PDA

View Full Version : Should believing Jews remain Jewish?



LookingUp
Jan 13th 2011, 12:29 AM
Should Jews who come to faith in Jesus remain Jewish in their practice? Why or why not? Scripture only please.

markedward
Jan 13th 2011, 02:16 AM
Acts 21.39: Paul replied, "I am a Jew."

LookingUp
Jan 13th 2011, 02:20 AM
Acts 21.39: Paul replied, "I am a Jew."Hey, mark. Are you saying that Paul's statement is an indication that he continued to practice Jewish Law?

markedward
Jan 13th 2011, 02:26 AM
Try reading Romans, in one sitting, and get back to us on your thoughts.

When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

Brother Mark
Jan 13th 2011, 02:39 AM
Should Jews who come to faith in Jesus remain Jewish in their practice? Why or why not? Scripture only please.

Do you mean remain a Jew as in race? Or remain a Jew as in keeping the OT law?

LookingUp
Jan 13th 2011, 03:38 AM
Try reading Romans, in one sitting, and get back to us on your thoughts.

When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.I'd like to know your thoughts on the subject. So based on the the Scripture you've given, what are your thoughts?

LookingUp
Jan 13th 2011, 03:41 AM
Do you mean remain a Jew as in race? Or remain a Jew as in keeping the OT law?As in keeping the OT law.

Slug1
Jan 13th 2011, 03:45 AM
As in keeping the OT law.So should you be asking if they should continue with Judaism practice if they come to accept Christ?

They can't change the fact that they are Jewish, but they can change from Judaism faith with God through the OT Law to Christian faith with God through Jesus.

LookingUp
Jan 13th 2011, 04:02 AM
So should you be asking if they should continue with Judaism practice if they come to accept Christ?Perhaps.


They can't change the fact that they are Jewish, but they can change from Judaism faith to Christian faith.Right, of course, they can’t change that they are Jewish.

If they are supposed to make any changes in how they practice their faith as believers in Messiah Jesus, I’m interested in seeing Scripture which indicates that. If they are supposed to maintain the practice of their faith (i.e. ceremonial, etc.), I’m interested in seeing Scripture that indicates that.

keck553
Jan 13th 2011, 04:54 PM
#1 - that's between them and God. God forbid anyone yokes more religion on anyone.
#2 - it is not God's will that anyone change thier cultural identity to follow Him.
#3 - God's promise is to keep Israel as a distinct people. To force Jews to practice western Christianity's traditions is against God's promise.
#4 - God clearly says "forever" in His Law given to the Jews. Does God change His mind?
#5 - Our liberty should be limited by love. Pauls says 'therefore there is no condemnation in Messiah.' That really means no condemnation. It would therefore be legalistic to demand a Jew not obey the Laws that are still applicable to them or even traditions. If God does not condemn in Christ Jesus, then who are we to do so?

notuptome
Jan 13th 2011, 06:14 PM
What is it that Jews would do that would be an offense to Christ? Are there things that Jewish Christians do that would not be appropriate for gentile Christians to do?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

David Taylor
Jan 13th 2011, 06:21 PM
Should Jews who come to faith in Jesus remain Jewish in their practice? Why or why not? Scripture only please.

Paul said that all Christians become Jews...for the true Jews is one who is circumcized of the inner heart and spirit, not of the flesh; Christians are the true sons of Abraham by faith and the Spirit, not race.

Philippians 3:3 "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus"

Romans 15:8 "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust. Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost."

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Romans 2:28

Galatians 5:6, 6:15 "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. "

Galatians 3:7, 29 "that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. "

keck553
Jan 13th 2011, 07:02 PM
The first "Christians" were Jews and remained Jews. Circumcised of heart, circumcised of flesh and true children of Abraham and born from above children of God.

It's just that they didn't call themselves "Christians" nor practice the traditions, habits and culture of western mainstream Christianity.

John146
Jan 13th 2011, 08:15 PM
Try reading Romans, in one sitting, and get back to us on your thoughts.

When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.But, did Paul do those things because he felt he had to as a Jew or because he was trying to reach those Jews with the gospel?

1 Cor 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

John146
Jan 13th 2011, 08:19 PM
Should Jews who come to faith in Jesus remain Jewish in their practice? Why or why not? Scripture only please.There is no scripture that says they have to do that. Paul taught that Christians are not under the (OT) law but under grace.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Notice that Paul, an ethnic Jew, includes himself as not being under the law but under grace.

LookingUp
Jan 13th 2011, 08:23 PM
But, did Paul do those things because he felt he had to as a Jew or because he was trying to reach those Jews with the gospel?

1 Cor 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 22To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.I’m not sure how mark will answer, but I have a question for you. Since they clearly spell out the reason for Paul observing these customs (“Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law”), wouldn’t it have been dishonest for Paul to go through with it if he didn’t agree with their reasons?

RollTide21
Jan 13th 2011, 08:24 PM
Try reading Romans, in one sitting, and get back to us on your thoughts.

It's probably smart to read every one of Paul's letters in one sitting at some time or another.

LookingUp
Jan 13th 2011, 08:26 PM
There is no scripture that says they have to do that. Paul taught that Christians are not under the (OT) law but under grace.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. 15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Notice that Paul, an ethnic Jew, includes himself as not being under the law but under grace.What is your understanding of what "under the law" and "under grace" means? Can you provide Scripture?

Does Paul mean here that Jews are not under the law in that they don't have to obey it any longer or that it doesn't have jurisdiction over them any longer?

RollTide21
Jan 13th 2011, 08:34 PM
What is your understanding of what "under the law" and "under grace" means? Can you provide Scripture?

Does Paul mean here that Jews are not under the law in that they don't have to obey it any longer or that it doesn't have jurisdiction over them any longer?In Christ, a person is not required to memorize the actual, literal points of the Law and make sure that they practice them faithfully in all that they do. The Grace provided through Faith in Christ Jesus is sufficient to place us in perfect accordance with the Law without following the written codes of that Law.

John146
Jan 13th 2011, 08:58 PM
I’m not sure how mark will answer, but I have a question for you. Since they clearly spell out the reason for Paul observing these customs (“Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law”), wouldn’t it have been dishonest for Paul to go through with it if he didn’t agree with their reasons?Not anymore than it would be dishonest for him to live as though he was under the law even though he was not under the law. Since it's all for the gospel's sake what might seem dishonest under normal circumstances is just fine because it's being done for the greater good and not for the purpose of being deceptive.

ProjectPeter
Jan 13th 2011, 09:15 PM
1 Corinthians 9:20 *And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law;

Understand this and that should answer your question as well as kick a few sacred doctrinal cows to boot. ;)

John146
Jan 13th 2011, 09:15 PM
What is your understanding of what "under the law" and "under grace" means? Can you provide Scripture?

Does Paul mean here that Jews are not under the law in that they don't have to obey it any longer or that it doesn't have jurisdiction over them any longer?Eph 2:13But 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 abolished 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;

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

To be under the law means you are obligated to keep the law and all its ordinances in order to retain a right standing with God. But the problem with that is that if you break even one commandment of the OT law your are guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10). That's too much pressure. No one can live up to that (except Jesus). There would be no hope for anyone if that was the standard. Thankfully, because of the death of Christ and His shed blood God took that requirement away and now we are under grace and are justified by faith in Christ and not by keeping the OT law. This goes for ethnic Jews and Gentiles alike since there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ. Christians obey the law of Christ and are not obligated to follow the law of Moses with all of its rituals and ordinances and such.

John146
Jan 13th 2011, 09:17 PM
1 Corinthians 9:20 *And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law;

Understand this and that should answer your question as well as kick a few sacred doctrinal cows to boot. ;)Yeah, that's the same point I was making in post #15 except I referenced Romans 6 where he includes himself among those who are not under the law ("we are not under the law, but under grace").

ProjectPeter
Jan 13th 2011, 09:20 PM
Yeah, that's the same point I was making in post #15 except I referenced Romans 6 where he includes himself among those who are not under the law ("we are not under the law, but under grace").

Yeah, there are several references as to being not under the law but this one should clear up the Paul issue and why Paul did what he did when he went to Jerusalem. And this passage is speaking particularly of Paul himself... and that does certainly upset some of the masses. :lol:

RollTide21
Jan 13th 2011, 09:23 PM
Eph 2:13But 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 abolished 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;

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

To be under the law means you are obligated to keep the law and all its ordinances in order to retain a right standing with God. But the problem with that is that if you break even one commandment of the OT law your are guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10). That's too much pressure. No one can live up to that (except Jesus). There would be no hope for anyone if that was the standard. Thankfully, because of the death of Christ and His shed blood God took that requirement away and now we are under grace and are justified by faith in Christ and not by keeping the OT law. This goes for ethnic Jews and Gentiles alike since there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ. Christians obey the law of Christ and are not obligated to follow the law of Moses with all of its rituals and ordinances and such.Not to take this in an entirely different direction, but what would you say was the purpose of the OT Law for the Israelites prior to Jesus, if the Law's standards could not have been met? We have clear Scriptural references to the Patriarchs and how they were declared righteous through Faith. So...we know that the Faith we exhibit in Christ is the same Faith that they exhibited in God before Christ. So...what was the purpose of the Written Law? A standard for those operating in Faith to TRY and attain?

