What commandments is Jesus talking about?

[ace of hearts]

Hebrews 7 - A Superior Priesthood

v 17-19 ~ And the psalmist pointed this out when he prophesied, “You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.” Yes, the old requirement about the priesthood was set aside because it was weak and useless. For the law never made anything perfect. But now we have confidence in a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
​

Here you admit freely the law was set aside.

 

[ace of hearts]

Continuing in Romans 7, now that he has said we died to the law, he has to give an explanation because many would feel this is attacking the law. The problem is not the law, but us. So he goes on to defend the law, and why God did this:


7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

So he first notes that the law is not sin. In fact the law points out sin. This goes back to what he said in Chapter 3. From Romans 1:18 - 3:20 Paul is spelling out how the whole world is alike under sin. This culminates in the following:

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

The law cannot declare us righteous because we are all alike under sin. He then from 3:21-the end of chapter 5 spells out that righteousness is by faith, not from the law.

So the law points out sin, and points out what we should do. It is righteous. But it cannot make us righteous. That is because in our weakness of our sinful flesh we cannot keep it.


8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

Here he says the law intended to bring life brought death--because we couldn't keep it. The law says we should do it. We don't do it, resulting in death. This is not the fault of the law. The law is still holy, righteous and good.

Thanks for saying all this. I make my posts assuming people know way to many things as a point of reference. The sad reality is if not said is it doesn't exist for many. My sister says I'm way to fast and can't follow me. I detest having to explain every detail. Yours I will read.

 

[ace of hearts]

I'm glad you brought this up as well, because earlier in this thread, when I brought up how we need to die to our sin daily, the response I got was that we are born dead and only need to be "born again" once. I see it as a life-long progression as we will never truly be without sin (it's the distinction of salvation and sanctification that people seem to get hung up on).

I think you have our dual natures conflated to one. This is handled by Paul in Rom 7 and 8. John does this in 1 Jn 1-3.

Concerning sanctification - you either are or aren't. Sanctification isn't show as a process in Scripture.

 

[ace of hearts]

No one can keep the Law perfectly. The Law doesn't save. This group of Judaizers were confusing the Gentiles, causing them to doubt their salvation and unsettling their souls.

You seem to be ignoring the context and the decision that was made at the council (which came straight from the Law regarding idolatry).

The context:

Acts 15:1-2 ~ While Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch of Syria, some men from Judea arrived and began to teach the believers : “Unless you are circumcised as required by the law of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them, arguing vehemently. Finally, the church decided to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, accompanied by some local believers, to talk to the apostles and elders about this question.

The decision made about this:

Acts 15:19-20 ~ And so my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood. ​

They weren't just confusing gentiles, they were also confusing Jewish Christians in the Galatian churches.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

.

Same law but now even stricter! Now both physical and spiritual

 

[BABerean2]

Same law but now even stricter! Now both physical and spiritual

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

.

 

[BABerean2]

No one can keep the Law perfectly. The Law doesn't save. This group of Judaizers were confusing the Gentiles, causing them to doubt their salvation and unsettling their souls.

You seem to be ignoring the context and the decision that was made at the council (which came straight from the Law regarding idolatry).

The context:

Acts 15:1-2 ~ While Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch of Syria, some men from Judea arrived and began to teach the believers : “Unless you are circumcised as required by the law of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Paul and Barnabas disagreed with them, arguing vehemently. Finally, the church decided to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, accompanied by some local believers, to talk to the apostles and elders about this question.

The decision made about this:

Acts 15:19-20 ~ And so my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood. ​

I am not the one who is ignoring the context in the passages below, which reveal that the controversy was about more than circumcision.

Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Act 15:8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,
Act 15:9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
(Since they did bear circumcision, this verse reveals that the controversy was also about the Law of Moses.)


Act 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
Act 15:23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.
Act 15:24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"—to whom we gave no such commandment—


All man-made doctrines are revealed by the verses their proponents must ignore to make the doctrine work.
You are attempting to ignore the fact that the controversy was also about the Law of Moses.

.

 

[ace of hearts]

Same law but now even stricter! Now both physical and spiritual

It isn't the same law. Jer 31:31-33.

 

[mkgal1]

I am not the one who is ignoring the context in the passages below, which reveal that the controversy was about more than circumcision.

I can agree that the controversy was about more than circumcision or else the apostles, elders, and whole church wouldn't have come to this decision as to the resolution (the essential requirements given are directly from the Law of God):

Acts 15:19-21 ~ 19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not cause trouble for the Gentiles who are turning to God.20 Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. 21 For Moses has been proclaimed in every city from ancient times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”​

Acts 15:23-29 ~
“The apostles and the elders, your brothers,​

To the brothers among the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 It has come to our attention that some went out from us without our authorizationc and unsettled your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose men to send you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to tell you in person the same things we are writing you.

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond these essential requirements: 29 You must abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.”​

 

[mkgal1]

Act 15:10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
(Since they did bear circumcision, this verse reveals that the controversy was also about the Law of Moses.)


Act 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
Act 15:23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.
Act 15:24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"—to whom we gave no such commandment—

Any reason why you left out verses 20 & 21? Saving CF on some bandwith? You cut off the letter......I'm wondering why?

