Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[John Mullally]

Whether or not Paul taught them to obey everything commanded in the Mosaic Law is another issue, so please answer my question. If you are arguing that someone could teach Gentiles to obey the content of everything commanded in the Mosaic Law without doing what Paul was speaking against in Act 21:24-25 as long as they didn't make a reference to the Mosaic Law, then Acts 21:24-25 is not speaking against Gentiles doing anything that was commanded in the Law of Moses, so again you are contradicting yourself.

Jesus started moving his disciples away from the Mosaic Law when He gave them a new commandment. And you will find He rarely spoke of the Law with His disciples - mainly with adversarial Jewish leaders. I believe the Apostles were led to move away from the Mosaic Law becomes they did not want to put the yoke of Jewish customs on the Gentile believers (Acts 15:6-11). Paul avoided talking about the law when speaking to Gentile believers.

And you still have not said what Acts 21:24-25 is speaking about - only that you don't like my explanation.

 

[expos4ever]

What is sinful is against God's nature and God's nature is eternal, which is why all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160),

Check the original Hebrew. The word translated here as "eternal' is the Hebrew word "owlam". According to Strong's, the definition is "long duration, antiquity, futurity".

As we can see, the range of possible meanings for owlam include a time of finite duration.

And here we have an example from Isaiah 42 of this same word "owlam" used in a context where eternality is certainly not intended:

The LORD emerges like a hero,
like a warrior he inspires himself for battle;
he shouts, yes, he yells,
he shows his enemies his power.
I have been inactive for a long time;
I kept quiet and held back.
Like a woman in labor I groan;
I pant and gasp.
I will make the trees on the mountains and hills wither up;
I will dry up all their vegetation.
I will turn streams into islands,
and dry up pools of water.

 

[expos4ever]

he was not saying that the Mosaic Law is how we knew what sin was in the past and we are no longer in the past, especially because he later affirmed in Romans 7:7 that God's law is how we know what sin is.

You are not dealing with the argument I presented.

Here is the argument in a more complete form:

Early in the chapter, Paul writes this:

Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God.

I think we will all agree that this is a reference to the giving of the Law (including the 10). More importantly, it is a hint of what is to come - the entire chapter is, among other things, retelling the history of Israel up to and including Jesus.

Now for the key stuff:

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, 22 but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ

No writer with his head screwed on would use "but now" wording if they are not telling us something has changed - Paul knows what the word "but" means and he knows what the word "now" means.

Ok, now let's talk about Romans 7:7:

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? [a]Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except [b]through the Law; for I would not have known about [c]coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not [d]covet.”

Notice the past tense. Paul learned in the past what sin was through the Law. But, and we must be perfectly clear about this, this does not logically imply that Paul necessarily still needs the Law to determine what sin is. Paul lives in the time where the transition from Law to no Law is taking place - He can truthfully say the Law taught Him what sin was yet also believe it no longer performs that function.

 

[expos4ever]

You are displaying the perfect example of the hypocrisy of the mainstream preachers of Jesus time.

ad hominem

This sick man, who couldn't even walk, was carried to this place promoted by the preachers of that time. Sick for 38 years. Trusting in the religion of the Pharisees to cure him, day after day after day. But no one would pick him up and carry him to the pool so that he could be healed. And when he tried to drag himself, someone else always beat him to it.......

First, it is ridiculous to paint me as accusing Jesus of “sinning against God” – you have to know that I am not saying this. I have been clear about this all along – inasmuch as Jesus is effectively the “author” of the Law of Moses (including the Sabbath rules), He has the authority to declare that their time has come and gone by symbolically breaking them in public, or by outright declaration as when He overturns the purity laws by declaring that nothing that goes into a man defiles him.

So yes, accuse me of saying Jesus broke the Law. Guilty as charged. But there is no basis for accusing me of saying Jesus is sinning for precisely the reason that because Jesus is “lord” over the Law He can, if He wants, declare that its time has come to an end. And one way to do this is to “break” the Law in public.

But let’s turn to the meat of your argument. Look, I get it – it sounds very reasonable to appeal to an exception to the Torah rule about not “carrying any load” on the Sabbath in this case – it does seem harsh to forbid the man from carrying his pallet. Fair enough.