Brother Mark
Jan 13th 2011, 09:30 PM
Timothy had a Jewish mother, which meant he was a Jew. But he did not get circumcised until Paul wanted him to go with him on a mission trip. He did it because of the Jews in the area. But he didn't do it so as to encourage Timothy to be a Jew.

John146
Jan 13th 2011, 09:31 PM
Yeah, there are several references as to being not under the law but this one should clear up the Paul issue and why Paul did what he did when he went to Jerusalem. And this passage is speaking particularly of Paul himself... and that does certainly upset some of the masses. :lol:I agree. There's no way of twisting the text in that one when he clearly is referring to himself there. :)

John146
Jan 13th 2011, 09:33 PM
Not to take this in an entirely different direction, but what would you say was the purpose of the OT Law for the Israelites prior to Jesus, if the Law's standards could not have been met? We have clear Scriptural references to the Patriarchs and how they were declared righteous through Faith. So...we know that the Faith we exhibit in Christ is the same Faith that they exhibited in God before Christ. So...what was the purpose of the Written Law? A standard for those operating in Faith to TRY and attain?According to Paul it was this:

Gal 3:19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

RollTide21
Jan 13th 2011, 09:43 PM
According to Paul it was this:

Gal 3:19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.Nice. Rarely is there a definitive, succinct, open and shut answer to a question in these discussions. I guess this would qualify.

LookingUp
Jan 13th 2011, 09:58 PM
Not anymore than it would be dishonest for him to live as though he was under the law even though he was not under the law.If being "under the law" means you’re required to obey it, then your statement doesn't make sense to me. Of course, Paul didn't murder, steal, etc. He continued to obey the law. Was he not stealing just because he was "pretending" to be "under the law"? So, being "under the law" can't mean “required to obey the law.”


Since it's all for the gospel's sake what might seem dishonest under normal circumstances is just fine because it's being done for the greater good and not for the purpose of being deceptive.This explanation doesn’t sit right with my heart.

RollTide21
Jan 13th 2011, 10:05 PM
I’m not sure how mark will answer, but I have a question for you. Since they clearly spell out the reason for Paul observing these customs (“Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law”), wouldn’t it have been dishonest for Paul to go through with it if he didn’t agree with their reasons?I know you weren't posting to me directly, but can you clarify this post?

Who is "they"?

What verse is that in quotations?

Go through with what?

I apologize if the answer to these questions is obvious.

David Taylor
Jan 13th 2011, 10:13 PM
The first "Christians" were Jews and remained Jews. Circumcised of heart, circumcised of flesh and true children of Abraham and born from above children of God.

The first Gentile Christians were also circumcised of the heart, xxxxxxxxxx, and true children of Abraham and born from above children of God.

No difference, except the phrase I left out that the NT tells us doesn't matter anyway.



It's just that they didn't call themselves "Christians" nor practice the traditions, habits and culture of western mainstream Christianity.

What traditions, habits, and culture of western mainstream Christianity did the 'first Christians' not practice? That sounds like an oxymororn. If the first christians didn't practice something that the western Christians did practice, how were they the 'first' ones?

John146
Jan 13th 2011, 10:16 PM
If being "under the law" means you’re required to obey it, then your statement doesn't make sense to me. Of course, Paul didn't murder, steal, etc. He continued to obey the law. Was he not stealing just because he was "pretending" to be "under the law"? So, being "under the law" can't mean “required to obey the law.”What you're saying doesn't make sense to me, either. We're apparently not on the same page on this. Why would Paul still be under the law of Moses when he was under grace? Explain that to me. He said point blank he wasn't under the law so why are you acting like he was?

ProjectPeter posted this a little earlier:

1 Corinthians 9:20 *And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law;


This explanation doesn’t sit right with my heart.Then tell me your understanding of that passage from 1 Cor 9. He wasn't under the law but to those who were under the law he behaved as though he was. Without knowing any better we might tend to think he was being dishonest in doing that and yet we know he wasn't, so what do you make of that?

John146
Jan 13th 2011, 10:21 PM
Nice. Rarely is there a definitive, succinct, open and shut answer to a question in these discussions. I guess this would qualify.Yeah, he was pretty clear there, wasn't he? Notice I didn't include my own commentary. It wasn't necessary in this case. :)

RollTide21
Jan 13th 2011, 10:24 PM
Yeah, he was pretty clear there, wasn't he? Notice I didn't include my own commentary. It wasn't necessary in this case. :)Nope. No explanation necessary. I'm still playing catch-up with my Scripture learning, but I actually think I should have known the answer to that one. As soon as you posted that Scripture, I thought, "Of course."

