Post a Law and State if it should be followed today

[Leaf473]

I like the strong's definition
"shaatnez: mixed stuff"

That seems to be the general thinking
Strong's Hebrew: 8162. שַׁעַטְנֵז (shaatnez) -- mixed stuff

imo the big question is whether a law in one place can be used to interpret a law in another place. If so, it would open up whole worlds of interpretation, again imo.

 

[DamianWarS]

There would be no point in this Gospel message being a light and being spread to the nations of the nations were not under the Mosaic Law and did not need to heed the Gospel, repent, and obey the Mosaic Law.

that's an interesting thought. it can be answered by looking at the creation account. God said "let there be light" on day one which is a parallel/foreshadow to Christ (2 Cor 4:6 if you don't believe me). But in creation what was the earth under before the light came? it was unformed, consumed by darkness and of chaos. No law was needed for light to be spoken into this dark unformed vessel, yet light was spoken into it that started a process ending in rest. The creation account can be a salvation metaphor as before the light was spoken into our lives we were just as creation was exiting in this darkness. Law is not the quintessential ingredient of receiving light. it is darkness that light is spoken into not law. law proclaims the light, it exposes the darkness, but it doesn't invent them. our need for the gospel is not because of the law, our need for the gospel is because the only way to fix darkness is through light.

 

[GDL]

How does anyone who cares to answer interpret this Scripture:

NKJ Romans 3:19-20 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law (more literal = in the law - this is not the normal wording for "under law"), that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

It seems clear that all humanity is "in the Law," which could be elaborated as being within the sphere or jurisdiction of Law, whether or not everyone has the Law, which is why Paul speaks of those who don't have the Law nevertheless doing the Law naturally, it being written on their hearts.

Then we discuss what "under the Law" means.

 

[DamianWarS]

"deeper meaning" - "spiritual meaning" - do you mean the same thing by these 2 terms?

When Paul says "spiritual" in Galatians 6:1 and we track it back, he's using it in the same way Hebrews 5:14 uses "perfect" or "mature." So, interestingly a spiritual person in Galatians 6 is one who can identify any sin and assist others in dealing with sins, and in Hebrews 5 the mature is one who is learned/skilled in the "word of righteousness" & whose faculties are well exercised in judging both good & bad. Spirituality is an educated mentality based in God's righteousness.

When Jesus taught about the "deeper" things of the Law in regard to adultery, for instance, and took it back to even looking with lust, this was not new, but the actual intent of the Law in the first place, and the circumcised heart. I don't see the commandments (that I can think of at the moment) as ever being just physical. Torah means instruction. Instruction that goes into the mind, heart, conscience - the spirit - where it is spiritual & from where actions originate.

Deeper meanings? Sure. When I first looked at the food laws decades ago in a much less learned state (still have a long way to go), it struck me how the categories seemed aligned with how a creature functions. For instance, don't eat a certain type of fish because it basically functions as a water filter.

Point being respect for God as He has designed & structured His creation, and, yes, to be separate from the ungodly who don't know Him nor know or care about such things.



Please explain what you mean.



So, we can ignore its physical constraints? Sorry, I'm not intending to be demeaning, but this statement doesn't make any sense. Once again, a spiritual person has a godly, righteous mindset, and lives a physically pure life (to whatever level the training has taken the individual). And this means the person has been conformed to God's Law to some degree in mind and thus control of the physical, does it not?

the law is physical because it's about the physical. physical tasks, physical food, physical objects, physical products, physical 2 tablets are called "the two tables of covenant law" etc.... but it all points to greater meaning. the physical focus may have value and may be still morally responsible. But just because some laws translate very well outside of the covenant doesn't mean we are bound by the covenant. Before law murder was wrong, murder was wrong during law and murder is wrong after law. Law did not invent this moral standard and it preexisted the law. In the creation account, Christ is foreshadowed through the word "Let there be light" so the law is also not unique in this foretelling of Christ. Everything the law proclaims preexisted the law, the law is there to echo it, not to establish it. So then the law is based on preexisting constructs and it manifests these contracts through very physical or concrete means. by the laws themselves are limited to the covenant they are established in. They innately point beyond their covenant but it is not the physical law that steps outside it's vacuum but they what they are proclaiming. Dietary laws are actually not about the food they are about people, we know this because God tells Peter it's meaning so there is no confusion. The dietary laws echo a system and plan of God's outpouring of his spirit, that may have been in ignorance during the Mosaic Covenant but it still existed. Before the Mosaic Covenant, that plan still existed, and it continues to exist. Law was a part of the plan to testify God's sovereignty since the beginning and to invite us into that plan. I call that a construct, but whatever you want to call it, it preexists law evident in the first verses of the bible, even before man is created. That's the universal part, the law however is confined to the covenant it is formed in.

 

[GDL]

Thanks for the reply.

the physical focus may have value and may be still morally responsible

"may" seems a poor choice of word.

But just because some laws translate very well outside of the covenant doesn't mean we are bound by the covenant

Agree with the covenant binding, but your presupposition seems to be that Law began at Moses, and even though Paul talks about the Law coming 430 years after the promise to Abraham, I'm sure you've read Genesis 26:5 and some of the points Soyeong mentioned like Joseph & adultery. There's also God dealing with Abel re: sin, so any talk of Law or knowledge of God's righteous standards and morality that does not acknowledge these points seems misplaced.

Before law murder was wrong, murder was wrong during law and murder is wrong after law. Law did not invent this moral standard and it preexisted the law

What law? Moses? Many students of God's Law have recognized that the discussion needs to be about God's [eternal] Law vs. the written codification of Law at Moses. This pre-Moses morality had to come from God in some way (I assume you agree), whether verbally from Him as He walked with men, or men walked with Him, or in conscience, or??? But to presume this morality is not Law seems off.

by the laws themselves are limited to the covenant they are established in

But again, you assume there was no Law prior to Moses. And there at least 4 covenants pre-Moses that I can recall. Why do we automatically assume there was no Law within those covenants that was carried from covenant to covenant even with some modification like the change in the Law to facilitate the Priesthood of Jesus Christ?

And speaking of change of the Law, assuming a correct translation, why does Hebrews 7:12 tell us the Law was changed? And what exactly is the Law of Christ? Does it contain the same moral Law that has always existed? It has to do with Mature Christians assisting other dealing with sins - sins which the Mosaic Law certainly helps us specifiy?

Dietary laws are actually not about the food they are about people, we know this because God tells Peter it's meaning so there is no confusion

You seem to be placing a restriction on their meaning that may not be there. Why can they not be about both and even some other things? And where is the restriction in Moses about eating with Gentiles (I think Soyeong brought this up)?

the law however is confined to the covenant it is formed in.

Again, this assumes there was only law in the Mosaic Covenant and not before. And again, what is the Law of Christ? And why does it deal with sins that were specified in Moses and even some that are pre-Moses, like murder that you mentioned, or adultery that Soyeong mentioned?

It seems pretty simple to derive that some form of law has always been with men. Even other cultures were codifying it before Moses. They got it from somewhere, someone, even if the hard-core ungodly will tell us it was through the brilliant reasoning of men.

 

[Leaf473]

How does anyone who cares to answer interpret this Scripture:

NKJ Romans 3:19-20 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law (more literal = in the law - this is not the normal wording for "under law"), that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

It seems clear that all humanity is "in the Law," which could be elaborated as being within the sphere or jurisdiction of Law, whether or not everyone has the Law, which is why Paul speaks of those who don't have the Law nevertheless doing the Law naturally, it being written on their hearts.

Then we discuss what "under the Law" means.

Hi GDL,

I'll give you my short answer, and if you want a longer answer we can talk about it on a different thread.

imo he talks about gentiles first, then Jews... Then wraps it up with the idea that the whole world is accountable to God.

 

[Lulav]

the law is physical because it's about the physical. physical tasks, physical food, physical objects, physical products, physical 2 tablets are called "the two tables of covenant law" etc.... but it all points to greater meaning. the physical focus may have value and may be still morally responsible. But just because some laws translate very well outside of the covenant doesn't mean we are bound by the covenant.

Did you know that many of the commandments given were to provide a clear way for Messiah to come?

Before law murder was wrong, murder was wrong during law and murder is wrong after law.

