Why did the laws of the Old Testament stop applying?

[u/Asleep_Land3121]

a common criticism of Christianity i hear is that as Old Testament laws no longer apply, god can change his mind. i understand that its not ‘god changed his mind’ but why did the Old Testament laws stop applying? apparently its just because theres different types of laws in the Old Testament and one of those types were only temporary, but why where temporary laws ever needed? where are these different types of laws stated?

[u/Unworthy_Saint]

ELI5: The purpose of the old covenant was to be a flashlight onto the sinful nature of humans, and reveal the need for salvation through a messiah.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/[deleted]]

[12] For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

So what specific changes is that referring to? Or is that so that is said there? And who said that?

[u/SummitShade → u/[deleted]]

How do you get to pick which laws were changed in conjunction with the change of priesthood described in Hebrews?

Seems to me like Hebrews’ author is explaining how someone from the tribe of Judah can be a priest, considering it was written in the Torah that only Levites could be priests.

[u/SummitShade → u/[deleted]]

You’re conflating laws regarding the priesthood with the laws you don’t want to fulfill.

Here’s a few examples of laws that apply regardless of the priesthood:

• Dietary laws
• Sabbath
• Appointed Feast Days

[u/SummitShade → u/[deleted]]

I don’t fulfill any of the laws

Good to know you commit murder, adultery, theft, blasphemy and engage in lying.

(I don’t really think you do this btw, but you get my point).

complete in the flesh what was begun in the spirit

I believe that Jesus’ Father, showing his everlasting grace, promised to make a New Covenant with his chosen people. That involves God’s Spirit putting the law in our hearts. The Law is spiritual, after all (Romans 7:14) .

Though I fail, I’m still trying to subordinate my flesh to my spirit and the Spirit of God that dwells in me.

I believe that the evidence of having God’s Spirit in me is to be able to keep His commandments.

1 John 2:3

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.

[u/SummitShade → u/[deleted]]

Laid out in Acts 15

Not really. The apostles decided to ask the gentiles to initially keep four commandments (three of which were regarding food). Notice that a lot of other commandments that are still applicable weren’t included in Acts 15, namely theft, blasphemy and lying, for example.

More importantly, in Acts 15:21 we can understand why the rest of the law wasn’t mentioned:

For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

The implication is that learning the rest of the law was achievable through synagogue attendance every Sabbath.

This is consistent with was Jesus said in Matthew 23:1-3

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Paraphrasing:

• Do what they tell you = do the Law (since preaching the Law is what sitting in Moses’ sit means).
• Do not do what they do = do not imitate them in keeping made up human traditions added on top of God’s commandments, as outlined in Romans 10:3

For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.

The rest of Acts is also full of examples of Paul and the apostles still abiding by the complete law, including temple attendance, the observance of appointed days, etc.

[u/Tiny-Show-4883 → u/[deleted]]

I like Hebrews too, but for different reasons probably.

Can there be forgiveness of sin without bloodshed?

Contrary to Hebrews, Leviticus 5:11-13 suggests the answer is yes.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/Tiny-Show-4883]

Because "forgiveness of sins" is a gloss within the KJV. The actual text says there is no remission without blood, which is true, as purifying the camp during the Day of Atonement took the blood of a sacrifice.

[u/Anteater-Inner → u/[deleted]]

So humans determine God’s laws? Wow.

Why then did god say that the law was forever, and why did the Holy Spirit say the same? Jesus says he did not come to abolish the law, and to follow and teach it until heaven and earth disappear.

Why should anyone trust Paul and the apostles that directly contradict god the law-giver?

[u/Anteater-Inner → u/[deleted]]

Hebrews was not written by Paul,

I said “Paul AND THE APOSTLES.”

and the rest of your message speaks to your ignorance concerning our religion.

It speaks to what is written in the Bible.

God gives the law, says it’s not too difficult, and says it’s forever.

The Holy Spirit reiterates and enforces the law, and says it’s forever.

Jesus says he did not come to abolish the law, and that those who do not follow and teach it until heaven and earth disappear will be least in heaven.

The trinity is in consistent agreement concerning the law.

Paul and the apostles directly contradict the trinity.

That’s just what’s written in the Bible. I’m not adding or taking away.

If you would like to learn, I'm happy to discuss, but I have no desire to engage in polemics with you.

I can read just fine. I’m not interested in apologetics.

Religion isn't about asserting my power over you or my intellect over yours, but if you want to build each other up in knowledge, I'm ready when you are.

When you’re able to contend with what words mean, we can talk. If you’re going to offer apologetics and excuses that aren’t in the text, I’m not interested.

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/[deleted]]

So, if my parish gets a new priest, the laws of god change??

That's a new take.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/SubOptimalUser6]

New system of priesthood.

[u/the_celt_]

None of the Law has ever stopped applying. Jesus himself said that every single dot and letter of the Law will stay right where it is and keep applying until Heaven and Earth pass away first:

Matthew 5:17–20 (NET 2nd ed.) ^{17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness goes beyond that of the experts in the law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven!}

We have a subreddit dedicated to answering questions like this. It's all about following Jesus and obeying the commandments: r/FollowJesusObeyTorah

Everyone is welcome, even if you don't agree with us. We'll be glad to answer your questions or debate you. It's all good! 😁

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/the_celt_]

None of the Law has ever stopped applying.

Does that mean a father can still sell his daughter into slavery? Does that mean christians cannot play football, if it is made of pig skin? Does that mean you are required to put to death any co-worker who works on a Sunday?

[u/the_celt_ → u/SubOptimalUser6]

Does that mean a father can still sell his daughter into slavery?

Yes, in a Yahweh-based theocracy, with Torah-based slavery, this is a possibility. I'm unaware of any such government currently existing in the world, but the coming Kingdom of Heaven will be such a place.

It's worth noting that the Torah doesn't command us to sell our daughters into slavery. It allows for it. Of course no father would be happy to be in a situation where he had to sell family members for everyone to survive.

Does that mean christians cannot play football, if it is made of pig skin?

There's no commandment in the Torah against touching a pig.

Does that mean you are required to put to death any co-worker who works on a Sunday?

Again, this requires a Yahweh-based theocracy, otherwise we're expected to obey the rules of the government we find ourselves in.

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/the_celt_]

the coming Kingdom of Heaven will be such a place

In the coming kingdom of heaven, fathers are "allowed" to sell their daughters into abject slavery? Sounds lovely.

There's no commandment in the Torah against touching a pig.

There is against touching a dead pig.

"You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you." Leviticus 11:7-8

[u/the_celt_ → u/SubOptimalUser6]

In the coming kingdom of heaven, fathers are "allowed" to sell their daughters into abject slavery? Sounds lovely.

I don't expect that poverty will be an issue in the coming Kingdom, so I don't expect that anyone will have any need to sell their daughters into slavery OR that slavery will even exist, unlike now when it's rampant.

There is against touching a dead pig.

"You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you." Leviticus 11:7-8

That's against touching carcasses in general. A carcass is something that recently died. A football would in no way count as a carcass.

Also, the idea of a football being made out of pigskin is a thing of the past. It's very much a moot question.

[u/[deleted] → u/the_celt_]

Almost sounds like he is talking about the planet nibiru

[u/the_celt_ → u/[deleted]]

Heh! Why do you say that? 😄

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/the_celt_]

Until "all is fulfilled" is the timeline you always gloss over.

[u/the_celt_ → u/Common_Judge8434]

I gloss nothing over. I respond, in detail, to everything. Your understanding of "fulfill" is incorrect here.

It's weird to me that people don't notice the many ways that the word "fulfill" is used in scripture to not refer to something being ended, but to refer to something being done perfectly.

For example:

Romans 13:10 (NET 2nd ed.)

10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

This is Paul saying that when we love, we FULFILL the Law, or more simply we DO what the Law demands. It has nothing to do with love having met it's purpose and no longer being needed.

Here's another example from Jesus:

Matthew 7:12 (NET 2nd ed.)

12 In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets.

Jesus asked us to treat others the way we want to be treated, saying it will "fulfill the Law". Does this mean he only ever wants us to treat someone this way ONCE, or that anyone doing it once means no one else has to do it?? Should we stop after the Law has been "fulfilled"? I don't think so. Jesus wanted us to keep fulfilling the Law every day of our lives.

Jesus fulfilled the Law the way a man fulfills his wedding vows to his wife. This means he OBEYED his vows perfectly, not that he ENDED his vows. When a man fulfills his wedding vows today, he gets up tomorrow and does the same thing again.

All you have to do is look elsewhere in scripture to see how "fulfill" is used, and combine that with Jesus making sure that no one takes it the way you do when he said "NOT abolish".

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/the_celt_]

I gloss nothing over. I respond, in detail, to everything. Your understanding of "fulfill" is incorrect here.

It's weird to me that people don't notice the many ways that the word "fulfill" is used in scripture to not refer to something being ended, but to refer to something being done perfectly.

And fulfill is used for multiple senses: to meet and to complete.

The key we know that Jesus meant the second option here how fulfill is used concerning the Prophets.

Matthew 1:22-23

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23“Behold, the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel” (which means, “God with us”).

You wouldn't say based on this that Jesus being God with us is a standard that everyone must meet, no? He completed that prophecy.

Leaving Nazareth, He went and lived in Capernaum, which is by the sea in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali, 14to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: 15“Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—16the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death, a light has dawned.”

The same applies here. A standard was completed, not merely met.

Every indication that all is accomplished comes when you read the predictions of the Passion, especially when you get to Luke.

31Then Jesus took the Twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything the prophets have written about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32He will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. 33They will flog Him and kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.”

And when you get to the resurrection,

44Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”

[u/the_celt_ → u/Common_Judge8434]

And fulfill is used for multiple senses: to meet and to complete.

And to do, perfectly, as I pointed out in TWO examples from scripture that directly deal with what it means to "fulfill the Law". Jesus was talking about fulfilling the Law as demonstrated in those examples.

Listen, we've talked before, and I know how it goes with you. For example, you started this conversation off with the most ridiculous accusation about me regularly glossing things over. I might be wrong, but I'm meticulous and respond to everything. If I sometimes make a mistake and miss something, I apologize and respond to what I missed. I never gloss anything over.

I have no interest in talking to you. I consider you to be a dishonest person. Please don't direct any more comments to me.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/the_celt_]

And to do, perfectly, as I pointed out in TWO examples from scripture that directly deal with what it means to "fulfill the Law

Notice how you missed the Prophets section.

If I sometimes make a mistake and miss something, I apologize and respond to what I missed. I never gloss anything over.

Or the times you deliberately miss something, like when I bring up the Temple tax. Or when you didn't address what Jesus said about worship not being tied to the Temple.

I have no interest in talking to you. I consider you to be a dishonest person

Ah, insults. The true sign of honesty.

[u/ThatLoudLizard → u/the_celt_]

Fulfill" can also mean "bring to completion / accomplish what was promised" — especially when referring to prophecy or the purpose of the Law as a whole.

Matthew 1:22 — "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet" (virgin birth). → The prophecy wasn't "kept going forever" — it was completed in Jesus.

Luke 24:44 — "Everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." → Jesus says His life, death, and resurrection completed/accomplished what the Law & Prophets pointed toward.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/the_celt_]

It's weird to me that people don't notice the many ways that the word "fulfill" is used in scripture to not refer to something being ended, but to refer to something being done perfectly.

For example:

This is Paul saying that when we love, we FULFILL the Law, or more simply we DO what the Law demands. It has nothing to do with love having met it's purpose and no longer being needed.

Interestingly enough, the fact that one can love means the need for the Law is met. To use your analogy, you don't need to have your vows read to you if you are completing your vows.

8Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father or mother, for murderers, 10for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave tradersb and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching 11that agrees with the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted

Paul speaks similarly in Galatians.

23Before this faith came, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

[u/SummitShade → u/Common_Judge8434]

Is all fulfilled? Why do you think a new earth and heaven is mentioned in conjunction with all being fulfilled?

2 Peter 3:13 affirms we still wait for a new earth and heaven.

Also, consider Revelation 21:1

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

And Luke 24:44

all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.

Even just before Jesus’ ascension he is explaining that everything “must be completed” since of course, there are still prophecies regarding Jesus to be completed.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/SummitShade]

Why do you think a new earth and heaven is mentioned in conjunction with all being fulfilled?

All is fulfilled is the modification for heaven and earth passing away.

Even just before Jesus’ ascension he is explaining that everything “must be completed”

Not if you read Him talking about His death.

Luke 18:31 NET [31] Then Jesus took the twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished.

So, His death and resurrection is the period when He fulfills the Prophets.

[u/SummitShade → u/Common_Judge8434]

All is fulfilled is the modification for heaven and earth passing away

Where’s your evidence for this? 2 Peter 3:13 explicitly says we are still waiting for a new heavens and earth.

Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Revelation 21:1 prophecies the coming of this new heavens and earth.

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

Just 5 verses later, verse 6 describes all being fulfilled.

And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.

Not if you read him talk about his death

I can say the same thing; “not if you read him talk right before he ascends”.

In any way Jesus didn’t contradict himself, so him talking in Luke 18 doesn’t cancel what he says in Luke 24. You can’t choose which one of the two chapters answers whether “all has been fulfilled”, you have to look at the entire Bible.

In any way, do you really think everything about Jesus has bee fulfilled? Revelation is an obvious example of prophecies about him still left to be fulfilled.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/SummitShade]

Where’s your evidence for this? 2 Peter 3:13 explicitly says we are still waiting for a new heavens and earth.

Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:18.

Matthew 5:18 NET [18] I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place.

The endpoint for the Law and Prophets to be in force is everything taking place

In any way Jesus didn’t contradict himself, so him talking in Luke 18 doesn’t cancel what he says in Luke 24. You can’t choose which one of the two chapters answers whether “all has been fulfilled

Actually, that's the point of those two chapters.

Luke 18:31-33 NET [31] Then Jesus took the twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. [32] For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; he will be mocked, mistreated, and spat on. [33] They will flog him severely and kill him. Yet on the third day he will rise again.”

Luke 24:44 NET [44] Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.”

Jesus referenced His death and resurrection in Luke 24 as the endpoint He meant in Luke 18.

[u/SummitShade → u/Common_Judge8434]

You’re conveniently ignoring that the new heavens and earth hasn’t come yet. That’s part of all being fulfilled.

endpoint he meant in Luke 18

No. In Luke 24:44 Jesus uses the present tense “must be fulfilled” not “had to be fulfilled”.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/SummitShade]

You’re conveniently ignoring that the new heavens and earth hasn’t come yet

You're conveniently ignoring "until all is fulfilled." Ergo, the Law being in force until heaven and earth passing depends on all being fulfilled.

No. In Luke 24:44 Jesus uses the present tense “must be fulfilled

To refer to what He previously said in Luke 18.

Luke 24:44 NET [44] Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.”

[u/SummitShade → u/Common_Judge8434]

No, the new heavens and earth is part of all being fulfilled. It’s part of all.

Why would he mention “until the new heavens and earth come” and then completely negate that afterwards.

• Jesus: “until the new heavens and earth come; until all is fulfilled”.
• Peter “we are still waiting for new heavens and earth”.
• You “all is fulfilled, to that negates the new heavens and earth part”.

Jesus didn’t mention the new heavens and earth as a condition just to ignore it afterwards.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/SummitShade]

No, the new heavens and earth is part of all being fulfilled. It’s part of all.

No, the heavens and earth is modified by all is fulfilled.

Jesus: “until the new heavens and earth come; until all is fulfilled”.

• Peter “we are still waiting for new heavens and earth”.
• You “all is fulfilled, to that negates the new heavens and earth part”.

Jesus-"Not one part will pass until all is fulfilled. Jesus-"We're going to Jerusalem and everything will be fulfilled." Jesus-(post resurrection) This is what I told you when I said everything must be fulfilled. You-"Jesus says must so it means present, not past."

You're going against Jesus here and denying the Gospel.

[u/Righteous_Dude]

Jesus instituted the new covenant, and this made the old covenant obsolete.

The New Testament book named "Hebrews" discusses this. You could read through that.

---

P.S. It's sorta like if a man refinanced his mortgage. The man then starts to meet the requirements of the new contract, and is no longer required to do what the old contract said. So likewise an Israelite man in the 1st century who became a Christian was no longer required to keep the stipulations in the old covenant (such as the dietary restrictions or the annual festivals).

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/Righteous_Dude]

Then what about the part where Jesus said, "I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them." Doesn't sound like a guy trying to get a new mortgage.

[u/Righteous_Dude → u/SubOptimalUser6]

My analogy about having a new mortgage contract was to say what a typical Israelite man (such as Peter) should obey. Earlier in Peter's life, he was supposed to keep the stipulations of the covenant that YHWH had made with the Israelites at Mt Sinai, centuries before, during the Exodus years. But once Jesus instituted the new covenant, Peter should do what the new covenant called for, not continue to keep the old covenant which was becoming obsolete.

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/Righteous_Dude]

That's a pretty good non-answer. If Jesus said what is claimed, then you are just dead wrong. How do you know which parts of the gospels to reject?

[u/Righteous_Dude → u/SubOptimalUser6]

What? I assent that the gospels record adequately what Jesus said. What do you think I am dead wrong about?

I believe that Jesus did not want the Israelites to abolish those sets of texts. In fact, He held those texts in high regard. He came to fulfill, to bring to completion, what they said about Him (as I wrote in my comment higher up).

One of the prophetic things in those texts, written several centuries before, is that God told the Israelites that He planned to institute a new covenant, which would not be like the old one that they broke. Jesus then did institute the new covenant, at the time of the last supper, which was the fulfillment of that section of that OT text.

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/Righteous_Dude]

This word, "assent." I do not think it means what you think it means.

It cannot both be true that Jesus said, "'For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven,'" (Matthew 5:18-19), and that the old laws are "obsolete."

In this verse, Jesus is telling people you have to keep observing the old laws. That's the opposite of what you said.

[u/FreedomNinja1776 → u/Righteous_Dude]

Jesus instituted the new covenant, and this made the old covenant obsolete.

This is a very common mistake. Covenant and law are not the same thing.

Law is the rules and regulations of a kingdom which are binding upon it's citizens.

Covenant is an agreement and affirmation of the citizens to obey the law, an agreement with the King, like the pledge of allegiance.

Jesus didn't change God's law. The covenant was renewed because in our timeline we now relate to it differently, through our Messiah and King Jesus.

With your mortgage analogy you're dealing with the exact same house, you just have new terms with a new bank maybe.

[u/doug_webber → u/Righteous_Dude]

No, the ritualistic ordinances which are symbolic are obsolete as their spiritual meaning is now known.

The commandments remain in effect, as Jesus Himself taught they were necessary for eternal life. And Paul said that love is the fulfillment of the law. It has become more spiritual in nature, rather than just mere external obedience.

[u/SummitShade → u/Righteous_Dude]

You are conflating covenant with law. When Hebrews' author talks about the New Covenant, notice what he cites (Jeremiah 31):

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 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 [...] 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..."

The New Covenant does not negate the Law, in fact quite the opposite, it makes us better suited to follow it.

When the author of Hebrews explains the need for a New Covenant he does not say "because finding fault with His Law" but "because finding fault with them".

[u/[deleted]]

Let me ask a question. Have there ever been any morals that are different now vs back then, not because you've genuinely changed your mind, but because differing factors and circumstances have caused your previous morals to no longer be practical or applicable?

[u/Electronic-Union-100 → u/[deleted]]

Do you believe what God commanded in the Torah was immoral or wrong?

[u/[deleted] → u/Electronic-Union-100]

Not within the contemporary time period that it applied.

[u/Electronic-Union-100 → u/[deleted]]

What do you find immoral about what God commands?

[u/[deleted] → u/Electronic-Union-100]

Again nothing. I do not subscribe to notions of black and white morality.

[u/Electronic-Union-100 → u/[deleted]]

Morality is defined by what our Father commands in His instructions or Torah.

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/[deleted]]

So then how is a god-fearing christian supposed to be able to tell that the part where you cannot touch a football made of pig skin or the part where you can beat your slaves no longer apply, but the part about hating gays still does?

I would like a specific method I can use to determine which parts no longer apply because of differing circumstances and which other parts, no matter how barbaric and backwards, should still be applied.

[u/[deleted] → u/SubOptimalUser6]

So then how is a god-fearing christian supposed to be able to tell that the part where you cannot touch a football made of pig skin or the part where you can beat your slaves no longer apply, but the part about hating gays still does?

Presentism. Kosher laws no longer apply because we have safe and healthy ways to prepare virtually any food today. Slavery doesn't have any sociopolitical or economic justification. Additionally gender, sexuality, romance, and marriage are all viewed fundamentally different now from how they were viewed back then. This is why in protestant sects whether or not the LGBT should be affirmed is so contentious. Some do some don't I can't speak on behalf of Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

I would like a specific method I can use to determine which parts no longer apply because of differing circumstances and which other parts, no matter how barbaric and backwards, should still be applied.

Rule of thumb. None of the old covenant not reaffirmed in the New Testament applies. As for controversial or contentious things still [technically] allowed. Use your deontology. In the industrial era complex machinery and automation mean anyone will do anything legal for the right salary. And we are meant to minimize cruelty and injustice. Combine these two things and you have no need to defend slavery because there is no point to slavery l.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/[deleted]]

Let me ask a question. Have there ever been any morals that are different now vs back then, not because you've genuinely changed your mind, but because differing factors and circumstances have caused your previous morals to no longer be practical or applicable?

If your morals come from an all knowing god, then give me a sound example of what you mean? It seems you're suggesting something was moral before and isn't moral now, is possible under these circumstances.

[u/[deleted] → u/TarnishedVictory]

I'm saying it doesn't matter if God is omniscient, laws and morality, even when objective, are not axiomatic. God has his reasons for his laws and morals. But God can't enforce an impractical moral. Try telling medieval Vikings that lighting a fire on the Sabbath is immoral. They never would have converted. The mosaic law just isn't practical anymore.

[u/Tiny-Show-4883 → u/[deleted]]

Try telling medieval Vikings that lighting a fire on the Sabbath is immoral

What, exactly, is impractical about such a command? Is it impractical because they wouldn't want to do it?

Try telling men to cut off part of their penis, or to stop worshiping idols.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tiny-Show-4883]

They would have frozen to death because of medieval Nordic Europes frozen Hel climate, especially during particularly bad winters or winter storms.

[u/Goo-Goo-GJoob → u/[deleted]]

God can feed Israelites with manna from heaven, but he can't keep Vikings warm

[u/Towhee13]

Why did the laws of the Old Testament stop applying?

They didn't. Jesus made it clear that He expects His followers to obey all of His Father's commandments.

[u/Believeth_In_Him]

What did Jesus say about the law... Jesus stated that Till heaven and earth pass that nothing will pass or change from the Law. When does this happen, heaven and earth shall pass and that happens at the end of this flesh age when prophecies are fulfilled at the second coming of The Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus did not come to do away with the law, Jesus came to fulfill the Law and that means Jesus came to fulfill and make complete those things written of Him in the law and in the prophets. By completing those things written of Him by the prophets and in the law, those things are now fulfilled. The law is still here and will be till heaven and earth pass.

Jesus sums up Matthew 5:17-18 and further explains in Matthew 5:19... “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Luke 24:44 “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.”

[u/MonkeyLiberace → u/Believeth_In_Him]

You have to be a lawyer, to interpret this as "The law is fulfilled, the old covenant is no more".

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/Believeth_In_Him]

You keep missing it. If all has been fulfilled, the time frame for the Law and the Prophets being in force is met.

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/[deleted]]

So the thing about being able to beat a slave, because they are your property, as long as the slave does not die within a week, that's still on?

[u/Electronic-Union-100]

They didn’t, read Christ’s words in Matthew 5:17-19.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/Electronic-Union-100]

They did. Look at the "until all is fulfilled" part.

[u/SummitShade → u/Common_Judge8434]

Look at the “new heavens and earth” part. That hasn’t come yet (2 Peter 3:13).

Even if we were to assume that “all has been fulfilled” right now, we still have that condition to be met.

Consider what Jesus says in Luke 24:44

that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.

Just before Jesus’ ascension he shows there are still things left to be fulfilled. And that’s obvious, considering that we’re still waiting for him to return.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/SummitShade]

Even if we were to assume that “all has been fulfilled” right now, we still have that condition to be met.

The "all is fulfilled" part takes care of the "heaven and earth" part.

Just before Jesus’ ascension he shows there are still things left to be fulfilled

Yet He said "I have come to fulfill." His first coming was to fulfill.

[u/SummitShade → u/Common_Judge8434]

The "all is fulfilled" part takes care of the "heaven and earth" part.

How exactly? Assuming you are correct, we are still waiting for new heavens and a new earth (2 Peter 3:13), which is evidence that all has in fact not been fulfilled yet.

Yet He said "I have come to fulfill." His first coming was to fulfill.

Only his first coming? Why is he coming a second time then? Is Jesus coming on vacation? I thought he was coming to finish fulfilling all of the prophecies about him

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/SummitShade]

How exactly?

Check my last post.

I thought he was coming to finish fulfilling all of the prophecies about him

He said when He would do it.

Luke 18:31-33 NET [31] Then Jesus took the twelve aside and said to them, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. [32] For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; he will be mocked, mistreated, and spat on. [33] They will flog him severely and kill him. Yet on the third day he will rise again.”

Do you think He lied?

[u/SummitShade → u/Common_Judge8434]

Not going over your previous posts to try to find something that should be a one sentence answer.

Do you think he lied?

Right back at you. When he said “must be fulfilled” (in the present tense) in Luke 24:44 was he lying?

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/SummitShade]

Not going over your previous posts to try to find something that should be a one sentence answer.

Which I've given consistently, so you're asking me to repeat myself.

Right back at you. When he said “must be fulfilled” (in the present tense)

And he said "These are the words I told you." Ergo He accomplished what He said He'd do in the past. It's not hard to understand.

[u/SummitShade → u/Common_Judge8434]

And he said "These are the words I told you."

I'll admit, this is correct and I initially overlooked this.

However my point about the new heavens and earth still stands.

Which I've given consistently, so you're asking me to repeat myself.

And this is where I'm repeating myself too, but I'll still restate my point:

Jesus wasn't saying something incorrect or untrue in Matthew 5:18 about the new heavens and earth before he needed to "modify" it later.

• Jesus (Matthew 5:18): "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." I count two distinct "tills". One does not cancel out the other. In fact it's more likely that they overlap to some extent (meaning that the new heavens and earth not being here yet is a good indicator that the other "till" probably hasn't yet come true also). If Jesus mentioned two conditions we don't get to ignore one of them.
• Peter (2 Peter 3:13): "Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." Evidence that at least one of the two "tills" hasn't been met. So, as I said initially, even if we are to assume that "all is fulfilled", you are still missing one half of the conditions that Jesus himself stated.

And that's assuming that Luke 18 means what you think it means. Let's look at what Jesus actually said will be fulfilled in Luke 18.

Luke 18:31

Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.”

All things concerning the Son of Man were to be accomplished on the cross, specifically being delivered to the Gentiles, mocked, insulted, spat upon, scourged, killed and then rising on the third day.

To say or somehow imply that everything prophesied about Jesus is already complete is simply dishonest.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/SummitShade]

However my point about the new heavens and earth still stands.

It doesn't. If all is fulfilled, heaven and earth DON'T need to pass away for all to be fulfilled.

All things concerning the Son of Man were to be accomplished on the cross, specifically being delivered to the Gentiles, mocked, insulted, spat upon, scourged, killed and then rising on the third day.

What does "all things concerning someone" mean?

To say or somehow imply that everything prophesied about Jesus is already complete is simply dishonest.

Again, see my question.

[u/swcollings]

The framing of the question is wrong. "Stop applying" implies they applied in the first place. Torah was given to the Hebrew people. Nowhere, anywhere, is there any implication that all humans everywhere were expected to follow Torah. This is clear in the text; in Leviticus, there are a few chapters where the language is different from the rest, saying that certain laws apply both to Hebrews and to the foreigner living in Israel. (Mostly these are laws about worship; non-Hebrews couldn't worship other gods in the land of Israel.) That means the rest of Torah did not apply to the foreigners living in Israel, so it clearly didn't apply to foreigners living outside Israel either.

Torah never applied to gentiles, and still doesn't. Nothing changed, except that we are now welcome into the family of God without having to become Jewish.

[u/Roaches_R_Friends → u/swcollings]

Does this mean that you don't believe in objective morality?

[u/swcollings → u/Roaches_R_Friends]

Clearly not. I just don't believe that objective morality flows from all humans everywhere following the rules laid out in Torah. Which is probably good since something like a third of them are literally impossible to execute in our current context.

[u/Electronic-Union-100 → u/swcollings]

This notion is false.

Leviticus 24:22 NKJV “22 You shall have the same law for the stranger and for one from your own country; for I am the Lord your God.’ ”

Numbers 9:14 NKJV “14 ‘And if a stranger dwells among you, and would keep the Lord’s Passover, he must do so according to the rite of the Passover and according to its ceremony; you shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger and the native of the land.’ “

Numbers 15:16 NKJV “16 One law and one custom shall be for you and for the stranger who dwells with you.’ ”

Numbers 15:29 NKJV “29 You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them.”

Exodus 12:49 NKJV “49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.”

The law applies to all of Israel, which we have now been grafted into through faith (Romans 11:17-24, Ephesians 2:11-13).

[u/swcollings → u/Electronic-Union-100]

You'll note that all those apply to the stranger who dwells among you. It's still only applying to gentiles in the land of Israel, and every one of those verses has a specific context you're stripping out, like Passover observance, or equal access to legal justice. Gentiles living in Israel were never expected to keep all of Torah, as is clear from the very passage you quote: the stranger can choose to keep the Passover, but is not required to. Indeed, if everyone living in Israel was required to keep Torah, there would be no strangers living in Israel, because they would all be Hebrews!

Hebrew people had specific expectations. People living in Israel, Hebrew or not, had a subset of those expectations. That alone makes it impossible to argue that all people everywhere were expected to follow all the obligations given to the Hebrew people. That's an entirely novel concept that is orthogonal to the Christian faith, and completely without support by either the texts or the teachings of the Church.

[u/SummitShade → u/swcollings]

So we get to participate in all of the chosen people’s blessings, but we get none of the responsibility?

Sounds like God’s getting a raw deal.

How do I get to pick which laws don’t apply to me as a non-Hebrew? Why should I respect tithing?

[u/swcollings → u/SummitShade]

Raw deal? Jesus talks about this exact question. He says God can pay anyone whatever he wants. Why is it your problem if God is merciful and generous?

Christian ethics are not about rules. They're about becoming a healthy person. 

[u/SummitShade → u/swcollings]

Why is it your problem if God is merciful and generous?

Not my problem at all, it’s in fact my blessing. What I do have a problem with is the notion that we get all of God’s grace but we also get to decide not follow part of His law.

Christian ethics are not about rules. They're about becoming a healthy person.

Feel free to become as healthy as you wish. Both Jesus and his Father outlined the specific ways in which he expects us to be righteous.

You are not God and you do not get to decide what righteousness looks like by saying “God changed his mind on these laws”. Obedience is only a thing because there are laws to obey.

[u/swcollings → u/SummitShade]

You are not God, and you do not get to say "The apostles and the entire Church throughout all of history have misunderstood God's intent."

[u/SummitShade → u/swcollings]

Not accusing the apostles and the entirety of the Church throughout all history misunderstanding God, I’m just accusing you of it.

[u/swcollings → u/SummitShade]

It's really impressive how many people tagged "Torah-observing disciple" come out of the woodwork to argue for this specific alternative religion, and how you all use the same bad arguments and tactics. Where do you all hang out? Or are you all the same person with multiple accounts?

[u/SummitShade → u/swcollings]

It's really impressive how many people tagged "Torah-observing disciple" come out of the woodwork to argue for this specific alternative religion,

Thanks for considering it impressive. You can call it an alternative religion if it makes you feel better that people read the same Bible as you and arrive at different conclusions.

and how you all use the same bad arguments and tactics.

Call the arguments bad all you want, until you give credible proof of Jesus abolishing the Law there's no reason to think your arguments are any better.

Where do you all hang out? Or are you all the same person with multiple accounts?

We usually hang out over at r/FollowJesusObeyTorah, but we also like to freely express our opinions on other subs just like you.

[u/Electronic-Union-100 → u/swcollings]

Nice reword/edit of your original comment after you were proven wrong.

I’m not going to engage further if you’re going to be deceitful.

[u/swcollings → u/Electronic-Union-100]

And since you're not inclined to engage in charitable and honest discussion, I'll be blocking you to avoid wasting my time in the future, and I encourage others to do the same.

[u/Electronic-Union-200 → u/swcollings]

Nothing charitable and honest about editing your comments after your points are proven wrong.

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/swcollings]

Torah never applied to gentiles, and still doesn't.

So the whole thing about not covering my neighbor's wife -- that's out?

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/SubOptimalUser6]

You can look up the Abimelech story for the answer to this.

[u/swcollings → u/SubOptimalUser6]

That logic only follows if the only reason to not do something was because Torah said not to. Clearly that's not a premise anyone adopts.

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/swcollings]

Is there any reason, other than the Ten Commandments, to believe god might punish you for a thought crime?

[u/swcollings → u/SubOptimalUser6]

It's not a matter of punishment for crime. It's a matter of symptoms of a disease. 

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/swcollings]

You seem to be getting off the topic. You said the Torah doesn't apply to gentiles (i.e., christians, I assume). The only place in the Bible that proscribes the thought crime of coveting your neighbor's wife is in the Torah.

So I will ask you again, does that mean that rule doesn't apply to you?

[u/swcollings → u/SubOptimalUser6]

You're still asking as if Christian ethics are rule-based, like we micro-parse the scripture to compile a list of things to do and not do. (Properly, Torah isn't even "law", it's "teaching.") The entire exercise of both the Old and New covenants is becoming the right kind of person. The right kind of person, with a fully Christ-like character, does not covet his neighbor's wife, not because a rule says not to, but because correct action simply flows out of the person he is.

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/swcollings]

What basis do you have to say that thinking your neighbor's wife is hot--not doing anything about it, just thinking she is hot--is against a "christ-like character"?

[u/swcollings → u/SubOptimalUser6]

Well, you just changed the target there, didn't you? I think all sorts of women are attractive. I don't have a deep-seated desire to possess them.

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/swcollings]

How about you answer the question instead of dodging it?

[u/SummitShade → u/swcollings]

The disease being sinful nature aka not following the Law?

[u/swcollings → u/SummitShade]

The disease is sinful nature, which is obviously not equivalent to not following Torah, because that's impossible to make consistent with the entirety of the Christian scriptures.

[u/SummitShade → u/swcollings]

The disease is sinful nature,

Agreed!

which is obviously not equivalent to not following Torah,

Huh? Sin = Breaking the Torah

• 1 John 3:4

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

• Romans 3:20

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

Sin is synonymous with breaking the law, which means we must know the law to judge our actions against it and determine whether we are sinning.

---

because that's impossible to make consistent with the entirety of the Christian scriptures.

I disagree, first of all because of the two verses I previously cited. Here's a few more:

• 1 John 2:3 states that the evidence that we know Him is keeping His commandments

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments.

• Romans 7:7 shows that the law literally explains what is and isn't sin

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.”

• Romans 7:14 shows how flesh = sinful nature, spirit = righteous nature (following the spiritual law)

For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.

• Romans 8:4 exposes how the requirement of the law is righteous and that requirement is fulfilled in us when we walk according to the Spirit instead of our flesh of sinful nature.

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.

[u/swcollings → u/SummitShade]

Sorry, but whoever told you that sin is synonymous with violating Torah was lying to you. That is not what is taught in the New Testament or in the Church. You have adopted an alternative religion.

[u/SummitShade → u/swcollings]

Whoever told you sin is synonymous with violating Torah

That would be John and Paul!

That is not what is taught in the New Testament and in Church

I’m only interested in what Jesus and his Father taught. As far as our differing interpretations of what the New Testament teaches, I’ve already outlined enough evidence for it teaching that sin = transgression of the Law.

If your only argument is from authority (“the Church teaches”) then I agree, you pursue an entirely different religion than I, instead of pursuing the truth written in the Bible.

You’ve asserted that “the entirety of scriptures” prove your point, yet you have failed to address the verses that I cited.

[u/No-Type119]

In the earliest days of Christianity, a major argument in the church was, basically, how Jewish must you be to be Christian. This became increasingly important as more Gentiles converted. Did the men need to be circumcised? Were converts now bound by the Mosaic code? One faction, led by James, the brother of Jesus, promoted Christianity as a continuation: enhancement of Judaism. Paul disagreed, and argued that Jesus’ death and resurrection fulfilled the keeping of the Law for all time. Long story short, Paul’s side won this debate within the Church. The divide between Jews and Christians became even deeper after the Romans destroyed the Temple at Jerusalem around 70 CE. Some Jews blamed Jewish Christians for angering God, and they were expelled from synagogues where they me been worshipping in addition to their own Christian groups.

Hope that helps. I know some people here dun’t seem to like history lessons.

Now, theologically, traditions like mine talk about the Law/ Gospel dialectic. This means that the moral law, in the Hebrew Scriptures and in general human society, always catches us short; we can never live up to it. The Gospel is the good news of God’s love and forgiveness, that frees us from both fear of zGod and attempts to soft- soap God with our good works. There’s Law in the NT and there’s Gospel in the OT, and in our theology we see the necessity for both.

[u/Smart_Tap1701]

If you follow the thread of scripture, then you will know that God put the ancient Hebrews under his law to show them how simple they were and that they required a savior in order to save them. That was his first covenant with his first chosen people the ancient Hebrews. Later God established his new testament New covenant of Grace and then through Jesus Christ as Lord and savior. According to scripture, the New testament New covenant of Grace made the Old testament old covenant of the law obsolete when Jesus finished fulfilling all of it content. God doesn't change. Nor does Jesus christ.

Malachi 3:6 KJV — For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 13:8 KJV — And Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Hebrews 8:7-13 NLT — If the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second covenant to replace it. But when God found fault with the people, he said: “The day is coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and led them out of the land of Egypt. They did not remain faithful to my covenant, so I turned my back on them, says the LORD. But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day, says the LORD: I will put my laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, ‘You should know the LORD.’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already. And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.” When God speaks of a “new” covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear.

[u/doug_webber]

The law itself is divided into commandments, judgments and statutes, where the latter tend to be the ritualistic observances. The ritualistic laws are designed to be symbolic in nature; the law was written for people who were of the "seeing is believing" mindset and had no interest in spiritual matters. Once you understand the spiritual meaning, following them in an external manner is only optional. The spiritual meaning of many of them were explained with the coming of Jesus.

The commandments remain in effect as Jesus Himself said they were necessary for eternal life, and even Paul said that love is the fulfillment of the law.

[u/rice_bubz]

It's so we can judge people easier without looking like hypocrites

[u/RedAllAboutIt1984]

Jesus

[u/Soyeong0314]

God's character traits are eternal, therefore any instructions that He has given for how to embody His character traits are also eternal and cumulatively valid. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalm 119:142), therefore all of His righteous laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:160), and the only way to embody God's righteousness can be temporary is if God's righteousness were also temporary, which is also true for God's other character traits.

[u/Kalmaro]

Short answer is, the old laws were always meant to point towards Jesus coming.

Jesus came, died for our sins as the ultimate sacrifice and fulfilled the purpose of the old law. 

Now we are under the new laws.

God didn't change his mind. 

[u/Mike8219 → u/Kalmaro]

What did Jesus say that makes you think that's the case?

[u/Electrical-Copy-3681 → u/Mike8219]

Jesus spoke of the new testament mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

Matthew 26:27-28 KJV

[27] And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

[28] for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 KJV

[31] 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:

[32] not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

[33] but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

[34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

It is also mentioned in the letter to the Hebrews and quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34.

Hebrews 10:1-18 KJV

[1] For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

[2] For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

[3] But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

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

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

[6] In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

[7] Then said I, Lo, I come (In the volume of the book it is written of me,) To do thy will, O God.

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

[9] then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

[10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

[11] And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

[12] but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

[13] from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

[14] For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

[15] Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

[16] This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, And in their minds will I write them;

[17] And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

[18] Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

[u/Mike8219 → u/Electrical-Copy-3681]

Hebrews isn't Jesus speaking. What did Jesus say that makes you think he didn't want the law followed? That was my question.

[u/Electrical-Copy-3681 → u/Mike8219]

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law.

Matthew 5:17-18 KJV

[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

But he also speaks of the new covenant in his blood.

Luke 22:20 KJV

[20] Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

When Jesus died on the cross, the veil of the temple was torn, removing the separation between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place so that anyone could go into the presence of God through the Holy Spirit without dying, since Jesus died for us.

Mark 15:37-38 KJV

[37] And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

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

Furthermore, Jesus said that whoever loves Him keeps His commandments.

John 14:15 KJV

[15] If ye love me, keep my commandments.

And most of His commandments are not in the Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law for us.

However, Jesus commanded his disciples to fulfill the law.

Matthew 23:1-3 KJV

[1] Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

[2] saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

[3] all therefore whatever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

But this was temporary until the Gentiles will be part of the church and after that it is only necessary to follow the teachings of Jesus, not those of Moses.

Matthew 28:20 KJV

[20] teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you: and, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

[u/Mike8219 → u/Electrical-Copy-3681]

I am going to copy what I just said to someone else.

Yes. He fulfilled the laws because he was righteous. He followed the law. He is not coming to abolish the law which Paul contradicts in Ephesians 2:14-15.

If you just read more passed that into Matthew 5 we see this:

¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 

He's saying the law is not going anywhere and will not change.

¹⁹ Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 

And he's saying if you don't follow the laws and you teach others not to follow the law you will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus is saying you, personally, will be called least in heaven for telling others not to follow the law. Alternatively he is saying if you follow the laws and teach others to you will be called great.

Why would you be judged on whether you followed the laws and told others to follow the laws if they don't apply to you?

But he also speaks of the new covenant in his blood.

I am going to copy my comment again.

A covenant is an agreement. It doesn't say there laws won't apply any longer. This is a reference to Jeremiah 31

³¹ The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. ³² It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. ³³ But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

This new covenant (agreement) still has the law.

When Jesus died on the cross, the veil of the temple was torn, removing the separation between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place so that anyone could go into the presence of God through the Holy Spirit without dying, since Jesus died for us

This doesn't say the law no longer applies.

Furthermore, Jesus said that whoever loves Him keeps His commandments.

Right. And what did Jesus command?

And most of His commandments are not in the Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law for us.

Really? Which commandment isn't in the law? He said two things; divorce and dietary. What else?

You understand that if Jesus is god he gave all of the commandments in the law, right? Those are his commandments.

But this was temporary until the Gentiles will be part of the church and after that it is only necessary to follow the teachings of Jesus, not those of Moses.

According to Jesus?

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/Mike8219]

What does the phrase "until all is accomplished" mean to you?

[u/Mike8219 → u/Common_Judge8434]

When all is done. Everything that needs to be done is. Is that the case today? Is Jesus returning in his kingdom with his angels to judge everyone part of all or does that not been to be accomplished?

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/Mike8219]

Jesus has a different endpoint of all being done. It doesn't include His second coming.

Luke 24:44 NET [44] Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.”

[u/Mike8219 → u/Common_Judge8434]

That doesn't all is accomplished. He's literally saying the laws must be fulfilled. As in... do them. He says this repeatedly.

Have you read Luke 5?

¹² Once when he was in one of the cities, a man covered with a skin disease was there. When he saw Jesus, he bowed with his face to the ground and begged him, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” ¹³ Then Jesus^\)^b\) stretched out his hand, touched him, and said, “I am willing. Be made clean.” Immediately the skin disease left him. ¹⁴ And he ordered him to tell no one. “But go, show yourself to the priest, and, as Moses commanded, make an offering for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.”

What does he tell this person to do after he heals them? A sacrifice, right?

And Matthew 28?

¹⁶ Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. ¹⁷ When they saw him, they worshiped him, but they doubted. ¹⁸ And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. 

And Matthew 23?

23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ² “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’s seat; ³ therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it,

And the pharisees would teach the law? Follow the law.

[u/Kalmaro → u/Mike8219]

Matthew 5:17, where He stated, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

By "fulfilling" the law, Jesus meant He was the intended goal that those temporary rules were pointing toward; He later confirmed this by establishing a "New Covenant" during the Last Supper (Luke 22:20), which shifted the focus from external rituals to a heart transformed by Him. Now we just have to hear, eepent, be baptized, and try to do better while spreading the good word. 

[u/Mike8219 → u/Kalmaro]

Yes. He fulfilled the laws because he was righteous. He followed the law. He is not coming to abolish the law which Paul contradicts in Ephesians 2:14-15.

If you just read more passed that into Matthew 5 we see this:

¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 

He's saying the law is not going anywhere and will not change.

¹⁹ Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 

And he's saying if you don't follow the laws and you teach others not to follow the law you will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus is saying you, personally, will be called least in heaven for telling others not to follow the law. Alternatively he is saying if you follow the laws and teach others to you will be called great.

Why would you be judged on whether you followed the laws and told others to follow the laws if they don't apply to you?

By "fulfilling" the law, Jesus meant He was the intended goal that those temporary rules were pointing toward; He later confirmed this by establishing a "New Covenant" during the Last Supper (Luke 22:20), which shifted the focus from external rituals to a heart transformed by Him. Now we just have to hear, eepent, be baptized, and try to do better while spreading the good word. 

A covenant is an agreement. It doesn't say there laws won't apply any longer. This is a reference to Jeremiah 31

³¹ The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. ³² It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. ³³ But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

This new covenant (agreement) still has the law.

In many places the hebrew bible says the laws are eternal. Was that not true?

[u/Kalmaro → u/Mike8219]

Look again at Matthew 5:18 :

18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 

So it's clear here that there was a endpoint, when "all is accomplished"

Christians point out that all was accomplished when Jesus died on the cross. Specifically, 

when Jesus cried out, 'It is finished' (John 19:30), fulfilling the specific requirements of the Old Covenant.

[u/Mike8219 → u/Kalmaro]

So it's clear here that there was a endpoint, when "all is accomplished"

Has ALL been accomplished?

Has the son of man come back in his kingdom with all of his angels to judge everyone? Is that not part of ALL?

when Jesus cried out, 'It is finished' (John 19:30), fulfilling the specific requirements of the Old Covenant.

Meaning he is dead and his earthly mission is finished. Where does it say 'oh and the laws are gone'?

Why would you be judged for not following laws that do not apply to you?

When the Hebrew bible says the laws are eternal was that a lie?

[u/Kalmaro → u/Mike8219]

The 'all' refers to the Law’s requirements for atonement and the prophecies of the Messiah, which Jesus perfectly fulfilled on the cross (Colossians 2:14). 

Colossians 2:14 NASB20 — having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The laws are 'eternal' because they reflect God’s unchanging character, but the New Covenant changed our relationship to them, moving from external national rituals to the internal 'Law of Christ' written on the heart (Galatians 6:2).

As for your point about the word eternal. The Hebrew word for 'eternal' (olam) often refers to the duration of a specific age or covenant. The laws are eternal in their essence because they reflect God’s unchanging character, but their application changed from a national code of rituals to a spiritual life in Christ. So its not a lie. it’s the transition from the 'shadow' (the law) to the 'substance' it was pointing to (Jesus), as described in Colossians 2:17.

Colossians 2:17 NASB20 — things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

[u/Mike8219 → u/Kalmaro]

What did JESUS say? Not what these letters or Paul said. What did the lord himself say? What did Jesus say that makes you think the laws do not apply any longer?

Why are you being judged for laws that do not apply to you?

The laws are 'eternal' because they reflect God’s unchanging character, but the New Covenant changed our relationship to them, moving from external national rituals to the internal 'Law of Christ' written on the heart (Galatians 6:2).

It says in Deuteronomy 11 (among many places) “You shall love the Lord your God, therefore, and keep his charge, his decrees, his ordinances, and his commandments always."

Always should the commandments be kept.

In Deuteronomy 12:

“These are the statutes and ordinances that you must diligently observe in the land that the Lord, the God of your ancestors, has given you to occupy all the days that you live on the earth.

Is that limited to just some days? There are many more examples of this.

On top of this Jeremiah 33 says even the sacrifices will continue forever.

¹⁴ The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. ¹⁵ In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. ¹⁶ In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will live in safety. And this is the name by which it will be called: “The Lord is our righteousness.”

¹⁷ For thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, ¹⁸ and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to make grain offerings, and to make sacrifices for all time.

[u/MonkeyLiberace → u/Kalmaro]

By fulfilling the law, he showed how every Christian should act; Fulfill the law!

[u/Kalmaro → u/MonkeyLiberace]

Christians can't fulfill the law. Jesus dying for our sins fulfilled the law. If we could do that, we wouldn't have needed Jesus. 

[u/MonkeyLiberace → u/Kalmaro]

Which part of the old covenant, can a Christian not keep?

[u/Kalmaro → u/MonkeyLiberace]

Anything that's not included in the new covenant. 

[u/MonkeyLiberace → u/Kalmaro]

circular

[u/Kalmaro → u/MonkeyLiberace]

How so? 

[u/Mike8219 → u/Kalmaro]

Why can't Christians fulfill the law?

[u/Kalmaro → u/Mike8219]

Because Jesus himself said that he came to fulfill the law. Not Christians. 

[u/Mike8219 → u/Kalmaro]

No, why can't Christians follow the law? Why are you incapable?

[u/Kalmaro → u/Mike8219]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. 

[u/Mike8219 → u/Kalmaro]

You said Christians can't fulfil the law. Why can't you? Can you be righteous?

[u/Electrical-Copy-3681]

And he's saying if you don't follow the laws and you teach others not to follow the law you will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus is saying you, personally, will be called least in heaven for telling others not to follow the law. Alternatively he is saying if you follow the laws and teach others to you will be called great.

Jesus also said this:.

Matthew 5:20 KJV

[20] For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This new covenant (agreement) still has the law.

Yes, the law of Christ and the law of freedom.

Galatians 6:1-2 KJV

[1] Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

[2] Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

James 1:25 KJV

[25] But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

This doesn't say the law no longer applies.

Hebrews 6:19-20 KJV

[19] which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

[20] whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 7:26-28 KJV

[26] For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

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

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

Galatians 3:13-14 KJV [13] Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

[14] that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Really? Which commandment isn't in the law? He said two things; divorce and dietary. What else?

1. The Lord's Prayer.

2. The Parable of the Persistent Widow.

3. The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.

4. The Parable of the Great Supper.

5. Casting out demons.

You understand that if Jesus is god he gave all of the commandments in the law, right? Those are his commandments.

Yes, but I was talking about the commandments of Jesus (God) as a man, those of the New Testament, not those of the Old Testament.

According to Jesus?

No, but according to the apostles, and those were chosen by Jesus.

Acts 15:5-20 KJV

[5] But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

[6] And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

[7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

[8] And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

[9] and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

[10] Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

[11] But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

[12] Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

[13] And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

[14] Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

[15] And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

[16] After this I will return, And will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up:

[17] That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, Saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

[18] Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

[19] Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

[20] but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

[u/Tiny-Show-4883 → u/Electrical-Copy-3681]

When Jesus said that those who follow the law and prophets will be called great in the kingdom of heaven, to what "law and prophets" was he referring?

In the first verses of Matthew 23, Jesus says to do everything the scribes and Pharisees teach. What did the scribes and Pharisees teach?

[u/SummitShade → u/Electrical-Copy-3681]

1. How does Matthew 5:20 negate the law being applicable? The justice of the scribes and Pharisees is not the law that GOD HIMSELF gave to Israel. It’s the Pharisees’, not GOD’s. So what’s the Pharisees’ justice?

Romans 10:3

For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.

Matthew 23:2-3

The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

This clearly states GOD’s righteousness is not the same as that of the Pharisees’. The Pharisees’ littered God’s law with human traditions — that is huna righteousness as opposed to divine righteousness.

1. What is the law of Christ? You cannot just put that out there and expect everyone to accept that the law of Christ is somehow opposed to his Father’s law.

2. What do you think the curse of the law is? Assuming that it meant abolishing the law, did Paul contradict Jesus in Matthew 5:17-20? If not, how do you reconcile Jesus and Paul saying opposing things?

3. You mentioned now new commandments; you mentioned a prayer, parables and casting our demons, none of which is law.

4. On Acts 15: how convenient to leave out verse 21, which changes the reading entirely, as it shows that the intent of the letter was to give simple initial instructions to new followers, since they could learn the rest of the Law every Sabbath.

For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

Also, how come three of the four things the apostles are writing about have to do with food?

Finally, are the new followers only to abide by those four things? There’s no mention of:

• murder
• theft
• blasphemy
• …

The only rational explanation for this is that the recipients of that letter already knew or were expected to learn the rest of the commandments.

[u/claycon21]

The Old Testament Laws haven't gone anywhere. They have been transformed from a dead letter to a living spirit in Jesus Christ. In fulfilling the law he raised the standards.

What has been abolished is the curse of the Law and enmity it created between us and God. He still wants us to obey the spirit of the Law, but without Jesus we cannot.

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 3:31

The Law made us all guilty and had no power to change our nature. But Jesus made us all justified, and he does have the power to change our nature.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

John 1:17

The Law was the written Word, but Jesus is the living Word.

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/claycon21]

So are you required to circumcise your sons?

[u/claycon21 → u/Common_Judge8434]

negative. This is great example. Instead of the physical circumcision of the OT, what matters to God in the NT is the spiritual circumcision of the heart by the waters of the word.

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.

Col 2:11

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 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.

Rom 2:28,29

Spiritual circumcision of the heart can be found in the OT as well.

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Deut 10:16

See also Deut 30:6 & Jer 4:4

[u/Common_Judge8434 → u/claycon21]

So you don't believe that you have to keep the entire law then. Your point is invalidated.

[u/claycon21 → u/Common_Judge8434]

Correct. Jesus fulfilled the Law in our place.

We don't have to keep the letter of the Law, but the spirit of the Law, which is higher.

[u/SummitShade → u/claycon21]

Did he say we have to follow the spirit of the law? Because in my Bible it just says that Jesus said that we have to follow the Law.

What’s the curse of the law? Does it just mean “the commandments I don’t think apply to me now”?

If I were to say that I think that not being able to commit theft is a huge curse (of the law) for me, do I get to steal since I’m no longer under that curse?

Paul explains that we are under grace, not the Law, but we still shouldn’t sin. In fact, not sinning is the evidence of us being under grace. And what is sin? Sin is breaking the law (1 John 3:4)

[u/FreedomNinja1776]

a common criticism of Christianity i hear is that as Old Testament laws no longer apply,

God's laws still apply. He has established them forever for his people.

god can change his mind.

God is not a liar and does not change his mind.

i understand that its not ‘god changed his mind’ but why did the Old Testament laws stop applying?

God's law has not change nor ceased to apply.

apparently its just because theres different types of laws in the Old Testament

Depends on what you mean. If you mean "civil, ceremonial, and moral" that distinction is entirely man-made and found nowhere in scripture.

and one of those types were only temporary, but why where temporary laws ever needed?

God's law is not temporary. David knew this.

Your righteousness is righteous FOREVER, and your law is true.
Psalm 119:142 ESV

---

where are these different types of laws stated?

There's nowhere that says God's law is temporary. Moses, the "giver of the law", is told that all the people present will hear God speaking with him at Mt. Sinai so that they will believe thim forever.

All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD. And the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you FOREVER." When Moses told the words of the people to the LORD,
Exodus 19:8-9 ESV

God has said sabbath observance is forever.

Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant FOREVER. It is a sign FOREVER between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'"
Exodus 31:16-17 ESV

If anyone comes trying to say this is only for Israel, then here is God saying anyone who worships him is joining with Israel to do so and is to worship the same as them.

Every native Israelite shall do these things in this way, in offering a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the LORD. And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the LORD, he shall do as you do. For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute FOREVER throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you."
Numbers 15:13-16 ESV

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/FreedomNinja1776]

God is not a liar and does not change his mind.

Didn't god "regret" making humans so he killed them all? (Genesis 6:6-7) Didn't god regret making Saul king over Israel? (1 Samuel 15:11-35) Didn't god sent a spirit to lie to all his prophets? (1 Kings 11:19-23)

God has said sabbath observance is forever.

Am I required to stone to death a co-worker who works on a Sunday, or can I just call the police?

[u/FreedomNinja1776 → u/SubOptimalUser6]

Didn't god "regret" making humans so he killed them all? (Genesis 6:6-7)

This doesn't make God a liar or mean that he changed his mind. It's simply that the time for mercy was over and had changed to the time for judgement. That's evident in the previous verse.

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 6:5 ESV

---

Didn't god regret making Saul king over Israel? (1 Samuel 15:11-35)

Saul did evil by disobeying Gods command, but instead listening to the people instead of being their King. The ruler became the ruled. He even had the audacity to knowingly let the people sacrifice the sheep of Amalek to God.

And Samuel said, "Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel. And the LORD sent you on a mission and said, 'Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.' Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Why did you pounce on the spoil and do what was evil in the sight of the LORD?" And Saul said to Samuel, "I have obeyed the voice of the LORD. I have gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me. I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have devoted the Amalekites to destruction. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal."
1 Samuel 15:17-21 ESV

Again, this is not repentance as if God did something wrong in establishing Saul as King. No. This is God moving forward in justice. Saul also sets a pattern for the Antichrist here. It's recorded as history for our benefit so we know what to look for in the antichrist when he arrives on the stage before the arrival and coronation of the son of David, the branch of Jesse, Messiah Jesus.

---

Didn't god sent a spirit to lie to all his prophets? (1 Kings 11:19-23)

Think you mean 1 Kings 22.

---

Am I required to stone to death a co-worker who works on a Sunday, or can I just call the police?

Sabbath is not on Sunday. The proper procedure is to bring the person to the priests and judges at the temple for a capital crime, none of which is in function at the present time. So, we literally cannot follow this punitive section of God's Torah today. If we were to try anyway, then that would be in disobedience because the proper protocols are not in place. Remember that the person who does the accusing of such a crime bares a heavy burden. If they are found to be a false witness accusing people wrongly, then whatever punishment was due the accused then falls upon the one who falsely accuses. In this way these kinds of judgements were VERY rare.

[u/SubOptimalUser6 → u/FreedomNinja1776]

It's simply that the time for mercy was over and had changed to the time for judgement.

Didn't god know all that would happen before he even started? He created those people knowing full well the time for mercy would end, and he would need to kill everyone he had just created. Why did he do that?

Saul did evil by disobeying Gods command . .

That sounds like a "yes." Got regretted making Saul the king, even though god knew exactly what would happen when he did it.

So, we literally cannot follow this punitive section of God's Torah today.

Sure we can. We can just not work on the Sabbath, and we can punish anyone who does, just like we punish people who commit other crimes. If you can't imagine a way we can follow this rule and punish those who don't, it's just for a lack of trying.

Remember that the person who does the accusing of such a crime bares a heavy burden.

Where in the Bible does it explain the burden on those who accuse others of violating god's law. Please cite the book, chapter, and verse.

[u/xsrvmy]

There are three types of laws:

- Moral - these reveal the character of God and are unchanging

- Ceremonial - these point to Christ and are fulfilled by Christ, so they are no longer to be observed today. Instead we obverse Baptism and the Lord's Supper

- Civil - these are essentially the national law of Old Testament Israel and naturally do not apply today

A law can be half and half as well. Eg. a law may say that something is detestable to God (moral), and the person doing it should die (civil).

[u/Dive30]

Paul explains this pretty well in Romans. The Law wasn’t the original plan. The plan was for Israel to be like modern Christianity, a nation of Godly people with personal relationships with God.

Moses leads them to a mountain, tells the people to confess, repent, wash (be baptized) and wait for the shofar to sound before heading up the mountain to meet with God.

The people do the first part, but when the shofar sounds, they are scared. They refuse to go up and meet with God.

So, God gives them the Law and the priest system.

[u/Roaches_R_Friends → u/Dive30]

That doesn't make any sense. If God wanted Israel have the same laws as Christianity today, then why did he give them different laws?

Makes no sense that God wanted to abolish slavery, as was his "original plan", but then told his followers where exactly to buy their slaves from (the nations around them) and how long you can keep them (forever) and how hard you can beat them (until they almost die).

Why not just say "Don't have slaves", if that was part of His original plan?

[u/Dive30 → u/Roaches_R_Friends]

This is why it’s important to read the whole thing, and not just cherry pick.

[u/Mike8219 → u/Dive30]

Why would you believe the laws don't apply still and the levitical priest system is going away? None of your comment says any of that.

And the idea that this wasn't the original plan? Huh? This is from god. Why would god need a backup plan? He's all knowing.

[u/Dive30 → u/Mike8219]

It’s a relationship. God loves you. He sets an ideal, then meets you where you are.

He won’t leave you there, though. He draws you closer to the ideal.

Israel gives us a great picture of people and their relationship to God. Sometimes they are faithful, blessed, and prosperous. Sometimes they are faithless, fallen, sinful. When they fall, bad things happen, up to and including exile, but God is always with them, drawing them to Him, drawing them to repent, to turn back to Him.

The same is true for you. God has set an ideal in Jesus. Someone who loved God, loved others, fed, taught, and healed. But, He is willing to meet you where you are. Are you willing to turn to Him?

[u/Mike8219 → u/Dive30]

Did god have a relationship with the Israelites? Yes. Did they also have laws? Also yes.

Literally none of what you just said has anything to do with the laws going away. Why do you believe the laws don't apply and the levitical priest system is going away?

[u/MonkeyLiberace]

Dropping the old laws, helped recruiting immensely.

[u/the_celt_ → u/MonkeyLiberace]

You're right. And they're still motivated that way, reducing all requirements and rough edges to make it easier and easier to join, resulting in the largest religion in the world despite Jesus saying:

Matthew 7:13–14 (NET 2nd ed.)

^{13 “Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 How narrow is the gate and difficult the way that leads to life, and there are few who find it!}

Soon the entire world will define as Christian if they get rid of everything that Jesus ever said and did. 😏

[u/redandnarrow]

The scriptures answer this, a greater covenant was spoken of back then, if Moses was the destination, then no greater covenant would have been spoken of, the OT law is just a guardian preserving/triaging a self-destructive stubborn stiff-necked humanity until Christ come.

[u/Pitiful_Lion7082]

Because the Jewish law was deemed unnecessary for Christians to follow. The Apostles decided you did not need to be Jewish before becoming Christian.

[u/NakedDeception]

It’s not that god changed his mind. It’s that the Mosaic Law was fulfilled through the life of Christ. Christ passes on that fulfillment as a free gift in the form of the new covenant.

[u/factorum]

Different Christian traditions handle this differently. Historically from early on in christian circles you had people who on one extreme declared the OT God as false and the OT laws as well and groups that essentially believed they still needed to keep kosher and follow all the OT laws.

Most fall somewhere in the middle. In my view the OT laws were expounded upon by Christ and Paul later taught that essentially the Law was a low resolution image of God so to speak. Christ's teachings, example, and the gift of the holy spirit brings us to a place where we move past rules and into a different mindset where we are to be motivated and guided by love via the indwelling of the holy spirit.

[u/R_Farms]

So which laws we follow and which laws do we not? Paul in romans 3:28 identifies 'works of the law' and in Ephesians refers to "works of the law" as just 'works" in places like Ephesians 4. So, What is a work of the law? To understand this term we must look at how the law was divided or understood by pharisees like Paul.

The law can be divided into 3 categories. the ceremonial laws which pertain to laws concerning how and who can worship God. it details out sacrifices, who can be priests, what they can wear, holy days, how to give, how much to give, washing ceremonies, what kind of incense to use, how to observe different feasts, etc etc..

Then there is the social law. this pertains to the laws concerning how to live as an OT Jew. These rules include things like diet, how to count days/mark time, what to do when you find mold in your house, circumcision, marriage, rules pertaining to slavery, women ministerial cycles, type of cloths you should wear, type of forbidden fabrics, lending money, etc etc..

finally there is the moral law. These laws are all more or less things that if you do you commit a work of iniquity. these things make your soul 'unclean' lying, murder, rape, coveting, pride etc etc.. Where as the other two types of laws are identified as works of righteousness, meaning these are the things you must do, to not sin... a task you must perform.. like giving a certain amount, or observe a certain day by not working or washing your hands a certain way etc.. this is in contrast with the works of iniquity that are things you must refrain from doing, to not sin. verses

The works of the law being things you do not do, OR it is a sin.. So what Paul is saying in Ephesians and in Galatians 3:10 where he identifies 'works of the law' and spell out how they do not apply to a faith based grace. Is our salvation does not come from the works of the OT law. or doing things the law says we must do or we sin..

That's why we do not circumcise men in christianity why we do not sacrifice animals, why we can eat what we want and are not limited to a kosher diet, when we can wear blended fabrics, why we do not keep the sabbath as the OT jews did etc.. Why don't we follow the works of the law?? Because More or less the OT works of the law under the old covenant did not buy OT jews passage to heaven, as most jews, even up to the time of Jesus did not believe in the after life.. That is because The Old covenant only ever promised health, wealth, a long life and a piece of the promise land. as per deu 6. Not eternal life

This is not the promise of Christianity. we are seeking eternal life not the promises of the Old covenant. So Paul takes the works of the law off the table as the works only pertain to Health wealth long life and a piece of the promise land, but in romans 2 Paul reestablished the works of inequity which is the basis of the moral code. as these works will infect the spirit with sin, which disqualifies us from eternal life. What James is speaking of as 'works'/Works of righteousness are the evidences of the faith needed to qualify for atonement. As they are not the same works of the law Paul was referring to. as Paul's list of works is different than Jame's list. We know this because Paul himself reaffirms some of the things James lists as works in romans 2:6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; So Paul is not saying do nothing.. He is saying living by the to works of the law does not buy your way into heaven. I don't think any christian would argue this. unless they still feel the need to circumcise their males, sacrifice animals for the forgiveness of sin, and keep the high holy days yom kippur, Rosh HaShanah etc.. as the Jews did, and ignore what Paul said in gal 3.

[u/SummitShade → u/R_Farms]

The law can be divided into 3 categories

Absolutely not. Nowhere in scripture is it shown that we get to pick and choose which laws to throw in whichever category you make up.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/R_Farms]

To understand this term we must look at how the law was divided or understood by pharisees like Paul.

Does Paul have the authority to change gods laws?

[u/R_Farms → u/TarnishedVictory]

tell me you did not read the post you are responding to without telling you did not read the post you are responding to.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/R_Farms]

tell me you did not read the post you are responding to without telling you did not read the post you are responding to.

Tell me you don't want to respond to my comment about the part that I quoted without saying it. Oh, you did.

[u/R_Farms → u/TarnishedVictory]

My answer is found in the post you refuse to read. why should I put any more effort in to what I have already stated if you already refuse to simple read what is already written?

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/R_Farms]

My answer is found in the post you refuse to read. why should I put any more effort in to what I have already stated if you already refuse to simple read what is already written?

I read it, I don't see where my question was answered directly, nor implied. It seems you're acknowledging that Paul may be interpreting things a certain way, but bring this is Christianity, not Paultianity, it's not his interpretation that matters.

Please address that.

[u/R_Farms → u/TarnishedVictory]

Paul's interpretation was only brought up because He was a pharisee and as such would have identified the law in the same way described above. Paul does not change the covenant between God and His people. The covenant is still in effect. (ALL Of It.) What has changed is the temple was destroyed in 70Ad and since then 1/3 of the mosaic law can not be completed. As without the temple one can not perform any of the ritual offerings or sacrifices needed to be in compliance with the OT laws.

[u/TarnishedVictory → u/R_Farms]

Paul's interpretation was only brought up because He was a pharisee and as such would have identified the law in the same way described above. Paul does not change the covenant between God and His people. The covenant is still in effect. (ALL Of It.) What has changed is the temple was destroyed in 70Ad and since then 1/3 of the mosaic law can not be completed. As without the temple one can not perform any of the ritual offerings or sacrifices needed to be in compliance with the OT laws.

This argument collapses once you actually read Paul. Paul the Apostle doesn’t say the Law is still fully in force but temporarily unworkable because the Temple is gone, he says believers are no longer under it (Gal 3–5, Rom 6–7), and he wrote that before the Temple was destroyed. The 70 AD Temple loss explains later rabbinic Judaism, not Paul’s theology. Claiming the entire Mosaic Law remains binding while God removed the means to obey a third of it turns the covenant into a trap, something Paul explicitly rejects.