The Book of Hebrews

[Loveaboveall]

So now what you are saying is there were two covenants simultaneously with an "opt-in" plan?

The old covenant was designed to bring people back into Faith in God. This is mentioned all throughout the OT. For instance:


Deut 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Deut 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Jer 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench [it], because of the evil of your doings.

Ps 51:16-17 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God [are] a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

The new covenant is God taking a broken/circumcised/contrite heart and writing HIs law/character on it so that everyone will know we are a Child of God and they will want what we have.

Consider for a second what David says in Ps 40.

vs 4-6 Blessed [is] that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies. Many, O LORD my God, [are] thy wonderful works [which] thou hast done, and thy thoughts [which are] to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: [if] I would declare and speak [of them], they are more than can be numbered. Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

vs 8-10 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law [is] within my heart. I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest. I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.

I see this as a PERFECT illustration of what the new covenant describes!

I can't agree with you on this point and here's why...

1. You seem to assume that a person under the old covenant could not possibly possess faith. This seems to be unwarranted and in my opinion, untrue. The heroes in chapter 11 of Hebrews were certainly examples of people of great faith, but they were not under the new covenant.

I am not saying that all people under the old covenant could not have faith. I am saying the old covenant was intended to bring people back into faith in God. They were under the new covenant because they HAD faith that God would provide a way of salvation. The new covenant of faith was given back in Eden!

2. The Scripture you quote Heb. 8:10-12, is a direct quote of Jeremiah 31:33-34. The key phrase in each of the passages here is:

Hebrews 8:10-12

For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Each of the people you mentioned lived BEFORE Jeremiah. The Lord is speaking in FUTURE tense. Therefore, none of the people in Chap. 11 of Hebrews could be under the new covenant.

The point I believe you have missed is this... Jeremiah is prophesing. Paul speaks of the prophecies fulfillment in the us the Christian church who have the evidence of Jesus, the Messiah. It does not limit this blessing to only those in the future. How could David write what He did without the fulfillment in Him? The real problem was that the Jews never figured out what it meant to have Faith. Jeremiah was writing in the times just before and during the captivity in Babylon. They were taken captive because of their complete lack of Faith in God. This was demonstrated by their disobedience.

Are you telling me because Daniel was not able to sacrifice sin offerings to God that he was not forgiven his sins?

3. One can see from Chap.11 of Hebrews itself that these people were not under the new covenant.

Heb 11:13, 39

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

39 And these all, having had witness borne to them through their faith, received not the promise,

What is the promise spoken of here?

Hebrews 11:10,14,16,40. For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God....For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country...But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city....God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Looks like we are back at the discussion of the word "perfect". The promise here spoken of is the heavenly caanan. They did not obtain this promise as of yet, because God is still working on us.

It is not the promise of the new covenant it is the promise of heaven

I'm glad you brought up Heb. 11, though. I think it might make what I am trying to say about faith more clear. If you read through the chapter, you will notice a pattern...

By faith, (OT character) (verb)

Living, breathing faith inspires action. It is not passive. Living faith subdues, stops the mouths of lions, goes when asked, and perserveres. That is the faith we are called to have.

I do not disagree with any thing you have said. I have never said faith is not active. But the foundation we are built on is faith. We are saved by faith. Because we are saved we allow God to work all these marvelous things through us.

Look, I understand your reluctance to admit any responsibility on our part. There was a time long ago in the Middle Ages where there WAS a over-reliance on works. According to the Catholic Church, you COULD WORK (or pay) your way to Heaven. This is totally and absolutely wrong. I think any good Catholic would admit that today. However, it is important not to over-react the opposite way. This is what Martin Luther (and most Protestants today) did (understandably with what he was up against) and John Calvin as well. Calvin taught that man does and can do absolutely nothing. It is predetermined and we are totally helpless.

Actually, Luther, did not "over-react" enough. He kept many of the Catholic tradition execept Righteousness by Faith which is entirely biblical! Calvin is a different story, he viewed making a choice as a "work" which I do not! Thus we all have a choice to make for or against God.

The truth lies somewhere I believe, in the middle.

Calvin may have had it wrong but I do not believe taking away from Luther's stance is turning to truth it is turning away from the truth of righteousnes by faith.

God works alone, but also through us here on Earth.

I agree, but God cannot work through someone who does not want Him to. God limited His power so we could love.

The following passage has always been helpful to me...

Philippians 2:12-13

12 So then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

Notice verse 12 seems to imply that our salvation has everything to do with us but then....

13 for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.

....verse 13 comes along and it seems that it has everything to do with God and nothing to do with us!

The answer is of course, it is both. In a faithful Christian's life, the Holy Spirit and he are so intertwined it is difficult to say "He did this and I did that". It is best just to do, and give God the credit instead of worrying about assigning responsibility.

I am of the belief that the Holy Spirit is working in us constantly. Speaking to us and leading us in the direction we should go. How does one workout His own salvation? By allowing the Holy Spirit to humble whatever needs to be given up. We are selfish humans and we have things that even now may not be clear that we need to give up. But, when we are convicted by the Holy Spirit of something, we can either choose to love God through Faith or Love ourselves. This is working out your own salvation.

I hope that next time you see those Christians you spoke of who seem to be working, you might pause before you pass judgement. They might be saying the right things because they actually believe them. And they might be doing the right things because Christ is working in them, accomplishing His purposes here on earth and making them into stronger, more faithful children of God. One should not attempt to judge another man's heart lightly.

I never mean't to sound like I judge anyones heart, for I do not believe that is for us to do. However, you are known by your works and your works can tell the story. I have never meant to belittle works. It is this tradition of covenants that is propagated that must be spoken against because it belittles the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the "Law of Faith" not works of a "new law".

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

Your Question: "Where in this new agreement does man do/work anything?"

The old covenant was based on the agreement of the Israelites to do what God said and in return, God would bless them. In essence, I believe this is the same principle implied when people obey the gospel of Christ today - they agree to do what the Lord says - and in return God will bless them in Christ. Note one particular aspect of the new covenant: "... Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more (Heb. 8:12)." Now, let's go to Acts 2 and see if the Jews there had to do anything to receive the remission of sins. According to Acts 2:38, I understand that the Jews were commanded to repent and be baptized to have their sins taken away. And, 3,000 of them obeyed (verse 41), and were saved and added to the church (verse 47). Please explain why your understanding of the new covenant doesn't agree with the conversion of the Jews in Acts 2?

I thought a basic understanding of Bible interpretation was that passages are supposed to harmonize i.e. Matt. 4:5-7.

Interesting thoughts!

Acts 2:38 is focused on a lot, maybe too much. And your answer in the above bolded part of your comment reveals why. You have just said the old covenant is, in essence, the same as the new covenant but with different requirements! This is what I am speaking out against. There is no act you can do to be saved, period.

Let's see now ... you say I focus too much on Acts 2:38. On the other hand, you didn't deal with the passage, nor how the Jews responded to it in verse 41, nor the inspired commentary in verse 47. Please show us how your conclusion: "There is no act you can do to be saved, period," harmonizes with this text. Take the three thousand in verse 41. Did they reply in a way that agrees with what you are saying? Obviously, they didn't. They did what Peter told them. Therefore, if your reasoning is correct, then Peter's response in verse 38 was wrong. And, since Peter was under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, that would mean the Holy Spirit was wrong. Frankly, I not inclined at all to jump to these conclusions. Please go through the text and explain to us what we are missing.

In reality, baptism is nothing more than the choice to allow God to write on our hearts His law. To believe differently would go against ALL of the writings of Paul and against the New Covenant! It is an outward symbol of an inward choice to open the door to Jesus. I posted several verses in the baptism section that you can check out if you so choose. As circumcision of the old covenant was a "token or sign" of ones acceptance and Faith of God and an outward sign of who his allegiance was to; So baptism is a "token or sign" of the new covenant an outward representation of the circumcision of the heart.

Acts 2:38. Does the Scripture say, imply or infer that baptism is an token or sign of a new covenant, or that it is an "outward representation of the circumcision of the heart?"
Does Acts 22:16 say this?
How about 1 Peter 3:20-21?
How about Romans 6:3-11?
Where exactly are the passages that describe baptism the way you do?

The point that must drive this home is this: There is nothing special about the water. The water does not remove your sins. Without a circumcision of the heart an person is just getting wet! This of itself, illustrates that immersion in water means nothing. It is only means something when it symbolizes what has happened in the heart.

Agreed. Baptism in not about the water (although it is indeed in water e.g. Acts 8:35-39). It is about faith in the working of God (i.e. Col. 2:12-13). Now, about this text in Colossians, you probably should check out verse 11 also. It discusses the circumcision that God's people undergo ... and explains that it occurs in baptism.

This was especially important for the Jews who would face fierce persecution, by none other then Paul. They were openly taking a stand for God. Just as Daniel did in Babylon. No, it was not the baptism that saved the jews that day, it was the change in their heart.

For sure, based on what the text says, the Jews in Acts 2:37 had a change in heart about Jesus. Were they saved at this point? Nope. They were still in their sins. Not until they repented of their sins and were baptized in the name of the Lord were their sins taken away. Note 1 Peter 3:21 and see what word fills in the blank:
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now ________ us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (KJV)." You have drawn a conclusion that directly contradicts what this passage says.

This is in perfect harmony with the New Covenant spoken of in Hebrews. I would ask you to harmonize Acts 2:38 with Hebrews instead of harmonizing Hebrews with Acts 2:38. And, not just with Hebrews, but with all of the old and new testament.

The harmony you speak of can only be found when you acknowledge and accept both texts. Going with an understanding of one text and ignoring the other is not how Bible harmony works. The Sadducees tried this very thing in Matthew 22:23-33. They decided there could be no resurrection based on their understanding of Deuteronomy 25:5. However, they forgot to consider another relevant passage - Exodus 3:6. In principle, you are falling victim to the same erroneous thinking.

