PDA

View Full Version : It Is Finished! Moshe, My Servant, Is Dead!



2Witnesses
Feb 5th 2008, 04:09 AM
Shalom from Jerusalem!

Its 5:35AM here, and I am awake! So I should post. After all, need to keep my name on First Post!

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

There are some in the Body of Christ who have sought to re-establish a wall torn down by the Blood of the New Covenant. These claim they are returning the Church to the 'purity' of its Jewish roots. And this means the Law of Moses.

If you are like me, I thought the Bible was divided into two parts, the OC and the NC, for a reason. But others do not feel this distinction. They say the NC is the OC 'renewed'. SO the verses in Jeremiah 31 which speak of this New Covenant, actually refers to a renewed Old Covenant.

Is this so? Is the Law of Moses a past covenant, or a present one? And if so, and Gentiles were brought into this covenant made with the houses of Israel and Judah, are they to follow all the Law, the 613. Or do they follow on about 4, per Acts 15? And if so, is not the wall still there in some degree?

If the every jot and tittle of the Law must be fulfilled before heaven and earth passes, then ALL the Law still has authority. Yes? I mean, the Law is a whole, to offend in one point is to offend in all, Paul says in Galatians. And does not Moses call for the curses if one does not abide by ALL things written in the book of the Law, to keep them? But did not Jesus remove us from the 'curse of the Law'?

If none can pass before all is fulfilled, then have blood offerings just been put on hold? And what of the priesthood of Levy, does Melchizedek then serve beside him? And all has authority, then was Paul in error to 'no longer teach circumcision'?

'Oh, circumcision is just for Jewish believers.' Really? Then there still is a wall. And what was Paul thinking? We must not have understood him!

When Christ was dying on the cross, He uttered this, 'It is finished!'. And by that He meant that ALL the Law had been accomplished. So look out, the sky could fall at any moment.

By His life, and in His death, Yeshua took care of every jot and tittle. And by His resurrection, and in His eternal life, He established the everlasting covenant.

So do not again be subject to the Law of bondage. Do not let any man tell you to observe this day or that. And certainly do not let any tell you not to kill that loudmouth jerk making your life hell!

Just kiddin about that last one. But you can now really injure him. Murder is STILL wrong you know.

'But I thought you said the Law of Moses was 'finished'?' Yes, Virginia, the Colonel is dead! But I speak of the 'covenant' of the Law for righteousness, and not the 'rightness' of God.

2Witnesses

2Witnesses
Feb 5th 2008, 11:33 AM
Yes,

I know that some of you will say, 'But we saw Moses in the transfiguration.' But when I refer to Moses, I speak of his covenant.

Just wanted to clear that up in case some misunderstand.

2Witnesses

dworthington
Feb 5th 2008, 01:12 PM
While we are not bound by the law as given through Moses the Ten Commandments written in stone, I believe are forever. This does not give us freedom to break the laws of society.

2Witnesses
Feb 5th 2008, 01:39 PM
Well, yes and no. I never said it was alright to kill the loudmouthed one. But even he is under no command to keep a holy day.

And you say 'forever'. Do you think it will always be 'necessary' to have a law against murder?

Besides, with the Christian, the 'prohibition' is the living Spirit of God within his heart. And that Spirit will not lead that Christian to commit murder. But neither will He lead that one to keep from certain foods.

One must understand I speak of the 'Covenant of the Law for righteousness', and not the holiness of God, as being 'done away'.

2Witnesses

2Witnesses
Feb 5th 2008, 04:03 PM
dworthington,

Does that make sense to you?

2Witnesses

Kahtar
Feb 5th 2008, 11:58 PM
One must understand I speak of the 'Covenant of the Law for righteousness', and not the holiness of God, as being 'done away'.
2WitnessesIf you are saying the purpose for obedience to the law has changed, I'll agree with you. Prior to Christ, adherance to the law was required for righteousness. Now it is not. Now our righteousness comes through faith in the shed blood of Christ. But to walk in the Spirit, and seek after holiness, one ends up following the Law of God (as opposed to the law of Moses). Sin is the breaking of God's law. The Spirit will not lead us to sin. Thus, the Spirit will lead us to be obedient to the law, but not for righteousness.

2Witnesses
Feb 6th 2008, 05:20 AM
If you are saying the purpose for obedience to the law has changed, I'll agree with you. Prior to Christ, adherance to the law was required for righteousness. Now it is not. Now our righteousness comes through faith in the shed blood of Christ. But to walk in the Spirit, and seek after holiness, one ends up following the Law of God (as opposed to the law of Moses). Sin is the breaking of God's law. The Spirit will not lead us to sin. Thus, the Spirit will lead us to be obedient to the law, but not for righteousness.

Kahtar,

Good comments! Amen! And yes, the Law of Moses was required obedience to every jot and tittle for righteousness. And there was a 'righteousness according to the Law'. But it was not a 'righteousness unto life'. For if life could be had through the Law of Moses, Christ died in vain.

BUt the Law could not give life. It could only give death. Thus it was the 'ministry of condemnation.'

2Witnesses

walked
Feb 6th 2008, 08:14 AM
The laws of Moses are (((not))) the covenant !

Gods promise to Adam n Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isac, Jacob and David this promise is the covenant!!!! and it was fulfilled/finished/instituted by Christ Jesus work on earth, and all can now partake of Christ Jesus with or without the laws of Moses to restore fellowship with the Creator.
(God will write His law on the hearts of all who gather to and, partake of His Son to restore their fellowship with the Creator)<--- this is the covenant !

BHS
Feb 6th 2008, 06:52 PM
I am of the opinion that salvation has always been by God’s grace and true faith on the part of man. If that is the case, then no one was ever justified by keeping the law, unless God really does have two means of salvation, but I don’t think so. And if it is the case God only has one way to be saved, then I think the only conclusion is that Paul must be grossly misunderstood.

The wall Paul refers to is not the law, but enmity between Jew and Gentile. If wanting to “keep the law” brings enmity between Jew and Gentile, is that the law’s fault? Does keeping the law cause division among the Jews? If so, I don’t think that it is the law’s fault, but a matter of the heart.

You may have a reason for the OC and the NC to be divided, but it wasn't a division that God Himself put in place. I find that it's the little things that have gradually led to our errors in interpretation of scripture without our notice.

God bless,
BHS

2Witnesses
Feb 6th 2008, 06:58 PM
I am of the opinion that salvation has always been by God’s grace and true faith on the part of man. If that is the case, then no one was ever justified by keeping the law, unless God really does have two means of salvation, but I don’t think so. And if it is the case God only has one way to be saved, then I think the only conclusion is that Paul must be grossly misunderstood.