Oh well.

Toymom
Jan 13th 2011, 10:38 PM
Interesting wording of the question. "Should" we remain Jewish? vs "Do" we remain Jewish? (I am a Jewish believer.)
When a Jewish person becomes a believer in Christ, according to the Jewish religion, we are still considered Jews, but we are considered to be apostate Jews. Judaism is a "race", a culture and a religion.
Your question seems to be, should Jewish believers continue in the practices of the Jewish religion?
I don't think there is anything in the Bible that says that they must stop practicing the Jewish religion if they don't want to.
The Bible merely says that it should not be required for gentiles to do and it is not a means of salvation.
So, if Jewish believers wish to continue practicing the Jewish religion - in whole or in part, I don't see any reason for us not to as long as we don't do it because we think we have to because we think it is a requirement for salvation.
I personally don't practice the Jewish religion any more - well - not much of it - for a variety of reasons. But, I think if I felt like it, there is no reason that I should not.

ProjectPeter
Jan 13th 2011, 10:50 PM
I agree. There's no way of twisting the text in that one when he clearly is referring to himself there. :)

Shoot... wanna bet! With man... all things are twistable! ;)

keck553
Jan 13th 2011, 11:05 PM
So should you be asking if they should continue with Judaism practice if they come to accept Christ?

They can't change the fact that they are Jewish, but they can change from Judaism faith with God through the OT Law to Christian faith with God through Jesus.

This is really confusing to me. Judaism is a religion. Christianity is also a religion that, by the way, wasn't even around during Jesus' ministry. Faith in either religion won't get anyone to heaven. Jesus doesn't say converting to a religion saves anyone.

His message is simple. "Repent. Turn to God. I am the truth, the way and the life. Whoever believes in me will not perish, but have everlasting life."

Up to circa 50AD both believers in Jesus and non believers in Jesus shared the same synagogues. Without a Roman procurator, the Jewish leadership took advantage of that fact and began tossing out the sect who were disciples of Jesus.

There is some history that really created a chasm that persists to this day in the minds of both Jews and Gentiles. After three Jewish revolts and the terrorism that was knitted in those events, anti Semitism created a toxic environment to not only Jews, but anyone who sympathized with Jews or even practiced some Jewish traditions or Biblical practices. There was no "New Testament" laying around, the only Scripture that believers in Jesus had was the Torah, Psalms, Prophets and Writings, that which we call the "Old Testament" Paul wrote to Timothy was inspired by God, profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness. Apparently Paul thought the OT was rather important for these things.

Eventually laws were passed that prohibited not only Jewish religious traditions, but Biblical as well, and were as harshly applied to Gentiles as Jews. It's not difficult to understand the human aspect of that response; consider the general response to Arabs due to Islaamic terrorism these days. Then the RCC grew in power, and what followed was persecution, forced conversions, forced labor on rest days, force feedings of animals God told the Jews not to eat, torture, burnings - this is love?

So even today, even if well intentioned and heartfelt perhaps it would do well to inspect our hearts before making demands that Jews who believe in Yeshua as Messiah conform to a culture and religion that changes the very identity that God gave them.

LookingUp
Jan 14th 2011, 08:29 AM
Not anymore than it would be dishonest for him to live as though he was under the law even though he was not under the law. Since it's all for the gospel's sake what might seem dishonest under normal circumstances is just fine because it's being done for the greater good and not for the purpose of being deceptive.I do appreciate your help with this. Question -- Can you give me an example of what it would have looked like for Paul to live as though he was under the law? And can you give me an example of what it would have looked like for Paul to live as though he was without the law?

LookingUp
Jan 14th 2011, 08:51 AM
Eph 2:13But 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 abolished 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;

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

To be under the law means you are obligated to keep the law and all its ordinances in order to retain a right standing with God. But the problem with that is that if you break even one commandment of the OT law your are guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:10). That's too much pressure. No one can live up to that (except Jesus). There would be no hope for anyone if that was the standard. Thankfully, because of the death of Christ and His shed blood God took that requirement away and now we are under grace and are justified by faith in Christ and not by keeping the OT law. This goes for ethnic Jews and Gentiles alike since there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ. Christians obey the law of Christ and are not obligated to follow the law of Moses with all of its rituals and ordinances and such.You say we’re not obligated to follow the law of Moses, but we are obligated to follow the law of Christ, which encompasses the essence of the same laws found in the law of Moses, right?

