Every jot and tittle

[expos4ever]

Actions speak louder than words, do they not? So since Jesus kept the Sabbath and Paul kept the Sabbath, what do you suppose their actions entail? Didn't Jesus say follow me? Aren't we supposed to be like Jesus and imitate Him? Does not the word say to love Him is to obey His commandments? Which commandments existed at the time of Jesus? The NT had not yet been codified. Answer: the OT LAW.

But surely you must know that Jesus did break the Law of Moses:

- He declared that He was the place to go to for forgiveness; under the Law of Moses, you had to go to the Temple.

- He declared that no food defiles - this is in direct contradiction to the Law of Moses.

- He prevented others from obeying the Law when he saved the woman caught in adultery; remember, the Law of Moses required that she be stoned.

And there are other examples. God is orchestrating a redemption narrative - an unfolding story. Things change in an unfolding story. And so it is with the Law of Moses - it's time has come to an end.

 

[expos4ever]

Rom 3:31
Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
Jesus taught that the spirit of the law exceeds the letter of the law but that by no means the letter of the law no longer exists. We not only refrain from committing physical adultery but we now refrain from committing adultery with our eyes. However that does not mean we are now free to ignore the law and engage in physical adultery now does it?

This is indeed a challenging text for those of us who believe that the overall Scriptural picture is one where the Law is set aside. I will respond to this text, but I want to think over my reply very carefully. But I suggest that the preponderance of the Biblical evidence strongly supports the position that the Law has been retired. For example, has anyone (who thinks the Law is still in force) actually dealt with this text from Romans 7:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

I will bet that my more carefully articulated answer to Romans 3:31 will be something like this: Paul is saying that even though faith, not law, is the basis for justification, this does not mean the Law of Moses was a bad thing, or not part of God's overall plan; in fact it was a good and necessary thing and it is in this sense we establish the Law - we declare its legitimacy as part of the overall redemption plan even though it is now to be set aside.

 

[expos4ever]

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160)

As I explained in another thread, a literal translation of Psalm 119:160) does not definitive declare true eternality:

The sum of Thy word truth, And to the age every judgment of Thy righteousness!

....and Paul certainly sees things differently than you do:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

 

[John Helpher]

So everything that Jesus taught by word and by example was how to obey the Mosaic Law,

Hi Soyeong. Did you watch the video?

 

[expos4ever]

Here is Habakkuk 3:6

He stood and surveyed the earth;
He looked and startled the nations.
Yes, the perpetual mountains were shattered,
The ancient hills collapsed.
His ways are everlasting

It is a real stretch to go from this to "the Law of Moses" is eternal. You are making this argument:

1. God's ways are everlasting;
2. The Law of Moses is one of God's "ways";
3. Therefore, the Law of Moses is everlasting.

But this cannot be a legitimate line of reasoning since, for example, it would lead to this:

1. God's ways are everlasting;
2. The Old Covenant is one of God's "ways";
3. Therefore, the Old Covenant is everlasting.

Do you see the problem?

 

[John Helpher]

Didn't Jesus say follow me? Aren't we supposed to be like Jesus and imitate Him? Does not the word say to love Him is to obey His commandments? Which commandments existed at the time of Jesus?

I think this really is the heart of the issue. You're not following Jesus. You're following Moses and legitimizing it with a reference to Jesus. As the saying goes, "this people draw near to me with their lips, but their heart is far from me".

Jesus expounded on a new understanding of the sabbath where we do not give only one day to God per week, but rather, as fulfillment suggests, we give everyday to God; everyday has now become sabbath. The pharisees missed it. They, like you, argued their myopic view of giving one day to God while using the rest of the week to chase after materialism.

But Jesus said we cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other. He said we will love one and hate the other. He said we should not allow our fears about material provisions like food and clothing stop us from stepping out in faith. He said all the nations of the world chase after these things, but that we should not be like them. He said we should seek his kingdom, first, and that God will provide the things we need.

It's almost certain you will argue against this because your faith is not really in Jesus. Your talk about following his commands and example aren't really about following him, but rather a justification to legitimize your loyalty to ritualistic religion in the form of a once-per-week observation of God's existence while you spend the rest of your time chasing after money. "hey, Jesus kept the sabbath". That's it. That is the extent of your interest in the "commands of Jesus".

He also commanded us to pray, fast, and give charity in secret, but you will probably argue that's not really what he meant. He said we should not swear for any reason, but you will probably argue that if someone asks us to swear on a bible in a court of law or for some other official reason, you'll argue that we need to obey the laws of the land. He said we should not use special titles like father, Mr, and Sir, but you will probably say that we must use these titles to show respect. He said no one can be his disciple unless he forsakes all he has, but you will probably say that's only something to be done in your heart.

Jesus says, "come to me all you who labor, and I will give you sabbath". Working for Jesus is not like working for money. In comparison, service to the kingdom of Heaven is perpetual sabbath. Your argument is contrary to this new principle God revealed to us through Jesus. You want to take us back to the old way where we only give one day a week as part of just another list of ritualistic observances. What Jesus has is so much better.

 

[Oldmantook]

But surely you must know that Jesus did break the Law of Moses:

- He declared that He was the place to go to for forgiveness; under the Law of Moses, you had to go to the Temple.

- He declared that no food defiles - this is in direct contradiction to the Law of Moses.

- He prevented others from obeying the Law when he saved the woman caught in adultery; remember, the Law of Moses required that she be stoned.

And there are other examples. God is orchestrating a redemption narrative - an unfolding story. Things change in an unfolding story. And so it is with the Law of Moses - it's time has come to an end.

Oh my! Where did you get your ideas from? Scripture please. You have just demonstrated your ignorance of what the law requires.

As for the adulterous woman, Jesus was following the law - the scribes and Pharisees were not. First of all the law requires both the man and the woman to be judged for committing adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). Where is the man in this story?? Jesus is not bound to judge this woman in this type of "kangaroo court" as following the law has already been disregarded by the Pharisees.
Secondly, the law requires that witnesses must come forward and give their testimony as a thorough investigation is required. If upon examination, the witness is found to have given false testimony then he/she must be purged (Deuteronomy 19:18-19). They knew that if upon cross-examination their testimony were found to be false, they stood to incur the same penalty the accused would have suffered. And that is why they all backed down when Jesus asked them if they were without sin, let them cast the first stone.

Where did Jesus state that no food defiles? Scripture please. If you are referring to Mark 7, I suggest you read it again. Are you referring to verse 19? That is in parentheses indicating a scribal insertion not in the original text.

Are you not aware that Jesus is the person who grants forgiveness? Is he not the FULFILLMENT of the law. In the old covenant, one went to the temple. In the new covenant, one goes to Jesus. It is not a contradiction as the law has always pointed to its future fulfillment in Jesus.

 

[Soyeong]

Hi Soyeong. Did you watch the video?

Indeed, I watched video and wrote my post to address points that were made in it.

 

[John Helpher]

Indeed, I watched video and wrote my post to address points that were made in it.

Ok Soyeong. Thanks for that. Would you mind taking what you believe to be the strongest argument from your previous post and reposting it here? You made a lot of points and I feel trying to respond to all of them will only get us bogged down.

 

[Soyeong]

He stood and surveyed the earth;
He looked and startled the nations.
Yes, the perpetual mountains were shattered,
The ancient hills collapsed.
His ways are everlasting

It is a real stretch to go from this to "the Law of Moses" is eternal. You are making this argument:

1. God's ways are everlasting;
2. The Law of Moses is one of God's "ways";
3. Therefore, the Law of Moses is everlasting.

But this cannot be a legitimate line of reasoning since, for example, it would lead to this:

1. God's ways are everlasting;
2. The Old Covenant is one of God's "ways";
3. Therefore, the Old Covenant is everlasting.

Do you see the problem?

His post spoke about old laws and old ways so I cited Psalms 119:160 and Habakkuk 3:6 to show that God's laws and ways are eternal respectively, though they both are really referring to the same thing. There are many verses that describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in God's ways, such as Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Isaiah 2:2-3, Joshua 22:5, Psalms 103:7, and many others that I could cite. God's ways are His character traits and the Bible often used the same terms to describe the character of God and it does to describe the character of God's law, which again is because it is God's instructions for how to express His character traits, such as with the law being holy, righteous, and good, or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law Matthew 23:23). Likewise, the fruits of the Spirit are all characters traits of God. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so all of His character traits are eternal and therefore all of His instructions for how to express His character traits are also eternal.

Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), so he expressed only the divine character traits through his actions and what that looked like was sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law. So when we express his character traits through our actions in obedience to God's law, we are expressing our love for who he is and our acting as a light and a blessing to the nations through testifying about who he is.

 

[1213]

...why we should not keep going back to the law because Jesus is the fulfillment of all the promises to Abraham. I'd like to hear what others think and I look forward to discussing the issues.

I think there is no way to revoke these:

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.
1 John 5:3

 

[Oldmantook]

This is indeed a challenging text for those of us who believe that the overall Scriptural picture is one where the Law is set aside. I will respond to this text, but I want to think over my reply very carefully. But I suggest that the preponderance of the Biblical evidence strongly supports the position that the Law has been retired. For example, has anyone (who thinks the Law is still in force) actually dealt with this text from Romans 7:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

I will bet that my more carefully articulated answer to Romans 3:31 will be something like this: Paul is saying that even though faith, not law, is the basis for justification, this does not mean the Law of Moses was a bad thing, or not part of God's overall plan; in fact it was a good and necessary thing and it is in this sense we establish the Law - we declare its legitimacy as part of the overall redemption plan even though it is now to be set aside.

This is not rocket science as a pertinent question to ask is how can the law not be in force anymore? Through the law comes knowledge of sin clearly stated in Rom 3:21. If the law has been set aside as you allege, then how would anyone know what to repent of since there is no more law which defines sin for us? That is a practical consideration which your view does not account for.

As for Rom 7, does the context of the rest of that chapter fit with your interpretation?
v.12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.
v.22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law
v.25 So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature d a slave to the law of sin.

Did you catch that? Paul himself states he is still a slave to God's law. How can that be if the law is "set aside?" Thus your interpretation of v.6 cannot be correct as we are not released from the law but instead we are released from the PENALTY of the law. That is why Paul wrote in v.14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. The law is spiritual because it makes us aware of sin in our life, the penalty of which is death. But now we are free from the law of death in order that we might serve in the newness of the Spirit.

 

[Oldmantook]

I think this really is the heart of the issue. You're not following Jesus. You're following Moses and legitimizing it with a reference to Jesus. As the saying goes, "this people draw near to me with their lips, but their heart is far from me".

Jesus expounded on a new understanding of the sabbath where we do not give only one day to God per week, but rather, as fulfillment suggests, we give everyday to God; everyday has now become sabbath. The pharisees missed it. They, like you, argued their myopic view of giving one day to God while using the rest of the week to chase after materialism.

But Jesus said we cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other. He said we will love one and hate the other. He said we should not allow our fears about material provisions like food and clothing stop us from stepping out in faith. He said all the nations of the world chase after these things, but that we should not be like them. He said we should seek his kingdom, first, and that God will provide the things we need.

It's almost certain you will argue against this because your faith is not really in Jesus. Your talk about following his commands and example aren't really about following him, but rather a justification to legitimize your loyalty to ritualistic religion in the form of a once-per-week observation of God's existence while you spend the rest of your time chasing after money. "hey, Jesus kept the sabbath". That's it. That is the extent of your interest in the "commands of Jesus".

He also commanded us to pray, fast, and give charity in secret, but you will probably argue that's not really what he meant. He said we should not swear for any reason, but you will probably argue that if someone asks us to swear on a bible in a court of law or for some other official reason, you'll argue that we need to obey the laws of the land. He said we should not use special titles like father, Mr, and Sir, but you will probably say that we must use these titles to show respect. He said no one can be his disciple unless he forsakes all he has, but you will probably say that's only something to be done in your heart.

Jesus says, "come to me all you who labor, and I will give you sabbath". Working for Jesus is not like working for money. In comparison, service to the kingdom of Heaven is perpetual sabbath. Your argument is contrary to this new principle God revealed to us through Jesus. You want to take us back to the old way where we only give one day a week as part of just another list of ritualistic observances. What Jesus has is so much better.

You have merely given me your opinion which is fine but bereft of any scriptural backing. I ask you AGAIN what commandments were present at the time Jesus said we are to obey the commandments? Are you free to ignore these commandments? Yes or No. Quite simple.

 

[John Helpher]

I ask you AGAIN what commandments were present at the time Jesus said we are to obey the commandments?

I did list commands from Jesus; direct orders he gave to his followers. But you don't hear that. When Jesus says, "Keep your praying, fasting, and charity giving secret", you don't hear a command from Jesus, because you're not really following Jesus. You're following Moses so you only hear information which confirms your bias toward Moses.

 

[expos4ever]

Oh my! Where did you get your ideas from? Scripture please. You have just demonstrated your ignorance of what the law requires.

We will take these one at a time. First, the matter of food. What does the Law say?:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean.

...and now what does Jesus say?

there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him

Your response?

 

[John Helpher]

...and now what does Jesus say?

there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him

This is also backed up by the example from Acts 10 where God lets down a huge sheet full of all kinds of animals and tells Peter to eat. Peter actually rebukes God, saying, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean" and God reiterates that he has made all things clean.

These guys arguing the old law are like Peter, once again saying, "Not so, Lord..." except they're saying it to Jesus.

 

[expos4ever]

Oh my! Where did you get your ideas from? Scripture please. You have just demonstrated your ignorance of what the law requires.

Now for the matter of forgiveness of sin. Here is what the Law says:

Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a person sins unintentionally in any of the [a]things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them, 3 if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed.

....and here is what Jesus says:

And they *came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to [a]get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5 And Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.

Your response?

 

[Oldmantook]

We will take these one at a time. First, the matter of food. What does the Law say?:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean.

...and now what does Jesus say?

there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him

Your response?

Answer: the subject is unwashed hands - not clean/unclean food. Pay attention. The Pharisees taught that one must wash hands before eating. The is no such requirement in the law of Moses. The context indicates that this is a hygienic issue - not a dietary issue. You fail to observe context.

 

[expos4ever]

As for the adulterous woman, Jesus was following the law - the scribes and Pharisees were not. First of all the law requires both the man and the woman to be judged for committing adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). Where is the man in this story??

Come on, man. We are not idiots. Here is are these two texts you cite:

If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.

You are trying to argue that unless both are put to death, neither should be put to death. No reasonable person would read these texts that way. Imagine if we had a law that said both the bank robber and the getaway car driver are to go to jail. If the driver gets away, does this mean the robber goes free?

Of course not.

 

[expos4ever]

Answer: the subject is unwashed hands - not clean/unclean food. Pay attention. The Pharisees taught that one must wash hands before eating. The is no such requirement in the law of Moses. The context indicates that this is a hygienic issue - not a dietary issue. You fail to observe context.

Nope. You guys continue to argue a point that cannot work. When Jesus says nothing that goes into a man defiles Him, He means what He says - nothing. And food, last time I checked, is something that goes into the mouth.