• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Matthew 5:17-20 and Acts 15:5-29

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by food4thought, Jul 7, 2019.

  1. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,092
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
  2. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,092
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    The part of the verse, "in saying this he made all meats clean," is NOT represented in the Received Texts nor the Aramaic Peshitta. It is added by translators because of their bias... it isn't in the text. What defiles a man is what comes out... puss, semen, blood... these make you unclean. And they are a picture of the vile things that come from the heart and mouth. The verse has "nothing" to do with whether or not pork is now food.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  3. jerry kelso

    jerry kelso Food For Thought

    +210
    Pentecostal
    Married
    ken,

    1. 1 Chronicles 28:3-4 David said God would not let him build a house for his name because he shed blood.
    He said God chose him to be King of Israel forever.
    Ezekiel 37:23-25; the Lord God v 21 will be their God v23, v24 and David my servant shall be my King over all of them who was Israel and v25 the Lord God says David shall be prince of Israel forever.
    Jesus is never referred to as a servant after the resurrection.

    2. There are vice regents in the Bible and it is plain that David will be King over all the tribes of Israel in their national restoration under the Messiah Ezekiel 37:24-25; 34:23-24; Jeremiah 30:9; Hosea 3:5. Christ will be King of Kings and Lord of Lords and all other Kings of eternity and the resurrected Kings and priests Revelation 19:16.
    This shows that the spiritual Jew theory that breeds replacement theory is not true.

    3. Ephesians 3:6; that the gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body and partakes of his promise in Christ by the gospel.
    Abraham was s gentile and started the Jewish nation and they became a completely different race and culture.
    Gentile Christian is just recognizing a different race in the flesh that is saved.
    According to the spiritual aspect there is no Jew or Gentile or male, female etc.
    This is because we are all one in Christ spiritually.
    So a gentile Christian being an oxymoron is not true across the board.
    Jerry Kelso
     
  4. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,092
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    We're done Jerry... I haven't read your post, and won't. You have openly mocked me, you aren't serious about discussion. We don't have to agree, but we should resemble Christian brothers. Have a great life. :)
     
  5. food4thought

    food4thought Loving truth Supporter

    +562
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    I couldn't find any notes to this effect in my received text translations (KJV, NKJV, YLT)… what is your source for this idea? Not trying to be argumentative, but I would really like to know whether the Received Text omits this statement... it would definitely be welcome if it did. But even my Greek TR+ includes the statement.
     
  6. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,092
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    So the oldest full NT we have is in Aramaic, and the line, "in saying this he made all food/meat clean" is not there. I don't believe it is in the TR (Received Texts) because there isn't a translation based on it that includes the line. For example... The NIV, which is really a paraphrase sold as a translations says this:

    Mark 7:19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

    But here is a combination of translations taken from the Received Texts and including a couple of literal versions from the same. You'll notice they are all saying the same thing... that whatever enters comes out the waste system (poop) and doesn't remain in us. And not one of these has the added clause about making all foods clean.

    Literal Version Mark 7:19 This is because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the waste-bowl, purging all the foods.

    NKJV Mark 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"

    KJV Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

    Young's Literal Mark 7:19 because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.'

    WyCliff Mark 7:19 for it hath not entrid in to his herte, but in to the wombe, and bynethe it goith out, purgynge alle metis.

    Tyndale Mark 7:19 because it entrith not in to his hert but into ye belly: and goeth out into the draught that porgeth oute all meates.

    Exegesis Companion Mark 7:19 because it enters not his heart but the belly; and proceeds into the privy purifying all food?

    Etheridge (translated from the Aramaic) Mark 7:19 because it entereth not into his heart, but into his belly, and is cast out in the purgation which all food purgeth?

    Murdock (another translated from the Aramaic) Mark 7:19 For it doth not enter into his heart, but into his belly, and is thrown into the digestive process, which carries off all that is eaten.

    The topic there is poop... the elimination process... not whether or not catfish is food. And please, understand... in saying this I could care less what you eat or don't eat... that is all between you and God. I am simply saying that in this verse, that line is not supported by the underlying texts. It is in MODERN Greek texts... Hort and Wescott, and others. But not in the Received Texts.

    Here are all the Strong's numbers in the verse... they are all accounted for and there is nothing left to support the addition we find in some new versions today.

