Galatianism and/or Judaizing

[brakelite]

The Galatians who were being deceived into accepting the 'Judaizers' rather than the simplicity of the gospel, certainly had a problem. The problem was not that they were keeping the sabbaths and feasts of the old sanctuary services, (as Paul himself still observed them) , but rather that they were trusting in that observation as a means to being justified.

Would anyone dare suggest that it was not wrong to steal? If I as a Christian teach that stealing is morally indefensible which of you would accuse me of legalism? If however I taught that by being honest, I would then be justified before God, then your accusations of 'Judaising' and legalism etc would be justifiable.

There have been claims that there are certain denominations and individuals are guilty of legalism and 'Judaizing' when promoting the Sabbath or in defending it. How do you know that they are trusting in their works for their justification? Maybe they are simply obeying what they sincerely believe to be the commandments of God and are obeying them because they love Him?

While there may be some in my denomination that think they are justified by their obedience, not only would the church officially disagree with them, but so would I.

After having been justified by the precious blood of Christ and been born again of His Spirit, thus being in the sight of God innocent, and looking ahead to the walk and life of discipleship, you read in the Bible that all liars end up in the lake of fire, (Rev 21:8) what do you do? Do you cease from lying? Of course. However, can you do so in your own strength? No. So you enlist the help of the Holy Spirit to overcome. Now is that legalism? Is that 'Judaizing? What of the Sabbath, for I know that the Sabbath is the sticking point of the law for many. Charges of legalism are only seldom raised with the other nine commandments, but when the Sabbath is mentioned, according to many that person is 'Judaizing'.

But I keep the Sabbath on the same grounds that I seek to be honest and tell the truth. By the grace of God and in response to the desires of His heart. His law in my heart, His Holy Spirit empowering me to obey. But is my law-keeping a means by which I am justified? No way. But if I stubbornly and persistently refuse to do that which God's law requires because I don't believe** that or trust in God's clear command, or am fearful of what the rest of Christianity might think, or afraid of being unpopular or in the minority,even after accepting Christ's sacrifice on my behalf, I will end up in the lake of fire.
That is why it is so very very important to live according to what our conscience tells us the word of God teaches, and not on what man says it teaches.
Deception is avoided by having a love of the truth, and Jesus said that it is truth that sets us free. Free from sin, free from condemnation, free from bondage to addictions and habits.Free from traditions of man. And freedom from charges of heresy and 'Judaizing' and legalism.


**Rev 21:8 says that the fearful and unbelieving will end up in the lake of fire.

Regards and God bless.
Brakelite.

 

[Idol Breaker]

I have one thing to say brakelite. "He is not a Jew who is circumsized outwardly but he is a Jew who is circumsized inwardly." I think that's close enough to the point.

In Christ.

P.S. Nice post.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think the difference can also be understood relative to the expectations one holds for others. If, for example, one Christian refuses to eat meat offered to idols (which was a big issue in the first century) and does it merely out of personal conviction, one cannot accuse him of legalism However, if the same person proclaims that all who eat meat offered to idols are disobedient to God and are committing sin, then he is a legalist.

The same can be held regarding the Sabbath. If a Christian chooses to keep the Sabbath holy on the first day of the week and does so out of personal conviction he may not be a legalist. However, if he believes that all who do not observe the Sabbath on the same day and in the same manner are disobedient to God and are committing sin against God, then he is a legalist.

 

[brakelite]

I think the difference can also be understood relative to the expectations one holds for others. If, for example, one Christian refuses to eat meat offered to idols (which was a big issue in the first century) and does it merely out of personal conviction, one cannot accuse him of legalism However, if the same person proclaims that all who eat meat offered to idols are disobedient to God and are committing sin, then he is a legalist.

The same can be held regarding the Sabbath. If a Christian chooses to keep the Sabbath holy on the first day of the week and does so out of personal conviction he may not be a legalist. However, if he believes that all who do not observe the Sabbath on the same day and in the same manner are disobedient to God and are committing sin against God, then he is a legalist.

I think that you may find that most people such as myself (not all unfortunately) teach the issue of the Sabbath not because of our own personal expectations of others, but rather in what the scriptures teach as God's expectations for mankind. There is a big difference.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I think that you may find that most people such as myself (not all unfortunately) teach the issue of the Sabbath not because of our own personal expectations of others, but rather in what the scriptures teach as God's expectations for mankind. There is a big difference.

