When Did Christ "forgive" Certain Old Testament Laws?

Discussion in 'Doctrinal Discussions' started by PeaceLikeaRiver, Aug 24, 2014.

  1. Thinking about what you just wrote, @Abdicate, I'm sorry, but I certainly don't dislike you. Not at all. Never thought of disliking you. Just because I disagree with SOME of the things you write does not mean I dislike you. I disagree with some things in many people, but that doesn't mean I dislike them. I can't imagine living life like that. :)
  2. @TezriLi I'm sorry... I too am tired and I totally misread your comment... accept my sincerest apology. :(
  3. I do, but no apology is needed. Thank you!!
    Abdicate likes this.
  4. I agree with your premise and would boast that you have with precision constructed a most critical case for our eternal survival.

    Yet would it be too forward for me to bring application regarding these variants of law?

    You point out here an “eternal constant” that is “pan-existent” (pre, mid and post Mosesian contract), that the shedding of blood is required for the remission of sin, “always” regarding sinful man. I will agree that this “eternal constant” exists always, and will also agree that this “eternal constant” will also exist in the confines of delegated “Natural Law” in our earthly “State of Nature,” but also that this “eternal constant” can be mandated by institutionalizing “human law,” where “human law” becomes “compulsory backed with legal force.”

    Can mankind's primordial genesis be found in scripture to provide the foundation for the delegation of natural law/natural rights, yet also we can historically witness God to reach in with divine revelation for what is His eternal law? For natural reason is mankind's delegated opportunity to “choose” virtue eternal or "choose" damnation eternal.

    Can Paul from scripture who was our first philosopher get his due for differentiating natural law, human law, and eternal law by divine revelation? Can Aquinas get his due regarding the categorization of these laws, and can Locke get his due for his threaded precision for extrapolating the intricateness of natural law, and natural rights? Can two thousand years of debate in the church provide differentiating solidification to the two primary covenants given to mankind, the first of Moses which contractually ended at the cross, and that blessed covenant of Christ which is present for our eternal joy?

    When Christ died, the Mosesian contract to the Israelites ended, and a new covenant was established for all the world, yet the world must agree to it voluntarily void of natural compulsion, which differentiates it from the natural compulsion of the old. For a natural delegation to mankind to choose was given in the beginning and repeated with Noah, that we are delegated to own property, to have authority to subdue the earth, and that violence to one another is not to be tolerated. However it was also delegated our natural right to "choose" Him or "reject" Him. Yet escaping Gods wrath, covenants by love were extended to individuals historically as God saw fit, also to the nation of Israel as He saw fit, and finally to all the world as He saw fit. For He loved the world and sent His son to consumate the greatest of all agreements, a contract of all contracts, that we are afforded the opportunity to embrace eternal life.

    Thus I argue for “application” for different kinds of law. I argue that “Natural Law” provides our reason to understand and choose “Eternal Law,” that “Eternal Law” is a “constant,” which is revealed to man by “Divine Revelation (Divine Law).” That Eternal Law is God and all that He is. That the shedding of blood for the remission of sin is in “Eternal Law” that will span all contracts upon the earth, which can become “Human Law” (Compulsory/ Mosesian), but can also be “Divinely revealed in our new covenant with Christ,” where compulsion was replaced with His loving grace, and by the power of the Holy Spirit (Divine revelation regarding what is Eternal Law).

    “Natural Law/Natural Rights” which is our delegation to “choose obedience or disobedience” is also a “natural earthly constant,” meaning our free will to choose sin is delegated to us, but only in the “natural” here on earth in the “State of Nature.” For our right to choose virtue or sin, is fleeting here in the “Natural.” For it is here in the “Natural” that disobedience by man can be tolerated as He will see fit, yet in time “Eternal Law” that exists always condemns all “Natural disobedience” to death.
  5. Most of the time, I just keep my mouth shut re many of such arguments, because people are going to believe what they want to believe, but sometimes, I just can't remain silent. You have written here when you think this happened, but what biblical proof do you have for this?
  6. I don't remember the name of it but do you Remember the movie where the scientist says to the detective ........."Now that is the right question!"

    THAT is the right question! Where in the Bible does that say that?
    TezriLi likes this.
  7. In Hebrews, chapters 7 - 10, God's inspiration elaborates greatly on this issue. You may read it all for yourself, but I will pull a few main verses out for you.
    Hebrews 7:
    22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.
    Hebrews 8:
    7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
    13 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 9:
    1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary.

    9 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— 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

    15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

    24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

    Hebrews 10:
    8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second.

    The new covenant does away with the old because Jesus finally, once and for all, has fulfilled the need for the sacrifice, so to follow the old means that one does not accept the new perfect sacrifice and that person is still in need of the perfect One.
    Great Fiction and Major say Amen and like this.
  8. Your statement on "delegated “Natural Law” in our earthly “State of Nature,”" raised a question as to whether "Natural Law" is a subset of the "State of Nature", or vice versa. I have often pondered the logic of God's plan of creation and the "natural laws" He set forth which stand in governance of the implementation and ensuing growth and maturation of this existence and any connections to unseen existences. Such as, "Is this the first time He created in this fashion, or has there been others?", and, "Will there be more creations take place after the 1,000 year reign during our eternal life with Him?"
    I think Paul does not get his due, often, because his writings are of divine revelation, and therefore makes him nothing more than a conduit. Whereas Aquinas and Locke are thought of as original thinkers, Paul just wrote what he was told. That fallacy is the "dog that won't hunt". Obviously, God used Paul's great talents, (yes God gives the talents, we work on them to make them manifest and the same would be true of Locke and Aquinas), to take the Gospel to the gentiles. What kind of impression and miracle it was to turn that enemy of Christ, Saul, into THE spokesman/preacher/missionary for the world. What kind of intellect must he have had to be able to interact with such diverse audiences. From philosophers at Mars Hill, to Christians, pagans, Jews and Roman authorities, he always made an impact.
    For Natural or eternal law, we derive that there needs to be a "sacrifice" to pay for wrongdoing. Human law took this "sacrifice" and made it a "payment to satisfy Justice". Whether you call it a "Justice payment" or a "sacrifice", they are both compulsory, unless you had the power to act with impunity from any human consequences, or could find a substitute for the punishment. Money could buy you that for earthly consequences.
    The new covenant gave us the perfect substitute for us with the Father God, and the "New Law" must be in our hearts to qualify for this perfect "Justice payment". This "New Law" makes "Eternal Law" survivable.
    Before Christ, "Human Law" was only followed by those who would suffer the consequences. It was Christianity which brought about, "Integrity is doing the right thing when nobody's looking"-J.C. Watts. This is where I tend to agree with Hobbes over Locke, in that, without the consequences, natural man will not always try to do good, but will always do what he thinks is best for him, and if it benefits others, then fine. If not, then toughy lucky says the ducky. Anarchy is what primal man wants, but the need for safety brings in an authority to prevent chaos and harm to primal man's "stuff". Still a selfish desire.
    There is more to be said on this, but time is a wasting. Looking forward to thoughts.
  9. I am SO SORRY! But I have been cut off from the Christian Forum Site, except from work. In other words, i am cut off from home -- I cannot get on the site from home. Some STINKIN' bot tried to do dirty work, using my home computer. I don't know if I can fix that, if it can be fixed, etc. I can get on at work, but, of course, I have to work! So I can only get on before or after work, and during breaks. I am SO IRRITATED!!!! Stinkin' dishonest jerks.

    Right now, I do not have time to even read what you've written -- just to tell you my predicament. I am sorry, people. Love y'all.
  10. #70 TezriLi, Sep 9, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2014

    Moose, I am glad that when you copied these Scriptures, you left the italics in them. This not only shows you to be a careful person, but you are an honest person. I love that. Of course, you know that this means that the translator added the italicized word or tried to re-explain what the autographs said. If you will check, the word covenant was added several times.

    Now, I studied this years ago, and I don't have time to restudy it for this post, so please check this for yourself, especially so that you will not just take either my or the translator's word for it.

    Interestingly, the Scriptures were written about the priesthood, not a covenant, if I remember correctly, right up to the time that the translator changed the subject to a covenant. I just looked at Hebrews 8:7, I believe to be the first change by adding "covenant." Further, the subject of the priesthood is still obvious after the translators quit adding the word covenant at Hebrews 10:11.

    When these Scriptures absolutely, for sure, bring up Jeremiah's New Covenant, it is Hebrews 8:8 and Hebrews 12:24 (maybe!! As I wrote, I am not taking the time to restudy this right now.). The Hebrews 8:8 Scripture is a quotation of Jeremiah 31:31, which is a covenant with Israel and Judah, no one else. No one else -- unless they accept their place with Israel. And this covenant has not yet been fully enacted. Like the rest of G-d's covenant, it is also for those who join with Israel and Judah -- today, we can say those who have joined with the commonwealth of Israel: John 15:5 and Romans 11;16-25.

    So am I saying that no one has been given the gift of the new covenant. Absolutely not. But those who exalt themselves above Israel, who denounce Israel, who do not respect Israel's place in this world and the World To Come are in a dangerous place. I would absolutely doubt their salvation. Biblically, I have every right to do so, not that this gives me any satisfaction or joy. Regardless, until the united kingdom of Israel and Judah recognizes their Messiah, Y'shua-Jesus, the One Who was slain, the Risen One, the High Priest Who continually intercedes for His own, the New Covenant has not yet been fully enacted.

    When the New Covenant (which is not, by the way, what they call the "New Testament," a major misnomer) is fully enacted, Israel and Judah will have the full covenant written upon their hearts just as those who truly know the L-rd have His Torah written on their hearts now -- as it has always been! Their iniquity will be fully forgiven, and their sin will not be held against them [Hebrews 32:34].
  11. First, thank you for the kind words. B. I will study up on this and consider carefully your position. You are obviously well thought out on this, and you make sense, which is a plus! :D
    So are you saying the translators changed the original wording of priesthood and replaced it with covenant?
    TezriLi likes this.
  12. Not quite, Big Moose. I am not, by any means or stretch, a Greek scholar. My schooling in Greek ended @ 1982, probably earlier, so I am very dependent upon what I relearn each time I study. :)

    What I am actually saying is that these Scriptures are about the change in the priesthood, but where the Greek language did not specifically use its word for priesthood, the translator(S!), because of their education and prejudices, added the word covenant, because somehow, they wanted to believe that this was what it was about.

    I don't remember if this is the case every time, but it is the case @ 90% of the time or more.

    If these chapters are carefully, thoughtfully read through in context without the added word, covenant, the intention becomes clearer. If they are read through again, replacing the added word covenant with priesthood, it makes sense. However, Big Moose, please understand that I only want you to believe Truth, not my words. Please. I am just asking you to consider this. I have a lot of respect for you and the others here.
  13. Very interesting.. And insightful.. I need to do more study on this
    TezriLi likes this.
  14. Jeremiah 31:31 (KJV)
    Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

    In Hebrew Covenant is (בּרית) and reveal is () which when combined is עבּרית and that is the word for Hebrew or literally Covenant Revealed!! Wait! There’s still more. Let’s look at the paleo-Hebrew letters for the word Hebrew:

    “See in man hand mark”​

    Whose hand is marked that we need to see!? Jesus – the Savior! A new covenant revealed! Which leads us to God's Name as given to Moses:


    Each letter means: hand, LOOK!, nail, LOOK!
    Great Fiction likes this.
  15. I agree that obedience is greater than sacrifice.