    Mark 7:19 BecauseG3754 it enterethG1531 notG3756 intoG1519 hisG846 heart,G2588 butG235 intoG1519 theG3588 belly,G2836 andG2532 goeth outG1607 intoG1519 theG3588 draught,G856 purgingG2511 allG3956 meats?G1033

    If you read Greek... here it is in another form:

    Mark 7:19 οτιG3754 ουκG3756 BECAUSE εισπορευεταιG1531 [G5736] IT ENTERS NOT αυτουG846 OF HIM ειςG1519 INTO τηνG3588 THE καρδιανG2588 HEART, αλλG235 BUT ειςG1519 INTO τηνG3588 THE κοιλιανG2836 BELLY, καιG2532 AND ειςG1519 INTO τονG3588 THE αφεδρωναG856 DRAUGHT εκπορευεταιG1607 [G5736] GOES OUT, καθαριζονG2511 [G5723] PURIFYING πανταG3956 ALL ταG3588 THE βρωματαG1033 FOOD.

    From WyCliff (1385) through the KJV (1611) on through any version based solely off the Received Texts... that line isn't there. Even the Vulgate does not support the line:

    Mark 7:19 quia non introit in cor eius sed in ventrem et in secessum exit purgans omnes escas
    Because it entereth not into his heart but goeth into his belly and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?

    Again... just how I see it. You make your own decision. :)

    Blessings.
    Ken
     
  7. food4thought

    food4thought Loving truth Supporter

    +562
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Hi again, Ken. I did a word study in the NT on the KJV usage of the Greek word katharizō (Strong's 2511), and it is almost always translated as "cleanse" or "purify"... I have to disagree on the meaning here in Mark 7:19, it almost certainly means what most of the translations say: purifying or cleansing... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree agreeably :wave:.
     
  8. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,092
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I am not against purify or cleanse... the verse IS saying that unclean food would not enter the heart but rather, "enter his aphedrōn, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods." That word, aphedrōn (G856) is defined by Thayer as "a place where the human waste discharges are dumped" and by Strong's as " place of sitting apart, that is, a privy." The word "privy, in his day, meant "sink or hole, a chamber where waste is stored." The verse is talking about pooping.

    Let me make it simple and then drop this, OK?

    NIV - For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

    NKJV - because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"

    Two translations... all the red though worded differently, say the same thing and ALL OF THOSE WORDS are represented in the Greek. What I have marked green and underlined is NOT in the Greek. The addition of this, in the way it is worded, infers he is talking about ceremonially unclean foods. That is NOT the context of this chapter. He isn't making a declaration as to what we can or cannot eat... the context is what defiles a person. Eating a ham sandwich doesn't defile you... I could argue it is a sin, but it doesn't defile you. What comes OUT of you is what defiles you which is why he used the digestive system as the picture to talk about the heart. This verse is no more creating a mandate on what we can or cannot eat than Peter's vision is. In that case, he was talking about MAN and God used symbols Peter understood (clean and unclean food) to make the point about God's work among the gentiles. To use that, or this, to say bottom dwelling poop eaters that God didn't create as food are now food is nothing less than interpreting Scripture from our born into paradigm and not according to how the authors of each book understood God and the Law at that time.

    Be blessed my friend.
    Ken
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  9. Ken Rank

    Ken Rank Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,092
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    This is the argument, those who seek to understand Mark 7:19. I have two versions above, the NIV and NKJV. All the red agrees with the other (though worded differently) and is supported by the Greek. The green underlined part... "in saying this Jesus declared" is NOT supported in the Greek. Meaning... it isn't there, it was inserted by the English translators based on their bias. Right or wrong... it isn't part of the bible it is part of the interpreters understanding.
     
  10. jerry kelso

    jerry kelso Food For Thought

    +210
    Pentecostal
    Married
    ken,

    1. I never mocked you and how could I if you didn’t read my post.

    2. You say I am not serious about discussion but in my opinion I have given more than enough scripture and scriptural context.
    I believe you have given more presupposition than biblical context.
    I haven’t accused you of mocking me even though I could point few things that I could take an offense to. But I am not bothered because I seek truth and proper exegesis.

    3. This is about fair debate and rebuttal.
    I am not into openly mocking people.
    Yo are free to believe whatever you like but I do ask to be fair in exegesis.
    I think you mistake challenging as being openly mocking and that is not true.
    So I am sorry you have misunderstood whatever you have misunderstood and I forgive you coming to the wrong conclusion. Jerry Kelso
     
  11. jerry kelso

    jerry kelso Food For Thought

    +210
    Pentecostal
    Married
    ken,

    You said your post made me laugh and I never said anything like that.
    There was a funny emoji x1 but I didn’t put it there. I hardly even use emoljis and if I do it’s because I like the post.
    Jerry kelso
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2019
  12. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,014
    Messianic
    Single
    Hello, I am a member of Messianic Judaism.

