The Law of Moses Has Not Been Abolished

[ToBeLoved]

2) Here we have Yahshua commanding his disciples to teach what he taught, to the NATIONS. Not Jews...nations.

Mt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
​

There you go. You can no longer claim that no one has been able to show you where Yahshua taught 'Old Testament' law to the nations.

This is not Old Testament. The Hebrews/Israelite's never went into the world with the gospel, making disciples of all the nations. They were one people, put aside by God, for His bloodline to Christ.

 

[ToBeLoved]

“Gentiles having to keep Jewish law?”. There are two issues here; 1. Gentiles are not required to keep God’s Law; a Gentile who enters into the covenant is converted and is called Israel and is required to keep God’s Law; a converted person is no longer a Gentile.

This is not right. Gentiles are called gentiles throughout the New Testament. And no Gentile is then 'required to keep God's Law'. And a converted person is still a Gentile.

What you are in essence saying with this is that Christians are to go back to the Old Covenant before Jesus even came to die for sins.

How can you say that?

 

[Strong in Him]

You have been shown. You simply choose to ignore. Here is a very quick, very simple 2-verse recap.

1) Here we have Yahshua teaching that the (Old Testament) law of tithing should be kept, while not neglecting the weightier provisions.

Mt 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
​

​

I responded, at length, to your post and answered your questions/points; you are clearly choosing to ignore what I have written.

The above verse was addressed to Pharisees, Scribes, teachers of the law and those who were under the law. It was about them and their practices. How does this apply to me - a female Gentile living in the 21st century?

2) Here we have Yahshua commanding his disciples to teach what he taught, to the NATIONS. Not Jews...nations.

Mt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
​

​

Yes, what HE taught and said.
I have already asked several times, where is it written that Jesus said "teach OT law to the nations", and did so himself?

The fact that no one can answer this, proves my point - he didn't.

There you go. You can no longer claim that no one has been able to show you where Yahshua taught 'Old Testament' law to the nations.

These verses don't show that at all. You have taken 2 verses out of context and put them together to try to make a new doctrine.

What's more, you haven't addressed the questions I asked, and points I made, in my last post. The most important of these was "how do you define 'law'?"

 

[Strong in Him]

1Jo 3:4 ¶ Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

Sin was present before the law was given - that was my point.

 

[Strong in Him]

Christ never said "keep Jewish law," because He didn't think of God's law as "Jewish." He always viewed the law as His Father's Law. Jewish Law is your word, not His.

Re 2:14 'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit [acts of] immorality.

John 17:14 "I have given them Thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

John 8:26-29 "I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world." 27 They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father. 28 Jesus therefore said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. 29 "And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him."

John 7:16-17 Jesus therefore answered them, and said, "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 "If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself.

John 14:22-24 Judas (not Iscariot) *said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us, and not to the world?" 23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him. 24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

John 12:49-50 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me commandment, what to say, and what to speak. 50 "And I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."

Luke 11:27-28 And it came about while He said these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice, and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts at which You nursed." 28 But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God, and observe it."

Matthew 5:17-20 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 "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. 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 16:27-31 "And he said, 'Then I beg you, Father, that you send him to my father's house-- 28 for I have five brothers--that he may warn them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' 29 "But Abraham *said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 "But he said, 'No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' 31 "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.'"

Matthew 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

Matthew 7:20-23 "So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

You have quoted verses here which talk about Jesus' teaching; where did he specifically teach that his followers, gentiles and all those who believed in him should then continue to keep the food laws given to the Hebrew people at Sinai?

I keep asking these 2 things;
1) By "law", do you mean, and include, all the above food and hygiene laws written in Leviticus?
2) Where did Jesus say, "after you have believed, come to me and received eternal life, make sure you carry on practicing all these laws. And if people never knew, or practiced, them in the first place; then teach them"?

He didn't.
In fact with regard to these ceremonial laws, Jesus taught that people came first.
When he was asked why he let his disciples eat food with unwashed hands, he didn't say "thank you for telling me" and rebuke them for breaking the law. Instead he taught that nothing that goes in to a person's mouth can make them unclean, Mark 7.
When they grumbled that Jesus worked and healed on the Sabbath, he didn't say "thank you for showing me that I have broken the law," he said that the Sabbath was for man, NOT man for the Sabbath.
When people with skin conditions or who were otherwise unclean approached Jesus; he touched and healed them.

Jesus did not teach that even Jews had to carry on obeying all these intricate hygiene laws - never mind Gentiles.

 

[Strong in Him]

What's that got to do with Gentiles having to keep Jewish law?
And how do you define "the Law"? 10 commandments only, or entire Torah, including food, clothing and hygiene laws?

“Gentiles having to keep Jewish law?”. There are two issues here; 1. Gentiles are not required to keep God’s Law; a Gentile who enters into the covenant is converted and is called Israel and is required to keep God’s Law; a converted person is no longer a Gentile. 2. The Law of God also called the covenant is optional for Gentiles and even though the Law and covenant was mandatory for Israel it is God who dictated the terms and who owns the Law.


