Part 4: Are the Law and Grace mutually exclusive?
more on the Law and Grace…
hypothetically, for sake of argument, let us suppose that we are to obey Torah today as followers of Jesus. if this is the case, then how do we obey commands like:
Slavery is permissible, and fathers may sell their daughters (Ex 21:7; Lev. 25:44).
You may not contact a woman while she is in her monthly cycle (Lev. 15:19-24).
Homosexuals are to be put to death (Lev. 20:13)
You must put someone to death for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2).
You should not allow anyone with physical blemishes to come before the altar of the LORD (Lev. 21:16-20).
You should never wear garments that have two types of fabric (e.g., no cotton/polyester blends) (Deut 22:11).
You should publicly execute anyone who curses or blasphemes (Lev. 24:10-20).
You must burn to death those who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14).
You should put to death a rebellious child (Deut 21:18-22).
You must destroy all places of idolatry in the Land (Deut 7:2, 12:2).
You are commanded to burn apostate cities and kill all the inhabitants (Deut 13:15-17) the cherem - including babies and women.
You also must kill all magicians, witches or wizards among the people (Deut 18:10)
You must hang a blasphemer and an idolater (Deut 21:22).
In courts of law, you may not take evidence from a woman (Deut 24:17).
You must marry your brother’s wife when your brother dies childless (Deut 25:5).
If you take a female prisoner of war and seduce her, she will become a slave with certain rights, and if you later dislike her, you can grant her freedom, but you cannot sell her to another slave owner (Deut. 21:11-15)???????
i know these seem out of context. certainly someone may say, “well these are specifically referencing the civil government of Israel and therefore dont apply.” but how can these not apply? didnt the same God who gave “love your neighbor” give these? do we not have govt’s today?
are these really loving? were they intended to be carried on after the land of canaan was to have been conquered by israel? does God intend these same commands to apply for Jews in israel today? how do we reconcile these with what seems so inherently loving to us?
Filed under: Christianity, God, Judaism, Law, Messianic Judaism, Personal, Philosophy, Religion | Tagged: civil laws, gentiles and torah, Good News, grace, idolatry, love, mitzvot, new perspectives on paul, the greatest commandment, torah
P.
I have some responses to these questions, but I’m wondering if you’re asking them rhetorically?
Nate+
nate
in this case, i was posing a rhetorical question for the sake of thought and dialogue. but i definitely think that there are many hard questions that are related but that are more legitimate questions.
for instance, should we circumcize? should we eat kosher? etc.
i think these are largely ignored by gentile christians. and in messianic circles they are assumed to be kept in the manner that the rabbis have interpreted them. so both sides dont really discuss the issues much.
any thoughts?
peter
The law is a form of God’s grace.
The law is God looking after His people by steering them toward safety. God’s law protects us from dangers we cannot see or even understand. That is why in exchange for obedience to God’s law we receive a long and blessed life. It is true that there are certain laws which symbolize what Christ fulfilled such as circumcision or blood sacrifice. Even when God instructed His people to kill He was protecting future generations as He did surrounding the tower of babel separating people and languages.
David loved God’s law. What did David love about it? Did David see the grace in God’s law? Could God’s word be His wings, our shelter for us, a sanctuary from the storms? When I see people I know suffering such as a friend who recently had a baby out of wedlock, I can see the curse of disobedience. We cannot avoid the consequences of disobedience in many cases. God will forgive us, but we still have to reap what we sow.
I love this blog! You guys are deep! I really appreciate your meaty discussions that satisfy my hunger and stimulate spiritual growth.
joshua
thanks so much for stopping by again. i really appreciate your input. i agree with you about the Law being full of grace. and to add to your list, Paul also said that he loved God’s Law.
i am not sure i agree with you about Messiah finishing the individual commandments like you mentioned. i agree that there are some things that are changed. for instance, even Orthodox Jews do not sacrifice animals at the Temple with an Aaronic priesthood. but that is because there is no Temple and there is no lineage of the priesthood. (maybe God directed intentionally??)
with that said, there are some things that traditionally have been attributed as “nullified” by Yeshua. but is that really so?
i would love to hear Michael’s perspective as he has a much more full background in the Hebraic tradition.
maybe to narrow it down to one topic:
i do believe that circumcision has reached its fulfillment by our heart being circumcized, not our flesh. obviously the famous prophecy in Jeremiah talks about our heart’s being circumcized and Paul refers to the same as well, etc. but interestingly, the Torah also mentions such. Moses tells Israel to “circumcize your hearts”…so Moses understood the true intent of the commandment of circumcision. it was meant to act as a symbol of what God does to our heart to soften us, to teach us compassion and love. so has the circumcision commandment been fulfilled??? absolutely, but wasnt it always? did Yeshua really change anything about that specific command?
let me conclude with this, i am asking honest and challenging questions. ones that i dont know the answers to. i mean this not to offend anyone. i mean it because i am seeking. because i am unsure. i would love your thoughts.
peter
I see your point as the reason Yeshua did not come to eliminate the law, but to fulfill the law. When my first son was circumcised I was looking through a window standing over him and dedicating him to God in prayer. Other acts is scripture are honored such as one piercing his ear to become a bond servant.
It is amazing how many times in scriptures God has expressed His desire for heart felt obedience. God never changes today He is the same as yesterday. Today we even practice baptism. God obviously desires love to be the foundation for our obedience, but Israel many times obeyed out of obligation. The New Testament expresses this in the verse if you love me you will obey my commandments.
This is surely a stimulating discussion!
To me eating a modified kosher, what I refer to as “biblically kosher”, is a given. In other words, if God prescribed it, I consider it “medicinal”; even if I don’t need it, it certainly won’t harm me.
Circumcision is a tough one, but since I’ve been legally adopted into the Commonwealth of Israel (by “grafting”
and circumcision is sort of like a physical green card, it strikes me as a good idea. Admittedly there are a lot of questions. Like to whom does the command apply? To the father to circumcise his son or to a son who has not been circumcised? I don’t presume to be able to answer those questions definitively. Mostly because the Apostolic Scriptures leave them unanswered. Paul didn’t circumcise Titus (at least not then) but he did circumcise Timothy, and while there are some popular assumptions regarding the why behind these decisions at the end of the day we don’t really know.
But, there were a lot of Gentiles in that mixed multitude which came out of Egypt, and they were still part of the group that had every male circumcised prior to partaking of Passover and entering the Land in Joshua 5…so my personal leaning is to circumcise. Certainly it represents physically a spiritual reality, but God gives us a whole lot of physical things to practice that are representative of a deeper spiritual reality. The mistake we often make is to say that because we understand the spiritual reality the physical no longer need apply.
Imagine if we applied this logic to Christmas! The Christian world would go nuts. Just because something has all ready happened does not mean that memorializing it is no longer appropriate. Thus keeping the feasts, even those which have all ready been fulfilled, is not an exercise in futility. Similarly, keeping kosher, circumcising our sons, observing the Sabbath are practices that remain valuable. And it is our right to practice them.
As Dwight Pryor says, “I’m not here to discuss obligation but opportunity.”
nate
your comments are apropo. i loved what you said. very balanced, but obviously you have thought much about the question. as have i. i personally have chosen to start eaten kosher (or as you said “modified” kosher) but i am flexible about it.
i raised the issue of circumcision not to be divisive, but to demonstrate that things arent as black and white as they seem. nate, i think you made a great point about that. there is room for disagreement. the apostles were silent about it. Yeshua was silent about it. maybe this allowance was intentional…
peter
josh
i agree…in fact, i think you hit the nail on the head. all the commandments were intended to be obeyed with our hearts. the Tanakh (OT) often tells us that God cares about our intentions, not just the letter of the the Torah. interestingly, this is one of the newer things that has come out with the “new perspectives on paul”. there is a realization that Jews arent necessarily “legalistic”, but just obedient. sure, there were and are always legalistic people. but there are many of those in “christian” circles too.
as i said above, my point about circumcision isnt to divide, but to spur thinking about tough issues related to our obedience of the commandments.
peter
Here are some things I’ve considered during my same questioning, if it helps. I’m not saying I have the answers but maybe it will answer some of your questions. Some of this is probably redundant but I’m trying to lay it out start to finish.
The Law of Moses (to me) seems to consist of two categories of commands;
1) Acceptable worship of God, and
2) Acceptable behavior.
The first seems to have two subcategories:
A) Instructions for conduct, promoting cleanliness whereby allowing one to draw near to worship, and
B) Instructions for the performance of worship rituals, feasts, and Sabbaths
The second category (Acceptable behavior) seems to remain unchanged by Jesus during his preaching and inauguration of the Kingdom of God. But during that time, he turned the Worship categories of the Law on there head by spiritualizing them a great deal.
You could tell how close-minded the Jews were by the Samaritan woman’s conversation with Jesus. She spoke assuming that he would disagree with her open-minded approach to worship. He confirmed that location was of no importance, but that she know who it is she is worshipping:
John 4:
20 “Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”
21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
22 “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
23 “But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
24 “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
It was understood that worshipping was done by sacrifice and offering. Jesus acknowledged that it would not be required of people to worship in this manner in the future. Any further act of worship would be in spirit, which is (in truth) the worship God was wanting.
Remember the book of Hebrews lays out this argument for us?
Hebrews 10:
“5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says,
“SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED,
BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;
6 IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.
7 “THEN I SAID, ‘BEHOLD, I HAVE COME
(IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME)
TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.’”
8 After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” (which are offered according to the Law),
9 then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second.
10 By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
You see, it was not by sacrifices. He took away the first and established doing the will of God as the “desire” of God. And not only that but that God did not take pleasure in animal sacrifices.
Romans 12:
1 Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.
2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
There’s the “will” of God mentioned again. Notice that our spiritual act of worship (arguably what Jesus was referring to in “…spirit and in truth”) is the offering of our own selves as sacrifices but in a spiritual since. The physical sacrifices were never intended to last as it says at the beginning of Hebrews 10:
“1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.”
Yet after the argument that I pasted above is laid out he says, Hebrews 10:
“14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.”
Then the writer of Hebrews ties it back to a former argument that he had gone over in chapter 8 by quoting Jeremiah again. Hebrews 10:
“15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
16 “THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,”
He then says,
17″AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS
I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE.”
In Hebrews 8 he said that calling the covenant new made the old one obsolete.
This is where our questions begin. The rituals for the approach to God were obsolete, that is clear, but what about the cleanliness, festival, and Sabbath Laws? We know that Paul speaks of them as of no importance in Colossians 2:
“16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—
17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.”
And similarly in Romans 14:
“1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.
3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.
4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.”
This is addressed in more places than these. But how was this fulfilled in Jesus?
Hebrews chapter 4 tells us how the Sabbath was fulfilled. He lays out the predicates in Hebrews 3 and gives the conclusion in Hebrews 4:
“3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
“AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,”
although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.”
And even more clarification in Hebrews 4:
“9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
And Jesus gives the closest form of physical and spiritual comparison of eating, drinking and other cleanliness issues in Mark 7:
“15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.”
And goes on to say:
“18 And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,
19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)”
And I think this was intended to show true meaning of some of the cleanliness Laws as well. Matthew 23:
“25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
26″You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.”
So I have gathered that as long as I obey the behavioral parts of the Law such as “Love the Lord…” and “Love your Neighbor…” that all that is required of me is a clear conscience in the rest of my conduct. Jesus said, “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” So once the Law was accomplished then the letter of the Law would pass or become obsolete. The Law required that anyone in the previous covenant with God to be dealt with accordingly (Deuteronomy 28: 15-68). Some of it spoke of a temporal judgment and destruction but some of it spoke of a complete destruction. Peter spoke of it in his sermon: “Moses said, ‘THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you. And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’” (Acts 3: 22, 23)
This was fulfilled in the destruction of the temple in a.d.70 where nearly a million Jews perished at the hands of Roman soldiers because of there rejection of Jesus as the Christ.
From that point on there has only been one covenant between God and man.
Jesus said, “If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well.” John 15: 24. The Jews are required to accept Jesus in order to be saved now. And if they accept Jesus as the Christ then they join the Church and become Christian, in which there is no Jew or Gentile.
I know this is not new information and probably not the first time it has been laid out like this but I don’t read other peoples outlines and arguments because I take Jesus at his word when he said the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. This is the outline I have developed in that endeavor to allow the Spirit to lead and this is the first time I have written it down. I hope this does not offend anyone.
In Jesus,
Sam
Sorry for highjacking the page.
sam
thanks for taking the time to give such a lengthy response.
there was much you spoke of…so for sake of brevity, i will respond in general rather than in specific. yes, i am still struggling with how specifically i believe i am to be obedient to God. with that said, the issues you have raised are important passages to look at. however, in context they really arent as strong as we would think.
i myself kept questioning many of these passages.
here is what i learned the more i studied about these “problem” passages. paul was a pharisee (not before he converted to “the way” but after, “i am a pharisee”
his whole life. from this perspective it would be almost unthinkable for paul to just openly reject all that he was raised to believe. unless, of course, he was specifically commanded not to.
we dont know of course whether Yeshua specifically taught paul to reject his jewish upbringing, but it is unlikely as Yeshua kept Torah himself and taught his disciples to do so as well.
additionally, these “problem passages” for the most part are ambiguous. it really depends on how one chooses to look at the passage. for instance, the famous colossians passage can be viewed in a completely different way:
the shadow doesnt disappear when the reality appears. the body will still have a shadow as long as there is light. but the body is the important part and the shadow is the body’s reflection.
so the question we could ask is this, did paul think we should reject the shadows of Messiah????
think about paul says in 1 corinthians, “let us keep the festival without leaven”. paul actually commands we keep passover/unleavened bread there. so is paul contradicting himself???
anyway, i dont want to get bogged down in details. because i think the general principle is more important. in conclusion my struggle is this, what commandments apply only to ethnic jews and what apply to us? as we have been grafted into israel, do we take on the mantel of Torah?
thanks for the discussion
peter
Okay. If I might probe the conversation a little…
Where does it say at all that Jews are required to keep the Law. I see Paul says in two or three places that it would only benefit the Jew if they keep the whole Law. That was only possible when there was a temple. Now there is only one name under heaven by which men can be saved which is the name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit; That name is Jesus who set us free from the Law of sin. Before, a gentile had to become a Jew in order to be part of the Kingdom but now a Jew and a gentile have to become a member of Christ’s body to be a part of the Kingdom. We are on the same level. No one is born into the Kingdom of God but has to be born again into the Kingdom.
(These are all part of my understanding of the whole of scripture so please understand that I am only presenting things according to my understanding and am aware that you may have a verse [or verses] in mind that might not allow my views to stand so firmly. I am merely presenting conversational material because I am interested in your approach to these same views. I have a tendency to make people mad at me and I am not sure why, but it may be because I come across to dogmatically so I want to eliminate that at the outset.)
When Paul said he was a Pharisee, it is my understanding that he was talking about before not after. He just said “…circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;”.
There is no “I am” in the Greek. I don’t know if he used the perfect tense or not but he says immediately afterward, “…as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.” So if we take that he is a pharisee then we must also say that he is a persecutor of the church, which I don’t think you would suggest that. He WAS a persecutor of the church. I’m not sure that being a Pharisee would make him a Jew, either. To me, that would be like calling a liberal scholar a Christian. Someone can study the Bible without believing it. So this may have been a non issue.
Also, the term “shadow” is used a few times and is never used in context with the sun. It is always used to mean a vague picture, or a silhouette or an outline, but the substance belongs to Christ. If the context of the sun was used I would see the anomaly in the “shadow” analogy. But I think that the extent you are taking that analogy is based on information that is not given in the context of the passage. Again, I am only making conversation and maybe you could help me with my understanding. The author of Hebrews said that the Law was obsolete and was fading at the time he wrote his epistle. It seems to me that if the Law was to remain a practice, Paul wouldn’t have gone to the extent that he did to say that it passing and less glorious and that it does not even benefit the Jew according to the flesh. And if the only statements that are for the Law’s practice being still an obligation for the Jew are ambiguous, then we really don’t have any indication from an inspired author, just a struggle with remnants of the flesh trying to war with our spirit and convincing us that we have to do more to be saved, and a lot of scriptures, which are not ambiguous, saying that the Law is of no benefit to anyone.
I’m very interested in this topic. I thought that the Bible was clear on the subject, and being a teacher of the Bible myself I have read the Bible many times and memorized a lot of it. There is no place I haven’t read and there is hardly a place I can’t remember. I’m not saying that I have any rank at all, I’m only saying that I have considered the whole of scripture in dealing with this subject and I have never thought of it being ambiguous, so I’m very interested in your understanding because I like to teach all views, and I want to know as much as I can.
I appreciate your post and any dialogue we might share. I’ll look forward to your explanations, Thank you
In Jesus,
Sam
After saying all that, I think everyone is required to obey Christ’s commandments and not the Law of Moses. During the transfiguration God said listen to Jesus and not Moses or Elijah (i.e. the Law and the Prophets) and that was spoken to Jews who were still under the Law. So I’d like to see where the practice of the Law is still required by an inspired author.
Again, when Paul had Timothy circumcised it wasn’t for salvation sake, so it was probably a part of becoming all things to all men. He didn’t want to offend the Jews. The Gentiles couldn’t care less. It makes since that way but not the other way. Thanks again.
Sam
sam
thanks for your thoughts, here are a few things to think about…
when paul is on trial, he says “i am a pharisee” (acts 23). in context it is clear he is saying that he is, not was. especially if you read a few passages earlier where he contrasts that with “i was a persecutor of the Way”. interestingly, paul also doesnt say persecutor of “christianity”, but of the Way which is a sect (a sect of what? Judaism).
in short, there are many passages that require obedience to Torah. but i think the most obvious ones for the NT come in matthew. Yeshua (Jesus) gives the sermon on the mount, in which He says, “do not think i have come to abolish the Law (Torah) or the Prophets (Nevehim). i have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments (ie the mitzvot - commandments in the OT) and teaches others to do so as well will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
you are right, Yeshua doesnt say that we must obey the mitzvot in order to save ourselves. this would be legalism. but interestingly, Jews never thought they were saving themselves. it was always God’s grace. however, God still gives us commands which we are to obey. so Yeshua says, we are to obey the commandments or we will be least in the Kingdom.
and then Yeshua goes on to comment on the Torah and many of the most famous commandments. instead of negating the need for these, He increases the standards. He says that the obedience is not just an issue of the outward appearance, but that of the heart state. this too is nothing new as Samuel says, “man judges the outward appearance, but God judges the heart”.
sure, i concede (in fact, i am unsure about what is still required and what has passed away - eg Temple ceremony laws, etc) there are some commandments that seem to no longer apply. many of these are apparent by reason of being fulfilled in Messiah. however, Yeshua didnt “fulfill” murder, or adultery, or covetousness. these are still necessary commandments. we all agree that the ten commandments are guiding principles in our lives (except most christians reject Sabbath, the 4th commandment).
so my question is not whether we are to obey God’s commands, but which ones still apply today??
peter
Okay, fair enough. I think I see. Let me address what you have said and then please continue your critique of my exegesis.
I now realize that you were in Acts. I thought you were referring to Philippians 3:5,6 where he considers his being a Pharisee as loss for Christ. In fact it seems that he counted it as loss to be a Pharisee and counted it as rubbish, as though it was necessary to count it as rubbish in order to gain Christ; see Phil. 3:8 (sorry I run sentences on to long sometimes). It seems to me that he realized he’d never get a fair trial from the Jews so he had to divide them in that scene. It basically says this in the passage. And I still don’t see how being a Pharisee means he actually keeps the Law, but that he is educated in the Law. Anyway, I don’t think that it is that big of an issue, but I am interested in your take on the fact that he thought it was rubbish that he was a Pharisee. He did say in 1 Cor. 9:20 “To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;” As a side note, he says here that he is not under the Law, but anyway, calling himself a Pharisee would be in line with this statement.
I was wondering what those passages are that require obedience to the Law. I have not run across them. At least, I have not run across passages that require anyone who is not going to be judged by the Law to be obedient to the Law (remember those who are to be judged by the Law was those who took upon themselves the name of the God in vein by disobeying him. The Law never required that those who kept it to be judged by it). Jesus was speaking to crowds who were under the Law. Remember he said, “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” The part that says, “…until all is accomplished” is usually left off the end when quoted but it is the operative of the sentence. You see, Jesus had accomplished all that the Law required. You said he did not fulfill murder, adultery, or covetousness but it doesn’t say in the Law that we are to do these things but that we are not to do these things. That he did do, thus fulfilling them for us. If you look at the parallel to this statement, it kinda shapes it; “but it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.” (Luke 16:17) “To fail…” this again is the operative. It did not fail, but became obsolete. The Law was glorious but it was fading because of something surpassing in glory. I don’t mean to be redundant. I am trying to be thorough.
My understanding of the Kingdom of Heaven and of God is that they are first, one in the same but that they were what Jesus ushered in at his first coming and that it has been ongoing for the past two thousand years and will never end. So when he says that they will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, (to me) he is saying when the Kingdom is inaugurated at my succession to the throne, then those who were faithful to the previous covenant with God will be called great, but the unfaithful will be called least. The wording of being “called” doesn’t indicate that they will be in the Kingdom of God. What would you do with this verse, “Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”? I would say that John the Baptist, according to your understanding of Matthew 5:19, did not keep the Law very well.
I agree with the fact that it was always by Grace. Someone had said that Paul had Timothy circumcised and I was saying that the reason was probably not for salvation sake, assuming that the topic was that some laws were still required to be followed by the Jews. That is all I was saying.
I would say that the Sabbath commandment is not followed because it is fulfilled in Christ and that anyone who has believed in Christ has entered that rest. (Hebrews 4:3) Paul certainly agrees that it is not required in Colossians 2: 16 and following. Read the incredible logic of the whole Sabbath days rest syllogism in Hebrews 3 and 4. If you already have, what do you think?
Quote: “so my question is not whether we are to obey God’s commands, but which ones still apply today??”
Love the Lord your God and so on and Love your neighbor. ALL the Law and Prophets hang on these two. By doing these you fulfill the Law. You can basically forget the rest according to Jesus and Paul Matthew 22:40, Romans 13:10. I don’t think any other Law is needed. But I understand that that is just me.
Please accept this as my interests and that I am only presenting them for discussion and not as an arrogant fool running on and on about what he knows. I am treated like that all the time and I don’t mind keeping it to myself, but I do like discussing it with others and I mean no wrong to anyone. If it gets old please say so. Thank you for your responses.
In Christ,
Sam
sam
no troubles with your comments. i appreciate your candor. i will say, however, that i find it hard to address all your pts at once, because it breaks down the dialogue and becomes more of a monologue.
with that said, i think the most important thing is to address where we are commanded to obey the commands. and at the same time i think it ties in your thoughts about the two greatest commandments.
in 1 john 5, john writes, “by this we know that we love the children of God (ie addressing love your neighbor), when we love God (so loving our neighbor means we are loving to God, the other great commandment) and obey His commandments(Hebrew mitzvot - ie Torah’s commandments). For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.”
we have to remember that john is jewish, he was raised jewish and continued to be jewish. when he was talking about “commandments” he is referring to “mitzvot”, ie the commandments in the Torah.
regardless of whether there is quibbling about the specific commandments that john is referring to, he is at minimum speaking of the two commandments about love. yet, according to your logic, Messiah fulfilled these. so we shouldnt have to.
you are darn right we dont HAVE to obey these commands, but we arent living in obedience to Messiah if we arent.
anyway, the commandments are not burdensome. and certainly Sabbath is not. it is a great pleasure i hope you find enjoyment in. since i and my wife have found great joy in Sabbath.
may His face shine upon you
peter
Okay. I agree that they are not burdensome. Since I read Psalm 119 for the first time two years ago when I was leading a less than Holy life I couldn’t understand how well the author was taking the word of God. I was agonizing much of the time while I was reading it. When I started paying attention to the Holiness verses of the Bible, I started getting it. If I felt that I was commanded to observe a specific day to the Lord as Holy I would be happy to do so. But I’ve come to notice the Sabbath parallels highlighted in Hebrews and have caught the little hint from Romans 14 and have realized that when Paul writes, “One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind” that I want to set aside everyday and not just one. I don’t think it silly to observe the Sabbath, However, I don’t think there is Biblical basis for saying that one must, for any reason, observe the Sabbath or that by doing so one is in a better standing with the Father. I figured that was legalism and inconsistent with a large portion of scripture.
As far as your quote from 1 John; if you read all the times that he speaks of keeping the commandments of God in his epistle, you’ll notice something incredibly familiar. If you turn to the familiar verses that seem to be what John is quoting from you’ll see that the commandments are Christ’s commandments and not the old testament commandments that he is referring to. See:
1 John 3:23 “This is His commandment that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.
24 “The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.”
If you except at face value your interpretation of what is being said here you’d be in trouble. But I’m pretty sure that he is only saying what he quotes Jesus as saying in John.
John 14: 21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”
And,
John 14: 23 “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
24 “He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.”
Especially that last verse which tells us that the commandments in question are of the Father. This is not the first time Jesus says that he only speaks the word of God, or commandments of God (being that they are interchangeable here).
One more,
John 15:10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.”
This is a strong parallel with the statement that he makes in 1 John 3 (quoted above). God’s commandments are Jesus’ commandments. They are one and the same.
Hebrews 7:12 “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.”
Hebrews 7:18 “For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness
19 “(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.”
You seem to mistake what I am saying so I’ll try and say it better. Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant, making the old one obsolete. This doesn’t say that it was bad. It was glorious but weak. Christ’s Law is surpassing in glory which is the Law of the new covenant. It has some of the same commandments that are to be followed which are based spiritually on the old covenant Laws. This is why my logic may seem skewed. You don’t have to follow the old covenant Laws; you do have to follow Jesus’ Laws. Jesus fulfilled the old covenant Laws but behavioral and devotional Laws in Christ are exactly like that of the Old Covenant. So it may seem as though I am saying “yes, yes” and “no, no” but this should clear that up.
So anyway, I look forward to your response. I do observe the Sabbath. For a year now I have understood that to mean that the days we are living in are the days of rest according to Hebrews and I realized that I had been keeping the Sabbath the whole time by keeping everyday Holy. That’s not to sound pious, but to acknowledge God’s grace to a lowly sinner such as I. I’ve turned over a lot so that I could be free from this body of death and Father has raised me up. Sometimes I still don’t know why I should be so blessed but then I remember it is for his Glory and I’m ready to go to work again.
Again, I hope none of this is abrasive. I lack tact with some people apparently, so I’m hoping to maintain a conversation in Love. It is very interesting to recall these scriptures when I didn’t realize that there were people with these questions.
God Bless You,
Sam
i guess we may have disconnected on the difference between covenant and law.
the covenant is a promise God made with His people. there is a new covenant, no question. but if you read about the new covenant in jeremiah, it says, He will put His Law (Torah) on our hearts.
the Law (Torah - which actually means more “teaching” than “law”
was God’s way of guiding His people in His path. and that Torah still exists, but it is now to be carved on our hearts.
so my question isnt whether the Torah still exists, but what is applicable to us today. we still obey His commands about adultery, why not Sabbath?
i think we should be asking ourselves if there is a good reason not to honor Sabbath. if there is, then ok. but if not, then His Torah still exists. also if you look at Sabbath, it is something that goes back to creation, and isnt just something from the covenant at Sinai. God created the earth in six days and rested on the 7th.
maybe the distinction between covenant and law helps clarify our discussion. i look fwd to hearing back from you.
peter
Oh my Gosh!
People!
This is such an important topic yet I see people confused about this all the time. We have a new law today.. its called the Law of Faith…
The other was nailed to the Cross in Colosians. Cast out the Bond Woman (law) …
Gal 4:29: …But what does the scripture say? Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.
Gal 3:23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25. Now that faith is come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Here is an analogy, the law is like gravity… you fall down you get hurt it is constant. But then say a new law was discovered!!
The law of aerodynamics …. and then you learn how to make wings and fly… As you function in that new law… you cant even tell the other law existed..(gravity).
And that is how we are to function…Walk in the spirit …in a double union with Christ.
The First law was of the Flesh and the second of the Spirit…They dont mix..period. And if you do try to mix them…you get another gospel.
This is so important to get right…because the rest of the bible has to be understood in that light.
Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you ….
Faith is not some great thing to have someday.. we are to walk by faith daily…thats the new covenant.
Christ in you !!!! That’s the hope of Glory!!! Understand how he lives in you and through you…
Cheers,
Brian
Peter,
I have not attempted to convince you that we should not observe the Sabbath. I hope that is not the way I come across to you. I observe it everyday. If I were to offer up scriptures for the lack of necessity, they would be Matthew 12:1-7, John 5:17, Colossians 2:16, Hebrews 4:3, etc. I obey Jesus’ command about adultery which is the intent of God’s Law but that is because they are good Laws given by one and the same person. Jesus never gave a command with regards to the Sabbath. Moreover, gentiles were not under the Sinaitic covenant and were never required to observe the Law (unless they converted to Judaism). But because Israel made God jealous by gods which were no gods, God made them jealous by a nation that were not a nation; the Church. Now it is the Jew who has to convert. His birth into Judaism isn’t enough. He has to be born again.
I think the New Testament is of one mind on that subject. And the Old Testament as well but we have to get the apostles’ opinion on that before we can understand it that way. It’s not necessary for anyone to be in bondage to observing the Sabbath, but to God a man stands or falls so if what you do is to the Lord, it is not my place to say it is wrong. Likewise, it is not anyone’s place to tell anybody else that they are in bondage to any command that we have been freed from. That is the position that I am trying to ask you about; where do you find that that is not the case and that my wires are crossed? I hope that I have maintained that position, because I am no one’s judge and I’m aware of it.
I would like to say though, the covenant that was made with Israel began like this, “Now then, if you will indeed OBEY My voice and keep My COVENANT, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine:” (Exodus 19:5)
The law was given as part of the covenant and is one and the same. If we have disconnected I’d like to hear what you know that separates the Law from the covenant. I am aware that the definition of “law” and “covenant” are different, but I don’t think that is what you mean. So I’ll leave it at that until there is some clarification, because I don’t think you clarified or showed me how you separate them. I would like to know though.
Sorry it took so long to respond, I was busy. My Father is always at His work, and I too am working. I hope this finds you doing well.
In Jesus,
Sam
Brian,
This is not my post but because you addressed me I’d like to say, that was a nice analogy. Thanks for the input.
In Jesus,
Sam
A8eOWU hi nice site thx http://peace.com
brian
i think the analogy is good, but i dont really agree with your interpretation of Scripture. you took various passages out of context and then used them to support your analogy. instead, i believe we must use the Scripture in context to build an analogy. let me give you an example:
“in my inner being i delight in the Law”. this means we should obey the Law no matter what to the letter. a good analogy for this is that we are servants to a master who demands obedience….
fortunately, this isnt how we are to think. this is one verse from paul, out of context of the rest of romans.
instead, i believe we must look at paul the jewish pharisee who studied under gamaliel, head of the hillel pharisees. we must look at the book of galatians and to whom it was written and then look at the letter as an entire document. and then see how these verses fit into this context. with these factors, i dont believe that the language that paul uses (translated from a hebrew thinker to written down in greek to english into a western thinker’s mind) really translates as strongly as we tend to think.
i myself used to hold the same opinion as you and know all the arguments for us being “free” from the Law. but i just dont buy them any longer. i am open to seeing why we shouldnt, but i hear the same old arguments over and over, the ones i used to use.
i am going to write another post on this…look forward to hearing from you again.
peter
[...] christianity, grace, judaism, law, religion, torah. trackback i just received some comments on a post i wrote i while ago about the interaction of the “Law” and “Grace”. they [...]