    In regard to Matthew 5:17-20, "to fulfill the Law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the Law) to be obeyed as it should be" (NAS Greek Lexicon pleroo 2c3). After Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law in Matthew 5, this is precisely what he then proceeded to do six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it. In Galatians 5:14, loving your neighbor fulfills the entire Law, so Jesus was one of countless people who have done that. In Galatians 6:2 says that bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, so you should interpret it in the same way as fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, namely obeying it as it should be. In Romans 15:18-19, it says that Paul fulfilled the Gospel, which again referred to causing Gentiles to become fully obedient to it in word and in deed.

    Jesus said that not the least part would disappear from the Law until heaven and earth pass away and all is accomplished, neither of which has happened yet, both of which either refer to end times or are ways of saying that it will never happen. In Matthew 28:20, Jesus said that he would always be with us until the end of the age, which is a way of saying that he is never going to leave us, not saying that he will leave us at the end of the age. Jesus also warned those who relaxed the least part of the Law or taught others to do the same would be called least in the Kingdom while those who obeyed them and taught others to do the same would be called great in the Kingdom, which is a warning that more people should take seriously.

    In regard to Acts 15:1-29, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God command circumcision. So the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose that God commanded it for. So the Jerusalem Council upheld God's Law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring Gentiles to do something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against requiring Gentiles to obey what God has commanded.

    In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, God said His Law was not too difficult to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it was presented as a possibility and choice and Acts 15:10 should not be interpreted as being in direct disagreement with God and as teaching Gentiles to choose death instead of life. The Jerusalem Council did not have the authority to countermand God or to tell anyone not to obey any of His laws, nor did they attempt to do so, nor should we follow them instead of following God even if that was what they were trying to do.

    As previously noted, the issue they they were discussing was not God's Law itself, but in regard to man-made requirements that had been added on top of God's Law. By becoming circumcised, a Gentile was becoming a Jewish proselyte and agreeing to live as a Jew according to all of their oral law, traditions, rulings, and fences, which Jesus also criticized as placing a heavy burden on the back of the people (Matthew 23:2-4). Paul's problem with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to obey God as though that were somehow a negative thing, but rather his problem was that they were teaching that Gentiles had to follow God's Law according to all of oral traditions in order to become saved.

    Either the four laws listed in Acts 15:19-21 are an exhaustive list for mature believers or they are not. There are 1,050 commandments in the NT, so if they were an exhaustive list, then that would disregard over 99% of the commandments in the NT, including those expounded upon by Jesus. Clearly, they were they were not an exhaustive list for mature believers, but stated, it was a list intended not to make things too difficult for new believers coming to faith, which they excused in verse 21 by saying that they would continue to learn how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues. In other words, when you have Gentiles coming out of paganism who know nothing about Christianity, in order to avoid overwhelming them it becomes an issue the determine which things are important to teach them right away and which things can be taught over time as they mature in their faith.
     
  13. jerry kelso

    jerry kelso Food For Thought

    +210
    Pentecostal
    Married
    soyeong,

    1. The Mosaic law has to be understand as one whole law that is either fully in force or completely abolished.
    James 2:10; For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
    2 Corinthians 3:13; And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.
    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 the mediator.
    Galatians 4:21-31; talks about those who wanted to be under the Mosaic Law.
    Vers 24; Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
    The context distinguishes the Old Covenant system which was bondage from the New Covenant system is freedom vs 30-31.
    Romans 7:4; Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become to the dead to the law by the body of Christ that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
    Hebrews 7:19; For the law (Moses) made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope didn’t d; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

    2. Jesus spoke Matthew 5:17-18 he was under the Old Mosaic system.
    He fulfilled the law by fulfilling prophecies such as Isaiah 61:1-2a in Luke 4:18.
    He also fulfilled the law by being sinless to be the perfect sinless sacrificial lamb John 1:29; Hebrews 9:14-15.
    Matthew 5:18; till Heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    This doesn’t reconcile with the verse above that says the Mosaic law was abolished.
    Till all be fulfilled is saying the Mosaic Law was guaranteed till the Messiah’s work was done which happened at the cross. It had reached its goal Romans 10:4 as the system to live by because the church was ordained and it was prophesied that the Jewish nation would reject him Isaiah 53:3,7,8.

    2. The law was to be forever for the Jews but under the New Covenant Jeremiah 31:3–34.

    3. It is not wrong for a Jew to be a Jew culturally.
    Today they are a part of the body of Christ Ephesians 2:14-15. Ephesians 3:6 has the Gentiles are in the same body that they should be fellow heirs and partakers if his promise in Christ by the gospel.

    2. People under the Mosaic Law were looking at types and shadows and they had to look at everything as pointing to salvation and they were obligated to do those things or suffer the judgement which was a curse Galatians 3:13.

    3. The Mosaic law was holy and good but couldn’t save a person and the law of sin and death took advantage of the law that was holy and good and made those Jews live to the frailty of man and sin more than being overcomers Romans 7. The law of sin and death was done away by the law of the spirit Romans 8:2.

    4. The morals are in every age. Under the law of conscience there was no written law.
    Under the Mosaic law it was written and they had a specific Judgement of violated, or a specific blessing if they performed it.
    The church is not under this specific blessing and cursing system.
    The civil law is for lawless and disobedient and the ungodly and sinners etc. not a righteous man 1 Timothy 1:9-10.
    The New Covenant was built on better promises and we are not to be subdued by the law.
    Being Christians is about being who we are in Christ and what he did on the cross and through his resurrection not doing by self effort caused by the law of sin and death.
    It doesn’t mean no one could live the whole law Some of the time for Elizabeth and Zacharias walking in all the commandments and ordinances were blameless Luke 1:6.
    It also doesn’t mean it was not to be who they were for the just we’re to live by faith Habakkuk 2:4.

    5. The ceremonial law according to salvation such as sacrificing lambs, ordinances etc. Hebrews 9. The blood is the New Testament vs 20.
    The priesthood was changed from the Aaronic to the Melchizedek 16-28.
    Vs 18; For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitable was thereof.
    Though talking about the priesthood this verse really fits the whole reason why the Old covenant was abolished.

    6. Jesus was born under the law of Moses Galatians 4:4 and taught the Mosaic law Matthew 7:12 and the Kingdom of Heaven message only for Israel Matthew 10:6-7.
    This was not a message to the church of the New Covenant Matthew 5:4; 5:13; 16:18.
    The true church is not backslidden and have not been trodden under the feet of men like Israel because the Gates of Hell will never prevail against us. Jerry Kelso
     
  14. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,014
    Messianic
    Single
    Jesus specifically said that He came not to abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17) and Paul also confirmed that our faith does not abolish our need to obey the Law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:31), so I don't see any grounds for arguing that the Law has been abolished. All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so none of them will never be abolished and instructions for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness can't be abolished without first abolishing God's eternal righteousness. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's Law, so anyone who claims that any of God's Laws have been abolish has sinned and needs to repent. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet was if they taught against obeying His Law, so God simply did not leave us any room to follow someone who claimed that any of His Laws have been abolished.

    While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same instructions for how to walk in the same ways and express the same character traits. For example, the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on any particular covenant. God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that He has ever given for how to act in accordance with His righteousness are eternally valid regardless of which covenant we are under, but as part of the New Covenant we are told that those who do not follow those instructions are not children of God (1 John 3:10). In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God writing His Law on our hearts so that we will obey it, so it still involves following God's eternal Law, so while the Mosaic Covenant has become obsolete, God's eternal righteousness and righteous Law did not become obsolete along with it.

    Sin was in the world before the Law was given (Romans 5:13), so there was nothing that became righteous or sinful when it was given, but rather it revealed what has always been and will always be sinful. If you believe that the Law was given to reveal what sin is and that we should refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin, then you should agree that we should obey God's Law.

    God's Law brings us to Christ because everything in it teaches us about who he is, how to walk as he walked, and how to grow in a relationship with Him. Now that Christ has come we have a superior teacher, but the subject matter is still how to walk in God's ways in obedience to His Law in accordance with what he taught by word and by example. The reason that the Law brings us to Christ is not so that we can reject what he taught and go back to living in sin.

    The laws that someone gives teach us about what they value and who they are as a person. For example, someone who is trustworthy gives laws that are trustworthy and someone who is giving laws that aren't trustworthy should not be considered to be trustworthy, so the opinion that we have of a law matches the opinion that we have of the lawgiver. God is trustworthy, so all of His laws therefore are also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7, Nehemiah 9:13) and laws that are holy, righteous, and good can only come from a God who is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). So if you have such a poor opinion of God's Law that you consider it to be bondage, then you must have an equally poor opinion of God for giving it. The Psalms express an extremely positive view of God's Law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, which Paul also did (Romans 7:12), so if you consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of God's Law, then you will share it.

    In Romans 7:1-4, it is speaking about a woman being bound to the law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband were to die, then she would be released from the law of marriage. If she were to get married to another man, then she would still be required to refrain from committing adultery, so at no point was she set free from from obeying God's Law.

    The Mosaic Law made nothing perfect because it wasn't given for that purpose, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't obey it for the purposes for which it was given.

    In Galatians 5:14, anyone who has ever loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so while Jesus being sinless was an example of fulfilling the Law, it was was by no means the only example. While Jesus certainly accomplished much on the cross, there is still the second coming and everything that Revelation says comes with that left to accomplish, so not all has been accomplish. Likewise, heaven and earth have not passed away, so neither condition has been met.

    It wouldn't make any sense for Jesus to go to the cross so that we could reject everything that he spent his ministry teaching us how to do. In Titus 2:14, it doesn't say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from any laws, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so if we believe in Messiah's work on the cross, then we will become zealous for doing good works in obedience to his Law and will not return to the Lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from. In Romans 10:4, a relationship with Jesus for righteousness for everyone who has faith is the goal of obeying the Law.

    While it is good to correctly understand whom the Law was given to, it is not good to focus on that so much that you lose sight of whom it was give by because it was given to teach us about who God is, how to walk in His ways, and how to express His character traits in accordance with His nature. By expressing God's character traits through our actions in obedience to God's Law, we are expressing our love for who He is, we are sanctifying His name, and we are testifying to the world about who He is through acting as a light to the world (Matthew 5:13-16). In Deuteronomy 4:5-8, the intended reaction of the nations seeing Israel's obedience to God's Law was to marvel at how great and wise He is, so again our obedience to God's Law is about testifying about who He is, which means that the Law was intended to be used as a tool to evangelize the nations and to bless them by teaching them to repent from their wickedness and how to walk in God's ways, to the Jew first and then to the Gentile (Acts 3:25-26).

    If Gentiles are part of the same body, then Gentiles also have the privilege and the delight of getting to follow the instructions that God gave to that body for how to follow Him.

    The Mosaic Law is full of important foreshadows that teach us about who God is and about His plan of redemption and the light if Christ brings full substance to the foreshadows so that we can fully see what God was teaching us through them, which make them all the more important to continue to observe. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul spoke in regard to how Passover foreshadowed Christ by drawing the connection of him being our Passover Lamb. However, instead of concluding that we no longer need to bother keeping Passover, he concluded that we should therefore continue to keep it.

    The Mosaic Law is holy, righteous, and good straightforwardly because it is God's instructions for how to act in accordance with His holiness, righteousness, and goodness. God's Law doesn't save us straightforwardly because it was never given for that purpose, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't obey it for the purposes for which it was given. I'm glad that you recognize that the law of sin and death worked in opposite to the Mosaic Law and that it does away with the law of sin and death.

    Our conscience is informed by the highest level or moral law that we believe. However, our conscience part of our fallen nature, so it is not perfect, which is why Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4:3 that even though he was not aware of anything against himself he was not justified. So our conscience helps us to live in accordance with the moral law, but it does not replace it, and therefore is not the ultimate determiner of our spiritual condition. Our conscience is capable of warning us when our spiritual condition is in danger, but it is not God's Law, and needs to be informed by God's Law in order to function correctly.

    In Romans 14, there are weak Christians whose conscience is not informed in a mature way, where their conscience won't let them do what they really would be free to do, so again our conscience does not replace God's Law. Someone's conscience can be so misinformed that their glory is in their shame (Philippians 3:19), where both their mind and their conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15). So the first way to destroy the work of conscience is to misinform it where you don't give it the true Law of God and the second way is to silence it when it speaks. In 1 Timothy 4:2, Paul spoke about a wounded or seared conscience, and a good indicator of this is if someone sees nothing wrong with continuing to do what God has revealed in His Law to be sin.

    The blessings and curses work kind of like gravity. We teach certain behaviors to our children for their own good, but if they refuse to obey them, then it will be to their detriment without us needing to take an active role in bringing that about. God has said that His Law is for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), so if we believe Him, then we will obey His Law.

    The Bible does not use that category of civil law. In 1 Timothy 1:8, Paul said that God's Law is good if one obeys it properly, so verses 9-10 should not be used to argue that it isn't good for us to obey. Instructions for how to do what is righteous are not needed by those who are areadly doing what is righteous, but by those who are not. Those who try to use verses 9-10 to try to exempt themselves from following God's instructions thereby become someone that those instructions are for.

    While Jeremiah 31 describes the New Covenant as being based on better promises, it does not say that we are not to be subdued by the Law, but rather it says that the New Covenant involves God putting His Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts so that we will obey it. A Christian is a follower of Christ and Christ followed the Mosaic Law, so a Christian is also someone who follows the Mosaic Law. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, and he walked in obedience to the Law. In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 with a quote from Leviticus 18:5, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as the ones who are living in obedience to the Mosaic Law.

    The Bible does not use the category of ceremonial law.

