Works and Salvation

Those verses say that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal, but you said that they are not, so I don't see how you can deny that you're not denying anything. Do you think that the Mosaic Covenant reveals things about who God is that are eternally true or temporary true? Are the promises in regard to the Mosaic Covenant eternally true or does God break His promises? My point was not about Revelation, as you claim, if the Mosaic Covenant doesn't exist any more, then why would Revelation bother retelling of the stipulations of the old covenant and the sanctions that were coming as a result of the conditions of the old covenant not being met?

I already explained...there are parts of every covenant that are eternal. And any attribute of God is also eternal.

The recounting of the stipulations in Revelation is to remind the Israelites of the covenant they had agreed to, and what the coming repercussions would be for their failure to live up to the terms.

The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple officially ended the old covenant.

In Galatians 3:15-18, even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. The Mosaic Covenant does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God so as to make the promise void and neither does the New Covenant. If you think that God breaks His promises, then you do not understand who He is. God is not at cross purposes with Himself, but rather the step of stipulations of New Covenant is in complete accordance with the Mosaic Covenant. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Torah, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Torah was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which is in accordance with Jesus being sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26). Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Torah and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). So Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Torah by word and by example, and he did not establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Jeremiah 31:33, Hebrews 8:10). Do you affirm or deny that God revealed how to act in accordance with His eternal character through the Torah?

You are incorrect to think that a priesthood that is headed by God's word made flesh is contrary to following God's word. If the way to testify about God's righteousness could change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, so Hebrews 7:12 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content, such as with it becoming righteous to commit adultery or sinful to do charity, but rather the context is speaking about a change of the priesthood, which would require a change of the law in regard to its administration.

It is by the Torah that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so the position that we don't need to obey it is the position that we do not need salvation from sin, we do not need the Gospel message, and that we do not need Jesus to have given himself to redeem us from all lawlessness.

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded without departing from it, so the Torah is the Law of God, which is also why it is referred to as being the Law of God in verses like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:22-23. In Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul equated the Law of God with the Law of the Spirit of life by contrasting them both with the law of sin and death. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, so verses like Romans 8:1 that refer to those who are in Christ are only referring to those who are walking in obedience to the Torah. Furthermore, in Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Torah.

The Mosaic Covenant was given to teach us how to be a doer of the character traits of God, so if you grant that they are eternal, then you should also grant that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal.

The Mosaic Covenant was given for a number of reasons, like the preservation of Israel so Messiah could come into the world, but the covenant was only given to Israel.


If it has ended, then there would no longer be any repercussions for failing to live up to its terms.
There are no repercussions for failing to keep the old covenant. Those were taken care of in 70 AD.

Under the new covenant, entrance isn't natural birth, but by spiritual birth. One has but to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and they are saved.

There was nothing about the destruction of the first temple that ended the Mosaic Covenant, so the same is true about the destruction of the 2nd temple.

The Mosaic Covenant was given to teach us how to be a doer of the character traits of God, so if you grant that they are eternal, then you should also grant that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal.

If it has ended, then there would no longer be any repercussions for failing to live up to its terms.

There was nothing about the destruction of the first temple that ended the Mosaic Covenant, so the same is true about the destruction of the 2nd temple.

There is a sense of works that we are required to have done first in order to earn something as a wage that is different from the sense of works that are intrinsically required to have the experience of doing something. For example, there is a difference between work that someone is required to have done first to earn a wage to pay for the opportunity to experience driving a Ferrari for an hour and the work of driving it that is intrinsically required to have that experience. The opportunity to experience driving a Ferrari for an hour can also be given as a gift that requires someone to do the work to have that experience, but where that work contributes nothing towards earning the opportunity to have that experience as a wage.

While there are many verse like Romans 4:1-5 that speak against works being required to earn our justification/righteousness/salvation/eternal life as a wage in the first sense, there are many verses like Hebrews 5:9 support that they require us to be doers of works in the second sense. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so while we are not required to have first obeyed it in order to earn our salvation as a wage, having the experience of living in obedience to it is intrinsically the content of the gift of Jesus saving us from having the experience of not living in obedience to it. In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so we are not required to have first done those works in order to earn our salvation as the result and we are not required to do those works as the result of having first been saved, but rather God graciously teaching us how to have the experience doing those works is intrinsically the content of His gift of saving us having the experience of not doing those works.

In other words, the content of God's gift of eternal life is the experience of knowing Him and Jesus (John 17:3) and the gift of His law is His instructions for how to have that experience (Exodus 33:13, Matthew 7:23), not for how to earn eternal life as a wage.

Paul said in (1 Cor. 15:1-2) (v.1) MOREOVER, brethren, I declare unto the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; (v.2) By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. Paul is telling you right here that you are saved by the gospel that he preached unto you if you keep it in memory. So what happens if you don’t keep it in memory? Then you have believed in vain you have believed for nothing that’s what vain means.

Also Paul said in (Gal. 6 (v.3) For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. (v.4) But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.

This is just your assumption.

If you really want to understand the old covenant, study the book of Deuteronomy. If you want to understand how and why it no longer exists, study Revelation. Hint: they have the exact same outline, deal with the exact same subject, and show the superiority of grace over the law and the wisdom of God in Christ.

What specifically do you think was just my assumption?


God's graciousness is not superior to His righteousness, but rather God is gracious to us by teaching us to obey His law (Psalms 119:29) and God has made His wisdom known through His word.

Your assumption that the old covenant was eternal is incorrect. Thus, your reasoning was flawed. Since the old covenant no longer exists, it cannot be eternal.

Further, the covenant was not given to teach anyone to perform the eternal attributes of God. There are a number of reasons why the law was given, but this is not one of them.

Lastly, I didn't suggest that God's graciousness was is superior to His righteousness. This you assumed. I said that grace was superior to the law.

Since no one will be justified by the law, but many are made righteous by grace, this can easily be seen to be the case.

In Exodus 33:13 and Leviticus 24:8, it says that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal.


The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the character of God as it does to describe the character of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12) or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23), and it could not accurately be described as that if it were not God's instructions for how to be a doer of those traits.

God's way is the way to know Him by being a doer of His character traits, such as in Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teach his children and those of His household to walk in God's way by being a doer of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, in 1 Kings 2:1-3, God taught how to walk in His way through His law, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from hi because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to teach us how to know God and Jesus through being a doer of His character traits, which is eternal life (John 17:3), and which is why Jesus said that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying God's commandments (Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:17),

In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact image of His character, which he expressed through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to God's law.

In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God's is holy, which is quote from Leviticus where Good was given instructions for how to do that, so I don't see grounds for denying that it is God's instructions for how to act in accordance with His eternal holiness. The only way that we should no longer follow God's instructions for how to be holy if He is holy would be if God were to cease to be holy.


God's law is His instructions for how to act in accordance with His righteousness, so that is the same. In any case, grace in not superior to law because the Bible is abundantly clear that God is gracious to us by teaching us to obey His law (Psalms 119:29, Exodus 33:13, Genesis 6:8-9, Romans 1:5, Ephesians 2:8-10, Titus 2:11-13).



The only way for someone to attain a character trait is through faith and what it means for someone to attain a character trait is for them to become a doer of that trait. For example, there are no amount of courageous works that someone is required to have done first in order to earn becoming courageous as the result, but rather the only way for someone to become courageous is through faith, but it would be contradictory for someone to become courageous apart from becoming a doer of courageous works, and the same is true for righteousness and every other character trait. So we do not earn our righteousness as the result of our obedience to God's law because it was never given as a means of earning our righteousness, but rather what it means to become righteous is to become s doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law, which is why the same faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works does not abolish our need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to God's law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:27-31).

Um, no, that does not follow.


While that is true, what you overlook is that most Christians are not and never were under the Mosaic covenant.


Again, that does not follow. You're making an assumption and defending it quite inadequately. God brought the old covenant to an end by destroying not just the temple but essentially the entire structure of Levitical Judaism. There has never been a temple or even a tabernacle since, so no-one can follow the Mosaic covenant.

Sadly, the words of Paul come true

1 Timothy 1:7

desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

In 1 Timothy 1:8, it says that the law is good when it is used properly, so it is important to recognize that the Bible can speak against doing something improperly for the wrong reason without speaking against doing it properly for the right reason. For example, the Bible can speak against obeying God for the purpose of trying to earn our salvation without speaking against obeying God.

Gal 3:
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.


21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Do you think that Christ the Gospel message to stop repenting because the law has ended now that he has come and to curse us by causing us to be free to do what God’s law has revealed to be wickedness? Or do you think that Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand and that he was sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from what God’s law reveals to be wickedness?

Dude, the law is a curse. It says in the bible.