When did the Law pass or has it passed away?

[Jethro Bodine]

Which one of the 4 different scriptures above do you not agree with?

1. He takes away the first that He may establish the second. Hebrews 10:9
2. For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, Hebrews 7:18
3. In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
4. concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. Hebrews 9:10

Hebrews 7, 8, 9, 10 all deal with this subject and are clear.


Maybe words like annul or obsolete or vanish away are not clear enough for you.


Or this phrase - It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience--concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

Why don't you believe what these scriptures teach?

The shadows and types and lessons in the law of Moses are beautiful.

We would not have great examples to follow if it were not for them.


However the law of Moses was "taken away", "vanished away", and only applicable until the Seed should come. For they were SYMBOLIC for this present time.

The commandments and laws and precepts that Abraham walked in are what we need to be concerned with today, which teaches us to OBEY is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of Rams.

For if Abraham didn't obey His Voice to get out of His country to a land that God would show him, then where would we be today.



JLB

What is it about literal temple, priest, and sacrifice that you do not understand?

We must read and consider the context of what we're quoting from Hebrews.

This is about the literal fulfillment of the worship cycle with it's associated regulations for temple, preisthood, and sacrifice, NOT 'do not steal', etc. And that worship cycle was not abolished. It has been fulfilled. We fulfill, not abolish, the requirements of those laws when we have faith in Jesus Christ.

It is absurd to think 'do not steal', etc. passed away.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The example of the law of the oxen is really what you have to overcome to defend your doctrine. Here we have a law of Moses, written "for us", the requirements of which are being taught to gentile Christians, outside of Israel, and being fulfilled (kept, satisfied, etc.) in the new way of the Spirit. In complete and utter contradiction to everything you've been saying about the law of Moses.

Hi Jethro, would you explain a little more completely what you are saying here. To you...

1. Does the law of Moses mean Torah?
2. How does this teaching fulfill the law of Moses, or Torah if this is what you are saying?
3. How do you see this being fulfilled in "the new way of the Spirit?

Thanks

Hopefully I will be back later to answer these for you. You seem genuinely interested so I'll be glad to walk you through this.

Just think 'Christ', and how he, and faith in him, fulfills (satisfies) the requirements of the law concerning temple, priest, and sacrifice. Christ, and faith in Christ, is the fulfillment of those lawful requirements, not the abolishment of those requirements.

 

[JLB]

It is absurd to think 'do not steal', etc. passed away.

The 10 commandments were law from the beginning, therefore they are Eternal.

Cain was punished for murdering Able.

God's laws remain intact before the law of Moses and after the law of Moses, of which some of those are found in the 10 commandments, but not limited to the 10 commandments.

This is about the literal fulfillment of the worship cycle with it's associated regulations for temple, preisthood, and sacrifice, NOT 'do not steal', etc. And that worship cycle was not abolished. It has been fulfilled. We fulfill, not abolish, the requirements of those laws when we have faith in Jesus Christ.

Let me draw your attention to the scripture your are referring to -

that the righteous requirementof the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.Romans 8:4

Notice that the scripture says requirement, but you say requirements, big difference.

The righteous REQUIREMENT of the law is one thing and one thing only. Yet you have stated that it is many requirements.

The righteous requirement of the Law is obedience.

It was disobedience to the Law in the garden that brought sin and death to all mankind.

It was the obedience of Jesus Christ to the cross that brought life, even the resurrection of the dead to all mankind, to as many as believe, that is to say to those who obey the Gospel.

For it is written -

"Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38



JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It is absurd to think 'do not steal', etc. passed away.

The 10 commandments were law from the beginning, therefore they are Eternal.

Cain was punished for murdering Able.

God's laws remain intact before the law of Moses and after the law of Moses...

...except circumcision, the Sabbath, and animal sacrifice for sin. Explain.
Saying some of the laws of Moses are not abolished, while others defy that reason and are abolished is inconsistent.

This is about the literal fulfillment of the worship cycle with it's associated regulations for temple, preisthood, and sacrifice, NOT 'do not steal', etc. And that worship cycle was not abolished. It has been fulfilled. We fulfill, not abolish, the requirements of those laws when we have faith in Jesus Christ.

Let me draw your attention to the scripture your are referring to -

that the righteous requirementof the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.Romans 8:4

Notice that the scripture says requirement, but you say requirements, big difference.

The righteous REQUIREMENT of the law is one thing and one thing only. Yet you have stated that it is many requirements.

No, Paul says requirements of the law:

"25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?" (Romans 2:25-26 NASB)

Now don't misunderstand. Don't get distracted by the issue of circumcision. I'm showing that Paul speaks plainly about the requirements of the law, not a vague, generalized, catch-all, requirement of the law.


It's very easy to spell out the requirements of the law of Moses and see how they are still required of the people of God in this New Covenant. Some get fulfilled in the exact same literal way they did in the old covenant (the personal relationship laws). Some get fulfilled in the work of Christ and our faith in that work (the cycle of procedural worship laws). Some simply do not apply to new creations in Christ (the exclusionary and discriminatory laws). But all these laws are kept/ not violated, by faith in Christ. Faith upholds (satisfies, fulfills, does not violate) the law of Moses, not abolish it as some insist.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hi Jethro, would you explain a little more completely what you are saying here. To you...

1. Does the law of Moses mean Torah?

Technically, the right answer is prolly, 'no', not completely.

But, 'yes', because by definition Torah, the teachings of God, includes the law of Moses.

2. How does this teaching fulfill the law of Moses, or Torah if this is what you are saying?

Bear with me, I'm dense. What teaching? Mine?

3. How do you see this being fulfilled in "the new way of the Spirit?

Thanks

As I just said to JLB, any one law of Moses finds it's fulfillment, through faith, in a particular way in this New Covenant. The Mosaic worship cycle is fulfilled in the work of Christ, and faith in that work. Laws of personal relationship are kept the same way they were in the old covenant when our faith finds it's expression in love for others. The exclusionary laws simply do not apply to a new kingdom and nation of God's people where there is no distinction between Greek or Jew, male or female, priesthood or common man, and where all are members of one and the same Son, and body, and Servant of God, Jesus Christ.

 

[Deborah13]

Bear with me, I'm dense. What teaching? Mine?

Oh sorry, the oxen. But don't worry about it, I see where you are going. Thanks for responding.

 

[About the Son of God]

No, and my posts show that the Law was in full force before Adam... Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Satan was a murderer from the beginning and a liar.

Cain was warned of sin... Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

For Cain to sin there had to be Law. When there is no Law, there is no sin.

Re-read Romans 4:15 . Sin *was* in the world before the law.
The last phrase "not imputed", however, has to do with accountability for sin -- not it's existence.

Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Yet, there is nothing to forgive -- if there is no sin. And it's even wrong to say that without sin there would be no death (at all) (Something for another post, if necessary.)

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

eg: Sin exists, cloaked, but uncloaked it becomes "imputed".
Once a sin is uncloaked, committing the sin is called "transgression"; and implies guilt.

John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
John 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Notice, carefully, that there is also a special distinction in "laws"?

Their law is the prophets... and I'd like to emphasize prophets are sent to convict of sin. (But not every Israelite broke the law of Moses!)

So, although some "law" (eg: via prophets) has the purpose of convicting of sin; esp. the hypocrites whom God detests; There is no reason to say that all law is meant to do that.

*The* law (in General) has a noble purpose which goes beyond defining sin, for sin can never be a positive commandment; yet the law includes blessings. (Honor father and mother.)

--------------------- now, looking at your post more closely ----------------

I was just speaking to @Sparrowhawke about Genesis 4:7 and it's translational problems; I find it humerous how there are probably only about 10 sentences in all of Genesis which are so drastically different in their original wording than what we have today -- and yet people seem attracted to them like a magnet in this thread.

We don't have the original Hebrew -- and early translators complained about Hebrew Manuscript variations on this particular passage. Our modern translations have to do with a rabbinical opinion from around the year 380A.D.; BUT Strictly Christian manuscripts from the same time period (eg: eg the LXX was used in Christian churches all the way back to 33A.D.) have a visibly different meaning. No Christian church preserved the Hebrew after 70A.D. -- what we have today is tended by those who disagree with Christianity.

You happen to be using the passage in a way that is correct regardless of original meaning; for Cain *was* warned about sin! -- but I'd like to caution you in it's use; for the translation does affect what can be said about that sin.

I'm going to talk about the view that your chosen translation points out:
The particular rendition in the KJV comes from the one given by a Jerome, Circa 390 A.D. based on theology of his day -- and adopted by Latin rite Catholics; If you accept it, then it compares against Genesis 3:16; with the same wording in English;

The theological reasoning for the two passages wsa "lust and domination."; which are the marks of a marriage corrupted by sin. (Also Concupiscence, according to Paul).


Now, let me add a detail for you to think about; The Hebrew doesn't say "he" as far as I can see: http://www.biblos.com/genesis/4-7.htm
I might be mistaken, check with a Hebrew expert -- but I don't see the standard *explicit* masculine ending (yod / mem -- eg: Abraha-M, Ada-M ).

Now, a interesting tidbit:

The devil was often historically considered a "she"; for the serpent was a seductress and a gossip.

Knowledge of sin, then, is *analogical* to knowing a wife of a particular negative bent.
Whether one recognizes the "law" of lust and domination or not -- it's there.
But even without known rules -- people can be made miserable, to suffer pain, or cruelty.
Sin can become part of the body; one can experience "nakedness" before being taught what it is. Death itself is not what man's body is intended for -- yet even a sinless one (Jesus') can experience it. (sin).

Just so; The Devil is also a "father" in the sense that he is involved with the (de)formation of the body of a child. He "marries" the one who commits sin/fornication and in a real sense, possesses their body, and affects/afflicts their spirit indirectly.

Analogy: Once a man has experienced sexual relations of a perverted nature -- their body is permanently changed. There is no such thing as a casual sexual relationship without consequences. (Even psychology today, and I mean studies of a medical nature -- eg: see Daniel G. Amen, M.D. bears this out in a striking way!) Sexuality reprograms the body to desire the other spouse/pseudo-spouse -- whomever they may be.

Sexuality, however, is not the only lust capable of changing the human mind in a permanent way; there are other abuses too.

Just so, recall that St. Paul was a murderer -- and a Pharisee who lusted for Glory at other's expense (and who by the way, were *often* notorious adulterers -- for divorce allowed legalized prostitution; wife for a night, freed the next day....)

----------------- Now, I think there's something missing in the conversation -----------

I know that I'm not guilty of the specific sins listed just prior to Roman 2:1 in the vein that Paul wrote them; so Romans 2:1 doesn't apply to me at the level it would apply to Paul; and in Paul's time scripture tells us that some people followed the Law blamelessly. So Romans 2:1 couldn't apply to them either.

Roman 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

It's not just any man who judges, that Roman's 2:1 is talking about -- but a specific well known stereotype. "THE man" (Oh! MAN! -- AKA -- the man spoken of in the psalms "make them remember, God, they are only men." )

Arrogance, pride, competitiveness, (even if wrongly presumed) -- is what causes people to exclaim "he's THE Man!"
1Samul 9:17
and, proven by misapplication here: John 19:5.

Whenever Paul says "the law"; he's talking *primarily* about the *condmning* portion of the prophets (you can easily check this!); for the psalms are the utterances of prophets, too.

But Paul himself was a murderer -- and his body was tormented by a demon until the day he was circumcised at the Neck by Nero. (~60-63A.D.). Forgiveness of Paul did not equate to a complete release while he walked the earth.

Consider:
Paul had a problem with *wanting* to be "THE MAN"! He couldn't stop bragging -- he would even brag about not being able to brag.

2Cori 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
2Cori 12:8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. ( God's answer, however, was NO! )
2Cori 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
2Cori 12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
2Cori 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing

Paul, though, is not the same as I am.
I haven't trodden his path; no adultery, no murder, nothing of Roman 2:1 in the way he wrote it (It might apply accidentally, but even then -- I can show people who it couldn't POSSIBLY apply to.)

So, when Paul says:
Roman 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Roman 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
Roman 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

How Ironic: Was it not the woman who was deceived in Genesis, and not the Man?
1Timothy2:14

So, I really question this experience that Paul speaks of;
For he was a Benjamite, born under the law. And yet, he was alive for a time before He (himself) evidently transgressed the law.

Therefore: I don't see why everyone assumes that his word applies to every single person who walks the earth; Paul never said it did.

It seems to me, that when Paul says "I" he means -- *PAUL* -- eg: it applies to Paul, and men *LIKE* Paul -- but not to everyone.

So, then, why does everyone seem assume the only purpose of law is to cause/define sin?

 

[JLB]

It's very easy to spell out the requirements of the law of Moses

I agree. Paul easily spells it out this way - CROSS!

... having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Colossians 2:14

There is that phrase again that keeps being used in reference to the law of Moses, - Taken out of the way, taken away, vanished away!

So that all that remains is the walk of the Spirit, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

For God told Abraham to - walk before Me and be blameless.

as it is written -

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Notice that it doesn't say, as many as keep the law of Moses, these are sons of God.


JLB

 

[JLB]

See? Your reason for saying some of the laws of Moses are not abolished, while others defy that reason and are abolished (as you say), is inconsistent.

Edited

1. He takes away the first that He may establish the second. Hebrews 10:9
2. For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, Hebrews 7:18
3. In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
4. concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. Hebrews 9:10

I'm asking you to discuss these four scriptures, .



JLB

 

[About the Son of God]

Love that oxen thing. Now if I could just explain what I think I know LOL.

Jesus spoke in parables.
Matthew 13:15 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. ... 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; ...

Parables were given by Jesus so that everyone might not understand. If the information had been given to everyone openly then everyone would have been converted (?).

It seems that way, but notice the word FOR? The thing be-fore it is caused by that which follows it.
In your original quote there is a series of because, and therefores. Each one says the same things as the one before it;
and the last one is the summary of everything.

Jesus isn't telling them things in order that *ULTIMATELY* that they won't see them -- for they have already closed their eyes.
Whether or not he tells them plainly, they themselves choose to not see (eg: they will not see).
If it were otherwise, (eg: lest), they would have seen or heard what he said at some time, understood, repented, and have been healed. The fact that they NEVER heard or saw at any time, and repented -- is proof that they "closed" their eyes.

Jesus spoke to the crowds on many occasions with many parables all of which say the same basic things; if the meaning was missed in one example it could easily be found in another.

You are so right... the law has parables in it too. In that sense, it never passed away.
But let's check that parable law idea out a bit more....

Watch and see that even the Pharisee got the meaning of a parable or two...:
Luke 20:9 Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.
...
Luke 20:15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
Luke 20:16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
Luke 20:19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.
Luke 20:20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.

Luke 20:20 (20/20 vision) The pharisees saw the meaning of the Parable just fine; so fine they decided to do something about it.

Watch again; see what a blind man sees -- and which the Pharisees DON'T.

John 9:30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he [Jesus] is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
John 9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
John 9:32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.

Ah, even the blind man can see the meaning of the the parable that he himself *had become* ? Now, let's compare: What then, is the law of the Pharisee -- what is "their" Law saying ?

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, """ There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. """ (end of fools quote).

I haven't misrepresented the psalm; for it *IS* the fool who says "There is none that does Good"
Watch carefully as the Pharisee fulfills that LAW!

Luke 18:11 ... God, I thank thee, that I am not as ... this publican.

God is not in the publician according to the Pharisee! The Pharisee isn't seeking God -- he believes he has him. ( Exactly backward, isn't it? )

And, back to the last example, let's look at the blind man -- but according to the fool:

John 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

The evidence is undeniable; yet the Pharisees deny it -- notice how: by making the prophet into a sinner, then they can claim "there is no God" in that prophet. (Psalm 14)

Pearls before swine leads to trampling; (Let alone a misguided O.T. Law's OXEN!)

I know why prophets like to speak in parables.... at least parables gave a prophet a short time to live before the puzzle was solved; and the hatred become murder.
The pharisees' Fathers always killed the prophets -- eg: the moment they figured out the true meaning of the prophet's parable:

Matthew 23:29-31, Luke 6:23.

It's no different with Jesus: The prophets sight of the future is always a contest.
The question is, who's sight will *PREVAIL* the judgment of time?

John 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
John 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

If Jesus had hidden the meaning from them, successfully, they would not be condemned of sin; they would be forgivable. (See my previous post #1169 --- wow, such big numbers!!! http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=49081&p=798421&viewfull=1#post798421)

But truthfully! They understood the meaning of his parables well enough.
Yet they still chose to enter a contest of Prophecy; who shall govern Israel in the future?

I wonder: Isn't it obvious that you and I can see the Pharisees blindness?
Yet scripture says not one word about an ultimately condemned Pharisee being made blind --- even Paul fails as an example; for his guilt was remitted as soon as he was made blind.
(If you were blind, Jesus says, there's no sin in that.)

SO: I see it from the future looking back: after the cross, after God wrought a miracle which forever BRANDED them blind in the judgment of history. They were made spectacles of blindness in the bible, and especially at the fall of Jerusalem where their prophecy came to NOTHING. The O.T. decreed the hypocrite to be "blinded" -- and so justice of the Law is carried out.

The Pharisees clearly saw the meaning of some parables; and although they did miss the meaning of some parables -- Jesus none the less eventually told them *PLAINLY*.

John 10:24
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not:
...
John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 10:34 -- (Now comes the condemnation: YOUR law = the psalms).

I am not trying to get a TULIP conversation started. So it winds up with the oxen (in the Law) that the meaning is beyond the written text of the Law. So it must be with many passages that the hidden message / lesson is not clearly stated in the Law (the concept is there if eyes of understanding are open).

Amen, brother.

Some Gentiles have the Law written on their hearts (and I would suppose that some Jewish persons have that done to them also). Church tradition sometimes teaches that parables were used to teach a simple people, but the scripture teaches that hearing they might not hear.

I agree; but because those people were anything but simpleminded.

The Law is of great use if you go through and understand the extended message of the Law. The Law is rich in helping understand beyond the physical (concrete -to- abstract / concrete to concrete / abstract to abstract / etc. Gravity tries to sink the boat, but the greater law of bouyancy can win. The law of sin and death tries to destroy us, but the redemption of Jesus is the greater force. Both forces work at the same time (natural and spiritual). The laws of nature reaveal God (hidden) and the Law of Moses reveals God (still somewhat hidden IMHO). You must be born of the Spirit. At any time I can get off in the flesh and blow all this to bits. The Law is good if used the right way. That Mississippi feller done gone to talking about oxen and boats again. eddif

I know Mississippi river is a good place to do boat float calculations....
But what do you think of blind oxen? ;)

 

[Sparkey]

Closed for Review.

 

[reba]

After some discussion STAFF has agreed to reopen this thread....

We know subjects get personal at times. Let us all try to remember to speak to the topic not the other guy...

Posting etiquette 101

Try not to use the word YOU etc. notice the differences is just these couple lines.....

You need to read the scripture in context!
We need to read scripture in context.

You are refusing to listen!
How can I make myself more understandable?


2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

This is the warning please take notice...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Okay, good, we're back in business.

JLB, your doctrine says that the law of Moses was abolished (not just set aside) because it's stipulations were added to the eternal law that existed prior to the law of Moses, and that's why things in the law of Moses like 'do not steal', etc. are not abolished. If that's true, why were circumcision, and the Sabbath, and animal sacrifice for sin in the law of Moses since they were established before the law of Moses? This is especially troublesome since your doctrine says the law that Jesus said he did not come to abolish was the law in existence before the law of Moses. Explain.

This is why I believe 'fulfillment' is the way to explain how various laws in the law of Moses are no longer needed, but are not abolished or violated, either...for example, Jesus being the sacrifice for sin that satisfies and fulfills, not abolishes, all the Mosaic laws of sacrifice for sin. And because they are forever satisfied by his one time sacrifice they have been laid aside as not being needed anymore, not destroyed and abolished as many say the law of Moses has been.

The requirements of the law of Moses that some say are abolished are fulfilled in Christ, not destroyed. And because they are permanently fulfilled/satisfied (or 'not violated' because they don't apply to new creations in Christ) they have been laid aside, not abolished.

 

[JLB]

Okay, good, we're back in business.

JLB, your doctrine says that the law of Moses was abolished (not just set aside) because it's stipulations were added to the eternal law that existed prior to the law of Moses, and that's why things in the law of Moses like 'do not steal', etc. are not abolished. If that's true, why were circumcision, and the Sabbath, and animal sacrifice for sin in the law of Moses since they were established before the law of Moses? This is especially troublesome since your doctrine says the law that Jesus said he did not come to abolish was the law in existence before the law of Moses. Explain.

This is why I believe 'fulfillment' is the way to explain how various laws in the law of Moses are no longer needed, but are not abolished or violated, either...for example, Jesus being the sacrifice for sin that satisfies and fulfills, not abolishes, all the Mosaic laws of sacrifice for sin. And because they are forever satisfied by his one time sacrifice they have been laid aside as not being needed anymore, not destroyed and abolished as many say the law of Moses has been.

The requirements of the law of Moses that some say are abolished are fulfilled in Christ, not destroyed. And because they are permanently fulfilled/satisfied (or 'not violated' because they don't apply to new creations in Christ) they have been laid aside, not abolished.

I was hoping we could address the scriptures that "seem" to point to the law being taken away, vanished away, being obsolete, and/or annulled.

I use the language that the scriptures use.

This is not "my doctrine", but rather the writer of the book of Hebrews and Paul.

In the four scriptures I quote that uses these phrases, interestingly the word destroyed or abolished is never is mentioned.

The phrase Jesus uses was a well known, at the time, Hebrew idiom.

To change the meaning of a scripture by misinterpreting a word was called "destroying" the law.

So if two Rabbinical sages disagreed on the interpretation one was to have destroyed the law, while the other fulfilled the law by interpreting correctly.

"Destroy" and "fulfill" are technical terms used in rabbinic argumentation. When a sage felt that a colleague had misinterpreted a passage of Scripture, he would say, "You are destroying the Law!" Needless to say, in most cases, his colleagues strongly disagreed. What was "destroying the Law" for one sage was "fulfilling the Law" (correctly interpreting Scripture) for another," wrote Bivin and Blizzard in their book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus (Yahshua).

Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets.

The prophecies as well as the shadows and types in the whole old testament.

The Law of Moses was for the children of Israel while they were in the Covenant land.

Let's look at the four scriptures -

1. He takes away the first that He may establish the second. Hebrews 10:9
2. For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, Hebrews 7:18
3. In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
4. concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. Hebrews 9:10

• ... He takes away the first that He may establish the second.

What does the term "takes away" mean to you?

• ...what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

what does the phrase vanish away mean to you?





JLB

 

[About the Son of God]

...

But, I'm pretty sure Romans 2:14 is indirectly (but *profoundly* ) talking about the law of Moses when he makes the remark. For the law of Moses is a product of legal argumentation coming from Genesis and the Fathers (with a few concessions).

I'm actually okay with this. I don't believe the 'law' on the hearts of the pagans is entirely natural. I believe conscience to be a tool placed in man by God, and which does much more than just teach the nature of things.

As a side note, a pastor telling me that conscience was from God is probably why I'm saved today. It was the first compelling evidence for me that God really exists, for conscience is from him.

I have yet to see an ape with much of a conscience... and definitely not one capable of a philosophical conversation where they lead it.

Not a definitive point... but as an aside: I do recall the hubub about the ape who was taught sign language and which asked for a cat some years ago -- but I never have found anyone admitting to the fate of the disappeared "pet" ...
What's the "purpose" of asking for a cat to an ape?

There truly is something of God that is inscribed in man; and I think Conscience is a notable fingerprint of God. You had a wise pastor ... glad to hear it.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I can't agree with what you're saying here because of what Paul said:

"26...their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." (Romans 1:26-27 NASB)

To me this is speaking clearly of just being able to see, without the interference of man's desires, that some things are ruled by the nature of things themselves...even having natural penalties connected with the violation of the natural order of things.

I was asking it to probe what you meant by the word "nature" and "conscience"; not as a point to agree on.... It's a Rorschach pattern....

In any event: What defines when a desire is "interference" -- vs. -- when the desire is natural?
eg: even to an atheist ?

I brought up the point because, (case in point), in our country, the same sex "marriages" are being debated in court. On what ground, then, is marriage defended or not defended as being between man and woman? ( CLearly some are burning in *lusts* -- and some think it *really is* love.... )

If it's defended based on consequences -- the modern answer is the "condom".
And one could (hypothetical) argue: it's a matter of statistics (x% homosexuality in a population is harmless because procreation goes on....besides, they adopt....)

My point was to get you to describe the source of what Paul means when he says: "do by nature" ; for our country is doing something by nature right now...

Consciences can be darkened; and the "pagans" certainly had extremely darkened consciences; the God "Moloch" was a place a human child was burned to worship.
So, how do we know if the conscience is "formed" or "darkened" or in good stead?

In a sense, by agreeing to "God" forming each man -- you sidestep the need to answer further; but I didn't know how you would answer when I asked it.

The original conversation was with Ryan, and which [MENTION=3354]francisdesales[/MENTION] commented on here: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=49081&p=793649&viewfull=1#post793649

Reviewing that will undoubtedly be helpful!!!!

It seems to me that Paul is only calling them a Law when they do as "God" ordained; but that also means there are subtle consequences to Paul's reasoning.

Roman 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

But, I think that means, if they don't do what the law requires, they aren't a law....
and yet, if that's the case... Then on what grounds might they be "excused"?

Roman 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

An aside: Much of what appears in Romans 2 seems to be found in principle in Matthew 7:2-5.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The Law of Moses was for the children of Israel while they were in the Covenant land.

Let's look at the four scriptures -

[/B]

1. He takes away the first that He may establish the second. Hebrews 10:9
2. For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, Hebrews 7:18
3. In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13
4. concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. Hebrews 9:10

• ... He takes away the first that He may establish the second.

What does the term "takes away" mean to you?

• ...what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

what does the phrase vanish away mean to you?

JLB

Okay, good, this is exactly where I was going to go this morning. It means 'no longer needed' to me, not abolished as in destroyed, trampled upon.

The context of these passages explains that since we have been made perfect in Christ (legally speaking), and that the sacrifice of Christ is always on the altar, so to speak, in heaven there is no need to utilize the shadows present here on earth. Those are for not for people who have been brought near to God perfectly and forever through faith in the body and blood of Christ continually ministering on their behalf in the true tabernacle in heaven.

This truth does not trample on and destroy the requirements of law Moses demanded. It satisfies them. That's why the letter of the law of Moses can be laid aside (not trampled on and destroyed)! The requirements those stipulations sought to fulfill have been fulfilled, not abolished, through the work of Christ.


And, the law of the oxen is one example why I do not believe that the law of Moses was only for the Israelites in the Land. We see the law of Moses taught in the light of New Covenant revelation to gentiles in the world out of the Land of Israel.

 

[JLB]

The context of these passages explains that since we have been made perfect in Christ (legally speaking), and that the sacrifice of Christ is always on the altar, so to speak, in heaven there is no need to utilize the shadows present here on earth. Those are for not for people who have been brought near to God perfectly and forever through faith in the body and blood of Christ continually ministering on their behalf in the true tabernacle in heaven.

I agree there is no need to utilize the shadows here because the have vanished away.

This truth does not trample on and destroy the requirements of law Moses demanded. It satisfies them. That's why the letter of the law of Moses can be laid aside (not trampled on and destroyed)! The requirements those stipulations sought to fulfill have been fulfilled, not abolished, through the work of Christ.

The requirement of the law is obedience to the law. The Law of God found in the ten commandments, which are God's laws long before the law of Moses.

And, the law of the oxen is one example why I do not believe that the law of Moses was only for the Israelites in the Land. We see the law of Moses taught in the light of New Covenant revelation to gentiles in the world out of the Land of Israel.

Eternal laws that are discovered through the shadows and types within the law of Moses are Eternal Kingdom laws that were around before the law of Moses and are intact after the law of Moses for all Mankind.

For instance the fulness of sin, what I call the three-fold fullness of sin is found in the Ark of the Covenant, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;

The Ark was a picture of Christ.

In the Ark contained the fullness of sin as seen in its contents.

Rejecting God's Word. Tablet.

Rejecting God's provision. Manna

Rejecting God's appointed authority. Aaron


Jesus took on the sin of the world, that is to say He became sin in our place.The New Testament phrase that sums this up is -
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 1 Corinthians 5:21

These principles found in this one shadow and type alone could be discussed forever, on what is and is not declared to be sin in the eyes of God.

Yet I don't find anyone who talks about these things, thinking that the ten commandments sums it up.

The 10 commandments only scratch the surface.

These principles and Laws are Eternal Kingdom Laws that one discovers as the draw near to Him and walk with Him in relationship.

The requirement of these principles and precepts and commandments and laws is obedience.


JLB

 

[eddif]

Another Chance? Wow thanks. Of course in the first line I may mess up.
.
This is like a book. I realize it is long. Maybe I should blog it?

Sometimes my comments will seem to miss the fact we are saying the same thng. I realize it is hard to read while wearing a #12 shade welding lense. So if you were being positive and I took it as negative (because of my opionions blinding me--I sure am not perfect) please forgive me.

I do see through a glass darkly (here is an OT equal to looking through a welding lense)

Exodus 33:11
11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Then​

Numbers 12:8
4 And the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.
5 And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

Moses is face to face.

But​

Prophets see a dream (which may need interpretation). Not just straight to the point but through a secondary method (parables IMHO are a veiled method--the truth is there, but it has to be sought).

Ephesians 1:18
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

So I realize my understanding tends to be through a glass darkly. One day it will be clear.
++++++++

Jesus taught his close disciples without parables. He cut through the chase and just told them the deep meaning. Matthew chapters 5&6 are basically free of parables.

When he taught the multitudes he used Parables. If eyes were closed they would not pray for the deep understanding of the parables. Sure they could get the idea they were being talked about, but they would not get the whole story of how Jesus was to be put to death by the keepers of the vineyard.

I tend to see that everyone could keep the information if there were no parables (and that may be some of our problem today). There were parables and the text seems to say that the parables were used so that they would see but not be able to do the right thing.

Originally Posted by eddif
Love that oxen thing. Now if I could just explain what I think I know LOL.

Jesus spoke in parables.
Matthew 13:15 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. ... 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; ...

Parables were given by Jesus so that everyone might not understand. If the information had been given to everyone openly then everyone would have been converted (?).

I have inserted some comments inside your post in Blue.

It seems that way, but notice the word FOR? The thing be-fore it is caused by that which follows it.
In your original quote there is a series of because, and therefores. Each one says the same things as the one before it;
and the last one is the summary of everything.

Jesus isn't telling them things in order that *ULTIMATELY* that they won't see them -- for they have already closed their eyes.
Whether or not he tells them plainly, they themselves choose to not see (eg: they will not see).
eddif: It appears if they are told directly what to do they will do it and Jesus would have been obligated to heal them. To avoid this problem Jesus will use parables and their blindness will keep them from understanding from the heart. Jesus evidently wants the inner heart involved (it is still a partial mystery to me about the final throne, and people having said they had done great works, but have not changed the heart?). I am still working on this.

I realize the following may be very close to what I said.
If it were otherwise, (eg: lest), they would have seen or heard what he said at some time, understood, repented, and have been healed. The fact that they NEVER heard or saw at any time, and repented -- is proof that they "closed" their eyes.


Jesus spoke to the crowds on many occasions with many parables all of which say the same basic things; if the meaning was missed in one example it could easily be found in another.

eddif: I do not think at any point they had a deep understanding. Changing the wording would get closer though.

You are so right... the law has parables in it too. In that sense, it never passed away.

eddif: Sections of the law are a parable and in that sense it never passes away. Jesus is the sacrafice.
But let's check that parable law idea out a bit more....

Watch and see that even the Pharisee got the meaning of a parable or two...:
Luke 20:9 Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.
...
Luke 20:15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
Luke 20:16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
Luke 20:19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.
eddif: They understood they were being talked about, but it seems they missed the fact the keepers of the vineyard were about to kill the son of the owner (Jesus).

Luke 20:20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.
eddif: They are missing the fact that Jesus is the son of God and they should worship him. They are unaware of the Isaiah 6 passage (?). Jesus knows who they are no matter what trickery they use. He also knows he will die and will not be silent when he is ready to die (completes his ministry time).

Luke 20:20 (20/20 vision) The pharisees saw the meaning of the Parable just fine; so fine they decided to do something about it.
eddif: The pharisees saw part of the parable. The thing they wanted to do, was have the gentiles crucify Jesus. We wind up with: both the Jews and Gentiles involved in the death of Jesus.

Watch again; see what a blind man sees -- and which the Pharisees DON'T.

John 9:30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he [Jesus] is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
John 9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
John 9:32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.

Ah, even the blind man can see the meaning of the the parable that he himself *had become* ? Now, let's compare: What then, is the law of the Pharisee -- what is "their" Law saying ?

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, """ There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. """ (end of fools quote).

eddif: Part of this I am missing. Jesus even said God alone is good.
I haven't misrepresented the psalm; for it *IS* the fool who says "There is none that does Good"
Watch carefully as the Pharisee fulfills that LAW!

eddif: IMHO Jesus fulfilled the Law by healing the blind man. There are blessing in the Law.

The man recognized Jesus as from God and used his name.
II Chronicles 7:14
14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.


Luke 18:11 ... God, I thank thee, that I am not as ... this publican.

God is not in the publician according to the Pharisee! The Pharisee isn't seeking God -- he believes he has him. ( Exactly backward, isn't it? )

eddif: Romans 2:29
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Chromosones IMHO are outward. Religion IMHO is outward. The attitude of the heart is inward and personal and is the the reality (often I see myself failing in all this).

So yes the Jew is the Gentile, and the Gentile is the true Jew.

And, back to the last example, let's look at the blind man -- but according to the fool:
eddif: Ecclesiastes 7:17
16 Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?
17 Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time?

It might not be best to place ourselves in either condition, but to see both places and seek Gods position (knowing our sin and His righteousness through Jesus).



John 9:34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

The evidence is undeniable; yet the Pharisees deny it -- notice how: by making the prophet into a sinner, then they can claim "there is no God" in that prophet. (Psalm 14)
eddif: In their blindness? They do not understand they are blind? Perhaps you understand more here than I do.. I know in Romans chalpters 1&2 it says they know what is right but go on to sin.
Pearls before swine leads to trampling; (Let alone a misguided O.T. Law's OXEN!)

I know why prophets like to speak in parables.... at least parables gave a prophet a short time to live before the puzzle was solved; and the hatred become murder.
The pharisees' Fathers always killed the prophets -- eg: the moment they figured out the true meaning of the prophet's parable:
eddif: IMHO prophets do not always hear face to face. They get the message clouded. I deal in symbolism, and untill it unwindes it is a mess to deal with. If carnal I supplies the answer, we all need to run for cover.

Matthew 23:29-31, Luke 6:23.

It's no different with Jesus: The prophets sight of the future is always a contest.
The question is, who's sight will *PREVAIL* the judgment of time?

John 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
John 9:40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

If Jesus had hidden the meaning from them, successfully, they would not be condemned of sin; they would be forgivable. (See my previous post #1169 --- wow, such big numbers!!! http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=49081&p=798421&viewfull=1#post798421)

But truthfully! They understood the meaning of his parables well enough.
Yet they still chose to enter a contest of Prophecy; who shall govern Israel in the future?

I wonder: Isn't it obvious that you and I can see the Pharisees blindness?

eddif: We see and now after Jesus is in heaven interceeding and the Holy Spirit is here, things should be better. We all should see a little better (not perfectly clear but much better, and one day clearly).
Yet scripture says not one word about an ultimately condemned Pharisee being made blind --- even Paul fails as an example; for his guilt was remitted as soon as he was made blind.
(If you were blind, Jesus says, there's no sin in that.)

SO: I see it from the future looking back: after the cross, after God wrought a miracle which forever BRANDED them blind in the judgment of history. They were made spectacles of blindness in the bible, and especially at the fall of Jerusalem where their prophecy came to NOTHING. The O.T. decreed the hypocrite to be "blinded" -- and so justice of the Law is carried out.

The Pharisees clearly saw the meaning of some parables; and although they did miss the meaning of some parables -- Jesus none the less eventually told them *PLAINLY*.

John 10:24
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not:
...
John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 10:34 -- (Now comes the condemnation: YOUR law = the psalms).

Amen, brother.
I agree; but because those people were anything but simpleminded.

eddif I pulled my quote-

I know Mississippi river is a good place to do boat float calculations....
eddif: You have to get in the Gulf to do keel debth calculations for rough deep water travel LOL.
But what do you think of blind oxen?
eddif: You have to put a center pivot stake on the threshing floor and guide them in their work. Phillipians 1:15-19 If Jesus is preached it is going to work out.

;)

 

[About the Son of God]

Another Chance? Wow thanks.

Sometimes my comments will seem to miss the fact we are saying the same thng. I realize it is hard to read while wearing a #12 shade welding lense. So if you were being positive and I took it as negative (because of my opionions blinding me--I sure am not perfect) please forgive me.

The same is true of me, my brother!
Putting #12 welding goggles on.... turning up screen brightness to ultra.... That's better... still comin' thru....!

Prophets see a dream (which may need interpretation). Not just straight to the point but through a secondary method (parables IMHO are a veiled method--the truth is there, but it has to be sought).

Yes.
Though calling them "secondary" is perhaps your first attempt at discussing parables?

... Life itself is a parable. Children, before they learn language, must learn by experience ( parable ).... only once they have grown enough to understand technical explanations, can they use technical explanations.

But ... Parable is primordial.

Pre-school (pre-pre school?) comes primordially, 1st grade is called primary school, then comes secondary school, then high-school....

In the bible -- an example of primordial law is Genesis:
Notice especially that the *very* first sayings are dark and void; then comes light. Genesis 1:2

Formal parables are meant to be spoken.... (and Paul will speak in Parables!)

This first parable is the Law: Psalm 78:1-7 (for self study: Hebrews 8:11, Jeremiah 31:35-37 in context. )

(end parabolic detour)

Numbers 12:8
...
Moses is face to face.

Amen.
And he received it, mouth to mouth.
The spirit (breath) of Wisdom is invisible, but also hear-able....

When he taught the multitudes he used Parables. If eyes were closed they would not pray for the deep understanding of the parables. Sure they could get the idea they were being talked about, but they would not get the whole story of how Jesus was to be put to death by the keepers of the vineyard.

I underlined our solid foundation of agreement.

Your conclusion is plausible.... but, there's something I'd like you to think about .... and get back to me on ....

God spoke "mouth to mouth" with Moses; and if that speech were totally *clear* the conversation ought to have no parable at all *for Moses* -- but we KNOW that Moses told us about what God said about Jesus by writing the Law in animals and such (and by naming a Man Jesus...etc.).

But, if Moses understood these things -- what need had he to talk again to Jesus about the "exodus" through the Cross?

Mark 9:3-4, (alt: Luke 9:31 )

Just so, notice very carefully what you just said " but they would not get the whole story of how Jesus was to be put to death "; And notice in the *VERY* same place I just cited in scripture he speaks plainly:

Mark 9:9-10 ... but what's that they say?! ( It surprises me, too! )

And then, compare here, also...
Matthew 27:63-66

It seems the enemies of Jesus were more ready to understand (but not BELIEVE) the meaning of Jesus' parables than even did the Apostles.

Eddif ... I have to stop here for a while; but I just want you to know that I am absolutely loving our breaking into the word together, my brother!

Do not forget these people, both those who got the message in the parables of the Law and those who didn't -- had the word to meditate on; They were both punished and blessed according to what they already ought to have known (Luke 1:18-19,20) -- vs. -- how they approached veiled problems (Luke 1:29, Luke 1:34, ... )

This is where we are, with all our brothers and sisters in the Lord: Luke 2:17-19.
Lets hold those thoughts in our hearts for a while, and perhaps the Lord will reveal some more wisdom to share for those of us gathered in his name.

Peace to you.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The context of these passages explains that since we have been made perfect in Christ (legally speaking), and that the sacrifice of Christ is always on the altar, so to speak, in heaven there is no need to utilize the shadows present here on earth. Those are for not for people who have been brought near to God perfectly and forever through faith in the body and blood of Christ continually ministering on their behalf in the true tabernacle in heaven.

I agree there is no need to utilize the shadows here because the have vanished away.

And so it is that Christ satisfied and upheld the requirements of the shadows, not abolished them. And because he did that, they can now 'disappear'. Jesus said that could/would not happen until the fulfillment happened--the thing he said he did come to do, not abolish them.

This truth does not trample on and destroy the requirements of law Moses demanded. It satisfies them. That's why the letter of the law of Moses can be laid aside (not trampled on and destroyed)! The requirements those stipulations sought to fulfill have been fulfilled, not abolished, through the work of Christ.

The requirement of the law is obedience to the law.

And that obedience was seen in many specific requirements spelled out in the law. Some of which remain to this day. Paul refers to some of these requirements in Romans 2.

The Law of God found in the ten commandments, which are God's laws long before the law of Moses.

Which brings us back to this matter of circumcision, and the Sabbath, and animal sacrifice for sin. They are also part of 'God's law', not Mosaic shadows, but they did 'vanish away', while laws like 'do not steal', 'do not murder', etc., did not vanish away with the law of Moses because they were before the law of Moses. Explain the inconsistency.

For instance the fulness of sin, what I call the three-fold fullness of sin is found in the Ark of the Covenant, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;

The Ark was a picture of Christ.

In the Ark contained the fullness of sin as seen in its contents.

Rejecting God's Word. Tablet.

Rejecting God's provision. Manna

Rejecting God's appointed authority. Aaron

It makes more sense to me that that the construction of the Ark, and the things in the Ark are what illustrate the Ark being a picture of Jesus. He has the law of God in him. He is the manna sent down from heaven. He has the authority of God in him. He dwells in the inner sanctuary of the Temple, the body of the believer. And he is the place, the mediator, between heaven and earth, where God meets man, and where sin is atoned for.