What did Christ say about the Law?

[BobRyan]

That passage is clearly speaking of the natural-minded outward physical circumcision of the Pharisees

The Pharisees did not circumcise anyone. Only priests did that.

, according to their "custom of Mosheh"

A divinely ordained practice in scripture -- according to what God gave to Moses. The Pharisees did not give Moses the law of circumcision and I think we all know that.

1 Corinthians 7:18-20 KJV
18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

You cannot be called with a heart that is already circumcised because Meshiah has become the new Minister

19 "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping of the commandments of God." NASB, NKJV, NIV, NASB1955

1 Cor 7:18-20 does NOT condemn either group. Neither the circumised Jewish Christians NOR the uncircumcised gentile Christians are being condemned in 1 Cor 7:18-20 as we can all read.

Rather EACH group is to REMAIN as they are.

Those who were Jews and became Christian were to continue to live as circumcised Jews -- who accepted the Messiah..
Those who were gentiles and became Christian were to continue to live as uncircumised non-Jewish Christians - who also accepted the Messiah
The distinction in 1 Cor 7 is made between the moral law of God applicable to BOTH groups and the ceremonial law that only applied to the Jews in the OT and is fulfilled in Christ as it pointed to the life and sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

of the Circumcision, and that circumcision of the heart is a process which is accomplished by way of full immersion into his Testimony,

Rom 2 makes it very clear that in the SPIRITUAL sense ALL are to be circumcised by the Holy Spirit and NO ONE should remain uncircumcised. But that is not the point of 1 Cor 7:18-20. You cannot jam a context into 1 Cor 7 that is not in the actual text. Two different issues are being discussed -- one in 1 Cor 7:19 and the other in Romans 2. Mix-mash wont work.

Notice how Romans 2 show both contexts --

25 For circumcision (literal according to the Law of Moses) is indeed profitable if you (where "you" are a literal Jews) keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision (literal) has become uncircumcision (spiritual uncircumcision). 26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man (literally a gentile who is a believer) keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision (Literal , physical) be counted as circumcision (Spiritual - new creation, new birth) ? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you (A Jew) who, even with your written code and circumcision (literal physical) are a transgressor of the law?

28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

TWO key details:
1. blindly insisting that there is only one context/meaning for the term fails to survive Romans 2:25-27
2. 1 Cor 7:19 condemns NEITHER group.

Mosheh in the Torah does not appear to agree with you, as already referenced, Dt 10:16 and Dt 30.

Deuteronomy 10:16 KJV
16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Please explain your understanding of the meaning of the foreskin of your heart since you appear to believe that this is nothing.

you are using mix-mash in your discussion of circumcision as a symbol of the New Birth - already pointed out in my posts, while apparently insisting that the 1 Cor 7:19 contrast between moral and ceremonial law cannot exist If even one example of circumcision as a symbol of a spiritual event/condition exists in any text of the Bible..

My point is that context determines meaning. The details of 1 Cor 7:19 are such that the spiritual application is not allowed - because NEITHER group is condemned. Paul never says "is one not a believer - let him continue to be an unbeliever" and we both know it.

There is no way to mix this up - the context does not allow it.

It just does not get any easier than this.

 

[BobRyan]

The similar tactics was tried also by reddogs in the opening post. However, its not true that the law was based on God's nature.

The law was given temporarily since Moses to Jesus,

Not true - as everyone who affirms that Christians are not to take God's name in vain - can agree.
In fact Eph 6:1-2 shows -- Ex 20:12 still applies in the unique set of TEN - to all Christians today - as "The first commandment with a promise"

"For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John."
Mt 11:13

Luke 24 - after His resurrection Jesus continued to preach from "the law and the prophets ... in all of scripture" as Luke reminds us.

"Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law...
So the law was our guardian until Christ came...

Not true. You took a text that says that until faith comes to the one who chooses to have faith in Christ - that person is under condemnation of the Law -- the text says "until FAITH comes".

You changed it to "until Christ came in 27 A.D." or something of that sort.

Pretty hard to miss the contrast between those two ideas.

Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian."
Gal 3:23-25

True of the one who has chosen faith in Christ - but not true of the entire lost world for 6000 years regarding those who reject faith in Christ. For them the Law still condemns them as sinners doomed to the lake of fire as Rom 3:19 points out.

