Are Jews still God's Chosen People ?

Clare73 · Oct 15, 2021

U.S. Grant said:
Unless. . .Revelation is figurative rather than literal, and in Revelation 20 the "millennium" is figurative for the church age.

You've stolen my thunder. In context of 'amillennialism' I was already considering the first resurrection being the 'resurrection' of our souls from being dead in sin. The thrones of Rev 20, being the seats where we sit in heavenly places. The souls of them absent from the body being under or before the altar of God (Rev 6:9), which is in the temple of God, which is in heaven waiting to be opened for all to see. (Rev 11:19)

There is the temple of God and body of Christ on earth in natural bodies, and there is the temple and body of Christ in heaven waiting for the resurrection of the body, to be in the likeness of Christ's resurrection.

Also, them beheaded for the witness of Jesus, being all in the first resurrection, cannot be all physical, because not all the dead in Christ were beheaded as Paul.

Beheaded is only used in Rev 20, to speak of the manner of death of the saint in Christ: it is from the double-headed axe used of old for sacrifice to God. Beheading the old man of sin by the Word of God:

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

The chain (alusis) binding Satan is that which destroys (lusis) the works of the devil: the Word of God and manifestation of the Son of God (1 John 3:8). The two-edged sword of the Spirit either looses the believer from sin, or chains the unrepentant to their sins. It is by the same Word of Scripture that we pull down Satan from being the prince and power of the air around us on earth, to defeat his temptation and shut him up, even as Jesus did in the wilderness, which is where His church is in the world that lies in wickedness. (Rev 12)

The beast that makes war with the saints by the power and authority of the dragon (Rev 13) is ministerial warfare, because the weapons of our warfare are not carnal (2 Cor 10:4) (Eph 6:12). Such beasts as Paul fought in Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32), when they had him stoned for preaching the gospel of Jesus. They are false christs and antichrists that minister in the name of Jesus, but after the manner of men (Mark 10:41-44) and not for the glory of God and good of the saints (2 Cor 2:17)(1 Thess 2:13), many of which have already gone out from the apostles' doctrine (Acts 15:24)(1 John 2:19), purposely mishandling the Word (2 Cor 4:2)(1 John 1:1), to deceive even the elect if possible. (Matthew 24:24)

In Revelation the spiritual manifestation of all ministry of Scripture is revealed: it is the crown of Christ, where all Scriptures are the jewels necessary for interpretation of all prophesy of Scripture.

Whether it be to openly show the spiritual wickedness in high places from the depths of Satan, or to prophesy the spiritual glory of the everlasting gospel as preached from the midst of heaven.

This is what is overlooked by them that do not read prophecy, as you say, through the lens of NT teaching of Scripture. From chapter 5 through 19, it's all just 'end times' debates about Jews vs other nations of the earth, with beasts rising up in carnal warfare.

However, I believe there are two distinct places in Revelation that must be taken literally: the two dead witnesses in chapter 11, and the armies gathered at Armageddon to make war with the Lamb at His 2nd coming in the air. (Heb 9:28)(Rev 17:14, 19:16)

However, war has been made in heaven before without physical armies.

The resurrection of the saints is wedded to the Lord's appearing and coming as lightning, which Scripture assures us will be seen by them on this earth, even as Enoch prophesied. (Matthew 24:27-30)(Acts 1:11)(Jude 1:14)(Rev 1:7)
That must happen, else there is no literal truth of Scripture; therefore, it has to literally happen in that manner.

Precisely. . .because that is what is presented in NT teaching.

However, I am not wed to any particular interpretation of prohecy, but I am wed to the notion of error in any interpretation not in agreement with NT teaching.

U.S. Grant · Oct 15, 2021

Clare73 said:
However, war has been made in heaven before without physical armies.

Precisely. . .because that is what is presented in NT teaching.

However, I am not wed to any particular interpretation of prohecy, but I am wed to the notion of error in any interpretation not in agreement with NT teaching.

However, war has been made in heaven before without physical armies.

Which is in Rev 12. The chapter is clearly stated as a war in heaven with two wonders working contrary to the other.

But the two witnesses in Rev 11 have bodies, and when killed, their corpses will lie unburied in the street of Jerusalem. The earthy Jerusalem here is real, and where the Lord was crucified.

And the armies of Armageddon will be flesh for the fowls to eat.

However, I am not wed to any particular interpretation of prohecy, but I am wed to the notion of error in any interpretation not in agreement with NT teaching.

I agree. If you do see any error then let me know how it contradicts such teaching.

And to take Scripture literally where ever possible is to confirm the truth of Scripture, not to contradict the teaching of Scripture.

At this time, I still hold to a spiritual ministerially warfare for us to learn from, as well as a future manifestation of it in the flesh on this earth.

The Lord's appearing and coming in power will be in the air of this earth, from whence the prince and power of the air will be cast out and bound a thousand years in the bottomless pit.

But, pertaining to the resurrection, there will certainly have been two at the end: Jesus' resurrection was the first one.

And so, perhaps 'this is the first resurrection' of Rev 20 could be that of Jesus' body as the firstfruits of many brethren following in His steps:

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

U.S. Grant · Oct 15, 2021

Clare73 said:
Should I know something about you first?

Not sure what your reference points are on this, but I suspect I can learn something from you regarding this.

Law of Moses was given only to reveal sin.
Righteousness has always been by faith only, apart from its works (Genesis 15:6).
The Decalogue is fulfilled in the law of Christ (Matthew 22:37-41).
Obedience in the Holy Spirit to the law of Christ leads to the holiness of sanctification, without which no one will see the Lord, for faith is not genuine without it.

I'll stop there. . .

The law of Moses was OT teaching, and the Law of Christ is NT teaching, which supersedes the old, even as NT teaching fulfills the prophecies of Scripture.

The law of Christ is made for the new covenant, even as the law of Moses was made for the first and now old covenant.

Therefore, what is not written plainly as law in Christ, cannot be taught for the law of Christ, which is not the law of Moses, even as the new covenant of the cross is not the old of Sinai.

The law of God was changed to be conformed to the image of God's dear Son, no longer made after the law of a carnal commandment (Heb 7:16), as was the old, but made after the power of an endless life.

The law of God is now the law of Christ, the law of the Spirit of Life: that royal law (James 2) now commands repentance and faith from the heart to please God in all things.

The law of Moses was weak in that it only commanded outward obedience of the flesh.

Likewise, reading prophecies of old through the eyes of a naturally born seed of promise is equally weak.

Clare73 · Oct 15, 2021

U.S. Grant said:
However, war has been made in heaven before without physical armies.

Which is in Rev 12. The chapter is clearly stated as a war in heaven with two wonders working contrary to the other.

But the two witnesses in Rev 11 have bodies, and when killed, their corpses will lie unburied in the street of Jerusalem. The earthy Jerusalem here is real, and where the Lord was crucified.

And the armies of Armageddon will be flesh for the fowls to eat.

However, I am not wed to any particular interpretation of prohecy, but I am wed to the notion of error in any interpretation not in agreement with NT teaching.

I agree. If you do see any error then let me know how it contradicts such teaching.

And to take Scripture literally where ever possible is to confirm the truth of Scripture, not to contradict the teaching of Scripture.

At this time, I still hold to a spiritual ministerially warfare for us to learn from, as well as a future manifestation of it in the flesh on this earth.

The Lord's appearing and coming in power will be in the air of this earth, from whence the prince and power of the air will be cast out and bound a thousand years in the bottomless pit.

But, pertaining to the resurrection, there will certainly have been two at the end: Jesus' resurrection was the first one.

Is this not contrary to NT apostolic teaching which presents the physical resurrection of all mankind in the "last day," nomenclature for "final judgment" at the end of time, while it presents Jesus' physical resurrection as 2,000 years ago, making him the Firstfruits of the resurrection of all mankind, to be completed thousands of years later at the end of time.
Does the NT teach another physical resurrection of Jesus at the end of time?
Actually, it teaches a return of Jesus from the heavens at the end of time, not another physical resurrection from his tomb on earth.

We have to avoid duplication of events which are one and the same, as Jesus' physical resurrection 2,000 years ago.

And so, perhaps 'this is the first resurrection' of Rev 20 could be that of Jesus' body as the firstfruits of many brethren following in His steps:

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Clare73 · Oct 15, 2021

U.S. Grant said:
The law of Moses was OT teaching, and the Law of Christ is NT teaching, which supersedes the old, even as NT teaching fulfills the prophecies of Scripture.
The law of Christ is made for the new covenant, even as the law of Moses was made for the first and now old covenant.

Therefore, what is not written plainly as law in Christ, cannot be taught for the law of Christ, which is not the law of Moses, even as the new covenant of the cross is not the old of Sinai.

Is not the Law of Moses (Decalogue) fulfilled in obeying the law of Christ (Romans 13:8-10), to which obedience in the Holy Spirit is righteousness (of sanctification) leading to holiness (Romans 6:19)?

The law of God was changed

Does not the NT teach the Mosaic ceremonial laws were abolished (Ephesians 2:15) and the Mosaic Decalogue was changed to Jesus' law of Matthew 22:37-41?

to be conformed to the image of God's dear Son,
no longer made after the law of a carnal commandment (Heb 7:16), as was the old, but made after the power of an endless life.

Hebrews 7:16 is about Jesus' being a priest, not based on the law of natural descent (carnal commandment), but on the hidden heavenly power of the Holy Spirit in an endless life.

The law of God is now the law of Christ, the law of the Spirit of Life: that royal law (James 2) now commands repentance and faith from the heart to please God in all things.

The law of God = Decalogue
the law of Christ = love of God and neighbor
the royal law = love of neighbor

I'm not understanding how you get from the Decalogue in the royal law of Christ (love) to repentance and faith.

The law of Moses was weak in that it only commanded outward obedience of the flesh.

But the law of Moses wasn't given for righteousness (of justification), was it?
It was given only to reveal sin (Romans 3:20), for righteousness (of justification) has always been by faith apart from its works (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:5), right?

The Mosaic law wasn't just weak, it was deadly.
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10).

Is comparing the law of Moses (given to reveal sin) to the law of Christ (given for sanctification) comparing like things?

I think I'm getting confused with your use of "law of Moses" and "law of Christ" and what is taught in the NT regarding them.

Likewise, reading prophecies of old through the eyes of a naturally born seed of promise is equally weak.

visionary · Oct 15, 2021

ralliann said:
Jesus sacrifice is an atonement for sin. All the shadows are accomplished in one sacrifice. How can this be denied?

No denial, broadened to include the surrounding feasts, that he did fulfil and will fullfil.

visionary · Oct 15, 2021

U.S. Grant said:
NT teaching governs all understanding of the OT.

Well put. It is frustrating to try and discuss old prophecies with people who do not do so through the lens of NT Scriptures. They are trying to interpret prophesy with the vail of a fleshy promised seed over their eyes. It's like the death, burial, and resurrection of the God of Israel was just a blip on the greater screen of prophetic history.

All prophecy of Scripture is to be interpreted by NT teaching of Scripture from the apostles, who are greater than the prophets of old (Matthew 11:11), and did not know exactly what things they were looking into. (1 Peter 1:10-12)

And so, unless it can be shown that the First resurrection is in fact at the same time as the resurrection of the dead, then NT teaching allows for a literal reign of Christ over all this earth with His resurrected saints.

And in the spirit of only seeking the truth, there is one possibility:

The 'first' resurrection is that of the just, beginning with the dead in Christ, and them remaining alive rise with them into the air to meet with the Lord, followed immediately by the resurrection of the rest of the dead.

The problem of course being the next resurrection does not occur for a thousand years, with nations being gathered together for the final battle on this earth.

And so, that thousand years must become that day of the Lord, that is in fact one day of His saints with the Lord in the air, since a thousand years with Him is as one day.

Satan is bound in the pit immediately preceding the first resurrection, and is then loosed for a little season again. And while the resurrected saints are seen on thrones in the air, or in heaven, reigning with the Lord, Satan gathers in one day all nations together for the final battle, and fire from God consumes all them with the earth.

Then comes the resurrection of the dead at the end of that day, which is the last day of this heaven and earth.

Without OT there is no rhymn or reason for NT

ralliann · Oct 16, 2021

visionary said:
No denial, broadened to include the surrounding feasts, that he did fulfil and will fullfil.

But you are saying he hasn't fulfilled the day of atonement.

U.S. Grant · Oct 16, 2021

visionary said:
Without OT there is no rhymn or reason for NT

Actually, without the people of the first covenant rejecting the Son, there would not have been a NT. And going even further back, if they had not turned from the covenant of promise offered by the Lord in Person on Sinai (Rev 19:3-8, 20:18-21), then there had been no first covenant made by law. (Heb 7:16)

The first covenant made by law was never made to be everlasting, but only a proving to God's people, that without faith it is impossible to please God by law.

The only everlasting covenant of God is that of promise by faith, which began with Abraham, and is completed with Christ: the promised seed of Abraham.

ralliann · Oct 16, 2021

U.S. Grant said:
The first covenant made by law was never made to be everlasting, but only a proving to God's people, that without faith it is impossible to please God by law.

Which first covenant are you speaking of here?

U.S. Grant said:
The only everlasting covenant of God is that of promise by faith, which began with Abraham, and is completed with Christ: the promised seed of Abraham.

I agree here. I just am not understanding your meaning in the first paragraph.
1Chr. 16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant

U.S. Grant · Oct 16, 2021

Clare73 said:
Is not the Law of Moses (Decalogue) fulfilled in obeying the law of Christ (Romans 13:8-10), to which obedience in the Holy Spirit leads to righteousness (of sanctification) leading to holiness (Romans 6:19)?

Does not the NT teach the Mosaic ceremonial laws were abolished (Ephesians 2:15) and the Mosaic Decalogue was changed to Jesus' law of Matthew 22:37-41?
Hebrews 7:16 is about Jesus' being a priest, not based on the law of natural descent (carnal commandment), but on the hidden heavenly power of the Holy Spirit in an endless life.

The law of God = Decalogue
the law of Christ = love of God and neighbor
the royal law = love of neighbor

I'm not understanding how you get from the Decalogue in the royal law of Christ (love) to repentance and faith.

But the law of Moses wasn't given for righteousness (of justification), was it?
It was given only to reveal sin (Romans 3:20), for righteousness (of justification) has always been by faith apart from its works (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:5), right?

The Mosaic law wasn't just weak, it was deadly.
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10).

Is comparing the law of Moses (given to reveal sin) to the law of Christ (given for sanctification) comparing like things?

I think I'm getting confused with your use of "law of Moses" and "law of Christ" and what is taught in the NT regarding them.

I appreciate you hanging in with me, and will understand if you grow weary of it. You asked earlier to know something about me. I have been a licensed minister, but for family reasons, I am not ministering nor am I a serving deacon. However, I believe I am still called to teach the law of God, which I believe is rare, and can more often than not do more harm than good. (1 Tim 1:7)

Is not the Law of Moses (Decalogue) fulfilled in obeying the law of Christ (Romans 13:8-10), to which obedience in the Holy Spirit leads to righteousness (of sanctification) leading to holiness (Romans 6:19)?

The law of Moses could never be fulfilled: it was made after a carnal commandment for the express purpose of proving to God's people, that they could never satisfy the righteousness of the law by the keeping of the law according to the letter. As you point out:

But the law of Moses wasn't given for righteousness (of justification), was it?
It was given only to reveal sin (Romans 3:20), for righteousness (of justification) has always been by faith apart from its works (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:5), right?

Correct. And so, how can that law (decalogue) be thus fulfilled by obedience, even in Christ? God's people are not 'fulfilling' the law of Moses, by keeping the law of Christ, because the law of Moses is not the law of Christ.

The righteousness of the law of God by faith is fulfilled in Christ, which law is now of Christ taught in the NT, not of Moses taught in the OT.

U.S. Grant · Oct 16, 2021

Clare73 said:
Is not the Law of Moses (Decalogue) fulfilled in obeying the law of Christ (Romans 13:8-10), to which obedience in the Holy Spirit leads to righteousness (of sanctification) leading to holiness (Romans 6:19)?

Does not the NT teach the Mosaic ceremonial laws were abolished (Ephesians 2:15) and the Mosaic Decalogue was changed to Jesus' law of Matthew 22:37-41?
Hebrews 7:16 is about Jesus' being a priest, not based on the law of natural descent (carnal commandment), but on the hidden heavenly power of the Holy Spirit in an endless life.

The law of God = Decalogue
the law of Christ = love of God and neighbor
the royal law = love of neighbor

I'm not understanding how you get from the Decalogue in the royal law of Christ (love) to repentance and faith.

But the law of Moses wasn't given for righteousness (of justification), was it?
It was given only to reveal sin (Romans 3:20), for righteousness (of justification) has always been by faith apart from its works (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:5), right?

The Mosaic law wasn't just weak, it was deadly.
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10).

Is comparing the law of Moses (given to reveal sin) to the law of Christ (given for sanctification) comparing like things?

I think I'm getting confused with your use of "law of Moses" and "law of Christ" and what is taught in the NT regarding them.

Does not the NT teach the Mosaic ceremonial laws were abolished (Ephesians 2:15) and the Mosaic Decalogue was changed to Jesus' law of Matthew 22:37-41?
Where does Scripture speak of 'ceremonial, dietary, moral' law of Moses?

1. This is where the test is for pure reading of Scripture and doctrine of God: I read no such difference between 'ceremonial' and 'moral' law of God, neither that of Moses nor of Christ. It is therefore made up by man teaching something not written in Scripture. Dividing the Word of truth begins with rightly dividing between what is written, and what is not.

Even as we are bound to interpret all prophecy of Scripture by NT teaching of Scripture, then we are certainly bound to teach all law of God by Scripture only.

2. A major problem with abolishing 'ceremonial' law and not the 'moral' law, is that makes the law of God of necessity divided between ceremonial and moral: I.e. the law of Moses was not one law, but a divided law, to be later separated in parts from itself.

The law of God is always one law, and to break one point is to break all; therefore, to divide any part of it is to divide all. The one law of God taught in the OT was called the law of Moses, and the one law of God taught in the NT is called the law of Christ.

The law of God is one whole law:

Neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers; so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses.

For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Therefore, to remove or change one 'part' of the law is to remove and change all, even as taking away from and adding to Scripture corrupts all Scripture.