The wall Paul refers to is not the law, but enmity between Jew and Gentile. If wanting to “keep the law” brings enmity between Jew and Gentile, is that the law’s fault? Does keeping the law cause division among the Jews? If so, I don’t think that it is the law’s fault, but a matter of the heart.

God bless,
BHS

BHS,

I never said there were two ways of salvation. I think, if you read my post you will see that I said, 'if righteousness could be gained through the Law then Christ died in vain.'

But could you prove your contention the 'wall was enmity between Jew and Gentile'?

2Witnesses

BHS
Feb 6th 2008, 07:13 PM
'But I thought you said the Law of Moses was 'finished'?' Yes, Virginia, the Colonel is dead! But I speak of the 'covenant' of the Law for righteousness, and not the 'rightness' of God.

2Witnesses

Perhaps I have misunderstood your meaning of this comment -- If the "law is for righteousness" that says to me they were depending upon their own righteousness for salvation. I do not find that understanding in the Tanach.

That "enmity" is the wall, rather than the law, is within the context of what Paul was saying. Paul was expressing the desire for unity between Jew and Gentile. The middle wall of partition is not the law, but the enmity between them. But then, If Christians make the law a stumblingblock for them and their relationship with the Jew, then, yes it could be the cause of enmity. But the wall is "enmity" itself and one can make anything they want to be the cause of that enmity. Paul's actions in Acts would indicate that he did not for himself cause the law to bring enmity between him and his fellow Jew.

Blessings,
BHS

2Witnesses
Feb 6th 2008, 07:31 PM
Perhaps I have misunderstood your meaning of this comment -- If the "law is for righteousness" that says to me they were depending upon their own righteousness for salvation. I do not find that understanding in the Tanach.

That "enmity" is the wall, rather than the law, is within the context of what Paul was saying. Paul was expressing the desire for unity between Jew and Gentile. The middle wall of partition is not the law, but the enmity between them. But then, If Christians make the law a stumblingblock for them and their relationship with the Jew, then, yes it could be the cause of enmity. But the wall is "enmity" itself and one can make anything they want to be the cause of that enmity. Paul's actions in Acts would indicate that he did not for himself cause the law to bring enmity between him and his fellow Jew.

Blessings,
BHS

BHS,

ALL I have said is that some in the Messianic community 'themselves' have set the Law as a wall. I never actually said anything about the wall being the Law.

The Law of Moses was 'understood' by the average Jew as being 'for righteousness before God.' Did not Paul say, 'they, seeking to establish a righteousness of their own based on the Law...'?

2Witnesses

BHS
Feb 6th 2008, 09:33 PM
BHS,

ALL I have said is that some in the Messianic community 'themselves' have set the Law as a wall. I never actually said anything about the wall being the Law.

The Law of Moses was 'understood' by the average Jew as being 'for righteousness before God.' Did not Paul say, 'they, seeking to establish a righteousness of their own based on the Law...'?

2Witnesses

"Seeking to establish a righteousness based upon the law" may have been true of those who were influenced by the rabbis, but the law was never given for this purpose.

Does the messianic community say for themselves they have set the law as a wall or is this said of them by those outside the messianic community or those who are opposed to Torah? If not by the messianics who "uphold the law", then is it not used in such a way to call the law the wall? -- Just the way I see it.

Blessings,
BHS

2Witnesses
Feb 7th 2008, 01:40 AM
"Seeking to establish a righteousness based upon the law" may have been true of those who were influenced by the rabbis, but the law was never given for this purpose.

Does the messianic community say for themselves they have set the law as a wall or is this said of them by those outside the messianic community or those who are opposed to Torah? If not by the messianics who "uphold the law", then is it not used in such a way to call the law the wall? -- Just the way I see it.

Blessings,
BHS

BHS,

3But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15Having aolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Jew and Gentile are fellow heirs, not on the bases of the Law, but on the bases of the Cross. This is the true reconciliation in that the enmity that existed did so by the Law. For Jew and Gentile Could Not be made one on the bases of the Law.

You see, even the Jew is not reconciled to God on the bases of the Law. For the Law brings wrath. So there is NO peace between God and Israel by the Law. For if this were not the case, they did not need Christ.

The purpose of the Law was not for righteousness before God. It was for condemnation before God. The purpose of the Law was to point to the reconciliation, Christ, who is our peace.

And those in the MC who think they are to follow Moses and Christ, set back the work of Chrsit.

2Witnesses

BHS
Feb 7th 2008, 06:49 AM
2 Witnesses,

As you have quoted the Ephesians passage, you can see that it is the enmity that was abolished in verse 15 and 16. I will say again the enmity is not the law. There have been other translations that seem to clarify this. If Paul means that when Y’shua abolished the enmity, he abolished the law too, then this is in contradiction with Y’shua’s statement in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the Torah. Nor did the Torah “cause” the enmity directly.

In an absolute sense it cannot be said the Torah is made of no effect because of Christ. Otherwise, Paul would not have made this statement in
Romans 3:31 “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. “

One could understand this passage to be saying that for His Body, the rabbinic ordinances that separate Jew and Gentile are not as important as fellowship between the two. In this passage Paul is writing to Gentiles and his objective is to reassure them that they are fully God’s people, that because of their faith in Y’shua and his work – no barrier exits between them and Jews. His purpose is to emphasize what God has done for Gentiles. To find in these verses grounds for opposing the messianic community is to misconstrue Paul’s meaning.

I really do not like giving opposing arguments about the law, because it seems quite useless. However, I feel it necessary at times to defend the messianic community against statements like you have made such as –


BHS,

And those in the MC who think they are to follow Moses and Christ, set back the work of Chrsit.

2Witnesses

We agree that the Torah points to Christ. It is very much about Y’shua. I do not believe in any way that because Y’shua has come it is no longer necessary or effective. It also points to His second coming. It does not offer another way of salvation, it continually points to Y'shua and "the everlasting way". (Psalm 139:24) If Christians could come to the point they give more than just lip service to Matt 5:17 and Romans 3:31, they would possibly see that neither Y’shua or Paul are opposed to the Torah. If Christians could read Psalm 119 with the same sincerity and understanding as David, they could say like him, “How I love thy Torah”!

If you truly believe that the work of Christ is set back because of the Torah, then you must think you have some scriptural basis. I have found none. The Torah has never prevented Y'shua from accomplishing His goals. Y'shua IS the goal of the Torah!

