The law in Galatians

[joeb]

I agree regarding the importance of understand Paul in the context of his time.  We tend to read into Paul a lot, especially from Reformation theology.  I'm studying a couple of things in regards to Paul right now.

Please feel free to post the name of the book you have in mind.

Do a Google search for the exact phrase that follows this sentence and the first result from that search will be a link which will download a free pdf copy of the book.  practical lessons from the experience of israel

I hope you enjoy this book.  I did and I learned a lot from it.

[Ron Amnsn]

I have listened to many of the Messianic, and Hebrew Roots Movement teachers over the years. [...]

[...]

The FACT that Jews (still today) place the "Oral Torah" above any part of the "Written Torah" - is the argument they use to convince believers that "the Law in Galatians" refers to "the Oral Traditions" NOT to the laws concerning circumcision, the sacrifices and the Aaronic priesthood - Laws given by God for Israel.

The Messianic and Hebrew Roots teachers provide evidence directly from the Bible to support this teaching that you disagree with. Some may also mention the "FACT" you cited above.  But even if every Jew alive today and for the past 1000 years did not follow "oral law", it would still be evident from Scripture that Paul was not teaching that any of God's Word should be set aside, and that if Paul had taught that parts of God's Law of Moses had been set aside then Paul would be a false apostle.

Paul himself testified, "However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets," (Acts 24:14 NIV)  As you know, the "Law" and the "Prophets" were what the Jews called the two main sections of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Also, the people in the Jewish synagogue at Berea searched the Scriptures daily to confirm that Paul's teachings were in agreement with the Old Testament Scriptures, which were the only Scriptures available at that time and the only Scriptures used in a Jewish synagogue. (see Acts 17:10-11) 

Rachel, if you had taught in that same synagogue at Berea the month before Paul did, would the people have been able to confirm your teachings in the Old Testament?  No, because some of your teachings are contrary to both the Law and the Prophets. You also seem to believe that Paul was lying when he testified to the governor Felix that everything he believed agreed with the Law and the Prophets.

 

[8thdaypriest]

The Messianic and Hebrew Roots teachers provide evidence directly from the Bible to support this teaching that you disagree with. Some may also mention the "FACT" you cited above.  But even if every Jew alive today and for the past 1000 years did not follow "oral law", it would still be evident from Scripture that Paul was not teaching that any of God's Word should be set aside, and that if Paul had taught that parts of God's Law of Moses had been set aside then Paul would be a false apostle.

Paul himself testified, "However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets," (Acts 24:14 NIV)  As you know, the "Law" and the "Prophets" were what the Jews called the two main sections of the Old Testament Scriptures.

Also, the people in the Jewish synagogue at Berea searched the Scriptures daily to confirm that Paul's teachings were in agreement with the Old Testament Scriptures, which were the only Scriptures available at that time and the only Scriptures used in a Jewish synagogue. (see Acts 17:10-11) 

Rachel, if you had taught in that same synagogue at Berea the month before Paul did, would the people have been able to confirm your teachings in the Old Testament?  No, because some of your teachings are contrary to both the Law and the Prophets. You also seem to believe that Paul was lying when he testified to the governor Felix that everything he believed agreed with the Law and the Prophets.

 

In YOUR opinion Ron. 

You write as if YOU are the only correct interpreter of Scripture here.  

If God's PLAN was for "the blood of Christ" to replace (Yes - I said REPLACE) the "blood of bulls and goats" as the remedy for transgression, then God's PLAN has remained "the same".  Therefore GOD has remained "the same".    

If God's PLAN - all along - was for the "blood of bulls and goats" only to serve as an acted prophecy of Messiah, then God has NOT CHANGED. 

Personally - I believe God allowed the Temple at Jerusalem to be destroyed, so that His people would STOP offering the "blood of bulls and goats".  The Temple has been gone for many more years than every Tabernacle/Temple stood.   If folks for the last 1900+ years, can UNDERSTAND that Jesus died as the "one true offering for sins" - I do not see that watching a lamb bleed out, would ADD TO my understanding of WHAT Christ did. 

[Ron Amnsn]

If God's PLAN was for "the blood of Christ" to replace (Yes - I said REPLACE) the "blood of bulls and goats" as the remedy for transgression, then God's PLAN has remained "the same".  Therefore GOD has remained "the same".

That would be true, if that had been God's plan all along.  But Scripture doesn't actually say that this was God's plan, while there are several passages of Scripture that show that it wasn't God's plan. 

