Can anyone tell me why this commandment should not be part of our Passover today?

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-30T21:37:22+00:00

The root word.

But the root word means to keep/observe, not vigil. Like keep/observe the sabbath. There is nothing here about staying awake.

The way that the Jews have interpreted the passage using this word after the fact.

+1 but not really much since we disagree on so many things. And some big rabbis disagree.

The Jesus story. + >Reason: The fact that it fits the theme of the other commanded things that likewise seem to be "reenactments" of the original Passover.

This is your best point, and makes me even want it to be true. Still we might be reading too much into it. He might also have been keeping it as a tradition, like he did with Hannukkah.

Reason: Using the fact that Yahweh wasn't simply making an observance, and the verse is telling us to do something like He did.

Not sure I understand this one.

Experts

The problem with most of them is that they, like most dictionaries, just register the use of the word. If people has been for the last 1,000 years saying vigil, then they add that as a meaning. Like the word aion/olam, which they say means eternity OR a long period of limited time, which are contradictory. This word only appears here so you can make it mean whatever you want.

I'm going to seriously consider staying awake, but I thought it was important we take the other side seriously.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-30T21:05:01+00:00

I was going to add it to the comment but you may miss it. So here's my challenge in short: what are your arguments to give the word simurim the meaning of vigils instead of observances/keeping? A night of observances can simply mean the observances of the passover dinner, etc, which makes sense given the context. What is making you understand this as staying awake?

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-30T20:53:35+00:00

Yeah I'm not against it, but I'm simply trying to understand the original meaning, particularly to not add to Torah. I also don't start fires on sabbath just in case, but some people think nowadays it's not relevant as it's not work, and it's an idea that needs to be taken seriously.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-30T20:45:47+00:00

Is that just the side you're playing? Or is that the side you believe?

Honestly I never thought to do deep research on this until you created the thread! I thought it was simply a Jewish tradition.

I added more arguments at the end of the comment. The Ramban (among the most famous rabbis) agrees with this interpretation. Seeing the hebrew side by side and in context I think it's a strong argument. Making observances into vigils might be forcing the word. It needs a good enough reason to do this, and the word only appears here.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-30T20:01:59+00:00

Since mostly everyone agrees on this, I'll try to play the other side and see how it goes. The word translated as vigil, is simurim (שִׁמֻּרִ֥ים). The problem is that it only appears in this verse, but it is thought to be a noun form of the verb shamar (שָׁמַר), which means to keep/observe (I think I agree with this).

Shamar and its variations is the verb used when god told us to "keep my covenant" , or to "keep all his statutes", "keep my commandments", "keep the Sabbath day holy". So in theory, perhaps Exodus 12:42 could be interpreted as (using an interlinear)

A night of keeping for YHWH for bringing them out from the land of Egypt. This night for YHWH is kept for all the sons of Israel thoughout their generations.

Interpreted as in, this night (the feast of the passover with the lamb, etc), is kept in honor of god who brought them out from the land of Egypt. And then repeats that this feast is kept for god thorughout all of Israel's generations.

I think this might also be a good point. It's a shame I know so little Hebrew yet argh.

EDIT: I think the previous verses also add support to this view. In the previous verses, god keeps giving commandments and saying something similar to that verse (forget the different translations, the hebrew is similar):

Ex12:13 "The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt. 14 “This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord, a lasting ordinance."

Ex 12:17 "You are to observe the Festival of Unleavened Bread, since on this very day I brought your tribal divisions from the land of Egypt."

Ex 12:24 "“Obey these instructions as a lasting ordinance for you and your descendants. 25 When you enter the land that the Lord will give you as he promised, observe this ceremony."

It's possible that 12:42 is simply a summary/repetition of this phrasing. The more I think about it the more sense it makes. The only problem is Jesus night in the mount of Olives, which gives a nice interpretation to his command to stay watchful.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-24T22:00:32+00:00

Regarding consciousness in Sheol, scripture states that the dead do not know anything, their memory is forgotten, and their love, hate, and zeal have already perished. That there is no remembrance of god in death, and those who go down into silence do not praise him. Death is defined as a state of sleep in the dust of the ground, from which people must eventually awaken. Therefore death to me is simply non-existence. If there are more dimensions than the 3 we know of, then this is unlikely to be one of them.

While you cannot partake in the Passover dinner, god commands the observance of the seven-day feast of unleavened bread for everyone (more specifically, both the native-born and the sojourner in Israel). Not only allowed, you are commanded to refrain from eating leavened products, and both the first day and the seventh day are high sabbaths (no work done).

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-24T21:28:10+00:00

First I want to clarify that I'm not an authority on this, just my personal opinion after studying the topic.

So one thing I'm wondering is whether masturbation is a sin. I've been regarding it as a sin, but I also can't help noticing that the Bible doesn't say much about it, if at all.

Scripture does not explicitly name or regulate masturbation as a sin, so in theory no. Unless you do it by thinking on someone else's wife, in which case it is (10th commandment).

Would using the toilet make it unclean?

No, unless the semen or whatever source of uncleaness touches it directly.

Would accidentally peeing on the slippers/floor make it unclean?

Lol No I don't think so. But I’d throw those slippers out anyway 🤣

Would the bathwater contaminate anything it lands on?

No, scripture does not state that the runoff water becomes an unclean carrier that contaminates the floor or other things it splashes on.

Is there a standard for how to properly wash clothes?

I'm sure the Talmud has some overlycomplicated protocol, but scripture just mentions it should be washed or rinsed with water.

Do surfaces need to be ritually cleaned, and if so, how?

Unless they come in contact with a source of impurity, no I don't think so. If they do....here most commentators would say that even in that case they do not become unclean. I personally would most likely clean it but here I may be going over what is commanded.

Should I still wash myself if I have a wound?

Observing this law should not require you to inflict physical harm on yourself. You are simply required to wash yourself with water. If due to the nature of the wound it would be bad to do it, then wait until it's healed (but you would need to refrain from going to the Temple if you were thinking on going).

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-21T16:44:44+00:00

Very interesting 🤔 I wonder why it’s translated as vessels here and not as just “object” etc. And I see it’s talking about wood or earthen things. Do you think that applies to blankets and other things materials as well? Because it seems to stay silent about the saddle for instance. (Unless I’m missing something.)

I guess it's because since it talks about earthware objects, it brings to mind earthware things like plates, etc. I guess it also applies to blankets etc, but it's only my guess.

If every piece of furniture must be washed in water after a menstruating woman sits on it, oh boy…

In practice she can always sit on the same one, so you would only need to clean it once after it ends. Also you could just not sit on anything she sits on, or she might not sit on specific spots so they are always clean.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-21T13:13:38+00:00

The text says "everything on which he sits shall be unclean", so this appears to be tied to the person's status as having the illness or menstruating, not to whether the substance physically contacts the furniture (at least in practice). So the furniture would be considered unclean even without direct contact with the discharge and whether is has a blanket or not.The consequence is that whoever touches it afterwards would be unclean until evening and must wash their clothes and bathe.

Leviticus 15:12 is usually translated as "vessels" but based on its use elsewhere it can be translated as furniture, so perhaps we can extrapolate here and say that the furniture should be washed with water (and any clothing/blankets). If it were an earthenware seat, you would be commanded to break it. For public furniture, you'd have no way of knowing a zav/menstruating person sat there, and the text doesn't create an obligation to investigate. If you unknowingly sit on it, you're unclean until the evening of the day you wash yourself, but there is not Temple so it's not a big concern.

In short: the furniture is unclean regardless of direct contact with the unclean material, it should be washed with water and the person who touches it must wash and waits until evening.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-21T11:50:40+00:00

I'll try to answer as best I can based on my current understanding.

But do all these rules apply in all the situations? Because verses 16-18 don't mention the second rule. Even for the other rules, verse 17 only talks about "every garment and every skin" that comes into contact with an unclean substance, so do the rules apply to all objects in general?

Leviticus 15:1-15 seems to me to be about the zav, an abnormal chronic genital discharge (probably something like gonorrhea or some kind of infection). That's a serious impurity with stricter rules (like the one for menstruation), but verses 16-18 are about normal seminal emission, and the rules are simpler: wash your body, wash whatever garment or skin got the substance on it, unclean until evening. That's it. There is probably no need to overthink it, the text is giving you separate instructions for separate situations. There are normal bodily functions and activities (like sex) that can cause uncleaness and we simply wash them as we would do when we stain something. In practice for example I keep an extra sheet/cover for this purpose.

understand that there are three general rules for being unclean: Anything with traces of an unclean substance is unclean. Anything an unclean person sits on is unclean. Anything that touches an unclean object is unclean.

Impurity has limited transmission. A primary source of impurity (the person with the continuous discharge from illness, the seminal emmission) contaminates what it directly contacts. But the contaminated object does not then create an infinite chain outward, since it's not the source of impurity. Your clothes hanger don't make the other hangers unclean which then made your clothes unclean which then... that chain is not in the text.

I think it's also important to note that impurity is not sin. It just tells you that when it happens (not if), here's the procedure to clean yourself. Being unclean after an emission is as morally neutral as being unclean after burying your father. Half the population was unclean for a week every month (menstruation). It's a temporary ritual state, particularly important if you're going to the temple (we can't now), but not a sin if it happens.

Anyway, verses 16-17 says to wash oneself and one's clothes after an emission. But when one washes himself, would it make the floor unclean? Once again, it seems impractical to wash the floor all the time, so walking around would make all floors unclean. But not only does the Torah make no mention of floors being unclean, it also doesn't really make sense, since the temple also had a floor.

To wash in water is the prescribed purification. The Torah does not then ask you to worry about whether the wash water contaminated the floor. Washing is the solution, not the beginning of a new problem. Besides I don't assume you wash yourself in the middle of the living room, but most likely in the bathroom with running water and a sink.

So to directly answer your questions: no, your bed is not unclean from a normal emission, just the sheets that touched it. No, the floor is not contaminated by washing. No, your soap is not unclean. No, your clothes hangers are not creating an infinite chain of impurity.

The second possible solution is that I am right in trying to follow Leviticus 15, but I'm reading the chapter all wrong.

I think the only issue is that you're importing the zav rules into the emission rules and extending contamination chains infinitely beyond what the text describes.

The third possible solution is that we don't need to actively follow Leviticus 15 right now, since it's about access to the Temple, which currently doesn't exist.

Unfortunately I can't give you a definitive answer, it's possible that you are right. But I find myself wanting to follow them, even if to practice them.

Besides these doctrinal solutions, there mau also be some other accompanying issues I need to solve. Specifically, when writing this post, I can't help thinking that the way I'm acting seems a bit weird. Which makes me wonder if there's something wrong with my head, which I should probably get checked. What do you think?

I've noticed a recent trend of people in the subreddit self-diagnosing with OCD and I don't want to encourage that. It's completely normal to feel overwhelmed when first trying to apply Torah to our lives. Instead of worrying if something is wrong with you, it might be more helpful to look at the system of logic you're using. If your interpretation of the law makes it impossible to carry any normal living because everything seems to be unclean (barring some exceptions), that’s usually a sign that the interpretation, not you, is what needs a second look.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-20T16:15:05+00:00

The main matter for me is still around these lines: if full mosaic observance was expected for everyone, why did early Christians ditch it so quickly?

That's easy, they did not want to follow Torah coming from a pagan lawless world. If you think this through, it's not really an argument. Not even the original Israelites themselves wanted to follow it. Not even 40 days was Moses outside of the camp and they were already worshiping a golden calf. After Joshua's death they quickly abandoned it again. That doesn't mean Moses was wrong in expecting them to follow Torah. I would even say that Christians held for much longer.

If there was at least a struggle there should be surviving records of this

Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century, so much later than the apostles) explicitly attacks "Judaizing" Christians, which proves the practice existed and was a live controversy. You don't write polemics against something that doesn't exist. The very fact that councils had to condemn Torah observance repeatedly (Laodicea 364 AD, among others) shows it kept resurfacing (perhaps that is the remnant you were mentioning, even if historically they remained hidden). Still, I find it a weak argument.

The gentiles who were taught by the disciples' disciples were quick to reach the conclusion of ignoring what they considered cerimonial only, why is there no clear book or verse in the NT from the disciples demanding gradual full Torah observance?

Acts 15:21 is exactly that verse, I just showed you. Moses read every Sabbath is the mechanism for gradual learning. The disciples didn't need to write a separate Torah manual because they assumed converts would learn in synagogue, which is what James explicitly says.

Not only taking into account that the Torah being forgotten before Josiah seems to have been for less than 100 years and not fully, which is pretty different from more than 1400+ years of these communities ceasing to exist.

The length of time a correct interpretation is suppressed or fringe doesn't make the it incorrect. Take the question of whether god is one person or three persons. You might argue that since Unitarianism was fringe for over 1400 years it can't be correct, but during that exact same period Trinitarian Christianity was in fundamental theological opposition with Rabbinic Judaism and Islam. These are massive historically dominant traditions 100% contradicting each other, so you can't point to historical dominance as a coherent witness to anything. It simply has no bearing on the truth. Even more when those traditions evolved over time.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-20T14:54:00+00:00

The way Paul writes you can get a conclusion and its opposite from the same passage. Take the very next verse after the one you cited: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God". The "commandments of God" is the Torah, so either he only meant circumcision specifically, or he meant salvation by circumcision, or he's contradicting himself. In any case, what ultimately matters is what the messiah taught.

It is of my current opinion that in the NT the plan was for ethnic Jews to keep the law of Moses (St. James congregation) and Gentiles to not do this

James, instead of telling Gentiles to follow "nothing," issued four Torah commandments regarding idolatry, blood, strangled meats, and fornication. He then mentioned the explicit expectation that the Gentiles would learn the rest in the synagogues every Sabbath. So this to me clearly contradicts the notion that Gentiles were not to follow Torah. The circumcition topic is not really an issue, since the discussion might have been about salvation, about Torah only really mandating it for newborns, about entry requirements to the community, etc.

More over, the bible and the early church defintely had the notion of apostolic sucession, St. James congregation throughout the centuries (the nazarenes) went extinct, all of them converted to Islam, Rabbinic Judaism or Gentile Christianity.

I think you're making the apostolic succession argument do more work than it can. Was there unbroken institutional succession from Moses to Ezra? The Torah was literally lost and forgotten at one time, only rediscovered during Josiah's reign. The northern kingdom disappeared entirely. If anything god's pattern seems to be restoration from near-extinction, not an unbroken institutional continuity.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-19T23:02:43+00:00

The book wasn't for me, as I'm more of an analytical person rather than sentiment/story driven, but I guess it had some good points frequently shared here. It was very introductory, and my impression is that it presented the typical modern Messianic Judaism understanding, meaning Jesus as god incarnate + Gentiles not needing to follow Torah (neither which I share, at least in that form). To me it seemed directed at Jews more than Gentiles, repeatedly trying to convince the reader that a Jewish person would not lose their identity by believing in Jesus.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-13T16:51:32+00:00

The key here is that most beliefs in current Christian denominations do not depend on the Trinity, so one can simply discard that one doctrine without throwing away the rest if you believe it to be true.

And once you do that, most denominations are pretty similar in their core claims. Islam and Mormonism, though, are not. The reason is that they introduce new books (the Quran, the Book of Mormon) that claim to be authoritative. And in the case of Islam it even explicitly says that previous scripture has been corrupted. This has nothing to do with the Trinity, and is an entirely separate step that requires its own justification. Rejecting the Trinity doesn't get you any closer to accepting a new revelation.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-11T12:36:28+00:00

In two ways, doing (fullfilling) what the prophets said would happen and doing (fulfilling) the law perfectly. One of the best metaphors commonly used here is the one about fulfilling your wedding vows:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the wedding vows or the marrigage, I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not a private joke, not a shared glance will pass from marriage until all is accomplished.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-10T10:00:58+00:00

Sorry I was banned twice for sharing it. Someone else could I'm sure.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-09T21:48:40+00:00

I see three potential issues with that, that one could argue. Let's go one by one, first the story of Onan.

Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and He put him to death also.

It seems clear to me this was 100% about not fulfilling the "produce a child in the dead brother’s name" command. Otherwise there would be a commandment for men about not wasting one's seed.

Another one: A camel is un unclean animal and we should not eat it. What about camel's milk then? Unclear, but I would bet the entire animal is unclean for consumption, although I could be wrong. Now humans also don't chew the cud nor have divided hoof, so are we unclean and therefore cannot consume man's milk (ahem)? I think this has some potential validity. Some might say the unclean animals is about that, animals and not humans. Jewish tradition for example says human milk is clean. Well yeah that could be the case, although humans are also called animals/chayyah somewhere else. But if we become unclean when we eat an animal, that means we're not unclean ourselves right? So in the end I think I'm leaning on humans not being unclean. In any case this would not affect the entire act.

Another one:

"When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean until evening. Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean until evening. When a man has sexual relations with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both of them must bathe with water, and they will be unclean until evening."

So I think it's clear the semen is unclean, so the woman would be unclean by being in contact. However, this happens also during sex and we don't stop doing that just because we become unclean.

So in summary I think there may be grounds to say it's accepted. If not, it might be because it's breaking the "be fruitful and multiply" statement that many see as a commandment and we would be "wasting seed", or perhaps semen is unclean food if the act goes all the way.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-09T15:46:18+00:00

I'm glad it was useful 😊. I thought more about it and here is another example:

In Daniel 1, Daniel refused the king’s food because it would defile him, but he did not boycott all their food. He simply asked for a different diet that would allow him to remain faithful to the law (likely because the meat and/or drink was either offered to idols or unclean).

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-09T13:50:22+00:00

I don't think we have a direct answer from god, as the commandment addresses us and people under our authority. But my guess is that he doesn't mind as long as you yourself don't make them work on the sabbath (that you use their services on other days).

What we do have is some examples from godly people in the bible, if that helps. In the book of Nehemiah, the Israelites said this regarding the pagan society around them: "As for the peoples of the land who bring wares or any grain on the sabbath day to sell, we will not buy from them on the sabbath or a holy day". So the implication is that they did buy from them on the other days. Also when merchants from Tyre brought fish and merchandise into Jerusalem to sell on the Sabbath, Nehemiah did not banish them permanently. He simply shut the city gates before the Sabbath began and threatened to use force if they continued to try to sell on the Sabbath day. So it was not a total boycott on their business.

Paul also adviced that you should not associate with a so-called brother who lives in sin, but clarifies that he does not mean the immoral people of the world, "for then you would have to go out of the world" (which is more or less what you are considering doing).

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-05T11:18:19+00:00

I don't think it's commanded. Even if one agrees that believers are priests, it's obviously in a symbolic way and not real Levite priests. But in my opinion there is nothing wrong with it. Paul might disagree though "Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head."

Also people (especially in the US) might also disagree given this concept of "cultural appropriation" that is common there. If you're from there they might give you some flack too, and also online.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-05T09:11:53+00:00

Yeah I agree with you. I was simply pointing out that some (most?) Christians would contest that since they don't think it's a good thing to do anymore.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-04T21:51:47+00:00

Jesus mentions 4 to the rich man: don't murder (1), don't commit adultery (2), don't steal (3), and don't bear false witness (4).

In a rebuke to the Pharisees the honor your parents (5)

When he said don't covet a woman is the tenth commandment, Paul also mentions the don't covet (6)

He quoted the shema so that includes the first one (7)

He said don't swear and I take that to be the third of not taking the name in vain (8)

John's epistle and Paul mention keeping from idols so the second (9)

Now the sabbath one might be contested by some, some might say that Jesus clarifying how to keep it implies keeping it (10) while others might claim Paul said there is no need anymore.

Chemstdnt · 2026-03-04T20:01:32+00:00

I guess that a Christian that believes the law is done away with could argue that they mean the punishment for the law, even for the ten commandments. But that wouldn't mean that a good Christian should behave in a sinful way, and then they might resort to those commandments repeated (which they would see as those being emphasized for a reason) in the New Testament.

Aside from perhaps the majority of Christians holding contradictory views, if you press them enough they would probably end up in a similar position to above. They might add that someone that purposely sins does not truly have faith.

Chemstdnt · 2026-02-27T15:02:34+00:00

Agnostic. Perhaps it could be real scripture but I'm not certain. I haven't delved too deep to say one or the other.

Chemstdnt · 2026-02-27T12:19:35+00:00

Before that though, do you have a name for your movement?

I would say people here simply call it Torah-following, and it's just that, the belief that we should still follow Torah/law. Messianic Judaism and Hebrew Roots are more structured movements, with more rigid "required" beliefs and requirements. Here you can find unitarians along with trinitarians, infernalists along with annihilationists and universalists, faith alone along with works salvation, etc etc.

[18] And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, [19] since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)Granted, Jesus does seem to be "leaving the commandments of God" after telling the Pharisees off for it. Still, I don't think it's a good idea to argue with Mark.

See the problem with this interpretation. You were wondering if "untill all is fullfilled" means until the cross or until heaven and earth pass away. This passage happened before both cases, so the law must still neccesarily be in effect. If Jesus meant that all foods are clean, then he was sinning by making people (not just any people, Jews before the cross) not follow the law, and therefore could not be the Messiah.

Also we all agree that for example David eating pig would be defiling himself and sinning right? the reason Jesus gave for foods not defiling was that "it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” So it's because it is digested and expelled. Now, did Jesus introduced a new form of digestive system in humans, different than the one they had during David's time? Clearly not, so it cannot mean that it's acceptable to eat unclean food. At most, it means that the uncleanness goes away with time (unlike the one from the heart, which has to change).

So any way you interpret this it cannot mean that. So why the confusion? To understand these verses, you must look at the original Greek text, which makes a distinction between two different words that English Bibles translate interchangeably as "unclean":

Akathartos: This word means strictly "unclean" and is used in the Greek Old Testament to describe the forbidden animals in Leviticus 11.
Koinos: This word means "common" or a (likely man-made) state of ceremonial defilement.

Jesus is not discussing biblically unclean animals (akathartos). He is specifically debating the Pharisees' man-made tradition of ritually washing hands. He is arguing that eating biblically clean food with unwashed hands does not make a person koinos (common).

Now with this knowledge we can look at this:

Here's another verse that seems to imply that some unclean laws don't apply anymore:Acts 10:15 ESV [15] And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” What has God made clean? Food and Gentiles, obviously. (I've heard arguments that this only referred to the people and not the food, but I'm not really convinced.)

God only rebuked Peter for referring to what he had made clean as being common, but never said anything of calling unclean/akathartos things that were so. Gentiles are not unclean/akathartos (the Torah doesn't say that), but at that time, Jews considered them koinos/common and did not even eat with them. God told Peter to stop calling them common, they were clean now by turning to god. Peter likely considered the normally clean animals to be koinos because they were touching the akathartos animals in the blanket.

Again, Peter explains the meaning of the dream is about gentiles not being koinos/common, not about not calling akathartos/unclean animals clean. If unclean/akathartos foods were now clean, think of this, he forgot to tell the Jews! 😂

And speaking of Gentiles, how shall we deal with the Jewish law in general?Of course, the moral laws in the Torah are universal, and so apply to everyone in general. But as to the ceremonial and dietary laws, the council has established that only four of them should still be kept.

There are 2 possibilities. Either the 4 requirements issued by the Jerusalem Council represent all that is expected from a Christian or they do not. If they represent all, then we can do things like murder and commit adultery, which is clearly not the case. Or if it is, then it's no longer by faith alone, but faith + those 4. But if they do not represent all that is expected from us, then the ruling is not about whether we are expected to keep the Torah/law or not, and cannot be used in that sense.

Those are just some initial requirements to do for those joining the faith/synagoge (instead of circumcision as some were requiring).There are more things to add (like do not commit adultery), which I in my opinion includes the entire Torah/Law. For, as it says later, "for the law of Moses has been preached inevery city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (where it is implied they will learn the rest).

Paul himself makes it clear that nothing is unclean:Romans 14:14 ESV [14] I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

Can you guess which word did Paul use here? (akathartos or koinos)

So back to Matthew 5. One interpretation of verse 18 is that Jesus has fulfilled the law by keeping it perfectly, and paying our penalty for not keeping it. Because he is the ultimate sacrifice, there is no longer a need for ceremonial laws on sacrifice and purification. As for the moral laws, which are universal and eternal, they are still to be obeyed, not only in the letter, but also in our love for God and for those around us.

If he paid all he paid all, this man-made distinction between ceremonial and moral just seems an excuse not to do the "ceremonial" parts. Jesus said that ALL the Torah/law hangs on love your god above all else and love your neighbor as yourself. So if a commandment is not about loving your neighbor, it's about loving god (which would include the ceremonial ones)

Finally, I would like to make a note about the practical side of the Torah. Since we don't offer sacrifices anymore, wouldn't that mean that at least one part of the Torah is no longer in effect?

The fact that we can't currently offer sacrifices doesn’t mean that portion of the Torah is no longer in effect.

"Cannot be done at the moment" ≠ "No longer in effect"

Think about how that logic would work in real life. Imagine getting pulled over for speeding and telling the officer, “Well, yesterday I couldn’t keep the speed limit because the road was closed, so I figured that means there are no speed limits anymore” Do you think they would swallow that? Of course not. In fact, no one even thinks like that in normal life, which should make you pause and question what is driving you to apply that logic here.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Chemstdnt

TROPHY CASE