Sincerely,
BHS

2Witnesses
Feb 7th 2008, 10:13 AM
2 Witnesses,

As you have quoted the Ephesians passage, you can see that it is the enmity that was abolished in verse 15 and 16. I will say again the enmity is not the law. There have been other translations that seem to clarify this. If Paul means that when Y’shua abolished the enmity, he abolished the law too, then this is in contradiction with Y’shua’s statement in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the Torah. Nor did the Torah “cause” the enmity directly.

In an absolute sense it cannot be said the Torah is made of no effect because of Christ. Otherwise, Paul would not have made this statement in
Romans 3:31 “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. “

One could understand this passage to be saying that for His Body, the rabbinic ordinances that separate Jew and Gentile are not as important as fellowship between the two. In this passage Paul is writing to Gentiles and his objective is to reassure them that they are fully God’s people, that because of their faith in Y’shua and his work – no barrier exits between them and Jews. His purpose is to emphasize what God has done for Gentiles. To find in these verses grounds for opposing the messianic community is to misconstrue Paul’s meaning.

I really do not like giving opposing arguments about the law, because it seems quite useless. However, I feel it necessary at times to defend the messianic community against statements like you have made such as –



We agree that the Torah points to Christ. It is very much about Y’shua. I do not believe in any way that because Y’shua has come it is no longer necessary or effective. It also points to His second coming. It does not offer another way of salvation, it continually points to Y'shua and "the everlasting way". (Psalm 139:24) If Christians could come to the point they give more than just lip service to Matt 5:17 and Romans 3:31, they would possibly see that neither Y’shua or Paul are opposed to the Torah. If Christians could read Psalm 119 with the same sincerity and understanding as David, they could say like him, “How I love thy Torah”!

If you truly believe that the work of Christ is set back because of the Torah, then you must think you have some scriptural basis. I have found none. The Torah has never prevented Y'shua from accomplishing His goals. Y'shua IS the goal of the Torah!

Sincerely,
BHS

BHS,

My main concern is the Law of Moses, and not the 'torah', or intruction contained in all the Tanach. Of course such is relevant and useful.

But Christ did 'do away' with the 'Covenant of the Law.' This I so proved in the opening thread.

And I am sorry if you do not see it, but the Law of Moses most certainly is the 'enmity; between Jew and God, and between Jew and Gentile. And because of this enmity there exist the wall of separation. You cannot read the verses I quoted in Eph. and understand it, honestly, in other way.

And in that Christ did 'abolish' the Law of Moses, in that He fulfilled in all, \He also abolished the enmity. You seemed to have misssed the point of my original post!

2Witnesses

Studyin'2Show
Feb 7th 2008, 12:53 PM
What I find most interesting about those who believe the Law YHWH gave is dead, is that they MUST believe our loving Father gave something bad to His children. Yeshua tells us that if we being evil would not give something bad to our children, we should be confident that God will give only good things to us. What I always equate God's Law to is a parent's instruction to a child and then those same instructions as the child becomes an adult. For example, when I was a child I got in trouble when my mother saw me crossing the street without looking for traffic. I got a spanking that day. My mother was not upset because she didn't want me to run and play, but because she knew and understood the dangers. Now, at 40, my mom would not give me a spanking for not looking before I crossed the street, however, I have learned that my mother's rule was good for me so now I do look before crossing. You see, I have learned the rule so I am no longer have to be UNDER those rules; they are a part of me now.

In the same way, our heavenly Parent gave us good 'rules' for our own benefit. Now that our relationship with Him should have 'come of age', we should no longer look at them like rules for a child to be UNDER, but as good instruction that as adults we remember and have become a part of us. God's Law should now be in our HEARTS! It should be our DESIRE to do right things, not because we have to but because we know what is right. BTW, living in Israel, you should be aware of the thousands of commands that the Jews hold to this day that are NOT what God gave them. They are the additions like not eating meat and dairy together and the one Peter dealt with concerning Jews not going into the home of a Gentile. Those are nowhere in God's Law. These are the ordinances that have been abolished, in my view. Those were (and are) a burden on the back of the Jews. God's Law (His real Law not the extra stuff) as Psalm 119 says, is to be delighted in and loved!

God Bless!

BHS
Feb 7th 2008, 01:41 PM
Thank you S2S for your comments. David after expressing his love for the Torah continues to say “It is my meditation all the day.” The law of Moses contains far more than rules and it was the “law” that Ezra read to the people as they returned from exile. The scriptures the first century Christians and the Bereans meditated on included the “law”.

2 Witnesses, you have not convinced me from your first post of your position. The “curse" of the law is not the law itself, but the penalty for sin, which the “law” exposed. It was the removal of the penalty for sin that Y’shua suffered and died for on the tree.

Suffice it to say, I think I am in a far better position being pro-Torah along with Y’shua, Paul and the disciples than rejecting Moses and the Word God gave to him to bring the children of Israel into the “promised land”.

Blessings,
BHS

2Witnesses
Feb 7th 2008, 07:35 PM
Thank you S2S for your comments. David after expressing his love for the Torah continues to say “It is my meditation all the day.” The law of Moses contains far more than rules and it was the “law” that Ezra read to the people as they returned from exile. The scriptures the first century Christians and the Bereans meditated on included the “law”.

2 Witnesses, you have not convinced me from your first post of your position. The “curse" of the law is not the law itself, but the penalty for sin, which the “law” exposed. It was the removal of the penalty for sin that Y’shua suffered and died for on the tree.

Suffice it to say, I think I am in a far better position being pro-Torah along with Y’shua, Paul and the disciples than rejecting Moses and the Word God gave to him to bring the children of Israel into the “promised land”.

Blessings,
BHS

BHS,

Paul spent much of his ministry contrasting the Covenant of the Law, and the Covenant of Grace. They are two 'different' covenants.

The Covenant of the Law was a whole! It was ONE, but contained 613 provisions. Paul says, 'to offend in one point is to offend in all'. If you have sinned, you have broken the covenant. If you have offended in one point, it is the same as if you have offended in 612. It is a covenant based on 'works'. And for this reason, the Covenant of the Law itself is a curse. It is a curse in that it is the 'ministry of condemnation', 2 Cor 3. And it is condemnation because 'cursed is he who continues not in ALL things written in the book of the Law, to do them.' Deut. 4.

Yes, the Law instructed concerning how a Jew was to walk before God. And there was a 'righteousness according to the Law'. But it was not a 'righteousness unto life.' So no matter how righteous according to the Law one was, it was never enough. It could not justify, nor give life. So I say again, the Covenant of the Law itself was a curse. You could not have the Law without a penalty, a curse. For individual items of the Law, yes. But remember, the Law is a whole. It is a unified covenant.

I have already said that the Law contained good things. The Tanach is full of good and useful 'torah', or instruction. But that is not what I speak of. I am talking about the Covenant of the Law. And it is was Covenant of the Law Christ fulfilled and removed.

