LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BOOK OF HEBREWS

[rockfox]

1. Must the Father have a sacrifice for there to be "balance in the force" so to speak, or is his son something he freely gave?

The story of the Bible starts in the garden, a story of God's work to redeme His creation from sin. Some things were necessary per the covenant's He made with His people. But beyond that, as to spiritual forces and balance, well that get's into things not explained. We see through a glass darkly.

2. Does the blood of Jesus or an animal make us clean, or are we to write the spirit of these on our heart in the form of humility, self sacrifice, love and submission to the Father? I.e. does Jesus show us how to get right with the Father by dying of self, or did his blood do something in its very nature to satisfy a need for blood on the part of the Father?

Hebrews 9

Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services. 7But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance; 8the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— 10concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

The Heavenly Sanctuary
11But Christ came as High Priest of the good things [c]to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, [d]sanctifies for the [e]purifying of the flesh, 14how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without [f]spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

The Mediator’s Death Necessary
16For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19For when Moses had spoken every [g]precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22And according to the law almost all things are [h]purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

Greatness of Christ’s Sacrifice
23Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be [j]purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are [k]copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

You can see with this the futility and silliness, if not outright folly, of continued earthly sacrifices today now that Christ has come.

3. If we are to have these concepts written on our hearts, once they are, what does a continued animal sacrifice do? If it points to Jesus, who then shows us how to sacrifice ourselves, and we then die too as living sacrifices, wouldn't the animal sacrifice be redundant or circular?

Nothing. "It was symbolic for the present time" speaking of the time of the first covenant. That time has passed.

Heb 9 again

Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services. 7But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance; 8the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— 10concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

Not just redundant, but insufficient.

Heb 10

For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once [a]purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
....
And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being [d]sanctified.

 

[rockfox]

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls 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 and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17‭-‬19 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/mat.5.17-19.NASB

There. Yeshua said it. Not a single letter will pass until all is accomplished.

Instead of figuring out how to annul or throw pieces out, you best start figuring out how they fit and still have relevance.

Nor has it passed. We still have the law with us today. I probably have over a dozen copies myself.

But saying it won't pass is not the same as saying it is still in effect. Christ came not to abolish, but to fulfill. To complete it. To fulfill the terms. It's not annulled (canceled), its fulfilled. God upheld the terms, but we couldn't. We are no longer beholden to the old covenant but a new covenant (Heb 9:15)

Therefore Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, now that He has died to redeem them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant

a better covenant (Hebrews 8)

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 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; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded
them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them
on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall
know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins [and their lawless deeds I will remember no
more.”

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The written terms of the Old Covenant are still with us, still teach us. But it is no longer in effect for we have Christ now.

 

[PeteR]

Nor has it passed. We still have the law with us today. I probably have over a dozen copies myself.

But saying it won't pass is not the same as saying it is still in effect. Christ came not to abolish, but to fulfill. To complete it. To fulfill the terms. It's not annulled (canceled), its fulfilled. God upheld the terms, but we couldn't. We are no longer beholden to the old covenant but a new covenant (Heb 9:15)

'He who annuls or teaches to annul will be LEAST in the kingdom, but he who teaches and keeps will be GREAT in the Kingdom.'

Now, explain to me again how it is not in effect....

(The key is to understand we are no longer under the CURSE of the Law. The Law itself is not and cannot be a curse. It brings blessing and righteousness and peace! 'In keeping it is great reward!' Halleluayah!)

 

[GunnarR]

The written terms of the Old Covenant are still with us, still teach us. But it is no longer in effect for we have Christ now.

The verse in Hebrews 8 is taken from Jeremiah 31:31 and following... One thing I have to ask. If it is no longer in effect, why are we still having to minister to people when the text plainly states, "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them
on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall
know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them."
The other question I have is what house are you a part of? Because this covenant appears to be with the House of Israel and House of Judah... I don't see a House of Baptists or House of Presbyterians or House of Rockfoxes... There's only 2 houses that this covenant is made with.

 

[Keith Martin]

This reminds me of another polarity -- the ever-expanding divide between liberals and conservatives. Increasingly, the two sides are speaking different languages and restricting their information sources to entirely distinct outlets that view everything that comes up through biased lenses that give each side little opportunity to even begin to comprehend what the other side is talking about or to find common ground.

