The Book of Hebrews
- Thread starter Loveaboveall
- Start date
JDIBe
Senior Member
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?
38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Eph 1:7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Eph 2:8 for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
1Jo 1:7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
If you define the "New Law" as I described above, then I guess, yes.
But instead of looking at it as "keeping it", I think it is better expressed as being "under it".
But I also assume you are not saying "none of this really matters at all", either, right? In fact, I'm guessing that if one didn't do ANY of this, you would say...."Well, he really didn't have faith after all.." Right?
Upvote
0
If you attach a "new law" onto the new covenant then you have attached a law that must be kept for salvation! This is my whole point about the covenants and why there is not a "new law" that we are "under". According to Paul we are not "under" any law. Now my understanding of "under" may be different then yours so let me explain.
Romans 3:9 What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Notice here how Paul uses the term "under". It is in reference not to something we are to obey but we are "under" the penalty of.
Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Here Paul uses the term "under" in the same fashion. He is saying that those "under" the law are under the condemnation of the law. They are guilty of breaking the law.
Taking it a step farther Paul writes:
Romans 6:14-15 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Paul here says we, who have accepted Jesus, are no longer "under" the condemnation of the law, we are under the gift of grace that frees us from the condemanation of the law. Notice, however, that Paul makes it clear that the law has not been "done away with" so to speak. He says in vs. 15 that sin is still an option, thus the law that defines sin can still be broken. A very important point that many people miss. The law has not been nailed to the cross, instead the penalty for breaking the law, sinning, has been fulfilled in Jesus.
So to say there is a "new law" that replaces the "old law" and that we are under this "new law, is really saying that you are still trying to do it on your own, and you will fail. The new covenant does not have a "new law" that defines sin. It has always been the same, God does not and will not change what sin is. God would have to change His character and this is not possible. Instead the new covenant frees us from the condemnation of sin which is death, and writes the "law of God that defines sin" on our hearts and the HS works through us to fulfill the righteousness of this law. The same law that has always been and always will be.
So you see, we are not under the condemnation of any law because Jesus became our death for us. What a gift! but please do not try to put us back under another law that will only bring this condemnation and death back onto us!
Romans 3:21-22 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:
This is the new covenant in a nutshell. There is no law but to believe. Salvation is through faith/belief in Jesus Christ as your savior not the works of any law, including a "new law" that really does not exist but in peoples minds who want to put us back under the old covenant of works. (Please understand I am not saying that baptism is not a requirement of salvation. Paul makes no mention of baptism here though. Why would that be? Baptism is the outward expression of your heart. If you believe in your heart you will express it outwardly telling the world that you accept Jesus as your savior. As I said in the Baptism thread, Baptism is not an "act" or "work". It is a choice, just as believing is a choice, and unlike the calvinist I don't believe "choosing" is a "work". Baptism to the Baptizee is a passive symbol. You allow someone to dunk you. You cannot baptize yourself, just as you cannot cleanse yourself from your sins, that is the job of God. It is the sign/token of the new covenant just as circumcision was the sign/token of the old covenant. It is a physical symbol declaring that you are a child of God.)
Note at the end of Romans 3 Paul makes this statement:
vs 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
After making it clear that those who believe are not under the condmenation of the "law of God" which defines sin, Paul makes this last point so that there is no confusion. The "law of God" has not been nailed to the cross/done away with. It is established in the hearts of those who believe. For the new covenant says that this law will be written on our hearts, meaning that we will WANT to do what is right according to the law and it will not be burdensome. Turning it from the law of death to the perfect law of liberty!
Upvote
0
JDIBe
Senior Member
I suppose I do have a different understanding of "under". "Under" simply means "that set of conditions one finds himself in". One can be "under" a law and not have to "earn".
For example, say a family of 4 children have a father who dies. The law states that the father's possessions are to be equally divided among the 4 children. Now each of the 4 children receive their inheritance. They may even have to go to court, do some things like sign papers to "accept" it. But they didn't "earn" it. Such it is with salvation.
You say that part of the Salvation process is repentance. Repentance means "to turn around". "Turn around" to what? If you are not going in one direction you must be going in another. I, like you believe baptism is required for salvation. For what it's worth, I also believe you are correct when you say baptism is not a work and there is symbolism in baptism. (We do disagree about what happens at the point of baptism.) So yes, there are things that one must "do" under the New Covenant, (for repentance is not simply an "I'm sorry". It is a change of life.) but these things do not "earn" salvation. There is a big difference between "do" and "earn" sometimes. That is the crux of the rest of the NT. How does a child of God live? That is the source we look to for guidance.
Salvation is a free gift of God. You cannot buy it (for what do you have that is not His, anyway?), you cannot earn it. But as a Christian, that does not mean you have free liberty to do anything you want for the rest of your life. We are "slaves to righteousness". The issue at hand between you and me is not whether or not we are both under a law. (Made abundantly clear by your last paragraph.) The issue is "which law"?
Yes, God never changes. Sin is sin. But there was a time when God let a lot of things go because we were not ready. (See the SOTM) Those days are gone.
Act 17:30 The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent:
I had an epiphany last night in bed thinking about all this. I was thinking about Old vs. New Law and then it hit me...
I am a Gentile. My father is a Gentile. His father was a Gentile. Why am I arguing over a Covenant that was never given to me in the first place?
I also find it a bit ironic that you speak of freedom in Christ and the burden of law, but yet you attempt to bind on yourself and others artifacts of a past law and Covenant, that wasn't even made with you anyway.
I ask you again, the same question I asked Splayd....
Besides the dietary laws you mentioned earlier...
"What OT laws do you feel we are to follow today that are not in the New Testament?"
Upvote
0
I completely agree with this statement. I just don't see them presented as new laws.
Your statement is correct. I'm certainly not arguing that old laws can't be replaced with similar (or even some identical) new laws. I'm arguing that they weren't.
Realistically - I'd suggest that if the "new laws" can also be found in the old, then it follows that a) only some of the old laws were abolished while others continued OR b) the entirety of the old laws were abolished AND then some were reintroduced as new laws. Would you agree with either of these premises? I'm guessing you believe the latter, but if not perhaps you could offer a third alternative.
Ahhh - but I'm only suggesting that we'd all (You, me, most Christians and Jews) completely agree with that 22% being law. My actual argument is that 100% of it is law whether or not we all recognise it as such BUT we aren't "required" to keep it all perfectly, let alone the same way the Jews did before Christ.
I'm looking forward to discussing these with you after I've slept (I just got home from a long trip). Just briefly, I see the first passage as a wonderful example of how the "old laws" aren't scrapped at all, but I'll get to that later.
Peace
Upvote
0
JDIBe
Senior Member
That in my mind spells "different".
Unfortunately at this point, I have come to the realization that in reality, NONE of it applied to me directly. Being a Gentile, I was under the "moral law" discussed in Romans. Of course, there are similarities, but it had no power to save either. I was not a part of "the Promise" and the "Old Covenant" was not with me.
Why should a Gentile Christian refer back to a Covenant that he was never part of (much less still is) in the first place?
Also, when you find the time, answering that original question I asked you in the last post would be very helpful to me. (Do you keep the dietary laws, too?) But present your case in whatever order you wish. I will try to be patient. A little Scripture to consider in the meanwhile...
Gal. 4:20-31
20 but I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone; for I am perplexed about you.
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman.
23 Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise.
24 Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.
25 Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.
26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now.
30 Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.
31 Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman.
Get some sleep. Glad you made it back safely, and glad to see you on the board again.
Upvote
0
...and it is "different". Everything changed with Christ: the way we understand, react to and keep the law all changed. The purpose and effect of the law changed. A new covenant came into effect which made the old redundant... BUT what the laws are didn't change. It mightn't seem like much of a distinction but it's a whole other paradigm.
I suppose the obvious answer is that all scripture is useful etc.... but you know that and I don't think that's what you're really asking. As to whether a Gentile Christian should try to apply the old covenant to themselves... the answer is: no. There's no point. The new covenant is sooooo much better. The old covenant was made with a nation. The new is made with the individual. The old required perfect keeping of all the law by everyone with only the scriptures to guide them. The new doesn't require the perfect keeping of the law by anyone and yet we're still given the Holy Spirit to guide us as well as the scriptures. The old only made promises in the here and now. The new makes eternal promises.
Here's where the breakdown in communication about it all occurs. A lot of people try to make a 100% correlation between the Mosaic covenant and the laws that were to be kept as a condition of that covenant. ie: covenant = laws. That simply isn't true. A covenant is an agreement. As such it's a matter of law and in this case pertains to law... but isn't the laws it refers to. It was the agreement to keep those laws. Those laws exist independantly, apart from that agreement.
Do I eat pig or shellfish? No, not as a general rule... BUT it's not a law I'm "bound" to. I don't buy those foods when I'm doing my grocery shopping or when eating out... BUT if I attend someone's place for tea and they've only prepared roast pork or a seafood dish as the main meat, I'd eat those things without making a fuss and thank them for the wonderful meal they've provided.
Thanks. I'll probably go back to address those examples first and then try to catch up a little.
Peace
Upvote
0
If the “old laws” are abolished and “new laws” are established in the NT, then that passage from the sermon on the mount would be a wonderful example. The first thing that strikes me as unusual though is that the laws about killing and adultery must have been abolished at this time and replaced by Jesus’ “new” laws instead… BUT the writers of the NT apparently don’t know this because they refer to those old laws a few times instead of the new replacements. Either that or those abolished laws were reintroduced some time later by someone else and noone recorded it. I suppose a third possibility is that those particular “old laws” were never abolished and the “new laws” were just added to them. That hardly seems consistent though. Maybe we should look a little more carefully at what was going on to get a better understanding of it all.
Alright, let’s start by considering some of the context surrounding the sermon on the mount.
At that time there were all sorts of ideas about Torah being discussed and debated by the rabbis. There had been for quite some time, but by the time of Jesus, the situation was pretty intense. Apart from the different sects: Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes as well as the Zealots, there was a great deal of infighting within the sects. There were said to be seven different schools of thought within the Pharisees alone. One of these groups went as far as calling another group the sons of satan (or something to that affect).
Now when these Rabbis taught the law, they regularly employed common phrases and formats. One common rabbinical formula went: “You have heard (insert law here) but you must say (insert commentary/lesson/interpretation here).” They weren’t ever insinuating that they were replacing the law but merely adding their own interpretation to the mix. There’s was to be considered amongst the already hefty pool of contributions on the matter. Now – if a rabbi disagreed with another’s teaching, they often interupted them with “NO! You are destroying the law!” by which they meant the other wasn’t interpreting it correctly. Alternately if they agreed they voiced it by saying “You are fulfilling the law.” If they were in a louder church today they might have said something like “Amen! Preach it brother!”
BUT they weren’t. On a literal level they meant the rabbi was bringing fulness to the meaning of the law by their interpretation. On a practical level it simply meant they agreed that they were interpreting law correctly.
It was in this environment that Jesus entered the picture. Anyone there was familiar enough with the scene. They’d heard the terms before. They’d even heard a lot of the content before… BUT something was different. This man, Jesus, was different and He was speaking with real authority. Immediately before the passage in question, He establishes Himself as THE authority when He says:
Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill. For verily I say to you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
In English it’s a little clumsy. We repeat a word (fulfill) where the Greek actually uses 2 different words. The audience at the time would have heard Jesus reinforce that none of the law will ever pass away (consistent with Psalm 119:89) AND that He( the expert ) will interpret it correctly. That much was unique. Jesus was establishing Himself as the authority. You can imagine that the sceptics may have thought Him arrogant, while the different groups may have even been offended, preparing to defend the honour of their favourite teachers. Of course noone could really do or say anything. How were they to debate otherwise without looking foolish themselves? Jesus was a skilled and already popular teacher. Of course they could have had Him stoned then and there if He’d actually said the law would pass away after He fulfilled it (as some understand it now) BUT He didn’t. There were no grounds for objection. Meanwhile, His followers would’ve been anxiously awaiting what was to follow: the definitive interpretation of some of these contentious issues of law. Jesus would finally set the record straight for them and for those reading the account in scripture, Matthew had already established Jesus’ credentials in the previous chapters.
Now – Jesus didn’t actually teach much that wasn’t already out there in this discourse. Consider these teachings which were already in existance at the time and see if you can recognise the sentiments that are echoed in the sermon on the mount:
* “He who publicly shames his neighbour is as though he shed blood.”- Talmud: Bava Mezia 58b
* “One who gazes lustfully upon the small finger of a married woman, it is as if he has committed adultery with her”.- Kallah, Ch. 1
* Rabbi Abbahu said: The day when rain fails is greater than [the day of] the Revival of the Dead,for the Revival of the Dead is for the righteous only whereas rain is both for the righteous and for the wicked - Talmud: Taanit 7a
* In the case of the recital of the Shema’, since everybody else recites, and he also recites, it does not look like showing off on his part; but in the case of the month of Ab, since everybody else does work and he does no work, it looks like showing off.- Talmud: Berachot 17b
* What kind of charity is that which delivers a man from an unnatural death? When a man gives without knowing to whom he gives. and the beggar receives without knowing from whom he receives. - Talmud: Bava Batra 10a - 10b
* If one draws out his prayer and expects therefore its fulfilment, he will in the end suffer vexation of heart, as it says, Hope deferred maketh the heart sick. - Talmud: Berachot 55a
* Rabbi Eliezer the Great declares: Whoever has a piece of bread in his basket and Says. ‘What shall I eat tomorrow?’ belongs only to them who are little in faith. - Talmud: Sotah 48b
* A parable: [They were] like a man who was kept in prison and people told him: To-morrow, they will release you from the prison and give you plenty of money. And he answered them: I pray of you, let me go free today and I shall ask nothing more! - Talmud: Berachot 9b
* A righteous yes is a Yes; a righteous no is No. - Talmud: Bava Batra 49b
* Come and hear what was taught: Rabbi Tarfon said, ‘If his hand touched the membrum let his hand be cut off upon his belly’. ‘But’, they said to him, ‘would not his belly be split’? ‘It is preferable’, he replied, ‘that his belly shall be split rather than that he should go down into the pit of destruction’. - Talmud: Niddah 13b
* They who are insulted but insult not back; who hear themselves reproached but answer not; who serve out of love and rejoice in their affliction--of them it is written in Scripture: They that love God are as the going forth of the sun in its might. - Talmud: Yoma 23a, Gitin 36b, Shabat 88b
* For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow - Mishnah: Yoma 8:9
OK – So Jesus was simply repeating existing teachings in a familiar format? Not quite.
While they were familiar with “You have heard…” the follow up with “But I say…” was something new. It usually went “but you should say” or something to that effect. Jesus had established Himself as the authority and then provided the definitative interpretation of aspects of law. That was exceptional. None of those that taught similar things before Him had ever suggested that their interpretations replaced the law and I see absolutely no reason to suggest Jesus was doing that either (though there’s some obvious evidence that He wasn’t), rather He was laying down the final word on the matters. One group thinks this, another thinks that, yet another teaches this… BUT the correct and final interpretation (according to the expert) is…! That’s what He was doing. He was fulfilling the law. He was explaining it, interpreting it and teaching it. Which law? One that would become redundant as soon as He finished teaching it? Hardly! It was God’s eternal law.
Peace
Alright, let’s start by considering some of the context surrounding the sermon on the mount.
At that time there were all sorts of ideas about Torah being discussed and debated by the rabbis. There had been for quite some time, but by the time of Jesus, the situation was pretty intense. Apart from the different sects: Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes as well as the Zealots, there was a great deal of infighting within the sects. There were said to be seven different schools of thought within the Pharisees alone. One of these groups went as far as calling another group the sons of satan (or something to that affect).
Now when these Rabbis taught the law, they regularly employed common phrases and formats. One common rabbinical formula went: “You have heard (insert law here) but you must say (insert commentary/lesson/interpretation here).” They weren’t ever insinuating that they were replacing the law but merely adding their own interpretation to the mix. There’s was to be considered amongst the already hefty pool of contributions on the matter. Now – if a rabbi disagreed with another’s teaching, they often interupted them with “NO! You are destroying the law!” by which they meant the other wasn’t interpreting it correctly. Alternately if they agreed they voiced it by saying “You are fulfilling the law.” If they were in a louder church today they might have said something like “Amen! Preach it brother!”
BUT they weren’t. On a literal level they meant the rabbi was bringing fulness to the meaning of the law by their interpretation. On a practical level it simply meant they agreed that they were interpreting law correctly.It was in this environment that Jesus entered the picture. Anyone there was familiar enough with the scene. They’d heard the terms before. They’d even heard a lot of the content before… BUT something was different. This man, Jesus, was different and He was speaking with real authority. Immediately before the passage in question, He establishes Himself as THE authority when He says:
Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill. For verily I say to you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
In English it’s a little clumsy. We repeat a word (fulfill) where the Greek actually uses 2 different words. The audience at the time would have heard Jesus reinforce that none of the law will ever pass away (consistent with Psalm 119:89) AND that He( the expert ) will interpret it correctly. That much was unique. Jesus was establishing Himself as the authority. You can imagine that the sceptics may have thought Him arrogant, while the different groups may have even been offended, preparing to defend the honour of their favourite teachers. Of course noone could really do or say anything. How were they to debate otherwise without looking foolish themselves? Jesus was a skilled and already popular teacher. Of course they could have had Him stoned then and there if He’d actually said the law would pass away after He fulfilled it (as some understand it now) BUT He didn’t. There were no grounds for objection. Meanwhile, His followers would’ve been anxiously awaiting what was to follow: the definitive interpretation of some of these contentious issues of law. Jesus would finally set the record straight for them and for those reading the account in scripture, Matthew had already established Jesus’ credentials in the previous chapters.
Now – Jesus didn’t actually teach much that wasn’t already out there in this discourse. Consider these teachings which were already in existance at the time and see if you can recognise the sentiments that are echoed in the sermon on the mount:
* “He who publicly shames his neighbour is as though he shed blood.”- Talmud: Bava Mezia 58b
* “One who gazes lustfully upon the small finger of a married woman, it is as if he has committed adultery with her”.- Kallah, Ch. 1
* Rabbi Abbahu said: The day when rain fails is greater than [the day of] the Revival of the Dead,for the Revival of the Dead is for the righteous only whereas rain is both for the righteous and for the wicked - Talmud: Taanit 7a
* In the case of the recital of the Shema’, since everybody else recites, and he also recites, it does not look like showing off on his part; but in the case of the month of Ab, since everybody else does work and he does no work, it looks like showing off.- Talmud: Berachot 17b
* What kind of charity is that which delivers a man from an unnatural death? When a man gives without knowing to whom he gives. and the beggar receives without knowing from whom he receives. - Talmud: Bava Batra 10a - 10b
* If one draws out his prayer and expects therefore its fulfilment, he will in the end suffer vexation of heart, as it says, Hope deferred maketh the heart sick. - Talmud: Berachot 55a
* Rabbi Eliezer the Great declares: Whoever has a piece of bread in his basket and Says. ‘What shall I eat tomorrow?’ belongs only to them who are little in faith. - Talmud: Sotah 48b
* A parable: [They were] like a man who was kept in prison and people told him: To-morrow, they will release you from the prison and give you plenty of money. And he answered them: I pray of you, let me go free today and I shall ask nothing more! - Talmud: Berachot 9b
* A righteous yes is a Yes; a righteous no is No. - Talmud: Bava Batra 49b
* Come and hear what was taught: Rabbi Tarfon said, ‘If his hand touched the membrum let his hand be cut off upon his belly’. ‘But’, they said to him, ‘would not his belly be split’? ‘It is preferable’, he replied, ‘that his belly shall be split rather than that he should go down into the pit of destruction’. - Talmud: Niddah 13b
* They who are insulted but insult not back; who hear themselves reproached but answer not; who serve out of love and rejoice in their affliction--of them it is written in Scripture: They that love God are as the going forth of the sun in its might. - Talmud: Yoma 23a, Gitin 36b, Shabat 88b
* For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow - Mishnah: Yoma 8:9
OK – So Jesus was simply repeating existing teachings in a familiar format? Not quite.
While they were familiar with “You have heard…” the follow up with “But I say…” was something new. It usually went “but you should say” or something to that effect. Jesus had established Himself as the authority and then provided the definitative interpretation of aspects of law. That was exceptional. None of those that taught similar things before Him had ever suggested that their interpretations replaced the law and I see absolutely no reason to suggest Jesus was doing that either (though there’s some obvious evidence that He wasn’t), rather He was laying down the final word on the matters. One group thinks this, another thinks that, yet another teaches this… BUT the correct and final interpretation (according to the expert) is…! That’s what He was doing. He was fulfilling the law. He was explaining it, interpreting it and teaching it. Which law? One that would become redundant as soon as He finished teaching it? Hardly! It was God’s eternal law.
Peace
Upvote
0
Romans 2:13-15 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 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: 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.
Something to think about... What law is Paul speaking of that is written on the Gentiles heart? Taking it a step farther, what law is Paul referring to in the WHOLE book of Romans? Does this law pertain to the new covenant?
Gal. 4:20-31
20 but I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone; for I am perplexed about you.
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman.
23 Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise.
24 Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.
25 Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.
26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now.
30 Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.
31 Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman. [/quote]
This illustration makes the point well of what I have been trying to speak about the covenants.
The Ishamael was born when Abraham said, "I will do" what God has promised to do. In effect he lacked faith in God. Isaac was born when Abraham allowed "God to do" what He had promised. This is the covenants in a nutshell.
It is not about changing the law that defines what sin is. It is letting God cover our sins with Jesus blood so we are free from the condmenation of the law and are no longer a slave to it, because it is written in our hearts, meaning God keeps it for us when we allow Him to work through us. It is all God doing for us!
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
Here's a previous point you made that I addressed back in Post # 42 on Page 5: "There is no act you can do to be saved, period." In that post, I directed you to Acts 2:38, 41, and 47 and tried to get you to harmonize your understanding of what it takes to be saved with what occurred in that text. Obviously, your reasoning and teaching does NOT harmonize with the text. The Jews were told what to do to be saved, obeyed it, and, as a result, were saved and added to the church by the Lord.
Let's consider the obvious. The Jews were told to act or do something in Acts 2:38 to be saved. And, they did it. You say a person cannot do one thing that is acceptable to God unless Jesus is in them. And, you also say that when Jesus is in them they are saved. Therefore, according to your reasoning, the Jews obeyed what they were told "because" they were saved, rather than to be saved as the text says. That, my friend, presents a major problem.
Okay, the text under discussion was Romans 2:10-18. Perhaps this part of the text will help you: "Thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law (verse 17)." The point? The law being discussed was the law of Moses - the basis of the Jews attention. It was what they rested upon. The point made in verse 13 ("For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified") was made because, generally speaking, the Jews heard the law of Moses - but did NOT keep it. The Gentiles, who were not given the law of Moses, naturally understood and kept the things under that law. See the contrast? Why did the Jews think that law justified them?
Now, let's discuss this statement you made: "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." If, as you say, the Gentiles weren't condemned, then they must not have needed a Savior, right? I believe that conclusion is blatantly wrong.
Which law did God commit to the Jews? If it was the law of Moses, which I believe it was, then we know which law was under discussion in this text, right? And, we are then agreed that it was the law of Moses, right, and not the new covenant?
I "interpret" obedience in this discussion to mean that we should do what God says. Like it is used in Hebrews 5:9. Like it is illustrated in the conversion in Acts 2:38,41,47. That's my understanding.
And, yes, where the law of Christ is concerned and under discussion (e.g. Gal. 6:2), I believe that the particular part of the law being stressed is one that we should obey. Do you disagree?
If you disagree with the Calvinist concept of a "work," then why this disagreement about obedience? Be straightforward. Did the 3,000 Jews in Acts 2:41 do the right thing by obeying what they were told to do in verse 38? If so, we should be able to wrap up this point and move on ... as long as we agree that they were saved after they did what they were told to do to be saved from their sins in verse 38. If not, then you need to explain how your reasoning is different than the Calvinists.
Once again, Philippians 2:12 says, "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." Don't overlook the point being stressed. Obedience is an on-going thing. Concerning the gospel, obedience has to start somewhere. The conversions in Acts show us where obedience started. Take that first example. Of all the Jews gathered together in Jerusalem that heard the preaching in Acts 2, what separated the 3,000 from the other Jews in verse 41? Now, go back and consider who inspired the apostles and was directing and leading their teaching. It was the Holy Spirit. Therefore, who led them to receive Jesus as their Lord and have their sins taken away? Was it Peter or the other apostles? No, it was the Holy Spirit doing exactly as Jesus promised in John 16:7-14.
Granted. The 3,000 in Acts 2:41 humbled themselves in obedience to the Lord. Will you give me an amen for this?
Jesus said, "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me." Therefore, love and obedience go hand-in-hand.
As for the change that a person undergoes in Christ, I encourage you to spend some time with Romans 6:3-11. That text explains very clearly how one becomes born again.
As previously stated, the Jews in Acts 2:41 did as the Spirit directed them.
If you can understood why the passage (Romans 3:4) was quoted in the context of its use, then you will be better prepared to apply it to yourself.
Truth, as I understand it, has rules of interpretation i.e. Matthew 4:5-7, Matthew 22:23-33, and Matthew 22:41-46. At the very core of the matter is being able to harmonize texts/passages. I believe you understand that things must harmonize, but haven't quite seemed to grasp how to simply grasp what a text simply says. Take Acts 2:38. Is that rocket science? How about Hebrews 5:8-9. It not only says we should be obedient to the Lord, but tells us that He set this very example for us to follow. Rocket science? Not quite. This is a first principle. Which should remind us of Hebrews 5:12-14.
The passages I directed you to were Matthew 4:5-7 and Matthew 22:23-33. They help teach the first two basic steps of Bible interpretation: 1.) read a passage/text and gain an understanding 2.) assure that your understanding of a passage/text agrees with others.
Frankly, I believe Jesus' teaching were applicable to truth, period. It's how the process is supposed to work.
If, as you say, I have misunderstood these texts and have an erroneous understanding of truth and how it is obtained, by all means, please enlighten us.
By the way, that point that you are making about Eph. 2, is Calvinistic. As pointed out previously, why not consider some relevant background information before jumping to rash conclusions. First, there's Acts 19:1-5. Then, there's the blessings described in Ephesians 2:5-6a. Compare those blessings to Colossians 2:12-13 and then we can talk about Eph. 2:8-9.
Upvote
0
DRA
Have I taken these verses out of context? Can you harmonize you "works" salvation with these?
Galatians 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Note Titus is speaking of the symbol of baptism. Yet it is the Holy Spirit that is doing the work, not you. Whether you want to believe it or not, you cannot do anything to save yourself. If you want to stay under the "jewish" philosophy of salvation by upright living that is your choice, but please do not propagate the idea that their is a "new law" of the new covenant that must be obeyed to recieve salvation. It just isn't true.
Have I taken these verses out of context? Can you harmonize you "works" salvation with these?
Galatians 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Note Titus is speaking of the symbol of baptism. Yet it is the Holy Spirit that is doing the work, not you. Whether you want to believe it or not, you cannot do anything to save yourself. If you want to stay under the "jewish" philosophy of salvation by upright living that is your choice, but please do not propagate the idea that their is a "new law" of the new covenant that must be obeyed to recieve salvation. It just isn't true.
Upvote
0
Baptism is not an act, I have said this before and I will say it again. It is not an act/work of a "new law". There is no "new law" attached to the new covenant. Baptism is a submission, allowing a person to dunk you in water, and allowing the Holy spirit to wash you clean by the blood of Jesus.
Okay, the text under discussion was Romans 2:10-18. Perhaps this part of the text will help you: "Thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law (verse 17)." The point? The law being discussed was the law of Moses - the basis of the Jews attention. It was what they rested upon. The point made in verse 13 ("For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified") was made because, generally speaking, the Jews heard the law of Moses - but did NOT keep it. The Gentiles, who were not given the law of Moses, naturally understood and kept the things under that law. See the contrast? Why did the Jews think that law justified them?
Now, let's discuss this statement you made: "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." If, as you say, the Gentiles weren't condemned, then they must not have needed a Savior, right? I believe that conclusion is blatantly wrong.
The gentiles were saved! They were not under the condmenation of the law because they had ACCEPTED the grace offered by God. They could not have had the law of God written on their hearts if they had not accepted Jesus and allowed Him into their hearts. It doesn't work that way.
Here, I believe, is the flaw in your whole understanding of this subject. The law spoken of here is not the law of Moses, it is not the OT, it is not the Torah. It is the oracles of God (Romans 3:2) the Law of God that defines sin.
Romans 3:20 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.
When you interpret the "law" in Romans as the "Law of Moses" then you have to harmonize it with Col 2 and then you start getting into some problems and then it snowballs from there. The law of Moses and the Law of God that define sin our separate and distinct and must be treated that way when interpreting these scriptures, especially the writings of Paul.
Here you see where the snowball effect leads to. Now you look at the Law of Moses as being abolished so there must be a "new law" that must be obeyed. However, if you understand that Hebrews 5:9 is speaking of obedience to the Law of God through the working of the Holy Spirit AFTER one has accepted jesus and become a child of God under the new covenant of grace you have no problems. OBEDIENCE to the Law of God only occurs AFTER one is saved. Baptism is not a "work" it is a humbling of the body allowing a person to dunk you in water as our heart is to be humbled allowing the HS to cleanse it.
Here, I believe you use the "law of Christ" to describe a "new law" under the new covnenat. In reality this the the same Law of God that defines sin that Paul speaks of. The same law that is obeyed AFTER one has accepted grace and the promise of the new covenant. Then this law is written on your heart and the fruits are exhibited through you.
John 15:1-5 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Here Jesus is describing the new covenant. Works of the Law FOLLOW the grafting into the vine.
Baptism is not a work.
Once again, Philippians 2:12 says, "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." Don't overlook the point being stressed. Obedience is an on-going thing. Concerning the gospel, obedience has to start somewhere. The conversions in Acts show us where obedience started. Take that first example. Of all the Jews gathered together in Jerusalem that heard the preaching in Acts 2, what separated the 3,000 from the other Jews in verse 41? Now, go back and consider who inspired the apostles and was directing and leading their teaching. It was the Holy Spirit. Therefore, who led them to receive Jesus as their Lord and have their sins taken away? Was it Peter or the other apostles? No, it was the Holy Spirit doing exactly as Jesus promised in John 16:7-14.
The Spirit can CONVICT and the Spirit can CHANGE. The first the Holy Spirit works on every single soul until the day they die. The second can only happen with a humbling of the person to allow the change.
They obeyed the spirit's call to repent and allow the HS to wash them clean and change them into a new creature.
See above on John 15. Love for others only comes AFTER the grafting into the vine.
We are no longer a slave to sin AFTER we have humbled ourselves and confessed to God accepting His free gift of grace, and outwardly allowing a person to dunk us in water signifying we are now taking on Jesus' name and should be called a child of God.
Maybe you could teach me how to harmonize then. Could you please look at the verses I posted earlier and harmonize them with your doctrine of works?
If believing that you are saved by faith and not any works of the law is calvinistic then I guess I am in agreement with him on that point. I do not believe that God predetermined who would recieve this free gift. Choice is not a work.
Upvote
0
JDIBe
Senior Member
The Scripture in Galatians seems to make a very close correlation between the two. Paul does not ask why they wanted to go back to the "Old Covenant", he asked why they wanted to go back to "the law". And he then calls the two women the "two covenants".
Questions:
If those laws exist independantly of the agreement and God never changes....
1. Were the Israelites bound to keep those laws? Yes or no?
2. Was a Gentile bound to keep the dietary laws and the Sabbath given to the Israelites?
3. Is it a sin to eat pork? (Remember, the laws never change...)
4. Why do you feel you are not bound to follow them if the laws never change? Do you keep the Sabbath also?
5. Are the commands of God optional or simply suggestions? Can we pick and choose what we wish to follow, knowing that God is going to cover us anyway?
Again, still waiting from anybody for a law from the OT that we are under that is not found in the NT.
Upvote
0
JDIBe
Senior Member
Loveaboveall, let's look at this first passage again. This time let me highlight it a bit differently....
Romans 2:13-15 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 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: 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.
What is this law the is written on the Gentiles heart? Whatever it is, it cannot be the OT law! The passage is explicitly clear about that in more than one place. It CANNOT be the same as the "Law written on their hearts" that you referred to earlier because it...
1. Only applies to Gentiles, implying only Gentiles are saved.
2. Does not refer to Christian Gentiles, but ALL Gentiles implying that ALL Gentiles are God's People and all Jews are not.
So again, why refer a Gentile to a law he was never under in the first place?
As for what "the law" is in Romans, I believe it is OT law. Notice it is mentioned when speaking to Jews and this fits the context of Gal. 4:20-31.
So what is it? It is the "moral law", "written on their hearts". What tangible evidence is there that it exists? A conscience and the ability to judge others. Where did we get such an ability? I believe in the Garden from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So now we have THREE laws...
1. An OT Law - Jews
2. A moral law - Gentiles
3. A "Law of Christ/liberty" - The standard which applies to the conditions we live under today.
But Paul doesn't ask in Gal. 4, "Why do you want to go back to the Old Covenant?" in verse 21. He asks, "Why do you want to go back to the old law?", which is basically the same question I guess I'm asking too.
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
JDIBe
Senior Member
At that time there were all sorts of ideas about Torah being discussed and debated by the rabbis. There had been for quite some time, but by the time of Jesus, the situation was pretty intense. Apart from the different sects: Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes as well as the Zealots, there was a great deal of infighting within the sects. There were said to be seven different schools of thought within the Pharisees alone. One of these groups went as far as calling another group the sons of satan (or something to that affect).
Now when these Rabbis taught the law, they regularly employed common phrases and formats. One common rabbinical formula went: “You have heard (insert law here) but you must say (insert commentary/lesson/interpretation here).” They weren’t ever insinuating that they were replacing the law but merely adding their own interpretation to the mix. There’s was to be considered amongst the already hefty pool of contributions on the matter. Now – if a rabbi disagreed with another’s teaching, they often interupted them with “NO! You are destroying the law!” by which they meant the other wasn’t interpreting it correctly. Alternately if they agreed they voiced it by saying “You are fulfilling the law.” If they were in a louder church today they might have said something like “Amen! Preach it brother!”
It was in this environment that Jesus entered the picture. Anyone there was familiar enough with the scene. They’d heard the terms before. They’d even heard a lot of the content before… BUT something was different. This man, Jesus, was different and He was speaking with real authority. Immediately before the passage in question, He establishes Himself as THE authority when He says:
Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill. For verily I say to you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
In English it’s a little clumsy. We repeat a word (fulfill) where the Greek actually uses 2 different words. The audience at the time would have heard Jesus reinforce that none of the law will ever pass away (consistent with Psalm 119:89) AND that He( the expert ) will interpret it correctly. That much was unique. Jesus was establishing Himself as the authority. You can imagine that the sceptics may have thought Him arrogant, while the different groups may have even been offended, preparing to defend the honour of their favourite teachers. Of course noone could really do or say anything. How were they to debate otherwise without looking foolish themselves? Jesus was a skilled and already popular teacher. Of course they could have had Him stoned then and there if He’d actually said the law would pass away after He fulfilled it (as some understand it now) BUT He didn’t. There were no grounds for objection. Meanwhile, His followers would’ve been anxiously awaiting what was to follow: the definitive interpretation of some of these contentious issues of law. Jesus would finally set the record straight for them and for those reading the account in scripture, Matthew had already established Jesus’ credentials in the previous chapters.
Splayd, it's not that I don't trust you or anyhing like that, but this seems a little too convenient an explanation. Do you have a source for all of this I can find?
What you have just quoted me was from the Talmud (commentary on the Law and the "Oral Law"). Do you consider the Talmud binding law from God? If I write a commentary on Ephesians, does it become a part of Ephesians? What is the penalty for adultry in the Torah (written law). Is that followed today?
Upvote
0
Yes there is a very close correlation. I don't deny that. I deny that the terms are identical though. Truth is - the word "law" in scripture is used to discuss many different but related things. Context determines the correct understanding (though a good understanding of the language also clears a lot of it up). That's a principal that you apply yourself when you determine that one passage is referring to the OT commandments while another passage using the same word isn't. That recognition that there are differences in application is correct, but your basis for determining how to interpret which application applies when appears highly subjective and circular to me.
Under the old covenant - Yes. It was conditional.
Under the old covenant - it's like asking if non-christians have to get baptised. At any rate, it's evident that God-fearing "gentiles" did. Besides, scripture recognises the sabbath and the dietary law prior to the introduction of the old covenant.
To respond to this fairly will take a lengthier reply. I'll address it in more detail when I post about Peter's dream. In short - it depends if they are still unclean or not.
Actually I do keep the Sabbath (generally) but the bottom line is that we simply aren't under the law anymore. Whether or not the laws have changed is a different matter altogether.
God's law isn't optional BUT it also isn't conditional. We should endeavour to follow it as best we can, but it isn't what saves us. Read Romans 5 & 6 for a better response to that.
Your approach to this is circular because you have first determined that we are only under laws that are in the NT. It also assumes that we're "under" laws at all. I disagree with both assumptions. I do believe the laws to be eternal though I won't isolate any particular law. I did start writing a book about all 613. It was taking me forever and I stopped about half way through because it wasn't particularly rewarding and was consuming too much of my time. I hadn't come across any that weren't consistent with the NT in that time, though your perspective may not recognise them as such.
Peace
Upvote
0
I understand. It'll take some time to get my references together, but I'll make a start for you.
No. Not at all, which was actually kinda part of my point.
I'm missing your point again. My answer to that question would be - no. Wouldn't yours? Now - if your commentary was recorded in scripture as truth... then it would be scripture but it wouldn't change or undo that which you were commentating on, it would simply serve as a correct interpretation. That's what Jesus was doing. His words are scripture but they're still a commentary on Torah and never attempted to change or replace Torah. Rather He was offering a correct interpretation of it.
No. It's not followed in most western societies today. That's observable. The better question would have been "Should it be followed today?" The short answer is "I don't know". I don't think it should, but one needs to consider that it is a national law for a physical nation to follow not a law for individuals to follow. Are we called to be a physical nation under the new covenant?
Upvote
0
JDIBe
Senior Member
Oh wow!! So many things here....
I agree the word "law" is used to discuss different things, and context is important. Look at the passage again...
Gal 4:20 but I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone; for I am perplexed about you.
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman.
23 Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise.
24 Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.
25 Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.
26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now.
30 Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.
31 Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman.
What is the context here? What "law" is associated with Mt. Sinai? Is it not the old law? Is this "highly subjective" and unreasonable to assume?
EXACTLY! Different conditions call for different laws. There are many laws in the NT that apply to our situation today that did not apply to a OT Jew. There are also laws that apply to a OT Jew that do not apply to us today. That is why we live under a different law today. (although I would argue that non-christians do have to get baptized. A different thread, a different time. )
Consider Rom 14:14 in determining your answer.
1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Rom 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree;
18 glory not over the branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee.
22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
I disagree. I think it a VERY relevant and crucial question. Yes, I freely admit I feel one can find all they need to live a Christian life in the NT. (I didn't say the OT wasn't helpful, particularly in understanding the reasoning behind the NT ones.) I said we live under the NT today and not the OT laws.
My point is, that if yours and the OP's claim that "Hebrews only does away with the ceremonial law and NOT THE REST OF OT LAW" is correct:
There ought to be OT laws that apply to me that aren't found in the NT. Otherwise, one could simply say: follow the NT. The "two laws" (this and the "Law of Liberty/Christ") are not perfectly equivalent. One is a shadow of the other, but a simple reading of both clearly shows they are not the same.
What I find confusing is language like:
"God's Law isn't optional -but it isn't conditional" (kinda makes it optional then, doesn't it?)
"Hebrews doesn't eliminate all of the Old Law, but we are not under any law anyway." (So why would one care whether Hebrews eliminates what part?)
"I follow the OT dietary laws and the Sabbath (generally)"
"There is no law that we must keep in the new covenant that has been made with us. [next sentance]
I am not saying that we are not to keep the law of God. Paul is clear about this in Romans 3:31." (post #31)
Regardless of my frustration in trying to understand what you guys are saying, I think I may have stumbled upon something in one of my responses to Loveaboveall's posts that might reconcile everything to everyone's satisfaction. Give me until tomorrow to mull it over and I'll put it out there for discussion.
I agree the word "law" is used to discuss different things, and context is important. Look at the passage again...
Gal 4:20 but I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone; for I am perplexed about you.
21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman.
23 Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise.
24 Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.
25 Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.
26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so also it is now.
30 Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.
31 Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman.
What is the context here? What "law" is associated with Mt. Sinai? Is it not the old law? Is this "highly subjective" and unreasonable to assume?
EXACTLY! Different conditions call for different laws. There are many laws in the NT that apply to our situation today that did not apply to a OT Jew. There are also laws that apply to a OT Jew that do not apply to us today. That is why we live under a different law today. (although I would argue that non-christians do have to get baptized. A different thread, a different time.
)Consider Rom 14:14 in determining your answer.
1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Rom 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree;
18 glory not over the branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee.
22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
I disagree. I think it a VERY relevant and crucial question. Yes, I freely admit I feel one can find all they need to live a Christian life in the NT. (I didn't say the OT wasn't helpful, particularly in understanding the reasoning behind the NT ones.) I said we live under the NT today and not the OT laws.
My point is, that if yours and the OP's claim that "Hebrews only does away with the ceremonial law and NOT THE REST OF OT LAW" is correct:
There ought to be OT laws that apply to me that aren't found in the NT. Otherwise, one could simply say: follow the NT. The "two laws" (this and the "Law of Liberty/Christ") are not perfectly equivalent. One is a shadow of the other, but a simple reading of both clearly shows they are not the same.
What I find confusing is language like:
"God's Law isn't optional -but it isn't conditional" (kinda makes it optional then, doesn't it?)
"Hebrews doesn't eliminate all of the Old Law, but we are not under any law anyway." (So why would one care whether Hebrews eliminates what part?)
"I follow the OT dietary laws and the Sabbath (generally)"
"There is no law that we must keep in the new covenant that has been made with us. [next sentance]
I am not saying that we are not to keep the law of God. Paul is clear about this in Romans 3:31." (post #31)
Regardless of my frustration in trying to understand what you guys are saying, I think I may have stumbled upon something in one of my responses to Loveaboveall's posts that might reconcile everything to everyone's satisfaction. Give me until tomorrow to mull it over and I'll put it out there for discussion.
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
I appreciate that you are finding it difficult to understand my perspective. Thanks for persisting and seeking clarification. "Subjective" wasn't quite the word I was looking for. Nonetheless, I recognise it in the question itself. Let's look carefully at what the passage actually says. It says that some seek to be "under law" and then recognises the differences between the covenants. The people of the first covenant were under law. Those of the second aren't. I assume we agree on that.Now, it appears we're taking those facts and interpreting them differently. My interpretation adds nothing to the text. We're not bound to law (the one and only set of laws) but they were. If I understand your take it's that we only aren't bound to old laws (with which I can also agree) while there are new ones which we are bound by. That adds a distinction between laws (ie: 2 sets of laws - old and new) that isn't present in the text and adds a condition upon the freewoman where the text has none.
We've slightly missed each other here. I'd argue that OT Gentiles had to keep the ceremonial laws too, but in so doing, they were no longer Gentiles. Incidentally, they also had to get baptised to become a Jew, much like non-Christians get baptised when they become Christians.
I'm really not convinced that there are different laws for different situations. I do see different applications of those laws though. I agree that there are different covenants. I agree that as such there was a change of law (broad, general application) and I agree that the way the laws (individidual, specific application) are kept has changed, but I don't see that the laws (individual, specific application) themselves (ie: what they are) have changed.
I suspect you misunderstood me. I can understand that. I don't always explain myself well.
Bottom line - are we saved by grace or by following law? Are we saved through faith or through law? If keeping the law (whether or not you interpret that as 'just NT' law) was conditional then noone would ever be saved. According to the standard of law - we are all gone. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. No? The whole point of grace is that we don't deserve it and didn't earn it. I like the acronym (is that the right word?) God's Riches At Christ's Expense. Did you refer to Romans 5 for clarification of what I meant? It then goes on to Romans 6 where Paul asks "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" His response: "God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" So then - we are free from sin and it's consequences (ie: law is not conditional) BUT we aren't free to sin (ie: law is not optional). I'd agree with that.
I disagree with that only inasmuch as I see no distinction between them. They're the same laws. I'd agree that there are differences in the way they are kept though.
Actually loveaboveall and I have some little differences in the way we've addressed this. I don't think any of the law is done away with (especially the ceremonial). That's being a tad picky though because even though it sounds vastly different, it's not so different at all in practice.
Not necessarily. Jesus summed the whole law in 2 commandments. The NT pretty much addresses all of them in a general sense and most of the specifics will be kept according to a proper understanding of the NT interpretations anyway. For example - the NT doesn't explicitely address all of the specific sexual sins that are in the OT. Rather we bundle them all according to our understanding of general terms... BUT our understanding of those general terms is defined by the OT laws.
No - the "two laws" aren't equivalent at all. One is about observance, the other about liberty... but the two laws (general) don't each have a different set of laws (specific). Also the laws themselves (specific) are kept differently under the new law (general). It's a fine distinction but an important one IMHO.
Some recognise that the OT laws (specific articles of law) weren't thrown out at all (correctly) and then determine that we must still keep them perfectly (erroneously) and in the same way (erroneously). Others recognise that we don't have to keep them perfectly to attain salvation (correctly) and then determine that we're free to ignore altogether (erroneously). Still others recognise that we don't have to keep law the same way (correctly) and then determine that there must be different sets of laws (erroneously) and that the "old laws" are necessarily discarded and subsequently mustn't be kept (erroneously) and/or that the "new laws" must be kept perfectly instead (erroneously). Many don't go to any of those extremes but rather have a mix, while others will find whole new places to take it all.
I can certainly appreciate your frustration. I'm not such a good communicator in writing. It's much harder to convey subtle nuances etc... That's why I'm a speaker Mind you, some of that is just arguing the middle from both sides and I've found that occurs a lot in scripture, especially in Paul's writings. He'll often make arguments for and/or against both sides of an issue in a way to "fine tune" the truth: law vs grace, faith vs works etc... The problem really only occurs when people choose to accept one side of the argument and dismiss the other (eg: the apparant position that is often imparted but not actually held by others in the 'faith alone' vs 'faith + works' arguments) OR when people try to reconcile what they perceive to be a contradiction by determining that the positive references concern one thing and the negative references concern another (eg: alcoholic wine vs non-alcoholic wine).
I look forward to it. I really appreciate that you have endeavoured to understand us. To be honest, I really don't think that anyone observing the expressions of our faith would consider that we are so far apart, more that we reached where we are from different approaches.
Peace
Upvote
0
Similar threads