Is it sin to now, under the New Covenant, to eat shellfish? No! Not in the least! And unless something is specified as halacha under the NT, then we are safe in ignoring it.

2Witnesses

Studyin'2Show
Feb 7th 2008, 08:09 PM
If you wish to ignore, then by all means ignore. :) Do we know why God gave an instruction like the example you gave of eating shellfish? Most people say it was because back then certain things were dangerous to eat. Are they still dangerous? I live in South Florida and every once in a while you still here about the problems with shellfish. So, as in the example I gave of crossing the street, sure there is no authority forcing you to do a certain thing but still it may be the best thing. ;)

God Bless!

Jesusinmyheart
Feb 8th 2008, 12:53 AM
To say that the Holy Spirit does not allow us to sin, or make decision in error is a fallacy.
The Holy Spirit does lead you to level ground, but it's still a choice you have to make or else there wouldn't be stern warnings against quenching the Spirit.

If you don't heed the Spirit's leadinbg, have you not committed a sin? Isn't repentance for this necessary?

Now, to say Yeshua has died and fulfilled the Law and thereby abolished it is equally wrong. Why then the stern warning of Yeshua contrary to abolishing the Law.

Scripture states that the curses of the Law were taken out and blotted away. To say that a Law is a curse is saying that when mother tells you to wear your raincoat is equally a curse. You have a CHOICE to obey or disobey.
Perhaps it would make things more understandable when one looks at what the curse of the Law actually is. It is the requirement of punishment against those that transgress.

Now here's the wonderful thing that comes in where Yeshua's blood covers our dirty deeds, when we repent, and sincerely try to do our best in following God's commands.

Yeshua said that not a jot or tittle would be removed from the law, and i take that as everything that was ever commanded by God that we should do or not do.

Moses was a tool by which God conveyed His wisdom and Laws and statues as well as miracles, very much like Yeshua was, with the difference that Yeshua was not just a prophet, but a spotless Lamb, which only a Son of God could be. Due to people such as SOME pharisees twisting and making stricter the Word of God Yeshua set them straight and pointed to the lawful use of abiding by the Law.

Anyway, just sharing my understanding of things. I do not expect anyone to agree or disagree. Study the Word, and ask for truth, you will get it if you truly desire to lay aside your life and desires and replace them with those of God's.

Shalom,
Tanja

2Witnesses
Feb 8th 2008, 05:32 AM
To say that the Holy Spirit does not allow us to sin, or make decision in error is a fallacy.
The Holy Spirit does lead you to level ground, but it's still a choice you have to make or else there wouldn't be stern warnings against quenching the Spirit.

If you don't heed the Spirit's leadinbg, have you not committed a sin? Isn't repentance for this necessary?

Now, to say Yeshua has died and fulfilled the Law and thereby abolished it is equally wrong. Why then the stern warning of Yeshua contrary to abolishing the Law.

Scripture states that the curses of the Law were taken out and blotted away. To say that a Law is a curse is saying that when mother tells you to wear your raincoat is equally a curse. You have a CHOICE to obey or disobey.
Perhaps it would make things more understandable when one looks at what the curse of the Law actually is. It is the requirement of punishment against those that transgress.

Now here's the wonderful thing that comes in where Yeshua's blood covers our dirty deeds, when we repent, and sincerely try to do our best in following God's commands.

Yeshua said that not a jot or tittle would be removed from the law, and i take that as everything that was ever commanded by God that we should do or not do.

Moses was a tool by which God conveyed His wisdom and Laws and statues as well as miracles, very much like Yeshua was, with the difference that Yeshua was not just a prophet, but a spotless Lamb, which only a Son of God could be. Due to people such as SOME pharisees twisting and making stricter the Word of God Yeshua set them straight and pointed to the lawful use of abiding by the Law.

Anyway, just sharing my understanding of things. I do not expect anyone to agree or disagree. Study the Word, and ask for truth, you will get it if you truly desire to lay aside your life and desires and replace them with those of God's.

Shalom,
Tanja

Tanja,

I never said the Holy Spirit does not 'allow us to sin'. I simply said, He leads us into all righteousness. He is the Law of the Spirit of life'. Jesus is the Law of God written upon our hearts. And this is so by faith in Him.

Again, if you wish to follow the Law of Moses, then do so, you are free. But remember, there are 613 of Moses. Pick and choose if you will even. That is your affair. And if you want to eat only vegetables, then do so. Do what you feel you are feel in the Lord to do.

I like a little meat with my taters!

2Witnesses

2Witnesses
Feb 8th 2008, 12:35 PM
So,

Let me just ask any, straight out. Are there two covenants, or just one? Either the NC exist and has the authority. Or the OT exists and has the authority.

Or do you all think that somehow. for some reason, there are two covenants co-existing?

Because, either Jeremiah knew what he was talking about, in speaking of a 'new covenant'. And the writer of Hebrews understood him to be speaking of a NC. Or certain messianics are correct, and we are speaking of only a 'renewed covenant.' The OC is, in Christ, made new.

As I see it, there is only ONE COVENANT. And the Covenant of the Law has been fulfilled and removed. And the only thing 'renewed', was the promise to Abraham concerning a Savior.

2Witnesses

BHS
Feb 8th 2008, 01:01 PM
2 Witnesses,

God is a God of oneness, and His oneness is expressed in one covenant. The difference between what you call the old covenant and the new covenant is the response to it. As far as I know “old covenant” is mentioned only once in the entire Bible by Paul. And by it he refers to the “old man”. All of the so-called covenants are an expression of the one covenant which in essence is that God will be our God and we will be His people. "OT" scholarship is coming to recognize this.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 ¶ "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

You see the covenant as a brand new covenant and I see it as one that is renewed. Look at what God says was the response to the covenant – the Israelites initially broke the covenant, but God will in the last days put the Torah within them and write it on their hearts. They will no longer have hearts of stone (their response) and “I will be their God, and they shall be My people” and "I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more".

What in effect will really be new is their response to God.

Blessings,
BHS

2Witnesses
Feb 8th 2008, 01:14 PM
2 Witnesses,

God is a God of oneness, and His oneness is expressed in one covenant. The difference between what you call the old covenant and the new covenant is the response to it. As far as I know “old covenant” is mentioned only once in the entire Bible by Paul. And by it he refers to the “old man”. All of the so-called covenants are an expression of the one covenant which in essence is that God will be our God and we will be His people. "OT" scholarship is coming to recognize this.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 ¶ "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

You see the covenant as a brand new covenant and I see it as one that is renewed. Look at what God says was the response to the covenant – the Israelites initially broke the covenant, but God will in the last days put the Torah within them and write it on their hearts. They will no longer have hearts of stone (their response) and “I will be their God, and they shall be My people” and "I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more".

What in effect will really be new is their response to God.

Blessings,
BHS

BHS,

That is the typical two step, run around, double speak of those who refuse to see. Hebrews clearly speaks of a NEW covenant, and spends much time contrasting the two. He speaks of the new in contrast to the Old which is fading away and ready ot vanish.

You will have to do better than this!

2Witnesses

Studyin'2Show
Feb 8th 2008, 02:14 PM
When reading Jeremiah concerning the new covenant, it seems clear that what will change will be our hearts. No longer will they be hearts of stone that must be coerced to live righteously simply to avoid punishment. Now, His Law will be in our hearts meaning it will be our DESIRE to walk in the righteousness He has clothed us with. His word tells us exactly what will change in this covenant and it is not His Law. Look at Jeremiah 31:33
33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.He doesn't say He will change His law, but the difference will be a heart thing; our desire. ;)

God Bless!

2Witnesses
Feb 8th 2008, 03:46 PM
When reading Jeremiah concerning the new covenant, it seems clear that what will change will be our hearts. No longer will they be hearts of stone that must be coerced to live righteously simply to avoid punishment. Now, His Law will be in our hearts meaning it will be our DESIRE to walk in the righteousness He has clothed us with. His word tells us exactly what will change in this covenant and it is not His Law. Look at Jeremiah 31:33He doesn't say He will change His law, but the difference will be a heart thing; our desire. ;)

God Bless!

Study....

You are correct that the OC was on the 'outside' as an 'overseer', as Paul refers to it in Gal. and Eph. And it had 'fault', as the writer of Hebrews said, because it could not compel life.

But you are incorrect on what the NEW C is. It is NOT the Law of Moses, the 613, written on the heart. No, it is a person. It is the Spirit of Christ, that law of the Spirit of life in Christ. This (HE) causes life!

There WAS the OC. Christ fulfilled and did away with THIS OC, the laws and ordinances which were against us.

But if it is the Law of Moses which is written there, then ought you to be circumcised? Should you not offer righteous offerings? Should you not obstain from certain foods? Should you not follow ALL the Law?

For if the NEW is the OLD renewed and written on the heart, Gentile believers must have the same code on their hearts as well. Yes? Unless, of course, they are somehow less holy. Unless they are still in the Court of the Gentiles.

The NC is NEW! And it is the same for ALL believers.

2Witnesses

Studyin'2Show
Feb 8th 2008, 04:43 PM
Since I'm a woman, I don't think circumcision is an issue. :D Although, even before I was saved, when I had my son, my doctor (not Jewish) advised us to have him circumcised. Why? Because it was best for him. My hubby who was born 33 years before my son to unsaved parents also was circumcised. God's instructions to His people; His children have ALWAYS been good. Why would I resist that which God, my heavenly Father, gave as instruction?

My eldest daughter is now 18 yrs old. She is no longer UNDER my rules and restrictions as she was when she was a young child. However, she still is following much of the instruction that I gave her before she came of age. Why? Because she has learned that those things I taught her to do and not do were and ARE for her benefit. She does not do them because she fears a spanking but because she trust that those things are best for her.

It seems that we are likely going to end up agreeing to disagree on this one. I do not feel it is a point that should cause divisiveness amongst believers. I don't always agree with my earthly brother so I don't expect to always agree with my brothers and sisters in Messiah. ;)

God Bless!

BHS
Feb 8th 2008, 09:59 PM
BHS,

That is the typical two step, run around, double speak of those who refuse to see. Hebrews clearly speaks of a NEW covenant, and spends much time contrasting the two. He speaks of the new in contrast to the Old which is fading away and ready ot vanish.

You will have to do better than this!

2Witnesses

Hebrews speaks of a change in the priesthood. Y'shua became a superior priest to that of Aaron. If in Hebrews, what you call the old covenant has not yet vanished, when did it vanish? In my opinion the Torah is very dear to the heart of God (David did not write Psalm 119 on his own) and so it should be to us. I pray you will continue to study and learn and be bathed in the love and light of Y'shua, even from the Torah.

Blessings,
BHS

2Witnesses
Feb 9th 2008, 05:39 AM
Hebrews speaks of a change in the priesthood. Y'shua became a superior priest to that of Aaron. If in Hebrews, what you call the old covenant has not yet vanished, when did it vanish? In my opinion the Torah is very dear to the heart of God (David did not write Psalm 119 on his own) and so it should be to us. I pray you will continue to study and learn and be bathed in the love and light of Y'shua, even from the Torah.

Blessings,
BHS

BHS,

If vanished in 'fact' when Christ died. But in practical terms, people were still still practicing the Law, even the Church. And the temple was still there.

Again, again, I am not against 'torah', the intruction of God. I am against the teaching that the 'COVENANT' of the Law still has authrotiy. BIG difference!

2Witnesses

Brother Mark
Feb 9th 2008, 05:44 AM
God's eternal law still stands. But the regulations of the first covenant have been done away with.

Heb 8:13-9:1

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.

The Old and the New

9 Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.
NASU

Jesusinmyheart
Feb 9th 2008, 06:30 AM
Brother Mark,

so what do you suppose the regulations of the first covenant are?

Shalom,
Tanja

BHS
Feb 9th 2008, 01:25 PM
BHS,

If vanished in 'fact' when Christ died. But in practical terms, people were still still practicing the Law, even the Church. And the temple was still there.

Again, again, I am not against 'torah', the intruction of God. I am against the teaching that the 'COVENANT' of the Law still has authrotiy. BIG difference!

2Witnesses

It is the Lord who has authority. When Y'shua spoke He spoke as "one having authority". His comment regarding the permanency of the Torah is Matthew 5:17. Again, the "old covenant" is not the "Law of Moses". God chose the Israelites for His purpose of bringing salvation and blessing to the world. In response they were to have trust (faith) in Him and obey the instructions He gave them for living, which resulted in blessing. It really is that simple!

God bless,
BHS

Studyin'2Show
Feb 9th 2008, 01:42 PM
BHS,

If vanished in 'fact' when Christ died. But in practical terms, people were still still practicing the Law, even the Church. And the temple was still there.

Again, again, I am not against 'torah', the intruction of God. I am against the teaching that the 'COVENANT' of the Law still has authrotiy. BIG difference!

2WitnessesIf your interpretation is that anyone preaching that doing the things found in the Law is what earns you salvation is blatantly wrong, then I completely agree. Anyone teaching salvation by works of any kind is preaching falsely. However, once we have attained salvation as a free gift from God, through the blood of Yeshua, I see no problem in following God's instruction because we trust those instructions are good. ;)

God Bless!

