1 Timothy 4:3

[Soyeong]

Even if you take out the parts about sacrifices, there are many other parts to the laws listed there. I understand that not all laws apply to everyone, since not everyone is the same gender, position, etc. - but these laws addressed to women applied to all women, and these laws addressed to men applied to all men. The scripture in Leviticus 15 discusses breaking objects that touch females during their menstruation cycle, keeping to themselves for periods of time, other people not being in contact with them, etc. There are quite a few things more than just the sacrifices. So do you ignore sections of the OT scripture, just because a portion of the scripture talks about the temple?

Those laws are in regard to ritual purity, which is in regard to temple practice. Again, say a law doesn't apply under certain conditions is not the same thing as ignoring the law. Sin makes us ritually impure, but it was not a sin to become ritually impure. For instance, someone who was in the same room as someone who died would become ritually impure through no fault of their own, but they would not be sinning. They could then go home and eat a kosher meal, which would become ritually impure because they touched it, but they again would not be sinning. According to the law, Messiah became ritually unclean when healed someone who was dead, when he touched someone with leprosy, or when he was touched by the woman suffering from bleeding, but he was not sinning.

 

[giftofGod2]

Soyeong, I would do an extensive study in the epistle of Paul to the Galatians.

Therein, Paul tells us how as many as are the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Galatians 3:10. We know that Romans 3:23 tells us that For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

In Galatians 3:11, Paul continues his argument: But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Also, Galatians 2:16 is essential to our understanding: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Romans 3:19-21 tells us something similar: Now we know that what things so ever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.

And in 1 Timothy 1:9-11 we find who is under the law: Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselve with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was comitted to my trust.

In that last part, according to the glorious gospel, not the OT law, as law and gospel are distinct in scripture; and there is a law of the gospel; but we will not get into that right now.

So Soyeong, if you want to keep your Jewishness as a Messianic Jew and keep the dietary requirements, I do not condemn you or despise you, for it is written,

(Romans 14:1-6), Him that is weak in the faith receive you, but not to doubtful disputations. For one bellieveth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully convinced in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

I also expect you not to condemn or despise me if I enjoy a sausage McMuffin from time to time.

So are Psalms 119:142 and 2 Timothy 3:15-17 wrong? At the time Timothy was a infant, the only Scriptures that had been written yet were OT Scriptures, so Paul was primarily saying that God's law is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. Furthermore, according to Deuteronomy 13:4-6, the way to tell that someone was a false prophet was if they taught God's people against doing what He had commanded, even if they performed performed signs and wonders, so God's law was given as the standard of truth. According to Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised for apply this standard by testing everything Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true. If Paul had tried telling them that Leviticus 11 was cancelled, then they would have known that he was a false prophet and rightfully disregarded what he said instead of accepting it.



In Romans 6:8-14, the law that we are no longer under has to do with sin and death no longer having dominion over us, so the law that we are not under is the law of sin and death. In Romans 7:12-Romans 8:2, Paul said that God's law was holy, righteous, and good, that it was the good that he sought to do and delighted in doing, but contrasted that with a law of sin and death that was working within him to cause him to not do the good that he wanted to do, so the law of sin and death is the opposite of God's law. God has no need to deliver us from obeying His instructions for how to do what is holy, righteous, and good, nor should we even want to be delivered from them, but rather we should likewise day delight in obeying God's law by faith (Psalms 1:1-2, Romans 7:22).

In the Romans 7:1-4, Paul was not using an analogy where everything in the example is represented by something else, but rather he said he was speaking to those who knew the law, so he was using an example from the law to illustrate his point. We can't be represented by the woman because we are dying to the law and it is her husband that died and we can be represented by the man because we are the ones who are set free to belong to another. When the woman's husband died she wasn't set free from the law so that she could now freely commit murder any do everything else the law prohibited, but rather she was only set free from the aspect of the law that would penalize her if she were to live with another man while her husband was still alive. If we are dead to the law, then it can't penalize us, so being dead to the law is not a status of being free from obeying it, but a status of being free from its condemnation, which is the point that Paul was concluding from in Romans 8:1. In Romans 7:6, is specifies that we died to that which held us captive, so it is again referring to the condemnation of the law, not to its holy, righteous, and good instructions. God's law is a law of liberty (Psalms 119:145, James 1:25) and it is sin in transgression of God's law that puts us in captivity.



What was nailed to crosses were the charges against someone (Mark 15:26), not the law itself, so they didn't have to legislate new laws every time someone was crucified. This fits perfectly with the concept of Messiah being our kinsman redeemer who died on the cross for the penalty of our sins and to set us free from captivity to sin, but does not fit at all with him dying to redeem us from the law. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Messiah gave himself to redeem us from the law, but from lawlessness.



In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, it refers to OT Scriptures as being profitable for equipping us to do every good work, so does it make sense to you to say in Ephesians 2:10 that we are made new creations in Messiah for the purpose of doing good works and then a few verses later say that Messiah abolished his instructions for how to do good works? Rather, what he abolished were man-made ordinances, such as mentioned in Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles, which were actually against God's word (Leviticus 19:34). We should be careful not to mistake something that was against obeying man's laws and being against obeying God's commands.



