The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

[Hentenza]

Sounds like the same ones according to Jesus (Mat5:17-30, Mat19:17-19 Mark2:27 Isa 66:23 Mat15:3-14 Mark7:7-13)

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers (Breaking commandment #1 Exodus 20:3) and sexually immoral (breaking commandment #7 Exodus 20:14) and murderers (breaking commandment #6 Exodus 20:13) and idolaters (breaking commandment #2 Exodus 20:4-6), and whoever loves and practices a lie (breaking # 9 Exodus 20:16 or any of the commandments 1 John 2:4) Breaking one we break them all James 2:11-12 Exo 20:1-17 .

Yep. Same ones that I debunked in this thread and in the other thread. Old tired argument based on verse mining and using OT verses as if they apply yo the NC when they do not. You are my sister in Christ but I will debunk arguments that attempt to put the monkey of the bondage of the law back in the Christian. Scripture is clear that the Christian is not under the law.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Yep. Same ones that I debunked in this thread and in the other thread. Old tired argument based on verse mining and using OT verses as if they apply yo the NC when they do not. You are my sister in Christ but I will debunk arguments that attempt to put the monkey of the bondage of the law back in the Christian. Scripture is clear that the Christian is not under the law.

These are all thus saith the Lords. It’s not me you’re trying to debunk. You have this backwards, Bondage is sin, keeping God’s commandments is freedom from sin, why it’s called the law of liberty James 2:11-12 . Can you imagine if everyone would be keeping the Ten Commandments the way Jesus taught Mat 5:19-30 no more adultery, no more murder, we could leave our doors unlocked, only worshipping the Creator, no more using God’s name in vain, sadly we will only see this in the New heaven and New Earth where the Sabbath also continues, thus saith the Lord Isa 66:23. Its sad that people think coming before the Lord on His holy Sabbath day to worship with other Christians as Jesus and the apostles did Luke 4:16 Acts 15:21 Acts 13:42 Acts 13:44 Acts 18:4 and continues in heaven is bondage. It’s why I believe God’s law is one of love and His Judgement is as well, as not everyone would be happy without sin in heaven. John 3:19-21 He would never force anyone to do things they would be miserable or thinking its bondage.

 

[Hentenza]

until you read the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-33 and Heb 8 "I will make a NEW Covenant.. this IS the Covenant.. I will write MY LAW on their heart and mind..."

Turns out... God's Law is there.

"what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 1:19
"this IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments" 1 John 5:3-4
"saints KEEP the Commandments of God and their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
where "Honor your father and mother .. is the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:1-2

The commandments of Jesus in the new covenant are 2 commandments that summarize and take over the whole law. The 613 Jewish laws including the 10 commandments was fulfilled by Christ sacrifice in the cross. The terms of the old contract have been met and exceeded by Christ. The new covenant has new and different terms. The Christian is not under the law.

Jer 31 says "I will write My Law" on their heart and mind.

The audience here is the Jewish people not the Christians.

Deut 5:22 says God wrote the TEN "and added no more".

The audience here is the Jewish people not the Christians.

Jeremiah's readers knew full well that one cannot delete the Ten Commandments from the term "the Law of God" or the "Commandments of God"

Like I stated the Jeremiah’s audience was the Jewish people not the Christians.

How so?

“Now the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how His body was laid. And then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭23‬:‭55‬-‭56‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Luke 23:55-56 Now the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how His body was laid. And then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. A nd on the Sabbath they rested acc | New American Standard Bible - NAS

Now the women who had come with Him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how His body was laid. And then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. A nd on the Sabbath they rested acc

bible.com

Jesus was crucified and buried before the sabbath began. The women brought the spices and perfume before the sabbath and then rested on the sabbath. Jesus resurrection was on the first day not in the seventh therefore He had not yet completed ushered in the new covenant.

John 6 says Jesus is the bread yet we still have real bread. One thing can be used as a symbol for something else without deleting the primary purpose of it.

That does not follow that the new covenant includes the terms of the old covenant. Each contract has their own terms. When Jesus fulfilled the old covenant He issued a new covenant with different terms.

Is 66:23 "from one Sabbath to another shall all mankind come before Me to worship" is what God says for that future day after the cross, after the church during the "New Heavens and New Earth" ,... for all eternity.

Again, the audience here is the Jewish people. The Jewish people are still under the law including the sabbath so the verse is correct. Think about it for one minute, if you argue that the 4th commandment as stated in the law is still in force then the vast majority if Christians in the new covenant are breaking God’s commandment, even the most pious. In light of this do you think that promoting the law is biblically logical?

So then EVERY time in the New Testament that we see Paul preaching the Gospel in a worship service called "Sabbath" it is the Bible Sabbath of Gen 2:3. In fact "every Sabbath" preaching in Acts 18:4 is specifically every seventh day Sabbath.

Yes, for the purpose of preaching the gospel if Christ.

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might gain Jews; to those who are under the Law, I became as one under the Law, though not being under the Law myself, so that I might gain those who are under the Law;”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭9‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 Corinthians 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might gain Jews; to those who are under the Law, I became as one under the Law, though not being under the Law myself, so that I might gain those who are under | New American Standard Bible

To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might gain Jews; to those who are under the Law, I became as one under the Law, though not being under the Law myself, so that I might gain those who are under

bible.com

Food for thought. The Lords day was established by Jesus resurrection on the first day. But did you also know that every single appearance post crucifixion was also on the first day? Christ is just awesome.

Also I want to challenge you to find a single verse in the NT post crucifixion that commands the Christian to keep the Jewish sabbath.

 

[Hentenza]

These are all thus saith the Lords. It’s not me you’re trying to debunk.

Is your interpretation that I have debunked not the Lord’s.

 

[RandyPNW]

You still have not posted one verse that says this is the covenant I will make with Gentiles. The covenant through Abraham (the father of Jews) was with Israel.

With all due respect I did provide you with the biblical passage stating that God's covenant with Abraham would include (at some point) the nations. The "Gentiles" = "the nations." Genesis 17. Please don't tell others I did not give you a single verse when I gave you Gen 17.

If you do not think the Sabbath was part of the promise, than I guess this promise is not for you.

