason that Paul speaks of the administration of these rites and ceremonies as a “ministration of death.” Jews who failed to see Christ in the sacrificial system would die in their sins. In and of itself that system never saved anyone from reaping the wages of sin—death. And since most Jews of Paul’s time, including the Judaizers now troubling the church at Corinth, considered those sacrifices essential to salvation, Paul appropriately characterized the entire system as a “ministration of death.” It was lifeless. Jew and Gentile alike must find life in Christ, for in Him alone is there salvation (Acts 4:12). Christ was the Saviour of Israel throughout OT times as truly as He is our Saviour today.

The failure of the Jewish nation to see and believe in Christ as typified by the ceremonial system marks the entire course of Hebrew history, from Sinai to Christ. Thus, the expression “ministration of death” appropriately characterizes the whole period of the Jewish economy, though there were, of course, many notable exceptions. Israel’s blindness finally led them to reject Jesus as the Messiah and to crucify their Redeemer. Paul declares that with the coming of the greater glory revealed in Christ and the consequent fading of the reflected glory of the typical system, there can be no further excuse for remaining under such a system. The coming of Christ and the fullness of the Holy Spirit amply provided a ministration that could impart life.

 

[BarneyFife]

Religion binds.

Not according to James:

Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)

 

[Curtis]

Giveth life. Literally, “makes alive.” The ministry of the “spirit” imparts supernatural power. The sentence of death imposed by the law is superseded by the gift of life in Christ (1 John 5:11, 12). When brought to the conscience of a converted man, the standard of God’s righteousness becomes the occasion of obedience and life. But when the law of God is brought to the conscience of the unregenerate man, it condemns him to death.

7. Ministration of death. That is, the Jewish religious system, which had become so perverted that it was lifeless and could not impart life to those who practiced it. In v. 9 Paul calls it “the ministration of condemnation.” Verses 7–18 are based on the experience of Moses recorded in Ex. 34:29–35. Paul here sets forth the superior glory of the ministration of the “spirit,” his purpose being to confute his opponents at Corinth, the Judaizers (see on 2 Cor. 11:22), whose ministry was of the “letter” and not of the “spirit.”

Written and engraven. Literally, “engraved in writing,” with emphasis on the idea that the writing was intended to remain and thus have permanent force. This is an obvious reference to the two tables of stone on which the Ten Commandments were written (Ex. 31:18). Compare the words of Christ in Matt. 4:4, 7, 10, “It is written,” meaning, “It stands written.” Paul here refers to the second inscription of the law on tables of stone (Ex. 34:1–7, 28–35).

Glory. See on Rom. 3:23. In 2 Cor. 3:7–18 the glory that remains is contrasted with the glory that fades away, the more glorious with the less glorious, the new with the old. In both, the “glory” is the glory of the presence of Christ. In the new there is a full revelation of God’s glory in the actual person and presence of Christ, who came to this world to be seen of men (see on John 1:14), which glory abides forever (see Heb. 7). In the Mosaic ministration Christ was seen only in types provided for by the ceremonial law, but the glory was nevertheless the reflected glory of Christ. The Redeemer was hidden behind a veil of types, symbols, rites, and ceremonies, but this veil was done away at the coming of the great Antitype (see Heb. 10:19, 20).

Done away. Some superficial readers have concluded from this statement that the law of God “was to be done away.” The verse clearly states, however, that it was the passing “glory” reflected in the face of Moses that “was to be done away.” That “glory” faded in a few hours, or days, at most, but the law of God, “written and engraven in stones,” remained in effect. It was the ministry of Moses and the Jewish system that was to pass away, not the law of God (see on Matt. 5:17, 18). The glory was not upon the tables of stone, and did not fade from them.

The fleeting glory on the face of Moses was the result of his fellowship with God on Sinai. It testified to those who saw it that Moses had been in the divine presence, and bore silent witness to his commission as God’s representative, and the obligation of the people to abide by its precepts. That glory was given to attest the divine source and thus the binding force of the law.

As Moses’ face reflected the glory of God, so the ceremonial law and the services of the earthly sanctuary reflected the presence of Christ. God intended that men in OT times should apprehend and experience the saving presence of Christ in the reflected glory of the typical system. But with the coming of Christ men were privileged to behold the glory of the Antitype (see on John 1:14), and no longer needed the lesser, reflected glory that attended the type. In OT times sinners found salvation by faith in Christ, the One who was to come, as surely as they have in Christian times.

It is for this reason that Paul speaks of the administration of these rites and ceremonies as a “ministration of death.” Jews who failed to see Christ in the sacrificial system would die in their sins. In and of itself that system never saved anyone from reaping the wages of sin—death. And since most Jews of Paul’s time, including the Judaizers now troubling the church at Corinth, considered those sacrifices essential to salvation, Paul appropriately characterized the entire system as a “ministration of death.” It was lifeless. Jew and Gentile alike must find life in Christ, for in Him alone is there salvation (Acts 4:12). Christ was the Saviour of Israel throughout OT times as truly as He is our Saviour today.

The failure of the Jewish nation to see and believe in Christ as typified by the ceremonial system marks the entire course of Hebrew history, from Sinai to Christ. Thus, the expression “ministration of death” appropriately characterizes the whole period of the Jewish economy, though there were, of course, many notable exceptions. Israel’s blindness finally led them to reject Jesus as the Messiah and to crucify their Redeemer. Paul declares that with the coming of the greater glory revealed in Christ and the consequent fading of the reflected glory of the typical system, there can be no further excuse for remaining under such a system. The coming of Christ and the fullness of the Holy Spirit amply provided a ministration that could impart life.

Sorry, not so.

The old covenant law was 613 statutes, ordinances and commands that all had to be kept down to tbd least jot and tittle, and was deliberately a burden, and a yoke of burden, and was an external law kept from fear of punishment and death for breaking it.

In the new covenant God puts His spirit within Christians, so they can bear the fruit of the spirit, which is love, and with God dwelling us in the form of the Holy Spirit, we no longer need an external law, thus we have died to the old law, are set free from the old covenant law, which was a schoolmaster before faith came, to.bring us to Christ, and now we are no longer under a schoolmaster, and the two love commands fulfills all the law and the prophets and replaces the Decalogue.