Every jot and tittle

expos4ever said:

Now for the matter of forgiveness of sin. Here is what the Law says:

Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a person sins unintentionally in any of the [a]things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them, 3 if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed.

....and here is what Jesus says:

And they *came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to [a]get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5 And Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.

Your response?

Click to expand...

Answer: Are you not aware that Jesus is our great high priest?? Are you not aware that Jesus is the lamb of God??

John Helpher said:

Hi all. I've had a look at a few threads here which deal with the old law and how it correlates to the new testament. There seems to be a growing number of people today who want to go back to the old law as though the old ways are superior to what Jesus taught. I believe this video does a pretty good job of explaining why we should not keep going back to the law because Jesus is the fulfillment of all the promises to Abraham. I'd like to hear what others think and I look forward to discussing the issues.

Click to expand...

Law(s) see attached PDF

expos4ever said:

Come on, man. We are not idiots. Here is are these two texts you cite:

If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.

You are trying to argue that unless both are put to death, neither should be put to death. No reasonable person would read these texts that way. Imagine if we had a law that said both the bank robber and the getaway car driver are to go to jail. If the driver gets away, does this mean the robber goes free?

Of course not.

Click to expand...

Of course not. Your logic is quite illogical. If you had bothered to read carefully, my point was the Pharisees had already ignored the law by not bringing in the man for questioning. Thus Jesus was not bound to follow the law in this "kangaroo court." Comprende?

expos4ever said:

Nope. You guys continue to argue a point that cannot work. When Jesus says nothing that goes into a man defiles Him, He means what He says - nothing. And food, last time I checked, is something that goes into the mouth.

Click to expand...

Suit yourself!

Oldmantook said:

Answer: the subject is unwashed hands - not clean/unclean food. Pay attention. The Pharisees taught that one must wash hands before eating. The is no such requirement in the law of Moses. The context indicates that this is a hygienic issue - not a dietary issue. You fail to observe context.

Click to expand...

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

The person who thinks that Jesus is not overturning the Levitical food laws is faced with an enormous challenge: the Torah clearly asserts that eating certain foods make the Jew unclean, and yet Jesus says these things:

there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him;……...? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?"

Jesus is clearly talking about food and is saying that no foods defile. This is a direct challenge to the Levitical food laws. And yet you insist on trumping the plain meaning of what Jesus is saying by (apparently) appealing to the notion that the initial focus of Jesus’ critique – Pharisaic distortions to Torah – is still the central matter on the table.

Arguments can and do evolve – there is no rule that say “if you begin a discussion attacking item x, the rest of what you say in that encounter must be an elaboration of that critique of x”. Clearly the debate does indeed begin with a focus on Pharasaical add-ons to Torah. But when we get statements like the following, it is obvious that the matter on the table is no longer Pharasaic distortions to Torah (which is clearly the focus of verses 1-13):

And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23"All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."

This is clearly not an argument against the Pharisees adding things on to existing rules about how foods defile.

Here is the clincher: If Jesus is still concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?

Jesus is overturning the food laws. With the re-definition of the people of God to include Gentiles, there is no longer any room for symbols that set the Jew apart from the Gentile – and that is precisely what the food laws did. So now, they must be set aside. And this is what Jesus does.

Oldmantook said:

Secondly, the law requires that witnesses must come forward and give their testimony as a thorough investigation is required. If upon examination, the witness is found to have given false testimony then he/she must be purged (Deuteronomy 19:18-19). They knew that if upon cross-examination their testimony were found to be false, they stood to incur the same penalty the accused would have suffered. And that is why they all backed down when Jesus asked them if they were without sin, let them cast the first stone.

Click to expand...

You are speculating - there is nothing in the account that even hints that the Pharisees are trying to "frame" an innocent woman. Does Jesus in any question the truthfulness of their claim? No. In fact, Jesus tells her to "go and sin no more" - pretty compelling evidence that Jesus knows she is guilty Of course, it is possible she is innocent. But then the entire story makes no sense whatsoever - it is clear here that the issue is forgiveness. And a woman innocent of adultery does not require forgiveness.

Oldmantook said:

This is not rocket science as a pertinent question to ask is how can the law not be in force anymore? Through the law comes knowledge of sin clearly stated in Rom 3:21. If the law has been set aside as you allege, then how would anyone know what to repent of since there is no more law which defines sin for us?

Click to expand...

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

Oldmantook said:

As for Rom 7, does the context of the rest of that chapter fit with your interpretation?
v.12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
v.22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law
v.25 So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature d a slave to the law of sin.

Did you catch that? Paul himself states he is still a slave to God's law.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Oldmantook said:

This is not rocket science as a pertinent question to ask is how can the law not be in force anymore? Through the law comes knowledge of sin clearly stated in Rom 3:21. If the law has been set aside as you allege, then how would anyone know what to repent of since there is no more law which defines sin for us? That is a practical consideration which your view does not account for.

As for Rom 7, does the context of the rest of that chapter fit with your interpretation?
v.12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
v.22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law
v.25 So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature d a slave to the law of sin.

Did you catch that? Paul himself states he is still a slave to God's law. How can that be if the law is "set aside?"

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

But then again, it might not.

I often challenge Folks who claim the OT law MUST be Followed today, to name even one person on the planet today that observes the Law of Moses. It's impossible. There isn't one. That's because there is no Law System extant anywhere on the planet to accommodate or demand observance. It went up in smoke at AD 70.

Nearly 1/2 of the Law of Moses consists in Temple practices/rituals/Levitical duties. The Law of Moses does not consist in reading a book. It consists in strict OBSERVANCE. There is no way to observe the Law of Moses and hasn't been since AD 70.

Here's where it gets sticky....

Jesus says that UNTIL the eschatological time of the passing of "heaven and earth," every minute detail of the Law of Moses down to the very least of its 600+ commands be kept. He says: "therefore whosoever shall break one of these LEAST commandments and shall teach others to do so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven." The passage calls for the keeping of the Law even BEYOND what the Pharisees produced in their practice and observance (Matt 5:20).

But The Bible does a great Job of Un sticking....

Hebrews 12:18-28 tells precisely the extent of things. God's establishment of the Mosaic World was a "shaking of the earth," and his establishment of the New Covenant Kingdom was a "shaking earth and heaven." Hebrews teaches that God had to "remove the first covenant to establish the second" (Heb 10:9), and that removal of the first was "about to happen" (Heb 8:13) at the time Hebrews was written (AD 64-66). He who was coming in a very very short while came and did not delay (Heb 10:37). The Mosaic World went up in smoke just about five years later when The Lord of the Vineyard came and the "Kingdom was taken from Christ's enemies and given to a new nation" (Matt 21:40-43).

parousia70 said:

Here's where it gets sticky....

Jesus says that UNTIL the eschatological time of the passing of "heaven and earth,"....(Matt 5:20).

But The Bible does a great Job of Un sticking....

Hebrews 12:18-28 tells precisely the extent of things. God's establishment of the Mosaic World was a "shaking of the earth," and his establishment of the New Covenant Kingdom was a "shaking earth and heaven."

Click to expand...

Interesting stuff. I have argued elsewhere (perhaps not in this thread) that the "passing of heaven and earth" is metaphorical language grounded in Jewish tradition. In short, in both the Old Testament and in other Jewish writings, such cosmological language is used as a symbol for profound socio-political change. It appears that you have found a similar connection to Hebrews. Let me dig down a bit. Here is part of that Hebrews passage:

And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also the heaven.” 27 This expression, “Yet once more,” denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us [j]show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; 29 for our God is a consuming fire

I am not sure exactly what the writer is saying here but look at the logic:

- The author of Hebrews invokes a prophecy about the "shaking" of both heaven and earth.
- He then interprets this as removing things that can be shaken - earth and heaven (created things) leaving behind stuff that cannot be shaken.
- He goes on to say that this stuff that cannot be shaken is the new kingdom of God.
- Well, all this strongly implies that, within this metaphorical picture, "earth and heaven" have indeed been "shaken unto removal" - exactly what Jesus says (in Matthew 5) needs to happen before the Law of Moses is retired.

See what I am getting at?

Furthermore, the Hebrews chunk you cite is preceded by a reference to Jesus as the mediator of a new covenant. Plus the author quotes from Haggai 2 which goes on to say:

I will shake all the nations; and they will come with the wealth of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the Lord of hosts
I suggest that a central New Testament theme is that Jesus is the fulfillment of a thread of Old Testament prophecy about how God will return to His temple. The New Testament tells us that Jesus is the "new temple".

Where does all this leave us? I suggest that this supports the author of Hebrews has concluded that "heaven and earth", understood metaphorically of course, have indeed passed away at the Cross. This, then, allows us to deal with the seeming insuperable challenge that Matthew 5:17-19 poses for those of us who think the overall Biblical picture is one in which the Law has been set aside.

For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.’ John6:40

When is the last day?
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
Then I saw ‘a new heaven and a new earth,’ for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling-place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’ Rev20:11-15&21:1-5

The last day Jesus referred to is the last day of this present earth.

John Helpher said:

He also hinted that Moses was wrong for allowing people to divorce.

This is an excellent example of how the spirit surpasses the law; the pharisees were technically correct about the punishment for adultery, but Jesus could see that they weren't really concerned about moral authority or righteousness. They were using the woman (and her sin) as a tool against him. All their pride and technical nitpicking of the law had blinded them to the spirit.

Click to expand...

expos4ever said:

There are plenty of reasons to believe the Law of Moses has come to an end. One biggie is that the Law of Moses marked out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile. But Paul argues at length that there should no longer be any such distinction - there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ Jesus. In fact, in Ephesians 2, Paul (or whoever wrote Ephesians 2) declares the abolition of the "Law of commandments contained in ordnances". And that has to be the Law of Moses he is talking about.

Click to expand...

