Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Cornelius8L]

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.

Thanks for explaining that. I want to hear from those who insist on keeping the OT law the way it was written down and veiled. If they adhere to the OT law, they must not accept a change in the priesthood, because that would imply a change in the law (Hebrews 7:12), and they claim that God does not change at all. So, a stroke of the pen, a single dot will disappear if there is a change.

 

[expos4ever]

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.

This is not really the point. The point is that the argument that Romans 3:20 tells us the Law still teaches us about what constitutes sin is profoundly challenge by the the "but now" in verse 21. It is almost certain that this means that verses 1-20 are about the past. And while this does not necessarily mean the Law does not continue to tell us what sin is, it is at least plausible that it no longer has this role. If something served a role in the past, it may or may not continue to serve this role.

 

[expos4ever]

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.

The challenge you face is that Paul can plausibly be saying that "as it is about to enter retirement", the Law witnessed these things - this text, I suggest, does not require us to understand that the Law remains in force now.

 

[Soyeong]

This is not really the point. The point is that the argument that Romans 3:20 tells us the Law still teaches us about what constitutes sin is profoundly challenge by the the "but now" in verse 21. It is almost certain that this means that verses 1-20 are about the past. And while this does not necessarily mean the Law does not continue to tell us what sin is, it is at least plausible that it no longer has this role. If something served a role in the past, it may or may not continue to serve this role.

Paul did not say anything along the lines of "but now the law no longer has the role of giving us knowledge of what sin is", but rather he spoke about the righteousness of God being revealed apart from the law, which is in regard to the topic of righteousness that he had previously been discussing. What was in the past was that it had not previously been revealed to him. What was revealed was something that had always testified about by the Law and the Prophets, which was not contrary to the Law and the Prophets.

Sin is what is against God's nature and the Mosaic Law is God's instruction for how to act in accordance with His nature, which is why sin is the transgression of it (1 John 3:4), so it is intrinsically part of the identify of the God of Israel. The only way that the Mosaic Law no longer has that role is if God no longer has that eternal nature and ceases to exist, so it is not plausible for it to no longer have that role.

The challenge you face is that Paul can plausibly be saying that "as it is about to enter retirement", the Law witnessed these things - this text, I suggest, does not require us to understand that the Law remains in force now.

In Romans 3:31, Paul said that our faith does not abolish the Mosaic Law, but rather our faith upholds it, which was said precisely so that people would not misunderstand him as you are doing, yet you are seeking to use his words to justify abolishing it instead of upholding it through faith. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law. Paul said nothing about the Mosaic Law being about to enter retirement, but even if he has been saying what you suggest, then those who reject what he said as being the words of a false prophet would be correctly acting in accordance with what God has instructed them to do.

 

[expos4ever]

Paul did not say anything along the lines of "but now the law no longer has the role of giving us knowledge of what sin is", but rather he spoke about the righteousness of God being revealed apart from the law, which is in regard to the topic of righteousness that he had previously been discussing. What was in the past was that it had not previously been revealed to him. What was revealed was something that had always testified about by the Law and the Prophets, which was not contrary to the Law and the Prophets.

I agree that he did not, at least here in Romans 3, say "but now the law no longer has the role of giving us knowledge of what sin is", but that is clearly not the point. I will not repeat what I have already said - what you post here simply does not address my argument. Yes, "what was in the past" was not previously revealed to him but that certainly does not mean that the Law continues to be the means by which sin is revealed to us. That is beside the point - you need to squarely address my argument. You may not realize you are doing so, but you are evading dealing with my actual argument.

 

[Soyeong]

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.

Interpreting Peter vision as doing away with God's dietary laws comes from a place of ignorance, such as when I previously did not not knowing why Peter said both that he had never eaten anything unclean or common and assumed it meant the same thing. Likewise, I ignored that God only rebuked Peter for saying not to call common what He had made clean and interpreted it as though God had said not to call unclean what He had made clean. I ignored the way Peter interpreted his vision thee times and reinterpreted his vision to mean something that he did not say and I ignored the serious problems that he would have had with how I had interpreted his vision. The author assumes that the reader knows the difference between something being unclean or common, but for people who have been removed from that culture, that informations needs to be added in order to correctly interpret it. The bottom line is that God's word should not be interpreted as speaking against God's word.

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?

In James 2:1-11, he was speaking to people who had already sinned by committing favoritism, so he was not telling them that they needed to have perfect obedience because that would have already been too late, and he was not trying to discourage them from keeping the law, but rather he was encouraging them to repent and do a better job of obeying it more consistently by not showing favoritism. If someone breaks any law and become a lawbreaker, then they need to repent and return to obedience, which again is what James was encouragin them to do.

Even when the law was first given to Moses, there was not a single person who was required to follow ever single law, and not even Jesus followed the laws in regard to having a period or to giving birth. Some laws were only for the King, the High Priests, judges, men, women, widows, children, those who are married, those who have servants, those who have animals, those who have crops, those who have tzaraat, those who are living in the land, and those who are strangers living in among them, while other laws were for everyone. So there are legitimate reasons for not keeping certain laws and James was only speaking in regard to illegitimate reasons for having inconsistent obedience, not suggesting that Jesus is a lawbreaker for not keeping the laws in regard to having a period or giving birth.

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."​

Turning away from the holy commandment refers to no longer following it, not to failing to have perfect obedience to it.

 

[Soyeong]

I agree that he did not, at least here in Romans 3, say "but now the law no longer has the role of giving us knowledge of what sin is", but that is clearly not the point. I will not repeat what I have already said - what you post here simply does not address my argument. Yes, "what was in the past" was not previously revealed to him but that certainly does not mean that the Law continues to be the means by which sin is revealed to us. That is beside the point - you need to squarely address my argument. You may not realize you are doing so, but you are evading dealing with my actual argument.

