"As I showed, Hebrews 7:12 is speaking about a change in the law in regard to its administration, not in regard to its content."
When I read in Scripture that the law is changed, because the priesthood is changed, under which that law was received, because the Covenant was changed, by which that priesthood was made,...then I see the whole law being changed with the whole priesthood under that law and the whole Covenant by that law.
Nevertheless: "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." (Gal 5)
Whether you want to parse difference in 'content' and 'admin' of law of Moses or not, you are still debtor to do the whole law, both 'content' and 'admin', which means every single carnal ordinance, as well as priestly sacrifice.
Now, if the 'whole law' does not mean the whole law, but can be likewise parsed into pieces thereof, be my guest.
God always has a way by Scripture of confounding the false and only confirming the true.
Laws for how to testify about God's nature is straightforwardly based on God's nature, not on a particular covenant or priesthood, so any number of priesthoods or covenants could be changed, but as long as God's nature remains the same, then all of God's laws for how to testify about His nature will also remain the same. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so Galatians 5 should not be misinterpreted as Paul warning us against following Christ, but rather his problem was with Judaizers who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified, which was the whole law that he was referring to. God's laws are not carnal, but rather they are spiritual (Romans 7:14), while it is the carnal works that are against them. For example, in Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have carnal minds who refuse to submit to God's law, and in Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as carnal work that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it. God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142) and nothing in Scripture should be interpreted as speaking against following the truth.
Not to be picky or anything, but I am a stickler for accuracy where Scripture is concerned, and it was not the Mosaic Covenant, but the Covenant of God with Israel, having the law of Moses therein. And the Covenant of Christ has the law of Christ therein.
I think you are exposing yourself with a little too much Mosaic tapestry when reading the Scriptures. (2 Cor 3:13-15)
You need to get rid of his vail from over your face and see Jesus, His faith, His Covenant, and His law only.
That's a common naming convention that essentially means the same thing as what you said.
Everything that Christ taught by word and by example was how to obey the Law of Moses, so it wouldn't make sense to think that the Law of Christ was referring to something other than what Christ taught. Likewise, Christ is one with the Father, so it is contradictory to think that the Law of Christ is something other than the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses.
The veil was preventing Jews who read the Mosaic Law from seeing that the goal of everything in it was to testify about how to have a relationship with Christ, though it is a veil that is still preventing Gentiles from seeing the same thing. In Joh 5:39-40, Jesus said that they searched the Scriptures because they think that in them they will find eternal life, and they testify about him, yet they refuse to come to him that they might have life. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments, so eternal life can be found in the Scriptures and they were correct to search for it there, but they needed to realize that the goal of everything in Scripture was to testify about how to have a relationship with Christ and come enter into a relationship with him for eternal life. In Romans 9:30-10:4, they had zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge because they did not understand that a relationship with Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith, so they failed to attain righteousness because they pursue the law as though righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own instead of pursuing the law as though righteousness were by faith in Christ. In John 17:3, eternal life is knowing God and Christ, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell worker of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so again a relationship with Christ is the goal of the Mosaic Law. In Philippians 3:8, Paul had been in the same boat where he had been keeping the law, but without having a focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law and counted it all as rubbish.
"If the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness were to change under the New Covenant, such as with it becoming righteous to commit adultery, then God's righteousness would not be eternal.
"
I.e. God's righteousness and true holiness never changes, because He changes not.
However, His law pertaining to righteousness does and has changed. To break any law of Moses, not matter in what point, was to break all of it, as is the case with the law of Christ. (
James 2:10)
Therefore, all the law of God by Moses was His righteousness written down for His Covenant. To violate
any point was to be judged an unrighteous transgressor before God
according to the law.
God's law pertaining to priestly temple service and worship had everything to do with His righteousness. That 'content' of law of priestly service was written s
pecifically to ensure the people of God that had sinned would obtain mercy.
If they did not sacrifice as prescribed by law, they were not justified with God. They were counted as sinners without mercy. So much so, that the one who
illegally touched the ark was killed by God, even as a wicked man is killed. (2 Sam 6)
All the law of Moses, the whole law of Moses was
worthy of the label of 'content of righteousness'.
There is absolutely no scripture to suggest otherwise. It is construct of your own making. The whole law of Moses was changed for the whole law of Christ, to say otherwise is to say God's law is not whole. God's law is whole and complete and righteous altogether (
Psalms 19), and He changed His whole law of Moses for His whole law of Christ.
And if you declare the law of circumcision by the law of Moses to be still law of God, then you are debtor to do the whole law of Moses.
The Judaizers cared
nothing for the salvation of the souls they were persuading to keep the law of Moses as they. They only cared about keep company with 'Mosaic' law keepers, if they were to have anything to do with them in the Covenant of God.
For if they did care for their souls in the faith and blood of the Lamb, then they would not have been trying to compel them into falling from grace of God by Christ Jesus.
You are playing the part of Christian Judaizer insisting on law of Moses to still be law of God,
in any part, and so we must keep it as such, but
just don't think it is saving you. And since you are the one who knows difference between 'moral content' and 'admin only' parts, then we need you to tell us exactly which is which.
Right.
It is contradictory to say that laws for how to testify about God's righteousness can change while God's righteousness never changes. If we break any law and become a lawbreaker, then we need to repent and to return to obedience through faith, which is what James 2:1-11 was encouraging them to do. I agree that all the law of Moses is worthy of the label of 'content of righteousness' and have said nothing contrary to that. The Law of Christ is simply the way that Christ taught how to obey the Law of Moses.
In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law of Moses by correcting ruling against that requirement, and ruling that was only against something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against circumcision being part of the Law of God. I completely agree with Paul's stance against the Judaizers and have never stated that we need to become circumcised in order to become saved.
In Isaiah 45:17, it says that all Israel will be saved, which led some Jews to think that Gentiles needed to become circumcised in order to become Jews in order to become part of Israel in order to become saved, so they wanted Gentiles to become circumcised precisely because they wanted Gentiles to become saved, so while they were mistaken in thinking that circumcision is a requirement for Gentiles to become saved, you are also mistaken in thinking that they cared nothing for the salvation of of those who they were trying to persuade the obey the Law of Moses. Our salvation is from sin and the Mosaic Law is how we know what sin is, so it is contradictory for someone to think that they need salvation from living in transgression of the Mosaic Law while also thinking that they don't need to live in obedience to it. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, so that is what it means to be under grace, not the way to fall from grace. It would be absurd to think that David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace, but rather teaching against obeying the Law of Moses is teaching leading people to fall from grace.
I have said nothing about the moral content being different from the admin only content. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of the Law of Moses are inherently moral laws.
There is nothing in the Bible that states that Jesus establish his own set of laws after the resurrection."
"Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen." (Acts 1)
Why give commandments to His apostles, if they were already written in the law of Moses.
Jesus' doctrine was given by Him to His apostles personally to give to us as the foundation of Christ in the New Covenant (1 Cor 3:11). It is the apostles' doctrine we are to be steadfast in, not that of Moses. (Acts 2:42)
"If God was free to change His law on whim..."
And so the crucifixion of His only begotten Son on the cross to redeem mankind from sin, was a whim...
You see, your own words condemn you, as you try and push a Judaism that is not true.
This is a plain example of how many people today think Jesus' crucifixion so long ago in matter of years, was merely a blip on the video-screen of man's history.
Oh yes, and God is free to do anything He wants, so long as He does not violate His own Word, promise, and law that is still in effect.
He could become a man if He wanted to, and he did. Your refusal to be done with Mosaic tapestry over your face is akin to the refusal of some to even consider God the Son, rather than the son being created to do some good things on earth, and then to be deified and rewarded with immortality afterward.
There is nothing that states that the commandments that he gave them in Acts 1:2 were different from what he commanded during his ministry or that they were a completely different set of laws. In Acts 2:38, when Peter told his performantly Jewish audience to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, the Mosaic Law was how they knew what sin is, so Acts 2:42 is not referring to teaching something other than the Mosaic Law. I did not say that the crucifix of His only begotten Son on the cross to redeem mankind from sin was on whim, so those are not my words, and they do not condemn me. God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142), Jesus is the same truth (John 14:6), and this is the truth that I teach. I have said nothing to diminish the significance of the resurrection or of God the Son.