Old Mosaic Law Covenant Obsolete!

[BrotherJJ]

12 verses Gal 4:26 & 30 alone say it all

Source Amplified Bible BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.

Galatians 4:
21 Tell me, you who are bent on being under the Law, do you not listen to [what] the Law [really says]?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman [Hagar] and one by the free woman [Sarah].

23 But the child of the slave woman was born according to the flesh and had an ordinary birth, while the son of the free woman was born in fulfillment of the promise.
(MY NOTE: Hagar's son, Ishmael, born via physical worldly desire. Sarah's son Issac born from above via God's promise)

24 Now these facts are about to be used [by me] as an allegory [that is, I will illustrate by using them]: for these women can represent two covenants: one [covenant originated] from Mount Sinai [where the Law was given] that bears children [destined] for slavery; she is Hagar.
(MY NOTE: 2 different covenants. Hagar represents the Old Mosaic covenant & a circumcision made/cut with human hands)

25 Now Hagar is (represents) Mount Sinai in Arabia and she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
(MY NOTE: The apostle compares the Sinai covenant: With SLAVERY)

26 But the Jerusalem above [that is, the way of faith, represented by Sarah] is free; she is our mother.
(MY NOTE: Sarah represents the New from above/spiritual Covenant. Spiritually written on the heart & mind (Heb 10:16) made without human hands (Col 2:11 & Rom 2:29, Deut 30:6)

27 For it is written [in the Scriptures], “Rejoice, o barren woman who has not given birth;
Break forth into a [joyful] shout, you who are not in labor; For the desolate woman has many more children Than she who has a husband.”

28 And we, [believing] brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children [not merely of physical descent, like Ishmael, but are children born] of promise [born miraculously].

29 But as at that time the child [of ordinary birth] born according to the flesh persecuted the son who was born according to [the promise and working of] the Spirit, so it is now also.

30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman [Hagar] and her son [Ishmael], For never shall the son of the bondwoman be heir and share the inheritance with the son of the free woman.”
(MY NOTE: Those that cling to the OLD Mosaic covenant, CAN NEVER partake in the NEW eternal Christ mediated covenant.)

31 So then, believers, we [who are born again—reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, and set apart for His purpose] are not children of a slave woman [the natural], but of the free woman [the supernatural].
(MY NOTE: NT believers are BORN/spiritually from God above & have NO PART with the slave woman's carnal/physical/temporal covenant cut at Sinai!)

POINT TWO:

Find 7 direct C&P Bible versions below that translators use the word OBSOLETE to describe the old Mosaic covenant
You can find more here: BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.

Amplified Bible:
Heb 8:13 When God speaks of “A new covenant,” He makes the first one obsolete. And whatever is becoming obsolete (out of use, annulled) and growing old is ready to disappear.
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT OBSOLETE/ANNULLED!)

New American Standard Bible:
Heb 8:13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is [m]about to disappear.
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT OBSOLETE!)

New International Version:
Heb 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT OBSOLETE!)

Revised Geneva Translation:
Heb 8:13 In saying, “a New Testament”, He has rendered the first obsolete. Now that which has aged and grown old is ready to vanish.
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT OBSOLETE!)

Young's Literal Translation:
Heb 8:13 in the saying `new,' He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old [is] nigh disappearing.
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT OBSOLETE!)

1599 Geneva Bible:
Heb 8:13 In that he saith a new Testament, he hath abrogated the old: now that which is disannulled and waxed old, is ready to vanish away.
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT ABROGATED & ANNULLED!)

Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament:
Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 8 - Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT OBSOLETE!)

 

[Soyeong]

12 verses Gal 4:26 & 30 alone say it all

Source Amplified Bible BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.

Galatians 4:
21 Tell me, you who are bent on being under the Law, do you not listen to [what] the Law [really says]?

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman [Hagar] and one by the free woman [Sarah].

23 But the child of the slave woman was born according to the flesh and had an ordinary birth, while the son of the free woman was born in fulfillment of the promise.
(MY NOTE: Hagar's son, Ishmael, born via physical worldly desire. Sarah's son Issac born from above via God's promise)

24 Now these facts are about to be used [by me] as an allegory [that is, I will illustrate by using them]: for these women can represent two covenants: one [covenant originated] from Mount Sinai [where the Law was given] that bears children [destined] for slavery; she is Hagar.
(MY NOTE: 2 different covenants. Hagar represents the Old Mosaic covenant & a circumcision made/cut with human hands)

25 Now Hagar is (represents) Mount Sinai in Arabia and she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
(MY NOTE: The apostle compares the Sinai covenant: With SLAVERY)

26 But the Jerusalem above [that is, the way of faith, represented by Sarah] is free; she is our mother.
(MY NOTE: Sarah represents the New from above/spiritual Covenant. Spiritually written on the heart & mind (Heb 10:16) made without human hands (Col 2:11 & Rom 2:29, Deut 30:6)

27 For it is written [in the Scriptures], “Rejoice, o barren woman who has not given birth;
Break forth into a [joyful] shout, you who are not in labor; For the desolate woman has many more children Than she who has a husband.”

28 And we, [believing] brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children [not merely of physical descent, like Ishmael, but are children born] of promise [born miraculously].

29 But as at that time the child [of ordinary birth] born according to the flesh persecuted the son who was born according to [the promise and working of] the Spirit, so it is now also.

30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman [Hagar] and her son [Ishmael], For never shall the son of the bondwoman be heir and share the inheritance with the son of the free woman.”
(MY NOTE: Those that cling to the OLD Mosaic covenant, CAN NEVER partake in the NEW eternal Christ mediated covenant.)

31 So then, believers, we [who are born again—reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, and set apart for His purpose] are not children of a slave woman [the natural], but of the free woman [the supernatural].
(MY NOTE: NT believers are BORN/spiritually from God above & have NO PART with the slave woman's carnal/physical/temporal covenant cut at Sinai!)

POINT TWO:

Find 7 direct C&P Bible versions below that translators use the word OBSOLETE to discribe the ols Mosaic covenant
You can find more here: BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.

Amplified Bible:
Heb 8:13 When God speaks of “A new covenant,” He makes the first one obsolete. And whatever is becoming obsolete (out of use, annulled) and growing old is ready to disappear.
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT OBSOLETE/ANNULLED!)

New American Standard Bible:
Heb 8:13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is [m]about to disappear.
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT OBSOLETE!)

New International Version:
Heb 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT OBSOLETE!)

Revised Geneva Translation:
Heb 8:13 In saying, “a New Testament”, He has rendered the first obsolete. Now that which has aged and grown old is ready to vanish.
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT OBSOLETE!)

Young's Literal Translation:
Heb 8:13 in the saying `new,' He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old [is] nigh disappearing.
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT OBSOLETE!)

1599 Geneva Bible:
Heb 8:13 In that he saith a new Testament, he hath abrogated the old: now that which is disannulled and waxed old, is ready to vanish away.
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT ABROGATED & ANNULLED!)

Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament:
Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 8 - Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament
(my note: THE OLD MOSAIC COVENANT OBSOLETE!)

In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant still involves following God's law, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, God's eternal law did not become obsolete along with it. The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the nature of God as it does to describe the nature of God's law, which is because it is God's instructions for how to testify about His nature, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). For example, whenever we do what is righteous in obedience to God's law, we are testifying about what we believe about the nature of who God is, or in other words, we are believing in Him. To reject the Mosaic Law is to deny that what the God of Israel has revealed about His nature is true, or in other words, it is to reject the God of Israel. The only way that the New Covenant could have different laws would be if it were made with a different God with a different nature than the God of Israel. The only way for instructions for how to testify about God's nature to become obsolete is for God to first become obsolete.

 

[mkgal1]

In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant still involves following God's law, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, God's eternal law did not become obsolete along with it

John 13:34
34A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. 35By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”

Matthew 22:40
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”​

 

[BobRyan]

1. It is "still a sin" to take God's name in vain (Ex 20:7) even in the NT
2. "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19 - even in the NT
3. The "first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:1-2 in that "still valid unit of Ten" is still "Honor your father and mother" -- even in the NT
4. For all eternity after the cross - in the new Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" Is 66:23
5. The saints "KEEP the commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
6. Gospel sermons for both gentiles and Jews "Every Sabbath" Acts 18:4
7. The "NEW Covenant" is in the old Testament Jer 31:31-34 and is "unchanged" in the New Testament Heb 8:6-12
8. There is only "one" Gospel Gal 1:6-9 and that Gospel was "preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8
9. The LAW of God still has "do not covet" Rom 7 - in it.
10. Before the cross Jesus said "keep the Commandments" Matt 19 and after the cross - Paul gives the same list of commandments in Rom 13.

The same moral law of the old Covenant "condemns every mouth" in fact "all the world" Rom 3:19-20 - to this very day - for those who have not accepted the Gospel - for "all have sinned" Rom 3:23

 

[Soyeong]

John 13:34
34A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another. 35By this everyone will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another.”​

There was nothing brand new about the command to love our neighbor because it can be found in Leviticus 19:18, but what was new about Christ's command was the quality of the example by which we should love our neighbor, and indeed the Greek word used refers to newness with respect to quality rather than with respect to time:

3501 /néos ("new on the scene") suggests something "new in time" – in contrast to its near-synonym (2537 /kainós, "new in quality").

We should love ourselves as God loves us and that is how we should love our neighbor, so Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to the Mosaic Law, but rather he was fulfilling the Mosaic Law by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it.

Matthew 22:40

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

All the the commandments that God has given are examples of what it means to love Him and our neighbor, which is why Jesus said that those are the greatest two commandments and that all of the other commandments hang on them, so they are all connected and the moment you try to take just the greatest two, all of the others come hanging with it. For instance, obedience to the command to help the poor is an example of what it means to love our neighbor, so the command to love does not replace the other commandments, but rather it is the sum of them. The greatest two commandments are a lot easier said than done, so thankfully God gave all of the other commandments as a gift in order to teach us what it means to obey them. Someone who was correctly obeying the greatest two commandments would look the same as someone who was obeying the Mosaic Law because they would both be following the same example that Jesus set for us to follow. If someone's obedience to the greatest two commandments is not inclusive of God's other commandments, then they would not be treating them as being the sum of the other commandments.

 

[Nova2216]

Which Law Are We Under?

1. There are two natural divisions of the Bible.

The Old Testament (39 books) and the New Testament (27 books).

2. Which law are we under today?

A. The Old Testament or the New Testament?

B. Or part of the New Testament and part of the Old Testament?


FIRST NOTE (EXODUS 34:27)

1. God made a covenant with Israel (not with Gentiles). (Ex.34:27)

2. This OT Covenant was called the 10 commandments. (Ex.34:28)

3. This OT Covenant (10 commandments) was made when Israel left Egypt. (1Kings 8:9)

4. Even in the OT there is a promise of a New Covenant that would be DIFFERENT from the OT (10 commandments). (Jer.31:31-34)

5. A Better Covenant (Heb.8:6-9)

A. For finding fault with them (the people).

There was no problem with the OT Law.

The OT Law was to lead men to Christ. (Gal.3:24,25)

B. The purpose of the OT Law was to show how terrible sin is and to show they needed to look for Gods remedy for sin.

In (Jer.31:31-34) God is pointing to the NT covenant which was to be established in (Acts 2) and this NT Covenant would have a provision for sin. This is a big difference in the OT Law and the NT Law.

Obedience is required under both OT and NT laws according to (Gen.6:8,22)(Heb.5;9).

6. FURTHER PROOF

A. Jesus gives a New Covenant. (Heb. 9:15-17)

B. Sacrifices under the OT Law could not completely take care of sin. (Heb. 10:4)

C. The Priesthood changed and the Law changed. (Heb.7:12)

D. God speaks through His Son - He has a better covenant - We must listen to Jesus. (Heb.1:1-3 ; 2:1)

E. Before faith came men were under the OT Law - the OT Law (10 commandments) was a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ - after faith came men were no longer under the OT Law (10 commandments).(Gal. 3:24,25)

F. Men are dead to the OT Law and married to Christ under the NT Law. (Rom. 7:1-4)

G. Christ is the end of the OT Law. (Rom. 10:1-4)

H. (Col.2:14-17) (2Cor.3)(Eph.2:14-17)

CONCLUSION

1. We learn from the things in the OT Law but we are not under the 10 commandments (Rom. 15:4) (1Cor.10:11)

2. Today men are under law to Jesus (Mt.28:18-20) (James 1:25) (Gal. 6:2).
The New Covenant is sealed in His blood (Mt. 26:28)

Our Publications

 

[Nova2216]

What does (Luke 16:16) teach us?

Lu 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

 

[Soyeong]

Which Law Are We Under?

1. There are two natural divisions of the Bible.

The Old Testament (39 books) and the New Testament (27 books).

2. Which law are we under today?

A. The Old Testament or the New Testament?

B. Or part of the New Testament and part of the Old Testament?

That division has been one of the greatest sources of misunderstanding of the Bible. There is much more continuity to the Bible than you are giving it credit for.

FIRST NOTE (EXODUS 34:27)

1. God made a covenant with Israel (not with Gentiles). (Ex.34:27)

2. This OT Covenant was called the 10 commandments. (Ex.34:28)

3. This OT Covenant (10 commandments) was made when Israel left Egypt. (1Kings 8:9)

4. Even in the OT there is a promise of a New Covenant that would be DIFFERENT from the OT (10 commandments). (Jer.31:31-34)

5. A Better Covenant (Heb.8:6-9)

A. For finding fault with them (the people).

There was no problem with the OT Law.

In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multitude that went up out of Egypt with the Israelites, so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai, and in John 8:33, Israel was inclusive of both the foreigner and the native born, so there have always been righteous Gentiles who have become followers of the God of Israel, who have sought by faith to repent and to walk in His ways in obedience to His law, which included a lot more than just the Ten Commandments.

While the New Covenant is difference from the Mosaic Covenant, the New Covenant still involves following God's law (Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10), so the way that they are different is not in regard to God's law, but rather those passages describe the difference as being in regard to having a superior mediator and being based on better promises. If you agree that there was no problem with God's law, then you should not interpret the solution to the problem as replacing it with something else. Rather, the problem that God found was with the people who did not continue in their covenant because of the hardness of their hearts, so the solution to the problem is do away with what was hindering us from keeping the covenant, which is why the New Covenant involves God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us to obey the Mosaic Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), sending His Son to free us from sin so that we might be free to obey the Mosaic Law and meet its righteous requirement (Romans 8:3-4), and putting His law in our minds and writing on our hearts so that we will obey it this time.

The OT Law was to lead men to Christ. (Gal.3:24,25)

B. The purpose of the OT Law was to show how terrible sin is and to show they needed to look for Gods remedy for sin.

In (Jer.31:31-34) God is pointing to the NT covenant which was to be established in (Acts 2) and this NT Covenant would have a provision for sin. This is a big difference in the OT Law and the NT Law.

Obedience is required under both OT and NT laws according to (Gen.6:8,22)(Heb.5;9).

In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from them because he never knew them, so the goal of the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to know Christ, or in other words, it teaches us how to have a relationship with him, and that is why it leads us to him. Christ taught how to obey the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so that is the Law of Christ, and the reason why the law brings us to him was not so that we could reject what he taught and go back to living in sin. Likewise, Jesus did not establish the New Covenant in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example, but rather the New Covenant still involves following God's law law (Jeremiah 31:33), so there is no difference between OT and NT law.

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 laws for how to testify about His nature. The way to testify about God's nature is straightforwardly based on God's nature, not on any particular covenant, and God's nature is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to do that are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any. Unbelievers who aren't under the New Covenant are still obligated to repent from doing what God's law has revealed to be sin, so there is nothing about not being under the Mosaic Covenant that means that we aren't obligated to repent from doing what God's law has revealed to be sin. For example, it was sinful to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9 long before the Mosaic Covenant was made, and remains sinful after it has become obsolete, so there is nothing about any number of covenants being made or becoming obsolete that changes which actions are in accordance with or against God's eternal nature.

6. FURTHER PROOF

A. Jesus gives a New Covenant. (Heb. 9:15-17)

B. Sacrifices under the OT Law could not completely take care of sin. (Heb. 10:4)

C. The Priesthood changed and the Law changed. (Heb.7:12)

D. God speaks through His Son - He has a better covenant - We must listen to Jesus. (Heb.1:1-3 ; 2:1)

E. Before faith came men were under the OT Law - the OT Law (10 commandments) was a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ - after faith came men were no longer under the OT Law (10 commandments).(Gal. 3:24,25)

F. Men are dead to the OT Law and married to Christ under the NT Law. (Rom. 7:1-4)

G. Christ is the end of the OT Law. (Rom. 10:1-4)

H. (Col.2:14-17) (2Cor.3)(Eph.2:14-17)

Sacrifices in the OT always pointed towards Christ for the remedy of sin.

If the way to act in accordance with God's nature were to change when the New Covenant was made, then God's nature would not be eternal, so Hebrews 7:12 is not speaking about a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit idolatry or sinful to help the poor, but rather in context it is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would also require are change of the law in regard to its administration.

The same God who gave the law to Moses also sent Jesus, who spent his ministry teaching how to obey it by word and by example, so there is no disagreement about which laws we should follow.

Someone who disregarded everything that their schoolmaster taught them after they graduated would be missing the whole point of a schoolmaster, so having no more need of a schoolmaster is not the same as having no more need to live by what they taught you.

In Romans 7:1-4, at no point was the woman set free from needing to obey any of the Mosaic Laws, so there is nothing there that leads to the conclusion that we have been set free from needing to obey all of the Mosaic Law. It doesn't even make sense to think that the way to be unified with Christ means refusing to follow what he spent his ministry teaching how to obey by word and by example, but rather in 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked.

In Romans 9:30-10:4, the Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge because they did not understand that the righteousness of God only comes through faith in Christ. So they failed to obtain righteousness because they pursued the Mosaic Law as through righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own instead of pursuing the Mosaic Law as through righteousness were by faith in Christ, for Christ is the goal of the Mosaic Law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Romans 10:5-10, Paul quoted Deuteronomy 30:11-16, in regard to this faith saying that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult for us to obey, that the one who obeys it will obtain life by it, and in regard to what it looks like to submit to Jesus as Lord. So there is nothing in the context of this verse that even remotely suggests that Christ is ending his eternal Mosaic Law, but just the opposite.

In Colossians 2:14-17, it does say anything about any laws being nailed to the cross.

1.) You shall not commit murder.

2.) This person has been found guilty of murder.

The first is an example of a law that is for our own good while the second is an example of a handwritten ordinance that was against someone that was nailed to their cross in order to announce why they were being executed. In Matthew 27:37, it says that they put the charge that was against Jesus over his head, so what was nailed to people's crosses was not the laws themselves, but the charge that was against them. This serves as a perfect analogy for the list of our violations of God's law being nailed to Christ's 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 Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to end any laws, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness, so saying that there were any laws nailed to the cross undermines what he accomplished on the cross. The Greek word "dogma" means "edict, ordinance, or decree" and is never used by the Bible to refer to God's law.

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. This means that the Colossians were keeping God's holy days in obedience to His commands in accordance with the example that Christ set for us to follow and Paul was encouraging them not to let any man judge them and keep them from obeying God.

In regard to Ephesians 2:14-17, all of God's laws are eternal, so these verses should not be interpreted as referring to ending any of God's laws. God did not make any when He gave His law, so He had no need to break down His own laws. God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he came not to abolish the Mosaic Law and warned not to relax the least part of it or teach others to do the same, so interpreting verses as speaking about abolishing any part of the Mosaic Law is calling Jesus a liar and disregarding his warning. Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature, which he testified about through living in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so abolishing laws for how to testify about God's nature can't be done without also abolishing Christ.

CONCLUSION

1. We learn from the things in the OT Law but we are not under the 10 commandments (Rom. 15:4) (1Cor.10:11)

2. Today men are under law to Jesus (Mt.28:18-20) (James 1:25) (Gal. 6:2).
The New Covenant is sealed in His blood (Mt. 26:28)

Our Publications

There is no point in learning something if it has no practical application for how we should live our lives. In Romans 15:18-19, Paul's Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to obedience by word and by example, so learning the things in the OT Law has practical application. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 10:1-11, Israel's disobedience to the OT Law should be used as an example of what we should avoid doing, not as an example for us to emulate. God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses.

What does (Luke 16:16) teach us?

Lu 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

In Luke 16:16-18, Jesus said that the Mosaic Law was until John and that since then the Gospel of the Kingdom has been preached, namely to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, so the fact that he was speaking about the Mosaic Law still being taught after John means that he was not speaking about it ending with him. Furthermore, Jesus went on in verses 17-18 to teach obedience to the Mosaic Law and to say that it would be easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the least part to disappear from the Mosaic Law, so he was not speaking about a law that he thought had already ended. Lastly, neither John or Jesus taught people to stop repenting from their sins, but just the opposite.

The Mosaic Law is truth (Psalms 119:142), so your post is discounting the truth.

 

[Nova2216]

So Soyeong, I am guessing you disagree with the scriptures I posted.

Help me understand what (Heb. 7:12 ; 8:6-13 ; 9:15-17 ; 10:9,10) and (Gal. 5:4). (Note also Rom. 10:4)

if I understand these scriptures clearly no one today is under the OT Law.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Thanks

 

[pescador]

So Soyeong, I am guessing you disagree with the scriptures I posted.

Help me understand what (Heb. 7:12 ; 8:6-13 ; 9:15-17 ; 10:9,10) and (Gal. 5:4). (Note also Rom. 10:4)

if I understand these scriptures clearly no one today is under the OT Law.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Thanks

The Jews are still under the OT law. Notice that Paul wrote that "Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes", not to everyone.

Romans 10:1-4 says "Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."

 

[Nova2216]

The Jews are still under the OT law. Notice that Paul wrote that "Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes", not to everyone.

Romans 10:1-4 says "Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."

Who were these wrote too?

(Heb. 7:12 ; 8:6-13 ; 9:15-17 ; 10:9,10)

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law

Heb 8:13 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.

Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Ga 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

 

[Soyeong]

So Soyeong, I am guessing you disagree with the scriptures I posted.

Help me understand what (Heb. 7:12 ; 8:6-13 ; 9:15-17 ; 10:9,10) and (Gal. 5:4). (Note also Rom. 10:4)

if I understand these scriptures clearly no one today is under the OT Law.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Thanks

I do not disagree with those verses, but rather I just don't interpret them as speaking against obeying God, and I spoke in regard to how I think that a number of those verses should be interpreted, so I'll invite you to read what I wrote about them in my previous posts.

In regard to Galatians 5:4, all throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law, and even Christ because his ministry with that message, so it would be absurd to interpret that verse as Paul warning us against doing that and saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we follow Christ. There are many verses that I could cite where there is a law that Paul spoke in favor of obeying (Romans 3:31, Romans 7:22) and many verses that I could cite where there is a law that he spoke against obeying, so if you interpret everything that Paul said about laws as being in regard to God's law without recognizing that Paul often spoke about multiple other categories of law, such as works of the law and the law of sin, then you turn him into a self-contradictory mess and make him out to be an enemy of God who was teaching people to rebel against what His commands when in reality he was a servant of God who never spoke against obeying any of God's commands. For example, in Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, and in Romans 7:25, he contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin. Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching Gentiles how to follow Christ's example of obedience to the Mosaic Law as if following Christ was somehow a negative thing, but rather his problem was with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified.

The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if you interpret any of the NT authors as speaking against obeying God, then you should be quicker to disregard everything that they said than to disregard anything that God has commanded, but there is no need to do that because the authors of the NT were all servants of God who never spoke against obeying any of God's commands.

 

[pescador]

Who were these wrote too?

(Heb. 7:12 ; 8:6-13 ; 9:15-17 ; 10:9,10)

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law

Heb 8:13 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.

Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Ga 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

These words, as all of Scripture, are written for those of us who read/hear the Bible.

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. Posting disjointed, out-of-context Scripture from separate Bible "books" is meaningless.

 

[Nova2216]

I do not disagree with those verses, but rather I just don't interpret them as speaking against obeying God, and I spoke in regard to how I think that a number of those verses should be interpreted, so I'll invite you to read what I wrote about them in my previous posts.

In regard to Galatians 5:4, all throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to His law, and even Christ because his ministry with that message, so it would be absurd to interpret that verse as Paul warning us against doing that and saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we follow Christ. There are many verses that I could cite where there is a law that Paul spoke in favor of obeying (Romans 3:31, Romans 7:22) and many verses that I could cite where there is a law that he spoke against obeying, so if you interpret everything that Paul said about laws as being in regard to God's law without recognizing that Paul often spoke about multiple other categories of law, such as works of the law and the law of sin, then you turn him into a self-contradictory mess and make him out to be an enemy of God who was teaching people to rebel against what His commands when in reality he was a servant of God who never spoke against obeying any of God's commands. For example, in Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, and in Romans 7:25, he contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin. Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching Gentiles how to follow Christ's example of obedience to the Mosaic Law as if following Christ was somehow a negative thing, but rather his problem was with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified.

The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so if you interpret any of the NT authors as speaking against obeying God, then you should be quicker to disregard everything that they said than to disregard anything that God has commanded, but there is no need to do that because the authors of the NT were all servants of God who never spoke against obeying any of God's commands.

I am not sure how you got the idea that I am against obeying the Law of the Lord.

Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Ga 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

We must obey Him.

Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Ac 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


Thanks

 

[Nova2216]

These words, as all of Scripture, are written for those of us who read/hear the Bible.

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. Posting disjointed, out-of-context Scripture from separate Bible "books" is meaningless.

The book of Hebrews was wrote to the Jews who became Christians but were considering going back to the OT Laws. (Note - Gal.5:4)

The scriptures I have posted (for the most part) teach the law has changed from OT to NT.



(Jer.31:31-34) teaches there is a difference between the two laws.

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt;

 

[Soyeong]

I am not sure how you got the idea that I am against obeying the Law of the Lord.

Ro 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Ga 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

We must obey Him.

Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Ac 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


Thanks

You said:

"if I understand these scriptures clearly no one today is under the OT Law."

Sorry if I've misunderstood your position, but the OT Law is the Law of the Lord, so speaking against being under it is speaking against obeying it. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Mosaic Law, so it is the law of faith unlike works of the law, which are the law of works. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, our faith upholds the Mosaic Law. Likewise, Christ taught how to obey the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so it is the Law of Christ.

 

[Der Alte]

You said:
"if I understand these scriptures clearly no one today is under the OT Law."
Sorry if I've misunderstood your position, but the OT Law is the Law of the Lord, so speaking against being under it is speaking against obeying it. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Mosaic Law, so it is the law of faith unlike works of the law, which are the law of works. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, our faith upholds the Mosaic Law. Likewise, Christ taught how to obey the Mosaic Law both by word and by example, so it is the Law of Christ.

The Sabbath was given exclusively to the children of Israel NOT all mankind.

Exodus 31:16
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
Leviticus 24:8
8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.​

Those who are not direct children of Israel can choose to observe the Sabbath

Isaiah 56:6
6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;​

Jesus is our Sabbath rest.

Matthew 11:28
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
If Jesus was speaking Hebrew, He would have said "I will give you שׁבת/sabbath."
Jesus is our Passover.
1 Corinthians 5:7
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:​

I can't find a verse where Jesus or any NT writer commanded non-Israelites to observe the Sabbath.

Romans 14:4-6
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.​

Christians have the reality we no longer need the shadow.

Colossians 2:16-17
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.​

 

[Soyeong]

The Sabbath was given exclusively to the children of Israel NOT all mankind.

Exodus 31:16
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
Leviticus 24:8
8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.​

Those who are not direct children of Israel can choose to observe the Sabbath

Isaiah 56:6
6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;​

While it is good to correctly understand whom God's laws were given to, it is not good to focus on that so much that you lose sight of what they teach us about whom they were given by. Christians should seek to walk in God's ways 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 why God gave the Mosaic Law was not in order to teach the nations about who the Israelites are, but rather it was given to Israel in order to equip them for the role of being a light and a blessing to the nations through teaching them how to walk in God's ways (Deuteronomy 4:5-8, Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 49:6). There is not much sense in Gentiles rejecting the light of God word because it was given to Israel to show it to them instead of being directly given to them. Keeping the Sabbath holy testifies that there is a Creator who created the world in six days and rested on the 7th day, it testifies that God is holy, and it testifies that God saves His people out bondage, so if you affirm that these things are true about the God that you worship, then you should testify about the truth of these things by keeping the 7th day holy, or you deny the truth of these things by refusing to keep the 7th day holy.
​

Jesus is our Sabbath rest.

Matthew 11:28
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
If Jesus was speaking Hebrew, He would have said "I will give you שׁבת/sabbath."
Jesus is our Passover.​

Jesus taught how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, including keeping the Sabbath holy, so it is up to Gentiles to look at what he taught and to decide whether to become his follower, but Gentiles can't follow Jesus while refusing to follow what he taught. In Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus was inviting to come to him for rest, to take his yoke about them, and to learn from him, not inventing people to reject his rest, his yoke, and what he taught. By saying that we would find rest for our souls, he was referencing Jeremiah 6:16-19, where the Mosaic Law was described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls. This rest for our souls comes through having faith in God to guide us, not from taking a break from following His guidance. In Hebrews 4:9-11, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God and we should strive to enter into that rest so that no one may fall away by the same sort of disobedience, so using entering into God's rest to justify the same sort of disobedience is exactly the opposite of what was being said.

1 Corinthians 5:7
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

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 Christians no longer need the foreshadow, he concluded that we should therefore continue to keep the Feast. Passover teaches us about who God is and about what is come (Colossians 2:17), so we can either live in a way that testifies to the truth of what Passover teaches us about God by keeping it, or we can bear false witness against God by refusing to keep it

I can't find a verse where Jesus or any NT writer commanded non-Israelites to observe the Sabbath.
Romans 14:4-6
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

The topic of Romans 14 stated in the first verses is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so nothing in the chapter should be interpreted as teaching rebellion against following God. There is a major distinction that should not be blurred between what is said about following the opinions of man and what is said about following the commands of God, so the commands of God should not be inserted into what was only said against following the opinions of man, especially when Paul did not say anything about the Sabbath in Romans 14. In Romans 14:4-6, Paul spoke about eating or refraining from eating, so he was speaking about those who esteemed certain days for fasting as a disputable matter of opinion. God gave no command to fast twice a week, but that had become a common practice in the 1st century, where people who were choosing to fast were passing judgement on those who didn't (Luke 18:12), and it was exactly this sort of judging each other over opinions that Paul was addressing in this chapter. They were even judging each other over which two days of the week they chose to fast (Didache 8:1-2). On the other hand, God has commanded His people to keep the Sabbath holy, so our decision to keep it holy is a matter of obedience to God, not a matter of man's opinion that it should be kept holy.
​

Christians have the reality we no longer need the shadow.

Colossians 2:16-17
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.​

It is strange that you can't find a verse where Jesus or any NT writer commanded non-Israelites to observe the Sabbath and then quote Colossians 2:16-17 where Paul told the Colossians not to let any man judge them for keeping the Sabbath. Sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4) and God's law commands to keep the Sabbath holy (Exodus 20:8-11), so every time Gentiles are told to repent from their sins they are being told to keep the Sabbath holy. In Acts 15:21, the expectation was that Gentiles would continue to learn how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are instructed to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which straightforwardly includes keeping God's Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3), so following those instructions is testifying that God is holy while refusing to follow those instructions is testify that God is not holy. Likewise, in 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, which are terms used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so Gentiles also have the delight of getting to obey the instructions that God gave to Israel for how to fulfill those roles. It is contradictory for a Gentile to want to become part of holy nation while wanting nothing to do with following God's instructions for how to live as part of a holy nation.

 

[Nova2216]

The following is clear.

Heb 8:13 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.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law...

Ro 7:3 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.

Col 2:14 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;

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

 

[Soyeong]

The following is clear.

Heb 8:13 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.

In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so the fact that the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete does not mean that we no longer need to obey God's law. It was against God's law to commit adultery in Genesis 39:9 long before the Mosaic Covenant was made and remains against God's law after it has become obsolete, so there is nothing about any number of covenants being made or becoming obsolete that changes which laws we are obligated to follow. Unbelievers who aren't under the New Covenant still need to repent from what God's law has revealed to be sin, so not being under the Mosaic Covenant does not mean that we don't need to repent from what G od's law has revealed to be sin.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

If the way to testify about God's nature were to change when the New Covenant was made, such as it becoming righteous to commit adultery or sinful to help the poor, then God's nature would not be eternal, but it is eternal, so any instructions that God gave for how to testify about His nature are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any. So in regard to Hebrews 7:12, the change in the law could not be referring to its content, but rather the context is speaking about the change of the priesthood, so the change in the law is in regard to its administration.

Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law...

In Romans 9:30-10:4, the Israelites had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowledge because they did not understand that the righteousness of God only comes through faith in Christ. So they failed to obtain righteousness because they pursued the Mosaic Law as through righteousness were by works in an effort to establish their own instead of pursuing the Mosaic Law as through righteousness were by faith in Christ, for Christ is the goal of the Mosaic Law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Romans 10:5-10, Paul quoted Deuteronomy 30:11-16, in regard to this faith saying that the Mosaic Law is not too difficult for us to obey, that the one who obeys it will obtain life by it, and in regard to what it looks like to submit to Jesus as Lord. So there is nothing in the context of this verse that even remotely suggests that Christ is ending his eternal Mosaic Law, but just the opposite.

Ro 7:3 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.

At no point was the woman set free from needing to obey any of God's laws, so there is nothing here that leads to the conclusion that in the same way we have been set free from obeying all of God's laws. It is contradictory to think that we need to reject God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him in order to be free to bear fruit for Him. Likewise, it is contradictory to think that the way to become unified with Christ involves rejecting what he spent his ministry teaching, especially when God's law is His instructions for how to be unified with Christ. In 1 John 2:6, it says that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, not that those who are in Christ should refuse to walk in the same way he walked.

Col 2:14 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;

That verse is not speaking about any laws being nailed to the cross:

1.) You shall not commit murder.

2.) This person has been found guilty of murder.

The first is an example of a law that is for our own good while the second is an example of a handwritten ordinance that was against someone that was nailed to their cross in order to announce why they were being executed. In Matthew 27:37, it says that they put the charge that was against Jesus over his head, so what was nailed to people's crosses was not the laws themselves, but the charge that was against them. This serves as a perfect analogy for the list of our violations of God's law being nailed to Christ's 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 Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to end any laws, but in order to redeem us from all lawlessness, so saying that there were any laws nailed to the cross undermines what he accomplished on the cross. The Greek word "dogma" means "edict, ordinance, or decree" and is never used by the Bible to refer to God's law.

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

All of God's laws are eternal, so these verses should not be interpreted as referring to ending any of God's laws. God did not make any when He gave His law, so He had no need to break down His own laws. God did not give any laws for the purpose of creating a dividing wall of hostility, but rather His law instructs us to love our neighbor as ourselves. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he came not to abolish the Mosaic Law and warned not to relax the least part of it or teach others to do the same, so interpreting verses as speaking about abolishing any part of the Mosaic Law is calling Jesus a liar and disregarding his warning. Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature, which he testified about through living in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so abolishing laws for how to testify about God's nature can't be done without also abolishing Christ.

The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so we should be quicker to disregard everything that any man has said than to disregard anything that God has commanded. The authors of the Bible weren't enemies of God, so it shouldn't even make sense to you to interpret them as speaking against obeying God.