That is precisely why you are a legalist.

"Therefore, let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day - things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."
Colossians 2:16,17

 

[greatbar]

But brakelite3's correct though bbbbbbb. It is our duty and responsibility in life to live in obedience towards God. We can only do so insomuch as He reveals Himself to us in the scriptures. All we need to know for life is obtained in the scriptures.

Therefore we can deduct that it is our responsibility to take a stance on such issues as keeping the Sabbath as they are instructed in the scriptures.

That said, to stand over, dictate to, judge, take authoritive action against, or condemn those who have different doctrinal beliefs regarding the sabbath would be sinful in and of itself. Rather, if we are to point out erroneous beliefs, it is to be done in love, patience and from the scriptures. It is not our place to judge, but God's. We can judge only insomuch as to what is clearly forbidden in the bible.

 

[bbbbbbb]

But brakelite3's correct though bbbbbbb. It is our duty and responsibility in life to live in obedience towards God. We can only do so insomuch as He reveals Himself to us in the scriptures. All we need to know for life is obtained in the scriptures.

Therefore we can deduct that it is our responsibility to take a stance on such issues as keeping the Sabbath as they are instructed in the scriptures.

That said, to stand over, dictate to, judge, take authoritive action against, or condemn those who have different doctrinal beliefs regarding the sabbath would be sinful in and of itself. Rather, if we are to point out erroneous beliefs, it is to be done in love, patience and from the scriptures. It is not our place to judge, but God's. We can judge only insomuch as to what is clearly forbidden in the bible.

Although I agree with you, BrakeLight3 remains a legalist in that he and his fellow SDA's sincerely believe that not only are they obligated to keep the Sabbath as defined by Ellen White, but all other people are required to, as well. The New Testament is crystal clear that they have every right to observe any Sabbath, festival, or new moon that they wish, but they have no right to enforce these beliefs upon others such as ourselves.

 

[brakelite]

Although I agree with you, BrakeLight3 remains a legalist in that he and his fellow SDA's sincerely believe that not only are they obligated to keep the Sabbath as defined by Ellen White, but all other people are required to, as well. The New Testament is crystal clear that they have every right to observe any Sabbath, festival, or new moon that they wish, but they have no right to enforce these beliefs upon others such as ourselves.

You reveal what is so common among non SDAs. That is an utter misunderstanding of who we are , what we stand for, and why.
First, a little history. Baptists were the first of the reformed churches to discover the old truth regarding the Sabbath. 7th day Baptists they called themselves, and they discovered the Sabbath as a result of Bible study and an intense desire to learn truth after centuries of papal darkness.
In the great awakening of the early 19th century which incidentally was worldwide, many Christians from all denominations discovered a further truth; that is the imminent return of Christ. Many 7th day baptists joined the adventists, who at that time were all sunday keepers. It was in fact one Rachel Oakes who introduced the Sabbath teaching to a group of adventists in New England. Some accepted it , some didn't. Again, it was Bible study that confirmed the truth of this teaching. This group who accepted the Sabbath were later called 7th day adventists. Ellen White happened to be one of them, but by no means did she introduce the teaching, nor did anyone else accept it simply on her say so.

Nor did I. And nor do I share that teaching in these forums because she taught it. Nor do SDAs believe they are obliged to observe the Sabbath on Ellen White's say so, like you suggest. I share my belief on any theological matter or moral matter because of what I read in the Bible. My original post was intended to prove that teaching obedience to the laws of God is not legalism. Trusting in that obedience for salvation is. That is what Paul was concerned about with the Galatians. By continuing to label me as a legalist you are in fact judging my motivational attitude regarding the Sabbath. My motives are a matter of the heart, and that is between me and God. Am I judging for not observing the Sabbath you as you claim? No. How could I when I do not know whether you do or not? But I will not apologise or recant repeating what I read in the scriptures regarding obedience. Jesus Himself said that only those who do the will of His Father will be saved. I didn't sat that. Jesus did.
The Sabbath is a commandment of the Lord. Not me nor Ellen White. None other but God Himself. I would strongly suggest that it would take God Himself to annul any commandment. If you can show me anywhere in the scriptures where God has explicitly commanded the cessation of the Sabbath and thus reversing a previously exalted commandment on pain of death, and not just your intetrpretation of what the scriptures say, I will delete every post I have made on the subject.
If exalting obedience was legalism, every apostle and writer of the NT would stand condemned.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Galatianism may be more a debate on how one attains a place in the world to come. Some elements of Judaism taught that the only way a Gentile could get in was to convert to Judaism.