Sorry, it is not clear to me why you think that I am not addressing your argument. Paul specifically stated what the "but now" was referring to, so instead of accepting what he said, you are taking his "but now" and running wildly in a different direction that had nothing to do with the point he was making and which he specifically spoke against. Even if Paul had been saying what you are arguing, then according to God we should disregard what he said, so there isn't any support to believe what you are arguing regardless even if it is correct.

 

[Studyman]

ad hominem

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),

"I suggest that Jesus did break the Law, and on several occasions."

You are painting yourself as a man accusing Jesus of "Sinning against God". Jesus Himself said, "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." So while it is true the Rock of Israel "Authored" God's Sabbaths HE said were made "for man", HE was following HIS Father's direction in doing so.

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.

The problem with this religious philosophy you are promoting here, is that HE didn't break them, according to the scriptures. He may have broken or lived contrary to your and the Pharisees religion, but not God's instruction from the Law and Prophets.

And the reason why I bring up hypocrisy, is because men who use this story to justify their rejection of God's Judgments, refuse to acknowledge the difference between the man-made religious doctrine of the mainstream preachers of Jesus' Time, that a man can't touch food without first washing their hands in a certain way, from the outright rejection of God's Commandment that Jesus walked in.

Lev. 19: 44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. 46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth: 47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

I think it's bad to twist Scriptures for the purpose of justifying your own rejection of God's Judgments. And worse to accuse Jesus of the same thing.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Did Jesus abolish His Father's Judgments? Maybe HE did, but not in this Testimony.

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.

This may be true. But the Scriptures are clear. Disobedience, dis-honor and disrespect for God and His "Instruction in Righteousness" comes from "within". And Jesus NEVER advocated for rejecting God's Commandments of Judgments. Men who use this Testimony are simply working to justify "their" religious lifestyle. Accusing Jesus of breaking God's Laws is how men justify themself. I am simply pointing out what the Scriptures actually say and show that Jesus didn't "Break God Laws", HE broke their religious philosophy.

It is interesting though, that men who claim Jesus "made all things clean" in Matt. 15, are quiet regarding the Disciple's command to the Gentiles to abstain from eating Blood, or foods offered to idols in Acts 15. Apparently, in their religion, these foods somehow don't enter "into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?"

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.

No! If we are going to go to meat of our contention, lets be honest about what it is. You are preaching to the world that Jesus broke His Father's Commandments, which by definition is Sin, and are using Jeremiah as justification. It has nothing to do with "Harsh or not harsh". In Jeremiah the Kings of Judah were worshipping other gods.

Jer. 16: 9 For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will cause to cease out of this place in your eyes, and in your days, the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride. 10 And it shall come to pass, when thou shalt shew this people all these words, and they shall say unto thee, Wherefore hath the LORD pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against the LORD our God?

11 Then shalt thou say unto them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the LORD, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshipped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law; 12 And ye have done worse than your fathers; for, behold, ye walk every one after the imagination of his evil heart, that they may not hearken unto me:

And Jeremiah is to warn them about bringing such abominations into the Temple of God.

Jer. 17: 20 And say unto them, Hear ye the word of the LORD, ye kings of Judah, and all Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that enter in by these gates: 21 Thus saith the LORD; Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; 22 Neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers. 23 But they obeyed not, neither inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear, nor receive instruction.

For you to preach that this is talking about a woman carrying her baby, or a person bringing a goat for sacrifice or bringing food they prepared beforehand for their children, is simply foolishness. And is not the Law of God.

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 have 6 days to carry your bricks and make money. God promised that your children's food would be available in these 6 days. One either believes in this God or they don't.

You are effectively wanting to have your cake and eat it - you want to claim the "letter of the law" is still in force,

I claim no such thing. It this were so, you and I would be dead.

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.

Well, I can understand why you work so hard to justify your beliefs, and it's only natural fleshy emotions that would make you point the finger at someone else, as the story of Adam and Eve clearly shows. But I didn't "waiver" or reject God's Law at all. I'm pointing out that you are miss-representing God's Law by cherry picking Scriptures, and then twisting them to mean something they don't, and this to justify your own religious philosophy that Jesus transgressed His Father's Commandments, when an honest look into the Scriptures show that HE did not.

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

This is your religion that this is taught, but not the scriptures. Disobedience, rebellion and disrespect for God's Word come from within. As Jesus said, eating an ear of corn without washing hands in a certain way does not defile a man. But rebelling against God's Commandments most certainly defiles a man, even if you do so in Christ's name.

and He clearly declares Himself as the place to go for forgiveness instead of the Temple – a clear violation of Torah, I suggest.

Again, because this philosophy you are promoting comes from the religions of this world we were born into, and not the Holy scriptures, you believe things about Jesus and His Father that are simply not true. Just as the Pharisees did.

What I am advocating for, is to "believe" in the Jesus of the Bible. Not just His Word's that men can use to justify one of this world's many religious franchises or sects they may have adopted, but EVERY WORD, as Jesus Himself teaches.

When you do, you will find that the entire Law and Prophets, teaches men that God doesn't dwell in manmade shrines of worship made with wood and stone.

Zacharias knew, Simeon knew, Anna knew, and everyone who "turned to God" in Faith knew of the Lord's Christ, the "Salvation of God". Just as John the Baptist knew and didn't dwell in the Temple where the children of the devil practiced their corrupt religious business.

As the Torah teaches anyone who is interested.

