Christians and the Law

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown discusses the always controversial subject of Christians and the Torah of Moses, also taking your Jewish related calls and catching up on important Jewish-related news. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!

This week, get Dr. Brown’s complete 5 volume set (1,474 total pages) of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,PLUS the brand new Jewish Q&A DVD!
Order Online Here!

16 Comments
  1. Dr. Brown,
    Have you considered what “not a jot or tittle” could mean considering Jesus proceeds to do just that (remove laws) following the statement?

    Mt 5
    18For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

    33“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all…
    38“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil…

    Could it be that “the most basic and fundamental essence of the Law will not pass away”–e.g., “you should reverence God to the point that you keep your oaths you make in His Name and not dare to break your oaths” becomes “you should reverence God to the point that you do not dare to make any oath in His Name at all”?

  2. Messiah breaks no law, removes no law, and does not teach against the law. If He did, He sins and disqualifies Himself as Messiah. Him fulfilling the law and the prophets cannot mean that He does not obey them.

    Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    If Messiah did not obey the least of YHWH’s commandments and teach us to do the same, then He is not great in His own kingdom. How can the King of the kingdom not be the greatest in the kingdom. Messiah says that since nothing will change in the slightest in YHWH’s law until Heaven and Earth pass away, which is when all will have been fulfilled, those that do not pay attention to the least of YHWH’s commandments both in doing them and teaching others to do them will not be great in the kingdom of YHWH but least. At the end of this very same sermon on the mount, He says that those that do not do the will of His Father in heaven and that are law breakers will not even be allowed into the kingdom.

    Mt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but /only/ the one who does the will of My Father in heaven.
    22 On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’
    23 Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’

    Dan1el, in the post above, makes Messiah out to be a liar, a false teacher and sinner by his statements above. He preaches another Y’shua from the one prophesied about in the tanakh and described in the gospels. It is still completely true that we are accountable to perform our oaths. Not taking an oath is not breaking the commandment to perform an oath. Our every word should be as good and as trustworthy as a promise or an oath. If our words are not honest an trustworthy, we are calling Him “Lord, lord” but He does not know us. If we reject His Father’s law we are doing the same thing. Nothing in the sermon on the mount or any other teaching of Messiah does away with or changes a jot or a tittle of YHWH’s law. Even Paul tells us in the strongest of terms that our faith in Messiah does not supersede the law but makes empowers us to keep it and thus it is established in our lives.

    Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

    In other words, if we really believe YHWH and what He has commanded we will do what He says and thus our faith causes us to perform His law. Our faith does not exempt us from obeying His commandments.

    For Messiah to be Elohim in the flesh and the true Messiah, He had to live up to and teach every last word of YHWH. And He did just that.

    Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
    Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
    Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
    Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

    The light that lighteth every man had to speak according to YHWH’s law to fulfill the law and the prophets or He was evil.

    Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

    1Jo 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
    6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

    Teaching against YHWH’s law and not keeping it is darkness.

    Ps 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
    Ps 119:105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
    Ps 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
    Pr 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:

    When we say that YHWH’s law is void (no longer valid for us) or a jot or a tittle has passed from it, we are calling darkness light and light darkness.

    Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

    Shalom

  3. Bo,
    1. For all your longwinded (not to mention empty) prooftexting, you haven’t answered a single thing–He clearly removes, among other things, oaths.

    2. The Law was not 100% God’s will–it contained a number of concessions for sinful men (with which assertion even the Sages agree–e.g., Rashi on Dt 21:11 / Kiddushin 21b [i. “We shall begin with the words of Chazal: The Torah permits this only as a concession…”; “Rashi explains that the innovation presented … is a concession…”–both from http://etzion.org.il/vbm/english/parsha.62/44ki-tetze.htm%5D) [Mt 19:8].

    That your theology cannot accomodate this Truth is telling.

    That said, I already know from experience that you don’t submit to the Truth when you are shown it (you know exactly what I’m talking about–Romans 2 referring to believing, and not lost, Gentiles; Ro 6:14 “under” not meaning “condemned by”, as you wish it would mean, since it would render “under Grace” nonsensical, etc.,), but only rebel, so I hope you understand I won’t be investing any more of my time on the discussion here–it’s just not a wise investment. You would drag the debate out until the return of Jesus and never concede your error.

  4. Dan1el,

    And of course you always concede your errors…NOT! You have not shown any error in my theology. I have shown by Messiah’s very own words that you make Him out to be a liar.

    Believe the rabbis all you want, I will believe the direct words of scripture.

    Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
    18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Messiah says that He did not come to change the law and that we will receive our position in the kingdom according to our commandment keeping and teaching. For Him to teach anything against even the smallest commandment makes Him least in His own kingdom. Therefore you misunderstand His statements concerning oaths.

    That your theology makes Messiah out to be a liar of an idiot that cannot remember what He said just minutes before is very telling and quite sad.

  5. Greetings gentlemen.

    Bo stated, “For Him to teach anything against even the smallest commandment makes Him least in His own kingdom.” Let’s look at the implications of this. This would make Paul and the author of Hebrews least in the kingdom since they both taught that things have changed, and in fact that if they hadn’t changed, Jesus would be disqualified as our Messiah. Which is the opposite of what Bo is saying.

    Hebrews 7:11-12

    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?

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

    So here in Holy Scripture we have an explicit declaration that the Law has been changed. And it was a necessary change since without the change, Yeshua would not be qualified to be our high priest since He was of the line of Judah. So if we hold to Bo’s position, then we have no hope, no priest that can intercede for us, and no salvation since Jesus was not after the order of Aaron.

    The Law of Moses provided the basis for the Levitical priesthood, this new priesthood required a new law under which it could operate per the passage above. Hebrews 7:11-12 explains that only one type of priesthood was permitted and that was the Levitical priesthood. For the Levitical priesthood to be replaced by a new priesthood, the priesthood of Melchizedek, a change of the Law was required.

    Hebrews 7:15-19

    15 This is far more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who becomes a priest not by a law pertaining to ancestry, but by the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies:

    “You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek.”

    18 For there is then an annulling of the previous commandment due to its weakness and uselessness. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but now a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

    It appears that the author of Hebrews will be least in the Kingdom, and that he believed Jesus would also be least since His priesthood necessitated a change of the Law. I do not believe that to be the case, but it’s an implication of Bo’s position.

    Let’s hold our differences while at the same time respecting each other and not belittle one another.

  6. Benjamin,

    Shabat Shalom, I will answer you in a couple of days since we are beginning the feast of tabernacles in a few minutes.

  7. LOFRadio,
    Maybe you can give some feedback and/or pass the following (re: Is 53 as Messiah) along to Dr. Brown for feedback:

    Achan is singled out as the sinning individual [Jsh 7:15], yet God says, “ISRAEL has sinned, and THEY have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded THEM; and THEY have also taken of the consecrated thing, and have also stolen, and also dissembled, and THEY have also put into THEIR vessels” [Jsh 7:11]: by Biblical precedent a single man has qualified as “Israel”.

  8. Very interesting Dan1el. If I understood the rabbi correctly, if a prophet like unto Moses (or better) came along, that he would have the authority to change the Torah. If that is what he was saying, I don’t believe I knew that they (or some) held to that belief in the prophet and the possible changing of the Torah. Interesting indeed.

  9. Benjamin Warkentin,
    They float the idea of someone having a level of prophecy greater than or equal to Moses, and what they fear it’s implications might be, but I’d say it’d be unfair to say they actually think or live as if such a thing were an eventuality; my point was that this is preciselt what we see in Jesus (e.g., doing away with oaths).

  10. Dr. Brown, It would be great if you also covered a bit of the early christian writings (a.k.a. fathers of the church) positions on the subject as a historical complement to the theological arguments presented in debates such as these and specially synergism vs monergism. Thanks a lot for your insights and each show a lesson on how to debate corteously.

  11. There is nothing in the book of Hebrews that changes YHWH’s Torah. The Levitical priesthood is a temporary system that was set up because Israel refused to listen to YHWH for themselves. Instead of being a kingdom of priests, they opted to reject YHWH’s offer by asking for someone else to listen for them. The laws of the Leviktical sacrifices and who may perform them are still in place, but temporarily suspended by virtue of the lack of a temple. This happened once before during the Babylonian exile. Hebrews says that the Levitical priesthood was waxing old and is about to vanish away. It vanished away at the time of the destruction of the temple, but according to Ezekiel it will be coming back online during the millennial reign of Messiah.

    The Levitical priesthood was instituted for the teaching of YHWH’s law because of Israel’s request. The priesthood itself is not part of that law. It is the administrator of YHWH’s law. So YHWH’s laws for the priesthood and its sacrifices are a separate thing from His law proper. That said, Messiah did not even change the law of Levitical priesthood and sacrifice. It continued to exist after His death and resurrection and Paul and the apostles continued to participate in the system for 40 years after Messiah’s coming…until it vanished away via the temple’s destruction. Messiah evidently did not abolish the priesthood according to the apostle’s teachings and actions. But it has vanished away for a season.

    Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
    2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
    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.
    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:
    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.
    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.
    7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

    The word covenant in brackets in verse 7 is not in the Greek. It is some man’s idea. The subject matter here is about the priesthood and how Messiah’s high priesthood is without fault and above and beyond the physical priesthood in every way. It is Messiah’s “ministry” that is being contrasted with the Levitical priesthood and not Messiah’s law contrasted with His Father’s law. I believe that the word “priesthood” should be the added word instead of “covenant.” I am not alone in this idea. Verse 8 confirms this when it says “finding fault with them, ie. the priesthood/people,” not “finding fault with it, ie. the covenant or law. It is not the words of YHWH’s law that had fault. Scripture says that YHWH’s law is perfect in both Psalms and James. It is a logical impossibility for something to be perfect and also have fault. It was the priesthood and the people that wanted someone else to teach them YHWH’s law that was the problem that needed fixing. So YHWH promised to change the people by giving them a new hearts and a new offer of hearing Him for themselves again.

    8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

    So this new covenant is not about replacing or changing YHWH’s law, but about restoring the priesthood to the people of Judah and Israel. It is about making them able to be priests by changing their hearts and minds. The covenant that is being spoken about is the covenant of priesthood that YHWH offered from the very beginning. The people refused to enter that covenant and wanted someone else to teach them. YHWH allowed for this for a season and it was getting old and was about to vanish away.

    9 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 continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

    So the people turned down the covenant of being kings and priests and YHWH then allowed them their way and did not regard them as His priests. Thus he set up the Levitical system that was in the stead of the firstborn of Israel. According to the storyline, it was on the very day of YHWH speaking the 10 words that Israel rejected their priesthood and thus the “continued not in my covenant.”

    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:
    11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

    Above we see that in the new covenant of priesthood there is no need for someone (the Levites) to teach YHWH’s law because those that accept this covenant will love YHWH’s law and want to know it and do it. There is no change in YHWH’s law. It is the same as it always was. It is this very same law that YHWH will write on the hearts of those that accept His offer of priesthood. Nothing in the promise of a new covenant includes a change in YHWH’s law…but the new priesthood does not operate under the old rules of the Levitical Priesthood.

    12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
    13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

    So the Levitical priesthood is not abolished, but has now vanished from sight.

    Let’s go back to the last verses of chapter 7 now that we know the context.

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

    Does this really say that the law is changed in the sense of jots and tittles passing? If it does, then Messiah was wrong and not Messiah at all. Let’s look at the Greek definition of the word “change.”

    3331 μεταθεσις metathesis met-ath’-es-is
    from 3346; TDNT-8:161,1176; n f
    AV-change 1, translation 1, removing 1; 3
    1) transfer: from one place to another
    2) to change
    2a) of things instituted or established

    The connotation of the word that is translated “change” is of moving from one place to another. So the idea is that the law was once implemented by the Levitical priests (See the portion on parenthesis in verse 11 above) and that it is now implemented through the new priesthood. This word is only used in the book of Hebrews. Here is a very revealing verse that shows what the word means:

    Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

    So just as Enoch was moved/translated from earth to heaven, the law was moved from the Levitical to the Melchisedec for implementation. The new implementation is an internal one in the heart. The old one was external and imposed on those that did not have a new heart. Nothing in Jeremiah indicates that YHWH’s law changes, but it does show that the law is translated from the earthly priesthood that teaches externally to YHWH writing His same law upon our hearts. We should not take He 7:12 to be saying that the law gets changed but that the law changes places, just like Enoch changed places. For we all know that Messiah taught that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until heaven and earth pass away.

    When we twist Hebrews to match our doctrine instead of investigating things like italicized words and meanings of words, we make Messiah out to be a liar. He will put us in positions of authority in His kingdom according to how well we keep and teach others to keep YHWH’s law. No writing of scripture indicates that YHWH’s law is changed or voided and Paul tells us this in the strongest of language.

    Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

    Establishing YHWH’s law can never mean that it is changed or jot and tittles have passed away. It means that once YHWH changes our hearts to receive His law, we are willing and able to perform His perfect law…and we do.

    Shalom

  12. I’m really struggling with how I should start this response. I am bewildered by your post Bo. You say I’m twisting…

    “There is nothing in the book of Hebrews that changes YHWH’s Torah.” – Heb 7:12 “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” -How is this not a change?

    “The connotation of the word that is translated “change” is of moving from one place to another.” -How is that not change?

    “So the idea is that the law was once implemented by the Levitical priests (See the portion on parenthesis in verse 11 above) and that it is now implemented through the new priesthood.” -How is this ‘new’ thing not change?

    Anything that was here, but is now there, is change. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” -The word change is used twice in this verse, so the priesthood was ‘transfered’, so then the law was ‘transfered’? Transfered to what? Moved to where? This isn’t a change? And yes, im driving towards something.

    “So YHWH’s laws for the priesthood and its sacrifices are a separate thing from His law proper.” So these laws pertaining to the Levitical priesthood aren’t included in the Mosaic Covenant, the law of Moses? They weren’t part of the book that was sprinkled with blood(Heb 9:19)? What other laws are not part of this ‘law proper’? I think you are dodging the issue here Bo, and here’s why;

    “Hebrews says that the Levitical priesthood was waxing old and is about to vanish away.” -Does it? Just the priesthood?You say that because the word covenant is italicized and later says ‘them’ that it isn’t refering to the Mosaic covenant, but only to the priesthood. But wasn’t it ‘they’ who broke the covenant? Let’s compare that to another passage earlier in the same chapter where the word covenant is also italicized;

    Hebrews 8:6-7

    6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, because He is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

    7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then no occasion would have been sought for a second.

    Should we assume this is speaking about the priesthood and not the covenant mentioned one verse earlier? This covenant being described as better than the first. And the word covenant is actually used in verse 6. Well, maybe this covenant is a seperate covenant and only contains laws about the priesthood? No I don’t think that works either:

    Hebrews 8:13

    13 In speaking of a new [covenant] He has made the **first** one old. Now that which is decaying and growing old is ready to vanish away.

    Is he talking about the ‘old’ preisthood?

    Hebrews 9:18-20

    18 So not even the **first** [covenant] was inaugurated without blood.

    19 For when Moses had taught every 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 and all the people,

    20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God has commanded you to keep.”

    So no, a seperate covenant doesn’t work. If a first is mentioned and a better came after, and both were blood inagurated, verse 20 above makes it very clear that this is the entire Law, the Mosaic covenant and it is referred to as the first. We can see accurately what exactly waxed old. The “idea” (Bo, “I am not alone in this idea”) that this only refers to the priesthood is a structure built to deny the scriptures clear statements about the Law.

    We need to let the scriptures speak. It is clear Bo, read those few chapters straight through and consider the contexts of the ‘firsts’, betters and covenants, etc. I will do the same.

    Grace and peace,

    p.s. None of the apostles ever seperate any of the 613 commandments from the others, including the ‘levitical’ laws. They always view the law as a single unit.

  13. Benjamin,

    The “change” is not of what the law contains. The 10 words are still in force. The dietary laws are still the same. YHWH’s feasts are still His feasts and there is no Biblical change from them to Easter and Xmas. The difference in the new covenant is where the law is written…now on our hearts if we really in the new covenant. If we do not love YHWH’s law, it is not on our hearts. If we refuse to keep it, it is not on our hearts.

    The new covenant is the same as what was offered Israel in Exodus and that was refused by them.

    Heb 4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
    2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

    What is this same gospel that has been preached to us and them?

    Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
    6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

    He8:9 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 continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

    Israel did not mix this with faith and opted to not be a a kingdom of priests. Instead they wanted someone else to listen to YHWH for them. The Levitical priesthood ended up replacing the whole of Israel as a kingdom of priests.

    Here is what we have been offered:

    1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
    8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
    9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
    10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

    The disobedient and those that refuse to believe are still rejected from this priesthood. We also can “come short of it” by willful disobedience. Not a jot of tittle has been removed from the law. Even the Levitical priesthood and it ordinances are intact and will be reintroduced during the millennium. What Jeremiah called the “new covenant” was offered at Sinai and refused. It is being offered anew and we will miss out on it too if we refuse to believe and refuse to apply YHWH’s every word to our lives. We deceive ourselves when we think that YHWH’s law does not apply to us.

    Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
    23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
    24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
    25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

    This deception, if it only concerns the least commandments in YHWH’s law, may only cost us being great in Messiah’s kingdom. But it could cost us the kingdom altogether.

    Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Mt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but /only/ the one who does the will of My Father in heaven.
    22 On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’
    23 Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’

    Those that love YHWH’s law will do and teach it. Those that do not are deceiving themselves. Those that are found to be breakers of YHWH’s law and refuse to do the Father’s will will not be allowed into the kingdom. The above two passages are the beginning and end of the sermon on the mount. We do well to heed these words and not think that Messiah came to void the law lest we lose our reward and possibly our inheritance.

    Shalom

  14. I noticed you did not respond to my post. I am sincerely praying for you Bo. And I do mean that. I sincerely love you and pray for your freedom.

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*