Are we subject to the Old Covenant today?

[expos4ever]

There is a lot of Scriptures which counter the popular religious philosophy of this world, that God's Law ended. The Post would be too long to state them all. But it seems prudent to post at least one.

Rom. 6: 15 What then? shall we sin, (Transgress God's Law) because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

And how, exactly, are to we to know that sin here entails breaking the Law of Moses in particular, when it is abundantly clear, not least from the time from Adam to the Law, that we can indeed sin apart from the Law of Moses?

Again, you beg the question at issue - you appear to simply assume that, in this text, sinning involves breaking the Law of Moses - do you think an observant reader will not know that you took it upon yourself to insert "transgress God's Law" even though that is not in the verse?

If you post texts that say sin = breaking the Law of Moses, the careful reader will know that this, again, begs the question precisely because I and others are arguing that such statements were indeed true in the setting in which they were written, but that time has come and gone. Just as I need defend that position, and not just assume it, you cannot simply assume that a text that asserts that sin = breaking the Law of Moses means that the Law remains in force.

 

[Soyeong]

If we should keep both spiritual principles and earthly customs, then the earthly custom of physical sacrifice must continue, even though Paul said Jesus died for our sins. Paul's letters were not originally part of the Scripture; they are letters to the church. It was later canonized by the catholic. So, Paul did understand the spiritual principles, but according to your reasoning, they should keep the earthly custom because Paul's letter was just a letter at the time, not scripture.

I the reason why I gave for why we should keep the earthly custom was not because Paul's letter was just a letter at the time, not Scripture. In Acts 18:18, Paul took a vow involving shaving his head and the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6 is the only vow that involves doing that, which involves making sacrifices. Likewise, in Acts 21:20-24, Paul planned to pay for the sacrifices of others who were under vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against God's law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it, so Paul did not consider offerings to have ceased. Furthermore, in Hebrews 8:4, it refers to offerings that were still being made in accordance with the law, so offerings did not cease with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only ceased because of the destruction of the temple. In Ezekiel 44-46, it prophesies about a time when another temple will be built and when offerings will resume. In addition, if all of Israel had received Jesus, then the 2nd temple would not have been destroyed, and offering there would still be sacrifices being offered in accordance with God's law.

What's the spiritual principle of love? The spiritual principles of love include both wisdom and justice. The earthly way of loving, for example, is that Peter kept Jesus from dying because he loved Him, but Jesus called Peter Satan. That is a clear illustration of getting rid of the earthly custom of blind love without wisdom.

Another example is that the commandment says to honor your parents. Jesus then asks, "Who is my mother?" and explains what that means (Mark 3:35). If Jesus' earthly mother doesn't do God’s will, do you think the One who created the world should honor her?

If someone asked me to teach them about what it means to express love, then I could reply by giving a bunch of scenarios where love is expressed, and all of those scenarios would be examples of the spiritual principle of love. They could then extrapolate from those scenarios and understanding of that spiritual principle, so that they could use it to know how to express love even in other scenarios that I did not give them. I agree that knowing how to correctly express the spiritual principle of love does include both wisdom and justice.

How sure are we that the law was the same? Do we recall what Tamar did to Judah in Genesis? Tamar became Jesus' ancestor. What law supports what she did?

Any two sets of instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature by doing righteousness and justice are going to contain the same types of scenarios for how to express those spiritual principles, but might vary only in the number of scenarios for how to express those spiritual principles in different situations. Tamar acted on accordance with what would be recorded about Levirate marriages in Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

Your description of Peter's vision is already based on your own assumptions: clean animals touch unclean animals, etc. It was clear that Peter was using God's vision to explain that God had cleansed the unclean animals, which the Jews knew meant the gentiles. The Jews accepted the vision, but you said something different.

The only plausible explanation that I see for why Peter considered some of the clean animals to be common is through coming in contract with the unclean animals, which fits with the description of a sheet being lowers by its four corners, but if you have a more plausible explanation, then I'm all ears. However, that is inconsequential because my argument is not based on knowing the reason why Peter considered some of the clean animals to be common.

If you'd prefer my argument would work just as well if I said that there is some unstated reason why Peter labeled the clean animals as common, he declined to eat them because he had labeled them as common, and God rebuked him for incorrectly labeling as common, but did not rebuke him for correctly labeling the unclean animals as unclean, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in the status of unclean animals. Peter interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to incorrectly labeling Gentiles without saying a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, and if he had gone around saying that, then those who rejected what he said would have been correctly acting in accordance with what God has instructed them to do. Your interpretation requires God to have rebuked Peter for labeling the unclean animals as unclean, but that is not what God rebuked him for.

Forcing people to keep both spiritual principles and earthly customs is already against the NT.
• “For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,” (Heb 7:18)
• "And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death." (Rom 7:10)
• "Now if the ministry of death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at the face of Moses because of its fleeting glory," (2 Cor 3:7)

The NT gave us the freedom to decide if we still want to keep earthly customs, like Paul circumcising Timothy, which becomes optional.