Duet. 18: 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

For you to preach to the world that it is against God's Law to hearken unto Jesus, is a foolishness that is hard to fathom. I hope maybe you might reconsider your religious philosophy, and even if you refuse, I am hoping others reading along might see the foolishness of this religious philosophy "and He clearly declares Himself as the place to go for forgiveness instead of the Temple – a clear violation of Torah".

 

[expos4ever]

Sorry, it is not clear to me why you think that I am not addressing your argument. Paul specifically stated what the "but now" was referring to, so instead of accepting what he said, you are taking his "but now" and running wildly in a different direction that had nothing to do with the point he was making and which he specifically spoke against. Even if Paul had been saying what you are arguing, then according to God we should disregard what he said, so there isn't any support to believe what you are arguing regardless even if it is correct.

Here is the problem: you are, without justification, assuming that when Paul says "but now", he is referring only to his "new revelation about the righteousness of God being revealed". And you simply assume that the other stuff - notably verse 20's statement about how the Law being how we recognize sin - is not under the scope of the "but now".

I am not saying that the text is definitive that the Law of Moses no longer tells us what sin is - I may have given that impression in earlier posts, and I take that back if I did. Here is the point: when someone baldly claims that Romans 3:20 still tells us what sin is, they have more work to do - they have to rule out the possibility that the "but now" does not also address 3:20.

And you have not made that case - you seem to think that just because Paul has only now realized that "righteousness apart from the law has been revealed", the "but now" cannot also put the Law in the rear view mirror! Paul is not forbidden from having the "but now" refer to more than one thing.

I am not saying it necessarily does put it behind us, but the "but now" certainly raises this possibility, and you need to deal with this.

 

[expos4ever]

"I suggest that Jesus did break the Law, and on several occasions."

You are painting yourself as a man accusing Jesus of "Sinning against God".

I most certainly am NOT doing this, and attentive, open-minded readers will see this. It is hard for me to understand how people cannot follow this line of reasoning, which summarizes what I am saying:

- Jesus has ultimate authority over the Law of Moses
- Since Scripture never clearly declares the Law is truly eternal, Jesus can "retire" the Law if He wishes.
- If Jesus decides the Law no longer applies, then breaking it would, logically, not be sin
- Therefore, if Jesus breaks the Law it would not be sin if this is way Jesus chooses to announce the Law no longer applies.

Now then, please feel free to challenge any of these points.

 

[expos4ever]

The problem with this religious philosophy you are promoting here, is that HE didn't break them, according to the scriptures. He may have broken or lived contrary to your and the Pharisees religion, but not God's instruction from the Law and Prophets.

Did, or did Jesus not, say this?:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

This is a direct violation of the Torah purity laws.

Now, are you going to try that act of exegetical desperation, the one where you claim that this is about handwashing only? If so, I will remind you of three things:

1. Just because a conversation starts with a focus on a particular topic, this does not mean that the conversation cannot then subsequently evolve in a different direction.

2. a discussion of handwashing is an entirely plausible context in which Jesus can steer the conversation to a treatment of the Torah purity laws.

3. context only can do so much - it cannot make "there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;" magically mean "there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him, except shellfish, pork, non-cloven hoofed animals etc; "

 

[expos4ever]

I think it's bad to twist Scriptures for the purpose of justifying your own rejection of God's Judgments. And worse to accuse Jesus of the same thing.

Twist the Scriptures? OK, you brought it up.

In Romans 7, Paul writes:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter

Proponents of the view that the Law remains in force often argue that Paul here is saying that we are no longer subject to the Law's condemnation, but that we still need to obey it.

How does that justify taking "we no longer serve according to the Law" and morph it into "we are no longer to be judged by the Law". If this is not twisting, I do not know what is.

Or how about this from Galatians 3:

But before faith came, [ah]we were kept in custody under the Law, being confined for the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our [ai]guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [aj]guardian.

The guardian here, of course, is the Law.

Those who believe the Law remains in force argue that the Law is only retired in a highly limited sense. Well, of course, Paul does not qualify his statement. But no doubt they will.

Much like how, many will argue that when Paul says we have been released from the Law (Romans 7), we have really only been released from the role of the law in judging us, but that we still have to follow it.

Funny, though, Paul says we have been released. Period.

Furthermore, the Greek word "paidagogos" is used in this text from Galatians and is translated as "guardian".

What is a paidagogos? It is a form of male babysitter that care care of the young until they come of age.

What happens to the paidagogos then?

Guess what: they are out of a job. I trust the point is clear.

And, finally, of course, with respect to Mark 7 (and its parallels) we get the word "nothing" as in "nothing that goes into a man defiles him" redefined to mean "pork, shellfish, non-cloven hoofed animals".

If you are going to pontificate about twisting scripture, I suggest you guys on the "Law still applies" side of this debate need to get your own house in order first.

 

[Soyeong]

Here is the problem: you are, without justification, assuming that when Paul says "but now", he is referring only to his "new revelation about the righteousness of God being revealed". And you simply assume that the other stuff - notably verse 20's statement about how the Law being how we recognize sin - is not under the scope of the "but now".

I'm not assuming, but rather that is the straightforward reading. I'd be surprised if you could quote a single commentary on Romans 3:20-22 that suggests that Paul is saying that God's law is no longer the way to know what sin is.

The "but now" is not Paul saying that the reason that he gave for why no one is justified by the law is no longer the case and that we can now earn our justification by obeying it, but rather he no one is justified before God by works of the law, but now the correct way of being justified through faith in Christ that was testified about in the Law and the Prophets has been revealed.

I am not saying that the text is definitive that the Law of Moses no longer tells us what sin is - I may have given that impression in earlier posts, and I take that back if I did. Here is the point: when someone baldly claims that Romans 3:20 still tells us what sin is, they have more work to do - they have to rule out the possibility that the "but now" does not also address 3:20.

I don't see any other options for how the Israelites knew what sin is if not through the Mosaic Law, so there is not a need to appeal to Romans 3:20, through it does confirm it, along with Romans 7:7. In 1 John 3:4, it says that everyone who makes a practice of sin is practicing lawlessness and that sin is lawlessness, so lawlessness is explicitly that which defines what sin is. It is gibberish to use words apart from what defines them, just as it is gibberish to speak about sin apart from what defines it, so it easy to rule out the possibility that the "but now" refers to Romans 3:20 because that would be turning it into complete gibberish. If we believe that the Bible is God's word, then it is does not contain nonsense and we shouldn't have to rule out the possibility that a verse is saying nonsense.

And you have not made that case - you seem to think that just because Paul has only now realized that "righteousness apart from the law has been revealed", the "but now" cannot also put the Law in the rear view mirror! Paul is not forbidden from having the "but now" refer to more than one thing.

I am not saying it necessarily does put it behind us, but the "but now" certainly raises this possibility, and you need to deal with this.

It is straightforward that the "but now" refers to the correct way of justification being revealed and I don't see any reason to think that it is possible that it is in regard to anything other than the way of justification.

 

[Doug Brents]

There are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being God's way and many verses that describe it is the narrow way to eternal life, so it is not the wrong way, but rather I should be spreading the Gospel by encouraging others to walk in it in accordance with the promise

If you were living before Christ, you would be correct. But unfortunately for you, you are living 2000 years after Christ, and are therefore advocating the wrong set of laws.

It is interpreting the NT with an incorrect attitude towards the Mosaic Law that is incompatible with the attitude expressed towards it in the Psalms that leads people to incorrectly interpret the the NT as saying that the Law of Moses is no longer relevant for NT Christians.

Acts 13:36-39 - “”For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption; 37 but He whom God raised up saw no corruption. 38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.”
John 1:16-17 - “And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”
Luke 24:44-45 - “Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.”
Gal 3:19 - “What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.”
Gal 3:24-25 - “So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Eph 2:14-16 - “But now in Christ Jesus you who previously were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,15 by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two one new person, in this way establishing peace; 16 and that He might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the hostility.”
Rom 7:1-4 - “Or do you not know, brothers and sisters (for I am speaking to those who know the Law), that the Law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he is alive; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is alive she gives herself to another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress if she gives herself to another man.
4 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you also were put to death in regard to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.”
Rom 9:30 - 10: - “What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, but the righteousness that is by faith; 31 however, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though they could by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,
And the one who believes in Him will not be put to shame.”
Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”
There are many, many more than this, but as we can see from just these few passages, we are repeatedly told that the Old Covenant, and the Law of Moses also, is no longer relevant to New Testament Christians.

In Romans 7:22, it says "Law of God" and of the Law of Moses is not the Law of God, then whose does it belong to? Give the context, I don't see any room for interpreting the Law of God as referring to something other than the Law of Moses, especially when delighting in obeying the Law of Moses is in accordance the view repeatedly expressed in the Psalms. In addition, the Law of Mose is referred to as the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

During its time, the Law of Moses was the Law of God. However, that time is past as depicted in the verses above. Today, the Law of God is separate from the Law of Moses.

There is no question that the Hebrew word "Torah" refers to the Law of Moses, but by all means please make the case for what else you think that David was referring to. The NT authors quoted or alluded to the OT thousands of times in order to support what they were saying and to show that they had not departed from it, so they certainly consider the OT to still be authoritative and did not consider it to obsolete for NT Christians. Im particular, the Psalms are the OT book that is most quoted in the NT.

Not a single translation that is can find uses the word Torah instead of “Law of the Lord” in Psalm 1:2. I do not debate that Torah means the law of God as given on Mt Sinai, however, as is shown in the numerous passages above as well as many, many more, the Torah has ceased to be relevant for the NT Christian.

God commanded the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 5:31-33), so I don't see grounds for you to consider it to be something other than the Law of God.

See all the passages above. It is clear for anyone with an open heart that the Law of Moses has ceased to be the law of God for us today. It certainly was the Law of God up until Jesus’ death, but that time has past.

What God has commanded is not greater than what God has commanded.

Not true. Frequently through history, God has changed His instructions to His people. His later commands are then greater than His earlier commands, else either would bring equal blessing, but as we see from Scripture they do not.

The Law of Moses is the Law of faith, especially because the law of the New Covenant is the Law of Moses (Jeremiah 31:33).

Circular reasoning at its best, lol.

No, Jer 31:33 speaks of a future law, part of a future covenant, not the Law of Moses.

For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing is something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the Mosaic Law of justice, mercy and faith.

Indeed, as they were still under the Old Covenant at that time, that was correct. But again, that changed with His death.

In Numbers 5:6, disobedience to the Mosaic Law is described as breaking faith. In Hebrews 3:18-19, the disobedience of the Israelites was equated with unbelief. In Habakkuk 2:4, the righteous shall live by faith, and in Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is the Mosaic Law, so living by faith does not refer to a manner of living that is not in obedience to it.

Again, you are correct about the time before Jesus’ death. But we are not still living then. The disobedience of the Israelites in Heb 3:18 is being used as an example for us to not also be disobedient to Jesus (not the Law of Moses).

In Acts 5:32, the Spirit has been given to those who obey God, so obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit, however, Galatians 3:2 denies that works of the law are part of the way to receive the Spirit, therefore the phrase "works of the law" does not refer to obedience to the Mosaic Law or to anything else that God has commanded.