Please define your understanding of 'wrong'. Murder (recorded) goes back to Cain and Abel. The LORD said sin was crouching at the door. If there were no law then how could it be a sin?

Everything the law proclaims preexisted the law, the law is there to echo it, not to establish it.

The law echos the law? I'm not understanding that.

Dietary laws are actually not about the food they are about people, we know this because God tells Peter it's meaning so there is no confusion.

Sorry, but they are about what you put into your body.

The dream was to show Peter that the Gentiles were acceptable for those he called clean.

The animals in the sheet were representative of the nations, just like animals are used in the book of Daniel.

Peter misunderstood what he was being told. As he said he had never eaten anything unclean before (and up to this point too, even though it was way after the crucifixion and resurrection). Jesus never told him before then or after that the dietary laws were done away with.

You will notice in the story Peter never eats anything.

 

[Soyeong]

How does anyone who cares to answer interpret this Scripture:

NKJ Romans 3:19-20 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law (more literal = in the law - this is not the normal wording for "under law"), that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

It seems clear that all humanity is "in the Law," which could be elaborated as being within the sphere or jurisdiction of Law, whether or not everyone has the Law, which is why Paul speaks of those who don't have the Law nevertheless doing the Law naturally, it being written on their hearts.

Then we discuss what "under the Law" means.

Being under the law refers to it having jurisdiction over us and to us being obligated to obey it. If someone were not under God's law and had no obligation to obey it, then their mouth would not be stopped and they would not become guilty before God, so the only way for every mouth to be stopped and all the world to become guilty before God is if all of the world is under God's law and obligated to obey it. It other words, if someone had no obligation to refrain from sin, then God would have no grounds by which to judge them as guilty for committing sin. Having the law refers to having physical possession of a Torah scroll.

 

[Lulav]

That seems to be the general thinking
Strong's Hebrew: 8162. שַׁעַטְנֵז (shaatnez) -- mixed stuff

imo the big question is whether a law in one place can be used to interpret a law in another place. If so, it would open up whole worlds of interpretation, again imo.

Deut is Moses speaking to the children of those that came out of Egypt. Those who left Egypt were not allowed to go in so they wandered 40 years until they all died (all but a few) and Moses was going over the law with them. It is not an interpretation, but a reiteration.

For thousands of years the Jews have held to the explanation that shaatnez was about mixing linen and wool, nothing else.

 

[Soyeong]

that's an interesting thought. it can be answered by looking at the creation account. God said "let there be light" on day one which is a parallel/foreshadow to Christ (2 Cor 4:6 if you don't believe me). But in creation what was the earth under before the light came? it was unformed, consumed by darkness and of chaos. No law was needed for light to be spoken into this dark unformed vessel, yet light was spoken into it that started a process ending in rest. The creation account can be a salvation metaphor as before the light was spoken into our lives we were just as creation was exiting in this darkness. Law is not the quintessential ingredient of receiving light. it is darkness that light is spoken into not law. law proclaims the light, it exposes the darkness, but it doesn't invent them. our need for the gospel is not because of the law, our need for the gospel is because the only way to fix darkness is through light.

The case can certainly be made that the light in the creation account was the light of Messiah. Messiah is the light, he is God's word made flesh, God's word is the light, God's law is God's word and God's word made flesh is the living embodiment of Gods' law. For as long as God's nature has been eternal there has been a way to act in accordance with his nature and Messiah is the embodiment of God's nature expressed through sinless obedience to those instructions, you don't have any grounds for claiming that no law was needed for light to be spoken into this dark unformed vessel, but rather the law is the light.

Psalms 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

 

[GDL]

Being under the law refers to it having jurisdiction over us and to us being obligated to obey it. If someone were not under God's law and had no obligation to obey it, then their mouth would not be stopped and they would not become guilty before God, so the only way for every mouth to be stopped and all the world to become guilty before God is if all of the world is under God's law and obligated to obey it. It other words, if someone had no obligation to refrain from sin, then God would have no grounds by which to judge them as guilty for committing sin. Having the law refers to having physical possession of a Torah scroll.

Pretty much in agreement, I think this verse speaks specifically about jurisdiction and clarifies that all the world and every human being is within the jurisdiction of God's Law.

"Under Law" most literally speaks of subjection, & even an era.

So, yes, much the same but a bit different nuance. It covers the whole earth & every human being - and every human being is in subjection to it. Then we talk Christ.

 

[DamianWarS]

The case can certainly be made that the light in the creation account was the light of Messiah. Messiah is the light, he is God's word made flesh, God's word is the light, God's law is God's word and God's word made flesh is the living embodiment of Gods' law. For as long as God's nature has been eternal there has been a way to act in accordance with his nature and Messiah is the embodiment of God's nature expressed through sinless obedience to those instructions, you don't have any grounds for claiming that no law was needed for light to be spoken into this dark unformed vessel, but rather the law is the light.

Psalms 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

the grounds are from the context that light is spoken into. "the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." what is innate about before day 1 is a state of disorder, hence why day 1-3 are about ordering. what is innate is emptiness hence why days 4-6 are about filling, what is innate is it is unrest hence why day 7 is about rest. everything creation is about, before the light is spoken is the opposite.

 

[DamianWarS]

Did you know that many of the commandments given were to provide a clear way for Messiah to come?

did you know the Messiah has come? so why are we continuing to pave the road he has already passed along?

Please define your understanding of 'wrong'. Murder (recorded) goes back to Cain and Abel. The LORD said sin was crouching at the door. If there were no law then how could it be a sin?

the law does not define morals. What the law does is expose our sin and inability to fix ourselves and the subsequent need for a savior. The moral constructs themselves predate the law. what is good, is of God, what is wrong is against God. So it is not law that defines what is right/wrong it is God, I know this because God is good so goodness itself is a product of God which exists separate to law. God predates the whole thing, before there was darkness and light there was God. Those constructs are his will and our first glimpse of them is when he said "Let there be light" not when law is created.

The law echos the law? I'm not understanding that.

the law echos God's will and plan. I called them constructs that the law is based on thus they predate the law. if constructs are too abstract for you then simply think of God's will or God himself who clearly predates everything.

Sorry, but they are about what you put into your body.

The dream was to show Peter that the Gentiles were acceptable for those he called clean.

The animals in the sheet were representative of the nations, just like animals are used in the book of Daniel.

Peter misunderstood what he was being told. As he said he had never eaten anything unclean before (and up to this point too, even though it was way after the crucifixion and resurrection). Jesus never told him before then or after that the dietary laws were done away with.

You will notice in the story Peter never eats anything.

God reveals to Peter what the deeper meaning of the dietary laws are and it parallels God's outpouring to the Jews first than to the gentiles which are broadly defined as clean/unclean animals. Yet God makes it all clean to show his spirit is released to all and what was formerly unclean is now clean, he has to emphasize this to Peter to get him out of his law vacuum. This is the meaning God himself reveals to Peter so we know we can trust it. The thing is you can't have it both ways, the dietary laws mirror the unclean/clean state of the nations and since all has been made clean then the dietary laws mirror the same state, so that all is made clean too. to say the dietary laws are only about food would be viewing the law as 1 dimensional not to mention negating God's revelation. If God has made all the nations clean he has made all the food clean with it. if food is still regarded as clean/unclean then it implicitly negates what God revealed to Peter. This is a further indication that we are no longer under the law because the law is made complete. Christ himself said on the cross "It is finished"

 

[Leaf473]

Please define your understanding of 'wrong'. Murder (recorded) goes back to Cain and Abel. The LORD said sin was crouching at the door. If there were no law then how could it be a sin?

Are you expanding the thread topic? If so, cool!

I've been talking about this subject over here, post #78
Creation Sabbath Origin

But there's not a lot of activity there. I'd love to talk about it here.

 

[Leaf473]

Deut is Moses speaking to the children of those that came out of Egypt. Those who left Egypt were not allowed to go in so they wandered 40 years until they all died (all but a few) and Moses was going over the law with them. It is not an interpretation, but a reiteration.

For thousands of years the Jews have held to the explanation that shaatnez was about mixing linen and wool, nothing else.

Deuteronomy reiterates some things, expands some things imo.

The Jews have believed lots of things that I don't hold to, for example that if Jesus were the Messiah he would have restored the kingdom to Israel. So I've heard.

Anyways, it's a valid interpretational question imo: do laws in Leviticus stand alone, or can they be interpreted based on what Deuteronomy says?

 

[GDL]

the law does not define morals

God's Law teaches what is sin. In this way it teaches what is moral & immoral by defining & explaining it.

What the law does is expose our sin

Practical knowledge of sin is through the law (Romans 3:20) & we would not know what is sinful if it was not specified in a commandment (Romans 7:7). The Law educates & lays a basis for judgment (Romans 3:19).

The moral constructs themselves predate the law

If moral constructs are based in the character & mind of God, & Law is based in the character & mind of God, then it seems imaginary that moral constructs are truly separate from Law, which is really instruction if we look at the root meaning of Torah. God is judging from the Garden onward & is still judging.

Romans 4:15 tells us there is no violation if there is no law. Romans 5:14 tells us Adam committed violation (same word) & sinned. There must have been law in Adam's time, even if it was simply the command God had issued to him & the marriage between 1 man & 1 woman, and????

So it is not law that defines what is right/wrong it is God

God defines what is right & wrong & makes it clear by some means (like verbally in the beginning) and in writing during Moses. Once again, before Moses Abraham was keeping Law & Adam violated Law.

goodness itself is a product of God which exists separate to law

But Law also exists in the mind of God & goodness is not a product of God it is a characteristic of God. He doesn't just produce goodness. He is goodness.

God predates the whole thing, before there was darkness and light there was God.

But now you're going to creation again when 1 John 1:5 tells us God is light. You seem to be mixing up what God produces and what God is. As Soyeong has said, the characteristics of God's Law are the same things said about God. I really don't think we can separate God's Law from God. God's Law simply instructs of His character, which He requires us to share.

I was recently researching the topic of sin again. It's interesting that at the root of the Hebrew word is the meaning, "deviation." Even the word I translated above as "violation" carries the basic meaning of deviation from an established boundary. Beyond this, as I recall from earlier personal studies, all the words we relate to this topic of sin, have to do with walking & tripping, stumbling, stumbling so as to fall, falling aside, etc. And then we have all the walking terminology & commands, and the straight or crooked paths, and the entrance through the narrow gate and walk along the narrow way/path.

I think one of our main problems with all this translating & interpreting is that we simply put our own thinking into it rather than just being as literal as we can and allowing God to say what He says. Then, we add a Greek concept of law into the mix, and we end up with more error.

God made man in His image and gave man instruction on how to willingly be conformed to His character. Man deviated. God gave more instruction & promises to bring man back onto the path. God's Law is a lamp for our feet instructing us how not to deviate, trip, stumble, fall... God is light and He's been giving man this light since the beginning.

You seem to be taking away the lamp.

not when law is created

Again, I don't think it is created. I see it as the eternal mind & character of God & when we have His character, we won't need written Law because His Law will also be our character. Until then, I'm happy to know God the Son came to give a living example of God's Law/character, explain it to the degree He did, and establish a system to conform us to it. I'm also happy I can still read it and know what He says is good & bad & look within and around me & judge according to righteousness to whatever degree He's illuminated me to be able to do.


Maybe we could break with the philosophy and have you state in very simple terms what you think the status of God's Law is today, post Crucifixion-Ascension & post destruction of the Temple.

 

[Lulav]

did you know the Messiah has come? so why are we continuing to pave the road he has already passed along?

Why the snark?
What I was asking you was if you were aware that in order for God to be able to bring to fruition Gen 3:15 he had to have a pure people and a lot of the Torah is about making that so.

the law does not define morals. What the law does is expose our sin and inability to fix ourselves and the subsequent need for a savior. The moral constructs themselves predate the law. what is good, is of God, what is wrong is against God. So it is not law that defines what is right/wrong it is God, I know this because God is good so goodness itself is a product of God which exists separate to law. God predates the whole thing, before there was darkness and light there was God. Those constructs are his will and our first glimpse of them is when he said "Let there be light" not when law is created.

You still haven't answered my question, what do you define as 'wrong'?
I don't believe as you say that the law was made to expose our sin. It shows what is right and what is wrong in Gods eyes since he is the creator and is the only one who can say what is good and what isn't good. He is not a God that made up laws to show how bad we are, what kind of loving God would that be?

the law echos God's will and plan. I called them constructs that the law is based on thus they predate the law. if constructs are too abstract for you then simply think of God's will or God himself who clearly predates everything.

More snark? why? I was just trying to understand what you were trying to say here.

Everything the law proclaims preexisted the law, the law is there to echo it, not to establish it. So then the law is based on preexisting constructs and it manifests these contracts through very physical or concrete means. by the laws themselves are limited to the covenant they are established in.

The laws, the mitzvot may precede mankind but not all the ordinances, or statutes and judgements came into being for the purpose I listed above.

God reveals to Peter what the deeper meaning of the dietary laws

No he did not. Foreigners were equated with unclean animals of the four footed kind and such.

To eat back then with a gentile would be social intercourse and it was forbidden. What God was showing was that it was OK to go to a gentiles house and have that social intercourse, i.e. eating together.
However Cornelius was not a pagan gentile and Peter later explains to the ecclesia in Jerusalem about this in the next chapter (Acts 11)

'And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. ​

That is the social intercourse that Peter objected to.

4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them,.........​

are and it parallels God's outpouring to the Jews first than to the gentiles which are broadly defined as clean/unclean animals.

But has nothing to do with the dietary laws which are more involved than just unclean and clean animals.

Yet God makes it all clean to show his spirit is released to all and what was formerly unclean is now clean, he has to emphasize this to Peter to get him out of his law vacuum.

God did not change the genetic makeup of animals at this time, neither did Jesus when the translators added (and he made all things clean). What was clean in Moses time and even Noah's time remains still today.

Peter was in a law vacuum? he was obedient to Gods laws and he showed his love by being obedient.

This is the meaning God himself reveals to Peter so we know we can trust it. The thing is you can't have it both ways, the dietary laws mirror the unclean/clean state of the nations and since all has been made clean then the dietary laws mirror the same state, so that all is made clean too. to say the dietary laws are only about food would be viewing the law as 1 dimensional not to mention negating God's revelation.

It's a misinterpretation of Gods revelation. It had to do with eating together with foreigners not eating foreigners.

If God has made all the nations clean he has made all the food clean with it. if food is still regarded as clean/unclean then it implicitly negates what God revealed to Peter. This is a further indication that we are no longer under the law because the law is made complete.

No it does not. And all the nations have not been made clean. There are still boundless pagans.

Christ himself said on the cross "It is finished"

That is open to many interpretations.

What I believe was finished was the journey/path from Genesis 3:15 to the cross. Else what Jesus said would not be true.

'"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.'​

 

[Lulav]

the grounds are from the context that light is spoken into. "the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." what is innate about before day 1 is a state of disorder, hence why day 1-3 are about ordering. what is innate is emptiness hence why days 4-6 are about filling, what is innate is it is unrest hence why day 7 is about rest. everything creation is about, before the light is spoken is the opposite.

One must believe that God is a creator of chaos or did it just happen and he had to fix it?

 

[Lulav]

Are you expanding the thread topic? If so, cool!

I've been talking about this subject over here, post #78
Creation Sabbath Origin

But there's not a lot of activity there. I'd love to talk about it here.

I was just asking for clarification of the posters understanding of the word 'wrong' so I could answer appropriately.
Not really, but few participating are keeping to the topic in the OP even though I stated the rules of this thread.

I'll check out the thread maybe we can get it revived.

Edit to add:

I've taken a look at the post you linked to and it really should have it's own thread. It doesn't suit the OP but it could be made into it's own thread with a title something like 'What makes God Good?'

 

[Lulav]

Deuteronomy reiterates some things, expands some things imo.

You mean like when Jesus said:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.'​

The Jews have believed lots of things that I don't hold to, for example that if Jesus were the Messiah he would have restored the kingdom to Israel. So I've heard.

You mean these Jews who lived with him and witnessed his ministry, crucifixion and resurrection?

Acts1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?​

Anyways, it's a valid interpretational question imo: do laws in Leviticus stand alone, or can they be interpreted based on what Deuteronomy says?

Do you have any specifics in mind?