Hebrews 10:4 says, "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." and verse 11 says, "Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;"  That means that the animal sacrifices were never the solution to sin -- not when Abel obediently demonstrated his faith by offering a sacrifice, not when Abraham offered a sacrifice, not when Aaron obediently offered the sacrifices in the wilderness, not when Jesus told the cleansed lepers to go offer the prescribed sacrifices, and not when the disciples were daily at the Temple after Jesus ascended.

In Exodus 29 where God is giving instructions for the daily sacrificess morning and evening He says, "It shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the doorway of the tent of meeting before the LORD, where I will meet with you, to speak to you there."  Notice that it doesn't say, "until Messiah dies", but rather "throughout your generations".  Did God originally plan for the Israelites to stop having generations when Messiah came?  Apparently not. Psalm 105:8 says, "He has remembered His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations."  If there were only 15 years between generations on average, a thousand generations would still span 15,000 years.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

If God's PLAN - all along - was for the "blood of bulls and goats" only to serve as an acted prophecy of Messiah, then God has NOT CHANGED. 

That would be true too, if that was God's plan all along.  But the problem is that Scripture doesn't actually say that was the only purpose of the sacrifices.  In fact, that purpose is never mentioned in Torah, but other purposes are mentioned.  Numbers 15:8 says animal sacrifices could be offered for special vows, or for peace offerings.  Many places say the burnt offerings were a soothing aroma before YHWH.  Deut. 16 says that the annual Passover was to remind them that they came out of Egypt. Several texts say the sacrifices were food for God (ie Num 28:2), and portions of the sacrifices were food for the priests.

[Ron Amnsn]

Personally - I believe God allowed the Temple at Jerusalem to be destroyed, so that His people would STOP offering the "blood of bulls and goats". 

Of course, you can share your personal beliefs.  But it should be noted that the Scriptures never say that was the reason that the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed.  That is merely speculation and man-made tradition.  If that is true, it would mean that God destroyed his Temple for obedience to his Word and for following the instructions regarding sacrifices that God himself had instructed to be offered "throughout your generations" -- sacrifices which God never told them to stop offering.  That would represent a major change in the way God deals with people. In Scripture God talks about destroying Jerusalem and the Temple because of iniquity, but never for obedience.  Is God really that fickle?  I don't think so.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Ron Amnsn

[Ron Amnsn]

The Temple has been gone for many more years than every Tabernacle/Temple stood.

Is this relevant? 

The throne of David has been empty for much longer than the Temple has been gone.  Yet Jeremiah 33:14-22 says,

'Behold, days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she will be called: the LORD is our righteousness.  For thus says the LORD, 'David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually.'
The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, "Thus says the LORD, 'If you can break My covenant for the day and My covenant for the night, so that day and night will not be at their appointed time, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant so that he will not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, My ministers.  As the host of heaven cannot be counted and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.

Luke 1:32 tells us that Jesus will sit on the throne of his ancestor David.  That hasn't happened yet.  It's been well over 2000 years since one of David's descendants sat on David's throne.  Yet I believe it will happen in due time.  According to David's understanding of the promise that was given to him, his descendents would only sit on that throne if they were careful to obey the Law of Moses.  Here it is in David's own words:

As David's time to die drew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, "I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. Keep the charge of the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn, so that the LORD may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, 'If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.'  (1 Kings 2: 1-4 )

If David was correct, and there's no reason he wouldn't be, Jesus will still be living according to the Law of Moses when he sits on the throne of David.

 

[8thdaypriest]

I understand WHAT you are saying Ron.  I do NOT AGREE with what you are saying.  I do NOT WANT to debate this issue with you again.  This is not my thread.

Here is the thread that I started back in January.  I dropped out of it, because you are I were simply repeating ourselves. 

An end to sacrifices

Started by 8thdaypriest, 6 January

[Ron Amnsn]

I understand WHAT you are saying Ron.  I do NOT AGREE with what you are saying.  I do NOT WANT to debate this issue with you again.  

I understand that you prefer to make your assertions without having them tested by Scripture.

[8thdaypriest]

I understand that you prefer to make your assertions without having them tested by Scripture.

I HAVE posted LOTS of Scripture.  Name calling will NOT win you respect on this forum. 

[Ron Amnsn]

I HAVE posted LOTS of Scripture.  Name calling will NOT win you respect on this forum. 

Yes, you have posted Scripture passages, and I agree with some of what you post.  But when your interpretations disagree with other passages of Scripture, shouldn't we look at those passages too?

[JoeMo]

Yes, you have posted Scripture passages, and I agree with some of what you post.  But when your interpretations disagree with other passages of Scripture, shouldn't we look at those passages too?

I personally find almost all of Rachel's interpretatons reasonable and insightful.  I have learned much from her posts and her website.

When you say her interpretations disagree with other passages in scripture, don't you mean that her interpretationsif scripture disagree with your interpretation of other scripture?  When we see contradictions in scripture, it's usually because we are misinterpreting the scripture.  HR is not the sole possessor of Biblical truth.  I think the "UltimateTruth" will look a lot different in the Kingdom than any of us sees right now.  Most human interpretation tends to put God in a box by defining Him through human wisdom.  God and the Kingdom will not be defined by us; they are defined by God.  Until then, for the most part our interpretations are educated speculation at best.

[LifeHiscost]

 

   Until then, for the most part our interpretations are educated speculation at best  

How does that fit with these promises given for the person relying on the leading of God for their conclusions?

20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God....2 Peter 1

17Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own.....John7

…18Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. 19We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him....1 John 3

13"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"....Luke 11

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Ron Amnsn]

When you say her interpretations disagree with other passages in scripture, don't you mean that her interpretations of scripture disagree with your interpretation of other scripture?

I can see how it might look that way.  But I think I am open to considering other interpretations of the passages, as long as there is a possibility that those interpretations carry the meaning that the original author may have intended.  I also expect an interpretation of a passage to agree with the Scriptures that were written earlier (or with plausible interpretations thereof).

The problem Eve ran into at the Tree of Knowledge was that she accepted the new revelation provided by the [supposedly] enlightened serpent, even though it contradicted the earlier instructions given by God.  That's one of the very first lessons in Scripture, which teaches us about the first test that humans failed.  I think it's put there for a purpose.  How many times should we keep failing that same test?

[JoeMo]

I can see how it might look that way.  But I think I am open to considering other interpretations of the passages, as long as there is a possibility that those interpretations carry the meaning that the original author may have intended.  I also expect an interpretation of a passage to agree with the Scriptures that were written earlier (or with plausible interpretations thereof).

The problem Eve ran into at the Tree of Knowledge was that she accepted the new revelation provided by the [supposedly] enlightened serpent, even though it contradicted the earlier instructions given by God.  That's one of the very first lessons in Scripture, which teaches us about the first test that humans failed.  I think it's put there for a purpose.  How many times should we keep failing that same test?

Discovering the author's intended interpretation is a challenge at best, impossible at worst.

As far as accepting new revelation, admittedly Eve had very little to verify the serpent's "revelation" (even though she did have the direct word from God), we have the benefit of 66 books or reference material by which to check/verify "new revelation".  If it is not according to the words in the Book (or is it our interpretation of the words in the Book?), then there is no light in them. But there's still that sticky matter of interpretation ...

But what about those things that "changed" with the death and resurrection of Christ - like the believer's access to the Most Holy place through Jesus' torn body as the veil?  Or no more earthly high priest offering bulls and rams blood for the remission of our sins since Jesus' blood sufficed once and for all?  Or the inclusion of Gentiles as part of spiritual Israel?

I know that with your HR background you probably don't agree with my assertions; that you believe that many if not all of the OT festivals, sacrifices, etc. are still in force today - I've read your debates with Rachel.  It's your right to believe that and your responsibility to follow what you believe, as long as your mind remains open to evolving truth.

[Ron Amnsn]

Discovering the author's intended interpretation is a challenge at best, impossible at worst.

As far as accepting new revelation, admittedly Eve had very little to verify the serpent's "revelation" (even though she did have the direct word from God), we have the benefit of 66 books or reference material by which to check/verify "new revelation".  If it is not according to the words in the Book (or is it our interpretation of the words in the Book?), then there is no light in them. But there's still that sticky matter of interpretation ...

If you believe that God dumped all 66 books into our laps with no sequence, background, or context then it would be difficult to discover the author's meaning because you wouldn't be able to tell which interpretations had merit and which interpretations were obviously wrong.  But the Bible didn't come all at once -- it came in a sequence. 

The first revelations were used to test each subsequent revelation. The first chapters of Genesis give us the foundation. As each "prophet" or revelation came along, his teaching, prophecies, and lifestyle would be tested to see if he agreed or disagreed with what was already known about the true God and his dealings with men.  Over the centuries, the library of true writings grew, each being tested by what came before. The earlier books provided the context and background for the later books.  People sometimes mock Protestants because Protestants seem to rely on the Catholics to determine the canon of Scripture (which books are Scripture and which aren't).  But if you go through the process of testing each potential book of the Bible by those books that came before, as was done through the centuries, you'll end up accepting pretty much the same books we have in the Bible, and rejecting the writings that are not in the Bible.  We're at a bit of a disadvantage now because we don't know each prophet as well as their contemporaries did. 

When Jesus came along, he wasn't just given a free pass to be the Messiah in any way he wanted, just because he did miracles.  People compared what Jesus did and taught with what Moses had written, and with what the prophets had written.  Although Jesus disagreed with some of the interpretations of Moses that were prevalent, he didn't disagree with what Moses actually wrote (after all, we are told that it was the pre-incarnate Jesus himself that told Moses what to write).  After the resurrection Jesus showed the men on the road to Emmaus how the prior writings of Scripture agreed with what Jesus did.  There was no disagreement between the teachings of Moses and the Prophets and the teachings of Jesus, so people accepted Jesus as the Messiah and added his teachings to their collection of correct teachings.  Paul's teachings too were tested by the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus.  If Paul had disagreed with what was in Scripture, the Bereans wouldn't have accepted his teachings and neither would any of the other followers of Jesus.

But now days, people have never known how to test the teachings they hear or read.  They read things Paul wrote about issues within Judaism, and because they know so little about the Old Testament and how the Jews interpreted it at that time, they think Paul was disagreeing with Moses and agreeing with modern Christianity. And they somehow think Paul had the authority to overturn the teachings of Moses.  Thus they are deceived the same way the Eve was deceived, by accepting a story that disagrees with what God said earlier.  Without context or sequence people go back to the writings of God's OT prophets and come up with modern interpretations that never would have been accepted as truth by the prophet or his contemporaries because these modern interpretations disagree with what God had revealed in Scripture prior to what the prophet wrote or spoke.  As time progresses God does reveal more truth, but new truth doesn't disagree with old truth--  the new revelations agree with what came before, or else God explicitly says "this part has been changed" and clearly shows that the change is done by his authority.

Growing up I was taught to just assume that Jesus had changed a whole bunch of things from how they had been in the Old Testament. But reading through the book of Acts I noticed that what I had been taught disagreed with what Paul and the apostles were doing and teaching.  I had to go back and test each of the assumptions I had inherited, to see if these things were so. Much of what I had been taught agreed with the whole of the Bible.  But some things disagreed with both the New Testament and the Old Testament.  The biggest assumption that was not supported by Scripture was the scope of the changes that occurred at death and resurrection of Jesus.  That assumption is so huge and so pervasive that people read things into Scripture that just aren't there, even in plain English.

[JoeMo]

Very thoughtful post, Ron.  As you know, there has always been some controversy  over what books legitimately belong in the Bible and which ones don't.  You mentioned that the Catholics put the Bible together; and I inferred that you added "by divine inspiration and much study" between the lines.  Then why does the Catholic Bible include books that the KJV doesn't?  Or conversely, why did Protestants reject books that Catholics use?  What about apocryphal writings referred to in scripture (e.g., the Book of Enoch)?  Why were they rejected?

You know that Bible books are not arranged in chronological order.  If they were, my guess (and a "guess is all it is) is that the Book of Job should be the first book if the Bible.  Then there's the matter of the promptings of the Spirit that on the surface appear to contradict previously given laws?  Why did God give David and his men a "pass" to eat the shewbread when He had previously stricly forbidden its consumption by anyone but priests?  Why didn't Jesus cast the first stone upon the woman caught in adultery (since He met the criteria of being the One present without sin) when the Law specified that was what to be done in the OT law?  Why did He command Peter to eat unclean food when He had previously forbidden it? There are many other events like this in God's word.  my guess is that things "changed upon Jesus' death and resurrection.  Does God have the right to make exceptions to "the letter of" His own law if it suits His ultimate purposes and His sovereign will? I say yes.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying I don't see it like you do.

[LifeHiscost]

 Why did He command Peter to eat unclean food when He had previously forbidden it?

Just having studied the Acts of the apostles in daily worship, perhaps this will give some added insight you may not have noticed before.

¹³ And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

¹⁴ But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”

¹⁵ And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” .....Acts 10

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. ¹¹ At that very moment, three men stood before the house where I was, having been sent to me from Caesarea. ¹² Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. ¹³ And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, ¹⁴ who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ ¹⁵ And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. ¹⁶ Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ ¹⁷ If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”

¹⁸ When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”....Acts 11

The gentiles before this were considered unclean by the Jews and the vision of the unclean beasts was an allegory given by the Lord that Peter was not to shun them when revealed that God was able to save them as well as the chosen race, or the Hebraic ethnicity.

This of course follows the gospel message, that eliminates the exclusion of any man made in the image of God.

¹⁴ And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, ¹⁵ that whoever believes in Him should not perish but^[b]have eternal life. ¹⁶ For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. ¹⁷ For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.....John 3

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

 

[phkrause]

Exactly LHC, this passage has nothing to do with eating unclean food. He had to do with the disciples bringing the good news to the gentiles.

[Ron Amnsn]

Every time God lowers a bunch unclean animals from heaven in a vision and declares them clean, you could probably eat those particular animals.
In Peter's case though, God didn't actually declare the animals clean.

[Tom Wetmore]

While I agree that this is not a passage that by itself one should take as permission to disregard those rules.   However, there are a number of other passages that do tend to support that the rules of clean vs. unclean were no longer imposed upon the church.  These were among the ceremonial laws, along with circumcision, etc. But the clear purpose of that dream was to break down one real aspect of the rues as they had been practiced among the Jews, fellowshipping with Gentiles that were considered a violation of those rules just as much as eating unclean animals.  

[FLO]

Here's a good video series that explains the Law in Galatians very well :  http://www.yah-tube.com/videos/rico/Galatians_1/index.html

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

Here's a good video series that explains the Law in Galatians very well :  http://www.yah-tube.com/videos/rico/Galatians_1/index.html

 

 

I'm very familiar with Rico Cortes.  He is Hebrew Roots.  He has many very good insights.  I don't agree with his teaching that the Law in Galatians is the Oral Torah of the Pharisees. 

The Oral Torah of the Pharisees was NOT a God appointed "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ. 

Rico teaches that the ENTIRE LAW - including the sacrifice of prescribed animals - will continue as soon as a Temple is restored on the Mount.  Only descendants of Aaron, who are also "sons of Zadok" will act as priests (which means that Aaron himself could NOT be a priest).  Even Jesus will not be a priest then.  He believes Jesus cannot be a priest - on the earth, because he is not descended from Aaron.  He can only be High Priest in the Heavenly realm. 

I would point out that Jesus is a Melchizedek priest.  Melchizedek was a priest ON EARTH.  The Melchizedek priesthood preceded the Aaronic.  The Aaronic was only a plan B sort of priesthood.  The LORD's intention was that all of Israel would be "a kingdom of priests".  If God the Father said to His Son, "thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek" - then FOREVER is FOREVER.  If Jesus moves to earth - He doesn't STOP being a priest. 

[pnattmbtc]

Very thoughtful post, Ron.  As you know, there has always been some controversy  over what books legitimately belong in the Bible and which ones don't.  You mentioned that the Catholics put the Bible together; and I inferred that you added "by divine inspiration and much study" between the lines.  Then why does the Catholic Bible include books that the KJV doesn't?  Or conversely, why did Protestants reject books that Catholics use?  What about apocryphal writings referred to in scripture (e.g., the Book of Enoch)?  Why were they rejected?

You know that Bible books are not arranged in chronological order.  If they were, my guess (and a "guess is all it is) is that the Book of Job should be the first book if the Bible.  Then there's the matter of the promptings of the Spirit that on the surface appear to contradict previously given laws?  Why did God give David and his men a "pass" to eat the shewbread when He had previously stricly forbidden its consumption by anyone but priests?  Why didn't Jesus cast the first stone upon the woman caught in adultery (since He met the criteria of being the One present without sin) when the Law specified that was what to be done in the OT law?  Why did He command Peter to eat unclean food when He had previously forbidden it? There are many other events like this in God's word.  my guess is that things "changed upon Jesus' death and resurrection.  Does God have the right to make exceptions to "the letter of" His own law if it suits His ultimate purposes and His sovereign will? I say yes.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying I don't see it like you do.

I don't think God changed things, but rather Scripture is often not interpreted correctly.  "Correctly" is a loaded word here, but what I mean by it is interpret Scripture as Jesus would interpret it.  I think Jesus interpreted Scripture according to how the Holy Spirit inspired it.  What Jesus said appears to us to be different because we don't read Scripture the same way Jesus read it.

For example, Jesus said He did the things He saw His Father do, and spoke the things He heard His Father spoke; He was referring to what He had seen and heard from studying Scripture.  When Jesus said, "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father," Jesus was referring to the image of God He had from studying Scripture, since what Jesus presented is what He understood.  Nobody had ever understood from Scripture what Jesus understood.  Even today we see the same thing.  However, we have the benefit of what Jesus taught to help us, and especially we have the cross, which is the ultimate revelation of God's character.  All of our interpretations should be in harmony with that revelation.

[pnattmbtc]

But now days, people have never known how to test the teachings they hear or read.  They read things Paul wrote about issues within Judaism, and because they know so little about the Old Testament and how the Jews interpreted it at that time, they think Paul was disagreeing with Moses and agreeing with modern Christianity. 

I agree with this.  Paul is often read as if he were a Lutheran.