 

[mkgal1]

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

Correct. There were loads of laws pertaining to the Levitical priesthood that no longer applied since the priesthood was transferred to Jesus, our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek (whose priesthood is eternal and everlasting). He is the Lamb....He is the final sacrifice necessary....all of that pointed to Him and was then fulfilled. There was no further need for the Temple nor the human priesthood. Those were the laws that I believe were changed. The law never made a person complete. Those Temple practices covered sin....Jesus took away the sin of this world (but that's not a license to sin - our sins still carry their own consequences with them - that's not changed).

The debate seems to be a lot like the debate in this very thread. The Judaizer *believers* (notice that the text does say they were a part of the early church - they weren't outsiders or non believing Jews) seemed to desire some sort of outward acknowledgement of belief from the Gentile believers. But the council realized (seems to me, anyway) that walking in His spirit is a process.....and doesn't manifest immediately....and they were confident that leading them away from their pagan idolatry practices was the priority (and seemed reassured that the weekly synagogue readings of the Law of Moses were going to help lead them in God's instruction and truth).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Correct. There were loads of laws pertaining to the Levitical priesthood that no longer applied since the priesthood was transferred to Jesus, our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek (whose priesthood is eternal and everlasting). He is the Lamb....He is the final sacrifice necessary....all of that pointed to Him and was then fulfilled. There was no further need for the Temple nor the human priesthood. Those were the laws that I believe were changed. The law never made a person complete....those practices covered sin....Jesus took away the sin of this world (but that's not a license to sin - our sins still carry their own consequences with them - that's not changed).

Therein lies the problem. Your belief is not the same as others. Some define the Law as being composed of two or three types of laws even though the scripture never does so for us. The Law is one body and cannot be picked apart at will to apply as we might see fit. Neither are the Ten Commandments any more or less significant than the other commandments. Either you are or are not under the Law. I thank God that through Jesus Christ I am set free from the Law, as the writer of Hebrews clearly teaches.

 

[mkgal1]

Therein lies the problem. Your belief is not the same as others. Some define the Law as being composed of two or three types of laws even though the scripture never does so for us. The Law is one body and cannot be picked apart at will to apply as we might see fit. Neither are the Ten Commandments any more or less significant than the other commandments. Either you are or are not under the Law. I thank God that through Jesus Christ I am set free from the Law, as the writer of Hebrews clearly teaches.

That's why I made an issue about the word translated to "change" in our Bibles - and how the root word means "transfer". Jesus, Himself, said He didn't come to *abolish* the Law, but to fulfill the Law and the words of the Prophets. Others here in this thread seem to disagree with Him. He's written the Law on our hearts - how can we be completely separated from it?

 

[mkgal1]

As usual, Tall73 is much more articulate than I am - so I wanted to re-share his post here. See the distinction? We are either "walking in the Spirit" (as the Galatian believers started off) or "under the law" (we are ALL guided by something - God or our idols/fear).

This is why Paul asks whether those who started out with the Spirit are now trying to be righteous by the law. They were on the right track before. If you want to be righteous focus more on Christ, and walking in the Spirit, rather than focusing on the law.

It is the Spirit that puts to death the things of the sinful nature, and lives out the fruit of the Spirit.

Galatians 5:
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whateverc]">[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.


19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.


22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

.

That's right, but the change in priesthood only has to do with those laws. Yeshua is now mediator and High Priest. Oh boy, another video...pass

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Therein lies the problem. Your belief is not the same as others. Some define the Law as being composed of two or three types of laws even though the scripture never does so for us. The Law is one body and cannot be picked apart at will to apply as we might see fit. Neither are the Ten Commandments any more or less significant than the other commandments. Either you are or are not under the Law. I thank God that through Jesus Christ I am set free from the Law, as the writer of Hebrews clearly teaches.

So if you were a male, the laws of menstruation would apply to you? If you were a female, the laws concerning the priests would apply to you? Give me a break...
You are set free from the CURSE of the law.

 

[mkgal1]

This was posted:

That was not the question. I never said they were identical. The mediator now is Yeshua.

.....and the response was:

Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

....is Jesus still saying "You shall not commit adultery" or not? This response (and all the others like it) seem to be missing that point. Jesus is retaining the same original instruction - He's just making it MORE stringent (not just an external behavior, but a heart attitude change as well). To abolish a law - it would mean it's no longer in affect. That would mean adultery is okay and acceptable (and I'm personally convinced Jesus was NOT stating that).​

 

[mkgal1]

@yeshuaslavejeff - did you just agree with me? On purpose?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

@yeshuaslavejeff - did you just agree with me? On purpose?

Your post, yes.

 

[mkgal1]

Examples of some truly abolished laws in the U.S. (things that were against the law that are now acceptable and allowed):

1. The 18th amendment of 1920 made drinking beer illegal. That's since been abolished in many states now (it's completely acceptable and legal to drink a beer).

2. National Speed Limits of 1974 prohibited speed limits above 55 MPH nationwide in the United States. Congress abolished that law, and now each state sets the limits (some as high as 85 MPH). IOW....it's now completely acceptable for me to drive in my state above 55 MPH (in fact....for safety, I HAVE to drive above 55 MPH).

3. In 1965, Jim Crow laws were abolished. Where it used to be illegal for blacks and whites to drink from the same water fountains, eat in the same parts of restaurants, attend the same schools, etc.......in 1965, it became allowed and acceptable for there to NOT be any more segregation and discrimination against blacks. The laws were overturned.....truly changed.

Jesus didn't overturn the Laws of God. He was never in opposition to them. Jesus IS God....God is immutable.