According to Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the law of the Lord and who mediate on it day and night, so if you upheld the truth of these words as Scripture then you would be delighting in getting to obey God's law rather viewing it with the attitude of it being something that you are forced to do. None of those verses has anything to do with being against following earthly laws. Rather, the NT encourages us to refrain from sin, and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4). Even if you believe that you should only do the four things lists in Acts 15:19-21, those are all earthly laws, though there are many other earthly things, such as those listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatias 5:19-21, and Titus 3:1-2. Paul ruled against requiring circumcision for incorrect reasons, but he did not rule against obeying what God has commanded, nor did he have the authority to countermand God even if he had tried to do that.

I agree with the part about repentance. So, we still have places of worship, right? Do you teach that mothers who have just given birth should make sin offerings? Because the Law says that giving birth is a sin (Leviticus 12). Where does the custom go?

If you want to talk about the Sabbath later, I will also ask, "What is the Levi tribe doing today?" In order to keep the Sabbath, the law says that the Levi tribe priest must work in the temple. All of these temple practices including sacred assembly would end, if there were no temple, just like you said.

Again, laws in regard to temple practice should only be followed when there is a temple in which to practice them. Laws in regard to temple practice that were not followed until the construction of the 1st temple, they were once again not followed after its destruction, they were once again followed after the construction of the 2nd temple, and there is nothing about the destruction of the 2nd temple that means that those eternal laws have gone anywhere, especially when they will be followed after the construction of the 3rd temple. All sin causes someone to become unclean, but it is not a sin in itself to become unclean, such as with giving birth.

 

[expos4ever]

From theologian Greg Boyd (Jesus Refuted Old Testament Laws - Greg Boyd - ReKnew). I added the emphasis

Although it’s clear that Jesus regarded the Old Testament as the inspired word of God, he also directly challenged aspects of the Old Testament law. To illustrate, Jesus was repudiating Sabbath law when he defended his disciples’ harvesting of food on the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-14; cf. Ex. 34:21). Some scholars argue that the disciples were merely violating a Pharisaical tradition surrounding the Sabbath, not any actual OT law regarding the Sabbath. In this view, Jesus was trying to bring out the true meaning of Sabbath (i.e., showing that the Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath) and to demonstrate his authority as Lord of the Sabbath. While I grant that this was certainly part of Jesus’ intent, I do not see how this absolves his disciples from the charge of Sabbath-breaking. After all, according to the OT—not merely a Jewish tradition—people were to be executed merely for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Nu 15:32-36). Moreover, Moses’ prohibition against doing work on the Sabbath explicitly included a prohibition on gathering food (i.e., manna) (Ex. 16:23-29). Hence, in this particular instance it seems the Pharisee’s had some biblical basis for their criticism of Jesus. Yes, the central intent of Jesus’ response was to bring out the true meaning of the Sabbath. But it appears its true meaning, as articulated by Jesus, stands in tension with certain meticulous and harsh laws surrounding the Sabbath in the OT. In the name of bringing out the true meaning of the Sabbath, it seems Jesus was perfectly willing to challenge these laws.

It’s worth noting that Jesus’ relaxed attitude toward certain meticulous and/or harsh laws surrounding the Sabbath as well as surrounding other matters was adopted and even expanded upon by his earliest disciples. Paul completely relativized the commandment to dedicate the seventh day of the week to God (Col. 2:16), for example. Similarly, we find early Christian leaders rejecting the OT commands for God’s covenant people, Jew and Gentile, to be circumcised, to eat particular kinds of foods, etc. Clearly, though the earliest Christian disciples regarded the OT as God’s Word, they subordinated its authority to the authority of Christ and were willing to reject parts of it when they felt the Spirit led them to do so (Ac.15:28, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”).

 

[Studyman]

An obvious misrepresentation that only those who have not been following this thread will believe. Those who are actually following along will know that I was responding to a dubious assertion that I was "twisting scripture". So, in response, I showed that those who believe the Law remains in force are systematically guilty of the same offence.

Nevertheless, your preaching that Jesus walked contrary to His Fathers Commandments and Judgments cannot be supported by Scriptures. It is "YOUR" adopted religious philosophy. You may use or interpret selected scriptures in order to justify your religious theory that Jesus didn't Keep His Father's Commandments. But the Bible is clear, the Jesus of the Bible walked in all the commandments of His God and my God, His Father and my Father.

You and the Pharisees may believe otherwise. I can't help that.

You, it seems, want readers to believe that I want to dance away from my claims that Jesus broke the Law, at least at times. This is, of course, demonstrably false.

What is "demonstrably false" is your preaching that Jesus Broke God's Commandments and Judgments. It seems you are in full blown self-justification mode now. I was hoping you might consider that maybe you and the Pharisees were wrong about Jesus. and Not Jesus Himself.

John 8: 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

There has been case made that Jesus did, at times, "break" the Law.

Not God's Law. And not a case made by honest examination of Scriptures.

When the response to such a carefully argued case is to demonize my position (e.g., cynically characterizing it a "religious philosophy of this world"), and not appropriately engage the arguments I have provided, the astute reader will draw the obvious conclusion. Please address my arguments and leave the sermonizing out.

What you really mean it seems, is that whatever you believe is truth. And to "appropriately engage" is to agree with you. I have also made the case for the Scriptures which teach that Jesus didn't walk contrary to His Father's Commandments and Judgments.

You have somehow been convinced that the Pharisees are the righteous authority regarding God's Laws, therefore, if they say Jesus and His Disciples broke God's Law, then it must be true.

I have provided evidence that Jesus may have broken the doctrines, traditions and Commandments of men, that the Pharisees walked in and promoted. But HE would never walk contrary to His Fathers Judgments and Commandments. The Salvation of all men depended on it.

Maybe you are also of the religious philosophy of this world which preaches God's Laws are a "Yoke of bondage", "beggarly elements", and were against Paul and the Gentiles?

I might remind you that according to Paul, it was the Pharisees Law and Traditions which caused those who followed them to persecute the Church of God. Not God's commandments. He would know, since he was in times past, zealous for this Law.

 

[expos4ever]

More from Greg Boyd on the matter of Jesus "breaking" the Law of Moses:

Along similar lines, it seems that Jesus functionally repudiated a law of the OT when he ingeniously prevented a woman caught in the act of adultery from being executed (Jn 8:1-11, Cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut 22:22). Jesus caught her (all male!) accusers in their self-righteousness by pointing out only people without sin are in a position to execute a sinner. Since all humans are sinners, the principle Jesus is illustrating in this episode would seem to apply not just to this particular accused sinner and this group of sinful accusers, but to all accused sinners and all sinful accusers. And this, in turn, renders it impossible to ever put into practice any of the OT’s commands to put people to death. Indeed, if followed through consistently, the principle that Jesus illustrates in this story challenges the moral justification, if not the apparent divine sanctioning, of all human-on-human killing in the Bible.

 

[expos4ever]

People will argue that Romans 3:20 teaches that without the law, there would be no way to recognize sin:

because by the works [a]of the Law [b]none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for [c]through the Law comes [d]knowledge of sin.

They also argue that since Scriptures tells us Jesus was "obedient", these means He could not have broken the Law of Moses. Well, I am "disobedient" when I violate the parking regulations here in the city in which I live. Hardly a violation of the Law of Moses.

In any event, I submit that when Paul writes of Jesus being "obedient", he is really saying that Jesus was obedient to the covenantal obligations of Israel, whose role Jesus took on Himself and fulfilled whereas Israel had proven "faithless".

If this line of reasoning can be sustainted, we are not forced to conclude, as some here appear to be, that what Jesus was obedient to was the Law of Moses.

Look at the structure of Romans 3. In the first 20 verses, we get a mini-history of mankind. Of special interest is this:

First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

I suggest that Paul is saying that Israel has been faithless to her covenant obligations. We can see a way in now to the thesis I am proposing. And what do we get later?

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (although it is attested by the law and the prophets has been disclosed— 22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.

This is the NET translation: note the huge difference between "faith in Jesus" (some translations) and "faithfulness of Jesus" (this translation). We can debate translations if you like. But if, for the moment, we go with the NET version, we can see whole argument presented in this chapter:

- the Jews failed in their covenant obligations - they were "faithless"
- Jesus, as the "true Israelite", by contrast was faithful - He was obedient.

So as can be seen, it is at least plausible that Pauline statements about Jesus being obedient need not necessarily be taken as statements to the effect that He was fully obedient to the Torah.

 

[expos4ever]

The religious philosophy that Jesus abolished the Laws of God that HE gave to His people through Moses is not something the Bible teaches at all. This world's religions promote such a philosophy, but not the Holy scriptures.

Your religious philosophy that Jesus broke His Father's Commandments might be popular with a few of this world's religions, but the Holy scriptures certainly do not teach such a thing about Him.

These are just statements - can you identify a specific post by number in which you have provided an actual counterargument to my clans about Jesus breaking the Law, as contrasted with these kind of high-level, unsupported assertions? And I suggest that if you want to convince serious readers, you may wish to lighten up on the "your religious philosophy" stuff

Jesus says the Laws of God will be in force as long as this earth is here. I am still walking on the same planet Jesus walked on. He also said the Laws of God will remain in force, until "ALL" is fulfilled. He has not yet fulfilled "all things", as we are still awaiting HIS return, which is most important.

Readers of this thread will know that neither you nor anyone else has provided a real counterargument to my argument about how Jesus may have been using metaphor when He referred to when the Law would end. The silence of this speaks volumes - it declares that you do not have a robust counterargument. For if you did, you surely would have provided it.

And are you willing to go on record and claim that it is mere coincidence that Jesus says the law will end when "all is fulfilled" and, as He dies on the cross, His last words are "It is finished". The parallel here is compelling.

AS far as the Pharisees are concerned. Jesus said they didn't believe Moses. That they didn't obey the Laws God gave to Moses for them. And HE said not to do what they do, when sitting in Moses' seat.

Where, and please be specific, does Jesus ever say anything that requires us to believe that the Law of Moses will survive past the crucifixion / resurrection. Until someone undermines my argument about Matt 5:17-18, we know the "law will not end till heaven and earth pass away" argument does not do the trick since it can be plausibly interpreted literally.

Your entire argument is presented to justify your particular religious philosophy ""I suggest that Jesus did break the Law, and on several occasions."

I suggest you engage the arguments, rather than making vague statements about "my particular religious philosophy". Again, if I were merely making unsupported assertions, without supporting argument, you might have a point. But if any one is following along this thread, they will know that I support my claims with scripture and coherent arguments. Take issue with the content of the arguments, if you can. But fuzzy claims about "religious philosophy" will convince no one worth convincing

You have provided no evidence that Jesus rebelled against His Father's Laws, as no such evidence exists. Therefore a man must accept the probability that the religious philosophy "Jesus did break the Law, and on several occasions." is a religious doctrine and tradition of man, much like the teaching that it is a sin to eat without first washings your hands a certain way.

Granted, some of the following posts were posted after this comment of yours. I have supported my claims as follows:

- On Jesus challenging the kosher food laws, the following posts, as a minimum, provide non-question-begging support for my position: 282, 352, 381, 385, 389, 392,

- On Jesus breaking the Sabbath: 297, 325, 404

- On Jesus breaking the "stone adulterers" law: 406

More than happy to discuss actual counterarguments. But, no, calling my position a "particular religious philosophy" is not a counterargument.

However, the instruction of God defining what is food and what is not, is not a religious doctrine or tradition of man, because it's in your own Bible. It seems prudent to at least acknowledge this undisputable Biblical Truths.

Obviously begs the questions for reasons explained in other posts.

 

[Soyeong]

I suggest that no scholar, not even one, believes that the Law here in Romans 7:6 is not the Law of Moses:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

But, in any event, you are not telling the whole story. To wit:

I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin came to life, 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

While Paul delights in the Law, he also recognizes it has a dark side - it brings energizes and empowers his sinful nature.

There are scholars who believe that the law that we are released from in Romans 7:6 is not the Law of Moses, which is in part why there are many people who also believe that. In the book of Romans, Paul spoke about a law of works (3:27), a law of faith (3:27), works of the law (3:28), the Law of God (7:22), the law of his mind (7:23), the law of sin (7:23), the law of the Spirit of life (8:2), the law of sin and death (8:2), and the law of righteousness (9:31). No scholar worth their weight would blindly assume that Paul was alway speaking about the Law of Moses without bothering to discern which law he was speaking about, especially Paul specifically described which law was holding him captive.

In Romans 7:10-11, it was the law of sin that was taking the opportunity through to the Law of God to deceive it, and through it kill him. Furthermore, in Romans 7:12-13, Paul said that the Law of God is good and that it was not what what was good that brought death to him, but the law of sin producing death in him through what is good. Paul described the law of sin as being something that was working within his members that was causing him not to do the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do, so he was not saying that the Law of God has a dark side, but rather it is the law of sin. A law that energies and empowers sin is a law that is sinful, however, Romans 7:7 says that the Law of God not sinful, therefore it does not energize and empower sin, but rather it is the law of sin that does that.

 

[expos4ever]

There are scholars who believe that the law that we are released from in Romans 7:6 is not the Law of Moses,...

Please name one.

which is in part why there are many people who also believe that. In the book of Romans, Paul spoke about a law of works (3:27), a law of faith (3:27), works of the law (3:28), the Law of God (7:22), the law of his mind (7:23), the law of sin (7:23), the law of the Spirit of life (8:2), the law of sin and death (8:2), and the law of righteousness (9:31). No scholar worth their weight would blindly assume that Paul was alway speaking about the Law of Moses without bothering to discern which law he was speaking about, especially Paul specifically described which law was holding him captive.

I would be stunned if you can produce the name of one reputable scholar who believes the "law" in Romans 7:6 is anything other than the Law of Moses.

In Romans 7:10-11, it was the law of sin that was taking the opportunity through to the Law of God to deceive it, and through it kill him.

This is obviously incorrect. Here is the text with notes:

But now we have been released from the law, because we have died[l] to what controlled us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code {***obviously the written code is the Law of Moses} 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I[n] would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else[o] if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”{***clear reference to the 10 commandments, part of the Law of Moses} 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment {***in context, has to be the Law of Moses}, produced in me all kinds of wrong desires.[q] For apart from the law {***obviously the Law of Moses still}, sin is dead. 9 And I was once alive apart from the law, but with the coming of the commandment {***the "coming of the commandment" is a hit-one-over-the-head-obvious reference to the giving of the Law at Sinai} sin became alive 10 and I died. So[r] I found that the very commandment {***again, Law of Moses} that was intended to bring life brought death![s] 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it I died

To suggest that Paul is not talking about the Law of Moses is a position that is impossible to sustain.

Furthermore, in Romans 7:12-13, Paul said that the Law of God is good and that it was not what what was good that brought death to him, but the law of sin producing death in him through what is good.

12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? Absolutely not! But sin, so that it would be shown to be sin, produced death in me through what is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.

Yes, Paul believes the Law is good, but he is also clear that, even though the Law is good in and of itself, it did indeed provide the means for sin to amplify in him and kill him.

Yes, this is a hard teaching, but it is what it is - Paul believes the Law of Moses amplifies, empowers, and energizes sin.

Romans 7:7 says that the Law of God not sinful, therefore it does not energize and empower sin, but rather it is the law of sin that does that.

You are using your own common sense reasoning, but Paul disagrees with you. Unless you start tinkering with the plain meaning of words, verse 13, and also verse 9, are clear: the Law of Moses is the means by which sin "kills" Paul.

In verse 13, for example, Paul says sin produced death in Him through something good. What is that something? We both know the answer - the Law of Moses.

 

[Soyeong]

People will argue that Romans 3:20 teaches that without the law, there would be no way to recognize sin:

because by the works [a]of the Law [b]none of mankind will be justified in His sight; for [c]through the Law comes [d]knowledge of sin.

They also argue that since Scriptures tells us Jesus was "obedient", these means He could not have broken the Law of Moses. Well, I am "disobedient" when I violate the parking regulations here in the city in which I live. Hardly a violation of the Law of Moses.

In any event, I submit that when Paul writes of Jesus being "obedient", he is really saying that Jesus was obedient to the covenantal obligations of Israel, whose role Jesus took on Himself and fulfilled whereas Israel had proven "faithless".

If this line of reasoning can be sustainted, we are not forced to conclude, as some here appear to be, that what Jesus was obedient to was the Law of Moses.

Look at the structure of Romans 3. In the first 20 verses, we get a mini-history of mankind. Of special interest is this:

First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

I suggest that Paul is saying that Israel has been faithless to her covenant obligations. We can see a way in now to the thesis I am proposing. And what do we get later?

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (although it is attested by the law and the prophets has been disclosed— 22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.

This is the NET translation: note the huge difference between "faith in Jesus" (some translations) and "faithfulness of Jesus" (this translation). We can debate translations if you like. But if, for the moment, we go with the NET version, we can see whole argument presented in this chapter:

- the Jews failed in their covenant obligations - they were "faithless"
- Jesus, as the "true Israelite", by contrast was faithful - He was obedient.

So as can be seen, it is at least plausible that Pauline statements about Jesus being obedient need not necessarily be taken as statements to the effect that He was fully obedient to the Torah.

There is no knowledge of what sin is apart from that which what defines what sin is, and that is God's law (Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4). In Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born under the Mosaic Law, so he was obligated to obey it, and he was a member of the Mosaic Covenant as a Jew who was circumcised on the 8th day, so I agree that he fulfilled the covenantal obligations of Israel, which was to obey the Mosaic Law, and I don't see how you can think that he met his covenantal obligations or that he was free from sin without living in obedience to it. Considering that the Son is the exact image of God's nature, faith in Jesus is the same as the faith of Jesus because both are putting their trust in the nature of God to guide in how to rightly live by obeying the Mosaic Law, which is why there are many verses that connect our obedience to God with our faith in Him.

 

[Cornelius8L]

That's not exactly accurate in my understanding, please allow me expand on why. Paul claimed the Body of Christ to be the true "circumcision". "We are the Circumcision" he said. Circumcision was and is still an absolute requirement from God. No one in the Body of Christ can remain uncircumcised. So the Covenant of Abraham is still intact. And God's instruction through Moses is still in force.

Duet 10: 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

The Pharisees, who were children of the devil, who were teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men, not God, had a religion. Their religion was called "The circumcision" (made with hands). But they were not Circumcised after the manner of God's Covenant with Abraham.

Mark 7: 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

For the Pharisees, to be "circumcised" and follow the "Law of Moses" meant to partake in "their" religion and "their" religious traditions that Jesus said caused those who followed them to "Full well ye reject the commandment of God". A burden that neither they nor their fathers could bear. Jesus speaks to this.

Matt. 23: 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they (Pharisees, not God) bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

So to say "foreigners no longer had to be circumcised" isn't actually accurate in my understanding and isn't what Paul teaches, I don't think.

Col. 2: 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

The Faithful like Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and the wise men knew God and understood HIM regarding HIS teaching of Circumcision.

Jer. 9: 24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

25 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;

26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

So in Acts 15, we are told by the religions of this world we were born into, that Peter and the Disciples were turning the New Converts away from the Holy Scriptures and God's Laws. But that isn't true. The Disciples were turning the new converts away from the religions and religious traditions of the children of the devil. And turning them toward the Holy scriptures and God's Laws.

Acts 15: 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, (Law of Moses) and from fornication, (Law of Moses) and from things strangled, (Law of Moses) and from blood. (Law of Moses) 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Which is the same place Jesus told the multitudes and His Disciples to go "do" what Moses instructed. Just don't follow the Pharisees religion, because they say they follow the Law of Moses, but they do not.

I'm just a dumb cowboy, and sometimes I don't communicate well. Do you understand what I am expressing?

I'll join into the rest of this conversation in another post.

Thanks for inviting the discussion.

I think I understand what you're saying, but doesn't that contradict what Paul says below?

Gal 5:2-3 “Take notice: I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I testify to every man who gets himself circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.”

By this time, they should have figured out that it's not a Pharisee's circumcision, but a law's circumcision.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Couldn't the same thing be said about the religion Eve was convinced to adopt about God's command regarding what to eat and what not to eat? She was convinced God's Law came to an end. And that she was free to spread her wings and create her own Law, follow her own path. Didn't Paul specifically warn about this very thing? "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."

But in my understanding, here is where what is actually written in the Holy scriptures is so important. Because God placed you and I in a world in which "another voice" who also quotes some of God's Words, teaches us all, as it did Eve, that we are already "eternally secure", and that God's Law no longer matters.

There is a lot of Scriptures which counter the popular religious philosophy of this world, that God's Law ended. The Post would be too long to state them all. But it seems prudent to post at least one.

Rom. 6: 15 What then? shall we sin, (Transgress God's Law) because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

In this one scripture, there are volumes more, where Paul is teaching the Body of Christ, Jew and Gentile, over 14 years after Jesus ascended, that transgression of God's Law still brings death. Isn't this the reason why we are instructed to "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless."? Isn't this God's Pleading to all His People?

Ez. 18: 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Since there is only one Lawgiver and her husband and Father are still around, why didn't Eve ask her husband and Father before eating? The difference here is that we talked to the Teacher, but Eve didn't. We have the Scriptures and HS with us, and Eve had God with her in the Garden, so she should have asked God like we search the Scriptures.

And it does beg the question about Peter. He was one of those men eating with unwashed hands the Pharisees condemned. Did Peter not get the memo regarding Jesus abolishing His Fathers Judgments regarding clean and unclean animals?

Or is the reason why Peter didn't "Kill and Eat" is because Jesus didn't abolish HIS Father's Judgments? Given Jesus own Words about dogs and swine, and the Prophesies of Isaiah, I believe Jesus didn't come to destroy His Father Judgments.

The end of the law is at the cross, not before it (Rom 10:4, Gal 3:13, Gal 4:4-5, Col 2:14). So, while Jesus was still alive, they would still think of Gentiles as unclean dogs (Matt 15:26).

 

[Cornelius8L]

The question remains, who is teaching men that God's Laws are simply customs to be discarded or kept as men see fit? When, in all the holy scriptures, were men permitted to create their own "principle", their own religion, their own righteousness? Ananias and Saphira, according to this religious philosophy, should have had the freedom to do as they please, because according to this world's religions, God's Law is no longer "required" for the Body of Christ.

But that can't be true, can it? The entire Gospel of Christ, from the Exodus to Revelations, warns of the consequence of rejecting God's Righteousness and His Judgments.

rom. 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Rom. 2: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

This is Paul speaking to the Body of Christ over 14 years after Jesus ascended. He is in the New Priesthood Covenant God promised.

So yes, men are freed from Sin when they repent and "Yield themselves" to obey God's Law, by the Blood of the Lamb of God. They are free from indignation and the Wrath of God. And the Veil is removed in the reading of the Law and Prophets. And they have God's compassion, and HIS Mercy and His Loving kindness as they, like Paul, "Press toward the mark of the high calling of "God", which is in Christ Jesus..

But when they only serve Him with their lips, and they promote religious doctrines and traditions of men while at the same time, rejecting His Judgments and instruction in righteousness, and teaching others to do the same, indignation and wrath.

Is this not what Paul is teaching here?

I think you should spend some time understanding what the whole NT is about.

1 Cor 6:12-13​

“Everything is permissible for me,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me,” but I will not be mastered by anything. “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.​

​

Gal 2:21​

For if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died for nothing.​

I knew you would go for the "you think I'm better than you" card, it's only natural and I knew if we engaged in this topic, you wouldn't be able to resist. It's OK, I felt the same way in times past. I was simply pointing out a truth about Scriptures. You study in direct disobedience to God's Judgments and Commandments. I know this because you said so. You believe your disobedience is justified. The Pharisees also studied in direct disobedience to God's Commandments, and they also believed their disobedience was justified. Zacharias, Simeon and Anna, studied in obedience to God, certainly in His Judgments that even a child can understand. There is no question that their understanding of Scriptures was different. That God revealed to them, Truths HE didn't reveal to the mainstream preachers of their time, who had laid aside the Commandment of God so that they might live in their religious traditions.


Paul said of the mainstream preachers of his time.

Titus 1: 14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

I don't think Paul was a hypocrite, or that he considered himself better than these men. He was simply stating the Truth. But I'm quite sure these men thought Paul was not being humble, and that Paul thought he was better than them. Which would cause them to not look into what he was pointing out for the edification of them both, but you defend themselves, and justify their "works".

That is why I was hesitant to engage..

Didn't I just make a logical point? I might as well add another, with which you might also agree: getting older doesn't mean one has grown up, and going through something doesn't mean one has learned. If I quote from the Bible and you say I'm studying disobedience to God's judgments and commands, you are saying that the Bible itself is disobedience to God's judgments and commands. Paul was the one who talked about getting rid of the old laws and commandments.

David did follow God's instruction. Shall HE not go to the Priest of God for help? And so did the Priest. Shall he not help the Lord's children who needs help? Whose Law did David break? Whose Law did the Priest Break? This is what I mean about the difference of understanding between those who honor and respect God's Judgments, and those who reject His Judgments to follow popular traditions of the world God placed them in.

Jesus was the one who said that David broke the law in this situation (Matt. 12:4).

But you are comparing natural human emotion that Jesus expressed, to evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: which come from within and defile a man.

Fear makes Peter lose faith, which makes Jesus rebuke him. What does Jesus' fear make him do—not beg for the cup to be taken away which is not the will of the Father?

And this to justify your tradition "I love eating swine flesh, and I just had one for dinner".

My point was to show that Jesus didn't destroy His Father's Judgments in Matt. 15, or Mark 7.

Not only that, my friend, if you've ever contended with me, you'd know that I always bring Jesus into it, because He is my friend and I can say, "Hey, didn't Jesus also do this and that?" So, did Jesus do what the law said to do on the Sabbath when he was in the wilderness for 40 days (Lev 23:3, Matt 12:5)? Didn't Jesus break the law when he forgave the woman caught in the act of adultery by a few people (Lev 20:10, John 8:4)? Did Jesus not change the judgment of His Father?

 

[Cornelius8L]

I the reason why I gave for why we should keep the earthly custom was not because Paul's letter was just a letter at the time, not Scripture. In Acts 18:18, Paul took a vow involving shaving his head and the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6 is the only vow that involves doing that, which involves making sacrifices. Likewise, in Acts 21:20-24, Paul planned to pay for the sacrifices of others who were under vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against God's law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it, so Paul did not consider offerings to have ceased. Furthermore, in Hebrews 8:4, it refers to offerings that were still being made in accordance with the law, so offerings did not cease with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only ceased because of the destruction of the temple. In Ezekiel 44-46, it prophesies about a time when another temple will be built and when offerings will resume. In addition, if all of Israel had received Jesus, then the 2nd temple would not have been destroyed, and offering there would still be sacrifices being offered in accordance with God's law.

Again, laws in regard to temple practice should only be followed when there is a temple in which to practice them. Laws in regard to temple practice that were not followed until the construction of the 1st temple, they were once again not followed after its destruction, they were once again followed after the construction of the 2nd temple, and there is nothing about the destruction of the 2nd temple that means that those eternal laws have gone anywhere, especially when they will be followed after the construction of the 3rd temple. All sin causes someone to become unclean, but it is not a sin in itself to become unclean, such as with giving birth.

Even without the temple, Israelis can still make sacrifices. Abraham, Noah, Job did. Without a physical temple, the physical sacrifices can still happen.

If someone asked me to teach them about what it means to express love, then I could reply by giving a bunch of scenarios where love is expressed, and all of those scenarios would be examples of the spiritual principle of love. They could then extrapolate from those scenarios and understanding of that spiritual principle, so that they could use it to know how to express love even in other scenarios that I did not give them. I agree that knowing how to correctly express the spiritual principle of love does include both wisdom and justice.

On this, we agreed. I have seen people love blindly and cause trouble. Love should come with justice and wisdom, “For even while we were with you, we gave you this command: “If anyone is unwilling to work, he shall not eat.”" (2 Thes 3:10) We can’t just use the name of ‘Love’ in vain.

Any two sets of instructions for how to act in accordance with God's nature by doing righteousness and justice are going to contain the same types of scenarios for how to express those spiritual principles, but might vary only in the number of scenarios for how to express those spiritual principles in different situations. Tamar acted on accordance with what would be recorded about Levirate marriages in Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

But Deut. 25:5–10 says that if both parties agree, the brother can turn down the widow. Tamar lied, and she lied not to Judah's youngest son, but to her father-in-law. Does a law support what she did?

Your interpretation requires God to have rebuked Peter for labeling the unclean animals as unclean, but that is not what God rebuked him for.

Your quote on my last post was a good summary of what I had read about this event. The fact that Peter repeated the vision in order to comfort the Jew further supports this. We also know that Jews say that non-Jews are unclean. You told it your way because you have to defend the tradition that says unclean animals should not be eaten. Anyway, that's just one of the events that happened to show that the law has changed, which is what the whole New Testament is about.

According to Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the law of the Lord and who mediate on it day and night, so if you upheld the truth of these words as Scripture then you would be delighting in getting to obey God's law rather viewing it with the attitude of it being something that you are forced to do. None of those verses has anything to do with being against following earthly laws. Rather, the NT encourages us to refrain from sin, and sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4). Even if you believe that you should only do the four things lists in Acts 15:19-21, those are all earthly laws, though there are many other earthly things, such as those listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatias 5:19-21, and Titus 3:1-2. Paul ruled against requiring circumcision for incorrect reasons, but he did not rule against obeying what God has commanded, nor did he have the authority to countermand God even if he had tried to do that.

NT explains how the law has progressed. And Paul got rid of circumcision (Gal. 5:2), but aren't you making him say things he didn't say? “Paul ruled against requiring circumcision for incorrect reasons, but he did not rule against obeying what God has commanded,”

As the law progresses, Paul did say in a letter written after Acts 15 that food that was given to an idol, which is an example of a principle, can also be eaten. (1 Cor 8, 1 Cor 10:28-29)

 

[Lulav]

Argumentative - you have zero evidenced that I approached these texts with a preconceived position on the matter.

How, and please be precise, does any of this mean that when Jesus says "nothing that goes into a man defiles him", there really remain a lot of things that do indeed defile?

Granted, Jesus does indeed contrast all the things that proceed from the heart, and which do indeed defile, with handwashing which, of course, does not defile. And I know you guys think this somehow means that Jesus is entirely restricting the scope of what "goes in" to "food, otherwise permissible, that has been eaten with unwashed hands".

But there are a lot of problems. Yes, the conversation starts with a discussion about unwashed hands. And, yes, in the Matthew version, (but interestingly, not in the Mark version) it ends with handwashing. But the intervening analysis offered by Jesus is such that it seem unlikely He is excluding pork, etc. from the discussion:

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

I politely suggest you guys need to evade examining the inner logic of these words. Even though the conversation is triggered by the matter of handwashing, Jesus tells us the reason the handwashed food does not defile is that the food goes into the stomach and then goes out (albeit in a manner most unseemly). But this happens to pork and shellfish too! So if Jesus is wanting to exclude these items, He is speaking very carelessly indeed. And if that is not enough, Jesus goes on to explain what does defile - the things that come out from the heart. The last time I checked, shellfish and pork do not "come forth from the heart". So, unless Jesus is being equally careless in His explanation, these things - shellfish and pork - do not defile since they do not come out from the heart.

Let's look at this from a different angle. Consider this statement:

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Jesus defines what defiles a man (e.g. things that come out from the heart), and then contrasts it with handwashing which we we all agree does not defile. You appear to believe that the logic of this contrast does not close the door on the possibility that pork still defiles.

But that is not correct and here is why: Although you guys need to overlook this to salvage your position, Jesus has already excluded pork and shellfish from the things that defile in the preceding sentence. So your argument (as I understand it) does not work. Yes, if we did not have the preceding statement that defined defilement in terms of what comes out from the mouth, then you would definitely have a point - Jesus could still believe that the "set of things that defile" include shellfish and pork.

Bottom Line: I would characterize the position of those who think Jesus is not overturning the food laws as a strategy of pointing out that the conversation is triggered by handwashing, and even ends with a comment about handwashing in the Matthew version, while artfully ignoring the intervening analysis that Jesus offers, an analysis that is, as far as I can see, incompatible with the position that pork etc, still defile.

Despite your intensiveness on what Jesus is actually preaching on the fact remains that Pork, shellfish, rats, etc would not even be a consideration of the discussion as they were never considered food for Jews. And that was all who were present in this conversation.

 

[Lulav]

It is how forums go. I asked a question, concerning a comment you made in a post. I did not see the thread to be between you and one other person here. I cannot ask in the messianic forum, but I can here, in an open forum.

You are welcome to come into the Messianic forum and ask questions. If you want, start a thread and list all the commandments of Moses you want my response on.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Despite your intensiveness on what Jesus is actually preaching on the fact remains that Pork, shellfish, rats, etc would not even be a consideration of the discussion as they were never considered food for Jews. And that was all who were present in this conversation.

I think the question is whether or not we are still bound by the OT law today. If not, we can naturally eat unclean animals. If it does, was the law the same before Mount Sinai as it was after? If so, why was Tamar’s action thought to be acceptable? Why did Paul do away with circumcision, etc?

 

[expos4ever]

Despite your intensiveness on what Jesus is actually preaching on the fact remains that Pork, shellfish, rats, etc would not even be a consideration of the discussion as they were never considered food for Jews. And that was all who were present in this conversation.

It does not matter what the Jews believed, what matters is what Jesus was saying.

Your reasoning here is imaginative, I will grant you that, but I don't think it works. The challenge you face is daunting: Jesus says that nothing that goes into a man defiles him. It appears that you are trying to argue that when Jesus says this:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him

.....Jesus is effectively saying this instead:

there is no food outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him

And since Jews, including Jesus, did not consider pork, etc. to be food, the scope of the "nothing" excludes food.

There are a big problem with this: As you guys often do, you gloss over the explanation that follows Jesus' initial statement:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?”

The point should be obvious: even if we grant that Jews did not consider shellfish, pork, etc. to be "food", these things will, if taken in, "go into the stomach and be eliminated".

Is a piece of shellfish something that would "go in and be eliminated"? Obviously yes. And Jesus's audience, even if they themselves, did not consider shellfish to be "food", they would know that others do.

If Jesus was really thinking along the lines you are, he would not have offered this kind of explanation as a follow up to His initial statement.

 

[Bob S]

I have written it before and I will write it again. Pigs were among the first animals to be domesticated. Ancient people sure didn't domesticate them to use pig skins to make footballs. Noah was given permission to eat them and the first prohibition recorded was in the laws of the Sinai covenant that was given to one small nation, Israel. Prohibition is not mentioned in the new and better covenant which all mankind is under.

Think about it.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

At God's final judgement:

Isaiah 66:17“Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together,” says the LORD.

Not sure why anyone would want to eat something the Lord deems an abomination.