Christians are in Rebellion against God for not following Torah

[Angelina]

@Soyeong, thank you for taking the time to explain your position in more detail. I think your responses have helped clarify where our agreement is and where our disagreement remains.

I want to begin by saying that I agree with several foundational points you have made.

I agree that God's character is eternal. I agree that the Torah reveals things that are true about God's character. I agree that Jesus perfectly revealed the character of the Father. I agree that true faith produces obedience, and I agree that grace is never permission to continue in sin.

The question we are wrestling with is not whether God's character matters. It absolutely does.

The question is whether the New Testament teaches that the Mosaic Torah remains the governing covenant standard by which New Covenant believers are judged. I believe Scripture makes a distinction between God's eternal character and the covenant through which God revealed and administered that character.

God's holiness existed before Sinai. God's justice existed before Sinai. God's faithfulness existed before Sinai. Abraham lived by faith before the Mosaic covenant was given. Joseph understood adultery was sin before the commandment was written at Sinai.

Therefore, the existence of God's character does not depend upon the Mosaic covenant. The Torah revealed God's character, but the Torah itself was given within a specific covenant relationship between God and Israel.

This distinction is important because Scripture itself describes a covenant transition.

Hebrews 8:13 says: "In speaking of a new covenant, He makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

The writer of Hebrews is not saying God's character became obsolete. He is not saying holiness, righteousness, mercy, or obedience became obsolete. He is saying the covenant arrangement established through Moses was surpassed by the New Covenant established through Christ.

The same chapter explains what changed. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts." Hebrews 8:10

"The promise was not just external obedience to a written covenant code, but an inward transformation where God Himself produces obedience through His Spirit."

This is why Paul says: "Now we have been released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." Romans 7:6

Paul is not calling God's law sinful. He immediately says: "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." Romans 7:12

The issue is not whether the law was good. The issue is the covenantal role of the written code after Christ.

This is also why Acts 15 is significant. The apostles were addressing the exact question of whether Gentile believers must enter into the Mosaic covenant by circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses.

Peter said, "Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" Acts 15:10

The apostles did not tell Gentiles they were free to sin. They did not remove God's moral standards. They affirmed holiness. But they did not require Gentiles to come under the Mosaic covenant.

You mentioned Matthew 5:17, where Jesus said He came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. I agree completely. However, fulfillment does not mean continuation in the same form. The sacrifices were fulfilled in Christ. The priesthood was fulfilled in Christ. The temple was fulfilled in Christ. These things were not evil because they were fulfilled. Their purpose was accomplished.

Likewise, the Torah pointed forward to Christ. The question is not whether Christ embodied it. He did. The question is whether believers are commanded to live under the same covenant administration that pointed toward him.

You quoted 1 John 2:6: "Whoever says he abides in Him ought to walk in the same way in which He walked."

Amen. We absolutely should walk as Jesus walked. But Jesus did not merely walk according to written commands. He walked in perfect submission to the Father through the Spirit. The New Covenant believer follows Christ by being conformed to Him through the Spirit.

Paul says, "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." Romans 8:14

The Spirit does not produce lawlessness. He produces the righteousness that the law pointed toward. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Galatians 5:22-23

These qualities reflect God's character. They also fulfill what God has always desired.

The question is whether a believer who loves Christ, has received the Spirit, seeks holiness, and bears the fruit of the Spirit is in rebellion against God because they are not under the Mosaic covenant. The New Testament does not present the mark of belonging to God as being under the Sinai covenant. It presents the mark as belonging to Christ and being transformed by the Spirit.

"For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but a new creation." Galatians 6:15

The danger Scripture warns against is both lawlessness and seeking righteousness through a covenant that has been fulfilled in Christ. Christ is not the rejection of God's character. He is the fulfillment of everything the Torah revealed about God's character.

 

[Angelina]

@Soyeong, continuing from my previous response, I believe your further explanation helps bring us closer to the actual point of disagreement. I want to emphasize again that I agree with much of what you are saying regarding God's character.

As I mentioned above, I agree that God's character is eternal, His commandments are good, and believers are called to holiness and obedience.

The point where we differ is not whether God's character matters. The point where we differ is whether the Mosaic Torah remains the covenant standard by which New Covenant believers are defined.

You said that the way to embody God's character existed before any covenant, and I agree. However, that actually demonstrates the distinction I have been making.

The Torah reveals God's character, but the Torah was not the beginning of God's character, nor is God's character dependent upon the Mosaic covenant.

Abraham walked by faith before the Mosaic Law was given. Joseph understood that adultery was sin before Sinai. The prophets repeatedly spoke of justice, mercy, faithfulness, and righteousness as matters of the heart.

The question is whether the covenant made through Moses remains the covenant authority for those who have been brought into Christ.

You mentioned Hebrews 8:10 and the promise that God would write His laws upon the hearts of His people. I agree completely with that promise.

However, we must allow the New Testament to explain what this means.

The New Covenant is not described as merely the old covenant transferred inward. It is described as a superior covenant with a superior mediator. "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." Hebrews 7:12

The writer of Hebrews is explaining that the covenant administration connected with the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic system has been fulfilled and surpassed through Christ.

This is why Hebrews can speak positively of the Law while also saying, "In speaking of a new covenant, He makes the first one obsolete." Hebrews 8:13

Something can be holy, good, and God-given, yet still have a temporary covenant purpose.

The sacrificial system was holy and God-ordained, but Christ fulfilled it. The priesthood was holy and God-ordained, but Christ became our eternal high priest. The temple system was holy and God-ordained, but believers are now described as God's temple through the Spirit.

Fulfillment does not mean something was evil. It means its purpose has reached its completion in Christ.

This also applies to Matthew 5:17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

I agree that Jesus did not come to destroy God's revelation. But the question is what "fulfill" means in light of the rest of the New Testament.

Jesus fulfilled the Law by accomplishing what it pointed toward. He perfectly revealed the righteousness, holiness, mercy, and love of God. He fulfilled the sacrificial system by becoming the sacrifice. He fulfilled the priesthood by becoming the mediator between God and man.

The fulfillment of the Law in Christ does not mean believers disregard God's will. It means Christ is now the foundation and expression of God's will for His people.

Regarding Romans 7, I agree that Paul delighted in God's law. Again, the issue is not whether God's law is good.

The question is what Paul means when he says, "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." Romans 7:6

Paul immediately clarifies: "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." Romans 7:12

Paul is distinguishing between the goodness of God's law and the covenant relationship under which people were previously held.

The problem was humanity's inability to produce that righteousness through the written code.

This is why Paul says: "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending His own Son..." Romans 8:3

The law revealed righteousness. Christ produces righteousness in His people through the Spirit.

If the apostles believed Gentile believers were required to keep the Torah as the governing covenant obligation, Acts 15 would have been the natural place to command it, because that was the very question being debated.

The question was specifically whether Gentiles needed circumcision and the Law of Moses in order to be saved. The apostles' conclusion was that God "made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith." Acts 15:9

Peter did not say, "They must become Torah observant first."

He said: "We believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." Acts 15:11

The apostles did give instructions for holiness and fellowship, but they did not place Gentile believers under the Mosaic covenant.

You also asked what grounds someone has for believing they love God if they refuse to obey Him.

I agree that someone who claims to love God while refusing obedience is contradicting Scripture.

Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." John 14:15

But the question remains: Which commandments define New Covenant obedience?

Jesus Himself summarized God's will as love for God and love for neighbor. Matthew 22:37-40

Paul says: "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Galatians 5:14 And: "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law." Romans 13:10

The New Testament does not present love as less than obedience. It presents love as the fulfillment of God's righteous purpose.

The Spirit does not lead believers into lawlessness. The Spirit produces the very character that God desires.

The question, therefore, is not whether Christians should obey God. They absolutely should.

The question again is whether obedience under the New Covenant is defined by returning to the Mosaic Covenant or by being transformed into the image of Christ through the Holy Spirit.

I believe the New Testament teaches that those who belong to Christ are not in rebellion because they are not under the Mosaic covenant.

God's righteous will is fulfilled from a transformed heart through the Spirit rather than through the covenant administration given through Moses.
"For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son." Romans 8:29

 

[Soyeong]

@Soyeong, thank you for taking the time to explain your position in more detail. I think your responses have helped clarify where our agreement is and where our disagreement remains.

Thank you for your kind words, I appreciate our dialogue.

God's holiness existed before Sinai. God's justice existed before Sinai. God's faithfulness existed before Sinai. Abraham lived by faith before the Mosaic covenant was given. Joseph understood adultery was sin before the commandment was written at Sinai.

God's character traits are eternal, so the way to embody them has existed from the beginning before God has made any covenants with man, so everything that God's covenants teach us about how to embody them has always been and will always be true. Sin is was in the world before the Torah was given (Romans 5:13) because people could do what is contrary to God's character traits before they had been given instructions to refrain from doing that. Moreover, the fact that sin was in the world before the Torah was given means that there were no actions that became righteous or unrighteousness when the Torah was given but rather the Torah reversed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. Anyone who has the goal of knowing God through embodying His righteousness will consider all of the instructions that God has given for how to do that to be cumulatively valid regardless of which covenant they are under, if any.

New covenants do not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so God's covenants are cumulatively valid. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:16, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be made obsolete by the New Covenant is if it is cumulative with it. One thing can only make another thing obsolete to the extent that it has cumulatively 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. So the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10) plus it is cumulatively based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6). The fault that God found with the Mosaic Covenant was not with His righteousness or with His righteous laws, but rather God found fault with the people for not continuing in their covenant (Hebrews 8:7-9), so the solution to the problem was not for God to do away with His righteousness or righteous laws but to do away with what was hindering us from obeying them. This is why the New Covenant involves God sending His Son to free us from sin so that we might be free to meet the righteous requirement of the Torah (Romans 8:3-4), God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Torah (Ezekiel 36:26-27), and God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it our hearts so that we will. obey it (Jeremiah 31:33).

"The promise was not just external obedience to a written covenant code, but an inward transformation where God Himself produces obedience through His Spirit."

The Spirit leading us to do something like keep the Sabbath holy is not leading us to something that is not in accordance with the Torah.

Romans 7:6

Again, please give justification for why that verse should be interpreted as referring to being set free from the Torah.

Romans 7:12

The Law of God is not sinful while the law of sin is sinful, so the problem is that you are taking verses that refer to the law of sin and are applying them as if they were referring to the Law of God.

The issue is not whether the law was good. The issue is the covenantal role of the written code after Christ.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so I don't see how this can still be an issue.

This is also why Acts 15 is significant. The apostles were addressing the exact question of whether Gentile believers must enter into the Mosaic covenant by circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses.

They did not say anything about whether Gentiles must enter the Mosaic Covenant, but rather they were debating whether salvation is by grace or by circumcision.

Peter said, "Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" Acts 15:10

The apostles did not tell Gentiles they were free to sin. They did not remove God's moral standards. They affirmed holiness. But they did not require Gentiles to come under the Mosaic covenant.

It is by the Torah is that we have knowledge of what sin is and knowledge of morality, so if they had been speaking against requiring Gentiles to obey it, then they were saying that Gentiles are free to sin and have no need to refrain from immorality outside of the four things list in Acts 15:19-21. Saying that Gentiles don't need to follow God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy would have been the opposite of affirming holiness. Again, they did not say anything about Gentiles coming under the Mosaic Covenant, but rather they heavy yoke that they spoke against Gentiles coming under was salvation by circumcision (Acts 15:1).

Matthew 5:17

Jesus said that he cam to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it and he warned against relaxing the least part of it, so you should not interpret fulfilling the law as meaning essentially the same thing as abolishing it or as relaxing even the least part of it. The only way that we should cease to follow a law would be if what it teaches us about how to embody God's character traits is no longer true, but God's character traits are eternal.

Likewise, the Torah pointed forward to Christ.

Indeed, the Torah teaches us how to point to Christ and we should live in a way that points to him by following his example of embodying it rather than a way that points away from it. I have not said anything in favor of Gentiles coming under the Mosaic Covenant, but rather I have been speaking about how to live under the New Covenant, which still involves following the Torah (Jeremiah 31:33).

1 John 2:6:

Jesus set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in the Spirit/how to walk in obedience to the Torah. Walking in perfect submission to the Father through the Spirit is not doing something other than walking in obedience to the Torah.

Romans 8:14

In Romans 8:4-14, Paul contrasted those who are born of the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Torah.

The Spirit does not produce lawlessness. He produces the righteousness that the law pointed toward. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Galatians 5:22-23

Jesus summarized the Torah as being about how to love God and our neighbor and love is one of the fruits of the Spirit, so the Spirit leading us to love is not leading us to do something that isn't in accordance with the Torah.

The question is whether a believer who loves Christ, has received the Spirit, seeks holiness, and bears the fruit of the Spirit is in rebellion against God because they are not under the Mosaic covenant. The New Testament does not present the mark of belonging to God as being under the Sinai covenant. It presents the mark as belonging to Christ and being transformed by the Spirit.

The way to love Christ is by embodying God's character traits, which the Torah was given in order to teach us how to do, and which is why the Bible repeatedly states that the way to love God is by obeying His commandments, so we can't love Christ instead of following God's instructions for how to do that.

The danger Scripture warns against is both lawlessness and seeking righteousness through a covenant that has been fulfilled in Christ. Christ is not the rejection of God's character. He is the fulfillment of everything the Torah revealed about God's character.

Nowhere does the Bible state that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus teaching us to embody God's character traits is not teaching us to something that is not in accordance with the Torah. If Jesus had been teaching us to do something that was not in accordance with the Torah, then he would have been promoting lawlessness.

 

[Angelina]

@Soyeong, thank you again for taking the time to engage.
I appreciate that you are emphasizing something important: God's character does not change. His holiness, righteousness, love, justice, and faithfulness existed before Sinai and continue forever. I agree that the Torah reveals things about God's character and that believers are called to reflect His character.

However, I think the point where we differ is that we are not distinguishing sufficiently between God's eternal character and the covenant administration through which that character was revealed.

The New Testament does not teach that God's righteousness changed. It teaches that the covenantal administration changed.

Hebrews 8:13 says: "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

The writer is not saying God's righteousness became obsolete. He is saying the first covenant became obsolete. The issue is not God's character, but the covenant arrangement.

Jeremiah 31:33 says God will write His law on the hearts of His people. The question is, what does this mean in its New Covenant context? Hebrews applies this promise specifically to the New Covenant and then immediately says the former covenant is made obsolete. The promise is not that believers are brought back under Sinai internally, but that God Himself transforms His people so they become what the covenant was always pointing toward.

Paul makes this distinction in Romans 7:4-6: "Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead... But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code."

Paul does not say the Law was sinful. He says believers have died to its covenantal authority so that they may belong to Christ and serve in the Spirit.

This is also why Acts 15 is important. The question was not merely whether Gentiles should seek salvation by circumcision. The deeper question was whether Gentile believers needed to enter into the Mosaic covenant. The apostles concluded that they did not.

Peter described the Mosaic burden as a yoke that neither their fathers nor they were able to bear. Acts 15:10. James then did not instruct Gentiles to begin Torah observance as their covenant obligation. Instead, he gave instructions necessary for fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers.

If Gentiles were required to take on the Mosaic covenant but simply without circumcision for salvation, the apostles could have said so. Instead, they recognized that God was taking a people for his name from among the Gentiles without placing them under that covenant.
There is an example earlier in Acts with Cornelius and his household. Peter was specifically sent by God to Gentiles who were outside the Jewish covenant community. Acts 10 records that while Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the message.

Peter then said: "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" Acts 10:47

He commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. What is significant is what Peter did not tell them. He did not instruct them to first enter the Mosaic covenant, be circumcised, or begin observing the Torah as covenant requirements before they could belong to God's people. The Holy Spirit was given to them while they were Gentiles who had placed their faith in Christ.

This same pattern continues in Acts 15. The apostles were not teaching Gentiles to abandon holiness or righteousness, but they recognized that Gentile believers were brought into the New Covenant through Christ and the Spirit rather than through becoming members of the Mosaic covenant.

In relation to Matthew 5:17, I agree Jesus did not come to destroy God's purposes. But fulfillment does not mean continuing something unchanged. The Old Testament itself shows that fulfillment can bring something to its intended completion.

The priesthood, sacrifices, temple, and shadows of the law were not evil, yet Hebrews teaches they reached their purpose in Christ.

Hebrews 10:1 says: "For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect

 

[Soyeong]

The point where we differ is whether the Mosaic Torah remains the covenant standard by which New Covenant believers are defined.

I don't see how you can differ with me on this point without denying the truth of Jeremiah 31:33.

The Torah reveals God's character, but the Torah was not the beginning of God's character, nor is God's character dependent upon the Mosaic covenant.

Everything that the Mosaic Covenant teaches us about how to embody God's character traits is eternal and cumulatively true.

Abraham walked by faith before the Mosaic Law was given.

God's way is the way to know Him through embodying His character traits. For example, in Genesis 18:19, God knew 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 Him. So both Abraham and Moses taught how to walk in God's way.

The question is whether the covenant made through Moses remains the covenant authority for those who have been brought into Christ.

No. We are under the New Covenant, which still involves following the Torah. Moreover, we would still be obligated to obey the Torah even if we were not in a covenant relationship with God.

Hebrews 8:10

It is quoting from the Jeremiah 31:33, which uses the Hebrew word "Torah", so there is no question what it means. In Deuteronomy 30, it forms the basis for the New Covenant by prophesying about a time when the Israelites would return from exile, God would circumcise their hearts, and they would return to obedience to the Torah, which is what Jeremiah 31:33 and Ezekiel 36:26-27n are in regard to.

Hebrews 7:12

The fact that God character traits are eternal means that the way to embody God's character traits that is revealed by the Torah can't change, so that is not what Hebrews 7:12 is referring to.

The writer of Hebrews is explaining that the covenant administration connected with the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic system has been fulfilled and surpassed through Christ.

A covenant led by God's Word made flesh is not contrary to God's Word.

Hebrews 8:13

If the New Covenant were not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not make it obsolete.

Something can be holy, good, and God-given, yet still have a temporary covenant purpose.

The only way that the way to embody God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness can be temporary is if God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness are also temporary.

The sacrificial system was holy and God-ordained, but Christ fulfilled it.

Jesus warned that those who relax the least part of the law or teach others to relax the least part of it will be called the least in the Kingdom, so it is your goal to be the least in the Kingdom?

Fulfillment does not mean something was evil. It means its purpose has reached its completion in Christ.

The purpose of the Torah is to teach us how to know Christ and it will always have this purpose. According to Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done and should continue to do in perpetuity.

Matthew 5:17

If you connect Jesus fulfilling the law with the cross in spite of Matthew 5 making no allusion to it, then you are making the assumption that Jesus had no intention for his audience to understand what he meant by it. On other hand, if Jesus did intent for his audience to understand what he meant, then it had meaning that his audience already understood before he said that he came to fulfill the law, which is not specific to him. Indeed, there is much discussion other Jewish writings about how to fulfill the Torah by correctly meeting our obligation to it.

Romans 7

Why would Paul want to or need to be set free from doing what he delighted in doing?

Paul immediately clarifies: "So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." Romans 7:12

Again, the fact that Paul was referring to the Torah in Romans 7:12 does not mean that Romans 7:6 is also referring to the Torah.

Paul is distinguishing between the goodness of God's law and the covenant relationship under which people were previously held.

He did no such thing.

The law revealed righteousness. Christ produces righteousness in His people through the Spirit.

Christ embodied the righteousness of God by living in obedience to the Torah, so Christ producing righteousness in us is through the Spirit not doing something other than living in obedience to the Torah.

If the apostles believed Gentile believers were required to keep the Torah as the governing covenant obligation, Acts 15 would have been the natural place to command it, because that was the very question being debated.

They did say so.

Acts 15:9

In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His spirit to lead us in obedience to the Torah, which is in accordance with what Peter argued in Acts 15:8-9 that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed, so he was arguing in support of Gentiles obeying the Torah.

Acts 15:11

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 Torah, 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, which is in accordance with Peter arguing that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, so again he was arguing in support of Gentiles obeying the Torah.

The apostles did give instructions for holiness and fellowship, but they did not place Gentile believers under the Mosaic covenant.

They did not place Gentiles under the Mosaic Covenant, but they did argue in support of Gentiles obeying the Torah under the New Covenant.

But the question remains: Which commandments define New Covenant obedience?

In John 14:23-24, Jesus love him, then we will obey his teachings, if we don't love him, then we will not obey his teachings, and that his teachings were not his own but that of the Father, so he did not teach his own set of commandments. Likewise, in John 15:10, Jesus used a parallel statement to equate his commandments with those of the Father. The way to love God is by embodying His character traits and the Son has the same character traits as the Father, so the way to love the Son is exactly the same as the way to love the Father, which has not changed from the OT.

Matthew 22:37-40

Everything in the Torah is either in regard to how to love God or how to love our neighbor, which is why love fulfills it and why Jesus said in Matthew 22:36-40 that those are the greatest two commandments and all of the other commandments hang on them. If someone thought that they just needed to love God and their neighbor, so they didn't need to obey the laws against committing murder or favoritism, then they would have an incomplete understanding of what it means to love God and their neighbor, and the same thing can said about everything else commanded in the Torah. Someone who was correctly living in obedience to the greatest two commandments would be indistinguishable from someone who was correctly living in obedience to the rest of the Torah because they would both be following the same example that Jesus set for us to follow.

The question again is whether obedience under the New Covenant is defined by returning to the Mosaic Covenant or by being transformed into the image of Christ through the Holy Spirit.

I do not hold the position that Gentiles should return to the Mosaic Covenant, but rather I have been speaking about how to live under the New Covenant, which still involves obeying the Torah by the leading of the Spirit.

 

[Angelina]

Hi @Soyeong,
I believe we agree on several important truths: God's character does not change, His righteousness is eternal, the Torah reveals His righteous character, and believers are called to live holy lives through the Spirit.

However, I think there are places where the argument becomes circular, because the conclusion is being used as the starting premise.

For example, you have argued that because Jeremiah 31:33 uses the word Torah, the New Covenant must mean that believers remain under the Mosaic Torah as the covenant standard. However, that is the very point being debated. The question is not whether Jeremiah mentions Torah, but how the New Testament authors interpret that promise in light of Christ.

The writer of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:33 and then immediately concludes:

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13

Therefore, the question cannot be, "Does Jeremiah mention Torah?" The question must be, "How does Hebrews understand Jeremiah's prophecy after Christ has come?"

Likewise, you have stated several times that because God's character is eternal, the Torah's instructions for embodying that character must also remain eternally binding in the same form. But this assumes the conclusion. God's character being eternal does not automatically mean every covenantal expression of that character remains unchanged.

The sacrificial system given by God was holy. It taught God's holiness and pointed toward Christ. Yet Hebrews teaches that those sacrifices reached their fulfillment in Christ.

The priesthood was also given by God. It was not sinful. Yet Hebrews teaches, "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." Hebrews 7:12

The existence of something being God-given does not by itself prove that its covenant function remains unchanged.

You have also argued that if the New Covenant makes the Mosaic Covenant obsolete, it must be cumulative to it. However, this again assumes the conclusion. A covenant can be fulfilled and surpassed without God's character changing.

The Old Covenant contained promises, shadows, patterns, and revelations of God's purposes. The New Covenant does not reject those things; it brings them to their intended fulfillment in Christ.

This is why the issue is not whether the Torah teaches righteousness. It does.

The issue is whether the Mosaic covenant remains the governing covenant authority for those who are in Christ.

 

[Angelina]

@Soyeong, I think part of our disagreement may come from the way we are using the word "Torah."

I want to clarify this because I believe we actually agree on more than it may appear.

When I speak of the Torah, I am referring to the covenant law given through Moses to Israel, including its covenant structure, commands, priesthood, sacrifices, regulations, and national identity markers. I am not saying that everything revealed through the Torah was temporary or that God's righteous character has changed.

When you speak of Torah, I understand you to be referring more broadly to God's instruction that reveals his eternal character and teaches his people how to walk in righteousness.

If that is the distinction, then we agree that God's holiness is eternal. God’s righteousness is eternal. Love for God and love for neighbor remain eternally true. The Spirit does not lead believers into sin or lawlessness. Jesus perfectly revealed the character of the Father.

Where we differ is whether the Mosaic covenant itself remains the governing covenant standard for New Covenant believers.

The question is not whether God's character changes. It does not.

The question is whether the covenant expression through which God revealed his character remains unchanged after Christ's death, resurrection, and the establishment of the New Covenant.

The New Testament shows that some things given by God were holy and purposeful yet had a covenantal function that reached its fulfillment in Christ.

The sacrifices were holy, but Christ fulfilled them. The Levitical priesthood was God-given, but Christ's priesthood surpassed it. The temple was God-ordained, but Christ became the greater temple, and believers became God's dwelling place through the Spirit.

Therefore, the issue is not whether God's instructions were good. They were. The issue is whether the Mosaic covenant remains the covenant authority by which New Covenant believers are defined.

This is why passages such as Hebrews 8:13, Romans 7:6, Galatians 3, and Acts 15 are important. They are not teaching that God's righteousness has changed. They are explaining how God's eternal purpose reaches its fullness in Christ.

So the question I believe we need to answer is:

Does the New Covenant bring believers back under the Mosaic covenant through the Spirit, or does it bring believers into Christ, where the Spirit produces the righteousness that the Torah revealed?

 

[Soyeong]

Hi @Soyeong,
I believe we agree on several important truths: God's character does not change, His righteousness is eternal, the Torah reveals His righteous character, and believers are called to live holy lives through the Spirit.

However, I think there are places where the argument becomes circular, because the conclusion is being used as the starting premise.

For example, you have argued that because Jeremiah 31:33 uses the word Torah, the New Covenant must mean that believers remain under the Mosaic Torah as the covenant standard. However, that is the very point being debated. The question is not whether Jeremiah mentions Torah, but how the New Testament authors interpret that promise in light of Christ.

Do you believe in the existence of the God who has the character traits that the Law of Moses was given in order to teach us how to embody? The Bible consistently uses "Torah" to refer to the Law of Moses, so justification needs to be given for why this instance of it should be interpreted as referring to a different set of laws. Again, Deuteronomy 30 forms the basis for the New Covenant by prophesying about a time when the Israelites would return from exile, God would circumcise their hearts, and they would return to obedience to the Torah, which is what Jeremiah and Ezekiel are speaking in regard to, so it is not moving on to a different set of laws. The New Covenant is not made with a different God with a different set of character traits and a different set of instructions for how to embody those character traits, but rather it is made with the same God with the same character traits and therefore the same cumulatively valid instructions for how to embody His character traits. Christ seen this 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 it still involves following the Law of Moses (Jeremiah 31:31, Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the "mishpatim" and the "chukim", which are the two main categories of law in the Law of Moses.

The writer of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:33 and then immediately concludes:

"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13

One thing making another thing obsolete does not involve doing something completely different, but rather 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 were not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not make it obsolete.

Therefore, the question cannot be, "Does Jeremiah mention Torah?" The question must be, "How does Hebrews understand Jeremiah's prophecy after Christ has come?"

In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet is if they speak against obeying the Law of Moses, so there are certain interpretations of the book of Hebrews that should lead someone to consider it to be written by a false prophet that should be avoided by those who do not consider it to be written by a false prophet.

Likewise, you have stated several times that because God's character is eternal, the Torah's instructions for embodying that character must also remain eternally binding in the same form. But this assumes the conclusion. God's character being eternal does not automatically mean every covenantal expression of that character remains unchanged.

God's character traits being eternal means that everything that God has revealed about how to embody His character traits is eternal and cumulatively valid and that every covenantal expressing of that character remains unchanged, so I am not assuming the conclusion. If the way to embody God's character traits could change, then they would not be eternal.

The sacrificial system given by God was holy. It taught God's holiness and pointed toward Christ. Yet Hebrews teaches that those sacrifices reached their fulfillment in Christ.

The purpose of being a Christian is to live in a way that points towards Christ by following this example of obedience to the Law of Moses, not to live in a way that points away from him. If the way to be holy as God is holy were to change, then God's holiness would not be eternal. In Hebrews 8:4, it speaks about offerings that were still being made in accordance with the Law of Moses, so that did not change.

The priesthood was also given by God. It was not sinful. Yet Hebrews teaches, "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." Hebrews 7:12

The existence of something being God-given does not by itself prove that its covenant function remains unchanged.

Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example, which included saying 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 a priesthood led by him in involves rejecting anything that he taught or for thinking that a priesthood led by God's Word made flesh is not in perfect accordance with every word that comes from the mouth of God.

You have also argued that if the New Covenant makes the Mosaic Covenant obsolete, it must be cumulative to it. However, this again assumes the conclusion. A covenant can be fulfilled and surpassed without God's character changing.

That is part of what it means to make something obsolete, not assuming the conclusion. A computer makes a typewrite obsolete because it has cumulative functionality but does not make a plow obsolete because they have different functions. New Covenants do not nullify the promises of covenants that have already been ratified, so again all of God's covenants are cumulatively valid. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:16, 24:8), the only way that it can be replaced by a different covenant is if it is cumulative with it.

The Bible does not speak in regard to the concept of fulfilling a covenant, so that is a completely foreign concept that you are trying to insert into the Bible.

The Old Covenant contained promises, shadows, patterns, and revelations of God's purposes. The New Covenant does not reject those things; it brings them to their intended fulfillment in Christ.

Recognizing that everything in the Mosaic Covenant points to Christ emphasizes the importance of continue to live in a way that points towards Christ. For example, 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul spoke in regard to how Passover foreshadows Christ by drawing the connection of him being our Passover lamb, however, instead of concluding that we should stop celebrating Passover, he concluded that we should therefore continue to celebrate it. The. only way that we should cease to celebrate Passover would be if what it teaches us about Christ were to cease to be true.

This is why the issue is not whether the Torah teaches righteousness. It does.

The issue is whether the Mosaic covenant remains the governing covenant authority for those who are in Christ.

Christ set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses and under the New Covenant we are told that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6).

 

[Angelina]

@Soyeong, If the New Covenant places believers under the Mosaic Torah as the governing covenant standard, why do none of the New Testament letters ever just say that?

Instead, they repeatedly describe believers as being in Christ, led by the Spirit, under the law of Christ, and ministers of a New Covenant. Why is that?

 

[Angelina]

@Soyeong, and why all this new covenant language if the governing covenant standard is the Mosaic Torah written internally
(on the tablets of our hearts)?

 

[Soyeong]

@Soyeong, I think part of our disagreement may come from the way we are using the word "Torah."

I want to clarify this because I believe we actually agree on more than it may appear.

When I speak of the Torah, I am referring to the covenant law given through Moses to Israel, including its covenant structure, commands, priesthood, sacrifices, regulations, and national identity markers. I am not saying that everything revealed through the Torah was temporary or that God's righteous character has changed.

The Torah refers to the 613 moral laws that God gave to Israel through Moses that were graciously given in order to teach us how to know God through embodying His eternal character traits.

When you speak of Torah, I understand you to be referring more broadly to God's instruction that reveals his eternal character and teaches his people how to walk in righteousness.

If that is the distinction, then we agree that God's holiness is eternal. God’s righteousness is eternal. Love for God and love for neighbor remain eternally true. The Spirit does not lead believers into sin or lawlessness. Jesus perfectly revealed the character of the Father.

The reason why the commandments to love God and our neighbor are the greatest two commandments is because they are inclusive of all of the other commandments, so the position that we should obey the greatest two commandments is also the position that we should obey the rest of the 611 commandments that hang on them. All of the 613 commandments are in accordance with walking in the Spirit, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey them. Jesus perfectly revealed the character of the Father by setting a sinless example for us to follow the Law of Moses.

Where we differ is whether the Mosaic covenant itself remains the governing covenant standard for New Covenant believers.

I'm not arguing that we should follow the Mosaic Covenant but that the Mosaic Law is the standard for the New Covenant.

The question is not whether God's character changes. It does not.

The question is whether the covenant expression through which God revealed his character remains unchanged after Christ's death, resurrection, and the establishment of the New Covenant.

In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe the Gospel that he spent his ministry teaching and accomplished through the cross is by repenting and becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of Moses. So there is nothing about Christ's death, resurrection, and establishment of the New Covenant that changed the covenant expression through which God revealed his character.

The New Testament shows that some things given by God were holy and purposeful yet had a covenantal function that reached its fulfillment in Christ.
The sacrifices were holy, but Christ fulfilled them. The Levitical priesthood was God-given, but Christ's priesthood surpassed it. The temple was God-ordained, but Christ became the greater temple, and believers became God's dwelling place through the Spirit.

Christ fulfilled the law by teaching us how to correctly obey it.

Therefore, the issue is not whether God's instructions were good. They were. The issue is whether the Mosaic covenant remains the covenant authority by which New Covenant believers are defined.

The Mosaic Law remains the authority by which the New Covenant believers are defined. We embody what we believe to be true about God through our works, or in other words, the way to believe in God is by embodying his character traits. For example, by being a doer of good works in obedience to the Law of Moses we are embodying God's goodness, which is why our good works bring glory to Him (Matthew 5:16), and by embodying God's goodness we are also embodying the belief that God is good. Likewise, the way to believe that God is compassionate is by being compassionate (Luke 6:36), the way to believe that God is holy is by being a doer of His instructions for how to be holy as He is holy (1 Peter 1:16), and so forth. This is exactly the same as the way to believe in the Son, who is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), 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 Moses. This is also why the Bible frequently connects our belief in God with our obedience to Him, such as with Revelation 14:12 where those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments. So by living in obedience to the Law of Moses we are representing to the world who the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is (Deuteronomy 4:5-8).

This is why passages such as Hebrews 8:13, Romans 7:6, Galatians 3, and Acts 15 are important. They are not teaching that God's righteousness has changed. They are explaining how God's eternal purpose reaches its fullness in Christ.

I do not think that those verses mean what you think that they mean.

So the question I believe we need to answer is:

Does the New Covenant bring believers back under the Mosaic covenant through the Spirit, or does it bring believers into Christ, where the Spirit produces the righteousness that the Torah revealed?

The New Covenant does not bring believers back under the Mosaic Covenant through the Spirit, but rather it involves following Christ's example of obedience to the Law of Moses by the leading of the Sprit, which is what it means to be in Christ.

 

[Angelina]

@Soyeong, thank you for clarifying. I think this has helped identify the precise point where we differ.

You are distinguishing between the Mosaic covenant itself and the Mosaic Law, arguing that believers are not brought back under the Mosaic covenant, but that the Mosaic Law remains the governing standard of righteousness for believers under the New Covenant.

My question is: where do the New Testament writers explicitly make that distinction?

Where do they say that, although the Mosaic covenant has been surpassed by the New Covenant, the Mosaic Law continues as the governing covenant standard for those who are in Christ?

I agree that God's character is eternal, that his righteousness does not change, and that the Torah reveals God's righteous character. However, the question is not whether God's righteousness changes. The question is how the apostles explain the relationship between the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant established through Christ.

When the apostles describe New Covenant life, they repeatedly point believers to Christ, the Spirit, and the law of Christ. They speak of being led by the Spirit, walking in the Spirit, and serving in the new way of the Spirit rather than the old way of the written code.

Therefore, the distinction I believe we need to examine is not whether believers are called to righteousness and obedience. We agree on that. The question is whether the New Testament teaches that righteousness under the New Covenant is defined by continued submission to the Mosaic Law, or by being transformed into the image of Christ through the Spirit.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Please respond to post #14.

@Soyeong "In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ 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 Torah was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel. Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah and as his followers 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 Torah by word and by example and the topic that they were debating in Acts 15 was not whether followers of Christ are required to follow Christ but whether salvation is by grace (Acts 15:11) or by circumcision (Acts 15:1).

In Acts 15:6-7, Peter argued that Gentiles had heard and believed the Gospel, which calls for obedience to the Torah (Matthew 4:15-23), so he was taking the side of the Pharisees from among the believers (Acts 15:1) against the men from Judea (Acts 15:1). In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Torah, which is in accordance with Peter arguing in Acts 15:8-9 that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed, so again he was siding with the Pharisees. 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 Torah, 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, which is in accordance with Peter arguing in Acts 15:10-11 that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, so everything that Peter argued came down on the side of the Pharisees against the men from Judea.


I disagree

1) Christ Followed the Torah perfectly, but Christ actually showed his followers the goals of the Torah. You make it sound like the Torah was a goal in and of itself. The Torah has been described as a kind of "Gospel" in the Old Testament, and this fits in with the late Shadow terminology because it literally was. Getting saved by Moses with the plagues is most definitely a kind of Salvation from being slowly worked death in the hot sun of Egypt!. In that sense, the Torah was very reasonable. The Torah is however burdensome from a stand point of absolute perfection, where he even saint James said it was so in the book of Acts.


2) The Torah is inferior to the Gospel because it did not give eternal life! I had Grok compile this answer from various videos from Fr. De Young

Key Bible Verses (Easy Copy-Paste Format)​

These drive home that the Torah/Law was not given to grant eternal life (theosis, divine life). Eternal life comes through the promise to Abraham, fulfilled in Christ (faith, not works of Torah). Fr. De Young often highlights these in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews contexts.
Galatians 3:21 (core verse Fr. De Young cites directly):

“Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given which could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.” (NKJV / ESV similar)

Galatians 3:10-14, 16-18 (context on Torah vs. Abrahamic promise):

“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse... But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for 'the just shall live by faith.' ... Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law... that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. ... Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made... And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”

Romans 3:20 (and surrounding; law reveals sin, doesn’t justify):

“Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Romans 7:10 (the commandment was for life, but brought death because of sin):

“And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.”

Hebrews 7:18-19 (law made nothing perfect; better hope in Christ):

“For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.”

Hebrews 8:7-8, 13 (first covenant faultless? No; becoming obsolete):

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second... In that He says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

Additional supporting:

• Romans 4:13-16 (promise to Abraham not through law).
• John 5:39-40 (Jesus to the Jews: “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.”)

These show the Torah’s role was not earning eternal life—it managed sin, maintained holiness for God’s presence among Israel, and pointed forward to Christ. Eternal life was always the Abrahamic promise, inherited by faith in Christ.

2. Fr. Stephen De Young Quotes​

These directly address the point (from his blog and related teaching; copy-paste ready). He emphasizes that the Torah never promised or delivered eternal life—that was never its purpose.
On the Torah not giving life (key excerpt):

“The Torah, says St. Paul, never had anything to do with eternal life and the kingdom of God. It has another purpose... ‘If a law had been given which could give life, then righteousness would be by the law’ (Gal 3:21). St. Paul’s conditional statement presents a counter-factual. The Torah which was given can not give life. The apostle does not say that it can, but that man isn’t up to the task. He doesn’t say that it can, but only through Christ keeping it in our stead. He says it cannot. Rather, the promises given to Abraham of eternal divine life are inherited by Christ...”

Broader context on Western misunderstandings vs. Scripture:

“At the foundation of the Western soteriological edifice... is the idea that the keeping of this boiled down kernel of the Torah in moral obedience grants eternal life... The problem is that these ideas are not only not to be found in Scripture, but actually contradict the Scriptures at several points.”

“Even more major is the unbiblical idea that the keeping of the Torah (or any portion of it) is meritorious and earns eternal life. The third chapter of St. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians is a frontal assault on this entire idea. The promise of theosis, of eternal divine life, is a promise which was made to Abraham based on Abraham’s faithfulness... The Torah is not a long list of added conditions interpolated into the covenant with Abraham.”

On the Torah’s actual purpose (helpful for balance):

“The Torah does not ‘include’ a system for managing the sins of the people, the Torah is a system for managing the sins of the people to allow for the transformative worship of the true God.”

 

[Pavel Mosko]

In Colossians 2:16-23, they were celebrating God's feasts, they were being judged for doing that by pagans who were promoting human teachings and precepts, self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, and Paul was encouraging them not to let anyone judge them for celebrating them. Those promoting asceticism and severity to the body would be judging people for celebrating feasts, not for refraining from doing that. God's feasts are foreshadows that testify about what is to come and we should live in a way that testifies about the truth of what is to come rather than a way that bears false witness against what is to come, so Paul was emphasizing the importance of. not allowing anyone to prevent us from obeying God.

This is patently false! All the so called "paganized" Christian holidays did not start until 2 centuries or more after the New Testament era. The Judaizers is the actual historic context of this passage.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The ECF had some shockingly antisemitic things to say, so they did not understand the role of the Jews or of the Torah.

Torahists that want to dismiss the Church Fathers need to take care because they themselves are like the tail of dog that thinks it is going to wag the entire dog. I got to say, I have been shocked talking to my friend over 2 years ago. Talking about his conceptions of the ancient Church, especially the different problems coming from the Pharisees. I pointed out the problems of the Pharisees resisting Christ, even though I acknowledged their were many good ones and that I considered the Pharisees a sympathetic movement a kind of cautionary tale of "There but for the Grace of God go I!". But my friend then shocked me, saying "You know you can have a synagogues with no rabbinic system" (Karaite Judaism) And I was immediately suspicious because there was no mention of this in Josephus and Early Enough historians, meaning this would likely be a new movement, post the Biblical era. And sure enough, I did find that confirmed, The Earliest we can find Karaites is around 720 AD in Nineveh Iraq! But my friend seems to assume them as a pure form of his own kind of Judaism from the get go.


As far as the anti-Semitic remarks we should not forget the actual persecution of Christians spurred on by the Jews at this time, as well as the many slanderous and blasphemous sayings about Christ in the Talmud and the oral tradition that preceded it. But back to my friend, it is almost amazing to me the ability to dismiss Apostolic Fathers who themselves were mentored by the very Apostles, just because there teaching does not fit your own Self Confirming Bias. I mean besides the various scriptures that nakedly go against the Torahist agenda, you got other ones too that likewise bolster the authority of such people from scripture as far as establishing and mentoring the next generation of leadership with the laying on of hands, establishing things "in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses", the actual rabbinic term of "Binding and Loosening" used in the Great Commission, and the One Body Ecclesiology of Christianity.


Besides all this there is also the important concept of Alethia, Truth in the Greek, as in objective truth. There really is a shocking lack of it in the other side. And this has been a point I have really raised to my friend. "Where are these ancient Messianic Synagogues?" Really the New Testament should be written differently if his side was right, or at least there should be some kind of Ebionite / Messianic Equivalent to things on my side. I mean if his side had any truth, you would expect some kind of Apostolic Instruction on Keeping the Festivals and some of "Essential" Mitzot from the Torah. But you don't have any of that! What you got are folks who are anti-Oral Torah who are defacto following The Modus Operandi of Talmudic Judaism even though they disagree with it's formal Theology!! This is really shocking, if you think about it. In ancient Christianity we got a concept called "LEx Orandi, Lex Credendi. The rule of worship, is the rule of Faith/ belief, and it comes from the earliest times of Judaism itself, that the Great Prayers and Hymns of Judaism like the Shema, the Davidic psalms with their prophetic prophesies etc. were not just prayers but also statements of doctrinal belief. But very odd and unusual to have largely unbelievers making your form of worship. I will however note, I am not categorically against Messianic Judaism as far as being some kind of End Time Witness or Ministry to traditional Jews.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

@Soyeong "In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ 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 Torah was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel. Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah and as his followers 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 Torah by word and by example and the topic that they were debating in Acts 15 was not whether followers of Christ are required to follow Christ but whether salvation is by grace (Acts 15:11) or by circumcision (Acts 15:1).

In Acts 15:6-7, Peter argued that Gentiles had heard and believed the Gospel, which calls for obedience to the Torah (Matthew 4:15-23), so he was taking the side of the Pharisees from among the believers (Acts 15:1) against the men from Judea (Acts 15:1). In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Torah, which is in accordance with Peter arguing in Acts 15:8-9 that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed, so again he was siding with the Pharisees. 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 Torah, 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, which is in accordance with Peter arguing in Acts 15:10-11 that Gentiles are saved by grace just as we are, so everything that Peter argued came down on the side of the Pharisees against the men from Judea.


I disagree

1) Christ Followed the Torah perfectly, but Christ actually showed his followers the goals of the Torah. You make it sound like the Torah was a goal in and of itself. The Torah has been described as a kind of "Gospel" in the Old Testament, and this fits in with the late Shadow terminology because it literally was. Getting saved by Moses with the plagues is most definitely a kind of Salvation from being slowly worked death in the hot sun of Egypt!. In that sense, the Torah was very reasonable. The Torah is however burdensome from a stand point of absolute perfection, where he even saint James said it was so in the book of Acts.


2) The Torah is inferior to the Gospel because it did not give eternal life! I had Grok compile this answer from various videos from Fr. De Young

Key Bible Verses (Easy Copy-Paste Format)​

These drive home that the Torah/Law was not given to grant eternal life (theosis, divine life). Eternal life comes through the promise to Abraham, fulfilled in Christ (faith, not works of Torah). Fr. De Young often highlights these in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews contexts.
Galatians 3:21 (core verse Fr. De Young cites directly):

Galatians 3:10-14, 16-18 (context on Torah vs. Abrahamic promise):

Romans 3:20 (and surrounding; law reveals sin, doesn’t justify):

Romans 7:10 (the commandment was for life, but brought death because of sin):

Hebrews 7:18-19 (law made nothing perfect; better hope in Christ):

Hebrews 8:7-8, 13 (first covenant faultless? No; becoming obsolete)

Additional supporting:

• Romans 4:13-16 (promise to Abraham not through law).
• John 5:39-40 (Jesus to the Jews: “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.”)

These show the Torah’s role was not earning eternal life—it managed sin, maintained holiness for God’s presence among Israel, and pointed forward to Christ. Eternal life was always the Abrahamic promise, inherited by faith in Christ.

2. Fr. Stephen De Young Quotes​

These directly address the point (from his blog and related teaching; copy-paste ready). He emphasizes that the Torah never promised or delivered eternal life—that was never its purpose.
On the Torah not giving life (key excerpt):

Broader context on Western misunderstandings vs. Scripture:


On the Torah’s actual purpose (helpful for balance):

Thank you for sharing, Brother. Love, Walter and Debbie

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Thank you for sharing, Brother. Love, Walter and Debbie

Brother, it is amazing what we can see and hear now by what the Comforter has revealed. Love, Walter

 

[amigo de christo]

@Soyeong, and why all this new covenant language if the governing covenant standard is the Mosaic Torah written internally
(on the tablets of our hearts)?

many now believe in something that ought never once to have been embraced by the church .
Its no longer about HAVING to have FAITH IN JESUS at all . ITs all about the merger sister . the lie .
And that is why many now teach rather the law , believing that if anyone simply
so called follows it , it means GOD is at work in them , NO MATTER WHAT RELIGOIN THEY ARE .
ITS ALL of it a LIE sister . just like the lovey do is and was .
THEY just know how to sell this to any group known to man .
JESUS is no longer the CENTER . what they have in common IS now the center . THEY aint gonna make it sister .
Paul didnt preach the law , though we do know its holy and good .
PUAL preached JESUS , just like the all did . The law can be used , but only for correction
NOT as a means to attain RIGHTEOUSNESS .
JESUS has been SOLD OUT sister . Now more and more are beginning to also
prophesy the great lie . And are calling for believers and UNBELIEVERS alike to all unite as one
BELEIVING THEY WILL USHER DOWN something GOOD from GOD . ALL OF IT IS A LIE .
JESUS has been denied . ecumeincal intefaith has taken over . and it will end this age with weeping and wailing
upon all who joined hands with it . WE should have preached CHRIST and HIM crucified .
Pointing TO HIM , HIS teachings as well as what teh apostels taught .
But it was long back infiltrated by inclusiviists , new agers incluisvists .
As was every false religion too . TO MERGE THEM all AS ONE . under what all
would beleive is LOVE , AND IS OF GOD and IS his plan for world peace . Only , sad to break it to all , IT THE DEVIL .
Not GOD .

 

[amigo de christo]

Brother, it is amazing what we can see and hear now by what the Comforter has revealed. Love, Walter

Just remember the COMFORTER
yes the HOLY SPIRIT
yes the SPIRIT of prophecy , IS THE TESTMONY OF JESUS CHRIST .
THE SPIRIT TESTIFIES ON JESUS CHRIST . not some lovey do law keeping many path stuff .
ON JESUS CHRIST . FOR BY THE SPIRIT WE CALL HIM LORD , not budda or some other relgioin lord .
Nor is the HOLY SPIRIT at work on ANYONE who calleth JESUS accursed as every other relgion does
to include even the unbeliving jew .
SO much for the big ol kuymbia world peace roll of ecumeinalism . That stuff was and is of the Devil .
And believe me when i say , MY body gonna be long dead and cold before i say otherwise .
YOU all need to get away from any thing ecumeincal intefaith , anything that points to anything
OTHER than THE DIRE ABSOLUTE NEED TO BELEIVE ON JESUS CHRIST , to preach CHRIST and HIM crucified .
WE are all being set up in many diverse ways to unify as one WITH THE DEVIL and his plan .
Only i got real good news . THANKS be to GOD , TO HIS CHRIST , TO HIS SPIRIT ,
the sheep aint a heeding that call . THEY heed JESUS . So trench time one and all . WE have been infiltrated
and many now do that work . MANY .

 

[amigo de christo]

@Soyeong, and why all this new covenant language if the governing covenant standard is the Mosaic Torah written internally
(on the tablets of our hearts)?

point to CHRIST JESUS to the last and final breath dear sister .
Aint no woman or man that will be able to justify themselves to GOD , WITHOUT FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST .
That is a fact .
In fact lets allow JESUS to sum it up .
Long long ago JESUS confimed this ..........
When asked by his own desciples who were marveling in total shock , BU TLORD , WHO THEN can be saved ,
JESUS didnt say OH ITS POSSIBLE if they do this or that
HE SAID WITH MAN ITS IMPOSSIBLE . as in IMPOSSIBLE . but NOT with GOD .
And guess what and who GOD determined was GONNA BE THE SALVATION , SAVOIR of man .
IF ya said JESUS , YOU SPOT ON RIGHT .
for it pleased GOD by the foolishness of preaching to save those WHO BELIEVE . MAN cannot save himself sister .
NO not even cornelious could have saved himself .
A man who did many many good works , i might add and whose prayers and alms had even come up for a memorial
before GOD .
HE STILL HAD TO HEAR THE GOSPEL and BELIEVE TO BE SAVED . that is A SUPER SOLID FACT sister .
TIS BY FAITH . For the just shall live BY FAITH . And if one has no faith in JESUS
then their faith BE NOT IN GOD . IF one truly LOVED GOD they had LOVED JESUS who came forth of HIM .
AND if one LOVETH JESUS they had kept His commandments .
AS JOHN we ll knew and also wrote .
TO BLEIEVE , BELEIVE , and YES BELIEVE ON JESUS and to love one another .
But many better watch out because a love of the world is being claoked as though it be the LOVE of GOD .
BUT IS NOT OF GOD AT ALL .