So, we may not be under the law of Moses, but we are under the law of Christ. How would you explain the difference? Aren’t we obligated to follow the law in either case?

LookingUp
Jan 14th 2011, 09:09 AM
What you're saying doesn't make sense to me, either.Which part?


We're apparently not on the same page on this.Not yet. I still have some pages to read, so you never know.


Why would Paul still be under the law of Moses when he was under grace? Explain that to me. He said point blank he wasn't under the law so why are you acting like he was?I’m “acting like he was” because Scripture shows Paul observing Mosaic Law in an effort to prove he was still Torah observant. As a matter of fact, Jewish believers were still Torah observant in Acts 21. Furthermore, Paul tells them not to de-Judaize in 1 Cor. 7:17-18. So, excuse me if this isn’t as straight forward for me as it is for you.


ProjectPeter posted this a little earlier:

1 Corinthians 9:20 *And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law;

Then tell me your understanding of that passage from 1 Cor 9. He wasn't under the law but to those who were under the law he behaved as though he was. Without knowing any better we might tend to think he was being dishonest in doing that and yet we know he wasn't, so what do you make of that?I’m not sure. I’m still seeking clarity.

John146
Jan 14th 2011, 04:00 PM
Shoot... wanna bet! With man... all things are twistable! ;)Well, that's true, so I won't bet you on it. But in the case of that verse it would be particularly difficult to do so.

David Taylor
Jan 14th 2011, 04:17 PM
This is really confusing to me. Judaism is a religion. Christianity is also a religion that, by the way, wasn't even around during Jesus' ministry.

Actually this is only partly true.

Judaism is a religion.

Christianity is not a religion, it is an individual relationship with the Lord; one which did not start at Jesus' ministry, but transcended history back to the very beginning.

While the name 'Christian' wasn't used during the days of Noah, Abraham, David, etc....the same personal relationship existed between the redeemed faithful believers and their Lord.

Christianity has always been the relationship between the faithful sinner and the Creator....whether those who participate are called Christians, or brethren, or redeemed, or elect, or believers, etc...

John146
Jan 14th 2011, 04:22 PM
I do appreciate your help with this. Question -- Can you give me an example of what it would have looked like for Paul to live as though he was under the law?Read Acts 21:18-26.


And can you give me an example of what it would have looked like for Paul to live as though he was without the law?Not sure of a specific example offhand but the fact is that he said he was not under the law so he must have lived a vast majority of the time not worrying about doing the rituals and such associated with the law of Moses and instead focused on obeying Christ and His commands to love God and love others as ourselves.

John146
Jan 14th 2011, 04:26 PM
You say we’re not obligated to follow the law of Moses, but we are obligated to follow the law of Christ, which encompasses the essence of the same laws found in the law of Moses, right?Not exactly. Included in the law of Moses was the necessity for males to be circumcised, for the priests to do animal sacrifices, to only eat certain things, follow certain rituals, observe certain festivals and so on. We're not obligated to do any of those things. Christ simplified things by saying what we have to do is love God with all our heart, soul and mind and love our neighbors as ourselves.

John146
Jan 14th 2011, 04:35 PM
Which part?I didn't really follow any of what you were saying in that particular post, but don't worry about it. We're getting there as far as understanding where each other is coming from on this.


I’m “acting like he was” because Scripture shows Paul observing Mosaic Law in an effort to prove he was still Torah observant.But does that mean he had to do that or was it a case of him behaving like a Jew to the Jews like he talks about in 1 Cor 9?


As a matter of fact, Jewish believers were still Torah observant in Acts 21.But does that mean it was required? I don't believe so. Paul himself was a Jewish believer and said he was not under the law. That makes it clear to me that neither he nor any other Jewish believer was obligated to follow the law of Moses.


Furthermore, Paul tells them not to de-Judaize in 1 Cor. 7:17-18. I think that's a bit of a stretch to conclude that from that passage. It seems to me that he's saying if someone was already circumcised it's not like they had to become uncircumcised to be a Chritsian. I certainly don't see that passage as suggesting that Jews should continue following the law of Moses even once they became Christians. We're under grace now, not under the law of Moses and we follow the law of Christ. That's true for ethnic Jewish believers and Gentiles alike.


So, excuse me if this isn’t as straight forward for me as it is for you.That's not a problem. So, at this point what is your understanding of what Paul meant when he said he was not under the law?

keck553
Jan 14th 2011, 05:23 PM
The first Gentile Christians were also circumcised of the heart, xxxxxxxxxx, and true children of Abraham and born from above children of God.

No difference, except the phrase I left out that the NT tells us doesn't matter anyway.

Thank you for reading my post, and you are certainly correct. Paul said a true Jew is one in his heart. I think there is a lot packed into that statement, most of which I am still praying for the wisdom to unpack.



What traditions, habits, and culture of western mainstream Christianity did the 'first Christians' not practice? That sounds like an oxymororn. If the first christians didn't practice something that the western Christians did practice, how were they the 'first' ones?

Christmas? Easter? Advent? Sunday?

keck553
Jan 14th 2011, 05:36 PM
Actually this is only partly true.

Judaism is a religion.

Christianity is not a religion, it is an individual relationship with the Lord; one which did not start at Jesus' ministry, but transcended history back to the very beginning.

I accept your definition as perfectly accurate. Unfortunately the term "Christianity" has been abused enough to warrant additional clarification (just like you did here). It's sad, but true. I imagine "Judaism" at some point, even if only in Joshua's generation, was also pure. What happened is not much different than what apostates, unbelievers and opportunists have done to our precious term. To further stress the point, Judaism will claim that Ruth converted to Judaism. I think that was an erroneous assumption. The Bible says something different, that Ruth's point of 'conversion' was when she called on God as her God. When I finally did come to God for real, it was as came like Ruth did, without the trappings and paraphenalia of religion and sacraments (it was a very painful and difficult time), but I needed to be 'disillusioned' of my own perceptions so that I was sure my relationship wasn't with religion, but with the true God, Creator of the Univers. Ruth may have adapted to the customs of the house of Boaz, but that had nothing to do with her calling God her God.




While the name 'Christian' wasn't used during the days of Noah, Abraham, David, etc....the same personal relationship existed between the redeemed faithful believers and their Lord.

AMEN! And may I be so bold to suggest the relationship was through the same manifested tri-unity.


Christianity has always been the relationship between the faithful sinner and the Creator....whether those who participate are called Christians, or brethren, or redeemed, or elect, or believers, etc...

Yes.

LookingUp
Jan 15th 2011, 04:08 AM
Read Acts 21:18-26.I did, and James and the rest of the Torah observant Jews in Jerusalem asked Paul to prove that he, too, was still Torah observant for the sake of the new converts who had heard otherwise (Acts 21:20-21). 1 Cor. 9:20-22 is all about “saving some” (1 Cor. 9:22). These new converts in Acts were already believers (i.e. they didn’t need “saving”). If anything, I think it’s more of a case of Romans 14 (as janitor pointed out). “Each one must be convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). “Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way” (Rom. 14:13). “The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. …whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:22-23).

I have to admit that the fact that James, as the leader of the Jerusalem Church, the elders, and the new converts were all Torah observant is pretty strong evidence that believing Jews today should never be asked to give up observing the Torah in the way they feel is appropriate for them.


Not sure of a specific example offhand but the fact is that he said he was not under the law so he must have lived a vast majority of the time not worrying about doing the rituals and such associated with the law of Moses and instead focused on obeying Christ and His commands to love God and love others as ourselves.When Paul says he became like one who is under the law, I think it just means that Paul didn’t go around flaunting his freedom in Christ to Jews who would find that behavior offensive. This doesn’t mean he pretended to be a Jew, for we see by his actions in Acts 21 that he felt it was perfectly acceptable to observe the Torah as a believer.

And when Paul says he became like one without the law, I think it just means that when around Gentiles, he didn’t go around acting “better than,” as Jews often did with Gentiles at that time. In this way, the Gentiles wouldn’t feel inferior by his status as one of the children of Israel. This was clearly an issue, as we see from the feelings of inferiority displayed in both the Samaritan woman at the well and the Syrophoenician Gentile woman who had a daughter with a demon in her.

But there are those on this board, and in the world, who go around acting like, “What is wrong with you? Of course, you don’t need to bother obeying some old Mosaic Law.” Why aren’t we following Paul’s example? If one is personally convicted and feels it is the right and holy thing to do, one should do it. You (& others) may be worried that observing the Torah will throw a believing Jew back under the law, but there’s no evidence that Paul worried about that when he proved to the Jerusalem Church that he was Torah observant. Surely you wouldn’t suggest that James and the elders of the Jerusalem Church were “under the law”? Yet they were clearly Torah observant. Therefore, being Torah observant (obeying Mosaic Law) is not equal to being “under the law.”


Not exactly. Included in the law of Moses was the necessity for males to be circumcised, for the priests to do animal sacrifices, to only eat certain things, follow certain rituals, observe certain festivals and so on. We're not obligated to do any of those things. Christ simplified things by saying what we have to do is love God with all our heart, soul and mind and love our neighbors as ourselves.What’s the difference between a believing Jew keeping kosher out of obligation and a believing Gentile giving to the poor out of obligation? It’s not the fact that we feel obligated that places us under the law, it’s what drives that obligation that can place one under the law. Are we driven by the idea that we will be justified by our works? Or are we compelled out of our love and faith in God? In one scenario, we do it because we think it gives us “points.” In the other scenario, we do it because we love God, and that love expresses itself in loving others. In other words, we either pursue righteousness by faith or as though it is by works. That’s the difference between being “under the law” and “under grace.”


But does that mean it was required? I don't believe so. Paul himself was a Jewish believer and said he was not under the law. That makes it clear to me that neither he nor any other Jewish believer was obligated to follow the law of Moses.They are obligated if they are convicted that it is the right and holy thing to do. Being under the law of Christ describes a believer who is compelled out of faith (i.e. pursing righteousness by faith). If your intentions are out of love and faith in God, it doesn’t matter if you worship on Saturday or Sunday, if you are a vegetarian or eat pork, if you give 10% to the poor or 50% to the poor. What matters is faith working through love (Gal. 4:6). And if faith working through love manifests itself in obedience to the Torah, then who am I to say otherwise?


That's not a problem. So, at this point what is your understanding of what Paul meant when he said he was not under the law?I don’t think that being “under the law” means that one is obligated to keep the law in order to retain a right standing with God. I think being “under the law” is the misguided belief that one can conjure up righteousness through one’s works. Certainly, there is the sense that being “under the law” means being born into the Mosaic system (Gal. 4:4). But Paul speaks of another way to be “under the law.” You don’t have to be born a Jew to be “under the law” according to Paul. Even a Gentile believer seeking to be justified by his works can place himself “under the law” (Gal. 5:3). People voluntarily place themselves under the law through pride. To the degree that pride persists, so is the bondage binding. We can voluntarily place ourselves under the the law and its curse (because we think we have what it takes) or we can voluntarily, through faith in Christ, place ourselves under the liberty and law of Christ (because we know that it is only Christ who has what it takes). One choice results in death (because that is what the law which we have chosen dictates) and one choice results in life (because that is what the law of Christ dictates).

dagar
Jan 16th 2011, 01:35 AM
I did, and James and the rest of the Torah observant Jews in Jerusalem asked Paul to prove that he, too, was still Torah observant for the sake of the new converts who had heard otherwise (Acts 21:20-21).

I have to admit that the fact that James, as the leader of the Jerusalem Church, the elders, and the new converts were all Torah observant is pretty strong evidence that believing Jews today should never be asked to give up observing the Torah in the way they feel is appropriate for them.Where does scripture give any indication James and the 'Torah observant Jews' were correct? This is an historical account. All we can gather from it is the correct response of a believing Jew facing 'zealous of the law' (Act 21:20) believing Jews. The spiritual should rise above ceremony and ritual in order to keep the royal law (love).

John146
Jan 17th 2011, 07:43 PM
I did, and James and the rest of the Torah observant Jews in Jerusalem asked Paul to prove that he, too, was still Torah observant for the sake of the new converts who had heard otherwise (Acts 21:20-21). 1 Cor. 9:20-22 is all about “saving some” (1 Cor. 9:22). These new converts in Acts were already believers (i.e. they didn’t need “saving”). If anything, I think it’s more of a case of Romans 14 (as janitor pointed out). “Each one must be convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). “Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way” (Rom. 14:13). “The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. …whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:22-23).

I have to admit that the fact that James, as the leader of the Jerusalem Church, the elders, and the new converts were all Torah observant is pretty strong evidence that believing Jews today should never be asked to give up observing the Torah in the way they feel is appropriate for them.This is all besides the point I'm trying to make. The point is that they are not obligated to follow the law of Moses any longer. That's why Paul says believers are not under the law, but under grace. If they still choose to observe the law, or at least parts of the law, then they can, but if they think they have to then they are sadly mistaken.


When Paul says he became like one who is under the law, I think it just means that Paul didn’t go around flaunting his freedom in Christ to Jews who would find that behavior offensive. This doesn’t mean he pretended to be a Jew, for we see by his actions in Acts 21 that he felt it was perfectly acceptable to observe the Torah as a believer.But he didn't have to because he said himself he was not under the law.


And when Paul says he became like one without the law, I think it just means that when around Gentiles, he didn’t go around acting “better than,” as Jews often did with Gentiles at that time. In this way, the Gentiles wouldn’t feel inferior by his status as one of the children of Israel. This was clearly an issue, as we see from the feelings of inferiority displayed in both the Samaritan woman at the well and the Syrophoenician Gentile woman who had a daughter with a demon in her.If Paul thought that Jews were supposed to continue following the law of Moses why would he say that physical circumcision was nothing?

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Paul taught that when someone became a Christian they were free from "the yoke of bondage" which is what the law of Moses placed on people because of the difficulty of following it. Anyone who thought they had to follow the law of Moses was required "to do the whole law". By thinking that they would be "fallen from grace". No one is under the law. We are under grace. We are free from having to be perfect thanks to the sacrifice of Christ. Anyone who thinks they are under the law does not understand God's grace and the freedom we have in Christ. Not freedom to sin, but freedom to follow Him without the need to observe many rituals and ordinances of the law of Moses.


But there are those on this board, and in the world, who go around acting like, “What is wrong with you? Of course, you don’t need to bother obeying some old Mosaic Law.” Why aren’t we following Paul’s example? If one is personally convicted and feels it is the right and holy thing to do, one should do it.Yes, but hopefully they realize at some point that God does not require them to do so.


You (& others) may be worried that observing the Torah will throw a believing Jew back under the law, but there’s no evidence that Paul worried about that when he proved to the Jerusalem Church that he was Torah observant. Surely you wouldn’t suggest that James and the elders of the Jerusalem Church were “under the law”? Yet they were clearly Torah observant. Therefore, being Torah observant (obeying Mosaic Law) is not equal to being “under the law.”I believe Paul was only Torah observant for the sake of the gospel, as he said, and not because he felt he had to do that. I am 100% convinced of that, actually, because of what he taught overall.


What’s the difference between a believing Jew keeping kosher out of obligation and a believing Gentile giving to the poor out of obligation? It’s not the fact that we feel obligated that places us under the law, it’s what drives that obligation that can place one under the law. Are we driven by the idea that we will be justified by our works? Or are we compelled out of our love and faith in God? In one scenario, we do it because we think it gives us “points.” In the other scenario, we do it because we love God, and that love expresses itself in loving others. In other words, we either pursue righteousness by faith or as though it is by works. That’s the difference between being “under the law” and “under grace.”I agree with the things you're saying here but I believe not being under the law also means that believers, including Jewish believers, are not obligated to follow the law of Moses. Paul indicates that those who think they have to observe the law of Moses are weak in the faith.

Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

Once someone like this grows in the faith they will hopefully realize they are not obligated any longer to follow the law of Moses and are free in Christ from the requirements of the law of Moses and that His burden is light (especially compared to the huge task of trying to follow the law of Moses and all it entails).


I don’t think that being “under the law” means that one is obligated to keep the law in order to retain a right standing with God. I think being “under the law” is the misguided belief that one can conjure up righteousness through one’s works. Certainly, there is the sense that being “under the law” means being born into the Mosaic system (Gal. 4:4). But Paul speaks of another way to be “under the law.” You don’t have to be born a Jew to be “under the law” according to Paul. Even a Gentile believer seeking to be justified by his works can place himself “under the law” (Gal. 5:3). People voluntarily place themselves under the law through pride. To the degree that pride persists, so is the bondage binding. We can voluntarily place ourselves under the the law and its curse (because we think we have what it takes) or we can voluntarily, through faith in Christ, place ourselves under the liberty and law of Christ (because we know that it is only Christ who has what it takes). One choice results in death (because that is what the law which we have chosen dictates) and one choice results in life (because that is what the law of Christ dictates).Our views may not be very far apart on this, as it turns out. Let me just ask you this: do you believe anyone today is obligated to follow the law of Moses? The main point I'm trying to make is that no one is obligated to follow the law of Moses and no one has been since the death and resurrection of Christ.

BroRog
Jan 18th 2011, 12:28 AM
Where does scripture give any indication James and the 'Torah observant Jews' were correct? This is an historical account. All we can gather from it is the correct response of a believing Jew facing 'zealous of the law' (Act 21:20) believing Jews. The spiritual should rise above ceremony and ritual in order to keep the royal law (love).By paying the fees associated with the vows these men were taking, Paul was giving his agreement.

dagar
Jan 18th 2011, 12:48 AM
How so? He's just not 'judging' and being spiritually mature for the weak minded. Becoming a Jew that he might win some doesn't exactly apply because they were supposedly believers already. They were just ignorant. However the same concept holds true. Having been zealous of the law, he understood their mindset. They would not otherwise even hear what he had to say concerning the revelation revealed. What he did, meant absolutely nothing to him or God, but was important to the weak minded. That didn't make them correct, it just made it important to Paul. It could not have made it correct or else Paul would have been contradicting himself. The charge against what Paul taught was accurate and he never denied it, and how could he? