Obedience Motivated by Love, Not Law

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
8,128
2,191
54
Northeast
✟178,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In Exodus 20:6, God wanted His people to love Him and obey His commandments, and there are many other verses in both the OT and the NT that connect our love with our obedience to God's commandments, so Paul was not giving a new way of keeping the law, but was speaking about how to obey it as it has always been intended. Everything that God chose to command was specifically commanded for the peopose of teaching us how to love God and our neighbor, so again that is not a new way of keeping it. There is much discussion in the Talmud about how to fulfill the the Torah in regard to correctly doing what it instructs, so fulfilling it does not refer to a new manner of keeping it.
Right, I understand that you don't see it as a new way of keeping the law.

We know that God's law is eternal, and that it expresses his character, which doesn't change.

But we also know that God originally told humans to eat plants, but then after the flood told them to eat plants and animals. There had been a change. God hadn't changed, but something had.

2 Corinthians 5
If any one be in Christ, they are a new creation. Old things have passed away, all things have become new.

If the flood changed things, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to say that an entire New Creation would also change things.
 
Leaf473
Leaf473
Also as I mentioned above, the verb tenses work better for it to be a new way of keeping the law.
Upvote 0
Leaf473
Leaf473
My next door neighbor has had at least two live-in boyfriends. I love her as myself (well, try to :) ).

If I am honest and look deep into my heart, I don't have any desire to stone her. I understand that the rabbis say that there needs to be a court system that finds the person guilty and so on before the stoning. But my point here is that I don't have any *desire* for the stoning.
Upvote 0
Upvote 0

Cornelius8L

Active Member
Sep 12, 2022
350
80
35
Singapore
✟42,229.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hello,

Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, and Paul was a servant of Christ, so Galatians should not be misinterpreted as Paul warning Geniles against following Christ, but rather his problem was with those who were wanting to require Gentles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified. In Acts 5:32, the Spirit is given to those who obey God, so obedience to God is part of the way to receive the Spirit, however, Galatians 3:1-2 denies that works of the law is part of the way to receive the Spirit, therefore the phrase "works of the law" does not refer to obedience to anything that God has commanded. Likewise, in Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law, which can't be referring to the same thing as the works of the law that are not of faith in Galatians 3:10-11.

In Galatians 5:1, it says that it is for freedom that God set us free, however, if it were referring to the Mosaic Law as being bondage, then God would have freed the Israelites from bondage in Egypt in order to put them under bondage to His law, so it would be for bondage that God sets us free. Rather, the Mosaic Law is truth (Psalms 119:142) and in John 8:31-36, it is sin in transgression of the Mosaic Law that puts us onto bondage while it is the truth that sets us free.

In regard to Galatians 5:2, either there are correct or incorrect reasons for becoming circumcised and Paul only spoke against the incorrect reasons, or Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised in Acts 16:3 and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of them men in the US. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that they were wanting to require circumcision for an incorrect reason. A ruling against requiring circumcision for a purpose for which God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded.

In Galatians 5:4, it would be absurd to think that the way to be cut off from Christ is by following the law that Christ spent his ministry teaching us to follow by word and by example. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law, so that is what it means to be under grace, not the way to fall from it. It would be absurd to think that David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace.

If we love God and our neighbor, then we won't commit adultery, theft, murder, idolatry, rape, kidnapping, favoritism, and so forth, so the command to love is inclusive of all of God's other commands, which is why love fulfills them. In Galatians 5:19-23, everything listed a works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic Law, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are aspects of God's nature that are in accordance with it.
Thanks for sharing your view. Sharing mine too:

I’m sure the atheists can pick up a lot of contradiction in Jesus’s teachings against the Mosaic law. But as fellow believers of Christ, I will not list them here since it is not the purpose of this thread.

I don’t think Galatians 3:1-2 suggests that the believers thought works of the law are part of the way to receive the Spirit, but Paul was referencing their known fact that receiving the Spirit is apart from it. We know the work of the law includes animal sacrifices which we all openly declared that we no longer practice, although Jesus spoke of them (Matthew 8:4, Leviticus 14:1-32).

Matthew 8:4​
Then Jesus instructed him, “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift prescribed by Moses, as a testimony to them.”​

Are we all then disobeying Christ?

