The Weak Conscience, Fear, and Freedom and it's limits (Romans 14, 1 Cor 8)

Soyeong said:

The Psalms express an extremely positive view of the Mosaic Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so anyone who considers the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of the Mosaic Law should also share his view. For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who...delight in the Law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, and we can't uphold these verses as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our view of it. Furthermore, the Psalms are the OT book that is most quoted by the NT, so its authors certainly considered them to be still be authoritative, and therefore should not be interpreted as though they held a view of the Mosaic Law that is incompatible with the view of the Mosaic Law that is expressed by the Psalms. So if someone reads Acts 15 and thinks they were describing the Mosaic Law as being a heavy burden that no one could bear, then they should be quicker to think that that can't be right and that they must have misunderstood the chapter than to think that it makes perfect sense for the Jerusalem Council to be ruling that Gentiles should be deprived of the delight of getting to follow Christ with the exception of a few laws.

There are 1,050 commandments in the NT, so if the laws listed in Acts 15:19-21 were an exhaustive list of everything that a mature Gentile believer should obey, then that would exclude over 99% of the commandments in the NT, including much of what was taught by Jesus. The moment you try to say that other commandments were obviously included is the moment that it no longer serves as an exhaustive list to limit which laws Gentiles should follow. When an employer hires a new employee, they don't start by having them memorize everything that they will ever need to know about how to do their job on day one, but rather they start with the basics with the understanding that they will continue to learn the rest on the job. That is essentially what is being said in Acts 15:19-21, where the Jerusalem Council recognized that the Mosaic Law isn't learned in a day, so in order to avoid making things difficult for new believers, they started them off with the basics, which they excused by saying that they would continue to learn by hearing Moses taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.

Click to expand...

Acts 15:19-21 does not indicate to me that the gentiles needed to learn righteousness by hearing Moses and Mosaic law, if that's what you meant to say. If so, on the contrary it says this: 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

So, to me this brings up the issue of what transforms a carnal minded sinful man into a Spiritually minded son of God? Does it happen by a religious regimen of following the works of the law, or through God's Spirit? I grant you that the law contains the Spirit of God, but as a matter of semantics, I don't experience The Holy Spirit as some sort of placebo. I'm convinced The New Testament/Covenant is talking about getting and having and walking in the Spirit that would fulfill the law without ever having to learn the law. My testimony is that God's Spirit reasons within me, convicting my carnal side of sin according to the reasoning of Love God with all your heart mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself.

Halbhh said:

Very good. Further discussions about the sabbath in particular, now under the New Covenant, where Christ said that good works done on the Sabbath are perfectly fine to do, perhaps would deserve a separate thread, as it's a significant topic possibly

Click to expand...

The issue is that some of God's laws appear to conflict with each other, such as when God commanded priests to rest on the Sabbath while also commanded priests to make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however, it was not the case that they were forced to sin by transgressing 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. 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 he defended his disciples as being innocent. Likewise, this is why it is lawful to obey the command to circumcise a baby on the 8th day if it happens to fall on the Sabbath or why it is lawful to get an ox or a child out of a ditch on the Sabbath.

The group of Pharisees had reason that it is unlawful to do work on the Sabbath and that healing was work, therefore it is unlawful to heal on the Sabbath. However, no command was intended to be understood as preventing the greatest two commandments from being obeyed, which is why Jesus ruled that it is lawful to to do good on the Sabbath. So Jesus was not making changes to the command to keep the Sabbath holy in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, but rather he speaking about which command has the higher priority on the Sabbath.

(and then there is the separate question some have about what day they think is the correct day, which seems much more a man-made tradition, as it need only be 1 day in 7, not a particular day of the week, but that here on CF is to be only in a certain forum meant for that question).

Click to expand...

The Sabbath is in memorial of when God rest on the 7th day, not in memorial of when we decided to start counting cycles of 7. The Israelites received a double portion of manna for the 7th day for 40 years in the wilderness, so they knew on which day God rested, they kept it together as a community, and I see no indication that it was left of to the disunity of individuals to decide which day they rested as long as it was 1 out of every 7 days.

Also, above, childeye2 usefully quoted the passage in Acts where the disciples specified which of the non-ten-commandment laws were to be followed generally for converts most of whom were Jewish or at least had Jewish members in their churches who were accustomed to certain finer detail laws some of which really were more matters of interpretation, and we learn in Romans 14 we are not to quibble with people on such things, but to instead the wording of Romans 14 addresses them very well.

Click to expand...

There is nothing that specifies that they were deciding which of the non-ten-commandments they were to follow. There is a huge difference between discussing how to correctly keeping God's command to keep the 7th day holy, between discussing whether or not to obey God's command to keep the Sabbath holy, and whether or not we should do something for which God has given no command, such as fasting twice a week, and you should not mix and match what is said about these categories. Two people disagreement about whether healing is lawful on the Sabbath, but that doesn't mean that it was in question whether or not followers of God should follow God's command to keep the Sabbath holy. Likewise, what is said in regard disputable matters of opinion in which Go has given no command should not be interpreted as being in regard to the things that God has commanded. Paul was not suggesting that we are free to commit adultery, theft, or break the Sabbath 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 issues in which God has given no command.

Consider for example what Peter learned in Acts 10 on unclean foods (!)...even though it was also a metaphor in addition for further opening to the gentiles.
Bible Gateway passage: Acts 10 - New International Version (verses 9 through 15) -- God can of course change such particular smaller rules however He wants, whenever He wants.

Click to expand...

It says that all kinds of animals were let down in Peter's vision, so he could have acted in accordance with Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 by simply choosing to kill and eat one of the clean animals, so the key to correctly understanding his vision is understanding why he refused to do what God's law permitted him to do. It should be noted that Peter did not object just by saying that he had never eaten anything that was unclean, but also added that he had never eaten anything that was common, and that the Bible does not use these words interchangeably. Furthermore, God only rebuked Peter for referring to what He had made clean as being common, but didn't rebuke him for referring to what He had made clean as being unclean, yet his vision is commonly interpreted as if it had been the other way around. So Peter correctly identified the unclean animals as unclean and correctly understood that it was unlawful to him to eat them, but he incorrectly identified the clean animals as being common and incorrectly declined to eat them in disobedience to God's command to kill and eat. Peter interpreted his vision three times as being in regard to incorrectly identifying Gentiles and did not say a word about now being able to eat unclean animals, so his vision had nothing to do with a change in their status. In Acts 10:28, Peter referred to a law that forbade Jews to visit or associate with Gentiles, however, this law is not commanded by God anywhere in the Bible, so again the issue is in regard to a disputable matter of opinion of which God has given no command and should not be mistaken as being in regard to what God has commanded. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone false a false prophet or dreamer was if they taught against obeying His law, so God did not leave Himself any room to change any of His laws through means of a vision. If Peter had gone around telling people that we can now eat unclean animals, then those who rejected what he said would be acting in accordance with what God has commanded them to do.

The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the nature of God as it does to describe the nature of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), and it could not accurately be described as such if it did not teach us how to express those aspects of His nature. For example, we are told in 1 Peter 1:16 to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes keeping His Sabbaths holy (Leviticus 19:2-3) and refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45). The way that we live represents what we believe to be true about the nature of who God is, so by following those instructions we are expressing, experiencing, loving, believing in, and and testifying about God's eternal holiness, while someone who does not follow those instructions for how to have a holy conduct as God is holy as testifying the God not holy, and are therefore bearing false witness against Him. Someone who observed them would never be able to discern from their actions that the God that they follow is holy.

Halbhh said:

Circumcision:

Acts 15 NIV

At that time, in Acts, they decided there was to be no longer any requirement of circumcision in order to be under the New Covenant (or you could say they pronounced this decision which ultimately is decided from above). So the law to require circumcision to be under the covenant with God -- which converts in the Old Covenant had been required to meet -- now ended (by authority of the Spirit).

Click to expand...

Either there are correct or incorrect reasons for becoming circumcised and Paul only spoke against the incorrect reasons, or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 16:3 and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, they were wanted to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that they were wanting to require circumcision for a purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council upheld God's law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect purpose, and again you should not mistake ruling against an incorrect requirement as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God.

In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law, not the role of leading us away from obeying it, so they had ruled against obeying God's law, then that would be the clearest sign that they were not being led the Spirit. Likewise, in Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who refuse to submit to God's law. In Galatians 5:19-22, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against God's law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's nature that are in accordance with it. In Acts 5:32, the Spirit is given to those who obey God. In Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to God's law and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey God's law.

They did keep a rules (like the law) not to eat the blood of animals. But... this seems to be similar to the other decision that none should eat food that had been offered to idols -- so we can see those are both ways to help the Jews better accept the non-Jews in the churches (for the reason laid out in 1 Cor 8, and Romans 14). By following these rules -- making an accomodation for the sake of others that don't fully understanding as we read we should do in 1rst Cor 8 -- the gentiles would not then trip up the Jews in the churches, because it would not cause Jews not ready to embrace so much change to be more comfortable.

All of this was settled in Acts 15 NIV

Click to expand...

In 1 Corinthians 10:14-22, it says to flee from idolatry and prohibits eating from the sacrifices because it is participating in the altar and being participants with demons, and we can't drink from the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. In 1 Corinthians 10:23-32, Paul said that if meat that had been sold in the market without raising any question on the grounds of conscience in regard to whether it had been previously offered to idols, though still being respectful to the consciences of those who would be bothered by it for their sake. So Paul was simply defining what is and is not idolatry while being respectful to others.

Christ had said they would be able to make such pronouncements:

Matthew 18:18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
(Or perhaps the better wording is "Verily I say to you, Whatever things ye may bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever things ye may loose on the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens." i.e. -- it's decided from above, by the Spirit, not by men without the Spirit)

Click to expand...

Binding and loosing refers to prohibiting and permitting in regard to having the authority over the community to make rulings about how to correctly obey God's law, such Paul having the authority to make a ruling for the community about what was prohibited and permitted in regard to eating meat that had been offered to idols. This does not refer having greater authority than God such that we can countermand Him, such as saying that we no longer need to refrain from committing adultery or breaking the Sabbath. They could not do away with anything that God had commanded and create their own laws because Deuteronomy 4:2 still prohibits adding to or subtracting from the law.

childeye 2 said:

Acts 15:19-21 does not indicate to me that the gentiles needed to learn righteousness by hearing Moses and Mosaic law, if that's what you meant to say. If so, on the contrary it says this: 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Click to expand...

God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore any laws that God has ever given for how to do what is righteous are eternally valid (Psalms 119:160). For example, it has always been and will always be in accordance with God's righteousness to help the poor, and if that were to ever change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, so the Mosaic Law is an eternally valid way to learn how to do what is righteous, and I see no other purpose for what is stated in verse 21 other than to make that point.

While Paul denied in Romans 4:5 that we can earn our righteousness as a wage, he also said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the Mosaic Law will be declared righteous, so there must be a reason why being declared righteous requires us to choose be doers of the law other than in order to earn it as a wage, such as faith insofar as Romans 3:31 says that our faith upholds the Mosaic Law. In Psalms 119:29-30, David wanted to put false ways far form him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faithfulness, so this has always been the one and only way of becoming righteous by grace through faith.

In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God's word says that His law is not too difficult for us to obey so if Acts 15:10 had been referring to God's law as being a heavy burden that no one could bear, then they would have been in direct disagreement with God and would have therefore been wrong. Likewise, in 1 John 5:3, to love God to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome, so they should not be interpreted as saying that loving God is too burdensome for anyone to bear. The Psalms also express an extremely positive view of the Mosaic Law where David repeatedly said that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, which is what Paul also did (Romans 7:22), which is incompatible with viewing it as being a heavy burden that no one could bear. Many Jews have daily prayers in which they thank God multiple times per day for giving the Mosaic Law and there is a holiday called Simchat Torah, which is a day dedicated to rejoicing over the Torah, so that just does not correspond to the high view that practicing Jews have historically had of the Torah, especially when it was given for our own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13).

Acts 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

The above verse clarifies that they were making a ruling in regard to the means of salvation being by grace, so the heavy burden that no one could bear was not the Mosaic Law, but a means of earning our salvation by obeying it. In Acts 15:1, there was a group from Judea who were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision. They were rightly opposed in Acts 15:5 by some believers from among the party of the Pharisees who argued instead that Gentiles needed to obey the Law of Moses and become circumcised, but not as a means of earning our salvation.

In Acts 15:6-9, Peter stood up and affirmed that Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe and God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law is how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel message that the Gentiles heart and believed, which Jesus also prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 22:12-14). In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scriptures were written for our instruction, and in 15:18-19, his Gospel managed involved bringing the Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed, so his Gospel was on the same page in teaching repentance from our sins and obedience to the Mosaic Law. In Romans 2:25-29, they way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised is by observing their obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 10:12-16, 30:6), and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27), which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Mosaic Law. So everything that Peter said was affirming the second group in Acts 15:5 along with then ruling against circumcision as being a means of salvation. Both groups agreed that Gentiles should obey the Mosaic Law, but disagreed about the means of salvation, so no one there was arguing against Gentiles obeying it, but rather the expectation was that they would continue to learn how to obey it it by hearing it taught every Sabbath in the synagogues (Acts 15:21).

So, to me this brings up the issue of what transforms a carnal minded sinful man into a Spiritually minded son of God? Does it happen by a religious regimen of following the works of the law, or through God's Spirit? I grant you that the law contains the Spirit of God, but as a matter of semantics, I don't experience The Holy Spirit as some sort of placebo. I'm convinced The New Testament/Covenant is talking about getting and having and walking in the Spirit that would fulfill the law without ever having to learn the law. My testimony is that God's Spirit reasons within me, convicting my carnal side of sin according to the reasoning of Love God with all your heart mind and soul, and your neighbor as yourself.

Click to expand...

Aspects of God's nature are fruits of the Spirit. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faithfulness are weightier matters of the Mosaic Law, so these are aspects of God's nature that it was intended to teach us how to express, which is also why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27), and why those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who refuse to submit to it (Romans 8:4-7). For example, God's righteous laws teach us about a spiritual principle of righteousness that is an aspect of God's nature, which leads us to take actions that are examples of that principle in accordance with what the law instructs, so that we can even do what is righteous in situations that are not specifically prescribed by it. If we correctly understand a spiritual principle or fruit of the Spirit, then it will never lead us away from taking actions that are examples of that principle, so I agree that there is an extent to which being led by the Spirit leads us to fulfill it without learning it, however, some people are given the spiritual gift of teaching, so we should also allow room for other teachers. God could have just commanded to love him and our neighbor and given the Spirit, but those commands are a lot easier said than done, so there is a purpose for all of the other teachings that are in the Bible to paint us a picture of what that looks like. What God was instructing the Israelites to do by giving them the greatest two commandments should not mean something different from what Jesus was instructing us to do when he quoted those commandments, so being led by the Spirit should not be used to justify neglecting to learn God's law.

Halbhh said:

A important thing we find in scripture is that God wants in us a circumcision of the heart.

I looked up a reference to give a one page summary about this with the scriptures from the Old and New Testaments, so that one can refresh on that by reading those passages:

Is baptism the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision? | GotQuestions.org

Click to expand...

In Deuteronomy 10:12-16, God wanted His people to circumcise their hearts and obey His commandments. In Deuteronomy 30:1-8, it prophesies about a time when the Israelites would return from exile, God would circumcise their hearts, and they would return to obedience to the Mosaic Law. In Jeremiah 9:25-26, God will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh and Israel has an uncircumcised heart because they had forsaken the Mosaic Law (9:13). Ezekiel 36:26-27 and Jeremiah 31:33, the context is in regard to the Israelites returning from exile and the New Covenant, where God would take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us to obey the Mosaic Law, and where He would put the Mosaic Law in our minds and write it on our hearts, so these verses are describing God circumcising our hearts by means of the Spirit. Again, in Romans 2:25-29, the way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised heart is by observing their obedience to the Mosaic Law and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit, which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Mosaic Law. So having a circumcised heart does not refer to anything other than living in obedience to the Mosaic Law. This is also what is being described in Acts 15:7-9 and Colossians 2:11-14.

In Isaiah 1:12-18, they were doing good things that God had commanded, such as making offerings, New Moon, Sabbath, appointed feasts, and prayer, but they had become a stench to God because they were doing these things while their hands were full of blood, so they needed to wash and make themselves clean, cease to do evil, learn to do good, seek justice, correct oppression, bring justice to the fatherless, and plead the widow's cause. In Isaiah 29:13, they honor God with their lips while their hearts are far from him. So the Bible can speak against doing the things that God has commanded if they don't come from the right heart with the right motivation, and therefore should not be interpreted as saying that we no longer need to obey what God has commanded. In Acts 15:1 the group from Judea was wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, the motivation for which God commanded circumcision was never in order to become saved, so in Acts 15:11, they were ruling against it for an incorrect motivation in Acts 15:1, not saying that we no longer need to obey what God has commanded, especially because they didn't have the greater authority than God required to countermand Him. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for him was if they taught against obeying His law, so if the Jerusalem Council had ruled against obeying any part of the Mosaic Law, then according to God we should regard them as being false prophets, however, that is not what they were doing.

Soyeong said:

God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore any laws that God has ever given for how to do what is righteous are eternally valid (Psalms 119:160). For example, it has always been and will always be in accordance with God's righteousness to help the poor, and if that were to ever change, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, so the Mosaic Law is an eternally valid way to learn how to do what is righteous, and I see no other purpose for what is stated in verse 21 other than to make that point.

While Paul denied in Romans 4:5 that we can earn our righteousness as a wage, he also said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the Mosaic Law will be declared righteous, so there must be a reason why being declared righteous requires us to choose be doers of the law other than in order to earn it as a wage, such as faith insofar as Romans 3:31 says that our faith upholds the Mosaic Law. In Psalms 119:29-30, David wanted to put false ways far form him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faithfulness, so this has always been the one and only way of becoming righteous by grace through faith.

In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God's word says that His law is not too difficult for us to obey so if Acts 15:10 had been referring to God's law as being a heavy burden that no one could bear, then they would have been in direct disagreement with God and would have therefore been wrong. Likewise, in 1 John 5:3, to love God to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome, so they should not be interpreted as saying that loving God is too burdensome for anyone to bear. The Psalms also express an extremely positive view of the Mosaic Law where David repeatedly said that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, which is what Paul also did (Romans 7:22), which is incompatible with viewing it as being a heavy burden that no one could bear. Many Jews have daily prayers in which they thank God multiple times per day for giving the Mosaic Law and there is a holiday called Simchat Torah, which is a day dedicated to rejoicing over the Torah, so that just does not correspond to the high view that practicing Jews have historically had of the Torah, especially when it was given for our own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13).

Acts 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

The above verse clarifies that they were making a ruling in regard to the means of salvation being by grace, so the heavy burden that no one could bear was not the Mosaic Law, but a means of earning our salvation by obeying it. In Acts 15:1, there was a group from Judea who were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision. They were rightly opposed in Acts 15:5 by some believers from among the party of the Pharisees who argued instead that Gentiles needed to obey the Law of Moses and become circumcised, but not as a means of earning our salvation.

In Acts 15:6-9, Peter stood up and affirmed that Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe and God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law is how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel message that the Gentiles heart and believed, which Jesus also prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 22:12-14). In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scriptures were written for our instruction, and in 15:18-19, his Gospel managed involved bringing the Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed, so his Gospel was on the same page in teaching repentance from our sins and obedience to the Mosaic Law. In Romans 2:25-29, they way to recognize that a Gentile has a circumcised is by observing their obedience to the Mosaic Law, which is the same way to tell for a Jew (Deuteronomy 10:12-16, 30:6), and circumcision of the heart is a matter of the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27), which is in contrast with Acts 7:51-53, where those who have uncircumcised hearts resist the Spirit and do not obey the Mosaic Law. So everything that Peter said was affirming the second group in Acts 15:5 along with then ruling against circumcision as being a means of salvation. Both groups agreed that Gentiles should obey the Mosaic Law, but disagreed about the means of salvation, so no one there was arguing against Gentiles obeying it, but rather the expectation was that they would continue to learn how to obey it it by hearing it taught every Sabbath in the synagogues (Acts 15:21).



Aspects of God's nature are fruits of the Spirit. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faithfulness are weightier matters of the Mosaic Law, so these are aspects of God's nature that it was intended to teach us how to express, which is also why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27), and why those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who refuse to submit to it (Romans 8:4-7). For example, God's righteous laws teach us about a spiritual principle of righteousness that is an aspect of God's nature, which leads us to take actions that are examples of that principle in accordance with what the law instructs, so that we can even do what is righteous in situations that are not specifically prescribed by it. If we correctly understand a spiritual principle or fruit of the Spirit, then it will never lead us away from taking actions that are examples of that principle, so I agree that there is an extent to which being led by the Spirit leads us to fulfill it without learning it, however, some people are given the spiritual gift of teaching, so we should also allow room for other teachers. God could have just commanded to love him and our neighbor and given the Spirit, but those commands are a lot easier said than done, so there is a purpose for all of the other teachings that are in the Bible to paint us a picture of what that looks like. What God was instructing the Israelites to do by giving them the greatest two commandments should not mean something different from what Jesus was instructing us to do when he quoted those commandments, so being led by the Spirit should not be used to justify neglecting to learn God's law.

Click to expand...

I can see your point about being open to instruction contained in the laws and prophets of The Old Testament. The law reminds me of the knowledge of good and evil. For example, the knowledge of good and evil brought forth judgment, seeing that we found a shame in our nakedness; And scripture says that likewise the law contains the knowledge of sin. But of course, there's no law given by God that would be against the Spirit of God. Wherefore The Spirit of God wrote the law, the law didn't write the Spirit of God (What written letters could contain Him, and what manner of Word would God choose to describe Himself). Therefore, it's hard to imagine that we were meant to know God and thereby fully know ourselves in relation to Him, through learning the law. We need to go through the veil so to speak.

Scripture also indicates that sin entered into mankind at some point, which means that there was a time before that, where mankind was without sin. So, it stands to reason that the righteousness of God exists apart from the law, and that is what believing in the Christ is about. Romans 3:19-23,

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

y

childeye 2 said:

Sounds to me like the law is similar to the knowledge of good and evil. For example, the knowledge of good and evil brought forth judgment, seeing that we found a shame in our nakedness; And scripture says that likewise the law contains the knowledge of sin.

Click to expand...

Rather, God's commands are the way to the Tree of Life and it was disobedience to His command that led Adam and Eve away from it. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments. In Proverbs 6:23, for the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life. In Proverbs 3:18, she is a tree of life for all who take hold of her. In Deuteronomy 32:47, God's law is our very life. In Revelation 22:14, those who obey God's commandment will be given access to the Tree of Life. In Romans 2:6-7, those who persist in doing good will be given eternal life. In Romans 6:19-23, no longer presenting ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin is contrasted with now presenting ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, which is the gift God, so obedience to God's law is the content of God's gift of eternal life, which is access to the the Tree of Life, not the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Why did God want to prevent Adam and Eve from eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Did God want a race of sociopaths who didn't know the difference between doing what is right to our neighbor and what is wrong to them? We do not punish someone who did not know what they were doing was wrong, so Adam and Eve must have known that what they were doing was wrong before eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but if so, then what was its purpose? The issue is that Adam and Even had to have a knowledge of right and wrong before eating of the tree, but their previous knowledge got transformed into something that we call good and evil.

There are a number of ways that the text shows that Eve's desire warped her perception, such as in Genesis 2:6, where she saw that it was good for food, that it was a delight to the eyes, and that it was the tree was to be desired to make one wise, and when our desire enter the picture, then it clouds our judgement so that we can't be sure if something is truly good or if we just think that it is good because we desire it, so by eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, their clear knowledge of true and false became clouded and got transformed into knowledge of good and evil. The Tree of life was in the center of the Garden, so it was only a matter of time before they ate of it, and this was desirable to God, but God only prevented them from eating from the Tree of Life after they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil because that would be multiplying the wrong fruit. If we are going to be given access to the Tree of Life, then we must first repent from the damage that was caused by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so we lean not on our own understanding that is clouded by our desire, but cling only to what God's word says true. In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth.

Proverbs 3:1-6 My son, do not forget my teaching, but let your heart keep my commandments, 2 for length of days and years of life and peace they will add to you. 3 Let not steadfast love and faithfulness forsake you; bind them around your neck; write them on the tablet of your heart. 4 So you will find favor and good success in the sight of God and man. 5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

This is also in context of Proverbs 3:18. Before eating from either tree, Adam and Eve were at a crossroads between morality and immorality, where eating from the Tree of Knowledge caused them to become mortal while eating form the Tree of Life would have caused them to become immortal, so God presented them with a choice between life an death. In Deuteronomy 30:15-20, the Israelites were also at the same crossroads between morality and immortality, where Moses presented the same choice between life and a death, life and a blessing for obedience to God's law, or death and a curse for disobedience, so choose life!

But of course, there's no law given by God that would be against the Spirit of God. Wherefore The Spirit of God wrote the law, the law didn't write the Spirit of God. Therefore, I think it's vanity to imagine we can become like God through learning and performing the law.

Scripture also indicates that sin entered into mankind at some point, which means that there was a time before that, where mankind was without sin. So, it stands to reason that the righteousness of God exists apart from the law, and that is what believing in the Christ is about. Romans 3:19-21

19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Click to expand...

For as long as God's nature has been eternal, there has also existed a way to act in accordance with God's nature, and this is what God's law was given to instruct how to do, so God's righteous laws are therefore also eternal (Psalms 119:160). Sin entered the world when man acted contrary to God's eternal nature. To say that God is righteous is to covey information about the way that God chooses to act, so God's righteousness does not exist apart from the way to act in accordance with His righteousness.

The Holy Spirit is the nature of God and all of the fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's nature. The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the nature of God as it does to describe the nature of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23), and the law could not accurately be described in those terms if its purpose was not to teach us how to express those aspect of God's nature. Likewise, God's way is the way in which God expresses aspects of His nature, such as in Genesis 18:19 and 2 Samuel 22:21-37, and there are many verses that describe God's law as being instructions for how to walk in God's way, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, 1 Kings 2:1-2, Psalms 103:7, Psalms 119:1-3, and many others, so again God's law is His instructions for how to act in accordance with His nature. Likewise, the Son is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), which he expressed by setting a sinless example of how to walk in sinless obedience to God's law, so he is the personification of God's nature, or the physical manifestation of God's law. In Psalms 119:142, God's law is truth, in Psalms 119:160, the sum of God's word is truth, in John 1:14, the word of God became flesh and dwelt among us, and in John 14:6-7, Jesus said that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and the way to see and know the Father, so he was claiming to be the living embodiment of God's law, so obedience to the law of which he is the living embodiment is the way to believe in the nature of who he is, or in other words, the way to believe in him. This is also why there are many verses that connect our belief in God with our obedience to Him, such as in Revelation 14:12, where those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments. Furthermore, the way for us to be made like Christ is by partaking in His nature through following his example.

The Hebrew word "yada" refers to knowledge that is gained by experience, relationship, or intimacy, such as in Genesis 4:1, where Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. According to John 17:3, the content of God's gift of eternal life is the experience of knowing the Father and the Son, and God's law is His instructions for how to do that through expressing His nature. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him His way that he might know Him, and Israel too, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing the Father and the Son is the goal of the law, which is eternal life from the Tree of Life, not the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. In Jeremiah 9:3 and 9:6 they did not know God and refused to know Him because in 9:13, they had forsaken God's law, while in 9:24, those who know God know that He delights in practicing steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in all of the earth, so delighting in expressing these and other aspects of God's nature in obedience to His law is the way way to know the Father and the Son. In 1 John 2:4, those who say that they know Jesus, but don't obey his commands are liars, and in 1 John 3:4-6, those who continue to practice sin in transgression of God's law have neither seen nor known him.

Soyeong said:

Rather, God's commands are the way to the Tree of Life and it was disobedience to His command that led Adam and Eve away from it. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments. In Proverbs 6:23, for the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life. In Proverbs 3:18, she is a tree of life for all who take hold of her. In Deuteronomy 32:47, God's law is our very life. In Revelation 22:14, those who obey God's commandment will be given access to the Tree of Life. In Romans 2:6-7, those who persist in doing good will be given eternal life. In Romans 6:19-23, no longer presenting ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin is contrasted with now presenting ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, which is the gift God, so obedience to God's law is the content of God's gift of eternal life, which is access to the the Tree of Life, not the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Click to expand...

I believe the tree of Life is through Christ The Bread of Life, and God's commandment is to eat him and therefore believe in the one He sent; and Christ's commandment is to love others as he has loved us. It's all about having the True Image of God shining in one's heart. This one righteous man, oh Jesus, that you would lay down your own life as an offering for sin, for such is His righteousness.

Galatians 2:21
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

We have to go through the veil. We were under the law to bring us to Christ.

1. Galatians 3:24
   Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2. Galatians 3:25
   But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

1 Timothy 1:9
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

Life is in Christ and not the law because the law can't make us righteous. Wherefore Christ said,

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Halbhh said:

I think you are helpfully summarizing such a key thing, and generally in a big picture way have it correct, but haven't yet learned some of the extra things that changed between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant -- in addition to no longer requiring animal sacrifices, there are additional changes.

Click to expand...

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant still involves following the Torah, so there are no changes to it, especially because Deuteronomy 4:2 prohibits making changes to it. Rather, everything taught in the NT was based on and in accordance with the OT. About 1/3 of the verses in the NT contain quotes or allusions to the OT and the NT authors did this thousands of times in order to show that it supported what they were saying and to show that they hadn't departed from it. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scripture to see if what he said was true, so the OT is the standard of how we know that what is said in the NT is true.

And one thing we learn in the New Testament (which I didn't reference above yet) is that we explicitly word for word are not to think that new believers who are not physically circumcised need to become physically circumcised (also)
- Rather:

1 Corinthians 7:18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man still uncircumcised when called? He should not be circumcised.

Click to expand...

God never commanded circumcision for the purpose of earning our salvation, so that is not a change from what He has commanded. A ruling against requiring circumcision for a purpose that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against requiring obedience to what God has commanded. Likewise, God did not command Gentiles to become Jews and did not command a process by which Gentiles could become Jews, though baptism and circumcision were adopted by Jews as the process by which Gentiles could become Jews. Ruling that Gentiles should not become Jews in order to become saved s not ruling that Gentiles should not become Jews for any other purpose or that Gentiles should not become circumcised for a purpose other than becoming a Jew, such as if a Gentile wanted to eat of the Passover Lamb (Exodus 12:48).

In Isaiah 47:15, it says that all of Israel will be saved, so it can be easy for a Jew to mistake that as saying that we will be saved simply because they are circumcised or to think that means that Gentiles need to become circumcised and become Jews in order to become saved. This is why Paul spoke against Jews considering themselves to have a higher status because they were circumcised and against Gentiles wanting to become circumcised because it would grant them what they perceived to be a higher status, and why he spoke against Jews considering themselves to be saved because of their circumcision and didn't need to obey God's law. The Bible clearly refers to people who are Jews, Greeks, slaves, free, men, and women, in Galatians 3:28, Paul was not denying the existence of these categories or their significance, but rather he was denying that these categories give us a special status when it comes to being in Christ. So there are incorrect motivation for a Gentile becoming a Jew, but that doesn't mean that a Gentile can't have correct motivations for wanting to identify with the Jewish people. Even within Orthodox Judaism, they try their best to dissuade Gentiles from becoming Jews, warning them about what they are getting into to, they do not allow someone to convert who does not show that they have the right intentions and that they know what they are getting into, and only allow those who are persistent to convert.

So, to improve what you teach on the need to obey the commandments of God, you need only just get more details from the New Testament on precisely what all has changed from the Old Covenant to the New, so you can correctly point to what must be kept (the Ten Commandments), and not incorrectly other things, like the prohibition on eating shellfish or other such things that have been changed by the Lord, for us.

Click to expand...

That was never something that has been changed. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, such as keeping God's Sabbaths (Leviticus 19:2-3) and refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45). The only way that we should no longer follow God's instructions for how to have a holy conduct as God is holy is if God has changed to no longer being holy, but His holiness is eternal. If someone refuses to follow those instructions, then they are testifying that the God that they follow is not holy.

Another example that comes to mind: the people are no longer to stone those caught in adultery. Instead the message from Christ to those with faith is to repent and "go and sin no more" (in more than just John 8). So, there are more than just a couple of changes. But the essence of the Law, Christ said, is all the ways we are to fulfill the 2 greatest commandments, now. So, all of the 10 commandments of course fully still apply, and Christ gives us very much teaching and help to obey them.

Click to expand...

John 8:1-12 is an example of Jesus acting in accordance with the Mosaic Law requires. There was no judge to pronounce a sentence (Deuteronomy 19:17-21), there was no man accused (Leviticus 20:10), he didn't have any witnesses to examine (Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 19:15), and he did not have a confession, so if he had condemned her, then he would have acted in violation of the Mosaic Law. Just a few verses later Jesus said that he judged no one (John 8:15) and he also said that he came not to judge (John 12:47), so he did not exercise authority as a magistrate and did not condemn her, but he did recognize adultery as sin, and told her to go and sin no more.

Jesus is one with the Father, so he should not be interpreted as expressing disagreement with or making changes to what the Father has commanded, especially because if he did that, then he would have sinned in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and disqualified himself from being our Savior. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, and he warned against relaxing the least part of or it or teaching others to do the same, so to say he made changes the law is to call him a liar, to disregard his warning, and and to deny that he is our Savior.

If we love God and our neighbor, then we won't do things like commit adultery, theft, murder, or idolatry, but we also won't do things like commit rape, kidnapping, favoritism, and so forth for everything else that God has commanded, so love fulfills the entire law because it is inclusive of everything in it and everything that God has commanded is for the purpose of teaching us how to love Him and our neighbor. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 22:36-40 that the other commandments all hang on the greatest two, so they are all connected, and if the greatest two commandments still apply, then so to all of God's other commandments. The greatest two commandments are a lot easier said than done, so thankfully God gave all of the other commandments to paint us a picture of what it looks like to correctly obey them. If someone's obedience to the greatest two commandments was not inclusive of one of God's other commandments, such as helping the poor, then they would have an incomplete understanding of how to love.

Double post.

childeye 2 said:

Life is in Christ and not the law because the law can't make us righteous. Wherefore Christ said,

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Click to expand...

In Matthew 19:17, Christ said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments and cited many others verses that say the same thing, so eternal life can be found in the Scriptures and the Pharisees were correct to search for it there, but they needed to recognize that the goal of everything in Scripture is to testify about how to know Jesus and come to him for eternal life. However, there can be any number of motivations for obeying God's law, some of which are correct while others are not, so our motivation for obeying God's law is important because only the correct motivations will lead to eternal life.

While there are many verses where Paul denied that we can earn our righteousness as a wage, such as Romans 3:28, Romans 4:4-5, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Galatians 2:21, and Galatians 3:21, there are many other verses that show that our righteousness/salvation/eternal life requires us to be doers of the law, such as Romans 2:6-7, Romans 2:13, Ephesians 2:10, Titus 2:11-14, Galatians 3:26-29, James 2:17-24, Matthew 7:21-23, and Matthew 19:17, so the only way that I can see to reconcile both sets of verses is if there are motivations for why our righteousness/salvation/eternal life requires us to choose to be doers of the law other than in order to earn it as a wage, such as faith insofar as Romans 3:31 says that our faith upholds God's law.

I believe the tree of Life is through Christ The Bread of Life, and God's commandment is to eat him and therefore believe in the one He sent; and Christ's commandment is to love others as he has loved us. It's all about having the True Image of God shining in one's heart. This one righteous man, oh Jesus, that you would lay down your own life as an offering for sin, for such is His righteousness.

Click to expand...

I agree that the tree of life is through Christ, who is the Bread of Life, though Christ is the living embodiment of the nature of God expressed through living in sinless obedience to God's law, so that is synonymous with Christ saying that the way to enter eternal life is through obeying God's commandments.

Galatians 2:21
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

Click to expand...

In Psalms 119:29-30, David wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faithfulness, so this has always been the one and only way to become righteous by grace through faith. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him His way that he might know Him and Israel too, and in Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so knowing God and Jesus is the goal of the law, which is eternal life John 17:3). So again the only way I can see to reconcile these verses is if there are correct motivations by which righteousness and eternal life come by the law, such as through faith, and an incorrect motivation by which righteousness and eternal life do not come by the law, such as earning it as a wage.

While it is true that Abraham believed God, so he was justified (Genesis 15:6), it is also true that he believed God, so he obeyed God's command to offer Isaac (Hebrews 11:17), so the same faith by which he was justified was also expressed as obedience to God, but he did not earn his justification as a wage (Romans 4:4-5). In James 2:21-24, it quotes Genesis 15:6 to make the case that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered Isaac, that his faith was active along with his works, and his faith completed his works, so he was justified by his works insofar as they were motivated by his faith, but not insofar as they were motivated by earning a wage.

1 Timothy 1:9
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

Click to expand...

In 1 Timothy 1:8, it says that God's law is good if we obey it properly, so the next verse should not be used to argue that it is not good to obey. In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is God's law. To say that someone has a character trait is to say that they are someone who chooses to take actions that express that character trait, so to say that someone is courageous is the say that they choose to take actions that express courage, and it would be contradictory for someone to be courageous while also being someone who chooses to not take actions that express courage. In the same way, to describe someone as righteous is to describe them as being same who chooses to take actions that express God's righteousness in accordance with His laws for how to do that, and it would be contradictory for someone to be righteous who chooses not to take actions that express God's righteousness. It would absurd to think that the doing what is righteous in obedience to God's law is only for the unrighteous, so once someone becomes righteous they are then free to do what is unrighteous in transgression of God's law. Someone who tries to uses 1 Timothy 1:9 to say that the law is only for the unrighteous to justify why the law is not for them and why they are free to do what is unrighteous thereby becomes someone that the law is for.

To use an analogy, instructions for how to build a computer and not made for experts who have built hundreds of computers, who are already acting in accordance with those instructions, but rather it is those who don't know how to build a computer who have the need to be taught instructions for how to do that. Instructions for how to do what is righteous are not needed to teach those who are already living righteously in accordance with those instructions, but rather those instructions are made to teach those who are unrighteous.

We have to go through the veil. We were under the law to bring us to Christ.

1. Galatians 3:24
   Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
   In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
2. Galatians 3:25
   But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Click to expand...

Knowing God and Jesus is the goal of the law, so the law leads us to Jesus because it teaches us how to know him, or in other words, how to have a relationship with him, but does not lead us to him so that we can reject what he taught and go back to living in sin. Someone who disregarded everything that their schoolmaster taught them after they graduated would be missing the whole point of a schoolmaster. Now that Christ has come we are now under a superior teacher, but the subject matter is still how to walk in God's way in obedience to His law in accordance with what Jesus spent his ministry teaching by word and by example.

Galatians 3:26-29 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, and he walked in obedience to God's law. A chip off of the old block is someone who has the same character or nature as their father, so this is the sense that Jesus is the Son of God insofar as the Son is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), and the sense that we are sons of God when we are partaking in his nature through following his example. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were sons of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works that he did, so again the concept of sonship is in regard to expressing the same nature. Fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's nature, so that is why in Romans 8:4-14 that those who are born of the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who refuse to submit to God's law, and why in 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to God's law are not sons of God. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of God's law, so Galatians 3:26 says that in Christ we are all sons of God through faith is speaking about expressing God's nature through walking in obedience to His law.

Furthermore, in Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he might teach his children and those of his household to walk in God's way by doing righteousness and justice that the Lord may bring to him all that He has promised, namely in Genesis 26:4-5, God will multiply Abraham offspring as the stars in the heave, to his offspring he will give all of these lands, and through his offspring all of the nations of the earth will be blessed. So the offspring that Abraham is multiplying is by teaching others to do the same works that he did by expressing God's nature through walking in His way in obedience to His law, and all of the promises were made Abraham and brought about because Abraham walked in God's way in obedience to His law, he taught his offspring how to do that, and because his offspring did that (Deuteronomy 30:15-16). Furthermore, the land would spit them out if they were not living in obedience to God's law, so all of the promises are connected with obedience through faith (Leviticus 18:28). God's law is how the offspring of Abraham knew how to walk in His way and be blessed (Psalms 119:1-3), so the the way for them to inherit the promise of being a blessing to the nations is by turning the nations from their wickedness and teaching them how to be blessed by walking in God's way. In Acts 3:25-26, Christ, who is the way, was sent as the ultimate fulfillment of that promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness, so all of this is in regard to Galatians 3:26-29 connecting being a child of God in Christ, where we are doing the same works he did, with being a child of Abraham, heirs according to the promise, and this was the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham (Genesis 3:8) to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:15-23). The Kingdom of God is where people are blessed and are a blessing to others through multiplying the nature of God by teaching people to repent from their wickedness and how to walk in God's way in obedience to His law.

Halbhh said:

We agree fully on that. 2 witnesses were required for such capital offenses at minimum I know without needing to check, as I've been rereading the Old Testament in the last year. Now, while this is certainly true, 100% right, this of course isn't the main point here in this story, but instead the several things that happen after He says for any without sin to cast the first stone, are where we find the main points, the real meanings.

And those are profound, and new in a way. Far reaching. They are one way of saying the gospel even: forgiveness without penalty to those that repent, and the mercy as the example for us, and the instruction of course to 'go and sin no more' as the last of the several main points.

Click to expand...

Jesus was not undermining the whole justice system that God has put in place by saying that we need to be sinless in order act as judges, but rather what he said needs to be understood within the context of the situation. In other words, a witness had to be free from sin in the matter that they testified against otherwise they would be condemning themselves. This part is speculation, but there is a chance that the only witness was the man who had committed adultery with the woman and presence was rather notably lacking from this situation even those the Bible requires both the man and the woman accused of adultery to be brought forward for questioning, so if he came forward to testify against her by throwing the first stone so to speak, then by doing so he would also be condemning himself, which is why no one came forward. The group of people were not seeking justice, but rather the whole point of what they were doing was to create a situation where they could trap Jesus by having him make a judgement one way or the other. We should be careful not to interpret a passage as saying something different than what is taught in the rest of the Bible, especially a passage that has authenticity that is in question.

I like what all you say though on this last section, and even though you don't yet see some things in the New Testament you will in time (if you seek to learn more), I feel confident you will easily learn what you don't yet have, just like any of us need to do each year or decade, if we only read humbly with listening, seeking to learn more.

Click to expand...

It's good learn and I've learned many things over my time on these forums. I used to believe that Jesus was teaching new things on the NT, but of late I've been learning that he didn't actually teach anything brand new. In particular, I've listened to a podcast that repeatedly hammers home how much of everything that Jesus said and did was rooted in the OT and the Jewish culture that of which he was part. For example, in regard to the debate between Shammai and Hillel, Jesus almost always agreed with Hillel.