Myself, I wouldn't want to be eating only plants just because that's what God said to do in the first creation account in Genesis.
The way to do what is right is circumstantial, such as if in the middle of the night a thief breaks in and is struck so he dies, then that is not against God's eternal righteousness, while committing murder is against it, even though both involve killing someone. In a similar way, it would not have been in accordance with God righteousness to kill animal for clothing before the Fall, but circumstances changed so that was now permitted, and by inference Adam and Eve were now permitted to kill animals for food.
I don't mean this to sound snarky in any way. It's intended as an honest question:
If the law is written on our hearts, why would we need to memorize it?
Memorizing it is a way in which it is written on our hearts (Deuteronomy 10:12-16).
So... in your view, it was okay for the early church folks to eat unclean foods, but not participate in idolatry?
Did people not living in the land not have to attend Jerusalem three times a year?
Unclean animals are not food, so unclean foods is an oxymoron. Early church folks were not permitted to eat unclean animals, but rather Paul was speaking in regard to what counted as idolatry.
Yes, that's one role of the Levites.
More broadly in Deuteronomy 33,
They shall teach Jacob your ordinances,
and Israel your law.
The point is that Levities and judges were given the authority to make rulings about how to correctly obey the Torah.
I believe the point of Jesus's ministry was to fulfill the law and the prophets. Do we have to continue keeping a law that has been fulfilled? It depends how you understand Fulfilled imo.
In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in contrast with saying that he came not to abolish it and he warned against relaxing the least part of the law or teaching others to do the same, so I don't see any room for interpreting fulfilling the law as referring to meaning that we no longer need to continue to obey it. Rather, "to fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will as made known in His law to be obeyed as it should be” (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5, he proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it or by completing our understanding of it. In Galatians 5:14, loving our neighbor fulfills the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done, not to something unique that only Jesus did. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, so that should be interpreted in the same way as fulfilling the Law of Moses. Furthermore, other Jewish writings like the Talmud also contain much discussion about how to fulfill the law in terms of how to correctly do what it instructs.
Paul simply says, As the law says. The law doesn't say that, at least it isn't stated. I agree with your general reasoning, and it points to a loose understanding of Torah, again imo.
Great discussion, btw!
There is also the issue of which law he was referring to, for example, he could have been referring to manmade laws like the one that Peter referred to in Acts 10:28.
Wait... The four rules in Acts 15 are four categories of law? So the gentiles were expected to keep four categories of law?
For example, one of the four things lists is abstaining from sexual immorality and there a number of laws that fit under that category, such abstaining from rape, incest, inappropriate behavior with animals, homosexual sex, prostitution, adultery, fornication, or sex with a woman during her period. Someone was recently speaking to me about a book that if I recall correctly made the case that there were 66 laws that were included with those four categories.
I don't think they were saying that mature gentile believers couldn't handle more than four laws. That would be, if I'm following what you're saying, taking part of what you said and trying to match it up with part of what I said.
I think Acts 21:25 very much makes a contrast.
"However, in regard to the Goyim who have come to trust in Yeshua,"
CJB
However... indicating a different track of thought.
περὶ δὲ τῶν πεπιστευκότων ἐθνῶν
Based on my basic understanding of greek, the δὲ there indicates, again, something different from what was said before.
I think that we should distinguish between what should be taught to new believers in order to avoid overwhelming them and what mature believers are required to do, so the laws listed in Acts 15:19-21 should not be interpreted as limiting which laws mature believers should follow, otherwise it is saying that mature Gentiles believers can't handle more than that. Acts 21:25 is still speaking about the standard for new believers, not the standard for those who had been believers since Acts 10. I am not an expert in the Greek, though I do appreciate how the CJB translated Acts 21:25 without the negative slant.
Yes, Paul gives way more than four instructions. However, and imo, he also presents Christianity in Galatians as not a rule-based lifestyle.
So when Paul tells the Corinthians things to avoid, he's giving them standard ideas about what fits with a lifestyle of loving as Jesus loved.
Galatians 5:19-22 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
In Romans 15:4, Paul said that OT Scripture was for our instruction, and in 15:18-19, his Gospel message involved bringing Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed, so I think that it is incorrect to interpret Galatians as Paul speaking against a rule-based lifestyle. While Paul spoke against the law of sin and works of the law, he did not speak against obeying the Law of God. Saying that people who do those things will not inherit the Kingdom of God is much more strongly stated than simply being lifestyle choices that people should try to avoid.
In the particular post you're replying to, I talk about sacrifices. Do you honestly believe people from those far-flung churches were making regular trips to Jerusalem?
I can't say what sort of travel was happening during this period. I do know that even today, there are Torah observant Jews in the diaspora that do not make trips to Jerusalem at least three times a year.
Right, we follow the spirit of the law, not the letter. We agree, if I'm understanding you right.
I agree that Paul wrote to a specific community. Yet what he wrote is also the word of God, just as Torah is.
Do you believe that you have the ability to look at something that Paul wrote and say it was oriented for a particular time and place? Cool! So do I. I do that with Torah, as well.
David said throughout the Psalms that he loved the Torah and delighted in obeying it, so if we believe that the Psalms are Scripture and therefore express a correct view of the Torah, then we will share it, as Paul did (Romans 7:25). Likewise, God said that His law was given for our own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13). So if we believe that God should be trusted to guide us through His law, that His law is for our own good in order to bless us, and love God's law and want to have the delight of getting to obey it, but that the circumstances under which they should follow it are not currently met, then they have the right attitude, which is different from thinking that some God's laws are no longer valid or from looking for excuses not to have to follow God's guidance. Some laws were only given to govern the conduct of specific people like the Levites, but we should seek by faith to follow the laws that general Israelites had the delight of obeying.