    However your answer does not align with the context of my question, yet may I accept responsibility for not providing better context with the question itself.

    I will reword it here with more specificity and supporting context.

    Do you believe that “situational instruction” will vary within different contracts that God delegated to mankind; do you believe for example that “animal sacrifice” is relevant in the mosaic covenant but is not relevant in the “salvation covenant” with Christ, since Christ is the perfect sacrifice? Thus animal sacrifice is “situational.”

    Also to another example: God made a contract with Noah, that if he would build an ark, and would collect animals, then he and is family would be spared from an ensuing flood; yet to Abraham no ark was in his covenant with God, but instead a covenant of uncountable posterity. Thus arks and posterity are “situational” regarding each of the two covenants.

    Though eternal law is a constant in all contracts offered by God, would you agree that “situational instruction” or details in each contract will vary greatly from the many contracts that God made with mankind. Some contracts to individuals, one the nation of Israel and another to the world at the cross?

    For if we can agree that “contract specifics change” but that “eternal law remains a constant” for all contracts from God, then we can agree that we are now under no obligation to build arks, or sacrifice animals?

    You mentioned “not always.” Is it possible that terminology challenges the body for two thousand years, but also that our conversations can bring us all closer together? For I believe that Gods “Eternal Law” and “Divine Law” are constants that exists in all covenants, yet I believe that “human law” or “contract specifics” are not necessarily eternal constants. I would contend that God did not change from personal covenants, from the Mosaic covenant or from the Christ covenant; however I would contend that each “contract” had specifics that fall to variance and also that different people were offered those contracts in variance. I would contend the greatest contract offering is Christ and Him crucified and that it is the greatest contract of all, which is offered to the whole world.

    I agree

    I agree
  16. First of all TezriLi, I have read many of your posts only to be repeatedly blessed with your magnanimous graciousness and kindness. That being said, it must stand to sound reason that your words being purposefully held back would simply rob me of Christian exhortation and admonishment from my sister in the Lord.

    Concerning proof in scripture can we agree that Big Moose and Abdicate both have provided excellent posts in this thread to support that a new covenant in Christ is fortified from scripture, yet also I would suggest further that the same scriptural premise is used also to give conclusion to the old covenant.

    However I would like to ensure that eternal and divine law of God does not originate from contracts, but that scriptural contracts of God are premised upon eternal and divine law. For eternal and divine law was present in the old covenant and the new covenant.; yet specific requirements and actions are differentiated greatly.

    When Christ our Saviour died for all of the world, the power of the Lord then demonstrated an exit from the Holy of Holies by renting the veil. It was there in the Holy of Holies that the most sacred designation would exist in the Mosaic covenant. When Christ gave up the ghost on the cross, the renting of the veil to the entrance of the the Holy of Holies signifies that the old compulsory ceremonial methods used to connect with the Spirit of God had ceased. In short the cross and His shed blood afforded us His transfiguring power, not accessible through the Holy of Holies using human law, but directly to us using divine law from Christ, who reveals to us what is eternal.

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

    Rom. 7:6 - “But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.”

    I contend that God never changes, yet “contract requirements” will change depending on who its offered to.
    Big Moose likes this.
  17. Great, your words are very kind, but I often hesitate because, number one, I am a woman. Who am I to speak up to men when many today really are offended when a woman speaks up?
    Number two, I don't have any biblical or theological degrees.
    Number three, I have not touched Koine Greek in forever, and my grasp of Hebrew is still minimal.
    Number four, I am no longer a teacher and haven't been since @ 1997.
    Number five, who am I to point out anyone? I just do not feel...how shall I put it...worthy? Right about doing that?
    And number six, I'll admit it: I come here to enjoy the people, to have fun, to be entertained by those two ideas.
    What shall I write. When I bring up such disagreements, I am out of my element, out of my comfort zone. And who am I to go up against our translators...little insignificant me. It feels odd, but in this case, the same error (in my opinion, it is an extreme error in translating) is repeated in Bible translation after Bible translation, because they simply accepted what had already been thought without question.

    Further, when my L-rd greets me on His turf, He will have a list of all the things I thought I was so right about, and I was not.

    Well I disagree. :) The New Covenant does not render the first dead, as we can read in Zechariah. Y'shua also says that the original covenant will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away (Matthew 5, I think). Or am I misunderstanding you?

    I know that the idea of the curtain torn at the Holiest place is traditional in the churches, but this is merely traditional. The torn curtain could have been any one of the curtains, so for us to put any trust or theology on a particular torn curtain doesn't work, in my opinion. Again, it has been years since I studied the curtains, so I don't remember the details of them. However, I do remember that one particular threshold was broken by that earthquake -- a threshold that had not only a door but also a curtain. The threshold was very heavy, made so that it was five-sided (if I remember correctly), and even with their repairs, they were never able to get the door to close again. Oh, I need to look this up.

    And you are right: G-d never changes. He has promised us this, and He will not lie. The Law never saved anyone. Ever. There is only One Way of salvation, and no one ever entered in without Him, even before Bethlehem.
  18. I would say the discussion is one of those Paul's Romans 7 moments : )
  19. Romans 7 New King James Version (NKJV)
    Freed from the Law
    7 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
    Sin’s Advantage in the Law
    7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”[a] 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.
    Law Cannot Save from Sin
    13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
    21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
    So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
  20. Thanks.

    Ok.. so while I might quibble again with your specific examples - I do agree with your premise....
    God's Eternal Law remains constant. <<- Yes.

    /Begin quibble....
    Neither animal sacrifice, nor the Ark were Covenants per-se.... Animal sacrifice was simply a procedure begun in Eden after the Fall for atonement of Trespass (Unintentional sin.) I suppose you always had the option to simply die for your sins.... The procedures for the Jewish sacrificial rites existed long before - but were codified by Moses, just like the Sabbath existed on the 7th day of Creation - but was codified by Moses. The Ark was also not a covenant... The covenant came afterwards with Noah's sacrifice and God's answer with the rainbow.

    The writer of Hebrews states that Animal sacrifice was NEVER effective at actually REMOVING sin (Heb 10:4)... Not in the Mosaic law... Not in Eden. (Notice how Isaiah is purified in Isaiah 7... The Lord strikes his lips with a coal from the altar and declares him "Clean".... No goat's blood was required)

    And so as such - this classifies both the Ark and Animal Sacrifice as "Situational instruction"

    But - I don't see God declaring any of his Covenants "Null and Void".... If anything, it's the opposite.... By Jesus the Messiah of Israel fulfilling the Covenant of Sinai - he gained rightful inheritance of the Land of Canaan..... By Jesus fulfilling God's Covenant with David - he gained rightful inheritance of the Throne of David....

    Both of those covenants are still in effect between Jesus and God the Father.

    It is interesting, though that the Millennial temple in Ezekiel includes provisions for animal sacrifice.
    /End quibble....

    hmmm..... Once again, I agree with the underlying Premise that God's Eternal Law is true and unchanging.... but I am very uncomfortable with the idea that God's covenants include "Imperfect".... To me, that is a problematic statement.... The imperfect part has always been us....

    /begin quibbble #2
    I think that I am more comfortable with saying that our conduct is not governed by several of those specific covenants for several of various reasons.... All were broken more or less immediately by the people to whom the covenants were issued.... As such - God is under no obligation to fulfill the covenant terms with us personally even if we might be related to the people who broke them.. Wishing and hoping not withstanding....

    Since they are already broken - neither are we strictly bound by them, though.... We should LEARN from them, though, as much wisdom of God is contained in those covenants....

    On the other hand, we ARE under obligation to follow the terms of the Bread and Wine covenant (Body and blood) administered in Matt 26:26-28 explained in Jeremiah 31:31-34...
    /end quibble #2

Share This Page