What does the Law REALLY say?

john832 · Sep 24, 2014

You mean the old Law as in Ex 20? The one Christ reiterated here?

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Why don't you tell us what is wrong with that old Law? What is wrong with having God as God instead of Baal or Ishtar? What is wrong with not bowing down to stone and wood? What is wrong with holding God's holy name in reverence? What is wrong with keeping the Sabbath? What is wrong with honoring and respecting our parents, including our heavenly Parent? What is wrong with not killing? What is wrong with being faithful to your mate? What is wrong with not stealing? What is wrong with not lying? What is wrong with not lusting?

Tell me what is so bad about that "old" Law?

john832 · Sep 24, 2014

Alligator said:

So, Christ (who was the LORD of the OT) has not had a plan and singleness of purpose for 6000 years? He just tired something in the Old Testament, it didn't work out so He threw it all out and tried something else? This is your idea of an Omnipotent, Omniscient God?

john832 · Sep 24, 2014

BradC said:

That is what some people are all about, freedom to do as they please not what God says.

cfultz3 · Sep 24, 2014

BradC said:

Why do you choose to not answer that post, seeing that I have answered some of yours?

If what you believe is true, then why not defend your faith?

cfultz3 · Sep 24, 2014

john832 said:

Why don't you tell us what is wrong with that old Law? What is wrong with having God as God instead of Baal or Ishtar? What is wrong with not bowing down to stone and wood? What is wrong with holding God's holy name in reverence? What is wrong with keeping the Sabbath? What is wrong with honoring and respecting our parents, including our heavenly Parent? What is wrong with not killing? What is wrong with being faithful to your mate? What is wrong with not stealing? What is wrong with not lying? What is wrong with not lusting?

WOW...Indeed what is wrong with it, because Love fulfills it.

BradC · Sep 24, 2014

JaumeJ said:

In Gen 12 Abram received the promise 24 years before Isaac was born. Abram was a Gentile heathen himself along with everyone else that was living being called from the Ur of the Chaldees and was given that message of hope by promise. If you are trying to connect 'Abraham' with the gospel (the glad tidings of our Savior declaring His righteousness for the Gentiles by faith) in relationship to the church that was a mystery revealed after the cross, well all I can say is that Abraham knew nothing about it. He only knew the promise that was given to him and staggered not at that promise. Abram became the first Hebrew through his patriarchal calling but make no mistake about the fact that he was born a Gentile 100%. Issac was the first child born by promise and against all odds. Abraham never understood the mystery of Christ and the church and never preached Jesus Christ and him crucified which is the gospel that we are to preach (1 Cor 1:23, Gal 3:1), which Paul refers to as his gospel (Romans 16:25,26)...

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

JaumeJ · Sep 24, 2014

Brad, are you saying the Gospel given to Abraham was different than the Gospel the same God delivered to us?

What exactly are you teaching others to do? You are aware Christ teaches the faith of Abraham?

All who wish to share the Word must share in spirit and truth. One cannot do this even partially without recognizing the Law and the Prophets, for they indicate Jesus Christ.

Jusus Christ's message was not exclusively to Jews, for if that were the case we would not be saved.

All of the Word is Jesus Christ. By now if you have read my posts, you should understand that obeying the Father after having received grace by the Blood of Jesus Christ is the new person by the Holy Spirit. If not, no one can help you further, only the Father. He led me to Jesus Christ as He does for all who truly believe Him.

Alligator · Sep 24, 2014

john832 said:

there is nothing wrong with it, but it has been fulfilled, done away with and nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Do we obey all those things listed in the Ten Commandments ? YES, but not because they are the Ten Commandments of the old law, but because those same principals were carried forward to the new law (with the exception of the sabbath)).

Alligator · Sep 24, 2014

john832 said:

Throw it out, no it was fulfilled . Read the book of Hebrews.
f

KohenMatt · Sep 24, 2014

LOANS, BUSINESS, AND THE TREATMENT OF SLAVES - Part 3 of 4

243 Exodus 20:13 - Not abducting an Israelite.
Thou shalt not kill.

244 Leviticus 19:11 - Not stealing.
Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

245 Leviticus 19:13 - Not robbing.
Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.

246 Deuteronomy 19:14 - Not fraudulently altering land boundaries / landmarker.
Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.

247 Leviticus 19:13 - Not usurping our debts and do not defraud.
Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.

248 Leviticus 19:11 - Not repudiating debts, denying receipt of loan / deposit.
Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

249 Leviticus 19:11 - Not to swear falsely regarding another man's property.
Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

250 Leviticus 25:14 - Not wronging / deceiving one another in business.
And if thou sell ought unto thy neighbour, or buyest ought of thy neighbour's hand, ye shall not oppress one another:

251 Leviticus 25:17 - Not wronging / misleading one another even verbally.
Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God: for I am the LORD your God.

252 Exodus 22:21 - Not harming the stranger among you verbally.
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

253 Exodus 22:21 - Not injuring the stranger among you in business / trade.
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

254 Deuteronomy 23:15 - Not handing over a slave who's fled to Israel.
Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

255 Deuteronomy 23:16 - Take no advantage of a slave who's fled to Israel.
He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

256 Exodus 22:22 - Not afflicting the orphans and widows.
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

john832 · Sep 24, 2014

Alligator said:

First, let's deal with nailed to the cross...

"What Does Colossians 2:14 Really Say?

It is of interest to note that the expression "the handwriting of requirements" is a Greek legal term that signifies the penalty which a lawbreaker had to pay--through Jesus the penalty was wiped out ("the handwriting of requirements"), not the law! "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them" (Heb 10:16).

Even Protestant commentators realize this. Notice what Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible states about Colossians 2:14:

Whatever was in force against us is taken out of the way. He has obtained for us a legal discharge from the hand-writing of ordinances, which was against us (v. 14), which may be understood,

1. Of that obligation to punishment in which consists the guilt of sin. The curse of the law is the hand-writing against us, like the hand-writing on Belshazzar's wall. Cursed is every one who continues not in every thing. This was a hand-writing which was against us, and contrary to us; for it threatened our eternal ruin. This was removed when he redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, Gal 3:13. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.).

Some will argue that you still cannot keep the ten commandments (for "all have sinned"), even if they are all mentioned as being in effect after the crucifixion. Does this mean one should not try?

Furthermore, let's look at another translation:

14 having canceled out 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 (Colossians 2:14, NASB)

The handwriting of requirements (often also called the hand-writing of ordinances) or certificate of debt was wiped away and nailed to the cross.

Which requirements were wiped out?

Please understand that the expression "the handwriting of requirements" (cheirógrafon toís dógmasin) is a Greek legal expression that signifies the penalty which a lawbreaker had to pay--it does not signify the laws that are to be obeyed--only the penalty. It is only through the acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that the penalty was wiped out ("the handwriting of requirements"). But only the penalty, not the law!" - Dr. Robert Thiel

He says it much better than I can.

And of course when Jesus said...

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 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.

the first thing you think is that He DID come to destroy the Law? What does it mean to fulfill something? To fill it full. When you fill full (fulfill) a water glass, do you break it and throw it away?

Here is a thought, take two Styrofoam cups, one in your left hand and one in your right. Fill the one in your right hand with water to the rim. Now crush the empty one in your left hand and throw it away. Which one did you fulfill?

As far as the Sabbath, please show me where the Sabbath command is done away in the New Testament. I am awaiting your reply anxiously.

cfultz3 · Sep 24, 2014

Alligator said:

Do you love?

john832 · Sep 24, 2014

Alligator said:

Oh, you mean this?

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The Law was not done away, it was changed concerning who it applied to. First thing we need to determine is what Law is being spoken of here. Why don't we check the context?

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

Hmmm, something about the Levitical Priesthood?

Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Well, what do you know, it is talking about this Law...

Exo 28:1 "Now take Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister to Me as priest, Aaron and Aaron's sons: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.

The Law being spoken of here is a Law of DNA. Only Levites and specifically, those with Aaron's DNA, could be Priests and be ministers. Now in Hebrews 7 we read that Christ replaced the human High Priest...

Heb 7:11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

Heb 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
Heb 2:15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Heb 2:16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Heb 3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus,

Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

Christ has become the High Priest and since the Law of the Priesthood says that only a Levite and specifically, only a son of Aaron could be a Priest and Christ was from the tribe a Judah (a Jew), the Law had to be changed, not done away or made of no effect.

Christ will not compromise one iota (a jot) with His Law (and it is His Law, He was the One who spoke that Law from Sinai). So the Law was changed because Christ will not violate the smallest part ( a jot or tittle) of His Law.

Alligator · Sep 24, 2014

john832 said:

l

Here is what a noted bible scholar says on the subject.

In his letter to the Colossian saints, Paul reminded these Christians that prior to their conversion to the Lord, they were “dead through [their] trespasses.” But they were made “alive” together with Christ, who forgave all their sins. The apostle then contends that Christ “blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:13-14).
This would involve “the legal bond of ordinances to which the Jew had agreed and to which even the Gentile’s conscience had in some degree given assent (Romans 2:14, 15)” (Ashby, 1533; see also: Abbott, 255; Eadie, 163-164; Vincent, 908, and many additional scholars).
It has become fashionable in some quarters, however, to allege that this text has no reference to the abolition of the law of Moses. Rather, it is supposed to refer to the “note” of sin-debt that stood against the Christian prior to his conversion. In response to this theory we offer the following considerations.
The Context

The immediate context argues otherwise. In the sentence that follows, Paul draws his conclusion: “Let no man, therefore, judge [condemn] you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body is Christ’s” (v. 16).
Especially note the “therefore,” which connects certain elements of the law (the parts standing for the whole) with that “nailed to the cross.” This is too obvious to miss. Thayer identified the “handwriting” as a metaphorical reference to “the Mosaic law” (668). See also Vaughan (11.201) and Lenski (114). Peake states: “It is generally agreed that the reference here is to the Law [of Moses] (cf. Ephesians 2:15)” (4.527).

Binding?

BY WAYNE JACKSON

Never has there been a period in my lifetime when there is as much doctrinal confusion in the body of Christ as there is at this time. Some of the most fundamental issues of biblical truth are being challenged.
One of the curious oddities that has made its appearance is the notion that the Torah (the law of Moses) was not abolished by Jesus’ death upon the cross. Rather, it continues on, its commands (at least some of them) being bound upon the church, and its obligatory force continuing until the return of Christ. A young professor in a Christian university has expressed the following thoughts.

If Jesus’ death on the cross really did do away with the Torah altogether, why does he affirm it so strongly in Matthew 5, and even enjoin those in his kingdom to fulfill its commands? Don’t forget how Jesus closes his teaching on the Law. He says: “Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven! But whoever keeps them and teaches others to do the same will be great in the kingdom of heaven.” Is the Kingdom of Heaven now? Are Jesus’ words for us? I strive to keep and teach the Torah because I want to be considered great in the Kingdom of Heaven. But I want you to know something. Unlike Israel of the OT, I study, keep, and teach a fulfilled Torah; a Torah redefined by Christ and his death. Many of the types and shadows of the Torah have been replaced by the realities to which they point in Christ. This fact, however, does not nullify the Torah; rather it makes the Torah even more beautiful and meaningful (emphasis original).

The error in this affirmation is egregious, not to mention contradictory. It concedes the Torah has been fulfilled, and yet contends it must be “kept” today—even the least of its obligations. This stands in sharp contrast to the teaching of Christ, as well as the writers of the New Testament. It really is most amazing that any mature Christian would advocate it—much less one who is in a position of responsibility, and exercises considerable influence over impressionable youth.
A Transitional Period

One must understand that the commencement of the New Testament record begins with what might be designated as a “transitional” period. In this era, instruction was given first by John the Baptizer; then by Jesus himself, which would accommodate a seamless passage from the old Mosaic regime to the glorious kingdom of Christ.
This is the very point the Lord had in mind when he declared: “The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached” (Luke 16:16). In a manner of speaking, John’s ministry was a “bridge” between the old covenant era and the beginning of the reign of Christ.
Though the law of Moses was still operative until the death of Christ (and its civil aspects until the fall of the nation in A.D. 70), Jesus nonetheless taught many “kingdom” principles during his personal ministry. He did this, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7; cf. also Matthew 18:15-17), frequently highlighting some of the differences between the two covenants, especially in terms of the contrasting motivations that were internal to the respective systems.
What about Matthew 5:17-20?

One of the problems the Lord would encounter was a reaction from the Pharisees, who would charge that this Jesus of Nazareth was a revolutionary who had designs on “destroying” the Mosaic economy that had held sway over the Hebrew nation for fifteen centuries. It was imperative that this distortion be addressed and corrected. Hence, the Lord announced:

Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-20).

The term “destroy” is a word that can connote the idea of some violence. It derives from the compound Greek term kataluo (17 times in the New Testament), literally to “loose down.” Christ employed the word prophetically concerning the destruction of the Jewish temple by the Romans in A.D. 70 (Matthew 24:2; Luke 21:6; cf. also Matthew 26:61; 27:40, etc.). It also is applied to the commencing corruption of the human body at the point of death (2 Corinthians 5:1).
In the context cited above, therefore, the Lord was contending that he did not come to violently “tear down” the law, as though he were its enemy. Never! Rather, he came to “fulfill” it. These terms stand in perfect contrasting balance.
The Savior fulfilled the messianic prophecies (more than 300) of the law that heralded his coming (Luke 24:44). He fulfilled the demand of the law for perfect obedience—by his sinless life (Galatians 3:10; John 8:29, 46; 1 Peter 2:22). He fulfilled the purpose of the law, being the very object of its glorious, preparatory design (Galatians 3:24-25).
The Mosaic regime was never intended to be a permanent institution. The notion that the Torah would continue in effect until the Second Coming of Christ—as some have alleged—is utterly without biblical support. The beneficial effects of the law, as designed by the Creator, will abide through the age; but not the law itself.
But one might wonder: “Does not the passage affirm that the law would continue ‘until heaven and earth pass away’?” It absolutely does not. The text simply announces that the law would remain intact until such a time as it is fulfilled.
This fulfillment is the very thing Jesus declared he came to accomplish! If he did not fulfill the law, then the Savior did not do what he came to do, hence, failed in his mission. If he did do what he came to do, the law was fulfilled, hence, does not remain an obligatory system today.

Alligator · Sep 24, 2014

Here is another.

A great deal of confusion exists in the religious world concerning what spiritual law man is under today. Some say the old law still is binding—all of it. Others say that most of it has been abolished, but that some of it still is in effect. Many simply pick and choose laws out of both testaments and abide only by those that are appealing to them. Much of the confusion today about the old law and the new law is a result of the false teachings of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. This intensely evangelistic group teaches that the Ten Commandments still are binding in the present age. Although most Christians readily agree that nine of the Ten Commandments either are stated explicitly or are implied in the New Testament (and thus binding today because they are part of the new law), Seventh-Day Adventists actively teach that the Ten Commandments (including and especially the command to observe the Sabbath day—Exodus 20:8) are part of “God’s unchangeable law” (from the Seventh-Day Adventist’s official Web site—Beliefs: The Official Site of the Seventh-day Adventist world church). Whereas certain parts of the Old Testament have been abolished, they insist that God intended for the Ten Commandments to be an eternal covenant that all of His children must follow.
In response to such teachings, some Christians (like myself) quickly cite passages of Scripture that indicate the old law has been taken away. For example, the writer of Hebrews plainly stated that “if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second” (8:7). Then, quoting the prophet Jeremiah, he wrote: “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— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt’ ” (8:8-9; cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34). Elsewhere, the apostle Paul stated that Christ has “wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14, emp. added). The old law has become “obsolete” (Hebrews 8:13; cf. 7:12; Ephesians 2:14-16). Although we still can learn numerous valuable lessons and principles about how to live godly lives from the old law (cf. Romans 15:4), we are bound by it no longer.
What some like the Seventh-Day Adventists teach, however, is that that God gave two laws on Mt. Sinai. They differentiate between the Ten Commandments and the ceremonial laws, saying that one (the Ten Commandments) is the Law of God and the other (the ceremonial laws) is the Law of Moses. Moreover, they assert that all of the passages in the Bible that refer to the old law being abolished are speaking of the ceremonial laws and not the Ten Commandments, which (they stress) were written with the very finger of God (Exodus 31:18).
Those who separate the “the Law of God” and “the Law of Moses” (in an attempt to find approval for continuing to follow portions of the old law) fail to realize that the Bible does not make such distinctions. Ezra read from “the Book of the Law of Moses,” which also was called “the Book of the Law of God” (Nehemiah 8:1,18). Luke recorded that after Mary gave birth to Jesus “when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, ‘Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord’), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, ‘A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons’ ” (Luke 2:22-24, emp. added). The Law of Moses and the Law of the Lord were the same thing and still are. When writing to the brethren in Rome, the apostle Paul quoted from the Ten Commandments and taught that it was part of the old law to which they had “become dead…through the body of Christ” (Romans 7:4,7). In his second epistle to the Corinthians, Paul wrote:

[C]learly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart…. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious…. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious (3:3-11, emp. added).

What was “passing away”? The law written on the “tablets of stone.” What was the law “engraved on stones” that was given to Moses on Mt. Sinai? The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). In this passage, Paul teaches the very opposite of what Seventh-Day Adventists teach—the Ten Commandments are not an eternal covenant.
The New Testament explicitly teaches that the old law has been abolished. Whether one is talking about the Ten Commandments or the ceremonial laws, the Law of Moses or the Law of God, all are considered the old law that no longer is in effect. Jesus Christ fulfilled that law and nailed it to the cross forever (Matthew 5:17-18; Colossians 2:13-17).

KohenMatt · Sep 24, 2014

LOANS, BUSINESS, AND THE TREATMENT OF SLAVES - Final Part

257 Leviticus 25:39 - Not employing a Hebrew bondman in degrading tasks.
And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:

258 Leviticus 25:42 - Not selling a Hebrew bondman.
For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.

259 Leviticus 25:43 - Not treating a Hebrew bondman cruelly.
Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.

260 Leviticus 25:53 - Not allowing a heathen to mistreat a Hebrew bondman.
And as a yearly hired servant shall he be with him: and the other shall not rule with rigour over him in thy sight.

261 Exodus 21:8 - Not selling a Hebrew maidservant. and if you marry her...
If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

262 Exodus 21:10 - ...withhold not: food, raiment, or conjugal rights.
If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

263 Deuteronomy 21:14 - Not selling a captive woman.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

264 Deuteronomy 21:14 - Not treating a captive woman as a slave.
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

265 Exodus 20:17 - Not coveting another man's possessions or property, etc.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

266 Deuteronomy 5:21 - Covet not another's possessions, even the desire forbidden.
Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.

267 Deuteronomy 23:25 - A worker is not to cut down standing grain during work.
When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour's standing corn.

268 Deuteronomy 23:24 - A hired laborer not to take more fruit than he can eat.
When thou comest into thy neighbour's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.

269 Deuteronomy 22:3 - Not ignoring lost property to be returned to its owner.
In like manner shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his raiment; and with all lost thing of thy brother's, which he hath lost, and thou hast found, shalt thou do likewise: thou mayest not hide thyself.

270 Exodus 23:5 - Refuse not to help man or animal collapsing with burden.
If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.

271 Leviticus 19:35 - Not cheating or defrauding with measurements and weights.
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.

272 Deuteronomy 25:13 - Not to possess false or inaccurate weights and measures.
Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small.

BradC · Sep 24, 2014

JaumeJ said:

As you so often say to other, 'You have not read my post nor tried to understand what was being communicated' Abraham had the promise to look forward to and it was a mystery to him, but he staggered not. Abraham did not understand what was revealed to Paul concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified, nor did Abraham understand Christ and the church and how the gospel would make sinners righteous and justified as a new creature in Christ. Abraham had no idea as to what the gospel would bring believers into as the one new man, other than that all the nations of Gentiles would be blessed. He did not understand what God was going to do by indwelling believers and making a body of believers into a habitation of God through the Spirit.

JaumeJ you can say anything you want but you are ill informed about many things and you are prejudice about a lot of other things.

Elin · Sep 24, 2014

cfultz3 said:

I'll save him the trouble.

cfultz3 said:

Christ's new covenant law is clear (Mt 22:37-39).
Obeying Christ's new covenant law fulfills all that God requires of us (Mt 22:40).

The rest is window dressing.

Elin · Sep 24, 2014

john832 said:

Why don't you tell us what is wrong with that old Law? What is wrong with having God as God instead of Baal or Ishtar? What is wrong with not bowing down to stone and wood? What is wrong with holding God's holy name in reverence? What is wrong with keeping the Sabbath? What is wrong with honoring and respecting our parents, including our heavenly Parent? What is wrong with not killing? What is wrong with being faithful to your mate? What is wrong with not stealing? What is wrong with not lying? What is wrong with not lusting?

Tell me what is so bad about that "old" Law?

Tell me why Christ's new covenant law is not sufficient for you,
since it fulfills all God's commands.

Elin · Sep 24, 2014

john832 said:

Something about the law being given on the basis of the Levitical priesthood,
something about the law being under the priesthood.

The priesthood is the basis of this law, this law is not the basis of the priesthood.
This law was given under the priesthood, the priesthood was not given under this law.

This is not referring to the Levitical laws regarding the priesthood,
because the priesthood was established before all the Levitical laws regarding the priesthood
were even given by God, and immediately after the sacrifices were established.

In addition, this law was the basis of the covenant.

The law, of which the priesthood was the basis, was not the priesthood laws.
Likewise, the law which was the basis of the covenant was not the priesthood laws.

The law of Heb 7:11 is the Mosaic law,

which was set aside because it was weak an useless to obtain righteousness (Heb 7:18-19).

And in setting aside the basis of the covenant (the Mosaic law),
the covenant was thereby made obsolete (Heb 8:13).

What does the Law REALLY say?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

cfultz3

Guest

cfultz3

Guest

BradC

Guest

Senior Member

Alligator

Guest

Alligator

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

cfultz3

Guest

Senior Member

Alligator

Guest

Alligator

Guest

Senior Member

BradC

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned