• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

What Law or laws changed in Hebrews, chapters 7-10 of the Bible?

HIM

Freshman
Joined
May 27, 2023
Messages
89
Reaction score
43
Points
18
What Law or laws changed in Hebrews, chapters 7-10 of the Bible?
The context in chapters 7-10 tell us explicitly what changed, Verse 12, 13 and 14 of chapter 7 tell us that the law changed which told us what tribe the priesthood came from.

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

Since the priesthood is not to be from the Levites here on earth but our Lord from heaven, all the laws that pertained to the priesthood and their ministry changed or transferred to Christ. Jesus being the High Priest and we His royal priesthood through and in Him. In this change also is a change in how we are to receive the law. Whereas before the people receive the law, the word under the priesthood now we receive it through Christ by His Spirit, No longer by ink or tables of stone by a priest but the through fleshly tables of the heart through the Spirit, being begotten by the word of truth. We are the first fruit of Him having the engrafted word. As God had said He will put His Law in our hearts and in our minds. He will give us of His Spirit. This is brought out in chapter 8.

Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:


Chapter 9 begins by telling us the first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. All this ended when the Levite's ministry ended through Christ, We are the Temple of God now as the body of Christ, having entered in through the veil, that is to say His flesh. They, the ordinances of divine service were only imposed on them until the time of reformation. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience, the inner man, the body of sin, who we are without Christ. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience, the inner man, who we are, the body of sin from dead works, sin: acts the cause death to serve the living God? That they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


Heb 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


As we go into 10 chapter 9 says leading into it, that Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. Staying in context 10 goes on to say, For the law pertaining to the ministry of the Levites could never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. The Body of sin being destroyed, hence there would be no more serving sin, right? But in those sacrifices, the Levite's ministry, there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is and was not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. But we know that he was manifested to take away our sin. Wherefore Because of this, when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once, one sacrifice for sins forever. For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. Whereof, this perfection in which he speaks the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before. 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;
Having therefore, because of this boldness to enter the holiest of all by the blood of Jesus; through the veil that is His flesh, to be in the presence of God in Christ Jesus. Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, who we are, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised) Amen!



Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Heb 10:1 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.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 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;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 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;
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)
Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
 
Your post was so long, it can't be included in the reply.

The OP is too large to reply to.


There were moral/ethical parts, ceremonial (inc. worship and calendar) parts, and dietary parts. Generally, nothing happened to the first, just the last two.
 
What Law or laws changed in Hebrews, chapters 7-10 of the Bible?
God's nature is eternal, therefore His instructions for how to testify about His nature are also eternal (Psalms 119:160), so Hebrews 7:12 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to the content of what instructs, such as with it becoming righteous to commit adultery or sinful to help the poor, but rather in context it is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would also require a change of the law in regard to its administration.
 
Your post was so long, it can't be included in the reply.




There were moral/ethical parts, ceremonial (inc. worship and calendar) parts, and dietary parts. Generally, nothing happened to the first, just the last two.
The category of moral law implies that we can be acting morally while disobeying the laws that aren't in that category, however, there is no example in the Bible of disobedience to any of God's laws being considered to be moral, nor do I see justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God. Rather, morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. All legislators give laws according to what they think ought to be done and no one knows better than God what ought to be done, so for someone to claim that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those commands and to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.
 
The category of moral law implies that we can be acting morally while disobeying the laws that aren't in that category, however, there is no example in the Bible of disobedience to any of God's laws being considered to be moral, nor do I see justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God. Rather, morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. All legislators give laws according to what they think ought to be done and no one knows better than God what ought to be done, so for someone to claim that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those commands and to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.

Romans 14. Things change, it seems, when you realize 'idols are not really gods.'
 
Romans 14. Things change, it seems, when you realize 'idols are not really gods.'
In Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of obedience, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so it is not discussing whether to follow God's laws.
 
In Romans 14:1, the topic of the chapter is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of obedience, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God, so it is not discussing whether to follow God's laws.

Look closer, and you will see that many of the disputables are ceremonial or dietary, not moral. Peter was told to eat unclean creatures; so something happened. "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but a faith working through love." "The time is coming when you will worship neither on this mountain or that, but in spirit and truth." Much of this has to do with detangling the Christian faith from how Judaizers did things, of course.
 
Look closer, and you will see that many of the disputables are ceremonial or dietary
The Bible does not list which laws are ceremonial and does not even refer to that as being a category of law. If a group of people were to create lists of which laws they considered to be ceremonial, then there would be a wide variety of lists and none of those people should interpret Romans 14 as Paul having in mind a list that they just created. Where God has given a command, human opinion must yield, but where God has given no command, then we are free to follow our own opinions. For instance, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other whether they chose to eat only vegetables, so this is an example of a disputable matter of opinion in which God has given no command and the chapter should not be misinterpreted as if it were discussing whether we should obey what God has commanded, especially because Paul did not have the authority to countermand God.

not moral.
Again, I see no basis for you to think that any of God's laws are not moral laws.

Peter was told to eat unclean creatures; so something happened.
Peter was not told to each unclean animals, but rather he could have obeyed what God commanded in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 and what He commanded in his vision by simply choosing to eat one of then clean animals. Understanding why he refused to do what the Mosaic Law permitted him to do is the key to correctly understanding his vision. It should be noted that Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was command and God only rebuked Peter for his use of the word "common" and not his use of the word "unclean". In other words, Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that he was not being commanded to eat them, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God. Peter interpreted his vision on three different occasions as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles and did not say a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status.

"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but a faith working through love."
While Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is obeying the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19), he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we obey the Mosaic Law (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and that its value is entirely derived from whether we keep the Mosaic Law.

"The time is coming when you will worship neither on this mountain or that, but in spirit and truth."
In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law, and in Psalms 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth, so obedience to it is the way to worship in spirit and in truth.

Much of this has to do with detangling the Christian faith from how Judaizers did things, of course.
In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. Furthermore, Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and Paul's problem with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to follow what Christ taught, but that they were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law first in order to become justified.
 
The Bible does not list which laws are ceremonial and does not even refer to that as being a category of law. If a group of people were to create lists of which laws they considered to be ceremonial, then there would be a wide variety of lists and none of those people should interpret Romans 14 as Paul having in mind a list that they just created. Where God has given a command, human opinion must yield, but where God has given no command, then we are free to follow our own opinions. For instance, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other whether they chose to eat only vegetables, so this is an example of a disputable matter of opinion in which God has given no command and the chapter should not be misinterpreted as if it were discussing whether we should obey what God has commanded, especially because Paul did not have the authority to countermand God.


Again, I see no basis for you to think that any of God's laws are not moral laws.


Peter was not told to each unclean animals, but rather he could have obeyed what God commanded in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 and what He commanded in his vision by simply choosing to eat one of then clean animals. Understanding why he refused to do what the Mosaic Law permitted him to do is the key to correctly understanding his vision. It should be noted that Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was command and God only rebuked Peter for his use of the word "common" and not his use of the word "unclean". In other words, Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that he was not being commanded to eat them, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God. Peter interpreted his vision on three different occasions as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles and did not say a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status.


While Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is obeying the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19), he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we obey the Mosaic Law (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and that its value is entirely derived from whether we keep the Mosaic Law.


In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law, and in Psalms 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth, so obedience to it is the way to worship in spirit and in truth.


In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. Furthermore, Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and Paul's problem with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to follow what Christ taught, but that they were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law first in order to become justified.

I don't think you know what the term 'debatable' means. Not all Torah is in the same category. Notice how Rom 14 does not mention homosexuality, adultery, theft, etc. Because they are not debatable.

If you can keep your response short, great, but its wordy and evasive. Jn 4 is its own context and doesn't need your help. It is quite clear because it is about an actual situation at that time, not because of verses many years and cultures away.
 
The Bible does not list which laws are ceremonial and does not even refer to that as being a category of law. If a group of people were to create lists of which laws they considered to be ceremonial, then there would be a wide variety of lists and none of those people should interpret Romans 14 as Paul having in mind a list that they just created. Where God has given a command, human opinion must yield, but where God has given no command, then we are free to follow our own opinions. For instance, in Romans 14:2-3, they were judging and resenting each other whether they chose to eat only vegetables, so this is an example of a disputable matter of opinion in which God has given no command and the chapter should not be misinterpreted as if it were discussing whether we should obey what God has commanded, especially because Paul did not have the authority to countermand God.


Again, I see no basis for you to think that any of God's laws are not moral laws.


Peter was not told to each unclean animals, but rather he could have obeyed what God commanded in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 and what He commanded in his vision by simply choosing to eat one of then clean animals. Understanding why he refused to do what the Mosaic Law permitted him to do is the key to correctly understanding his vision. It should be noted that Peter did not just object by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was command and God only rebuked Peter for his use of the word "common" and not his use of the word "unclean". In other words, Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly knew that he was not being commanded to eat them, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God. Peter interpreted his vision on three different occasions as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles and did not say a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status.


While Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is obeying the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19), he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we obey the Mosaic Law (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and that its value is entirely derived from whether we keep the Mosaic Law.


In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law, and in Psalms 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth, so obedience to it is the way to worship in spirit and in truth.


In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. Furthermore, Christ set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). So Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and Paul's problem with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to follow what Christ taught, but that they were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law first in order to become justified.

I have no idea what you are saying about Peter, because you said too much.
 
I don't think you know what the term 'debatable' means. Not all Torah is in the same category. Notice how Rom 14 does not mention homosexuality, adultery, theft, etc. Because they are not debatable.

If you can keep your response short, great, but its wordy and evasive. Jn 4 is its own context and doesn't need your help. It is quite clear because it is about an actual situation at that time, not because of verses many years and cultures away.
I've seen people debate whether homosexual sex is commanded against in the Bible, so people can debate anything they want, though the point is still that we should be careful not to mix what was only said in regard to following man's opinions with what was said in regard to following what God has commanded.

You referenced a number of difference verses, so I tried to make the best case that I can for why I disagree with how you used them. I didn't mention John 4, though the context is always important.

I have no idea what you are saying about Peter, because you said too much.
Acts 10:14-15 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”

Peter gave two reasons for he did not kill and eat and God only rebuked him for one of them, but did not rebuke him for referring to what He has made clean as being unclean, yet people commonly reinterpret his vision as though it were the other way around. Peter correctly knew not to eat the unclean animals, so that was not the issue, but rather God rebuked him for incorrectly declining to eat the clean animals because he called them to be common.
 
Back
Top