"But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way
of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
R 7:6

True of the saved. Where the Jer 31:31-34 New Covenant "writes of the Law of God on heart and mind" as we are reminded in Heb 8:5-12
Such that those who are of the faith - who are born again "establish the LAW by our faith" Rom 3:31 rather than deleting or abolishing it.

 

[daq]

Pharisees were not priests and they did not circumcise anyone

Please provide a source for this assertion.

19 "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping of the commandments of God." NASB, NKJV, NIV, NASB1955

Those who were Jews and became Christian were to continue to live as circumcised Jews -- who accepted the Messiah..
Those who were gentiles and became Christian were to continue to live as uncircumised non-Jewish Christians - who also accepted the Messiah

The distinction is made between the moral law of God applicable to BOTH groups and the ceremonial law that only applied to the Jews.

There is no distinction anywhere in the scripture between a supposed moral law and a supposed ceremonial law: it is a fabricated construct to divide the Torah and conquer in favor of a private paradigm.

The Pharisees did not circumcise anyone. Only priests did that.

Again, please provide a source for this assertion.

A divinely ordained practice in scripture -- according to what God gave to Moses. The Pharisees did not give Moses the law of circumcision and I think we all know that.

You are playing games: no one said the Pharisees were around in the time of Mosheh.

19 "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping of the commandments of God." NASB, NKJV, NIV, NASB1955

1 Cor 7:18-20 does NOT condemn either group. Neither the circumised Jewish Christians NOR the uncircumcised gentile Christians are being condemned in 1 Cor 7:18-20 as we can all read.

Reading is not the same as hearing and scripture hearing is understanding: one can read and yet still not understand.

Rather EACH group is to REMAIN as they are.

No understanding of the point that was actually made.

Those who were Jews and became Christian were to continue to live as circumcised Jews -- who accepted the Messiah..
Those who were gentiles and became Christian were to continue to live as uncircumised non-Jewish Christians - who also accepted the Messiah
The distinction in 1 Cor 7 is made between the moral law of God applicable to BOTH groups and the ceremonial law that only applied to the Jews in the OT and is fulfilled in Christ as it pointed to the life and sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

That is your opinion based on your bias concerning a ceremonial law you have invented to serve your bias.

Rom 2 makes it very clear that in the SPIRITUAL sense ALL are to be circumcised by the Holy Spirit and NO ONE should remain uncircumcised. But that is not the point of 1 Cor 7:18-20. You cannot jam a context into 1 Cor 7 that is not in the actual text. Two different issues are being discussed -- one in 1 Cor 7:19 and the other in Romans 2. Mix-mash wont work.

Again, no understanding of the point that was actually made.

Notice how Romans 2 show both contexts --

25 For circumcision (literal according to the Law of Moses) is indeed profitable if you (where "you" are a literal Jews) keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision (literal) has become uncircumcision (spiritual uncircumcision). 26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man (literally a gentile who is a believer) keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision (Literal , physical) be counted as circumcision (Spiritual - new creation, new birth) ? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you (A Jew) who, even with your written code and circumcision (literal physical) are a transgressor of the law?

It is not "written code", it says the letter, and just as I have already explained, the rulers of the people transgressed the Torah by circumcision and the letter, just as Paul says herein. All one needs to do is understand what Paul means by the letter: for he does not mean the Torah.

28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

TWO key details:
1. blindly insisting that there is only one context/meaning for the term fails to survive Romans 2:25-27
2. 1 Cor 7:19 condemns NEITHER group.

Again, no understanding of the point that was actually made.

you are using mix-mash in your discussion of circumcision as a symbol of the New Birth - already pointed out in my posts, while apparently insisting that the 1 Cor 7:19 contrast between moral and ceremonial law cannot exist If even one example of circumcision as a symbol of a spiritual event/condition exists in any text of the Bible..

You are doing just as you accuse and therefore not rightly dividing between the two. It appears that you have not understood anything I have offered herein.

My point is that context determines meaning. The details of 1 Cor 7:19 are such that the spiritual application is not allowed - because NEITHER group is condemned. Paul never says "is one not a believer - let him continue to be an unbeliever" and we both know it.

There is no way to mix this up - the context does not allow it.

It just does not get any easier than this.

If it is so easy then why are you unable to grasp what has been shown? And why is it that you mixed up both into one circumcision and now find the need to do all this sidestepping and dancing around the real issue? Is it not so as to escape the reality of the high likelihood that your fabricated paradigm construct is incorrect according to the scripture?

 

[Gary K]

Please provide a source for this assertion.



There is no distinction anywhere in the scripture between a supposed moral law and a supposed ceremonial law: it is a fabricated construct to divide the Torah and conquer in favor of a private paradigm.



Again, please provide a source for this assertion.



You are playing games: no one said the Pharisees were around in the time of Mosheh.



Reading is not the same as hearing and scripture hearing is understanding: one can read and yet still not understand.



No understanding of the point that was actually made.



That is your opinion based on your bias concerning a ceremonial law you have invented to serve your bias.



Again, no understanding of the point that was actually made.



It is not "written code", it says the letter, and just as I have already explained, the rulers of the people transgressed the Torah by circumcision and the letter, just as Paul says herein. All one needs to do is understand what Paul means by the letter: for he does not mean the Torah.



Again, no understanding of the point that was actually made.



You are doing just as you accuse and therefore not rightly dividing between the two. It appears that you have not understood anything I have offered herein.



If it is so easy then why are you unable to grasp what has been shown? And why is it that you mixed up both into one circumcision and now find the need to do all this sidestepping and dancing around the real issue? Is it not so as to escape the reality of the high likelihood that your fabricated paradigm construct is incorrect according to the scripture?

I don't understand your point either. Lot's of people don't understand your points who believe in keeping the commandments.

 

[daq]

I don't understand your point either. Lot's of people don't understand your points who believe in keeping the commandments.

The point has not really changed from page one where Bob Ryan first responded to this post:

No, the "other" was not from Mosheh, it was from YHWH and it was all spoken to Mosheh as such.

Leviticus 1:1 KJV
1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,

Nimbers 1:1 KJV
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,

And on, and on, and on, hundreds of times over.



There is no so-called "ceremonial law" and even if there was it would not be Mosheh's "ceremonial law".

The Master refers the hearer and reader to this so-called ceremonial law in the following passage:

Mark 9:43-49 KJV
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. [Isa 66:24]
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. [Isa 66:24]
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. [Isa 66:24]
49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. [Lev 2:13]

Leviticus 2:13 is the only place in the Torah where the command to salt every sacrifice is given.

Leviticus 2:13 KJV
13 And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.

Mark 9:49 KJV
49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. [Lev 2:13]

That does not sound to me like it will ever be done away with because it does not mean what most people think, according to the Testimony of the Master in Mark 9, and we know that he says that the heavens and the earth shall pass away, but his words shall not pass away, (Mat 24:35, Mrk 13:31, Luk 21:33).

Moreover the Mark 9:43-49 passage not only quotes from Lev 2:13, but also from Isa 66:24, to expound and explain the meaning of the Isaiah 66:22-24 passage. Therefore, once one understands the teaching of the Master in this regard, if he or she then still desires to enter into the new heavens and the new earth foretold in that passage, (Isa 66:22-24), then it is long past time to begin plucking, chopping, cutting off limbs, and salting those sacrifices according to the commandment of the Master in Mark 9 and the commandment in Leviticus 2:13 to salt every sacrifice. Those therefore who believe the sacrifices are the innocent living souls and clean animals of the creation of Elohim do not understand and are still following the Pharisee way of seeing those things as outward, carnal, natural, and physical in meaning. Cutting off sin from your members and mortifying the deeds of the body and your members upon the earth is not "ceremonial law".



The Master makes no distinction concerning a set of "ceremonial laws" in those passages, and in fact, Mat 22:40, (which you quoted), straightly says "On these two commandments hang all the Torah and the Prophets."

The Mark 9 passage quoted in that reply makes the point abundantly clear that the OP is incorrect: there is no such thing as a set of "ceremonial laws" that have been abolished. As many others have already noted concerning this errant teaching: it is nothing more than a nonexistent extrapolated construct invented for those "who believe in keeping the commandments" but only those certain commandments they themselves approve of "keeping". It is kinda sad because the good intention joined with the faulty construct only serves to prove that they really do not even understand the commandments they think they are "keeping". The Torah is spiritual, (Rom 7:14), and contains the Living Oracles of Elohim, (Acts 7:38 ASV). Nothing of the Torah is abolished.

 

[trophy33]

Not true - as everyone who affirms that Christians are not to take God's name in vain - can agree.
In fact Eph 6:1-2 shows -- Ex 20:12 still applies in the unique set of TEN - to all Christians today - as "The first commandment with a promise"

Luke 24 - after His resurrection Jesus continued to preach from "the law and the prophets ... in all of scripture" as Luke reminds us.

Not true. You took a text that says that until faith comes to the one who chooses to have faith in Christ - that person is under condemnation of the Law -- the text says "until FAITH comes".

You changed it to "until Christ came in 27 A.D." or something of that sort.

Pretty hard to miss the contrast between those two ideas.

True of the one who has chosen faith in Christ - but not true of the entire lost world for 6000 years regarding those who reject faith in Christ. For them the Law still condemns them as sinners doomed to the lake of fire as Rom 3:19 points out.

True of the saved. Where the Jer 31:31-34 New Covenant "writes of the Law of God on heart and mind" as we are reminded in Heb 8:5-12
Such that those who are of the faith - who are born again "establish the LAW by our faith" Rom 3:31 rather than deleting or abolishing it.

Basically all your points can be easily dismissed just by reading the biblical texts you talk about or refer to. You simply try to bend them to fit your specific church doctrine.

 

[trophy33]

The Matthew 11 passage says what it means and means what it says:

Matthew 11:12-15 ASV
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force.
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14 And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come.
15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Following the transfiguration event:

Matthew 17:10-12 ASV
10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?
11 And he answered and said, Elijah indeed cometh, and shall restore all things:
12 but I say unto you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would. Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them.
13 Then understood the disciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Malachi 4:4-6 KJV
4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

So then, Eliyah came to you in 70 AD? and you were willing to receive it? and all things were restored? The kingdom of Elohim does not come with ocular-visual observation because it is within you, (Luke 17:20-21), and it is personal, private, and individual, just as is all of the Gospel: to each in his or her own appointed times, times appointed of the Father.

In Luke 7:28, the Byzantine texts types have it that among those born of women there is no greater prophet than Yohanne the Immerser, and if you will receive it, perhaps you should start at Revelation 1:1 and begin your water (of the Word) immersion therein: for the Spirit of the prophecy is the Testimony of the Meshiah, (Rev 19:10). The immersion by the Holy Spirit and fire only comes after that by way of the One whom Yohanne also confessed.

I am claiming (basically just repeating word for word) what this verse is claiming:

“The Law and the Prophets were until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it."
Lk 16:16

The law and the prophets were until John. John was the last figure of the Old Testament.

Regarding Eliah, Jesus said it was John:
"Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: "...he is the Elijah who was to come.""
Mt 11:7,14

Which you also quoted in the beginning of your post and then asked later "so then, Eliah came to you in 70 AD?" Which does not seem to make any sense. John came before the public service of Jesus and to Israel.

I agree that the kingdom of God is spiritual, "invisible". Not sure why you stress that in this context, though. However, the rest is not true, its not private nor individual.

 

[Soyeong]

I presuppose that people here know the Bible, therefore I am not too verbose, I just refer to the verses. But I sometimes get surprised.

So lets do it:

15Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” i meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23Before the coming of this faith, j we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Gal 3

1. The first, superior covenant is the one with Abraham and Christ (v. 15 and next) - not Torah or what you said in your post
2. The law was given since Moses (vs 17) till Christ (vs 19, 24, 25).
3. The law had a specific purpose - it was given to Israel to prepare it for Christ (vs 19, vs 24)
4. The law is no longer our guardian (v 25).

Galatians 3 is discussing the promise, so before we dig into verses 15-29, we should discuss what the promise is in regard to.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which is in accordance with Jesus being sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26), which is the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), which he spread to Gentiles in Haran in accordance with the promise (Genesis 12:1-5).

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

In Psalms 119:1-3, the Mosaic Law is how the children of Abraham knew how to be blessed by walking in God's way, and in John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him, so the way that the children of Abraham are multiplied and are a blessing to the nations in accordance with inheriting the promise through faith is by turning the nations from their wickedness and by teaching them to do the same works as Abraham by walking in God's way in obedience to His law. Moreover, John 8:39 connects the works that they ought to be doing with the works that Abraham did and the works that they ought to be doing were in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and both Abraham and Moses walked in God's way (Genesis 18:19, Exodus 33:13).

Do you agree?

I did not claim "Christ taught to stop repenting because God's law [i.e. the Mosaic law, in fact] has ended". Its a strawman.

Jesus taught to start repenting, because the final judgement and the kingdom of God was coming.

The Mosaic Law led to Jesus, because it was the preparation for Him. The rest of your sentence is not clear to me.