    Jesus taught the Mosaic Law by both word and by example, and we seek to follow what he taught, the we should obey the Mosaic Law. There is no point in someone wanting to become a follower of Jesus while not wanting to follow him. In the Great Commission, Jesus sent his disciples out to teach the nations all that he had taught them, and he spent his ministry teaching his disciples how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example.
     
  15. jerry kelso

    jerry kelso Food For Thought

    +210
    Pentecostal
    Married
    soyeong,

    1. I gave you the the scriptures on abolishment of the Mosaic law and you could not address them and couldn’t refute them.

    2. You misunderstand the weakness of the commandment because of the mechanics and the curses of the old covenant versus the better promises of the New Covenant.

    3. The law was holy and good and there are eternal truths in it.
    It has important truths for history, daily living and prophecies concerning the Messiah’s First and Second coming and the restoration of Israel and the earth.

    4. All the Bible is for us in the proper perspective.
    Moral laws were before Israel but the conscience wasn’t completely adequate as the written law to reveal sin and what we should do or not do.
    The purification laws including water baptism as a type of salvation that they had to do or they could die.
    This is part of the reason that some believe in baptismal regeneration.
    Under the New Covenant water baptism is the answer to a good conscience toward God not the filth of the flesh by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

    5. Moral laws are always in effect because we are not to sin. But they were in a different context in different ages of which I have already explained.
    Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. Do you really think I am going to elimate that truth because it is in the Old Covenant which was abolished and because we are under the New Covenant?
    I believe in understanding about the Jewish Perspective.
    The Old Testament concealed is the New Testament revealed.
    I am not trying to down the Old Covenant because it was the best God gave to man at that time.
    God’s righteousness, morals, virtues etc., are always true in themselves because they are immutable.
    Different contexts don’t destroy the immutability but how they are enacted.
    The righteousness of the law of Moses was those who do them shall live in them Romans 10
    Gentiles would say this is performance based and not being who they were in God.
    The Jews would say that it was to be who they were.
    Both would be right.
    Performance based because of the law of sin and death took advantage of the law that was holy and good and caused self effort and live to the frailty of man and sin more than overcome sin. Romans 7.
    There were many Jews that living for God was who they were. There whole lives were law of Moses.
    But, because the law could only say thou shalt not but did not have the power to help the Jew perform the commandment.
    It took the power of an endless life which was Jesus the crucified and resurrected Lord.
    The teachings of Jesus were under the Mosaic Law and were do, do, do and today it is what he did, what he did, what he did.
    You said in one statement we are not under the Mosaic law and in another statement you said we were. That is an oxymoron.
    Even the Jews cannot live the whole law because of no temple. James 2:10; For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
    Jesus taught the Mosaic Law and he didn’t preach the New Covenant because he would be guilty of preaching false doctrine.
    Hebrews 9:16-17; For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
    For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
    Jesus never taught his death, burial, and resurrection for the Jew to be saved by.
    This doesn’t diminish the teachings of the law by Jesus or that he fulfilled the law with his finished work.
    It means that he fulfilled the law until the cross where it’s goal had been reached and the Mosaic law had served its time and was abolished at the cross so the second covenant could take its place Hebrews 8:6-7.
    The body of Christ is made up of Jews and Gentiles under the New covenant according to the the finished work of Christ not the Mosaic law.

    6. The New Covenant was ratified at Calvary.
    The Jewish nation has not received the New Covenant.
    Hebrews 8:13 Israel will receive the New Covenant which will be in the future which will not be like the the one he made with the fathers in Egypt. This was the Mosaic law.
    I will stop here and answer to your scriptures from your post next by tonight or tomorrow as it is late.
    I do hope you understand I am not against the Old Testament but in proper perspective. Jerry Kelso
     
  16. Soyeong

    Soyeong Well-Known Member

    +3,014
    Messianic
    Single
    Again, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the Law, so by arguing that he abolished the Law, you are arguing that he lied. I cited a number of verses for why we should consider God's Law to be eternal and we shouldn't follow anyone who claims that they have been abolished, and I addressed the verses that you've cited by explaining why they shouldn't be interpreted as abolishing the Law, so if you disagree, then please interact with what I've said instead of hand waving it.

    The bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man, so even if your interpretation of those verses were correct, then you should be quicker to disregard everything that Paul has said than to disregard anything that God has commanded. Paul did not have the authority to countermand God or to tell anyone not to obey any of His Laws and he was not an enemy of God, so he never tried to do that, nor should we follow him instead of God even if he had tried to do that.

    The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the character of God as it does to describe the character of God's Law, which is because it is God's instructions for how to express His character traits in accordance with His nature, such as being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), and with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the Law (Matthew 23:23), so God's Law can't be abolished without first abolishing God. While the Hebrews 8:6-13 says that the New Covenant has a superior mediator and is based on better promises, it does doesn't say anything about being made with a superior God with superior character traits and superior laws for how to act in accordance with His superior character traits, but rather it says that the New Covenant involves God writing His Law on our hearts, so it still involves following His eternal Law.

    If you agree that the Law has eternal truths in it, then you should agree that we should live in accordance with them.

    The Bible never distinguishes between moral and non-moral laws and there are no examples where disobedience to any of God's laws was considered to be moral, but rather morality is in regard to what we ought to do, and we ought to express God's character traits in obedience to God, so all of God's Laws are inherently moral laws.

    Sin is the defined as the transgression of God's Law (1 John 3:4), so if you agree that we are not to sin, then you should agree that we should live in obedience to God's Law, but if you argue in favor of rebelling against obeying any of God's Laws, then that would be trying to eliminate that truth.

    Good.

    In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul said against OT Scriptures to see if what he said was true, so that is the standard by which we should accept what it said in the NT is true, which means that we should not interpret the NT as saying things that the Bereans would have rejected outright. For example, if Paul had tried to tell the Bereans that the Law has been abolished, then by rejecting Paul as being a false prophet they would have been acting in accordance with what God had commanded them to do, but Paul never did that. About 1/3 of the verses in the NT contain quotes or allusions to the OT and the NT authors did this thousands of times in order to establish that it supported what they were saying and to show that they hadn't departed from it, so they certainly saw the OT as still being authoritative, and in this regard the NT serves as commentary on the OT.

    In Romans 3:21-22, the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faith in Christ for everyone who believes, so this has always been the one and only way to become righteous. In Leviticus 18:5, Galatians 3:10, and Romans 10:5, the one who obeys God's Law will obtain life by it, which would only be true if it were based on faith. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law and in 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome, so obedience to God has always been about expressing our faith and our love for Him and has never been about what we can accomplish through our own efforts. If obedience to God were about our performance, then God would not have disdained it when His people honored Him with their lips while their hearts were far from Him (Isaiah 29:13).

    Righteousness is a character traits of God that is expressed by doing what is righteous, and God's Law was given as instructions for how to express that character trait, not for how to attain it. So when God declares us to be righteous by grace through faith, He is also declaring us to be someone who therefore expresses His righteousness through our actions in obedience to His instructions for how to do that found in His Law.

    Again, the way to act in accordance with God's righteousness is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on a particular covenant, so there is a distinction between a set of instructions for how to act in accordance with God's righteousness and a covenant agreement to abide by those instructions. We should do what is righteous even if God had never made any covenants with man, so are still under the Mosaic Law even though we aren't under the Mosaic Covenant.

    In James 2:1-11, he was speaking to people who had sinned by showing favoritism, so he was not telling them that they needed to have perfect obedience because that would have already been too late, and he was not discouraging them from trying to obey God's Law, but rather he was encouraging them to repent and to return to obedience to the Law, which is exactly what we should do when we break any aspect of the Law.

    When the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to God's Law, which required them to have access to a temple that they didn't have access to while they were in exile, so if we can't obey the laws in regard to temple practice because the condition having access to a temple in which to practice them is not met, then we should nevertheless still be faithful to obey as much as we can. James 2:10 is referring to illegitimate reasons for not obeying a law, not to legitimate ones.

    Jesus did not make the New Covenant so that we could reject everything that he spent his ministry teaching us how to do, so the New Covenant does not involve refusing to follow God's Law.

    Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sin for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel of Christ. His death, burial, and resurrection adds more details for how he accomplished this, but doesn't change our need to repent from our sins.

    The goal of the Mosaic Law is to teach us about who Christ is, how to walk as he walked, and how to grow in a relationship with him. 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 works, so if we believe in the finished work of Christ, then we we will become zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20) and will not trample on what he did for us by returning to the Lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from..

    While it is true that the New Covenant is not like the Mosaic Covenant, in Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant involves God writing His Law on our hearts, so the way that it is not like the Mosaic Covenant is not in regard to following God's Law, but rather as that chapter describes, the differences are in regard to having a superior mediator and being based on better promises. Arguing that God's Law has been abolished is contradicts your claim that you are not against the OT.[/quote]
     
  17. jerry kelso

    jerry kelso Food For Thought

    +210
    Pentecostal
    Married
    soyeong,

    1. Matthew 5:17 Jesus did fulfill the Mosaic law and it was abolished at Calvary 1 Corinthians 3:13-16. Hebrews 8:6-7. This is a plain statement that the
    First Covenant (Mosaic) was replaced by the Second Covenant (New).

