Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Soyeong]

In a conversation with DAQ in another thread, the question moved from whether we were still required to keep the kosher laws of the Old Covenant to whether we were still required to keep any of the laws of the Old Covenant. Below is a summation of my understanding of the modern Christian's responsibility to the Old Covenant based on Scripture, New and Old.

What is the purpose of the Law today?
1 Cor 10:11 - "Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come."
The Old Covenant stories are an example to us and as instruction to us; they are history from which we learn.

Rom 15:4 - "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."
Again, the Old Covenant Scriptures are for our encouragement and instruction.

2 Tim 3:14-17 - "You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work."
The "sacred writings" and "all Scripture" here are the Old Covenant (the New Covenant having not yet been compiled as we have it today). The Old Covenant Scriptures are valuable "for teaching, for rebuking, for correction, and for training in righteousness". However, are they still binding on us today? Are we still bound to obey the Law of Moses? Is our salvation tied to keeping the Law? Or are we freed from the Law?

Israel will always be a light to the nations either by being an example of what we should do or of what we should avoid doing, and Israel's disobedience to the Mosaic Law is an example of what we should avoid doing.

What then is the purpose of the Mosaic Law and the Old Covenant?
In Galatians 2, Paul tells of his confrontation with Peter. Before some of the Jews came to where Peter was, Peter was living and eating with Gentiles (presumably eating what the Gentiles ate), but when the Jews came Peter withdrew hypocritically from the Gentiles, and caused many of the Christian Jews with him to sin also (Gal 2:11-14).
Gal 2:15-21 -
The Law of Moses does not have the capability of making a person righteous before God.

In Acts 5:32, the Spirit is given to those who obey God, so obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit, however, Galatians 3:1-2, it denies that works of the law is part of the way to receive the Spirit, therefore the phrase "works of the law" does not refer to the Law of Moses. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith, and a law that our faith upholds can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-11. In contrast, in Romans 2:13, Paul said that only doers of the Law of Moses will be declared righteous, so it does make a person righteous before God through faith.

The purpose of the Law was to show us what sin was, and to demonstrate to us that we could not keep the Law of God perfectly no matter how hard we try.
Gal 3:21-29

Nowhere does the Bible say that the purpose of the Law of Moses is to demonstrate to us that we could not keep it it perfectly, nor does the Bible ever require us to keep it perfectly. The Law of Moses came with instructions for what to do when the people sinned and the fact that repentance has value demonstrates that it did not require perfect obedience. The consistent call of the prophets was for people to repent, not the call for perfect obedience. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, God's word says that the Law of Moses is not too difficult for us to obey and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it was presented as a possibility and as a choice, not as the need for perfect obedience. Even if someone did manage to have perfect obedience, then they still would not earn their righteousness as a wage (Romans 4:5).

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him His way that he might know Him and Israel too, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing God and Jesus is the goal of the law, which is eternal life (John 17:3), so obedience to the Law of Moses is about knowing God, not about trying to earn our salvation through perfect obedience. Likewise, in Matthew 19:17 and Luke 10:25-28, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments. In Romans 2:6-7, eternal life is given to those who persist in doing good. In Romans 6:19-23, we are no longer to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin, but are now to present ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, which is the gift of God, so obedience to the Law of Moses is the content of His gift of eternal life. In Revelation 22:14, it is those who obeyed God's commandments who are given the right to eat from the Tree of Life. So it is false that it does not give us life.

Someone who disregarded everything that their schoolmaster taught them after they graduated would be missing the whole point of a schoolmaster. The Law of Moses leads us to Christ because it teaches us how to know him, or in other words, how to have a relationship with him, but it does not lead us to Christ so that we can reject what he taught and go back to living in sin.

In regard to Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, being in Christ, through faith, being children of Abraham, and being heirs to the promise is all directly connected to living in obedience to God's law. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to God's law are not children of God. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, and he walked in obedience to the Law of Moses. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law of Moses. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works that he did. In Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he might teach his children and those of his household to walk in God's way by doing righteousness and justice that the Lord may bring to him all that He has promised, namely, in Genesis 26:4-5, God will multiply Abraham's children as the stars in the heaven, to his children He will give all of these lands, and through his children all of the nations of the earn will be blessed because Abraham heard God's voice and obeyed His statutes, commandments, and laws. In Deuteronomy 30:16, if they love God by walking in His way in obedience to His commandments, statutes, and laws, then they will live and multiply, and the Lord will bless them in the land that they go to possess. So all of the promises were made to Abraham and brought about because he walked in God's way in obedience to His law, he taught his children to do that, and because his children did that. God's way is how the children of Abraham knew how to live blessed lives (Psalms 119:1-3), so the way to inherit the promise through faith of being a blessing to the nations is by teaching the nations to turn from their wickedness and how to live blessed lives, and Jesus was sent as the fulfillment of that promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26).

Romans 3:19-20 restates this same point.

The only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ, which is again supporting to the Law of Moses, which is not works of the law.

But we are told in Jeremiah 31:31-34 that someday a New Covenant would be made with Israel.
This very passage was quoted by the writer of Hebrews in chapter 8. Right after the writer says that we have a High Priest greater than any High Priest of the past (the Old Covenant), who is not able to be a priest of the Old Covenant because He is not of the right House. But He is both our High Priest and King then and forever.
Heb 8:1-7
Heb 8:13 - "When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is about to disappear."
When did He say that there was a New Covenant coming? In Jeremiah. The Old Covenant was made obsolete when Jeremiah was alive, but it did not disappear (cease to be relevant to believers in God) until Jesus came and fulfilled it.
Heb 10:1-10 -

In Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves God putting the Law of Moses in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, the Law of Moses did not become obsolete along with it. We are still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same instructions for how to act in accordance with His nature. For example, God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His righteousness are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, and in Romans 15:18-19, Paul fulfilled the Gospel message by bringing Gentiles to full obedience in word and in deed, so fulfilling something does not refer to causing to no longer be relevant to believers.

In Matthew 4:17-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is. Likewise, Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of Moses is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20). Jesus did not establish the New Covenant in order to undermine everything that he spent his ministry teaching by word and by example and everything that he accomplished through the cross.

By His sacrifice on the Cross, Jesus took away the first order (the Old Covenant) to establish the second (New Covenant).
Finally, Gal 4:21-31 gives us a very clear picture from history to depict the reality of the two covenants.

The Old Covenant which came from Mt. Sinai is likened to Hagar, the slave mother of the slave son of Abraham who would not be heir.
The New Covenant in Christ is likened to Sarah, the free mother of the free son of Abraham who was heir to the promise.
As we have seen in Gal 3:29 above, those who believe in Christ are heirs to Abraham and the Promise, not those who cling to the Old Covenant.

The Law of Moses came through through the son of the free woman, which completely undermines how you are trying to use this passage. Likewise, if God saved the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt in order to put them into slavery to the Law of Moses, then it would be for slavery that God sets us free, but Galatians 5:1 says that it is for freedom that God sets us free. In Psalms 119:142, the Law of Moses is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is sin in transgression of the Law of Moses that puts us in bondage while it is the truth that sets us free.

What does this mean for us today?
Acts 15:8-11 -

In Acts 15:8-11, it makes it clear that the yoke that they are unable to bear is an alternative to salvation by grace, not the Law of Moses. In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God's word says that the Law of Moses is not too difficult to obey, so if they were referring to the Law of Moses a being an yoke that they are unable to bear, then they would have been in direct disagreement with God.

So then, it is clear when Paul speaks to the people at Colossi that he is telling them that they are not bound to the Law in what they eat, or what festivals they keep, or to keeping the sabbath.

Col 2:16-17 -

If we look at Colossians 2:16 by itself, then it is ambiguous in regard to two possible situations:

1.) The Colossians were not keeping God's feasts, they were being judged by Jews because they were not keeping them, and Paul was encouraging not to let any man judge them for not keeping them.

2.) The Colossians were keeping God's feasts, they were being judged by pagans because they were keeping them, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them for keeping them.

If we look at the context of what Paul described of the views of the people who were judging them, then it becomes clear that the 2nd situation is the case in that they were being judged by pagans, such as saying in Colossians 2:20-23 that they were promoting human precepts and traditions, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity of the body. We must obey God rather than man, so we should be careful not to mistake what was only said against obeying the teaching of men as being against obeying the commands of God, especially when the point that Paul was making was that we shouldn’t let anyone prevent us from obeying the commands of God.

Matt 5:17-18 - "“Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!""
Jesus came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (the Old Covenant). What does it mean that He "fulfilled" it?
1. He kept them perfectly
2. He fulfilled the prophecies about the Messiah that would come and save both Israel and the Nations.
3. He satisfied the Covenant with God, finishing all the requirements of the Law and making room for a New Covenant to be established that would accomplish the promise made to Abraham.

In Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people people have done, which has nothing in particular to do with obeying it perfectly. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it, so fulfilling the law should not be interpreted as meaning essentially the same thing as abolishing it.

Heb 4:1-11 -

In Hebrews 3:18-19, they did not enter into God's rest because of their unbelief/disobedience, and in 4:11, we should strive to enter into God's rest so that no one may fall away by the same sort of disobedience, so that passage should not be used to try to justify the same sort of disobedience. The Law of Moses had nothing to do with trying to be "good enough" or with us keeping it perfectly. Jesus live in obedience to the Law of Moses, and in Matthew 11:28-30, he invited people to come to him for rest and to learn from him, not inviting people to reject his example. By Jesus saying that we would find rest for our souls, he was refencing Jeremiah 6:16-19, where the Law of Moses is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls, but if it were about trying to be "good enough", then it wouldn't be the way where we will find rest for our souls.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

If something remains then it remains from a prior point in time, by definition.

What prior point in time does Heb 4 reference for that statement?

It quotes from David in the Psalms (Ps 95:7)

7 He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,
“Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9 Consequently, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

"remains" from the way it was at the time of David -

(allowing the text with it's specific reference "saying through David" to tell us the time period from which the Sabbath "remains".

Sorry, but no. You are misplacing your focus.

I simply choose not to ignore these two details
1. When something remains - it remains as it was at some prior point in time.
2. The prior point in time actually mentioned in Heb 4 is the one in David's day "saying through David" and then quoting the OT.

The point God is making through the Hebrew writer is "TODAY".

There would be many ways to say "TODAY and not connected with any other prior time in history -- do not harden your heart, the Sabbath is for the people of God".

It is "instructive" that God chooses to remind us that it remains as it was at the time of David.

Read it again. He again sets a certain day. What day? Today!! As David said in his Psalm "TODAY if you hear His voice...."

The claim is that the "Today" of David's day - when the text was written - is the same today.

Today is the day to find your rest in Jesus, and cease your efforts to find rest in the Law.

No doubt that too is the same as it was in David's day. David's text does not say "some day 1000's of years from now..."

Very true. This passage is not addressing taking the Lord's name in vain, because that command was restated in the New Covenant in Matt 5:33-37

1. The text "do not take God's name in vain" is not found in all of Matt 5 nor in all of the NT. Neither is the term "New Covenant" found there.
2. The term "New Covenant" is not found at all in Matt 5 but it is found in Jer 31:31-33 (which you are specifically not quoting) where the moral law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers (exegesis) is written on heart and mind.

, Matt 12: 36-37, Eph 4:29-30. It is not the focus of this passage.

All great examples of texts that do not quote "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7

By direct contrast to one we do see quoted from directly in the NT in Rev 14:7, n Acts 4:24, 14:14

I didn't say the commandments were deleted. I, echoing Scripture, said the Old Covenant, and all of the commands in it, have been made obsolete.

By contrast to that suggestion we have -

Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
Where "'Honor your father and mother' is the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2 in that still-valid unit of TEN

The very set of God's commandments that you suggest are obsoleted (rather than deleted) -- is being affirmed in the NT.

Even you tried to affirm Ex 20:7 "Do not take God's name in vain" in the NT - the one that is actually not quoted from in the NT. (and of course I would support you in that)

Jesus and the Apostles frequently referenced the Old Covenant because it is the foundation upon which the New Covenant was laid.

There is not one case in all of the Gospels where the term "Old Covenant" is found. On the contrary - you have Matt 5.

But not all of the commands in the Old were brought into the New. Yes, there are commands in the New Covenant to honor our parents, not murder, not covet, not become adulterers, etc.

Jeremiah preaches the New Covenant to God's people saying that the moral law of God known to them (Exegesis) is "Written on heart and mind". Which of the Ten do you think they did not know about?

However, there is no commandment in the New Covenant to keep the sabbath

1. The Sabbath commandment is the one that IS quoted from directly several times in the NT --
2. By contrast "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 is never quoted from in the NT
3. Show us from the actual text of the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-34 and in Heb 8:6-12 that one of the Ten is being deleted/obsoleted in the New Covenant.
4. You are the one that just took a commandment that is actually NOT quoted from in the NT - and argued that even so - it still applies in the case of Ex 20:7 "Do not take God's name in vain"

 

[BobRyan]

Freth said:

Then all is fulfilled. Even then, according to Isaiah, the Sabbath will be observed in the new heaven and new earth (Isaiah 66:23), which means there is no lack of continuity as far as the Sabbath is concerned. It is a perpetual covenant (Exodus 31:16).

Amen! As your Is 66:23 reference shows "from New Moon to new Moon AND FROM Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" -

Two time cycles specifically identified - very specific cycles. For all mankind, for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth.

"And it shall be from new moon to new moon
And from Sabbath to Sabbath,
All mankind will come to bow down before Me,” says the Lord."
This is simply a way of marking periodical times and events.

If we delete enough details from the text it says "at amorphous time cycle certain events will happen". Indeed we could dismiss all the details by summarizing it like so "This is simply a way of marking periodical times and events."

IF don't delete even one single detail in the text then we have TWO very specific time cycles for all mankind - to come before God for worship , for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth... and those are the details you omit in your post.

Are we not supposed to notice that those details are indeed inconvenient to the solution you are promoting?

It is not a command that the sabbath will still be observed.

It is a prophecy stating that it will be observed. Are we simply not supposed to notice this detail when we read the actual text of Is 66:23? How do you find that idea to be compelling?

God is simply saying the same thing that was said in Job 1:6, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.".'

So in your POV does Isaiah 66:23 actually lend itself to being downsized into "There will come some days in the New Earth when all mankind will come before God to worship"???

And If you do "need it" to get reduced to just those details - do you also still realize that those of us that do not "need" that reduction in details in the text - are going to need some actual scripture for that downsize and not simply wishing to see it?

 

[Doug Brents]

So according to your theory concerning the allegory in Galatians 4, now you are saying that you are your own mother covenant Yerushalem of above: that's not surprising to me.

I am sorry, and I don’t mean to offend, but this statement is very confusing. What is a “mother covenant Yerushalem of above”?

No,
I am not my own mother.
I am not my own covenant.
I am not my own Jerusalem of above.

 

[daq]

I am sorry, and I don’t mean to offend, but this statement is very confusing. What is a “mother covenant Yerushalem of above”?

No,
I am not my own mother.
I am not my own covenant.
I am not my own Jerusalem of above.

The allegory according to Paul concerns two covenants.

Galatians 4:24a
24a ατινα εστιν αλληγορουμενα αυται γαρ εισιν δυο διαθηκαι
24a which things are allegorical, for these are [the] two covenants:

Yerushalem of above represents the covenant as understood in the supernal way, (of above, from above, supernal), and as Paul says in the same discourse, Yerushalem of above is our mother. Therefore Yerushalem of above is our mother covenant, which is why I quoted the commandment to honor your father and your mother in the other thread where we discussed all of this: even that commandment is supernal, not just physical minded, for as I kept saying and quoting from Paul, the Torah is spiritual, (Rom 7:14).

These things were explained there also by the fact that there are multiple covenants confirmed by the Messiah in the multiple cups at the Seder, which we also discussed, and you also rejected. By canceling the mother covenant you cut yourself off from the Root and will not be able to see the covenant renewed.