It is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so if it were temporary until Christ, then that would mean that once Christ came that we are now free to commit sin, we do not need to repent from doing it, that we do not need salvation from committing sin, that we do not need grace, and we do not need Jesus to have given himself to redeem us from all lawlessness, so the position that the Mosaic Law was temporary until Jesus came is directly opposed the promise and to everything that Jesus taught during his ministry and accomplished through the cross.

 

[expos4ever]

Let's talk about Matthew 5.

There is a way to faithfully read Matt 5:17-18 and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago. In Hebrew culture, “end of the world” language was commonly used metaphorically to invest commonplace events with theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence. Isaiah writes:

For 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. There are other examples of use of “end of the world” imagery to describe much more “mundane” events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away” is an apocalyptic metaphor?

It is Jesus’ death on the Cross where He proclaims “It is accomplished”. Note how this dovetails perfectly with the 5:18 declaration that the Law would remain until all is accomplished. Seeing things this way allows us to honour the established tradition of metaphorical end-of-the-world imagery and to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.

 

[daq]

Seeing things this way allows us to honour the established tradition of metaphorical end-of-the-world imagery and to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.

Every passage where people typically claim that Paul is teaching that the Torah is retired, (or whatever other way others might prefer to say the same thing), always ends up being a misunderstanding of Paul's words and teachings. What is the use of contorting the Matthew 5 statement into something metaphorical, in order to "take Paul at his word", if one has not actually understood Paul's words to begin with? In other words prove that your view of Paul's teachings is a correct view according to all of the scripture before making the assumption that your understanding is correct.

 

[expos4ever]

Every passage where people typically claim that Paul is teaching that the Torah is retired, (or whatever other way others might prefer to say the same thing), always ends up being a misunderstanding of Paul's words and teachings. What is the use of contorting the Matthew 5 statement into something metaphorical, in order to "take Paul at his word", if one has not actually understood Paul's words to begin with? In other words prove that your view of Paul's teachings is a correct view according to all of the scripture before making the assumption that your understanding is correct.

First, you need to address my argument about Matt 5 - you have not done so yet.

But let's talk about Paul. If we agree that Paul wrote Ephesians, let's talk about Ephesians 2:

Here is the relevant text from Ephesians 2:

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit

First, let us address the matter of identifying the two groups described in this passage. I think that the two peoples that are "divided" here are the Jews and the Gentiles. One group is described as "Gentiles in the flesh", and "uncircumcision". Clearly this is the Gentiles. Paul contrasts this group with another group - the "circumcision in the flesh" people. Clearly, this second group is the Jews. He goes on to say that the first group - the Gentiles - are "excluded from Israel and foreigners to the covenants". This is a clear reference to the Jew-Gentile distinction. It is the Jew - the one circumcised in the flesh - who is under the covenant promises. So I can not see ambiguity here - Paul is describing a Jew-Gentile distinction.

Consider verse 12. Why was the Gentile excluded from citizenship in Israel? I suggest that the reason is the Law of Moses (the Torah) - the Torah was effectively a national charter for the Jews, it is Torah that would be understood to mark out "citizenship in Israel". It is the abolition of the Torah that supports a sensible interpretation of the material from 14 on to 18, material which is all about the newly achieved unity of Jew and Gentile. How would one naturally bring Jew and Gentile together? Obviously by getting rid of the complex set of practices, ceremonies, and rituals which are for Jew and Jew only. The Torah, being for Jews only, effectively excluded the Gentile from membership in God's true family (Israel). After all, it is the Torah that marked the Jew out from her pagan neighbour.

 

[Soyeong]

Let's talk about Matthew 5.

There is a way to faithfully read Matt 5:17-18 and still claim that Law of Moses was retired 2000 years ago. In Hebrew culture, “end of the world” language was commonly used metaphorically to invest commonplace events with theological significance.

This is not mere speculation – we have concrete evidence. Isaiah writes:

For 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. There are other examples of use of “end of the world” imagery to describe much more “mundane” events within the present space-time manifold.

So it is possible that Jesus is not referring to the destruction of matter, space, and time as the criteria for the retirement of the Law. But what might He mean here? What is the real event for which “heaven and earth passing away” is an apocalyptic metaphor?

It is Jesus’ death on the Cross where He proclaims “It is accomplished”. Note how this dovetails perfectly with the 5:18 declaration that the Law would remain until all is accomplished. Seeing things this way allows us to honour the established tradition of metaphorical end-of-the-world imagery and to take Paul at his word in his many statements which clearly denote the work of Jesus as the point in time at which Law of Moses was retired.

Jesus did not mention anything about his death on the cross in Matthew 5 and he did not begin to speak about his death until towards the end of his ministry. If Jesus was saying that he came to abolish the law through his death, then that would mean that he lied when he said that he did not come to abolish the law. Moreover, if Jesus came to abolish the law through the cross, then there would be no point in him spending his ministry teaching his followers to obey it in word and by example, such as throughout the rest of Matthew 5.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and God's law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, which is in accordance with Jesus being sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness, so saying that Jesus abolished God's law on the cross is saying that he abolish the Gospel and the promise, which completely undermines what he was sent to do.

In Titus 2:14, it describes what Jesus accomplished through the cross not by saying that he gave himself to redeem us God's law, but to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous of doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from is the way to reject what he accomplished. Moreover, in Romans 3:31, Paul affirmed that our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it, yet you seek to abolish it instead of upholding it by faith.

 

[daq]

First, you need to address my argument about Matt 5 - you have not done so yet.

But let's talk about Paul. If we agree that Paul wrote Ephesians, let's talk about Ephesians 2:

Here is the relevant text from Ephesians 2:

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit

First, let us address the matter of identifying the two groups described in this passage. I think that the two peoples that are "divided" here are the Jews and the Gentiles. One group is described as "Gentiles in the flesh", and "uncircumcision". Clearly this is the Gentiles. Paul contrasts this group with another group - the "circumcision in the flesh" people. Clearly, this second group is the Jews. He goes on to say that the first group - the Gentiles - are "excluded from Israel and foreigners to the covenants". This is a clear reference to the Jew-Gentile distinction. It is the Jew - the one circumcised in the flesh - who is under the covenant promises. So I can not see ambiguity here - Paul is describing a Jew-Gentile distinction.

Consider verse 12. Why was the Gentile excluded from citizenship in Israel? I suggest that the reason is the Law of Moses (the Torah) - the Torah was effectively a national charter for the Jews, it is Torah that would be understood to mark out "citizenship in Israel". It is the abolition of the Torah that supports a sensible interpretation of the material from 14 on to 18, material which is all about the newly achieved unity of Jew and Gentile. How would one naturally bring Jew and Gentile together? Obviously by getting rid of the complex set of practices, ceremonies, and rituals which are for Jew and Jew only. The Torah, being for Jews only, effectively excluded the Gentile from membership in God's true family (Israel). After all, it is the Torah that marked the Jew out from her pagan neighbour.

Nope, Eph 2:15 says dogmas, just as Col 2:14, and the Torah is never called dogmas anywhere in the scripture.

Handwritten Dogmas and the Letter which Kills

The following translator understands the following passage quite well, even to the point that it is the Body of Meshiah which is to judge regarding what is mentioned in the text, meaning that the word order, (which is not all that important in Greek, but more critical in English translations)...

www.christianforums.com

However I wasn't trying to turn the whole thread into every Torah argument of Paul: I was simply making a point that you appear to assume too much concerning what Paul actually teaches.

 

[expos4ever]

Torah is never called dogmas anywhere in the scripture.

From Ephesians 2:

by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances ("dogma" from the greek),

What is "the Law" if not the Law of Moses?

I believe you are forced to argue that the word "ordnances" has to refer to human dogma. If you can make that case, you have at least the beginning of a case. More specifically, it seems to me that you are forced into the following argument:

1. The word rendered as "ordnances" here denotes "human dogma"
2. Since this thing called "the Law" is composed of such human ordnances, this "Law" cannot be the Law of Moses.

First, the overall context shows that is has to be the Law of Moses (I realize this is just a claim, for now). And why would the author use the term "Law" to mean something other than the Law of Moses given the obvious fact that, generally at least, the term "Law" does indeed refer to the Law of Moses? But let's set these objections aside for now.

The key point: The term translated as "ordnances" does not require us to see them as originating from humans. My sources define this word as:

"a decree, edict, ordnance. From the base of dokea; a law"

There is nothing in this definition that excludes a divine origin. So there is no real justification for concluding that "the Law" cannot be the Law of Moses specifically because it is composed of δογμασιν.

Let's be clear: I am not claiming, in this post at least, to have made a case that "the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordnances" is the Law of Moses. But when you say Torah is never referred to as something that contains "δογμασιν", I have shown we have reasons to doubt this claim as it seems at least plausible, and I suggest certain based on arguments I have yet to provide, that the very text we are discussing is a counterexample.

 

[expos4ever]

Nope, Eph 2:15 says dogmas, just as Col 2:14, and the Torah is never called dogmas anywhere in the scripture.

Do you not have an argument that actually engages my argument about Matt 5:17-18?

 

[ralliann]

No, the "other" was not from Mosheh, it was from YHWH and it was all spoken to Mosheh as such.

Leviticus 1:1 KJV
1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,

Nimbers 1:1 KJV
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,

And on, and on, and on, hundreds of times over.



There is no so-called "ceremonial law" and even if there was it would not be Mosheh's "ceremonial law".

The Master refers the hearer and reader to this so-called ceremonial law in the following passage:

Mark 9:43-49 KJV
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. [Isa 66:24]
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. [Isa 66:24]
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. [Isa 66:24]
49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. [Lev 2:13]

Leviticus 2:13 is the only place in the Torah where the command to salt every sacrifice is given.

Leviticus 2:13 KJV
13 And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.

Mark 9:49 KJV
49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. [Lev 2:13]

That does not sound to me like it will ever be done away with because it does not mean what most people think, according to the Testimony of the Master in Mark 9, and we know that he says that the heavens and the earth shall pass away, but his words shall not pass away, (Mat 24:35, Mrk 13:31, Luk 21:33).

Moreover the Mark 9:43-49 passage not only quotes from Lev 2:13, but also from Isa 66:24, to expound and explain the meaning of the Isaiah 66:22-24 passage. Therefore, once one understands the teaching of the Master in this regard, if he or she then still desires to enter into the new heavens and the new earth foretold in that passage, (Isa 66:22-24), then it is long past time to begin plucking, chopping, cutting off limbs, and salting those sacrifices according to the commandment of the Master in Mark 9 and the commandment in Leviticus 2:13 to salt every sacrifice. Those therefore who believe the sacrifices are the innocent living souls and clean animals of the creation of Elohim do not understand and are still following the Pharisee way of seeing those things as outward, carnal, natural, and physical in meaning. Cutting off sin from your members and mortifying the deeds of the body and your members upon the earth is not "ceremonial law".



The Master makes no distinction concerning a set of "ceremonial laws" in those passages, and in fact, Mat 22:40, (which you quoted), straightly says "On these two commandments hang all the Torah and the Prophets."

The law concerning the priests is ceremonial law

Le 7:7 As the sin offering is, so is the trespass offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it.
De 21:5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried:


Le 6:9 Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it.
Le 6:14 And this is the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar.
Le 6:25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy.
Le 7:1 Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering: it is most holy.


And on and on it goes.

 

[Soyeong]

First, you need to address my argument about Matt 5 - you have not done so yet.

But let's talk about Paul. If we agree that Paul wrote Ephesians, let's talk about Ephesians 2:

Here is the relevant text from Ephesians 2:

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit

First, let us address the matter of identifying the two groups described in this passage. I think that the two peoples that are "divided" here are the Jews and the Gentiles. One group is described as "Gentiles in the flesh", and "uncircumcision". Clearly this is the Gentiles. Paul contrasts this group with another group - the "circumcision in the flesh" people. Clearly, this second group is the Jews. He goes on to say that the first group - the Gentiles - are "excluded from Israel and foreigners to the covenants". This is a clear reference to the Jew-Gentile distinction. It is the Jew - the one circumcised in the flesh - who is under the covenant promises. So I can not see ambiguity here - Paul is describing a Jew-Gentile distinction.

Consider verse 12. Why was the Gentile excluded from citizenship in Israel? I suggest that the reason is the Law of Moses (the Torah) - the Torah was effectively a national charter for the Jews, it is Torah that would be understood to mark out "citizenship in Israel". It is the abolition of the Torah that supports a sensible interpretation of the material from 14 on to 18, material which is all about the newly achieved unity of Jew and Gentile. How would one naturally bring Jew and Gentile together? Obviously by getting rid of the complex set of practices, ceremonies, and rituals which are for Jew and Jew only. The Torah, being for Jews only, effectively excluded the Gentile from membership in God's true family (Israel). After all, it is the Torah that marked the Jew out from her pagan neighbour.

In Ephesians 2:11-19 the common theme that connects every every description of the state that Gentiles were once in is that Gentiles were without Torah, but through faith in Christ all of that is no longer true in that Gentiles are no longer strangers or aliens, but are fellow citizens Israel along with the saints in the household of God. So it is speaking about Gentiles becoming joined to Jews in becoming part of Israel and the covenants of promise through faith in Christ in accordance with becoming Torah observant, not about Gentiles being separated from Israel, the covenants of promise, and Christ in accordance with rejecting the Torah.

All of God's righteous law are eternal (Psalms 119:160), however Ephesians 2:11-19 is speaking about a law that is not eternal, therefore it is not speaking about the Torah. God did not make any mistakes when He gave the Torah, so he had no need to abolish it, especially because it was given for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13). God did not give the Torah for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather it instructs to love our neighbor as ourselves. God's word can't be abolished without also abolishing God's word made flesh. Every other time that the Bible uses the Greek word "dogma", it refers to something other than the Torah, so justification needs to be given for why it should be interpreted as referring to the Mosaic Law in Ephesians 2:15, especially when that is contrary to the point being made in the rest of the passage and in light of the fact that all of God's righteous laws are eternal.

 

[ralliann]

How does anyone know that they are correctly doing what the Bible instructs? That's the purpose of study.

8 ¶ And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
9 Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant.
10 They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.

 

[daq]

The law concerning the priests is ceremonial law

Can you provide scripture evidence for this assertion?

Le 7:7 As the sin offering is, so is the trespass offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it.
De 21:5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried:

Le 6:9 Command Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be burning in it.
Le 6:14 And this is the law of the meat offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, before the altar.
Le 6:25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy.
Le 7:1 Likewise this is the law of the trespass offering: it is most holy.

Leviticus 5:1-13 KJV
1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.
2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.
3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.
4 Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.
5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:
6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
7 And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.
8 And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder:
9 And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering.
10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.
12 Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering.
13 And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.

I have a commandment which I am not to add to nor diminish from: "You shall not ratsach-murder-kill", so my offering is the minchah, tantamount to bread, (being a grain offering), and the Bread of Life is pleasing to the Father because it is the ascending prayer offering full of the Testimony of His Son.

Numbers 28:1-2
1 And YHWH spoke to Mosheh, saying,
2 Command bnei Yisrael, and you shall say to them, My korban-offering, My bread for My fire-offering, a pleasing spirit unto Me, you shall observe to offer unto Me in its appointed time.

Numbers 28:1-10 Daily Tamiyd-Continual Offerings

Please bear with me through these definitions and I pray that the results be rewarding. H3533 כָּבַשׁ kâbash BDB Definition: 1) to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to bring into bondage, make subservient 1a2) to subdue, force, violate 1a3) to subdue...

www.christianforums.com

 

[ralliann]

Can you provide scripture evidence for this assertion?

From Jewish encyclopedia
" Similarly, the erection of the sanctuary and the sacrificial worship therein must be counted among the ceremonial laws, and no less so the dietary laws (Ex. xxii. 30; Lev. xi.; Deut. xvi. 3-21), as symbolically emphasizing the idea of Israel being God's "holy" or priest people."

Leviticus 5:1-13 KJV
1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.
2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.
3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty.
4 Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.
5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:
6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.
7 And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass, which he hath committed, two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.
8 And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin offering first, and wring off his head from his neck, but shall not divide it asunder:
9 And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering.
10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.
11 But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.
12 Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: it is a sin offering.
13 And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.

I have a commandment which I am not to add to nor diminish from: "You shall not ratsach-murder-kill", so my offering is the minchah, tantamount to bread, (being a grain offering), and the Bread of Life is pleasing to the Father because it is the ascending prayer offering full of the Testimony of His Son.

Numbers 28:1-2
1 And YHWH spoke to Mosheh, saying,
2 Command bnei Yisrael, and you shall say to them, My korban-offering, My bread for My fire-offering, a pleasing spirit unto Me, you shall observe to offer unto Me in its appointed time.

Numbers 28:1-10 Daily Tamiyd-Continual Offerings

Please bear with me through these definitions and I pray that the results be rewarding. H3533 כָּבַשׁ kâbash BDB Definition: 1) to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to bring into bondage, make subservient 1a2) to subdue, force, violate 1a3) to subdue...

www.christianforums.com

Uncleaness is also ritually impure.
I think the Greek leitourgy (ministry) would be ritual, ceremony
For a sign, memorial, witness.