The Sabbath Law was given to the family of Abraham prior to the work of Christ. As such, it became part of the Old Covenant, which was preparatory for Christ.

That Covenant combined moral law with ceremonial law, anticipating the work of Christ. That Covenant expired at the death of Christ, whose work supplants and fulfilled that Law, which exhibited and recorded Israel's failed human record of sin.

It did this to show that the entire human race has a failed human record and is guilty of sin, preventing us from obtaining life by our own works, ceremonies, and morality. Apart from Christ, Man cannot therefore obtain Eternal Life. Under the New Covenant we obey Christ's word, and none other.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

With all due respect I did provide you with the biblical passage stating that God's covenant with Abraham would include (at some point) the nations. The "Gentiles" = "the nations." Genesis 17. Please don't tell others I did not give you a single verse when I gave you Gen 17.

Through the blood of Abraham the father of Jews . The covenant itself was made with Israel both the first one and the new covenant . Deut 4:13 Heb8:10 Still never addressed where God made a covenant directly with Gentiles.

The Sabbath Law was given to the family of Abraham prior to the work of Christ. As such, it became part of the Old Covenant, which was preparatory for Christ.

That Covenant combined moral law with ceremonial law, anticipating the work of Christ. That Covenant expired at the death of Christ, whose work supplants and fulfilled that Law, which exhibited and recorded Israel's failed human record of sin.

It did this to show that the entire human race has a failed human record and is guilty of sin, preventing us from obtaining life by our own works, ceremonies, and morality. Apart from Christ, Man cannot therefore obtain Eternal Life. Under the New Covenant we obey Christ's word, and none other.

Non responsive to the Scripture posted.

 

[Studyman]

Let’s walk through this carefully and show that Paul was not parsing or redefining the Law, but explaining its purpose and function within God’s covenant plan.

---

1. Paul did not “parse” the Law — he explained its place in salvation history​

Galatians 3:17–19 is often misunderstood. Paul says:

This entire religious philosophy promoted here is brought into question by Jesus Himself, in the "Laws" of God HE Humbled Himself to obey, unto death. Jesus walked in ALL God's Commandments, Honored and Respected His Father in "ALL" of His Father's Judgments. He is said to have never transgressed any God's Law at any time from His youth to His Death.

Do you believe this?

The Foundation of this World's religious philosophy that you are promoting, is founded on the belief that the entire "LAW" from 1st and Greatest Commandment of God, to the LAW requiring a man to bring a Goat to the Levite Priest for remission of Sins, is "ONE" Law. And if ONE part of the Law becomes old and ready to vanish, then the entire Law vanishes. That is your teaching here, Yes?

But Jesus' Life itself, brings question to this doctrine. Jesus forgave Sins and was a Priest of God, but "NEVER" sprinkled the Blood of even ONE Goat or turtle dove on the alter in the Temple, in His Entire Ministry on earth, even though this Law existed, Commanded by God Himself to Moses.

Why is this? Why did Jesus follow all His Father's Commandments, Sabbaths, judgments concerning clean and unclean, HE even followed God's Laws concerning stone the adulterous woman, right to the Letter. If what you are saying is truth, then Jesus was guilty of Transgressing His Father's Commandment concerning the Priest's duty to provide for the forgiveness of sins, through the sacrifices of the Levitical Priesthood Law.

The Pharisees, who were "Bewitching the Galatians", didn't believe Jesus was the Prophesied Messiah that Moses spoke about in Duet. 18. They were still promoting their version of the Levitical Priesthood "Works of the Law" for Justification. This is simply undeniable Biblical Truth.

One of the questions I asked you, that you refused to answer, was "What Law" existed in the Old Priesthood, that was required before a man's sins could be forgiven? I know you know the answer, but you can't say it, that is fascinating to me, as it is the exact same response given by the mainstream preachers of Jesus Time. I don't mean that as an insult, but you do know the answer to the question, yet you refuse to answer.

In Paul's Time, a man who committed adultery was still guilty of Sin and required repentance and atonement before Salvation. Even after God's Prophesied High Priest "After the Order of Melchizedek" had come, this LAW was still required, and had to be repented from, as Jesus Himself Teaches, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish".

Let me ask you another question and see if you will answer. Was God's Laws still in effect for Ananias and Sapphira "After the SEED had come"?

Let me ask another question, and see if you will answer. The Church of God at Pentecost, did they receive the Spirit of God because they took a goat to the Levite Priest and kill it for the remission of their sins? And yet they had counted 7 Sabbaths after Feast of Unleavened bread so as to be gathered together on God's Holy Day? Why did they Obey God concerning His Statutes, but not the Law of Works required by the Levitical Priesthood, "Till the SEED should Come"?

Abraham was given the Law of Adultery, even Abimelech knew of God's definition of Sin, and Moses also gave this Law to Israel who had lost sight of God in Egypt.

This LAW wasn't "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham because of Transgressions. God's Laws define sin, they weren't "ADDED" because of Sin.

Consider the foolishness of this popular philosophy. Where there is no Law, there is no Sin. And yet you are preaching to the world that God's entire "LAW", Was "ADDED" "because of Sin" which is defined by God as "Transgression of God's Law". How can there be transgression of a Law that hasn't been "ADDED" Yet?

There was a "LAW" added though, according to Paul. A "temporary Law" that the Pharisees were still promoting to the Galatians, concerning "Works of the Law" required before justification. A Law Abraham didn't have, and wasn't "ADDED" (Add to what?) unto 430 years after God said Abraham "obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws., and wasn't "Added" in the day God led Israel out of Egypt, but was ADDED, (to what?) because of Transgressions (Of What) and was only to be in Place until the Prophesied Priest of God should Come, who would offer His Own Life (Blood) to God, for the remission of Sins that are past.

This is why I asked you the question, but you refused to answer, "What Law was given to Moses to provide for the forgiveness of Sin, until the Prophesied Priest, "After the Order of Melchizedek" should come. A Law that the Pharisees were still promoting to the Galatians, just as they did in Isaiah 1.

