(Moved) The law. Is it done away with? Is it, really?

[Soyeong]

Mat 5:19 was given unto Israelites prior to the Crucifixion.

Jewish Christians have always been required to keep the Law of Moses of their forefathers, for 2000 years (Acts 21:24).

Gentile-cum-Christians have always been required to keep the (50 AD Jerusalem Council interpretation of the) Laws of Noah for Righteous Gentiles (Acts 15, Gen 9).

Early Christianity was "bi-cameral", composed of a "House & Senate" (gentiles & Jews).

Simply stated, "different strokes for different folks". The Law of Moses for Jews, of Noah for every other nation (certainly up to 70 AD).

Messiah was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, and we are told that we ought to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6) and to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22). As a follow of Christ, do you think it is important to follow His example and to abstain from doing what God has revealed to be sin?

If you compare the Noahide laws to laws listed in Acts 15:19-21, then there is no match for the social laws because they were joining a community where those laws would have already been established. There is a match for laws against idolatry, adultery, and eating the flesh of a living animal, but Acts 15:19-21 does not include laws against blasphemy or bloodshed. Furthermore, the Noahide laws do not contain a command against strangled animals, so while there are some similarities, they do not a match. Furthermore, the concept of the Laws of Noah for Righteous Gentiles did not come about until much later.

As stated, the purpose of giving those laws was intended not to make things difficult for new believers coming to faith, which they excused in verse 21 by saying that Gentiles would continue to learn what would be required of them by hearing Moses taught every Sabbath in the synagogues. So it was not intended to be an exhaustive list for mature believers of everything that would ever be required of them, but a minimum starting point.

 

[Soyeong]

[for me anyway] in the most simplest way to describe the matter is that what is right and wrong according to God never changes nor is diminished at all: but it is the ceremonies and rituals and formalism that under the New Covenant which is of none effect; but rather now the just shall live by faith, and no longer by the ceremonies and rituals of the law.

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith was one of the weightier matters of the Law, and obedience to God's instructions has straightforwardly always been about having faith in Him to guide us in how to rightly live. Every example of saving faith in Hebrews 11 is also an example of someone living in obedience to God's instructions, so obedience to ceremonial laws is also about trusting God to guide us in how to rightly live. The ceremonial laws are essentially God's instructions for how to have a holy conduct, and in in 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct. For example, in Leviticus 11:44-45, God revealed that refraining from eating unclean animals is a way to act in accordance with His holiness. It should also be straightforward that the way to have a holy conduct involves keeping God's holy days.

 

[Soyeong]

If God's promise is only for those who obey the law, then faith is not necessary and the promise is pointless Romans 4:14

I don't think anyone here has suggested that we need to obey the Law in order to inherit the promises. God had many reasons for commanding His Law, but that was never one of them.

Galatians 2:19-21

[19] For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God

[20]
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

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


The righteous shall live by faith

Obedience to God's instructions has always been about having faith in Him to guide us in how to rightly live. Every example of saving faith listed in Hebrews 11 is also an example of someone living in obedience to God's instructions, so living by faith has always been associated with the desire to obey God.

 

[A_Thinker]

Absolutely agree. It definitely is. I also see it that we are to keep Torah as well though, as it's written, should we then by faith nullify the law? No, God forbid, but we fulfill the law. (paraphrase)

I think that you are just getting some of the details wrong.

Jesus fulfilled the Law, ... we have no part in that ...

 

[RDKirk]

As stated, the purpose of giving those laws was intended not to make things difficult for new believers coming to faith, which they excused in verse 21 by saying that Gentiles would continue to learn what would be required of them by hearing Moses taught every Sabbath in the synagogues. So it was not intended to be an exhaustive list for mature believers of everything that would ever be required of them, but a minimum starting point.

There was no synagogue in Philippi.

And circumcision was taught in the Jewish synagogues. There is no indication that any of the gentiles of Paul's congregations continued to worship with Jews in the synagogues, or that some like those at Philippi ever did.

 

[A_Thinker]

Obedience to God's instructions has always been about having faith in Him to guide us in how to rightly live. Every example of saving faith listed in Hebrews 11 is also an example of someone living in obedience to God's instructions, so living by faith has always been associated with the desire to obey God.

Not really ... for instance, Rahab is honored as an example of faith, despite the fact that she bore false witness to keep Israel's spies safe.

 

[RDKirk]

Not really ... for instance, Rahab is honored as an example of faith, despite the fact that she bore false witness to keep Israel's spies safe.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Rahab didn't break that one.

 

[Soyeong]

The basis of the Law is always the same ... Love God, and Love your fellowman.

But the outworking of this LOVE may be different depending upon what God is doing at the time (i.e. at what stage He is in His plan).

For instance, prior to the coming of the Messiah, Judaism didn't do a lot of proselytizing.

In Jesus' message to His followers, however, He said ... "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; ..."

It is true that prior to Messiah that Judaism didn't do a lot of proselytizing, but was that the intention of God? Or were they acting against God's intention? For example, in Acts 10:28, Peter referred to a law that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles, but that law isn't found anywhere in God's Law, and is in fact contrary to God's Law because God's Law commands us to love the stranger as ourselves, which is rather difficult to do while refusing to visit or associate with them (Leviticus 19:34). God's intention was that Israel would be a light to the nations to nations to draw them to Him and to teach them how to serve Him and walk in His ways (Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 49:6, Deuteronomy 4:5-8). This is why the Bible talks about going to the Jew first and then to the Gentile.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

We're on our eleventh page, with no progress and no end in sight. I've been following the whole thing, and the amount of repetition has been staggering. I think it's safe to say that this conversation will have no effect unless someone tries a different tack.

 

[A_Thinker]

I have always wondered about this as well. How many times does God say he does not desire sacrifices? quite a few times.

The problem here (possibly with my understanding) ... is that God? gives very specific instructions (in Leviticus) ... for sacrifices and offerings to Him.

 

[A_Thinker]

He is a slave to sin/ breaking Gods laws/ statutes, he states that in verse 14

And so, it is likely that he is refering to his condition ... before his new birth ? For ... he wouldn't be a slave to sin ... under Grace ...

Thank-you, my brother.

You are helping, temendously, with my understanding of Romans chapter 7 ...

 

[A_Thinker]

Noxot saidL I just don't feel like stoning people to death for absurd reasons, sorry.

Soyeong said : Do you think God was wrong to give certain commands?

Did you ever wonder if God was trying to present a message about the seriousness of sin with the OT capital punishments ?

I read a commentary once wich likened being under the Law to living next to a Nuclear reactor. One false move, ... and boom !!!

One further question ... what, exactly, do law-keepers do ... when they are faced with a rebellious child ?

 

[Noxot]

Do you think God was wrong to give certain commands?

I think that anyone who would kill someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath should be put to death

One further question ... what, exactly, do law-keepers do ... when they are faced with a rebellious child ?

not certain as that requires wisdom and the unique circumstance but probably not kill them.

oh you said law keepers... well the evil would murder them from the evil in their heart and the good would do whatever they did out of the goodness of their heart.

 

[Soyeong]

I think that anyone who would kill someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath should be put to death



not certain as that requires wisdom and the unique circumstance but probably not kill them.

So you think God was wrong and unjust to command that? FYI, the issue of why he was killed had v

 

[Noxot]

So you think God was wrong to command that?

no but I think humans were wrong in how they obeyed it.

 

[Noxot]

if God told you to murder someone for something petty would you? I would not and I would question if it was rather satan trying to make me do something evil.

 

[Noxot]

maybe Christ came because humans only knew God through the tree of knowledge of good and evil. this is a serious problem within Christianity. anyone who pridefully says that they ought to kill their brother for picking up sticks on the Sabbath is insane. those people were barbaric and I think that their hearing was rather rusty. therefore I say that one greater than moses is here.

 

[twinserk]

Whichever way you look at it, gentile converts were only asked to follow four laws, and years later that was confirmed

You missed the very crux of what I said. You are ignoring the writings before, and after, your cherry-picked statement. Gentiles are required to keep 4 laws right off the bat, from which point, they will learn the rest.

Unless you'd like to argue that gentile converts were allowed to murder people.

Jesus "trangressed" the Mosaic Law many times (touching a leper [should have made Him unclean but did not], touching a dead girl to raise her to life [again, under Law should have made Him unclean but did not], healing on the Sabbath [a big no no except under life/death circumstances]), etc...

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

Jesus' teachings and life are filled with Him doing what the Teachers of the Law saw as "against the Law".

Your knowledge of the law is flawed. The priest would examine the leper, and then declare him unclean if he met the requirements. Same with a house, the priest would go and examine it, they would move all their stuff out so it wouldn't be declared unclean along with the house, and he would legally declare it "unclean". When it was not previous to his declaration.

Did the priest become unclean by entering the how, or examining the leper? No, otherwise he would have died when returning to the tabernacle. In these instances, uncleanness was a legal state, establish by ecclesiastical authority. Not something spread by touch.

I think that you are just getting some of the details wrong.

Jesus fulfilled the Law, ... we have no part in that ...

Heaven and Earth haven't passed away, and we are instructed to walk just as He did.

1 John 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.​

 

[stuart lawrence]

You missed the very crux of what I said. You are ignoring the writings before, and after, your cherry-picked statement. So no, you are wrong. Gentiles are required to keep 4 laws right off the bat, from which point, they will learn the rest.

Unless you'd like to argue that gentile converts were allowed to murder people.



Your knowledge of the law is flawed. The priest would examine the leper, and then declare him unclean if he met the requirements. Same with a house, the priest would go and examine it, they would move all their stuff out so it wouldn't be declared unclean along with the house, and he would legally declare it "unclean". When it was not previous to his declaration.

Did the priest become unclean at that point? No, otherwise he would have died when returning to the tabernacle. The priest was acting as God's covenantal agent - he was a judge. Priests/judges are immune from the uncleanness of others while exercising their official duties.

The Messiah was a judge, exercising His official duties. The uncleanness of others therefore did not effect Him.



Heaven and Earth haven't passed away, and we are instructed to walk just as He did.

1 John 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.​

Of course you have to try and reason anything to support your errant views
As for your comment about gentiles being able to murder people.
What is the core foundation upon which the NC stands?
And yet again. The Jerusalem Church had no intention of, in the future asking gentile converts to follow more than four laws. For years later they confirmed to Paul they Only asked gentiles to follow the four laws agreed at the council of Jerusalem in Acts ch15
And finally, Gods applicable laws are not arbitrary. You are not free to ignore any of them, so your point is very badly thought through to put it mikdly.
If you are correct, the Jerusalem Church, many of whom had been Christ's disciples gave gentile converts a licence to sin. Frankly that is unarguable

 

[Soyeong]

if God told you to murder someone for something petty would you? I would not and I would question if it was rather satan trying to make me do something evil.

The Jews do not have a history of killing someone every time the Law prescribed it, but very often imposed a fine instead. The harshness of the penalty was to show the seriousness of the offense to God, while the lighter penalty was to show the mercy of God. As Jesus said in Matthew 23:23, justice, mercy, and faith are weightier matters of the Law, so if mercy is not reflected in how we obey the Law, then we are not obeying it correctly. God's is always merciful to those who seek it, but as with the parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:21-35, God's mercy comes with the expectation that our behavior will change or else the full penalty can be reinstated. In other words, God shows His mercy to us by giving us time to repent. As always, God is primarily concerned with where our heart is at, and the reason the person was executed in Numbers 15:32-36 had very little to do with picking up sticks in itself and had everything to do with the condition of his heart and his relationship with God. Keep the Sabbath is very important to God throughout the Bible so much so that it carries the death penalty for breaking, but again the purpose of resting on the Sabbath is to have time to spend growing in our relationship with God and to place our faith in Him to provide for us. Furthermore, making a covenant involved cutting an animal in two and saying that they would become like that animal if they broke the covenant (Genesis 15:10, Jeremiah 34:18), so breaking a covenant was a very serious offense that carried the death penalty. So it is a mistake to focus on picking up the sticks when it was far deeper issue.