Thoughts about the confusing word: "Law"

KevinT said:

I agree with your point, but I will mention that your argument is a bit circular. Its inspired by God because it's scripture, and its scripture because of God too. As I am sure you know, there are apocryphal and deuterocanonical books that are included in Catholic Bibles that are excluded from Jewish and Protestant Bibles. Believers from those faiths can also use 2 Tim 3:16 to support the books in their Bibles.

I have not read all those other books, but the times I have looked at a few of them, they just didn't stand muster to me. I think there were good reasons for them being rejected. So there is a role for respecting the authority of "scriptures", but the is also a role for using our God-given reason to check if things make sense.

So my belief is that God has shepherded the Bible all through time. I think that it may contain a few errors here and there, but it has all the necessary ingredients needed for our salvation.

Best wishes,

Kevin

Click to expand...

I believe there is no errors in God's Word, only misunderstandings. I believe the 66 books of the bible is God-breathed and God is control of His Word, and why it is always the top seller every year. So much access to God's Word, yet most people do not use it at their path to guide their life Psa 119:105 We are to change our life around God's Word, sadly many use the scripture to accommodate their own lifestyle. It's a matter of God's will or our will. But everything gets sorted out soon enough.

SabbathBlessings said:

Here's a copy of the book, I googled it out of curiosity

https://www.sabbathtruth.com/portals/20/documents/Truth_Triumphant.pdf

I disagree that God did not play a part of the canon.. I also disagree the way some "historians" claim the reason why we have the canon and they take credit for it, which is a dead giveaway of falsehood, because all Glory on God's Word goes to God.

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [a]instruction in righteousness,

Click to expand...

I already have a hard copy of the book.

2 Tim 3:16, I am sure Paul was talking about the OT+, not his own epistles. The canon came three hundred years later; I don't expect Rome (Not referring to the Catholic Church or its Priests) had anything to do what was in the Canon, but it was Rome at Nicaea who required the regimentation resulting in exclusions and inclusions off books. Had the Christians at Nicaea had been disciples of Jesus, and two or more gathered in his name for a purpose of Judgement, then Jesus would have been there. The involvement of the Roman governor prevents conviction on my part.

sparow said:

Jesus said Satan can change himself into an angel of light.

Click to expand...

Where? Are you sure you're not thinking of Paul's words in 2 Cor? And if so, is it not hypocritical to cite Paul as authoritative as an attempt to deny Paul's authority?

KevinT said:

What is your understanding of the role God plays in the lives of people today in the world?



Isn't the world an interesting place! I have a well-meaning friend who assures me that the ONLY books I should read in the Bible are the works of Paul. His justification for this was that neither he nor I are Jewish, and are therefore gentiles. And Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, and everything else was written for the Jews. I don't agree, but it is an interesting theory -- and a complete 180 degrees opposite from your view.

Ultimately, I think that belief from claim-of-authority might be a starting point. But what is really needed is for the advice to make sense. When Paul writes of love, I don't accept it as true because Paul says so, but because it rings true with the universe I see around me.

What appeals to you about this book. Why are you recommending it, esp if you haven't read it yourself? And what is a "Moderator" of a church?

Best wishes,

Kevin

Click to expand...

My understanding of the role God plays in the lives of people begins with people breathing, breath is God in them. In a way that which comes from God and returns to God in part defines God. The law and the Prophets define God for our purpose, yet not exclusively. To talk about God we need to have a definition in mind.

To one group God said, you will not see me again until you say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. To another group he said, I will be with you always. God of course keeps his algorithm running, prophesy becoming history.

My understanding of the Gospel is that Paul did not require conversion he was only required to repent, gentiles required conversion after which they would no longer be gentiles.

I would not use anything Paul said as proof of his authenticity; I look to see which prophesy Paul fulfils, Putting the onus on God, like he would say Jesus was the Christ and deceive many. I have to careful lest I be accused of flaming.

When I went to school Moderator meant, Arbitrator; mediator; presiding officer. I offered that book as evidence that Paul was not as important as he claimed.

Fervent said:

Where? Are you sure you're not thinking of Paul's words in 2 Cor? And if so, is it not hypocritical to cite Paul as authoritative as an attempt to deny Paul's authority?

Click to expand...

I rely on memory and make mistakes; I do not think Paul is a hypocrite when he says he met an angel of light on the road to Damascus and then said Satan can turn himself into an angel of light, I believe Paul thought he was speaking to someone of lesser intelligence.

sparow said:

I rely on memory and make mistakes; I do not think Paul is a hypocrite when he says he met an angel of light on the road to Damascus and then said Satan can turn himself into an angel of light, I believe Paul thought he was speaking to someone of lesser intelligence.

Click to expand...

No one said Paul was a hypocrite, what would be hypocritical is to cite Paul's words as authoritative Scripture and then attempt to use those words to discredit Paul as Scripture. Which is essentially what you seem to be attempting in that post. Either Paul is untrustworthy, and so cannot be relied on when he says that Satan can turn himself into an angel of light, or Paul is trustworthy and should be heeded.

Fervent said:

No one said Paul was a hypocrite, what would be hypocritical is to cite Paul's words as authoritative Scripture and then attempt to use those words to discredit Paul as Scripture. Which is essentially what you seem to be attempting in that post. Either Paul is untrustworthy, and so cannot be relied on when he says that Satan can turn himself into an angel of light, or Paul is trustworthy and should be heeded.

Click to expand...

Maybe I have unintentionally accused Paul of hypocrisy, but you seem to be misusing the word. I would not accuse the person Paul who lived two thousand years ago, I accuse the epistle that Paul may or may not have written. I may accuse them, who make Paul more important than Peter, or more important than Christ. If my suspicions of Paul are correct, the charge against Paul (not by me) won't be hypocrisy or untrustworthiness it will be Blasphemy.

sparow said:

Maybe I have unintentionally accused Paul of hypocrisy, but you seem to be misusing the word. I would not accuse the person Paul who lived two thousand years ago, I accuse the epistle that Paul may or may not have written. I may accuse them, who make Paul more important than Peter, or more important than Christ. If my suspicions of Paul are correct, the charge against Paul (not by me) won't be hypocrisy or untrustworthiness it will be Blasphemy.

Click to expand...

Again, the charge of hypocrasy is not against Paul but against you for relying on Paul's words to claim that Paul was misled by Satan. As for making Paul more important, I know of none who do so. Paul does not contradict anything Jesus or Peter have said, and so is not in a competition with them for importance. He does, however, contradict certain modern interpreter's understanding of Jesus just as he contradicted certain men of his day. The error is with them, though. If one has to dice up the Bible and abolish major portions of it to persist in their interpretation, their interpretation is what is out of line with God's revelation and not what is written in the Bible.

Fervent said:

Again, the charge of hypocrasy is not against Paul but against you for relying on Paul's words to claim that Paul was misled by Satan. As for making Paul more important, I know of none who do so. Paul does not contradict anything Jesus or Peter have said, and so is not in a competition with them for importance. He does, however, contradict certain modern interpreter's understanding of Jesus just as he contradicted certain men of his day. The error is with them, though. If one has to dice up the Bible and abolish major portions of it to persist in their interpretation, their interpretation is what is out of line with God's revelation and not what is written in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Again, there was no deception in my error.

sparow said:

Again, there was no deception in my error.

Click to expand...

No one said there was deception in your error. The issue of hypocrasy comes up when the actual source for the foundation of your accusation comes out, because it is founded on Paul's words about Satan disguising himself as an angel of light being authoritative Scripture. Which if Paul is a victim of Satan's deception, then those words(and any other by Paul) become suspect. But in relying on Paul's words, which must be suspect if your accusation is true, renders you hypocritical when you level the accusation because you simultaneously attempt to discredit Paul while first treating his words as having authority(even elevating them to be mistaken for Jesus' own words). So either your accusation is completely baseless, or you are being hypocritical.

Fervent said:

No one said there was deception in your error. The issue of hypocrasy comes up when the actual source for the foundation of your accusation comes out, because it is founded on Paul's words about Satan disguising himself as an angel of light being authoritative Scripture. Which if Paul is a victim of Satan's deception, then those words(and any other by Paul) become suspect. But in relying on Paul's words, which must be suspect if your accusation is true, renders you hypocritical when you level the accusation because you simultaneously attempt to discredit Paul while first treating his words as having authority(even elevating them to be mistaken for Jesus' own words). So either your accusation is completely baseless, or you are being hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Maybe you use the word hypocrisy differently than me, possibly to change the subject. I find it interesting that Paul meet the angel of light on the road, who called itself Jesus, then later Paul says, Satan can change himself into an angel of light; Is Paul calling Jesus Satan?

I am late getting back to you because my computer has been malfunctioning, I was locked out of youtube for a couple of days.

Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me. You accuse me who no-one relies on, nor should they, I accuse Paul who everyone relies on, yet I do not really accuse Paul but those who call Paul teacher in place of Jesus.

While watching the Sunday religious programs last Sunday I learned a few things; sometimes Paul's verses are quoted, sometimes they say, Paul said. Then it occurred to me that even when Paul is not quoted most of the preaching is still flavoured by Paul.

One was talking about the Kingdom of God and quoting Paul describing what the Kingdom was like, so I wondered, Jesus always spoke in parables when describing the Kingdom. Another program stated that parables could not be used as doctrine, which is strange because Jesus always spoke in parables; no wonder they use Paul.

sparow said:

Maybe you use the word hypocrisy differently than me, possibly to change the subject. I find it interesting that Paul meet the angel of light on the road, who called itself Jesus, then later Paul says, Satan can change himself into an angel of light; Is Paul calling Jesus Satan?

I am late getting back to you because my computer has been malfunctioning, I was locked out of youtube for a couple of days.

Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me. You accuse me who no-one relies on, nor should they, I accuse Paul who everyone relies on, yet I do not really accuse Paul but those who call Paul teacher in place of Jesus.

While watching the Sunday religious programs last Sunday I learned a few things; sometimes Paul's verses are quoted, sometimes they say, Paul said. Then it occurred to me that even when Paul is not quoted most of the preaching is still flavoured by Paul.

Click to expand...

Yes, because he was sent to teach the Church.

sparow said:

One was talking about the Kingdom of God and quoting Paul describing what the Kingdom was like, so I wondered, Jesus always spoke in parables when describing the Kingdom. Another program stated that parables could not be used as doctrine, which is strange because Jesus always spoke in parables; no wonder they use Paul.

Click to expand...

Paul was sent to preach the gospel.

KevinT said:

This is what drives me crazy about Paul. I feel like I am back in college with a professor that won't give consistent guidance about what will be on the test. One day he says this, and another day he says that. 2 Cor 12 "6 Let it be granted, then, that I was not a burden to you; but, crafty fellow that I am, I took you with trickery! "

Click to expand...

I totally relate to the above. Not an easy task, the law v Grace thingy

KevinT said:

I think Paul purposely works to shake his audience out of their complacency with --- issues he is trying to teach.

Click to expand...

Begs the question, which issues and what teachings.

Most studying laws are initially led in their attempts to understanding as trying to please God and justify themselves in the process. I believe Paul knocks all attempts of legal obedience or claims of same off the table in Romans in general and chap. 7 in particular.

The law will always be against evil including the evil within all of us. There is no truthfully avoiding this conclusion from the law, but we can walk away from the table of this conclusion with a heavenly reward called honesty.

We can claim we love our neighbors as ourselves or even more incredulously, the we are legally obedient BUT both claims are lies -> because the evil present within us all is incapable of doing either

The only legit tool in the bag of understanding on this subject is honesty

I'm honestly happy that the law is against the evil within us all even though the conclusion is detrimental to us all

Places us firmly in the inescapable grip of His Mercy in Christ, our Lord, our only hope

KevinT said:

What is meant by the term "Law" in the Bible?

Click to expand...

While I agree that "law" can mean different things in different contexts, I don't think that your categories are correct. Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law other than the Law of God, such as the law of sin and works of the law, so it is always important to discern which category of law he was referring to. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit of Life with the law of sin and death. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, and in Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-12, he said that our faith upholds the Law of God in contrast with saying that works of the law are not of faith.

KevinT said:

The general, overall law of Moses. This involves everything given by Moses, which encompasses concepts of civil matters, religious/ceremonial matters, and also moral matters.

Click to expand...

The Bible never lists which laws are part of the moral, civil, and ceremonial law and never even refers to those as being categories of law. Marriage is a moral, civil, and ceremonial matter, so a law being in one of those categories does not necessarily mean that don't also belong in the other categories. If a group of people were to create lists of which laws they thought best fit into each of those categories, then they would end up with a wide variety of lists and none of them should interpret the authors of the Bible as having in mind lists that they just created when there is no way to establish which laws they though best first into which of those categories or even that they consider those to be categories of law.

We are free to create whatever categories of law that we want and to decide for ourselves which laws we think best fit into which of our categories. For example, I could categorize God's laws based on which part of the body is most commonly used to obey/disobey them, such as with the law against theft being a hand law, but just because I can do that does not establish that the authors of the Bible categorized God's laws in the same manner, so I would quickly run into error if I were to interpret them as referring to categories that I had created.

The category of moral law would imply that we can be acting morally while disobeying the laws that are not in that category, however, there are no examples in the Bible where disobedience to any of God's laws is said to be moral and I see no justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to be doers of God's character traits in obedience to Him, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. Legislators give laws according to what they think ought to be done, so for someone to claim that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws, and therefore to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.

KevinT said:

• The law as an upholding of a contract. I.e. God said that He would have the Jewish people as His special **IF** they obeyed His laws. So a Pharisee in the time of Jesus could point to their paying a tithe of the herbs in their garden, and assert that this (along with all their other points of obedience) was a complete fulfillment of their duty to uphold their part of the contract. All they had to do was meet the letter of the law and they felt they had done their duty.

Click to expand...

In Exodus 20:6, God wanted His people to love Him and obey His law, so God's law has never been just about the letter and God has always disdained it when His people honored Him with their lips while their hearts were far from Him (Isaiah 29:13). Rather, God's law is about teaching us how to experience knowing Him through being doers of His character traits, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 23:23 that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

KevinT said:

The law as a form of instruction.

Click to expand...

The Law of Moses is instructions for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), so I don't see that as being a distinction.

KevinT said:

"nailed the law to the cross"

Click to expand...

The Bible never uses the Greek word "dogma" to refer to the Law of God. What was nailed to crosses was handwritten ordinance that announced the charge that was against the person being crucified, such as in Matthew 27:37, they nailed a handwritten ordinance to Christ that announced the charge that was against him that he is the King of the Jews. This fits perfectly with the concept of a list of the sins that we have committed being nailed to Christ's cross and with him dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to do with nailing any laws to the cross.

KevinT said:

But many Jews felt that they needed to follow "the Law", and especially the part of the law regarding circumcision.

Click to expand...

In Isaiah 45:17, it says that all of Israel will be saved, which led some to mistakenly think that all that someone needs to do to become saved it to become a Jew, which involved physical circumcision, however, the reason that God commanded circumcision was never for the purpose of becoming saved, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, a Gentile who wanted to eat of the Passover lamb was required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as speaking against a Gentile correctly acting in accordance with what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

KevinT said:

The limited set was a bare minimum of what they felt was needed to keep new converts out of trouble, with the idea that they could learn further concepts over time.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

KevinT said:

Paul writes extensively against the law

Click to expand...

While Paul spoke against the law of sin and being justified by works of the law, he was a servant of God, so he never spoke against obeying the Law of God.

KevinT said:

Paul, after extensively dismissing the "law" and those that felt self-righteous by their rule-keeping, sets out many many rules about how a Christian should live. He essentially gives a new set of rules such that one might even consider all that the Law of Paul. He describes how husbands should treat wives, how wives should behave, how masters should treat slaves etc etc. I'm not exactly sure how to categorize this set of rules. It seems similar to my first bullet point above, as an "overall" rule. And Paul recommended that the man who fell outside it (the one having sex with his mother or step-mother) be "handed over to Satan." Sure sounds Mosaic to me.

Click to expand...

The Law of God was never given as instructions for how to earn our righteousness, so Paul speaking against obeying it for an incorrect reason should not be mistaken as speaking against obeying it for the reasons for which God commanded it. In Deuteronomy 17:8-13, priests and judges were given the authority to make ruling about how to correctly obey the Law of God, which got passed down as oral tradition. In Matthew 23:2-4, Jesus recognized that the scribes and Pharisees had this authority by instructing his followers to do and observe all that they said, but to not follow their example of hypocrisy of doing things for show. This is also what is means by having the keys to the Kingdom and the authority to bind and loose.

KevinT said:

At the death of Jesus, the curtain that separated the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place was miraculously torn by invisible hands. I interpret this to mean that God was doing away with the sacrificial system involving the death of lambs etc, which had always pointed forward to Christ.

Click to expand...

the Bible notably does not state this as the meaning. The Bible frequently has someone tear their clothing upon hearing bad news or about the death of someone, so I think it is more like God mourning for the death of Jesus. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to free us from any laws, but in order to free us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of Moses is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20). As followers of Christ, we should live in a way that points towards him rather than a way that points away from him.

KevinT said:

The law is a reflection of God's perfection. As imperfect humans, we can never match up with God's perfect mandates. Therefore Jesus stands in the gap, and the blood of His sacrifice "takes away" our sins in the same way that the sacrificial lamb was sufficient to remove the legal status of "sinfulness" from an errant Israelite. In this framework, sin is a legal debt and Jesus is able to pay off this debt with His blood.

Click to expand...

In Romans 10:5-8, it references Deuteronomy 30 as the word of faith that we proclaim in regard to proclaiming that the Law of Moses is not too difficult for us to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it was presented as a possibility and as a choice, not as the need for perfect obedience.

KevinT said:

Or, that any attempt to go back to law keeping is backsliding away from the grace of Jesus.

Click to expand...

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith.

KevinT said:

And example of this was when Paul chastised Peter for not eating with the gentiles for reasons related to Jewish law. And if anyone were to speak against eating unclean meat, for example, it would be seen as trying to keep the "contract" aspect of the law, rather than the "instruction" aspect of the law. Mark 7 explicitly states that Jesus declared all foods "clean". So if a piece of meat falls into a sewer, then when retrieved it would still be "clean" in the contractual sense Jesus states. But I think all will agree that it would not be clean in a sanitary or health-wise manner -- and anyone who eats it may still suffer the health consequences with throwing up and diarrhea etc.

Click to expand...

In Galatians 2:16, It notably doesn't say anything about what they happened to be eating and does not suggest that they would have served Peter unclean animals. In Mark 7 and Matthew 15, Jesus was having a discussion about whether someone can become common by eating bread with unwashed hands, so we should not be inserting unclean animals into his conversation, especially when he had just finished criticizing the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God. It is not the case that if you scrub a pig thoroughly with soap, then it becomes a clean animal that is acceptable to eat, so it is a different concept.

KevinT said:

Others seem to make a distinction between written regulations vs Spirit-led actions. The idea here is that any regulation that is written down can be worked around in a manner that obeys the letter of the law but not the original intention. So the argument goes that a Christian will be lead by the Holy Spirit and they don't need regulations. If it seems OK, and they don't have any guidance otherwise from the Spirit, then it must be OK.

Click to expand...

In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Law of Moses.

KevinT said:

God's ways are infinitely better than our ways, and we will always have something more to learn from Him. Even after the 2nd coming of Christ and the establishment of God's new kingdom on earth, we will still be improving and learning through the life-giving instruction from the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit.

Click to expand...

The Bible repeatedly refers to the Law of Moses as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as in Deuteronomy 10:12-12, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, 1 Kings 2:1-3, Psalms 103:7, Psalms 119:1-3, and many others.

KevinT said:

Something that is wrong for one person, who has been taught an advanced concept by God, may not yet be wrong for a person just starting out their journey in Christ. Just like a child is not held to the same standards as an adult, so God meets us sinful humans where we are and does His best to guide us in a good direction. And this is the problem with writing down regulations. They can be discouraging to those not yet reached a level of understanding to incorporate them into their life. And they can be restrictive to others. For example, imaging a regulation of "you must exercise 60 minutes every day." Those just starting can't tolerate this level of intensity, and others my wonder why they are limited to just 1 hr. Thus we should constantly seek God's guidance to help us, while still paying attention to what has been written. So I might try to "exercise 60 minutes", but only succeed to 5 minutes. I pray to God for mercy and keep trying, and with time He helps me succeed.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

KevinT said:

There is a very fine line between legalism and "cheap grace" that has to be avoided

Click to expand...

How do you define "legalism"?

KevinT said:

Thank you for this well reasoned reply. Let me say at the outset that I agree with almost everything you say. My motivation for my original post was what I perceive to be a general "no-laws-apply-to-modern-Christians" mentality that I see (correctly or imagined) in many Christians today. They will quote how Paul says this or that against the law, and therefore they are free to do whatever the Spirit tells them. And if the Spirit doesn't actually happen to tell them something, then it might just be whatever they want to think. This impression is likely quite unfair, but it is the sour taste I get from many.

Click to expand...

It is weird that people think that following the Spirit is not in perfect accordance with following what the Father has commanded, especially when there are many verses that say that that is the role of the Spirit.

KevinT said:

But when I consider the "law of sin", I think of that as a sinful propensity rather than body of regulations. Still, these were good points.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The Law of God lead us to do what is holy, righteous, a good (Romans 7:12) while the law of sin stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death (Romans 7:5).

KevinT said:

This is both true and very problematic. Let's start with the 10 commandments. I think that everyone would agree that regulation to honor one's parents is a rule that is good and right for everyone for all time. So is it a rule I should follow today? I would argue 'Yes'. But then there is this regulation:

This is certainly a good idea, and the concept of avoiding liability exists to this day. But I don't know about your house, but mine doesn't have any sort of fence or parapet around my roof. Does yours? So how should I approach this rule? Should I follow it today? I would argue, 'No'. It was a rule given to people living in a different time and place, and it doesn't apply to me. On what basis can I say this? I really have NO BASIS to say this, other than common sense. And that's where the problem arises. My common sense might not be the same as your common sense.

Click to expand...

I agree that there is context and conditions under which God applies, though we should discern how it applies to us today with the attitude of looking for reasons for why we get to obey it rather than with the attitude of looking for excuses to avoid obeying it. The Psalms express an extremely positive view of obeying God's law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of obeying it, then we should also delight in obeying it as Paul did (Romans 7:22). 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, so we can't believe in the truth of these words as Scripture while not allowing them to shape our view of having the gift of getting to obey it.

The Israelites were given a number of laws that had the condition "when you enter the land..." while they were still wandering the wilderness for 40 years, so there is nothing wrong with not following a law that can't currently be followed. Likewise, when the Israelites were exiled to Babylon after the destruction of the Temple, then the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to God's law, which included laws in regard to Temple practice, so when there are laws that we can't obey, then we should nevertheless be faithful to obey what we can obey.

In regard to Deuteronomy 22:8, it was commanded in the context of people building houses where its roof was considered to be the top floor of the house, so if we ever build a house like that, then we should have a parapet.

KevinT said:

I kind of agree. But again, there are many laws that were given that doesn't seem to apply today. I wouldn't say God made a moral error in giving them. Just rather that they were proper for that time and place, but not for today. The Hasidic Jews don't trim their sideburns in compliance with the dress code given to the Children of Israel. Many other Jews don't follow this, and I don't think any Christians do.

Click to expand...

Laws in regard to temple practice that weren't followed after the destruction of the 1st Temple were once again followed after the construction of the 2nd Temple, but are followed today because there is no temple, but will be followed again when there is another temple (Ezekiel 40-46). The word used in Leviticus 19:27 means to devastate, destroy, mar, ravage, spoil, waste, so it is speaking about violence being done, not of which are terms that I would use to describe trimming a beard. The action being described is closer to someone starting with a nicely trimmed hedge and hacking away at it haphazardly with a chainsaw than to starting with an overgrow hedge and making its sides even. I think that it has to do with people ripping out turfs of hair as part of a pagan mourning practice. There is a difference between the position that we shouldn't follow a law because its conditions are not currently met and the position that we should no longer follow a law because it no longer something that is good to do.

KevinT said:

I agree that God wants people to follow His instructions *for the right reasons*. But I don't follow all the laws of Moses. Do you?

Click to expand...

The Law of Moses was given to a nation, so it can only be obeyed by a nation, and not even Jesus personally obeyed the laws in regard to having a period of to giving birth. Some laws were only for the King, the High Priest, priests, judges, men, women, children, those who are married, those who have servants, those who have animals, those who have crops, those who have tzaraat, those who are living in the land, and those who are strangers living among them while others were given to everyone. So there are laws that I am not currently obeying because I am not living in the land of Israel, but I should follow those laws if their conditions were ever to become met.

KevinT said:

Interesting. I had not heard this interpretation before. I'll have to ponder this.

Click to expand...

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 Law of Moses was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Jesus also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). Jesus did not go to the cross in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching by word or by example, but rather becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of Moses is the way to believe in everything that he accomplished through his ministry and through the cross (Titus 2:14).

KevinT said:

I'm not sure I agree. The law of circumcision was certainly of God. Remember that God was about to kill Moses because he had not circumcised his sons. So his wife quickly did it and called Moses a "bridegroom of blood." Paul spoke extensively against requiring new converts to have to get this done. He was lowering the barrier to entry, and I understand why he was doing it. But it was technically "against" the law.

Click to expand...

While God certainly commanded circumcision, He did not command it for the purpose of becoming saved. If Paul had been speaking against becoming circumcised for any reason and not just for incorrect reasons, then 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 (Acts 16:3) and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US, but I made the case that in Acts 15 they were only ruling against circumcision for an incorrect reason.

God's law did not prescribe a process for how a Gentile is to covert to become a Jew, but physical circumcision was used as part of that process, so circumcision is often used as shorthand for a Gentile becoming a Jew, which is also wha the phrase "works of the law" refers to. In Romans 2:17-29, Paul spoke to Gentiles who had converted and were calling themselves Jews, but who were not following the Law of Moses, whereas a Gentile who was following the Law of Moses was showing that they had a circumcised heart (Deuteronomy 30:6) and was putting them to shame, so being a Jew is not just about physical circumcision, but also about having a circumcised heart that is shown through being a doer of the Law of Moses.

KevinT said:

Again, I had not heard this interpretation before. Interesting! Do you think the temple system, with its sacrifices of animals and transference of sins from the people to the alter, and from there to the scapegoat etc etc, is still God's plan for followers of Christ today?

Click to expand...

It is God's plan for when there is a Temple with a Levitical priesthood. In Acts 18:18, Paul took a vow involving shaving his head and the only vow described in the Bible that involves doing that is a Nazarite vow, which involves making offerings (Numbers 6), and in Acts 21:20-24, Paul planned to pay for the offerings of others who were under vow in order to disprove false rumors and show that he continued to live in obedience to the Law of Moses. In Hebrews 8:4, it speaks about offerings that were still being made in accordance with the Law of Moses, so offerings did not cease with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only ceased because of the destructions of the temple. If all of Israel and repented and believed in Jesus as the Messiah, then the 2nd temple would not have been destroyed and that would not have caused offerings to cease.

KevinT said:

I agree with this. My overall view is that God is the fountain of knowledge and truth and is able to make things better and better. Even in the new kingdom, after the 2nd coming of Christ, we will be free agents with independent will, and we will learn to do things better and better, following God. There will never be a time where we have it all figured out. We will always love learning to do things better and better through God's instructions. So we will always need to follow His teaching. So the law is not a list of things 1 to 100 that after we get those all mastered, that finally we will be "good enough to be let into heaven." When God tells us we must "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind," this is not some arbitrary task we must master to make God happy. Rather, it is a statement of reality. If we do this, then we will reap a natural-consequences reward of learning from Him and becoming ever wiser.

Click to expand...

The Law of Moses is truth (Psalms 119:142) and Jesus is God's word made flesh, so he embodied truth by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses (John 14:6). I agree that obedience to the Law of Moses had nothing to do with trying to be good enough to be let into heaven. I think that what follows when God gave the greatest command is directly relevant to what it means to obey it:

Deuteronomy 6:4-7 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

The way to love a character trait is by being a doer of that trait, such as the way to love justice is by being a doer of justice. The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the character of God as it does to describe the character of the Law of God, 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), which is because it is God's instructions for how to be a doer of His character traits. In other words, everything that God has chosen to command was specifically commanded in order to teach us how to love a different aspect of His character, which is why the Bible frequently connects our love for God with our obedience to His commandments in both the OT and the NT. Moreover, we are obeying the greatest commandment by diligently teaching others to experience being doers of God's character traits.

KevinT said:

So I agree that God's law is not a series of hurdles that He sets up for us, just to show us that we are bound to fail. But rather they teaching points of how to live a better life. And not always just for our immediate personal benefit, but also for the benefit of all humanity.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

KevinT said:

I would define legalism as the idea that if I check off all the boxes of the law, following the letter but not necessarily the spirit of the regulation, that I have somehow earned a position of greatness. It says, "Look at all this good stuff I have done," rather than "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner."

Click to expand...

The Law of Moses never given as instructions for how to earn our righteousness, but as instructions for how to be a doer of righteousness. The problem is that many people mistake the Bible speaking against obeying the Law of Moses for incorrect purposes as speaking against obeying it instead of leading them to obey it for the correct purposes. Likewise, the Law of Moses was never given as instructions for how to have something to boast in ourselves about.

KevinT said:

I have very much enjoyed this post and I very much appreciate your insights!

Best wishes.
KT

Click to expand...

It is nice speaking with you.