I too, really want to walk through this topic slowly and carefully with you. But I'm not going to be preached down to by you. Lets have an open honest discussion answering and asking each other questions in search of Biblical Truth. The Scriptures will correct us and Lead us to God's Truth, as Paul teaches if we are seeking truth.

I am happy to address the rest of your post, but one at a time. I see you don't ask questions, or answer them, you just preach your own philosophy which you are clearly zealous for. Why not have an actual discussion in search of God's Truth.

 

[RandyPNW]

Jesus said He came not to destroy the law, not a jot or tittle will pass from the law, My covenant I will not alter Psa 89:34 that does not equate to Jesus changed the law, it says the opposite. The summary of God’s law does not delete the details.

False. Jesus did not say he came to repeat or to perpetuate the Law in its then-current form. On the contrary, in saying he came to "fulfill the Law" he indicated he would become the new priesthood, temple, and sacrifice in order to complete what the Law could not finish, namely the full redemption of Israel.

When he said "until heaven passes away" he meant that the integrity of the Law was established as firmly as the heavens, and that the testimony of that Law to Christ would remain forever emblazened upon the structure of our universe. It was an eternal testimony to God's faithfulness to bring about Israel's salvation.

It is its *testimony* to Christ as its fulfillment that would remain until the end of the current universe--not the Old Covenant in its then-current form. If you think Christ meant to perpetuate the old priesthood, temple, and sacrifices, you are gravely mistaken!

 

[SabbathBlessings]

False. Jesus did not say he came to repeat or to perpetuate the Law in its then-current form. On the contrary, in saying he came to "fulfill the Law" he indicated he would become the new priesthood, temple, and sacrifice in order to complete what the Law could not finish, namely the full redemption of Israel.

I do not see any of what you said here in what Jesus said Mat 5:17-30. The Law Jesus is speaking of is not the law of Moses that was placed outside the Ten Commandments Deut 31:24-31 that dealt with the priesthood, temple and sacrifices- lets stay in context to what Jesus is saying

You claim Jesus did not come to repeat God’s law, but yet what did He repeat in this very passage and many others?

Mat 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those [d]of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’

And went on to say not only should we not literally murder our brother, we should not have thoughts that lead to anger that is the root cause for thou shalt not murder. And in doing so one would be in danger of sin and judgement

22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother [e]without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’[f] shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says,[g]‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of [h]hell fire. 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

Jesus came to magnify the law Isa 42:21 as in the example Jesus just gave, magnify means to make greater, not lesser or remove. He is dealing with both the outward part- thou shalt not murder and the inward part- a change of heart, from anger to compassion, principles that apply to all Ten Mat5:19

When he said "until heaven passes away" he meant that the integrity of the Law was established as firmly as the heavens, and that the testimony of that Law to Christ would remain forever emblazened upon the structure of our universe. It was an eternal testimony to God's faithfulness to bring about Israel's salvation.

I do not see any of that in this plain passage. I am not sure if you are aware but we are told not to add to God’s Word Pro 30:5-6 because its no longer God’s Word that is sanctifying John 17:17 its our word which is not.

This is what Jesus said:

Mat 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

I beleive Jesus means exactly what He said, no edits needed. And ALL being fufilled means just that including


Mat 24: 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

So not all is fulfilled until Jesus comes in the clouds, He makes a New Heaven and New Earth and all sin and sinners destroyed forever, so therefore not a jot or tittle can pass from God’s laws. Yet alone a whole commandment or two.

Why. . .

Mat 5:19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

It is its *testimony* to Christ as its fulfillment that would remain until the end of the current universe--not the Old Covenant in its then-current form. If you think Christ meant to perpetuate the old priesthood, temple, and sacrifices, you are gravely mistaken!

You are confusing the Ten Commandments covenant Deut 4:13 - with the law of Moses Deut 31:24-26. Something one day I pray you will see the difference, it will really help one understand the Bible much clearer. The old sanctuary temple laws under the Levitical Priesthood written in the law of Moses Deut 31:24-26 all ended at the Cross Heb 9:10-15 Heb 10:1-10, the law of God, the Ten Commandments that was revealed at Creation Exo 20:11 continues on forever Rev 22:14 no one is going to be breaking these laws in heaven including the Sabbath Isa 66:23 why not a jot or tittle can pass because no one can edit the Testimony of God Exo 31:18 because there is no man greater than He. Psa 89:34 Mat 5:18

 

[Mercy Shown]

This entire religious philosophy promoted here is brought into question by Jesus Himself, in the "Laws" of God HE Humbled Himself to obey, unto death. Jesus walked in ALL God's Commandments, Honored and Respected His Father in "ALL" of His Father's Judgments. He is said to have never transgressed any God's Law at any time from His youth to His Death.

Do you believe this?

You’re absolutely right that Jesus perfectly obeyed every command of His Father — He “humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8). He alone kept the Law in its entirety, honoring the Father in thought, word, and deed. But this is exactly why His obedience is our hope and victory, not merely a moral example.

---

1. Christ’s obedience fulfilled the Law we broke​

Jesus Himself said,

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17).

Humanity had broken God’s law and fallen under its curse (Romans 3:23; Galatians 3:10). Because God’s law is holy and unchangeable, the penalty had to be paid. But no human could pay it, for “there is none righteous, no not one” (Romans 3:10).

So Christ, the sinless One, entered our condition and fulfilled every righteous requirement of the law on our behalf(Romans 8:3–4).
His perfect obedience satisfied God’s justice — not by abolishing the law, but by meeting its demands in full.

2. His obedience is counted to us by faith​

Paul explains this clearly in Romans 5:19:

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.”

Christ’s obedience — both in His life and in His death — is imputed (credited) to all who believe. Just as Adam’s sin brought death to all mankind, Christ’s obedience brings righteousness and life to all who trust in Him (Romans 5:17–18).

This is why Paul could say,

“I am found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ — the righteousness which is from God by faith” (Philippians 3:9).

We do not stand before God on the basis of our own obedience, but on the basis of His.

3. Christ’s victory over sin becomes our victory​

Because He obeyed unto death, Jesus triumphed over every power of sin, death, and condemnation.

“Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it” (Colossians 2:15).

At the cross, He bore the curse of the law (Galatians 3:13) and rose to new life — opening the way for us to share in His victory.
Now, the righteousness He earned is freely given to us, and the Spirit that empowered His obedience now dwells in believers to make that obedience a living reality (Romans 8:1–4).

So our victory does not come from our own flawless commandment-keeping — it flows from His perfect obedience credited to us and reproduced in us by the Spirit.

4. Christ obeyed the Law so that we might be free to love​

Christ’s obedience didn’t make the moral law irrelevant; it fulfilled it and wrote it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33; Romans 8:4).
Now, instead of trying to earn righteousness through rule-keeping, we walk by the Spirit — and “the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:4).

True obedience now flows from love, not legal obligation:

“We love Him because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19).

5. The Gospel in one line​

Jesus did not merely show us how to obey —
He obeyed for us, so that through His obedience, we might be counted righteous and empowered to live righteously.

That is how Christ’s obedience gives us the victory:

• He fulfilled the Law we broke
• He paid the penalty we owed
• He gave us His righteousness by faith
• He conquered sin and death for us
• He empowers us by His Spirit to walk in newness of life

As Paul writes:

“Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:57).

---

 

[RandyPNW]

I do not see any of what you said here in what Jesus said Mat 5:17-30. The Law Jesus is speaking of is not the law of Moses that was placed outside the Ten Commandments Deut 31:24-31 that dealt with the priesthood, temple and sacrifices- lets stay in context to what Jesus is saying.

In turn I do not see what you're saying here in this passage in Matt 5? Jesus did not say he was distinguishing the Ten Commandments from the overall Law of Moses. The Jewish People would've assumed that the entire thing was the Covenant God gave to Israel, the 10 Commandments, Temple Law, Priestly Law, Sacrificial Law, and all of the ceremonial and purification laws.

Only you are making this distinction based on an action that did not spell that out in any detail. So, you're in effect reading into passages what is not there, and certainly not what Jesus meant.

On the other hand, what I said is in fact there. Jesus did not say he was restating the Law, and all 613 requirements, for all eternity, or "until heaven passes away." Rather, he was speaking of the inviolable nature of every requirement of the Law to be fulfilled in *himself.* He said he came not to destroy the Law but to "fulfill it" in himself.

And when we read the rest of Matthew, this is confirmed by Matthew that Jesus' fulfillment of the Law took place via his death on the cross, the rending of the veil, etc. The priesthood had passed to the Heavenly Priest, Christ Jesus.

You claim Jesus did not come to repeat God’s law, but yet what did He repeat in this very passage and many others?

Mat 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those [d]of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’

I was referring to Jesus repeating the Law and its requirements *after his cross.* Obviously, Jesus asserted the legitimacy of every element of the Law that he was to fulfill *before* it had been fulfilled!

 

[SabbathBlessings]

In turn I do not see what you're saying here in this passage in Matt 5? Jesus did not say he was distinguishing the Ten Commandments from the overall Law of Moses. The Jewish People would've assumed that the entire thing was the Covenant God gave to Israel, the 10 Commandments, Temple Law, Priestly Law, Sacrificial Law, and all of the ceremonial and purification laws.

Where did Jesus say anything about the earthy priestly and sacrifical laws in Mat 5:19-30. Why add what’s not there. The laws were already distinguished in the OT by God Deut 4:13 Exo 34:28 Deut 5:22 Exo 20:6 Exo 20:11 Exo 31:24-26 and if we don’t understand these difference I can see why the NT would be difficult to reconcile. Jesus who is God made these distinctions clearly.

Jesus quoted the commandments He was referring to, let’s let Him define what He means and not add what’s we want His words to be. He does not need our help.

There is a law that not a jot or tittle can pass - would it be the Law of God that God wrote on stone for its eternal nature that sits under His mercy seat that is also revealed in heaven Rev 11:19 Rev 15:5 where His word is settled Psa 119:89 God’s own Testimony Exo 31:18 written by God, not man He promised not to alter Psa 89:34, or the law of Moses placed outside the Ten Commandments as a witness against written on paper which fades. Deut 31:24-26 Thankfully we do not need to guess.

We are already told the earthy priesthood santuary laws ended Heb 9:1-15 Heb 10:1-10 from the law of Moses, but Jesus quoted from the Ten Commandments as the commandments that not a jot or tittle shall pass. Mat 5:18-30

The Scripture will explain Itself if we allow it to. Sadly most people want to help His word, despite what God said not to, so plainly Pro 30:5-6

 

[RandyPNW]

Where did Jesus say anything about the earthy priestly and sacrifical laws in Mat 5:19-30.

It is clear as the blue skies!
Matthew 5.19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Do you honestly think that the righteousness of the Pharisees and of the teachers of the Law consisted of keeping the 10 Commandments alone? Do you honestly think that Jesus was comparing one of the 10 Commandments with another of the 10 Commandments when he said some commandments were "least?"

So, what did the Pharisees teach and base their "righteousness" on?

Matt 23.1 hen Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you...
16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’....
23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former....

These laws, on swearing oaths and on tithing, were not just the 10 Commandments. Rather, the 10 Commandments were the moral basis upon which the Covenant of Moses had been predicated, requiring the obedience of faith and a sincerity of heart.

There is a law that not a jot or tittle can pass - would it be the Law of God that God wrote on stone for its eternal nature that sits under His mercy seat that is also revealed in heaven Rev 11:19 Rev 15:5 where His word is settled Psa 119:89 God’s own Testimony Exo 31:18 written by God, not man He promised not to alter Psa 89:34, or the law of Moses placed outside the Ten Commandments as a witness against written on paper which fades. Deut 31:24-26 Thankfully we do not need to guess.

You're making this up. This is not in the text. Sure, placement of the Commandments is in the text, but not what you're saying, that the 10 Commandments are not a subgroup within the overall Law of Moses.

Why are you so addicted to Sabbath observance?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

It is clear as the blue skies!
Matthew 5.19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Do you honestly think that the righteousness of the Pharisees and of the teachers of the Law consisted of keeping the 10 Commandments alone? Do you honestly think that Jesus was comparing one of the 10 Commandments with another of the 10 Commandments when he said some commandments were "least?"

So, what did the Pharisees teach and base their "righteousness" on?

Matt 23.1 hen Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you...
16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’....
23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former....

These laws, on swearing oaths and on tithing, were not just the 10 Commandments. Rather, the 10 Commandments were the moral basis upon which the Covenant of Moses had been predicated, requiring the obedience of faith and a sincerity of heart.

You're making this up. This is not in the text. Sure, placement of the Commandments is in the text, but not what you're saying, that the 10 Commandments are not a subgroup within the overall Law of Moses.

Why are you so addicted to Sabbath observance?

Still doesn't say anything about the priestly laws or sacrifical laws. Also I do not know what translation you are using but its not in the original Greek “the teachers of the law” that was added. Also, we are quoting Mat 5:18-30 not Mat 23.

Verse 20 is talking about our righteousness has to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees. The Pharisees also set aside the commandments of God Jesus again repeated from the Ten Commandments saying when doing so one worships Him in vain. So us doing the same thing is not exceeding the righteousness of the Pharisees and therefore will not enter the Kingdom of God, not my words.

For
γὰρ (gar)
Conjunction
Strong's 1063: For. A primary particle; properly, assigning a reason.

I tell
λέγω (legō)
Verb - Present Indicative Active - 1st Person Singular
Strong's 3004: (a) I say, speak; I mean, mention, tell, (b) I call, name, especially in the pass., (c) I tell, command.

you
ὑμῖν (hymin)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Dative 2nd Person Plural
Strong's 4771: You. The person pronoun of the second person singular; thou.

that
ὅτι (hoti)
Conjunction
Strong's 3754: Neuter of hostis as conjunction; demonstrative, that; causative, because.

unless
ἐὰν (ean)
Conjunction
Strong's 1437: If. From ei and an; a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.

your
ὑμῶν (hymōn)
Personal / Possessive Pronoun - Genitive 2nd Person Plural
Strong's 4771: You. The person pronoun of the second person singular; thou.

righteousness
δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē)
Noun - Nominative Feminine Singular
Strong's 1343: From dikaios; equity; specially justification.

exceeds
περισσεύσῃ (perisseusē)
Verb - Aorist Subjunctive Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's 4052: From perissos; to superabound, be in excess, be superfluous; also to cause to superabound or excel.

[that] of the
τῶν (tōn)
Article - Genitive Masculine Plural
Strong's 3588: The, the definite article. Including the feminine he, and the neuter to in all their inflections; the definite article; the.

scribes
γραμματέων (grammateōn)
Noun - Genitive Masculine Plural
Strong's 1122: From gramma. A writer, i.e. scribe or secretary.

and
καὶ (kai)
Conjunction
Strong's 2532: And, even, also, namely.

Pharisees,
Φαρισαίων (Pharisaiōn)
Noun - Genitive Masculine Plural
Strong's 5330: Of Hebrew origin; a separatist, i.e. Exclusively religious; a Pharisean, i.e. Jewish sectary.

you will never enter
εἰσέλθητε (eiselthēte)
Verb - Aorist Subjunctive Active - 2nd Person Plural
Strong's 1525: To go in, come in, enter. From eis and erchomai; to enter.

the
τὴν (tēn)
Article - Accusative Feminine Singular
Strong's 3588: The, the definite article. Including the feminine he, and the neuter to in all their inflections; the definite article; the.

kingdom
βασιλείαν (basileian)
Noun - Accusative Feminine Singular
Strong's 932: From basileus; properly, royalty, i.e. rule, or a realm.

of
τῶν (tōn)
Article - Genitive Masculine Plural
Strong's 3588: The, the definite article. Including the feminine he, and the neuter to in all their inflections; the definite article; the.

heaven.
οὐρανῶν (ouranōn)
Noun - Genitive Masculine Plural
Strong's 3772: Perhaps from the same as oros; the sky; by extension, heaven; by implication, happiness, power, eternity; specially, the Gospel.

Which still doesn’t change which commandments Jesus was speaking about that He quoted verbatim that not a jot or tittle shall pass Mat 5:19-30 the same ones He already promised Psa 89:34

 

[Mercy Shown]

Heb 10:4-11 makes it very clear that the ceremonial law of "animal sacrifices and offerings" ended at the cross. It then contrasts it to the "once for all" atonement of Christ saying "He takes away the first, to establish the second" Heb 10:9.

(So much for the -- no mention of two distinct forms of Law--suggestion

1. Context: What is the “first” and the “second”?​

Hebrews 10:9 says:

“He takes away the first, that He may establish the second.”

To understand what is being taken away, we need to read the argument that begins in Hebrews 8 and continues through Hebrews 10. The author is contrasting two covenants, not two laws.

• Hebrews 8:7 — “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for the second.”
• Hebrews 8:13 — “In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete.”

The “first” and “second” in Hebrews 10:9 echo that same theme — the old covenant system of priesthood and sacrifices is being replaced by the new covenant established by Christ’s blood (see Heb 9:11–15).

So, the contrast is not between two laws of God, but between two covenants or systems of worship — the old, symbolic, shadow-based one, and the new, real, and eternal one.

2. The “law” in this passage refers to the sacrificial system, not the moral law​

Hebrews 10:1 begins:

“For the law, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices... make the comers thereunto perfect.”

This “law” refers specifically to the sacrificial regulations that governed the tabernacle worship (see Heb 9:1–10). It is not saying that the Ten Commandments were a shadow — those moral precepts were never a “shadow” but expressions of God’s own character (Romans 7:12–14).

Paul confirms this distinction in Galatians 3:19 — the law “added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come” — clearly referring to the ceremonial/sacrificial law that pointed to Christ’s sacrifice, not to the eternal moral law that defines sin (Romans 3:20; 7:7).

Thus, Hebrews 10 shows that the sacrificial aspect of the law was temporary and typological — not that there were two coequal “laws” of God.

3. Christ did not abolish the moral function of the law — He fulfilled it​

Jesus Himself said:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17)

Christ’s perfect obedience upheld the moral function of the law’s authority even as His death brought the ceremonial types to their fulfillment. The sacrificial system ended because its purpose was completed, not because the moral law was abolished.

