Where was the Sabbath Abolished?

[IcyChain]

Do you grant that Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and that follows of Christ should follow his example? Why does it make sense to you to think that following Christ's example is not applicable for followers of Christ?

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. It might take me a couple of days to get back to you. Its a bit tough for me to write a lot during the week.

 

[IcyChain]

Do you grant that Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and that follows of Christ should follow his example?

I agree with the principle, but I draw a different conclusion from it because I interpret the Bible such that a new law has superseded the Mosaic law.

In my view, the example is that our Lord followed the law that God had in place for him as a Jew. We should follow that example, but for Christians this means following the new law that God has in place for us, not the Mosiac law, which has been superseded.

Why does it make sense to you to think that following Christ's example is not applicable for followers of Christ?

I think that following our Lord's example is applicable to Christians, insofar as his life and circumstances are applicable to Christians. Our Lord was born a Jew and as such was to follow the Mosaic law as with all Jews, but I am a Christian under a new law that God has for Christians (according to my view).

Also, as a general principle a Christian need not literally mimic our Lord in everything that he did. Becasue our Lord's parents offered a sacrifice of turtle doves in the temple does not mean that my parents need to do the same. God asked our Lord Jesus to die on the cross to save mankind from the fires of hell, but I need not die to save anyone from hell, etc. When our Lord died and was ressurrected, he changed the entire world and instituted a new order of things, in my view.

Perhaps I might say that our Lord fulfilled the law by following it perfectly and by securing a victory over death and redeeming mankind by his death on the cross. After it was fulfilled, God instituted a new order for Christians. That's generally how I might look at it I think.

Everything in the OT teaches us how to know, love, follow, worship, believe in, and testify about the God of Israel and is revenant to those who want to learn how to do those things.

I don't know what you mean by "revenant" in this context, but I don't disagree with your view that the OT teaches us those things.

The OT, of course, has it's own independent value as revelation, but I would say that there are many dark and difficult passages in the OT that benefit from interpretation in light of the gospel. I would say that the OT by itself would be a less-complete revelation of God than what we have now with the addition of the NT and the other teachings of our Lord and the apostles that are not found in Sacred Scripture.

The Apostles were servants of God, so they were in favor of becoming circumcised for the purposes for which God commanded it and not for the purposes for which God did not command it, for example, they were in favor of Gentiles becoming circumcised if they wanted to eat of the Passover lamb in accordance with Genesis 12:48, but God did not command circumcision for the purpose of becoming saved, so they ruled against that in Acts 15:1-11.

I think this is a fair interpretation and I understand it from your point of view.

Perphaps my view of the Mosiac law is similar to your view of circumcision. I think God instituted the Mosiac law for a specific purpose, but that purpose now haven been fulfilled, God has a new law for Christians to live under.

Jesus is often framed as being a reformer, though the reality is that everything that he taught was rooted in the OT.

I'm not sure if I would characterize our Lord Jesus as a reformer. I haven't thought about that much honestly. I believe that the law was set aside and replaced with a new law after our Lord fulfilled it, but generally I would say that the replacement occurred after his ressurrection, or perhaps after his ascenscion. I would consider the "reform" of the Mosiac law mostly to have occured after our Lord redeemed mankind. I might interpret several of his sermons as kind of prepping mankind for the new order, rather than setting it aside. That came later I think, but generally I do see things in his actions where he seems to modify the law (or at the least clarify the proper way that it should be interpreted or lived out).

Regardless, I don't particularly care to give the Lord labels like "reformer" or anything like that. That sounds a bit too political for me. The only labels that I'd give him are things like "savior," "Lord," etc.

The Mosaic Law requires for both the man and the women accused of adultery be brought before a judge who does a thorough investigation, for the witnesses to throw the first stone, and for no one to be put to death without at least two or three witnesses, so if Jesus was acting in accordance with what it instructs.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think our Lord said anything about the lack of witnesses or other procedure being followed in that passsage. I don't recall the woman's actual guilt being an issue in that passage. Didn't they catch the woman in the very act itself, and our Lord instructed her not to sin again? I don't think this passage was about the lack of due process, which could have been resolved by calling for the witnesses to testify. I read it more along the lines of "well, if you insist on applying the law strictly with respect to others, how about you apply the law strictly with respect to yourself first?"

Jesus gave himself to pay the penalty for our sins, so it would be unlawful to enforce a penalty that has already been paid.

Well, I don't think that's really how the law worked. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that there was any provision in the law whereby an adulter or other criminal could avoid his penalty if someone else offered to serve his sentence for him. It's not like Mike could molest and murder his neighbor's daughter, and instead of Mike being put to death, he could say "My cousin Steve has offered to die instead of me, so stone Steve instead and I'll keep on living a happy life." If you are following the law I think you put Mike to death, regardless of whether or not someone else offers to die in his place. But maybe I could be wrong here. If you recall a provision in the law like that, I'd be interested to read it.

Also, in the NT you see passages about God administering painful punishments to Christians as a form of discipline. I don't think it's the case that because Jesus saved our souls from eternal damnation, that this means that we are therefore exempted from all forms of punishment for our sins.

In Deuteronomy 17:8-13, the people were to bring disputes before a priest or a judge to make a ruling that the people were obligated to obey even if they disagreed with it, and the Apostles had this authority, which I would submit to, though again it is the authority to interpret God's word, not the authority to add to or subtract from it. Countermanding God is directly negating what God has commanded, not interpreting how to correctly obey what He has commanded. For example, it is one thing to have the authority to make a ruling that turning on an electrical device violates God's command not to light a fire on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:3), but that we should not hesitate to use an AED to save someone's life on the Sabbath, while it would be countermanding God to rule that we do not need to refrain from lighting a fire on the Sabbath. In Acts 15:1-11, they had a logical debate over whether or not we are saved by circumcision and then made a ruling.

I don't disagree with your general approach here.

"Interpreting" to one person is "countermanding" to another person though. You might view another person's conclusion that the Mosiac Law as being non-applicable to Christians as countermanding God, while that same person might view your insistence on observation of the Mosiac Law as countermanding God's desire to set aside the Mosiac law and institute a new law in it's place. It ultimatley comes down to how we interpret scripture, I think.

I'm glad that you do and I agree, but I think that the majority of Christians interpret Acts 15:10 as saying that the Mosaic Law is a heavy burden, so what do you interpret that verse to be referring to?

I'm not sure what "yoke" refers to in that verse. I had never thought about that question, but verse 11 appears to suggest that it has something to do with the idea of being saved through some means other than our Lord's sacrifice. What is your take on it?

Generally, whether the Mosiac Law is a heavy or a light burden is not something that I have thought much about to be honest. Because I don't view it as binding on Christians, whether it is considered heavy or light doesn't have any particular impact on my life. It's kind of like the laws of France being heavy or light. I live in the USA, so whether France has strict laws isn't a huge concern . . .

I think that Gentiles are obligated to refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin and that it is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), but if delight is the correct view that we should have towards obeying the it, then do you think that a Gentile should desire to voluntarily obey it even if it were the case that Gentiles are not obligated obey it?

Well, again, to me it's kind of like should an American desire to obey the laws of France? If I was living in France, yeah, but now I live in the USA, so I am going to put my focus on obeying the laws of the USA. There's nothing wrong with me wanting to obey the laws of France, I am sure that they are pefectly fine and good laws, but I am served better by focusing on obeying the laws of the USA, because this is where I live.

Since I view the Mosiac law as having been superseded by a new law, I think you can see how I would want my desires to be focused on what I think God now has in place, rather than what God has set aside. And there is plenty enough under the new order for me to focus on. I could likely spend 24 hours a day contemplating it, and discern something new every day until the end of my life. So it's like, I'm not really going to spend my time trying to learn or comply with the various dietary restrictions in the OT because I view them as having been set aside, and there's plenty of other things that are applicable to Christians, that I can spend my time and mental energy on.

If that were the case, then it could built into the structure of the Mosaic Law, such as "Don't touch the stove until you are over 14" where the rule stays the same even as people mature, however, it does not contain that sort of structure, but rather it says things like "This is a statute forever throughout your generations" or "All of God's righteous laws are eternal". Moreover, verses like Deuteronomy 4:2 and 13:1-5 do not leave room for God's law to change as the people mature.

We could do it that way, but typically we wait until the child has reached a sufficient level of maturity, and then we give him the new rule.

As for the Bible, I think you intrepret various verses as meaning that the Mosiac law (or at least certain aspects of it other than circumcision) as being binding on all men for all time, or intrpreting them such that God intended them to exist into perpetuity, but I don't interpret the Bible that way when I consider everything as a whole.

While it it is good to keep in mind the specific people that the Mosaic Law was given to, it is also good to keep in mind that it was given for the purpose of teaching the Jews how to know, love, worship, believe in, and testify about the God of Israel and that Jews were given the mission of being a light and a blessing to the nations by turning the nations from their wickedness and teaching them to obey it in accordance with the promise and the Gospel.

I don't disagree with this, but generally I view the Mosiac Law as having been replaced with a new law intended for Christians and the entire world.

It kind of seems that everything comes back to that basic issue of the interpretation of Sacred Scripture (and in my case tradition). You interpret the Bible such that the Mosiac Law is strictly binding on Christians, but I interpret it to mean that God replaced the Mosiac law with a new law.

Jesus did not teach a different set of laws after the resurrection and I see nothing else in the Bible that suggests that the resurrection means that we follow a different set of laws that are not in accordance with the laws that Jesus taught prior to the resurrection. Jesus gave himself to pay the penalty for our sins, which should make us want to go and sin no more, not consider ourselves free to do what God has revealed through the Mosaic Law to be sin. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20). The Spirit also has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so following the Spirit does not involve rejecting what God has commanded.

Well, we already have the example of circumcision and certain dietary laws being set aside, as we discussed already. I understand that you do not see the Mosiac law being replaced with a new law, but when I read Sacred Scripture I do see that. There is plenty that has been written on that view, the various places where we see it in Sacred Scripture, and so-forth. Here are some sources on that view:

Did Jesus Abolish the Law of Moses or Not?

Jesus' words cannot be understood apart from their context of giving us the new law that would both fulfill and supersede (or abolish) the Old Law.

www.catholic.com

Supersessionism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I would rather post information like that rather getting into a long debate over the proper interpretation and signficance of numerous bible verses. I'm not quite interested in a debate like that, because I don't think it will ultimately change anyone's mind, and those sort of debates almost always seem to end up with everyone angry at each other and nobody changing their minds. I'm pretty content to understand other people's views and have more of a "philosophical" discussion, at least when it comes to this issue.

Maturity should involve building upon the basics, not moving on from the basics so that they are not even doing that much. For example, someone does not move on to algebra by disregarding everything that they were taught about addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

Well, I think there are different ways of looking at that. I would say that as we advance, certain basic things we retain, and other things we discard in favor of an improved form. Even within math or science, I think that there are different methods that can be used to find a solution to a given problem, but some of the newer methods will get you to the answer much faster than the older method. Sure, the older method is fine, but in practice nobody uses the older method because the newer method gets you where you want to go much quicker.

I've been fooling around with Salsa dancing the past few years. There is a "basic step" that pretty much every beginner learns on the first day of class. It's typically taught in a certain way and it's perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with it. But if you stick around for a bit, start going to parties and observing advanced dancers, you will pretty much notice that nobody actually does the basic step the way that it is taught to beginners. Everyone after a while modifies the basic step a bit, to give it a little more flair and to make it more aesthetic.

 

[pasifika]

Not if we read the scripture in context. The law that was changed was the priesthood, nothing about the Sabbath commandment- one would have to add that in the scriptures to make that case. Something we are warned about Pro 30:5-6 Deut 4:2

The context tells us the law that changed, the law of the priesthood had to change as Jesus is now our High Priest.

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

Hebrews 7: 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save [h]to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son ho has been perfected forever.

hi SB, this idea of the change of law in Hebrews 7 is referring to the Priesthood only is absolutely wrong and show lack of understanding. this is the interpretation by @Studyman which you and others are uphold not Bible.

The priests (Levitical priesthood) are the ones who acts on behalf of the people and God when it comes to perform sacrifices and offerings whether it regards to SIN, thanksgiving etc in OC. In regard to Sin, this to anyone who breaks Gods commandments including 10 commandments. So you can see the interlink between the role of the Priest and the law and commandments.

so, if the priesthood change (ie Levitical priesthood of OC) then also the law they administer ie OC law. we as Christians are under a different priesthood ie Melchizedek and different law ie NC law.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

hi SB, this idea of the change of law in Hebrews 7 is referring to the Priesthood only is absolutely wrong and show lack of understanding. this is the interpretation by @Studyman which you and others are uphold not Bible.

The priests (Levitical priesthood) are the ones who acts on behalf of the people and God when it comes to perform sacrifices and offerings whether it regards to SIN, thanksgiving etc in OC. In regard to Sin, this to anyone who breaks Gods commandments including 10 commandments. So you can see the interlink between the role of the Priest and the law and commandments.

so, if the priesthood change (ie Levitical priesthood of OC) then also the law they administer ie OC law. we as Christians are under a different priesthood ie Melchizedek and different law ie NC law.

Who is our High Priest now? Hebrews 4:15 Heb 7:28 What law needed to change in order to have Jesus as our High Priest so we go directly to Him for forgiveness of sin 1 John 1:9 instead of an animal sacrifice to a human priest for sin. This is what Hebrews 7 spells out and shows what law that was changed, the priesthood and animal sacrifice's which was a placeholder until the Seed would come as it always pointed to Jesus Christ Hebrews 10:1-22 as the blood of animals was never perfect for the cleanings of sins, but the blood of Christ is perfect to cleanse us of sin and all unrighteousness when we repent confess and turn to Him for forgiveness and sanctification. What did not change is what sin is, the transgression of God’s law, the Ten Commandments Romans 7:7 Mat 5:19-30. Hope this helps.

 

[pasifika]

Who is our High Priest now? Hebrews 4:15 Heb 7:28 What law needed to change in order to have Jesus as our High Priest so we go directly to Him for forgiveness of sin 1 John 1:9 instead of an animal sacrifice to a human priest for sin. This is what Hebrews 7 spells out and shows what law that was changed, the priesthood and animal sacrifice's which was a placeholder until the Seed would come as it always pointed to Jesus Christ Hebrews 10:1-22 as the blood of animals was never perfect for the cleanings of sins, but the blood of Christ is perfect to cleanse us of sin and all unrighteousness when we repent confess and turn to Him for forgiveness and sanctification. What did not change is what sin is, the transgression of God’s law, the Ten Commandments Romans 7:7 Mat 5:19-30. Hope this helps.

new Priesthood, New Law, New Covenant. old priesthood, old Law, Old covenant. that is what Hebrews is trying to explain to Hebrew readers.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

new Priesthood, New Law, New Covenant. old priesthood, old Law, Old covenant. that is what Hebrews is trying to explain to Hebrew readers.

There is no scripture that says new law. God says He writes “His law” in the heart in the new covenant Heb 8:10 Jer 31:33 which is based on better promises Heb 8:6, not better laws. Can’t perfect perfection. Psa 19:7 which is why it is still a sin to break God’s perfect law even in the NC Rom 7:7 Mat 5:19-30

 

[IcyChain]

Back down the rabbit hole.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Back down the rabbit hole.

Yup, if people would just listen to Jesus and have faith in His teachings, we wouldn’t have this issue. Mat 5:19-30, Mat 15:3-9, John 14:15 Exo 20:6 Mat 19:17-19 John 15:10 Luke 4:16

 

[IcyChain]

Yup, if people would just listen to Jesus and have faith in His teachings, we wouldn’t have this issue. Mat 5:19-30, Mat 15:3-9, John 14:15 Exo 20:6 Mat 19:17-19 John 15:10 Luke 4:16

Refuted here.

Did Jesus Abolish the Law of Moses or Not?

Jesus' words cannot be understood apart from their context of giving us the new law that would both fulfill and supersede (or abolish) the Old Law.

www.catholic.com

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Refuted here.

Did Jesus Abolish the Law of Moses or Not?

Jesus' words cannot be understood apart from their context of giving us the new law that would both fulfill and supersede (or abolish) the Old Law.

www.catholic.com

Notice what you are refuting, the very Words and teachings of Jesus. Mat 5:19-30, Mat 15:3-9, John 14:15 Exo 20:6 Mat 19:17-19 John 15:10 Luke 4:16 my faith is in Jesus.

 

[IcyChain]

Notice what you are refuting, the very Words and teachings of Jesus. Mat 5:19-30, Mat 15:3-9, John 14:15 Exo 20:6 Mat 19:17-19 John 15:10 Luke 4:16 my faith is in Jesus.

That is silly. You knew what I meant.

Your misinterpretation of the Bible is refuted in the article.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

That is silly. You knew what I meant.

Your misinterpretation of the Bible is refuted in the article.

I don’t look to outside sources to refute the teachings of Jesus. Jesus teachings are very plain, unless speaking in parables, which usually He explains and He never contradicts Himself. The apostles do not contradict Jesus either, usually when others try to refute the teachings of Jesus through the apostles it is just text ripped out of its context.

I chose to believe Jesus and His every Word, but we all have free will. Take care.

 

[IcyChain]

I don’t look to outside sources to refute the teachings of Jesus. Jesus teachings are very plain, nor does He ever contradict Himself. I chose to believe His every Word, but we all have free will. Take care.

What the Bible teaches and what you believe are two very different things, but you do not understand that, unfortunately.

You take care as well.

 

[pasifika]

There is no scripture that says new law. God says He writes “His law” in the heart in the new covenant Heb 8:10 Jer 31:33 which is based on better promises Heb 8:6, not better laws. Can’t perfect perfection. Psa 19:7 which is why it is still a sin to break God’s perfect law even in the NC Rom 7:7 Mat 5:19-30

Old "way" of the Letter (reference to old covenant law), New "way" of the Spirit. Sometimes the word "way" can be use for "law" so you have old way (law) and new way (law).

God writes His law in our hearts is Not to take it literally because it doesn't make any sense at all. Is not letters that writes on the hearts. 2 Corinthians will explain what it really means.

 

[IcyChain]

Old "way" of the Letter (reference to old covenant law), New "way" of the Spirit. Sometimes the word "way" can be use for "law" so you have old way (law) and new way (law).

God writes His law in our hearts is Not to take it literally because it doesn't make any sense at all. Is not letters that writes on the hearts. 2 Corinthians will explain what it really means.

Plus, there is no place in Sacrerd Scripture where the Mosaic Law, and the Sabbath in particular, was made binding on Christians.

 

[Gary K]

Old "way" of the Letter (reference to old covenant law), New "way" of the Spirit. Sometimes the word "way" can be use for "law" so you have old way (law) and new way (law).

God writes His law in our hearts is Not to take it literally because it doesn't make any sense at all. Is not letters that writes on the hearts. 2 Corinthians will explain what it really means.

I don't understand your claim.

2Corinthians 3: 1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

How can all men read the epistle of Paul and his fellow workers be read of all men if the law of God written in the hearts of believers cannot be read by those around the believers? Is there no change in a believer when they are converted and God writes His law in their heart?

 

[pasifika]

I don't understand your claim.

2Corinthians 3: 1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

How can all men read the epistle of Paul and his fellow workers be read of all men if the law of God written in the hearts of believers cannot be read by those around the believers? Is there no change in a believer when they are converted, and God writes His law in their heart?

hi, if you read those verses you quoted above, you'll see that is not about "literal letters" but ''spiritual, living letters." eg, verse 2, states that 'we' are the letters or epistle written by the Apostles and be seen and read by All men...verse 3, a letter not written in ink but "Spirit of the living God"...

so, deeper meaning...
.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Old "way" of the Letter (reference to old covenant law), New "way" of the Spirit. Sometimes the word "way" can be use for "law" so you have old way (law) and new way (law).

God writes His law in our hearts is Not to take it literally because it doesn't make any sense at all. Is not letters that writes on the hearts. 2 Corinthians will explain what it really means.

Agreed we need to walk in the Spirit. Those walking in His Spirit are not an enmity against God's law Romans 8:7-8 if one finds themselves breaking or teaching others to break the least of the commandments as Jesus teaches, that's not a good sign and He gives examples of what walking in the spirit of the law means using the examples right from the Ten Mat 5:19-30

This is a very important principle Jesus is applying to the 10 commandments and gave two as an example and it is how we are to live by the Spirit, not the letter, which is greater than the letter, not lesser.

Jesus is applying the Ten Commandments to our thoughts and feelings as this is where sin ( breaking God's lawRom 7:7) starts, and He gives an example of two of them directly quoting from the Ten. This is an example of living the law written in our hearts and minds (NC) giving an example from two commandments but says not to break or teach others to break the least of these commandments, which means we are to keep all and apply this teaching/principle to all Mat 5:19. No where is Jesus telling us we can break the letter of the commandments- He makes this clear not one dot of an i can be changed.


Matthew 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

What Jesus is teaching here, that we need to change our thoughts before they turn into actions. If we change our thoughts and feelings of contempt and anger toward our neighbor to love and compassion, thou shalt not murder would automatically be kept. Jesus is not teaching its okay to murder as long as we don't have anger. It is impossible to keep the spirit of the law by breaking the letter. It's something the carnal mind can't understand according to Paul. Rom 8:7-8

 

[pasifika]

Agreed we need to walk in the Spirit. Those walking in His Spirit are not an enmity against God's law Romans 8:7-8 if one finds themselves breaking or teaching others to break the least of the commandments as Jesus teaches, that's not a good sign and He gives examples of what walking in the spirit of the law means using the examples right from the Ten Mat 5:19-30

This is a very important principle Jesus is applying to the 10 commandments and gave two as an example and it is how we are to live by the Spirit, not the letter, which is greater than the letter, not lesser.

Jesus is applying the Ten Commandments to our thoughts and feelings as this is where sin ( breaking God's lawRom 7:7) starts, and He gives an example of two of them directly quoting from the Ten. This is an example of living the law written in our hearts and minds (NC) giving an example from two commandments but says not to break or teach others to break the least of these commandments, which means we are to keep all and apply this teaching/principle to all Mat 5:19. No where is Jesus telling us we can break the letter of the commandments- He makes this clear not one dot of an i can be changed.


Matthew 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

What Jesus is teaching here, that we need to change our thoughts before they turn into actions. If we change our thoughts and feelings of contempt and anger toward our neighbor to love and compassion, thou shalt not murder would automatically be kept. Jesus is not teaching its okay to murder as long as we don't have anger. It is impossible to keep the spirit of the law by breaking the letter. It's something the carnal mind can't understand according to Paul. Rom 8:7-8

And the "way " of the Spirit is Not the same as the letter. Hence why the verse stated, that we are to walk according to the Way of the Spirit, and Not the letter...

Letter kill, but Spirit gives life. Two different ways ( or law), ie old and new.

 

[Divide]

Letter kill, but Spirit gives life. Two different ways ( or law), ie old and new.

So what do we do now?

Approach the Spirit. Draw closer to God through Prayer, communion, fasting and reading His word. He is our best friend and teacher. I talk to Him all day long.