The Three-Fold Division of the Law

[Martin Marprelate]

Abraham wasn't a gentile, he was the first hebrew. This means he has crossed over from death unto life through covenant. Why was Abraham picked?

Gen_26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

and

Gen 18:19 “For I have known him, so that he commands his children and his household after him, to guard the way of יהוה, to do righteousness and right-ruling, so that יהוה brings to Aḇraham what He has spoken to him.”​

As with so much of your theology, you have this exactly back to front.
God did not 'pick' Abraham because he obeyed God's voice etc.; he chose him in order that he should do so. Abraham was an idolater in an idolatrous family before God chose him Deuteronomy 26:5; Joshua 24:2-3). Like the rest of us, Abraham fell short in many different ways throughout his life, but God persevered with him because He loved him.​

The people group that the promises are directed at is indeed Israel (both physical and spiritual as you say). It has defined borders, a defined Elohim (king), and his defined laws, . This makes up the kingdom. All those wanting to be part of this kingdom have to come in and join this group, their king, and his laws.

But you yourself don't do it, so how do you have the gall to tell us to do it? You do not obey the sacrificial laws which are just as much of your 'Torah' (Not the word used by the Lord Jesus, so you are altering His word) and for the rest you merely 'try' to obey them.. You 'bind heavy loads, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders...' but you will not move them with one of your fingers (Matthew 23:4).

You have not yet explained how your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. Ezra was a 'skilled scribe in the law of Moses' (Ezra 7:6). Saul was a Pharisee, 'advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation' (Galatians 1:14), and 'concerning the righteousness that is in the law [The word is nomos, the same word that you translated 'Torah' in Matt. 5:17-18], blameless' (Philippians 3:6).

Why do you think your righteousness exceeds that of scribes like Ezra, and Saul of Tarsus, because if it doesn't, you 'will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven' (Matthew 5:20)?

 

[Jason1]

As with so much of your theology, you have this exactly back to front.
God did not 'pick' Abraham because he obeyed God's voice etc.; he chose him in order that he should do so. Abraham was an idolater in an idolatrous family before God chose him Deuteronomy 26:5; Joshua 24:2-3). Like the rest of us, Abraham fell short in many different ways throughout his life, but God persevered with him because He loved him.​

But you yourself don't do it, so how do you have the gall to tell us to do it? You do not obey the sacrificial laws which are just as much of your 'Torah' (Not the word used by the Lord Jesus, so you are altering His word) and for the rest you merely 'try' to obey them.. You 'bind heavy loads, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders...' but you will not move them with one of your fingers (Matthew 23:4).

You have not yet explained how your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. Ezra was a 'skilled scribe in the law of Moses' (Ezra 7:6). Saul was a Pharisee, 'advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation' (Galatians 1:14), and 'concerning the righteousness that is in the law [The word is nomos, the same word that you translated 'Torah' in Matt. 5:17-18], blameless' (Philippians 3:6).

Why do you think your righteousness exceeds that of scribes like Ezra, and Saul of Tarsus, because if it doesn't, you 'will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven' (Matthew 5:20)?

I guess those genesis verses aren't really there? Abraham came out of paganism and obeyed the Father.

Oh, I've explained over and over, you just have ears that will not hear.

Righteousness is not found in "works of the law" which is a euphemism for "oral law". Righteousness is found in written law:

Deu_6:25 ‘And it is righteousness for us when we guard to do all this command before יהוה our Elohim, as He has commanded us.’
Deu_16:20 “Follow righteousness, righteousness alone, so that you live and inherit the land which יהוה your Elohim is giving you.

And yes, we can't keep it perfectly so we are made righteous again by Yeshua's blood. We then continue on the path of righteousness (torah).

Mat_19:17 And He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except One – Elohim. But if you wish to enter into life, guard the commands.”

 

[FollowTheWay]

Your thesis is right in general, except that relating to judgments. The levitical/tabernacle system was added because of sin in the wilderness (Gal 3:19). It was there as a teaching tool, and today, those two things are no longer present so we cannot perform them.

As per judgments, here are refutations:

When Jesus didn't judge the woman it was because they were accusing her without using the proper methods. WHERE WAS THE MAN? How could Jesus render judgment when this was a setup?



This is obviously wrong because he would have disqualified himself as being the Messiah (Read Deu 4:2 and Matt 5:17)

Lev 18:5 ‘And you shall guard My laws and My right-rulings, which a man does and lives by them. I am YHVH.
Deu_7:11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.
Psa_119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Eze_20:16 Because they despised my judgments, and walked not in my statutes, but polluted my sabbaths: for their heart went after their idols.
Mal_4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.​

Keeping Commands AND Judgments are an indication in your faith in YHVH. There are so many verses in regards to keeping both that it should be crystal clear. You should not divorce commands and judgments because both come from Him and His mouth.

Do you keep the 7th day sabbath since you espouse the Ten Commandments at least?

Your thesis is right in general, except that relating to judgments. The levitical/tabernacle system was added because of sin in the wilderness (Gal 3:19). It was there as a teaching tool, and today, those two things are no longer present so we cannot perform them.

As per judgments, here are refutations:

When Jesus didn't judge the woman it was because they were accusing her without using the proper methods. WHERE WAS THE MAN? How could Jesus render judgment when this was a setup?



This is obviously wrong because he would have disqualified himself as being the Messiah (Read Deu 4:2 and Matt 5:17)

Lev 18:5 ‘And you shall guard My laws and My right-rulings, which a man does and lives by them. I am YHVH.
Deu_7:11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.
Psa_119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Eze_20:16 Because they despised my judgments, and walked not in my statutes, but polluted my sabbaths: for their heart went after their idols.
Mal_4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.​

Keeping Commands AND Judgments are an indication in your faith in YHVH. There are so many verses in regards to keeping both that it should be crystal clear. You should not divorce commands and judgments because both come from Him and His mouth.

Do you keep the 7th day sabbath since you espouse the Ten Commandments at least?

Jesus had the power and the authority to forgive persons not just of breaking the law but of their sins. I think Martin's explanation of the Jewish law and his breakdown of it into 3 parts is a good explanation of the Law under the First Covenant. But the First Covenant was temporary and was completely replaced by Christ's eternal Second Covenant based on Grace and Love.

Concerning the Law, Jesus said:

[Mat 5:17-18 NKJV] 17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 "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.

By the Law he was referring to Martin's third category, Moral law, only. This is clear from the account of Peter's dream described in Acts 11.

[Act 11:1-10 NKJV] 1 Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, "You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!" 4 But Peter explained [it] to them in order from the beginning, saying: 5 "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me. 6 "When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 7 "And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' 8 "But I said, 'Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.' 9 "But the voice answered me again from heaven, 'What God has cleansed you must not call common.' 10 "Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven.

Requiring Gentiles to obey the Jewish laws concerning circumcision and dietary standards was a part of the heresy the Church was faced with which required Gentiles to first become Jews before they could become Christians. If this position had been accepted the Gospel would have never have spread throughout the world to the Gentiles in the way Christ intended it to be. But Paul stood firmly against this requirement, convinced Peter and James that he was right, and the requirement was dropped at the Council of Jerusalem. This is described in Acts Chapt. 15.

 

[Jason1]

Jesus had the power and the authority to forgive persons not just of breaking the law but of their sins. I think Martin's explanation of the Jewish law and his breakdown of it into 3 parts is a good explanation of the Law under the First Covenant. But the First Covenant was temporary and was completely replaced by Christ's eternal Second Covenant based on Grace and Love.

This is false. The first covenant was also based on grace and love. I can show you many, many, many verses as proof.

Concerning the Law, Jesus said:

[Mat 5:17-18 NKJV] 17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 "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.

By the Law he was referring to Martin's third category, Moral law, only. This is clear from the account of Peter's dream described in Acts 11.

[Act 11:1-10 NKJV] 1 Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, "You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!" 4 But Peter explained [it] to them in order from the beginning, saying: 5 "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me. 6 "When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 7 "And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' 8 "But I said, 'Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.' 9 "But the voice answered me again from heaven, 'What God has cleansed you must not call common.' 10 "Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven.

Requiring Gentiles to obey the Jewish laws concerning circumcision and dietary standards was a part of the heresy the Church was faced with which required Gentiles to first become Jews before they could become Christians. If this position had been accepted the Gospel would have never have spread throughout the world to the Gentiles in the way Christ intended it to be. But Paul stood firmly against this requirement, convinced Peter and James that he was right, and the requirement was dropped at the Council of Jerusalem. This is described in Acts Chapt. 15.

No, all of the laws carried over to the New Covenant. What is happening here with Peter is that he was falling back into "oral law" where they regarded gentiles are dirty and they had laws of separation. There is no law against the gentile like this in written law when in fact there are positives:

Exo_23:9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.​

If you take aways YHVH's judgments then its like saying the judge's opinion doesn't matter....

 

[FollowTheWay]

This is false. The first covenant was also based on grace and love. I can show you many, many, many verses as proof.


No, all of the laws carried over to the New Covenant. What is happening here with Peter is that he was falling back into "oral law" where they regarded gentiles are dirty and they had laws of separation. There is no law against the gentile like this in written law when in fact there are positives:

Exo_23:9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.​

If you take aways YHVH's judgments then its like saying the judge's opinion doesn't matter....

It seems that you are rejecting God's message to Peter sent in a dream which told him that the Jewish dietary requirements were no longer required. Jesus himself directly refuted the Old Testament standard of "An eye for an eye" found in EX 21:24 as well as other places in the Old Testament. Jesus said:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: [Mat 5:38 KJV]
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Mat 5:39 KJV]

One of the most surprising aspects of Jesus’ teaching is that, while he clearly shared his contemporaries’ view of the Old Testament as inspired by God, he was nevertheless not afraid of repudiating it when he felt led by his Father to do so (Jn. 8:28; 12:49-50; 14:31). For example, while the OT commands people to make oaths in God’s name (Deut 6:13), Jesus forbids it (Mt 5:33-37). And, much more importantly for our purposes, while the OT commands an “eye for eye” and a “tooth for a tooth,” Jesus commanded people to “not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek, also” (Mt 5:38-39).

Jesus’ repudiation of taking an “eye for an eye,” is explicitly commanded in the OT (e.g. Ex 21:24; Lev 24:19-20). Indeed, in Deuteronomy, the command is not merely about how much punishment is allowed; it’s about how much is required. “Show no pity,” the text states, “ life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut 19:21). It thus seems that Jesus “freely admitted that his ethical teachings contrasted sharply with some of the ethical teachings in the Mosaic law.”[1]

 

[Jason1]

It seems that you are rejecting God's message to Peter sent in a dream which told him that the Jewish dietary requirements were no longer required. Jesus himself directly refuted the Old Testament standard of "An eye for an eye" found in EX 21:24 as well as other places in the Old Testament. Jesus said:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: [Mat 5:38 KJV]
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Mat 5:39 KJV]

Peter's vision was in no way changing a law. It was to teach Peter to call no man unclean (READ THE CONTEXT)

"You have heard it said" - this is a key word for oral law. If he was referring to torah he would say "It is written". The torah law pertained to community justice, not personal justice.

One of the most surprising aspects of Jesus’ teaching is that, while he clearly shared his contemporaries’ view of the Old Testament as inspired by God, he was nevertheless not afraid of repudiating it when he felt led by his Father to do so (Jn. 8:28; 12:49-50; 14:31). For example, while the OT commands people to make oaths in God’s name (Deut 6:13), Jesus forbids it (Mt 5:33-37). And, much more importantly for our purposes, while the OT commands an “eye for eye” and a “tooth for a tooth,” Jesus commanded people to “not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek, also” (Mt 5:38-39).

Jesus alway upheld written law, NEVER repudiate it. That is so so wrong. You just called Jesus a law breaker (Deu 4:2)

Jesus’ repudiation of taking an “eye for an eye,” is explicitly commanded in the OT (e.g. Ex 21:24; Lev 24:19-20). Indeed, in Deuteronomy, the command is not merely about how much punishment is allowed; it’s about how much is required. “Show no pity,” the text states, “ life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deut 19:21). It thus seems that Jesus “freely admitted that his ethical teachings contrasted sharply with some of the ethical teachings in the Mosaic law.”[1]

Again, mosaic law for this law was to be enacted on a judicial level.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Peter's vision was in no way changing a law. It was to teach Peter to call no man unclean (READ THE CONTEXT)

"You have heard it said" - this is a key word for oral law. If he was referring to torah he would say "It is written". The torah law pertained to community justice, not personal justice.



Jesus alway upheld written law, NEVER repudiate it. That is so so wrong. You just called Jesus a law breaker (Deu 4:2)



Again, mosaic law for this law was to be enacted on a judicial level.

I merely quoted the Bible. You called God a lawbreaker with regard to Peter's vision. You also called Jesus a liar with regard to "a tooth for a tooth."

 

[Jason1]

I merely quoted the Bible. You called God a lawbreaker with regard to Peter's vision.

Please don't just spew church dogma. Actually go back and read it and what Elohim was trying to show Peter. This is not complex, nor is it in any way twisting scripture. Peter would not eat because he knew what the torah said and would not transgress it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Peter's vision was in no way changing a law. It was to teach Peter to call no man unclean (READ THE CONTEXT)

"You have heard it said" - this is a key word for oral law. If he was referring to torah he would say "It is written". The torah law pertained to community justice, not personal justice.



Jesus alway upheld written law, NEVER repudiate it. That is so so wrong. You just called Jesus a law breaker (Deu 4:2)



Again, mosaic law for this law was to be enacted on a judicial level.

Jesus never changed the law, really? Sermon on the mount, you have heard Moses state, but I now say to you?

 

[Jason1]

Jesus never changed the law, really? Sermon on the mount, you have heard Moses state, but I now say to you?

Again, you misunderstand. "Have you heard" = oral law teachings.
If he said, "It is written" it would be totally different.

AND RIGHT AFTER THIS Jesus said not one jot or tittle will pass and those that teach such will be called the least. IS THAT YOU?

 

[FollowTheWay]

Please don't just spew church dogma. Actually go back and read it and what Elohim was trying to show Peter. This is not complex, nor is it in any way twisting scripture. Peter would not eat because he knew what the torah said and would not transgress it.

I'm giving you the Biblical support for my statements not church dogma. Do you ever read the New Testament? BTW, I know that the primary purpose of this dream was to prepare Peter for giving up some additional Jewish laws against interacting with Gentiles. This was to let him see that it was God's will that he talk to the Roman centurion.

 

[Jason1]

I'm giving you the Biblical support for my statements not church dogma. Do you ever read the New Testament?

Yes, that's how I found out the chuch lied about the eternal law of YHVH and what Yeshua really came to do. The whole book upholds the law.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Yes, that's how I found out the chuch lied about the eternal law of YHVH and what Yeshua really came to do. The whole book upholds the law.

That's a very definite legalistic misinterpretation of the gospel. Jesus died on the cross to take away the need to completely follow the law, which is impossible. Read the book of Romans. Did you recently celebrate Easter or the Passover?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, that's how I found out the chuch lied about the eternal law of YHVH and what Yeshua really came to do. The whole book upholds the law.

Jesus came to keep the Law in full, and His death and resurrection allows for the Father to be able to legally and freely forgive all who receive Him by faith as their Lord!.
paul stated that to try to justify ourselves by keeping the law is another Gospel, and that faith alone in Jesus alone saves us, as God applies saving grace to us to be able to do those things and live...

A sinner who received Jesus while on his death bed gets to heaven, while a person who refused Jesus to save them could keep every Sabbath since they were born, and still end up in Hell!

 

[Yeshua1]

Again, you misunderstand. "Have you heard" = oral law teachings.
If he said, "It is written" it would be totally different.

AND RIGHT AFTER THIS Jesus said not one jot or tittle will pass and those that teach such will be called the least. IS THAT YOU?

Jesus said that the law would not pass away UNTIL he fulfilled it, and since he did just that, we are no longer under law but Grace!

 

[Jason1]

Jesus said that the law would not pass away UNTIL he fulfilled it, and since he did just that, we are no longer under law but Grace!

That is wrong again..

Mat 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done

 

[Yeshua1]

That is wrong again..

Mat 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done

That is wrong again..

Mat 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done

It is finished/accomplish in full, so it was done!

 

[Jason1]

It is finished/accomplish in full, so it was done!

You're right. Heaven and earth did pass away. I guess nobody saw it.

Oh, and all those future prophecies, they must have been fulfilled in 70 ad (Hello preterist with no hope)

THINK, THINK, THINK - Open your eyes to the TRUTH

 

[Yeshua1]

You're right. Heaven and earth did pass away. I guess nobody saw it.

Oh, and all those future prophecies, they must have been fulfilled in 70 ad (Hello preterist with no hope)

THINK, THINK, THINK - Open your eyes to the TRUTH

You're right. Heaven and earth did pass away. I guess nobody saw it.

Oh, and all those future prophecies, they must have been fulfilled in 70 ad (Hello preterist with no hope)

THINK, THINK, THINK - Open your eyes to the TRUTH

The just shall live by faith alone, Abraham credited by God due to His faith in God and His promises, David stated blessed in he who rest is in the Lord, and not his works...

paul stated that why would we start well, receiving the Spirit by believing in jesus, and now trying to somehow get better by now Law keeping, and not trusting in jesus and the work of the Spirit?

Who has bewitched you?

 

[Jason1]

The just shall live by faith alone, Abraham credited by God due to His faith in God and His promises, David stated blessed in he who rest is in the Lord, and not his works...

paul stated that why would we start well, receiving the Spirit by believing in jesus, and now trying to somehow get better by now Law keeping, and not trusting in jesus and the work of the Spirit?

Who has bewitched you?

You're right. I need to stop obeying the Father and just do whatever I want now. Hmm, should I start with stealing a car?