First you argue that “works of the Law” refers to the Law of Moses, and now you say it doesn’t? Consistency please.

Yes, works of the Law most certainly does refer to the Law of Moses. And following the Law of Moses is not the way to receive salvation today. But obedience to Christ through faith is the path to receive the Spirit and salvation.

In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul contrasted works of the law with the Book of the Law. In Deuteronomy 28, it lists the blessing for relying on the Book of the Law and the curse for not continuing to rely on everything in it, so those who instead rely on works of the law come under the curse for not relying on the Book of the Law.

There is no contrast between the “book of the Law” and “works of the Law”. The works come from doing what the book says, but not by faith.
Gal 3:10-12 - “For all who are of works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the Law, to do them.” 11 Now, that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “the righteous one will live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “The person who performs them will live by them.”
The Law (of Moses) is not of faith, and no one who lives by the Law (of Moses) will be justified before God. Because cursed is everyone who does not abide in ALL the things written in the book, and do them. But Jesus gives us His New Law through the New Covenant so we are free of that curse.

Paul also associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 that the righteous shall live by faith with a quote from Leviticus 18:5 that the one who obeys the Mosaic Law will attain life by it,

Yes, and when was the last time you met anyone who had kept the Old Covenant Law perfectly from birth to death without exception?

IT CANNOT BE DONE TODAY.

There is not a person who has lived since AD70 who could have kept it perfectly, because there has not been a Temple in which to sacrifice your offerings, nor a Levitical priest to officiate over the offering. Both of which are REQUIRED by the Law to keep it.

so the righteous who are living by faith are living in obedience to the Mosaic Law. God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy, so the way to rely on God is by relying on what He has instructed, while to deny that what God has instructed is of faith by interpreting the works of the law that are not of faith as referring to the Law of Moses, you are denying the faithfulness of God.

No! God gave a New, greater law through Christ.

In Romans 7:7, Paul said that the law is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is, such as with the law against coveting, so he was clearly speaking about the Law of Moses. In Romans 7:5, Paul spoke about a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so this is referring to a law that is sinful, which therefore is not referring to the same law as verse 7.

Wrong. It is the Law which brings about knowledge of sin, by which Satan stirs up desire to sin through the knowledge.

In Romans 7, Paul said that the Law of God is holy, righteous, and good and that he wanted to do good, but that there was a law of sin that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to, so Paul did not describe the law of sin as being the Law of Moses, but rather he contrasted it with the Law of Moses.

Rom 7:1-4 - “Or do you not know, brothers and sisters (for I am speaking to those who know the Law), that the Law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he is alive; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is alive she gives herself to another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress if she gives herself to another man.
4 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, you also were put to death in regard to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.”
Notice the bolted parts of this passage. We have died to the Law of Moses (or rather, the Law of Moses is dead) so that we could be united to Christ (our new Husband) and belong to Him.

I agree that there is nothing contradictory in Paul or in any of God's Word, through people can incorrectly interpret God's word in contradictory manner, such as when they interpret God's word as speaking against obeying God's word. The Mosaic Law is

Was

God's word and Jesus is God's word made flesh, so it is contradictory to have faith in God's word made flesh instead of having faith in God's word.

Not at all.

Rather, the Mosaic Law is God's instructions for how to have faith in Christ, which brings life.

The Bible is abundantly clear that the Mosaic Law brings life while it is refusing to obey that brings nothing but death.

If the Law had been, and could be, kept perfectly it would bring life (as it did through Christ). But since it is not possible to keep it perfectly today the only thing it can bring today is death and a curse.

 

[Doug Brents]

In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, the Mosaic Law is not too difficult for us to obey and obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse. In Deuteronomy 32:46-47, the Mosaic Law is our very life. In Proverbs 3:18, she is a tree of life for all who take hold of her. In Proverbs 6:23, the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life. 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 Mosaic Law, which is eternal life (John 17:3). In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments. In use 10:25-28, Jesus said that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments. In Revelation 22:14, those who obeyed God's commandments are given the right to eat from the Tree of Life, so they don't lead to death.

Can you, today, keep EVERY single one of the commands in the Old Covenant that are relevant to you? No, you cannot. You cannot make annual sacrifices in the Temple through the Levitical priesthood. You cannot keep Passover or Sukkot in Jerusalem annually. You cannot do many of the other commandments, and violation of ANY one of the Law, is violation of the entire Law (which puts you under the curse of the Law).

Im Matthew 4:15-23 it describes the Gospel of the Kingdom as the message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which is the same Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24:12-14 would be proclaimed to the Gentiles, which and again repenting from our disobedience to the Mosaic Law as a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom. What God has command is straightforwardly the law of God's Kingdom.

You are inserting the Mosaic Law here where Scripture does not.

The Bible never refers to different sets of the Law of God that are mutually exclusive.

See Rom 7:1-4 in the previous post. It most certainly does say that they are mutually exclusive. If you are trying to serve both, then you are trying to be married to two husbands at the same time. God won’t allow it.

 

[Soyeong]

Did, or did Jesus not, say this?:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

This is a direct violation of the Torah purity laws.

The Greek word used in that verse for "defile" is not the Greek word that is used in regard to the Torah purity laws, so you are mixing and matching different concepts without regard to the truth. Jesus is one with the Father, so he should not be interpreted as being in disagreement with what the Father has commanded.

Now, are you going to try that act of exegetical desperation, the one where you claim that this is about handwashing only? If so, I will remind you of three things:

1. Just because a conversation starts with a focus on a particular topic, this does not mean that the conversation cannot then subsequently evolve in a different direction.

2. a discussion of handwashing is an entirely plausible context in which Jesus can steer the conversation to a treatment of the Torah purity laws.

3. context only can do so much - it cannot make "there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;" magically mean "there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him, except shellfish, pork, non-cloven hoofed animals etc; "

1. It is granted that discussions can move on to different topics, but that does not give you permission to feely insert unrelated topics that have nothing to do with what they were speaking about.

2. It is grant that it is plausible that Jesus could move from speaking about a tradition to speaking about the Torah's purity laws, but it is not plausible to then interpret him as setting aside the commands of God because there are a whole host of major problems that you should have with that, starting with the fact that he had just finished criticizing them as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God.

3. It can when there is nothing in the context that has anything even remotely to do with eating unclean animals. The things that are considered to be food vary greatly from culture to culture, so when we have one Jew speaking to other Jews about food, then you should not insert the things that you consider to be food, but rather you should consider them to be speaking about the things that they considered to be food, namely the things that God said is food in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. When you think about eating food, then eating animals like rats, bats, and vultures is not one comes to mind and Jews have the same revulsion towards the thought of eating other unclean animals. Likewise, a cannibal should not be inserting into this passage that Jesus is saying that it is ok to eat human flesh. Jews did not even raise pigs, so the through of eating pork would have never even crossed their minds.

 

[Doug Brents]

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!

Are you now saying there is contradiction in Scripture? If so, then you can go away and never darken “my doorway” again. I won’t have that blasphemy here.

Yes, there are some differences in the accounts of the conversion of Saul. But that is not inconsistent with any other retelling of any other event.

And yes, there are several times when God (and Jesus is God) has struck someone blind, or lame, or some other malady to get their attention.

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?

Keeping the WHOLE of the Old Covenant brings life. But violating even a single point of it makes you a law breaker. And a law breaker is under the curse of not keeping the Law.

So then, doing the things you reference above, but failing to do ANYTHING from the Law, makes keeping the Law death to you. But as we see in Rom 7:1-4, the Law (to which we were married in times past) has died so that we may now wed another (Jesus the Christ) and live.

 

[Soyeong]

If you were living before Christ, you would be correct. But unfortunately for you, you are living 2000 years after Christ, and are therefore advocating the wrong set of laws.

The Mosaic Law is the way (Psalms 119:1-3), the truth (Psalms 119:142), and the life (Deuteronomy 32:47), and the way to know the Father (Exodus 33:13), and Jesus is the embodiment of the way, the way, the truth, and the life, and the way to know the Father because he expressed the nature of God by setting a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to it, which we are told to follow (1 Peter 2:21-22, 1 John 2:6), so he did not teach a different set of laws.

Acts 13:36-39 -

Indeed, it is true that the Mosaic Law was never given as a means of earning our justification, though that does not mean that we should not obey it for the purposes for which it was given.

John 1:16-17 -

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 Psalms 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth, so grace and truth came through the Mosaic Law and Jesus embodied that grace and truth by living in sinless obedience to it, so it also came through him. There is no "but" in the Greek in verse 17, but rather it is making two parallel statements that are saying the same thing

Luke 24:44-45 -

NAS Greek Lexicon: Pleroo (233)
to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

Gal 3:19 -

Jesus did not being his ministry with the message calling for people to stop repenting now that he has come, but rather he called for people to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, so you should not interpret that verse in a way that undermines everything that Jesus did.

Gal 3:24-25 -

Someone who disregarded everything that their tutor taught them after they left would be missing the whole point of a tutor. Furthermore, in Galatias 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, through faith, in Christ, children of Abraham, and heirs to the promise is all directly connected to living in obedience to the Mosaic Law. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to the Mosaic Law are not children of God. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds the Mosaic Law. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, which was in obedience to the Mosaic Law. In Genesis 18:19, Genesis 26:4-5, and Deuteronomy 30:16, the promise was made to Abraham and brought about because he walked in God's way in obedience to His law, he taught hi children to do that, and because his children obeyed the Mosaic Law.

Eph 2:14-16 -

The Greek word "dogma" is used in other verses to reefer to the decrees of Caesar (Luke 2:1, Acts 17:7) and the decree of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 16:4), so it does not refer to the Law of Moses. In Ephesians 2:10, we are new creations in Christ to do good works, so it would make sense to interpret a few verses later as Christ doing away with God's instructions for how to do good works and it wouldn't make sense to think that instructions for how to do good works are a dividing wall of hostility. God did not make any mistakes when he gave the Mosaic Law, so He had not need to abolish His own laws, especially when they are all eternal (Psalms 119:160).

Rom 7:1-4 -

At no point was the woman set free from needing to obey any of God's laws, and if she were to get remarried after the death of her first husband, then she would still be required to refrain from adultery, so there is nothing that leads to the conclusion that therefore we have been set free from all of God's laws. It doesn't even make sense to interpret this as saying that the way to be unified with Christ and to bear fruit for God is to refuse to follow what they have commanded.

Rom 9:30 - 10: -

In Mark 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so that along with Exodus 33:13 means that knowing God and Jesus is the goal of the Mosaic Law, which is eternal life (John 17:3)

Im Romans 9:30-10:4, the Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowing Him, so they failed to attain righteousness because they pursued the law as through righteousness were the result of works instead of pursued the law as through righteousness is the result of faith in Christ, for knowing Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Romans 10:5-10, this faith references Deuteronomy 30:11-16 in regard to saying that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult for us to obey, that the one who obeys it will attain life by it, in regard to what we are agreeing to obey when we confess that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God raised him from the dead. So nothing in this passage has anything to do with Jesus ending any of God's laws, but just the opposite.

There are many, many more than this, but as we can see from just these few passages, we are repeatedly told that the Old Covenant, and the Law of Moses also, is no longer relevant to New Testament Christians.

You did an excellent job of demonstrating my point that it is interpreting the NT with an incorrect attitude towards the Mosaic Law that is incompatible with the attitude expressed towards it in the Psalms that leads people to incorrectly interpret the the NT as saying that the Law of Moses is no longer relevant for NT Christians.

During its time, the Law of Moses was the Law of God. However, that time is past as depicted in the verses above. Today, the Law of God is separate from the Law of Moses.

None of the verses that you cited said anything about the Law of Moses no longer being the Law of God and you've offered nothing to support your claim that today the verses that I cited are no longer true, especially when one of the verses that I cited that shows that the Law of Moses is the Law of God is from the NT (Luke 2:22-23).

Not a single translation that is can find uses the word Torah instead of “Law of the Lord” in Psalm 1:2. I do not debate that Torah means the law of God as given on Mt Sinai, however, as is shown in the numerous passages above as well as many, many more, the Torah has ceased to be relevant for the NT Christian.

In the Hebrew, Psalms 1:2 uses the uses the word "Torah", which generally gets translated into English as "law", or more accurately as "instruction", and most translations don't leave Hebrew words left untranslated, so there is no reason to expect them to use the word "Torah", though there are some translations that choose to leave it untranslated, such as the TLV and the CJB:

Psalms 1:2 (TLV) But his delight is in the Torah of Adonai, and on His Torah he meditates day and night.

Psalms 1:2 (CJB) Their delight is in ADONAI's Torah; on his Torah they meditate day and night.

The point still remains that we can't uphold the truth of this verse as Scripture while not allowing it to shape our attitude towards the Torah into one of delight. Your claim about the verses above will not become true if you repeat it enough times.

See all the passages above. It is clear for anyone with an open heart that the Law of Moses has ceased to be the law of God for us today. It certainly was the Law of God up until Jesus’ death, but that time has past.

Yup, still false.

Not true. Frequently through history, God has changed His instructions to His people. His later commands are then greater than His earlier commands, else either would bring equal blessing, but as we see from Scripture they do not.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so that is false.

Circular reasoning at its best, lol.

No, Jer 31:33 speaks of a future law, part of a future covenant, not the Law of Moses.

You notably neglected to show how anything that I said was circular. Jeremiah 31:33 also used the Hebrew word "Torah", which refers to the Law of Moses.

Indeed, as they were still under the Old Covenant at that time, that was correct. But again, that changed with His death.

Jesus did not establish the New Covenant until the end of his ministry, which means that pretty much everything he taught was taught to people under the Mosaic Covenant, and he did not establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining his entire ministry, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Jeremiah 31:33). In Titus 2:11-14, 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 Torah is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20), while going back to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from as you suggest would be the way to reject what he accomplished through the cross.

Again, you are correct about the time before Jesus’ death. But we are not still living then. The disobedience of the Israelites in Heb 3:18 is being used as an example for us to not also be disobedient to Jesus (not the Law of Moses).

There us nothing about Christ's death that changes the truth of the verses that I cited or of anything that I said. Hebrews 3:16-18 refers to Israelites who died in the wilderness because they were disobedience to the Mosaic Law and we should learn from Israel's example of disobedience to the Mosaic Law as being an example of what we should avoid doing, not as an example for us to emulate (1 Corinthians 10:1-13). Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so being disobedient to Jesus is the same as being disobedient to the Law of Moses.

First you argue that “works of the Law” refers to the Law of Moses, and now you say it doesn’t? Consistency please.

Yes, works of the Law most certainly does refer to the Law of Moses. And following the Law of Moses is not the way to receive salvation today. But obedience to Christ through faith is the path to receive the Spirit and salvation.

I did not argue that "works of the law" refers to the Law of Moses, but only that it does not. If you want to argue that it does refer to the Law of Moses, then you should give reasons for why you disagree with what I argued for why it does not and reasons for justifying why you think that it does. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and the Mosaic Law is how we know what sin is (Romans 3:20), so while we do not earn our salvation as the result of obeying it, living in obedience to it is nevertheless intrinsically part of the concept of Jesus saving us from not living in obedience to it. It is contradictory for someone to want to receive salvation from living in transgression of the Mosaic Law while also arguing against obeying it. Obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to obey Christ through faith.

There is no contrast between the “book of the Law” and “works of the Law”. The works come from doing what the book says, but not by faith.
Gal 3:10-12 -
The Law (of Moses) is not of faith, and no one who lives by the Law (of Moses) will be justified before God. Because cursed is everyone who does not abide in ALL the things written in the book, and do them. But Jesus gives us His New Law through the New Covenant so we are free of that curse.

It says that cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law, so the only way to avoid being cursed by it is by continuing to live in obedience to it, so we are not cursed by relying on it, but rather we are cursed by not relying on it, which is in accordance with Deuteronomy 28. So the only way to be cursed by relying on works of the law is if by doing that they are not relying on the Book of the Law.

Please give justification for why you disagreed with what I said instead ignoring everything that I said and insisting otherwise without justification. God is trustworthy, so His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so to trust in what God has instructed is the way to trust in God, while for you to deny that we should trust in what God has instructed is to deny that we should trust in God. It is contradictory for you to trust in God while refuse to trust in what He has instructed. Jesus commanded us to love one another, which is in accordance with the Mosaic Law.

Yes, and when was the last time you met anyone who had kept the Old Covenant Law perfectly from birth to death without exception?

IT CANNOT BE DONE TODAY.

There is not a person who has lived since AD70 who could have kept it perfectly, because there has not been a Temple in which to sacrifice your offerings, nor a Levitical priest to officiate over the offering. Both of which are REQUIRED by the Law to keep it.

The law came with instructions for what to do when the people sinned, so there was never a requirement for us to keep the law perfectly from birth to death without exception. Repentance doesn't change the fact that we have not had perfect obedience, so the fact that repentance has value demonstrates again that we do not need to have perfect obedience. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult 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 choice and as a possibility, not as the need for perfect obedience. According to these verses, do you choose life or death?

The Israelites were given laws in regard to temple practice while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, which was before the temple had been built, so there was nothing wrong with not following laws in regard to temple practice when there is no temple in which to practice them.

No! God gave a New, greater law through Christ.

The sum of everything that Jesus taught by word and by example was to obey the Mosaic Law.

Wrong. It is the Law which brings about knowledge of sin, by which Satan stirs up desire to sin through the knowledge.

A law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death is a law that is sinful, while the law that gives us knowledge of what sin is is not.

Rom 7:1-4 -
Notice the bolted parts of this passage. We have died to the Law of Moses (or rather, the Law of Moses is dead) so that we could be united to Christ (our new Husband) and belong to Him.

In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, so the way to be united in Christ is not by refusing to walk in the same way he walked. It doesn't even make sense to think that the way to bear fruit for God is is by refusing to obey what he has commanded. We need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of Moses, not the other way around.

Was

Not at all.

There is no point in your disagreeing with me without giving a reason for disagreeing.

If the Law had been, and could be, kept perfectly it would bring life (as it did through Christ). But since it is not possible to keep it perfectly today the only thing it can bring today is death and a curse.

In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus said that they way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments, but he did not say anything about needing to obey it perfectly. There is nothing special that someone earns as a wage if they manage to have perfect obedience, so that has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of the law.

 

[Soyeong]

Can you, today, keep EVERY single one of the commands in the Old Covenant that are relevant to you? No, you cannot. You cannot make annual sacrifices in the Temple through the Levitical priesthood. You cannot keep Passover or Sukkot in Jerusalem annually. You cannot do many of the other commandments, and violation of ANY one of the Law, is violation of the entire Law (which puts you under the curse of the Law)

There is nothing wrong with not keeping laws in regard to temple practice when there is not temple in which to practice them, nor has there ever been a need for us to have perfect obedience to God's law. In James 2:1-11, he was speaking to people who had sinned by committing favoritism, so he was not telling them that they needed to have perfect obedience because that would have already been too late and he was not discouraging them from trying to keep the law as you are trying to do, but rather he was encouraging them to repent and to do a better job of obeying it more consistently.

.


You are inserting the Mosaic Law here where Scripture does not.\

When Jesus called for his audience to repent for the Kingdom of God, how else do you think that they knew what sin is if not the Mosaic Law (Romans 3:20)?

See Rom 7:1-4 in the previous post. It most certainly does say that they are mutually exclusive. If you are trying to serve both, then you are trying to be married to two husbands at the same time. God won’t allow it.

Nowhere do those verses say anything about two different sets of the Law of God.

 

[Soyeong]

Twist the Scriptures? OK, you brought it up.

In Romans 7, Paul writes:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter

Proponents of the view that the Law remains in force often argue that Paul here is saying that we are no longer subject to the Law's condemnation, but that we still need to obey it.

How does that justify taking "we no longer serve according to the Law" and morph it into "we are no longer to be judged by the Law". If this is not twisting, I do not know what is.

In Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God in his inner being, but contrasted that with the law of sin that was waging war against the law of his mine and holding him captive. In would not make sense to interpret Romans 7:4-6 as referring to the Law of God, as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death or delighted in being held captive, but rather it is the law of sin that he described as holding him captive.

Or how about this from Galatians 3:

But before faith came, [ah]we were kept in custody under the Law, being confined for the faith that was destined to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our [ai]guardian to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a [aj]guardian.

The guardian here, of course, is the Law.

Those who believe the Law remains in force argue that the Law is only retired in a highly limited sense. Well, of course, Paul does not qualify his statement. But no doubt they will.

Much like how, many will argue that when Paul says we have been released from the Law (Romans 7), we have really only been released from the role of the law in judging us, but that we still have to follow it.

Funny, though, Paul says we have been released. Period.

Furthermore, the Greek word "paidagogos" is used in this text from Galatians and is translated as "guardian".

What is a paidagogos? It is a form of male babysitter that care care of the young until they come of age.

What happens to the paidagogos then?

Guess what: they are out of a job. I trust the point is clear.

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

Furthermore, in Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, through faith, in Christ, children of Abraham, and heirs to the promise is directly connected to living in obedience to the Mosaic Law. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to the Mosaic Law are not children of God. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds the Mosaic Law. Im 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 Mosaic Law. In Genesis 18:19, Genesis 26:4-6, and Deuteronomy 30:16, the promise was made to Abraham and brought about because he walking in God's way in obedience to His law, he taught his children how to do that, and because his children did that in obedience to the Mosaic Law.

And, finally, of course, with respect to Mark 7 (and its parallels) we get the word "nothing" as in "nothing that goes into a man defiles him" redefined to mean "pork, shellfish, non-cloven hoofed animals".

If you are going to pontificate about twisting scripture, I suggest you guys on the "Law still applies" side of this debate need to get your own house in order first.

Again, the Greek word for "defile" is a word that is never used by the Bible to refer to the issue of eating unclean animals, so you're mixing and matching concepts.