WHEN WAS THE LAW TAKEN AWAY. AND GRACE BEGAN. ??

Soyeong · Wednesday at 11:50 PM

Jan001 said:
The New Covenant does not require us to follow the first covenant's dietary laws, ceremonial laws, animal sacrifice laws, festival laws, new moon laws, sabbath laws, etc.

The New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Jan001 · Wednesday at 11:53 PM

Soyeong said:
While Jesus certainly accomplished much through the cross, there is still everything in Revelation left to be accomplished. If you retroactively insert the cross back into Matthew 5 in spite of him making no allusion to the cross, then you are interpreting it as if his audience had no way of understanding what Jesus meant. Jesus did not invent the concept of fulfilling the law, so we should seek to understand what it meant in the context of Judaism before Jesus said that he came to fulfill it, which is the way that his audience would have understood him.

The prophecies in the Book of Revelation are not in the Law of Moses.

The Jews certainly knew that "fulfilling" meant "completing" or "finishing" all that was required in order to make the first covenant obsolete and no longer used.

Jan001 · Wednesday at 11:55 PM

Soyeong said:
Jesus did not teach anything after the resurrection that was contrary to what he taught prior to the resurrection. Jesus did not say anything about following the "spirit" of the Law of Moses instead of the "letter" and he did not say anything against tithing.

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 as speaking 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 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so if Jesus had spoken against tithing, then he would have sinned and disqualified himself from being our Savior. 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 if Jesus had spoken against tithing, then he would have been a false prophet. There are not good grounds for thinking that Jesus spoke against obeying what God spoke in Deuteronomy in regard to tithing.

You may believe whatever you want.

Jan001 · Wednesday at 11:59 PM

Soyeong said:
The New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

No, it does not.
Christians are under a new and better covenant than the first covenant. There cannot be two covenants in force at the same time.

under grace1 · Wednesday at 11:59 PM

Soyeong said:
Jesus did not teach anything after the resurrection that was contrary to what he taught prior to the resurrection. Jesus did not say anything about following the "spirit" of the Law of Moses instead of the "letter"

If I may, Moses told the people it would not be too difficult for them or beyond their reach to obey the law handed down at Sanai, whereas Paul stated the letter of the TC kills. Why the difference in view?
Moses must of been speaking of what we might term the spirit of the law. The people should generally live their lives in accordance with the given law, but human limitations would be allowed for, hence the sacrifices for sin were set up. The people would love God and their lives would reflect that in obedience, but not perfect obedience.
The letter of the law is different:
Thou shalt NOT, no wiggle room for error, perfectly obey that letter or stand guilty before it. We all stand guilty before that letter, hence the letter kills

Soyeong · 2026-02-26T00:04:51-0600

Jan001 said:
The Jews certainly knew that "fulfilling" meant "completing" or "finishing" all that was required in order to make the first covenant obsolete and no longer used.

There is nothing in the Mosaic Covenant that is once and done such as if we do something to express our love our neighbor, then we have fulfilled our obligation to it and no longer need to love our neighbor. Rather, it repeatedly says things like that this is a statute forever throughout your generations. If you pay your taxes for the year, then you have correctly fulfilled your obligation to the law, but tat doesn't mean that you no longer need to pay taxes. A husband who is fulfilling his marriage vows is correctly doing what he has vowed to do, not finishing his marriage. There is much discussion in the Talmud about how to fulfill the law by correctly meeting our obligation to it. "To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo).

Jan001 · 2026-02-26T00:07:05-0600

under grace1 said:
I suppose we could view it, that we should look to each and every individual command of Christ and strive to obey them all, or, we could view it as Paul did:
Carry each others burdens(love them) and so FULFILL the law of Christ Gal6:2

The more you love someone, the more you will be willing to carry a heavy load of theirs not one mile but two
The more you love someone, the more likely you will be to lend to them without expecting anything back
The more you love your enemy, the more likely you will be to offer them more than what they stole from you
The more you love the poor, blind, lame and beggars, the more likely you would be to invite them home for a meal
etc
By this will all men know you are my disciples, if you have love one for another

I assure you that my love for one another is not anywhere near this ideal. Just reading these makes me exhausted.

