Mosaic Legalism and the Law of Moses

[SwordmanJr]

What is legalism in this context? Simply this:

Legalism is the corruption of virtue caused by misapplying, inventing or over-exalting commandments, especially those that do not have any practical application under the New Covenant (in Christ Jesus (Yeshua)) period of mankind's history.

Some are bound to argue 2 Tim 3:14-17, where the Law of Moses is a part of ALL scripture. Yes. I agree. Nothing has passed or has been done away with to this very day. However, it still existing as what is written does not meet with its adherence what was written for some. I will justify this later in this and other postings.

What, then, is the difference? Is there such a thing as application, where some commands are constrained to some peoples at some time or covenant?

Well, yes. The Law of Moses, in and of itself, has no authority over the Christian - Gal. 3:23 and chapter 4 talks about how all Jews were captive under the Law...until Christ came.

[Gal 3:23-25 KJV] 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Ah, but the legalists will demand that this means other than what it says. They will play word games, claiming that certain of the original language words actually mean other than what they seem in English. This is a plausible argument, but I will leave that to item for discussion in this thread so that we can see if there is any merit to their claims.

[Gal 4:4-5 KJV] 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

[Gal 4:9, 21-23, 29 KJV] 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? ... 21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise. ... 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so [it is] now.

So, the legalists will pound and pound others over the heads, beating them with words, and more words, pointing at the jots and tittles that, although have not passed away, they ASSUME are binding, like chains, upon all today, when they themselves are living in violation of MUCH of the Law of Moses. Keep that in mind when the legalists surface to begin their quoting of scriptures demanding adherence and relevance of the Law for today. Keep in mind that they operate from assumptions that demand the polar opposite for other of what Paul, Peter and James have stated to the contrary. They will argue such things as the idea of NONE of the Law having passed away (which it has not) means it is ALL, therefore, automatically binding upon all, throughout all of time. That assumption simply doesn't find absolute support within scripture given the obvious, contrary nature of many statements made by the apostles themselves.

[Col 2:13-17 KJV] 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

There are indeed Mosaic elements present in those passages, such as drink, food and holidays (sabbaths, plural). The Law of Moses was taken out of our way and nailed to the cross, as is stated above. Christ triumphed over them. Let nobody pass judgement on you regarding food and drink, or of festivals, or a new moon, or sabbaths. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

So, how do we treat the Mosaic commands that are neither repeated or revoked within the New Testament? Some are repeated in the NT, such as honoring father and mother, doing no murder, not coveting what your neighbor has, etc. Other Mosaic commands are revoked as binding upon us today, such as food laws, for it's not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of his mouth. 2 Tim 3.

In Deut. 4:5, when a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army for one year. This is not repeated in the NT, but it does have practical application since we can all agree it best for a newly web couple to remain together for at least one year prior to the man being sent off into a war. Some legalists may gravitate over to one extreme by saying that a man drafted right after marriage, and who is bound by law to answer the call, such a one is in violation of God's Law, and therefore guilty of it all....even those who are in Christ Jesus. The other extreme is licentiousness. That too is not the right vantage point. What, then is the proper balance? We will get into that now and in subsequent posts.

One general rule for applying the Law of Moses is to always treat commands from Moses with serious consideration. Although the Law of Moses was not given to us who are in Christ, we must always look to the indwelling Spirit of the Lord for guidance in all things. Is that not a demonstration for the fear of the Lord? Is it not honoring the Lord by giving to Him your openness to hear His voice concerning the various items not repeated in the NT from the Law of Moses? After all, it is all from the Lord.

Israel had MANY commands given to them. That was God's treatment for them as a highly stiff-necked and rebellious people. Recall how often they returned to idolatry, time and time again. We are under a different Covenant, for now the Church is pure and without blemish. Some commands from the Old Covenant are useful, others are universally applicable, transcending all of time and covenants, and some simply do not apply in the sense that there is no practical means by which we may live them.

In ALL things, as followers of Christ Jesus, we must always give merit to the indwelling Lord within us. Doing otherwise by following after the legalistic demands of the said legalists is a tragic corruption of the Deity and Sovereignty of the Most High in the hearts of those who would seek to follow Him. It does violence to the active authority of Christ Jesus in and over the lives of His followers.

I will continue the food for thought and discussion items in another post to follow.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

OP CONTINUED:

Another useful principle is to follow commands that are clearly identified as being universal. The Law of Moses was given to one nation, in one place, in one era, to one people, thus somewhat limited in its extent and reach. Some of the Law applied to other nations at that time as well, as is evidenced in Deut 18:9-14 - where it is said to the Israelites to not follow the abominable practices in those nations... Do we have the freedom to do today those things mentioned back then against the other nations? No. Those have universal import for disallowance.

What about Lev. 19:28 - where they were told to make no cuts on their bodies for the dead, nor tattoos - is this univeral? Well, that could be controversial for some. On the other hand, Deut 24:5 - marriage is universal. However, although it's always best to establish a marriage before going off to serve other priorities for one's country, the headship of the husband is also intact for the family.

We can also look at Deut. 22: - when you build a new house, you shall build a fence about the roof to guard against brining offense upon the family if a neighbor falls off without guard rails. This is a common sense, protective measure. Most of us don't have flat roofs where people will walk about. This is not, therefore, universal.

Another principle is to especially follow commands that agree with a New Covenant emphasis, such as God's holiness, wrath, justice and mercy. In the New Covenant, there is an emphasis on God's plan to show truth, grace and love to sinners. They are in the Old Covenant, but they are by and large especially emphasized in the New Covenant. If an old covenant Law seems suitable within new covenant emphasis, then it usually works out as being pretty well for a Christian to follow it.

Parenting - Deu 6:6-7 - you should want your children to know these things, what the new covenant is, and how to view the old covenant Laws. Some of the Law of Moses only fist the old covenant reality. For example, Deut 23:3-6 - No Amonites nor Moabites shall enter the assembly... What about forgiveness under the new covenant? Where is the grace and mercy in that? It makes sense only in the context of the old covenant because of the evils in those cultures that could make its way into the nation and the assembly.

Remember where you are in history. Follow commands which agree with love as a fulfillment of the Law of Moses. Deut 21:10-14 - read this. Is this of Christ? Is this consistent with what Jesus would have us to do?

Matt 19:3-9 - because of your hardness of heart, MOSES allowed you divorce, Jesus said....laying at the feet of Moses himself for that allowance, so it was not the Lord who took credit for that allowance.

It can be said that a prime goal of the Mosaic Law was to create genuine love for other people...to get things moving in the direction of love. Rom 13:8-10 owe nothing to anyone except to love one another.

This is a fulfillment of Law.

Christ-likeness - Deut 22:1-4 is an example of loving your neighbor as yourself. No finders keepers...

Jr

 

[eleos1954]

OP CONTINUED:

Another useful principle is to follow commands that are clearly identified as being universal. The Law of Moses was given to one nation, in one place, in one era, to one people, thus somewhat limited in its extent and reach. Some of the Law applied to other nations at that time as well, as is evidenced in Deut 18:9-14 - where it is said to the Israelites to not follow the abominable practices in those nations... Do we have the freedom to do today those things mentioned back then against the other nations? No. Those have universal import for disallowance.

What about Lev. 19:28 - where they were told to make no cuts on their bodies for the dead, nor tattoos - is this univeral? Well, that could be controversial for some. On the other hand, Deut 24:5 - marriage is universal. However, although it's always best to establish a marriage before going off to serve other priorities for one's country, the headship of the husband is also intact for the family.

We can also look at Deut. 22: - when you build a new house, you shall build a fence about the roof to guard against brining offense upon the family if a neighbor falls off without guard rails. This is a common sense, protective measure. Most of us don't have flat roofs where people will walk about. This is not, therefore, universal.

Another principle is to especially follow commands that agree with a New Covenant emphasis, such as God's holiness, wrath, justice and mercy. In the New Covenant, there is an emphasis on God's plan to show truth, grace and love to sinners. They are in the Old Covenant, but they are by and large especially emphasized in the New Covenant. If an old covenant Law seems suitable within new covenant emphasis, then it usually works out as being pretty well for a Christian to follow it.

Parenting - Deu 6:6-7 - you should want your children to know these things, what the new covenant is, and how to view the old covenant Laws. Some of the Law of Moses only fist the old covenant reality. For example, Deut 23:3-6 - No Amonites nor Moabites shall enter the assembly... What about forgiveness under the new covenant? Where is the grace and mercy in that? It makes sense only in the context of the old covenant because of the evils in those cultures that could make its way into the nation and the assembly.

Remember where you are in history. Follow commands which agree with love as a fulfillment of the Law of Moses. Deut 21:10-14 - read this. Is this of Christ? Is this consistent with what Jesus would have us to do?

Matt 19:3-9 - because of your hardness of heart, MOSES allowed you divorce, Jesus said....laying at the feet of Moses himself for that allowance, so it was not the Lord who took credit for that allowance.

It can be said that a prime goal of the Mosaic Law was to create genuine love for other people...to get things moving in the direction of love. Rom 13:8-10 owe nothing to anyone except to love one another.

This is a fulfillment of Law.

Christ-likeness - Deut 22:1-4 is an example of loving your neighbor as yourself. No finders keepers...

Jr

MANY people often confuse Moses Law with God's Ten Commandment Law, but they are very different.

 

[eleos1954]

OP CONTINUED:

Another useful principle is to follow commands that are clearly identified as being universal. The Law of Moses was given to one nation, in one place, in one era, to one people, thus somewhat limited in its extent and reach. Some of the Law applied to other nations at that time as well, as is evidenced in Deut 18:9-14 - where it is said to the Israelites to not follow the abominable practices in those nations... Do we have the freedom to do today those things mentioned back then against the other nations? No. Those have universal import for disallowance.

What about Lev. 19:28 - where they were told to make no cuts on their bodies for the dead, nor tattoos - is this univeral? Well, that could be controversial for some. On the other hand, Deut 24:5 - marriage is universal. However, although it's always best to establish a marriage before going off to serve other priorities for one's country, the headship of the husband is also intact for the family.

We can also look at Deut. 22: - when you build a new house, you shall build a fence about the roof to guard against brining offense upon the family if a neighbor falls off without guard rails. This is a common sense, protective measure. Most of us don't have flat roofs where people will walk about. This is not, therefore, universal.

Another principle is to especially follow commands that agree with a New Covenant emphasis, such as God's holiness, wrath, justice and mercy. In the New Covenant, there is an emphasis on God's plan to show truth, grace and love to sinners. They are in the Old Covenant, but they are by and large especially emphasized in the New Covenant. If an old covenant Law seems suitable within new covenant emphasis, then it usually works out as being pretty well for a Christian to follow it.

Parenting - Deu 6:6-7 - you should want your children to know these things, what the new covenant is, and how to view the old covenant Laws. Some of the Law of Moses only fist the old covenant reality. For example, Deut 23:3-6 - No Amonites nor Moabites shall enter the assembly... What about forgiveness under the new covenant? Where is the grace and mercy in that? It makes sense only in the context of the old covenant because of the evils in those cultures that could make its way into the nation and the assembly.

Remember where you are in history. Follow commands which agree with love as a fulfillment of the Law of Moses. Deut 21:10-14 - read this. Is this of Christ? Is this consistent with what Jesus would have us to do?

Matt 19:3-9 - because of your hardness of heart, MOSES allowed you divorce, Jesus said....laying at the feet of Moses himself for that allowance, so it was not the Lord who took credit for that allowance.

It can be said that a prime goal of the Mosaic Law was to create genuine love for other people...to get things moving in the direction of love. Rom 13:8-10 owe nothing to anyone except to love one another.

This is a fulfillment of Law.

Christ-likeness - Deut 22:1-4 is an example of loving your neighbor as yourself. No finders keepers...

Jr

MANY people often confuse Moses Law with God's Ten Commandment Law, but they are very different.

 

[eleos1954]

What is legalism in this context? Simply this:

Legalism is the corruption of virtue caused by misapplying, inventing or over-exalting commandments, especially those that do not have any practical application under the New Covenant (in Christ Jesus (Yeshua)) period of mankind's history.

Some are bound to argue 2 Tim 3:14-17, where the Law of Moses is a part of ALL scripture. Yes. I agree. Nothing has passed or has been done away with to this very day. However, it still existing as what is written does not meet with its adherence what was written for some. I will justify this later in this and other postings.

What, then, is the difference? Is there such a thing as application, where some commands are constrained to some peoples at some time or covenant?

Well, yes. The Law of Moses, in and of itself, has no authority over the Christian - Gal. 3:23 and chapter 4 talks about how all Jews were captive under the Law...until Christ came.

[Gal 3:23-25 KJV] 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Ah, but the legalists will demand that this means other than what it says. They will play word games, claiming that certain of the original language words actually mean other than what they seem in English. This is a plausible argument, but I will leave that to item for discussion in this thread so that we can see if there is any merit to their claims.

[Gal 4:4-5 KJV] 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

[Gal 4:9, 21-23, 29 KJV] 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? ... 21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise. ... 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so [it is] now.

So, the legalists will pound and pound others over the heads, beating them with words, and more words, pointing at the jots and tittles that, although have not passed away, they ASSUME are binding, like chains, upon all today, when they themselves are living in violation of MUCH of the Law of Moses. Keep that in mind when the legalists surface to begin their quoting of scriptures demanding adherence and relevance of the Law for today. Keep in mind that they operate from assumptions that demand the polar opposite for other of what Paul, Peter and James have stated to the contrary. They will argue such things as the idea of NONE of the Law having passed away (which it has not) means it is ALL, therefore, automatically binding upon all, throughout all of time. That assumption simply doesn't find absolute support within scripture given the obvious, contrary nature of many statements made by the apostles themselves.

[Col 2:13-17 KJV] 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

There are indeed Mosaic elements present in those passages, such as drink, food and holidays (sabbaths, plural). The Law of Moses was taken out of our way and nailed to the cross, as is stated above. Christ triumphed over them. Let nobody pass judgement on you regarding food and drink, or of festivals, or a new moon, or sabbaths. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

So, how do we treat the Mosaic commands that are neither repeated or revoked within the New Testament? Some are repeated in the NT, such as honoring father and mother, doing no murder, not coveting what your neighbor has, etc. Other Mosaic commands are revoked as binding upon us today, such as food laws, for it's not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of his mouth. 2 Tim 3.

In Deut. 4:5, when a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army for one year. This is not repeated in the NT, but it does have practical application since we can all agree it best for a newly web couple to remain together for at least one year prior to the man being sent off into a war. Some legalists may gravitate over to one extreme by saying that a man drafted right after marriage, and who is bound by law to answer the call, such a one is in violation of God's Law, and therefore guilty of it all....even those who are in Christ Jesus. The other extreme is licentiousness. That too is not the right vantage point. What, then is the proper balance? We will get into that now and in subsequent posts.

One general rule for applying the Law of Moses is to always treat commands from Moses with serious consideration. Although the Law of Moses was not given to us who are in Christ, we must always look to the indwelling Spirit of the Lord for guidance in all things. Is that not a demonstration for the fear of the Lord? Is it not honoring the Lord by giving to Him your openness to hear His voice concerning the various items not repeated in the NT from the Law of Moses? After all, it is all from the Lord.

Israel had MANY commands given to them. That was God's treatment for them as a highly stiff-necked and rebellious people. Recall how often they returned to idolatry, time and time again. We are under a different Covenant, for now the Church is pure and without blemish. Some commands from the Old Covenant are useful, others are universally applicable, transcending all of time and covenants, and some simply do not apply in the sense that there is no practical means by which we may live them.

In ALL things, as followers of Christ Jesus, we must always give merit to the indwelling Lord within us. Doing otherwise by following after the legalistic demands of the said legalists is a tragic corruption of the Deity and Sovereignty of the Most High in the hearts of those who would seek to follow Him. It does violence to the active authority of Christ Jesus in and over the lives of His followers.

I will continue the food for thought and discussion items in another post to follow.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

MANY people often confuse Moses Law with God's Ten Commandment Law, but they are very different.

Well, I disagree, but it is what it is.

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Why are you posting multiple copies of the same post?

Jr

 

[eleos1954]

Why are you posting multiple copies of the same post?

Jr

Because you had multiple posts covering the same topic.

 

[Studyman]

What is legalism in this context? Simply this:

Legalism is the corruption of virtue caused by misapplying, inventing or over-exalting commandments, especially those that do not have any practical application under the New Covenant (in Christ Jesus (Yeshua)) period of mankind's history.

Some are bound to argue 2 Tim 3:14-17, where the Law of Moses is a part of ALL scripture. Yes. I agree. Nothing has passed or has been done away with to this very day. However, it still existing as what is written does not meet with its adherence what was written for some. I will justify this later in this and other postings.

What, then, is the difference? Is there such a thing as application, where some commands are constrained to some peoples at some time or covenant?

Well, yes. The Law of Moses, in and of itself, has no authority over the Christian - Gal. 3:23 and chapter 4 talks about how all Jews were captive under the Law...until Christ came.

[Gal 3:23-25 KJV] 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Paul said we are justified by Faith. How were men justified "Before Faith Came"? What Law were they "kept under" until this faith was revealed?

So this is important to know what Law they were kept under, according to the scriptures. Before we can enter heaven, our unrighteousness needs to be cleansed, Yes? Our sins must be atoned for. What Law provided for the atonement of sins "before faith came"?

When a man sinned, did God tell them through Moses to "Go and Love thy neighbor as thy self", and their sins are forgiven? Or if a man sinned, did Moses tell them to go and "keep the 10 Commandments" and your sins are forgiven?

No, not according to the Word of God which became Flesh. Did God provide a "Law" for men to have their sin's forgiven "Till the SEED should Come? Yes, it was called the Levitical Priesthood in Hebrews. Paul said this LAW was ADDED to something, because of Transgressions of something, till the Seed should come.

According to the Word of God, when man sinned, that is, transgressed a Law of God, He was to take an animal specifically to a Levite Priest who would them perform sacrificial "Works" after which it was declared that this man's sins were forgiven.

Lev. 4:25 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.

26 And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

It was this Law, that foreshadowed the sacrifice of the unblemished Lamb of God, that was to lead them to the Christ, after He came. Not Love God with all your heart, and Love your neighbor as yourself, and the Law and Prophets which hang on them. These are instructions they would learn after Passover, after the "ADDED" Law lead them to Christ.

The implication of your religion here is that the Jews were bewitching the Galatians by trying to convince them to "Love God with all their hearts, and to Love their Neighbor as themselves. And that after Jesus comes, these Laws are no longer valid. This is untrue. The Jews were still promoting "works" of atonement Laws for the forgiveness of sins. Atonement Laws Abraham didn't have, yet Abraham did have God's Commandments, God's Statutes, and God's Laws. The atonement Laws were "ADDED to God's Law, because of transgressions of God's Law, till the Seed should come. This same God promised of a time when there would be no more sacrificial "Works" for Justification according to the "ADDED" Law. God would provide His own self as a sacrifice, as even Abraham knew.

Gen. 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

And this same God also promised in Jer. 31, that there would come a time when God Himself would write His Laws on the hearts of His people, no more Levites to administer His Laws. A New Covenant to replace the "ADDED" Covenant God made with Levi on Israel's behalf, for the atonement of sins, and administration of God's Laws.

This is a great topic, and one that is essential to understand, so as to understand who Paul was fighting against, and what Law they were "Bewitching" the Galatians with.

So before you go any further, would you please answer the questions posed here? What "LAW" were people cleansed or "justified" by, before Faith Came, according to scriptures? How were sin's atoned for before the SEED came?

Thank you for the post.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Because you had multiple posts covering the same topic.

No, I was talking about you posting multiple of the same post in this same thread? What is this, tit for tat?

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

The implication of your religion here is that the Jews were bewitching the Galatians by trying to convince them to "Love God with all their hearts, and to Love their Neighbor as themselves. And that after Jesus comes, these Laws are no longer valid.

My religion? That's funny. I don't have a religious bone in my body.

Additionally, had you read my OP, you would see that I at no time declared any of the Law invalid. There's a difference between something being valid, and it being applicable. ALL of the Law was absolutely applicable for the Jews to observe and follow. That was a requirement upon them. Some of the Law of Moses transcends all of time and nationality, such as honoring father and mother, loving God with one's all, etc. Some of that Law simply is not practical, and would be silly to apply to us today.

This is untrue. The Jews were still promoting "works" of atonement Laws for the forgiveness of sins.

The Jews never had forgiveness for their sins until that which was written of Christ was fulfilled. They had SIN COVERING until that moment when Jesus said, "It is finished," the point at which He descended and led the captives free, etc.

Atonement Laws Abraham didn't have, yet Abraham did have God's Commandments, God's Statutes, and God's Laws.

Yes.

The atonement Laws were "ADDED to God's Law, because of transgressions of God's Law, till the Seed should come. This same God promised of a time when there would be no more sacrificial "Works" for Justification according to the "ADDED" Law. God would provide His own self as a sacrifice, as even Abraham knew.

You have a difference understanding of atonement than most others. Reliance upon translations can and does sometimes lead to misunderstanding of the true meaning of the originals, especially in this day and age where words are swapped around routinely and used where they don't belong.

This is a great topic, and one that is essential to understand, so as to understand who Paul was fighting against, and what Law they were "Bewitching" the Galatians with.

The confusion seems to be the term "atonement" in our English translations, because to some people that is defined as a complete washing away, which is not the case where the blood of mere animals is concerned.

Definitions for the term Atonement from the Hebrew:

1. to cover, purge, make an atonement, make reconciliation, cover over with pitch
   1. (Qal) to coat or cover with pitch
   2. (Piel)
      1. to cover over, pacify, propitiate
      2. to cover over, atone for sin, make atonement for
      3. to cover over, atone for sin and persons by legal rites
   3. (Pual)
      1. to be covered over
      2. to make atonement for
   4. (Hithpael) to be covered
      

So before you go any further, would you please answer the questions posed here? What "LAW" were people cleansed or "justified" by, before Faith Came, according to scriptures? How were sin's atoned for before the SEED came?

The Law could not command any cleansing away of sin before that "SEED" came, and fulfilled all.

[Heb 7:11 KJV] 11 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?

[Heb 10:1-4 KJV] 1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins every year. 4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

That pretty well says it all. So, your question did indeed bring up a good point about the Law, and it sheds a glaring light upon the inadequacy of the Law to bring about a complete remission, washing away, and cleansing of sins. The Law was unable to provide that only the blood of Christ Jesus could accomplish.

Does that answer your question? As always, I don't expect anyone to take it from me, but rather that they dig into the word of God for themselves, and thus exercising responsibility for what they choose to believe. Believe ONLY what is written.

Jr

 

[Studyman]

My religion? That's funny. I don't have a religious bone in my body.

Additionally, had you read my OP, you would see that I at no time declared any of the Law invalid. There's a difference between something being valid, and it being applicable. ALL of the Law was absolutely applicable for the Jews to observe and follow. That was a requirement upon them. Some of the Law of Moses transcends all of time and nationality, such as honoring father and mother, loving God with one's all, etc. Some of that Law simply is not practical, and would be silly to apply to us today.

This seems to be your religious philosophy, that God created Laws only for men of a certain DNA. Or Laws that are impractical. Now I used to think that "not muzzling the ox that threadeth out the grain" is an impractical Law, given I don't have any oxen and given that "many" who come in Christ's Name tell me to ignore it as only for the Jew. But Paul didn't teach this at all.

1 Cor. 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

This would indicate to me that I was wrong to listen to other religious voices who said these Laws were only for men of a certain DNA, or impractical. Since Paul is telling me that even this Law, was applicable to me "No doubt".

But you still didn't answer my question.

The Jews never had forgiveness for their sins until that which was written of Christ was fulfilled. They had SIN COVERING until that moment when Jesus said, "It is finished," the point at which He descended and led the captives free, etc.

This seems to be some more of your own religious philosophy, no offence intended here.

Matt. 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

There are other examples as well, but it's a hard sell to say Jesus was lying here. It would have been easy for Him to say "be of good cheer, as soon as I am killed and resurrected, your sins will be forgiven. But He didn't. You added that it seems. Can you provide me with the reason why?

9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?

10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

But you are still deflecting from my question.

You have a difference understanding of atonement than most others. Reliance upon translations can and does sometimes lead to misunderstanding of the true meaning of the originals, especially in this day and age where words are swapped around routinely and used where they don't belong.

It seems clear to me about what "LAWS" were given for atonement, "Before Faith Came". I'm not sure there is any indication in the Bible that those who where forgiven the OT didn't stay forgiven after the "SEED" came. Again, I am open for scriptures to make your point.

In fact, I am not aware that God provided any other way to Moses for the forgiveness of sin at all, other than the Levitical Priesthood. I am open to any scriptures if you know of any.

And I don't believe God Gives His Spirit to men who He has not yet forgiven. And the Bible is clear that His Spirit was given to many men, including Zecharias, Simeon, Elizabeth, Mary, the Wise men, Anna, all the Faith examples who were all taken from the Law and Prophets. So the question Paul asked was a valid one in my view. "Receive ye the Spirit by "works of the Law" or the hearing of Faith?"

This is why I asked the question "What is the "work of the Law" that would provide for the forgiveness of sin, until Jesus should come.

No offence here, but you seem to be avoiding the answer, I'm not sure why.

The confusion seems to be the term "atonement" in our English translations, because to some people that is defined as a complete washing away, which is not the case where the blood of mere animals is concerned.

Definitions for the term Atonement from the Hebrew:

1. to cover, purge, make an atonement, make reconciliation, cover over with pitch
   1. (Qal) to coat or cover with pitch
   2. (Piel)
      1. to cover over, pacify, propitiate
      2. to cover over, atone for sin, make atonement for
      3. to cover over, atone for sin and persons by legal rites
   3. (Pual)
      1. to be covered over
      2. to make atonement for
   4. (Hithpael) to be covered

The Law could not command any cleansing away of sin before that "SEED" came, and fulfilled all.

Again, this seems to be more of your own religious philosophy. If the Christ says your sins are forgiven, then they are forgiven, Yes?. But you are avoiding the answer to my question. What Law was "ADDED" for the forgiveness of sins? How, by Law, was a mans sin to be atoned for, "before the Seed came". It's not a trick question.

[Heb 7:11 KJV] 11 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?

This is making my point. Levi (Aaron and his sons) were given a Priesthood for the administration of God's Laws. In other words, part of the Levites Priesthood duties, was to teach God's People His Laws. In fact, according to the Priesthood Law, no one other than a Levite could even see or touch the Book of the Law. The other part of the Priesthood duties was to provide for the atonement of sins, "Till the Seed should come". Is this not true?

[Heb 10:1-4 KJV] 1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins every year. 4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

That pretty well says it all. So, your question did indeed bring up a good point about the Law, and it sheds a glaring light upon the inadequacy of the Law to bring about a complete remission, washing away, and cleansing of sins. The Law was unable to provide that only the blood of Christ Jesus could accomplish.

Again, it seems you keep adding your own religious philosophy to God's Words here. The Priesthood Covenant God made with Levi on Israel's behalf, that was "ADDED" to God's Laws was perfect. It was designed by God to perfectly foreshadow the salvation plan God created for His People.

Ex. 25:40 And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount.

Heb. 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: What law? A Law given to Israel, or to the Levite Priests?

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Now I see in Scriptures where the Levites corrupted the Covenant with Levi. That they departed for God's Laws, but it was not the Covenant that was flawed as you seem to imply, rather, it was those men who gave the Priesthood Covenant that HE found fault in.

Heb. 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, (Levites who broke God's Covenant with them) he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Does that answer your question? As always, I don't expect anyone to take it from me, but rather that they dig into the word of God for themselves, and thus exercising responsibility for what they choose to believe. Believe ONLY what is written.
Jr

I agree, "only what is written". That is the main reason why I responded to your post. To discuss what is actually written.

No you didn't answer the question. The question was "What Law was given by God to Moses to provide for the atonement/forgiveness of sin" before the "Seed came"? You danced around it a little, but you didn't answer.

Of course the Passover was always about the Christ, even Abraham knew this. David knew this. Caleb knew this. Zacharias and Elizabeth knew this, Simeon knew this.

Before you can teach the truth about Galatians 3, it seems you must have knowledge about what the "LAW", that was "ADDED" because of transgressions was. What "Law" was the Jews bewitching the Galatians with?

We know it wasn't the "Law of Mercy" or "The Law of Faith" or "the Law of Judgment", so what was the LAW that the Jews were pushing on the Galatians?

The reason I am being such a stickler, is because if the foundation of a study is not true, or is unknown, then the entire study is flawed.

I love your zeal and willingness to discuss scripture. I just want to make sure we have the foundation right before moving on. I hope you understand.

 

[SwordmanJr]

This seems to be your religious philosophy, that God created Laws only for men of a certain DNA. Or Laws that are impractical. Now I used to think that "not muzzling the ox that threadeth out the grain" is an impractical Law, given I don't have any oxen and given that "many" who come in Christ's Name tell me to ignore it as only for the Jew. But Paul didn't teach this at all.

Trying to force the term "religion" where it doesn't belong is a strange way to strike up a healthy conversation, but, then, I'm not here to take away your right to misrepresent others in whatever way you choose....

Mixing allegories into this that don't necessarily represent my position is a ploy that, again, doesn't really foster healthy conversation. If you want to pick something that's relevant to what I actually said, then select something from the Law that fits the category.

But you still didn't answer my question.

There's no right answer to the wrong question, but that's probably a bump we're not going to get past.

This seems to be some more of your own religious philosophy, no offence intended here.

Matt. 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee....

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-9-2/

Ok, for the sake of limited typing time right now, I'm trying to get through your post as much as I can. I quoted to you the very verse where it is written in Heb. 10:4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand. You're mixing together into a mish-mash if ideas things that don't necessarily belong together in the context of the key element of what I've been saying. Jesus (the Creator of all things and people) forgiving someone on the spot, is not something that causes crisis to the above quoted verse. I don't see your rationale to try and mix together Jesus forgiving someone on the spot, and the connection with the blood of animals in sacrifices. So, am I to understand that you don't care what scripture says, where it says it, what it's talking about, and the reasonable conclusions that may be drawn from the clarity of the words spoken? Throwing in Jesus forgiving someone on the spot over against the blood of animals, that's apples to oranges. I DID answer your question, and now you're taking giant leaps into other dynamics that don't fit the picture in the context of your question.

There are other examples as well, but it's a hard sell to say Jesus was lying here. It would have been easy for Him to say "be of good cheer, as soon as I am killed and resurrected, your sins will be forgiven. But He didn't. You added that it seems. Can you provide me with the reason why?

This is a straw man argument, which has nothing to do with what I was saying. The problem here is that you asked about the LAW, and its demand for animal blood sacrifice. I also said that blood was a COVERING over sin until the actual atonement.

The verse you conjured up into the mix from Matthew 9, the key word translated "forgiven," from the Greek aphiēmi, has the following definitions:

1. to send away
   1. to bid going away or depart
      1. of a husband divorcing his wife
   2. to send forth, yield up, to expire
   3. to let go, let alone, let be
      1. to disregard
      2. to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
         1. of teachers, writers and speakers
      3. to omit, neglect
   4. to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
   5. to give up, keep no longer
2. to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
3. to leave, go way from one
   1. in order to go to another place
   2. to depart from any one
   3. to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all mutual claims are abandoned
   4. to desert wrongfully
   5. to go away leaving something behind
   6. to leave one by not taking him as a companion
   7. to leave on dying, leave behind one
   8. to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
   9. abandon, leave destitute
      

The range of definitions, and the application of that word in the grammatical construct of that sentence and its defining context, points to #3. Don't you recall the pharisees and their reaction to Jesus forgiving sin, exclaiming that only God could forgive sin?

[Luk 5:21 KJV] 21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

Who is Jesus. He was/is God. So what's your problem with the Creator Himself stepping into time and forgiving someone in a timeline where the complete cleansing had not yet taken place? Do you have a problem with God's sovereignty? Is that it? The Lord chose, for all other men, to pay the price on the cross. So? What's the problem with what Jesus did. Trying to constrain His sovereignty with the limitations of your understanding for the difference between animal blood, the shed blood of Christ Jesus, and His sovereignty, that's something you'll have to work out on your own. I don't expect you to believe anything I say, thus my lack of concern for what you choose to believe when you won't even accept what's written.

It seems clear to me about what "LAWS" were given for atonement, "Before Faith Came". I'm not sure there is any indication in the Bible that those who where forgiven the OT didn't stay forgiven after the "SEED" came. Again, I am open for scriptures to make your point.

Dude, you believe whatever you want. I made a very good case in point from the biblical texts that go directly to your question. If you have an actual counterpoint to make, then please do so. Innuendo and labeling of others isn't going to win you the day. Youasked about the Law, I answered it with a direct quote saying exactly what I was saying, then you claim I didn't answer your question.

How high have you set the bar of your acceptance? Can not even the word of God scale that height? If not, then what's the use? Calling it "religious philosophy" the very quotation of a verse that directly answered your question puts me on guard against the colors you're beginning to paint yourself with.

Jr

 

[Studyman]

Trying to force the term "religion" where it doesn't belong is a strange way to strike up a healthy conversation, but, then, I'm not here to take away your right to misrepresent others in whatever way you choose....

You yourself called your post an "OP". This means, most of the time, "Opinion piece" or "observation post". If this is what you meant by OP, then You are posting your opinion on a religious forum section called "The Sabbath and the Law" for discussion, I assumed. This is a religious web site, where religious philosophies and theologies are discussed. You said we should go by what is written in scriptures, and I agreed with you. It is the written Scripture which details the LAW that was "ADDED" that I am looking for. So I asked the question.

Frankly I had no idea suggesting that your opinion given on a religious website, was a religious philosophy of yours, would set you off so much. Or that you considered the word "religion" as a bad or insulting word. Looking back I can see I was influenced by the content of your opinion piece which sparked that thought in me. Going forward, I will not use that term any longer given it offends you.

There's no right answer to the wrong question, but that's probably a bump we're not going to get past.

So me asking what Law Paul was speaking about that was "ADDED because of transgressions, that the Jews were "bewitching the Galatians" with, is a "Wrong question? What are you saying here, that I must run the question by you first, get your approval, then ask it?

Ok, for the sake of limited typing time right now, I'm trying to get through your post as much as I can. I quoted to you the very verse where it is written in Heb. 10:4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.

Who was it that was teaching the blood of bulls could take away sins? Why was the Hebrews Author even talking about the Blood of Bulls?

You're mixing together into a mish-mash if ideas things that don't necessarily belong together in the context of the key element of what I've been saying. Jesus (the Creator of all things and people) forgiving someone on the spot, is not something that causes crisis to the above quoted verse. I don't see your rationale to try and mix together Jesus forgiving someone on the spot, and the connection with the blood of animals in sacrifices. So, am I to understand that you don't care what scripture says, where it says it, what it's talking about, and the reasonable conclusions that may be drawn from the clarity of the words spoken? Throwing in Jesus forgiving someone on the spot over against the blood of animals, that's apples to oranges. I DID answer your question, and now you're taking giant leaps into other dynamics that don't fit the picture in the context of your question.

You are missing the entire point. There was a Law that was ADDED till the Seed should Come. What was this Law? That was the question.

Jesus is said to have never sinned, which means HE never transgressed God's Laws. And I believe HE didn't. He walked in EVERY LAW of GOD. He lived by "EVERY Word of God". And yet HE forgave the sins of men without even once sprinkling the blood of a bull on the horns of the alter, as the atonement Law prescribed. Why? I believe it is Because the "LAW" that was "ADDED" because of Transgressions, was only "ADDED" till the SEED should come. So the Law that was "ADDED" was not the entire Law of Moses, rather, this Priesthood Covenant with Levi was "ADDED" to the Laws God gave to Moses, because of transgressions "Till the SEED should come".

This was the Tutor Paul was speaking to, which was to lead them to the true meaning of the Pattern on the Mount. The true Lamb of God. But the Jews didn't believe the SEED had come. So they were still promoting their version of the "Works of the Law" for justification. Therefore the question from Paul; "Wherefore received ye the Spirit, from "works of the Law" or the hearing of Faith?"

in other words, Did you receive forgiveness by a Levite Priest performing sacrificial "works of the Law", or did you receive the Spirit because you repented of your sins and Believed the Christ atoned for your sin by His Own blood, as promised in the Law and Prophets.

Surely you can understand why I would ask the question. Surely you can see the point I'm trying to make. As you said, it's about what the scriptures say. How is this understanding against scripture?

This is a straw man argument, which has nothing to do with what I was saying. The problem here is that you asked about the LAW, and its demand for animal blood sacrifice. I also said that blood was a COVERING over sin until the actual atonement.

The verse you conjured up into the mix from Matthew 9, the key word translated "forgiven," from the Greek aphiēmi, has the following definitions:

1. to send away
   1. to bid going away or depart
      1. of a husband divorcing his wife
   2. to send forth, yield up, to expire
   3. to let go, let alone, let be
      1. to disregard
      2. to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic)
         1. of teachers, writers and speakers
      3. to omit, neglect
   4. to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit
   5. to give up, keep no longer
2. to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person
3. to leave, go way from one
   1. in order to go to another place
   2. to depart from any one
   3. to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all mutual claims are abandoned
   4. to desert wrongfully
   5. to go away leaving something behind
   6. to leave one by not taking him as a companion
   7. to leave on dying, leave behind one
   8. to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining
   9. abandon, leave destitute

The range of definitions, and the application of that word in the grammatical construct of that sentence and its defining context, points to #3. Don't you recall the pharisees and their reaction to Jesus forgiving sin, exclaiming that only God could forgive sin?

[Luk 5:21 KJV] 21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

But you are forgetting why these same Pharisees didn't know Jesus in the first place. It was because they became partial in the law. They "omitted" the weightier matters of the Law. They taught for Doctrines the Commandments of men.

Had they believed in the Law and Prophets, that Paul said they considered "Heresy", they would have known what Zecharias and Elizabeth, Simeon, Anna all knew. That "After those days" God would provide for the Priesthood duties Himself, no more Levite to administer God's Laws, no more Levite to perform "works" for the atonement of sins. That God Himself would write His Laws on the hearts of His People, and God Himself would atone for their transgressions.

Jesus was the fulfillment of this promise to them in the Law and Prophets. Now that He is Come, no more "works of the Law" for justification. But before HE came, the Levitical priesthood was the only place to receive atonement. If you don't believe this, then please show me in scriptures where another way existed by Law, before Jesus came.

Who is Jesus. He was/is God.

Yes, the same God who created the Laws HE promised to write on the hearts of His People in the New Covenant.

So what's your problem with the Creator Himself stepping into time and forgiving someone in a timeline where the complete cleansing had not yet taken place? Do you have a problem with God's sovereignty? Is that it? The Lord chose, for all other men, to pay the price on the cross. So? What's the problem with what Jesus did. Trying to constrain His sovereignty with the limitations of your understanding for the difference between animal blood, the shed blood of Christ Jesus, and His sovereignty, that's something you'll have to work out on your own. I don't expect you to believe anything I say, thus my lack of concern for what you choose to believe when you won't even accept what's written.

I have no problem with what is written, I have posted and am trying to have a discussion about what is actually written. I have no problem with what Jesus did and didn't express any problem. I simply dared to question your opinion, and for that I am ridiculed.

Dude, you believe whatever you want. I made a very good case in point from the biblical texts that go directly to your question. If you have an actual counterpoint to make, then please do so. Innuendo and labeling of others isn't going to win you the day. You asked about the Law, I answered it with a direct quote saying exactly what I was saying, then you claim I didn't answer your question.

I didn't ask "about the law", I asked "What is the Law", that was "ADDED" because of Transgression, Till the Seed shall come. You imply in your OP that it was the entire Law of God given to His people through Moses, that was "ADDED". And you use Gal. 3 as support for your opinion. I don't agree with your opinion for the reason stated above.

It's OK for men to disagree, and have a discussion about their disagreement. But For you to just declare a person's questions as "Wrong", well, I'm not sure how you reconcile that with scriptures.

How high have you set the bar of your acceptance? Can not even the word of God scale that height? If not, then what's the use? Calling it "religious philosophy" the very quotation of a verse that directly answered your question puts me on guard against the colors you're beginning to paint yourself with.
Jr

It seems you have found a good excuse not to have an intellectually honest conversation about your own observation piece. It seems that what you are really upset about, is for me to dare to even question your opinion.

If you didn't want people to weigh in on their thoughts about your opinions, then why did you post them in the first place?

 

[SwordmanJr]

You yourself called your post an "OP". This means, most of the time, "Opinion piece" or "observation post". If this is what you meant by OP, then You are posting your opinion on a religious forum section called "The Sabbath and the Law" for discussion, I assumed. This is a religious web site, where religious philosophies and theologies are discussed. You said we should go by what is written in scriptures, and I agreed with you. It is the written Scripture which details the LAW that was "ADDED" that I am looking for. So I asked the question.

First, your intended definition for "religion" seems much more broad than my understanding of that term in modern times.

Second, OP in my usage refers to the "Original Post" for this thread, which includes its supplement immediately after the OP.

Frankly I had no idea suggesting that your opinion given on a religious website, was a religious philosophy of yours, would set you off so much.

Given my heightened sensitivity to the term "religion," I have come to realize that many other people are suspicious of that term both because they have seen the damage that religious extremism can cause and because they have become disillusioned from belief systems they found overbearing, restricting, senseless, and unfulfilling. Additionally, ANYONE can be "religious." Pagans can be "religious."

What's the difference? Simply stated, all of life for the true follower of Christ Jesus is sacred, thus leaving religious practice and mere religion to those who walk in ways other than faith in the one true Lord.

After all, I'm sure we can agree that your belief in your own mother's existence is not a "religious" belief, so why apply that term in relation to the One who created your mother?

Or that you considered the word "religion" as a bad or insulting word. Looking back I can see I was influenced by the content of your opinion piece which sparked that thought in me. Going forward, I will not use that term any longer given it offends you.

Opinion? Let's dispense with that one as well, shall we? Bottom line, I have stated many times that folks can believe whatever they wish, even in fairies. Opinions are not worth a flip without empirical substance upon which to build it....at which point it is no longer an opinion, but fact that has objective foundations to stand on. Given that I have quoted specific verses, relying on the context they sit within, if you can show that those verses mean other than the application and meaning I highlighted, then by ll means, let's talk.

Jr

 

[Soyeong]

What is legalism in this context? Simply this:

Legalism is the corruption of virtue caused by misapplying, inventing or over-exalting commandments, especially those that do not have any practical application under the New Covenant (in Christ Jesus (Yeshua)) period of mankind's history.

I view legalism as obeying a law for any purpose other than its intended purpose. People generally are not considered to be legalistic for thinking that the laws of their country should be obeyed, so legalism is not in regard to thinking many laws should be obeyed, but in regard to the manner in which someone obeys a particular law. For example:

Leviticus 19:12 “‘Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

Someone who was focused on obeying the spirit of this law would understand that its intent is for us not to swear falsely, whereas someone who was focused on legalistically obeying the letter of this law exactly how it was written would understand that we can swear falsely just as long as we don't do so in God's name, which incidentally is what Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees for doing in Matthew 5:33-37. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faithfulness are weightier matters of the law, so the law is intended to teach us how to express God's nature. So legalism undermines both the intent of what God has commanded His followers to do and why He has commanded us to do it. Obeying God's law for the wrong reasons can also be legalism, such as with someone who is trying to earn their salvation. Likewise, it can also be legalism when someone adds their own requirements on top of the law.

Some are bound to argue 2 Tim 3:14-17, where the Law of Moses is a part of ALL scripture. Yes. I agree. Nothing has passed or has been done away with to this very day. However, it still existing as what is written does not meet with its adherence what was written for some. I will justify this later in this and other postings.

The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), the Spirit has the role of leading us in truth (John 16:3), and God's law is truth (Psalms 119:142). Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he is the personification of the truth (John 14:6). In 2 Timothy 3:8, those who oppose Moses also oppose the truth, being of corrupted minds and disqualified in regard to the faith. 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. In Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as carnal works that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it.

What, then, is the difference? Is there such a thing as application, where some commands are constrained to some peoples at some time or covenant?

Well, yes. The Law of Moses, in and of itself, has no authority over the Christian - Gal. 3:23 and chapter 4 talks about how all Jews were captive under the Law...until Christ came.

[Gal 3:23-25 KJV] 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The major problem with how people commonly interpret Galatians 3:23-25 is that Jesus did not go around teaching people to stop repenting from their sins, but rather he began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17-23), and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel, which he prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14).

In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law, and in Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, which is what the Mosaic Law was given to instruct how to do, so God graciously teaching us to obey the Mosaic Law is itself part of the content of His free gift of salvation. Our salvation is from sin and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so being trained by grace to live in obedience to God's law through faith is what Jesus saving us from living in transgression of God's law looks like. Furthermore, Titus 2:14 says that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so if we believe in what Jesus accomplished through his ministry and through the cross, then we will become zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20).

So Galatians 3:23-25 should not be interpreted as undermining both what Jesus accomplished through his ministry and through the cross. Someone who disregarded everything their schoolmaster taught them after they moved on to a different teacher would be missing the whole point of a schoolmaster. A student does not move on to algebra by disregarding everything that they were previously taught about addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, but rather their new teacher incorporates what they were previously taught and builds upon it. Now that faith has come we are under a superior teacher, but the subject matter is still how to walk in God's ways in obedience to His law in accordance with what Jesus taught by word and by example. The Mosaic Law leads us to Christ because everything in it testifies about how to have a relationship with Him (John 5:39-40), but it does not lead us to Christ so that we can reject what he taught by word and by example and go back to living in sin.

[Gal 4:4-5 KJV] 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

These verses do not mention what those who were under the law needed to be redeemed from, namely our lawlessness. God's law is holy, righteous, and good, and was given for our own good in order to teach us how to be blessed, how to rightly live, how to refrain from sin, and how to grow in a relationship with Him, so those under the law have no need to be redeemed from the law, but rather we had the need to be redeemed from our lawlessness. Again, Titus 2:14 does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from the law, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness. It wouldn't make sense to think that the way to receive the adoption of sons is by rejecting God's instructions for how to live as adopted sons. In 1 John 3:10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to God's law are not children of God.

[Gal 4:9, 21-23, 29 KJV] 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? ... 21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise. ... 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so [it is] now.

In Galatians 4:8-11, Paul specifically addressed those verses to those who formerly did not know God, also known as former pagans. As such, they were not formerly keeping God's holy days and therefore Paul could not have been criticizing them for returning to them, so whatever Paul was speaking about in verses 10 is within the context of paganism, not God's holy days.

The view that we have of the law matches the view that we have of the Lawgiver. For example, God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7, Nehemiah 9:13) and a law that is not trustworthy can't come from a God who is trustworthy, so to deny that God's law is of faith is to deny that God is trustworthy. Likewise, a law that is holy, righteous, and good can only come from a God who is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). The Psalms contain extremely high praise for the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, which certainly matched his view of the Lawgiver, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of the Mosaic Law, then we will also delight in obeying it, as Paul did (Romans 7:22). The view that God's law is bondage is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. God did not save the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt in order to put them under bondage to His law, but rather it is for freedom that God sets us free (Galatians 5:1) and God's law is a law of freedom (Psalms 119:45).

the polar opposite for other of what Paul, Peter and James have stated to the contrary.

In Romans 3:31, Paul said that our faith does not abolish God's law, but rather our faith upholds it. Do you agree?

[Col 2:13-17 KJV] 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

There were no laws nailed to the cross and saying that there were undermines what Jesus accomplished both through his ministry and the cross. Whenever someone was crucified, the people would write out a sign that listed the charges that were against them and nail it to their cross in order to announce why they were being executed (Matthew 27:37). This served as a perfect analogy for the list of our violations of God's law being nailed to the cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with ending any of God's laws, especially because they are all eternal (Psalms 119:160).

In Colossians 2:16-23, Paul described the people who were judging them as teaching human traditions and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, so they were being judged by pagans. Pagans would not have been judging the Colossians for not keeping God's holy days, which means that the Colossians were being judged because they were keeping God's holy days in obedience to His commands and Paul was encouraging them not to let any man judge them and keep them from obeying God.

The OT is full of important foreshadows that teach us about God and His plan of redemption. The light of Christ brings full substance to these foreshadows so that we can fully see what God was teaching us through them, which make them all the more important to continue to observe in remembrance of him. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul spoke in regard to how Passover foreshadowed Christ by drawing the connection of him being our Passover Lamb, however, instead of concluding that we no longer need to bother keeping Passover, he concluded that we should therefore continue to keep it. The foreshadows testify about who Christ is, and as his followers we should seek by faith to live in a way that testifies about who he is.

So, how do we treat the Mosaic commands that are neither repeated or revoked within the New Testament? Some are repeated in the NT, such as honoring father and mother, doing no murder, not coveting what your neighbor has, etc. Other Mosaic commands are revoked as binding upon us today, such as food laws, for it's not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of his mouth. 2 Tim 3.

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so anyone who tries to say that any of God's laws have been revoked is guilty of sin and needs to repent. In Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the law and warned those who would relax the least part of the law, so saying that any laws have been abolished is calling him a liar and disregarding his warning. Instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature can't be abolished without also abolishing Christ because he is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3).

Jesus was not in disagreement with the Father about which laws we should follow, so we have no need of him to have repeated anything in order for us to know that we should still obey the Father. In John 14:24, Jesus said that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father. Jesus set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he still would have taught full obedience to it by example even if he had repeated nothing, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). In regard to Mark 7:20, Jesus should not be interpreted as teaching us to rebel against what the Father has commanded, especially when the topic he was discussing was not in regard to any of His commands.

In Deut. 4:5, when a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army for one year. This is not repeated in the NT, but it does have practical application since we can all agree it best for a newly web couple to remain together for at least one year prior to the man being sent off into a war. Some legalists may gravitate over to one extreme by saying that a man drafted right after marriage, and who is bound by law to answer the call, such a one is in violation of God's Law, and therefore guilty of it all....even those who are in Christ Jesus. The other extreme is licentiousness. That too is not the right vantage point. What, then is the proper balance? We will get into that now and in subsequent posts.

If we break any law and become a lawbreaker, then we need to repent and to return to obedience, which is precisely what James 2:1-11 was encouraging them to do.

One general rule for applying the Law of Moses is to always treat commands from Moses with serious consideration. Although the Law of Moses was not given to us who are in Christ, we must always look to the indwelling Spirit of the Lord for guidance in all things. Is that not a demonstration for the fear of the Lord? Is it not honoring the Lord by giving to Him your openness to hear His voice concerning the various items not repeated in the NT from the Law of Moses? After all, it is all from the Lord.

If we believe that God can be trusted to guide us in how to rightly live and His law was given for our own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), then we will have the attitude of looking for reasons for why we can have the delight of getting to obey the Mosaic Law.

Israel had MANY commands given to them. That was God's treatment for them as a highly stiff-necked and rebellious people. Recall how often they returned to idolatry, time and time again. We are under a different Covenant, for now the Church is pure and without blemish. Some commands from the Old Covenant are useful, others are universally applicable, transcending all of time and covenants, and some simply do not apply in the sense that there is no practical means by which we may live them.

While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same instructions for how to walk in the same ways. For example, the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant, and God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to do what is righteous are eternally valid regardless of which covenant we are under, though as part of the New Covenant those who do not follow those instructions are not children of God (1 John 3:10). Likewise, sin was in the world before the law was given (Romans 5:13), so there were no actions that became righteous or sinful when the law was given, but rather the law revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following God's law.

 

[Soyeong]

OP CONTINUED:

Another useful principle is to follow commands that are clearly identified as being universal. The Law of Moses was given to one nation, in one place, in one era, to one people, thus somewhat limited in its extent and reach. Some of the Law applied to other nations at that time as well, as is evidenced in Deut 18:9-14 - where it is said to the Israelites to not follow the abominable practices in those nations... Do we have the freedom to do today those things mentioned back then against the other nations? No. Those have universal import for disallowance.

While it is good to correctly understand whom the law was given to, it is not good to focus on that so much that we lose sight of whom it was given by. God's ways reveal His nature and there are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others, so the reason that God gave the law was not in order to teach the nations about who the Israelites are, but in order to equip the Israelites to be a light and a blessing the nations through testifying about who God is. Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3) and that that looked like was a life lived in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is also what it looks like as we are being made to be more like him through partaking in the divine nature (2 Peter 2:3-12). When we express the divine nature through our actions in obedience to the Mosaic Law, we are expressing our love for who Christ is and are testifying to the nations about who he is.

What about Lev. 19:28 - where they were told to make no cuts on their bodies for the dead, nor tattoos - is this univeral? Well, that could be controversial for some. On the other hand, Deut 24:5 - marriage is universal. However, although it's always best to establish a marriage before going off to serve other priorities for one's country, the headship of the husband is also intact for the family.

It should not be controversial that followers of God seek by faith to learn how to walk in His ways.

We can also look at Deut. 22: - when you build a new house, you shall build a fence about the roof to guard against brining offense upon the family if a neighbor falls off without guard rails. This is a common sense, protective measure. Most of us don't have flat roofs where people will walk about. This is not, therefore, universal.

There are more ways to do what is righteous or sinful than what God's law specifically prescribes or prohibits, but God's laws is spiritual in that it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principles of which the listed laws are just example, and which form the nature of God. For example, God's righteous laws teach us about His righteousness and allow us to abstract a principle of righteousness that can guide us in how we should act when we are in a situation that is not specifically prescribed or prohibited by the law, such as how we should build houses that are safe regardless of the style of the house. If we correctly understand a spiritual principle, then we will take actions that are examples of that principle in accordance with God's law even if it is not something specifically prescribed or prohibited.

Another principle is to especially follow commands that agree with a New Covenant emphasis, such as God's holiness, wrath, justice and mercy. In the New Covenant, there is an emphasis on God's plan to show truth, grace and love to sinners. They are in the Old Covenant, but they are by and large especially emphasized in the New Covenant. If an old covenant Law seems suitable within new covenant emphasis, then it usually works out as being pretty well for a Christian to follow it.

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faithfulness are weightier matters of the law, so teaching what it looks like to express the nature of God has always been the emphasis in both the OT and the NT. In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth, in Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey his law, and in In Leviticus 19:18, we are instructed to love our neighbor as ourselves, so these things have always been emphasized.

Parenting - Deu 6:6-7 - you should want your children to know these things, what the new covenant is, and how to view the old covenant Laws. Some of the Law of Moses only fist the old covenant reality. For example, Deut 23:3-6 - No Amonites nor Moabites shall enter the assembly... What about forgiveness under the new covenant? Where is the grace and mercy in that? It makes sense only in the context of the old covenant because of the evils in those cultures that could make its way into the nation and the assembly.

What about Ruth?

Remember where you are in history. Follow commands which agree with love as a fulfillment of the Law of Moses. Deut 21:10-14 - read this. Is this of Christ? Is this consistent with what Jesus would have us to do?

Do you you think that Jesus would have been in disagreement with the Father in regard to Deuteronomy 21:10-14? I don't. Love fulfills the law because that is what it is essentially about how to do, which is why Jesus summarized it as being about how to love God and our neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40).

Matt 19:3-9 - because of your hardness of heart, MOSES allowed you divorce, Jesus said....laying at the feet of Moses himself for that allowance, so it was not the Lord who took credit for that allowance.

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded without departing from it, so he did not give his own laws. In Matthew 19:3, Jesus was asked whether a man could divorce his wife for any reason. For some context, Gittin 90a-b interprets Deuteronomy 24:1-4 as saying that a man could divorce his wife if she ruined his meal or if he found someone who was prettier than her, however, divorce over frivolous reasons was not how it was from the beginning, so Jesus was not expressing disagreement with Moses.

 

[Soyeong]

MANY people often confuse Moses Law with God's Ten Commandment Law, but they are very different.

The count of 613 Mosaic laws is inclusive of the Ten Commandments. The Mosaic Law refers to all of the laws given to Israel by God through Moses as a mediator, which is inclusive of the Ten Commandments. The Law of Moses is referred to as the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

 

[SwordmanJr]

In Galatians 4:8-11, Paul specifically addressed those verses to those who formerly did not know God, also known as former pagans. As such, they were not formerly keeping God's holy days and therefore Paul could not have been criticizing them for returning to them, so whatever Paul was speaking about in verses 10 is within the context of paganism, not God's holy days.

I don't see in those passages that the Galatians ever observed the Judaiism's Lawful feasts and holy days. It speaks of them observing the pagan holidays, but not the Law of Moses and the holy days prescribed therein.

The view that we have of the law matches the view that we have of the Lawgiver. For example, God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7, Nehemiah 9:13) and a law that is not trustworthy can't come from a God who is trustworthy, so to deny that God's law is of faith is to deny that God is trustworthy. Likewise, a law that is holy, righteous, and good can only come from a God who is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). The Psalms contain extremely high praise for the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, which certainly matched his view of the Lawgiver, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of the Mosaic Law, then we will also delight in obeying it, as Paul did (Romans 7:22). The view that God's law is bondage is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. God did not save the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt in order to put them under bondage to His law, but rather it is for freedom that God sets us free (Galatians 5:1) and God's law is a law of freedom (Psalms 119:45).

Well, let's see now:

[Heb 7:11-12 KJV] 11 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? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

I've seen some folks fall from dizzying heights trying to claim that this is not a reference to the Law of Moses, of necessity, being changed; which, in the Greek, refers to a change of things established or instituted. This fits in perfectly where it is written in [Rom 7:1-4 KJV] 1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. 3 So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Logical parallels drawing from one place to another in scripture will not ever change nor alter the clarity of the language in verse four above. Now, the things from the Law of Moses not repeated in the NT should still be considered by each follower of Christ, for some have merit and reasonable application today, and some do not. Some things have been revoked, such as food, as is evidenced in [Mat 15:11 KJV] 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Faith does not uphold the Law of Moses in its totality as being something to which we are to be bound today. I would have to see a verse that contradicts the author of Romans 7 to ever think that what it says actually means something other than what the clarity of the language states.

There were no laws nailed to the cross and saying that there were undermines what Jesus accomplished both through his ministry and the cross.

Indeed? [Col 2:14 KJV] 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Thayer's Greek Lexicon ties the Greek word translated as "ordinances" to the definition "the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment"...just in case someone thinks to try and alter what the text is actually addressing within the original language from which our English translations were translated.

Why would the author declare the Law of Moses as being against us? Simply put:

[2Co 3:6 KJV] 6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

[Rom 6:14 KJV] 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

In case someone thinks that our not being under the Law of Moses that we may sin freely...no! [Rom 6:15 KJV] 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Paul had a heart for those who were in bondate to the Law of Moses, [1Co 9:20 KJV] 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

Gain them to what? The freedom FROM the Law of Moses and it's sentence of death because of an inability to live it, redeemed unto salvation by faith. With Christ's Law written upon our hearts, we have what is SUPERIOR to the Law of Moses because the Lord is then our Source from whom the Law came. The Law is far more profound and empowering for us to live God's Law that is written upon our hearts.

Those who take pride in following the Law of Moses as best they can, go for it. I'm not here to take that from such. [1Jo 2:27 KJV] 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

So, you folks who chase after the Law of Moses, I pitty you, for that Anointing within us, He is the Source from whom we draw life and direction for holy living.

Jr

 

[eleos1954]

The count of 613 Mosaic laws is inclusive of the Ten Commandments. The Mosaic Law refers to all of the laws given to Israel by God through Moses as a mediator, which is inclusive of the Ten Commandments. The Law of Moses is referred to as the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

The Lord speaks of the new covenant as being “a better covenant” than the old one. (Hebrews 8:6.) This clearly indicates that the old covenant was not perfect in its provisions. There was weakness in it, and that weakness was to be corrected in the new (the old made better) covenant.

But of the Ten Commandments the Lord declares: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.” Psalms 19:7. “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Romans 7:12. But the old covenant was imperfect and faulty. Therefore it is evident that the old covenant and the Decalogue, though related, are certainly not identical. The Ten Commandments cannot be the old covenant.

Of the new covenant God says that it was to be “established upon better promises.” Hebrews 8:6. This clearly indicates that some of the promises of the old covenant were poor. These poor promises were made, not by God, but by the people when they promised more than they could perform (all that the Lord said we will do). The fault was “with them,” the Lord declares in verse 8. Their promises were not reliable. The new covenant had better promises, not made by sinful men, but by the Lord Himself.

The old covenant is declared to have been “faulty.” “If the first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” Hebrews 8:7.

But this could not possibly apply to the Ten Commandments, and are clearly declared to be “perfect,” “holy, and just, and good” (9 Romans 7:12). A thing cannot be faulty and perfect at the same time.

Paul declared that the old covenant was “ready to vanish away.” “In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Hebrews 8:13.

But this same apostle states that the law, instead of vanishing away, was definitely established by faith. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31. A thing cannot “vanish away” and be established at the same time.

Jesus also makes this point clear when He declares: “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” Luke 16:17. Now, heaven and earth have not “passed.” Therefore this is positive evidence that not a jot nor tittle of the law has failed.
No part of it (the Decalogue) has vanished away.