Interesting posts.
I believe one of the most telling parables Jesus spoke concerning that was the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus [one of the more popular parable/story among Bibles scholars].

3 of the most important Biblical men are mentioned: Abraham[Faith/life], Moses[Law/death and Lazarus[gentile?].
[The Rich Man is not identified by name, but he appears to be of some royalty and perhaps an OC Priest or Jewish Ruler?]
There a plenty of commentaries on it, but a few verses are said concerning the Rich man, Moses, and also the resurrection, Abraham, Lazarus [Abraham appears to be speaking as Jesus?]. Lazarus is only mentioned in 15 verses of the NT in 2 of the Gospels......Luke 16 and John 11 and 12.

Jhn 12:9
Now a great many of the Jews knew that He was there; and they came, not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He had raised from the dead.
10
But the chief priests plotted to put Lazarus to death also

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

The self-righteous Pharisees and scribes, acknowledged by Yeshua as the legitimate religious teachers of the Jews (Matt. 23:1-3), should have been the ones telling these people of God's love for them. They should have been the ones teaching these sinners, exhorting them to return to God and receive His love and forgiveness.....................

Afterward, speaking primarily to his disciples but with the Pharisees (and probably the crowd) still listening in, Yeshua related the parable of the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-13). The Pharisees, who were "lovers of money" (Luke 16:14), realized that the Messiah was alluding to them with this parable and took offense. They scoffed at Yeshua.

The final part of his response to the derision of the Pharisees and scribes was the parable of Lazarus and the rich man..............................

Abraham refers to the R-M as "Son/Child":
LUKE 16:25 "But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented.

LUKE 16:27 "Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' "
LUKE 16:29 "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' "

LUKE 16:30 "And he said, 'Nay, father Abraham! but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
31 But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "

Yeshua uses the last two verses of this parable as an amazing prophecy of his pending resurrection from the dead.
The rich man says that although his brothers may not accept the scriptural evidence for the identity of the Messiah, they will accept the evidence of one who is raised from the dead.
But Abraham answers and plainly tells him that anyone who rejects the Bible's teaching about the Messiah will also refuse to acknowledge the evidence of a miraculous resurrection.
===============================

John Helpher said:

Hi all. I've had a look at a few threads here which deal with the old law and how it correlates to the new testament. There seems to be a growing number of people today who want to go back to the old law as though the old ways are superior to what Jesus taught. I believe this video does a pretty good job of explaining why we should not keep going back to the law because Jesus is the fulfillment of all the promises to Abraham. I'd like to hear what others think and I look forward to discussing the issues.

Click to expand...

Christians just need to come to the understanding that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is God in the Flesh and it is His law to do what He wills including the blocking of a woman who, by the law, was to be stoned to death.
He showed us a better way.
Blessings

John Helpher said:

That's why it's so important to understand that Jesus did not destroy the law; rather, as you've said, he showed a better was of acting on the law, something humans should have been learning all along (i.e. a right interpretation of how to apply the law justly).

Click to expand...

I agree, but I think there is more to it than this. The Law of Moses was what marked out the Jew from the rest of world. I suspect you will agree that the nation of Israel had a central role in God's overall plan of redemption. And if you believe that plan was essentially completed on the cross, the case can be made, and I am convinced Paul believes this, that Israel has completed its role in the redemption narrative.

So there is no longer any need to mark out Israel from the rest of the world, hence no more need for the Law of Moses. See where I am coming from?

John Helpher said:

From the hardened, old-bottle, religious hypocrite perspective he broke the sabbath. The religious leaders of his day, those people who made the biggest fuss about the need to keep the law were the ones most vehemently accusing him.



Nah, Jesus himself made the point that he had not come to destroy the law (or do away with it), but to fulfill it. Jesus brought a new understanding; a new way which he referred to as the Kingdom of Heaven. Paul boasted about all of his amazing devotion and religious adherence to the law, and then said it was all dung compared to what Jesus brought.



The cross is a part of his ministry. What he said about money, material possessions, the grievance system, keeping our praying, fasting, and charity giving secret, not using special titles of flattery, and going in to all the world to preach the gospel are also part of the values which make up his fulfillment of the old law.



Nah. Sin includes anything contrary to what is good or consistent with God's will. Eating ice cream can be sinful if it's done with a wrong motivation. That's one of the problems with the old law; people exploit it on the basis of the letter, believing themselves to be righteousness because of a technicality.

Click to expand...

God's will is recorded in His word... we don't get to make up His will. And when Yeshua walked the Earth, there was no NT. The recorded Word, the "bible" of the day, is the work you are dismissing.

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

expos4ever said:

I don't think so - what it shows, instead, is that, as God incarnate, Jesus has the authority to declare the end of the Law of Moses.

Jesus "breaks" the Law of Moses other times as well, for example when He declares He has the authority to forgive sin. If you know your Old Testament, the Law indicated you had to go to the Temple for forgiveness.

Remember when Jesus stopped the stoning of the woman caught in adultery? There, too, He defied the Law of Moses which calls for this woman to be stoned to death.

Click to expand...

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