Every new believer begins as a babe in Messiah, not a fully grown man, and babes start new life in "the milk of the Word", (a reference to your mother covenant), and as they grow up they are under schoolmasters, tutors, and governors. Did we not go over these things in the other thread too? Yes, we did, and they were explained from Galatians 3&4, but you rejected those things also. And unlike Nikodemos, Paul, Timothy, and the Prophets and the Messiah who teach these same things, you are not willing to go back into the womb of your mother and relearn everything through the new Spirit teaching which is the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts.

We are not to be taught of men, but of Elohim, and the Torah contains Living Oracles of Elohim, that is, Logia, (Acts 7:38, λογια ζωντα), and logion, (singular), is directly related to and comes from logos, (through logios). Canceling the Living Oracles of Elohim only serves to cut yourself off from the Root and hide the renewal of the covenant from your heart, mind, and eyes.

 

[Icyspark]

I am not teaching anyone to "break the commandments". I am saying, as Scripture says, that the Old Covenant was completely fulfilled and accomplished by Jesus on the cross. We are no longer subject to ANY of the OT commands, but are now subject to the NEW Covenant and the commands in it.

Hi Doug Brents,

I'm wondering if you know what a covenant is? If so, could you please supply a definition here and then explain how come you're conflating it with the law.

God bless!

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Doug Brents]

Israel will always be a light to the nations either by being an example of what we should do or of what we should avoid doing, and Israel's disobedience to the Mosaic Law is an example of what we should avoid doing.

Who is Israel today? This is a topic for another thread, so I won’t address it here.

In Acts 5:32, the Spirit is given to those who obey God, so obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit, however, Galatians 3:1-2, it denies that works of the law is part of the way to receive the Spirit, therefore the phrase "works of the law" does not refer to the Law of Moses.

False logic. Works of faith are not works of the Law. The Jewish community of the first century understood “the law” as the Law of Moses. Every time “the law” is mentioned it is the Law of Moses. If “the” is not in front then it may be some other law as the context provides. But always “the law” (without some other modifier like “of faith” or “of works” etc.) means the Law of Moses.

In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith, and a law that our faith upholds can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-11. In contrast, in Romans 2:13, Paul said that only doers of the Law of Moses will be declared righteous, so it does make a person righteous before God through faith.

“For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified.”
This only applies to those who are under the Law.
Rom 3:21-26 - “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; 26 for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
But yet again we see that we are not under the Law, but under faith in Christ apart from the Law.

Nowhere does the Bible say that the purpose of the Law of Moses is to demonstrate to us that we could not keep it it perfectly, nor does the Bible ever require us to keep it perfectly.

Lev 19:2 - “Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.”
Which is another way of saying “Be perfect as I am perfect.” The Israelites were expected to keep the Law perfectly, but knowing that it is impossible for man to do so, God made provision for the rolling forward of man’s sin onto Christ.

The Law of Moses came with instructions for what to do when the people sinned and the fact that repentance has value demonstrates that it did not require perfect obedience.

Just wow. I’m not even going to read any more. This is just too much.

 

[Soyeong]

False logic. Works of faith are not works of the Law.

Please explain how this is false logic: if obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit and works of the law are not part of the way to receive the Spirit, then works of the law does not refer to obedience to God. I agree that works of faith are not works of the law, which is why I cited Romans 3:27 as contrasting a law of works with a law of faith. There are many verses like Romans 3:31 that connect our faith in God with our obedience to Him, so His law is of faith, unlike works of the law.

The Jewish community of the first century understood “the law” as the Law of Moses.

You gave no support for your claim and it is contrary to how Qumran Text 4QMMT, which uses "works of the law" to refer to something other than the Law of Moses.

Every time “the law” is mentioned it is the Law of Moses. If “the” is not in front then it may be some other law as the context provides. But always “the law” (without some other modifier like “of faith” or “of works” etc.) means the Law of Moses.

In Romans 7:25, Paul said that he served the Law of God with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin that he served with his flesh, so there isn't a good reason to assume that "the law" always refers to the Law of Moses.

“For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified.”
This only applies to those who are under the Law.
Rom 3:21-26 - “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; 26 for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
But yet again we see that we are not under the Law, but under faith in Christ apart from the Law.

God is sovereign, so we are under His law and obligated to refrain from sin. In Romans 3:28, it notably says that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law. God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so putting our faith in what God has instructed is the way to put our faith in God, while it is contradictory for someone to think that God is trustworthy, but that what He has instructed is not. Christ expressed the nature of God through setting a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to God's law, so again, it is contradictory for someone to have faith in Christ apart from the nature of who he is.

Lev 19:2 - “Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.”
Which is another way of saying “Be perfect as I am perfect.” The Israelites were expected to keep the Law perfectly, but knowing that it is impossible for man to do so, God made provision for the rolling forward of man’s sin onto Christ.

There are times when the Israelites sanctified themselves even though they did not have perfect obedience, so being holy does not refer to being perfect. In regard to Matthew 5:43-48, Jesus was speaking about a love that was full or complete, where they did not just love those who loved them, but also loved their enemies. Nothing in this passage has anything to do with the concept of needing perfect obedience and it would be pointless to tell people who have already sinned that they need to have perfect obedience.

Just wow. I’m not even going to read any more. This is just too much.

Repentance doesn't change the fact that we have all fallen short of perfect obedience, so by all means, please explain the value of repentance in the world where we need have perfect obedience.

 

[daq]

Please explain how this is false logic: if obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit and works of the law are not part of the way to receive the Spirit, then works of the law does not refer to obedience to God. I agree that works of faith are not works of the law, which is why I cited Romans 3:27 as contrasting a law of works with a law of faith. There are many verses like Romans 3:31 that connect our faith in God with our obedience to Him, so His law is of faith, unlike works of the law.



You gave no support for your claim and it is contrary to how Qumran Text 4QMMT, which uses "works of the law" to refer to something other than the Law of Moses.




In Romans 7:25, Paul said that he served the Law of God with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin that he served with his flesh, so there isn't a good reason to assume that "the law" always refers to the Law of Moses.

God is sovereign, so we are under His law and obligated to refrain from sin. In Romans 3:28, it notably says that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law. God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so putting our faith in what God has instructed is the way to put our faith in God, while it is contradictory for someone to think that God is trustworthy, but that what He has instructed is not. Christ expressed the nature of God through setting a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to God's law, so again, it is contradictory for someone to have faith in Christ apart from the nature of who he is.


There are times when the Israelites sanctified themselves even though they did not have perfect obedience, so being holy does not refer to being perfect. In regard to Matthew 5:43-48, Jesus was speaking about a love that was full or complete, where they did not just love those who loved them, but also loved their enemies. Nothing in this passage has anything to do with the concept of needing perfect obedience and it would be pointless to tell people who have already sinned that they need to have perfect obedience.



Repentance doesn't change the fact that we have all fallen short of perfect obedience, so by all means, please explain the value of repentance in the world where we need have perfect obedience.

Amen, "the works of the law" are indeed different as you have already said in several posts. The "works of the law" are based in the Pharisaic physical-minded outward understanding of the Torah and that's why Paul says that by "the works of the law" shall no flesh be justified, (Rom 3:20, Gal 2:16). You would think by the way those who misunderstand this phrase, (and use it against those who uphold the Torah), that people would be running around here claiming that everyone needs to be strapping on teffilin and wearing tzitzit: but that obviously isn't the case. It is nothing more than a strawman argument based in misunderstanding and ignorance: ignorance of the culture and customs, and misunderstanding of Paul's meaning when using that phrase. The "works of the law" are essentially the result of an outward physical interpretation of the Torah.

 

[Doug Brents]

BobRyan said:

If something remains then it remains from a prior point in time, by definition.

And that time could be RIGHT NOW: ie. the remains of your dinner, or his last remains.

What prior point in time does Heb 4 reference for that statement?
It quotes from David in the Psalms (Ps 95:7)

7 He again sets a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before,
“Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that. 9 Consequently, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

"remains" from the way it was at the time of David -

(allowing the text with it's specific reference "saying through David" to tell us the time period from which the Sabbath "remains".

No again. He sets a certain day; what day? TODAY!
And then He quotes David saying,
“Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”
Today is the focus, not “remains”. Remains simply means that there is still a Sabbath rest in t huh e New Covenant. And TODAY is the day to enter that rest.

I simply choose not to ignore these two details
1. When something remains - it remains as it was at some prior point in time.

So your last remains remain as they were when?

2. The prior point in time actually mentioned in Heb 4 is the one in David's day "saying through David" and then quoting the OT.

There would be many ways to say "TODAY and not connected with any other prior time in history -- do not harden your heart, the Sabbath is for the people of God".

It is "instructive" that God chooses to remind us that it remains as it was at the time of David.

Again, it is between you and God how you keep the sabbath. But it is no longer a command to the New Testament Christian because we are no longer under the Old Covenant.

1. The text "do not take God's name in vain" is not found in all of Matt 5 nor in all of the NT. Neither is the term "New Covenant" found there.

Very true. But then, all of Scripture is one document in many volumes, and while the term “New Covenant” is not Matt 5, it is in many other places.

2. The term "New Covenant" is not found at all in Matt 5 but it is found in Jer 31:31-33 (which you are specifically not quoting) where the moral law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers (exegesis) is written on heart and mind.

Correction, Jeremiah says that the time is coming (it is not now (Jeremiah’s day)) when God will write His laws on our hearts.

All great examples of texts that do not quote "do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7

Taking the Lord’s name in vain is not just using His name in an impure way. It is also saying you are His and then acting unlike Him; taking His name upon yourself and then disgracing Him by acting inconsistently with His character.

By contrast to that suggestion we have -

Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
Where "'Honor your father and mother' is the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2 in that still-valid unit of TEN

The very set of God's commandments that you suggest are obsoleted (rather than deleted) -- is being affirmed in the NT.

Not the whole set is affirmed, only those restated in the New Covenant. Not all of the 10 were restated.

Even you tried to affirm Ex 20:7 "Do not take God's name in vain" in the NT - the one that is actually not quoted from in the NT. (and of course I would support you in that)

The specific commandment “do not take the Lord’s name in vain” was not restated in the New Covenant, but the concept and the more expanded idea as stated above was commanded.

1. The Sabbath commandment is the one that IS quoted from directly several times in the NT --

Where? Please give me the location of that gem?

2. By contrast "Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 is never quoted from in the NT

You are correct. But as you note below, the expanded “let no unwholesome speech” command is found in the NC.

3. Show us from the actual text of the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-34 and in Heb 8:6-12 that one of the Ten is being deleted/obsoleted in the New Covenant.

None of the commandments of the OC are singled out as being specifically deleted. There is no need, because the OC in its entirety is made obsolete in Christ.