A wise man mentioned religiosity in another forum thread today. What could be more religiosified than insisting on purity in the realm of religious-test adherence to particular Biblical interpretations? And does this foster an atmosphere in which we provide bedrock support for each other in regard to the actual Biblical philosophy we're all supposed to have in common here? If we want support and agreement for either Grace Alone or Faith Is Dead Without Works or whichever side of whatever other positionalized dichotomy that we might want to draw muskets for, surely we could find countless other outlets for that, couldn't we?

Please don't mistake my intentions in taking this tack. This is not an instance of attempting to tone down vigorous debate. Rather, I just want to create a distinction: we often assert that we're just iron sharpening iron, and I support that, but this type of contentiousness is not that; forgive me for repeating this, but instead of iron sharpening iron it just strikes me as taking back shots with sledgehammers. Each time this kind of thing gets geared up, it just ends up looking like we believe we have to compete with each other for the front seat next to the God bus driver, when not one of us can ever be anything more or less than any other one of us in the eyes of our Father.

My goodness. Biblical Families already excludes 95% of humanity and even half of Christianity; why do we keep gravitating back to this factionalism? We could do that anywhere.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls 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 and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17‭-‬19 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/mat.5.17-19.NASB

There. Yeshua said it. Not a single letter will pass until all is accomplished.

Shalom.

Trigger alert!!! You may wanna skip this post if you have issues believing that anyone would deliberately and intentionally remove a jot or a tittle from the Law for nefarious purposes. That being said, I’m using scripture to proof scripture.


Luke 4:18. The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised

Compare the Masoretic
Isaiah 61:1. The spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. Notice no mention of the recovery of sight to the blind in the Masoretic, though the Hebrew synagogue scroll that Christ read from includes that phrase at that moment in history.
(The motive for this phrases removal is so simple according to John 9:32)

Granted, that passage is not part of the “Law” precisely, however, the following two passages are.

Hebrews 1:6. And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him
This passage is being quoted in Hebrews from Deuteronomy 32:43. While the Masoretic has completely removed the phrase, the Septuagint lists it as it was sourced from the Old Hebrew text the Masoretic claims to have preserved.

Also the quote from Galatians 3:13. . . . . Cursed is every man that hangeth on a tree. Completely removed from the Masoretic in Deuteronomy 21:23, though some versions like the KJV re-insert it in parenthesis from Galatians.

The point is that the Masoretic is THE Hebrew edition that is supposed to be the official and perfect and most accurate Hebrew Text, faithfully and diligently transcribed from the Old Hebrew text, with the only difference and motivation being vowel pointing to “preserve” the language. And yet somehow, in the years following the crucifixion, the very scribes entrusted with their accuracy, deliberately removed selected portions of Sacred Scriptures to promote a specific antiChrist position, as the writers of the New Testament unwittingly recorded for comparison.

The Hebrew synagogue scroll that Christ read from was the unabridged edition. The fact that the Masoretic abridged theirs within the next century, by your own metric, generally defines the time limits of the quoted passage from Matthew 5

To put a finer point on it, the Old Hebrew text is nonexistent, or at least not available for comparison. The replacement Masoretic Hebrew has been redacted = theres more than just a few jots and tittles missing!

There’s two ways to look at the facts of that passage.

1. Christ is saying that nothing will ever change in the Law. The problem with this view is as stated. Obviously, somebody changed something which would call into question His foresight and foreknowledge. . OR
2. Christ is prophetically stating that jots and tittles will be removed. This seems somewhat self evident (at least at some point in that moments future) by his use of the phrase “until all is accomplished”. This argument is not a question of if it will be removed, but when.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The other question I have is what house are you a part of? Because this covenant appears to be with the House of Israel and House of Judah... I don't see a House of Baptists or House of Presbyterians or House of Rockfoxes... There's only 2 houses that this covenant is made with.

Think about it a minute longer . . . . . You’re asking that on a pro poly site . . . . .

The existence of a covenant with 2 ladies does not mean that there’s no more covenants to be had or made with others.

One wife does not join another wife’s house or covenant to be added to the family. She joins his family thru her own covenant with Him.

 

[GunnarR]

Think about it a minute longer . . . . . You’re asking that on a pro poly site . . . . .

The existence of a covenant with 2 ladies does not mean that there’s no more covenants to be had or made with others.

One wife does not join another wife’s house or covenant to be added to the family. She joins his family thru her own covenant with Him.

Scripture says that there will be a covenant with Israel and Judah. It never says anyone else. YHVH would specify if it was with another house (for example, the House of Esau, the House of Ishmael, etc).
Only 2 houses... So which are you in? Israel or Judah?

 

[Cap]

Scripture says that there will be a covenant with Israel and Judah. It never says anyone else. YHVH would specify if it was with another house (for example, the House of Esau, the House of Ishmael, etc).
Only 2 houses... So which are you in? Israel or Judah?

A long time ago @PeteR brought up the subject of Israel and Judah being the two wives of God, which to me was an excellent representation of how we as wives to God should view the other wife. Just as in our own home, each wife has her different relationship and who are we to judge the other. But as we go further, it is stated that God will eventually join the two houses under Christ. That to me is what the book of Hebrews is talking about, the joining of the two houses under Christ, so trying to pick sides really only creates division.

 

[Cap]

'He who annuls or teaches to annul will be LEAST in the kingdom, but he who teaches and keeps will be GREAT in the Kingdom.'

Now, explain to me again how it is not in effect....

(The key is to understand we are no longer under the CURSE of the Law. The Law itself is not and cannot be a curse. It brings blessing and righteousness and peace! 'In keeping it is great reward!' Halleluayah!)

We keep the Law by having faith in Christ, who is the current administer of the Law.

Hebrews 7

Melchizedek the Priest

1This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

4Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! 5Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, from their fellow Israelites—even though they also are descended from Abraham. 6This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7And without doubt the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8In the one case, the tenth is collected by people who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. 9One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

Jesus Like Melchizedek

11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is declared:

“You are a priest forever,

in the order of Melchizedek.” a

18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn

and will not change his mind:

‘You are a priest forever.’ ” b

22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely c those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

26Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

 

[Cap]

I would like to put this here so there is no confusion about what I, and I think others are saying in regards to Torah observance by those who choose to honor God in such a way.

I think this is the best statement ever made in that regard.

Torah observance has been transformative in my life and I would recommend it to anyone. But I can’t in good conscience claim it’s mandatory or even preferential. The Bible just doesn’t say that.

If this could be an accepted view by all it would make a world of difference in the two sides relating.

 

[steve]

If this could be an accepted view by all it would make a world of difference in the two sides relating.

If people could just accept that other people have deeply held convictions, it would be an example of Yah’s love.

 

[PeteR]

We keep the Law by having faith in Christ, who is the current administer of the Law

Faith doesn't replace obedience. It is not an either/or it is both/and. Faith v works is a false dichotomy.

Salvation has ALWAYS been by faith. Period.

God's standard of righteousness has always been the same.

 

[PeteR]

To put a finer point on it, the Old Hebrew text is nonexistent, or at least not available for comparison. The replacement Masoretic Hebrew has been redacted = theres more than just a few jots and tittles missing!

Surely you are smarter than this. The standard we will be judged by is not dependent on how well we can copy manuscript to manuscript. If it were that simple we could collect every known copy, burn it, call Yeshua a liar and declare there is no law to be judged by.

God's Law doesn't change. Not a single letter. It existed before time and will exist afterward.


Which of His ordinances is NOT righteous?

 

[Cap]

If people could just accept that other people have deeply held convictions, it would be an example of Yah’s love.

Depends on where the conviction comes from and what fruit it produces. But by all means follow your heart, or the conviction within it. But don't require it of others who do not have the same conviction and love them the same and respect thier journey.

 

[Cap]

Faith doesn't replace obedience. It is not an either/or it is both/and. Faith v works is a false dichotomy.

Salvation has ALWAYS been by faith. Period.

God's standard of righteousness has always been the same.

View attachment 1635

Obedience is following Christ and His Law that He administers. I am not sure why this is so hard. Who interprets the Law for you? Moses or Christ?

 

[PeteR]

Obedience is following Christ and His Law that He administers. I am not sure why this is so hard. Who interprets the Law for you? Moses or Christ?

John 7:16 So Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me."

Proverbs 4:2 For I give you good doctrine; Do not abandon my Torah.

There. I fixed 'Law of Moses/Law f Christ' debate.

 

[tps26]

The standard we will be judged by is not dependent on how well we can copy manuscript to manuscript. If it were that simple we could collect every known copy, burn it, call Yeshua a liar and declare there is no law to be judged by.

God's Law doesn't change. Not a single letter. It existed before time and will exist afterward.

Consider that even creation was made by the Word of God. Creation is literal. It is a total sensory manifestation of Word, and it pours forth speech. It is visible Word that we can learn from just as equally as Abraham and David did. Even burning all of the written Word would still leave us exposed to natural law, which is a law spoken into existence by God. Love, dominion, humility, faith, graciousness, submission, and truth can be passed from patriarch to son forever by the spoken word of the patriarch. I can imagine this is how Moses received the first (Genesis) part of the Torah, maybe it was codified before by another in writing, maybe not.
(I recall that Josephus writes that Adam, expecting a future destruction/fire/flood inscribed two pillars with the wisdom and scientific findings of man so far, but that they were buried in sediment from the flood)

Noah and Abram somehow knew prior to a codified law that altars were to be built and animals sacrificed (Gen 8:20-22, 12:8, 13:18). Abel and Cain knew to bring an offering to the Lord. I assume that Abel's firstborn of the flock and fat portions being accepted set the standard for Noah and Abraham. It's amazing in Genesis 4:1-7, how the LORD is illustrated as being physically present when these two men bring their offerings to him. I wonder if he verbally requested these or they innately knew from natural law to bring an offering. In either case, one applied truth correctly and the other incorrectly; but both brought an offering.
This drives a point that however we respond in submission whether in word, or deed, or both, it has to come from a humble heart of righteous obedience or neither profession of faith nor physical obedience will be accepted.

If your offering is accepted then great! If not, try again, and more humbly this time. The LORD didn't strike Cain down because he was displeased with his offering, he counseled him instead, "If you do well, will you not be accepted?"

"Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. The Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it."
Genesis 4:2b‭-‬7

 

[PeteR]

Consider that even creation was made by the Word of God. Creation is literal. It is a total sensory manifestation of Word, and it pours forth speech. It is visible Word that we can learn from just as equally as Abraham and David did. Even burning all of the written Word would still leave us exposed to natural law, which is a law spoken into existence by God. Love, dominion, humility, faith, graciousness, submission, and truth can be passed from patriarch to son forever by the spoken word of the patriarch. I can imagine this is how Moses received the first (Genesis) part of the Torah, maybe it was codified before by another in writing, maybe not.
(I recall that Josephus writes that Adam, expecting a future destruction/fire/flood inscribed two pillars with the wisdom and scientific findings of man so far, but that they were buried in sediment from the flood)

Noah and Abram somehow knew prior to a codified law that altars were to be built and animals sacrificed (Gen 8:20-22, 12:8, 13:18). Abel and Cain knew to bring an offering to the Lord. I assume that Abel's firstborn of the flock and fat portions being accepted set the standard for Noah and Abraham. It's amazing in Genesis 4:1-7, how the LORD is illustrated as being physically present when these two men bring their offerings to him. I wonder if he verbally requested these or they innately knew from natural law to bring an offering. In either case, one applied truth correctly and the other incorrectly; but both brought an offering.
This drives a point that however we respond in submission whether in word, or deed, or both, it has to come from a humble heart of righteous obedience or neither profession of faith nor physical obedience will be accepted.

If your offering is accepted then great! If not, try again, and more humbly this time. The LORD didn't strike Cain down because he was displeased with his offering, he counseled him instead, "If you do well, will you not be accepted?"

"Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. The Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it."
Genesis 4:2b‭-‬7

All good points, @tps26 There is ample evidence in Genesis that large parts of the Torah already existed. I tend to think they had it all from the Garden... But, Paul tells us the Law is spiritual. That means it can't 'die' and because it reveals the character of God, it is reasonable to assume it existed before Creation. Another way to understand it is that Messiah knew and understood the penalty before Creation and knew what He would have to do when He stepped into covenant with the people on the top of Mt. Sinai.

 

[Cap]

John 7:16 So Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me."

Proverbs 4:2 For I give you good doctrine; Do not abandon my Torah. to follow.

There. I fixed 'Law of Moses/Law f Christ' debate.

So are you saying that Moses sent Christ? Doesn't fix anything. No one said abandon the good doctrine, but that it is within the Son of God who we are to follow.

You still haven't answered my question. Who interprets the Law for you?