Gods Commandments and the 613 mitzvot (commandments of Moses)

[Hobie]

Gods 10 Commandments are everlasting they do not change, but even the Jews admit that the law of Moses is arbitrary depending on the individual Rabbi or teacher interpreting it, and no longer apply as even they admit freely "cannot be observed today primarily relate to the Temple, its sacrifices and services (because the Temple does not exist) and criminal procedures (because the theocratic state of Israel does not exist)."

God's Law has always been known as the Ten Commandments, which was written upon two tables of stone with the finger of God. It was placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, representing God's throne in heaven, and protected within the innermost veil of the Tabernacle. No man except the High Priest was permitted to enter this sacred place on earth, but once a year.

Now, the law of Moses was contained in the book that he had written, and it was placed in the side of the Ark of the Covenant. The two tablets of the Ten Commandments was placed inside of the Ark of the Covenant accompanied by Aaron's rod which budded, and a jar of manna. So lets look at the law of Moses..

Moses law was a witness against us..
Deuteronomy 31:24-26
24. And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25. That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
26. Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

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

Moses Law wasn't perfect, nor did it make anyone perfect..
Hebrews 10:1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

Moses Law could not justify anyone..
Galatians 3:11. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Moses Law brought a curse upon those who didn't continue in all it said..
Galatians 3:10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Galatians 5:2-3
2. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

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

Moses law was nailed to the cross, and therefore abolished
Ephesians 2:15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Colossians 2:14. Blotting 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;

Matthew 27:50, 51
50. Jesus, when He had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;

 

[Hobie]

Jews were judged according to those thing written in the law of Moses. The people were also told within the law of Moses what they had to do when they transgressed the Ten Commandments. Deuteronomy showed the blessings, when they obeyed God's Law, and cursings, when they disobeyed God's Law.

But now, there is no longer a temple in Jerusalem to go up to three times in the year. By sacrificing animals this side of the cross, we would not be accepting the truth that our redemption is in Christ alone. If you say, "Oh, we know we don't need to sacrifice, but we do need to observe days, months, times, and annual sabbath," or other of the 613 mitzvot (commandments of Moses) what you are saying about Christ and his sacrifice. Those were done away at the cross, but Gods Law was not, it is eternal.

However, the adherents of 613 mitzvot (commandments of Moses) or keeping the laws of Moses partially, now have two problems.

1. They are not able to keep it in every particular, thus a partial fulfillment, is no fulfillment at all.

2. If you seek to do these things which Jesus has already fulfilled, you have denied Him in total. Thus, you are then brought under what is found in Hebrews 10 brought upon those who reject Christ as the fulfillment of the law of Moses:

Hebrews 10:26-29
26. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

And we see that Christ is the only way..
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Moses himself warned his brethren according to the flesh about the coming Prophet..
Acts 3:22, 23
22. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Its clearly laid out if one discerns....

 

[Hobie]

Now some people try to claim that all the laws are the same, and that those who follow Gods Law should follow the 613 mitzvot (commandments of Moses) and that none should be treated differently from the other. But they also conclude and say that when the New Testament speaks about a law that has been abolished and nailed to the cross, it includes all of the Old Testament laws, including the 10 Commandments. This does not hold up as in the New Testament we find where Paul along with some of the other writers, commands their readers to obey one or more of those commandments. For example, Paul says in the following passage:

Ephesians 6:1-3
(1) Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
(2) Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise.
(3) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

Yet we read Paul in another instance say that the commandments have been done away with..

Ephesians 2:15
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace

Yet despite what some people might want to say, there is a difference here. One of these is a commandment contained within the Decalogue, the 10 Commandments, of which Moses said that God 'added no more'...
Deuteronomy 5:22
These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

The other Paul says is, 'contained in ordinances.' There is not one instance in the New or Old Testament where the 10 Commandments are referred to as ordinances. However; we find some other laws referred to as ordinances as we can see..

Exodus 12:17
And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

Exodus 12:43
And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the Passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:

Numbers 19:2
This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke

Numbers 18:8
And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Behold, I also have given thee the charge of mine heave offerings of all the hallowed things of the children of Israel; unto thee have I given them by reason of the anointing, and to thy sons, by an ordinance for ever.

Hebrews 9:1
Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary

As we can see from the texts, what was an ordinance, had to do with the various laws which dealt with feast days, the services of the priests, the offerings, and the worldly sanctuary. So we can see that there were differences in the laws of God which is unchangeable, versus those of Moses.

 

[Soyeong]

Gods 10 Commandments are everlasting they do not change, but even the Jews admit that the law of Moses is arbitrary depending on the individual Rabbi or teacher interpreting it, and no longer apply as even they admit freely "cannot be observed today primarily relate to the Temple, its sacrifices and services (because the Temple does not exist) and criminal procedures (because the theocratic state of Israel does not exist)."

In Deuteronomy 5:31, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded without departing from it, so all of the Mosaic Law is God's law, not just ten of them. Moreover, the Law of Moses is described as being the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. In Psalms 119:160, all of God's righteous laws are eternal, not just ten of them.

God's laws can be numbered differently depending about things like whether two similar laws should be counted as the same law of as different laws or whether a complex set of instructions should be counted as one law or multiple laws. That list of 613 laws includes the Ten Commandments, and for that matter, there is a disagreement about how the Ten Commandments should be numbered.

The Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there is nothing wrong with have laws that can't currently be followed. Likewise, when the Israelites were in exile in Babylon the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to God's law, which contained instructions in regard to temple practice that they couldn't follow because the Temple had just been destroyed, so God honored their obedience to the laws that they could obey.

Moses law was a witness against us..
Deuteronomy 31:24-26
24. And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
25. That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying,
26. Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

If someone disobeys, then Ten Commandments, then that also stands as a witness against them.

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

That is referring to a change of the law in regard to its administration, not to the change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit rape or sinful to help the poor.

Moses Law wasn't perfect, nor did it make anyone perfect..
Hebrews 10:1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

The Mosaic Law is perfect (Psalms 19:7). It doesn't make anyone perfect, but it describe what perfect looks like as it describes the life of Christ. The Ten Commandments also didn't make anything perfect.

Moses Law could not justify anyone..
Galatians 3:11. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

The Ten Commandments also do not justify anyone, though only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified (Romans 2:13).

Moses Law brought a curse upon those who didn't continue in all it said..
Galatians 3:10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

The Ten Commandments also curse those who do not continue to obey them.

Galatians 5:2-3
2. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

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

All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to the Mosaic Law, and even Christ began his ministry with that message, so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning us against doing that and saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we follow Christ.

Moses law was nailed to the cross, and therefore abolished
Ephesians 2:15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15 use the Greek word "dogma", which does not refer to the Mosaic Law or to the Ten Commandments.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Gods 10 Commandments are everlasting they do not change...

You provide a lot of nice quotes, but in light of them, how do you begin with this? How do you begin by saying the Law is the 10 Commandments, and they "do not change?"

If the priesthood changed, then the Law/the 10 Commandments also changed. The 10 Commandments were a subset of the Law, and thus only a part of the entire body of Law. As you said, the Law consisted of 613 requirements, and not just 10. But what was required was altered by more than just the loss of the temple and a state! The complete supersession of the Law took place by virtue of Christ's priesthood superseding the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.

So the Law did most certainly change. The Covenant of Law was superseded completely by the Covenant of Grace, administered now through Christ. The moral substance of the Law did not change, because that reflected the character of God, now manifested in Christ. But there is no longer any written document that is binding upon anyone. The new Covenant is established by the past history of Christ upon the cross where he forgave our sins, contingent upon our faith in him.

 

[Soyeong]

Jews were judged according to those thing written in the law of Moses. The people were also told within the law of Moses what they had to do when they transgressed the Ten Commandments. Deuteronomy showed the blessings, when they obeyed God's Law, and cursings, when they disobeyed God's Law.

But now, there is no longer a temple in Jerusalem to go up to three times in the year. By sacrificing animals this side of the cross, we would not be accepting the truth that our redemption is in Christ alone. If you say, "Oh, we know we don't need to sacrifice, but we do need to observe days, months, times, and annual sabbath," or other of the 613 mitzvot (commandments of Moses) what you are saying about Christ and his sacrifice. Those were done away at the cross, but Gods Law was not, it is eternal.

There were no laws done away with on the cross, but rather what was nailed to Christ's cross was the list of our sins in transgression of the Mosaic Law. In Titus 2:14, it doesn't say that Jesus gave himself to do away with the Mosaic Law, but to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good crooks in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20) while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from is the way to reject what he accomplished through the cross.

However, the adherents of 613 mitzvot (commandments of Moses) or keeping the laws of Moses partially, now have two problems.

1. They are not able to keep it in every particular, thus a partial fulfillment, is no fulfillment at all.

2. If you seek to do these things which Jesus has already fulfilled, you have denied Him in total. Thus, you are then brought under what is found in Hebrews 10 brought upon those who reject Christ as the fulfillment of the law of Moses:

The list of the 613 commandments includes the Ten Commandments, so if you are arguing against partial observance, then you are also arguing against obeying the Ten Commandments.

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo), so we are fulfilling the Mosaic Lw every time we correctly obey it in accordance with following Christ's example. Christ didn't fulfill the law so that we don't have to, but so that we would have an example to follow, so it is refusing to follow his example that is denying him.

Hebrews 10:26-29
26. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Those verses speak against disobeying the Law of Moses and even more against trodding under food the Son of God that you are arguing in favor of doing.

And we see that Christ is the only way..
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The Mosaic Law is God's way (Psalms 119:1-3), the truth (Psalms 119:142), and the life (Deuteronomy 32:46-47), and the way to see and know the Father (Exodus 33:13), the Mosaic Law is God's word and Jesus is God's word made flesh, so he is the embodiment of the way, the truth, and the life, and the way to see and know the Father (John 14:6-7).

Moses himself warned his brethren according to the flesh about the coming Prophet..
Acts 3:22, 23
22. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Its clearly laid out if one discerns....

Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so listen to him.

 

[Zachariah.]

True Law/Morality is found within the conscience. Not on stones or paper.

 

[Soyeong]

True Law/Morality is found within the conscience. Not on stones or paper.

Do you deny that it is possible to teach true morality on stones or paper? For example, to you deny that the written command to love our neighbor as ourselves is in accordance with true morality? Can someone's conscience be wrong about true morality and be informed about true morality by written instructions?

 

[Randy Kluth]

There were no laws done away with on the cross, but rather what was nailed to Christ's cross was the list of our sins in transgression of the Mosaic Law.

You are quite wrong. Sin is not defined by what the Law says mankind must do. It defined Sin only while it was in effect and for whom it was in effect. The Gentile world was not being required to observe Temple Law, and still they were called "sinners."

Paul plainly said we are no longer under the Law of Sin and Death.

Rom 8.2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

Paul did not just say that Christians are liberated from the guilt of Sin, but more, they are liberated from the Law itself, which was the tool by which the entire human race was condemned. Even though the Law was not directed at the Gentile world, what it established with respect to human sin applied to the entire world.

In Titus 2:14, it doesn't say that Jesus gave himself to do away with the Mosaic Law, but to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good crooks in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20) while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from is the way to reject what he accomplished through the cross.

We are not lawless when we live by the Spirit of Christ. In doing so we do not, as Christians, live by the Mosaic Law, which is an expired Covenant. It was indeed nailed to the cross.

In doing this, God did not condemn the Law while it was in effect. He put His condemnation on Jesus, to sit in for the sinful world who under the Law was condemned. The entire curse of the Law was put on Jesus so that by his word of forgiveness all can be liberated from it.

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo), so we are fulfilling the Mosaic Lw every time we correctly obey it in accordance with following Christ's example. Christ didn't fulfill the law so that we don't have to, but so that we would have an example to follow, so it is refusing to follow his example that is denying him.

That is absolutely untrue. Jesus *fulfilled* the Law prophetically in order to accomplish redemption on our behalf because *we can't do that!* Israel could obey the Law, and so please God while it was still in effect. But they could only obtain temporary redemption, which is insufficient for Eternal Life. Christ came to complete redemption in order to give us Eternal LIfe.

Obedience is not "fulfilling" the Law. Obedience is obedience. "Fulfillment" is to complete for Eternal Life what the Law itself was unable to do. Its obedience was insufficient for this task.

The Mosaic Law is God's way (Psalms 119:1-3), the truth (Psalms 119:142), and the life (Deuteronomy 32:46-47), and the way to see and know the Father (Exodus 33:13), the Mosaic Law is God's word and Jesus is God's word made flesh, so he is the embodiment of the way, the truth, and the life, and the way to see and know the Father (John 14:6-7).

As I said, the Law was a temporary source of spiritual life for Israel. Apart from Christ's cross, Israel could not obtain Eternal Life. The Law had to be replaced with Christ.

The Law as a system was tainted by human works, by a human priesthood. Christ was untainted by Sin and alone could provide for us all Eternal Life. His priesthood is strictly his own, and untainted by the works of the Law.

The Law was given to reflect the deficient works of Man. Christ's righteousness preceded the Law and stands independent of the Law. His righteousness does not rest on his observance of the Law, but rather, the Law is a foreshadowing of his own independent righteousness.

 

[Zachariah.]

Do you deny that it is possible to teach true morality on stones or paper? For example, to you deny that the written command to love our neighbor as ourselves is in accordance with true morality? Can someone's conscience be wrong about true morality and be informed about true morality by written instructions?

Things written on stone and paper can align with truth and morality yes. But they also can not.

Human conscience can always be relied apon for our answers. The answer to your question is no, somone does not have a different conscience than somone else, however somone can "lack" in conscience. A total lack in conscience is what we call narcissism. They simply just do not possess one in extreme cases.

To help you understand, the word conscience starts with "con" meaning "common" or "together", and finishes with the word "science". So conscience litteraly means "common science" meaning that your conscience is no different than mine. It also aligns with "common sence".

Realistically, because our conscience is "common" and not personal, it's viewed as something that is seperate from ourselves. Something we should strive to align ourself with.

God, Truth, Law and morality all come from the same place. Law is Divine, not man made. Although man thinks he can make laws, he cannot. This is man playing God.

The bible teaches you this as the Law always comes from God, not man.

So, we can tell men how to act, induce them with fear and threaten them with violence if they do not comply with man's law, or.. we can teach man how to use his own conscience so that he will always have the answer in any given situation. And he will do this by act of free will rather than coercion.

So yes, paper and stone can align with Truth and morality, but they will never be conciouse and you will end up in a word like today. Laws that take away our rights and people who don't know the difference between right and wrong because they go their whole life just accepting things they are told.

A conciouse soul is one that Is saved. An unconscious soul is one that is dead or asleep.

An unconscious man relies apon the orders and directions of other men as he cannot see. A conciouse man knows what is right in his heart and has no need for the directions and orders from man as God is his true master.

 

[Hobie]

In Deuteronomy 5:31, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded without departing from it, so all of the Mosaic Law is God's law, not just ten of them. Moreover, the Law of Moses is described as being the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. In Psalms 119:160, all of God's righteous laws are eternal, not just ten of them.

God's laws can be numbered differently depending about things like whether two similar laws should be counted as the same law of as different laws or whether a complex set of instructions should be counted as one law or multiple laws. That list of 613 laws includes the Ten Commandments, and for that matter, there is a disagreement about how the Ten Commandments should be numbered.

The Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there is nothing wrong with have laws that can't currently be followed. Likewise, when the Israelites were in exile in Babylon the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to God's law, which contained instructions in regard to temple practice that they couldn't follow because the Temple had just been destroyed, so God honored their obedience to the laws that they could obey.


If someone disobeys, then Ten Commandments, then that also stands as a witness against them.


That is referring to a change of the law in regard to its administration, not to the change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit rape or sinful to help the poor.


The Mosaic Law is perfect (Psalms 19:7). It doesn't make anyone perfect, but it describe what perfect looks like as it describes the life of Christ. The Ten Commandments also didn't make anything perfect.


The Ten Commandments also do not justify anyone, though only doers of the Mosaic Law will be justified (Romans 2:13).


The Ten Commandments also curse those who do not continue to obey them.


All throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and to return to obedience to the Mosaic Law, and even Christ began his ministry with that message, so it would be absurd to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning us against doing that and saying that we will be cut off from Christ if we follow Christ.


Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15 use the Greek word "dogma", which does not refer to the Mosaic Law or to the Ten Commandments.

No, only the one God wrote with His own finger. As you can see some of the Mitzvot cant even be applied today and much is basically from the ceremonial aspects....
'
91. To remember and sanctify the Sabbath by blessing wine and lighting the conclusionary candle
(Exodus 20:8)

92. To perform self-denial and to rest from exertion on Yom Kippur.
(Leviticus 23:32)

93. Not to do prohibited labor.
(Leviticus 23:31)

94. To afflict yourself.
(Leviticus 16:29)

95. Not to eat or drink.
(Leviticus 23:29)

96. To rest on the first day of Passover.
(Leviticus 23:8)

97. To do no work on the first day of Passover.
(Leviticus 23:8)

98. To rest on the seventh day of Passover.
(Leviticus 23:8)

99. To do no work on the seventh day of Passover.
(Leviticus 23:8)

100. To rest on the first day of Pentecost.
(Leviticus 23:21)

101. To do no work on the first day of Pentecost.
(Leviticus 23:21)

102. To rest on the New Year (the first day of the seventh month).
(Leviticus 23:24)

103. To do no work on Rosh Hashana, the New Year.
(Leviticus 23:25)

104. To rest on the first day of Sukkot, the Feast of Booths.
(Leviticus 23:35)

105. The first day of Sukkot, the Feast of Booths, is sacred. Do no work.
(Leviticus 23:35)

106. To rest on the eighth day of the Feast of Booths, Shimini Atzeret.
(Leviticus 23:36)

107. To do no work on the eighth day of the Feast of Booths.
(Leviticus 23:36)

108. To not eat leaven past noon on the day of Passover.
(Deuteronomy 16:3)

109. To destroy all leaven on Passover.
(Exodus 12:15)

110. Not to eat leaven all seven days of Passover.
(Exodus 13:3)

111. Not to eat anything containing leaven during Passover.
(Exodus 12:20)

112. No leaven shall be found in your domain during Passover.
(Exodus 13:7)

113. Not to find any leaven in your house all seven days of Passover.
(Exodus 12:19)

114. To eat matzoh on the first night of Passover.
(Exodus 12:18)

115. On that night to explain the meaning of Passover.
(Exodus 13:8)

116. To hear the Shofar, the ram's horn trumpet, on the first day of Tishrei, the seventh month (Rosh Hashanah).
(Numbers 29:1)

117. To dwell in a Sukka (booth) for the seven days of the festival.
(Leviticus 23:42)

118. To take up a Lulav (palm branch) and an Etrog (citron).
(Leviticus 23:40)

119. Families shall pay an annual half-shekel temple tax.
(Exodus 30:13)

120. The courts must calculate the day on which the new month begins.
(Exodus 12:2)

121. To afflict and cry out (blow the trumpets) before God in times of catastrophe.
(Numbers 10:9)

122. A man should contractually marry a woman before living with her.
(Deuteronomy 24:1)

123. Not to have relations with women who are not acquired thus. (An Israelite man or woman cannot be a prostitute.)
(Deuteronomy 23:18)

124. Not to withhold food, clothing, and relations from your wife.
(Exodus 21:10)

125. To have children from her.
(Genesis 1:28)

126. A divorced wife must receive a written bill of divorce.
(Deuteronomy 24:1)

127. A man cannot remarry his divorced wife.
(Deuteronomy 24:4)

128. To marry a childless brother's widow.
(Deuteronomy 25:5)

129. To free a childless widow from the obligation to marry her brother-in-law.
(Deuteronomy 25:9)

130. The widow must not remarry until the ties with her brother-in-law are removed.
(Deuteronomy 25:5)

131. The court must fine one who seduces a maiden.
(Exodus 22:15-16)

132. The rapist must marry the maiden.
(Deuteronomy 22:29)

133. He must not divorce her.
(Deuteronomy 22:29)

134. The slanderer must remain married to his wife.
(Deuteronomy 22:19)

135. He must not divorce her.
(Deuteronomy 22:19)

136. To take procedures against a suspected adultress.
(Numbers 5:30)

137. A jealous husband must take his wife to the priests and not put oil on her meal offering.
(Numbers 5:15)

138. A suspected wife is to be accompanied by a meal offering that contains no frankincense.
(Numbers 5:15)'...https://www.jmu.edu/dukehallgallery/exhibitions-past-2018-2019/the-613-mitzvot.shtml

 

[Soyeong]

You are quite wrong. Sin is not defined by what the Law says mankind must do. It defined Sin only while it was in effect and for whom it was in effect. The Gentile world was not being required to observe Temple Law, and still they were called "sinners."

God’s nature is eternal, so the way to act in accordance with or contrary to His nature is therefore also eternal, which is God’s law, while sin is what is contrary to God’s nature, which is why sin is defined as the transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4). For example, God’s righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore all of God’s righteous laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:160), while sin is unrighteousness. While instructions for how to act in accordance with God’s righteousness can be included as part of a covenant with a specific group of people, the way to do that is straightforwardly based on God’s righteousness, not on a particular covenant, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to do that are eternally valid regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any. If the way to act in accordance with God’s righteousness were to change, then that would mean that God’s righteousness is not eternal, and if those instructions were to be abolished, then that would mean that God’s righteousness has also been abolished.

Paul plainly said we are no longer under the Law of Sin and Death.

Rom 8.2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

Paul did not just say that Christians are liberated from the guilt of Sin, but more, they are liberated from the Law itself, which was the tool by which the entire human race was condemned. Even though the Law was not directed at the Gentile world, what it established with respect to human sin applied to the entire world.

In Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul equated the Law of God with the Law of the Spirit by contrasting them both with the law of sin and death. After all, the Mosaic Law was given by God and the Spirit is God, so we have been set free from the law of sin and death in order to be free to obey the Mosaic Law, not the other way around. Furthermore, in Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to God’s law. The freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to sin.

We are not lawless when we live by the Spirit of Christ. In doing so we do not, as Christians, live by the Mosaic Law, which is an expired Covenant. It was indeed nailed to the cross.

In doing this, God did not condemn the Law while it was in effect. He put His condemnation on Jesus, to sit in for the sinful world who under the Law was condemned. The entire curse of the Law was put on Jesus so that by his word of forgiveness all can be liberated from it.

I agree that we are not lawless when we live by the Spirit Christ because the Spirit of Christ leads us to obey the Mosaic Law as it led Christ.

The Romans did not nail the laws themselves to crosses, such as with needing to legislate a new law against committing murder every time someone was crucified for committing murder, but rather what they nailed to crosses was a handwritten ordinance the announced the changes that were against them, such as with the charge against Jesus that he was the king of the Jews (Matthew 27:37). This fits perfectly with the concept of the list of the sins that we have committed being nailed to Christ’s cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with any laws being nailed to the cross. Again, Titus 2:14 contradicts your position.

In Deuteronomy 28, it describes the blessings of living in obedience to the Mosaic Law and the curse of not living in obedience to it, so we have been set free from the curse of the law in order to be free to enjoy the blessing of living in obedience to it, not the other way around.

That is absolutely untrue. Jesus *fulfilled* the Law prophetically in order to accomplish redemption on our behalf because *we can't do that!* Israel could obey the Law, and so please God while it was still in effect. But they could only obtain temporary redemption, which is insufficient for Eternal Life. Christ came to complete redemption in order to give us Eternal LIfe.

Obedience is not "fulfilling" the Law. Obedience is obedience. "Fulfillment" is to complete for Eternal Life what the Law itself was unable to do. Its obedience was insufficient for this task.

I cited the NAS Greek Lexicon for what it means to fulfill the law, which fits with what Jesus immediately proceeded to do next after he said that he came to fulfill the law, so you need to do more than insist that it isn’t true. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, which again refers to correctly obeying it as it should be, moreover, it refers to something that countless people have done, not to something that we need Jesus to do on our behalf. The Bible repeatedly says that obedience to God’s commandments is the way to inherit eternal life and never says that God gave faulty instructions for how to inherit it.

As I said, the Law was a temporary source of spiritual life for Israel. Apart from Christ's cross, Israel could not obtain Eternal Life. The Law had to be replaced with Christ.

The Law as a system was tainted by human works, by a human priesthood. Christ was untainted by Sin and alone could provide for us all Eternal Life. His priesthood is strictly his own, and untainted by the works of the Law.

The Law was given to reflect the deficient works of Man. Christ's righteousness preceded the Law and stands independent of the Law. His righteousness does not rest on his observance of the Law, but rather, the Law is a foreshadowing of his own independent righteousness.

It is illogical to think that Christ’s righteousness preceded what defines the way that Christ expressed his righteousness. Christ is God’s word made flesh, so he is not independent of God’s word, but rather he is the embodiment of it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

God’s nature is eternal, so the way to act in accordance with or contrary to His nature is therefore also eternal, which is God’s law, while sin is what is contrary to God’s nature, which is why sin is defined as the transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4).

Yes, but "God's Law" needs to be defined since there is definition #1 and definition #2 of "the Law."
Definition #1: The Law of Moses, given on Sinai, consisting of perhaps 613 requirements for Israel.
Definition #2: God general Law for Mankind, implied from the beginning when God made Man in His own image, and after His own likeness.

When we conflate definition #2 with definition #1 we end up in confusion. Sin is defined by rebelling against or disobeying God's Law to the conscience.

If the Covenant of Mosaic Law is no longer in effect, once Christ died, then Sin is no longer defined for Israel as disobedience to the Law. Sin was never defined as rebellion against the Law of Moses for non-Jews. Gentiles were not commanded to keep the Law as a covenant, though all men are required to keep God's moral Law.

If the way to act in accordance with God’s righteousness were to change, then that would mean that God’s righteousness is not eternal, and if those instructions were to be abolished, then that would mean that God’s righteousness has also been abolished.

The semantics of "change" is the problem here. What kind of "change" are we talking about? If the "change" is from a temporary covenant to an eternal covenant that completes the purpose of the temporary covenant before it, this "change" does not suggest an inconsistency with the eternal God Himself.

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

A "contrast" is not an "equation." By "contrasting" the Law of sin and death with the Law of the Spirit we would not be equating them at all. Rather, we would be showing "contrast," showing their differences.

After all, the Mosaic Law was given by God and the Spirit is God, so we have been set free from the law of sin and death in order to be free to obey the Mosaic Law, not the other way around.

That is the opposite to what Paul taught, that we are "set free" from the Law of Moses, which condemns Man as a sinner and ineligible for Eternal Life. Having been given Eternal Life through the Spirit of Christ, we are liberated from having to obey 613 requirements that show us we failed.

Furthermore, in Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to God’s law. The freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to sin.

Though this is talking about NT realities, no longer having to do with the Law of Moses, this does suggest that there are 2 ways to serve God, either artificially by observing commandments externally or by obeying God's requirements by faith, from the heart. To have faith we live by God's word, inspiring that faith, and thus choose to live in God's spiritual ways. We live "by the Spirit," and not by our own ways, the "flesh." This spiritual life was as available in the OT era, under the Law, as it is under the NT era, without the Law of Moses.

Our example is Christ, and not the Mosaic Law! The Mosaic Law was designed to keep Israel bound under that system until Christ came, to whom the Law pointed.

The Romans did not nail the laws themselves to crosses, such as with needing to legislate a new law against committing murder every time someone was crucified for committing murder, but rather what they nailed to crosses was a handwritten ordinance the announced the changes that were against them, such as with the charge against Jesus that he was the king of the Jews (Matthew 27:37).

Paul made use of a literary device by saying that at Christ's crucifixion the Law was nailed to the cross. Not only were the indictments against us nailed there, but the Law itself was nailed there as well, since that document was the basis of these indictments! The nailing of a document was obviously not literal, but indicative of charges, along with the basis of those charges.

Again, Titus 2:14 contradicts your position.

Titus 2.14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

Where is the contradiction?

In Deuteronomy 28, it describes the blessings of living in obedience to the Mosaic Law and the curse of not living in obedience to it, so we have been set free from the curse of the law in order to be free to enjoy the blessing of living in obedience to it, not the other way around.

Trouble is, that isn't what was said. Deuteronomy is describing the giving of the Law, and speaking only of the OT era when the Law was in effect. To assume it would be in effect forever is like saying sacrifices need to be made at the temple by the priesthood even after mankind ceases to have Sin in them!

But in the case of the NT, we still have Sin in us, but no longer need to make animal sacrifices it being that we were legally freed from the condemnation of the Law. That being so, we no longer need to make animal sacrifices.

I cited the NAS Greek Lexicon for what it means to fulfill the law, which fits with what Jesus immediately proceeded to do next after he said that he came to fulfill the law, so you need to do more than insist that it isn’t true.

I should think that the NAS Greek Lexicon was produced by men who would strongly disagree with your position? To "fulfill" the Law can indeed mean to "keep the Law" in the time when it was in effect, in the OT era. So the point is, how is the word "fulfill" being used in the context in which Jesus used it, in Matt 5?

To me, there is no question that Jesus, even though he still was speaking in the OT era, spoke of a time when he would "fulfill" the Law, meaning that he would at the cross divest the Law of its ability to condemn those who come to be "in Christ." That is, "fulfill" can either mean to "obey" or to "prophetically complete," depending on the context. We should not conflate the 2 ideas, in my opinion.

According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, which again refers to correctly obeying it as it should be, moreover, it refers to something that countless people have done, not to something that we need Jesus to do on our behalf.

We "fulfill" the Law by positioning ourselves, spiritually, "in Christ," because he is the one who alone truly "fulfilled" the Law in the "prophetic sense." Only Christ could die for our sins. By placing ourselves "in him," we engage his Spirit, which carried with it the nature of Christ's righteousness.

And Christ was not subject to the Law except as an example to Israel. His righteousness was based not on the Law, but only on his Deity. The Law had been designed strictly for sinners--not for a sinless Christ. Christ did not need to offer sacrifices for his Sin!

The Bible repeatedly says that obedience to God’s commandments is the way to inherit eternal life and never says that God gave faulty instructions for how to inherit it.

Yes, our obedience is to Christ, and not to the Law of Moses. Christ is vastly superior to Moses, who only carried the righteousness of God as an unworthy servant. Though Moses was obedient, and rendered "worthy" in God's sight for doing this, he was as unworthy of Eternal Life as Adam and Eve.

It is illogical to think that Christ’s righteousness preceded what defines the way that Christ expressed his righteousness. Christ is God’s word made flesh, so he is not independent of God’s word, but rather he is the embodiment of it.

Yes, Christ is the embodiment of God's Word and Law. Even after Adam sinned, all righteousness has come by Man's adherence to God's Law of Love, conscious of it or not.

But obtaining Eternal Life required the redemptive work of Christ alone. Nothing like the Law of Moses could accomplish that since it represents the flawed record of sinful Man. The Law is, as I said, the basis of the indictment against the entire human race, save Christ.

 

[Soyeong]

Things written on stone and paper can align with truth and morality yes. But they also can not.

Human conscience can always be relied apon for our answers. The answer to your question is no, somone does not have a different conscience than somone else, however somone can "lack" in conscience. A total lack in conscience is what we call narcissism. They simply just do not possess one in extreme cases.

To help you understand, the word conscience starts with "con" meaning "common" or "together", and finishes with the word "science". So conscience litteraly means "common science" meaning that your conscience is no different than mine. It also aligns with "common sence".

Realistically, because our conscience is "common" and not personal, it's viewed as something that is seperate from ourselves. Something we should strive to align ourself with.

God, Truth, Law and morality all come from the same place. Law is Divine, not man made. Although man thinks he can make laws, he cannot. This is man playing God.

The bible teaches you this as the Law always comes from God, not man.

So, we can tell men how to act, induce them with fear and threaten them with violence if they do not comply with man's law, or.. we can teach man how to use his own conscience so that he will always have the answer in any given situation. And he will do this by act of free will rather than coercion.

So yes, paper and stone can align with Truth and morality, but they will never be conciouse and you will end up in a word like today. Laws that take away our rights and people who don't know the difference between right and wrong because they go their whole life just accepting things they are told.

A conciouse soul is one that Is saved. An unconscious soul is one that is dead or asleep.

An unconscious man relies apon the orders and directions of other men as he cannot see. A conciouse man knows what is right in his heart and has no need for the directions and orders from man as God is his true master.

It is also true that human conscience can align with truth and morality, but it also can not, which is why Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:3 that he was not justified even though he was not aware of anything against himself. So our conscience helps us to live in accordance with the Law of God, but it does not replace it, and therefore is not the ultimate determiner of our spiritual condition. Our conscience is capable of warning us when our spiritual condition is in danger, but it is not God's law and needs to be informed by it in order to function correctly.

In Romans 14, there are weak Christians whose conscience is not informed in a mature way, where their conscience won't let them do what they really would be free to do, so again our conscience does not replace the Law of God. Someone's conscience can be so misinformed that their glory is in their shame (Philippians 3:19), where both their mind and their conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15). So the first way to destroy the work of conscience is to misinform it where you don't give it the true Law of God and the second way is to silence it when it speaks. In 1 Timothy 4:2, Paul spoke about a wounded or seared conscience, and a good indicator of this is if someone doesn't feel convicted about continuing to do what God has revealed in His law to be sin.

 

[Soyeong]

No, only the one God wrote with His own finger. As you can see some of the Mitzvot cant even be applied today and much is basically from the ceremonial aspects....
'
91. To remember and sanctify the Sabbath by blessing wine and lighting the conclusionary candle
(Exodus 20:8)

92. To perform self-denial and to rest from exertion on Yom Kippur.
(Leviticus 23:32)

93. Not to do prohibited labor.
(Leviticus 23:31)

94. To afflict yourself.
(Leviticus 16:29)

95. Not to eat or drink.
(Leviticus 23:29)

96. To rest on the first day of Passover.
(Leviticus 23:8)

97. To do no work on the first day of Passover.
(Leviticus 23:8)

98. To rest on the seventh day of Passover.
(Leviticus 23:8)

99. To do no work on the seventh day of Passover.
(Leviticus 23:8)

100. To rest on the first day of Pentecost.
(Leviticus 23:21)

101. To do no work on the first day of Pentecost.
(Leviticus 23:21)

102. To rest on the New Year (the first day of the seventh month).
(Leviticus 23:24)

103. To do no work on Rosh Hashana, the New Year.
(Leviticus 23:25)

104. To rest on the first day of Sukkot, the Feast of Booths.
(Leviticus 23:35)

105. The first day of Sukkot, the Feast of Booths, is sacred. Do no work.
(Leviticus 23:35)

106. To rest on the eighth day of the Feast of Booths, Shimini Atzeret.
(Leviticus 23:36)

107. To do no work on the eighth day of the Feast of Booths.
(Leviticus 23:36)

108. To not eat leaven past noon on the day of Passover.
(Deuteronomy 16:3)

109. To destroy all leaven on Passover.
(Exodus 12:15)

110. Not to eat leaven all seven days of Passover.
(Exodus 13:3)

111. Not to eat anything containing leaven during Passover.
(Exodus 12:20)

112. No leaven shall be found in your domain during Passover.
(Exodus 13:7)

113. Not to find any leaven in your house all seven days of Passover.
(Exodus 12:19)

114. To eat matzoh on the first night of Passover.
(Exodus 12:18)

115. On that night to explain the meaning of Passover.
(Exodus 13:8)

116. To hear the Shofar, the ram's horn trumpet, on the first day of Tishrei, the seventh month (Rosh Hashanah).
(Numbers 29:1)

117. To dwell in a Sukka (booth) for the seven days of the festival.
(Leviticus 23:42)

118. To take up a Lulav (palm branch) and an Etrog (citron).
(Leviticus 23:40)

119. Families shall pay an annual half-shekel temple tax.
(Exodus 30:13)

120. The courts must calculate the day on which the new month begins.
(Exodus 12:2)

121. To afflict and cry out (blow the trumpets) before God in times of catastrophe.
(Numbers 10:9)

122. A man should contractually marry a woman before living with her.
(Deuteronomy 24:1)

123. Not to have relations with women who are not acquired thus. (An Israelite man or woman cannot be a prostitute.)
(Deuteronomy 23:18)

124. Not to withhold food, clothing, and relations from your wife.
(Exodus 21:10)

125. To have children from her.
(Genesis 1:28)

126. A divorced wife must receive a written bill of divorce.
(Deuteronomy 24:1)

127. A man cannot remarry his divorced wife.
(Deuteronomy 24:4)

128. To marry a childless brother's widow.
(Deuteronomy 25:5)

129. To free a childless widow from the obligation to marry her brother-in-law.
(Deuteronomy 25:9)

130. The widow must not remarry until the ties with her brother-in-law are removed.
(Deuteronomy 25:5)

131. The court must fine one who seduces a maiden.
(Exodus 22:15-16)

132. The rapist must marry the maiden.
(Deuteronomy 22:29)

133. He must not divorce her.
(Deuteronomy 22:29)

134. The slanderer must remain married to his wife.
(Deuteronomy 22:19)

135. He must not divorce her.
(Deuteronomy 22:19)

136. To take procedures against a suspected adultress.
(Numbers 5:30)

137. A jealous husband must take his wife to the priests and not put oil on her meal offering.
(Numbers 5:15)

138. A suspected wife is to be accompanied by a meal offering that contains no frankincense.
(Numbers 5:15)'...https://www.jmu.edu/dukehallgallery/exhibitions-past-2018-2019/the-613-mitzvot.shtml

All of God's commands have the same moral authority regardless of whether God wrote them down or told Moses to write them down.

 

[Zachariah.]

It is also true that human conscience can align with truth and morality, but it also can not, which is why Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:3 that he was not justified even though he was not aware of anything against himself. So our conscience helps us to live in accordance with the Law of God, but it does not replace it, and therefore is not the ultimate determiner of our spiritual condition. Our conscience is capable of warning us when our spiritual condition is in danger, but it is not God's law and needs to be informed by it in order to function correctly.

In Romans 14, there are weak Christians whose conscience is not informed in a mature way, where their conscience won't let them do what they really would be free to do, so again our conscience does not replace the Law of God. Someone's conscience can be so misinformed that their glory is in their shame (Philippians 3:19), where both their mind and their conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15). So the first way to destroy the work of conscience is to misinform it where you don't give it the true Law of God and the second way is to silence it when it speaks. In 1 Timothy 4:2, Paul spoke about a wounded or seared conscience, and a good indicator of this is if someone doesn't feel convicted about continuing to do what God has revealed in His law to be sin.

Not exactly true. Conscience is not the Law itself but is a reflection, and is from which we recieve the Law.

This is why the people recieved the Law from Moses as he reflected the un-comprehencable light of God. Moses in this case, is the personification of the inner conscience.

To break it down more symbolically, God being the personification of the Sun and Moses the personification of the Moon reflecting the Sun's light. The Moon has always been a symbol of the Divine feminine. Our inner conscience.

This is why in older translations of the Bible such as the Vulgate, Moses is depicted with "horns or light", symbolic of the crescent Moon .

Further more, this is why one of the most famous theological artists of all time Michelangelo, sculpted Moses holding the Law with horns on his head. Picture included.

 

[Hobie]

Not exactly true. Conscience is not the Law itself but is a reflection, and is from which we recieve the Law.

This is why the people recieved the Law from Moses as he reflected the un-comprehencable light of God. Moses in this case, is the personification of the inner conscience.

To break it down more symbolically, God being the personification of the Sun and Moses the personification of the Moon reflecting the Sun's light. The Moon has always been a symbol of the Divine feminine. Our inner conscience.

This is why in older translations of the Bible such as the Vulgate, Moses is depicted with "horns or light", symbolic of the crescent Moon .

Further more, this is why one of the most famous theological artists of all time Michelangelo, sculpted Moses holding the Law with horns on his head. Picture included.

That sounds like some traditions from somebody, that is not scriptural...

 

[Soyeong]

Yes, but "God's Law" needs to be defined since there is definition #1 and definition #2 of "the Law."
Definition #1: The Law of Moses, given on Sinai, consisting of perhaps 613 requirements for Israel.
Definition #2: God general Law for Mankind, implied from the beginning when God made Man in His own image, and after His own likeness.

When we conflate definition #2 with definition #1 we end up in confusion. Sin is defined by rebelling against or disobeying God's Law to the conscience.

If the Covenant of Mosaic Law is no longer in effect, once Christ died, then Sin is no longer defined for Israel as disobedience to the Law. Sin was never defined as rebellion against the Law of Moses for non-Jews. Gentiles were not commanded to keep the Law as a covenant, though all men are required to keep God's moral Law.

That is making an unjustified assumption that the Law of Moses is not Go's general law for mankind, implied from the beginning when of made man in His own image after His likeness. I don't see any motivation that God would have for giving laws to Israel that did not teach how to be in the image of His character, but rather that is the whole point of the Mosaic Law. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is the exact image of God's character, which he expressed through living in sinless obedience to the Law of Moses. God's way is the way in which He expresses assets of His character, such as justice and righteousness (Genesis 18:19) and there are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being Gods way, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, 1 Kings 2:1-3, Psalms 103:7, Psalms 119:1-3, and many others. Likewise, the Bible often uses the same terms to describe aspects of God's character as it does to describe aspects of the character of the Mosaic Law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the Mosaic Law (Matthew 23:23), which is because it is God's instructions for how to be in the image of those aspects of His character.

Gentiles are able to partake of the New Covenant, which involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). The purpose of giving the Mosaic Law to Israel was to equip them to be a light and a blessing to the nations by turning the nations from their wickedness and teaching them to obey it in accordance with the promise and with spreading the Gospel.

Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of the laws that God has given are inherently part of His moral law, so the position that all men are required to keep God's moral law is the position that all men are required to obey the Mosaic Law. Legislators give laws according to what they think ought to be done, so for someone to claim that some of God's laws are not part of His moral law is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws and is therefore to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.

The semantics of "change" is the problem here. What kind of "change" are we talking about? If the "change" is from a temporary covenant to an eternal covenant that completes the purpose of the temporary covenant before it, this "change" does not suggest an inconsistency with the eternal God Himself.

The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that it can be replaced by the New Covenant is if the New Covenant does everything that the Mosaic Covenant does plus more, which is what it means to make something obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). So the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10), plus it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6).

A "contrast" is not an "equation." By "contrasting" the Law of sin and death with the Law of the Spirit we would not be equating them at all. Rather, we would be showing "contrast," showing their differences.

I didn't say that he equated the Law of the Spirt with the law of sin and death, but that he equated the Law of the Spirit with the Law of God. In Romans 7:25, Paul said that he served the Law of God with his mind in contrast with saying that he served the law of sin with his flesh, so the law of sin is not the Law of God.

That is the opposite to what Paul taught, that we are "set free" from the Law of Moses, which condemns Man as a sinner and ineligible for Eternal Life. Having been given Eternal Life through the Spirit of Christ, we are liberated from having to obey 613 requirements that show us we failed.

Again, the law of sin and death is not the Law of Moses. Paul said in Romans 2:6-7 that those who persist in doing good will be given eternal life. Furthermore, in Romans 6:19-23, no longer presenting ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin is contrasted with now presenting ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, which is the gift of God, so being a doer to the Mosaic Law is the content of God's gift of eternal life, which is also why Jesus said that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying God's commandments (Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17), why Jesus has become a source of eternal salvation for those who obey him (Hebrews 5:7), and why those who obeyed God's commandments are given the right to eat from the Tree of Life (Revelation 22:14).

It is by the Mosaic Law that we have knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), so being set free from the Mosaic Law would be being set free to do what God has revealed to be sin through it, which is the opposite of Jesus giving himself to free us from sin.

Though this is talking about NT realities, no longer having to do with the Law of Moses, this does suggest that there are 2 ways to serve God, either artificially by observing commandments externally or by obeying God's requirements by faith, from the heart. To have faith we live by God's word, inspiring that faith, and thus choose to live in God's spiritual ways. We live "by the Spirit," and not by our own ways, the "flesh." This spiritual life was as available in the OT era, under the Law, as it is under the NT era, without the Law of Moses.

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Mosaic Law, so faith is not a way of serving God that is an alternative to obeying the Mosaic Law, but rather it is obeying it in the right manner. God is trustworthy, therefore the Mosaic Law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to have faith in God is by obeying the Mosaic Law and it is contradictory for someone to have faith in God instead of having faith in what He has instructed. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law, so that is the way to have a spiritual life.

Our example is Christ, and not the Mosaic Law! The Mosaic Law was designed to keep Israel bound under that system until Christ came, to whom the Law pointed.

Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). Indeed, the Mosaic Law points to Christ, so we should live in a way that points to him by following his example of obedience to it rather than a way that points away from him.

Paul made use of a literary device by saying that at Christ's crucifixion the Law was nailed to the cross. Not only were the indictments against us nailed there, but the Law itself was nailed there as well, since that document was the basis of these indictments! The nailing of a document was obviously not literal, but indicative of charges, along with the basis of those charges.

The fact that Jesus gave himself to pay the penalty for our sins should make us want to go and sin no more, not consider ourselves to be free to do what God has revealed to be sin through His law. The Greek word "dogma" is never used by the Bible to refer to the Mosaic Law, so again Colossians 2:14 does not refer to the Mosaic Law being nailed to the cross.

Titus 2.14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

Where is the contradiction?

In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from God's law, but to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20) while returning to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from is the way to reject what he accomplished. So you are interpreting Colossians 2:14 in a way that undermines everything that Jesus accomplished through his ministry and through the cross.

 

[Soyeong]

(continued)

Trouble is, that isn't what was said. Deuteronomy is describing the giving of the Law, and speaking only of the OT era when the Law was in effect. To assume it would be in effect forever is like saying sacrifices need to be made at the temple by the priesthood even after mankind ceases to have Sin in them!

But in the case of the NT, we still have Sin in us, but no longer need to make animal sacrifices it being that we were legally freed from the condemnation of the Law. That being so, we no longer need to make animal sacrifices.

The Bible repeatedly says things like all of God's righteous laws are eternal and these are statutes forever throughout your generations, so there no hint in the OT that these would no longer be in effect at some point.

While it is true that there is now therefore now condemnation for those who are in Christ (Romans 8:1), those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), so verses that speak about those who are in Christ are only speaking about those who are walking in obedience to the Mosaic Law.

I should think that the NAS Greek Lexicon was produced by men who would strongly disagree with your position? To "fulfill" the Law can indeed mean to "keep the Law" in the time when it was in effect, in the OT era. So the point is, how is the word "fulfill" being used in the context in which Jesus used it, in Matt 5?

To me, there is no question that Jesus, even though he still was speaking in the OT era, spoke of a time when he would "fulfill" the Law, meaning that he would at the cross divest the Law of its ability to condemn those who come to be "in Christ." That is, "fulfill" can either mean to "obey" or to "prophetically complete," depending on the context. We should not conflate the 2 ideas, in my opinion.

This is the full definition:

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

Why would the men who produced the NT Greek Lexicon disagree with my position when they gave that as the definition for what it means to fulfill the law? That definition fits with the context Jesus immediately proceed to do next, it fits with the context of how other verses us it, and it also fits with the context of how other Jewish writings discuss how to fulfill the law in the sense of correctly meeting their obligation to it. On the other hand, Jesus did not say a word about his death on the cross anywhere in the Sermon on the Mount, so connecting it with the cross is not fit with the context of how Jesus used it.

We "fulfill" the Law by positioning ourselves, spiritually, "in Christ," because he is the one who alone truly "fulfilled" the Law in the "prophetic sense." Only Christ could die for our sins. By placing ourselves "in him," we engage his Spirit, which carried with it the nature of Christ's righteousness.

And Christ was not subject to the Law except as an example to Israel. His righteousness was based not on the Law, but only on his Deity. The Law had been designed strictly for sinners--not for a sinless Christ. Christ did not need to offer sacrifices for his Sin!

Again, in 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, so following his example of fulfilling the Mosaic Law is the way to position ourselves 'in Christ". In Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born under the Law, and in Luke 2:21, he was circumcised on the 8th day, so was a member of the Mosaic Covenant and was obligated to obey its law. The Mosaic Law is God's word and Jesus is God's word made flesh, so his righteousness is not based on something other than God's word.

Yes, our obedience is to Christ, and not to the Law of Moses. Christ is vastly superior to Moses, who only carried the righteousness of God as an unworthy servant. Though Moses was obedient, and rendered "worthy" in God's sight for doing this, he was as unworthy of Eternal Life as Adam and Eve.

Jesus taught to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so it is contradictory to say that our obedience is to him, but not what he taught. While Jesus is superior to Moses, the same God who gave the law to Moses also sent Jesus in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness in disobedience to it (Acts 3:25-26).

Yes, Christ is the embodiment of God's Word and Law. Even after Adam sinned, all righteousness has come by Man's adherence to God's Law of Love, conscious of it or not.

But obtaining Eternal Life required the redemptive work of Christ alone. Nothing like the Law of Moses could accomplish that since it represents the flawed record of sinful Man. The Law is, as I said, the basis of the indictment against the entire human race, save Christ.

In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarizes the Mosaic Law as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so it is God's Law of Love. No parent gives instructions to their children just for the purpose of showing them that they are bad at following instructions, but rather their instructions are given to turn them away from bad behaviors and to teach them how to rightly live, and this is that much more true of our Heavenly Father. God's law does not just reveal our sin (Romans 3:20), but also teaches us how to do what is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), which is the way to eternal life through faith in Christ.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Bible repeatedly says things like all of God's righteous laws are eternal and these are statutes forever throughout your generations, so there no hint in the OT that these would no longer be in effect at some point.

No hint, you say? Jesus said he was going to be put to death, the one for whom the temple existed! He was the eternal priesthood, and he was the cornerstone of the Temple.

He indicated that the covenant was being broken, making the forming of a New Covenant necessary. He said the Temple would be destroyed in the generation that rejects him.

Peter said Jesus surpassed Moses at the Transfiguration. Paul goes to great length to describe the Law as of temporary use, being supplanted by Christ, the sole source of Eternal Life.

The book of Hebrews indicated not just that the Law was an outdate covenant but that its vestiges would soon pass away, likely a reference to Jesus' prophecy of 70 AD. These are far more than mere "hints!" The veil of the Temple was torn at the death of Christ. Can any objective display be any more obvious?

While it is true that there is now therefore now condemnation for those who are in Christ (Romans 8:1), those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), so verses that speak about those who are in Christ are only speaking about those who are walking in obedience to the Mosaic Law.

Jesus did not walk by necessity in conformity with the Law, since he had no sin to pursue atonement for. He did not need the observance of Sin Offerings to be viewed as righteous. His adherence to the Law was strictly to be an example to Jews who currently were obligated to the Law for the time that it remained in effect.

This is how we are to "walk as Jesus walked," to display the righteousness of God that is not dependent upon a Law that condemns human works. We walk according to the Spirit of Christ, who confirms that we are justified *apart from the Law* since we have been redeemed from its indictment against human sin.

This is the full definition:

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

There is not one single definition for "fulfill." Context determines how the word is to be understood.

"Fulfillment," in terms of the Messianic fulfillment of the Law, refers to Christ's prophetic completion of the purpose of the Law, which was to redeem people from the indictment and control of the Law. It was not to uphold a continuing adherence to the very document that keeps mankind under condemnation. Apart from Christ, the Law condemns all of mankind.

Why would the men who produced the NT Greek Lexicon disagree with my position when they gave that as the definition for what it means to fulfill the law?

I explained that. "Fulfill" has more than one definition. It is *context* that determines how "fulfill" is to be used.

That definition fits with the context Jesus immediately proceed to do next, it fits with the context of how other verses us it, and it also fits with the context of how other Jewish writings discuss how to fulfill the law in the sense of correctly meeting their obligation to it. On the other hand, Jesus did not say a word about his death on the cross anywhere in the Sermon on the Mount, so connecting it with the cross is not fit with the context of how Jesus used it.

Jesus' life, from beginning to end, was understood by him to be leading to Mary's heartbreak, which was his death. Jesus fully understood that he would complete the purpose of the Law by confirming the death sentence of humanity due to their contamination by Sin.

His prophetic purpose was understood as suggested in Daniel 9.24, to provide a means of redemption. Isaiah also makes this clear in ch. 53.

And it is the backdrop to all of the Prophets, that despite Israel's inadequacies and inability to provide self-redemption, a Messianic Kingdom will come by God's power and grace alone. It would not come by success under the Law, a covenant that would irrevocably be broken.

Again, in 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, so following his example of fulfilling the Mosaic Law is the way to position ourselves 'in Christ".

Nowhere in 1 John does John say that we are to follow Jesus as he "observed the Law of Moses!" This is clearly your addition to the text! While Jesus lived under the Law he walked according to the Law--not because he needed to, but only as an example to those who did need to.

But after Jesus' death it was displayed that Israel had lost all capacity under the Law to obtain the fulfillment of their national hope. At that point, resort to the resurrected Christ, in heaven, became the only means of national redemption. The destruction of the Temple confirmed that Temple Law had been replaced by "Christ alone" as the source of final redemption from sin.

Jesus taught to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so it is contradictory to say that our obedience is to him, but not what he taught. While Jesus is superior to Moses, the same God who gave the law to Moses also sent Jesus in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness in disobedience to it (Acts 3:25-26).

I can't say this enough times: Jesus taught the Law *while Israel was still under the Covenant of Mosaic Law!* But all that the Law taught led to the Cross, where all of mankind and all of Israel was condemned as ineligible for Eternal Life.

That gift ultimately has come through the resurrected Christ, who anticipated a New Covenant certified by his death alone. That is what the Eucharist symbolized, a reliance on Christ alone for our Salvation and for our Works.

In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarizes the Mosaic Law as being about how to love God and our neighbor, so it is God's Law of Love.

The Law was from God and as such had value in its time. It was consistent with God's nature, and with God's ways as long as Eternal Redemption had not yet been provided for. After Christ's death and resurrection the Law lost its usefulness. And teaching in righteousness came to be viewed not in the rituals of the Law, but rather, in the way that Christ fulfilled those rituals.

We can certainly learn from the Law, as it depicted the nature of Christ's righteousness. But his righteousness came from his Deity, and not from his attention to a Law that offered redemption to sinners.

Jesus was never a sinner. Being lawful existed in the form of human behavior before the Law, and still does after the Law. The Law simply characterizes what that looks like in terms of love and kindness.