Now, let's see about harmonizing the texts. After being given the instructions about having their sins remitted, 3,000 Jews obeyed, were saved, and were added by the Lord to His church (Acts 2:38,41,47). By doing such, they entered into a covenant relationship with God - a new covenant - the one prophesied by Jeremiah - where God remembered their sins no more (synomymous with the "remission of sins" in Acts 2:38). Now, that wasn't too hard, was it?

On the other hand, your version of harmonizing the texts seems to be ... Hebrews 8 doesn't specifically say we don't have to do anything under the new covenant. Therefore, we don't. As for the instructions given in Acts 2:38 and the favorable response of the 3,000, let's just not deal with that text and pretend somehow it harmonizes with our understanding of Hebrews 8. Sorry, but that won't work at all. Jesus plainly shows us in Matthew 4:5-7 that the truth will harmonize between passages. What if He had practiced what you are teaching by ignoring Deuteronomy 6:16, and jumped from the top of the temple? The answer is that He would have sinned if He did ... and all of us would be in a world of trouble today. However, He didn't. Truth doesn't occur by ignoring relevant texts of Scripture. Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself right there in Matthew 4:5-7. Believe what the Lord reveals.

 

[JDIBe]

The point I believe you have missed is this... Jeremiah is prophesing. Paul speaks of the prophecies fulfillment in the us the Christian church who have the evidence of Jesus, the Messiah. It does not limit this blessing to only those in the future. How could David write what He did without the fulfillment in Him?

Because David was a prophet too!

Psa 22:7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 Commit thyself unto Jehovah; Let him deliver him: Let him rescue him, seeing he delighteth in him.

Mat 27:39 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads,
40 and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross.
41 In like manner also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. He is the King of Israel; let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on him.
43 He trusteth on God; let him deliver him now, if he desireth him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
---
Psa 22:18 They part my garments among them, And upon my vesture do they cast lots.

Joh 19:23 The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
24 They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, And upon my vesture did they cast lots.
----
Act 2:29 Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day.
30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne;
31 he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.


Yes, Jeremiah is prophesying. So is David. But a prophesy is something that LOOKS FORWARD, not backward.

You say in a earlier post:

David was in the same covenant situation as we are today! Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sara, Jacob, Joseph... all who are mentioned in Hebrews 11 are examples of those who lived in the new covenant! They were written for us as examples of what it means to have faith and live under the new covenant.


If this is true, one would expect David and the others to be living under New Covenant principles. How is it that the Bible says otherwise?

II Samuel 6:13-18

6:13 And it was so, that, when they that bare the ark of Jehovah had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling.
14 And David danced before Jehovah with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.
15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of Jehovah with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.
16 And it was so, as the ark of Jehovah came into the city of David, that Michal the daughter of Saul looked out at the window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before Jehovah; and she despised him in her heart.
17 And they brought in the ark of Jehovah, and set it in its place, in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt-offerings and peace-offerings before Jehovah.
18 And when David had made an end of offering the burnt-offering and the peace-offerings, he blessed the people in the name of Jehovah of hosts.

The only logical conclusion is that David was acting under the old covenant himself! In fact, all of these offered sacrifices under the Old Law. But does this agree with the author of Hebrews?

Heb 11:39 And these all, having had witness borne to them through their faith, received not the promise,
Heb 11:40 God having provided some better thing concerning us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

That "better thing" cannot be Heaven, for we will all share in that. That "better thing" applies/concerns only us somehow. It is the New Covenant!

It is this tradition of covenants that is propagated that must be spoken against because it belittles the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the "Law of Faith" not works of a "new law".

It is becoming apparent that we probably pretty much agree as far as how "faith/works" operate in a Christian life. We seem to be approaching it from opposite ends, but we both end up (more or less) in the middle.

However, the tradition of Covenants exists in this case, because it is the most logical explanation given what we know, IMO. Speaking of the "New Covenant" does not belittle the Gospel. It enhances it! It shows us how much more precious "The Gift" is and how fortunate we are to be living in our times.

And that statement, I believe, is really the crux of Hebrews Chapter 11.

 

[Loveaboveall]

On the baptism discussion I would refer you to the thread on this subject. In post #29, I have layed out succinctly how the Bible clearly presents the strong link b/w circumcision and Baptism and what they mean.

Splayd has also just posted a VERY good read on baptism!

The symbolism of baptism is the washing away of our sins. That is what saves us, Jesus washing our sins. However, baptism is just a symbol of the inward washing! It must be emphasized that baptism is not a work of obedience, it is a submission of our hearts to God to allow Him to impart grace upon us.

Whoever suggested I reasoned like Calvin is misinformed about what Calvin taught! I have never said we do not have a choice in our salvation, and I have never said that choosing is a work. On the contrary, I am saying that even baptism is NOT a work that we do, God does all the work in baptism.

For further discussion on baptism, there is a thread dedicated to this topic.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Can someone please explain to me these texts in light of the traditional view of the New covenant which requires one to obey all that is in the new testament to recieve salvation?

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Romans 3:20-24,27-28 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:...Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Where is obedience to the law found in the new covenant that God made with us to save us from our sins? How does obedience to the law for salvation harmonize with what Paul teaches throughout ALL of his writings.

Apparently, I am a heretic and unlearned person, a baby in the faith who can only handle "milk", teaching gospel heresy with no understanding of scripture.

Maybe someone can explain to me then what is meant by these verses?

 

[Loveaboveall]

Because David was a prophet too!

Psa 22:7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 Commit thyself unto Jehovah; Let him deliver him: Let him rescue him, seeing he delighteth in him.

Mat 27:39 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads,
40 and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross.
41 In like manner also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. He is the King of Israel; let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe on him.
43 He trusteth on God; let him deliver him now, if he desireth him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
---
Psa 22:18 They part my garments among them, And upon my vesture do they cast lots.

Joh 19:23 The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
24 They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my garments among them, And upon my vesture did they cast lots.
----
Act 2:29 Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day.
30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne;
31 he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.


Yes, Jeremiah is prophesying. So is David. But a prophesy is something that LOOKS FORWARD, not backward.

So, in Psalm 40 who is David prophesying about? Jesus? I would highly doubt it considering vs 12.

Is this also one of David's prophecies of how God's people will praise Him in the new covenant?

Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD. Psalm 150

 

[JDIBe]

Is this also one of David's prophecies of how God's people will praise Him in the new covenant?

Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD. Psalm 150

Ah, it took a while, but I knew we'd get around to it eventually...

No, that is David writing of the method of praise under the Old Covenant. Kind of like his burnt offerings in II Samuel chapter 6. And quite like this verse in Psalms too.

Psa 118:27 Jehovah is God, and he hath given us light: Bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar.

Are you positive you wish to use Psalms as a model for worship today?


BTW, I never meant to insinuate you were a Calvinist. I was merely pointing out the opposite extremes people will go to sometimes when they perceive a deficiency in an area. Calvinism, if you think about it, is the complete opposite of Middle Ages Catholicism. The truth is quite often in the middle somewhere. It is important to react, but not over-react.

 

[Splayd]

It is becoming apparent that we probably pretty much agree as far as how "faith/works" operate in a Christian life. We seem to be approaching it from opposite ends, but we both end up (more or less) in the middle.

I find this to be the case very often, especially concerning the topic of faith/works. Scripture often works that way too. Paul and James seemed to address this from different perspectives, almost as if to counter the extremes and narrow in on the better understanding.

Anyway - back to the topic at hand. I recognise some good points from all comers to this discussion. As I mentioned earlier (perhaps in another thread) I agree that we're under a newer, better covenant. That much should be clear to anyone reading the scriptures. What isn't so apparent is the related but distinct topic of "law". I think a lot of people have preconceived ideas about this that they read into scripture, but aren't necessarily there.

Just as an observation - the "law" that needed to be followed under the old covenant was very clearly presented as such. God specifically told them what the law was and it was very carefully recorded and preserved. There was no ambiguity or confusion about it. It was clearly presented as law. When we reach the NT, it's writers very rarely (if ever) present any matter of law as if it's a new law being relayed. Rather, they tend to discuss the law as if it's already been received and understood. It reads more like a commentary on existing law than a presentation of new law. Interestingly it correlates exceptionally with the "old law". Rather than a whole set of laws being discarded and being replaced by another whole set of laws (without anyone recording the inception of such laws) I recognise a developing understanding of the law in the NT and how Jesus affected it, interpreted it, explained it, explains it and fulfilled it. I recognise a change in appreciation, understanding, application and interpretation. I see all of that in Hebrews alone, but I really don't see the wholesale disposal of one set of laws and the inception of a whole new set.

Peace

 

[JDIBe]

Splayd,

To us, the Old Law seems perfectly clear and unambiguous. But it apparently wasn't that way to the Jews. Otherwise why else would they pile opinion after opinion and clarification after clarification on top of it? I think sometimes WE muddy the waters a bit with our own preconceived notions (from both ways). It is good to "hack through the underbrush" and get to the heart of the matter. That is what we are trying to do here. But regardless, some things are hard, to do and to understand, and doctrine is important. Welcome to life.....

I think the passing of the Old Law is clear and unambiguous. There are too many Scriptures in Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, Hebrews, and Colosians, that speak of the ordinances being "nailed to the Cross". There are also many Scriptures (quoted earlier) speaking of the "Law of Christ", "Law of Liberty", etc. I don't feel it is wrong to use those terms to describe what Paul was describing. Biblical names for biblical things. I also see Scripture after Scripture begging and pleading the early Christians (and us) not to go back to the Old Law. There is "something better".

I don't think one should be surprised that so many things in the NT look like the Old. As multiple people have quoted on this board, "God never changes." What God considers "good" is still "good". His nature remains the same.

What does change, however, is HOW God wants us to express it. Gone are the days of Passovers, unclean animals, Sabbath days, etc. There are emblems that are used from the Old Law, but they are given new meanings.

For example, Passover bread and wine. In the New Covenant, these mean something different to us than the Jew. It is different. It is not "the spirit" of the Old Law. If an Israelite suddenly decided he was going to celebrate Passover every first day of the week instead of once a year, that would not make him more holy and spiritual than his counterparts. In fact, it would probably make him less holy, for to an Israelite, "the first day of the week" means nothing. It couldn't have until the coming of Christ.

Shadows have the appearance of that which casts them. But shadows are NOT a part of that which casts them. They are in no way complete images or part of the real thing. They are simply shadows.

 

[- DRA -]

Can someone please explain to me these texts in light of the traditional view of the New covenant which requires one to obey all that is in the new testament to recieve salvation?

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Luke 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

Romans 3:20-24,27-28 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:...Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 2:10-18 should help determine from the context what law was under consideration ... and no longer applicable.

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

Where is obedience to the law found in the new covenant that God made with us to save us from our sins? How does obedience to the law for salvation harmonize with what Paul teaches throughout ALL of his writings.

Romans 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.

From the O.T. - Deuteronomy 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Apparently, I am a heretic and unlearned person, a baby in the faith who can only handle "milk", teaching gospel heresy with no understanding of scripture.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

1 Peter 4:11a If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God ...

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing [handling aright, rightly applying, etc] the word of truth.

Maybe someone can explain to me then what is meant by these verses?

Listen to Jesus as He shows us how the Scriptures will harmonize ... once we obtain the correct understanding. See Matthew 4:5-7 and Matthew 22:23-33.

 

[Loveaboveall]

I am not quite sure I am following you here DRA. You seem believe that I am speaking against obedience. I am not! I am speaking against the idea that we can do any work for Salvation. We cannot! There is no good thing in us, until Jesus IS in us we cannot do one thing that is acceptable to God. And when Jesus IS in us we are saved. Once we are in a saving relationship, Jesus will work through us(Holy spirit) to fulfill the law that we can not keep(obedience) on our own because of our sinful nature. Read again Romans 7-8 with this thought and you might understand what I am speaking of.

Romans 2:10-18 should help determine from the context what law was under consideration ... and no longer applicable.

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say that the context shows us what law is not applicable to us today. Could you please explain.

This text here is describing gentiles living in the new covenant. They are not UNDER the condemnation of the law. Yet they were OBEDIENT to the things contained in the law. This does not sound like a law that is not applicable. This is the law that is written on our hearts when we accept Jesus as our savior and are changed by the power of the HS.

Note that the Gentiles are not obedient until the law is written on their hearts. They cannot have the law written on their hearts without giving their hearts to Jesus, opening the door. Thus, God has already fulfilled the new covenant in them and covered their sins with Jesus righteousness before good works are done.

Romans 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath.

Yes, the jews thought they were superior because God had commited to them His holy law. But they were not obedient to it.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

You seem to be interpreting the word obedience as obeying a "law". This is not what is meant when the term obedience to the truth or to the "law of Christ" is used. Obedience in this instance is obeying the call to submit your heart to God. I do not consider this a "work" as the Calvinist do.

Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

I have spoken of this verse previously. You cannot harmonize this verse with the rest of Paul's teachings unless it is taken in context. To work out your salvation is to allow the Holy Spirit to humble you and give up all your desires, especially the ones you cherish the most! Then God can "work in you to do of His good pleasure".

2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

See above regarding the term "obedience" in its proper context. Obedience to the gospel is humillity.

Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.

We cannot be obedient without our the law written on our hearts. Once we have it written on our hearts we obey Him because we love Him. It is a love relationship. Without this love you have stepped away from the free gift of grace through faith. It is always a choice. But obedience only comes AFTER we have accepted Jesus and been covered by His grace when He comes into our hearts and changes us.

From the O.T. - Deuteronomy 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Jesus said love as I have loved. He gave us an example of HOW to live a perfect life. This example is perfectly in line with the new covenant. Jesus COULD NOT have lived a perfect life without the Spirit doing the works through Him. This is the example we are to follow. Complete submission to the Spirit of God so that He may do in us the good works God desires from us.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Not sure why you quoted this here, could you explain?

1 Peter 4:11a If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God ...

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing [handling aright, rightly applying, etc] the word of truth.

Apparently you don't believe I am speaking according to the 10 commandments? I believe I have spoken truth and rightly dividing the word of God. Are you accusing me of not speaking truth?

Listen to Jesus as He shows us how the Scriptures will harmonize ... once we obtain the correct understanding. See Matthew 4:5-7 and Matthew 22:23-33.

You in no way explained to me how the verses I supplied related to your view of the new covenant. In fact I believe you may have interepreted these verses incorrectly but I can only assume because you gave no explanation for why you supplied these verses.

Please, if you will, explain to me how you can do any "work" contained in the "new law" that can lead to salvation as the traditional view of the New Covenant holds to in light of Eph 2 and ALL of Romans!

 

[Splayd]

Splayd,

To us, the Old Law seems perfectly clear and unambiguous. But it apparently wasn't that way to the Jews. Otherwise why else would they pile opinion after opinion and clarification after clarification on top of it?

I agree. The Jews made a real mess of it. That wasn't my point though. Rather - I'm recognising that it was clear that there was a time and place that a specific collection of law was handed down by God. While some might debate the meaning and application of certain parts of the law, there should be no confusion that it was in fact law.

We can make no such claims about any "new law". If, in fact, there is a whole new set of law, we must determine that it was gradually revealed and never specifically proclaimed as an inception of a new law OR that such moments were simply not recorded in scripture. Seriously, I don't want to presuppose too much here, but is there another option.

What does change, however, is HOW God wants us to express it. Gone are the days of Passovers, unclean animals, Sabbath days, etc. There are emblems that are used from the Old Law, but they are given new meanings.

For example, Passover bread and wine. In the New Covenant, these mean something different to us than the Jew. It is different. It is not "the spirit" of the Old Law. If an Israelite suddenly decided he was going to celebrate Passover every first day of the week instead of once a year, that would not make him more holy and spiritual than his counterparts. In fact, it would probably make him less holy, for to an Israelite, "the first day of the week" means nothing. It couldn't have until the coming of Christ.

Shadows have the appearance of that which casts them. But shadows are NOT a part of that which casts them. They are in no way complete images or part of the real thing. They are simply shadows.

Now - all of this I'm in general agreement with. In fact, it's basically my point. Yes, there was a change in the law - but it isn't that God scrapped all of the old laws and introduced a whole heap of new ones. Rather, the old laws were realised in Christ and now our part in it all is different. We no longer have to offer sacrifices, but that isn't because that law was scrapped. Rather - Jesus became that sacrifice. The law stands, but our part is different because there's nothing left for us to do. The sacrifice has already been made, always and eternally in that one perfect sacrifice. If the "law" was scrapped then that means nothing to us.

So it is with all of the shadows. They were there to help us recognise Jesus. If He simply got rid of them all and introduced different laws then how would they help us recognise Him. Rather, He brought a fulness of meaning to them and fulfilled the conditions of the law perfectly. The NT writers often go to great lengths to demonstrate how the "old law" is kept in Christ by His fulfillment.

Now - everything about the law changed. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial requirements and the Holy Spirit is also given to us to help us keep the law. We're even told that the law is written on our hearts... but what law? Is it some completely new set of laws, whose inception is never recorded or even acknowledged? I don't think so.

I've studied the law intensely and I've got to tell you - I really can't find any new laws in the NT. They all echo what's in the OT. Sure - there are differences in the form and focus since Christ came, but they're all there. There is the new commandment that Jesus gave that we love one another as He has loved us, but even that is really more of a new focus than a new command outright. The OT already demanded that we love one another as ourselves. Likewise, I've gone through all 613 mitzvot of the Mosaic covenant. Even the Jews recognise that only 271 can be kept today (since the temple was destroyed). They argue that the other 342 should be kept, but can't. I'd argue that even they are kept in Christ. I'd even suggest that that's why the temple is no longer required. Of the 271 that they do keep, we'd completely agree on half of them. Most of the rest, we'd argue are fulfilled by Christ (demonstrably). Those that remain are basically consistent with the "new law" anyway but simply aren't recorded as necessary anywhere in the NT.

 

[JDIBe]

I agree. The Jews made a real mess of it. That wasn't my point though. Rather - I'm recognising that it was clear that there was a time and place that a specific collection of law was handed down by God. While some might debate the meaning and application of certain parts of the law, there should be no confusion that it was in fact law.

We can make no such claims about any "new law". If, in fact, there is a whole new set of law, we must determine that it was gradually revealed and never specifically proclaimed as an inception of a new law OR that such moments were simply not recorded in scripture. Seriously, I don't want to presuppose too much here, but is there another option.

I don't think that's too much of a presupposition. I would think that if such an event occured it would certainly be recorded, or at least refered to. I would say the chances of such an event taking place would tend toward zero, so much so, whe could safely assume it didn't for the purposes of our discussion. What we do have, however, is the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. Though they were gradually revealed, they are written for our benefit and fully available for us today.

Now - all of this I'm in general agreement with. In fact, it's basically my point. Yes, there was a change in the law - but it isn't that God scrapped all of the old laws and introduced a whole heap of new ones. Rather, the old laws were realised in Christ and now our part in it all is different. We no longer have to offer sacrifices, but that isn't because that law was scrapped. Rather - Jesus became that sacrifice. The law stands, but our part is different because there's nothing left for us to do. The sacrifice has already been made, always and eternally in that one perfect sacrifice. If the "law" was scrapped then that means nothing to us.

So it is with all of the shadows. They were there to help us recognise Jesus. If He simply got rid of them all and introduced different laws then how would they help us recognise Him. Rather, He brought a fulness of meaning to them and fulfilled the conditions of the law perfectly. The NT writers often go to great lengths to demonstrate how the "old law" is kept in Christ by His fulfillment.

Now - everything about the law changed. Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial requirements and the Holy Spirit is also given to us to help us keep the law. We're even told that the law is written on our hearts... but what law? Is it some completely new set of laws, whose inception is never recorded or even acknowledged? I don't think so.

I've studied the law intensely and I've got to tell you - I really can't find any new laws in the NT. They all echo what's in the OT. Sure - there are differences in the form and focus since Christ came, but they're all there. There is the new commandment that Jesus gave that we love one another as He has loved us, but even that is really more of a new focus than a new command outright. The OT already demanded that we love one another as ourselves. Likewise, I've gone through all 613 mitzvot of the Mosaic covenant. Even the Jews recognise that only 271 can be kept today (since the temple was destroyed). They argue that the other 342 should be kept, but can't. I'd argue that even they are kept in Christ. I'd even suggest that that's why the temple is no longer required. Of the 271 that they do keep, we'd completely agree on half of them. Most of the rest, we'd argue are fulfilled by Christ (demonstrably). Those that remain are basically consistent with the "new law" anyway but simply aren't recorded as necessary anywhere in the NT.

Splayd,

For a "New Law" to be present, I see no requirement that they must all be completely different. It is possible for two things to be "similar" but still "different". Take you and me for example. We share >99.9% of the same DNA. There are so many things about us that are similar. But one would have a hard time arguing we were the same being. Such it is with the Old Law. Both are visions and aspects of "GOOD", what the very nature of God is. One would expect many similarities. If a person has 10 fingers, one would expect his shadow to have 10 fingers as well (viewed from a certain angle). One might even be able to recognize a person from his shadow, but you always get more information by looking directly at the person! No one is saying the Old and the New have to be completely different, just different. On top of that, I think the laws might be more different than you realize. A little math...

613 laws - 342 - (0.5)(271) = 135.5 laws

(135.5/613) x 100 = 22.1%, (a far cry from 99.9...)

But, math is not Scripture. Where can evidence of this "New Law" be found? Well, here are two places.

1. The Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5:21-22,27-28,31-39,43-44)

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.
....
27 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
....
31 It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.
33 Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 but I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by the heaven, for it is the throne of God;
35 nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one.
38 Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
....
43 Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy:
44 but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you;

Notice the pattern. "It was said,..." Who said? (God.) "but I say unto you", ______." Similar yes, but different? Yes. Was anyone ever stoned in the OT for "looking on a woman with lust"? No. But that is the clear, unambiguous prescribed punishment for adultery. Are we called to a different ethical standard of behavior today? I believe so.

2. Peter' Dream in Acts 10:

Act 10:9 Now on the morrow, as they were on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour:
10 and he became hungry, and desired to eat: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance;
11 and he beholdeth the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth:
12 wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common and unclean.
15 And a voice came unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common.
16 And this was done thrice: and straightway the vessel was received up into heaven.
17 Now while Peter was much perplexed in himself what the vision which he had seen might mean, behold, the men that were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood before the gate,

Who made the "fourfooted beasts and creeping things" unclean? (God, through the Old Law) Is it still the same today?

I agree Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Law. However, that which is fulfilled is no longer needed. Yes, there are Scriptures showing how Christ is the fulfillment. There are also at least twice as many (a conservative estimate...) dealing with the abolishment of the Old Law, including much of Hebrews.

From Scriptures I posted earlier, that a new law exists is clear. ("law of liberty, law of Christ"). The question now is simply what that might be....

 

[JDIBe]

Splayd,
In summary...

I believe the "New Law" can be defined as the moral and ethical teachings of Christ and all of the teachings of the Apostles.

Yes, there is a new and Perfect Provision and Remedy for "lawbreakers" under this law, but in some ways we are called to an even HIGHER standard of faith and behavior.

You say the laws in the NT echo those of the Old. I would contend that the analogy fits better the other way around. An echo is never more clear or more faithful than hearing the original voice. Both are aspects of what we call "GOOD". However, the OT Laws are echos of the NT ones which is God's will perfectly revealed. They bounce back through the caverns of time, in some aspects, reproduced perfectly, sometimes not. We would expect similarities between shadows, echos, and the real thing. But we would not expect them to be exactly the same either.

So, how do we use the OT, then? After all it is a "schoolmaster" and "profitable for instruction". I believe this might be worth considering.

OT Scriptures should be considered only in light of what NT Scriptures tell us. They never supersede. They can only complement. This seems to be the way the authors of the NT and Jesus Himself used them. They made a point, and then used OT Scripture to amplify or contrast it's meaning. From what experience I have had with you on this board, you seem to use this principle too.

But here is the real "acid test". The one question that will solve the whole dispute. If the NT is only an echo (and therefore subset) of the OT, and OT Laws are still in effect today....

"What OT laws do you feel we are to follow today that are not in the New Testament?"

 

[Loveaboveall]

I believe the "New Law" can be defined as the moral and ethical teachings of Christ and all of the teachings of the Apostles.


So, are you suggesting we must keep this law to obtain salvation?

I don't believe the "Barbecue vision" had anything to do with changing the law concerning clean and unclean meats. It had everything to do with teaching Peter that the Gentiles were not unclean. God used this illustration to bring a very important message to Peter, and I do not believe it was meant to tell him to go and eat pork! When Peter woke up from the vision, what was the first thing he did? Go and eat all the unclean meat he could find? He went and witnessed to gentiles.

On top of that the laws re: clean and unclean animals predated the "old covenant"

Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.

How did they know what were clean and unclean? Why was there a designation?

 

[Loveaboveall]

I would like to make a point that I don't feel many of you have considered.

It appears that most, want to include the "law" that defines sin and the "law" that delivers us from the condemantion of the breaking of the "law that defines sin". Do you see the difference?

Sin is sin is sin... The definition of sin will never change, it is what is against the character of God.

In the SOTM Jesus explained it plain as day what the sin of adultery was. He did not change the law, he explained it in plain understanding so no one would be confused. He brought out the Spirit of the law! He did not change what the definition of sin was.

The old covenant and the new covenant are theses "laws" that tell us what is necessary for our sins to be cleansed and we can be presented before God as righteous. The old covenant consisted of the ceremonial system for FORGIVENESS of sin. The new covenant presents to us Jesus as a perfect sacrifice, Thus He replaced the ceremonal law of shadows that all pointed to Him.

The point is that these laws were instituted BECAUSE we sinned. Which means we broke the "Law of God" which defines what sin is. From my study I have found that this law is unchanging just as God is unchanging. For sin is opposite the character of God, the only way this law could change is if God changed His character!

To say that God changed the "law of God" which defines sin is to say that, God, instead of making a way for our sins to be forgiven and a way for us to have the power to OBEY this law, He changed the law to make it easier for us to obey. Why would God lower His standards? How could God lower His standards? He didn't and can't it is against His nature.

The statement was made "we are called to an even HIGHER standard of faith and behavior."

Please tell me how the "law" that defines sin has changed to call us to a higher standard?

Jesus summed up the "law of God" by love. Love God, love man. He quoted from the OT which was describing to the COI how one was to keep the 10 commandments. How did Jesus change the "law" that defines sin by bringing out the spirit of the intent of this law?

Just some thoughts to ponder.

 

[JDIBe]

I don't believe the "Barbecue vision" had anything to do with changing the law concerning clean and unclean meats. It had everything to do with teaching Peter that the Gentiles were not unclean. God used this illustration to bring a very important message to Peter, and I do not believe it was meant to tell him to go and eat pork! When Peter woke up from the vision, what was the first thing he did? Go and eat all the unclean meat he could find? He went and witnessed to gentiles.

Point of Clarification:

Are you saying we shouldn't eat pork, or other "unclean meats"? This certainly is an Old Law requirement that is not ceremonial.

 

[Loveaboveall]

Point of Clarification:

Are you saying we shouldn't eat pork, or other "unclean meats"? This certainly is an Old Law requirement that is not ceremonial.

I believe that our bodies our the temple of our Holy God, and the dwelling place of His spirit. We are to treat it as such. The clean/unclean meat laws were given for health reasons. These are just a relevant today as the time of Noah, or the COI.

There are many civil laws that deal with health in Lev-Deut. Just because they are contained there does not mean that there is not something that we can gain from them today. Many of the "health laws" were proven to be good laws to live by at the turn of the 20th century.

There is a great book called, "all these diseases" written by a jewish writer explaining the relevance of the jewish laws pertaining to health and how many are good practices for today. Just because it is contained in the Torah does not mean it is "against us and contrary to us".

By the way, these health laws were not contained in the ceremonial law of sacrifices etc. which was done away with at the cross, because we have a new and better way of salvation from sin in Jesus. The civil laws were an explanation of how the COI should apply the 10 commandments to their daily life.

 

[JDIBe]

I believe that our bodies our the temple of our Holy God, and the dwelling place of His spirit. We are to treat it as such. The clean/unclean meat laws were given for health reasons. These are just a relevant today as the time of Noah, or the COI.

There are many civil laws that deal with health in Lev-Deut. Just because they are contained there does not mean that there is not something that we can gain from them today. Many of the "health laws" were proven to be good laws to live by at the turn of the 20th century.

There is a great book called, "all these diseases" written by a jewish writer explaining the relevance of the jewish laws pertaining to health and how many are good practices for today. Just because it is contained in the Torah does not mean it is "against us and contrary to us".

By the way, these health laws were not contained in the ceremonial law of sacrifices etc. which was done away with at the cross, because we have a new and better way of salvation from sin in Jesus. The civil laws were an explanation of how the COI should apply the 10 commandments to their daily life.

So I take it this is a "Yes, I don't eat pork."? Do you follow all of the other dietary rules contained in the Old Law as well?

(I'm not trying to make fun of you or belittle you. I really am curious...)

 

[Loveaboveall]

So I take it this is a "Yes, I don't eat pork."? Do you follow all of the other dietary rules contained in the Old Law as well?

(I'm not trying to make fun of you or belittle you. I really am curious...)

I follow all the laws that are still applicable today in regards to health. If it is not conducive to good health I believe we should not partake of it.