Meat Why wouldn’t God alter His commands?

[The Revolting Man]

I’m interested in the theological, scriptural basis for why God would never alter His commands.

What are the verses we’re leaning on here? We know He will alter His instructions and His immediate will and even His processes (the much ignored Tabernacle/Temple switch). So why wouldn’t He alter his Laws?

Obviously I’m being a little adversarial here but I’ve honestly not seen scripture that would indicate that He would never alter his Laws.

I assume we’re going to get DEEP into original languages here. Bring your “A” game.

 

[Michael Moon]

At work, I'll try to give a more comprehensive response later. This response will just be snippets.

Paul proclaims that the knowledge of sin is made known through the Law. Sin is not made known by the creation of the Law, but rather by it's knowledge.

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." - Psalm 119:160

The big "change you keep trying to being up is the temple and the priesthood. God's rules for those things were always the same, he simply hadn't hired the builders or priests yet.

 

[The Revolting Man]

At work, I'll try to give a more comprehensive response later. This response will just be snippets.

Paul proclaims that the knowledge of sin is made known through the Law. Sin is not made known by the creation of the Law, but rather by it's knowledge.

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." - Psalm 119:160

The big "change you keep trying to being up is the temple and the priesthood. God's rules for those things were always the same, he simply hadn't hired the builders or priests yet.

Alright, so we’re starting in Psalms 119, that’s a start at least. The problem you’re probably going to have with this verse is the word “judgements” but we’ll see as we go through it.

I have to point out that no matter when God formed the rules around things isn’t really relevant.

The question is when did He communicate them to us? And if he communicated somethings in a staggered roll out, could he not have communicated other things the same way. We know He did this. No one was looking for the Messiah who came for instance.

I’m assuming since you led with this verse there was not a more obvious slam dunk?

 

[Mark C]

I’m interested in the theological, scriptural basis for why God would never alter His commands.

I note this time you got it right: His commands. (Even when He "parted the Red Sea" He didn't alter the Law of Gravity, or His Second Law of Thermodynamics, or that you "Reap what you sow." Arguably, He acted in ACCORD with His natural law. As the text in that passage certainly suggests.)


The obvious one that most repeatedly gets ignored is Yahushua, in His first public address, the "Sermon on the Mount," (Matthew chapters 5 through 7) literally right up front:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (Matthew 5:17)

“For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (v 18)

The Hebrew word used twice there is "torah"; the well-understood acronym "TNKH" is "Torah, Naviim, v Ketuvim" (Torah, Writings, Prophets; aka "Hebrew Bible," or "old" testament.)

"Heaven and Earth," the same 'two witnesses' repeatedly called by Moses, and YHVH Himself, still exist. And in spite of RCC dogma (and some preterists), if "all was fulfilled" then why are we expecting His return, why is Damascus still a city, what about Ezekiel's "two sticks," etc, etc, etc, etc?

And He follows immediately with this warning: (Matthew 5:19)

"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

POSSIBLE understanding: If He didn't do it, why would He let fallen men do it FOR Him?


PS> And even IF He meant ONLY the "Torah of Moses" there, since that was Written down at that time, the statement STILL holds. Whether He changed His Instruction willy-nilly or NOT prior to that (as mens' DNA was degraded in accord with His decree) is immaterial if He "wrote it in stone" at that point. (In other words, I still have no doubt that Adam, who "walked with Yah," or Enoch, or Abraham, ALL knew His Instruction far better than any ordained "doctor of divinity" I know of today.)

 

[The Revolting Man]

At work, I'll try to give a more comprehensive response later. This response will just be snippets.

Paul proclaims that the knowledge of sin is made known through the Law. Sin is not made known by the creation of the Law, but rather by it's knowledge.

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." - Psalm 119:160

The big "change you keep trying to being up is the temple and the priesthood. God's rules for those things were always the same, he simply hadn't hired the builders or priests yet.

Wait a minute, you just used a verse that wasn’t revealed for hundreds of years after Sinai to prove that all the Torah existed before Sinai. Were the Psalms and Proverbs a known oral tradition or are they not Torah?

If they’re a known oral tradition why weren’t the written down at Sinai with the rest of Torah?

There’s no way around Torah being rolled out over what we call time.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I note this time you got it right: His commands. (Even

You are such an obtuse, needlessly condescending ass. I’ve always said it was about His Commands. Your the one who wants warp every thing to fit a fact pattern that’s not there.

front:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (Matthew 5:17)

“For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (v 18)

Here’s the one we want! The very fact that He lists the Prophets with the Law shows that we’re dealing with a staggered roll out of His Torah. It wasn’t all given at Sinai. It wasn’t all known by Moses so there is no reason to believe it was all known by Abraham or even Malachi.

Now we have to figure out what it means that Christ is going to fulfill the Law and Proohets, does it all have to be fulfilled at once, and what happens once it’s fulfilled.

This is by no means as straight forward as it’s been portrayed.

Congratulations Mark! You contributed for once!

 

[Mark C]

Be still my heart. The local wannabe god allows comment. But only when it fits his agenda.

Why don't you just save us all the time and Tell Us What He will lay out?

 

[Mark C]

You are such an obtuse, needlessly condescending ass. I’ve always said it was about His Commands. Your the one who wants warp every thing to fit a fact pattern that’s not there.

Too bad there's no moderator here to reign in the 'sneering.'

You USUALLY say "Law," even capitalizing it. But, consistency isn't your strong suit. Neither is understanding the meaning of words. (Ever wonder why He uses DIFFERENT Hebrew words? No, but He didn't ask you.)

 

[Earth_is-]

Malachi 3:6 nkjv
“For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob

Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers and the flowers fade, but the word of our God stands forever.”

1 Peter 1:25
But the word of the LORD endures forever.”

If his Word can be changed - then his character can be changed. And if his character can be changed - then how can we discern from the real and the fake? Also if his Word can be changed - what if he decides to completely wipe off every one of us - and not fulfill any of his final prophecies?

He says he’s the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He does not change.

To teach contrary to his everlasting Word is to walk in darkness - Isaiah 8:20.

Peter said the letters of Paul can be easily twisted. So if something seems twisted - go back to the Rock - the un-changing Word for clarification.

 

[NickF]

Yeshua Himself gave two specific and differing sets of commands to his followers.

Does that mean He changed? Or does that mean His instructions changed?

You cannot conflate instructions changing with the person changing. That’s absurd logic.

 

[Mark C]

Yeshua Himself gave two specific and differing sets of commands to his followers.

Where?

 

[NickF]

I’m disappointed Mark, a teacher who’s been teaching as long as you ought to know that.

Mark 6:8-12 KJVS
[8] And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save h a staff only; no scrip, i no bread, no money j in their purse: [9] But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats. [10] And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. [11] And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. [12] And they went out, and preached that men should repent. …

Luke 22:36-38 KJVS
[36] Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: u and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. [37] For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. [38] And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. …


So when followers go out, should they take a sword or not? His instructions changed yet He is unchanged.

 

[Earth_is-]

I’m disappointed Mark, a teacher who’s been teaching as long as you ought to know that.

Mark 6:8-12 KJVS
[8] And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save h a staff only; no scrip, i no bread, no money j in their purse: [9] But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats. [10] And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place. [11] And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. [12] And they went out, and preached that men should repent. …

Luke 22:36-38 KJVS
[36] Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: u and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. [37] For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. [38] And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. …


So when followers go out, should they take a sword or not? His instructions changed yet He is unchanged.

Some may receive different instructions - depending on the circumstances/certain vows made/etc. For example, for the prophet Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 16:2
“Do not get married or have children in this place."

But show me something that the Creator called a sin, and then later changed his mind and no longer considers a sin. Carrying a sword or not carrying a sword is not sin. Not having any sexual relations, or choosing to get married is not sin. Not drinking wine or drinking wine (I don't mean getting drunk) is not sin.

Some people were instructed not to drink any wine. However, an Israelite not given that instruction knows he's allowed to drink wine. Jeremiah was instructed "not to get married in this place," but an Israelite living somewhere else knows he's allowed to marry.

Let's suppose an Israelite receives an instruction that is a clear violation (sin) of the Creator's instructions. For example, when Peter was told to eat unclean meat. Three times he said no. And then he was perplexed on the meaning of the vision. But let's say he was told "do not drink wine." Would he follow through that instruction? Of course he would - just like other righteous Israelites have done (John the Baptist was an example). Then Peter explained the meaning behind the vision himself - it's about salvation to the gentiles.

Numbers 15:15-16 NLT
15 Native-born Israelites and foreigners are equal before the LORD and are subject to the same decrees. This is a permanent law for you, to be observed from generation to generation. 16 The same instructions and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigners living among you.”

Leviticus 24:22 NLT
22“ This same standard applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you. I am the LORD your God.”

Galatians 3:28 NLT
28 There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

John 17:17
17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

I hope these passages contributes to the discussion.

Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. For the Father seeks such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth.” (John 4)

For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. (Hebrews 7:12 MEV).

But the anointing which you have received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. (Fulfilment of Hebrews 8:11-12?
11 No longer shall every man teach his neighbor,
and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’for all shall know Me,from the least of them to the greatest.12 For I will be merciful toward their unrighteousness,and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”)
For as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and just as it has taught you, remain in Him. (1 John 2:27 MEV).

"whatever is not from faith is sin." (Romans 14:23)

Do not be conformed to this world, (I think this includes religious leaders) but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.(Romans 12:2 MEV)

Based on these passages, I am concluding that when we are in Christ (relying on His righteousness alone and His propitiation), the Holy Spirit within us will direct our conduct. Mistake we could make as believers when we listen to other self proclaimed prophets or self proclaimed gate keepers who tell us things contrary to the Holy Spirit. Trust but verify is good way to respond to any Christian authority. Hence I am ok to accept that there are believers who are convinced in their mind that God forbade them to drink alcohol. I am open to accept that the Holy Spirit residing within them forbade them to drink alcohol. In the same way I hope mainstream Christians will accept a possibility that God would direct me to take on an additional wife. It is my understanding that David went to priests to eat bread dedicated to priests only. God is able to make exceptions or ammand anything He wishes.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

If his Word can be changed - then his character can be changed. And if his character can be changed - then how can we discern from the real and the fake?

Why are you placing burden on God? Why not accept God for who He is as He is?

My word changes many times yet I remain my own self.

 

[Mark C]

I’m disappointed Mark, a teacher who’s been teaching as long as you ought to know that.

That's why I asked. Evidently I don't see His obviously task-specific instructions for a specific set of journeys as anything even remotely akin to "adding to" or "subtracting from" His commands.

He could've said, "and please bring me back a sandwich," and it wouldn't have been an 'addition to', either.

And I challenge you to make a FAR better case. (Did any say, "Gee, Master, you told us differently in your Sermon on the Mount?" No - because He didn't change that!)

And he could have said, "Take a warm cloak, too, it might be cold up there." But He didn't; He said essentially that they would be relying on the gifts and support of those they went to share His Word (hmm...which word?) with.

And He certainly didn't "change the LAW" and say,

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them...

...and SMITE them with the sword that they DIE! Instead, He warned,

...Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Why? Same reason as ALWAYS: There are consequences for rebellion, to His Word. And they were! Which is EXACTLY what "repent" (Heberw: shuv, or "return," as in "return to Me," means.)

You are falling into the Zec Swamp. Challenging the straw man instead of just reading His Word, as Written.

Did He say, "don't add to or subtract from," or NOT?

And SINCE He in fact DID, and Yahushua confirmed it - what are you so anxious to argue with?

Could it be this - again?



Please re-read all of Mark chapter 7 in this context. It starts with one of the "ADDITIONS TO" of the you-know-what Pharisees of the day. And note that it wasn't a "suggestion" about meal selection, "they found fault," and claimed His people were violating THEIR "nomos" (law.)

"And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders." (It was in fact the kind of tradition they were willing to kill for!)

The whole rest of the chapter is about Him calling THEM out for "adding to" His Word, and He repeatedly called them "hypocrites" (and worse!) for it. And quoted Isaiah:

"These people honour Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me."

They were violating His 'torah' commandment and they knew it!

And His next admonition nails it!

"Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Read the rest, too. He wasn't done with them yet.


And just so this is clear (not directed at you, Nick)...

I suggest that is PRECISELY what this discussion is about, scoffing, sneering, and digressions to the contrary.

 

[Mark C]

My word changes many times yet I remain my own self.

Sadly, that's quite a statement. Perhaps you might wanna rephrase...

 

[Mark C]

And I was waiting for this particular "bad example" to come up:

For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. (Hebrews 7:12)

The far better rendering there, as is hopefully increasingly clear, is "instruction."

His COMMANDMENTS have not changed - and He said so.

So what did?

There were MULTIPLE "changes" in the priesthood by that time. And, yes, "for cause" (see "Zakok" - Ezekiel 44.)

By the time of Yahushua they were arguably US-Fake-Election-Level Frauds, even.

And Ezekiel condemned EXACTLY what this thread is about from those 'priests' (even though they were of the line of Aaron.)

"Her priests have violated my law, [torah] and have profaned Mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from My sabbaths, and I am profaned among them." (Ezek. 22:26)

Do you think, just MAYBE, that He planned on a change in what they were being INSTRUCTED?

 

[MeganC]

I’m interested in the theological, scriptural basis for why God would never alter His commands.

Isaiah 46:9-10

Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.’

God won't alter His commands because as they were in the beginning so shall they be in the end.

 

[NickF]

Do you think, just MAYBE, that He planned on a change in what they were being INSTRUCTED?

Then we agree! God planned on a change in His instructions His followers were to obey. And He can do so without compromising who and what He is.