Brother Mark
Feb 9th 2008, 05:43 PM
Brother Mark,

so what do you suppose the regulations of the first covenant are?

Shalom,
Tanja

My personal opinion is everything outside of the 10 commandments. Hebrews 9 goes on to speak of many of the regulations.

2Witnesses
Feb 9th 2008, 07:20 PM
If your interpretation is that anyone preaching that doing the things found in the Law is what earns you salvation is blatantly wrong, then I completely agree. Anyone teaching salvation by works of any kind is preaching falsely. However, once we have attained salvation as a free gift from God, through the blood of Yeshua, I see no problem in following God's instruction because we trust those instructions are good. ;)

God Bless!

Studi....

Of course preaching a salvation of works is error. But it is fine, as I have already said, if you want to follow the Law of Moses. That is, as long as you know you are not 'bound' by it.

I mean, which of these 613 will you follow? All, or some, or what? And do you sin by say, eating shellfish?

There are two issues the Christian concerns him or herself with: salvation; and how now do I walk seeing I am saved by grace?

Some, thinking the NC is the OC renewed, think they must follow Moses. But that is not the case, either for Jewish or Gentile believer.

The NT 'law' is Christ in us.

2Witnesses

Studyin'2Show
Feb 9th 2008, 08:01 PM
What makes sin...sin? Adam and Eve ate a fruit. Was it sin? Absolutely! Why? Because Almighty God instructed them not to and they disobeyed. I have NEVER told someone else what they should or should not eat. It is such an emotional issue and in no way needs to cause division. I have read both the Apostolic and the Hebrew Scriptures many times and know the instruction God has given me. He has put His instruction in my heart. It is my desire to be obedient to His instruction. I trust that you desire to be obedient to the instructions from God as you interpret them and so I would encourage you to be obedient to His instruction as you see them.

Personally, I have had a biblically kosher kitchen for about 4 years. I say 'biblically' because I do not follow 'rabbinic' halacha in what they say is kosher but base my actions on the word of God alone. I do not boil a kid in its mother's milk but I will eat a burger with cheese. :D There's a very big difference between 'biblical' and 'rabbinical'. Anyway, though I stopped cooking pork bacon and pork chops and yes shellfish ;), I didn't demand that my hubby or my children not eat them. What I mean is that once I came to understand that God had instructed His people not to eat certain things, I made the choice not to eat them and in good conscience I could not prepare for my family what I truly believed was not good for them. They would still go to grandma's and she might prepare them or at a restaurant they might order all-you-can eat shrimp and I would not say anything about it. They had NOT made the same choice I had made and plus, the kingdom of heaven is not eating and drinking. :rolleyes:

So, here's the funny thing. About 2 years ago, my hubby was reading through the Hebrew Scriptures and I believe he was in the book of Isaiah. So, he comes to me one night and out of the blue says, "You know, I don't think God wants us to eat pork." Well, you could have knocked me over with a feather. Though I had NOT complained, or bickered, or berated, or tried to force my understanding of God's Law upon him, God had brought him to a similar conclusion. That's what I believe He meant when He says in Jeremiah that He will write His Law in our hearts. It's not up to us to try to force our understanding upon others. God is bringing each of us from glory to glory in His time. So, in short (though this has been a long post) yes, I believe it would be sin for me to purposely eat shellfish if loss of life was not an issue, because I would be disobeying the instructions from God as I see them. For you, no, not sin because you clearly do not see God giving that instruction to you and thus it would not be disobeying. :)

God Bless!

Kahtar
Feb 9th 2008, 08:13 PM
If the law is written upon our hearts, then what is in our hearts is what we should follow(as pertains to the law written there). But we should not harden our hearts to receive further instruction of the Spirit.

Brother Mark
Feb 9th 2008, 08:51 PM
If the law is written upon our hearts, then what is in our hearts is what we should follow(as pertains to the law written there). But we should not harden our hearts to receive further instruction of the Spirit.

As always, a Spirit led post. Whatever is not of faith is sin. Better to do what is in your heart unless scripture forbids it.

SIG
Feb 9th 2008, 10:35 PM
Q: "So,

Let me just ask any, straight out. Are there two covenants, or just one? Either the NC exist and has the authority. Or the OT exists and has the authority."

A: There are two covenants, but only one of them saves.

The SPIRIT of the Old Covenant is fully alive in the New.

2Witnesses
Feb 9th 2008, 10:49 PM
Q: "So,

Let me just ask any, straight out. Are there two covenants, or just one? Either the NC exist and has the authority. Or the OT exists and has the authority."

A: There are two covenants, but only one of them saves.

The SPIRIT of the Old Covenant is fully alive in the New.

Sig,

That is actually a true statement! I just hope everyone understands it properly!

2Witnesses

BHS
Feb 9th 2008, 11:01 PM
The problem in understanding that there is ONE covenant is that too many think of the covenant in terms of the "law". The "law" is not the covenant. God covenanted to be in intimate, covenant relationship with Israel. The covenant is His relationship with man -- "I will be your God and you will be my People." The Torah merely furthers, enhances and helps maintain that relationship.

I realize that some will have a problem with the idea that following God maintains our relationship with Him. But I do believe that this is what Hebrews 10:26-29 speaks of -- "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?"

Following in His ways does matter to God from the standpoint of both sides of the cross. But the "law" itself is not the covenant. To some extent you might say that it REPRESENTS the covenant, but it is not the covenant itself. If setting aside the Law of Moses was punishable by death, how much more should be the punishment for insulting the Spirit of grace? Which is done by practicing sin!

Blessings,
BHS

2Witnesses
Feb 9th 2008, 11:07 PM
The problem in understanding that there is ONE covenant is that too many think of the covenant in terms of the "law". The "law" is not the covenant. God covenanted to be in intimate, covenant relationship with Israel. The covenant is His relationship with man -- "I will be your God and you will be my People." The Torah merely furthers, enhances and helps maintain that relationship.

Blessings,
BHS

BHS,

That is only partly correct. The issue for the Jews under the Mosaic Covenant was, 'Will you be My people, and I be your God, on the basis of the Law?'

2Witnesses

BHS
Feb 9th 2008, 11:11 PM
BHS,

That is only partly correct. The issue for the Jews under the Mosaic Covenant was, 'Will you be My people, and I be your God, on the basis of the Law?'

2Witnesses

2 Witnesses, I was editing my post just as you wrote this one -- I think my edit is sufficient to reply to this one.

2Witnesses
Feb 9th 2008, 11:28 PM
2 Witnesses, I was editing my post just as you wrote this one -- I think my edit is sufficient to reply to this one.


1Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

BHS,

Perhaps this needs consideration from Romans 7.

2Witnesses

Mograce2U
Feb 10th 2008, 12:14 AM
What makes sin...sin? Adam and Eve ate a fruit. Was it sin? Absolutely! Why? Because Almighty God instructed them not to and they disobeyed. I have NEVER told someone else what they should or should not eat. It is such an emotional issue and in no way needs to cause division. I have read both the Apostolic and the Hebrew Scriptures many times and know the instruction God has given me. He has put His instruction in my heart. It is my desire to be obedient to His instruction. I trust that you desire to be obedient to the instructions from God as you interpret them and so I would encourage you to be obedient to His instruction as you see them.

Personally, I have had a biblically kosher kitchen for about 4 years. I say 'biblically' because I do not follow 'rabbinic' halacha in what they say is kosher but base my actions on the word of God alone. I do not boil a kid in its mother's milk but I will eat a burger with cheese. :D There's a very big difference between 'biblical' and 'rabbinical'. Anyway, though I stopped cooking pork bacon and pork chops and yes shellfish ;), I didn't demand that my hubby or my children not eat them. What I mean is that once I came to understand that God had instructed His people not to eat certain things, I made the choice not to eat them and in good conscience I could not prepare for my family what I truly believed was not good for them. They would still go to grandma's and she might prepare them or at a restaurant they might order all-you-can eat shrimp and I would not say anything about it. They had NOT made the same choice I had made and plus, the kingdom of heaven is not eating and drinking. :rolleyes:

So, here's the funny thing. About 2 years ago, my hubby was reading through the Hebrew Scriptures and I believe he was in the book of Isaiah. So, he comes to me one night and out of the blue says, "You know, I don't think God wants us to eat pork." Well, you could have knocked me over with a feather. Though I had NOT complained, or bickered, or berated, or tried to force my understanding of God's Law upon him, God had brought him to a similar conclusion. That's what I believe He meant when He says in Jeremiah that He will write His Law in our hearts. It's not up to us to try to force our understanding upon others. God is bringing each of us from glory to glory in His time. So, in short (though this has been a long post) yes, I believe it would be sin for me to purposely eat shellfish if loss of life was not an issue, because I would be disobeying the instructions from God as I see them. For you, no, not sin because you clearly do not see God giving that instruction to you and thus it would not be disobeying. :)

God Bless!A Jewish co-worker was talking about keeping kosher the other day. The subject came up at a meeting he was at and his position is that he eats whatever he wants because no one can keep kosher - nor do they really try. Else they would never eat in a restaurant at all. Apparently to be orthodox you must follow the rules exactly - and the rabbinical ones that have been added too just to be sure you don't break one of them! (His group is not orthodox obviously). His position seems to be that since the law cannot be kept and nobody does anyway, no one need try.

So I am wondering, do you suppose the curse of the law has been lifted off the unbelieving Jew as well? Because he has no conviction about the need to keep the law either. Or is it that such conviction is only personal now and we can do whatever we want? Or is it neither?

We are told that it is the weak brother who sins against his conscience by breaking the rules he feels must be kept. And to him it is sin because he is not allowing his new liberty to set his conscience free from its bondage to the law.

I am inclined to think that what is used to sustain our bodies is not in the realm of sin at all. Food, drink, clothing & shelter are bodily needs which the Lord has promised to provide. We perhaps care too much about such things - which is an avenue by which they can become sin to us. Not because we do them or don't, but because we think God requires we do it exactly as He laid out to Moses.

When Noah landed on the recently deluged earth, the Lord changed his diet, no doubt because his previous vegetarian diet could no longer sustain him as it had before. As we have now spread into all the earth, there are things that can be eaten which we would not have thought to do before either. Shoot, some people eat locusts and beetles - and they are "allowed" too. You couldn't pay me to eat such things!

So whether or not it is a sin to eat shellfish or not, really has nothing to do with us who are no longer being led by Moses, but by Jesus. I don't find any instructions in the NT other than about blood, given to Gentiles. And I think that was more to with a proper attitude about taking the life of an animal one was going to eat than it was about diet restrictions. All life is precious to God and we should always respect when a life is given for our provision. (the boiling a kid in its mother's milk...)

(Mat 4:4 KJV) But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

(Mark 7:18-20 KJV) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; {19} Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? {20} And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

It would seem our bodies already have the capability to remove any impurities from our food. Therefore we can focus our attention to what might enter into our hearts and minds - because those things can defile us.

Mange bene!

Studyin'2Show
Feb 10th 2008, 01:13 AM
Yes, Romans 7 is an excellent chapter and the way I read it, it perfectly shows my position. One really must read the whole chapter to get the gist. You begin to see where Paul is going in verse 6 when he speaks of the spirit verses the letter. It's the difference between the law written on hard cold stone verses the law written on soft willing hearts. The law, the instructions are as Paul explains in verse 12.

12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

You see, it is holy, just, and good. Are those things we need to be freed from? So, what is the problem? Look at verse 21.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.

The problem is within us; our flesh. Scripture says that our flesh is at enmity with God. This is why it is so important for us to walk in the spirit and not in the flesh.

22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

See, the inward man; the spirit, like the writer of Psalm 119, delights in the law of God. But...

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Who? I'll tell you Who! :pp
25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Paul says that his spirit man serves the law of God. It is the flesh that fights against it, which is why it is so important for us to crucify the flesh daily. ;)

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Feb 10th 2008, 01:31 AM
A Jewish co-worker was talking about keeping kosher the other day. The subject came up at a meeting he was at and his position is that he eats whatever he wants because no one can keep kosher - nor do they really try. Else they would never eat in a restaurant at all. Apparently to be orthodox you must follow the rules exactly - and the rabbinical ones that have been added too just to be sure you don't break one of them! (His group is not orthodox obviously). His position seems to be that since the law cannot be kept and nobody does anyway, no one need try. Thanks for the input, Robin! :) This is part of why I was contrasting between being 'rabbinically' kosher and being 'biblically' so. There is a VERY big difference. When Peter had the vision in Acts, he explained what it meant. It had to do with people. The religious leaders had added so much that indeed it did become impossible. Peter spoke of a law that a Jew could not go into the house of a Gentile. Yet if you read the Bible, that is NOWHERE in Scripture. These are the laws (not of God) that are a burden, even in to this day among the Jews.