4. You are the one that just took a commandment that is actually NOT quoted from in the NT - and argued that even so - it still applies in the case of Ex 20:7 "Do not take God's name in vain"

Very true, because there is no passage that tells us that taking (or not taking) the Lords name in vain is a matter of personal conviction in the NC. There are two such passages about the sabbath in the NC.

 

[Doug Brents]

The allegory according to Paul concerns two covenants.

Galatians 4:24a
24a ατινα εστιν αλληγορουμενα αυται γαρ εισιν δυο διαθηκαι
24a which things are allegorical, for these are [the] two covenants:

Yerushalem of above represents the covenant as understood in the supernal way,

NO!! Sorry, but that would not be TWO Covenants. That would make it one covenant understood two ways.

(of above, from above, supernal), and as Paul says in the same discourse, Yerushalem of above is our mother. Therefore Yerushalem of above is our mother covenant,

Yes, the second Covenant, the one we are now under, the New Covenant

which is why I quoted the commandment to honor your father and your mother in the other thread where we discussed all of this: even that commandment is supernal, not just physical minded, for as I kept saying and quoting from Paul, the Torah is spiritual, (Rom 7:14).

The Torah is no longer valid as law for the New Covenant Christian. It is obsolete because of Christ.

These things were explained there also by the fact that there are multiple covenants confirmed by the Messiah in the multiple cups at the Seder, which we also discussed, and you also rejected.

There was only one cup blessed by Christ at the Last Supper. That cup was the third cup, the cup of salvation. That is His blood of the covenant (the New Covenant).

By canceling the mother covenant you cut yourself off from the Root and will not be able to see the covenant renewed.

The Old Covenant is not renewed again. It was the same covenant that was renewed from Abraham to Isaac, to Jacob, to Moses. But that covenant was not renewed in Christ. That covenant was fulfilled by Christ, and a New and better Covenant was established.

Every new believer begins as a babe in Messiah, not a fully grown man, and babes start new life in "the milk of the Word", (a reference to your mother covenant),

No, this is a reference to the easy things to understand (Heb 5:11 - 6:2)

and as they grow up they are under schoolmasters, tutors, and governors.

The “schoolmasters, tutors, and governors” was the Old Covenant (Gal 3:24).

Did we not go over these things in the other thread too? Yes, we did, and they were explained from Galatians 3&4, but you rejected those things also.

I reject your false doctrines that do not conform to what Scripture says. Your explanation takes the clear Word of God and twists it to mean something other than what is written.

And unlike Nikodemos, Paul, Timothy, and the Prophets and the Messiah who teach these same things, you are not willing to go back into the womb of your mother and relearn everything through the new Spirit teaching which is the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts.

No, I am not willing to go to the Old Covenant to seek understanding that comes only through Christ.

We are not to be taught of men, but of Elohim, and the Torah contains Living Oracles of Elohim, that is, Logia, (Acts 7:38, λογια ζωντα), and logion, (singular), is directly related to and comes from logos, (through logios). Canceling the Living Oracles of Elohim only serves to cut yourself off from the Root and hide the renewal of the covenant from your heart, mind, and eyes.

Christ alone is the Logos of God. Yes, in Stephen’s speech, he called the Old Covenant Law “living words” spoken by Jesus in Acts 7:38. I am not disputing that the Old Covenant was God’s command at the time. But I am saying that Scripture tells us that the Old Covenant and the Law has been completely fulfilled and replaced with a New Covenant that is now the only law of God binding on Christians today.

 

[Doug Brents]

Hi Doug Brents,

I'm wondering if you know what a covenant is? If so, could you please supply a definition here and then explain how come you're conflating it with the law.

God bless!

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

Good question.

A covenant is an agreement between two (or more) parties.

In Scripture, a covenant is also referred to as a testament, or a will. Frequently a covenant will have stipulations for each side to fulfill during the term of the covenant. The Law falls into this category. The Law is a part of the Covenant made with Abraham, but it was not added to that covenant until the covenant was renewed with Moses on Mt Sinai. So when God says that the Old Covenant is obsolete, that means that the agreement and all the parts of it (the Law) are obsolete.

 

[Doug Brents]

Please explain how this is false logic: if obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit and works of the law are not part of the way to receive the Spirit, then works of the law does not refer to obedience to God. I agree that works of faith are not works of the law, which is why I cited Romans 3:27 as contrasting a law of works with a law of faith. There are many verses like Romans 3:31 that connect our faith in God with our obedience to Him, so His law is of faith, unlike works of the law.

In your other post you equated works of the Law with works of faith. They are not the same. Works of faith are a way to receive the Spirit. Works of the Law are not. The statement above contradicts your previous post.

You gave no support for your claim and it is contrary to how Qumran Text 4QMMT, which uses "works of the law" to refer to something other than the Law of Moses.

I will correct my statement, every use in Scripture of “the Law” with no qualifier refers to the Law of Moses.

In Romans 7:25, Paul said that he served the Law of God with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin that he served with his flesh, so there isn't a good reason to assume that "the law" always refers to the Law of Moses.

There are qualifiers “of sin”, “of the mind”, etc.

God is sovereign, so we are under His law and obligated to refrain from sin. In Romans 3:28, it notably says that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law. God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so putting our faith in what God has instructed is the way to put our faith in God, while it is contradictory for someone to think that God is trustworthy, but that what He has instructed is not. Christ expressed the nature of God through setting a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to God's law, so again, it is contradictory for someone to have faith in Christ apart from the nature of who he is.

Rom 3:19-21 - “Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin.
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,”
Indeed, we are under God’s law, but not the Law of Moses or any other part of the Old Covenant. As the passage above says, no one will be justified by the Law of Moses. We are justified apart from the Law of Moses, and the Law is a witness of the righteousness that comes through Christ.

There are times when the Israelites sanctified themselves even though they did not have perfect obedience, so being holy does not refer to being perfect. In regard to Matthew 5:43-48, Jesus was speaking about a love that was full or complete, where they did not just love those who loved them, but also loved their enemies. Nothing in this passage has anything to do with the concept of needing perfect obedience and it would be pointless to tell people who have already sinned that they need to have perfect obedience.

So you are saying that God is not perfect? Or that He does not want us to strive for perfection like His? Hmmm.

Repentance doesn't change the fact that we have all fallen short of perfect obedience, so by all means, please explain the value of repentance in the world where we need have perfect obedience.

I didn’t say we could achieve perfection outside of Christ. But we are called to strive for perfection at all times (knowing we can never achieve it). That is why the blood of Christ continually cleanses us from all sin if we are walking in the Light. But as Acts 3:19 says, we do not receive forgiveness until and unless we repent.

 

[Doug Brents]

Amen, "the works of the law" are indeed different as you have already said in several posts. The "works of the law" are based in the Pharisaic physical-minded outward understanding of the Torah and that's why Paul says that by "the works of the law" shall no flesh be justified, (Rom 3:20, Gal 2:16). You would think by the way those who misunderstand this phrase, (and use it against those who uphold the Torah), that people would be running around here claiming that everyone needs to be strapping on teffilin and wearing tzitzit: but that obviously isn't the case. It is nothing more than a strawman argument based in misunderstanding and ignorance: ignorance of the culture and customs, and misunderstanding of Paul's meaning when using that phrase. The "works of the law" are essentially the result of an outward physical interpretation of the Torah.

Ok, please enlighten me; what commandment of the Law does not constitute a “work of the Law”? Why must we keep the Law when the Law will not bring about the justification of any man? Why not just keep the law of faith in Christ which is the only valid law in the New Covenant anyway?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
If something remains then it remains from a prior point in time, by definition.

And that time could be RIGHT NOW: ie. the remains of your dinner

That is not logical. Do you have a more likely explanation for the prior point in time from which it remains - other than the one named in the text itself. (or are you sticking with "right now" 2000 years after that statement was written as the prior point in time? or is it "Dinner" that is your final solution ??

You need something reasonable as the alternative.

, or his last remains.

No again. He sets a certain day; what day? TODAY!
And then He quotes David saying,
“Today if you hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”
Today is the focus, not “remains”. Remains simply means that there is still a Sabbath rest in t huh e New Covenant. And TODAY is the day to enter that rest.


So your last remains remain as they were when?

Again, it is between you and God how you keep the sabbath. But it is no longer a command to the New Testament Christian because we are no longer under the Old Covenant.

That too is not logical.

The NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 writes the moral law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers "on heart and mind" and that means it is still a "Sin" to take God's name in vain - even when Christians do it.


Both the New Covenant and the Old Covenant have the unit of TEN to define what sin is "Sin IS Transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4 even in the NT.

No wonder that for all eternity after the cross in the new Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

No wonder even in the NEW Testament "the Sabbath was made FOR mankind" Mark 2:27

 

[BobRyan]

Ok, please enlighten me; what commandment of the Law does not constitute a “work of the Law”? Why must we keep the Law when the Law will not bring about the justification of any man?

1 Cor 7:19 - your argument is with the text "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
Rev 14:12 "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"
1 John 5:3 "this IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments"
John 14:15 "IF you Love Me - KEEP My Commandments"
Ex 20:6 "Love Me and KEEP My Commandments"

Where "'Honor your father and mother' is the first commandment WITH A promise" Eph 6:2 in that still valid unit of TEN

No wonder the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 writes the moral LAW of God known to Jeremiah and his readers on heart and mind

No wonder even in the NT we are reminded that "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4
No wonder Paul says "what then ? do we make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31

 

[BobRyan]

Very true, because there is no passage that tells us that taking (or not taking) the Lords name in vain is a matter of personal conviction in the NC.

As is also the case with the 7th day Sabbath commandment - in the NT.

By contrast Rom 14 makes no mention at all of the weekly Sabbath - but points us to the annual holy days of Lev 23 telling us that some observe one of them above the others -- while another man observes them all.

 

[Soyeong]

In your other post you equated works of the Law with works of faith. They are not the same. Works of faith are a way to receive the Spirit. Works of the Law are not. The statement above contradicts your previous post.

Post #42 is my first post in this thread, so can you please quote where said works of the law is the same as works of faith? I can quote where I argued that they were not the same:

"Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith, and a law that our faith upholds can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-11."

I agree that works of faith are the way to receive the Spirit and those are in obedience to what God has commanded, unlike works of the law.

I will correct my statement, every use in Scripture of “the Law” with no qualifier refers to the Law of Moses.

You're still giving no basis for that assertion. If a passage speaks about both the Law of God and the law of sin, then we should use the context to determine which it is referring to rather than assume that it is referring to one or the other. For example, in Romans 7:5, it speaks about the law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, which is the law that is sinful, while Romans 7:7 speaks about the law that is not sinful, so these verses can't both be referring to the the Law of God. Furthermore, in Romans 7:22-23, Paul delighted in the Law of God, but contrasted that with the law of sin, which held him captive, and it would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:5 as referring to the Law of God as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death or as if he delighted in being held captive, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive.

There are qualifiers “of sin”, “of the mind”, etc.

Rom 3:19-21 - “Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes knowledge of sin.
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,”
Indeed, we are under God’s law, but not the Law of Moses or any other part of the Old Covenant. As the passage above says, no one will be justified by the Law of Moses. We are justified apart from the Law of Moses, and the Law is a witness of the righteousness that comes through Christ.

God commanded the Law of Moses, so how could it be anything other than God's law? Furthermore, the Law of Moses is referred to as the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23, so if you agree that we are under God's law, then you should obey the Law of Moses. I agree that we are not under the Mosaic Covenant, though we are still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same laws for how to act in accordance with His nature, which is why Jeremiah 31:33 says that the New Covenant involves God putting the Law of Moses in our hearts and writing it on our hearts.

In Romans 3:19-21, it notably does not say that that that the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through perfect obedience, but rather the only way to become righteous that is testified about in the Law and the Prophets is through faith in Christ. The Law of Moses was given to teach us about the nature of who Christ is, so again it is contradictory to interpret that as contrasting faith in the Law of Moses with faith in Christ. In Romans 2:13, Paul said that only doers of the Law of Moses will be justified, so it is both true that it is not the source of our justification and and choosing to be a doer of it is required for justification.

So you are saying that God is not perfect? Or that He does not want us to strive for perfection like His? Hmmm.

I said nothing to suggest that God is not perfect. We should strive for perfection through faith, though if we fall short of perfection, then we can repent, and there is nothing special that is earned as a wage even if someone managed to have perfect obedience (Romans 4:5).

I didn’t say we could achieve perfection outside of Christ. But we are called to strive for perfection at all times (knowing we can never achieve it). That is why the blood of Christ continually cleanses us from all sin if we are walking in the Light. But as Acts 3:19 says, we do not receive forgiveness until and unless we repent.

If someone has sinned once, then they won't have perfect obedience no matter how successful they are at striving for perfection during the rest of their life, so their repentance from that sin won't do them any good if they need to have perfect obedience, but if they can receive forgiveness for that sin by repenting, then they do not need to have perfect obedience.

 

[daq]

NO!! Sorry, but that would not be TWO Covenants. That would make it one covenant understood two ways.

Yes, that's exactly what it is, and why the covenant is renewed. You and I have two different covenants as we speak: for I see the covenant as viewed through the teachings of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts, the covenant having been renewed and refreshed by his Testimony in my heart and mind and understanding. You still see all things the old way even though you claim it has been canceled. It hasn't even been canceled in your own manner of thinking because you still see it the old way proving by your own beliefs that it is not canceled. If it was canceled you wouldn't be here so worried about it and arguing against God's Word with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength.

The Torah is no longer valid as law for the New Covenant Christian. It is obsolete because of Christ.

Messiah has set me free from the dogmas and decrees of men.
You'll need to start actually proving what you say using scripture.

There was only one cup blessed by Christ at the Last Supper. That cup was the third cup, the cup of salvation. That is His blood of the covenant (the New Covenant).

There are very clearly two separate cups in the Luke passage: I do not necessary mean two different physical cups, and I sure hope you are not playing that game to get out of what it says: it's one cup with the supper and one after or at least toward the end of the meal, whether or not the same exact cup was used again. There is surely a third cup but it isn't mentioned in any of these particular passages so there is no reason to speculate.

The Old Covenant is not renewed again. It was the same covenant that was renewed from Abraham to Isaac, to Jacob, to Moses. But that covenant was not renewed in Christ. That covenant was fulfilled by Christ, and a New and better Covenant was established.

You admit that the covenant with Abraham was renewed to his offspring but you say it is not renewed to you and yet claim to be his offspring. Or do you not believe the Master, and Yohanne the Immerser, and Paul likewise, when they teach that believers are children of Abraham through belief and faithfulness?

No, this is a reference to the easy things to understand (Heb 5:11 - 6:2)

The “schoolmasters, tutors, and governors” was the Old Covenant (Gal 3:24).

Paul's words in the immediate context refute your theory:

Galatians 4:1-2 KJV
1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

Just because someone wrongly decided to insert a chapter break does not mean the topic has changed: it is still the same passage.

Therefore:

Hebrews 10:35-39 KJV
35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

I reject your false doctrines that do not conform to what Scripture says. Your explanation takes the clear Word of God and twists it to mean something other than what is written.

No, I am not willing to go to the Old Covenant to seek understanding that comes only through Christ.


Christ alone is the Logos of God. Yes, in Stephen’s speech, he called the Old Covenant Law “living words” spoken by Jesus in Acts 7:38. I am not disputing that the Old Covenant was God’s command at the time. But I am saying that Scripture tells us that the Old Covenant and the Law has been completely fulfilled and replaced with a New Covenant that is now the only law of God binding on Christians today.

 

[daq]

Ok, please enlighten me; what commandment of the Law does not constitute a “work of the Law”? Why must we keep the Law when the Law will not bring about the justification of any man? Why not just keep the law of faith in Christ which is the only valid law in the New Covenant anyway?

In the first century the Pharisees would have called what you see in the following image file either a tradition of the Elders, or more likely, a "custom of Moses", (just as they do with their interpretation of circumcision in Acts 15:1).

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1918251/jewish/What-Are-Tefillin.htm

Where is this commanded in the Torah of Elohim?