Part 5: Are the Law and Grace mutually exclusive

Posted on January 17, 2008 by Peter

i just received some comments on a post i wrote i while ago about the interaction of the “Law” and “Grace”. they spurred me to write a little more on the subject.

let us think about the Law as a law. what do laws do in our society? they almost exclusively restrict us from doing something. in america, we dont have laws that demand us to give to the poor. because we have an ideal as americans that people should be free to choose how/where/what/etc they give.

so almost all laws are those which tell us what we cannot do.

however, this is a very foreign concept to a Hebrew mind. God gave many restricting laws (negative), but He also gave many positive commands. for instance, “take care of the widow and the orphan”. or “love your neighbor as yourself”. these require that we DO something. so when a hebraic mind thinks “Law” they think negative and positive commandments. more than this, there is the overarching principle behind the “Law”. our principle behind the laws in america is generally the declaration of independence and the constitution. these documents form the foundation for our laws. but these two documents were created with a theme of freedom as well. they were freedom from tyranny. they protect the people from the government. we have separation of powers and the ability to have independence.

this however is vastly different from the principles behind Torah.

Torah has the concept that we were to follow the “way of YHWH”. Torah means much closer to “teaching” than “law” in our western minds. you see, Torah was intended to show us God’s will and to teach us how to live in His paths. in order to do this, there are certain things that we can and cannot do. almost without exception, we continue to believe these commandments, negative and positive, still apply to us today. for instance, dont murder or commit adultery or covet. or for example, love your neighbor as yourself or protect the widow and the orphan.

in light of this difference or perspective and language and culture, etc, are we truly NOT supposed to follow God’s commands in the OT? or do they apply today just as much as ever?

more importantly, as i believe we can all agree that we are to obey many of the commands (like dont murder), which commandments still apply to us today? which teach us how to follow our Lord Jesus better? how do we apply commandments to our lives today? how can we love our neighbor better today? how can we take care of the poor and the immigrant?

may the Lord bless you and keep you
may He make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you
may He give you peace

Filed under: Christianity, Judaism, Law, Religion | Tagged: ,

« My Journey to Non-Violence: Killing in the name of our country doctor receive conscientious objector status »

11 Responses to “Part 5: Are the Law and Grace mutually exclusive”

  1. timglass, on January 17th, 2008 at 8:48 pm Said:

    I’ve understood that while Christ fulfills the “whole law” it is first and foremost the sacrificial law that [He] brings about for our justification.
    So we are still required to follow the others.

    Blessing,
    Tim

  2. PB and J, on January 19th, 2008 at 1:00 am Said:

    tim

    yeah that is my understanding as well.

    thanks for commenting.

    peter

  3. Sam, on January 22nd, 2008 at 6:21 am Said:

    But it is my understanding based on less ambiguous scriptures that Christ is the end of the Law. I have discussed this quite a few times and have yet to hear any scripture that gives a direct and specific command to obey the Law of the covenant made between God and Israel.

    Christ gave a handful of commandments for us to obey through the Spirit which are the truth. God does not change, so obviously his definition of righteousness would not change but the method of achieving righteousness was never through the old covenant anyway. Thus Christ made a new and better covenant and poured out his Spirit to lead us into truth. Claiming to have held my position and then finding out the truth which you hold on to now, does not say that you were right in accepting your position. You have to establish it first. It seems people don’t trust that God can lead a man to deny ungodliness and worldly desires without Laws so they have to convince men that there is still a list of commands to follow.

    When you take a plain statement that is clearly defined by the context and the rest of scripture, and shoehorn a different meaning in, and that statement not agreeing with other more plain statements that are not so easy to shoehorn the same clever reinterpretation in, then you have some difficult passages that don’t make since that you have to tag as a “mystery”. Now I admit, mystery does sound intriguing, but I’m not trying to be intrigued; I’m trying to participate in creating unity within the body of believers so that Christ Jesus can return for his bride. If it doesn’t make since, it’s not true. That is a principle that you can take to the bank. We’re arguing over words so that we can be original.

