Should Christians Walk in the God's Ways?

[Bob S]

Could the law save one Israelite? If you answer no then why do you think the law was, in any way, salvational? Torah was given to one nation, Israel, for the way God wanted them to live. It was never meant to be the recipe for anyone's salvation. Yet some come on the forum trying to persuade others that we Christians must observe those governing laws that were meant for only the nation of Israel. Israelites came out of slavery ignorant of how to govern themselves, God gave them the law as the means to accomplish how they were to live. It was a covenant and Israel broke that covenant. Jesus then, at His death ratified the new covenant with His own blood. It is a covenant of love and forgiveness, an everlasting covenant with no IFs.

Jesus lived under the laws of Israel. He taught the law because the law was still in enforce. As mentioned the law was fulfilled at Calvary and our covenant replaced the one given to Israel. All mankind is invited to be born again by accepting Jesus and His new covenant.

 

[rrobsr]

I hope most Christians would answer with a resounding affirmation that of course we should walk in God's ways, after all Christians originally referred to themselves as "The Way", yet something doesn't add up. The Way of the Lord or God's Ways are described as being righteous and just (Genesis 18:19), righteous, blameless, merciful, pure, humble, light, perfect, true, liberty, and gentleness (2 Samuel 22:21-37), delightful (Psalms 37:23), and everlasting (Habakkuk 3:6), merciful, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, forgiving, just (Exodus 34:6-7), love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). But what specifically are they? In Exodus 33:13, Moses asked God to show him His ways that he and the nation might know Him and find favor in God's sight. These verses describe the Mosaic Law as God's instructions for how to walk in His ways:

Joshua 22:5 Only be very careful to observe the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, to love the Lord your God, and to walk in all his ways and to keep his commandments and to cling to him and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul.”

1 Kings 2:1-3 When David's time to die drew near, he commanded Solomon his son, saying, 2 “I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, and show yourself a man, 3 and keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn,

Psalms 25:4-10 Make me to know your ways, O Lord; teach me your paths. 5 Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long. 6 Remember your mercy, O Lord, and your steadfast love, for they have been from of old. 7 Remember not the sins of my youth or my transgressions; according to your steadfast love remember me, for the sake of your goodness, O Lord! 8 Good and upright is the Lord; therefore he instructs sinners in the way. 9 He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way. 10 All the paths of the Lord are steadfast love and faithfulness, for those who keep his covenant and his testimonies.

Psalms 103:1-8 Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name! 2 Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, 3 who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, 4 who redeems your life from the pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, 5 who satisfies you with good so that your youth is renewed like the eagle's. 6 The Lord works righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed. 7 He made known his ways to Moses, his acts to the people of Israel. 8 The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.

Psalms 119:1-8 Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord! 2 Blessed are those who keep his testimonies, who seek him with their whole heart, 3 who also do no wrong, but walk in his ways! 4 You have commanded your precepts to be kept diligently. 5 Oh that my ways may be steadfast in keeping your statutes! 6 Then I shall not be put to shame, having my eyes fixed on all your commandments. 7 I will praise you with an upright heart, when I learn your righteous rules. 8 I will keep your statutes; do not utterly forsake me!

Isaiah 2:2-3 It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, 3 and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Isaiah 42:24 Who handed Jacob over to become loot, and Israel to the plunderers? Was it not the Lord, against whom we have sinned? For they would not follow his ways; they did not obey his law.

Malachi 2:4-9 So shall you know that I have sent this command to you, that my covenant with Levi may stand, says the Lord of hosts. 5 My covenant with him was one of life and peace, and I gave them to him. It was a covenant of fear, and he feared me. He stood in awe of my name. 6 True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. 7 For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. 8 But you have turned aside from the way. You have caused many to stumble by your instruction. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the Lord of hosts, 9 and so I make you despised and abased before all the people, inasmuch as you do not keep my ways but show partiality in your instruction.”

To save space, all of these verses equate obeying God's commands with walking in His ways: Deuteronomy 5:32-33, Deuteronomy 8:6, Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Deuteronomy 19:9, Deuteronomy 26:16-19, Deuteronomy 28:9, Deuteronomy 30:15-16, 1 Kings 3:14, 1 Kings 8:57-58, 1 Kings 11:33, 1 Kings 11:38, Judges 2:16-23 and Jeremiah 6:16-19.

In the the NT, John the Baptist preached a baptism of repentance for people to prepare the way of the Lord (Matthew 3:2, Mark 1:2-3, Luke 1:76, Luke 3:4, John 1:23). Repentance is clearly from not following what God commanded and we prepare the way by walking in His ways in obedience to what He has commanded. In Hebrews 3:7-15, Israel hardened their hearts and rebelled and refused to walk in God's ways, so we should exhort one another that as long as it is called "today" that we should not harden our hearts as they did, but learn to walk in God's ways so that we do not fall away from the living God.

Only one verse from Paul's letters (Gal 5:22-23), the part of the Bible that was actually specifically written to born again Christians?

 

[Soyeong]

What do you mean acknowledge your verses? Do you mean agree with you? Do you mean disregard the verses I posted? Do you mean to not believe Jeremiah? Do you mean to disregard the NT? Do you mean to disregard Jesus? Why do you want to tear me and others away from the new covenant so badly?

I'm trying to get you acknowledge what this thread is about and engage with what I've said in my OP. I've quoted a number of verses that make it explicitly and implicitly clear that what God taught to Moses was how to walk in His ways. So if it is true that we should walk in God's ways and it is true that what God taught to Moses was how to walk in His ways, then it therefore follows that we should walk according to what God taught to Moses. The form of this argument is valid, so the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, which means that it is illogical to accept the truth of the premises while making separate arguments against the truth of the conclusion. So please contest one of both of my premises or logically accept the truth of my conclusion. I don't mind discussing other verses that you think contradict my conclusion, but that should not be done while not engaging with anything I said to support my conclusion, which this thread is primarily about.

I did not disregard the verses that you posted, but explained how they are consistent with my position. I did not say anything about wanting you to deny Jeremiah or to disregard the NT or to disregard Jesus or to tear you away from the New Covenant. I take the position that the New Covenant requires us to walk in God's ways in accordance with the example that Jesus set for his followers to follow.

I'm not arguing against Moses. I'm not arguing against the ways of God. I'm not arguing for an evil lifestyle. I'm arguing for the new covenant and its better covenant. What God told Moses was for Israel alone. The writings of Moses prove that point. Do you need Scripture yet again? The new covenant doesn't require keeping the law.

So by disagreeing with my conclusion, you are either arguing against Moses or against walking in God's ways. I agree that we are under a New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, but we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same attributes and the same ways to act in accordance with those attributes. When God has given instructions to His followers for how to walk in His ways, it doesn't make any sense for people who want to become followers of God to refuse to follow those instructions because they were only given to God's followers and not to people like them who were not God's followers. Israel was intended to be a light to the other nations, teaching them about God and how to walk in His ways in accordance with His Law (Isaiah 2:2-3).

What law held Paul captive? Wasn't it the law that slew him? Did Paul change the law he was talking about in verse 6? What law did Paul talk about? Wasn't it the ten commandments by mentioning coveting in the same verse (7) you mention ? Isn't that number ten in the ten commandments? Are you saying Paul loved death? Paul tells us the ten commandments slew him.

What held us captive? Wasn't it the law issued at Sinai? It's what Paul referred to in verse 7. Do you understand the human nature? Do you understand how the mind works? I've been involved in sales and understand manipulation. I was also raised in a family of manipulators. I learned about seeing the end goal.

Again, in Romans 7:21-25 Paul said he delighted in obeying God's Law and that he served it with his mind, but contrasted it with the law of sin that held him captive that he served with his mind. This is a summary statement of what he said previously, so it is the law of sin that came about to increase tresspasses (5:20), to stir up sinful passions to bear fruit unto death (7:5), that held him captive (7:6), that gave sin its power (7:8), that deceived him through the commandment and slew him (7:11), and that caused him not to do the good that he wanted (7:13-20), while God's Law is not the law of sin, but reveals what sin is (7:7), is holy, righteous, and good (7:12), is the good that Paul did not blame for bringing death to him (7:13), and is the good that Paul wanted to do (7:13-20). In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as one where sin had dominion over us, which perfectly fits with his description of the law of sin, but does not at all fit with his description of God's holy, righteous, and good law.

Did someone here say God's' law, the ten commandments are sin or evil? Not that I read anywhere. Does Romans 3:31 command anything? No. Why is it then relied on to prove the christian is obligated to the law (sabbath really)?

According to Romans 3:31, our faith does not do away without need to obey the Law, but rather our faith leads us to obey it. If your faith doesn't lead you to obey the Law, then your faith is not upholding it.

What is the inward man of verse 22? What is redeemed? Is it the body of flesh? or the soul? Where does Scripture say we're redeemed so we can keep the sabbath? Keeping the sabbath within has nothing to do with getting the body of flesh to keep it. The Jews kept the 7th day sabbath and didn't have rest. Jesus offered them the rest of God in Matthew 11:28-30. This rest isn't found in the law. Neither is the righteousness God requires found in obedience to the law.

I don't expect you to answer any of my questions. And that is OK.[/QUOTE]

Paul said that he served God's Law with his mind, so the inward man is what he desired to do and knew what was, not his flesh that served the law of sin. According to Titus 2:14, Christ gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness and according Romans 6:18-19, we have been set free from sin in order to become slaves of righteousness, not presenting ourselves as slaves of impurity and Lawlessness, but as slaves of righteousness leading to sanctification. We have been set free from living in disobedience to God so that we can be free to live in obedience to Him.

In Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus was inviting people to become his disciples and a disciple was someone who had the goal of memorizing their rabbi's teaching, or learning how to think and act like them, and to essentially become a copy of them. So we should not disassociate what he was inviting people to follow with what he taught by word and by example. Rather, by saying that we would find rest for our souls, he was refencing Jeremiah 6:16-19, where the Law is described as the good way where we will find rest for our souls.

Oh. Is it righteous to not keep the law?

It doesn't follow from the fact that righteousness doesn't come by the Law that therefore it is righteous to not keep the Law, far from it. For example, the Law reveals that it is in accordance with God's righteousness to help the poor, but no amount of helping the poor will ever cause someone who is not righteous to become righteous because the one and only way that there has ever been to become righteous is by faith, but by the same faith that declares us to be righteous we are also therefore required to do what is righteous. So we are to do what is righteous because we have been declared to be righteous and because that is the vocation of someone who is righteous, not in order to become righteous.

 

[Soyeong]

Could the law save one Israelite? If you answer no then why do you think the law was, in any way, salvational? Torah was given to one nation, Israel, for the way God wanted them to live. It was never meant to be the recipe for anyone's salvation. Yet some come on the forum trying to persuade others that we Christians must observe those governing laws that were meant for only the nation of Israel. Israelites came out of slavery ignorant of how to govern themselves, God gave them the law as the means to accomplish how they were to live. It was a covenant and Israel broke that covenant. Jesus then, at His death ratified the new covenant with His own blood. It is a covenant of love and forgiveness, an everlasting covenant with no IFs.

Jesus lived under the laws of Israel. He taught the law because the law was still in enforce. As mentioned the law was fulfilled at Calvary and our covenant replaced the one given to Israel. All mankind is invited to be born again by accepting Jesus and His new covenant.

The Law was not given as instructions for how to become saved, but as instructions for how those who have been saved should therefore act. It is related to our salvation in that our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is defined as the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4), so our salvation is from living in transgression of the Law for the purpose coming into obedience to it. According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly and sinful, and this an accurate description of what God's Law was given to instruct how to do. I agree that the Law was given to Israel, but the role that God had for Israel was to be a light to the nations, teaching them about God and how to walk in His ways in accordance with His Law (Isaiah 2:2-3). Walking in God's ways is not just for Jews, but for all desire to be followers of God and to be restored into His image in accordance with the example that Jesus set for his followers to follow. I agree that we are under a New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, but we are still nevertheless under the same God with the same eternal attributes and with the same eternal ways to act in accordance with those attributes. The Law is God's instructions for how to do what is holy, righteous, and good, and to refrain from sin, and as part of the New Covenant, we are still told to do what is holy, righteous, and good, and to refrain from sin. Jesus fulfilled the Law by causing God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who loves their neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law, so it does not refer to something unique that Jesus did.

 

[Soyeong]

Only one verse from Paul's letters (Gal 5:22-23), the part of the Bible that was actually specifically written to born again Christians?

Everything listed in Galatians 5:22-23 are based on the attributes of God that were revealed in the OT. If you agree that born again Christians should walk in God's ways and that God instruct Moses in how to walk in His ways, then you should therefore agree that born again Christians to walk in accordance with what God instructed to Moses.

 

[Bob S]

The Law was not given as instructions for how to become saved, but as instructions for how those who have been saved should therefore act.

Where are you finding that the Israelites that came out of slavery, probably didn't understand salvation by faith, to be a saved people?

It is related to our salvation in that our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is defined as the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4), so our salvation is from living in transgression of the Law for the purpose coming into obedience to it.

What law is 1Jn referring to? Keeping the law is not related to keeping laws, see the writings of Paul in the new covenant.

According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly and sinful, and this an accurate description of what God's Law was given to instruct how to do.

I guess it depends at whose feet you are setting at as to what instructions you use to define sin. Maybe you define it as disregarding the ritual laws of the old covenant, I don't

I agree that the Law was given to Israel, but the role that God had for Israel was to be a light to the nations, teaching them about God and how to walk in His ways in accordance with His Law (Isaiah 2:2-3)

.
Isaiah made some strange prophesies. We know that God did give us a new and better covenant. Jesus is now our high Priest setting at the right hand of the father. Our covenant is better than the old one with better promises. the old one promised to give Israel the land of Canaan. The new one promises to give us an eternal home forever.

Walking in God's ways is not just for Jews, but for all desire to be followers of God and to be restored into His image in accordance with the example that Jesus set for his followers to follow.

Jess example was to fellow Jews under the Mosaic covenant. I peeked at your next sentence and note that you don't believe e are under the laws that Jesus was under. So, when you tell us to walk as Jesus did or as God does we have to take all that into consideration. In other words why would I feel the need to keep feast days for Israel's special occasions? They were special to Israel only. I do not harvest Barley nor am I a product of those who observed Passover.

I agree that we are under a New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, but we are still nevertheless under the same God with the same eternal attributes and with the same eternal ways to act in accordance with those attributes.

Under the same God who sacrificed His Son that Jews might have eternal life. Under the one who planned our salvation before the foundation of the Earth. God treated Noah differently than Abraham and Abraham different than Israel. He is treating Christians differently.

The law was not eternal. It ended at the Cross. Where there is no Israel there is no law. Israel of old is history.

The Law is God's instructions for how to do what is holy, righteous, and good, and to refrain from sin, and as part of the New Covenant,

And that law is called the Royal Law of Love. It covers all sins not just the few from the 10.

we are still told to do what is holy, righteous, and good, and to refrain from sin. Jesus fulfilled the Law by causing God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who loves their neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law, so it does not refer to something unique that Jesus did.

Why is it so very hard to envision Jesus giving us a new law to live by? Read in green below how we know we belong to the truth. I see nothing in John's writings that would indicate we are to keep Torah as a tribute to God. That is a foreign concept.

 

[bugkiller]

Will you please explain why you think that these verses don't describe God's ways as what He commanded to Moses?:

Commanded to Moses and Israel , yes and amen. Commanded to Christians, NO.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

God's ways are indeed higher than our ways and in Psalms 103:7, it directly says that God made His ways known to Moses. If you want to say that the Law does not exhaustively list God's ways and that there are more ways to do what is righteous or refrain from doing what is sinful than what it specifically instructs or prohibits, then I'd agree with you. However, the Law is spiritual (Romans 7:14) because it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principles of which the listed laws are just examples, and those principles are the ways or attributes of God, such as holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, faithfulness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control, gracious, and forgiving. If we correctly understand a deeper spiritual principle and we have faith in God to guide us in how rightly live in restoring us to His image, then it will lead us to do things that are examples of that principle, not lead us to move past living according to those principles. Our goal as followers of Christ is to be like him in reflecting those attributes to the world, to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), and to be imitators of him (1 Corinthians 11:1), not to move past that.

Other than the 4th commandment, what is your beef? Are people here guilty of the things you listed from Gal 5:19-21?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Please acknowledge that I've quoted many verses that establish that the Bible describes God's ways as what He commanded to Moses and that by arguing against obeying what God command to Moses that you are therefore arguing against walking in God's ways. God's ways or attributes are particular to God, not to any particular covenant. For instance, it will always be in accordance with God's righteousness for us to help the poor regardless of how many covenants God makes.



In Romans 7:21-25, Paul said that he delighted in obeying God's Law and served it with his mind, but contrasted that with a law of sin that held him captive, caused him not to do the good that he wanted to do, and that he served with his flesh. This is a summary statement of what he said previously, and Romans 7:6 specifies that the law that we are set free from is one that held us captive, so he was speaking about being free from the law of sin, not about God's Law that he delighted in obeying. In Romans 7:7, Paul made it explicitly clear that the God's Law is not sin, but reveals what sin is so that you do not confuse which law he is talking about. The freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from sin, not the freedom to do what God revealed to be sin. He was not speaking about be free from following God's instructions for how to live for Him, how to walk in His ways, or how to reflect His attributes to the world.



Nothing I said even remotely comes close to saying that righteousness comes by the Law.

Who do you think you are fooling?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Everything listed in Galatians 5:22-23 are based on the attributes of God that were revealed in the OT. If you agree that born again Christians should walk in God's ways and that God instruct Moses in how to walk in His ways, then you should therefore agree that born again Christians to walk in accordance with what God instructed to Moses.

Sorry but Moses does not over ride Jesus. Jesus is God. Moses is not.

bugkiller

 

[Soyeong]

Where are you finding that the Israelites that came out of slavery, probably didn't understand salvation by faith, to be a saved people?

Where did I say anything about them probably not understanding salvation by faith or to be a saved people? In Deuteronomy 6:20-24, Obedience to God's Law was about having faith in God to bring them up out of bondage in Egypt, faith in God to defeat Pharaoh, faith in God to bring them to the land that He promised their fathers, faith in God to preserve them, and faith in God that what He commanded was for their own good.

What law is 1Jn referring to? Keeping the law is not related to keeping laws, see the writings of Paul in the new covenant.

According to Romans 3:20, the Law was given to make us conscious of sin and according to Romans 7:7, Paul would not have even known what sin was if it weren't for the Law. When Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, the Law was what they could read to find out what their sins are, so repenting from our disobedience to God's Law is an integral part of the Gospel message. Straightforwardly, sin is disobedience to God's commands, so it very clearly is speaking about God's Law.

I guess it depends at whose feet you are setting at as to what instructions you use to define sin. Maybe you define it as disregarding the ritual laws of the old covenant, I don't

So you think that the Israelites were free to disobey those commands without sinning? No, any disobedience to God's commands is sin. The ritual laws are no less part of God's instructions for how to walk in His ways in accordance with His holiness. In 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a reference to Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to act in accordance with His holiness, so you have the choice to delight in our God's commands or to spurn them, but it is always sin to disobey any of His commands.

Isaiah made some strange prophesies. We know that God did give us a new and better covenant. Jesus is now our high Priest setting at the right hand of the father. Our covenant is better than the old one with better promises. the old one promised to give Israel the land of Canaan. The new one promises to give us an eternal home forever.

The prophecy is fairly straightforward and easy to understand. I completely agree that we are under a New Covenant based upon better promises, but we are still nevertheless under the same God with the same eternal attributes and with the same eternal ways to act in accordance with those attributes. Nowhere does the Bible say that the New Covenant is based on superior laws because that would involve following a superior God with superior ways.

Jess example was to fellow Jews under the Mosaic covenant.

Nowhere does the Bible say that only Jews get to be followers of Jesus or that only Jews should follow his example. A Christian is by definition someone who seek to follow his teachings by word and by example. When God has given instructions to His followers for how to walk in His ways, it doesn't make any sense for people who want to become followers of God to refuse to follow those instructions because they were only given to God's followers and not to people like them who were not God's followers.

I peeked at your next sentence and note that you don't believe e are under the laws that Jesus was under. So, when you tell us to walk as Jesus did or as God does we have to take all that into consideration. In other words why would I feel the need to keep feast days for Israel's special occasions? They were special to Israel only. I do not harvest Barley nor am I a product of those who observed Passover.

I have no idea why you might think that I don't believe that we are under the laws that Jesus was under. It's me who is saying that we should walk in the same way that Jesus walked, but rather that's what Scripture says. Walking as Jesus walked involves walking in God's ways in accordance with His Law. Jesus set an example of keeping his Feasts, are we told to follow his example, to walk in the same way that he walked, and to be imitators of him. The Feasts are incredible rich with teachings about the Messiah, about God's plan of redemption, and are important foreshadows or rehearsals about what we will we doing during Messiah's reign, so we should not deprive ourselves of their delight. You are focusing too much on who the laws were given to and not enough on who they were given by because they were not intructions for how to live like Jews, but for how to walk in God's ways.

Under the same God who sacrificed His Son that Jews might have eternal life. Under the one who planned our salvation before the foundation of the Earth. God treated Noah differently than Abraham and Abraham different than Israel. He is treating Christians differently.

In Genesis 6:8-9, it says that Noah found grace in the eyes of God and that he was a righteous man. This was by no accident, but rather he was trained how to walking God's ways by grace and was righteous because he obeyed through faith. God only has one standard of righteousness and it would be unjust for God to punish Israel for doing things that we feel free to do. We are told to learn from Israel's example of disobedience so that we don't do the same things that they did, not to emulate it.

The law was not eternal. It ended at the Cross. Where there is no Israel there is no law. Israel of old is history.

God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), so too therefore are all of God's righteous laws (Psalms 119:160). The Law instructs us how to walk in God ways in accordance with God's attributes, so if God's righteous Law were to come to an end, then it would only be because God's eternal righteousness first came to an end. If Sodom and Gomorrah weren't obligated to live according to God's righteousness in accordance with His Law, then He would have had no just grounds by which to judge them for being wicked, or to judge the world with a flood, or in the end times. We are all obligated whether we agree or not.

Crosses were never used as a means of disposing of laws, but rather what was written on crosses were the charges against the person being crucified or the violations of the law that they had committed in order to explain why they were being crucified (Matthew 27:37). This fits perfectly with the analogy of our sins or violations of God's Law being nailed to his cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but does not fit at all with God doing away with His righteous standard. There is nothing in the Bible that speaks about God's righteous standard ending on the cross.

And that law is called the Royal Law of Love. It covers all sins not just the few from the 10.

In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus summarized the Law as being instructions for how God wants us to love Him and our neighbor, so the Mosaic Law is the Royal Law of Love.

Why is it so very hard to envision Jesus giving us a new law to live by?

According to Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from what the Father had commanded, so if you think that he added a brand new law, then you should think that he sinned and therefore disqualified himself from being our Savior. According to Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against following what He had commanded, even if they performed signs and wonders, so if you think that Jesus did that, then you should consider him to be a false prophet even though he performed miracles and rose from the dead. Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so I'll ask you this: why is it so hard for you to envision that Jesus taught all of his followers how to rightly live by word and by example? Do you trust God when He said that what He commanded was for His people's own good? Why aren't you eager to seek our what God has revealed in any of His covenants for how He wants to be loved?

Read in green below how we know we belong to the truth. I see nothing in John's writings that would indicate we are to keep Torah as a tribute to God. That is a foreign concept.

In John 14:23-24, Jesus said that whoever loves him will obey His teachings, whoever does not love him will not obey his teachings, and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so to say that Jesus added his own teachings or departed in the slightest from what the Father taught is to say that he lied. Do you agree with Jesus that someone who does not keep the Father's teachings does not love him?

---

At this point, I will note that we have gone down a number of different rabbit trails, but you have to even address what this thread is about. Namely, that if you agree that NT Christians should walk in God's ways and you agree that God taught Moses how walk in His ways, then you should agree that we should walk in accordance with what God taught to Moses.

 

[Bob S]

Well Soyeong, you may believe we have gone down rabbit trails, But I see from going down those trails that your agenda is far different from mine. I will not try to critique your posts after this post. You know what I believe to be the truth and I accept the fact that at this point you are not willing to agree with what I have presented. What confuses me is that you wrote the following: "I agree that we are under a New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, but....." (change mine) "we are still nevertheless under the same God with the same eternal attributes and with the same eternal ways to act in accordance with those attributes." You just had to use a qualifier that negated the first part of your thought. Either Jesus fulfilled the covenant with Israel or He didn't. Fulfill means to bring to an end. I do not see any qualifier to put mankind under the laws that Jesus brought to an end. In Christ, Bob

 

[FreeAtLast]

At this point, I will note that we have gone down a number of different rabbit trails, but you have to even address what this thread is about. Namely, that if you agree that NT Christians should walk in God's ways and you agree that God taught Moses how walk in His ways, then you should agree that we should walk in accordance with what God taught to Moses.

1) The "rabbit trails" as you call them, are in direct response to your erroneous assertions that we, as born again Believers in Yeshua, must adhere to the Law of Moses. The responses given to you are correct and relevant to show you the Scriptures which prove you wrong. Please heed them.

2) This thread is about pushing the Law of Moses onto born again Believers in Yeshua who are not under the Law. That's what it's about, and it's false doctrine.

3) You simply putting it in a box with a pretty bow and saying "walk in G-d's ways" is disingenuous at best. G-d's ways are ALL His Scripture, not just the ones you highlight (the Law of Moses) and in HIS Scripture, it is made clear that the Law of Moses has been fulfilled by Yeshua and replaced by Yeshua's New Covenant.

4) Please stop playing word games when you are just floating more Mosaic Law false doctrine.

 

[Soyeong]

Well Soyeong, you may believe we have gone down rabbit trails, But I see from going down those trails that your agenda is far different from mine.

You are brought up a number of issues that are related to the topic, which I am happy to discuss, but you are arguing against my conclusion without saying anything in regard to the points that made in my opening post to support my conclusion, which this thread is about, so I am just trying to steer our conversation to at least be inclusive of that.

I will not try to critique your posts after this post.

That's you're choice, but my goal was not to get you to withdraw from the conversation.

What confuses me is that you wrote the following: "I agree that we are under a New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, but....." (change mine) "we are still nevertheless under the same God with the same eternal attributes and with the same eternal ways to act in accordance with those attributes." You just had to use a qualifier that negated the first part of your thought. Either Jesus fulfilled the covenant with Israel or He didn't. Fulfill means to bring to an end. I do not see any qualifier to put mankind under the laws that Jesus brought to an end. In Christ, Bob

I do not agree with you about what it means to be under the New Covenant, so the issue is not that I don't agree that we are under the New Covenant, but that I object to your understanding of it. You seem to have concept of a New Covenant that it is made with a different God than the God of the OT, who has different attributes and different ways to act in accordance with those attributes, whereas I believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. For example, God's righteousness is eternal and unchanging, so the way to act in accordance with His righteousness is likewise eternal and unchanging, and therefore is the same in any covenant in that God has ever made or will ever make. So the Mosaic Covenant can be ended, but the Mosaic Law instructs us how to walk in God's ways in accordance with God's attributes, so it will always remain valid as long as God's attributes remain the same.

Jesus did not give himself to free us from the Mosaic Law, but to free us from Lawlessness (Titus 2:14). The problem with the Mosaic Covenant was not with God's righteous standard or with His instructions for how to live according to that standard, but rather the fault was with the people who broke the covenant because of the hardness of their hearts. So the solution to the problem is not to do away with God's instructions for how to walk in His ways, but to do away with what was hindering us from walking in His ways. This is why the New Covenant involves God taking away our heart of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and putting His Spirit in us to cause us to obey His Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

 

[Soyeong]

1) The "rabbit trails" as you call them, are in direct response to your erroneous assertions that we, as born again Believers in Yeshua, must adhere to the Law of Moses. The responses given to you are correct and relevant to show you the Scriptures which prove you wrong. Please heed them.

I agree that the rabbit trails are related to the OP because they disagree with my conclusion and I am happy to discuss them, but my point is that people who disagree with my conclusion should at least engage with the reasons that I gave for supporting my conclusion.

2) This thread is about pushing the Law of Moses onto born again Believers in Yeshua who are not under the Law. That's what it's about, and it's false doctrine.

I agree that we are not under the law, but I disagree that we are not under God's Law. In Romans 7:21-25 Paul said he delighted in obeying God's Law and that he served it with his mind, but contrasted it with the law of sin that held him captive that he served with his mind. This is a summary statement of what he said previously, so it is the law of sin that came about to increase tresspasses (5:20), to stir up sinful passions to bear fruit unto death (7:5), that held him captive (7:6), that gave sin its power (7:8), that deceived him through the commandment and slew him (7:11), and that caused him not to do the good that he wanted (7:13-20), while God's Law is not the law of sin, but reveals what sin is (7:7), is holy, righteous, and good (7:12), is the good that Paul did not blame for bringing death to him (7:13), and is the good that Paul wanted to do (7:13-20). In Romans 6:14, Paul described the law that we are not under as one where sin had dominion over us, which perfectly fits with his description of the law of sin, but does not at all fit with his description of God's holy, righteous, and good law. Furthermore, all the surrounding context of Romans 6:12-19 is in support of keeping the Mosaic Law, so I see no grounds to interpret verse 14 as saying that we are not under it instead of not being under the law of sin.

3) You simply putting it in a box with a pretty bow and saying "walk in G-d's ways" is disingenuous at best. G-d's ways are ALL His Scripture, not just the ones you highlight (the Law of Moses) and in HIS Scripture, it is made clear that the Law of Moses has been fulfilled by Yeshua and replaced by Yeshua's New Covenant.

I agree that Yeshua fulfilled the Law. "To fulfill the Law" is defined as " to cause God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should" and that is precisely what Yeshua immediately proceeded to do six times throughout the rest of Matthew 5 after he said he came full the Law. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law, so it does not refer to something unique that Yeshua did, but to obeying the Law as it should be. Likewise, in Galatians 6:2, it says that bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, which does not refer to doing away with it, but to obeying it as it should be. In Romans 15:18-19, it says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, which does not refer to doing away with it, but to fully teaching it and causing Gentiles to obey it in word and indeed as they should. The phrase "fulfilling the Law" is also used in the same manner in other Jewish writings, so it was not something only Yeshua did and is not accomplished only by living in perfect obedience to it, though that would be one of many examples of fulfilling the Law.

I also agree that we are under the New Covenant, but we are nevertheless under the same God with the same attributes and with the same way to act in His ways in accordance with those attribute. The Mosaic Law instructs us how to walk in God ways in accordance with His attributes and in accordance with the example that Yeshua set for his followers to follow. So the Mosaic Law will always remain valid instructions for how to walk in accordance with God's attributes as long as God's eternal attributes remain the same regardless of which covenant we are under. In addition, I see no reason to think that the New Covenant involved something other than what Yeshua taught by word and by example.

Furthermore, I also that all of Scripture teaches us to walk in God's ways, but everything that is taught in the NT is based off of what is taught in the OT, so including everything taught in the NT doesn't change what it means to walk in God's ways. If you agree that we are to walk in God's ways, which are inclusive of all Scripture, which is inclusive of the Mosaic Law, then you should agree that the way that we live in accordance with the Mosaic Law.

4) Please stop playing word games when you are just floating more Mosaic Law false doctrine.

Yeshua was sinless, which means that he set a perfect example for his followers to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, as as his followers, we are told that we ought to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6), and that we should be imitators of him (1 Corinthians 11:1). So the fact that teaching the followers of Christ that they should follow his example is considered false doctrine by some of them only goes to show how far they have fallen from the truth.

 

[FreeAtLast]

I agree that Yeshua fulfilled the Law. "To fulfill the Law" is defined as " to cause God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should"

Really? Where did you get that? To fulfill means to fill up to full. In completion. That is what Yeshua did. The Law of Moses had requirements. Yeshua filled every one so there are no more to fill. That is what He said, He did not come to abolish the Law (we are to learn from it) BUT, He fulfilled it, so there is no need to adhere to it any longer. It is dead.

"It is important to note that the contrast is not between “abolish” and “observe,” but between “abolish” and “fulfill.” Jesus did not claim that He came to observe the Law or to keep the Law; rather He came to fulfill it."

Fulfill: pleroo
to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full

1. 1. to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
      1. I abound, I am liberally supplied
2. to render full, i.e. to complete
   1. to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
      
      
   2. to consummate: a number
      1. to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
         
         
      2. to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
   3. to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
      1. of matters of duty: to perform, execute
         
         
      2. of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
         
         
      3. to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

So lookee! All the definitions state that this word means to complete. Way at the end is the uncommon usage that you cherry picked out to support your thesis.

Sorry, the word means to full up so that there is no more room to add.

That is because Yeshua filled the Law's requirements. We are not required to adhere to it.

I also agree that we are under the New Covenant, but we are nevertheless under the same God with the same attributes and with the same way to act in His ways in accordance with those attribute. The Mosaic Law instructs us how to walk in God ways in accordance with His attributes and in accordance with the example that Yeshua set for his followers to follow. So the Mosaic Law will always remain valid instructions for how to walk in accordance with God's attributes as long as God's eternal attributes remain the same regardless of which covenant we are under. In addition, I see no reason to think that the New Covenant involved something other than what Yeshua taught by word and by example.

That is circular reasoning. We cannot be both under the Old and New Covenant at the same time, because according to the Scriptures, the Old is passed away and Yeshua's NEW Covenant is the better way.

So, basically you are saying that what Yeshua did wasn't good enough, we need to add more Law to the mix.

Nope, the Mosiac Law is no longer G-d's ways since Yeshua gave us His NEW Covenant at His death.

You are rejecting it and Him. Choose you this day whom you will serve, the Mosaic Law or Yeshua (who IS G-d) and His New Covenant.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Really? Where did you get that? To fulfilled means to fill up to full. In completion. That is what Yeshua did. The Law of Moses had requirements. Yeshua filled every one so there are no more to fill. That is what He said, He did not come to abolish the Law (we are to learn from it) BUT, He fulfilled it, so there is no need to adhere to it any longer.

"It is important to note that the contrast is not between “abolish” and “observe,” but between “abolish” and “fulfill.” Jesus did not claim that He came to observe the Law or to keep the Law; rather He came to fulfill it."

Fulfill: pleroo
to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full

1. 1. to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
      1. I abound, I am liberally supplied
2. to render full, i.e. to complete
   1. to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
      
      
   2. to consummate: a number
      1. to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
         
         
      2. to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
   3. to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
      1. of matters of duty: to perform, execute
         
         
      2. of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
         
         
      3. to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

So lookee! All the definitions state that this word means to complete. Way at the end is the uncommon usage that you cherry picked out to support your thesis.

Sorry, the word means to full up so that there is no more room to add.

That is because Yeshua filled the Law's requirements. We are not required to adhere to it.



That is circular reasoning. We cannot be both under the Old and New Covenant at the same time, because according to the Scriptures, the Old is passed away and Yeshua's NEW Covenant is the better way.

So, basically you are saying that what Yeshua did wasn't good enough, we need to add more Law to the mix.

Nope, the Mosiac Law is no longer G-d's ways since Yeshua gave us His NEW Covenant at His death.

You are rejecting it and Him. Choose you this day whom you will serve, the Mosaic Law or Yeshua (who IS G-d) and His New Covenant.

I love the words about the believer's situation now of depending on not the believer's law-keeping but 'all of grace'.

"All of grace, yes grace surpassing,
Such a portion to bestow,
But the love, all knowledge passing,
Grace has taught us now to know.

Love that bore the stripes and sorrow,
Love that suffered on the Tree,
Love that shares the bright tomorrow
With the love ones, you and me."

 

[Soyeong]

Really? Where did you get that? To fulfilled means to fill up to full. In completion. That is what Yeshua did. The Law of Moses had requirements. Yeshua filled every one so there are no more to fill. That is what He said, He did not come to abolish the Law (we are to learn from it) BUT, He fulfilled it, so there is no need to adhere to it any longer.

"It is important to note that the contrast is not between “abolish” and “observe,” but between “abolish” and “fulfill.” Jesus did not claim that He came to observe the Law or to keep the Law; rather He came to fulfill it."

Fulfill: pleroo
to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full

1. 1. to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
      1. I abound, I am liberally supplied
2. to render full, i.e. to complete
   1. to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim
      
      
   2. to consummate: a number
      1. to make complete in every particular, to render perfect
         
         
      2. to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)
   3. to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise
      1. of matters of duty: to perform, execute
         
         
      2. of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish
         
         
      3. to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment

So lookee! All the definitions state that this word means to complete. Way at the end is the uncommon usage that you cherry picked out to support your thesis.

Sorry, the word means to full up so that there is no more room to add.

That is because Yeshua filled the Law's requirements. We are not required to adhere to it.

Fulfilling the Law also refers to filling up or completing one's understanding of it or to meeting one's obligation to it, so I do not see the other definitions as being at odds with the one I pciked and I picked the definition I did because it specifically mentioned being in regard to God's Law, it fits the best with the surrounding context, it fits the best with the context of the rest of the Bible, because other verses use the word in the same way, and because that it how it is used in other Jewish writings. When words have multiple meanings a good rule of hermeneutics to derive the correct meaning from the context, so can you derive anything from the surrounding context, from anything said in Matthew 5, from anything Yeshua said, or anything from the rest of the Bible that supports the definition that you've used in the sense that you've understood it?

In Matthew 5:17-19, after Yeshua said he came to fulfill the Law, not to abolish, he said that not the least part would disappear from the Law until heaven and earth passed away and until all has been accomplished, neither of which has happened yet, both of which refer to end times are are ways of saying that it is never gonna happen. He went on to warn that whoever relaxed the least of the commands or taught others to do the same would be called least in the Kingdom, while whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom, and this is a warning that I think you should take seriously because I would much rather be called great in the Kingdom. In any case, there isn't much room to interpret fulfill the law as Yeshua saying that he came to make it so we no longer have to adhere to the law.

Throughout the rest of Matthew 5, Yeshua proceeded to teach how to correctly obey the Law, which perfectly fits one of the listed definitions, which should give strong preference to it and require even you to provide even stronger justification for giving preference to a different definition. Furthermore, Yeshua did not say anything throughout his entire ministry specifically in regard to the concept of how you've defined the term. On the contrary, Jesus invited people to follow his example and to learn from him, and commissioned his disciples to make more disciples, teaching them everything that he taught them, which was inclusive of everything he taught by word and by example. There is nothing in the Bible that says that Yeshua gave himself so that we wouldn't have to follow him. The freedom that we have in Christ is not the freedom to do what God reveal to be sin, but the freedom from doing those things.

That is circular reasoning. We cannot be both under the Old and New Covenant at the same time, because according to the Scriptures, the Old is passed away and Yeshua's NEW Covenant is the better way.

Please explain how what I've said is circular. I have not said that we are under both the Old and New Covenant at the same time, but rather I agreed that we under a better New Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant. God's righteousness is eternal, so the way to act in accordance with His righteousness is likewise eternal, which means that from the beginning before God made any covenants with man there existed a way to practice righteousness, which is therefore not dependent on any particular covenant, though it has been revealed through them. So there is a distinction between a set of instructions for how to practice righteousness and a covenant agreement to live by those instructions. A covenant agreement can come and go, but the way to practice righteousness will always remain the same, so anyone who wants to look up how to practice righteousness can do so by reading God's instructions for that in the Mosaic Law, regardless of which covenant they are under, but as part of the New Covenant we are still required to practice righteousness (1 John 3:10). There is much evidence of many of God's laws already being in place throughout Genesis, so the way to practice righteousness did not change when the Mosaic or New Covenants were made, but rather those covenants revealed what has always been and will always be the way to practice righteousness.

So, basically you are saying that what Yeshua did wasn't good enough, we need to add more Law to the mix.

The Mosaic Law was given to instruct how to do what is holy, righteous, and good, and to refrain from sin and in the New Covenant, we are still instructed to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to refrain from sin. In Titus 2:11-14, it says that our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly and sinful, which is an accurate description of what God's Law was given to instruct. Furthermore, in verse 14, it does not say that Yeshua gave himself to free us from the Law, but to free us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, and God's Law is again His instructions for how to equip us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). So to return to the Lawlessness that Yeshua gave himself to redeem us from is to reject what he gave himself to accomplish.

In Matthew 23:23, Yeshua said that faith in one of the weightier matters of the Law and obedience to God's instructions for how to walk in His ways is straightforwardly about having faith in Him to guide us in how to rightly live. In John 14:23-24, Yeshua said that if we love him, then we will obey his teachings, that if we do not love him, and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so obedience to the Father has always been about expressing our faith and our love for Him, and thereby growing in a relationship with Him, and has never been about trying to become justified by our own works.

Nope, the Mosiac Law is no longer G-d's ways since Yeshua gave us His NEW Covenant at His death.

You are rejecting it and Him. Choose you this day whom you will serve, the Mosaic Law or Yeshua (who IS G-d) and His New Covenant.

I believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, do you? To say that the way to act in accordance with God's attributes has changed is to say that God's attributes have changed, but God's attributes are eternal and do not change.

I see no reason to think that the New Covenant involves something other than what Yeshua taught by word and by example or to think that teaching people to follow what he taught by word and by example is teaching people to reject him. Yeshua set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience God's Law, so there is no distinction between following him or following God's Law, and we are told to follow his example. Yeshua was not in disagreement with the Father about what conduct we should have, but rather he came only to do the Father's will and did not depart in the slightest from what the Father taught.

 

[Soyeong]

I love the words about the believer's situation now of depending on not the believer's law-keeping but 'all of grace'.

"All of grace, yes grace surpassing,
Such a portion to bestow,
But the love, all knowledge passing,
Grace has taught us now to know.

Love that bore the stripes and sorrow,
Love that suffered on the Tree,
Love that shares the bright tomorrow
With the love ones, you and me."

According to Psalms 119:29, David asked God to show His grace to him by teaching him to obey His Law. According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and being trained to renounce doing what is ungodly and sinful, which is essentially what God's Law was given to instruct. According to Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience that faith requires. According to John 1:16-17, grace was added upon grace, so the grace of Christ was added upon the grace of the Law. According to Jude 1:4, the ungodly pervert God's grace into a license to sin, which is defined as the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). According to Strong's, "grace" is defined as "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life" and when God's will is reflected in our lives it straightforwardly takes the form of obedience to God's commands. So God shows His grace to us by teaching us to walk in His ways in accordance with His Law.

 

[faroukfarouk]

According to Psalms 119:29, David asked God to show His grace to him by teaching him to obey His Law. According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and being trained to renounce doing what is ungodly and sinful, which is essentially what God's Law was given to instruct. According to Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience that faith requires. According to John 1:16-17, grace was added upon grace, so the grace of Christ was added upon the grace of the Law. According to Jude 1:4, the ungodly pervert God's grace into a license to sin, which is defined as the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4). According to Strong's, "grace" is defined as "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life" and when God's will is reflected in our lives it straightforwardly takes the form of obedience to God's commands. So God shows His grace to us by teaching us to walk in His ways in accordance with His Law.

But 'the obedience of faith', 'obedience to the faith' at the beginning and end of Romans is vastly different from supposedly now being under the law, like Israel in the Old Economy. The law has changed (Hebrews 7.12) and what the New Testament believer now has is better than the law (Hebrews 7.19).