Blameless in the Law

[FredVB]

That's just it, we already are to our Father ... which will if it hasn't already appeared as this to us, a very personal truth of relationship, like a name in a white stone given ... it's what we see in his face.

It seems like such a relief for us, to be without any pressure for change in anything. We just come to God through Christ, and be in relationship continually. If we really are, still, it would be made known to us that there is more for us, Christ came for our redemption that we would be removed from sin. Anything contrary to our conscience is sin, as is said in the Bible, along with that, things are shown to be sin against God in the Bible, the commandments are included for that. Our spiritual lives in faith should lead us away from disobedient lives.

 

[Sammy-San]

(CLV) Php 3:6
in acrelation to zeal, persecuting the ecclesia, in acrelation to the righteousness which is in law, becoming blameless.


(CLV) Lk 1:5
There came to be, in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zechariah, of the routine of Abiah, and his wife, of the daughters of Aaron, and her name is Elizabeth.

(CLV) Lk 1:6
Now they were both just in front of God, going in all the precepts and just statutes of the Lord, blameless.

Who says it's impossible?

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Does Yahshua call us to the impossible?

Could you clarify when women may speak in church?

There are two passages which are key to the discussion:

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord" (I Corinthians 14:34-37).

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control" (I Timothy 2:11-15).

The two passages cover two different situations. I Corinthians 14 is dealing with activities in church services. I Timothy 2 is dealing with general Christian living. The statements in I Timothy 2 apply to the church services, but they also deal with day-to-day life. But the statements in I Corinthians 14 only apply to the worship service. The distinction is important because the statements in the two passages are not the same.

What is Meant by Silent
It is unfortunate that the word "silence" is used in both passages because there are distinct Greek words being used. In I Corinthians 14:34, "silent" comes from the Greek word sigatosan, which means to be silent, keep still, say nothing, stop speaking, or hold one's peace. Paul defines the word in the passage by stating that women are not permitted to speak and that it is shameful for women to speak in church. The same word is used in I Corinthians 14:28 to tell those who would speak in tongues to be silent if there is no interpreter available. It also appears in I Corinthians 14:30 in the instruction to prophets that they are to remain silent while another prophet is speaking. It is not a complete prohibition of all sound because such would interfere with the command that we are to sing in worship (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Like the commands to be silent to the speakers of tongues and to the prophets, it is an indication certain actions at certain times are not to be done.

In I Timothy 2:11-12 the Greek word is hesuchia behind the English word "silence", which means quietness, rest, or peace. It appears in Acts 22:2 when the Jewish audience became quiet to hear Paul's speech. It also is used in II Thessalonians 3:11-12 when Paul told gossips to stop their gossiping and lead a quiet and productive life. It doesn't refer to absolute silence, but a non-intrusive approach to life. Again, Paul gives a definition by stating that a woman is not permitted to teach a man or to exercise authority over a man.

It appears that women in Corinth were questioning the teachings being given during the church service. Paul states that it is God's command that they be silent in church and if they have questions to wait until they get home to ask their husbands. I have seen commentators twist this command to claim that only married women are not permitted to interrupt services to ask questions, but that unmarried woman can interrupt. If you read Paul's statement again, you see that Paul is stating that women cannot ask questions during church because woman are not permitted to speak in church. He gives an alternative place for married women to ask their questions, but there is no implication that unmarried woman are exempt from the rule of not speaking in church. Thus this command prohibits a woman from conducting a prayer, reading Scripture, or giving a lesson in church. However, it does not mean a woman cannot pray or speak God's word outside of church. In I Corinthians 11:1-16 there is a rule that woman are to have their heads covered while praying and prophesying. Such prayers and prophecies could not be done during the worship service, thus implying that were other times when they could take on those roles but they had to maintain proper decorum by showing submissiveness -- in this case by wearing a head covering.

The passage in I Timothy 2 also rules out a woman giving a lesson to an audience which includes men or other situations where she would be leading men. It would not prohibit a woman from participating in a learning situation, so long as she did not dominate or take the lead. Thus a woman could answer when called upon, or read a passage, but she would be going beyond the limitation if she began instructing others even if she is sitting among the students. I believe that some are overly sensitive about the issue and forbid a woman from even expressing an opinion. However, a woman must be careful not to appear dominating. To respond to a statement by a man with "That can't be right" is placing the woman's opinion over the man's. But to ask "How does that fit with the passage over in _____?" could accomplish a similar end without placing the woman in a dominate position. Ultimately, correction of a man who is teaching wrong will have to be done in a private setting, as demonstrated by Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:24-26).

Is a Woman Forbidden to Speak in Mixed Company?
Again, the example of Priscilla, who helped her husband teach Apollos privately, is an example of a woman speaking in a mixed company (Acts 18:24-26). Sapphira, in front of a gathering, answered Peter's questions (Acts 5:8). Rhoda interrupted a gathering of Christians, who had assembled to pray at Mary's house, to announce that Peter was the gate (Acts 12:12-15). Therefore, we conclude that speaking in mixed company is not forbidden. I Timothy 2 limits the type of speaking done in mixed company. I Corinthians 14 forbids addressing the assembly in a particular situation, when in church.

Nor is a woman forbidden from teaching children. "Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control" (I Timothy 2:15). A woman's salvation is enhanced when she has children, if her children remain steadfast in godly living. The implication is that she is involved in their rearing and their teaching.

When Are We in Church?
I believe that most women in the church understand these issues, but the area of controversy has been what constitutes "in church." Everyone agrees that when the church is assembled for worship that I Corinthians 14 applies, but what about gatherings for the purpose of studying God's word?

In the context of I Corinthians 14, the emphasis is on a gathering of the whole church (I Corinthians 14:23, 26). This gathering is properly called the church (ekklesia in the Greek, meaning an assembly). In this gathering, acts of worship are being done, including that of teaching (I Corinthians 14:26). Other passages also show the church as a whole acting together in worship (I Corinthians 10:16-17; 11:17-34). Rhoda could speak during the gathering at Mary's house because, while many Christians were gathered, it was not an assembly of the whole church.

The gatherings are times set aside to gather as a church. "When you come together as a church" (I Corinthians 11:18) indicates that Christians can gather without automatically forming a church. In order for a gathering to be "in church" Christians must gather for that purpose. We see the church gathered for other reasons. In Acts 15:4 the church gathered to hear Paul and Barnabas' report. They also determined to send representatives with a message to other churches while gathered (Acts 15:22). These were times when the church acted as a unit, but it wasn't gathered for the purpose of worship. The group acts as a church, but the group is not in church. Thus we read that the whole church (men and women together) being pleased to select deacons (Acts 6:5) and to send a letter with men to deliver it (Acts 15:22). The implication is the Christians, men and women combined, gave their assent in some fashion. This was possible because the local church wasn't gathered at the time for the purpose of being in church.

Is a Time Set Aside by the Congregation for Bible Study "in Church?"
If a church, as a part of their worship assembly, decided to hold an instructional session where the men could ask questions and make comments on the lesson, then that time would be one where the women would have to remain silent. Interactive teaching can be just as much a part of worship as preaching (Acts 2:42; I Corinthians 14:26). It is an opportunity "that all may learn and all may be encouraged" (I Corinthians 14:31).

However, it is also proper to have Bible studies where the entire church is not present. Once again, Aquila and Priscilla are examples of this in Acts 18:24-26. Since this is not an assembly of the entire congregation for the purpose of being in church, the silence of I Corinthians 14 doesn't apply, though rules for quietness in I Timothy 2 still remains. If we could all divide into classes scattered across the city, why could we not divide into classes, but meet in a common location? These classes would not be a part of the worship of the church because the congregation, as a whole, is not gathered together. Even though all the members of the congregation are studying in different rooms, and in those rooms acts of worship (praying, singing, and instruction) are taking place, it remains that the church hasn't called a gathering for the purpose of the entire church to worship. Coming to one location for multiple Bible classes would not constitute being in church.

 

[HARK!]

Could you clarify when women may speak in church?

I'm, not prepared to answer this question. As I'm not a woman; I haven't dug deeply into this subject.

I will say this. In the last Sunday, KJV church I attended; all of the men would attend, and vote at the board meetings. The women and children would all go to the fellowship hall, for fun, while the men attended the meeting. There was never a question. It's just what we did.

In the last Messianic congregation, the main leader asked if the women wanted to be involved in the board meetings. In order to be at those board meetings. one had to be approved by the core leaders. He asked several times, at the end of a service. All of the women kept saying, " no let the men make the decisions."

However, the smartest of the women asked asked if they could sit in on the meeting anyway. They were approved. Then strangely they wanted to speak at the meetings. However they wouldn't vote. The main leader would have allowed their vote. Some of them were very passionate about certain subjects; but even then they wouldn't vote, even when they were asked for their vote.

I liked the Messianic leader's approach. It wasn't oppressive. It was inclusive of the sensitivities of the women. I also respect the women who didn't attend those meetings on principle. I also respect the women who attended, let the men do most of the talking, and would not vote even when the opportunity was offered. Some of them were more insightful on certain subjects than the men; but in the end they submitted to silence.

I don't want to beat women with the Bible. We can share the scripture in a way that isn't directed at anyone personally; and let the Ruach bring conviction to each person.

I try to put myself in their place. I wouldn't want a group of women putting pressure on me, to live according to obligations that YHWH has for men. For example, Christian women tend to stay out of discussions about circumcision. I'm thankful for this.

You may wish to start a thread on this topic; if you are a woman. If you are a man; I'd walk gently on this topic.

I appreciate the opportunity to give you my opinion on the subject; but this is not the subject of this thread.

 

[Sammy-San]

I'm, not prepared to answer this question. As I'm not a woman; I haven't dug deeply into this subject.

I will say this. In the last Sunday, KJV church I attended; all of the men would attend, and vote at the board meetings. The women and children would all go to the fellowship hall, for fun, while the men attended the meeting. There was never a question. It's just what we did.

In the last Messianic congregation, the main leader asked if the women wanted to be involved in the board meetings. In order to be at those board meetings. one had to be approved by the core leaders. He asked several times, at the end of a service. All of the women kept saying, " no let the men make the decisions."

However, the smartest of the women asked asked if they could sit in on the meeting anyway. They were approved. Then strangely they wanted to speak at the meetings. However they wouldn't vote. The main leader would have allowed their vote. Some of them were very passionate about certain subjects; but even then they wouldn't vote, even when they were asked for their vote.

I liked the Messianic leader's approach. It wasn't oppressive. It was inclusive of the sensitivities of the women. I also respect the women who didn't attend those meetings on principle. I also respect the women who attended, let the men do most of the talking, and would not vote even when the opportunity was offered. Some of them were more insightful on certain subjects than the men; but in the end they submitted to silence.

I don't want to beat women with the Bible. We can share the scripture in a way that isn't directed at anyone personally; and let the Ruach bring conviction to each person.

I try to put myself in their place. I wouldn't want a group of women putting pressure on me, to live according to obligations that YHWH has for men. For example, Christian women tend to stay out of discussions about circumcision. I'm thankful for this.

You may wish to start a thread on this topic; if you are a woman. If you are a man; I'd walk gently on this topic.

I appreciate the opportunity to give you my opinion on the subject; but this is not the subject of this thread.

Female rabbis or Messianic rabbis isn't Bibical

 

[HARK!]

Female rabbis or Messianic rabbis isn't Bibical

Matthew 23:8

Complete Jewish Bible

8 “But you are not to let yourselves be called ‘Rabbi’; because you have one Rabbi, and you are all each other’s brothers.

 

[Sammy-San]

Matthew 23:8

Complete Jewish Bible

8 “But you are not to let yourselves be called ‘Rabbi’; because you have one Rabbi, and you are all each other’s brothers.

Those people might not know Hebrew.

 

[Sammy-San]

Matthew 23:8

Complete Jewish Bible

8 “But you are not to let yourselves be called ‘Rabbi’; because you have one Rabbi, and you are all each other’s brothers.

It's kinda interesting that father rabbi and priest are all not Bibical titles

 

[FredVB]

"Father, rabbi, and priest are all not Biblical titles"

Priests were yet used for God's purposes in the Bible, still they only were models for what Christ who was promised is for us who come to him and with repentant faith are believers. The one single Father to us is God, so we are not to address men as Father. There is more to grow to while God does save us with grace. If we are saved, God's will would be important to us.

 

[FredVB]

(CLV) Lk 1:5
There came to be, in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zechariah, of the routine of Abiah, and his wife, of the daughters of Aaron, and her name is Elizabeth.

(CLV) Lk 1:6
Now they were both just in front of God, going in all the precepts and just statutes of the Lord, blameless.

Who says it's impossible?

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

It is possible in the sense that Christ is the real priesthood, sacrifice with the only real effective atonement, and the full way of being made clean in the needed way to come to God, that there were models for in the law, while commandments are still meaningful for it, and the perfection is only with what is shown at the end of Genesis 1, that is also for us.

'As' in the passage can be understood to mean because your Father in heaven is perfect. We cannot have perfection of God, but we can live as God meant us to live. But stop sinning, for that.

 

[Soyeong]

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

To become a character trait is to become someone who chooses to be a doer of that trait while it contradictory to become a character trait whihtout choosing to become a doer of that trait, so to become courageous is to become a doer of courageousness while it would be contradictory to become courageous whithout choosing to become that, and the same is true for what it means for God and for us to be righteous. So to become righteous is to become a doer of righteousness in obedience to God's law and it would be contradictory to become righteous without choosing to become a doer of righteousness, though we do not earn our righteousness as a wage as the result of our obedience to it. This is why we are declared righteous by faith apart from having done any works to result in earning it while the faith by which we are declared righteous does not abolish our need to be a doer of the law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romana 3:28-31).

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 His law, and he chose the way of faithfulness by setting God's law before him, so this has always been the one and only way to become righteous by grace through faith.

Obvious.
Romans 4:3. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Galatians 3:19. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

YHWH's Law is eternally righteous, eternally perfect, but does not impute righteousness to sinful man.
Romans 3:20. 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.

It is as if tomorrow you read in Car and Driver magazine that the 2020 Porsche is the ultimate, perfect driving machine. You can buy one, but it doesn't make you the ultimate, perfect driver. You better scoot over and let Yahshua drive, before you wrap yourself around a tree.

Galatians 3:17. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the
promise of none effect.

While there are many verses like Romans 4:1-5 that speak against earning our righteousness as the result of our obedience to God's law, there are also many verses like Romans 2:13 that show that our righteousness nevertheless still requires us to choose to be a doer of the law, so there must be reasons why our righteousness requires us to choose to be a doer of the law other than in order to earn it as a wage.

In regard to Galatians 3:19, in Acts 3:25-26, Jesus was sent as the see to whom the promise was made in order to bless us by turning us from our wickedness, which is calling for us to repent and obey God's law in accordance with spreading the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), which he spread to those in Haran in accordance with the promise (Genesis 12:1-5). In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him, and in Psalms 119:1-3, God's law is how the children of Abraham knew how to be blessed, so the way that the children are multiplied and are a blessing to the nations in accordance with the promise is by blessing the nations by turning them from their wickedness and teaching them to do the same works as Abraham did in obedience to God's law in accordance with spreading the Gospel.

Blameless by the Law is based on the fact that the sacrifices atoned for the sins of the people.
They lived in accordance with the Law.
Romans 10:
5 For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.”
6 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above)
7 or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Hebrews 10:
1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in God's 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 lawless 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)

In Romans 9:30-10:4, they had a zeal for God, but it was not based on knowing him, so they failed to attain righteousness because they pursued the law as though righteousness were the result of their works instead of pursuing it as through righteousness were by faith in Christ, for knowing Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Romans 10:5-13, this faith references Deuteronomy 30:11-16 as the word of faith that we proclaim by saying that God's law is not too difficult for us to obey, the one who obeys it will attain life by it, in regard to what we are agreeing to obey by confessing that Jesus is Lord, and in regard to the way to believe that God rose him from the dead.

Paul does that quite adequately, continuing from your post:
Philippians 3:
7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ.
8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,
11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
12 Not that I have already attained,or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.
13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead,
14 I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
15 Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.
16 Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule,
let us be of the same mind.

In accordance with Jesus saying that he would tell workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, it would be incorrect to interpret that passage as saying that we just need to know Christ and obeying the law is rubbish. Rather, Paul had been in the same situation as those in Romans 9:30-10:4, where he had been obeying the law, but without being focused on knowing Christ through it, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law, and that is what he counted as rubbish.

 

[Soyeong]

There is none righteous no not one...

At judgement if you try to justify yourself by claiming to have kept the law, you will be sorely disappointed...

Who would refuse the free gift of salvation, unless they pride themselves in self righteousness.

This is the beauty of the Gospel - that He fulfilled the law for us so that we would be released from an obligation we could never keep - why keep arguing about that ???????

There are many people who are described as being righteous, so Romans 3:10 was not denying this, but rather it was quoting Psalms 14:1-3, which says that no one is righteous who says that there is no God.

In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so God graciously teaching us to obey His law is the content of His gift of salvation, and to refuse to do that is to refuse the free gift of salvation. Relying on ourselves does not involve relying on on anyone else, so relying on what God has instructed is the way to rely on God, not the way to rely on ourselves.

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 God's law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, while saying that Jesus fulfilled the law for us so that we don't need to repent would be the opposite of the Gospel message,

In Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that His law is not too difficult for us to keep.

Hebrews explains why...

It was unbelief that prevented them from entering...

Hebrews 3:18-19 says that it was unbelief/disobedience that prevented the from entering.

 

[Soyeong]

Mathew 9
Then the disciples of John approached him and said, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast [much], but your disciples do not fast?”** for its fullness pulls away from the cloak and the tear gets worse. 17 People do not put new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise the skins burst, the wine spills out, and the skins are ruined. Rather, they pour new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”


This passage had a lot to say not just in its immediate context (Jesus dealing with Jewish fasting traditions vs. his ministry), but in the greater context of moving from the New Covenant to the Old Covenant. It seems to me that some Hebrew roots people are trying to find ways to convince the rest of us gentile believers that we need to find ways of greasing up the old wine skin of Torah observance, compared to the one we have of simply following Christ.

Jesus did not start speaking about the New Covenant and establish it until the end of his ministry, so everything that he taught prior to that point was in regard to the way to live under the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus had just selected his disciples, he was being questions about why they weren't fasting, and he gave a parable to answer that question which has nothing to do with moving on from the Mosaic Covenant, so anachoristic for you to try insert that into it.

 

[Soyeong]

It is quite clear what YHWH expects - absolute perfect obedience, even better than that of the Pharisees. Are you there yet?

God's law came with instructions for what to do when the people sinned, so God did not expect absolute perfect obedience.

 

[Soyeong]

And he never said to Gentiles; "when you follow me, that means keeping the whole of the Jewish law."

Jesus set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Torah, so he would have still taught full obedience to it even if he had said nothing, and we are told to follow his example of reframing from sin (1 Peter 2:21-22), so Gentiles can decide whether or not they want to do that in accordance with the Gospel message, but Gentiles can't follow him by refusing to follow what he taught. Following his example of reframing from sin does not refer to things like wearing robes and sandals. Following Jesus is not just for Jews, but for Gentiles too.

No, he told us to put God first, love him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and love our neighbours as ourselves. He said that ALL the law and the prophets hung on that. He gave us a new commandment, which was to love as he has loved us, as well as other commands such as "go into all the world", "do this in memory of me" etc.

In Deuteronomy 6:4-7, the way to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength is by keeping the Torah on our heart and by teaching and speaking about it throughout the day. If love God and our neighbor, then we won't commit idolatry, adultery, murder, theft, kidnapping, rape, favoritism, and so forth for God's other laws, so the reason why the laws hang on the greatest two commandments is because they are all examples of what it means to correctly. Jesus expressed his love for us through His obedience to the Torah, so that is how we are to love one another as he loved us. In Matthew 24:12-14, Jesus said that because of lawlessness the love of many will grow cold, so he wasn't saying that we just need to love and can disobey everything else. So if you believe that you should obey the greatest two commandments, then you should also believe that you should obey God's other commandments.

Jesus took people further than the law; e.g, the law said "an eye for an eye .....". If a person was living purely by the law, if someone punched them and took their eye out, they had the right to do the same to them. But Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, that if someone tried to sue you for your coat to let him have your shirt as well and that we should treat others as we would like them to treat us. The law said "do not commit adultery", but Jesus said that to even look at a woman lustfully was committing adultery in the heart.

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from it, so he did not do that, but even if he could have done that without disqualifying himself as our Savior, then that would mean that we should still obey the Mosaic Law plus what he added to it. If we correctly understand what is being commanded by the 7th and 10th Commandments against adultery and coveting in our heart, then we won't lust after a woman in our heart, so He was just teaching how the law was always intended to be understood, not adding to it.

Paul lived in obedience to Christ.
He taught that the law, and circumcision, could not save. He said that those who preached circumcision for salvation were false teachers,

The reason why God commanded circumcised was never as a means of earning our salvation, so while Paul spoke against become circumcised for incorrect reasons, he never spoke against obeying what God has commanded.

If he had expected his Gentile followers to start obeying a law that was not given to them, he would have said so - and you should be able to quote the Scripture which says that.

Jesus did spend his ministry teaching how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and then his commissioned his disciples to make disciples of all nations, teaching everything that he taught them.

He wasn't teaching obedience to the law; he said he had come to fulfil the law.

To fulfill the law is "to cause God's will as made known through His law to be obeyed as he should be", so fulfilling the law is teaching it.

"that does not say that Gentiles who follow Jesus and have eternal life need to keep the law."

In Matthew 19:17 and Luke 10:25-28, Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying. God's commandments.

The law still exists and is valid, but Gentile believers who are in Christ and have freedom, eternal life, forgiveness and every blessing are not told that they have to keep it - and never were.

God's law is God's word and Jesus is God's word made flesh, so it is contradictory to believe in Christ while rejecting God's word.

GOD saves us, not any actions of our own.
A person could be circumcised, keep the law flawlessly and yet rejected Jesus - do you think they will be saved?
And if you agree that only Jesus can save (good) are you saying that people have to keep the law to keep their salvation?

Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and the Torah is how we know what sin is (1 John 3:4), so living in obedience to it through faith in Jesus is intrinsically part of the concept of him saving us from not living in obedience to it. For example, honoring our parents is the way that Jesus saves us from not honoring our parents, and the same is true of God's other laws. It is contradictory for someone who thinks that they don't need to obey the Torah to think that they need salvation from not obeying it.

So, yes, of course I believe the law and the prophets, I just don't live by everything that they taught. They pointed to Jesus; I believe in him.

We should live in a way that point towards Christ, so if you agree that the Torah point toward him, then you should live in obedience to it rather than living in a way that points away from him.

My whole point is that we don't attain perfection, or even prove obedience to Christ, by keeping OT laws. Just because I don't believe that women are unclean at certain times of the month, and that we can go out and meet others during this time, does not mean that I don't believe in, or follow, God.

The God of Israel gave instructions for how to believe in and follow Him, so the extent that you refuse to follow those instructions is the extent that you do not believe in or follow Him. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, so if someone refuses to follow those instructions, then they do not believe that God is holy. If God were not holy, then it would make no difference in the way that they live, so they instead choose to live in a way that points to a god who is not holy.

 

[Soyeong]

The scripture as well as the Apostles teach that all who claim Christ as savior try to obey the law but understand He is the only one who has. No sincere christian believes we should not even try to obey but understands we cannot perfectly, therefore by faith we are credited with righteousness. Anyone who seeks righteousness by the law alone will fall, just as Adam and Eve did. I do not think there are many who are stupid enough to seek salvation by the law alone, just as there are not many who seek salvation by faith alone.

In Proverbs 3:5-7, we have a choice of whether we are going to lean on our own understanding of right and wrong by doing what is right in our own eyes or whether we are going to trust in God with all of our heart to correctly make that division through what He has instructed, and he will make our paths straight, so that is what it means to have faith.

While Paul denies that we can earn our righteousness as a wage even through perfect obedience (Roman 4:1-5), he also said that only doers of the law will be declared righteous (Romans 2:13), so there must be reasons why our righteousness requires us to choose to be doers of the aw other than in order to earn it as a wage, such as faith insofar as our faith upholds God's law (Romans 3:31).

 

[Soyeong]

Paul stated that he had zeal for obedience to Torah before he came to know Christ and in respect of his zeal for obedience to Torah and his obedience to Torah, he was blameless.

Then he said he now considers all that (his zeal for the law and for obedience to Torah and considering himself or being considered "blameless" with regard to obedience to Torah), rubbish for the sake of knowing Christ, which he explains in Romans is the righteousness God freely gives through faith in Christ, which is by grace (unearned by obedience to Torah).

In the very next verse Paul even describes his "blamelessness" in terms of obedience to Torah and Zeal for obedience to Torah as dung:

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ (verse 8),

Then he goes on to say,

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (verse 9).

Obedience to Torah and attempts to be found blameless, as well as undue concern with being found blameless in terms of Torah = attempts to earn the stamp of righteousness - but that righteousness is a free gift from God which comes to all and upon all who believe in Jesus and trust only in Him and in His righteousness.

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 Christ is the goal of the Torah. As such, Philippians 3:8-9 should not be interpreted as saying that we just need to know Christ and being zealous for obeying the Torah is dung, but rather Paul had been keeping the Torah without being focusing on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the Torah, and that is what he counted as dung. The goal of the Torah was never to provide of means of earning our righteousness as a wage even through perfect obedience, so that has never been the reason why we should obey it. In Titus 2:11-14, our salvation is described as being trained by grace to do what is godly, righteous, and good, and to renounce doing what is ungodly, so we do not earn our salvation as the result of having done those works and we do not need to do those works as the result of having been saved, but rather God graciously teaching us to do those works is itself the content of His gift of salvation.

The Law that God writes on the heart of those whom the Spirit of Christ indwells is the very natural inclination to love God with all of the heart, mind, soul and strength and to love one's neighbor as yourself which Christ possesses and is breathed into the spirit and heart and mind of those who abide in Him, who is the vine, so that they can bear the same righteous fruit that exists in the Spirit of Christ which is living in them. The written Torah is only a shadow of this, and obedience to its manifold laws regarding unclean foods, and observance of sabbath days, new moon festivals and feasts is only a show of the good things to come in Christ, which has now already come. It's quite obvious that anyone who has the Spirit of Christ living in him or her is not going to murder, not going to steal, not going to covet his neighbors goods or wife, not going to tell a lie (bearing false witness about) his neighbor, will honor his parents, etc:

The foreshadows testify about what is to come and we should live in a way that testifies about the truth of what is to come rather than a way that denies it.

"Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
For: "Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not bear false witness; do not lust;" and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love works no ill to its neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Rom 13:8-10.

The entire Old Testament now exists only for instruction, for teaching regarding righteousness, and to lead all who read it to Christ. The Torah, likewise, was a schoolmaster to lead to Christ: "so that the law became our child-conductor--to Christ, that by faith we may be declared righteous," Gal 3:24.

The Torah leads us to Christ because its goal is to teach us how to know him, but it does not lead us to Christ so that we can then reject what he taught.

It's not good in terms of our relationship with God to continue to choose to misunderstand or ignore the plain truth of the gospel, which is that God credits righteousness to the one who has faith in Christ apart from any reference to Torah or obedience to Torah. Insistence on obedience to Torah is the same as hanging onto the covenant which God made with the people in the day he took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, which covenant was broken by the people and replaced by a New Covenant in the blood of Christ which was shed for many due to failure to obey the law - because the law, the Torah, cannot produce righteousness, no matter how blameless a person is in respect of obedience to it. Such righteousness exists only in the Spirit of Christ and is credited only to those who believe in Christ, through their faith in Him.

Paul considered his past way of life - his zeal for Torah and for obedience to Torah, and his blamelessness in terms of his obedience to Torah - as dung once he came to Christ. This is what he is stating in the passage you quoted.

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 by his obedience to God as a wage (Romans 4:1-5). In James 2:21-24, it quotes Genesis 15:6 to support saying that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered Isaac, that his faith was active along with his works, and his faith complete his works, so he was justified by his works insofar as they were an expression of his faith, but not insofar as they were earning a wage.

So becoming someone who has faith, who is justified, and who is a doer of the law are all linked such that we become all three at the same time, so anyone who has one also is the others and anyone who is missing one is also missing the others. This is how Paul can say that only doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13), that we are justified by faith apart from having done any works to earn it, and that the faith by which we are justified does not abolish our need to be a doer of the law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:31).

The Torah is God's instructions for how to do what is righteous, not for how to become righteous. For example, the Torah reveals that it is righteous to help the poor, but no amount of helping the poor will ever cause someone to become righteous because the one an do only way to become righteous is by grace through faith. So when God declares us to be righteous, He is also declaring us to be someone who chooses to do what is righteous in obedience to His law, which is the the content of the gift of righteousness.

 

[Soyeong]

I would have added these:

""Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."" - Matthew 22:36–40 NASB ​

​

"And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE."" - Luke 10:25–28 NASB​

Did you ever ask yourself whether you can walk in to the front door of heaven simply by keeping the Law? It's very important that we understand if Jesus is telling us that we are capable of being blameless under the law? We are at least being told that if we can keep the great commandment we are not going to violate any other law from God's perspective.

I think the first thing to notice in the context here is that in both instances the intention of the questioner is testing Jesus, not prying open the doors of heaven. So in the Luke passage the questioner throws in the eternal life element. Thus, Jesus addressed that in his answer. I think we should not read too much into the answer.

Yes, if we managed to die having kept the great commandment perpetually and cumulatively for the entire course of our lives, we could in fact just walk in the front door of heaven on the ground of merit, not having plead the blood of Christ on judgment day.

But I suspect you question is more of a sanctification one. As I read the epistles I believe the answer is we can't achieve perfection this side of glory, so the question becomes, what are these passages trying to tell us?

I think that it's telling us something very basic that we all seem to miss. God is our creator who made us "in his image." Because of this we exist with an absolute obligation never to violate his moral holiness. That obligation is absolute whether our forwarding address is in heaven or hell. This rule is absolutely universal. Furthermore God own the universe in which we live. That makes God the ruler of the universe which means we have an absolute obligation never to violate any of his moral laws. Given there is no place but this universe for us to exist, at least for the moment, that obligation is as absolute as it can be.

If that was the end of it that would be bad news. If God is perfectly holy and perfectly immutable then not damning law breakers to hell would destroy God's holiness on the fulcrum of his immutably, unless I'm missing something. After all God can't be less than completely God even for a nanosecond.

Happily God is also love. As such without violating God's justice which says his wrath must be pored out because of the violation of the law, how can redemption be consistent with Gods moral holiness. If only there were someone bigger than the infinite wrath of God to receive that punishment! But what could possibly be bigger than God's wrath? Well, that would be God the Son.

God is not just our Creator, and our Ruler, he is also our Redeemer. That means that the only plea that will work on judgment day will be, I appeal to the finished work of Christ on the cross, not to my obedience, to satisfy the judgment against my record.

But it's a funny thing. When we avail ourselves to this pardon, we receive the Holy Spirit. Power from on high. Now keeping that moral law, that is more possible for us now than it's ever been. Again as I read the epistles, I don't think anyone gets so completely sanctified that we never again fail to meet one of our obligations to God, but I think we can get a lot closer than we generally acknowledge. And in my judgment, that is the point of these passages.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he might know Him and Israel too, and in Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said that only those who do the will of the Father will enter the Kingdom of Heaven in contrast with saying that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart because he never knew them, so knowing God and Jesus is the goal of the law, which is eternal life (John 17:13), which is also why Jesus said that the way to enter eternal life is by obeying God's commandments (Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:25-28). Likewise, Jesus has become a source of eternal salvation for those who obey him (Hebrews 5:9) and those who obeyed God's commandments are given the right to eat from the Tree of Life (Revelation 22:14), so it is clear that obeying God's commandments is the way to enter eternal life/heaven, which is because they are His instructions for how to do that.

In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good work, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law is the way to believe in what he accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20), which is also the way to please the blood of Christ.

It should be noted that none of these verses say anything about needing to have perfect obedience. God's law came with instructions for what to do when the people sinned, so it never required us to have perfect obedience. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that God's law is not too difficult to obey and that obedience to 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, and this is the word of faith that we proclaim in Romana 10:5-10. Repentance doesn't change the fact that we have not had perfect obedience, so the fact that we can repent demonstrates that we don't need perfect obedience. Even if someone managed to have perfect obedience to God's law, then there still wouldn't be anything that we earn as a wage that God owes us in return for our works (Romans 4:1-5).

 

[Soyeong]

I think you are on to something. What God has revealed to man over time is progressive and directional. God when from protecting Cain the first murderer, with a mark to protect him from retribution, to commanding Noah that murderers must be put to death. If we consider the human race became so wicked God had to essentially end it in the flood, ostensibly as a result of protecting the murderer Cain. We subsequently observe the human race is not much better when we execute murderers. It seems to me that this is a divine invitation to conclude that temporal solutions to sin don't work. And God paints the evidence across history for us to draw this conclusion. Whatever "law" Abraham understood the notion of offering sacrifices to God was no news to either him or his son Isaac.

The penalty for committing murder is death, so the fact that Cain was not given the death penalty is a strong indication that he was not found guilty of committing murder, but rather him being concerned about being avenged and being given protection shows that he was treated in accordance with what would be instructed in Deuteronomy 19 for how to treat those who commit accidental manslaughter.

And God seems to lead this family more by providence than law from Abraham to Moses. Then Moses establishing judges which carry through to the time of Samuel, when we move into this kingdom period which is again noticeably different. But whether we are talking about the captivity or from Nehemiah to John the Baptist what God seems to he holding people responsible for, seems to be sharpened and refined across time.

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 God's law 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 message, which is in accordance with Jesus been sent in fulfillment of the promise to bless us by turning us from our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26), which is the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8), and which he spread to those in Haran in accordance with the promise (Genesis 12:1-5).

In Genesis 18:19, God knew Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by doing righteousness and justice that the Lord may bring to him all that He has promised. In Genesis 26:4-5, God will multiply Abraham's children as the stars in the heaven, to his children he will give all of these lands, and through his children all of the nations of the earth will be blessed because he heard God's voice and guarded His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws. In Deuteronomy 30:16, if they love the Lord their God with all of their heart by walking in His way in obedience to His commandments, statutes, and laws, then they will live and multiply and God will bless the in the land that they go to possess. So the promise was made to Abraham and brought about because he walked in God's way in obedience to His law, he taught his children and those of his household to do that, and because they did that in obedience to the Torah.

In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works that he did, and in Psalms 119:1-3, the Torah is how the children of Abraham knew how to be blessed by walking in God's way, so the way that the children of Abraham are multiplied and are a blessing to the nations in accordance with inheriting the promise through faith is by turning the nations from their wickedness and by teaching them to do the same works as Abraham by walking in God's way in obedience to the Torah in accordance with spreading the Gospel.

Then Jesus fulfills the ceremonial law of the Jews by becoming high priest, and fulfills the civil law of the Jews by becoming King. The only law that has not been fulfilled is the moral law, because it is grounded in the holiness of God which is immutable, and thus can never be "fulfilled." I don't mean to say Jesus didn't keep it. He certainly did. What I do mean to say is that it's requirements can never be satisfied which is why our salvation, in part, turns on the impeccability of Christ.

NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo
"to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment"

After Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5, he immediately proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it as it should be. According to Galatians 5:14, everyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done. 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 His law, and he chose the way of faithfulness by setting God's law before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith.

The Bible never specifies which laws are moral, civil, or ceremonial, and never even refers to those as being categories of law. If a group of people were to create lists of which of God's laws that they considered to be in each of those categories, then you would end up with a wide variety of lists that have not been derived from the Bible, and those people should not interpret the authors of the Bible as referring to something that they just created. For example, are laws in regard to marriage moral, civil, or ceremonial? Is the law against rape civil or moral? People are free to decide for themselves and categorize God's laws however they want, but just because they have the freedom to do that does not establish that the any of the authors of the Bible categorized God's laws in the same way. I have the freedom to 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 I would run into error if I tried to interpret the Bible as referring to a category of law that I just created.

 

[bbbbbbb]

God's law came with instructions for what to do when the people sinned, so God did not expect absolute perfect obedience.

Nice. So I can enjoy my life as an antinomian now.

 

[Soyeong]

Nice. So I can enjoy my life as an antinomian now.

If you want to be against God's word, then you have that freedom, but I would advise that you instead heed the Gospel message and repent.