Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[Studyman]

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.

Who is advocating for the teaching of the blind?

2 Cor. 3: 13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

But Joshua could look, and Caleb too. And Zacharias, and David, and Shadrack. They all knew of the change in the Priesthood, and they knew the Salvation of the Lord.


14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

16 Nevertheless when it (the heart) shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

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.

It is because men do not accept the difference between God's Law which defines sin and instruction in Righteousness, from God's LAW which was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham, which provided for the forgiveness of Sins "Till the seed should come", that this confusion exists.

The Priesthood "After the Order of Aaron" was temporary in its conception, as God surely knew His Priest would come from another Tribe. The "Change in the Law" was defined in detail, for the Body of Christ to understand in Hebrews 7.

The Law "Though shall not muzzle the Ox that treadeth out the grain", always meant the same thing for New Covenant believers whether a man owned an ox or not.

The Priesthood didn't change God's Definition of sin and Righteousness. It simply provided for the administration of God's instruction, and the manner in which sins were forgiven. To refuse to accept the Change in the Priesthood, was refusing to accept what was written in the Law and Prophets.

 

[Studyman]

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

This may be your religious belief, but the Scriptures don't support it.

Gal. 4: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Phil. 2: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Heb. 5: 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

I don't know who told you Jesus came to earth to exercise authority over God's Laws, but whoever they are, they are miss-leading you. Jesus was subject to God's Laws, same as every other man. At least the Jesus of the Bible was.

- Since Scripture never clearly declares the Law is truly eternal, Jesus can "retire" the Law if He wishes.

This is truly what the RCC and "many" of her protestant daughters preach. But the Jesus of the bible says differently.

Matt. 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus said HE only speaks the Word's God placed in Him.

I understand how popular this religious theory is, and how convenient. When one of God's instructions are contrary to the desires of your flesh, you just claim "Jesus retired God's Law", and you don't have to repent or change. While this is a very successful marketing campaign to fill the seats in this world's manmade shrines of worship, it is clear Jesus didn't rebel against His Father in such a fashion.

- 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.

Again, Jesus didn't break God's Sabbaths, nor His judgments between clean and unclean. You and the Pharisees may have been convinced of such a religious philosophy, but the Bible teaches the opposite about Him.

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

The Scriptures challenge your religious philosophy, I am simply pointing them out.

 

[Cornelius8L]

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.

So, the different ways of looking at "upholding the law" are either (a) upholding it in its earthly context or (b) upholding it in its spiritual context.
Which one is more accurate.

Example of an earthly context: Sacrificing animals to forgive sins, so we literally have to kill an animal. In a spiritual sense, the animal represents the sacrifices that Jesus made to forgive sin, so we no longer have to kill an animal. The earthly custom is taken away.

Example of an earthly context for unclean animals: eating unclean animals makes us unclean, so we literally can't eat them. In a spiritual sense, since the animal symbolizes men, if eating the flesh of Jesus is like believing the words of Teacher (Jer 15:16), then eating the flesh of unclean animals is like believing the words of an unrefined teacher. So, we were no longer forbidden to eat animals that were considered unclean. The earthly custom is taken away.

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.

[Post Ref: Gal 3:23-25]

When v.29 talks about Abraham, v.17 says the law had not been given yet.
And Jesus is the teacher, and He lives forever.

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.

Peter's vision is from God, so adding words to it is a big deal. Gal 3:23–25 can help us see that God took away the physical dietary laws. There's a difference between deletion and progression. When we were kids, our parents put limits on us for our own good, but when we are adults, these limits will gradually disappear on their own because we understand why they are there. That's how knowledge grows over time. The restriction was good and put in place for a good reason. But once we can keep our good nature and sense of reason, we don't need the restrictions anymore. Your point of view ties us down with this "child restriction," as Paul called it. Along these lines of thought, your narration about the NT texts is full of your own assumptions that you put in the author's mouth.

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.

Thanks for giving more background on James, but that doesn't help. My point was that if you break one law (James 2:10 says 'law' not 'commandment'), you break them all, as the examples in James 2:11 showed. And don't think we don't know that some laws only apply to certain roles. But since you instruct at CF, do you teach people how to follow the law of giving birth? Simple question for you, teacher: do you think all mothers now need to follow this law about giving birth?

 

[expos4ever]

This may be your religious belief, but the Scriptures don't support it.

