Arguements against the LAW of Jehovah
2 Corinthians 3: 7-11 is absolutely clear law written on stone is done away
2 Corinthians 3:7 If the code which administers death and which was engraved in letters in stones, came about in a glory, so that the sons of Israel could not gaze intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, a glory that was to be done away with.
2 Corinthians 3:7 If the code which administers death and which was engraved in letters in stones, came about in a glory, so that the sons of Israel could not gaze intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, a glory that was to be done away with.
a) Towards the very end, the word “glory” is not in the original greek.
b) Two glories mentioned (1) Ten Commandments was glorious. (2) Glory of Moses face.
c) By adding the word “glory” at the end of the verse 7, some find it hard to figure out which glory was done away. Remove that word and it becomes evident that Paul was saying that it was the glory of Moses’ face that was done away with.
d) Historical account: Exodus 34:32-35 When Moses would finish speaking with them, he would put a veil over his face. And the sons of Israel saw Moses’ face, and Moses put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with him.
Compare with 2 Corinthians 3:13-14 And not doing as when Moses, which put a veil upon his face, that the sons of Israel might not gaze intently at the end of that which was to be done away with
a) It says the children of Israel might not steadfastly behold something.
B) And that was to be “done away with”
C) Yet in Exodus 34, we see that they did behold the tablets of stone in Moses’ hands.
D) What then was it that they “could not gaze intently?” It was the glory of the “face” of Moses which was done away.
e) Notice verses 14-18: For to this day the same veil remains, unlifted at the reading of the old covenant, because it was done away with by means of Christ. Hebrews 3:3 For the latter [Jesus] is counted more worthy than glory of Moses (See 2 Corinthians 4:6)
Let us however suppose for a moment that Paul was here teaching that the Law was abolished. What would Paul have done with the following verses:
e) Notice verses 14-18: For to this day the same veil remains, unlifted at the reading of the old covenant, because it was done away with by means of Christ. Hebrews 3:3 For the latter [Jesus] is counted more worthy than glory of Moses (See 2 Corinthians 4:6)
Let us however suppose for a moment that Paul was here teaching that the Law was abolished. What would Paul have done with the following verses:
a) Isaiah 66:22-23 for just as the new heavens and the new earth that I am making…from Sabbath to Sabbath all flesh will come into bow down before me. (The Sabbath, part of the Ten Commandments. Since Isaiah says it will bind forever, that even in the new Earth we will observe it, was Paul therefore contradicting this ancient prophet?)
b) 1) Paul himself kept the Sabbath. Would Paul in one place teach that the Sabbath along with the rest of the law is abolished, but then in another place observe the Sabbath? 2) Some argue that he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath only to reach to the Jews. However, Paul was a minister of the gentiles (Rom. 15:16, Eph. 3:1) not of the Jews. 3) We also read of Paul observing the Sabbath by a river side, were there was preaching and baptism (Acts 16:13-15). 4) And when Paul attended the synagogue on the Sabbath in Acts 13:15-16, there is no evidence that he went there specifically to preach to the Jews. He only spoke when the teachers invited the people to speak. And if you argue that he was there because he was still a Jew, consider the fact that when the followers of Jesus were first called Christians in Acts 11:26, Paul was present (Acts 11:30). He had already experienced the vision that convicted him he needed Jesus (Acts 9).
c) Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 was teaching that the 10 Commandments were abolished, how is it then that he exhorts his students to observe the 5th commandment (Eph. 6:1-3)? And in light of the following verse, did Paul after-words in his 2nd epistle to the Corinthians change his mind about the law?
d) 1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
e) If the honest student reads Paul’s words in context, along with the rest of his writings, that student will see that out of the two glories he mentions in 2 Corinthians 3:7, one of them (the glory of Moses) was the one which was abolished. The other, being the very character of God in written form, abides for ever and ever, as long as God lives!
Christ did not make a distinction with regard to moral and ceremonial law (E.g Mat 5:17)
a) Christ did not have to, because people understood it
Mark 12:32-34 loving him with ones whole heart and with one’s whole understanding and this loving one’s neighbor as oneself, is worth more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. At this Jesus discerning he had answered intelligently, said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God”.
Micah 6:6-8 Will Jehovah be pleased with thousand of rams, with tens of thousand of rams? He has told you oh earthling man, what is good. And what is Jehovah asking back from you but to exercise justice and to love kindness.
Daniel 9:10, 11 And we have not obeyed the voice of Jehovah our God by walking in his laws. And all of Israel have overstepped your law, so that you poured upon us the curse and the sworn oath that is written in the law of Moses.
Ephesians 2:13-16 Abolished law of ordinances? Which law?
Colossians 2:14 Blotted out the handwritten document against us, taken it out of the way, by nailing it to the torture stake.
Deutoronomy 31:26 Taking this book of the law, place it at the side of the ark of the covenant and it must serve as witness against you. (Law of GOD placed in the ark (Exodus 40:20; Deut 10:1-5).
Exodus 31:18 He proceeded to give Moses, two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written on by God’s finger.
Moses, however, wrote with his “hand” the ordinances found in the “book of the law” (Exodus 24:4, 7;Deut. 31:24. See also Deut. 29:21 and 30:10). God wrote it on tablets of stone.
Moses' law was added till the "seed should come," and that "seed ... is Christ." Galatians 3:19, 16. God's law could not be involved here, for Paul spoke of it as holy, just, and good many years after the cross (Romans 7:7, 12).
In the New Testament, we find that something is done away with, but also that something remains established. Can something vanish away (be obsolete) and be established?
1) ONE LAW ABOLISHED - Colossians 2:14 Blotted out the handwritten document against us, taken it out of the way, by nailing it to the torture stake.
2) ONE LAW ESTABLISHED - Rom 3:31 Do we then abolish the law? Never may that happen on the contrary we establish law.
3) It is the blood sacrifices and ceremonies of the Law of Moses that were discontinued, but the Ten Commandment law that remains. Otherwise, you would have a TERRIBLE CONTRADCITON in the New Testament.
4) A whole law NOT to be kept; otherwise, he has departed from Christ.
Galatians 5:2, 3 See! I, Paul, am telling you that if you become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. Moreover, I bear witness again to every man getting circumcised that he is under obligation to perform the whole Law.’”
5) Acts 15:5 the law which commands circumcision is called the Law of Moses.
6) A whole law to be kept - James 2:10 to 12: ‘For whoever observes all the Law but makes a false step in one point, he has become an offender against them all. For he who said: “You must not commit adultery,” said also: “You must not murder.” If, now, you do not commit adultery but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of law. Judged by the law of a free people.’
So that circumcision and other parts of the Law of Moses are no longer necessary, but the keeping of the Commandments is? Is it?
1) That is exactly what Paul conveys in 1 Corinthians 7:19: ‘Circumcision does not mean a thing, and uncircumcision means not a thing, but observance of God’s commandments [does].’
2) Romans 6:14, 15 Shall we commit a sin (break the law) because we are not under law, never may that happen!
4) Luke 16:17 It is easier heaven and earth to pass away than for one particle of a letter of the law to go unfulfilled.
5) If God's law could be changed, it would not have been necessary for Jesus to die on the cross.
6) What is sin? (Breaking the law) Romans 7:7; Romans 3:20 the punishment? Romans 6:23 (Moral law points out sin, ceremonial law (added because of sin))
7) We still need specific commandments as a definition of God’s will, or we in our ignorance can err. In Romans 7 Paul says that he did not even know it was wrong to covet until he was confronted with the commandment that forbids coveting.
Jesus said, I give you new commandment. Did it replace the law?
1) He quoted Old Testament - Love God – Deut 6:4, 5 Love neighbor - Lev 19:18.
2) Jesus was saying the principle underlying all of God's commandments is love. But the commandments themselves spell out in greater detail what that means. Stating the underlying principle does not abrogate the details.
2) Matt 22:37, 39 say – on these two the WHOLE law hangs
3) There is a whole law not to be kept (Law of Moses)
4) There is a whole law to be kept (Law of Jehovah)
Romans 10:4 Paul tells us that Christ is the end of law.
a) ‘End’ (telos) as used in this text means ‘goal’ or ‘objective.’ "End" in this verse means purpose or object, as it does in James 5:11 (KJV). Keeping any law will never make you righteous. Law shows sin. We go for Christ for cleansing. We are saved only by Christ righteousness!
Old covenant is done away. Yes, 2 Corinthians 3:13. What was the old covenant not?
1) Old covenant had poor promises. New covenant better Heb 8:6-13.
a) Any poor promises in the 10. On the contrary, Ephesians 6:1-3 says Honor your parents and the promise is that if we do, it may go well with us.
2) Old covenant was faulty Heb 8:7
a) Any fault in the handwriting. No: Psalms 19:7; Rom 7:12 (Law is holy, righteous and good)
Can the law change after Calvary?
1) New covenant did not go into effect till Jesus died and ratified by his blood.
2) The same way the old did not go into effect Mt Sinai till ratified by blood (Exodus 19).
3) After death - his will or covenant cannot be changed – Gal 3:15 “A validated covenant no one sets aside or attaches additions to it”
4) Jesus did some of the things before he died. E.g.) Lords supper: his blood of the new covenant by commanding a memorial for an event which haven’t happened yet - Matt 26:28.
5) Why did he do it? Introduced before his death for it to be part of the new covenant. After he dies and ratified one cannot add or change.
6) When did Sunday keeping begin?
7) Sunday keeping cannot fall under the new covenant.
2) Old covenant was faulty Heb 8:7
a) Any fault in the handwriting. No: Psalms 19:7; Rom 7:12 (Law is holy, righteous and good)
Can the law change after Calvary?
1) New covenant did not go into effect till Jesus died and ratified by his blood.
2) The same way the old did not go into effect Mt Sinai till ratified by blood (Exodus 19).
3) After death - his will or covenant cannot be changed – Gal 3:15 “A validated covenant no one sets aside or attaches additions to it”
4) Jesus did some of the things before he died. E.g.) Lords supper: his blood of the new covenant by commanding a memorial for an event which haven’t happened yet - Matt 26:28.
5) Why did he do it? Introduced before his death for it to be part of the new covenant. After he dies and ratified one cannot add or change.
6) When did Sunday keeping begin?
7) Sunday keeping cannot fall under the new covenant.
( Note: Some the answers are sourced from the Adventist defense league)