Three Questions about God's Law

[trophy33]

It isn't a dismissal of Paul's words through Christ. It is a dismissal of YOUR understanding of them.

Those are just plain quotations. Therefore Paul's words.

 

[HIM]

If you think you can vain Gods holy name, worship other gods or break the least of these commandments

I can argue in the opposite way:

If you think you can kill witches, homosexuals, animals, adulterers... then you will actually sin heavily, from our current perspective. But its all the part of the Mosaic Law.

Chapter 5 elaborates to which laws Jesus speaks. The word therefore in verse 19 shows us what He is about to say is the answer to what was previously stated.
Tell us how many laws in respect to passing judgment does He mention in the rest of the chapter up through chapter 7.

Matt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Everything was fulfilled in the first century. You do not need to ask for one prophecy after another. Everything means everything.

So heaven earth passed away and it is anew earth with no more sin with Heavens Kingdom and us in harmony with it?

 

[HIM]

Those are just plain quotations. Therefore Paul's words.

As you say but not as the context of the passage in which Christ wrote them through Paul says.

 

[trophy33]

Chapter 5 elaborates to which laws Jesus speaks. The word therefore in verse 19 shows us what He is about to say is the answer to what was previously stated.
Tell us how many laws in respect to passing judgment does He mention in the rest of the chapter up through chapter 7.

Matt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Are you trying to say that "the least commandments" of the Mosaic Law were just the Ten? Or what you are trying to say?

So heaven earth passed away and it is anew earth with no more sin with Heavens Kingdom and us in harmony with it?

Of course, its spiritual, not physical.

 

[HIM]

Are you trying to say that "the least commandments" of the Mosaic Law were just the Ten? Or what you are trying to say?

There are many things mentioned in that sermon.
Tell us how many laws in respect to passing judgment does He mention in the rest of the chapter up through chapter 7.

Of course, its spiritual, not physical.

Revelations and MANY other text say different.

Do you teach the Bible in your sphere outside of the internet?

 

[trophy33]

There are many things mentioned in that sermon.
Tell us how many laws in respect to passing judgment does He mention in the rest of the chapter up through chapter 7.

You cannot choose parts of the Mosaic Laws to obey and parts to disobey. Its neither Christianity nor Judaism. Its nothing, a nonsensical invention.

Revelations and MANY other text say different.

Nope. And there is only one biblical book called Revelation.

 

[Gary K]

Because the hypocritical Pharisees would pull an ox out of a pit on the sabbath but would refuse a person to be healed by Jesus on that day.
so Jesus taught that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. And to love one’s neighbor means that you might have to work on the sabbath to help them If necessary. So the sabbath was nailed to the cross.

So hypocrites are the ones who have caused you to ignore the 4th commandment? Why, when you know they were hypocrites? That sounds very self defeating to me. Why let a hypocrite control your beliefs?

 

[Soyeong]

'Some of the Lord's followers think one day is more important than another. Others think all days are the same. But each of you should make up your own mind.'

The apostles agreed to make some recommendations about what to avoid and do, and not be burdened by \something not even their ancestors could keep.

I believe If you say you need to keep the sabbath or you are sinning, you are doing the same as these people from Judea to Antioch to believers.

The topic of Romans 14 is in regard to how to handle disputable matters of opinion in which God gave no command, not in regard to whether followers of God should follow God's commands, so nothing in that chapter should be interpreted as speaking against following God. For example, in Romans 14:1-3, they were judging and resenting each other based on whether someone chose to eat only vegetables even though God gave no command to do that. Likewise, in Romans 14:4-6, it speaks about those who eat or refrain from eating unto the Lord, so it is speaking about those who esteem certain days for fasting and a disputable matter of opinion. In the first century it had become a common practice to fast twice a week and people were judging and resenting each other based on whether they chose to do that even though God gave no command to do that (Luke 18:12). Paul was not suggesting that we are free to break the Sabbath, commit murder, adultery, idolatry, theft, rape, kidnapping, or disobey any of God's other commands as long as we are convinced in our own minds that it is ok to do, but rather that was only said in regard to disputable matters of opinion in which God has given no command.

In Acts 15:10-11, it makes is clear that the heavy burden that no one could bear was not God's law, but rather it was a means of salvation that was an alternative to salvation by grace, namely salvation by circumcision that was proposed by the men from Judea in Acts 15:1. In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, it says that God's law is not too difficult to obey, so if they had been referring to God's law as being a burden that no one could bear, then they would have been in direct disagreement with God.

I think Hebrews author wants to have some words with people that says failing to do sabbath commandment is sin

If you interpret a verse as speaking against obeying what God has commanded, then I see three options:

1.) Think that it is absurd for a servant of God to speak against obeying Him and conclude that you must have misunderstood that verse.

2.) Think that you have correctly understood the verse and conclude that you should therefore reject its truth.

3.) Think that it makes perfect sense to interpret a servant of God as speaking against obeying Him and conclude that you should follow them instead of God.

Option #3 is absurd and #2 is not an acceptable option for those who believe in the truth of the Bible, though the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so #2 is still a much better option than #3, but #1 is the clear best choice.

Galatians 3:2 In-Context 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

In Acts 5:32, the Spirit has been given to those who obey God, so obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit, however, Galatians 3:1-2 denies that "works of the law" are part of the way to receive the Spirit, therefore that phrase does not refer to obedience to God. In Romans 3:27-31, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works while he said that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith, and the law that our faith upholds can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-12.

 

[daq]

I can argue in the opposite way:

If you think you can kill witches, homosexuals, animals, adulterers... then you will actually sin heavily, from our current perspective. But its all the part of the Mosaic Law.

Good grief. You are simply living in another time era, if you believe that killing somebody for example for adultery is what is expected of you by God.

You will end up in prison.

That's what happens when you read the Torah, which is spiritual, according to the physical.
If your neighbor happens to be a witch how can you be showing love by burning her at the stake?

Sin dwells in the flesh, and sin is personified, and the Torah was made for all such sins/sinners of the heathen: put them to death according to the Torah, which is spiritual, and Paul teaches you somewhat about this in Romans 7&8, but don't ask the pretenders to explain it to you because they all deny that Paul says he serves the Torah-instruction concerning sin when it comes to the flesh, (Rom 7:25).

 

[Soyeong]

The righteousness which exceeds the self-righteousness of the Pharisees is the righteousness which comes by faith. The Jews were in bondage under the Mosaic law and the sin of breaking that law kept them in bondage as servant to it. However, under the law of faith there is a mediator who can still forgive when we sin. The Jews never had that.

Jesus set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he was much more zealous for obedience to it than the Pharisees were and he never criticized the for obeying it, but he did criticize the for not obeying it or for not obeying it correctly. For example, in Matthew 7:6-9, Jesus said that they were hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the law of justice, mercy, and faith, so he was not opposing their obedience to the Mosaic Law, but rather he was calling them to have a higher level of obedience to it in a manner that is in accordance with its weightier matters.

If God saved the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt in order to put them under bondage to His law, then it would be for bondage that God sets us free, however, Galatians 5:1 says that it is for freedom that God sets us free, and Psalms 119:45 describes God's law as being of freedom. In Psalms 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is sin in transgression of the Mosaic Law that puts us in bondage while it is the truth that sets us free.

Maybe I wasn’t clear or maybe you didn’t read the other post. I was speaking of the laws as God had given them to His people, the Jews. As a people under those laws it was required that breaking of the laws be punished. As I said in an earlier post, if you had broke the sabbath it was required under the law that you be put to death. If you belong to a group that requires its members to keep God’s law then you are required according to the law to execute its punishments. If you don’t then you are breaking the law. And that’s what I was talking about. There has been a change in the law, but it doesn’t include breaking the Ten Commandments or condone breaking them.

Jesus gave himself to pay the penalty for our sins, so it would be unlawful to enforce a penalty that he has already paid, and it would be denying that he paid the penalty for our sins to insist that we should still enforce that penalty.

Because the hypocritical Pharisees would pull an ox out of a pit on the sabbath but would refuse a person to be healed by Jesus on that day.
so Jesus taught that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. And to love one’s neighbor means that you might have to work on the sabbath to help them If necessary. So the sabbath was nailed to the cross.

The Sabbath was made as a precious gift for man for our own good, so it was never intended to bring about situations that our for our detriment, but that doesn't mean that we don't need to keep it. There were no laws nailed to the cross, but rather what was nailed to the cross was the list of our sins so that Jesus died in our place to pay the penalty for our sins.

 

[Soyeong]

Why did you remove out of that verse the most important thing that was said?

“...have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law'”.

Most important because it shows the decree wasn't just in response to unauthorized men from Jerusalem urging gentiles to be circumcised but also urging gentiles to keep the law. It was necessary to be circumcised before keeping the law, and since gentiles were not circumcised it naturally had to be mentioned as a prerequisite.

No doubt these unauthorized men were secretly sent out by the Pharisee sect within the church who said in verse 5, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

And since the decree, authorized by the Holy Spirit", makes no mention of any requirement for gentiles to keep the law of Moses which includes the Sabbath,

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well."

then according to the Holy Spirit, this case was settled almost 2,000 years ago and applies to Christians today.

Do you think that Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list of everything that a mature Gentile believer is obligated to obey?

Yes,,,, The decree ("letters") was primarily to assure them that they didn't have to get circumcised and keep the law, which includes the Sabbath, which came as a great relief.

David said repeatedly throughout the Psalms that he loved God's law and delighted in obeying it, so if someone considers the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of obeying God's law, then why would they consider not obeying it to be a relief? Wouldn't followers of Christ want to follow his example of obeying it? Christ set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to God's law, so why would it be a relief to think that followers of Christ don't need to follow Christ outside Acts 15:19-21?

 

[trophy33]

That's what happens when you read the Torah, which is spiritual, according to the physical.
If your neighbor happens to be a witch how can you be showing love by burning her at the stake?

Sin dwells in the flesh, and sin is personified, and the Torah was made for all such sins/sinners of the heathen: put them to death according to the Torah, which is spiritual, and Paul teaches you somewhat about this in Romans 7&8, but don't ask the pretenders to explain it to you because they all deny that Paul says he serves the Torah-instruction concerning sin when it comes to the flesh, (Rom 7:25).

I do not think that the Mosaic Law was not meant to be kept also physically, when given to ancient Jews.

However, I can agree that after Christ, if some Christian wants to use it, then its possible only in a spiritual sense. The physical sense would be sinful today, even criminal. But even the spiritual sense is not always applicable for a Christian, with the old rules like "hate your enemy".

 

[daq]

I do not think that the Mosaic Law was not meant to be kept also physically, when given to ancient Jews.

However, I can agree that after Christ, if some Christian wants to use it, then its possible only in a spiritual sense. The physical sense would be sinful today, even criminal. But even the spiritual sense is not always applicable for a Christian, with the old rules like "hate your enemy".

The problem is that "hate your enemy" is something that "has been said" by "those of old time", (Mat 5:21a, Mat 5:27a, Mat 5:31a, Mat 5:33a, Mat 5:38a, and Mat 5:43a), so those are all teachings about the Torah from the rulers of the people who taught the people their interpretations of the Torah, and not necessarily what the Torah itself says or teaches.

For example the one you have mentioned, ("hate your enemy", Mat 5:43), is not found anywhere in the Torah, but indeed was taught by "those of old time", meaning such as the Tradition of the Elders, the Sanhedrin Elders, the Sages, the Pharisees, etc., etc.

Matthew 5:43 TS2009 W/Footnotes
43 “You heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour Lev 19:18 and hate your enemy.’k Footnote: kHate your enemy was “said,” not “written.”

Therefore, rightly divided, are you required to turn the other cheek and love the Devil and his angels? No? Is the Devil not your enemy? See what I mean? We are admonished to rightly divide, (between what is spiritual and what is physical), do not murder-kill is surely physical, (non-violent), turn the other cheek is physical, (non-violent), love your enemy is physical, (non-violent), for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against spiritual wickedness in high places, and we are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves.

This probably seems a little over-the-top common sense wise, like something that is so obvious I shouldn't even be mentioning it, (I mean in the manner that most wouldn't give it a second thought and already know it to be true), but recognize and learn the principle, for it applies in many, many more ways than most people realize when it comes to understanding the scripture. Such principles are generally taught in very simple and easy to understand ways such as this.

 

[trophy33]

The problem is that "hate your enemy" is something that "has been said" by "those of old time", (Mat 5:21a, Mat 5:27a, Mat 5:31a, Mat 5:33a, Mat 5:38a, and Mat 5:43a), so those are all teachings about the Torah from the rulers of the people who taught the people their interpretations of the Torah, and not necessarily what the Torah itself says or teaches.

Well, we could quote "Do I not hate those who hate you, LORD, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?" Psalm 139:21, but OK, a better example from the Law would be "eye for an eye", divorce laws, oath laws etc. then.

 

[daq]

Well, we could quote "Do I not hate those who hate you, LORD, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?" Psalm 139:21, but OK, a better example from the Law would be "eye for an eye", divorce laws, oath laws etc. then.

If your right eye scandalizes you, pluck it out, and cast it from you...
If your right hand offends you, cut it off, and cast it from you...
If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from you...

Soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot: cut them off (harag) before they choke the seed of the Logos from the soil of your heart like thistles and thorns. The kingdom of Elohim is within you, (Luke 17:20-21).

 

[BobRyan]

I do not think that the Mosaic Law was not meant to be kept also physically, when given to ancient Jews.

So then "Do not take God's name in vain".... "but not seriously"??? Was it merely "a suggestion" back then??

 

[BobRyan]

Soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot

Good point: -- legal code in a civil court of law.

Sounds like the rule judges would use -- as opposed to "you mean that guy stole your shoes? you should have given him more shoes to steal , and since you did not the court fines you two more pairs of shoes".

Turns out - that would not be "justice" it would be the lack of justice.

Jesus was not arguing for changes in the OT civil laws.

Therefore, rightly divided, are you required to turn the other cheek and love the Devil and his angels? No? Is the Devil not your enemy? See what I mean? We are admonished to rightly divide,

Amen! Exactly!

 

[BobRyan]

Well, we could quote "Do I not hate those who hate you, LORD, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?" Psalm 139:21, but OK, a better example from the Law would be "eye for an eye", divorce laws, oath laws etc. then.

Yep -- civil laws, civil penalties need to work that way.

But the spiritual law of "turn the other cheek" or "give him your coat also" - would be "unjust civil code" because it would focus on judging/punishing the victim instead of the criminal.

 

[Canuckster]

Do you think that Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list of everything that a mature Gentile believer is obligated to obey?

It wasn't about an "exhaustive list". It was about Gentiles being required to get circumcise and keep the law of Moses. And the decree, backed by the Holy Spirit, says it's not a requirement. Case closed.

 

[Soyeong]

It wasn't about an "exhaustive list". It was about Gentiles being required to get circumcise and keep the law of Moses. And the decree, backed by the Holy Spirit, says it's not a requirement. Case closed.

If it is not an exhaustive list, then you shouldn't treat it as one by using it to limit with laws Gentiles should follow. The position that Gentiles should obey the greatest two commandments is the position that Gentiles should obey all of the laws that hang on them, for example, it would be contradictory to think that Gentiles should love God and our neighbor, but are free to commit theft, murder, kidnapping, favoritism, and so forth for the rest of the Mosaic Law.

In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason, which should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded.

The Spirit does not have the role of leading us away from obeying the Father, but rather the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Mosaic Law (Ezekiel 36:26-27). Paul also contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to obey the Mosaic Law (Romans 8:4-7). It should not make sense to you to interpret servants of God as speaking against obeying what God has commanded and if someone is speaking against doing that, then you should not consider them to be a servant of God.