But, and this is really important for readers to understand, one can almost always construct a justification for breaking the letter of the Law, and couch it in appeals to humanity and common decency. As long as you can draw even the most tenuous connection to a noble cause, you can claim an exception. Suppose I needed to carry a load of bricks on the Sabbath to earn enough money to feed my children – does that warrant an exception? You are effectively wanting to have your cake and eat it - you want to claim the "letter of the law" is still in force, but if Jesus, or His disciples appear to break that letter, you plead for a "waiver" of sorts - that the Law does not really apply in this special case.

In any event, I suggest that the case for Jesus breaking the Law of Moses can be robustly supported even without appealing to this particular case. For example, He clearly repeals the food laws in Mark 7 and He clearly declares Himself as the place to go for forgiveness instead of the Temple – a clear violation of Torah, I suggest.

 

[Soyeong]

Check the original Hebrew. The word translated here as "eternal' is the Hebrew word "owlam". According to Strong's, the definition is "long duration, antiquity, futurity".

As we can see, the range of possible meanings for owlam include a time of finite duration.

And here we have an example from Isaiah 42 of this same word "owlam" used in a context where eternality is certainly not intended:

The LORD emerges like a hero,
like a warrior he inspires himself for battle;
he shouts, yes, he yells,
he shows his enemies his power.
I have been inactive for a long time;
I kept quiet and held back.
Like a woman in labor I groan;
I pant and gasp.
I will make the trees on the mountains and hills wither up;
I will dry up all their vegetation.
I will turn streams into islands,
and dry up pools of water.

I agree that the Hebrew word has range and meanings and that it can refer to a finite duration rather than to being eternal, however, I don't see any justification for thinking that this is the case, especially because I concluded that all of God's righteous laws are eternal based on the fact that God's nature is eternal, and God's nature is clearly not something that lasts for a finite duration, which is also clearly indicated by saying that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

You are not dealing with the argument I presented.

Here is the argument in a more complete form:

Early in the chapter, Paul writes this:

Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God.

I think we will all agree that this is a reference to the giving of the Law (including the 10). More importantly, it is a hint of what is to come - the entire chapter is, among other things, retelling the history of Israel up to and including Jesus.

I agree that it is the reference to the giving of the Mosaic Law, though I would also say that it is being entrusted with copying, maintaining, and teaching it. However, while the giving of the Mosaic Law is a defining moment in Israel's history, I'm not seeing where Paul is retelling their history up to and including Jesus.

Now for the key stuff:

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, 22 but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ

No writer with his head screwed on would use "but now" wording if they are not telling us something has changed - Paul knows what the word "but" means and he knows what the word "now" means.

It clearly states that apart some the law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, so it is something that the Law and the Prophets have always testified about that is now being revealed, so all that changed was Paul's perception so that he now clearly saw what the Law and the Prophets testified about, which is righteousness through faith in Christ. In Genesis 15:6, Abraham believed God, so he was declared righteous, so that have always been there waiting for people to see.

Ok, now let's talk about Romans 7:7:

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? [a]Far from it! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except [b]through the Law; for I would not have known about [c]coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not [d]covet.”

Notice the past tense. Paul learned in the past what sin was through the Law. But, and we must be perfectly clear about this, this does not logically imply that Paul necessarily still needs the Law to determine what sin is. Paul lives in the time where the transition from Law to no Law is taking place - He can truthfully say the Law taught Him what sin was yet also believe it no longer performs that function.

Sin doesn't change, so neither does the law that reveals what sin is. Even during the time of when the Mosaic Law was given to Moses, someone didn't need it to reveal what sin is after they had already learned from it what sin is. Instructions for how to build a computer are not made for experts who have built 100's of computers even through they are still acting in accordance with them, but rather those instructions ar made for people who don't know how to build computers. Nothing here says anything about transitioning from Law to no Law. The Mosaic Law is God's instructions for how to act in accordance with His nature, so the only way to transition to no Law would be for God to transition into non-existence.

 

[Soyeong]

Jesus started moving his disciples away from the Mosaic Law when He gave them a new commandment. And you will find He rarely spoke of the Law with His disciples - mainly with adversarial Jewish leaders.

In Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born under the law, so he was obligated to obey it, and he was sinless, so he never broke it, which includes Deuteronomy 4:2, which prohibits adding to or subtracting from the law, so at no point did he start to move his disciples away from the Mosaic Law or interact them to disregard what he had previously taught them. There is nothing about the new commandment that was brand new because we are commanded to love our neighbor in Leviticus 19:18, so that has nothing to do with moving away from the law. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law and warned against relaxing the least part of it or teaching other to do the same, so again that does not leave any room for moving away from it.

Jesus was not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow, so we shouldn't need him to have spent any time repeating laws in order to know that we should still obey the Father. Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he still would have taught full obedience to it by example even if he had never spoke a word about the law, 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).

I believe the Apostles were led to move away from the Mosaic Law becomes they did not want to put the yoke of Jewish customs on the Gentile believers (Acts 15:6-11). Paul avoided talking about the law when speaking to Gentile believers.

The Jerusalem Council ruled in favor of the group of Pharisees in Acts 15:5 and against the group of men from Judea in Acts 15:1, so they ruled that Gentiles should become circumcised and obey the Law of Moses, which is the opposite of not wanting to put that yoke on Gentile believers. In Acts 15:10-11, they ruled in favor of salvation by grace and against salvation by circumcision, so salvation by circumcision was the yoke that they did not want to put on Gentile believers.

And you still have not said what Acts 21:24-25 is speaking about - only that you don't like my explanation.

That is a blatant lie. I've repeatedly stated what I think Acts 21:24-25 is speaking about, such as in post #315, and I've repeatedly given reasons why I disagree with your interpretation, which did not include that I did not like it.

 

[Guojing]

Jesus started moving his disciples away from the Mosaic Law when He gave them a new commandment. And you will find He rarely spoke of the Law with His disciples - mainly with adversarial Jewish leaders.

That is hardly true, given Matthew 5:19, and he even reminded them, after he was resurrected to teach others to do the same in Matthew 28:20.

 

[expos4ever]

because I concluded that all of God's righteous laws are eternal based on the fact that God's nature is eternal,

I am glad you recognize the translation issue re the "forever" language. But, in regard to your statement above, it is perfectly coherent to believe that God's nature does not change, yet the way he works in the world does change - there is no logical necessity that the two are coupled the way you are suggesting. For example, assuming you believe in human free will, it should be obvious that a God of unchanging nature may need to "change the rules" depending on the consequences of what "free-will" human beings do.

 

[Lulav]

Paul's arguments about the law are admittedly sometimes subtle and can give the appearance of self-contradiction. For example, consider his statement at the end of Romans 3 where he says we "uphold" the law. I believe that, in context, this is indeed a reference to the Law of Moses, but I do not believe he means to uphold in the sense of endorsing its continued application, but rather in the sense of its having played a significant role in God's plan of redemption.

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.


Law then do we nullify through faith? Never may it be!!!! - Instead Law we uphold

Uphold - histémi
to make to stand, to stand
I stand ready, stand firm, am steadfast confirmed

 

[John Mullally]

That is hardly true, given Matthew 5:19, and he even reminded them, after he was resurrected to teach others to do the same in Matthew 28:20.

Jesus gave us a new commandment that fullfills the law.

​

Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”​

​

The Jerusalem Decree in Acts 15:23-29 frees Gentile believers from almost all of the Mosaic Law. Fifteen years later Paul is reiterating that decision.

Acts 21:24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.” NKJV​

​

 

[John Mullally]

The Jerusalem Council ruled in favor of the group of Pharisees in Acts 15:5 and against the group of men from Judea in Acts 15:1, so they ruled that Gentiles should become circumcised and obey the Law of Moses, which is the opposite of not wanting to put that yoke on Gentile believers. In Acts 15:10-11, they ruled in favor of salvation by grace and against salvation by circumcision, so salvation by circumcision was the yoke that they did not want to put on Gentile believers.

You are loosly referencing some deliberation before the final decision - the Jerusallem Decree. The Jerusalem Decree (Acts 15:23-29) instructs the Gentile believers on what laws they must keep. The Jerusalm Decree indicates that the Gentile believers are not required to be circumcised.