Gal. 4: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Phil. 2: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Heb. 5: 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

Jesus, as God incarnate - most certainly does have authority over the Law

 

[Cornelius8L]

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?"

Paul also talked about the food that was given to idols (1 Cor 8, 1 Cor 10:28-29). And technically, Jesus asked us to drink His blood. Didn't Jesus then break His Father's law? All authority is given to Him. The Father has put everything under Jesus's feet and given him power over them. Jesus can change and do anything He wants (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:22). Didn't Jesus lie in John 7:9-10? And the Father Himself also deceived (Eze 14:9). I can accept that God is like this (Mal 1:2-4, Rom 9:11), so I don't need to make up my own image of God that goes against what the Bible says about Him.

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.

Now, the law says we should kill an adulteress (Lev 20:10), but Jesus forgives her even though she was caught in the act (John 8:4). Witnessed in action. Didn't Jesus break the law?

And Jesus confirmed that a priest can't keep from breaking the Sabbath (Matt 12:5). Jesus should have kept the sabbath according to Lev 23:3 while he was in the wilderness for 40 days, but he didn't.

 

[expos4ever]

So, the different ways of looking at "upholding the law" are either (a) upholding it in its earthly context or (b) upholding it in its spiritual context.

Have you read post 341? I suggest that the "earthly" vs "spiritual" distinction does not really work - my understanding is that the first century Jew would have no idea what this distinction is all about.

As I argue in post 341, I maintain it is plausible to believe that Paul is "upholding" the Law in the sense of recognizing and honouring the key role the Law has played in God's plan of salvation. Remember the context: In Romans 3, Paul re-tells the history of Israel from the giving of the Law to the present. In that setting, the interpretation of "uphold" that I am offering makes sense, at least to me.

 

[expos4ever]

I don't know who told you Jesus came to earth to exercise authority over God's Laws, but whoever they are, they are miss-leading you. Jesus was subject to God's Laws, same as every other man. At least the Jesus of the Bible was.

The word of the Lord:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Have you read post 341? I suggest that the "earthly" vs "spiritual" distinction does not really work - my understanding is that the first century Jew would have no idea what this distinction is all about.

As I argue in post 341, I maintain it is plausible to believe that Paul is "upholding" the Law in the sense of recognizing and honouring the key role the Law has played in God's plan of salvation. Remember the context: In Romans 3, Paul re-tells the history of Israel from the giving of the Law to the present. In that setting, the interpretation of "uphold" that I am offering makes sense, at least to me.

What you said in post 341 made sense to me, and I agree with you. It's the same as what I said below, right? Ref: Gal 3:23-25

When we were kids, our parents put limits on us for our own good, but when we are adults, these limits will gradually disappear on their own because we understand why they are there. That's how knowledge grows over time. The restriction was good and put in place for a good reason. But once we can keep our good nature and sense of reason, we don't need the restrictions anymore.

 

[expos4ever]

Did Jesus then break the law of his Father? All authority is given to Him. The Father has put everything under Jesus' feet and given him power over it. Jesus can change and do anything He wants (1 Cor 15:28).....

Now, the law says we should kill an adulteress (Lev 20:10), but Jesus forgives her even though she was caught in the act (John 8:4). Witnessed in action. Didn't Jesus break the law?

Good points. Yes, Jesus arguably "broke" the Law in dealing with the woman caught in adultery, but, as you point out, He has full authority over the Law. So "breaking" it can plausibly be understood as a symbolic act signaling the end of the written code.

Watch how people will engage in all manner of awkward contortions to say that Jesus is not actually breaking the Law here.

Just the like the contortions we have seen to explain how when Jesus says "nothing that goes into a man makes him unclean", He really means "nothing, except that long list of things prohibited in the Law, makes Him unclean".

 

[expos4ever]

But the Jesus of the bible says differently.

Matt. 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus of the Bible? There is no small irony here since Jesus is arguably drawing on a Biblical tradition of using apocalyptic language in a metaphorical sense to refer to events in the here and now. This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. And that has already happened.

 

[expos4ever]

Phil. 2: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Does this text make it clear to exactly what Jesus was obedient?

Are you simply assuming that it is the Law of Moses?

I agree with the analysis of respected theologian NT Wright who argued that when Paul writes of Jesus's obedience, he is referring to His obedience, not to the Law of Moses, but rather to the covenant obligations of Israel, which Jesus took upon Himself.

 

[Soyeong]

So, the different ways of looking at "upholding the law" are either (a) upholding it in its earthly context or (b) upholding it in its spiritual context.
Which one is more accurate.

Example of an earthly context: Sacrificing animals to forgive sins, so we literally have to kill an animal. In a spiritual sense, the animal represents the sacrifices that Jesus made to forgive sin, so we no longer have to kill an animal. The earthly custom is taken away.

Example of an earthly context for unclean animals: eating unclean animals makes us unclean, so we literally can't eat them. In a spiritual sense, since the animal symbolizes men, if eating the flesh of Jesus is like believing the words of Teacher (Jer 15:16), then eating the flesh of unclean animals is like believing the words of an unrefined teacher. So, we were no longer forbidden to eat animals that were considered unclean. The earthly custom is taken away.

God's law has always been spiritual (Romans 7:14), so it has always been intended to teach us how to express deeper spiritual principles that are aspects of God's nature and fruits of the Spirit. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faithfulness are weightier matters of the law, so those are spiritual principles that the law was intended to teach us how to express, and there is nothing in the Bible that suggest that once we understand these spiritual principles that we no longer need to physically express justice, mercy, and faithfulness, or that suggests that earthly customs are taken away after their spiritual principles are understood.

Likewise, God's righteous laws are intended to teach us about a spiritual principle of righteousness that leads us to take physical actions that are examples that principle that are in accordance with what God's law instructs even in situations that God's law does not specifically address. If someone thought that they understood the spiritual principle of love, so they no longer needed to follow the earthly custom of loving their neighbor, then they would be missing the whole point, so correctly understanding a spiritual principle will never lead us away from taking physical actions that are examples of that principle. If you think that the command against eating unclean animals teaches the spiritual principle that we should not believe the words of an unrefined teacher, then you will live in a way that testifies about that by refraining from eating unclean animals rather than a way that denies it by considering that custom to be taken away. The same is true for believing that Jesus sacrificed himself for the forgiveness of sin.

In any case, that distinction has nothing to do with what Paul is speaking about in Romans 3 and we can't uphold God's law by faith by considering what it commands us to do to be taken away. If we have faith in God to rightly divide between right and wrong through His law, then we will obey it.

[Post Ref: Gal 3:23-25]

When v.29 talks about Abraham, v.17 says the law had not been given yet.
And Jesus is the teacher, and He lives forever.

The Mosaic Law was not given to a nation as part of a covenant, but there are many examples of its commands being following prior to Sinai, such as in Genesis 39:9, where Joseph knew that it was a sin against God to commit adultery.

In Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by doing righteousness and justice that they Lord may bring to him all that He has promised. Genesis 26:4-5, God will multiply Abraham's children as the stars in the heaven, to his children He will give all of these lands, and through his children all of the nations of the earth will be blessed because h heard God's voice and guarded His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws. In Deuteronomy 30:16, if they love God will all of their heart by walking in His way by obeying His commandments, statutes, and laws, then they will live and multiply and God will bless them in the land that they go to posses.

So again all of the promises were made to Abraham brought about because he walked in God's way in obedience to His law, he taught his children to do that, and because his children did that. Furthermore, there are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being God's way, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, 1 Kings 2:1-3, Joshua 22:5, Isaiah 2:2-3, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so both Abraham and the children of Abraham walked in God's way and taught others to do that in accordance with the promise. So Galatians every aspect of Galatians 3:26-29 is fully in favor of keeping the Mosaic Law.

Peter's vision is from God, so adding words to it is a big deal. Gal 3:23–25 can help us see that God took away the physical dietary laws. There's a difference between deletion and progression. When we were kids, our parents put limits on us for our own good, but when we are adults, these limits will gradually disappear on their own because we understand why they are there. That's how knowledge grows over time. The restriction was good and put in place for a good reason. But once we can keep our good nature and sense of reason, we don't need the restrictions anymore. Your point of view ties us down with this "child restriction," as Paul called it.

I didn't not add words to Peter's vision. Peter objected by saying that he had never eaten anything that was common or unclean, so I added words to help explain the distinction he was making that would have been understood by the people he told his vision to, but which is not as readily apparent to people who are removed from that culture. Galatians says nothing about God taking away physical dietary laws, but If you think that it does, then according to God's word, you should disregard what Paul said. Someone does not move on to algebra by disregarding everything they were taught about addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, but rather their new teacher builds upon what they were taught.

Along these lines of thought, your narration about the NT texts is full of your own assumptions that you put in the author's mouth.

There is not point in baselessly accusing me of this without showing where I have done that.

Thanks for giving more background on James, but that doesn't help. My point was that if you break one law (James 2:10 says 'law' not 'commandment'), you break them all, as the examples in James 2:11 showed. And don't think we don't know that some laws only apply to certain roles. But since you instruct at CF, do you teach people how to follow the law of giving birth? Simple question for you, teacher: do you think all mothers now need to follow this law about giving birth?

If you break any law and become a lawbreaker, then you need to repent and return to obedience, which is precisely what James was encouraging them to do. Knowing that different laws apply in different contexts helps to avoid interpreting James in a wooden manner. Laws in regard to temple practice should only be followed when there is a temple in which to practice them.

 

[Doug Brents]

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.

You completely missed the point of this verse, so wrapped up are you in your preconceptions. Read the passage a dozen times with prayer and fasting, and a dozen dozen more if it takes it. See the truth that God is speaking. This is not about being free from God’s commands. It is about being dead to one iteration of God’s commands (the Law of Moses) and being united to another (Christ).

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.”
The Jews in Rome to whom this was written had been married to the Law. But God is saying that the they are dead to the Law; freed from their Union to it through that death. And they were now wed to another: Christ Jesus. Gentiles were never married to the Law, but are also joined to Christ as a “first marriage”, being grafted into the bride of Christ (the Church) by God.

 

[expos4ever]

The Mosaic Law was not given to a nation as part of a covenant,.....

Can you name a reputable theologian who believes this? From Leviticus:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make [r]yourselves detestable by animal or by bird, or by anything [s]that crawls on the ground, which I have distinguished for you as unclean. 26 So you are to be holy to Me, for I the Lord am holy; and I have singled you out from the peoples to be Mine

The law functioned to identify the people of the covenant and distinguish them from the Gentile.

And here in Ephesians, it is crystal clear that the Law marked out the people of the covenant. Despite the incredibly awkward attempts by some to make the "barrier" here not denote the Law, but instead refer to some signs in the temple courtyard. Or by others to do great violence to the inner logic of the passage by claiming that what has been abolished are "man-made" add-ons to the Law. Do add-ons distinguish Jew from Gentile? No - it is the Law of Moses itself that does this.

remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, [m]excluded from [n]the people of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who previously were far away [o]have been brought near [p]by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [q]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [r]by abolishing [s]in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances,

Paul is saying that God has dissolved the distinction between Jew and Gentile by abolishing the very thing that marked out the Jew as God's covenant people - the Law of Moses.

 

[Cornelius8L]

there is nothing in the Bible that suggest that once we understand these spiritual principles that we no longer need to physically express justice, mercy, and faithfulness, or that suggests that earthly customs are taken away after their spiritual principles are understood.

If you think that the command against eating unclean animals teaches the spiritual principle that we should not believe the words of an unrefined teacher, then you will live in a way that testifies about that by refraining from eating unclean animals rather than a way that denies it by considering that custom to be taken away. The same is true for believing that Jesus sacrificed himself for the forgiveness of sin.

In any case, that distinction has nothing to do with what Paul is speaking about in Romans 3 and we can't uphold God's law by faith by considering what it commands us to do to be taken away. If we have faith in God to rightly divide between right and wrong through His law, then we will obey it.

If we should keep both spiritual principles and earthly customs, then the earthly custom of physical sacrifice must continue, even though Paul said Jesus died for our sins. Paul's letters were not originally part of the Scripture; they are letters to the church. It was later canonized by the catholic. So, Paul did understand the spiritual principles, but according to your reasoning, they should keep the earthly custom because Paul's letter was just a letter at the time, not scripture.

If someone thought that they understood the spiritual principle of love, so they no longer needed to follow the earthly custom of loving their neighbor, then they would be missing the whole point, so correctly understanding a spiritual principle will never lead us away from taking physical actions that are examples of that principle.

What's the spiritual principle of love? The spiritual principles of love include both wisdom and justice. The earthly way of loving, for example, is that Peter kept Jesus from dying because he loved Him, but Jesus called Peter Satan. That is a clear illustration of getting rid of the earthly custom of blind love without wisdom.

Another example is that the commandment says to honor your parents. Jesus then asks, "Who is my mother?" and explains what that means (Mark 3:35). If Jesus' earthly mother doesn't do God’s will, do you think the One who created the world should honor her?

The Mosaic Law was not given to a nation as part of a covenant, but there are many examples of its commands being following prior to Sinai, such as in Genesis 39:9, where Joseph knew that it was a sin against God to commit adultery.

In Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by doing righteousness and justice that they Lord may bring to him all that He has promised. Genesis 26:4-5, God will multiply Abraham's children as the stars in the heaven, to his children He will give all of these lands, and through his children all of the nations of the earth will be blessed because h heard God's voice and guarded His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws. In Deuteronomy 30:16, if they love God will all of their heart by walking in His way by obeying His commandments, statutes, and laws, then they will live and multiply and God will bless them in the land that they go to posses.

So again all of the promises were made to Abraham brought about because he walked in God's way in obedience to His law, he taught his children to do that, and because his children did that. Furthermore, there are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being God's way, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, 1 Kings 2:1-3, Joshua 22:5, Isaiah 2:2-3, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so both Abraham and the children of Abraham walked in God's way and taught others to do that in accordance with the promise. So Galatians every aspect of Galatians 3:26-29 is fully in favor of keeping the Mosaic Law.

How sure are we that the law was the same? Do we recall what Tamar did to Judah in Genesis? Tamar became Jesus' ancestor. What law supports what she did?

I didn't not add words to Peter's vision. Peter objected by saying that he had never eaten anything that was common or unclean, so I added words to help explain the distinction he was making that would have been understood by the people he told his vision to, but which is not as readily apparent to people who are removed from that culture. Galatians says nothing about God taking away physical dietary laws, but If you think that it does, then according to God's word, you should disregard what Paul said. Someone does not move on to algebra by disregarding everything they were taught about addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, but rather their new teacher builds upon what they were taught.
There is not point in baselessly accusing me of this without showing where I have done that.

Your description of Peter's vision is already based on your own assumptions: clean animals touch unclean animals, etc. It was clear that Peter was using God's vision to explain that God had cleansed the unclean animals, which the Jews knew meant the gentiles. The Jews accepted the vision, but you said something different.

Forcing people to keep both spiritual principles and earthly customs is already against the NT.
• “For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,” (Heb 7:18)
• "And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death." (Rom 7:10)
• "Now if the ministry of death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at the face of Moses because of its fleeting glory," (2 Cor 3:7)

The NT gave us the freedom to decide if we still want to keep earthly customs, like Paul circumcising Timothy, which becomes optional.

If you break any law and become a lawbreaker, then you need to repent and return to obedience, which is precisely what James was encouraging them to do. Knowing that different laws apply in different contexts helps to avoid interpreting James in a wooden manner. Laws in regard to temple practice should only be followed when there is a temple in which to practice them.

I agree with the part about repentance. So, we still have places of worship, right? Do you teach that mothers who have just given birth should make sin offerings? Because the Law says that giving birth is a sin (Leviticus 12). Where does the custom go?

If you want to talk about the Sabbath later, I will also ask, "What is the Levi tribe doing today?" In order to keep the Sabbath, the law says that the Levi tribe priest must work in the temple. All of these temple practices including sacred assembly would end, if there were no temple, just like you said.

 

[Studyman]

Did, or did Jesus not, say this?:

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

It's important to post all of the Words of the Christ here so as to understand what HE is teaching as opposed to just using parts of His Word to promote a preconceived religious theory.

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 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: (AKA, disobedience to God)

20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.


Sin, disobedience, rebellion, stubbornness, disrespect, dishonor, indifference to God and HIS Word, these all come from within and defile a man.

What I am advocating for is an honest examination of what Jesus actually said for the purpose of doctrine.

Mark 7: 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, (Like you are accusing Jesus of doing) ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, (That you are accusing Jesus of doing) that ye may keep your own tradition.

Taking a walk in fellowship with God on HIS Holy Sabbath, and eating an apple along the way, without first washing your hands according to a certain religious tradition, was not against God's Commandments, rather, it was against manmade religious traditions of the children of the devil at that time.

Fornication, eating the blood of animals, meats offered to idols, eating dog meat, or swine's flesh, those who live in these traditions of men, are laying aside the Commandment of God so that they can continue in whatever lifestyle or practice that suits them.

Does the adulterous woman defile a man? Or is it the fleshy lust for her that comes from the heart? Did the Blood of animals defile the Gentiles in Acts 15? Or was it the Lust to disobey God in their heart, that defiles them?

You are using Jesus here and miss-representing His Word's to justify a popular religious lifestyle, in this case, rejecting God's Judgment regarding what is food and what is not.

You are promoting the popular religious philosophy that Jesus advocated for disobeying God by rejecting God's Judgments. So we are not to give our pearls to swine, but it's OK to eat the swine. Clearly Jesus was not such a hypocrite. There are religious traditions of man, and there are Commandments and Judgments of God. Shall we not at least acknowledge the difference first?

This is a direct violation of the Torah purity laws.

No, it was the Truth of the "purity laws" of the Torah. It wasn't the fruit that defiled Eve. It was the rejection of God and HIS instruction from her heart, that defiled Eve.

It wasn't the "blood" that defiled the Gentiles in acts 15. It was the lust to continue in whatever disobedient lifestyle they had grown accustomed to, that caused them to lay aside the Commandments of God, that defiled them. It wasn't the "money" that defiled Ananias and Saphira, but greed and lust which comes from within a man, not from without.

This is why the Disciples, inspired by the Spirit of the Christ, told the Gentiles to abstain from disobedience to God in these areas, knowing that Moses of Old Time is read in the synagogues every Sabbath day. And they could learn about God's Righteousness, that the Pharisees didn't believe in, and were ignorant of, when Moses was read.

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.

Yes, the discussion could have evolved away from the man-made religious tradition of washing ones hands a certain way before touching food. But when you read the actual scriptures, Jesus Starts with this.

Matt. 15: 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

And then Jesus Ended His conversation with this.

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.

So although Jesus could have evolved into another discussion, or taken this in another direction, by HIS Own Word's HE did not do so in this event. You want your religious "works" to be justified here, and to justify your own rebellion against God's Judgments, so you accuse Jesus of also rebelling against God's Judgments, implying that HIS purpose "evolved" from pointing out religious traditions of man to "Laying aside the Commandments of God" as did the Pharisees.

But when we read what actually happened, that wasn't the case at all.

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.

But according to Jesus OWN Words, this had nothing to do with justifying disobedience to God. Rather, about religious men forcing their own religious philosophies and traditions and their own manmade righteousness, onto others. A practice that comes from within, not from without.

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; "

You only feel this way, because it is your tradition to reject God's Judgments regarding what is food and what is not.

So you are equating apples to horse turds here. It was never disobedience to God to eat without engaging in the Pharisees religious tradition of washing hands a certain way, but it is disobedience to God to eat Blood, or meats offered to Idols, or dog meat or swine's flesh.

Jesus understood this difference, and so did the Disciples in Act's 15.

In Peters vision he was told to rise kill and eat what God had shown him were beasts unclean for food. He was there, with Jesus in Matt. 15 and yet he didn't consider as you are preaching, that Jesus promoted disobedience to this God.

I would only ask that you might consider that maybe Jesus is right, and disobedience and rebellion comes from within, not from without. Anyone who has ever raised children can certainbly attest to this truth.

 

[Studyman]

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

You are changing the subject here. I am happy to discuss being released from the death disobedience to God's Law brought. But first we should conclude the discussion of your religious philosophy that Jesus disobeyed or promoted the disobedience of His Father's Commandments.

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.

Paul says condemnation depends on how we "Walk". But you are changing the subject of the post you replied to. We are discussing your religion which preaches "I suggest that Jesus did break the Law, and on several occasions."

I am happy to discuss Paul's words regarding the results of our walk. But one philosophy at a time.

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.

LOL, you are twisting again. To "serve", once you have sinned, according to the Law, is to die and stay dead. But that isn't what we were talking about. You are preaching to the world that Jesus broke his Fathers Commandments. "I suggest that Jesus did break the Law, and on several occasions."

Let's deal with one religious' philosophy at a time.

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.

It seems you miss-understand the Priesthood Covenant which God "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws, which provided sacrificial "works of the law" to provide for the forgiveness of sins, "Till the Seed should Come", to whom the sacrifices foreshadowed.

But again, you are deflecting from your own religious philosophy "I suggest that Jesus did break the Law, and on several occasions."

This is a serious accusation against the Christ, and it seems prudent to "prove it" whether it be wrought in God or not.

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.

I understand why you would want to change the subject, and redirect the conversation away from your religious philosophy that preaches "I suggest that Jesus did break the Law, and on several occasions."

Or that rebellion, disobedience and disrespect for God comes from within, and not from without.

But for me, the very reason why I bring this world's religious philosophies to the Light of the Scriptures, is to prove them, as instructed. Not only to discern your preaching, but to shine the Light on the contents of my heart as well, to expose any darkness that remains.

This is because I am seeking God's Truth. Not seeking to justify disobedience to God's judgments

 

[Studyman]

For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.

Jesus, as God incarnate - most certainly does have authority over the Law

Matt. 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Shouldn't a man then believe "EVERY WORD" of God incarnate, like Jesus Himself instructs?

Duet. 32: 3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. 4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Is He not then also Lord of the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten?

 

[Studyman]

Jesus of the Bible? There is no small irony here since Jesus is arguably drawing on a Biblical tradition of using apocalyptic language in a metaphorical sense to refer to events in the here and now. This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence. Isaiah writes:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

What was going on? Babylon was being destroyed, never to be rebuilt. And that has already happened.

I am always fascinated how a man can take one sentence from a Prophet of God, and create an entire religious philosophy on it, completely oblivious to the scriptures around it.

Is. 13: 9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

I don't know how you can say, with a straight face, that this has "already happened".

And then completely reject and ignore the words of the same Prophet, inspired by the same Christ, the Rock of Israel, about His Return.

Is. 66: 15 For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.

16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.

17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

18 For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory.

 

[expos4ever]

It's important to post all of the Words of the Christ here so as to understand what HE is teaching as opposed to just using parts of His Word to promote a preconceived religious theory.

Argumentative - you have zero evidenced that I approached these texts with a preconceived position on the matter.

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 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: (AKA, disobedience to God)

20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.


Sin, disobedience, rebellion, stubbornness, disrespect, dishonor, indifference to God and HIS Word, these all come from within and defile a man.

How, and please be precise, does any of this mean that when Jesus says "nothing that goes into a man defiles him", there really remain a lot of things that do indeed defile?

Granted, Jesus does indeed contrast all the things that proceed from the heart, and which do indeed defile, with handwashing which, of course, does not defile. And I know you guys think this somehow means that Jesus is entirely restricting the scope of what "goes in" to "food, otherwise permissible, that has been eaten with unwashed hands".

But there are a lot of problems. Yes, the conversation starts with a discussion about unwashed hands. And, yes, in the Matthew version, (but interestingly, not in the Mark version) it ends with handwashing. But the intervening analysis offered by Jesus is such that it seem unlikely He is excluding pork, etc. from the discussion:

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

I politely suggest you guys need to evade examining the inner logic of these words. Even though the conversation is triggered by the matter of handwashing, Jesus tells us the reason the handwashed food does not defile is that the food goes into the stomach and then goes out (albeit in a manner most unseemly). But this happens to pork and shellfish too! So if Jesus is wanting to exclude these items, He is speaking very carelessly indeed. And if that is not enough, Jesus goes on to explain what does defile - the things that come out from the heart. The last time I checked, shellfish and pork do not "come forth from the heart". So, unless Jesus is being equally careless in His explanation, these things - shellfish and pork - do not defile since they do not come out from the heart.

Let's look at this from a different angle. Consider this statement:

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Jesus defines what defiles a man (e.g. things that come out from the heart), and then contrasts it with handwashing which we we all agree does not defile. You appear to believe that the logic of this contrast does not close the door on the possibility that pork still defiles.

But that is not correct and here is why: Although you guys need to overlook this to salvage your position, Jesus has already excluded pork and shellfish from the things that defile in the preceding sentence. So your argument (as I understand it) does not work. Yes, if we did not have the preceding statement that defined defilement in terms of what comes out from the mouth, then you would definitely have a point - Jesus could still believe that the "set of things that defile" include shellfish and pork.

Bottom Line: I would characterize the position of those who think Jesus is not overturning the food laws as a strategy of pointing out that the conversation is triggered by handwashing, and even ends with a comment about handwashing in the Matthew version, while artfully ignoring the intervening analysis that Jesus offers, an analysis that is, as far as I can see, incompatible with the position that pork etc, still defile.