Freedom from the Law?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Brett

New Member
May 25, 2007
48
0
0
62
Here is something which puzzles me, sometimes I say puzzles even though I may know what I consider to be the answer, thats me.Ok, we are free from the old laws and requirments after Christ came.Why though do so many churches still hold onto them.Heres what I mean.You are sitting in the pews and the minister says "ok, time for your tithes and offerings". Hang on, wasnt "tithes" a part of the old law requirments.So are they saying "yeah but we still want to keep some of them".Are the old laws abolished or not? If they are then why are they asking me to perform an old law requirment in giving "tithes"? Ill give but I thought all that was over.I was once in a church and the minister actually did a search and worked out that his people were not giving tithes by checking out what wages etc they would have earned and adding it all up.Some say "no dont eat that lobster its a sea creature without scales, unclean, dont eat it, dont eat pig its swine unclean and God will punish you"But the Word shows that all has been changed and nothing is now to be considered unclean. The Word says "why are you caught up in the old things of the past, dont touch, dont eat this, why re-entagle yourselves?"Is that an SDA requirment not to eat certain foods as I understand it is?If the law requiring me to perform those things in the Old Testament is or has been replaced then why are we expected to still do these things?
 

RND

New Member
May 30, 2007
320
4
0
62
Brett;13056][QUOTE]Here is something which puzzles me said:
Who said?
Why though do so many churches still hold onto them.Heres what I mean.You are sitting in the pews and the minister says "ok, time for your tithes and offerings". Hang on, wasnt "tithes" a part of the old law requirments.
No. Cain and Abel offered tithes and offerings to the Lord before Mt. Sinai. However, 'tithes and offerings' were required because the Levites (preists) had no land of there own and nothing of which to derived substance.Numbers 18:28Thus ye also shall offer an heave offering unto the LORD of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and ye shall give thereof the LORD'S heave offering to Aaron the priest.
So are they saying "yeah but we still want to keep some of them".Are the old laws abolished or not?
Well, that depends on your perspective of the law.
If they are then why are they asking me to perform an old law requirment in giving "tithes"? Ill give but I thought all that was over.
Well, how else is the pastor supposed to make a living? How else is the church supposed to keep the lights on?
I was once in a church and the minister actually did a search and worked out that his people were not giving tithes by checking out what wages etc they would have earned and adding it all up.
That's not cool is it?
Some say "no dont eat that lobster its a sea creature without scales, unclean, dont eat it, dont eat pig its swine unclean and God will punish you" But the Word shows that all has been changed and nothing is now to be considered unclean. The Word says "why are you caught up in the old things of the past, dont touch, dont eat this, why re-entagle yourselves?"
Um, I don't think anything with respect to the eating of clean or unclean animals has changed. Besides, that isn't a Mosaic law. That commandment regarding clean/unclean animals was given to Noah, and I wasn't aware Noah was a Jew.
Is that an SDA requirment not to eat certain foods as I understand it is?
I'm SDA and eat meat, just not unclean animals.
If the law requiring me to perform those things in the Old Testament is or has been replaced then why are we expected to still do these things?
It's your duty?Ecclesiastes 12:13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
 

Bamp;#39;midbar

New Member
Apr 5, 2007
164
0
0
78
(RND;13125)
Um, I don't think anything with respect to the eating of clean or unclean animals has changed. Besides, that isn't a Mosaic law. That commandment regarding clean/unclean animals was given to Noah, and I wasn't aware Noah was a Jew.
Can you give the verse where the commandment not to eat the unclean animals is given to Noah? Usually when I think of Noah and food, I think of Gen 9:3. But as you well have figured, we don't think alike.
smile.gif

"Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
 

RND

New Member
May 30, 2007
320
4
0
62
(B'midbar;13127)
Can you give the verse where the commandment not to eat the unclean animals is given to Noah? Usually when I think of Noah and food, I think of Gen 9:3. But as you well have figured, we don't think alike.
smile.gif

Noah was 'commanded' by God to take 2 of each kind of unclean animal on earth with him on the Ark. However, Noah was also commanded (instructed) by God to take 7 of each clean animal with him on the Ark.Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.Genesis 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.Why was this necessary? It rained for fourty days and fourty nights (Gen. 7:12) and rained so much that it covered the earth 45 feet deep (Gen. 7:20) for 150 days (Gen. 7:20). Then the waters began to receed to the point where 10 months after the rain started, the mountain tops were seen (Gen. 8:5). The earth was finally dried one year and ten days after it first started to rain (Gen. 8:13,14). During this entire time there would have absolutely nothing to eat. No vegetables, herbs or animals. Those on the Ark could have only eaten what they brought. And would mean that the food they brought would have been the 'clean' animals, brought into the Ark by sevens. The 'unclean' animals were brought by two's, meaning that if an 'unclean' animal were to have been eaten, it would not have been able to reproduce after it's own kind.Thus we can conclude that Noah and his family did not decide to have bacon and eggs one morning!
smile.gif
Hope that helps!
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
(Brett;13056)
Here is something which puzzles me, sometimes I say puzzles even though I may know what I consider to be the answer, thats me.Ok, we are free from the old laws and requirments after Christ came.Why though do so many churches still hold onto them.Heres what I mean.You are sitting in the pews and the minister says "ok, time for your tithes and offerings". Hang on, wasnt "tithes" a part of the old law requirments.So are they saying "yeah but we still want to keep some of them".Are the old laws abolished or not? If they are then why are they asking me to perform an old law requirment in giving "tithes"? Ill give but I thought all that was over.I was once in a church and the minister actually did a search and worked out that his people were not giving tithes by checking out what wages etc they would have earned and adding it all up.Some say "no dont eat that lobster its a sea creature without scales, unclean, dont eat it, dont eat pig its swine unclean and God will punish you"But the Word shows that all has been changed and nothing is now to be considered unclean. The Word says "why are you caught up in the old things of the past, dont touch, dont eat this, why re-entagle yourselves?"Is that an SDA requirment not to eat certain foods as I understand it is?If the law requiring me to perform those things in the Old Testament is or has been replaced then why are we expected to still do these things?
There is a difference between laws, ordinances, ext. Jesus was the fulfillment of most of Ordinances., But he says he came not to change one iota of the Law. Tithing was supposed to be 10% used to feed the poor, orphans and the widows ext. In the beginning it had nothing to do with money you were supposed to leave the outer 10% of your fields unharvested so the poor could gather it. By the time of Jesus it become money and a good deal of money was made at the temples by charging for ritual baths ex. This is one reason Jesus tipped over the money tables. the money was not going to the poor but into the pockets of the temple priests.Now today it is the same as Jesus time.You should follow that if your Pastor,minister, is feeding youi.e. teaching you Gods word providing needed service to others,he should be paid for his service. You should decide the amount by what you get out of it. And give him his due.If he is isn't teaching you or providing a needed and good service to you and others in the community. But just wants a new car every year. You owe him nothing. And to any minister that would dare check your income to see if hes getting enough from you. Obviously has his priorities in your money rather than on God. Run as fast as you can
 

poetboy

New Member
Jul 2, 2007
82
0
0
36
(Brett;13056)
Here is something which puzzles me, sometimes I say puzzles even though I may know what I consider to be the answer, thats me.Ok, we are free from the old laws and requirments after Christ came.Why though do so many churches still hold onto them.Heres what I mean.You are sitting in the pews and the minister says "ok, time for your tithes and offerings". Hang on, wasnt "tithes" a part of the old law requirments.So are they saying "yeah but we still want to keep some of them".Are the old laws abolished or not? If they are then why are they asking me to perform an old law requirment in giving "tithes"? Ill give but I thought all that was over.I was once in a church and the minister actually did a search and worked out that his people were not giving tithes by checking out what wages etc they would have earned and adding it all up.Some say "no dont eat that lobster its a sea creature without scales, unclean, dont eat it, dont eat pig its swine unclean and God will punish you"But the Word shows that all has been changed and nothing is now to be considered unclean. The Word says "why are you caught up in the old things of the past, dont touch, dont eat this, why re-entagle yourselves?"Is that an SDA requirment not to eat certain foods as I understand it is?If the law requiring me to perform those things in the Old Testament is or has been replaced then why are we expected to still do these things?
First, what is SDA? not sure what it means...and what exactly are "unclean animals, never really understood which animals are considered unclean?hmm...im sure we are not "free" from everything in the old laws, i believe most things aren't that much practised, but we must still abide by ALL of god's laws...and things like the pastor checking wages is just wrong.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
(poetboy;13143)
First, what is SDA? not sure what it means...and what exactly are "unclean animals, never really understood which animals are considered unclean?hmm...im sure we are not "free" from everything in the old laws, i believe most things aren't that much practised, but we must still abide by ALL of god's laws...and things like the pastor checking wages is just wrong.
SDA is Seventh Day Adventist of which RND is a memberunclean animals are the ones in the health laws God said we shouldn't eatmany of these are scavenger animals, there is really no sin in eating these but they can make you ill. As in Pork for instance Pigs have no sweat glands so any toxins they consume stays in there flesh.(you can read of this in Lev.11) Now as for the laws Brett is not entirely correct The law Jesus says he never came to change any of it (not one iota) what brett is referring to are the Ordinances these are different than lawsmany having to do with rules of worship that were fulfilled in Christ so are obsolete to the christian.
 

Bamp;#39;midbar

New Member
Apr 5, 2007
164
0
0
78
(RND;13129)
During this entire time there would have absolutely nothing to eat. No vegetables, herbs or animals. Those on the Ark could have only eaten what they brought. And would mean that the food they brought would have been the 'clean' animals, brought into the Ark by sevens. The 'unclean' animals were brought by two's, meaning that if an 'unclean' animal were to have been eaten, it would not have been able to reproduce after it's own kind.Thus we can conclude that Noah and his family did not decide to have bacon and eggs one morning!
smile.gif
Hope that helps!
Thank you. It does help some.
smile.gif
There is another verse I want to mention, to help you understand how I understand you. It says,
Genesis 6:21 "As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them." Genesis 6:22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did.
I have always taken this verse to be where Noah is commanded to provision the ark and so he does so. Also, I always figured that this food was enough for Noah, the family, and the animals. But you feel that this verse was only talking about some of the food that Noah needed, and that he needed more than is mentioned here, or perhaps fresher food? Thus the by seven animals served as more food, and from that you deduce that only clean animals were deemed acceptable as food, otherwise the by sevens would have included unclean animals too.I definitely understand the problem with eating the animals if there were only two of them, unless they reproduced really fast! I just figured he didn’t eat the animals in the ark at all. I figured the by seven animals were for sacrifices, so that they could be carried out. Is there a definite way to know either if he ate them or if he didn’t eat them? (We do know he sacrificed some of them, because it says so when he got out of the ark).Also, what is your comment on Gen 7:3 and does that say birds by seven or clean birds by seven? I’ve never noticed that before (I just saw that now, I did not put it here to be contentious. Just you being an SDA, you’ve probably thought about it already).
 

RND

New Member
May 30, 2007
320
4
0
62
(B'midbar;13160)
I have always taken this verse to be where Noah is commanded to provision the ark and so he does so. Also, I always figured that this food was enough for Noah, the family, and the animals. But you feel that this verse was only talking about some of the food that Noah needed, and that he needed more than is mentioned here, or perhaps fresher food? Thus the by seven animals served as more food, and from that you deduce that only clean animals were deemed acceptable as food, otherwise the by sevens would have included unclean animals too.
I would have to agree with you completely with respect to Gen 6:21, 22. I suppose the delineator for me is the word 'food' in Gen. 6:21 in that I suppose animal products were already being consummed at that point in time as a result of sin.
I definitely understand the problem with eating the animals if there were only two of them, unless they reproduced really fast! I just figured he didn’t eat the animals in the ark at all. I figured the by seven animals were for sacrifices, so that they could be carried out.
That is an excellent point in that when the boat finally landed Noah and the clan would have needed a certain amount of animals to lug their personal belongs, provisions and such with them. If some of the animals were for sacrifices I imagine they would have been consumed as many such sacrifices were.
Is there a definite way to know either if he ate them or if he didn’t eat them? (We do know he sacrificed some of them, because it says so when he got out of the ark).
I don't honestly think so, that is I don't know of any corresponding verses that confir the point. I think we can reasonablly assume that those 7 clean animals were used for food, sacrifices, transportation assistance, etc.
Also, what is your comment on Gen 7:3 and does that say birds by seven or clean birds by seven? I’ve never noticed that before (I just saw that now, I did not put it here to be contentious. Just you being an SDA, you’ve probably thought about it already).
Well, I can only surmize in roughtly the same manner as I do with the 7 clean animals. Gen 6:20 tells us that Noah was to take 2 of the fowl, cattle, and creeping thing so I can reasonablly conclude that the 7 clean fowl were for eating as well.Also, can we reasonablly guess that Noah and the boys were at times fishermen? Even though the Bible doesn't tell us can we conclude that maybe Noah was smart enough to fashion poles or nets for fishing an occaisional meal?I guess we can call that 'thought for food'?
smile.gif
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Matthew 5:17-19Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.Contrary to what many assert, heaven and earth as we know them have not passed away. This is a clear reference to Revelation. I've challenged many people on this idea that these have already passed, and I've never seen one verse substantiate it. Most people try to palm it off as a "matter of fact" statement, but it's nothing more than man's tradition.Note carefully that Jesus calls them his commandments.As kriss said, one has to know the differences between laws, statutes, and ordinances.II Kings 17:34Unto this day they do after the former manners: they fear not the LORD, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the LORD commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel;Nehemiah 9:14And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant:Colossians tells us exactly what happened:Colossians 2:14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;As Jesus said, the law didn't change. Not one iota, or mark, of it. However, he nailed the ordinances to the cross because he was our one and all time sacrifice for our sins of which there is no greater.As for the tithe discussion - number one, whose tithe is it? It's not the church's, but it is our Fathers! I'm very much against anyone who plays tax collector for the Lord. This is something that is to be done between only you and YHVH. I have no patience for these swindlers because even the most basic person knows the difference between income and actual profit. You can't give God 10% of your bills and he doesn't expect you to do something as silly as that, period.
 

Bamp;#39;midbar

New Member
Apr 5, 2007
164
0
0
78
(RND;13163)
If some of the animals were for sacrifices I imagine they would have been consumed as many such sacrifices were....Well, I can only surmize in roughtly the same manner as I do with the 7 clean animals. Gen 6:20 tells us that Noah was to take 2 of the fowl, cattle, and creeping thing so I can reasonablly conclude that the 7 clean fowl were for eating as well....Also, can we reasonablly guess that Noah and the boys were at times fishermen?
I do agree that that word “food” needs to be thought about. It could indicate animal products. Noah was righteous/found favor with God, though, at least that’s why he was the guy who got saved in the ark. I, too, have wondered if Noah was into fishing, using that window that he let the birds go out of. He could no doubt string a line out of it if he could stick out a hand for the birds. Also, if meat was okay for him to eat at that time, he could have eaten eggs from the birds. I’m not sure meat was okay at that point, though.About that verse, Gen 7:3, you missed my concern about it. The KJV doesn’t have the word “clean” there. It just says regular old birds of the air by seven. Why aren’t they listed as clean birds, then, since birds do come in clean and unclean varieties? Or is the KJV wrong? Or did Noah take all kinds of birds by sevens?Just an aside, I know some offerings could be eaten, but likely not the ones right when he got out of the ark. They were olah or whole burnt offerings (holocausts). Those were not eaten.
 

RND

New Member
May 30, 2007
320
4
0
62
(B'midbar;13174)
About that verse, Gen 7:3, you missed my concern about it. The KJV doesn’t have the word “clean” there. It just says regular old birds of the air by seven. Why aren’t they listed as clean birds, then, since birds do come in clean and unclean varieties? Or is the KJV wrong? Or did Noah take all kinds of birds by sevens?
I think my assumption here is that Gen 6:20 mentions taking fowl by two's. So I might assuming that because it says to take 'clean' animals by 7, and it said to simply take 7 of the fowl that I'm guessing those are 'clean' birds.
Just an aside, I know some offerings could be eaten, but likely not the ones right when he got out of the ark. They were olah or whole burnt offerings (holocausts). Those were not eaten.
Are there some verses that speak of Noah's offerings and what type of offerings those may have been?
 

Bamp;#39;midbar

New Member
Apr 5, 2007
164
0
0
78
(RND;13176)
Are there some verses that speak of Noah's offerings and what type of offerings those may have been?
I see your chain of reasoning now about the 7 birds.I was thinking of Gen 8:20-21. That is right after he comes out of the ark and it says he did burnt offerings or whole burnt offerings, depending on the translation you use. It also mentions the sweet savor or aroma, which is described with the whole burnt offering. This is a specific type of offering, that is also sometimes called a holocaust. The whole animal is put up into smoke (I'm not sure if I recall if the skin can be saved and tanned, though). The priest doesn’t eat any of it. Here is where to read about it in general: Lev 1:1-9. See also Deuteronomy 12:13-15, 27. Those last are chosen so you can begin to see a contrast to the other types of sacrifices.Some people think "burnt offerings" are what all the sacrifices are in the OT. But that is not the case. The "olah" (Hebrew) is a specific sacrifice.
 

RND

New Member
May 30, 2007
320
4
0
62
(B'midbar;13179)
I was thinking of Gen 8:20-21. That is right after he comes out of the ark and it says he did burnt offerings or whole burnt offerings, depending on the translation you use. It also mentions the sweet savor or aroma, which is described with the whole burnt offering. This is a specific type of offering, that is also sometimes called a holocaust. The whole animal is put up into smoke (I'm not sure if I recall if the skin can be saved and tanned, though). The priest doesn’t eat any of it. Here is where to read about it in general: Lev 1:1-9. See also Deuteronomy 12:13-15, 27. Those last are chosen so you can begin to see a contrast to the other types of sacrifices.
I think Gen 8:20-21 indicates that only some and not all of the clean animals were sacrificed, at least that's my guess. As a side note, isn't it also interesting in a way that, as you are pointing out, that it was possible that Noah was sacrificing in accordance with what is laid out in Mosaic law well before the Mosaic law was ever given on Mt. Sinai?Can we conclude then that it was possible that God gave the 10 Commandments to Noah, Adam etc., verbally well before Mt. Sinai as well? This would mean the law wasn't just for the 'Israelites' to observe.
Some people think "burnt offerings" are what all the sacrifices are in the OT. But that is not the case. The "olah" (Hebrew) is a specific sacrifice.
Yes indeed, there were many types of sacrifices.
 

Bamp;#39;midbar

New Member
Apr 5, 2007
164
0
0
78
I think Gen 8:20-21 indicates that only some and not all of the clean animals were sacrificed, at least that's my guess.
I think he’d have to leave some of them alive, or they could not repopulate. But it might mean that he took from each kind of clean animal or bird category that existed, like some from the doves, some from the goats, some from the pigeons, and so on. If you go back up to post #8, you’ll see I only had in mind some and not all.
As a side note, isn't it also interesting in a way that, as you are pointing out, that it was possible that Noah was sacrificing in accordance with what is laid out in Mosaic law well before the Mosaic law was ever given on Mt. Sinai?
Noah did not follow the rules from Leviticus. It is not possible. There was no tent of meeting, for example, to bring the offering to. I think the burnt offering existed as a concept and later Moses gave laws/rules about it. Scholarship indicates that neighboring communities likely had a type of burnt offering as well (If you need, I could dredge up a reference from Jacob Milgrom). From the bible, though, I know of this verse to say that Moabites used it (in conjunction with child sacrifice) 2 Kings 3:27. The word “olah” is there. Isaac was almost an olah, too. I suspect olah was the oldest type.
Can we conclude then that it was possible that God gave the 10 Commandments to Noah, Adam etc., verbally well before Mt. Sinai as well? This would mean the law wasn't just for the 'Israelites' to observe.
I don’t think we can conclude that the covenant (the Moses one) was given to them. I think the bible makes it clear that this came after the whole being taken out of Egypt and slavery with a strong arm, etc. I do think it is possible that God told a patriarch some individual things, like it is wrong to murder. I suspect we might have a real knowledge advantage over them, knowing Christ the Son of God.
 

RND

New Member
May 30, 2007
320
4
0
62
B said:
I don’t think we can conclude that the covenant (the Moses one) was given to them.
Well' date=' I wonder. I mean if Noah was instructed on the use of, or importance of clean/unclean animals then we might be able to deduce that there was some set standard as to other provisions of law, obviously spoken verbally.While not a Mosaic law, rather a 10 commandment law, Cain knew it was [QUOTE']wrong to murder. Abraham kept all of God's commandments and laws. Joseph knew adultery was sin.So in some respects I think it can be said that some form of verbal instruction, commandments if you will, were given to all of God's children well before Sinai.I mean God did command Adam.I think the bible makes it clear that this came after the whole being taken out of Egypt and slavery with a strong arm, etc. I do think it is possible that God told a patriarch some individual things, like it is wrong to murder.
So you agree that God commanded certain types of obedience to His law before Sinai?
I suspect we might have a real knowledge advantage over them, knowing Christ the Son of God.
I see Christ as a type of Israel frankly. The nation of Israel is Jesus.
 

Brett

New Member
May 25, 2007
48
0
0
62
Sorry to everyone for using the wrong words or phrase. I should think more when I say or write something about the implications of using the wrong wording. Ordinances is definately the one I should have chosen.Wow, some dont think that I reckon the minister has a living owed to him for his work or that bills have to be paid for power etc, mate I am not that low or scungy. Seriously though, you thought that I didnt know that bills need paying or a man is worthy of his labour? I must really be coming across as , well to be honest , that dumb?
 

jodycour

New Member
Jun 4, 2007
338
0
0
63
Natchitoches, La
Actually, You made some really good points!I agree with Denver, and Kriss on this one.Jesus came to fulfill the law, not do away with it!But something else to consider. The new Covenant that we have with Jesus is actually a Highier Covenant.Look at what Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount.On each of the Commandments and Ordinances He actually added more to it making them actually harder to follow!For instance" Now if you even look on a woman to lust for Her, you have committed Adultery! So the new covenant is a Highier Covenant!So actually the tithe issue really should not be an issue at all if we love God because we are giving it to Him!Your Pastor is going to have to answer to God concerning what He does with it!Plus when you consider the sowing and reapping principals of God, we really should be giving more if we expect to be blessed!
 

Bamp;#39;midbar

New Member
Apr 5, 2007
164
0
0
78
(RND;13232)
So you agree that God commanded certain types of obedience to His law before Sinai?
Eh, I agree that God commanded various things before Sinai, of which not eating from that tree is an example. But no, I don’t see solid evidence that the Law was in place before the whole Moses thing. Moses seems to have had a ministry. Also, the law seems to appear at a time:
Rom 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

While not a Mosaic law, rather a 10 commandment law
You are making a distinction here, perhaps just one of convenience, but I don’t know for sure. I do consider the Decalogue to be part of the covenant. Are you saying that Moses didn’t make up the Decalogue, but he did make up all the other laws by himself? Or, are you saying that the Decalogue remains in effect even if the other laws are abrogated, because it is mostly about moral stuff, not ceremonial stuff?
I see Christ as a type of Israel frankly. The nation of Israel is Jesus.
You mean like that Israel was chosen?