A Conflict in the Old Testament- a Tip of the Iceberg?

[newton3005]

A Conflict in the Old Testament- a Tip of the Iceberg?

In Matthew 22:36–40, Jesus says to a lawyer that the Old Testament Law and the Prophets are summed up in the two great commandments. Yet within the Old Testament, there seem to be inconsistencies which may be the cause of Jesus abiding by one Book of Moses while bypassing the subsent Books in certain instances.

Two examples come to mind. One Is the question of what we can and can’t eat. In Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there are prohibitions against eating pork and a bunch of other things. Yet in Matthew 15:11, Jesus says “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” In this instance, Jesus seems to be bypassing these two Books of Moses by reaching back to the Book of Genesis. Here, in Genesis 9:3, after the Flood, God says to Noah, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.” Stands to reason that this would include eating pork. Does anyone wonder why Genesis 9:3 would not be grounds for Jesus’ basis for saying that it really doesn’t matter what we eat?

Another example is the subject of divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1–4, it is prescribed that if a husband finds disfavor in a wife, he can give her a certificate of divorce, and she would be on her way out. And this point was brought up by one of the Pharisees to Jesus. In Matthew 19:4–6, Jesus responds “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Here, Jesus is referring to Genesis 2:24 which says, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Again, Jesus reaches back to Genesis and bypasses the Laws spelled out in the following Books of Moses.

Regarding the Laws that God put forth, which in a sense seemed to be meant to restrict the Laws laid forth in Genesis, one can debate the purposes of such restrictions. Some may say it is to confirm the love of God and each other in the same manner as those who were freed from slavery in Exodus. Others might say that abiding by the Laws is a currency for payback to God’s liberating their ancestors from Egypt, or holding the descendants accountable it you will, since despite ancestors' sins, God did them a favor. This last rationalization seems to run counter to another Law in the Old Testament, found in Ezekiel 18:20 which says, “…The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father…the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” Considering what is mentioned here, Ezekiel 18:20 might be a justification for Jesus ignoring certain Laws in the Books following Genesis.

 

[Bob]

Thank you for the questions.

Regarding the dietary laws: as you point out, for Jesus the two great commandments are Love the Lord Your God and Love Your Neighbor Like Yourself. He also said that on the two great commandments hang all of the law and the prophets. So, in order to understand the two great commandments, we need to have a thorough understanding of the essence (not the details) of the law.

Question: how do the dietary laws contribute to either loving God or your neighbor? Clearly, God’s instructions in Genesis supersede the dietary laws, and neither adds to our love of God or our neighbors. Peter also put that concern to rest after his vision. (Acts 10: 9-16. Note, however, that the Apostle Paul said we should be careful when eating with those observing other dietary laws; e.g., 1 Corinthians 8:13.)

As to the divorce law in Deuteronomy, Jesus went on to say in Matthew 19:8,9– “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Again, you are correct that God’s commandment in Genesis supersedes Mosaic law.

Blessings.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

A Conflict in the Old Testament?

Only to the carnal minded who don't know how to be led by the Holy Spirit

Yet in Matthew 15:11, Jesus says “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”

In the New Covenant God's people are to be led by the Spirit and not by carnal commandments.

Yes it's been proven that eating pork is no healthy, but under the New Covenant one is not damned to hell for eating port but will be damned to hell for teaching false doctrine out of their mouth (heresy is listed as one of the works of the flesh that cause people to not be accepted in to God's kingdom)

Again, Jesus reaches back to Genesis and bypasses the Laws spelled out in the following Books of Moses.

In the Book of Hebrews we see that Jesus abolished the old covenant and established the New Covenant.

Casting dispersion upon Jesus claiming He is involved in wrong doing ends badly.

What God said about marriage in Genesis is not part of the Law of Moses which has been abolished.

In the New Covenant we are under the Law of Christ which is actually a higher standard than the Law of Moses.

 

[ScottA]

A Conflict in the Old Testament- a Tip of the Iceberg?

In Matthew 22:36–40, Jesus says to a lawyer that the Old Testament Law and the Prophets are summed up in the two great commandments. Yet within the Old Testament, there seem to be inconsistencies which may be the cause of Jesus abiding by one Book of Moses while bypassing the subsent Books in certain instances.

Two examples come to mind. One Is the question of what we can and can’t eat. In Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there are prohibitions against eating pork and a bunch of other things. Yet in Matthew 15:11, Jesus says “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” In this instance, Jesus seems to be bypassing these two Books of Moses by reaching back to the Book of Genesis. Here, in Genesis 9:3, after the Flood, God says to Noah, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.” Stands to reason that this would include eating pork. Does anyone wonder why Genesis 9:3 would not be grounds for Jesus’ basis for saying that it really doesn’t matter what we eat?

Another example is the subject of divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1–4, it is prescribed that if a husband finds disfavor in a wife, he can give her a certificate of divorce, and she would be on her way out. And this point was brought up by one of the Pharisees to Jesus. In Matthew 19:4–6, Jesus responds “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Here, Jesus is referring to Genesis 2:24 which says, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Again, Jesus reaches back to Genesis and bypasses the Laws spelled out in the following Books of Moses.

Regarding the Laws that God put forth, which in a sense seemed to be meant to restrict the Laws laid forth in Genesis, one can debate the purposes of such restrictions. Some may say it is to confirm the love of God and each other in the same manner as those who were freed from slavery in Exodus. Others might say that abiding by the Laws is a currency for payback to God’s liberating their ancestors from Egypt, or holding the descendants accountable it you will, since despite ancestors' sins, God did them a favor. This last rationalization seems to run counter to another Law in the Old Testament, found in Ezekiel 18:20 which says, “…The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father…the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” Considering what is mentioned here, Ezekiel 18:20 might be a justification for Jesus ignoring certain Laws in the Books following Genesis.

There is no conflict between the old and the new, but between the flesh and the Spirit.

But you are missing the point.

The flesh, the Law, the Old Testament, and the house of Israel was first and foundational pointing to the spiritual--as it is written: "The spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual."

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

"The spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual."

Great point!

 

[Davy]

Two examples come to mind. One Is the question of what we can and can’t eat. In Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there are prohibitions against eating pork and a bunch of other things. Yet in Matthew 15:11, Jesus says “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” In this instance, Jesus seems to be bypassing these two Books of Moses by reaching back to the Book of Genesis. Here, in Genesis 9:3, after the Flood, God says to Noah, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.” Stands to reason that this would include eating pork. Does anyone wonder why Genesis 9:3 would not be grounds for Jesus’ basis for saying that it really doesn’t matter what we eat?

The conflict is actually in your own mind by how you are looking at the Scripture. In Deuteronomy 14 God gave us a list of healthy foods that nourish our flesh body. But in Matthew 15:11 Lord Jesus is talking in the 'spiritual' defilement sense, by what comes OUT of one's mouth (i.e., words that can defile, or words that can edify, NOT food coming out of the mouth).

So why... have you only understood what Jesus said in Matthew 15:11 to be about food? especially since Jesus' disciples took what He said the wrong way like you have, and He then explained... how He meant it...

Matt 15:16-20
16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
KJV

How is it you don't understand Jesus was not pointing to our flesh being defiled, but by our spirit/soul being defiled by what comes out of our hearts and mouths?

Another example is the subject of divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1–4, it is prescribed that if a husband finds disfavor in a wife, he can give her a certificate of divorce, and she would be on her way out. And this point was brought up by one of the Pharisees to Jesus. In Matthew 19:4–6, Jesus responds “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Here, Jesus is referring to Genesis 2:24 which says, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Again, Jesus reaches back to Genesis and bypasses the Laws spelled out in the following Books of Moses.

NO... Jesus did NOT bypass the law...

Matt 5:31-32
31 It hath been said, 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:'
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
KJV

Matt 19:17-19
17 And He said unto him, "Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
18 He saith unto Him, "Which?" Jesus said, "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
KJV


WHY... have you LIED and bore FALSE WITNESS against what Lord Jesus said?? You show you only went on like a HUNT in The New Testament Scriptures to try and find something wrong with The New Testament. And you put down on your Faith that you are a Christian??? I don't believe it, not by what you have said in your original post.

 

[Wrangler]

And you put down on your Faith that you are a Christian??? I don't believe it

I noticed a number of so-called Christians putting down Scripture in the last week.

They are supposed to be a witness for our side, not the Adversary's side!

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I noticed a number of so-called Christians putting down Scripture in the last week.

They are supposed to be a witness for our side, not the Adversary's side!

That's how you can tell who the tares are.
The devil always claims God is lying as we see in his claims made to Adam and Eve.

This is how he operates as he seeks to deceive people in to believing his lies before God's Truth

Jesus tells us in Make 4:13-20 how the devil uses 5 things to choke the Word out of a person causing them to be unfruitful and these 5 things only work if the person allows these things to enter in to them and replace God's Word.

These 5 things are:
persecution, affliction, cares of this world, lusts or other things, and deceitfulness of riches

Many tares started off being legitimately born again but sadly they allowed the devil to deceive them in to believing his lies so now their conscience is seared.

1 Timothy 4:1,2
Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron

 

[Soyeong]

A Conflict in the Old Testament- a Tip of the Iceberg?

In Matthew 22:36–40, Jesus says to a lawyer that the Old Testament Law and the Prophets are summed up in the two great commandments. Yet within the Old Testament, there seem to be inconsistencies which may be the cause of Jesus abiding by one Book of Moses while bypassing the subsent Books in certain instances.

The way to love God is by embodying His character traits, so the way to love justice is by being a doer of justice, the way to love holiness is by being a doer of God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, and so forth. In other words, the goal of everything that God has instructed is to teach us how to love different aspects of His character traits, which is why the Bible repeatedly states in both the OT and the NT that the way God is by obeying His commandments. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness ofHis character, which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of God, so the way to love the Son is exactly the same as the way to love the Father. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so that is part of the eternal way to love God.

It does not work to interpret God's Word made flesh as speaking against embodying God's Word or to interpret the one who perfectly embodied God's holiness as speaking against following His instructions for how to be holy as He is holy. Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the OT hundreds of times in order to support what they were saying, so it does not work to interpret them as speaking against following what they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3), so he affirmed God as being an authoritative source. In Deuteronomy 12:32, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so those who agree that Jesus was sinless should be opposed to interpreting him as doing that. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying what He has spoken, so if someone agrees that Jesus was a servant of God and they interpret him as speaking against obeying what God has spoken such as in Deuteronomy 14 in regard to refraining from eating unclean animals or Deuteronomy 24 in regard to divorce, then they should conclude that they. must have misinterpreted him.

Two examples come to mind. One Is the question of what we can and can’t eat. In Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there are prohibitions against eating pork and a bunch of other things. Yet in Matthew 15:11, Jesus says “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” In this instance, Jesus seems to be bypassing these two Books of Moses by reaching back to the Book of Genesis. Here, in Genesis 9:3, after the Flood, God says to Noah, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.” Stands to reason that this would include eating pork. Does anyone wonder why Genesis 9:3 would not be grounds for Jesus’ basis for saying that it really doesn’t matter what we eat?

The Greek words "akathartos" and "koinos" both refer to a type of defilement, but the Bible never uses them interchangeably. "Akathartos" is used in the context of unclean animals while "koinos" is used in the context of the traditions or opinions of men, so while it can be accurate to translate both words into English as "defile", that does not retain their distinct meanings and it would be in error to interpret the use of "koinos" as if they had said "akathartos" instead. In Mark 7 and Matthew 15, Jesus was having a discussion in regard to the traditions of the elders in regard to whether someone can become common (koinos) by eating bread with unwashed hands (Matthew 15:20), so he was not even speaking about eating animals. In Mark and Matthew 15, Jesus criticized Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so he should be interpreted as continuing to speak in regard to the traditions of the elders rather than as turning around and even more hypocritically doing what he just finished criticizing them as being hypocrites for doing.

Likewise, in regard to Genesis 93, the Hebrew word "remes" is used in the context of of prey animals and clean animals are pretty animals in contrast with unclean animals tending to be predators and scavengers. It should not make sense to interpret God as flip-flopping back and forth about whether it is an abomination to eat pork.

Another example is the subject of divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1–4, it is prescribed that if a husband finds disfavor in a wife, he can give her a certificate of divorce, and she would be on her way out. And this point was brought up by one of the Pharisees to Jesus. In Matthew 19:4–6, Jesus responds “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Here, Jesus is referring to Genesis 2:24 which says, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Again, Jesus reaches back to Genesis and bypasses the Laws spelled out in the following Books of Moses.

In Matthew 19:3, Jesus was asked whether a man was permitted to divorce his wife for any reason, so what was not so from the beginning was divorce over frivolous reasons.

Regarding the Laws that God put forth, which in a sense seemed to be meant to restrict the Laws laid forth in Genesis, one can debate the purposes of such restrictions. Some may say it is to confirm the love of God and each other in the same manner as those who were freed from slavery in Exodus. Others might say that abiding by the Laws is a currency for payback to God’s liberating their ancestors from Egypt, or holding the descendants accountable it you will, since despite ancestors' sins, God did them a favor. This last rationalization seems to run counter to another Law in the Old Testament, found in Ezekiel 18:20 which says, “…The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father…the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” Considering what is mentioned here, Ezekiel 18:20 might be a justification for Jesus ignoring certain Laws in the Books following Genesis.

The Hebrew word “yada” refers to intimate relationships/knowledge gained by experience, such as with Genesis 4:1 where Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. God’s way is the way to know (yada) Him and Jesus by experiencing being in His likeness through embodying His character traits, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3). For example, in Genesis 18:19, God knew (yada) Abraham that he would teach his children and those of His household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know (yada) Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to graciously teach us how to have an intimate relationship with God and Jesus by walking in His way, which is His gift of eternal life.

The Law of God was graciously given as precious a gift for our own good in order to teach us how to be blessed (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), not as a way to pay back God or to earn something from Him.

 

[Soyeong]

Thank you for the questions.

Regarding the dietary laws: as you point out, for Jesus the two great commandments are Love the Lord Your God and Love Your Neighbor Like Yourself. He also said that on the two great commandments hang all of the law and the prophets. So, in order to understand the two great commandments, we need to have a thorough understanding of the essence (not the details) of the law.

Question: how do the dietary laws contribute to either loving God or your neighbor?

The way to love God is by embodying His character traits, so the way to love justice is by being a doer of justice, the way to love holiness is by being a doer of His instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, and so forth. In other words, the goal of everything that God has commanded is to teach us how to love different aspects of His character traits, which is why the Bible repeatedly states in both the OT and the NT that the way to love God is by obeying His commandments. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so that is part of the way to love God.

Clearly, God’s instructions in Genesis supersede the dietary laws, and neither adds to our love of God or our neighbors. Peter also put that concern to rest after his vision. (Acts 10: 9-16.

Peter notably did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common and God only rebuked Peter for referring to what He had made as being common but did not rebuke him for referring to what He had made clean as being unclean. So Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly know that the Law of God prohibits eating them, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and he incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision on three different occasions as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status.

Note, however, that the Apostle Paul said we should be careful when eating with those observing other dietary laws; e.g., 1 Corinthians 8:13.)

In the book of Corinthians, Paul was going back and forth between quoting things that he had heard that they were saying and giving rebuttal and problem is that there are no quotation marks in the Greek, so it is a very difficult book to parse correctly even when you are looking for it. There are some indications that Paul was using sarcasm, which is also very difficult to parse correctly. We are also missing a lot of context of issues that they were facing, what they were saying, and questions that they had asked, so a good rule of thumb when using Corinthians to support a position is that everything should be established by at least two or three witnesses.

As to the divorce law in Deuteronomy, Jesus went on to say in Matthew 19:8,9– “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Again, you are correct that God’s commandment in Genesis supersedes Mosaic law.

Blessings.

In Matthew 19:3, Jesus was asked whether a man was permitted to divorce his wife for any reason, so it was divorce over frivolous reasons that was not the case from the beginning.

 

[Soyeong]

Only to the carnal minded who don't know how to be led by the Holy Spirit


In the New Covenant God's people are to be led by the Spirit and not by carnal commandments.

There is a difference between a carnal nature and carnal commands in regard to descendants. In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have carnal minds who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God. In Galatians 5:16-23, Paul contrasted carnal desires with the desires of the Spirit and everything that he listed as carnal works that are contrary to the Spirit are also contrary to the Law of God while all of the fruits of the Spirt are asked of God's character traits that the Law of God was given in order to teach us how to embody.

Yes it's been proven that eating pork is no healthy, but under the New Covenant one is not damned to hell for eating port but will be damned to hell for teaching false doctrine out of their mouth (heresy is listed as one of the works of the flesh that cause people to not be accepted in to God's kingdom)

Sin is the transgression of the Law of God (1 John 3:4) and the Law of God prohibits eating pork (Deuteronomy 14). I pray that it is not sufficient in itself to send someone to hell, but it is unwise to take that risk.

In the Book of Hebrews we see that Jesus abolished the old covenant and established the New Covenant.

Casting dispersion upon Jesus claiming He is involved in wrong doing ends badly.

What God said about marriage in Genesis is not part of the Law of Moses which has been abolished.

In the New Covenant we are under the Law of Christ which is actually a higher standard than the Law of Moses.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses as how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. Jesus also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6). So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Law of Moses (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27). I see no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is not in perfect accordance with everything that he taught. Likewise, Christ said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so I see no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is not in perfect accordance with every word that comes from the mouth of God. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Law of Moses, so even if Jesus could have raised the bar without sinning and disqualifying himself as our Savior, then at the very least we should still obey the Law of Moses plus whatever else he raised the bar to.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

the Law of God prohibits eating pork (Deuteronomy 14)

Not true in the New Testament.

Eating swine is not sinful behavior for those living in the NT since in the Book of Hebrews we see that Jesus took the old covenant away and established the New Covenant.

This is why Jesus taught it's not what goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them - Matthew 15:11

Do you think Jesus misspoke, or otherwise was in error saying this?

I see no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is not in perfect accordance with everything that he taught.

Now, there is a new house, the Body of Jesus Christ! Under the New Covenant that the Lord said would come forth, we see Jesus Christ as the High Priest. The old covenant with it’s laws and regulations have been taken away because thru Jesus Christ a new and better covenant has come in to place.

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (God said He would make a New Covenant - see Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Hebrews 8:6
But now hath Jesus obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

And with the changing of the priesthood, God’s Word tells us there is also a change of the law.

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

Feel free to follow the old testament law. It ends with falling from grace just like the Galatians.

 

[Soyeong]

Not true in the New Testament.

Sin is still the transgression of the Law of Moses in the NT (1 John 3:4).

Eating swine is not sinful behavior for those living in the NT since in the Book of Hebrews we see that Jesus took the old covenant away and established the New Covenant.

Again, the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Law of Moses (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

This is why Jesus taught it's not what goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them - Matthew 15:11

The Greek words "akathartos" and "koinos" both refer to a type of defilement, but the Bible never uses them interchangeably, so while it is accurate to translate both words into English as "defile", doing that does not retain their distinct meanings and it would be in error to interpret the author's use of "koinos" as if they had said "akathartos" instead. The Bible uses "akathartos" in context of unclean animals and uses "koinos in the context of traditions or opinions of men. Jesus was having a discussion in regard to the traditions of the elders about whether someone can become common (koinos) by eating bread with unwashed hands (Matthew 15:20), so he was not even speaking about eating animals. In Mark 7:1-13 and Matthew 15:1-9, Jesus criticized Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so Jesus should not be interpreted as turning around and even more hypocritically doing what he just finished criticizing them as being hypocrites for doing instead of continuing to speak in regard to the traditions of the elders.

Do you think Jesus misspoke, or otherwise was in error saying this?

I do not think that the error was with Jesus but with you interpreting what he said as speaking against obeying what God has spoken. It does not work to take the position that we should follow just what Jesus and the Apostles said, but not what they considered to be an authoritative source. For example, Jesus quoted there times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by break alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so he affirmed God as being an authoritative source. In Deuteronomy 12:32, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying what He has spoken. So if you agree that Jesus was true prophet, then you should be opposed to you interpreting Matthew 15:11 as speaking against obeying what God spoke in Deuteronomy 14 in regard to refraining from eating unclean animals and if you think that Jesus should be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has spoken, then you should be opposed to considering him to be a true prophet, but Deuteronomy 13 does not leave room for you to consider Jesus to be a true prophet while also thinking that he should be interpreted against obeying what God has spoken. It doesn't even make sense to interpret God's Word made flesh as being opposed to embodying God's Word.

Now, there is a new house, the Body of Jesus Christ! Under the New Covenant that the Lord said would come forth, we see Jesus Christ as the High Priest. The old covenant with it’s laws and regulations have been taken away because thru Jesus Christ a new and better covenant has come in to place.

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (God said He would make a New Covenant - see Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Hebrews 8:6
But now hath Jesus obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

And with the changing of the priesthood, God’s Word tells us there is also a change of the law.

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

God's character traits are eternal, so any instructions that He has given for how to embody His character traits are eternal and cumulatively valid. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of His righteous laws are also eternal (Psalm 119:160), but if the way to embody God's righteousness were to change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal. So Hebrews 7:12 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content such as with it becoming righteous to commit adultery or sinful to do charity, but rather the context is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would require a change of the law in regard to its administration. A priesthood that is led by God's Word made flesh does not involve setting aside God's Word.

Feel free to follow the old testament law. It ends with falling from grace just like the Galatians.

In Psalm 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith and it would be absurd to think that he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace. God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to the Law of Moses all throughout the Bible and even Christ began his ministry with that Gospel message (Matthew 4:15-23), so it would also be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning against obeying God and warning that we will be cut off from Christ if we repent and believe the Gospel of Christ. Galatians should not be interpreted in a way that turns it against following what Christ spent his ministry teaching.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Sin is still the transgression of the Law of Moses in the NT (1 John 3:4).

Well, you try and live under the Law of Moses attempting to keep the old covenant that Jesus came to replace and you'll end up just like the Galatians and fall from grace just like they did when they turned away from walking with Jesus under the New Covenant and went back to living under the old covenant.
In the New Testament, many mentions of “the law” is actually referring to Law of Christ (aka the Law of Liberty) and is not talking about the old testament law. Christians are NOT called to keep or live under the old testament law, but we ARE called to live under the Law of Christ.

Ultimately this means we are called to abide In Christ which is living after the Spirit and not after the flesh, or to be spiritually minded and not carnally minded (see Romans 8). As we see in Romans 8, to be spiritually minded is life and peace but to be carnally minded is death which is separation from the Lord.

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

1 Corinthians 9:21
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

James 2:12
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

James 1:25
But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.


Romans 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

*Free as in no longer being a slave to sin, as in stop doing sinful things!

2 Peter 1:4-10
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

1 Thessalonians 4:3-8
For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.
For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.
He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.

(*Notice what Paul said about his own body in 1 Corinthians 9:27)


Colossians 3:6-10
For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

Those that do not put on the New Man and quit walking after the flesh, the wrath of God comes upon them for their disobedience because God is NOT mocked, if we sow to the flesh we shall of the flesh reap corruption (Gal 6:7,8)

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Things end very badly for those that do not obey the gospel.

Romans 11:19-25
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

the New Covenant still involves following the Law of Moses (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

That is error according to God's Word. Rather than confessing a sin if you commit one, what animal do you sacrifice to atone for your sins? You should get with God's program and live under the New Testament!

Now, there is a new house, the Body of Jesus Christ! Under the New Covenant that the Lord said would come forth, we see Jesus Christ as the High Priest. The old covenant with it’s laws and regulations have been taken away because thru Jesus Christ a new and better covenant has come in to place.

Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (God said He would make a New Covenant - see Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Hebrews 8:6
But now hath Jesus obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

And with the changing of the priesthood, God’s Word tells us there is also a change of the law.

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

NEWS FLASH - those trying to live under the
Law of Moses will not be allowed in to God's Kingdom.

The Greek words "akathartos" and "koinos" both refer to a type of defilement, but the Bible never uses them interchangeably, so while it is accurate to translate both words into English as "defile", doing that does not retain their distinct meanings and it would be in error to interpret the author's use of "koinos" as if they had said "akathartos" instead. The Bible uses "akathartos" in context of unclean animals and uses "koinos in the context of traditions or opinions of men. Jesus was having a discussion in regard to the traditions of the elders about whether someone can become common (koinos) by eating bread with unwashed hands (Matthew 15:20), so he was not even speaking about eating animals. In Mark 7:1-13 and Matthew 15:1-9, Jesus criticized Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so Jesus should not be interpreted as turning around and even more hypocritically doing what he just finished criticizing them as being hypocrites for doing instead of continuing to speak in regard to the traditions of the elders.

I see in other words Jesus lied in Matthew 15:11

I do not think that the error was with Jesus but with you interpreting what he said as speaking against obeying what God has spoken.

OK, so have you even read the Book of Hebrews???

Or do you reject the New Testament altogether and daily seek to keep the old covenant law?

Hebrews 7:12 could not be referring to a change of the law

I see so the Book of Hebrews contains lies and should be ignored, right?

for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses

Yeah that was before the New Covenant was established by Jesus

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (God said He would make a New Covenant - see Jeremiah 31:31-34)

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to the Law of Moses all throughout the Bible and even Christ began his ministry with that Gospel message (Matthew 4:15-23)

Jesus taught the gospel of the kingdom, not the law of Moses.

Sadly you are obviously very confused. Do you attend a SDA church by chance?

it would also be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning against obeying God and warning that we will be cut off from Christ if we repent and believe the Gospel of Christ. Galatians should not be interpreted in a way that turns it against following what Christ spent his ministry teaching.

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

The Galatians went back to trying to be justified by the law of Moses and they fell from grace.

The Law of Christ is what God's true followers live under now, not the law of Moses as Jesus did away with that and established a New Covenant based on better promises spoken of in Hebrews 8:6-13 but as I understand it you sadly don't believe in the New Covenant

 

[Soyeong]

Well, you try and live under the Law of Moses attempting to keep the old covenant that Jesus came to replace and you'll end up just like the Galatians and fall from grace just like they did when they turned away from walking with Jesus under the New Covenant and went back to living under the old covenant.

I have not suggest that we should keep the Mosaic Covenant, but rather I have been speaking about how to live under the New Covenant, which still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27). Please interact with what I've said about Galatias 5:4 rather than just misapplying it again.

In the New Testament, many mentions of “the law” is actually referring to Law of Christ (aka the Law of Liberty) and is not talking about the old testament law. Christians are NOT called to keep or live under the old testament law, but we ARE called to live under the Law of Christ.

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, so I see no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is not in perfect accordance with what he taught. Christ said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), so I see no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is not in perfect accordance with every word that has come from the mouth of God. The Law of Moses is perfect (Psalm 19:7), it is of liberty (Psalm 119:45), and it blesses those who obey it (Psalm 119:1-3), so when James 1:25 speaks about the perfect law of liberty that blesses those who obey it he was not saying anything about th eLAw of Moses that wasn't already said in the Psalms.

Ultimately this means we are called to abide In Christ which is living after the Spirit and not after the flesh, or to be spiritually minded and not carnally minded (see Romans 8). As we see in Romans 8, to be spiritually minded is life and peace but to be carnally minded is death which is separation from the Lord.

Chris set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses, and In 1 John 2:6, those who abide in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked. In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have carnal minds who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God. In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to him without departing from it, which is why the Law of Moses is called the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23).

1 Corinthians 9:21
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

Paul used a parallel statement to equate not being without the Law of God with being under the Law of Christ and the Law of Moses is the Law of God.

Romans 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

In Romans 7:25-8;2, Paul equated the Law of God with the Law of the Spirit by contrasting them both with the law of sin and death, and the Law of Moses is the Law of God.

*Free as in no longer being a slave to sin, as in stop doing sinful things!

In Romans 3:20, it is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is.

2 Peter 1:4-10
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the

The purpose of the Law of Moses is to teach us how to partake in the divine nature.

Those that do not put on the New Man and quit walking after the flesh, the wrath of God comes upon them for their disobedience because God is NOT mocked, if we sow to the flesh we shall of the flesh reap corruption (Gal 6:7,8)

The New Man is the one who lives in obedience to the Law of Moses while walking after the flesh is walking in disobedience to it.

Things end very badly for those that do not obey the gospel.

The Gospel calls for obedience to the Law of Moses (Matthew 4:15-23).

Jesus Christ as the High Priest

Jesus being our High Priest does not suggest that we should reject anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but just the opposite.

Hebrews 7:12

Please interact with what I said about that verse.

NEWS FLASH - those trying to live under the
Law of Moses will not be allowed in to God's Kingdom.

Nowhere is that stated in the Bible, but rather the opposite is true. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is, so the way to enter into God's Kingdom is by repenting from our disobedience to the Law of Moses.

I see in other words Jesus lied in Matthew 15:11

You are being dishonest. I said that I do not think that the error was with Jesus but with you interpreting what he said as speaking against obeying what God has spoken and then I explained why I think that you are misinterpreting that verse, which you deliberately ignored.

have you even read the Book of Hebrews???

Indeed, though I don't think that it correct to interpret it as speaking against obeying what God has spoken.

Or do you reject the New Testament

I do not reject the NT, but rather I reject interpretations of the NT that make its authors out to be false prophets. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying the Law of Moses, so it is either incorrect to interpret them as doing that or they were false prophets, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to the Law of Moses.

I see so the Book of Hebrews contains lies and should be ignored, right?

Nope.

Yeah that was before the New Covenant was established by Jesus

The NT quotes from the Psalms over 100 times as being an authoritative source. The New Covenant establish by Jesus does not change the truth of the Psalms.

Jesus taught the gospel of the kingdom, not the law of Moses.

The Gospel of the Kingdom calls for us to repent from our disobedience to the Law of Moses.

Sadly you are obviously very confused. Do you attend a SDA church by chance?

No. The position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded is foundational to Christianity.

The Galatians went back to trying to be justified by the law of Moses and they fell from grace.

I have not suggested that we can earn our justification as the result of obeying either the Law of Moses or the works of the law that Galatians 5:4 was speaking about.

The Law of Christ is what God's true followers live under now, not the law of Moses as Jesus did away with that and established a New Covenant based on better promises spoken of in Hebrews 8:6-13 but as I understand it you sadly don't believe in the New Covenant

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the Law of Moses.

New covenants do not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so God’s covenants are eternally and cumulatively valid. One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulative functionality, so a computer makes a typewriter obsolete but does not make a plow obsolete, which means that if the New Covenant involved doing something different that were not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not make it obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14–17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if it is cumulative with it. So the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10) plus the difference is that it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Now, there is a new house, the Body of Jesus Christ! Under the New Covenant that the Lord said would come forth, we see Jesus Christ as the High Priest. The old covenant with it’s laws and regulations have been taken away because thru Jesus Christ a new and better covenant has come in to place.

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (God said He would make a New Covenant - see Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath Jesus obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

And with the changing of the priesthood, God’s Word tells us there is also a change of the law.

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

So, you are barking up the wrong tree with your false SDA doctrine.

 

[Soyeong]

Now, there is a new house, the Body of Jesus Christ! Under the New Covenant that the Lord said would come forth, we see Jesus Christ as the High Priest. The old covenant with it’s laws and regulations have been taken away because thru Jesus Christ a new and better covenant has come in to place.

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. (God said He would make a New Covenant - see Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath Jesus obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

And with the changing of the priesthood, God’s Word tells us there is also a change of the law.

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

Again, the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10). A priesthood led by God's Word made flesh does not involve setting aside God's Word.

So, you are barking up the wrong tree with your false SDA doctrine.

I'm not SDA.

 

[Wrangler]

It doesn't even make sense to interpret God's Word made flesh as being opposed to embodying God's Word.

A priesthood that is led by God's Word made flesh does not involve setting aside God's Word.

it would also be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning against obeying God

IMO, there is a common denominator with this exchange and the OSAS crowd. Some people seek to escape accountability.

How I've come to reconcile the apparent harshness of the OT with the apparent ease of grace from the NT is, in part, to recognize Jesus concisely expressed the principle of God's plan for us. Now, it is much easier to express a general principle than it is to detail all conceivable applications of this principle. The principle is "to love God and others." And in application, it means such things as don't steal, don't murder, don't bear false witness, etc.

I've found people who seek to escape accountability, like to hide behind the emotional sense of the word. It's an unjust feminization of what we are talking about! It's not all about how you feel. Yea, I love him but I murdered him. Yea, I love her but I was a false witness against her. Yea, no.

Another means people use to seek to escape accountability is to be overly spiritualized and invoke a hyper-grace. For instance, avoid accountability by articulating the New Covenant means we are not saved by our own merit. This is a Strawman. (No one said you are saved by your merit.) Rather, someone said your merit proves that you truly love God. And that someone is God, himself. 1 John 5:2
This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.

Those who seek to escape accountability then resort to word games, like there is a difference between "being saved" and "knowing the truth" and "loving God." What kind of love does it show that I have for my wife if I know that she wants me to get a gallon of milk on the way home from work but I ignore my duty? Word games will not save me from her wrath - or the wrath of God. We are saved by our faith in Christ's work on the cross. Faith is fidelity in action, not lip service.

 

[Soyeong]

IMO, there is a common denominator with this exchange and the OSAS crowd. Some people seek to escape accountability.

How I've come to reconcile the apparent harshness of the OT with the apparent ease of grace from the NT is, in part, to recognize Jesus concisely expressed the principle of God's plan for us. Now, it is much easier to express a general principle than it is to detail all conceivable applications of this principle. The principle is "to love God and others." And in application, it means such things as don't steal, don't murder, don't bear false witness, etc.

I've found people who seek to escape accountability, like to hide behind the emotional sense of the word. It's an unjust feminization of what we are talking about! It's not all about how you feel. Yea, I love him but I murdered him. Yea, I love her but I was a false witness against her. Yea, no.

Another means people use to seek to escape accountability is to be overly spiritualized and invoke a hyper-grace. For instance, avoid accountability by articulating the New Covenant means we are not saved by our own merit. This is a Strawman. (No one said you are saved by your merit.) Rather, someone said your merit proves that you truly love God. And that someone is God, himself. 1 John 5:2
This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.

Those who seek to escape accountability then resort to word games, like there is a difference between "being saved" and "knowing the truth" and "loving God." What kind of love does it show that I have for my wife if I know that she wants me to get a gallon of milk on the way home from work but I ignore my duty? Word games will not save me from her wrath - or the wrath of God. We are saved by our faith in Christ's work on the cross. Faith is fidelity in action, not lip service.

It is super easy to for someone to interpret the Bible in a way that turns it against obeying what God has commanded if that is what someone wants to do, but it shouldn't make sense to interpret servants of God as taking that position. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying what He has commanded, so if someone thinks that the Apostles are servants of God, then they should be opposed to interpreting them in a way that turns them against obeying what God has commanded, and if they thin that the Apostles should be interpreted as speaking against obeying what God has commanded, then they should be opposed to considering them to be servants of God, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded. The problem is that the majority of Christians make the error of interpreting the Apostles as speaking against obeying what God has commanded, but instead of rejecting either the Apostles or their interpretation of the Apostles, they compound their error by rejecting Christ's example of obedience to what God has commanded.

I grew up being taught to have a negative view of obeying the Law of Moses, however, the Psalms express an extremely positive view of obeying it, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so I eventually realized that if I was going to continued to believe that the Psalms are Scripture, then I also needed to believe that they express a correct view of obeying it and that I therefore needed to change my view to match the Psalms. For example, in Psalm 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Law of Moses and who meditate on it day and night, so I could not continue to believe in the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape my view of obeying the Law of Moses. Moreover, the Apostles considered the Psalms to be Scripture, so they should be interpreted in light of the fact that they were in complete agreement with the Psalms and if we interpret them as expressing views that are contrary to what they considered to be an authoritative source, then that should be an indication to us that we have misinterpreted them.

For example, Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by even word that comes from the mouth of God, so if someone interprets Jesus as speaking against living by every word that comes from the mouth of God, then that should indicate to them that they have misinterpreted him.