Paul is saying that it is by faith, not conversion to Judaism.

Mark Nanos, a Jewish scholar, has written a lot about Galatians from the context of Second Temple Judaism. Worth checking out.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response. I will attempt to reply to it, realizing that there remains a large misunderstanding on both of our parts. Hopefully, the misunderstanding will be reduced to some degree as a result.

You reveal what is so common among non SDAs. That is an utter misunderstanding of who we are , what we stand for, and why.

Although I am not SDA nor ever have been I based my remark upon the interaction I have had with a former SDA. I have no means of gauging her experience other than to say that it was over twenty-five years in length and her brother is a pastor now in the SDA.

First, a little history. Baptists were the first of the reformed churches to discover the old truth regarding the Sabbath. 7th day Baptists they called themselves, and they discovered the Sabbath as a result of Bible study and an intense desire to learn truth after centuries of papal darkness.

Today Seventh-Day Baptists are as rare as hen's teeth. There are Sabbatarian churches other than the SDA, but they constitute a very tiny minority.

In the great awakening of the early 19th century which incidentally was worldwide, many Christians from all denominations discovered a further truth; that is the imminent return of Christ. Many 7th day baptists joined the adventists, who at that time were all sunday keepers. It was in fact one Rachel Oakes who introduced the Sabbath teaching to a group of adventists in New England. Some accepted it , some didn't. Again, it was Bible study that confirmed the truth of this teaching. This group who accepted the Sabbath were later called 7th day adventists. Ellen White happened to be one of them, but by no means did she introduce the teaching, nor did anyone else accept it simply on her say so.

Sadly, you did not mention the role of Mr. Miller in the early history of the SDA and his failed prophecies which led to the virtual demise of the SDA. Ellen White did not introduce much of the framework of SDA theology, but she is still read and revered for her insights. The result is that the views she formulated concerning keeping the Sabbath still hold sway in your denomination. They are at variance with the explicit Sabbath laws given by the Lord God in the Penteteuch.

Nor did I. And nor do I share that teaching in these forums because she taught it. Nor do SDAs believe they are obliged to observe the Sabbath on Ellen White's say so, like you suggest.

Have you, or any other members of the SDA, considered the possibility of staying at home on the Sabbath and resting and not attending religious services, especially those farther than a Sabbath Day's walk? Your observance of Saturday is, to a large degree, in keeping with the teaching of Ellen White.

I share my belief on any theological matter or moral matter because of what I read in the Bible. My original post was intended to prove that teaching obedience to the laws of God is not legalism. Trusting in that obedience for salvation is. That is what Paul was concerned about with the Galatians. By continuing to label me as a legalist you are in fact judging my motivational attitude regarding the Sabbath. My motives are a matter of the heart, and that is between me and God.

I judge you according to your fruits. By your fruits I know you, as Christ Himself has said. Christ judged the Pharisees according to their fruits. I submit that none were more zealous to obey God's commandments than the Pharisees. They make both of us look like hopeless wretches by comparison in terms of the obedience to the Law. Nevertheless Christ condemned them, especially in their obeservance of the Sabbath (Luke 4 and 5).

Am I judging for not observing the Sabbath you as you claim? No. How could I when I do not know whether you do or not? But I will not apologise or recant repeating what I read in the scriptures regarding obedience. Jesus Himself said that only those who do the will of His Father will be saved. I didn't sat that. Jesus did.

You have thus judged me as being lost. Why? Because you equate your form of Sabbath keeping as doing the will of God, do you not? If so, you have judged all those who do not keep the Sabbath as you do, as being lost. That includes myself and all the rest of humanity who are not SDA.

The Sabbath is a commandment of the Lord. Not me nor Ellen White. None other but God Himself. I would strongly suggest that it would take God Himself to annul any commandment.

God has never annulled any commandment. God commanded circumcision and the dietary law for His people. Do you also believe that all Christian men must be circumcised to be saved and that Christians must keep kosher in the kitchen (I do not mean the dietary law of the SDA, but that which is given in the Penteteuch)? I submit that Christ has fulfilled the Law and Christians are under no obligation to keep the Law. If, as you assert above, one must obey God in keeping the Sabbath to be saved, then you are assuredly lost. Why? Because you flout God's clear commandments concerning the Sabbath and substitute your own.