Jan001 · 2026-02-26T00:09:36-0600

Soyeong said:
There is nothing in the Mosaic Covenant that is once and done such as if we do something to express our love our neighbor, then we have fulfilled our obligation to it and no longer need to love our neighbor. Rather, it repeatedly says things like that this is a statute forever throughout your generations. If you pay your taxes for the year, then you have correctly fulfilled your obligation to the law, but tat doesn't mean that you no longer need to pay taxes. A husband who is fulfilling his marriage vows is correctly doing what he has vowed to do, not finishing his marriage. There is much discussion in the Talmud about how to fulfill the law by correctly meeting our obligation to it. "To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo).

I disagree with almost everything you post. It would not be fruitful for either of us to continue our discussion.

I asked God to richly bless you!

Soyeong · 2026-02-26T00:10:59-0600

Jan001 said:
No, it does not.

So then you deny the truth of those verses?

Jan001 said:
Christians are under a new and better covenant than the first covenant. There cannot be two covenants in force at the same time.

New Covenants do not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so God's covenants are eternal and cumulatively valid. 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. 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 is cumulative with it. So the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).

Jan001 · 2026-02-26T00:14:18-0600

Soyeong said:
So then you deny the truth of those verses?

New Covenants do not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so God's covenants are eternal and cumulatively valid. 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. 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 is cumulative with it. So the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).

The promises were not nullified. They were fulfilled/completed.

Hebrews 8:13a
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete.

under grace1 · 2026-02-26T00:16:43-0600

Jan001 said:
I assure you that my love for one another is not anywhere near this ideal. Just reading these makes me exhausted.

Neither is anyone else in full compliance with the ideal set in scripture, so our assurance is not in our personal goodness, but Christ who died for us.

Soyeong · 2026-02-26T00:30:13-0600

Jan001 said:
The promises were not nullified. They were fulfilled/completed.

Hebrews 8:13a
By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete.

All of God's promises are eternal. In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, the the Mosaic Covenant becoming obsolete does not mean that we should no longer obey it.

Jan001 said:
You may believe whatever you want.

You can also believe what you want, butI I think that it is better to interpret the Apostles in light of the fact that they were in agreement with what they considered to be Scripture rather than a way that makes them out to be false prophets.

Soyeong · 2026-02-26T00:52:20-0600

under grace1 said:
If I may, Moses told the people it would not be too difficult for them or beyond their reach to obey the law handed down at Sanai, whereas Paul stated the letter of the TC kills. Why the difference in view?
Moses must of been speaking of what we might term the spirit of the law. The people should generally live their lives in accordance with the given law, but human limitations would be allowed for, hence the sacrifices for sin were set up. The people would love God and their lives would reflect that in obedience, but not perfect obedience.
The letter of the law is different:
Thou shalt NOT, no wiggle room for error, perfectly obey that letter or stand guilty before it. We all stand guilty before that letter, hence the letter kills

In Romans 10:5-8, Paul referred to Deuteronomy 30 as being the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to the righteousness that is by faith proclaiming that the Law of Moses is not too difficult for us to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it as presented as a possibility and as a choice, not as the need for perfect obedience. It also does not say anything about the spirit or the letter of the law in either passage.

In Deuteronomy 32:46-47, the Law of Moses is our very life. In Proverbs 3:18, the Law of Moses is a tree of life for all who take hold it. In Revelation 22:14, those who obeyed God's commandments are given the right to the Tree of Life. In Proverbs 6:23, for the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life. In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to have eternal life is by obeying God's commandments. In Hebrews 5:9, Jesus has become a source of eternal salvation for those who obey him. In Romans 2:6-7, those who persist in doing good will be given eternal life. In Romans 6:19-23, we are no longer to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin but are now to present ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, so being a doer of the Law of Moses is God's gift of eternal life.

So what Paul said about the letter leading to death needs to be understood in light of the Bible repeatedly saying that the way to have life is by obeying the Law of Moses rather than a way that overturns the rest of the Bible. If following the letter referred to correctly following God's instructions and that leads to death, then that would mean that God would be misleading us and should not be trusted, so there must be something deficient about following the letter that is not correctly obeying what God has instructed that causes it to lead to death rather than life. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faith.

under grace1 · 2026-02-26T01:18:12-0600

Soyeong said:
I It also does not say anything about the spirit or the letter of the law in either passage.