However, if Romans 3:31 is pointing to the spiritual law of freedom (James 1:25, Romans 8:2, 7:14), then it proves the law changed/fulfilled/improved after Jesus (the Word in flesh died) was raised by the Spirit (Romans 8:11) – A testimony of the Word turning from flesh to Spirit.

In reality, we are all slaves of Christ (1 Corinthians 7:22) with the mentioned freedom. One example of our current bondage is in 1 Corinthians 8:11-13, which aligns with the commandment of loving neighbors, not harming their bodies, minds, and souls. Then, this freedom is the transgression of the Mosaic Law, like how we no longer practice animal sacrifices. This includes transgressing of circumcision requirement even for the gentile, confirmed by the Mosaic Law (Genesis 17:12-14) as Paul himself confirmed the book of Genesis is a law (Galatians 4:21-30).

Galatians 5:4 is pointing to the old law before Jesus was resurrected. All prophets including David will say this, “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial passes away (1 Corinthians 13:10).”
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for sharing your view. Sharing mine too:

I’m sure the atheists can pick up a lot of contradiction in Jesus’s teachings against the Mosaic law. But as fellow believers of Christ, I will not list them here since it is not the purpose of this thread.

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Mosaic Law, so Jesus did not do that, and if he done that, then he would have been in disagreement with what the Father has commanded, and therefore would not have been one with the Father. Jesus set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), and he did not go to the cross or establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33).

I don’t think Galatians 3:1-2 suggests that the believers thought works of the law are part of the way to receive the Spirit, but Paul was referencing their known fact that receiving the Spirit is apart from it. We know the work of the law includes animal sacrifices which we all openly declared that we no longer practice, although Jesus spoke of them (Matthew 8:4, Leviticus 14:1-32).

Matthew 8:4​
Then Jesus instructed him, “See that you don’t tell anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift prescribed by Moses, as a testimony to them.”​

Are we all then disobeying Christ?

Regardless of whether or not those spoken to in Galatians 3:1-2 knew the receiving the Spirit is apart from works of the law, Acts 5:32, makes it clear that receiving the Spirit is not apart from obedience to God, so the phrase "works of the law" does not refer to obedience to anything that God has commanded, such as animal sacrifices. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith.

However, if Romans 3:31 is pointing to the spiritual law of freedom (James 1:25, Romans 8:2, 7:14), then it proves the law changed/fulfilled/improved after Jesus (the Word in flesh died) was raised by the Spirit (Romans 8:11) – A testimony of the Word turning from flesh to Spirit.

The Bible refers to the Law of Moses as being the Law of God in places like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:21-22, so that is what the Law of God in Roman 8:4 is referring to. The Mosaic Law is perfect (Psalms 19:7), it is a law of liberty (Psalms 119:45), and it blesses those who obey it (Psalms 119:1-3), so when James 1:25 speaks about a perfect law of liberty that blesses those who obey it, he was not saying anything about the Mosaic Law that was not said in the Psalms, which does not refer it being changed or improved after Jesus rose from the dead. A law that is perfect has no need to be changed or improved and God did not command anything that was flawed.


In reality, we are all slaves of Christ (1 Corinthians 7:22) with the mentioned freedom. One example of our current bondage is in 1 Corinthians 8:11-13, which aligns with the commandment of loving neighbors, not harming their bodies, minds, and souls. Then, this freedom is the transgression of the Mosaic Law, like how we no longer practice animal sacrifices. This includes transgressing of circumcision requirement even for the gentile, confirmed by the Mosaic Law (Genesis 17:12-14) as Paul himself confirmed the book of Genesis is a law (Galatians 4:21-30).

In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, so the way to be slaves in Christ is not by refusing to walk in the same way he walked, and he walked in obedience to the Mosaic Law. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from any of God's laws, but in order 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 becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20). In other words, the freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from doing what God has revealed to be sin through the Mosaic Law, not the freedom to do those things.

Galatians 5:4 is pointing to the old law before Jesus was resurrected. All prophets including David will say this, “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial passes away (1 Corinthians 13:10).”

Again, Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so it doesn't make sense to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning Gentiles against following Christ and saying that they will be cut off from Christ if they follow Christ. Furthermore, in Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, so do you think that he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching his how to fall from grace. In Exodus 33:13, did Moses want God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace. In Romans 1:5, did we receive grace in order to bring about our fall from grace? In Titus 2:11-14, does our sallvation involve being trained by grace to fall from it? No, in Galatians 5:4, Paul was speaking against being justified by works of the law, not against obeying God's law.
 
Upvote 0

Cornelius8L

Active Member
Sep 12, 2022
350
80
35
Singapore
✟42,229.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Bible refers to the Law of Moses as being the Law of God in places like Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, and Luke 2:21-22, so that is what the Law of God in Roman 8:4 is referring to. The Mosaic Law is perfect (Psalms 19:7), it is a law of liberty (Psalms 119:45), and it blesses those who obey it (Psalms 119:1-3), so when James 1:25 speaks about a perfect law of liberty that blesses those who obey it, he was not saying anything about the Mosaic Law that was not said in the Psalms, which does not refer it being changed or improved after Jesus rose from the dead. A law that is perfect has no need to be changed or improved and God did not command anything that was flawed.



In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, so the way to be slaves in Christ is not by refusing to walk in the same way he walked, and he walked in obedience to the Mosaic Law. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that Jesus gave himself to redeem us from any of God's laws, but in order 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 becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is the way to believe in what Jesus accomplished through the cross (Acts 21:20). In other words, the freedom that we have in Christ is the freedom from doing what God has revealed to be sin through the Mosaic Law, not the freedom to do those things.


Again, Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example, so it doesn't make sense to interpret Galatians 5:4 as Paul warning Gentiles against following Christ and saying that they will be cut off from Christ if they follow Christ. Furthermore, in Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, so do you think that he wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching his how to fall from grace. In Exodus 33:13, did Moses want God to be gracious to him by teaching him how to fall from grace. In Romans 1:5, did we receive grace in order to bring about our fall from grace? In Titus 2:11-14, does our sallvation involve being trained by grace to fall from it? No, in Galatians 5:4, Paul was speaking against being justified by works of the law, not against obeying God's law.
Let’s make this simpler. Is there one law or two laws of God mentioned in the scripture? Paul said there are two.

By the way, commandments ἐντολῆς (entolēs) and the law νόμος (nomos) are the same thing according to Paul.

Hebrews 7:18-19​
So the former commandment ἐντολῆς [entolēs] is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law νόμος [nomos] made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. [Also ref: Romans 8:2]
ἐντολῆς (entolēs) is the word Jesus used in Luke 18:20, John 14:15, and 1 John 2:4.​

The relation between these two laws is one replacing/changing another (Hebrews 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:7-11).

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Mosaic Law, so Jesus did not do that, and if he done that, then he would have been in disagreement with what the Father has commanded, and therefore would not have been one with the Father. Jesus set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law, as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), and he did not go to the cross or establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33).
Maybe our first impression of Jesus being one with the Father is by Jesus following the Mosaic Law, but it can also refer/include His authority of freely doing what He wanted like His Father (Ecclesiastes 8:4, Job 9:12). And Jesus never needs us to defend His reputation (John 5:34). If He did something not following the law, we accept it and follow. Maybe, we also misunderstood the meaning of sin all along (Romans 14:23).

Regardless of whether or not those spoken to in Galatians 3:1-2 knew the receiving the Spirit is apart from works of the law, Acts 5:32, makes it clear that receiving the Spirit is not apart from obedience to God, so the phrase "works of the law" does not refer to obedience to anything that God has commanded, such as animal sacrifices. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so it is of faith.
Galatians 3:10 suggests "works of the law" mentioned in Galatians 3:1-2 refers to obedience to anything that God has commanded in the Mosaic Law, such as animal sacrifices.

Galatians 3:10​
All who rely on works of the law are under a curse. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Galatians 3:10 suggests "works of the law" mentioned in Galatians 3:1-2 refers to obedience to anything that God has commanded in the Mosaic Law, such as animal sacrifices.

Galatians 3:10
All who rely on works of the law are under a curse. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul contrasted works of the law with the Book of the Law. In Deuteronomy 28-14, it lists the blessing for continuing to rely on everything in the Book of the Law while verses 15-68 list the curse for not continuing to rely on everything in it, so those who rely on works of the law instead of the Book of the Law come under the curse for not relying on the Book of the Law. Furthermore, in Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 saying that the righteous shall live by faith with a quote from Leviticus 18:5 that those who obey God's law will attain life by it, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are continuing to rely on everything in God's law, while no one is justified before God by works of the law because they are not of faith in God. In addition, in Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is God's law, so the righteous living by faith does not refer to a manner of living that is not in obedience to it.

Moreover, there are many other verses that connect our faith with our obedience to God's law. For example, in James 2:18, he said that he would show his faith by his works. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of God's law. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law. In Revelation 14:12, those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments. In Hebrews 11, every example of faith is an example of works. In Hebrews 3:18-19, unbelief is equated with disobedience. In Numbers 5:6, disobedience is described as breaking faith. So sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), sin is whatever is not of faith (Romans 14:23), and whatever is in transgression of God's law is not of faith.
Maybe our first impression of Jesus being one with the Father is by Jesus following the Mosaic Law, but it can also refer/include His authority of freely doing what He wanted like His Father (Ecclesiastes 8:4, Job 9:12). And Jesus never needs us to defend His reputation (John 5:34). If He did something not following the law, we accept it and follow. Maybe, we also misunderstood the meaning of sin all along (Romans 14:23).

In Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born under God's law, so he was obligated to obey it, including Deuteronomy 4:2, and he was sinless, so he never broke it. If Jesus was free to do whatever he wanted without it counting as sin, then him being sinless would hold no significance. God's laws were not arbitrarily commanded, but rather everything that God chose to command was specifically commanded for the purpose of teaching us how to love difference aspects of His eternal nature. This is why the Bible often uses the same terms to describe the nature of God as it does to describe the nature of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faith being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). If laws describing the way to express, experience, love, believe in, and testify about God's nature were not eternal, then God's nature would be be eternal. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is the exact image of God's nature, which he expressed through living in sinless obedience to God's law, so there was no room for him to change of any of God's eternal laws or for us to consider him to be sinless if he had tried to change them.

Let’s make this simpler. Is there one law or two laws of God mentioned in the scripture? Paul said there are two.

By the way, commandments ἐντολῆς (entolēs) and the law νόμος (nomos) are the same thing according to Paul.

Hebrews 7:18-19​
So the former commandment ἐντολῆς [entolēs] is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law νόμος [nomos] made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. [Also ref: Romans 8:2]
ἐντολῆς (entolēs) is the word Jesus used in Luke 18:20, John 14:15, and 1 John 2:4.​

The relation between these two laws is one replacing/changing another (Hebrews 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:7-11).

In is not the case that Paul considered them to be the same thing. For example, in in John 11:57, it refers to a command by chief priests and Pharisees to seize Jesus. In John 10:18 and 12:49, it refers a specific command to Jesus by the Father. In Acts 17:15, those who escorted Paul received a commandment for Silas and Timothy to come as soon as possible. In Ephesians 2:15, it refers to something other than what has been commanded by God. In Colossians 4:10, it refers to instructions that they have received concerning Mark. In Titus 1:14, it refers to the commandments of men. So while there are many places where it does refer to the nomo tou Theou, it does not always refer to that. Again, in Jeremiah 31:33, it says that the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds an writing in on our hearts, and Hebrews 8:10 quotes that verses, so there is no room to interpret 8:13 as the New Covenant replacing the Torah with something else. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Torah, so again, the ministry of the Spirit does not refer to replacing it with something else.
 
Upvote 0

Cornelius8L

Active Member
Sep 12, 2022
350
80
35
Singapore
✟42,229.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In is not the case that Paul considered them to be the same thing. For example, in in John 11:57, it refers to a command by chief priests and Pharisees to seize Jesus. In John 10:18 and 12:49, it refers a specific command to Jesus by the Father. In Acts 17:15, those who escorted Paul received a commandment for Silas and Timothy to come as soon as possible. In Ephesians 2:15, it refers to something other than what has been commanded by God. In Colossians 4:10, it refers to instructions that they have received concerning Mark. In Titus 1:14, it refers to the commandments of men. So while there are many places where it does refer to the nomo tou Theou, it does not always refer to that. Again, in Jeremiah 31:33, it says that the New Covenant involves God putting the Torah in our minds an writing in on our hearts, and Hebrews 8:10 quotes that verses, so there is no room to interpret 8:13 as the New Covenant replacing the Torah with something else. In Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the Torah, so again, the ministry of the Spirit does not refer to replacing it with something else.
Thanks for providing a good list of references that further supports all commands are called commandments, not just the decalogue. (I have been trying to get that list )

Even so, Hebrews 7:19 mentions law. It is also supported by 2 Corinthians 3:7-11. Hebrews 8:9 and Jeremiah 31:32 bring in the old covenant and obsolete it (Hebrews 8:13). Anyway, what is your view about Ephesians 2:15 if it is not referring to the wall of hostility(v14) caused by the law of commandments and decrees, separating the Jews and Gentiles?
In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul contrasted works of the law with the Book of the Law. In Deuteronomy 28-14, it lists the blessing for continuing to rely on everything in the Book of the Law while verses 15-68 list the curse for not continuing to rely on everything in it, so those who rely on works of the law instead of the Book of the Law come under the curse for not relying on the Book of the Law. Furthermore, in Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 saying that the righteous shall live by faith with a quote from Leviticus 18:5 that those who obey God's law will attain life by it, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same as those who are continuing to rely on everything in God's law, while no one is justified before God by works of the law because they are not of faith in God. In addition, in Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is God's law, so the righteous living by faith does not refer to a manner of living that is not in obedience to it.

Moreover, there are many other verses that connect our faith with our obedience to God's law. For example, in James 2:18, he said that he would show his faith by his works. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of God's law. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law. In Revelation 14:12, those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments. In Hebrews 11, every example of faith is an example of works. In Hebrews 3:18-19, unbelief is equated with disobedience. In Numbers 5:6, disobedience is described as breaking faith. So sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), sin is whatever is not of faith (Romans 14:23), and whatever is in transgression of God's law is not of faith.
In Galatians 3:10, Paul was talking about Deuteronomy 11:26 “See, today I am setting before you a blessing and a curse.”

We agree on obeying the law, but which law? Unless we can prove 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 (and many other verses) not infer changing of the law, it always points to the latest law.
In Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born under God's law, so he was obligated to obey it, including Deuteronomy 4:2, and he was sinless, so he never broke it. If Jesus was free to do whatever he wanted without it counting as sin, then him being sinless would hold no significance. God's laws were not arbitrarily commanded, but rather everything that God chose to command was specifically commanded for the purpose of teaching us how to love difference aspects of His eternal nature. This is why the Bible often uses the same terms to describe the nature of God as it does to describe the nature of God's law, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faith being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). If laws describing the way to express, experience, love, believe in, and testify about God's nature were not eternal, then God's nature would be be eternal. In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is the exact image of God's nature, which he expressed through living in sinless obedience to God's law, so there was no room for him to change of any of God's eternal laws or for us to consider him to be sinless if he had tried to change them.
Asides from the examples I’ve previously given, do you know Jesus lied before?

John 7​
3So Jesus’ brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go to Judea, so that Your disciples there may see the works You are doing. 4For no one who wants to be known publicly acts in secret. Since You are doing these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5For even His own brothers did not believe in Him.​
6Therefore Jesus told them, “Although your time is always at hand, My time has not yet come. 7The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me, because I testify that its works are evil. 8Go up to the feast on your own. I am not going up to this feast, because My time has not yet come.”​
9Having said this, Jesus remained in Galilee. 10But after His brothers had gone up to the feast, He also went—not publicly, but in secret.

How is this not lying or deceiving? Following your narrative, Jesus would have sinned.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Bob S
Upvote 0

Bob S

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 5, 2015
4,584
2,203
88
Union County, TN
✟657,084.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
2Cor 3:6-11 is a real clincher for not believing what Sabbath observers teach. Those that think for some reason we must observe some of the rituals God gave only to Israel certainly do not believe what Paul taught..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cornelius8L
Upvote 0

guevaraj

an oil seller in the story of the ten virgins
Supporter
Mar 31, 2019
2,060
143
53
Berrien Springs
Visit site
✟538,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
2Cor 3:6-11 is a real clincher for not believing what Sabbath observers teach. Those that think for some reason we must observe some of the rituals God gave only to Israel certainly do not believe what Paul taught..
Brother, what leads to death is sin kept by the human traditions in Judaism, made clear by comparing Judaism to Hagar, where their own rules sabotaged God's Ten Commandments to not remove sin, leading to death. For example, Judaism does not pronounce the name of God so as not to misuse His name. This human rule obeys the commandment but does not remove sin that would have been removed had they actually obeyed what God asked instead of their own rule.

He has enabled us to be ministers of his new covenant (Eleven Commandments). This is a covenant not of written laws (Ten Commandments), but of the Spirit (reminding us to follow the exemplary life of Jesus). The old written covenant ends in death (sabotaged by human effort as in the story of Hagar); but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life (reminding us to follow the exemplary life of Jesus). The old way, with laws etched in stone (Ten Commandments), led to death (sabotaged by human effort as in the story of Hagar), though it began with such glory that the people of Israel could not bear to look at Moses’ face. For his face shone with the glory of God, even though the brightness was already fading away. Shouldn’t we expect far greater glory under the new way (Eleven Commandments), now that the Holy Spirit is giving life (reminding us to follow the exemplary life of Jesus)? If the old way (Ten Commandments), which brings condemnation, was glorious, how much more glorious is the new way (Eleven Commandments), which makes us right with God! In fact, that first glory was not glorious at all compared with the overwhelming glory of the new way (Eleven Commandments). So if the old way (Ten Commandments), which has been replaced (an outline written in stone replaced with a fully fledged out Eleven Commandments exemplified in Jesus' life to follow), was glorious, how much more glorious is the new (Eleven Commandments), which remains forever! (2 Corinthians 3:6-11 NLT)​

United in our hope for the soon return of Jesus, Jorge
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Pharisees thought that obedience and righteousness was motivated by their effort to keep the Mosiac law.

Under the New Covenant the Old Covenant of law and religion was abolished, Ephesians 2:15. Jesus nailed it to his cross, Colossians 2:14. The reason that it was abolished was because it was no longer applicable for New Testament Christians. Paul wrote, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness" Romans 10:4.

Many Christians believe that the law is their teacher and their guide and that they should live by laws, rules and religion. This is exactly what the Pharisees thought. But the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is our teacher and our guide and not the law, John 16:13.

When God abolished the written law, he wrote the spiritual law on the hearts and minds of his people, Hebrews 8:10. The spiritual law is very different from the written law. The written law demands perfection or death. The spiritual law is an urging or prompting to do what is right. There is no condemnation for those that violate the spiritual law, Romans 8:1.

Under the New Covenant God's people don't live by rules, laws or religion. Paul wrote, "The just shall live by faith" Romans 1:17. They live by faith in Christ and his Gospel.

I think this is probably a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Torah, what obedience entails and why it's important. It's typical to see the commands in the torah as basically arbitrary rules to be followed to the letter. There seems to me to be a general thought among many Christians that the Torah's purpose was either to set Israel apart from the nations, demonstrate that humans are stuck in sin and can't follow it's commands, or bring about the Messiah (or perhaps some combination of all of those).

I think many times there's a hidden motive too. Many of the commands appear to be arcane, archaic, or extreme, and so some people are motivated to find reasons to not-follow the commands. Sabbath is the most obvious that comes up frequently in theological debate, but many other are viewed with suspicion too such as the punishments prescribed by some laws, Levirate marriages, and a host of other specifics commands.

(1) So my first point would be that the purpose of the torah should not be understood as an arbitrary collection of commands issue by divine decree for no reason other than to show that, like Israel, we're sinners in need of a messiah. Instead there is more going on here. The Torah itself describes it's purpose as the way to life (Deut 11:9, 22:7, 22:15. 28:66, 30:15-20) so that if you follow the torah, you'll have a long life, and if you don't follow it's commands, you won't have a long life (note, this is refering to life here on earth, not eternal life after death in heaven). To Israel, this is contained in a covenant/treaty form and attached to specific stipulations about inheriting land. If they obeyed, they'd be granted favor in the promised land, but if they disobeyed, they'd be expelled from the promised land.

But I think it also applies more generally - if you follow the commands in the torah, you'll likely have a longer and more fulfilling life - if you do the opposite of it's commands, and so reject it, you'll likely live a shorter and less fulfilling life. I think this generalization is appropriate because all of the nations in the ancient world at least stretching from the Eastern Med to Persia, had very similar law codes (in some cases almost identical) so that there is reason to believe that in the ancient near eastern world there was a common law tradition in play and that Torah should be considered within this context. Somehow, they had all generally come to realize that if this common law tradition was followed, they'd fair better, but if they rejected this common law tradition, they'd fair poorer. In Israel, this common law was written and contained within a covenant document with some stipulations that were specific to Israel, but the generality of the law is still applicable. Example: you don't have to observe commands to not-murder and not-steal, but if you do those things, you're probably going to have a shorter and more miserable life. So in some sense, yes, you do have to observe them if you want to live a fulfilling life.

In general, the entire purpose of the Torah, and it's ancient near eastern counterparts (eg, the Code of Hammurabi) and the Ancient Near Eastern common law tradition was ideally to promote human flourishing. Even in the Torah, this is the very first command given to man (be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and rule it). Most, if not all, of it's commands can be understood within this framework. It does this by protecting and promoting things like life, religion, property, family, social order, and peace.

(2) My second point is that like its near eastern counterparts, the torah did not, in it's original setting and intent, function legislatively. It's more common law than statutory law. And this is why in both Israel and the ancient near east, you can find law codes with specific wording, but you can find actual judicial cases that don't follow laws to the letter. These laws codes, Torah included, probably initially functioned as specific case law, legal guidance, legal wisdom, and premier examples - again, common law. As such, its commands are not always exhaustive or comprehensive of every situation that could arise as a legal matter. As common law, neither judges, kings, priests, elders, etc... were obliged to follow to the letter without applying common sense, wisdom, consideration for specific circumstances, or the merit of specific cases (nor does this mean they could ignore law either).

So should we obey the law? Well, the OP prescribed a way of obedience in the way the Pharisees prescribed. I'm saying there is reason to say we should follow Torah, just not necessarily as the Pharisees prescribed. It seems one could understand the Torah's purpose, original intent and common law and arrive at the conclusion that, yes, we should follow Torah, but it doesn't have to be in the way it was understood and practiced by the Pharisees. You don't have to accept their axioms or method in order to keep and observe the law. Or as Paul might say, "the letter kills but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). There is more leeway in application of the Law than people might think.

For specific scholarly sources, I'd recommend Raymond Westbrook ("A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law"), Joshua Berman ("Ani Maamin"), or John Walton ("The Lost World of the Torah").
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Leaf473
Upvote 0

Bob S

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 5, 2015
4,584
2,203
88
Union County, TN
✟657,084.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Very interesting Yek. You say we SHOULD follow Torah, the Law. If that is the case then why did the Father send the Son into the mess here on Earth to teach us a new way? I find in Jn 15:9-14 the new way Jesus taught us to live. It is the great theme of the New Testament and something we were born with. Jesus told us He kept the commands of the Father. He fulfilled the Law and prophets. Since He was born under the Law and lived under the Law, He taught under the Law to all who were born under the law. At His death on the Cross Jesus ratified the New Covenant with His blood. During His teaching He gave us the new way to live, LOVE OTHERS AS I HAVE LOVED YOU. John in 1Jn3:19-24 tells us we belong to the truth if we believe in the one God sent and love others as He commanded. Not one writer of the New Testament tells Gentiles we have to observe Torah Law. There is no doubt that we are to love our fellow man. It is written in scripture and on our hearts.

Jn3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever keeps Torah believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Leaf473

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2020
8,128
2,191
54
Northeast
✟178,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's typical to see the commands in the torah as basically arbitrary rules to be followed to the letter.
Yes, most of the people who present themselves as law keepers that I've talked with with here on CF believe the law must be kept to the letter.

But if people are in favor of keeping the principles of Torah, I'm totally down with that. Indeed, I think that's what most serious Christians have been doing throughout the centuries.

And then, of course, it's great to have edifying discussions about what the principles of those laws are.

These words, which I command you today, shall be on your heart.
You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.
Deuteronomy 6
 
Upvote 0

Cornelius8L

Active Member
Sep 12, 2022
350
80
35
Singapore
✟42,229.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think this is probably a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Torah, what obedience entails and why it's important. It's typical to see the commands in the torah as basically arbitrary rules to be followed to the letter. There seems to me to be a general thought among many Christians that the Torah's purpose was either to set Israel apart from the nations, demonstrate that humans are stuck in sin and can't follow it's commands, or bring about the Messiah (or perhaps some combination of all of those).

I think many times there's a hidden motive too. Many of the commands appear to be arcane, archaic, or extreme, and so some people are motivated to find reasons to not-follow the commands. Sabbath is the most obvious that comes up frequently in theological debate, but many other are viewed with suspicion too such as the punishments prescribed by some laws, Levirate marriages, and a host of other specifics commands.

(1) So my first point would be that the purpose of the torah should not be understood as an arbitrary collection of commands issue by divine decree for no reason other than to show that, like Israel, we're sinners in need of a messiah. Instead there is more going on here. The Torah itself describes it's purpose as the way to life (Deut 11:9, 22:7, 22:15. 28:66, 30:15-20) so that if you follow the torah, you'll have a long life, and if you don't follow it's commands, you won't have a long life (note, this is refering to life here on earth, not eternal life after death in heaven). To Israel, this is contained in a covenant/treaty form and attached to specific stipulations about inheriting land. If they obeyed, they'd be granted favor in the promised land, but if they disobeyed, they'd be expelled from the promised land.

But I think it also applies more generally - if you follow the commands in the torah, you'll likely have a longer and more fulfilling life - if you do the opposite of it's commands, and so reject it, you'll likely live a shorter and less fulfilling life. I think this generalization is appropriate because all of the nations in the ancient world at least stretching from the Eastern Med to Persia, had very similar law codes (in some cases almost identical) so that there is reason to believe that in the ancient near eastern world there was a common law tradition in play and that Torah should be considered within this context. Somehow, they had all generally come to realize that if this common law tradition was followed, they'd fair better, but if they rejected this common law tradition, they'd fair poorer. In Israel, this common law was written and contained within a covenant document with some stipulations that were specific to Israel, but the generality of the law is still applicable. Example: you don't have to observe commands to not-murder and not-steal, but if you do those things, you're probably going to have a shorter and more miserable life. So in some sense, yes, you do have to observe them if you want to live a fulfilling life.

In general, the entire purpose of the Torah, and it's ancient near eastern counterparts (eg, the Code of Hammurabi) and the Ancient Near Eastern common law tradition was ideally to promote human flourishing. Even in the Torah, this is the very first command given to man (be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and rule it). Most, if not all, of it's commands can be understood within this framework. It does this by protecting and promoting things like life, religion, property, family, social order, and peace.

(2) My second point is that like its near eastern counterparts, the torah did not, in it's original setting and intent, function legislatively. It's more common law than statutory law. And this is why in both Israel and the ancient near east, you can find law codes with specific wording, but you can find actual judicial cases that don't follow laws to the letter. These laws codes, Torah included, probably initially functioned as specific case law, legal guidance, legal wisdom, and premier examples - again, common law. As such, its commands are not always exhaustive or comprehensive of every situation that could arise as a legal matter. As common law, neither judges, kings, priests, elders, etc... were obliged to follow to the letter without applying common sense, wisdom, consideration for specific circumstances, or the merit of specific cases (nor does this mean they could ignore law either).

So should we obey the law? Well, the OP prescribed a way of obedience in the way the Pharisees prescribed. I'm saying there is reason to say we should follow Torah, just not necessarily as the Pharisees prescribed. It seems one could understand the Torah's purpose, original intent and common law and arrive at the conclusion that, yes, we should follow Torah, but it doesn't have to be in the way it was understood and practiced by the Pharisees. You don't have to accept their axioms or method in order to keep and observe the law. Or as Paul might say, "the letter kills but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). There is more leeway in application of the Law than people might think.

For specific scholarly sources, I'd recommend Raymond Westbrook ("A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law"), Joshua Berman ("Ani Maamin"), or John Walton ("The Lost World of the Torah").
Do you mean the spiritual part of the Torah? or Cherry-pick what to follow from the Torah? Sorry, have to ask this because they mean differently.
 
Upvote 0

Yekcidmij

Presbyterian, Polymath
Feb 18, 2002
10,445
1,448
East Coast
✟230,239.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you mean the spiritual part of the Torah? or Cherry-pick what to follow from the Torah? Sorry, have to ask this because they mean differently.

I don't know what's meant by "spiritual part" or "cherry pick" parts.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums