Did Jesus assert that some OT laws weren't God's ideal

[Hawkins]

You said:
The 613 requirements of the Mosaic Law are possible within a man's own strength.

Romans 9:30-32 says the opposite.

So too Ephesians 2:8-9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

Galatians 3.

The big picture is that a covenant with its laws or lack thereof of is for the identifying of the righteous from the wicked. If a covenant failed to identify the righteous, it means that God will grant another covenant. Israel has more covenants because through them God will grant the final and permanent covenant brought by Jesus.

Romans 9 says that by the time when not even the Jews can abide by the covenant granted to them through Moses, it's time for a new covenant to be granted, this time it's for both the Jews and gentiles.

 

[Hawkins]

(1) that the "hardness of heart" which made this concession necessary may be admitted as at least a partial explanation of whatever else in the Law of Moses strikes us as deviating from the standard of eternal righteousness embodied in the law of Christ--as, e.g., the tolerance of polygamy and slavery, and the severity of punishment for seeming trivial faults;

A covenant is signed off with the blood of Jesus Christ, it basically says that "since you human kind cannot abide by God's Law to its full extent, you are given a set of laws (such as Mosaic Law) such that when you can observe this set of laws to a predefined standard (with Moses as the accuser and Jesus as the Judge in terms of Mosaic Law), you will be saved through Jesus Christ. Mosaic Law is thus part of the covenant which requires the Jews to observe to a said standard and to be saved through Jesus Christ.

What being original, such as one husband one wife and "lust is a sin" are in the original Law of God, which is applicable to both humans and angels and broken by both Adam and Satan in Eden while Mosaic Law is only applicable to humans (the Jews in specific).

 

[RDKirk]

A covenant is signed off with the blood of Jesus Christ, it basically says that "since you human kind cannot abide by God's Law to its full extent, you are given a set of laws (such as Mosaic Law) such that when you can observe this set of laws to a predefined standard (with Moses as the accuser and Jesus as the Judge in terms of Mosaic Law), you will be saved through Jesus Christ. Mosaic Law is thus part of the covenant which requires the Jews to observe to a said standard and to be saved through Jesus Christ.

What being original, such as one husband one wife and "lust is a sin" are in the original Law of God, which is applicable to both humans and angels and broken by both Adam and Satan in Eden while Mosaic Law is only applicable to humans (the Jews in specific).

I think I agree with that. I do agree with the first paragraph.

 

[janxharris]

No, you misunderstand the basic words of both me and Romans 9.

I said that the 613 requirements of the Mosaic law are possible within a man's own strength, and indeed they are. There isn't a single one of those 613 requirements that a man can't physically perform, and in fact, the Pharisees did...scrupulously, every single one of them. Jesus even acknowledged that they did. And God said they could: "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach." Deuteronomy 30

Romans 9 is talking about righteousness and salvation. Performing the 613 requirements of the Mosaic Law had nothing to do with righteousness and salvation, and that is Paul's point.

If you are arguing with me that performing the 613 requirements of the Mosaic Law are the requirements for salvation, then you totally misunderstand what Paul was saying.

I have never heard this view before.

Where does Jesus acknowledge that the Pharisees did observe the Law?

 

[janxharris]

No, you misunderstand the basic words of both me and Romans 9.

I know of no one who can explain Romans 9. Perhaps you do understand it.

Certainly, those verses appear to back the Calvinist's argument.

 

[Hawkins]

I have never heard this view before.

Where does Jesus acknowledge that the Pharisees did observe the Law?

Matthew 23:2-3 (NIV2011)
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

 

[RDKirk]

I have never heard this view before.

Where does Jesus acknowledge that the Pharisees did observe the Law?

At the same time He throws woe grenades at them for failing to observe the "weightier" intentions of the Law--that are not expressed as explicit commands of procedure.

(When the Lord of all creation sics the forces of woe upon someone, it's gonna leave a mark.)

 

[janxharris]

At the same time He throws woe grenades at them for failing to observe the "weightier" intentions of the Law--that are not expressed as explicit commands of procedure.

(When the Lord of all creation sics the forces of woe upon someone, it's gonna leave a mark.)

Jesus considers justice, mercy and faithfulness as 'matters of the law' - so, surely, there is no sense in which Jesus is acknowledging their observance.

Micah 6:8
"What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

 

[janxharris]

Matthew 23:2-3 (NIV2011)
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

That is an assertion that they didn't observe the law.

 

[RDKirk]

Jesus considers justice, mercy and faithfulness as 'matters of the law' - so, surely, there is no sense in which Jesus is acknowledging their observance.

Micah 6:8
"What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

Jesus acknowledges that they perform the 613 procedure commands, down to the degree of tithing from the sparsest of spices and straining the gnats out of their water.

 

[janxharris]

Jesus acknowledges that they perform the 613 procedure commands, down to the degree of tithing from the sparsest of spices and straining the gnats out of their water.

But do you acknowledge that justice, mercy and faithfulness are matters of the law? Surely, whenever 'the law' is mentioned, such matters are included?

Regarding Romans 9, it remains deeply shocking that this writer casually makes the assertion that:

"God not only divinely elects those who will have faith in Jesus Christ, but also divinely elects to grant to these individuals the faith to believe in Christ."

I don't know of anything that could be more repugnant to those curious to know about what Jesus actually stands for and what they are to believe in.

The trouble is, Romans 9 can be interpreted in such a way.

 

[RDKirk]

But do you acknowledge that justice, mercy and faithfulness are matters of the law? Surely, whenever 'the law' is mentioned, such matters are included?

Justice, mercy, and faithfulness are the foundation of the Law, but the 613 procedures of the Law can be carried out as a cold duty without a heart of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, and that is what the Pharisees were doing.

Regarding Romans 9, it remains deeply shocking that this writer casually makes the assertion that:

"God not only divinely elects those who will have faith in Jesus Christ, but also divinely elects to grant to these individuals the faith to believe in Christ."

I don't know of anything that could be more repugnant to those curious to know about what Jesus actually stands for and what they are to believe in.

The trouble is, Romans 9 can be interpreted in such a way.

It can be interpreted that way because that's what it says.

But that misses Paul's point. Paul is not arguing that God can condemn whoever He wants to condemn by His own sovereign decision. The Jews already knew that.

Paul is arguing that God can save whoever He wants to save by His own sovereign decision. The Jews didn't know that.

 

[janxharris]

Justice, mercy, and faithfulness are the foundation of the Law, but the 613 procedures of the Law can be carried out as a cold duty without a heart of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, and that is what the Pharisees were doing.



It can be interpreted that way because that's what it says.

But that misses Paul's point. Paul is not arguing that God can condemn whoever He wants to condemn by His own sovereign decision. The Jews already knew that.

Paul is arguing that God can save whoever He wants to save by His own sovereign decision. The Jews didn't know that.

You aren't disagreeing with gotquestions.org's interpretation? You are asserting that God predetermines those individuals who will be enabled to have faith (unconditionally) and those who will not?

 

[danny ski]

Justice, mercy, and faithfulness are the foundation of the Law, but the 613 procedures of the Law can be carried out as a cold duty without a heart of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, and that is what the Pharisees were doing.



It can be interpreted that way because that's what it says.

But that misses Paul's point. Paul is not arguing that God can condemn whoever He wants to condemn by His own sovereign decision. The Jews already knew that.

Paul is arguing that God can save whoever He wants to save by His own sovereign decision. The Jews didn't know that.

The Jews didn't know that because Paul's doctrine of salvation from sin was not and is not part of the Jewish belief system.

 

[RDKirk]

You aren't disagreeing with gotquestions.org's interpretation? You are asserting that God predetermines those individuals who will be enabled to have faith (unconditionally) and those who will not?

Over the last 45 years, I've been studying and praying and watching this 500-year-old debate between "Armenianism" and "Calvinism" (put in quotes because they both have numerous permutations), and realized that every time I see it debated, the dispute not going to be resolved that day.

They both have arguments equally well-supported by scripture--which is why the debate has gone on so long without resolution.

But over the years, I've learned that debates are less meaningful than proceeding with the Mission--which is not under dispute. When all is said and done, there won't be any benefit to have argued a strong debate over the years...but there is benefit to have proceeded with the Mission.

But in proceeding with the Mission, I've observed something:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him -- John 6;44

I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them -- John 6:65

This is combined with something else Jesus said:

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet -- Matthew 10

I've seen 'way too often over the years that some people seem to be prepared to accept the gospel. They can pick up something as crude as a page from a Chick's tract in the gutter and Ka-Pow! the Holy Spirit has them. They hear it the first time and go, "Whoa! That's what I've been looking for!"

Then there are other people who can have had dozens of people preaching the gospel to them in the most eloquent manner, and they continually resist it. I have very rarely seen anyone "rationalized" into faith.

Something is going on there, something we're not directly privy to, and that that our "audience" for the gospel is not actually everyone, but those individuals who have been enable to accept it...although we don't know who those individuals are merely by looking at them.

But I do think there is something else crucial that must happen:

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. -- John 10

That verse says two things: One is that Jesus knows who are His. They are already identified to Him and by Him. The second is that those individuals will respond to His voice.

But they have to hear His voice, not just someone spouting Christianese Christo-babble at them. It is necessary for the would-be evangelist to be in the right place at the right time speaking the right words to the right people as directed to him by Jesus.

Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. -- Acts 16:6

I always kind of wonder how the Holy Spirit "prevented" them from going into Asia. I suspect it was merely by directing them explicitly Macedonia:

During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." Acts 16:9

That didn't mean nobody in Asia was enabled to receive the gospel, only that Paul wasn't the right person at the right time who'd say the right thing.

I knew a woman, a former prostitute, who I've spoken of before in these forums. She testified that she'd had preachers shouting Christianese Christo-babble at her many times, telling her she was damned to hell for her sins...and she had fully accepted that.

Then one day, a preacher from our church was speaking on the corner, and she said something held her there while he spoke. Then he said this: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! " That was her "wait...what?" moment.

The pastor who had said those words told me that at the end of the sermon, as they were packing to leave that night, a prostitute had walked up to him and put her finger right on his chest demanding, "What you said about a new creation and the old going away...is that the truth?"

Nobody had ever said to her before that it was possible to actually leave the baggage of sin behind.

It wasn't that she was not enabled--she had been enabled, which is why she felt herself unable to leave. But nobody had spoken to her before in the voice of Jesus speaking to His lost sheep. "You're going to hell!" is not "Come to me and be saved."

In fact, hell had never been that woman's destiny. She was known to Jesus, her name was written in His book, and she had been enabled by the Father. Whoever had told her she was going to hell had been lying to her, and she had not responded to that lie. But she did respond to the voice of Jesus speaking the truth.

That leaves me flirting with concepts that Calvinists have married. For sure, scripture speaks of election, predestination, individual enablement and such. Calvinists tend to preach that in emphasis of God culling out people to be condemned.

Rather, I tend to think of it in terms of creating confidence of success. If I go where Jesus tells me to go, when Jesus tells me to go, and speak to the people Jesus tells me to speak to with the words He has for them--if I've done those things correctly, I can be confident that He will have someone there who is enabled to accept it.

I think that's the intention of Romans 9.

 

[janxharris]

The Jews didn't know that because Paul's doctrine of salvation from sin was not and is not part of the Jewish belief system.

Romans 4:3
What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

 

[janxharris]

Over the last 45 years, I've been studying and praying and watching this 500-year-old debate between "Armenianism" and "Calvinism" (put in quotes because they both have numerous permutations), and realized that every time I see it debated, the dispute not going to be resolved that day.

They both have arguments equally well-supported by scripture--which is why the debate has gone on so long without resolution.

But over the years, I've learned that debates are less meaningful than proceeding with the Mission--which is not under dispute. When all is said and done, there won't be any benefit to have argued a strong debate over the years...but there is benefit to have proceeded with the Mission.

But in proceeding with the Mission, I've observed something:

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him -- John 6;44

I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them -- John 6:65

This is combined with something else Jesus said:

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet -- Matthew 10

I've seen 'way too often over the years that some people seem to be prepared to accept the gospel. They can pick up something as crude as a page from a Chick's tract in the gutter and Ka-Pow! the Holy Spirit has them. They hear it the first time and go, "Whoa! That's what I've been looking for!"

Then there are other people who can have had dozens of people preaching the gospel to them in the most eloquent manner, and they continually resist it. I have very rarely seen anyone "rationalized" into faith.

Something is going on there, something we're not directly privy to, and that that our "audience" for the gospel is not actually everyone, but those individuals who have been enable to accept it...although we don't know who those individuals are merely by looking at them.

But I do think there is something else crucial that must happen:

My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. -- John 10

That verse says two things: One is that Jesus knows who are His. They are already identified to Him and by Him. The second is that those individuals will respond to His voice.

But they have to hear His voice, not just someone spouting Christianese Christo-babble at them. It is necessary for the would-be evangelist to be in the right place at the right time speaking the right words to the right people as directed to him by Jesus.

Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. -- Acts 16:6

I always kind of wonder how the Holy Spirit "prevented" them from going into Asia. I suspect it was merely by directing them explicitly Macedonia:

During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." Acts 16:9

That didn't mean nobody in Asia was enabled to receive the gospel, only that Paul wasn't the right person at the right time who'd say the right thing.

I knew a woman, a former prostitute, who I've spoken of before in these forums. She testified that she'd had preachers shouting Christianese Christo-babble at her many times, telling her she was damned to hell for her sins...and she had fully accepted that.

Then one day, a preacher from our church was speaking on the corner, and she said something held her there while he spoke. Then he said this: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! " That was her "wait...what?" moment.

The pastor who had said those words told me that at the end of the sermon, as they were packing to leave that night, a prostitute had walked up to him and put her finger right on his chest demanding, "What you said about a new creation and the old going away...is that the truth?"

Nobody had ever said to her before that it was possible to actually leave the baggage of sin behind.

It wasn't that she was not enabled--she had been enabled, which is why she felt herself unable to leave. But nobody had spoken to her before in the voice of Jesus speaking to His lost sheep. "You're going to hell!" is not "Come to me and be saved."

In fact, hell had never been that woman's destiny. She was known to Jesus, her name was written in His book, and she had been enabled by the Father. Whoever had told her she was going to hell had been lying to her, and she had not responded to that lie. But she did respond to the voice of Jesus speaking the truth.

That leaves me flirting with concepts that Calvinists have married. For sure, scripture speaks of election, predestination, individual enablement and such. Calvinists tend to preach that in emphasis of God culling out people to be condemned.

Rather, I tend to think of it in terms of creating confidence of success. If I go where Jesus tells me to go, when Jesus tells me to go, and speak to the people Jesus tells me to speak to with the words He has for them--if I've done those things correctly, I can be confident that He will have someone there who is enabled to accept it.

I think that's the intention of Romans 9.

Thanks...interesting.

Don't you find it extraordinary that the writer of gotquestions.org site makes no qualification in their interpretation as you do? Surely it is obvious that anyone curious about who Jesus really is and what he really stands for would be shocked and repulsed to read such words?

And also, such an understand would make it incumbent on the preacher to relate it to their audience else the gospel becomes disingenuous.

 

[danny ski]

Romans 4:3
What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Sorry, I don't belong in this conversation. I just commented on the "Jewish thing". As for your quote, Paul cherry picked. As a Jewish man he should have known that the essence of Abraham was obedience, above all- Gen. 26-5. Which was reconfirmed in the desert in the Mosaic Covenant. Among Jews in Paul's time and today it is one's action that condemns or benefits and not a belief in anything in particular. Again, I apologise, just shedding some light on the "other side".

 

[janxharris]

Sorry, I don't belong in this conversation. I just commented on the "Jewish thing". As for your quote, Paul cherry picked. As a Jewish man he should have known that the essence of Abraham was obedience, above all- Gen. 26-5. Which was reconfirmed in the desert in the Mosaic Covenant. Among Jews in Paul's time and today it is one's action that condemns or benefits and not a belief in anything in particular. Again, I apologise, just shedding some light on the "other side".

No apology necessary.
Abraham didn't obey when he slept with Hagar.
Also Psalm 14.

 

[janxharris]

Rather, I tend to think of it in terms of creating confidence of success. If I go where Jesus tells me to go, when Jesus tells me to go, and speak to the people Jesus tells me to speak to with the words He has for them--if I've done those things correctly, I can be confident that He will have someone there who is enabled to accept it.

I think that's the intention of Romans 9.

But that isn't the conclusion Paul reaches at the end of the chapter. Paul speaks of faith, not works, as being the key. He makes no mention of such faith being the preserve of a select few.

One can interpret the earlier verses as an affirmation of God's sovereign decision to choose how one might be saved - and God chose to do it through Jesus Christ. Paul emphatically rejects the notion of salvation through works of the law. The 'Is God unjust?' rhetoric merely anticipates Jewish complaints that they couldn't be saved in this way (through prideful works).

Do you believe that God damned Esau without condition - that he had no recourse to salvation (as some interpret this chapter)?