If you can show me anywhere in the scriptures where God has explicitly commanded the cessation of the Sabbath and thus reversing a previously exalted commandment on pain of death, and not just your intetrpretation of what the scriptures say, I will delete every post I have made on the subject.

Start deleting. "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a estival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" Colossians 2:16

If exalting obedience was legalism, every apostle and writer of the NT would stand condemned.

If, indeed. That is a mighty powerful word - if. According to your proposition, every apostle and writer of the New Testament is condemned. They were condemned when they met in Jerusalem in Acts 15 and tossed out the Law, especially circumcision and the dietary law, for Gentile believers. If (using the same word again) they are condemned, so am I and I am humbled to be in their company.

 

[cyberlizard]

when Paul said 'imitate me as I imitate Christ', how far did he want us to imitate him, after all he kept the sabbath (and the customs)?


Steve

p.s. for those who have itunes on their pc's, search for podcasts entitled, Shomer Mitzvot - they have a set of podcasts (free) on the subject of galatians from a messianic judaic perspective currently in the 36th session (mostly an hour or so long)... well worth the listen.

 

[Steve Petersen]

It is important to be clear. I don't think anyone here is saying the keeping the commandments results in salvation.

The question should be reversed. Does being saved result in keeping the commandments?

 

[brakelite]

Coll.2:
16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

I have decided to include verse 17 in your quote, as that provides are very pertinent qualifier regarding the Sabbath. The qualifier is those Sabbaths which are shadows of things to come.
3 points.
1. Paul is not saying that those Sabbaths are now null and void. He is saying that we ought to let no-one judge us regarding our observation of them.

2. The weekly Sabbath is not a shadow of anything to come. It is a memorial of creation. It does not look forward, but looks back. Therefore the weekly Sabbath of the 4th commandment is not what Paul is referring to.

3. If he was indeed suggesting that the weekly Sabbath was now abrogated, it would have caused such a furore within Judaism and the then very fledgling Christian world that the letters would have been literally flying from the pens of the apostles to everyone and anyone who could read in defense against the many and bitter charges of blasphemy etc that would be coming from every man, woman and child of Jewish descent in the then known world. Yet the truth is that there was not a whimper. Not even a whisper, debate, argument, controversy or fight. Not one. Instead, the discussion , when it concerns any change from Judaism, centers around circumcision. Why is that do you think? I would strongly suggest that it is because there was no cause for any debate on that matter. Because the early church kept the Sabbath as faithfully as any orthodox Jew. As an honest study of the scriptures, and history, bears out.

Your reference to Miller I find fascinating. He played a huge role in the great awakening of the early and middle 19th century which was a world-wide phenomenon. He wasn't the only person of this time period that began preaching on the second coming. South America, and Europe heard the message from many spirit filled and led preachers of the gospel. It was the Holy Spirit who brought this about. Miller was one of many. He set a date, very true. That the date he set did not bring about the second coming, is well known as the great disappointment. Though he clearly had the occasion wrong as Jesus certainly did not return on that date, are you so sure he had the date wrong, but misunderstood the event that was to take place on that date?
Besides all that, Miller was never a seventh day adventist. He never accepted the Sabbath, the SDA church did not formally organise into a group of believers until the 1860s.

Quote: I submit that Christ has fulfilled the Law and Christians are under no obligation to keep the Law.

Which law are you referring to ? Because Jesus fulfilled the 6th commandment by not killing anyone, are we now free to kill seeing we are no longer obliged to obey?

Quote: I judge you according to your fruits. By your fruits I know you, as Christ Himself has said.

So if my fruits are wrought in obedience to God's commandments, are you saying that is a bad thing? I thought the purpose and fruit of the gospel was achange in the life. From darkness to light, fro error to truth, from selfishness to love. etc. Or are you suggesting that because "Jesus fulfilled the law", the Christian remains as he was before conversion, that is disobedient to the law?
According to my Bible, through the cross Christ has made me free from sin and a servant of righteousness. (Rom.6:18) In verse 22 Paul says we are servants to God, and our fruit unto holiness. Please tell me how one can be a servant of rightousenss, a servant of God, and be holy as He is holy, if we are not keeping His commandments?

 

[Steve Petersen]

2. The weekly Sabbath is not a shadow of anything to come. It is a memorial of creation. It does not look forward, but looks back. Therefore the weekly Sabbath of the 4th commandment is not what Paul is referring to.

But the weekly Sabbath is a shadow of things to come. In this regard Hebrews 4 and the Sages of Israel agree.

Shabbat, our sages tell us, is "a taste of the World to Come." As the six-day workweek culminates in Shabbat, so, too, will the six millennia of our work and toil to make to world a home for G-d culminate in the Messianic Era -- "the day that is wholly Shabbat and tranquility, for life everlasting." (Talmud, Berachot 57b; Nachmonides on Genesis 1; Grace After Meals)

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thanks again for your response.

I have decided to include verse 17 in your quote, as that provides are very pertinent qualifier regarding the Sabbath. The qualifier is those Sabbaths which are shadows of things to come.
3 points.
1. Paul is not saying that those Sabbaths are now null and void. He is saying that we ought to let no-one judge us regarding our observation of them.

Precisely, No one has the right to judge whether or not my obedience or lack of interest in festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths is correct. If a brother in Christ chooses to observe the day of the new moon, why should I care? If he doesn't, why should I care? I really don't care whether or not you observe the new moon. Likewise, other religious festivals and Sabbaths.

2. The weekly Sabbath is not a shadow of anything to come. It is a memorial of creation. It does not look forward, but looks back. Therefore the weekly Sabbath of the 4th commandment is not what Paul is referring to.

And where do we find this thought explicated in the New Testament?

3. If he was indeed suggesting that the weekly Sabbath was now abrogated, it would have caused such a furore within Judaism and the then very fledgling Christian world that the letters would have been literally flying from the pens of the apostles to everyone and anyone who could read in defense against the many and bitter charges of blasphemy etc that would be coming from every man, woman and child of Jewish descent in the then known world. Yet the truth is that there was not a whimper. Not even a whisper, debate, argument, controversy or fight. Not one. Instead, the discussion , when it concerns any change from Judaism, centers around circumcision. Why is that do you think? I would strongly suggest that it is because there was no cause for any debate on that matter. Because the early church kept the Sabbath as faithfully as any orthodox Jew. As an honest study of the scriptures, and history, bears out.

And you know this how? Certainly not by a single verse of the New Testament. What would have been blasphemed here that would have been such a mortal sin? The only unforgiveable sin mentioned in the Bible is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I submit that the Sabbath is not the Holy Spirit.

Your reference to Miller I find fascinating. He played a huge role in the great awakening of the early and middle 19th century which was a world-wide phenomenon.

Actually, he played a small role, somewhat on the order of Mother Ann Lee, who founded the Shakers. Unlike the Shakers, the Millerites came to a rather abrupt end following the failure of Mr. Miller's first date, which was followed by other dating attempts, all of which were equally incorrect.

He wasn't the only person of this time period that began preaching on the second coming. South America, and Europe heard the message from many spirit filled and led preachers of the gospel.

Such as Mother Ann Lee and a host of other individuals. That they were spirit-filled and led depends on the definition of spirit. They were hardly led by the Holy Spirit as they seriously contradicted each other. Unless God is the author of confusion and contradiction, then one must conclude that, at best, one of the bunch was right and the others were wrong.

It was the Holy Spirit who brought this about.

And we know this how?

Miller was one of many. He set a date, very true. That the date he set did not bring about the second coming, is well known as the great disappointment. Though he clearly had the occasion wrong as Jesus certainly did not return on that date, are you so sure he had the date wrong, but misunderstood the event that was to take place on that date?

Yes.

Besides all that, Miller was never a seventh day adventist. He never accepted the Sabbath, the SDA church did not formally organise into a group of believers until the 1860s.

Quite correct. At that point Ellen White picked up the ball and ran with it, so to speak.

Quote: I submit that Christ has fulfilled the Law and Christians are under no obligation to keep the Law.

Which law are you referring to ? Because Jesus fulfilled the 6th commandment by not killing anyone, are we now free to kill seeing we are no longer obliged to obey?

I suggest that you read both Romans and Galatians and tell me if Paul neatly snips up the Law for us. As I read it there was but one Law consisting of all the commandments and ordinances of God.

Quote: I judge you according to your fruits. By your fruits I know you, as Christ Himself has said.

So if my fruits are wrought in obedience to God's commandments, are you saying that is a bad thing?

Not in the least. However, you do not obey God's commandments, nor are you even capable of doing so to His satisfaction, which is absolute perfection. You certainly do not obey God's express commandment concerning the Sabbath, so what makes you believe that you actually do obey His commandments?

I thought the purpose and fruit of the gospel was achange in the life. From darkness to light, fro error to truth, from selfishness to love. etc. Or are you suggesting that because "Jesus fulfilled the law", the Christian remains as he was before conversion, that is disobedient to the law?

Then you thought wrong. If Christ came merely to reform the Law for us and enable us somehow to fulfill the Law by our works, then He died needlessly. The purpose of the gospel is to justify sinful people in the sight of a holy God that they might become children of God through faith in Christ and heirs of eternal life in heaven.

According to my Bible, through the cross Christ has made me free from sin and a servant of righteousness. (Rom.6:18) In verse 22 Paul says we are servants to God, and our fruit unto holiness. Please tell me how one can be a servant of rightousenss, a servant of God, and be holy as He is holy, if we are not keeping His commandments?

Very simply, through the same faith that Abraham had. When was Abraham justified before God? After he had been circumcised and began obeying God's commands or before he had done a single thing?

 

[CalmRon]

One must realize that Christianity is like a continuation of the Judaism of the old testiment; in a way the judaism in the light of christ were the sanctuary service is symbolic of christ's atoning work. he died as the sacrificial lamb died and lives to as the priest to intercede for us to that last great day. as such christianity is informed by the judaism before as the God who set forth the tenets of judaism through Moses is the same God who sent Christ, The main mistake of christianity today is to say that all of the law was somehow done away with, including the ten commandments, which I believe are the transcript of God's character. Again this is my opinion but in many cases the same people who say that all the law including God's moral law was done away with are same people who say that somehow the God of the old testament is different from the God of the new testament.

In other words didn't jesus say "if you love me keep my commandments"?
John 14:15
And who was jesus but God.

forgive me for having a jumpy writing style and also if i am off subject here.

God Bless.

 

[MamaZ]

The OT is just that Old. We are now in the NT. The OT is the foreshadow of What was to come for the Law is fleshly and has been fulfilled. Now the New kingdom is Spiritual. We rest in Christ as our sabbath and it is an eternal rest. For now the law is not our righteousness but Christ is.

 

[CalmRon]

But how can that be when the majority of the promise that the earliest Christians had were from the OT, they had Christ of course but they had to understand he was the messiah from an old testament light, and of course they new that Christ was their righteousness. Jesus in the gospels of Mark and Luke taught the two men going to Emmaus from the old testament that he was supposed to died and be resurrected. the earliest Christians did not have a new testament. it seems that we say that we in NT times and forget OT is still important to a christian in understand what we believe and why we believe it. it seem to be so strange that true the sanctuary and its purposes along with other symbolic ceremonial services were abolished at Christ's death as they were the shadow of things to come- but show me were any of the ten commandment were done away with; is it alright to murder? to steal? to bear false witness? to have any other god before our Lord? why then is it that sabbath is some how abrogated? it is as moral as any other command in the ten as it honors the creator and gives him due worship. the teachings of the old testament are still valid, and the new testament expound upon them.

God Bless.

 

[MamaZ]

We are under a new covenant. The blood of Jesus not of the Old covenant. Christ is revealed in the OT because this was Gods plan from the very beginning. Read Genesis. The teachings of the OT was for the old covenant people. Isreal. We are the new covenant people. The very Body of Christ. Isreal needs to come to Christ in order to be saved. There is no other way. The law and its ordinances was nailed to the cross.

 

[CalmRon]

Yes this is true, Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant and that national Israel has forfeited its place as a holy nation and priesthood of the world for rejecting Christ. It is also true that observance of the ten commandment do not save us, but do not kid yourself saying that the very the ten commandment, written with the finger of God are now null and void. it seems like like a hyperbole but is it it ever right to murder? To steal? To bear false witness? To have a god before our God? why is it we stop at commandment 4?it is not ceremonial, it is not civil it is an act of remember who we are where we came from and who put us here. besides the apostle Paul state that Israel stumbled and fell because they did not pursue the will of god in faith. it is by grace we are saved and through that grace and because we love Jesus we obey him.

God Bless.