And since there is in fact a change to the law of God, so that the one and whole law of Moses is not the one and whole law of Christ, then the change to the law must of necessity be a whole change, even as the whole covenant was changed: the one law of the OT was done away with at the cross, and the one law of the NT was brought in with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Who is the risen God of Israel. The same One who gave the law to Moses in Person on Sinai, and then gave the law to His apostles in Person on earth. (Acts 1:1-3) Which is called the apostles' doctrine and doctrine of Christ (Acts 2:42)(2 John 9-10): NT teaching.

3. Circumcision after the flesh is now done away by law of Christ to become His circumcision of the heart (Rom 2:19-20)(Col 2:11). Once circumcision on the eight day is done away, then there is no more law of Moses for God's people, because that circumcision was a foundation for the law of Moses, not to be cut off from God's people, even as circumcision of the Spirit is a first principle for the law of Christ to be made God's people.

No circumcision, no covenant, no law:

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

U.S. Grant · Oct 16, 2021

Clare73 said:
Is not the Law of Moses (Decalogue) fulfilled in obeying the law of Christ (Romans 13:8-10), to which obedience in the Holy Spirit leads to righteousness (of sanctification) leading to holiness (Romans 6:19)?

Does not the NT teach the Mosaic ceremonial laws were abolished (Ephesians 2:15) and the Mosaic Decalogue was changed to Jesus' law of Matthew 22:37-41?
Hebrews 7:16 is about Jesus' being a priest, not based on the law of natural descent (carnal commandment), but on the hidden heavenly power of the Holy Spirit in an endless life.

The law of God = Decalogue
the law of Christ = love of God and neighbor
the royal law = love of neighbor

I'm not understanding how you get from the Decalogue in the royal law of Christ (love) to repentance and faith.

But the law of Moses wasn't given for righteousness (of justification), was it?
It was given only to reveal sin (Romans 3:20), for righteousness (of justification) has always been by faith apart from its works (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:5), right?

The Mosaic law wasn't just weak, it was deadly.
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10).

Is comparing the law of Moses (given to reveal sin) to the law of Christ (given for sanctification) comparing like things?

I think I'm getting confused with your use of "law of Moses" and "law of Christ" and what is taught in the NT regarding them.

Hebrews 7:16 is about Jesus' being a priest, not based on the law of natural descent (carnal commandment), but on the hidden heavenly power of the Holy Spirit in an endless life.

That is true, but the change did not only pertain to the priesthood apart from the 'rest' of the law of Moses:

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

The law that made the priesthood was the same law made under the priesthood: if the priesthood is done away, then the law made under it is done away.

Also the law for the tabernacle and priesthood was first written By God's finger in the tables of stone (Ex 25-30) before the commandment of the Sabbath. (Ex 31)

Those tables of stone were then broken to pieces by Moses (Ex 32:19), who then wrote on his own hewn tables of stone the same whole law God Himself had wrote:

And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Ex 34:27-28).

Those were the tables put in the ark of the covenant, and it is those tables of stone written with the covenant and the ten commandments, that have been done away, to make way for a more glorious covenant and law of Christ. (2 Cor 3:7-11)

That ministration of that covenant and law of commandments was of death and condemnation, as you also point out:

The Mosaic law wasn't just weak, it was deadly.
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10).

Because it was weak in commanding outward obedience only, it was deadly in that it could not produce faith in them that heard it. (Heb 4:2)

The whole law of Moses and commandments were summed up as the law of a carnal commandment, because none of that law could minister the Spirit and produce faith in the heart: it only demanded outward obedience with penalty of death and being cut off from God's people.

Clare73 · Oct 16, 2021

U.S. Grant said:
I appreciate you hanging in with me, and will understand if you grow weary of it. You asked earlier to know something about me. I have been a licensed minister, but for family reasons, I am not ministering nor am I a serving deacon. However, I believe I am still called to teach the law of God, which I believe is rare, and can more often than not do more harm than good. (1 Tim 1:7)

Thanks for the info. . .appreciate you.

Is not the Law of Moses (Decalogue) fulfilled in obeying the law of Christ (Romans 13:8-10), to which obedience in the Holy Spirit leads to righteousness (of sanctification) leading to holiness (Romans 6:19)?

The law of Moses could never be fulfilled:

You're confusing me again. . .Romans 13:8-10 states it is fulfilled in (Christ's) law of love.

it was made after a carnal commandment for the express purpose of proving to God's people, that they could never satisfy the righteousness of the law by the keeping of the law according to the letter. As you point out:

But the law of Moses wasn't given for righteousness (of justification), was it?
It was given only to reveal sin (Romans 3:20), for righteousness (of justification) has always been by faith apart from its works (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:5), right?

Correct. And so, how can that law (decalogue) be thus fulfilled by obedience, even in Christ?

God's people are not 'fulfilling' the law of Moses, by keeping the law of Christ, because the law of Moses is not the law of Christ.

Back to Romans 13:8-10 again.

The righteousness of the law of God by faith is fulfilled in Christ, which law is now of Christ taught in the NT, not of Moses taught in the OT.

U.S. Grant · Oct 16, 2021

Clare73 said:
Is not the Law of Moses (Decalogue) fulfilled in obeying the law of Christ (Romans 13:8-10), to which obedience in the Holy Spirit leads to righteousness (of sanctification) leading to holiness (Romans 6:19)?

Does not the NT teach the Mosaic ceremonial laws were abolished (Ephesians 2:15) and the Mosaic Decalogue was changed to Jesus' law of Matthew 22:37-41?
Hebrews 7:16 is about Jesus' being a priest, not based on the law of natural descent (carnal commandment), but on the hidden heavenly power of the Holy Spirit in an endless life.

The law of God = Decalogue
the law of Christ = love of God and neighbor
the royal law = love of neighbor

I'm not understanding how you get from the Decalogue in the royal law of Christ (love) to repentance and faith.

But the law of Moses wasn't given for righteousness (of justification), was it?
It was given only to reveal sin (Romans 3:20), for righteousness (of justification) has always been by faith apart from its works (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:5), right?

The Mosaic law wasn't just weak, it was deadly.
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10).

Is comparing the law of Moses (given to reveal sin) to the law of Christ (given for sanctification) comparing like things?

I think I'm getting confused with your use of "law of Moses" and "law of Christ" and what is taught in the NT regarding them.

Is comparing the law of Moses (given to reveal sin) to the law of Christ (given for sanctification) comparing like things?

I believe you have just given a good point for my argument, that I had not considered before:

It is not comparing like things, because they are not the same law. They are completely different, in that the first was given by the God of Israel on the mount, and the next was given by the risen God of Israel on earth.

The first ended at the death of Jesus on the cross, and the next began at the resurrection of Jesus from the tomb.

I think I'm getting confused with your use of "law of Moses" and "law of Christ" and what is taught in the NT regarding them.

The best way not to confuse the law of Moses and law of Christ, is to read only the doctrine of the apostles for law of God in Christ Jesus: If they wrote it as law, it is law of Christ. If it is not written as law by them, it is not law of Christ.

Also, just because the law of Moses and handwriting of ordinances is no more the law of God, but was done away at the cross, that does not mean that there is nothing written by Moses in the law of the OT, that is not also written again by the apostles in the law of the NT.

There is plenty that was written in the law of Moses, that is now written again in the law of Christ.

And by being written again, it is become new in Christ, newly written for law of Christ. It is not old pieces of the law of Moses put into the new garment of the law of Christ, nor is it an old garment of Moses with new pieces of Christ.

The old covenant, law, and ministry are as the old man before salvation of Christ:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.

We remain on earth alive in our natural bodies, be we are completely new creatures resurrected to newness of life in Christ. Even so there remains commandments of of old to obey, that are now newly written and so resurrected and alive in the law of Christ.

All the law of Moses had a shadow of good things to come (Heb 10:1), but not all the law of Moses is made newly alive in the law of Christ.

The law of God by Moses was completely done away, and we find some of the same written new and fresh in the law of God by the apostles. Not because it was of Moses, but because it is of Christ.

Therefore, if it is not taught for law of Christ by the apostles in the NT, then it is no more written for law of God to His people born of the Spirit with circumcision of the heart.

U.S. Grant · Oct 16, 2021

ralliann said:
Which first covenant are you speaking of here?

I agree here. I just am not understanding your meaning in the first paragraph.
1Chr. 16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant

Which first covenant are you speaking of here?

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

The first covenant that was made by law from Sinai, and done away at the cross. (Heb 8:7,13, 9:1)

The covenant made of promise with Abraham was before the covenant made of law with the house of Jacob and children of Israel.

That covenant made by a law given to Moses in the mount, need never have been made, if the people had not turned back from the covenant of promise first made with them in Exodus 19. (Ex 19:3-8, 20:18-21).

The Lord was compelled to offer a covenant made by law, because the people drew back from one made by promise Personally spoken to them, even as He did with Abraham: they were afraid and put Moses forward to speak with God for them.

And so, this is the first covenant made by law: the law of Moses.

The next and second is the new covenant of Christ with law of Christ.

Clare73 · Oct 16, 2021

U.S. Grant said:
Hebrews 7:16 is about Jesus' being a priest, not based on the law of natural descent (carnal commandment), but on the hidden heavenly power of the Holy Spirit in an endless life.

That is true, but the change did not only pertain to the priesthood apart from the 'rest' of the law of Moses:

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

The law that made the priesthood was the same law made under the priesthood: if the priesthood is done away, then the law made under it is done away.

Also the law for the tabernacle and priesthood was first written By God's finger in the tables of stone (Ex 25-30) before the commandment of the Sabbath. (Ex 31)

Those tables of stone were then broken to pieces by Moses (Ex 32:19), who then wrote on his own hewn tables of stone the same whole law God Himself had wrote:

And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Ex 34:27-28).

Those were the tables put in the ark of the covenant, and it is those tables of stone written with the covenant and the ten commandments, that have been done away, to make way for a more glorious covenant and law of Christ. (2 Cor 3:7-11)

According to Romans 13:8-10, have they not been "done away with" in the sense that they are obeyed/fulfilled in obeying Christ's law of love (Matthew 22:37-40).

That ministration of that covenant and law of commandments was of death and condemnation, as you also point out:

The Mosaic law wasn't just weak, it was deadly.
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse." (Galatians 3:10).

Because it was weak in commanding outward obedience only, it was deadly in that it could not produce faith in them that heard it. (Heb 4:2)

It was weak because it could not impart the power to obey the commands, as does the Holy Spirit with faith, and
it was deadly because they were powerless to avoid its curse (Galatians 3:10) by being sinless under it.

The whole law of Moses and commandments were summed up as the law of a carnal commandment, because none of that law could minister the Spirit and produce faith in the heart: it only demanded outward obedience with penalty of death and being cut off from God's people.

But isn't the "carnal commandment" referring only to the law of the Aaronic priesthood which was based on human (carnal, fleshly) descent (Hebrews 7:16),
under which priesthood the law of Moses was administered (Hebrews 7:11),
so that when the priesthood was changed (Hebrews 7:12), the law of Moses administered under it had to be set aside (Hebrews 7:18) because it had no priesthood to administer it?

U.S. Grant · Oct 16, 2021

Clare73 said:
Thanks for the info. . .appreciate you.

You're confusing me again. . .Romans 13:8-10 states it is fulfilled in (Christ's) law of love.

Back to Romans 13:8-10 again.

You're confusing me again. . .Romans 13:8-10 states it is fulfilled in (Christ's) law of love.

And so, we return to which law is being spoken of. It is now the law of Christ the apostles Paul speaks in Scriptures of the NT, that is fulfilled by loving one another.

The law of Moses could never be fulfilled only by loving our neighbors as ourselves, because without circumcision on the eighth day, the male would be cut off from the people.

The law of Christ is fulfilled by loving one another, because there is no outward circumcision to obey. As well as many other handwritten ordinances and statutes and commandments in the law of Moses.

The law of Moses was only going to ever be fullfed by one person: the God of Israel that gave it to Moses: the Word made flesh.

We are not obedient to the 'Decalogue'. We are obedient only the law of Christ. The doctrine of Christ. The apostles' doctrine and rule of Christ, which they wrote down personally from Christ.

How about this:
NT teaching is found only in NT Scriptures. NT Scriptures are written only by the apostles.

If it is NT Scripture, it is therefore NT teaching, and the NT teaches the law of Christ, not the law of Moses.

In the Scriptures of the apostles, we cease reading of 'Moses' and the 'law' of Moses, except it is specifically written as such. Otherwise, our understanding ought always be reading of Christ and His law in NT Scriptures.

Even as we cease to read in NT Scriptures of the 'Jews' being the chosen people of God and seed of promise by Abraham, so we cease to be reading of the law of Moses as the 'law' of God taught in the NT scriptures.

Clare73 · Oct 16, 2021

U.S. Grant said:
Does not the NT teach the Mosaic ceremonial laws were abolished (Ephesians 2:15) and the Mosaic Decalogue was changed to Jesus' law of Matthew 22:37-41?
Where does Scripture speak of 'ceremonial, dietary, moral' law of Moses?

Those terms are not used in the OT, but the laws can be seen to be of three different categories: civil, moral (Decalogue) and ceremonial (sacrifices, defilements, cleansings, purifications, feasts, seasons, etc.).
We find the ceremonial laws, which caused the Jews to be separate from the Gentiles and to despise them as unclean, removed in Ephesians 2:15.
We find the civil laws removed in the end of Israel in the destruction of Jerusalem.
We find the Decalogue removed in its subsummation into Jesus' two commandments (Romans 13:8-10; Matthew 22:40).

1. This is where the test is for pure reading of Scripture and doctrine of God: I read no such difference between 'ceremonial' and 'moral' law of God, neither that of Moses nor of Christ. It is therefore made up by man teaching something not written in Scripture. Dividing the Word of truth begins with rightly dividing between what is written, and what is not.

Does not the Word of truth show this division as pointed out in the response above?

Even as we are bound to interpret all prophecy of Scripture by NT teaching of Scripture, then we are certainly bound to teach all law of God by Scripture only.

2. A major problem with abolishing 'ceremonial' law and not the 'moral' law, is that makes the law of God of necessity divided between ceremonial and moral: I.e. the law of Moses was not one law, but a divided law, to be later separated in parts from itself.

NT usage sometimes divides them.

The law of God is always one law, and to break one point is to break all; therefore, to divide any part of it is to divide all. The one law of God taught in the OT was called the law of Moses, and the one law of God taught in the NT is called the law of Christ.

The law of God is one whole law:

Neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers; so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses.

For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Therefore, to remove or change one 'part' of the law is to remove and change all, even as taking away from and adding to Scripture corrupts all Scripture.

And since there is in fact a change to the law of God, so that the one and whole law of Moses is not the one and whole law of Christ, then

the change to the law must of necessity be a whole change, even as the whole covenant was changed:

Was not the covenant changed, or made obsolete (Hebrews 8:13) and a whole new covenant introduced?

or the one law of the OT was done away with at the cross, and the one law of the NT was brought in with the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Okay, we are saying the same thing.
The NT teaches that the Decalogue was subsumed into the law of Christ (Romans 13:8-10) and
the commandments and regulations were abolished in the flesh of Jesus Christ on the cross (Ephesians 2:15).
That covers the whole waterfront of the law as being set aside.

Who is the risen God of Israel. The same One who gave the law to Moses in Person on Sinai, and then gave the law to His apostles in Person on earth. (Acts 1:1-3) Which is called the apostles' doctrine and doctrine of Christ (Acts 2:42)(2 John 9-10): NT teaching.

3. Circumcision after the flesh is now done away by law of Christ to become His circumcision of the heart (Rom 2:19-20)(Col 2:11). Once circumcision on the eight day is done away, then there is no more law of Moses for God's people, because that circumcision was a foundation for the law of Moses, not to be cut off from God's people, even as circumcision of the Spirit is a first principle for the law of Christ to be made God's people.

No circumcision, no covenant, no law:

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Clare73 · Oct 16, 2021

U.S. Grant said:
Is comparing the law of Moses (given to reveal sin) to the law of Christ (given for sanctification) comparing like things?

I believe you have just given a good point for my argument, that I had not considered before:

It is not comparing like things, because they are not the same law. They are completely different, in that the first was given by the God of Israel on the mount, and the next was given by the risen God of Israel on earth.

The first ended at the death of Jesus on the cross, and the next began at the resurrection of Jesus from the tomb.

I think I'm getting confused with your use of "law of Moses" and "law of Christ" and what is taught in the NT regarding them.

The best way not to confuse the law of Moses and law of Christ, is to read only the doctrine of the apostles for law of God in Christ Jesus: If they wrote it as law, it is law of Christ. If it is not written as law by them, it is not law of Christ.

Also, just because the law of Moses and handwriting of ordinances is no more the law of God, but was done away at the cross, that does not mean that there is nothing written by Moses in the law of the OT, that is not also written again by the apostles in the law of the NT.

There is plenty that was written in the law of Moses, that is now written again in the law of Christ.

And by being written again, it is become new in Christ, newly written for law of Christ. It is not old pieces of the law of Moses put into the new garment of the law of Christ, nor is it an old garment of Moses with new pieces of Christ.

However, Romans 13:8-10 states specifically Mosaic laws as beng fulfilled in Christ's law (Matthew 22:31-40).
How do you think that should be interpreted?

The old covenant, law, and ministry are as the old man before salvation of Christ:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.

We remain on earth alive in our natural bodies, be we are completely new creatures resurrected to newness of life in Christ. Even so there remains commandments of of old to obey, that are now newly written and so resurrected and alive in the law of Christ.

All the law of Moses had a shadow of good things to come (Heb 10:1), but not all the law of Moses is made newly alive in the law of Christ.

The law of God by Moses was completely done away, and we find some of the same written new and fresh in the law of God by the apostles. Not because it was of Moses, but because it is of Christ.

Therefore, if it is not taught for law of Christ by the apostles in the NT, then it is no more written for law of God to His people born of the Spirit with circumcision of the heart.

Are Jews still God's Chosen People ?

Blood-bought

Active Member

Active Member

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

christian

Active Member

christian

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Blood-bought

Active Member

Active Member

Blood-bought

Active Member

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Similar threads