True Circumcision: Jesus’ Baptism with the Holy Spirit Fulfills Every OT Ritual

[Soyeong]

'Saying ""the Law of Moses is eternal because it reflects God’s eternal character"" may sound plausible to babes still on milk, but it collapses under three simple distinctions: God's character is eternal. God's moral will is eternal. The Sinai covenant is NOT eternal. These three things are NOT the same category. The moral core (love God, love neighbor) is eternal because it flows from who God is. The Sinai code (circumcision, food laws, festivals, priesthood, sacrifices) is NOT eternal because it was tied to a specific covenant with a specific people for a specific time. Hebrews 7–10 is written precisely to make that distinction unavoidable.

There is a reality that is eternally true about the way to embody God's character traits that was true before God made any covenants with man and that has been revealed through God's covenants, but that is not dependent upon which covenant someone is under. If God were to give two people sets of instructions for how to embody His righteousness in different sets of situations and a third person has the goal to know God through embodying His righteousness, then they will consider all of those instructions to be valid regardless of whether or not they are in a covenant relationship with Him.

The Bible directly states that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), but even if it were true that it was not eternal, then what it teaches us about how to embody God's character traits would still be eternally valid. The way to love God is by embodying His character traits, so the way to love justice is by being a doer of justice, the way to love holiness is by being a doer of His instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, and so forth. In other words, the goal of everything in the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to love different aspects of His character traits, which is why the Bible repeatedly states in both the OT and the NT that the way to love God is by obeying His commandments. So by your standard that the moral core is to love God and our neighbor, then everything in the Mosaic Law is a moral law. Holiness is one of God's character traits, so it is a moral issue, and in 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45).

You keep asserting ""Law of God"" means ""Law of Moses,"" but Paul, John, Peter & Jesus never make that equation.

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to him without departing from it, which is why the Law of Moses is called the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.

Paul says believers died to the Law of Moses (Rom 7:4), are not under it (Rom 6:14 & Gal 5:18)

I discussed why those verses should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin instead of the Law of God, so please interact with what I said.

* that the letter—his term for the Mosaic Law—kills (2 Cor 3:6).

The Bible repeatedly states that the New Covenant involves following the Mosaic Law, that the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it, and that obedience to it brings life, so that verse needs to be understood in a way that is in accordance with the rest of the Bible rather than a way that overturns it.

John never uses LAW to mean Moses & defines righteousness by new birth, not Torah.

In John 3:10, those who are not doers of righteous works in obedience to the Torah are not born again.

Peter says God purified Gentile hearts by faith, not Torah (Acts 15:9).

In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and will send His spirit to lead us in obedience to the Torah, which is in accordance with what Peter argued in Acts 15:9.

Jesus inaugurates a new covenant that replaces the old (Luke 22:20; Heb 8:13).

The New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10).

Your entire system collapses because you treat the Sinai covenant as eternal when Scripture treats it as temporary, preparatory & fulfilled in Christ.

Scripture does not treat the Mosaic Covenant as temporary, preparatory, or fulfilled in Christ, but rather it states that it is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8).

 

[FlyingDove]

There is a reality that is eternally true about the way to embody God's character traits that was true before God made any covenants with man and that has been revealed through God's covenants, but that is not dependent upon which covenant someone is under. If God were to give two people sets of instructions for how to embody His righteousness in different sets of situations and a third person has the goal to know God through embodying His righteousness, then they will consider all of those instructions to be valid regardless of whether or not they are in a covenant relationship with Him.

The Bible directly states that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), but even if it were true that it was not eternal, then what it teaches us about how to embody God's character traits would still be eternally valid. The way to love God is by embodying His character traits, so the way to love justice is by being a doer of justice, the way to love holiness is by being a doer of His instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, and so forth. In other words, the goal of everything in the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to love different aspects of His character traits, which is why the Bible repeatedly states in both the OT and the NT that the way to love God is by obeying His commandments. So by your standard that the moral core is to love God and our neighbor, then everything in the Mosaic Law is a moral law. Holiness is one of God's character traits, so it is a moral issue, and in 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45).


In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to him without departing from it, which is why the Law of Moses is called the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23.


I discussed why those verses should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin instead of the Law of God, so please interact with what I said.


The Bible repeatedly states that the New Covenant involves following the Mosaic Law, that the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it, and that obedience to it brings life, so that verse needs to be understood in a way that is in accordance with the rest of the Bible rather than a way that overturns it.


In John 3:10, those who are not doers of righteous works in obedience to the Torah are not born again.


In Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and will send His spirit to lead us in obedience to the Torah, which is in accordance with what Peter argued in Acts 15:9.


The New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Hebrews 8:10).


Scripture does not treat the Mosaic Covenant as temporary, preparatory, or fulfilled in Christ, but rather it states that it is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8).

You're collapsing categories Scripture keeps distinct. ""Eternal"" in covenant language refers to God's faithfulness, not the permanence of a covenantal form—circumcision, sacrifices, priesthood & temple rituals are all called ""eternal,"" yet Hebrews says they are obsolete & replaced. God's character is eternal, God's moral will is eternal, but the Sinai covenant is not. Treating everything in the Mosaic Law as moral would make food laws, sacrifices, ritual impurity & Levitical priesthood eternal moral absolutes, which the New Testament explicitly denies. Paul distinguishes the Law of Moses from the Law of Christ (1 Cor 9:20–21), John never uses LAW to mean Moses, Peter says God purified Gentiles by faith apart from Torah (Acts 15:9) & Hebrews says the 1st covenant is obsolete & replaced (Heb 8:13). Your system requires collapsing God’s eternal character into the temporary Sinai code, but Scripture treats the Sinai covenant as temporary, preparatory & fulfilled in Christ

 

[Soyeong]

You're collapsing categories Scripture keeps distinct. ""Eternal"" in covenant language refers to God's faithfulness, not the permanence of a covenantal form—circumcision, sacrifices, priesthood & temple rituals are all called ""eternal,""

You have no justification making that distinction, but rather God's covenantal promises are eternal. God's holiness is eternal, so the way to be holy as He is holy is therefore also eternal regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any.

yet Hebrews says they are obsolete & replaced.

If the New Covenant involved doing something different that was not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not replace it or make it obsolete, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Hebrew 8:10).

God's character is eternal, God's moral will is eternal, but the Sinai covenant is not. Treating everything in the Mosaic Law as moral would make food laws, sacrifices, ritual impurity & Levitical priesthood eternal moral absolutes, which the New Testament explicitly denies.

Morality is based on God's character traits and the purpose of the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to embody God's character traits, so everything in it is inherently are moral law, which the NT does not deny. Holiness is part of God's character traits, so holiness is a moral issue, and in 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so that is a moral issue. The NT never states that we can be acting morally while disobeying any of God's laws or that it can ever be moral to disobey God.

Paul distinguishes the Law of Moses from the Law of Christ (1 Cor 9:20–21),

In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul used a parallel statement to equate not being outside the Law of God with being under the Law of Christ. In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to him without departing from it, which is why the Law of Moses is called the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. Christ spent this ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example and he said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so I see no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is not in perfect accordance with anything that Christ taught or with anything that has come from the mouth of God.

John never uses LAW to mean Moses,

The Law of Moses is how God taught the Israelites what sin is, so you have not justification for insisting that John was speaking about something else.

Peter says God purified Gentiles by faith apart from Torah (Acts 15:9)

The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Torah (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so you continuing to quote Acts 15:9 only supports my position while undermining your position.

& Hebrews says the 1st covenant is obsolete & replaced (Heb 8:13). Your system requires collapsing God’s eternal character into the temporary Sinai code, but Scripture treats the Sinai covenant as temporary, preparatory & fulfilled in Christ

In Deuteronomy 30, it gives the basis for the New Covenant by prophesying about a time when the Israelites would return from exile, God would circumcise their hearts, and they would return to obedience to the Torah, which is what Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27, and Hebrews 8:6-13 are in regard to. You can't even quote where the Bible states that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant or where the Bible speaks about the Mosaic Covenant as something that can be fulfilled, so you're just making that up.

 

[FlyingDove]

You have no justification making that distinction, but rather God's covenantal promises are eternal. God's holiness is eternal, so the way to be holy as He is holy is therefore also eternal regardless of which covenant someone is under, if any.


If the New Covenant involved doing something different that was not cumulative with the Mosaic Covenant, then it could not replace it or make it obsolete, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Hebrew 8:10).


Morality is based on God's character traits and the purpose of the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to embody God's character traits, so everything in it is inherently are moral law, which the NT does not deny. Holiness is part of God's character traits, so holiness is a moral issue, and in 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so that is a moral issue. The NT never states that we can be acting morally while disobeying any of God's laws or that it can ever be moral to disobey God.


In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul used a parallel statement to equate not being outside the Law of God with being under the Law of Christ. In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God spoke to him without departing from it, which is why the Law of Moses is called the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. Christ spent this ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example and he said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, so I see no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is not in perfect accordance with anything that Christ taught or with anything that has come from the mouth of God.


The Law of Moses is how God taught the Israelites what sin is, so you have not justification for insisting that John was speaking about something else.


The Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Torah (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so you continuing to quote Acts 15:9 only supports my position while undermining your position.


In Deuteronomy 30, it gives the basis for the New Covenant by prophesying about a time when the Israelites would return from exile, God would circumcise their hearts, and they would return to obedience to the Torah, which is what Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27, and Hebrews 8:6-13 are in regard to. You can't even quote where the Bible states that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant or where the Bible speaks about the Mosaic Covenant as something that can be fulfilled, so you're just making that up.

You keep collapsing God's eternal character into the temporary Sinai covenant, but Scripture doesn't do that. God's holiness is eternal, yes, but the specific covenantal form that expressed it at Sinai is not. Hebrews explicitly calls the 1st covenant ""obsolete"" & “ready to vanish away"" (Heb 8:13) & says there is a change of priesthood & therefore a change of law (Heb 7:12). If everything in Torah is ""inherently moral"" & eternally binding, then food laws, sacrifices, ritual impurity & Levitical priesthood are all eternal moral absolutes, which the NT flatly denies (Mk 7:18–19, Acts 10:9–16, Heb 7–10).

Paul distinguishes being ""under the law"" (Moses) from being ""under the law of Christ"" (1 Cor 9:20–21) & Acts 15 settles that Gentiles are purified by faith apart from Torah (Acts 15:9–11, 19–20). The New Covenant doesn't re- enthrone Sinai, it internalizes God's will and centers it on Christ (Jer 31:31–34 & Heb 8:6–13). God's character is eternal; the Mosaic covenant was temporary, preparatory & fulfilled in Christ, not perpetually binding in all its details.

 

[Soyeong]

You keep collapsing God's eternal character into the temporary Sinai covenant, but Scripture doesn't do that. God's holiness is eternal, yes, but the specific covenantal form that expressed it at Sinai is not. Hebrews explicitly calls the 1st covenant ""obsolete"" & “ready to vanish away"" (Heb 8:13) & says there is a change of priesthood & therefore a change of law (Heb 7:12). If everything in Torah is ""inherently moral"" & eternally binding, then food laws, sacrifices, ritual impurity & Levitical priesthood are all eternal moral absolutes, which the NT flatly denies (Mk 7:18–19, Acts 10:9–16, Heb 7–10).

Paul distinguishes being ""under the law"" (Moses) from being ""under the law of Christ"" (1 Cor 9:20–21) & Acts 15 settles that Gentiles are purified by faith apart from Torah (Acts 15:9–11, 19–20). The New Covenant doesn't re- enthrone Sinai, it internalizes God's will and centers it on Christ (Jer 31:31–34 & Heb 8:6–13). God's character is eternal; the Mosaic covenant was temporary, preparatory & fulfilled in Christ, not perpetually binding in all its details.

Please interact with what I've said about these verses rather than just restating your position while ignoring what I've said.

 

[FlyingDove]

Please interact with what I've said about these verses rather than just restating your position while ignoring what I've said.

You're collapsing categories Scripture keeps distinct. ""Eternal"" in covenant language refers to God's faithfulness, not the permanence of a covenantal form—circumcision, sacrifices, priesthood & temple rituals are all called ""eternal,"" yet Hebrews says they are obsolete & replaced. God's character is eternal, God's moral will is eternal, but the Sinai covenant is not. Treating everything in the Mosaic Law as moral would make food laws, sacrifices, ritual impurity & Levitical priesthood eternal moral absolutes, which the New Testament explicitly denies. Paul distinguishes the Law of Moses from the Law of Christ (1 Cor 9:20–21), John never uses LAW to mean Moses, Peter says God purified Gentiles by faith apart from Torah (Acts 15:9) & Hebrews says the 1st covenant is obsolete & replaced (Heb 8:13). Your system requires collapsing God’s eternal character into the temporary Sinai code, but Scripture treats the Sinai covenant as temporary, preparatory & fulfilled in Christ