Exodus 35:1-3

[listed]

The provocative conclusion to the above quote/OP surely draws a line in the sand which I suspect (unfortunately not knowing you, James is Back) is intended as a stimulant to claims that the Christian church is no longer under the Mosaic covenant, but the New such that something has changed. What is then perhaps not realized by some readers of this thread is that the role of the Sabbath remains at least an open question--open unless answered elsewhere ... such as on this Sabbath and the Law forum.

I am not much a student of this Sabbath and the Law forum, but have some sense of certain historical positions within the church addressing the role of the Sabbath in the New Covenant, some divisive (leaving aside for the time being who is being divisive against whom).

And I have my own opinion, tentative as it probably must remain, for in my understanding, the New Testament (along with any foreshadowing and antecedent theology of the OT) is positively ambivalent about the issue however stunningly serious the above quote with its Mosaic backing (e.g., Numbers 15) may be. Hence I think in part the divergence of position evident in the history of the church even if there is more to it.

Paul for example in discussing divergent celebration of days within the church (Rom. 14) bypasses an opportunity there to hammer home the point in the above quote/OP regarding the Sabbath (if anything, his conclusions seem contrary). And he bypasses similar opportunities in the pastorals where one might reasonably expect such a point to be made. The same is true for the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, one that discusses the topic of the Sabbath at some length, but never in a way as to encourage the conclusion of the above quote/OP with respect to the Sabbath. Nor do hints of Christian assembly on the first day of the week (rather than 7th) come with any allusion to Sabbath regulation. Nor, strangely, is the Sabbath regulation anywhere repeated in the NT the way the other members of the Decalogue are, that is save in Jesus' encounters with Jewish leadership before the cross, that is before the implications of Jesus' coming and cross work were fully mapped out and where the context is essentially and effectively the Mosaic covenant.

Again, not that the conclusions of the OP are a bad thing either (not to mention allusion to James 2:10 wrt covenant breaking); the Sabbath, Jesus insists, was made for man, for his benefit. And has the prophet's implicit exhortation to delight in the Sabbath as unto the Lord (Isa. 58) been annulled? Heaven forbid! And human beings still need physical rest. But then why the NT ambivalence and lack of specificity on the question?

One of the few places it seems one can turn is to broader conclusions and attendant hints about the relationship between the Mosaic and new covenants--another classically divisive issue, and a complex one. What is the role of the Mosaic law in the New covenant (and New Testament)? Having addressed slices of such questions on these forums elsewhere and having passed my present time and energy limitations, I shall bypass further elaboration here at least for the moment. No doubt others will express their own, often different views.

Have you heard about the false brethren who snuck in?

 

[bbbbbbb]

According to Ephesians 2:12 and Ephesians 2:19, Gentiles are by faith citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. Gentiles are told to practice righteousness (1 John 3:10) and have a holy conduct (1 Peter 1:13-16) and it is the law that tells us how to do that. Sin is defined as the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), the law gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), without the law we wouldn't even know what sin was (Romans 7:7), and Gentiles are not to have a sinful conduct (Romans 6:15), so again Gentiles should act according to what the law instructs.

So, do all Gentiles act according to what the law instructs?

 

[listed]

The "you" can refer to Israel or to God's chosen people and Gentiles qualify as both.



The result of being guilty of breaking part of the law and the whole law is that we won't be justified by it and the penalty is death. Jesus paid the penalty for our transgression of the law and the law was never given to us so that we could become justified by keeping it. Sin is still a serious offense against God and it needs to be repented of and forgiven.

No the you can not. To say so is to both ignore the rules of English and rewrite the text to support your false conclusions.

If sin is not forgiven the transgressor, what it the result?

 

[listed]

You'd make an excellent Pharisee.

They do not like me and refuse to fellowship with me. Oh they are polite and ask about the weather and always give the meaningless Hi, how are your greeting when in fact they have no interest in a truthful answer.

 

[listed]

You'd make an excellent Pharisee.

They do not like me and refuse to fellowship with me. Oh they are polite and ask about the weather and always give the meaningless Hi, how are your greeting when in fact they have no interest in a truthful answer.

 

[listed]

Psychoanalysis by non-experts who've never met me is always appreciated. /eyeroll

By faith we are children of Abraham and citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. As obedient children of God, we are still expected to have a righteous and holy conduct, which means following God's instructions for that in His law.

Not supportable with Scripture.

 

[listed]

The Temple is destroyed and we have a superior mediator and sacrifice.

Then the law is voided.

 

[listed]

Laws in regard to Temple worship only apply and only can be followed when there is a Temple. Please stop with the psychoanalysis until you become a trained professional and we've met.

So you admit you do not follow the law.

 

[listed]

The obvious is that laws in regard to Temple worship don't apply when there is no Temple. This in no way means that other laws can't be followed.

Who gave you the right to amend the law?

 

[Soyeong]

So, do all Gentiles act according to what the law instructs?

God has expectations for how His obedient children should behave and He did not give separate sets of instructions for what it meant to practice righteousness, have a holy conduct, or to sin.

 

[listed]

What about you? Do you follow the same regulation? Are you not then in the same boat?

Most likely not as he seems to be a New Testament (covenant) type of Christian.

 

[listed]

No one could follow all 613 laws, not even Jesus, because some of them only applied to men and some only applied to women. This doesn't mean that Jesus didn't obey the law as given. Similarly, many laws we only for priests to follow, but that didn't mean that Israelites who weren't priests didn't follow the law.

excuses, excuses

 

[Soyeong]

No the you can not. To say so is to both ignore the rules of English and rewrite the text to support your false conclusions.

Feel free to point out any rules what would prohibit the "you" from referring to that.

If sin is not forgiven the transgressor, what it the result?

Death.

 

[listed]

According to Ephesians 2:12 and Ephesians 2:19, Gentiles are by faith citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. Gentiles are told to practice righteousness (1 John 3:10) and have a holy conduct (1 Peter 1:13-16) and it is the law that tells us how to do that. Sin is defined as the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), the law gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), without the law we wouldn't even know what sin was (Romans 7:7), and Gentiles are not to have a sinful conduct (Romans 6:15), so again Gentiles should act according to what the law instructs.

Ephesians 2:12 says no such thing as Gentiles becoming citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. Your understanding of the law is off.

 

[Soyeong]

They do not like me and refuse to fellowship with me. Oh they are polite and ask about the weather and always give the meaningless Hi, how are your greeting when in fact they have no interest in a truthful answer.

You are like a Pharisee is that you have a similar approach in how you interpret the law.

 

[Soyeong]

Not supportable with Scripture.

See 1 John 3:10 and 1 Peter 1:13-16.

 

[Soyeong]

So you admit you do not follow the law.

Nope. Why would you think I said that?

 

[Soyeong]

Who gave you the right to amend the law?

I made no amends to the law.

 

[listed]

God has expectations for how His obedient children should behave and He did not give separate sets of instructions for what it meant to practice righteousness, have a holy conduct, or to sin.

True enough. Now take this opportunity to show us the Christian is obligated to the law.

 

[Soyeong]

excuses, excuses

Helping you to understand what it means to follow the law is making excuses?