In keeping 'biblically' kosher, one simply needs to purpose to not eat those animals which God has instructed us not to eat. Scripture does not tell us we can not eat a steak on a plate which at some point in time held a piece of cheese :rolleyes: or a pork chop. All those additional rules just are NOT there. Remember, sin is to purposely disobey. So, eating at a restaurant that serves unclean foods does not keep one from being 'biblically' kosher though it would keep one from being 'rabbinically' kosher. One is purposing to listen to the rabbis, the other is purposing to listen to the instruction of God. ;)

God Bless!

2Witnesses
Feb 10th 2008, 06:51 AM
Yes, Romans 7 is an excellent chapter and the way I read it, it perfectly shows my position. One really must read the whole chapter to get the gist. You begin to see where Paul is going in verse 6 when he speaks of the spirit verses the letter. It's the difference between the law written on hard cold stone verses the law written on soft willing hearts. The law, the instructions are as Paul explains in verse 12.

12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

You see, it is holy, just, and good. Are those things we need to be freed from? So, what is the problem? Look at verse 21.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.

The problem is within us; our flesh. Scripture says that our flesh is at enmity with God. This is why it is so important for us to walk in the spirit and not in the flesh.

22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.

See, the inward man; the spirit, like the writer of Psalm 119, delights in the law of God. But...

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Who? I'll tell you Who! :pp
25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

Paul says that his spirit man serves the law of God. It is the flesh that fights against it, which is why it is so important for us to crucify the flesh daily. ;)

God Bless!

Studin..

I referred to Romans 7 more in terms of a 'new relationship' in Christ. This is a 'love relationship' as opposed to a merely 'legal relationship.'

I am not saying this love did not exist under the Law. Of course it did, in some. These 'knew' God!

2Witnesses

Brother Mark
Feb 10th 2008, 04:10 PM
Just another thought...

As has been suggested above, all the OT law can be found in the Spirit of the New Covenant. In other words, the spirit of the Law is still kept. God often uses the physical to teach about the spiritual. Once we make the connection, the regulations of the physical can be replaced with the spiritual.

BHS
Feb 10th 2008, 04:23 PM
Mark,

Your comment SOUNDS good, but what I have found is --

Then Christians begin to say, Lord, I know you didn't really mean that. This is what I think you meant instead! So I see a danger in spiritualizing what God has not spiritualized.

What we believe and how we put it into practice concerns everything we know and learn from the whole of Scripture.

Blessings,
BHS

Brother Mark
Feb 10th 2008, 04:28 PM
Mark,

Your comment SOUNDS good, but what I have found is --

Then Christians begin to say, Lord, I know you didn't really mean that. This is what I think you meant instead! So I see a danger in spiritualizing what God has not spiritualized.

What we believe and how we put it into practice concerns everything we know and learn from the whole of Scripture.

Blessings,
BHS


But we know that Paul wrote several times that we live in the newness of the Spirit of the Law and not the letter of the law. Hebrews says that the regulations of the old covenant have passed away. I could go on but that is enough. He mentions spirit and letter several times. So it is not just me that is saying it. But even so, if Christians abuse it, it is to there detriment. Yet, let us not lay aside a teaching for fear that it will be abused. Because truth will set free when it is received. Those that abuse it often do so because they haven't really received it to begin with. When it comes to sin, none of us will have an excuse. Kahtar has done an excellent study on the priesthood of believers. If we do not recognize how the letter was followed in the OT then how are we to know what to do in the spirit of the NT when we are all considered priest? The letter is still important. But I think the spirit of the Law is more important. Neither is to be ignored.

Like Kahtar said earlier, better to do what is in your heart. If I am wrong, I am convinced that God will correct me. And likewise, the Lord will do so with those that disagree with me. So long as we all have a deep abiding desire to please the Lord, he will lead us into that which pleases him.

BHS
Feb 10th 2008, 04:30 PM
As I said before, I believe the covenant to be ONE. It is a relationship between God and man. The "newness" is in our response to covenant and the "old" is the old man. In the following scripture God speaks of the covenant with the children of Israel, establishing a relationship with them just as He did with Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, and with those who I believe will come in the future.

Deuteronomy 29:10-15

"You stand today, all of you, before the LORD your God: your chiefs, your tribes, your elders and your officers, even all the men of Israel, 11 your little ones, your wives, and the alien who is within your camps, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, 12 that you may enter into the covenant with the LORD your God, and into His oath which the LORD your God is making with you today, 13 in order that He may establish you today as His people and that He may be your God, just as He spoke to you and as He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob]. 14 "Now not with you alone am I making this covenant and this oath, 15 but both with those who stand here with us today in the presence of the LORD our God and with those who are not with us here today."

God bless,
BHS

Brother Mark
Feb 10th 2008, 04:34 PM
As I said before, I believe the covenant to be ONE. It is a relationship between God and man. The "newness" is in our response to covenant and the "old" is the old man. In the following scripture God speaks of the covenant with the children of Israel, establishing a relationship with them just as He did with Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, and with those who I believe will come in the future.

I think that is part of it. But the old covenant itself is also gone because it didn't really change man. The new covenant does change who we are and we are now new creatures in Christ.

Either way, as S2S likes to say, so long as we are trusting in Christ, we are brothers and sisters.

BHS
Feb 10th 2008, 04:38 PM
Either way, as S2S likes to say, so long as we are trusting in Christ, we are brothers and sisters.

I agree, but I would also hope that you would study further what Paul means by the "old covenant" in Corinthians. Definitions make a world of difference in understanding the Word.

Blessings,
BHS

Brother Mark
Feb 10th 2008, 04:41 PM
I agree, but I would also hope that you would study further what Paul means by the "old covenant" in Corinthians. Definitions make a world of difference in understanding the Word.

Blessings,
BHS

I may indeed do that! And would to God that more believers would understand the letter of the OT. For how can we know how to minister as priest to God today if we do not know how the letter did so? On the other hand, if we do not understand what the letter pointed to, how can we minister as priest today for the old temple is gone? But our duties as priest still stand.

BHS
Feb 10th 2008, 05:41 PM
It's true the Temple in Jerusalem is no longer standing. The "temple" has always represented the Presence of God in the midst of His people, in whatever state the temple is. I appreciate your spirit.

Blessings,
BHS

2Witnesses
Feb 11th 2008, 02:51 AM
It's true the Temple in Jerusalem is no longer standing. The "temple" has always represented the Presence of God in the midst of His people, in whatever state the temple is. I appreciate your spirit.

Blessings,
BHS

BHS,

19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Thank God the temple, the true, was raised in those 3 days, that we should now minister as priests offering the true sacrifices.



2Witnesses

BHS
Feb 11th 2008, 07:55 AM
2 Witnesses,

TRUE sacrifice is that sacrifice from the heart, regardless of what age it was done.

Blessings,
BHS