So what Paul said about the letter leading to death needs to be understood in light of the Bible repeatedly saying that the way to have life is by obeying the Law of Moses......

Discernment is need to understand the bible, and in this case, little is needed to understand
The TC are an inflexible law: Thou shalt NOT, no wiggle room for error, perfectly obey them or stand guilty before them:
Thou shalt NOT dwell on any impure thought
Thou shalt NOT desire anything of your neighbours whether material goods or a member of their household
Thou shalt NOT tell any even little fibs about another
Thou shalt NOT erect any graven image in your mind
Thou shalt NOT fail to obey the law relating to the inner man/thoughts/desires, the law no one but you and God need know you break
Let's take it further
Thou shalt NOT fail to love all of your neighbours in thought, word or deed, constantly.
Thou shalt NOT fail to love your enemies, those who may slander, persecute or harrass you.

Doesn't that letter kill you?
Was Moses really saying it would not be difficult for the Israelites or beyond their reach to perfectly obey that letter?

Discernment?

under grace1 · 2026-02-26T01:26:17-0600

The old covenant could be understood without the indwelling Holy Spirit, the new covenant not so.
The old covenant could be understood by the rational mind, the new covenant not so

Many prefer a form of the old covenant, for that is what their rational minds can understand

under grace1 · 2026-02-26T01:30:05-0600

Soyeong said:
In Romans 10:5-8, Paul referred to Deuteronomy 30 as being the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to the righteousness that is by faith proclaiming that the Law of Moses is not too difficult for us to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it as presented as a possibility and as a choice, not as the need for perfect obedience. It also does not say anything about the spirit or the letter of the law in either passage.

In Deuteronomy 32:46-47, the Law of Moses is our very life. In Proverbs 3:18, the Law of Moses is a tree of life for all who take hold it. In Revelation 22:14, those who obeyed God's commandments are given the right to the Tree of Life. In Proverbs 6:23, for the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life. In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to have eternal life is by obeying God's commandments. In Hebrews 5:9, Jesus has become a source of eternal salvation for those who obey him. In Romans 2:6-7, those who persist in doing good will be given eternal life. In Romans 6:19-23, we are no longer to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin but are now to present ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, so being a doer of the Law of Moses is God's gift of eternal life.

So what Paul said about the letter leading to death needs to be understood in light of the Bible repeatedly saying that the way to have life is by obeying the Law of Moses rather than a way that overturns the rest of the Bible. If following the letter referred to correctly following God's instructions and that leads to death, then that would mean that God would be misleading us and should not be trusted, so there must be something deficient about following the letter that is not correctly obeying what God has instructed that causes it to lead to death rather than life. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faith.

You'd argue against anything wouldn't you. You'd even believe, if you could face what is actually written, the leaders of the first century church gave gentiles a licence to sin if your views were correct.
1Cor2:13&14

Soyeong · 2026-02-26T11:14:15-0600

Jan001 said:
I disagree with almost everything you post.

Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), so do you at least agree with him?

Soyeong · 2026-02-26T11:26:46-0600

under grace1 said:
You'd argue against anything wouldn't you. You'd even believe, if you could face what is actually written, the leaders of the first century church gave gentiles a licence to sin if your views were correct.
1Cor2:13&14

Sin is the transgression of the Law of God (1 John 3:4). For example, the Law of God commands to refrain from eating unclean animals (Deuteronomy 14), so it is a sin to do that and if someone were free to do that, then they would have a license to sin. It is not my position that the Jerusalem Council permitted Gentiles to eat unclean animals or to transgress the Law of God, so it is not my position that they gave them a license to sin, but rather it your position that the Jerusalem Council permitted Gentiles to do what the Law of God reveals to be sin, so it is your position that they gave Gentiles a license to sin. You are trying to project our position onto me and are trying to criticize me for the flaws of your position.

under grace1 said:
The old covenant could be understood without the indwelling Holy Spirit, the new covenant not so.
The old covenant could be understood by the rational mind, the new covenant not so

Many prefer a form of the old covenant, for that is what their rational minds can understand

My all means please quote where the Bible says that.

under grace1 said:
Discernment is need to understand the bible, and in this case, little is needed to understand
The TC are an inflexible law: Thou shalt NOT, no wiggle room for error, perfectly obey them or stand guilty before them:
Thou shalt NOT dwell on any impure thought
Thou shalt NOT desire anything of your neighbours whether material goods or a member of their household
Thou shalt NOT tell any even little fibs about another
Thou shalt NOT erect any graven image in your mind
Thou shalt NOT fail to obey the law relating to the inner man/thoughts/desires, the law no one but you and God need know you break
Let's take it further
Thou shalt NOT fail to love all of your neighbours in thought, word or deed, constantly.
Thou shalt NOT fail to love your enemies, those who may slander, persecute or harrass you.

Doesn't that letter kill you?
Was Moses really saying it would not be difficult for the Israelites or beyond their reach to perfectly obey that letter?

Discernment?

That Law of God came with instructions for what to do when His children sinned, so it did not require perfect obedience. If someone breaks one of God's laws, then they can repent, so it's not clear to me why you are acting like repentance isn't a thing. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it presents obedience to the Law of God as being a possibility and as a choice, not as bringing death until we have perfect obedience.

Palmfever · 2026-02-26T11:52:20-0600

BobRyan said:
Grace began in Gen 3, the moment Adam sinned , since God has stated that to was to die, and Adam lived over 900 years after he sinned.

The Law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant according to Jer 31 and according to Heb 8 and Heb 10.

"Sin is transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4, still even in the NT age.

So then , it is "still a sin to take God's name in vain" just as it always was.

It is true grace has always been an aspect of the charactor of God.
Before the foundations of the earth Christ was slain.
I think perhaps the tread title question may have been framed wrong.
As far as covenents and testaments Hebrews 9 deals with it.
It has always been faith. It has always been grace.
It was essencial that the death of Christ be carried out in real time in the natural world.
As Hebrews reads, ”there must first be the death of the testator.”

When Christ on the cross stated, ”It is finished,” and passed it was fulfilled.

In essence grace, being an aspect of Gods character has always existed in regard to His relationship with man.

under grace1 · 2026-02-26T12:22:19-0600

Soyeong said:
Sin is the transgression of the Law of God (1 John 3:4). For example, the Law of God commands to refrain from eating unclean animals (Deuteronomy 14), so it is a sin to do that and if someone were free to do that, then they would have a license to sin. It is not my position that the Jerusalem Council permitted Gentiles to eat unclean animals or to transgress the Law of God, so it is not my position that they gave them a license to sin, but rather it your position that the Jerusalem Council permitted Gentiles to do what the Law of God reveals to be sin, so it is your position that they gave Gentiles a license to sin. You are trying to project our position onto me and are trying to criticize me for the flaws of your position.

My all means please quote where the Bible says that.

That Law of God came with instructions for what to do when His children sinned, so it did not require perfect obedience. If someone breaks one of God's laws, then they can repent, so it's not clear to me why you are acting like repentance isn't a thing. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it presents obedience to the Law of God as being a possibility and as a choice, not as bringing death until we have perfect obedience.

You may take whatever position you like, but it's a plain fact the Jerusalem council only asked gentiles to follow four of the laws of Moses!
Quote where the bible says that?
Just use discernment. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would be sent to guide believers into all truth. The Holy Spirit did not need to reside in anyone under the old covenant did He, in order for them to understand that covenant.
No, under the old covenant perfect obedience was not required. But Moses said it would not be hard for the people or beyond their reach to obey all of the law given. Therefore, he was NOT speaking of obedience to the letter was he, for the letter of the law does require perfect obedience, thou shalt NOT
And that letter would not be easy/not hard to obey!

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

WHEN WAS THE LAW TAKEN AWAY. AND GRACE BEGAN. ??

Well-Known Member

Striving to win the prize...

Striving to win the prize...

Striving to win the prize...

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Striving to win the prize...

Striving to win the prize...

Well-Known Member

Striving to win the prize...

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads