Did Christ at the cross end all the laws?

[SabbathBlessings]

No, that's not what I'm saying..

So are you saying you should keep the Ten Commandments then? Just a few posts ago you said you don't need to keep any laws. I see a lot of back and fourth on this. I am not going to comment on your other post because its been addressed so many times.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

(Part 2 )
As I see it and following James's idea, there is no "starting with" a set of laws. A person keeps them all or they are guilty of breaking them all.

Lets quote James so we are on the same page. . .

James 2:10-12 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

Since you seem unsure about the laws, let's start with the easy part as James quotes directly from the Ten and tells us this is how we will be judged. Previously you said you did not need to keep these laws. James seems to say otherwise.

 

[expos4ever]

According to scripture we have a written law, so we know what sin is. 1 John 3:4, Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7....

1 John 3:4: this text does not mention the Law of Moses! Yes, sin is lawlessness, but this does not mean that a particular law - the Law of Moses including the 10 - remains in effect.

Romans 3:20: Context is key. You are conveniently silent on the fact that, in context, Paul is describing what was the case - that the Law did, in the past, let the Jew know what sin was. How do we know that this is now in the past? The very next verse! But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, ....

Romans 7:7: You do not account for context. Once more, you remain conveniently tight-lipped on the fact that Paul has just told us that we no longer serve the Law. In context, and this can be argued at length, Paul believes the time of the Law has come to an end, but he can still praise it for the role it played in an evolving plan.

 

[Christopher0121]

Lots of interesting ideas in your post, there!

One way to talk about those ideas in relation to the thread title is this question:
Who gets to decide whether the Bible has 66 books or 73 books?

If each person gets to decide for themselves, then it seems reasonable that each person would also get to interpret the Bible for themselves,
which laws ended at the cross.

But if a person follows the decision of a group of Christians, if that group of Christians gets to decide, then it seems reasonable that the same group of Christians would also get to interpret the Bible,
again about which laws ended at the cross.

And may the peace of the Lord be always with you!

Very astute.

Being Catholic, of course I side with the notion that the Bible has 73 books. I mean, even Jesus in the Gospels and the Apostle Paul and others who wrote Epistles quote the texts Protestants removed on account of their being "too Catholic". lol

The way I see it, bitter water and sweet water don't flow from the same well. If the Councils provided the Canon... I guess it makes sense that the Councils have the right to interpret it also. I mean, if one can't trust the Councils... I guess one can't trust the Scriptures they compiled, translated, and canonized.

 

[Christopher0121]

Matthew 8:4 has the parallel with the addition of
"and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to the people."

After healing one should show themselves to a priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded

I'd like to point out that the blood of the New Covenant was not yet shed at the Cross when Christ admonished those healed to "offer the gift that Moses commanded". Technically, everyone was still under the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses didn't end until the Cross... the Church didn't begin until Pentecost... and the entire Mosaic system didn't come to a violent end until AD 70 when the Romans destroyed the Temple and the entire Mosaic system of worship and sacrifices.

 

[Guojing]

That leaves the true Israel, which I think relates to how we interpret the scriptures as to what laws ended at the cross for whom.

The true Israel, if I understand what you're saying, is those Jews who believed in Jesus between the resurrection and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. And are you also saying that for the true Israel, no laws ended at the cross?

You don't think Acts 21:18-25 is clear enough in stating that, for True Israel, no law ended at the cross?

Acts 21 was so many years after the cross =)

18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

 

[Guojing]

Well... no, the New Covenant starts at the last Passover that Jesus celebrates with his disciples on Earth.

All believers, you and I and everyone else, are in the New Covenant.

Well Jesus said Matthew 15:24 before that last Passover.

Did he indicate, in any way, that during that Passover, that statement was no longer valid?

 

[Neogaia777]

The law is still the standard, and the only thing that changed, was only our realization that no one could ever live up to it continually perfectly, not before being born-again, and not after, etc, which is supposed to; well, for one, humble us, and then for another, lead us into a new and living way with Christ, because the other way became dead, and had died...

Would you like to discuss this new and living way, etc...?

Or would you also like to discuss also, how it is supposed to humble us, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[trophy33]

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."
Lv 19:27

Almost any modern man does that, because its the common style. If we are under the Mosaic law, its a sin.

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
Lv 19:19

Quite impossible today. Try to find shoes or jacket made of one material only. If we are under the Mosaic law, its a sin.

And if some SDA member wants to say that only some commadments of Lv 19 are the law, then let him read the closing verse:

"37“ ‘Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the Lord.’ ”


Its either all or nothing.
Either we are under the law or not.
Either we died to the law or not.
Either we have been released from the law or not.
Either the law was finished or not.

There is no partialism possible.

 

[Neogaia777]

The Mosaic Law was imperfect, because it was made (or "added") because of sin, but the Law that was from the beginning, cannot even be written down, and is far superior, and is "perfect", etc, but even if we were to go by this Law, the standard is still perfection, and still shows even all the more so, that we still cannot continuously live up to it, or perfectly and continuously always obey it and keep it, etc, at least, not while we are still here in this world, and are still here in this state still, etc, and until this is fixed, we never will be able to, etc...

And this is supposed to humble us and keep us humble, and lead us to the new and living way in Jesus, etc...

Want to hear about it...?

We all know what true sin is inherently, but most of us are just not listening to it, etc...

And we all know it does not have anything at all to do with how you keep or trim your hair or beard, or if your garments is made of one or more different materials or not, etc...

But, we all know what true sin is and is not inherently, but most of us are just not listening to it, but we actually have, in fact, deadened it by the very law that was supposed to make us aware of it, etc...

Want to hear about the new and living way, etc...?

Or maybe what the old way truly produced in the way of fruit, and how it was not at all what God wanted or desired, or was expecting, etc...?

And how it still does not, when people are still trying to go by it today, and how it only ever does always only the opposite actually, of what He truly wanted, etc...?

And even wound up producing an "anti", to what He truly wanted, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Matters of the heart are sin, etc...

For example, about the beard and/or hair/jewelry and clothing, etc, maybe it was because of envy or jealousy of other neighboring nations/peoples that was their desire in their hearts back then that was the reason why some were doing this, or were thinking about doing this, etc, because, in that case, it would be sin, because it was a matter of sin going on in the heart, etc...

Envy of other neighboring nations/peoples (and their "gods") got them in trouble "a lot", etc...

Or maybe there are other explanations that we are not currently aware of, etc, but that would maybe not make them sin today, etc...?

Anyway, just a thought, etc...

But sin, true sin, is a matter of the heart, and sin starts there, in the heart, etc...

And I think God in the OT was trying to address that with them, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Matters of the heart are sin, etc...

For example, about the beard and/or hair/jewelry and clothing, etc, maybe it was because of envy or jealousy of other neighboring nations/peoples that was their desire in their hearts back then that was the reason why some were doing this, or were thinking about doing this, etc, because, in that case, it would be sin, because it was a matter of sin going on in the heart, etc...

Envy of other neighboring nations/peoples (and their "gods") got them in trouble "a lot", etc...

Or maybe there are other explanations that we are not currently aware of, etc, but that would maybe not make them sin today, etc...?

Anyway, just a thought, etc...

But sin, true sin, is a matter of the heart, and sin starts there, in the heart, etc...

And I think God in the OT was trying to address that with them, etc...

God Bless!

Without these explanations, we fail to understand that sin is a matter of the heart, and starts there, etc, and then we become like the Pharisees, who then added all kinds or ridiculous man-made additional rules and/or laws/traditions around them, and thought that was the "correct way", etc...

God Bless!

 

[expos4ever]

You don't think Acts 21:18-25 is clear enough in stating that, for True Israel, no law ended at the cross?

All this shows is that some Jews believed the Law did not end - this is hardly evidence that the Law did not, in fact, come to an end.

And, in fact, the very text you post demonstrates that Paul opposed the keeping of the Law.

Was Paul mistaken?

 

[Guojing]

All this shows is that some Jews believed the Law did not end - this is hardly evidence that the Law did not, in fact, come to an end.

And, in fact, the very text you post demonstrates that Paul opposed the keeping of the Law.

Was Paul mistaken?

James was in charge of them, if the law did come to an end, why didn’t he tell them that, instead of asking Paul to keep the law as well?

 

[trophy33]

James was in charge of them, if the law did come to an end, why didn’t he tell them that, instead of asking Paul to keep the law as well?

Even James did not claim that the Mosaic Law applies to Christians from Gentiles (i.e. you).

As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”
Acts 21:25

He only cared that Paul demonstrated to ethnical Jews that he still keep the law. Which lead to his arrest and death, by the way. So obviously a bad advice. I wonder if James regretted it.

 

[expos4ever]

James was in charge of them, if the law did come to an end, why didn’t he tell them that, instead of asking Paul to keep the law as well?

The obvious answer: James was mistaken in his belief about the Law.

Again, the fact that scriptures tells us what certain people believed does not mean that what they believed is correct.

I am not saying this text proves that James was wrong; I am merely pointing out that the fact that James (and others) believed something does not make that belief true.

Furthermore, if the Law did come to an end, it is exceedingly easy to imagine that Jews, steeped in centuries of fierce allegiance to the Law, would resist.

 

[Leaf473]

You are being too kind.

Thanks, I think.

Seriously, I tried to put myself in the other person's shoes, try to explain what I think they're saying in my own words to myself. Because maybe they have a good idea and it's just not being expressed well.

So I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, set aside my biases, and see if I can explain their idea to myself in a way that makes sense.

Here's what I have so far on the subject of this thread:

##############
"If we love Jesus, we will keep his commandments."

"You mean like love one another?"

"Yes."

"That sounds good. Looks like we agree, unless there's something else."

"There's all the laws that didn't end at the cross."

"Which ones didn't end?"

"There's the ten commandments."

"Well they all make sense, except for one. But I don't want my upbringing to get in the way, maybe I'm in a bad habit. Any other laws?"

"Yes."

"What are they?"

"First keep the 10, and God will show you the rest."

"That seems weird. Are they a secret?"

System message: Communication link ended.
#############

So it sounds good at the beginning, but no one who puts this teaching forward seems to be able to say what the rest of the laws are.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

but the Law that was from the beginning, cannot even be written down,!

Just curious if you have scripture to back this up, or is this your opinion that didn't come from scripture.

If we are going to be judged by the law- breaking God's law is considered sin 1 John 3:4 and the law is what points out sin Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7 and we break one commandment we break them all James 2:10-12. I guess I see our God very differently. If breaking the law is how sin is defined, why would God not provide the law so we would not know what sin is, since the wages of sin (breaking God's law) is death. Romans 6:23

I also don't agree that God would ask us to do something that is impossible to do. What kind of god is that?

John tells us God's law is not meant to be grievous 1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.

We are promised we don't have to obey God's law alone, Jesus promises us the Holy Spirit for those who obey . John 14:15-18. Acts 5:32 and while it is impossible with man all things are possible through Christ. Philippians 4:13

Who wants us to think we can't gain victory over sin? This message that is being wide-spread into most churches and around the world is not coming from God.

1 John 3:8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

Sin again is breaking God's law. 1 John 3:4, Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7

If we stumble, we have a Advocate with Jesus who can strengthens us when we fall, are truly sorry, repent and turn from sin. I don't believe our God is not strong enough to help us overcome sin.

God's tells us His saints can overcome.....I believe in the scriptures and the Word of God.

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

We are blessed when we obey.

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

 

[Leaf473]

So are you saying you should keep the Ten Commandments then? Just a few posts ago you said you don't need to keep any laws. I see a lot of back and fourth on this. I am not going to comment on your other post because its been addressed so many times.

No, you're not understanding what I'm saying.

Here's a simple, concrete question:
How many laws didn't end at the cross?

Using your criteria, I estimate over 400.

Is that what you're thinking, too?

It's a simple numbers question. What is your estimate?

 

[Leaf473]

Lets quote James so we are on the same page. . .

James 2:10-12 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

Since you seem unsure about the laws, let's start with the easy part as James quotes directly from the Ten and tells us this is how we will be judged. Previously you said you did not need to keep these laws. James seems to say otherwise.

The passage in your quote starts with
"Whoever keeps the whole law."

So it's the whole law that James is talking about. Yes, he quotes from the ten commandments. But he goes on to say Whoever stumbles on a single point. That would be a single point of the whole law.

So whoever stumbles on a single point of the whole law becomes guilty of breaking the whole law.

Now... A person might be able to make the case that for us today it would only be the remaining laws.

But we would still have James saying Whoever stumbles on a single point of the remaining laws is guilty of breaking all the remaining laws.