That is a blatant lie. I've repeatedly stated what I think Acts 21:24-25 is speaking about, such as in post #315, and I've repeatedly given reasons why I disagree with your interpretation, which did not include that I did not like it.

You have vehemently denounced my interpretation of Acts 21:24-25. It is therefore only fair that you explain your understanding of what Acts 21:24-25 says in relation to Gentile believers and keeping the law. Up till now you have repeatedly explained what it is not saying - again, I want you to explain what it is saying.

 

[Lulav]

There is nothing contradictory in Paul (or in any of God’s Word).

An event in your life you wouldn't soon forget as it is life changing.

Paul’s first version of his vision
“And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”
“And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” Acts 9:4-5
“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” Acts 9:7 KJV
“And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.” Acts 9:9 KJV​

Paul’s second version
“And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? …”
“And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” Acts 22:7-9 KJV
“And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus”. Acts 22:11 KJV​

Paul’s third version
“ … And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”
“… But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen,…” Acts 26:13-16 KJV​

Summary	First Version	Second Version	Third Version
Fell to the ground	Paul Only	Paul only	Paul & Companions
Companions saw the light	Yes	No	Yes
Companions heard a voice	No	Yes	No
Paul Blinded	Yes	Yes	No

In all of Jesus ministry, he never blinded anyone, he only healed their blindness!

All of what God is saying in these verses is that the Old Law (the Law of Moses) brings nothing but death, but faith in Christ brings life.

From the 'Law of Moses' given to him by GOD ALMIGHTY Just some random laws from the Torah

Numbers 5:5Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 6“Speak to the children of Israel: ‘When a man or woman commits any sin that men commit in unfaithfulness against the Lord, and that person is guilty, 7then he shall confess the sin which he has committed. He shall make restitution for his trespass in full, plus one-fifth of it, and give it to the one he has wronged.

Leviticus 18:1Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2“Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. 3According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances. 4 You shall observe My judgments and keep My ordinances, to walk in them: I am the Lord your God. 5You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.
6‘None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am the Lord.

Lev 17:13“Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust; 14for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.’

Lev 19 --
9‘When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the Lord your God.

11‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another.
12And you shall not swear by My name falsely, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.
13‘You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of him who is hired shall not remain with you all night until morning.
14You shall not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but shall fear your God: I am the Lord.


Pick any or all and show me how keeping these commandments brings death?

 

[Lulav]

Jesus gave us a new commandment that fullfills the law.

​

Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”​

​

​

Jesus' #1 and #2 commandments:

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”


37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”




Paul taught:

Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Nothing like leaving GOD out of the equation.


See below, Jesus' LAW OF LOVE

 

[John Mullally]

Jesus' commandment -
“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”


37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”


Paul taught:

Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Nothing like leaving GOD out of the equation.

Jesus's new ccommandment improves on the second of those "two great commandments in the law" as some people do not love themselves. Also I don't think you can fulfill Jesus's new commandment if you don't know and love God - otherwise you would not understand how He loves us.

John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”​

 

[Lulav]

Jesus's new ccommandment improves on the second of those "two great commandments in the law" as some people do not love themselves. Also I don't think you can fulfill Jesus's new commandment if you don't know and love God - otherwise you would not understand how He loves us.

John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”​

Love your neighbor given in Leviticus 19:18 states:


You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you must love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

But what Jesus was saying wasn't new but it was intensified.


Love one another, As I have loved you

He told them that he was going to lay down his life for them. That goes beyond not taking revenge or holding a grudge to loving your neighbor More than yourself, giving up your life for theirs, the ultimate Love as taught by God giving his Son.

It is the same as when he taught on adultery, its not just good enough to not sleep with a woman who is not your wife, but looking at another woman and with lust in your mind you have committed adultery.

 

[John Mullally]

An event in your life you wouldn't soon forget as it is life changing.

