It should not make sense to you to think that God's word made flesh fought against God's word instead of thinking that he embodied it by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to it.
First, it wasn't God's word that was made flesh.
It was the Word Himself that was made flesh.
And He didn't fight against His Father.
He fought against the indiscriminate enforcement of it in opposition to true judgement.
Jesus quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, including saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God, which includes affirming everything that God spoke to Moses in
Deuteronomy 5:31-33. In
Deuteronomy 12:32, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so Jesus did not do that. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed His children to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the law, so Jesus did not do that. So there isn't any room to interpret Jesus as being in disagreement with what God spoke in Deuteronomy 14 in regard to dietary restrictions.
Are we to stone adulterers now, in the NT ?
Some of God's laws appear to conflict, such as when God commanded to rest on the Sabbath while also commanding priest to make offerings on the Sabbath, however, it was not the case that they were forced to sin by disobeying one of the two commands no matter what they chose to do, but that the lesser command was never intended to be understood as preventing the greater command from being obeyed.
Nicely put.
This is why Jesus said in
Matthew 12:5-7 that priests who did their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why Jesus defended his disciples as being innocent. So God commanded for work to be done on the Sabbath, which means that not all form of works are prohibited by the Sabbath, however, that does not mean that no forms of works are prohibited by the Sabbath.
"Legalists" would now demand exact attention to each and every Law, no matter the circumstances.
Some Pharisees had reasoned that it is unlawful to do work on the Sabbath and that healing is work therefore it is unlawful to heal on the Sabbath, however, we are also commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves, we would not be doing that if we refuse to heal them, and no commandment was intended to be understood as preventing the greatest two commandments from being obeyed, which is why it was lawful for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath.
"Legalists" would defer to the written commands.
Therefore, the accusers of Jesus were legalists !
God's law instructs that both the man and the woman accused of adultery be brought before a judge to do a thorough investigation, that no one is to be put to death without at least two or three witnesses, and that the witnesses are to throw the first done, so if Jesus had stoned her, then he would have sinned in transgression of God's law.
Can't say that I recall where that was written.
Can you refer me to the scrip' saying that the witness was to throw the first stone ?
The position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded is not legalism.
I agree.
The position that we should do that in order to earn our salvation would be legalism because it is not in accordance with the intent of the law.
I agree, if by "law", you mean the law of liberty in Christ.
In
Titus 2:11-13, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to dow hat is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so doing those works has absolutely nothing to do with trying to earn our salvation as the result, but rather God graciously teaching us to be a doer of those works is part of His gift of salvation.
I agree.
Motive determines a lot.
Sin is the transgression of God's law (
1 John 3:4) and God's law prohibits eating ham, so it is therefore a sin to do that.
All unrighteousness is sin. (
1 John 5:17)
Eating anything sanctified by the word of God and prayer is not prohibited. (1 Tim 4:5)
But if it is a sin to you...don't eat it.
This is why we need to ask "which" legalism is being discussed.
Yours is relevant to OT teachings that are now passed away.
Paul fought against the Judaizers a lot, especially those demanding circumcision.
The other kind of legalism, lets call it neo-legalism, is the attempt to vilify any good act
for salvation...ie...telling the truth so one doesn't tell a lie that will separate one from God.
Or, remaining monogamous, instead of committing adultery.
A legalist would say..."You are a legalist for remaining true to your spouse in order to be saved !"
Folks actually can't tell the truth, if is to maintain their salvation...according to the "legalists".
It is a devilish ploy to drive a wedge between us and God.
