Every jot and tittle

[Ken Rank]

Here is the 1 John 3:4 per Young's Literal Translation:

Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,

The greek work anomia is "lawlessness", not "the Law of Moses" - I do not see the justification for taking a general term like lawlessness and reducing it to specific focus on the Law of Moses. After all, one can be lawless by speeding - that is hardly a violation of the Law of Moses.

Are you saying we are judged based on us following secular law? No, so what "law" is being spoken of? God's law... Moses wrote down the words of GOD. Anomia in this context is without God's law, not without secular law.

 

[Oldmantook]

So, you're saying if they had also brought the man Jesus would have been like, "Huh, I guess you guys are right, stone them!"?

It appears you don't understand the requirements of the law as it pertains to the subject of adultery. You may want to inform yourself accordingly. Do you not realize this was a trap set by the Pharisees to trick Jesus into violating the law? In order to have a lawful hearing for one accused of adultery, BOTH PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT. This was obviously not the case since ONLY the woman was present. Therefore they should not have been any convening for judgment as to whether this woman was guilty or not IN THE FIRST PLACE - since the adulterous man was not present. Thus given this false set-up, Jesus was under no obligation to render his opinion. Thus Jesus didn't violate the law since they were not following the law in the first place in terms of the correct protocols for bringing an accused person forward. It's not a matter of whether the woman was guilty or not. The fact that they violated the law in bringing an accusation of adultery against her doomed their case from the beginning.
FYI in today's terms, it would be like a judge throwing the case out of court for procedural error committed by the police and/or prosecutor's office.

 

[Ken Rank]

Jesus was accused of breaking the sabbath and claiming equality with God. Jesus was guilty on both counts.

David... what Jesus was accused of breaking is not in the bible, not in the Torah (the law). What he was accused of breaking was the MAN MADE ADDITIONS to the law. Is there a commandment that says one can't pick a piece of fruit of vegetable on the Sabbath and eat it? No, there is not. There is a command to not pick and SELL on the Sabbath... or not pick and store to sell later (both are work)... but picking and eating isn't prohibited in God's law. It was prohibited by rabbinic law.

Whatever you end up believing fine, it's between you and God, not me and you. But calling our Messiah is law breaker is, in my view, kind of dangerous especially when what you think he broke isn't in the law.

Blessings.
Ken

 

[Ken Rank]

The message of Jesus and him paying the price for our sins fulfilled or displaced the law. every jot and tittle. His message was forgiveness of all sins, every jot and tittle. His payment for all crimes of humanity was his death.

The old covenant included death for many crimes. Jesus paid for all those crimes and ever other crime. With His forgiveness, all sins are not counted against those who wish to be with the Father.

The judgments (and punishments) were added by God for when Israel was a sovereign nation. But when Jesus walked the earth, Judea was under Roman rule and God's law wasn't being used as Israel's civil law. The do's and don'ts were followed, but they had no authority to exact punishment. They still did from time to time (i.e. Stephen) but in general they yielded to their occupier hence them asking Rome to kill Christ.

What God's defined as sin back then, is still sin today, He does not change.

 

[expos4ever]

Why would He declare an end to "if a man lays with a man as he would a woman, it is an abomination." Is that what he declared an end to? Because that is the Law of Moses (which is an idiom by the way, for "law of God").

The fact that the Law of Moses has been retired does not mean that is ok to "lay with a man as with a woman". Does a Christian with the indwelling Holy Spirit need a written code to tell them that?

 

[John Helpher]

In any event, you are not looking for answers, you have an agenda. So... I am out. Be blessed.

This is what, in internet parlance, is called a pot shot. Fire off some shots about how I'm making stuff up and then announce that you don't want anything to do with the convo. *eye roll*

And when Yeshua walked the Earth, there was no NT. The recorded Word, the "bible" of the day, is the work you are dismissing.

Again, this is the problem with your reliance on the law. Jesus IS the new testament, but you don't see that. You only see a book with some words on it. It's the same thing some other fella said earlier when referencing the commandments of Jesus. He didn't seem to care about any of Jesus' teachings other than how he could use them to support his position on the sabbath.

 

[Ken Rank]

The fact that the Law of Moses has been retired does not mean that is ok to "lay with a man as with a woman". Does a Christian with the indwelling Holy Spirit need a written code to tell them that?

You are not perfected, the spirit given was given as a down payment (2 Cor 1:22 and 2 Cor 5:5) not as an end all. Since you seem to think one can simply exist and please God only with the spirit, throw your bible out and don't study to show yourself approved. You can be approved without study, right?

 

[John Helpher]

The Law of Moses was what marked out the Jew from the rest of world.

Agreed. I think the same thing is true of the teachings of Jesus today; those who practice his teachings demonstrate that they are different from the world.

I suspect you will agree that the nation of Israel had a central role in God's overall plan of redemption. And if you believe that plan was essentially completed on the cross, the case can be made, and I am convinced Paul believes this, that Israel has completed its role in the redemption narrative.

Yeah, though I'd actually go a little bit further by saying that the Children of Israel as a nation, a race, and a religion failed and, while I believe God's intention was for them to succeed, the lesson is that there is no national, racial, or religious affiliation which can guarantee faithfulness. That is the lesson.

Now, God looks at the heart; the humble, sincere, willing spirit of each individual. If you practice the values Jesus taught, then you are God's chosen people.

 

[Ken Rank]

This is what, in internet parlance, is called a pot shot. Fire off some shots about how I'm making stuff up and then announce that you don't want anything to do with the convo. *eye roll*

No, go back to my original post John. I shared some thoughts and then said if you wanted some evidence, wanted to hear more, I would share. And if you were pushing an agenda, then I didn't have the time. You are pushing an agenda, you aren't willing to hear anything outside your own paradigm so I won't bother you. OK? That is firing off potshots and running, it is being frugal with my time which is extremely limited.

Be blessed, I am opting out of this thread.
Ken

 

[expos4ever]

Are you saying we are judged based on us following secular law? No, so what "law" is being spoken of? God's law... Moses wrote down the words of GOD. Anomia in this context is without God's law, not without secular law.

I am simply saying that sin is lawlessness in general - violating "moral law". You seem to think that the Law of Moses is the only possible source for moral law. What about the prompting of the spirit? Remember what Paul says in Romans 1:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

This text is clear: we do not need the Law of Moses for moral guidance; Paul says that from the beginning of time - long before the Law of Moses - people have an inner moral compass.

 

[Soyeong]

Ok Soyeong. Thanks for that. Would you mind taking what you believe to be the strongest argument from your previous post and reposting it here? You made a lot of points and I feel trying to respond to all of them will only get us bogged down.

Perhaps we could focus on what it means to fulfill the Law and to that extent whether Jesus taught obedience to it.

 

[Oldmantook]

Your position rests on the weak implicit supposition that since Jesus begins his critique with an attack on Pharasaic add-ons, that focus must be preserved throughout the encounter. But there is indeed a shift in focus in the Mark 7 encounter.

Totally false! Jesus never brought up the subject as it WAS INITIATED by the scribes and Pharisees. Are you not able to read the text?
Mk 7:2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed.
This scripture makes it clear that the subject is NOT defiled food but defiled hands - due to unwashing.
Mk 7:5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?
The Pharisees initiated their attack BASED UPON the TRADITION OF THE ELDERS - NOT commands of the law. There is no law requiring washing of hands before eating. Jesus responded to their accusation by addressing the hygiene issue. There is no reference to the dietary law whatsoever. Jesus never ate unclean food nor did his disciples.
You are not free to imagine something into the text in order to fit your belief system as that is just poor hermeneutics.

 

[Ken Rank]

I am simply saying that sin is lawlessness in general - violating "moral law". You seem to think that the Law of Moses is the only possible source for moral law. What about the prompting of the spirit? Remember what Paul says in Romans 1:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

This text is clear: we do not need the Law of Moses for moral guidance; Paul says that from the beginning of time - long before the Law of Moses - people have an inner moral compass.

Paul quotes the OT 37% of the time he writes in the NT, that is a fact! The OT, the Torah in particular, gives us God's will, His desire, His differentiation between sin and righteousness... by the letter. In the Prophets, and even more so in the NT, we see the spirit behind the letter. There is no new commandments in the NT.... nor has there been anything added. What we have is the depth behind the letter revealed in his words (and the words of the NT authors) and in his actions.

 

[Oldmantook]

Are you serious? What about that "little detail" called the Holy Spirit?

Are you serious? Does the Holy Spirit violate the commands of God? Yes or no?

 

[Oldmantook]

Paul is not a slave to the Law of Moses anymore. You need to read on a little further into Romans 8:

find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life [a]in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

What do we see in verse 22 and 23: A man (Paul) explaining that while he delights in the Law of Moses, he is still a prisoner to sin. And, again, in verse 25 he talks about serving the Law of God and yet, again, still imprisoned by sin. But verse 2 in chapter 8 declares that something has changed - Paul is no longer engaged in this struggle! He has been set free!

Why is this relevant? It shows that Romans 8:2 is where Paul is now, whereas the stuff at the end of Romans 7 is about where he was in the past. This, of course, does not prove the Law of Moses is retired. But, at the very least it shows that you cannot use statement about "delighting in the Law" from Romans 7 as evidence that the Law is still in force - that stuff is in the past: the Law might still be in force when we arrive at Romans 8.

But then again, it might not.

Of course Paul is free from the law of sin and death. He had saving faith which freed him from the penalty of sin and death. However that does not mean the law no longer exists. Are you free to lust upon another person with your eyes? Obviously not as Jesus' instruction exceeded the law. However since the law no longer applies according to you, you would now be free to commit physical adultery.
Quite obvious that your position is untenable based on this simple illustration.

 

[klutedavid]

David... what Jesus was accused of breaking is not in the bible, not in the Torah (the law). What he was accused of breaking was the MAN MADE ADDITIONS to the law. Is there a commandment that says one can't pick a piece of fruit of vegetable on the Sabbath and eat it? No, there is not. There is a command to not pick and SELL on the Sabbath... or not pick and store to sell later (both are work)... but picking and eating isn't prohibited in God's law. It was prohibited by rabbinic law.

Whatever you end up believing fine, it's between you and God, not me and you. But calling our Messiah is law breaker is, in my view, kind of dangerous especially when what you think he broke isn't in the law.

Blessings.
Ken

It's not what I believe Ken, it's what the scripture states.

John 5:18
For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

Let's just examine your claim.

So your claiming that Jesus was not declaring equality with God. I thought that is exactly what Jesus was doing right from the start.

You believe that the Jews were falsely charging Jesus with heresy?

Secondly, for some unknown reason even though Jesus worked every Sabbath day as the divine, high priest. Excluded from Sabbath law, you persist in the idea that God Himself was not exempt from that Sabbath law.

Christ must obey Sabbath law you say?

Priests do not obey Sabbath law.

 

[John Helpher]

Perhaps we could focus on what it means to fulfill the Law and to that extent whether Jesus taught obedience to it.

Thanks, soyeong. I'll give an example of how I think Jesus fulfilled the law. In the OT only 10% (the tithe) was required. A fulfillment of that requirement would be 100%. That's what Jesus asked for (Luke 14:33).

Regarding the sabbath (which seems to be the single most contentious part of this whole law thing), I'm not saying Jesus abolished the sabbath. In the old law the sabbath was 1 out of 7. The fulfillment of that figure would be 7 out of 7. Jesus said, "come to me all you who labor and I will give you sabbath". We don't come to Jesus 1 day out of the week. We follow him everyday.

When he talks about those who "labor" he's referring to how we use our time. The old testament standard was that we use 6 days out of the week to work for money and then give 1 day to God. The fulfillment of that is to stop laboring for money and instead labor for God. Compared to the daily, rat-race grind of chasing after dollars, working for Jesus is restful. That is not to say that working for Jesus equates to laziness, but rather, in concept, working for love is restful compared to working for filthy lucre.

We followers of Jesus should not be putting forward arguments which give less time to God. That kind of thing may have been okay in kindergarten, but we're in the real world now. Nap time is over; God wants our full attention.

 

[Oldmantook]

Let's talk about verse 12 first. Here it is in context, with the verb tenses highlighted:

7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Paul is clearly talking about the past (even though he says the Law "is" holy"; I will explain in my next post).

Are you kidding? Are you not even aware that in the verses you cited, Paul is referring to his life before he was saved? And that is exactly why he was talking in the past. However in Rom 7:25 he is now talking in present tense terms of now being saved. "So then with my mind I myself serve (present tense) the law of God...." Thus as a saved person, Paul still served the law of God.

 

[klutedavid]

Paul quotes the OT 37% of the time he writes in the NT, that is a fact! The OT, the Torah in particular, gives us God's will, His desire, His differentiation between sin and righteousness... by the letter. In the Prophets, and even more so in the NT, we see the spirit behind the letter. There is no new commandments in the NT.... nor has there been anything added. What we have is the depth behind the letter revealed in his words (and the words of the NT authors) and in his actions.

John 13:34
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

Looks like a new commandment to me.

Even Jesus called it a new commandment!

There is no new commandments in the NT

You may need to read the text.

 

[klutedavid]

Are you kidding? Are you not even aware that in the verses you cited, Paul is referring to his life before he was saved? And that is exactly why he was talking in the past. However in Rom 7:25 he is now talking in present tense terms of now being saved. "So then with my mind I myself serve (present tense) the law of God...." Thus as a saved person, Paul still served the law of God.

You cannot half quote a text.

Romans 7:21
I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

Paul was a dead man walking. The law had inflamed the sin in his flesh and Paul was imprisoned in that body of death.

Paul's present state was always a dead man walking, sentenced to death by the law. Only in Christ was Paul freed from that sting of death.