Paul’s first version of his vision​

“And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?”​

“And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” Acts 9:4-5​

“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” Acts 9:7 KJV​

“And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.” Acts 9:9 KJV​

Paul’s second version​

“And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? …”​

“And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” Acts 22:7-9 KJV​

“And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus”. Acts 22:11 KJV​

Paul’s third version​

“ … And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”​

“… But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen,…” Acts 26:13-16 KJV​

Summary	First Version	Second Version	Third Version
Fell to the ground	Paul Only	Paul only	Paul & Companions
Companions saw the light	Yes	No	Yes
Companions heard a voice	No	Yes	No
Paul Blinded	Yes	Yes	No

In all of Jesus ministry, he never blinded anyone, he only healed their blindness!

These three accounts are not contradictory. If, for example, in the third account, Paul said he never lost his sight - that would contradict the first two accounts. Leaving out information does create contradictions.

You see this kind iof thing throughout the four Gospels.

 

[Cornelius8L]

No, it is nothing foolish about following Jewish tradition and someone can be wrong without being foolish. Peter has reason to think that he shouldn't eat the clean animals because they had become common from being in contact with the unclean animals and he had reason to think that he shouldn't eat the unclean animals because God had commanded against it, so he was legitimately confused about what God was wanting him to do. Peter certainly knew how to eat animals and didm't need the keys to the kingdom for that.


Yes, according to Strong's, it does mean common. The issue is that there are different Greek words that are not used interchangeably by the Bible that can both be translated into English as "unclean", "impure", or "defiled", which can cause equivocation by treating both words as though they are referring to the same thing. Yes, it can be accurate to say that both words refer to something that is impure, but they refer to very different types of impurity that are not interchangeable. Case in point, someone can take a word that refers to an impurity not following a man-made ritual purity law and confuse it with the impurity that comes from eating unclean animals and then confuse Jesus speaking against the impurity that comes from the man-made law as speaking against the impurity that comes from eating unclean animals. So I prefer to use the word "common" to try to avoid that confusion.

Again, I've not claimed that "koinon" means "clean animal", and in fact it does not, though Peter thought that clean animals could gain the status of koimo by coming in contact with unclean animals. Peter had eaten clean animals, just not those that had come in contract with unclean animals.


Incorrectly identifying the clean animals represented incorrectly identifying the Gentiles. The unclean animals were there to convey the status of being koinon to the clean animals. If the unclean animals do represent something, then it is not stated. Visions should not be reinterpreted to mean something other than the stated interpretation.

I did not speak about what God has the power to do. God is holy, so He distinguishes between what is holy and what is common. God did not command anything about an unclean animal coming in contact with a clean animal causing it to become common, which is why it is a man-made ritual purity law. It does state that the sheet was lowered by its four corners. Whatever is on top of a sheet that is lowered by its four corners tends to get clustered together in the middle, so it is a reasonable inference that the animals were clustered together in the middle of the sheet. If the clean animals hadn't been in contact with the unclean animals, then Peter would not have objected to eating them when he was told to kill and eat.

God's word says not to eat unclean animals, so we should abide by it. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5, it warns not follow a prophet or dreamer who speaks against obeying the Law of Moses, even if they perform signs and wonders, so God did not leave himself any room to do away with any of His laws through means of a vision, and if Peter had gone around telling people that he had a vision that means that means that we can now eat unclean animals, then the people who rejected what he said would have been correctly acting in accordance with what God had instructed them to do.

You should have noticed that in order to defend the OT Law, you have to add a lot of details that weren't in the recorded event to prove your point.

Anyway, since breaking one law guilty of all (James 2:10), let us help you make sure you're following all the laws. Are you following the below law?

And since you follow the laws of Leviticus, do you also follow the law that says you have to offer sacrifices to be clean after giving birth in Leviticus 12?

For Jesus once said in Matthew 5:18 “For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

Heaven and earth haven't disappeared, right? Did you follow the childbirth purification by making sacrifices?

I believe that most of the commentators here are familiar with the Mosaic law. So, let us help you not break even one of them.

2 Peter 2:21 "It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than to have known it and then to turn away from the holy commandment passed on to them."​

 

[Guojing]

Jesus gave us a new commandment that fullfills the law.

​

Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”​

​

The Jerusalem Decree in Acts 15:23-29 frees Gentile believers from almost all of the Mosaic Law. Fifteen years later Paul is reiterating that decision.

Acts 21:24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.” NKJV​

​

Your 2 points are connected.

Gentile believers in the Body of Christ was never under the Law and indeed will not be under the Law, so yes you are correct.

I am just pointing out that the nation of Israel, that little flock, they always had to follow the Law of Moses. The Jerusalem decree at Acts 15 never freed them from it, and James reminded Paul that in Acts 21:18-25.

 

[Studyman]

And since you follow the laws of Leviticus, do you also follow the law that says you have to offer sacrifices to be clean after giving birth in Leviticus 12?

For Jesus once said in Matthew 5:18 “For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

Heaven and earth haven't disappeared, right? Did you follow the childbirth purification by making sacrifices?

It is man's miss-understanding of this law, and what it means that is the issue. We still make sacrifices unto the Priest of God. It's just that the Priesthood Covenant, (Old covenant) changed, as prophesied. We don't go to a human corruptible priest with our sacrifices, but the Priest of God "after the order of Melchizedek". And we don't sacrifice animals, but we offer ourselves a living sacrifice, which is what the Rock of Israel did in reverence to His Father, when HE became a man in the person of Jesus.

Paul explains how this works for the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile in the new covenant of God (not man), in the following.

1 Cor. 9: 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

So yes, not one jot or tittle shall pass as the Jesus of the Bible teaches. And the Law and Prophets were written specifically for the New Covenant Believers, Jew and Gentile as Paul teaches. It's just that unless we "Turn to God" in sincerity and trust, the veil is not removed in the reading of the Law and Prophets.

It seems God, to test His People, placed them in a world in which another voice exists, a voice which promotes a different gospel than the one the Rock of Israel brought to the world, and even unto to us. Jesus warns us of this voice.

Matt. 24: 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I Jesus) am Christ; and shall deceive many.

And again speaking of His judgment seat;

Matt. 7: 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So today, when we hear His voice, "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn",

OR;

Lev. 12: 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

OR;

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

Let us harden not our hearts as we did in times past, but let us believe Paul and understand that these Words of God were written for "OUR" admonition. And let us learn from Eve's mistake, and not listen to the other voice in the garden, which would have us believe otherwise, which was the purpose of that story to begin with.

 

[expos4ever]

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.


Law then do we nullify through faith? Never may it be!!!! - Instead Law we uphold

Uphold - histémi
to make to stand, to stand
I stand ready, stand firm, am steadfast confirmed

This is perhaps the most difficult of texts for people in my position to explain. Before I offer my argument, I will reiterate what I believe should be clear to a neutral reader - one who comes to the Scripture with no a priori agenda either way on this issue: the weight of scriptural evidence overwhelmingly supports the notion that the Law is now retired. In that context, then, the question is not so much "in total isolation of all other considerations, which of the 2 competing positions does Romans 3:31 support best?" but rather "given the overwhelming evidence that the Law is retired from the rest of Paul, and from Scripture more generally, is there a plausible case to be made that Romans 3:31 is consistent with the view that the Law has been retired?"

And I believe the answer is "yes".

Do we then nullify the Law through faith? Far from it! On the contrary, we establish the Law

What would need to be the case in order for us to plausibly read this text as not asserting that the Law, including the 10, is still in force?

Answer: the key issues are (1) what it means to "establish" the law; and (2) is there a broader context that allows us to interpret "establish" as not requiring us to believe the law (including the 10) is still in force.

About the meaning of "establish": I believe that one legitimate interpretation of the greek word "histanomen" is "to uphold".

About the broader context: A compelling case can be made that Paul believes that the Law, including the 10, was put in place by God to achieve a particular "tactical" objective in God's broader redemptive plan. If so, once that goal is achieved, the law is no longer needed. But, and this is the clincher, in this scenario Paul can "uphold" the law in the sense of endorsing its indispensable role in God's broader redemptive plan.

And this can be done without requiring us to believe the law is still in force.

A note about method: note that I have actually engaged the troublesome text - I have provided an explanation of how the text fits in with my overall view. While the details of that explanation have still to be provided, I have not, for example, taken it upon myself to rewrite the text to suit my purposes.