Romans 15:18-19 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ;

In these verses, fulfilling the gospel does not refer to doing away with it or to making it no longer binding, but rather it refers to fully teaching obedience to it. Similarly, in Matthew 5:17, fulfilling the law does not mean to make it no longer binding, but rather it refers to fully teaching how to understand and obey it, which is precisely what Messiah then proceeded to do in the rest of the chapter. Your understanding of fulfilling the law is essentially the same as abolishing it, which Messiah contrasted with fulfilling it.



The context of Mark 7 is a discussion with Pharisees about whether people could be defiled by eating food with unwashed hands (Mark 7:1-4) and at no point did the conversation jump from being about a man-made ritual purity law to being about God's dietary laws, so Messiah was just countering the man-made law. His statement at the end of the conversation in the parallel account in Matthew 15:20 confirms that he was still talking about not being defiled by eating with unwashed hands.

Mark 7:19 is a rather difficult passage to translate because there is no "thus he declared" in the Greek, and a number of translations do not say that he declared all foods clean. However, even if I were to grant that is correctly translated, it would still not support God's dietary laws being done away with. For starters, when one Jew is talking to other Jews about food, they are not talking about the things that we consider to be food, but the things that God gave them to as food in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, so eating pork would never have even come to their minds. However, even if I were to grant that they were talking about everything that could be eaten, including human flesh, the word translated as "clean" is only used in the context of ritual purity, so at most he was saying that all foods were ritually clean, which is again in line with the context of the discussion.

Messiah had just finished calling the Pharisees hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God, so if he had set aside God's dietary laws just a few verses later, then that would have made him an even bigger hypocrite. Furthermore, doing that would put him in violation of Deuteronomy 13, which would have made him a false prophet and disqualified him from being the Messiah. According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add or subtract from God's law, so he would have also been sinning, which would again disqualify him from being the Messiah and mean that he was in just as much of a need of a savior from his sins as everyone else. It would have given his critics for once a legitimate reason to stone him and they wouldn't have needed to find false witnesses at his trial, but they didn't even seem to notice that he made such a radical statement. Doing away with the commands of God would have been a major doctrinal issue, not something relegated to a parenthetical side statement.



Do you hold the view that the law was only given to Jews and not to Gentiles? If so, then that is inconsistent with the view that Messiah came to free Gentiles from the law because he didn't need to come to free them from something that they were never given in the first place. Having no more need for a teacher is not the same as having no more need to follow what they taught you. When someone graduates from first grade to second grade, they come under a new teacher, but does the teacher tell them to forget everything they learned in first grade so that they can start fresh or does the teacher build upon what they were previously taught? The Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so we have a superior teacher who can give us a superior understanding of how to do what is holy, righteous, and good, but that is still in accordance with God's law. In addition, the only way for there to be a superior way of doing what is holy, righteous, and good is if there is a superior God because God's instructions for how to do so are based on His holiness, righteousness, and goodness.

 

[Soyeong]

I believe that by the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy, the gospel of Mark was accepted as the word of the Lord.

There is an issue of when things were written and how quickly they were recognized as Scripture after they were written, but at the time that Paul wrote 1 Timothy it was certainly possible that it was recognized as such. However, at the time that Timothy was an infant (2 Timothy 3:15), the gospel of Mark hadn't been written yet. So verses 16-17 can certainly be true about NT Scripture, but that was not what Paul was referring to. Even if Paul was referring to all Scripture including that of the NT, then it would still include Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

Therefore when it says that every creature, as a food, is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, it was well-known that Jesus had spoken the words (recorded in Mark 7:14-23, esp. Mark 7:19) that nothing entering into a man from without can defile him (thus purging all meats, KJV--or, thus declaring all foods clean, NIV).

Mark 7:19 Because it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then into the sewer, thereby expelling all foods." - ISV

I think a case can be made that Jesus was describing the digestive process and was talking about all foods being purged from the body, but regardless of how it should be translated, the discussion was about a man-made ritual purity law and didn't change to God's dietary laws. We should be careful not to take something that was against obeying man as being against obeying God.

Soyeong, it is no longer a sin to eat animals that in the OT were deemed "unclean".

If Messiah could change which things counted as sin on whim, then there would be no significance in him being sinless. But according to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to subtract God's dietary laws, so if Messiah had done so, then he would have been sinning.

Three times the voice of the Lord said to Peter, "What God hath cleansed, call not thou common." (Acts 10:9-16, Acts 11:4-10). He may have indeed been referring to God's acceptance of the Gentiles alone, but don't you think that in this God was accepting the Gentiles eating practices and all?

Peter's version in Acts 10 is another good illustration between the difference between a man-made ritual purity law and God's dietary law. In his vision is says that all kinds of animals were let down, so why didn't Peter simply kill and eat one of the clean animals as he had been commanded by God and as the law permitted? The answer is that there was a man-made ritual purity law that said that things could become defiled/impure/common if they came in contact with something that was unclean (Mark 7:2-4). All of the animals were in contact with each other because they were bundled together, so all of the clean animals had become common. Thus when Peter objected by saying that he had never eaten an animal that was common or unclean, he was saying that he had never disobeyed the man-made ritual purity law or God's dietary law, and by refusing to kill and eat a clean animal, Peter was disobeying God to obey man. Note that God did not rebuke him for referring to an unclean animal as clean, but to referring to a clean animal as common, so his vision was about the status of clean animals, not the status of unclean ones. Peter interpreted his vision three times in regard to incorrectly referring to the status of Gentiles, and not once did he mention anything about God's dietary laws. If he had said that they should no longer follow God's dietary laws, then according to Deuteronomy 13, they would immediately know that he was a false prophet and disregarded what he said instead of accepting it.

This food issue is parallel to the issue of circumcision in Acts 15:1-21 and all of Galatians. It amounts to trusting in the law to save you. The Gentiles were accepted of God, and God did not first require them to be circumcised, neither to change their eating practices: He purified their hearts by faith, filling them with the Holy Ghost. Acts 15:8-9.

In Acts 15 we have the account of how Paul and Barnabas fought hard to preserve the integrity of the gospel against those who would require the Gentiles to be circumcised and keep the law (which has included in it Leviticus 11 and Deuteronoy 14). After hearing them out, Peter said, Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved, even as they.

According to Deuteronomy 30:11, what God commanded them was not too difficult, so if the Jerusalem Council was saying that God's law was too burdensome to bear, then they were directly contradicting God, but that was not what they were referring to. Rather, the topic of Acts 15 is in the first verse where there were a group of Jews who were wanting to require Gentiles to follow their man-made customs in order to become saved. At no point does God's law require all Gentiles everywhere to become circumcised and at no point does it require anyone to become circumcised or follow any of other the commands in order to become saved, but rather that was according to Jewish customs, so by rejecting that requirement the Jerusalem Council was actually upholding God's law. Jesus was likewise critical of Jewish customs and criticised them for setting aside the commands of God in order to follow their own traditions (Mark 7:6-8).

The entire book of Galatians also teaches us against this idea of trusting in the law to save us and salvation-by-circumcision-plus-keeping-the-law. In Galatians 5:3-4 specifically, it is written, For I testify again, to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Paul is not there saying that if you were circumcised as a baby or even later circumcised, that you cannot be a recipient of grace. It is your attitude that matters. If you have been circumcised, don't put your trust in circumcision and law-keeping, and you will be a recipient of grace once again. Paul said in Galatians 5:6, For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision avaieth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. In the epstle to the Philipppians, very likely written after Galatians, Paul says, Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Philippians 3:2-3. Paul tells us by this that he himself is circumcised and in this he redefines who is truly the circumcision group by including them in the body of Christ as those who are circumcised but who trust that circumcision (eating practices also) is not their salvation.

I have never suggested that we should trust the law to save us, but rather I am in complete agreement that someone who tried to keep the law for that purpose would fall from grace, however, the law was never given for that purpose. It does not follow that because we shouldn't obey the law for a purpose for which it was never given that therefore we shouldn't obey the law for any of the purposes for which it was given. I am also in agreement that our motivation for getting circumcised matters and that we shouldn't get circumcised for the purpose of becoming justified, but that again was never the reason for why it was commanded, but was according to Jewish customs.

And as I said before, this issue of food is parallel to that of circumcision because circumcision in its essence is an effort to bring believers who have been set free back under bondage to the laws of the Old Testament. See also Galatians 5:1.

If you think that it is for freedom that God sets us free, then you shouldn't think that God saved Israel from bondage in Egypt to put them back under bondage to His law, but rather it was for freedom that He set them free. God's law is a law of liberty (Psalms 119:142, James 1:25) and it is sin in transgression of God's law that puts us in bondage. The freedom that we have in Messiah is the freedom to do what God has revealed to be holy, righteous, and good, and the freedom from doing what God has revealed to be sin, not the freedom to disregard God's instructions for how to do that.

In the New Testament, Christ is our salvation, not our dietary practices. Dietary practices weren't even salvation in the Old Testament. The law was never intended to save us, and it has never been able to. For Paul also said in Galatians 3:21, Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. Which goes to show that righteousness does not come by the law and that there has been no law given that could impart life to a man. As it is also written, (Galatians 2:21) I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Again, I have never claimed that dietary practices are our salvation and I would oppose anyone who did claim that. We are not to keep God's dietary laws in order to become saved, but because we are being saved from sin. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is defined as lawlessness (1 John 3:4), so our salvation is from lawlessness for the purpose of coming into obedience to God's law. We are saved by grace through faith not by doing good works, but for the purpose of doing them (Ephesians 2:8-10).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I also expect you not to condemn or despise me if I enjoy a sausage McMuffin from time to time.

What does Scripture say directly to this,
if
you yourself cause a sister or brother weak in faith to stumble by what you yourself do ?

 

[giftofGod2]

Glad we cleared that up.

So, you're saying that dietary laws have no bearing on our salvation, is that correct?

There is an issue of when things were written and how quickly they were recognized as Scripture after they were written, but at the time that Paul wrote 1 Timothy it was certainly possible that it was recognized as such. However, at the time that Timothy was an infant (2 Timothy 3:15), the gospel of Mark hadn't been written yet. So verses 16-17 can certainly be true about NT Scripture, but that was not what Paul was referring to. Even if Paul was referring to all Scripture including that of the NT, then it would still include Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.



Mark 7:19 Because it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then into the sewer, thereby expelling all foods." - ISV

I think a case can be made that Jesus was describing the digestive process and was talking about all foods being purged from the body, but regardless of how it should be translated, the discussion was about a man-made ritual purity law and didn't change to God's dietary laws. We should be careful not to take something that was against obeying man as being against obeying God.



If Messiah could change which things counted as sin on whim, then there would be no significance in him being sinless. But according to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to subtract God's dietary laws, so if Messiah had done so, then he would have been sinning.



Peter's version in Acts 10 is another good illustration between the difference between a man-made ritual purity law and God's dietary law. In his vision is says that all kinds of animals were let down, so why didn't Peter simply kill and eat one of the clean animals as he had been commanded by God and as the law permitted? The answer is that there was a man-made ritual purity law that said that things could become defiled/impure/common if they came in contact with something that was unclean (Mark 7:2-4). All of the animals were in contact with each other because they were bundled together, so all of the clean animals had become common. Thus when Peter objected by saying that he had never eaten an animal that was common or unclean, he was saying that he had never disobeyed the man-made ritual purity law or God's dietary law, and by refusing to kill and eat a clean animal, Peter was disobeying God to obey man. Note that God did not rebuke him for referring to an unclean animal as clean, but to referring to a clean animal as common, so his vision was about the status of clean animals, not the status of unclean ones. Peter interpreted his vision three times in regard to incorrectly referring to the status of Gentiles, and not once did he mention anything about God's dietary laws. If he had said that they should no longer follow God's dietary laws, then according to Deuteronomy 13, they would immediately know that he was a false prophet and disregarded what he said instead of accepting it.



According to Deuteronomy 30:11, what God commanded them was not too difficult, so if the Jerusalem Council was saying that God's law was too burdensome to bear, then they were directly contradicting God, but that was not what they were referring to. Rather, the topic of Acts 15 is in the first verse where there were a group of Jews who were wanting to require Gentiles to follow their man-made customs in order to become saved. At no point does God's law require all Gentiles everywhere to become circumcised and at no point does it require anyone to become circumcised or follow any of other the commands in order to become saved, but rather that was according to Jewish customs, so by rejecting that requirement the Jerusalem Council was actually upholding God's law. Jesus was likewise critical of Jewish customs and criticised them for setting aside the commands of God in order to follow their own traditions (Mark 7:6-8).



I have never suggested that we should trust the law to save us, but rather I am in complete agreement that someone who tried to keep the law for that purpose would fall from grace, however, the law was never given for that purpose. It does not follow that because we shouldn't obey the law for a purpose for which it was never given that therefore we shouldn't obey the law for any of the purposes for which it was given. I am also in agreement that our motivation for getting circumcised matters and that we shouldn't get circumcised for the purpose of becoming justified, but that again was never the reason for why it was commanded, but was according to Jewish customs.



If you think that it is for freedom that God sets us free, then you shouldn't think that God saved Israel from bondage in Egypt to put them back under bondage to His law, but rather it was for freedom that He set them free. God's law is a law of liberty (Psalms 119:142, James 1:25) and it is sin in transgression of God's law that puts us in bondage. The freedom that we have in Messiah is the freedom to do what God has revealed to be holy, righteous, and good, and the freedom from doing what God has revealed to be sin, not the freedom to disregard God's instructions for how to do that.



Again, I have never claimed that dietary practices are our salvation and I would oppose anyone who did claim that. We are not to keep God's dietary laws in order to become saved, but because we are being saved from sin. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is defined as lawlessness (1 John 3:4), so our salvation is from lawlessness for the purpose of coming into obedience to God's law. We are saved by grace through faith not by doing good works, but for the purpose of doing them (Ephesians 2:8-10).

 

[giftofGod2]

That's true. Normally I would keep it to myself that I eat sausage McMuffins because of Romans 14:22.

But for the sake of a more important doctrine, that Gentiles have the freedom to eat anything, and even Jews also (because of Romans 7:1-6), I mention that I eat them. God is able to make me stand, and I am blessed because I do not condemn myself in the thing that I approve. Nevertheless in order to keep my brother from stumbling, in my faith I ought to have it to myself before God.

But I would say that someone who has the freedom to eat anything may also be stumbled if their conscience is affected so that when they eat such things as sausage, they eat with offence (Romans 14:20,23). If they have the freedom to eat, but someone imposes on them a dietary restriction so that they no longer have this freedom in their conscience, they may continue to eat because of habit. And thus the strong brother becomes weak, for whom Christ died, who is emboldened to eat against the dictates of his conscience because of his former freedom; but in becoming a slave to the OT law he loses that freedom though he continues to do what he is no longer free to do because his conscience has been adversely affected.

What does Scripture say directly to this,
if
you yourself cause a sister or brother weak in faith to stumble by what you yourself do ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You missed it.
And no, God won't lift without willingness >

God is able to make me stand,

if you do things He does not approve yet you continue to think

and I am blessed because I do not condemn myself in the thing that I approve.

This won't help them nor you

Nevertheless in order to keep my brother from stumbling, in my faith I ought to have it to myself before God.

as everyone who reads knows now you do what God does not permit.

As for this

And thus the strong brother becomes weak, for whom Christ died, who is emboldened to eat against the dictates of his conscience because of his former freedom; but in becoming a slave to the OT law he loses that freedom though he continues to do what he is no longer free to do because his conscience has been adversely affected.

that's like saying
"I once was a thief, and good at thieving;
daily I could thieve, and never knew it was wrong;

then one day, a man from heaven came,
and told me of God in heaven, who I should seek,

but he said I could no longer thieve, that that is sin,
and sin would (continue to)keep me from fellowship with God,

but thieving is fun, and I delight in it,
so I will pretend God still likes me, even though I thieve,

I just wish no one had told me it is sin!
That man who told me is a bad man for telling me what God says! "

 

[Soyeong]

Soyeong, I would do an extensive study in the epistle of Paul to the Galatians.

I have studied Romans and Galatians, which is why I changed my view to upholding God's law by faith, as Paul does (Romans 3:31).

Therein, Paul tells us how as many as are the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Galatians 3:10. We know that Romans 3:23 tells us that For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Galatians 3:10 for as many as are of works of law are under a curse, for it hath been written, `Cursed [is] every one who is not remaining in all things that have been written in the Book of the Law -- to do them,' - YLT

There is no definitive article in the Greek, so the phrase is translated literally as "works of law" rather than "works of the law", so it refers to works of any law. The Qumran text 4QMMT and Paul use this phrase to refer to Jewish customs or man-made laws that they required people to obey in order to become saved, so it is about legalism. On the other hand, the faith of Abraham is central to the Book of the Law, so those who rely on the works of law are under a curse because they are failing to do everything in the Book of the Law by not living by the faith that it requires.

In Galatians 3:11, Paul continues his argument: But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

In Acts 15:1 and in Galatians, the issue was that a group of Jews were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their customs or man-made laws in order to become justified, so again Paul was talking about their laws not being of faith, not about God's law. When God says that His commands are for our own good, then the way to live by faith is to live in obedience to them.

Also, Galatians 2:16 is essential to our understanding: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

There were man-made laws, such as mentioned in Acts 10:28 that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles (counter to Leviticus 19:34), so when Peter moved to eat with them, he was giving credence to their customs and to the people who were saying that Gentiles had to obey their customs in order to become saved, which means his actions were essentially telling Gentiles that they weren't actually saved. This is why Paul immediately reiterated that we are saved by faith.

Romans 3:19-21 tells us something similar: Now we know that what things so ever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.

The law was given to reveal what sin is, so if you think it is important for Christians to avoid doing what God has said is sin, then you should live in obedience to the Mosaic law, but not for the purpose of becoming justified. To make it clear that Paul wasn't saying that the law there had no purpose for believers, he said a few verses later that our faith does not abolish the law, but rather our faith upholds the law. So clearly the law that Paul was referring to in Romans 3:31 is of faith, while the law he was referring to in Galatians 3:11 was not.

And in 1 Timothy 1:9-11 we find who is under the law: Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselve with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was comitted to my trust.

In that last part, according to the glorious gospel, not the OT law, as law and gospel are distinct in scripture; and there is a law of the gospel; but we will not get into that right now.

For example, speed limits are not needed for people who would otherwise drive at safe speeds even if there were no speed limits, but rather speed limits are needed for those who would otherwise drive at unsafe speeds. So the law was not made for a righteous man because a righteous man is already meeting or exceeding what the law requires. Repentance from doing what God has revealed to be sin is a central part of the gospel message.

So Soyeong, if you want to keep your Jewishness as a Messianic Jew and keep the dietary requirements, I do not condemn you or despise you, for it is written,

(Romans 14:1-6), Him that is weak in the faith receive you, but not to doubtful disputations. For one bellieveth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully convinced in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

We need to be careful not to take something that was against obeying man's opinions as being against obeying God. As Romans 14:1 states, the context of the chapter is about how to handle disputable matters of opinion, not about whether to obey God's commands. Where God's word is clear, human opinion must yield, but where God's word is not clear, only then should each be convinced in their own minds. So for instance, God's word clearly prohibits idolatry, so they were not disputing whether obey God's command against it, but did have disputes of opinion over what actions counted as idolatry. Jews had traditions in place to ensure that animals were properly killed painlessly without being strangled and to ensure that it hadn't been sacrificed to idols, but when they were suddenly including Gentiles in with community meals who could have brought meat that had been sacrificed to idols that was later sold on the market, then it become a disputable matter of whether it is acceptable to eat meat if it is not know whether it has been sacrificed to idols. God's word does not give clear instruction on what to do in this situation, so some of them were of the opinion that it was not worth the risk to eat meat at community meals and thus they only ate vegetables (14:2). The problem was that Paul was trying to quell in this chapter was they were judging those who did eat meat of unknown origins and were in turn being resented (14:3).

In Romans 14:5-6, it is talking eating or abstaining from eating, so it is talking about esteeming certain days for fasting. The only time that God commands fasting is on the Day of Atonement, but as a matter of opinion, it has become a common practice to fast twice a week or to commemorate certain events (Luke 18:12). However, those who did fast were looking down on those who didn't and were in turn being resented. We are not to keep God's holy days because we esteem them, but because God esteems them and commanded us to keep them, so whether someone chooses to fast on other days is a disputable matter of human opinion, but whether someone chooses to fast on the Day of Atonement is a matter of obedience to God. God's word commands us not to eat pork, so they were not disputing whether to obey God's command.

I also expect you not to condemn or despise me if I enjoy a sausage McMuffin from time to time.

If you eat a sausage McMuffin, then you are doing what God has revealed to be sin, and we are told to restore those who are caught in sin (Galatians 6:1). Furthermore, when God says that eating unclean animals is a sin and if you remain convinced that Paul was saying we are free to eat unclean animals, then when it comes down to it, do you obey God or do you obey Paul? According to Deuteronomy 13, if Paul had been saying not to obey God's dietary laws, then he would be a false prophet whom you should disregard.

Glad we cleared that up.

So, you're saying that dietary laws have no bearing on our salvation, is that correct?

As Titus 2:11-14 describes, our salvation involves being saved from the penalty of our sins, but it also involves being saved from sinning by being trained to do what God has revealed to be godly, righteous, and good, and trained to stop doing what He has revealed to be ungodly, sinful, and lawless. Obedience to dietary laws do not have any bearing on our salvation in regard to earning our salvation, but trusting God enough to live according to what He has said is good to eat and about what is holy is part of what it means to live by faith, part of our training by grace through faith, part of being saved from doing what God has revealed to be sin, and part of following Messiah's example as we are being made to be like him.

 

[giftofGod2]

What you're not understanding, jeff, is that in telling people to adhere to dietary laws you are commanding people to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who bellieve and know the truth. What you're not understanding is that the scripture says that every creatue of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer; and the word of God being spoken of is Jesus' statemen that nothng entering into a man from without is capable of defiling him.

Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1-6 tells us that this kind of practice, of commanding to abstain from meats, is the practice of those whose consciences have been seared with a hot iron and of those who pay attention to doctrines of devils.

Now you and your cohort may want to deny that every means every in 1 Timothy 4:4, or that nothing means nothing, by pointing out that there were lame and blind people who did not go to the baptism of John, when it says that there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan; but I would say that for the most part when you see the word all or every in the scripture it means all or every. If you can find an exception to the rule then that is what it is: an exception.

Your average Gentile reader, who knows that he is not under the law (and it is not only speaking of the law of sin and death, which is a principle associated with slavery to the OT law) because of Romans 6:14 and other scriptures, is not going to say in his heart when he reads 1 Timothy 4:4 that every doesn't really mean every because I am under the law and of course I must keep the dietary requirements of the Old Testament to maintain my salvation.

For someone who understands the freedom given in 1 Timothy 4:4 and Romans 14:3-4 and Romans 14:22 and all kinds of other scriptures that tell us that we are free in Christ (such as 2 Corinthians 3:17, Galatians 5:1), eating a sausage McMuffin is not going to kill them spiritually, and Romans 14:3 tells you, jeff, who I assume to be one that eateth not, that you are not to judge the one who does eat. Because Romans 14:4 tells you and me that God is able to make him who does eat, to stand.

If obedience to dietary requirements has a bearing on salvation, jeff, then Christ died for nothing: we can all be saved by keeping the dietary requirements and every one of the 613 laws in the OT perfectly; because by the way, perfection is what God requires if you are going to be saved through law-keeping or even maintain your salvation through law-keeping.

Please read my other posts in this thread also, because there is a host of NT scripture on how law-keeping doesn't save; and a bunch of it refers back to the OT, taking scriptures from the OT to argue the point that law-keeping cannot save a man. See Galatians 3:10-13 for example.

Love in Christ,

giftofGod2.

PS likening the eating of a sausage McMuffin to thieving is preposterous to say the least, impaho.

You missed it.
And no, God won't lift without willingness >

if you do things He does not approve yet you continue to think


This won't help them nor you

as everyone who reads knows now you do what God does not permit.

As for this

that's like saying
"I once was a thief, and good at thieving;
daily I could thieve, and never knew it was wrong;

then one day, a man from heaven came,
and told me of God in heaven, who I should seek,

but he said I could no longer thieve, that that is sin,
and sin would (continue to)keep me from fellowship with God,

but thieving is fun, and I delight in it,
so I will pretend God still likes me, even though I thieve,

I just wish no one had told me it is sin!
That man who told me is a bad man for telling me what God says! "

 

[Dkh587]

What you're not understanding, jeff, is that in telling people to adhere to dietary laws you are commanding people to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who bellieve and know the truth. What you're not understanding is that the scripture says that every creatue of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for is is sanctified by the word of God and prayer; and the word of God being spoken of is Jesus' statemen that nothng entering into a man from without is capable of defiling him.

Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1-6 tells us that this kind of practice, of commanding to abstain from meats, is the practice of those whoe consciences have been seared with a hot iron and of those who pay attention to doctrines of devils.

Now you and your cohort may want to deny that every means every in 1 Timothy 4:4, or that nothing means nothing, by pointing out that there were lame and blind people who did not go to the baptism of John, when it says that there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan; but I would say that for the most part when you see the word all or every in the scripture it means all or every. If you can find an exception to the rule then that is what it is: an exception.

Your average Gentile reader, who knows that he is not under the law (and it is not only speaking of the law of sin and death, which is a principle associated with slavery to the OT law) because of Romans 6:14 and other scriptures, is not going to say in his heart when he reads 1 Timothy 4:4 that every doesn't really mean every because I am under the law and of course I mut keep the dietary requirements of the Old Testament to maintain my salvation.

For someone who understands the freedom given in 1 Timothy 4:4 and Romans 14:3-4 and Romans 14:22 and all kinds of other scriptures that tell us that we are free in Christ (such as 2 Corinthians 3:17), eating a sausage McMuffin is not going to kill them spiritually, and Romans 14:3 tells you, jeff, who I assume to be one that eateth not, that you are not to judge the one who does eat. Because Romans 14:4 tells you and me that God is able to make him who does eat, to stand.

If obedience to dietary requirements has a bearing on salvation, jeff, then Christ died for nothing: we can all be saved by keeping the dietary requirements and every one of the 613 laws in the OT perfectly; because by the way, perfection is what God requires if you are going to be saved through law-keeping or even maintain your salvation through law-keeping.

Please read my other posts in this thread also, because there is a host of NT scripture on how law-keeping doesn't save; and a bunch of it refers back to the OT, taking scriptures from the OT to argue the point that law-keeping cannot save a man. See Galatians 3:10-13 for example.

Love in Christ,

giftofGod2.

PS likening the eating of a sausage McMuffin to thieving is preposterous to say the least, impaho.

considering God said that eating swine is detestable, why do you even want to eat a sausage mcmuffin?

Swine are beautiful animals and they have their place in nature, but they're not supposed to be eating

Why are you opposed to obeying God and His command not to eat swine?

 

[giftofGod2]

In Acts 15 and throughout Galatians, Paul and Barnabas fought against the mentality that said that Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the law.

In Romans 7:1-6, it relates our relationship to the law as a marriage situation. Now if the husband dies, the woman is set free from marriage to the husband, so it is saying that if the law dies, a man is set free from marriage to the law.

But it is clear that it is not the law that dies. In Romans 7:6 therefore, when it says, that being dead wherein we were held, it is speaking of the fact that the flesh has been rendered dead, as in Romans 7:5 it is stated that the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death when we were in the flesh.

We who are sanctified are no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, and, as such, we are not bound by a marriage to the law anymore, as we have died and thus been made free from the former marriage so that we can be married to Christ.

Furthermore, it is written in Hebrews that For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:12, and For there is verily a disanulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. Hebrews 7:18-19.

 

[Hank77]

Actually, it's not that ridiculous.

I've seen this verse used by druggies to justify what they do:

and that is just one example of how the verse can be a bused. Here you are abusing it as in eating pig meat is ok.

Remember this verse...one the OP quoted, and look closely at it:

Pay special attention to the "which God hath made to be received"

God did not make pig meat to be received, matter of fact he was very specific it is not to be received, and I can show you where but I doubt I need to.

Did pig some how change into something else between the time of Noah and Moses?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Did pig some how change into something else between the time of Noah and Moses?

Why do you ask?

 

[Soyeong]

In Acts 15 and throughout Galatians, Paul and Barnabas fought against the mentality that said that Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the law.

The customs of Moses were man-made laws or traditions for how they thought the law of Moses should be obeyed. While the law of Moses does not require anyone to become circumcised in order to become saved, the customs of Moses did require that, so the issue raised in Acts 15:1 wasn't whether Gentiles had to obey God's commands, but whether Gentiles had to obey man's traditions. If God's law had required all Gentiles to become circumcised, then Gentile should obey God rather than any man who tells them otherwise.

In Romans 7:1-6, it relates our relationship to the law as a marriage situation. Now if the husband dies, the woman is set free from marriage to the husband, so it is saying that if the law dies, a man is set free from marriage to the law.

At no point does the Bible say that we are married to the law, and you should especially think that is not the case if you think that the law was only given to the Jews. However, Titus 2:11-14 does not say that Messiah gave himself to set us free from the law, but to redeem us from lawlessness. In Romans 7:1, Paul said that he was speaking to those who knew the law, so he was using an example from the law to illustrate his point, not saying we are married to the law. He could have just as easily used other examples from the law that had nothing to do with marriage.

But it is clear that it is not the law that dies. In Romans 7:6 therefore, when it says, that being dead wherein we were held, it is speaking of the fact that the flesh has been rendered dead, as in Romans 7:5 it is stated that the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death when we were in the flesh.

We who are sanctified are no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, and, as such, we are not bound by a marriage to the law anymore, as we have died and thus been made free from the former marriage so that we can be married to Christ.

In Romans 7:12-23, Paul said that God's law is holy, righteous, and good, and that it was the good that he sought to do and delighted in doing, but that there was a law of sin that was working within him to cause to not to do the good that he wanted to do, so it is the law of sin that stirs up sin and brings fruit unto death. If obeying God's law brought death, then it wouldn't be holy, righteous, and good.