    I’m not being difficult. I clearly see a freedom from the Ten Commandments. To Love is the only commandment that is now. If you make a list of rules or Laws you are only doing what God did for Israel, and only a remnant of them were saved and that not even through the good and perfect Law. Paul mocked the keeping of the Sabbath and he denied being a Pharisee anymore much later than his discussion with the council at Jerusalem. These are plain to see and much plainer still is Paul’s writing about those who seem to be Christian Pharisees who we call Judaisers going from Church to Church teaching the same thing that you are also saying is true here.

    I think your analogy is somewhat flawed in its logic. Laws are only the power of sin. If I drive seventy in a sixty mph zone, the Law did nothing to restrict me. It only empowered the punishment, because without the Law no one could do anything. Everything you said is contrary to what is in scripture. We as Christians Love all of God’s commands. There is no Law for the Christian that restricts us. Everything we desire and do is not contrary to any one Law. If we walk contrary to the Law of Christ we are not walking according to the Spirit and basically Romans 8:7. Not only that, but someone can do the righteous requirements of the Law without faith and perish. If you can have one without the other -and the Bible says you can- then there is no reason for me to believe that I should follow a list of rules especially when they don’t pertain to me in the first place because I’m not the one breaking them.

    The Spirit of God leads to the truth and the grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and all this without a Law.

    I think we should establish the fact before we defend it. I’m sorry if this is more rugged than before. I mean no less Love by it. I’m simply interested in your scriptures that support your claims and as I have addressed them before, it seems you are committed to the belief rather than the truth. Maybe I misunderstand, and this I am willing to accept, but it seems you are surreptitiously overlooking the plain passages, making them sound ambiguous in order to make ambiguous passages solid. That is my understanding so far, which is to say it may not be true and I may be misunderstanding you.

    I hope you will take the opportunity to try and make it clear for me if I haven’t been too abrasive. I have time. I have said enough in the former comments that you can use as resources for what I believe.

    Peace friend,
    Sam

  4. PB and J, on January 22nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm Said:

    sam

    i am sorry…i think i showed you this Scripture before, let’s try again:

    “I have NOT come to ABOLISH the Law or the Prophets…I have come to FULFILL them. Therefore, whoever RELAXES one of the least of these COMMANDMENTS 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.”

    and then Yeshua goes on to comment on various of the commandments within the Law.

    finally, i still dont think you get it…we are still supposed to be obedient to God. there is no question that murder is still wrong. this is a commandment in the “Law”. there is no question that we are commanded to “love our neighbor as ourselves”. this also is in the Law.

    the Law is there to guide us, not to bind us. God uses His Law to prick us.

    read jonathan edwards and various other evangelical figures, they believed the Law had a very real power to convict us.

    i hope this is plain enough.
    peter

  5. PB and J, on January 23rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm Said:

    sam

    here is a great article i read recently. although i dont agree with all the conclusions, i think it brings some interesting points to light:

    Which of the Ten Commandments Did Jesus Break?
    Print Page

    Yes, you read it right. Which commandments did Jesus break? It may come as a shock to realize that Jesus broke any commandments. But He did. And knowing which commandments He broke and why He broke them is important for you to understand.

    Let’s look at the account of one such accusation in John 5:18,

    “Therefore the Jews sought to kill Him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (New King James version throughout).
    Now before anyone jumps to a wrong conclusion, let’s understand what this verse means. Did Jesus break the Sabbath commandment in the law of God (Exodus 20:8-11, Deut. 5:12-15)? Let’s let Jesus Himself answer that question,

    “I have kept my Father’s commandments” (John 15:10).
    Also in response to the young man who asked Him what to do to inherit eternal life, Jesus said,

    “If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments ” (Matt 19:17).
    The verses following clearly identify “the commandments” as those God gave in what we call “the Old Testament.” He cited some of the “Ten Commandments” as well as the fundamental commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” to make the point. In other words, He meant all the commandments of God should be obeyed. On another occasion, Jesus said,

    “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4).

    Clearly, Jesus believed in, taught and kept all the commandments of God during His earthly ministry. He also commanded his disciples to be:

    “. . . teaching them [new converts] to observe all things I have commanded you . . . . ” (Matt. 28:20).
    In the famous “sermon on the mount” Jesus clearly and forcefully states His theological position on the law of God,

    “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets” (Matt. 5:17).
    Unfortunately, many think He did. Even though they don’t say it in those exact words, the result is still the same. Some say Jesus “transformed” the law, meaning that by accepting Christ as Savior, a Christian is somehow credited with the righteousness of Christ. Which means we don’t need to keep the Law, because Jesus allegedly kept it for us. Which means that the Law really doesn’t apply to us after all. Which means that Jesus did in fact “destroy the Law.” Because the word “destroy” (”kataluõ” in Greek) means “to loose or unloose what was before bound” (The Complete Word Study Dictionary, by Spiros Zodhiates, page 836). So if Jesus somehow “transformed” the Law so that we don’t have to keep it, He “loosed” us from its obligation. But Jesus emphatically tells us that He did no such thing. To emphasize the point further, He said,

    “For assuredly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (verse 18).
    The word “fulfill” means to complete. In this case, to completely accomplish the purpose God intended.

    Another meaning of “kataluõ” is “annul” (Weymouth translation). So also, God’s laws are never annulled or repealed. They remain in effect so long as the conditions they govern continue to exist. Every detail! Not even a “jot” or “tittle” is exempted. (A jot is similar to the dot over an “i.” A tittle to the crossing of a “t.” ;)

    Jesus concludes his introductory “disclaimer” with a solemn warning to religious teachers,

    “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (verse 19).
    Some carelessly assume and assert that “these commandments” refers to the teachings of Christ that follow in the remainder of the chapter. Not so! The wording of the Greek text simply will not allow such an interpretation. Expositor’s Bible Commentary explains:

    But what are “these commandments”? It is hard to justify restriction of these words to Jesus’ teachings, . . . for the noun in Matthew never refers to Jesus’ words, and the context argues against it. Restriction to the Ten Commandments is equally alien to the concerns of the context. Nor can we say “these commandments” refers to the antitheses that follow, for in Matthew houtos (”this,” pl. “these” ;) never points forward [emphasis mine throughout]. It appears, then, that the expression must refer to the commandments of the OT (old testament). The entire Law and the Prophets are not scrapped by Jesus’ coming but fulfilled. Therefore, the commandments of these Scriptures–even the least of them–must be practiced . . . . The law pointed forward to Jesus and his teaching; . . . so he, in fulfilling it, establishes . . . the way it is to be obeyed” (volume 1, page 146).

    Actually, the word in verse 19 translated “breaks” (”luõ” in Greek) is related to the word in verse 17 rendered “destroy” (”kataluõ”). “Luõ” literally means “to loose.” The Greek concept of destruction is to break or take apart. Loosening a part is the first step in taking apart (thus breaking or destroying) an object. So Jesus’ warning not only applies to anyone who disobeys even a minor detail of God’s law and teaches others to do the same. Even “loosing” or relaxing any of the requirements is forbidden, because that is the first step toward destroying the law.

    Perhaps you have heard the story, “For lack of a lace, a shoe was lost. For lack of a shoe, a soldier was lost. For lack of a soldier, a battle was lost. For lack of a battle the war was lost.” The lesson is clear. No one should be careless about any detail of God’s law, however minor it may seem.

    Jesus emphatically did not break any of God’s commandments. Not even the slightest detail! So which commandments did Jesus break? The answer is found in another quote from Christ Himself, recorded in Matt. 15:9,

    “In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
    Jesus quoted this statement from Isa. 29:13 and applied it to “the tradition of the elders” (Matt. 15:1) as taught and practiced by the hypocritical, self-righteous scribes and Pharisees who sat in judgment of Him. These “commandments” were also known to the Jews as the “oral Torah (law).” It was this verbal version of the law that Jesus sought to correct in the “sermon on the mount.” This is clearly evident by his statement:

    “You have heard that it was said to those of old, . . .”
    that prefaced each of his pronouncements (Matt. 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43). What follows is Jesus’ explanation of the proper application of the commandment upon which the particular tradition was based. Jesus thus “fulfilled” the law by restoring it to its complete original meaning and intent. Our righteousness must therefore exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (verse 20) in that we must keep the law of God in its proper intent. To put it another way, we must keep the spirit of the law, not just the letter of the law. This is only possible through the presence of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:7-9), which God offers upon repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38). But that is another subject.

    The commandments Jesus broke were the commandments of men. When the Jews charged Jesus with breaking the Sabbath (John 5:18), they were accusing Him of violating their misguided human traditions regarding the Sabbath. The gospel accounts contain many such confrontations where Jesus’ conduct on the Sabbath was condemned by the legalistic scribes and Pharisees (Mark 2:23-28, 3:1-6).

  6. Sam, on January 26th, 2008 at 5:17 am Said:

    To your first response I would like to say:

    The passage you quoted is a fairly clear passage that can be misrepresented fairly easily if you don’t understand it. I won’t explain it because the most simple way of approaching your comment is by drawing your attention to what you are responding to. In my comment immediately before your response I referred to shoehorning meanings into a passage while calling the clear passages “ambiguous”. By quoting the passage in the way that you are, you are merely showing me how you explain it. The passage does not prescribe or establish what you are telling me.

    I don’t think I’m saying that clearly enough so allow me to explain myself better. You have a belief and I have a belief. If you or I show one another a passage and explain it through the mechanisms of our belief we are only stating our belief. We might also, in that same situation, be showing how we interpret that specific passage, but it never comes close to establishing our specific belief. To establish it we have to show passages that prescribe our belief and not just describe.

    Now if Paul says that it is not necessary to keep the Law, then he has established it and we no longer have to keep the Law. (The “Law” according to an exegetical approach to his passages is the Jewish Law given by Moses) If Paul preached in Jesus name, then Jesus is not saying what you think he is saying in your passage and you are still stuck with finding a prescriptive passage that allows for the Law given by Moses to be followed.

    Just because we say we don’t follow the Mosaic Law does not mean that we will murder now. That is a weak statement. We can completely disregard the Mosaic Law and follow only the commands that Jesus gave and we would most likely have some overlap between the Laws. If I left America and became a citizen of Mexico I would changing loyalties from one set of Laws to another set of Laws yet there would probably be a 90% overlap in the two Laws. If I say I don’t obey American Laws anymore but in following the Mexican Laws, I do not break any of the American Laws it does not mean that I am still under American Laws. Mexico would be the one to punish me if I break the Law and if they didn’t America would not care because I am not under their Law. That is an accurate analogy of what we are talking about.

    So is there any prescriptive scriptures that you know of that require the obedience to the Mosaic Law? If there is then I have to say there is a huge contradiction in scripture because it is perfectly clear to me that Christ was the end of the Law.

    To your second response:

    I agree with some of it but I don’t say that Christ “abolished” the Law or “transformed” it. I say that he made it obsolete or no longer in use.
    It says in Hebrews 7:

    11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the LAW), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

    12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a CHANGE of LAW also.

    13 For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has OFFICIATED at the altar.

    14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

    15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,

    16 who has become such not on the basis of a LAW of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.

    17 For it is attested of Him,
    “You are a priest forever
    according to the order of Melchizedek.”

    18 For, on the one hand, there is a SETTING ASIDE of a former COMMANDMENT because of its WEAKNESS and USELESNESS

    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. (EMPHASIS mine)

    So it is the Bible itself calling the Law useless and weak and no longer in practice because of a change of priesthood. If you keep the Law of Moses you will only benefit from it if you keep the whole Law which is impossible considering you don’t have a Levite to offer up you sacrifices. If you claim that Jesus was the sacrifice then you are arguing my point, you’re just not going far enough. First of all Jesus was not from the Levitical priesthood and therefore cannot fulfill your obligation to the Law which required a Levite to offer up sacrifices. You have to part from one or the other. If you can change Laws then you can have Jesus as your high priest and forever making intercession for you. But if you switch Laws you can’t start binding others around you to Laws that you are not even bound to. If you choose to observe the Sabbath it is not a command of Jesus that you need to teach others. It is a choice and a standard you hold yourself to apart from the Law of the high priest, Jesus. You are serving God with your heart, soul and strength but this is for you and cannot be forced on anyone or you are changing Christ’s law and becoming legalistic, preaching another Jesus. Paul got so mad at people who taught another Jesus that he could just spit.

    I think if you could establish your view from scripture, making sure that the passage is prescriptive, then you would have something. But until then, explaining passages through your own mechanism will not help because you don’t have scripture on your side and you do nothing toward the task of establishing your view.

    I hope this is clear to you. I didn’t have time to organize my thoughts so it may not follow along with smooth transitions. I also hope that this is received in Love again.

    Peace friend,
    Sam

  7. PB and J, on January 27th, 2008 at 4:27 am Said:

    sam

    its hard to receive it in love to be honest, because there isnt too much dialogue. it is mostly you telling me that i am wrong and reiterating your own points.

    you must do a much better job of explaining away the quite clear meaning of matthew 5 to convince me that the “Law is obsolete”. sure paul and the author of hebrews seem to state things clearly, but so does Jesus. so who is right???

    you say that we should read things in a way that of course Jesus is being consistent with paul’s “clear” statement. but language is never that “clear”. i spent a lot of time studying english and i can promise you, one’s native tongue has incredible ambiguity in otherwise seemingly direct phrases. not to mention translating over time, language and culture.

    anyway, why shouldnt we look at paul in light of Jesus’ statements? doesnt this make more sense?

    peter

  8. Sam, on February 1st, 2008 at 6:13 am Said:

    Peter said: “anyway, why shouldnt we look at paul in light of Jesus’ statements? doesnt this make more sense?”

    Absolutely. The trouble you have is that Paul is drawing his information from Jesus and was so much like Jesus that it is hard to conclude that the handful of statements that you have quoted mean what you have imposed on them.

    Peter said: “you must do a much better job of explaining away the quite clear meaning of matthew 5 to convince me that the “Law is obsolete”. sure paul and the author of hebrews seem to state things clearly, but so does Jesus. so who is right???”

    They were both right. Neither said anything contrary to each other. I admit that at face value that your exegesis seems completely fine, but it is the overwhelmingly clear and often statements found mostly in Paul’s writings but are also present in the rest of Scripture, that makes those few passages ambiguous and quite possibly clearer, another way. Because it is my belief that the Law was rendered inactive by Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, I have to realize that Jesus is saying something else. It is by the revelation of Paul’s, that I can look at Matthew without preferential treatment and use a proper hermeneutic; that is, if Jesus is not saying what it seems he is saying (because let’s face it, His is the more ambiguous statement of all), then what is present in his statement that allows for a clearer meaning?

    Well, Jesus said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 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.” (EMPHASIS MINE)

    If saying “…until heaven and earth pass away…” means that the Law will not pass away until the end of the earth, then saying, “…until all is accomplished” means that when Jesus had completed or fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, they would indeed pass away. The language allows for that interpretation and the light of the rest of scripture almost demands that interpretation. Your meaning might seem to stand as an interpretation but it does not demand that interpretation especially in light of other Scriptures. Luke’s version says, “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.” Yet again, this does not say that the Law will not pass away, it is saying that the Law will not fail, and if it is fulfilled, then it did not fail.

    Furthermore, for those who were under the Law, (because Jesus had not fulfilled the Law and the Prophets yet) Jesus was saying that those who keep it and teach others to keep it will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. If the language demanded that your interpretation be imposed on this passage with no exceptions, then I would have to believe it. But the language really only allows for it to say that they would be CALLED great in the Kingdom of Heaven (a.k.a. Kingdom of God) and indeed they were called great, not only that but they entered into the Kingdom of God. If your meaning was correct, (you might remember me saying this before) then John the Baptist, who Jesus said there was no one greater, was least in the Kingdom of God according to Matthew 11:11. It seems the explanation of that one would be demanded from you. As a matter of fact, that would make your passage more clearly not what you are saying it means.

    If the Bible says that Jesus abolished the Law or made the Law obsolete, I would have to believe it or I am the Liar. Let me paste these here for you to read and judge for yourself whether I am a Liar.

    Ephesians 2:15 “by ABOLISHING in His flesh the enmity, which is the LAW AND COMMANDMENTS contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,” (EMPHASIS MINE)

    Hebrews 8:13 “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He HAS MADE THE FIRST OBSOLETE. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.” (EMPHASIS MINE)

    These are not my words but I reiterate them.

    Peter said: “you say that we should read things in a way that of course Jesus is being consistent with paul’s “clear” statement. but language is never that “clear”. i spent a lot of time studying english and i can promise you, one’s native tongue has incredible ambiguity in otherwise seemingly direct phrases. not to mention translating over time, language and culture.”

    I am aware of this on a miner scale, but I think to make much of this is only an attempt to make ambiguous passages seem clearer. We have enough knowledge and understanding about the Bible that there is very little that is ambiguous in its translation. We have others’ translations from the second century that shows us their understanding doesn’t differ from ours. If there is no difference between our understandings and the second century, then putting a difference between ours and the first century is arbitrary and surreptitious. That argument cannot be used to prove me right or you wrong in the least on this subject.

    Peter said: “its hard to receive it in love to be honest, because there isnt too much dialogue. it is mostly you telling me that i am wrong and reiterating your own points.”

    I am trying to have a discussion about our different approaches to the Biblical teaching of the Law. If I show you what the Bible says about that and it conflicts with what you are saying and you are wrong, then how can I say it another way. You have reiterated your points and I am not offended by it. I simply want to dialogue (which only means a conversation between two or more people) about our differences without insulting anyone. But if presenting the truth using the only authority we have, insults or leaves one with the impression that it is not in Love, how else am I to get the response I am looking for? If the Bible that I quote from does not allow your view to be right, thus essentially saying you are wrong, then should I say you are right and forget the truth? Or should I keep reiterating information that you seem to overlook so as to correct or be corrected in order to arrive at a conclusion, instead of saying you’re wrong? I have done the latter because I thought at some point you would understand better what I am saying and offer up some new information. But when you started to cycle back through your quotes, I realized that maybe I need to be clearer on my approach. I don’t know of any other way to discuss this with out presenting more and more passages and have you reinterpret them for me so I can see your method. But so far you have just led me on a chase of interpreting yours without an explanation on your part.

    I’m sorry if you think I’m trying to insult or dispute with you over words. I do not understand why people get mad at me for presenting what I find to be true in scripture. I don’t know if it is because there is no argument for their side against what I am saying, so they are just mad over losing, in their mind, or if I really do insult people without knowing it. I said this up front because I knew if I pushed for clarification someone is going to get mad at me. I have to present the truth as I see it in scripture or I’m imposing my own belief on the inspired understanding of the apostles. I just wish I could get others to do the same. I understand that I could be wrong and not know it, but why can’t that be discussed without someone being insulted.

    I’m trying. Please understand me so as not to think I’m trying to insult you. Please don’t be hurt or mad. I will not say anymore if you ask me.

    Sincerely,
    Sam

  9. PB and J, on February 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 am Said:

    sam

    i am sorry, i dont agree with your exegesis, nor your interpretation of passages that are not nearly as cut and dry as you make them. remember that these were coming from a hebrew thought to greek writing (if they werent originally recorded in hebrew as some scholars believe they were) through years and cultural shifts from an eastern to a western perspective and then into english and finally into a postevangelical american culture. that is a lot that can confuse things.

    notice, i never claimed to “know” what Yeshua meant, i raised a lot of questions. however, you state things as if they were fact, but they are your interpretation.

    i believe we should agree to disagree on this issue. there should be nothing but love between us. so let us unite in our confession of Yeshua (Jesus) as Lord, the Son of God, Messiah. and we will both try to follow our Lord as best as we may through His grace.

    may we love the LORD God with all our heart mind and strength and love our neighbor as ourselves.

    peter

  10. Sam, on February 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 am Said:

    I understand. One thing more though. I’ve heard the “Some scholars say…” argument before and I would not put any weight on that. The fact that the author of Hebrews used a play on words concerning a covenant and a will, indicates that the person writing was probably more familiar with Greek than those scholars would have us believe. And Eusebius records that Papius recorded that he had heard of an Aramaic version of Matthew but there is no other indication in history that any other books were written in Aramaic or Hebrew for that matter. That seems very hard to prove that Paul would write his letters to Gentiles in Aramaic. I’m very familiar with Hebrew thought and have been for quite sometime. I don’t think that it changes so much so as to make those clear cut passages have a different interpretation though. Agree to disagree. I wish there was a way to talk about this without offense. Thank you for establishing a boundary rather than flying off the handle.
    Anyway, I agree that we should not draw any lines between us. They should be between us and the world so I will quit here. Take care friend.

    In Jesus,
    Sam

  11. PB and J, on February 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 am Said:

    sounds good, i look forward to more discussion on other topics.

    peter

Leave a Reply