    2. Jesus didn’t abolish the law of Moses.
    Fulfill means completed, brought to an end, expired and finished in the same sense as he fulfilled the prophecies and that is why they are no longer in force such as Matthew 1:22; 2:15; 17; 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; etc.
    The law was a shadow of good things to come until the time of the reformation which was the cross Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 8:5; 9:1-10; 24; 10:1.

    3. Romans 3:31; Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid, yea we establish the law.
    He is talking about being justified by faith and not the deeds of the law Romans 3:31 with verse 20 which says the same thing about no justification by the deeds of the law. Why? For by the law is the knowledge of sin.
    Vs. 21; But now the righteousness without the law is manifested being witnessed by the law and the prophets.
    Establishing the law has to do with Christ being the reality of the shadows as the Messiah of its rites and ceremonies
    a) Luke 24:44; Colossians 2:14-17; Hebrews 8-10.
    b) By Christ fulfilling Matthew 5:17
    c) By Christ satisfying it Romans 10:4
    d) By fulfilling in men what the law demanded but could not give Romans 8:3
    e) By including its moral and spiritual principles in the New Testament. Hebrews 8:6
    This had nothing to do with the keeping the law of Moses as a rule of law.
    If you want to keep the law of Moses one would have to perform all 613 laws including the 1050 and more commandments in order to be blessed. We are blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. Ephesians 1:3.
    One would have to be cursed under the judgements of the law Deuteronomy 28-29 covers the blessings and cursing if they didn’t perform the law of Moses.

    4. Psalms 119:160; Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgements endureth forever.
    The essential nature of truth was from the beginning.
    Righteous judgements endureth forever; ceremonial laws and judgements can be altered just like local laws and principalities but the essence of absolute moral laws and judgements are forever.
    Murder is always wrong and committing adultery, etc, are too but the judgements can change for we do not stone children for disrespect. And if we lived the Mosaic law we would have to stone children for disrespecting their parents.

    5. Deuteronomy 4:2 this was under the age of the Mosaic law not the New Covenant Hebrews 8:6-7.
    Our lives are based on the work of the cross not trying to legalistically work up to a code of ethics in our own strength.
    The Mosaic law and New Covenant Grace are close in relationship because of spiritual truths but in applications across the board they are at opposite ends of the polars.
    One has to understand gradual revelation, how and why God dealt with men in every age differently, and how to reconcile all the scriptures on a given subject. That is one reason you are contradicting yourself.
    You said you dealt with the scriptures I gave for abolishment of the law but most of them you didn’t mention or address their context. Instead you went to other scriptures that contradict the scriptures I gave such as 1 Corinthians 3:13; that used the word abolished and Hebrews 8:6-7 the first being replaced by the second and 7-13 when the Jews receive the New Covenant it will not Be according to the one in Egypt which was the Mosaic law.
    We are talking about the Mosaic law as a covenant to live by as a complete rule of life in every jot and tittle.
    The argument is not that we can’t divulge truths out of the Old Testament or walk in those absolute truths but they must be done under New Covenant laws of faith and not the Mosaic law which is not built on better promises. That doesn’t diminish the glory of the law though its glory was done away with 2 Corinthians 3:7.
    More specifically this passage is talking about the Ten Commandments in verse 7 which was a ministration of death and glorious at the same time. In itself this is a contradiction and these were moral laws except the sabbath.
    The moral laws weren’t abolished within themselves because sin is always wrong so they were a ministration of death because of the rules of engagement under the law which were a weakness such as the law of sins death taking advantage of the law that was holy and good and caused them to break the moral law.
    The glory was it was God’s moral law that was righteous and showed them how to live righteously.

    6. Now I understand many Jews position on this and some believe it threatens their culture of life and more because their life was totally wrapped up in the Mosaic law but that is not the case.
    This subject has to be exegeted properly
    across the board.
    It has to be looked as a will which is a testament.
    A new will may have things the same as in the old.
    A new will may have same things as the old, but with a different context that alters a slightly different outcome.
    A new will may not include certain things from the old will at all.
    A new will may include new things not contained in the old law.
    When all is said and done and the new will is executed the new will is completely a different will of overall content and legally.
    This is the case with the old and new covenants.
    We don’t do the ceremonial laws Hebrews 9 and the priesthood was changed Hebrews 7.
    We still have faith, hope and love and grace, righteousness and holiness though some may have a slightly different context though not losing it’s essence of truth.
    Legally, John 1:17: For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by grace and truth. Two different covenants.
    The old is not he new and the new is not the old!!!!!!! Jerry Kelso
     
Loading...