• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Could they be ONE IN THE SAME?

Eccl12and13

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
At one time Paul speaks about a law that was added until the seed should come:

Gal.3
[19] Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

He then goes on to speak about a law that was nailed to the cross:

Col.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;

Is it possible that the law that added and ended when the seed came, is the same law as the one that was nailed to the cross?
 
I am pretty sure that this is the Torah in both cases. The Torah was given at Sinai and abolished, in a certain highly qualified sense, by the work of Jesus on the cross.

Torah was abolished in terms of those prescriptions of it that marked out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile - Sabbath, cicrcumcsion, food laws, etc. However, as Paul argues, the "essence" of the Torah is indeed established.

Paul's view of the status of the Law was, I believe, subtle and highly nuanced. We know he both declared its abolition (e.g. Ephesians, Galatians) and we know he affirmed its continued operation (Romans). Paul is not contradicting himself - instead, he has a complex multi-dimensional view of Torah.
 
Drew said:
I am pretty sure that this is the Torah in both cases. The Torah was given at Sinai and abolished, in a certain highly qualified sense, by the work of Jesus on the cross.

Torah was abolished in terms of those prescriptions of it that marked out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile - Sabbath, cicrcumcsion, food laws, etc. However, as Paul argues, the "essence" of the Torah is indeed established.

Paul's view of the status of the Law was, I believe, subtle and highly nuanced. We know he both declared its abolition (e.g. Ephesians, Galatians) and we know he affirmed its continued operation (Romans). Paul is not contradicting himself - instead, he has a complex multi-dimensional view of Torah.

Very well stated Drew.
 
It is true that the Mosaic Law was abolished on the cross. I would just like to say the sabbath isn't only just for the Jews

Mark 2:27

And He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.


the sabbath is for all men on earth

Ezekiel 20:19-20 says

19 I am the LORD your God: Walk in My statutes, keep My judgments, and do them;
20 hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the LORD your God.’

Th sabbath still goes on even on this day and age, many say it is no longer needed, but if that were the case the rest of the ten commandments would no longer be needed.
 
Momentum said:
It is true that the Mosaic Law was abolished on the cross. I would just like to say the sabbath isn't only just for the Jews

The sabbath specific to the Jews, such as Saturday practice and particulars of worship, are for the Jews alone. The idea of a sabbath, a day of rest for man to worship God, is a concept that remains in effect - that man should give worship to God.

Momentum said:
Th sabbath still goes on even on this day and age, many say it is no longer needed, but if that were the case the rest of the ten commandments would no longer be needed.

The Jewish sabbath has been abrogated, being part of the Mosaic Law. Moral concepts as defined in the written Decalogue were in force long before Moses gave them at Sinai. Adam and Eve KNEW good from evil, moral concepts, and God clearly tells Cain to beware of sin before he kills Abel. The law written in men's hearts precedes the written Decalogue, and thus, were not abrogated when the Mosaic code was abrogated. Paul tells us in several locations that the specific Jewish days of the Sabbath are no longer binding on Christians.

Regards
 
Drew said:
I am pretty sure that this is the Torah in both cases. The Torah was given at Sinai and abolished, in a certain highly qualified sense, by the work of Jesus on the cross.

Torah was abolished in terms of those prescriptions of it that marked out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile - Sabbath, cicrcumcsion, food laws, etc. However, as Paul argues, the "essence" of the Torah is indeed established.

Paul's view of the status of the Law was, I believe, subtle and highly nuanced. We know he both declared its abolition (e.g. Ephesians, Galatians) and we know he affirmed its continued operation (Romans). Paul is not contradicting himself - instead, he has a complex multi-dimensional view of Torah.

Not really following the logic on the Law being both 'abolished' and 'continued'. Can you quote me from scripture how that is possible?
 
This is simple, there are two laws being spoken of here, the Law of the Ten Commandments and the Law of the covering over of sin by the blood of bulls and goats. The Ten Commandments still continue for to day’s day and time, and the Law of bulls and goats were done away with when Jesus died for our sins and became the perfect and only sacrificial lamb. :yes
 
Drew said:
I am pretty sure that this is the Torah in both cases. The Torah was given at Sinai and abolished, in a certain highly qualified sense, by the work of Jesus on the cross.

Torah was abolished in terms of those prescriptions of it that marked out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile - Sabbath, cicrcumcsion, food laws, etc. However, as Paul argues, the "essence" of the Torah is indeed established.

Paul's view of the status of the Law was, I believe, subtle and highly nuanced. We know he both declared its abolition (e.g. Ephesians, Galatians) and we know he affirmed its continued operation (Romans). Paul is not contradicting himself - instead, he has a complex multi-dimensional view of Torah.
Drew, I must admit your statement was quite eloquent. I often am amazed at your ability to make highly eloquent statements that are theologically very vague, and at times downright innaccurate.

For instance, in your middle paragraph, what do you mean by the phrase ""it that marked out the Jew as a distinct people." That might have been one of the effects of the law, they became a peculiar people to God. However, that was not what the law "did", that was merely an effect. What the law did was to condemn the Jew. This condemnation ministry of the law is present mainly in Galatians (school master), but Romans 7 has a hint of it also. In Romans 7 the law, makes sin alive and strong. Of course in Galatians this is useful to bring one to Christ.

I am open to discussions on other uses of the Law then the one I mentioned (school master) but hope that we can focus on the scriptural text in some place.
 
mondar said:
Drew said:
I am pretty sure that this is the Torah in both cases. The Torah was given at Sinai and abolished, in a certain highly qualified sense, by the work of Jesus on the cross.

Torah was abolished in terms of those prescriptions of it that marked out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile - Sabbath, cicrcumcsion, food laws, etc. However, as Paul argues, the "essence" of the Torah is indeed established.

Paul's view of the status of the Law was, I believe, subtle and highly nuanced. We know he both declared its abolition (e.g. Ephesians, Galatians) and we know he affirmed its continued operation (Romans). Paul is not contradicting himself - instead, he has a complex multi-dimensional view of Torah.
Drew, I must admit your statement was quite eloquent. I often am amazed at your ability to make highly eloquent statements that are theologically very vague, and at times downright innaccurate.
Like I was inaccurate and vague in the thread about the gospel? Or the thread about who "true" Israel is? Please. If ever there has been anything inaccurate in these forums, it has been your characterization of what "the gospel" is.

mondar said:
For instance, in your middle paragraph, what do you mean by the phrase ""it that marked out the Jew as a distinct people."
My assertion is that God indeed abolished those elements of the Torah that would have been seen as setting the Jew apart as a "special" people - things like food laws, festivals, circumcision, etc. These publically visible signs would be understood as boundary markers for a specific people. God abolished these.

mondar said:
That might have been one of the effects of the law, they became a peculiar people to God. However, that was not what the law "did", that was merely an effect.
I am not sure I can make sense of the distinction of "what the law did" and "an effect of the law". These seem to be the same things to me.

In any event, Paul certainly believed that the Jew considered the Torah to be a kind of ethnic marker of a salvation that was for Jews and Jews alone:

Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Paul's argument: The law, at least those parts of the Law that marked the Jew as distinct from the Gentile, have come to an end - the Jew has no basis to point to Torah and say that following it gave them a track to justification that was for Jew and Jew only.

And there are many other texts where it is clear that Paul is critiquing a (Jewish) view that the Law gave the Jew a privileged place in God's plan.

Here is a sweeping overview of what I think Paul has in his mind as he writes Romans. Paul believe that Israel is indeed a "special people", a people marked out by God for a specific purpose. And the giving of Torah was a key element of God's plan.

1. God's covenant with Abraham promised that Israel would be "blessing for the nations";

2. In Romans, Paul is deeply concerned with arguing that God has indeed been faithful to this promise - that God has indeed used Israel to bless the nations;

3. However, as per Romans 3, Paul recognizes that the way Israel will bless the nations cannot be through "showing them how wonderful Torah is". In Romans 3, he is pretty clear - Torah cannot be a blessing to the world in this way.

4. To put a finer point on this, Paul sees that the Jew, like the Gentile, is in Adam. So while the Torah is good, it is operating on a Jew who is as fallen as the Gentile.

5. How then can God use the Jew to bless the world and be faithful to his promise?

6. Answer: God uses Torah to make Israel draw the sin of the world onto itself. As per a line of reasoning you get in Romans 5, 7, ,9, and 11, Paul argues, cryptically perhaps, that God is using the Torah as a kind of "sponge" to soak of the sins of the world into the nation of Israel.

7. Why would God do this? Answer: to collect sin together into "one place" (national Israel) so that this sin can then be focussed down into one person - Jesus. And then, sin is condemned on the cross (Romans 8:3)

8. By using Israel as this "sponge for sin", God has indeed been faithful to the Abrahamic promise. Torah has, strangely, been used in this "dark" manner - making Israel more full sin, not less - for the ultimate benefit of us all.

9. Since the purpose of Torah was to "lure sin into Israel" and then into Jesus, the condemnation of sin on the cross brings the task of Torah to a close.

10. Since its task has been completed, the Torah is then retired with honour.


mondar said:
What the law did was to condemn the Jew.
I have never said anything at all that directly or indirectly challenges this statement of yours. I heartily embrace it.

mondar said:
In Romans 7 the law, makes sin alive and strong.
I could not agree more.
 
Lee100 said:
This is simple, there are two laws being spoken of here, the Law of the Ten Commandments and the Law of the covering over of sin by the blood of bulls and goats. The Ten Commandments still continue for to day’s day and time, and the Law of bulls and goats were done away with when Jesus died for our sins and became the perfect and only sacrificial lamb. :yes

And just where have you been in all of my other post? Most here insist that there is only (1) set of 613 laws and they were ALL done away with at the cross.

To hear someone come along and say just the opposite is indeed refreshing.

Thanks for coming forth and speaking the truth!
 
Lee100 said:
This is simple, there are two laws being spoken of here, the Law of the Ten Commandments and the Law of the covering over of sin by the blood of bulls and goats. The Ten Commandments still continue for to day’s day and time, and the Law of bulls and goats were done away with when Jesus died for our sins and became the perfect and only sacrificial lamb. :yes
What is your scriptural argument for this position, please? What about elements of the Law such as food purity laws, festivals, and other things that are neither in the 10 commandments nor laws related to the conduct of sacrifices?

When Paul writes the following from Ephesians, on what basis do you claim that the 10 commandments do not count as part of the "written code"?

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

This is clearly an assertion by Paul that the "written code" of Torah has been done away with. Why do you see the 10 commandments as being exempt from this?

Or consider this text from Galatians:

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. 21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. 23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law

Again, Paul clearly declares the end of Torah, at least as "written code". How do you reconcile your view that the 10 commandments are still in force as a writen code for us?
 
Drew said:
Lee100 said:
This is simple, there are two laws being spoken of here, the Law of the Ten Commandments and the Law of the covering over of sin by the blood of bulls and goats. The Ten Commandments still continue for to day’s day and time, and the Law of bulls and goats were done away with when Jesus died for our sins and became the perfect and only sacrificial lamb. :yes
What is your scriptural argument for this position, please? What about elements of the Law such as food purity laws, festivals, and other things that are neither in the 10 commandments nor laws related to the conduct of sacrifices?

When Paul writes the following from Ephesians, on what basis do you claim that the 10 commandments do not count as part of the "written code"?

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

This is clearly an assertion by Paul that the "written code" of Torah has been done away with. Why do you see the 10 commandments as being exempt from this?

Or consider this text from Galatians:

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. 21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. 23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law

Again, Paul clearly declares the end of Torah, at least as "written code". How do you reconcile your view that the 10 commandments are still in force as a writen code for us?

I would like to understand one thing Drew. Are you saying that EACH time Paul speak of the 'law' he is ALWAYS talking about ALL 613?
 
Eccl12and13 said:
I would like to understand one thing Drew. Are you saying that EACH time Paul speak of the 'law' he is ALWAYS talking about ALL 613?
Yes. But I grant you that this a complex matter indeed. Paul has a very complex and subtle view of the law and its status in the post-resurrection era.
 
I may have missed it in the other posts.

2 Corinthians 3 must need be tied to Roman 7 in regards to the law as being an instrument of death. Which is what Colossians 2 is speaking about in the death of Jesus. His death is our death.

Joe
 
Joe67 said:
2 Corinthians 3 must need be tied to Roman 7 in regards to the law as being an instrument of death. Which is what Colossians 2 is speaking about in the death of Jesus. His death is our death.
Good point - it is important to understand that the Law indeed has this function of being an instrument of death. The Law is good and holy, and yet it does indeed bring death to those who live under it. This may seem counterintuitive, but Paul sees it as all part of the grand covenantal plan of redemption (as addressed in very high level form in an earlier post).

I think it is also correct to assert that Jesus' death is also Israel's death (but in so saying, I do not disagree with your statement that His death is our death.
 
Drew said:
Eccl12and13 said:
I would like to understand one thing Drew. Are you saying that EACH time Paul speak of the 'law' he is ALWAYS talking about ALL 613?
Yes. But I grant you that this a complex matter indeed. Paul has a very complex and subtle view of the law and its status in the post-resurrection era.

First of all, I know this thinking is new to most, but if you could bear with this reply you may just learn something:

The law that Paul speaks of in Heb. does NOT affect the entire 613 laws. The law that was changed ONLY applies to the Law of the Ministry of the Levites.

First let’s go to the OT to find when THIS Law was first instituted:

Num. 8
[6] Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them.
[19] And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the tabernacle of the congregation, and to make an atonement for the children of Israel:
[22] And after that went the Levites in to do their service in the tabernacle of the congregation before Aaron, and before his sons: as the LORD had commanded Moses concerning the Levites, so did they unto them.

Num.18
[7] Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest's office for every thing of the altar, and within the vail; and ye shall serve: I have given your priest's office unto you as a service of gift: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.
[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.

So we see that the commandment of God for the service of the temple was given ONLY to the sons of Levi. No one else could make an atonement for the sins of the people. This was Gods LAW!

Now Paul said a ‘Law was changed. Let’s find the ‘Law that was changed!

Heb. 7
[5] And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

According to the Levitical Priesthood law.

[11] If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

The job of the Levites was to perform the sacrifices that would take away the sins of the people, but killing bulls and goats could not make the people perfect. Because if they could why would we need ANOTHER priest? A priest NOT after the order of Aaron!

And this is what Paul is saying here:




Heb.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.

So the Law spoken of was the Law that pertained to those sacrifices, again this was the ‘Law’ of the Levitical Priesthood

But there was a priest that could do the job and remove ALL the sins from ALL the people. The only thing was that Gods Law said the High Priest HAD to come from the order of Aaron. So there had to be a change in the Law. But not a change in the WHOLE law, just the Levitical Priesthood Law.

[12] For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

[13] For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

[14] For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Our Lord was not of the tribe from which God said the Priest MUST come from!

[19] For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Now again, what law was it that made nothing perfect? The one Paul spoke of above:

Heb. 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.

Paul was NOT talking about the WHOLE Law, only part of the Law. Not ALL 613, but just the law that dealt with the sacrifices.

[22] By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

[24] But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

[27] Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

[28] For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

Now which law is it that maketh men high priest? It is the law of the priesthood. Not the totality of the 613 laws. Just this PART of the 613. The Levitical Priesthood part.

So again I must ask the question, was Paul ALWAYS talking about ALL 613 laws whenever he was speaking about Laws or could he be talking about certain parts of the Law? The answer is obvious.

And as I have asked in other post, how do you distinguish which part of the law Paul is talking about when reading his writings?

Hence my other questions, What was the Law that was added? What was the Law that was nailed to the cross? What was the law that was changed?

Well we know for a fact that the law that was changed was the Levitical Priesthood law. And since we know that Christ is at this very moment still our ‘high priest’ we KNOW that was not the one nailed to the cross! So it MUST BE another!

Are these not valid questions seeing that we know for a fact ALL 613 laws were NOT CHANGED?

Now let’s look at what was nailed to his cross:

Col. 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;

So what could have been a set of ordinances that were against us and contrary to us? Let’s search the scriptures:

Heb. 10
[4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Well that can’t help us can it. If killing bulls and goats can not help us then that law is against us. It is contrary to us. Let’s read on:

[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
[8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;


So God never wanted to kill animals. But it was because of the ‘Law’ of sacrifice that He allowed it. Because if He didn’t ‘ADD’ the provision to kill animals what would have been His only other option, according to His law? Death!! But God did add that option and it started in the beginning:

Gen.3
[21] Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Now if God made coats of skin, that could ONLY mean some animal blood HAD to shed. But why would there have to be the shedding of blood now? Let’s read:

Gen.2
[17] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

GOD SAID, “THOU SHALT NOTâ€Â!!!!

Gen.3
[17] And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

AND ADAM DISOBEYED!!!!

Rom.5
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

According to scripture Adam sinned. So that means Adam broke a commandment/Law of God. And with that sin came the curse of Death! The second Death! And since ALL have Sinned, ALL are cursed with the sentence of the second Death.

Now according to God law:

Heb.9
[22] And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

That is why there had to be the shedding of blood.

Adam broke Gods Law. Gods law said there MUST be the shedding of blood to come from under the curse of the law. So blood was shed.

Now if you look at the complete picture you will see how this all comes together!

Gal.3
[19] Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Why was the law added? It was added because man broke the first laws god gave him: Thou shalt not! But this law, of killing bulls and goats, was only to be until the seed would come.

Heb.7
[11] If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

[19] For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.


Now was this law perfect? No it was not. Nor could it MAKE anyone perfect. Because if it could there would not have been a need for another priest to come.

Heb.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.

But this law was just to keep us. It was just a shadow of the REAL sacrifice that was to come. Because the ones that were offered year to year just would not cut it. They could not take away the curse of the law.

Heb.10
[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

[8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Not only was this Law of killing animals not working, but God never liked it anyway. So what did He do?

Col.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;
God removed that law all together. He nailed that Levitical Priesthood law to the cross when Christ died.

Mark 15
[38] And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

No more veil, means no more sacrifices

Dan.9
[27] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The ONLY thing that ended with the death of our Lord was the Levitical Priesthood and their service.
 
Eccl12and13 said:
First of all, I know this thinking is new to most, but if you could bear with this reply you may just learn something:
Teach me, o great one....

A little less condescension would be appreciated.
 
Eccl12and13 said:
The law that Paul speaks of in Heb. does NOT affect the entire 613 laws. The law that was changed ONLY applies to the Law of the Ministry of the Levites.

First let’s go to the OT to find when THIS Law was first instituted:

Num. 8
[6] Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them.
[19] And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the tabernacle of the congregation, and to make an atonement for the children of Israel:
[22] And after that went the Levites in to do their service in the tabernacle of the congregation before Aaron, and before his sons: as the LORD had commanded Moses concerning the Levites, so did they unto them.

Num.18
[7] Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest's office for every thing of the altar, and within the vail; and ye shall serve: I have given your priest's office unto you as a service of gift: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.
[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.

So we see that the commandment of God for the service of the temple was given ONLY to the sons of Levi. No one else could make an atonement for the sins of the people. This was Gods LAW!

Now Paul said a ‘Law was changed. Let’s find the ‘Law that was changed!

Heb. 7
[5] And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

According to the Levitical Priesthood law.

[11] If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

The job of the Levites was to perform the sacrifices that would take away the sins of the people, but killing bulls and goats could not make the people perfect. Because if they could why would we need ANOTHER priest? A priest NOT after the order of Aaron!

And this is what Paul is saying here:

Heb.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.

So the Law spoken of was the Law that pertained to those sacrifices, again this was the ‘Law’ of the Levitical Priesthood
I think there are a number of problems with this argument.

The fact that Paul makes specific statements about the passing of the ministry of the Levites does not mean that Paul does not also believe that the other elements of the Law have also been retired. You cannot (legitimately, anyway) take a statement about the retirement of the Levitical Priesthood laws and assume that these are the only elements of the law that are retired.

That would be like reading an account of how a certain category of goverment employees were forced to retire at 65 and inferring the rest were not forced to retire at 65. This is not a valid inference.

Paul is addressing a certain part of the law for certain specific reasons in the book of Hebrews. We know from other things that both Jesus and Paul say that, indeed, more than the Levitical priesthood law has been retired.

Jesus here declares the end of purity laws re food:

In Mark 7, Jesus does indeed repudiate human add-ons to Torah. But Jesus clearly goes beyond this and overturns some of the Levitical food laws:

15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

Jesus really cannot be misunderstood here - he clearly states that all foods are clean. This cannot be reconciled with the Levitical food laws which clearly state some foods are unclean. So we have to understand that these elements of Torah are also declared to be retired.

Or this from Paul in Galatians:

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9But now that you know Godâ€â€or rather are known by Godâ€â€how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Paul is clearly overturning the festival / feast laws.

In summary, it is not only the "Levitical priesthood" part of the Torah that has been retired.
 
Drew said:
Eccl12and13 said:
15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) [/color]

Jesus really cannot be misunderstood here - he clearly states that all foods are clean. This cannot be reconciled with the Levitical food laws which clearly state some foods are unclean. So we have to understand that these elements of Torah are also declared to be retired.

Or this from Paul in Galatians:

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9But now that you know Godâ€â€or rather are known by Godâ€â€how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Paul is clearly overturning the festival / feast laws.

In summary, it is not only the "Levitical priesthood" part of the Torah that has been retired.


Obviously Jesus CAN be misunderstood Drew. Because you did a great job at this one.

First of all, The topic was NOT about the dietary laws, it was about the washing of hands.

Mark 7
[1] Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
[2] And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
[3] For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

Is there any mention of the Pharisees about WHAT TYPE of food is being eaten? No there is not. The scriptures ONLY say:

[2] And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

If there had been an issue with FOOD, the scriptures would have just as easily said that as well.

Next, when Jesus saw that all they wanted to do was trick Him He did as he ALWAYS did, He spoke to them in a parable.

Jesus said nothing about the dietary laws, what He said was it is not WHAT goes in that defileth a man. They were talking about DIRTY HANDS, and this is how Jesus answered:

[18] And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

How did you get Jesus doing away with the Dietary out of that statement? They were talking about UNCLEAN HANDS, NOT THE DIETARY LAWS!!

And this was Jesus reply:

[21] For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
[22] Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
[23] All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

No mention of any type of food whatsoever! Why? Because they were not talking about Gods Dietary Laws!


You also appear to be having a little problem with Paul's writtings also:

Again, look at the topic being spoken about. Look at what Paul said they WERE in bondage to:

Gal.4
[1] Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
[2] But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
[3] Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

We as heirs was no different than a servant, and though we were children, were IN BONDAGE UNDER THE ELEMENTS OF THE WORLD. So Paul is saying that we knew not the Lord but did those things that the world did.

[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
[5] To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
[6] And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
[7] Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

But when Christ came, to save them that were under the curse of the law, that curse being death because of sin, we became sons through adoption. So now we are no longer a servant, but a son, an heir through Christ.

[8] Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
[9] But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
[10] Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

But, BEFORE, when we did not know God, we did those things which are not of the TRUE AND LIVING GOD. But NOW that we know God, how can we turn back to those things? DO YOU DESIRE TO GO BACK INTO BONDAGE? And again OBSERVE DAYS, MONTHS, TIMES AND YEARS? The things you were in bondage to BEFORE you knew God?

Now let's go back and see what THE TRUE AND LIVING GOD thought about those that observed times:

Lev.19
[26] Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.
Deut.18
[10] There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
[14] For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.

Paul is not talking about overturning any feast days. Paul is simply asking the Galations how can they go back to doing those things BEFORE they became sons through the adoption of Christ.

And if he was overturning the feast days, were was he in such a hurry to get to here:

Acts.18
[21] But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.

And what about this endorsement?

1 Cor.5
[7] Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
[8] Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

LET US KEEP THE FEAST? I thought you said, that Paul said they were done away with?

Which one is it Drew? Have they been overturned? Or is Paul telling the Corinthians to keep them?

Peter warned us about Paul! One day someone will heed that warning!!!
 
Back
Top