So when Hebrews says, “He takes away the first to establish the second,” the “first” refers to the old covenant with its priesthood and sacrifices, and the “second” refers to the new covenant grounded in Christ’s once-for-all offering(Hebrews 10:10).

Hebrews 10 does not teach two laws of God — it teaches two covenants, one temporary and symbolic, the other eternal and real. The ceremonial sacrifices ended at the cross; the moral function of the law remains, now written on the heart under the new covenant (Heb 8:10).

 

[fhansen]

Awww look the ad populum fallacy. The reformation happened to correct the doctrinal error and corruption of the RCC. It still continues today.

Nah, ad populum probably applies better to Protestantism today than it ever did to Catholcism. Either way, popularity doesn't make right-or wrong-whereas history and experience means something-and the Reformers threw both pretty much out the door while speculating with Scriptual guess-work some 15 centuries after the fact, and then often disagreed on it's the meaning anyway. And that beat continues on even louder today. Either way they got the basics wrong. The truth of the faith as recorded in history, not just as it regards Catholicism but all of the early church east and west, is against you.

 

[Soyeong]

This is a well thought out observation. Here are my comments on your points.

Thank you.

1. The threefold division is descriptive, not imposed​

It’s true that Scripture never labels laws “moral, civil, and ceremonial,” but that doesn’t mean the distinction is invalid.
The division is an observation about function, not a claim about how Moses categorized the law.

Scriptural pattern:

• Moral commands — timeless duties grounded in God’s character (e.g., “You shall not murder,” Ex. 20:13).
• Civil laws — applications of moral principles to Israel’s national life (e.g., property, restitution, penalties).
• Ceremonial laws — rituals foreshadowing Christ (e.g., sacrifices, priesthood, dietary restrictions).

We are free to categorize God's laws in whatever way that want but we should not interpret the authors of the Bible as if they had in mind a list of laws that we created. For example, I could categorize God's laws based on which part of the body is most commonly used to obey/disobey them, such as with the law against theft being a hand law, but just because I can do that does not establish that the authors of the Bible categorized God's laws in the same manner or that they would agree with me that the law against theft best fits as a hand law, so I would quickly run into error if I were to interpret the authors of the Bible as referring to hand laws.

Moreover, the category of moral law is especially problematic for reasons that I stated in my previous post. the Bible makes no attempt to distinguish between some laws are being moral or not, but rather all of God's laws are timeless duties grounded in His character. Just because something is a civil or ceremonial issue doesn't mean that it is not also a moral issue, such as with marriage being a civil, ceremonial, and moral issue. Holiness is a timeless duty grounded in God's character, so holiness is a moral issue and many of God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy are often considered by people to be ceremonial laws.

Jesus Himself acknowledged a hierarchy and enduring core within the law:

The goal of God's law is to graciously teach us how to know Him by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, so His character traits are the weightier matter of His law.

He also taught that love of God and neighbor sum up all the law (Matt. 22:37–40), which assumes some laws express the essence while others are derivative.

So while the Bible never uses the labels, the distinction is biblically grounded in purpose and fulfillment.

Everything in God's law is either in regard to how to love God or our neighbor, which is why Jesus said that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hang on them, so the position that we should obey the greatest two commandments is also the position that we should obey all of the commandments that hang on them. The way to love God is by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, such as the way to love justice is by being a doer of justice, the way to love holiness is by being a doer of His instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, and so forth. In other words, the goal of God's law is to graciously teach us how to love different aspects of His character traits, which is why the Bible repeatedly states that the way to love God is by obeying His commandments. The only way that we should cease to follow God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy would be if God were to cease to be holy and if someone refuses to follow those instructions, then holiness is an aspect of God's character that they should not love.

2. God’s laws are all righteous, but not all permanent​

It is correct that all God’s laws are moral when given — but not all are universally binding for all time.
Some were covenantal expressions of holiness for Israel, designed to point to Christ.

God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore any instructions that He has ever given for how to be a doer of His righteousness are also eternally valid (Psalms 119:160), and if the way to be a doer of God's righteousness were temporary, then God's righteousness would also be temporary. God's way is the way to know Him and Jesus by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3). In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the law points us to Christ because it was graciously given in order to teach us how to know Him and we should live in a way that points to Christ by follow his example of obedience to it rather than a way that points away from him.

Scriptural evidence:

• Hebrews 7:12 — “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.”

That verse could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit murder or sinful to do charity, but rather the context is speaking about a change in the priesthood, which would regard a change of the law in regard to its administration. A priesthood led by God's Word made flesh does not involve a departure from following God's Word.

• Hebrews 10:1 — The law was “a shadow of the good things to come.”

God's law is am important foreshadow that testifies about the good things that are to come, so we should live in a way that testifies about the good things that are to come by following Christ example of obedience to it rather than a way that bears false witness against the good things that to come.

• Ephesians 2:15 — Christ “abolished in His flesh the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

Ephesians 2:15 could not be referring to any of God's laws because all of God's laws are eternal. God did not make any mistakes when He gave His law, so He had no need to abolish His eternal character traits or any of His eternal instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits. God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructs to love our neighbors as ourselves. In Ephesians 2:10-15, we are new creations in Christ to do good works, so it would make any sense to think that Christ abolished his instructions for how to do good works, and indeed, the Greek word "dogma" is never used by the Bible to refer to the Law of God.

In Ephesians 2:12-19, Gentiles were at one time separated from Christ, alienated from Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, without God and hope in their world, which is all in accordance with Gentiles at one time not being doers of the Law of God, 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 of Israel along with the saints in the household of God, which is all in accordance with Gentiles becoming doers of the Law of God.

Thus, rejecting the ongoing obligation of ceremonial or civil statutes does not imply they were immoral — only that their intended purpose has been fulfilled.

The purpose of God's law is to teach us how to have an intimate relationship with him by walking in His way, which is something that we need to keep on fulfilling.

3. Jesus and the apostles explicitly set aside covenant-specific laws​

Christ Himself declared certain Mosaic requirements obsolete:

• Mark 7:18–19 — By declaring all foods clean, He set aside dietary restrictions.
• Matthew 5:31–32 — He revised Mosaic divorce concessions, citing God’s original design.
• Acts 15:10–11, 28–29 — The Jerusalem Council determined Gentiles were not bound by the full Mosaic code.

Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the OT hundreds of times in order to support what they were saying, so it doesn't work to interpret them in a way that turns them against following what they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so he affirmed God as being an authoritative source. In Deuteronomy 12:32, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so Jesus and the Apostles did not do that. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for him is if they speak against obeying His law, so Jesus and the Apostles did not do that. It does work to interpret Jesus as speaking against obeying what God spoke in Deuteronomy 14 or to interpret the Apostles as speaking against following over 99% of what Christ taught.

Romans 6:14

Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which does not describe the Law of God, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. In Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 3:20, it is by the Law of God that we have knowledge of what sin is, so we are still under it.

Colossians 2:16-17

In Colossians 2:16-23, the Colossians were keeping God's feasts in obedience to His commands, they were being judged for doing that by pagans who were promoting human teachings and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone prevent them from obeying God. Those promoting asceticism and severity to the body would be judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from doing that.

The moral principle (obedience to God) remains, but the covenant expression changes under Christ.

Christ was not in disagreement with what God commanded.

4. Obedience under the New Covenant is Spirit-empowered, not code-based​

Under the Mosaic covenant, morality was expressed in statutes; under the New Covenant, it is written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:33; Romans 8:3–4).
This means believers do not “pick and choose” laws but live by the Spirit, who fulfills the law’s righteous intent in us.


To follow the Spirit’s law of love is not to lean on one’s own understanding, but to walk in the fulfillment of God’s moral will through Christ.

Changing the medium upon which God's law is written from on stone to on our hearts does not change the content of what it instructs. For example, the command to honor our parents written on stone has the same content as the command to honor our parents written on our hearts. God has not commanded anything that wasn't in perfect accordance with living by the Spirit, which is why Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God (Romans 8:4-7). The character traits of God that the Law of God was graciously given in order to teach us how to embody that are the moral will of God are the fruits of the Spirit, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

5. The moral continuity of God’s character does not require legal continuity​

God’s nature never changes, but His covenants can.

• Genesis 9 — Dietary permission changed after the flood.
• Exodus 19 — Israel received new laws at Sinai.
• Hebrews 8:13 — “He has made the first covenant obsolete.”

Therefore, affirming the end of Mosaic legislation under the New Covenant does not question God’s morality — it acknowledges His progressive revelation and redemptive plan.

God's character traits of eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to be a doer of them are eternally and cumulatively valid regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any. While God can progressively reveal more instructions about how to be a doer of His character traits, those instructions will always be in accordance with what He has previously revealed. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if it cumulative with it. One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete but does not make a plow obsolete, which means that if the New Covenant involved doing something different that was not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not make it obsolete. So the New Covenant still involves following the Law of God (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).

Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of God by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Law of God (Jeremiah 31:33).

 

[RandyPNW]

Still doesn't say anything about the priestly laws or sacrifical laws. Also I do not know what translation you are using but its not in the original Greek “the teachers of the law” that was added. Also, we are quoting Mat 5:18-30 not Mat 23.

The word for word NET Bible uses the word scribes or experts in the Law. All of the Greek versions I'm looking at have the word for "teachers of the Law." So, you seem hardly to be knowledgeable of Greek??

Verse 20 is talking about our righteousness has to exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees. The Pharisees also set aside the commandments of God Jesus again repeated from the Ten Commandments saying when doing so one worships Him in vain. So us doing the same thing is not exceeding the righteousness of the Pharisees and therefore will not enter the Kingdom of God, not my words.

You never really responded to the point that Matthew indicates the teaching of the Pharisees and of the teachers of the Law pointed to laws other than the 10 Commandments. For example, I gave you Matt 23, in which the Pharisees taught about tithing, and about swearing oaths. There are more examples....

Matt 9.3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”
4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?....
10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

Here, the Pharisees and teachers of the Law were teaching on the laws of separation from sinners/pagans, along with teaching on treating blasphemy in Israel. These were not the 10 Commandments! You have not addressed this except to say that priestly or sacrificial laws were not being specifically addressed!

But laws that Jesus referred to indicated there were greater and lesser laws, which would not be the 10 Commandments. Some laws were fatal, and some were forgiveable. These are not indicated by the 10 Commandments, but rather by other laws besides these.

You suggest that Matt 23 is irrelevant to Matt 5, and yet it is the same Matthew who writes both, indicating what the teaching of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law was! Matthew is also the same one who defines the fulfillment of the Law later at the cross who also spoke of the entire Law being fulfilled in Matt 5. Can't you connect the dots?

Which still doesn’t change which commandments Jesus was speaking about that He quoted verbatim that not a jot or tittle shall pass Mat 5:19-30 the same ones He already promised Psa 89:34

As someone else said, You are just quoting Old Covenant information, which does nothing to suggest that the 10 Commandments, a part of the Old Covenant, belongs in the New Covenant. The moral commandments of the 10 Commandments are repackaged in the New Covenant by being transferred from Israel's sinful record to Christ's sinless record.

And Christ, being sinless, was never under the Law, nor required to keep the 10 Commandments along with all of the other laws. And being the Lord of the Sabbath, neither was he under Sabbath Law. He did not need to be told to have "no other gods" since he himself was God in the flesh.

He in fact could not "take the Lord's name in vain!" You foolishly apply a set of laws and commandments to Christ as if he was a sinner in need of correction, or in need of reminding to be godly. He in fact was godly from the start. As such he was the New Covenant, and his righteousness was free from the "law of sin and death." His record exceeded that presumed of sinful Israel under the Law of Moses.

We only need follow Christ, recognizing that his righteousness exceeded the Law of Moses. He exceeded it just as one whose heart is perfectly pure exceeds one whose heart is impure and has to be reminded to be as pure as possible. If we follow him not only will we learn to avoid murder but we will also recognize his control over rage.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The word for word NET Bible uses the word scribes or experts in the Law. All of the Greek versions I'm looking at have the word for "teachers of the Law." So, you seem hardly to be knowledgeable of Greek??

You never really responded to the point that Matthew indicates the teaching of the Pharisees and of the teachers of the Law pointed to laws other than the 10 Commandments. For example, I gave you Matt 23, in which the Pharisees taught about tithing, and about swearing oaths. There are more examples....

Did you read my post, the translation you used added it to God’s holy word, why would I respond to something that is not there nor are we discussing Mat 23. Nor were the Pharasees keep God;s laws, they were keeping their own man-made ones in lieu of God's commandments taht Jesus condemed. Mat 15:1-15 Rom 2:21-23

Jesus quoted directly the commandments He was referring to in the same passage, its the context, no need to add other things Jesus did not say in this passage to define which commandants He was referring to . Jesus quoted what He meant in the context of the same passage Mat5:19-30.

I think it’s time for me to move on brother. I wish you well.

 

[Mercy Shown]

Thank you.


We are free to categorize God's laws in whatever way that want but we should not interpret the authors of the Bible as if they had in mind a list of laws that we created. For example, I could categorize God's laws based on which part of the body is most commonly used to obey/disobey them, such as with the law against theft being a hand law, but just because I can do that does not establish that the authors of the Bible categorized God's laws in the same manner or that they would agree with me that the law against theft best fits as a hand law, so I would quickly run into error if I were to interpret the authors of the Bible as referring to hand laws.

Moreover, the category of moral law is especially problematic for reasons that I stated in my previous post. the Bible makes no attempt to distinguish between some laws are being moral or not, but rather all of God's laws are timeless duties grounded in His character. Just because something is a civil or ceremonial issue doesn't mean that it is not also a moral issue, such as with marriage being a civil, ceremonial, and moral issue. Holiness is a timeless duty grounded in God's character, so holiness is a moral issue and many of God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy are often considered by people to be ceremonial laws.

I would add that God's physical laws are also a part of His law. Things like gravity etc.

The goal of God's law is to graciously teach us how to know Him by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, so His character traits are the weightier matter of His law.


Everything in God's law is either in regard to how to love God or our neighbor, which is why Jesus said that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hang on them, so the position that we should obey the greatest two commandments is also the position that we should obey all of the commandments that hang on them. The way to love God is by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, such as the way to love justice is by being a doer of justice, the way to love holiness is by being a doer of His instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, and so forth. In other words, the goal of God's law is to graciously teach us how to love different aspects of His character traits, which is why the Bible repeatedly states that the way to love God is by obeying His commandments. The only way that we should cease to follow God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy would be if God were to cease to be holy and if someone refuses to follow those instructions, then holiness is an aspect of God's character that they should not love.


God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore any instructions that He has ever given for how to be a doer of His righteousness are also eternally valid (Psalms 119:160), and if the way to be a doer of God's righteousness were temporary, then God's righteousness would also be temporary. God's way is the way to know Him and Jesus by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3). In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the law points us to Christ because it was graciously given in order to teach us how to know Him and we should live in a way that points to Christ by follow his example of obedience to it rather than a way that points away from him.


That verse could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit murder or sinful to do charity, but rather the context is speaking about a change in the priesthood, which would regard a change of the law in regard to its administration. A priesthood led by God's Word made flesh does not involve a departure from following God's Word.


God's law is am important foreshadow that testifies about the good things that are to come, so we should live in a way that testifies about the good things that are to come by following Christ example of obedience to it rather than a way that bears false witness against the good things that to come.


Ephesians 2:15 could not be referring to any of God's laws because all of God's laws are eternal. God did not make any mistakes when He gave His law, so He had no need to abolish His eternal character traits or any of His eternal instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits. God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructs to love our neighbors as ourselves. In Ephesians 2:10-15, we are new creations in Christ to do good works, so it would make any sense to think that Christ abolished his instructions for how to do good works, and indeed, the Greek word "dogma" is never used by the Bible to refer to the Law of God.

In Ephesians 2:12-19, Gentiles were at one time separated from Christ, alienated from Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, without God and hope in their world, which is all in accordance with Gentiles at one time not being doers of the Law of God, 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 of Israel along with the saints in the household of God, which is all in accordance with Gentiles becoming doers of the Law of God.


The purpose of God's law is to teach us how to have an intimate relationship with him by walking in His way, which is something that we need to keep on fulfilling.


Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the OT hundreds of times in order to support what they were saying, so it doesn't work to interpret them in a way that turns them against following what they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so he affirmed God as being an authoritative source. In Deuteronomy 12:32, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so Jesus and the Apostles did not do that. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for him is if they speak against obeying His law, so Jesus and the Apostles did not do that. It does work to interpret Jesus as speaking against obeying what God spoke in Deuteronomy 14 or to interpret the Apostles as speaking against following over 99% of what Christ taught.


Paul described the law that we are not under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which does not describe the Law of God, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. In Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in Romans 3:20, it is by the Law of God that we have knowledge of what sin is, so we are still under it.


In Colossians 2:16-23, the Colossians were keeping God's feasts in obedience to His commands, they were being judged for doing that by pagans who were promoting human teachings and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone prevent them from obeying God. Those promoting asceticism and severity to the body would be judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from doing that.


Christ was not in disagreement with what God commanded.


Changing the medium upon which God's law is written from on stone to on our hearts does not change the content of what it instructs. For example, the command to honor our parents written on stone has the same content as the command to honor our parents written on our hearts. God has not commanded anything that wasn't in perfect accordance with living by the Spirit, which is why Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God (Romans 8:4-7). The character traits of God that the Law of God was graciously given in order to teach us how to embody that are the moral will of God are the fruits of the Spirit, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27).


God's character traits of eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to be a doer of them are eternally and cumulatively valid regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any. While God can progressively reveal more instructions about how to be a doer of His character traits, those instructions will always be in accordance with what He has previously revealed. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if it cumulative with it. One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete but does not make a plow obsolete, which means that if the New Covenant involved doing something different that was not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not make it obsolete. So the New Covenant still involves following the Law of God (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).

Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of God by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Law of God (Jeremiah 31:33).

Great post