Furthermore, it is written in Hebrews that For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:12, and For there is verily a disanulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. Hebrews 7:18-19.

Do you think that God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness changed between covenants? Or that the way to do what is holy, righteous, and good that is based off of God's character changed? No, the way to do what is holy, righteous, and good, as revealed by the Mosaic law remained the same, but what changed was that the law that required a High Priest to come from the line of Aaron because an eternal High Priest could not come from a mortal line. The law makes nothing perfect because it does not have the power to cause us to obey it, but it does give us instructions for how to be perfect, and the Spirit does have the power to cause us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

 

[giftofGod2]

In Romans 7:4 it is clear that we become dead to the law in order that we might be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead. This tells me that the analogy of being married to the law previously holds firm. In being married to another it is evident that we were previously married, and the analogy is of a person dying in order to be set free to marry another. And also, in becoming dead to the law we are set free from the law so that we can be married to that other.

Romans 7:1-4, 1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth: but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit iunto God.

A few things here: 1) the law has dominion over a man as long as he is alive (Romans 7:1).

2) the analogy is that a woman who is married is bound to her husband unless one of them dies. Romans 7:2-3.

3) This is related to our relationship to the law (Romans 7:4), which we have become dead to so that we can be married to another; indicating that we were previously married; to whom? The only option in the passage is that we were previously married to the law, as in dying to it we are set free from it so that we can be married to Christ according to the passage.

4) If I had not become set free from the OT law, your judgments over my eating of sausage McMuffins would be valid and I might be judged as an adulteress as concerning the law; but since I or the law or both have become dead, I am no longer an adulteress as far as the law is concerned, because in the analogy, the woman is not considered to even be an adulteress if her husband is dead.

5) It would not be possible to analogize according to marriage the idea of the woman dying so she could marry another, as in the meat of the parable, if the woman were dead she could be married to no one; but Paul makes it clear that it is indeed we who die in this analogy because of verse 1, wherein he says that the law has dominion over us as long as we live.

6) I am dead to the law (Romans 7:4, Galatians 2:19), and therefore it no longer has dominion over me (Romans 7:1).

7) According to Hebrews 7:12 there has been therefore a change in the law, and if you compare that to the idea in Romans 7:4 that in becoming dead to the law I am married to Christ, the law that it has changed to is simply the Lordship of Christ over me.

8) Mark 7:19 and John 5:18 in particular, speak of radical changes to the law under the New Testament paradigm. Consider with John 5:18 Hebrews 4:15. And consider Mark 7:19 with 1 Timothy 4:4.

9) Then there is also Hebrews 10:8-9. God takes away the law in order to establish His Son as an offering.

The customs of Moses were man-made laws or traditions for how they thought the law of Moses should be obeyed. While the law of Moses does not require anyone to become circumcised in order to become saved, the customs of Moses did require that, so the issue raised in Acts 15:1 wasn't whether Gentiles had to obey God's commands, but whether Gentiles had to obey man's traditions. If God's law had required all Gentiles to become circumcised, then Gentile should obey God rather than any man who tells them otherwise.



At no point does the Bible say that we are married to the law, and you should especially think that is not the case if you think that the law was only given to the Jews. However, Titus 2:11-14 does not say that Messiah gave himself to set us free from the law, but to redeem us from lawlessness. In Romans 7:1, Paul said that he was speaking to those who knew the law, so he was using an example from the law to illustrate his point, not saying we are married to the law. He could have just as easily used other examples from the law that had nothing to do with marriage.



In Romans 7:12-23, Paul said that God's law is holy, righteous, and good, and that it was the good that he sought to do and delighted in doing, but that there was a law of sin that was working within him to cause to not to do the good that he wanted to do, so it is the law of sin that stirs up sin and brings fruit unto death. If obeying God's law brought death, then it wouldn't be holy, righteous, and good.



Do you think that God's holiness, righteousness, and goodness changed between covenants? Or that the way to do what is holy, righteous, and good that is based off of God's character changed? No, the way to do what is holy, righteous, and good, as revealed by the Mosaic law remained the same, but what changed was that the law that required a High Priest to come from the line of Aaron because an eternal High Priest could not come from a mortal line. The law makes nothing perfect because it does not have the power to cause us to obey it, but it does give us instructions for how to be perfect, and the Spirit does have the power to cause us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That just means that you crucify Christ again if you sin willfully,
it is still a sin.
(and as written elsewhere concerning this - there remains no more any sacrifice for that sin, only a terrible expectation of judgment for it)

 

[giftofGod2]

Romans 7:10 also declares, And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

 

[giftofGod2]

That just means that you crucify Christ again if you sin willfully,
it is still a sin.
(and as written elsewhere concerning this - there remains no more any sacrifice for that sin, only a terrible expectation of judgment for it)

What were you responding to exactly?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What were you responding to exactly?

Do you think those who re-crucify Christ daily,
either by willful sinning,
or by religious exercises that declare openly that's what they are doing,
are forgiven if they don't repent ? (stop, cease, not continue re-crucifying Christ)

 

[Hank77]

Why do you ask?

Well it seems that God gave Noah permission to eat all meats. Even the Jews agree with that interpretation.