For me the Law of God is every word spoken by God; the Ten Commandments are an abstract of every word spoken by God; I discern between the Law and it’s application or implementation; The wording of the new covenant is not changed. from the old, it is still very sword spoken by God; what has changed is the Priesthood, and the sacrifice, and the stratagem raised go a higher level; the only one whom has presumed to change the Law is the enemy of God.[/QUOTE]

So would you say that:
a) the law - as we are discussing here - includes all the food and hygiene laws
b) Gentiles aren't required to keep all of these?

If you are; thank you for answering my questions.

 

[sparow]

This is not right. Gentiles are called gentiles throughout the New Testament. And no Gentile is then 'required to keep God's Law'. And a converted person is still a Gentile.

What you are in essence saying with this is that Christians are to go back to the Old Covenant before Jesus even came to die for sins.

How can you say that?

Gentile is an English word which seems to mean "not Jew"; before translation the Hebrew and Greek words refer to masses; in the Hebrew a flight of locusts can be called gentile; in the Greek a race can be called gentile; in both Greek and Hebrew the original words can mean foreign people, heathens or nations. I do not use Paul or Acts to any great extent; for the NT gentile mostly refers to people living in the national boundaries of what we call Israel today, none of whom were converted at the time they are referred to. I do recall Paul saying to his little children, "Ye are Israel".

In essence that is not what I am saying; what I am saying is there is only one word of God, not two words; the two covenants or two testimonies are two witnesses and if they disagreed with each other the word of God would not be certified. There is one law or one word of God applicable to both covenants.

 

[Strong in Him]

Leviticus 11:44-45 For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. 45 For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”

The command to refrain from eating unclean animals wasn't about setting them apart so that they would be different for its own sake, but to teach them how to live according to God's holiness

That's what I've said; these were given to show them HOW to live as God's holy people. They are instructions, or laws, given to a specific group of people at a specific time.

My position is that Jesus has come and died, reconciled us to God and makes us holy and righteous. He has told us that his followers are not OF the world and are not to follow or love the world, but be dedicated to God and follow "the narrow way". He told his disciples that they would be persecuted, beaten and imprisoned because they belonged to him and walked in the light, rather than the darkness. This is what holiness is - being different, or separate. Since Jesus, God's holy people are those who have accepted his Son, have eternal life, are reconciled to God and live in the world but do not love it.
Therefore, NT believers were not taught to follow the OT food and hygiene laws that marked those people out as belonging to God.

In 1 John 2:3-6, it associates the imperative to follow Christ's commands and the imperative to walk in the same way that he walked, so Jesus did not hypocritically say to do one thing and do something else, but rather he to obey the Mosaic Law by both word and by example.

Jesus did not teach his followers to obey the law perfectly, and did not instruct Gentiles to adopt the law. As I've said in replies to others, Jesus touched people with skin conditions etc; in the eyes of the strict Pharisees, he probably did break the law. This doesn't mean that Jesus sinned, however. He was showing the love and power of God to heal the person, and restoring those marginalised by society; this was more important than a ceremonial hygiene law.

The OT Law is included as part of all of God's commands.

So the OT law, for you, includes all the food and hygiene laws as written in Leviticus; all of them?
I just want to be sure I understand what you're saying.

Even if Jesus had said nothing, then he still would have taught obedience to the Mosaic Law by example, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22). Jesus was sinless, which means that he kept and upheld all of the Mosaic Law, not just ten of them.

We are to believe in him and follow his teachings.
Jesus was also a male, circumcised Jew who wore robes and spoke Aramaic; we, and especially I, cannot follow that example.

Jesus he came to fulfil the law, for Jews, and his blood was of the NEW covenant; the one that was prophesied by Jeremiah. The nation of Israel repeatedly broke the old covenant, so a new one was needed, and made.

I have never suggested that we need to obey the Mosaic Law in order to become saved, far from it!

No, maybe you haven't.
But this thread is about whether the law is not dead and was abolished by Jesus. A number of people are saying that it wasn't abolished by Jesus, and the implication, to me, is; why aren't you keeping it then?

My answer to that implied question is that it was not given to me; if it had been, Jesus has fulfilled it and salvation is through him alone, NOT Jesus + keeping the law, or Jesus + good works/church ritual or anything else. Jesus alone is the way to the Father.

Yes, Jesus said that not the least part of the Law would disappear until heaven and earth pass away

He was talking to Jews. Their law won't disappear, for them, and if they are under the law and reject Jesus as the Messiah and fulfillment of the law; they will have to continue to keep it.

and gave a warning to those who would relax the least part of the Law or teach others to do the same, which is a warning we all should heed (Matthew 5:17-19).

He didn't command his disciples to teach others, and other nations, to obey the Jewish OT law.

The Jews do not have a history of giving the death penalty whenever the Law prescribed it, but rather they often imposed a fine instead.

That being the case, and as they no longer have a temple, nor animal sacrifices - even they don't obey their own law as written in Leviticus.
So how can people say that we Gentiles should?

 

[sparow]

“Gentiles having to keep Jewish law?”. There are two issues here; 1. Gentiles are not required to keep God’s Law; a Gentile who enters into the covenant is converted and is called Israel and is required to keep God’s Law; a converted person is no longer a Gentile. 2. The Law of God also called the covenant is optional for Gentiles and even though the Law and covenant was mandatory for Israel it is God who dictated the terms and who owns the Law.


For me the Law of God is every word spoken by God; the Ten Commandments are an abstract of every word spoken by God; I discern between the Law and it’s application or implementation; The wording of the new covenant is not changed. from the old, it is still very sword spoken by God; what has changed is the Priesthood, and the sacrifice, and the stratagem raised go a higher level; the only one whom has presumed to change the Law is the enemy of God.

So would you say that:
a) the law - as we are discussing here - includes all the food and hygiene laws
b) Gentiles aren't required to keep all of these?

If you are; thank you for answering my questions.[/QUOTE]

I would say that but these statements mean something different to me than they mean to you. for example, Gentiles are not required to keep the Law; but if they enter into the covenant, seeking eternal life, then as a probationary member of the Kingdom of God they are, they are no longer gentiles, there is only one assembly and it is called Israel.

As for food, what was bad for a person to eat remains bad to eat; there are times in God's service a person can be immune to poisons. I am not sure what you mean by hygiene laws; you may be referring to touching dead animals and are unclean for a week; if you are talking about the Priests washing their hands as part of the Sanctuary service, this Law is continued in the baptism of those who become the new priesthood.

 

[Strong in Him]

I would say that but these statements mean something different to me than they mean to you. for example, Gentiles are not required to keep the Law; but if they enter into the covenant, seeking eternal life, then as a probationary member of the Kingdom of God they are, they are no longer gentiles, there is only one assembly and it is called Israel.

As for food, what was bad for a person to eat remains bad to eat; there are times in God's service a person can be immune to poisons. I am not sure what you mean by hygiene laws; you may be referring to touching dead animals and are unclean for a week; if you are talking about the Priests washing their hands as part of the Sanctuary service, this Law is continued in the baptism of those who become the new priesthood.

Thank you for your reply.
By "hygiene laws", I am referring to not touching people who are bleeding or have skin conditions, women being unclean after childbirth etc - as stated in Leviticus.

So would your position be that Gentiles are not subject to these laws UNLESS they receive the New Covenant and eternal life through Jesus, and then they are?

 

[sparow]

Thank you for your reply.
By "hygiene laws", I am referring to not touching people who are bleeding or have skin conditions, women being unclean after childbirth etc - as stated in Leviticus.

So would your position be that Gentiles are not subject to these laws UNLESS they receive the New Covenant and eternal life through Jesus, and then they are?

The Law has a purpose of being for the benefit of man, and common sense is required. touching people facilitates the transmission of disease in both directions; when a person wears hygienic gloves the other person is not touched; I am sure the Levites would have assisted the sick without the need for physical contact.

What most call the new covenant is fiction, not coming from God but made by men; it is men rejecting God and is prophesy fulfilled.

 

[Strong in Him]

What most call the new covenant is fiction, not coming from God but made by men; it is men rejecting God and is prophesy fulfilled.

The New Covenant was sealed by the blood of Jesus, Matthew 26:28.
When Jesus came he taught us many things, brought in the Kingdom of God - though it is not fully here yet - and sealed the new covenant between God and mankind.
So we no longer need the blood of many animals to atone for our sins; we have Jesus.
We no longer need a priest to pray, or mediate, for us; Jesus is our high priest.
We no longer have to have a group of 10 people before God hears our prayers; where 2 or 3 are gathered, Jesus is there.
We don't need to go to a temple to pray or to find God, and there is no longer an area which is most holy, available only to high priests; WE are God's temple and God can live IN us by his Holy Spirit.

The promise of Jeremiah 31:31-34 has been fulfilled.
God does forgive our sins if we ask him, because of Jesus and his sacrifice for us. We don't need to say to anyone, "tell me what God is like so that I may know about him"; we can know him for ourselves. God's Spirit can live in us, making us Holy, interpreting and applying God's word and will to us, and transforming us into Jesus' image, 2 Corinthians 3:18.
The covenant was sealed with the blood of a spotless Lamb - Jesus.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Gentile is an English word which seems to mean "not Jew"; before translation the Hebrew and Greek words refer to masses; in the Hebrew a flight of locusts can be called gentile; in the Greek a race can be called gentile; in both Greek and Hebrew the original words can mean foreign people, heathens or nations. I do not use Paul or Acts to any great extent; for the NT gentile mostly refers to people living in the national boundaries of what we call Israel today, none of whom were converted at the time they are referred to. I do recall Paul saying to his little children, "Ye are Israel".

In essence that is not what I am saying; what I am saying is there is only one word of God, not two words; the two covenants or two testimonies are two witnesses and if they disagreed with each other the word of God would not be certified. There is one law or one word of God applicable to both covenants.

I don't think Gentile is used at all as a negative word, but more to explain the background of where people are coming from. If you read Hebrews that book really talks about the Old Covenant and now, after Christ how Hebrew Christians embraced Christ and the impact that He is the long promised Jewish Messiah.

About Paul, I would know at least where he went with his three missionary journeys, because they help provide a context for the New Testament. And those countries were in Italy, Greece and other places in the Mediterranean.

Ephesians - To the church at Ephesus
Corinthians - To the church at Corinth
Phillipians - To the church at Phillipai
Thessolonians - To the church of Thessolonica
Galatians - To the church of Galatia

There are more, but it's early so those are off the top of my head.

 

[NeedyFollower]

I would absolutely agree with your statement that doing physical laws in and of itself does not make a person righteous. Likewise, your warning that keeping the physical law can lead to pride is also well stated.

After all, YHVH loves the humble heart.

Col 3:12 And so, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;

1Pe 5:5 You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.​

Mic 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does YHVH require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?​

However, have you considered that declaring the law to be an unnecessary burden, because of lack of money, time or mental fortitude (bandwidth) can itself be the height of arrogance? After all, even lawless Christians acknowledge that one of the two great commandments is to love God with your heart, MIND and soul? Are we also told we cannot serve God and money (Mt 22:37)? In essence, a person declaring the requirements for holiness as unnecessary burdens is elevating themselves to be equal with the one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy (Jas 4:12). The same sin Adam and Eve committed when they determined that YHVH's command to not eat the fruit was an unnecessary burden.

Mt 22:37 And He said to him, "'YOU SHALL LOVE YHVH YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'​

Mt 6:24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
​

Consider it like a man/woman declaring themselves modest, while willingly removing their clothes and walking around naked. If they choose to remove their clothes in public (Physical act), it can be definitively stated she is not modest in her heart. It's not possible, since she's not even capable of being modest in her flesh. However, it sounds as if you're saying that since it's possible that being modest (Merely an example to represent physical laws) might make someone arrogant, therefore it's unnecessary to wear clothes (Physical laws)?

Hello and thank you for your kind reply. Actually loving God with all my heart, soul and mind is in no way a burden but a delight that I neither deserve nor expected. I do believe that outward observances often are a reflection of an inward change. Having fellowshipped with people who were formerly Amish, I also am aware that the outward observance can lead to an appearance of holiness and easily become the means of justification. For example, I do sincerely believe in modest apparel as a demonstration of LOVE for your brother and/or sister. I believe that the head covering is out of respect to a sister's "head" her husband or father if unmarried .It apparently has also to do with the angels who are observing us and demonstrates the amazing power in submission through love . But I also know that there are those who are potentially not submitted but still wear the symbol of submission out of tradition .
I am also aware that some of a plain background have discovered "freedom in Christ" but may have run to the flesh in the name of Christian liberty and may actually be in rebellion having made the Gospel about them rather than Christ . This is my concern with outward observances ( not that there is anything wrong with them per se ) as I believe it was also a concern of Paul's. I believe that is why our Lord Jesus said that the way was straight as there is a ditch on either side.
If not careful I can be proud of my "poverty" and the wearing of rags ( I do not wear rags BTW ) and am sure I am wealthy compared to others outside of the US though I left business and a prosperous career .......but very subtley am trasnsported to place of prayer of the pharisee and praying thus within myself ..." I thank thee Lord that I am not like XYZ " ..Do you see the danger of that "spirit " ?

 

[NeedyFollower]

Leviticus 11:44-45 For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. 45 For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”

The command to refrain from eating unclean animals wasn't about setting them apart so that they would be different for its own sake, but to teach them how to live according to God's holiness and to set them apart for God's specific purpose, namely to partner with God to bring about the reconciliation of the world to God. Through faith in Messiah, we too have be made holy for this purpose (2 Corinthians 5:11-21) and have become part of God's chosen people and a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9-10), so we should follow God's instructions for how to live according to His holiness.




In 1 John 2:3-6, it associates the imperative to follow Christ's commands and the imperative to walk in the same way that he walked, so Jesus did not hypocritically say to do one thing and do something else, but rather he to obey the Mosaic Law by both word and by example. The Mosaic Law shows us what God is like because it instructs us how to live in accordance with His attributes, and Jesus showed us what god is like through teaching the Mosaic Law by word and by example. Disciples are people who have the goal of memorizing their rabbi's teachings, or learning how to think and act like them, and to essentially become a copy of them, so there is no such thing as a disciple who rejects their rabbi's example.



I didn't say that Jesus an object, but that faith requires an object. In other words, faith is directed at someone or something and someone or something is the object of that faith.



The OT Law is included as part of all of God's commands.



Even if Jesus had said nothing, then he still would have taught obedience to the Mosaic Law by example, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22). Jesus was sinless, which means that he kept and upheld all of the Mosaic Law, not just ten of them. For instance, Jesus set an example for his followers of eat only clean animals and as his followers we should follow his example.


I have never suggested that we need to obey the Mosaic Law in order to become saved, far from it! God had many reasons for giving His Law, but providing the means of salvation through our own effort was never one of them. Rather, the one and only way to become saved is by faith, and by the same faith we are be careful to obey all of God Laws. Faith was just as important in the OT and it is in the NT.



Yes, Jesus said that not the least part of the Law would disappear until heaven and earth pass away and gave a warning to those who would relax the least part of the Law or teach others to do the same, which is a warning we all should heed (Matthew 5:17-19). The Jews do not have a history of giving the death penalty whenever the Law prescribed it, but rather they often imposed a fine instead. The harshness of the penalty was to show the seriousness of the sin, while the lighter penalty was to show the mercy of God. As Jesus said in Matthew 23:23, justice, mercy, and faith and weightier aspects of the Law, so again the Law is intended to teach how to live according to the attributes of God, so if our obedience doesn't reflect those attributes, then we are not obeying it correctly. The reason that they no longer have animal sacrifices is not because God's eternal attributes and Law have have been done away with, but because there is no longer a temple in which to offer them.

The reason that they no longer have animal sacrifices is not because God's eternal attributes and Law have have been done away with, but because there is no longer a temple in which to offer them.

Ouch ! I have just been following the Christian Zionist movement and the support of Israel by the US . And if "Christians" have their way, Jews will rebuild the temple and be able to offer an Animal ...can you believe that ? An Animal when God gave Himself through the blood of His only begotten Son . I am so grieved for this tremendous error . If in antiochus epiphanes day a swine was offered in the temple thus defiling it, how much more so to encourage the Jewish people to ignore the perfect and most precious sacrifice , Christ Jesus and reestablish the old covenant. I wonder if that would also qualify as the abomination that makes desolate ? Let the reader understand.

 

[NeedyFollower]

Much of the law is conditional and selective. The laws governing Israel's land inheritance were suspended (not abolished) when Israel was exiled. The laws governing the Levites have been suspended in favor of Melchizedek. You creating your own Sabbath is a no-no for violating the prohibition against man-made law (Mark 7:8).

The law of God has been in existence since creation, and Christians are merely the latest administrators of it. Its comprehensive set of rules are designed to manage an entire kingdom and the future rulers of the Kingdom on Earth will do so with God's law alone (Is 2:3). Catholic law, Anabaptist law, Methodist law, etc. mean nothing. Many commentators on this thread have trivialized the law as if it were nothing but clothing and dietary laws for a bunch of nomadic desert dwellers - condescendingly calling it "Jewish law." They will be liable in court for their denunciation of the greatness of God's law. The kingdom is populated by Grace, yet managed by Law.

Here are the first ten laws recorded in the Beatitudes that Christ gave His Followers. Notice all the topics it covers. All of them are old testament law. In fact, every law taught in the Gospels, that explain how to Love God and the Brotherhood, derive from OT law. Christ taught the law to His disciples then told them to go and teach the gentiles (Mt 28:20). It's as if He handed them their own personal Torah scroll with the command to “sin no more.” If you have any intention to perfectly keep the “Law of Christ” then learn the law. You don’t have to be like Pergamum that turned their back on God's law only to lose their candlestick.

Re 2:14 'But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit [acts of] immorality.​

1. Do not to violate the anger laws (Lev 19:17; Mt 5:22). (Personal behavior and community law)
   
   
2. Do not to violate the slander laws (Lev 19:16; Mt 5:22). (Community law)
   
   
3. He upheld the institution of religious courts (De 1:16; 25:1; Mt 5:25). (Community law)
   
   
4. He upheld the binding decisions of ecclesiastical judges (Mt 5:26; De 17:11). (Community law)
   
   
5. He enforced another Mosaic law forbidding lust in the heart (Mt 5:28; De 5:21). (Personal Behavior)
   
   
6. He taught how to correctly understand the divorce laws (Mt 5:32; De 24:1). (family law)
   
   
7. He taught of fornication marriage and adultery (Lev 21:7; De 7:3; Lev 18:6, 22). (personal behavior law, restitution law)
   
   
8. He forbids divorce and remarriage except for marriage fraud and fornication (Mt 19:9; De 22:13-21). (family law)
   
   
9. Christ supported the restriction on personal vengeance and private conflict (Mt 5:39-41; Lev 19:18; Ex 21:18). (personal behavior law)
   
   
10. Christ upheld the poor man loans (Mt 5:42; De 15:7) and to love our enemies (Mt 5:44; Lev 19:18). (mercy and kindness)

He forbids divorce and remarriage except for marriage fraud and fornication (Mt 19:9; De 22:13-21). (family law)

No , actually he forbids remarriage in all circumstances but not divorce. Remarriage unless the first spouse is dead is adultery and bigamy because in the eyes of God they are still joined ..to remarry does not demonstrate the patience , hope, longsuffering and love of God ...it demonstrates faithlessness , which God is not. As for me establishing my own sabbath ..I did not. Christ established it and it is everyday as I am in Him every day. Should you wish to worship Him only on Saturdays ( if Jewish or SDA , etc. ) I think Paul makes allowance for that but we are called to peace. Be careful regarding remarriage . It goes against the higher law of LOVE ....that is a commandant of Jesus Christ our Lord ...if we have not love ....etc. Christ was a demonstration of Love and love and sacrifice are synonyms .

 

[Soyeong]

Ouch ! I have just been following the Christian Zionist movement and the support of Israel by the US . And if "Christians" have their way, Jews will rebuild the temple and be able to offer an Animal ...can you believe that ? An Animal when God gave Himself through the blood of His only begotten Son . I am so grieved for this tremendous error . If in antiochus epiphanes day a swine was offered in the temple thus defiling it, how much more so to encourage the Jewish people to ignore the perfect and most precious sacrifice , Christ Jesus and reestablish the old covenant. I wonder if that would also qualify as the abomination that makes desolate ? Let the reader understand.

In Acts 18:18, Paul took a Nazarite vow (Numbers 6), which involved making offerings, and in Acts 21:20-24, Paul was going to pay for the offerings of others who had taken a Nazarite vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. So offerings did not stop with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only stopped because of the destruction of the temple. However, the Bible prophecies a time when a third and fourth temple will be built and when offerings will resume (Ezekiel 40-46). The blood of bulls and goats never took away sin, and a number of the offerings had nothing to do with animals or with sin, so they are for different purposes what what Christ gave himself to accomplish.

Daniel 12:11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

In order for the AntiChrist to put a stop to the daily offerings, they must first resume, and the fact that they needed to be stopped before the abomination that causes desolation could be set up means they are not the same thing. It is never an abomination to encourage Jews to do what God has commanded them to do, nor does this encourage them to ignore Christ's sacrifice or to establish the Old Covenant, especially seeing as how Paul continued to make offerings while under the New Covenant and continued to live in obedience to the Mosaic Law. What would be encouraging both Jews and Christians to ignore Christ's sacrifice is to teach that he gave himself to free us from having to obey God's Law, which would make Jesus a false prophet according to God's instructions in Deuteronomy 13, which is one of the biggest reasons why Jews have rejected Jesus as their Messiah. According to Titus 2:14, it doesn't say that Christ gave himself to redeem us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for good works, and God's Law is His instructions for how to do good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17), which is why Jews coming to faith in Christ were becoming zealous for the Law (Acts 21:20).

 

[ToBeLoved]

In essence that is not what I am saying; what I am saying is there is only one word of God, not two words; the two covenants or two testimonies are two witnesses and if they disagreed with each other the word of God would not be certified. There is one law or one word of God applicable to both covenants.

i have no idea where to start.

First, there are two covenants and they are different. And God gives His reasons for this.

You have to understand that before the 10 Commandments, what was exactly a sin against God was not all known. So that time, before Moses was different than after Moses and the 10 Commandments.

Romans 5:13-15
13 For sin was in the world before the Law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed.


Exodus 34:28
28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

Deuteronomy 4:13
13 He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets.

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

So there are actually three time periods.

* Before the Law (10 Commandments)
* The Old Covenant
* The New Covenant

 

[Soyeong]

That's what I've said; these were given to show them HOW to live as God's holy people. They are instructions, or laws, given to a specific group of people at a specific time.

I agree that they were given to a specific group of people, but I disagree that they were meant only for a specific group, and that they were only for a specific time. If the way to act according to God's righteousness changed when the Law was given, then God's righteousness also changed, but God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so the way to according to His righteousness is likewise eternal (Psalms 119:160). So the Mosaic Law did not change whether or not any particular action was righteous, but rather it revealed what actions always have and always will be in accordance with God's eternal righteousness. Anyone who wants to find out how to act according to God's righteousness and look up His instructions for that in the Mosaic Law, and as part of the New Covenant we are still told to practice righteousness (1 John 3:10). So the only way for the Mosaic Law to be done away with would be to first do away with God's righteousness. Jesus practiced righteousness in accordance with the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example, not that only Jews should follow him.

My position is that Jesus has come and died, reconciled us to God and makes us holy and righteous. He has told us that his followers are not OF the world and are not to follow or love the world, but be dedicated to God and follow "the narrow way". He told his disciples that they would be persecuted, beaten and imprisoned because they belonged to him and walked in the light, rather than the darkness. This is what holiness is - being different, or separate. Since Jesus, God's holy people are those who have accepted his Son, have eternal life, are reconciled to God and live in the world but do not love it.

Indeed, the one and only way that there has ever been to become reconciled to God and to be made holy and righteous is through faith in Jesus, so this is just as true in the OT as it is in the NT. Indeed, all followers of God should follow in God's ways, not just Jews. Indeed, we are to walk in the light and God's Law shows us how to do that (Psalms 119:105).

Therefore, NT believers were not taught to follow the OT food and hygiene laws that marked those people out as belonging to God.

This conclusion is the opposite of what you said previously. If you belong to God, then you should do the things that mark you as belonging to God, and vice versa.

Jesus did not teach his followers to obey the law perfectly, and did not instruct Gentiles to adopt the law.

Even if Jesus had said nothing, he still would have taught his followers how to obey the Law perfectly by example, which we are told to follow, but Gentiles do not need to be specifically instructed that followers of Jesus should follow Jesus, and they are free to not follow him if they would prefer not to follow him, but they shouldn't say they are his follower while refusing to follow him. The Law was given to reveal what sin is and Gentiles are told not to do what God has said is sin, so Gentiles are instructed to obey the Law.

As I've said in replies to others, Jesus touched people with skin conditions etc; in the eyes of the strict Pharisees, he probably did break the law. This doesn't mean that Jesus sinned, however. He was showing the love and power of God to heal the person, and restoring those marginalised by society; this was more important than a ceremonial hygiene law.

In the eyes of the Pharisees, Jesus broke the Law, but in the eyes of God, he did not, and I think God has a much better understanding of how to correctly obey His Law than the Pharisees did. It was not a transgression of God's law to touch someone with skin conditions, but rather doing so made someone ritually unclean, which meant that they had to through cycles of becoming ritually clean again. If Jesus could become unclean, then he would have ritually cleansed himself afterwards, but if he was a source of purity, then he would not have needed to, but either way he was not acting outside of what God's Law permitted him to do.

So the OT law, for you, includes all the food and hygiene laws as written in Leviticus; all of them?
I just want to be sure I understand what you're saying.

Yes, any law that God has given is inherently part of all God's laws. While God's ritual purity Law were hygienic, the goal of instructing them was not to have good hygiene, but to instruct how to live according to the holiness of our God.

We are to believe in him and follow his teachings.
Jesus was also a male, circumcised Jew who wore robes and spoke Aramaic; we, and especially I, cannot follow that example.

Following Christ's example is about living according to the characteristics of God in accordance with his holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, faithfulness, and other fruits of the Spirit, while refraining from ungodliness, sin, and Lawlessness, not about wearing robes and speaking Aramaic. For example, one of the ways that he taught his followers to act according to God's holiness was by setting an example of always keeping the Sabbath holy.

Jesus he came to fulfil the law, for Jews, and his blood was of the NEW covenant; the one that was prophesied by Jeremiah. The nation of Israel repeatedly broke the old covenant, so a new one was needed, and made.

Pleroo: to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

In Matthew 5, Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law and then proceeded to do so six times by teaching how to obey it as it should be. I agree that God's people are under the New Covenant, one which involves God writing the Mosaic Law on our hearts. The problem with the Old Covenant wasn't with God's Law in accordance with His righteous standard, but rather it was with the people who broke their covenant because of the hardness of their hearts. So the solution to the problem was not to do away with God's righteous standard, but to do away with the hardness of our hearts so that we would obey God's Law by the leading of the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27). While the New Covenant has a superior mediator and is based upon better promises, it does not say that it cames with superior laws because that would involve following a superior God with superior righteousness.

No, maybe you haven't.
But this thread is about whether the law is not dead and was abolished by Jesus. A number of people are saying that it wasn't abolished by Jesus, and the implication, to me, is; why aren't you keeping it then?

God had many purposes for giving the Mosaic Law, but providing the means of becoming justified through our own effort was never one of them. Among other purposes, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faith are the weightier matters of the Law (Matthew 23:23), so a purpose for obeying the Law is learn about how to have justice, mercy, and faith. God said that what He commanded was for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, Deuteronomy 10:13), so obeying the Law is about growing in faith in God about how to rightly live. Jesus summarized the Law as being instructions for how to love God and our neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40) and said that if we love him, then we will obey his commands (John 14:15), so obedience to God is about growing in a relationship with Him based on faith and love. Jesus denied knowing people who were workers of Lawlessness (Matthew 7:23), we are told that no one who keeps on practicing Lawlessness has neither seen nor known him (1 John 3:6), and we are told that a relationship with Jesus is the goal of the Law for righteousness for everyone who believes (Romans 10:4), so obedience to the Law is again about growing in a relationship with Jesus. Paul said that the Law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), so it is about being trained by in grace how to act according to God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness (1 Peter 1:13-16, 1 John 3:4-10, Ephesians 2:10, Titus 2:11-14) and about reflecting those attributes to world (Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 49:6). Paul said that the Law was given to make us conscious of sin (Romans 3:20) and that he wouldn't even know what sin was if it weren't for the Law (Romans 7:7), so a purpose of the Law is to teach us how to avoid sin, which is also something that we are told to do in the NT (Romans 6:15). Jesus was sinless, which means that he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Law, so obeying the Law is about following his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), about follow his commands and walking in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6), about being his disciple (Matthew 28:16-20), about becoming obedient bondservants to the God that we serve (Romans 6:16, 1 Corinthians 7:22), about being set free from sin to become slaves of righteousness (Romans 6:17-18), and about no longer presenting our members as slaves of impurity and Lawlessness, but presenting our members as slaves of righteousness leading to sanctification (Romans 6:19). Obedience to the Law is about refraining from following Israel's example of disobedience (1 Corinthians 10:1-13), about working out our salvation (Philippians 2:12), about walking in freedom (Psalms 119:45, James 1:25), about delighting in God (Psalms 1:1-2, Romans 7:22), about being blessed (Deuteronomy 30:15-20, Psalms 119:1), about entering into life that is life (Matthew 19:17), about following the good way where we will find rest for our souls (Jeremiah 6:16-19, Matthew 11:28-30), about being redeemed from Lawlessness (Titus 2:14), about bringing reproof, correction, training in righteousness, and equipping us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and about what we are to do because we have been justified (Ephesians 2:8-10), but it has never been about what we need to do in order to become justified.

My answer to that implied question is that it was not given to me; if it had been, Jesus has fulfilled it and salvation is through him alone, NOT Jesus + keeping the law, or Jesus + good works/church ritual or anything else. Jesus alone is the way to the Father.

The Law is the way (Deuteronomy 8:6, Jeremiah 6:16-19, Psalms 119:1), the truth (Psalms 119:142), and the life (Deuteronomy 30:15-20, Proverbs 3:8, Matthew 19:17), Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6), the Law is God's Word, and Jesus is God's Word made flesh, so they are the same way and there is no following one way without following the other. According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good and being training to renounce doing with is ungodly and sinful, which is essentially what the Law was given to instruct us how to do, so going through this training is not adding to our salvation, but rather it is what our salvation from sin entails. We can't be saved from sin without being trained to refrain from sin.

He was talking to Jews. Their law won't disappear, for them, and if they are under the law and reject Jesus as the Messiah and fulfillment of the law; they will have to continue to keep it.

You can't hold the position that the Law was only given to Jews and the position that Jesus came to free us from the Law because we can't be free from a Law that we were never under in the first place. If the world were not under God's Law, then he would have had no grounds to judge them with a Flood in Genesis 7. Jesus came to redeem us from all Lawlessness, so if you have never been under the Law, then you have never needed Jesus to die for your sins in transgression of the Law, and you have never needed grace. He fulfilled the Law by teaching how to correctly obey it as it should be, not by doing away with it, not any more fulfilling the Law of Christ by bearing one another's burdens does away with it (Galatians 5:2) or Paul fulfilling the Gospel did away with it (Romans 15:18-19).

He didn't command his disciples to teach others, and other nations, to obey the Jewish OT law.

Jesus taught to obey the Mosaic Law by example, and his discipled learned how to correctly obey it by following his example, so that was included in that He taught them as part of the Great Commission. Jesus began his ministry with the message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Law is how we know what we should be repenting of doing, so repenting from our disobedience to the Mosaic Law is an integral part of the Gospel message.

That being the case, and as they no longer have a temple, nor animal sacrifices - even they don't obey their own law as written in Leviticus.
So how can people say that we Gentiles should?

There is a difference between saying that we shouldn't obey God's Law and saying that the conditions under which a law applies have not been met. For example, the command to keep the Sabbath on the 7th day only applies when it is the 7th day, and you wouldn't criticize someone for not keeping the Sabbath when it is a Tuesday. Similarly, laws in regard to temple practice only apply when there is a temple in which to practice them. We can't be held accountable for obeying laws that are impossible for us to obey. When Israel was in exile in Babylon, the condition for their return was to repent and turn back to obedience, which involved obeying laws that required them to have access to a Temple that they didn't have access to while they were in exile. So obeying what they could obey was counted as full obedience. However, if we ought to obey God's commands and Jews are not obeying them as they should be, then that means that they need to repent and turn back to obedience, not that we shouldn't obey it. We are told to learn from Israel's example of disobedience that we might not desire evil as they did, not to emulate their disobedience (1 Corinthians 10:6).

 

[NeedyFollower]

"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

It still appears to me that there is a tendency to help the Jews reestablish the Old Covenant and crucify the Son of God afresh , to attempt to undo what God has done through His sacrifice . I believe as followers of God through the Holy Spirit by the Sacrifice of Jesus we are to " Offer your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God which is your true and proper worship." This goes along with " I die daily that Christ might live. " Also it agrees with For me to live is Christ and to die is gain . "
That also resonates with Paul's fear that the Galatians were seeking to establish their own righteousness by trying to keep the Mosaic Laws which Peter said that neither we nor our fathers were able to keep ...Did Peter have the Holy Ghost ? Maybe the daily sacrafice is abolished when we try to set the temple back up , get the Jews to offer animal sacrifices and count the blood of God's only Son an unholy thing . That would cause desolation. Why did God destroy the temple ? Because WE are the Temple of the Living God but we should be careful that it not become a den of robbers ..it is a house of PRAYER for all nations. Is it not ? Do we need more than the blood of God's Son ? Does not God's mercy compel us to pant after HIM ? I think there is a deception going on and it is very subtle . It endeavors to do away with the sacrifice but we know that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin ...but that blood Has been shed .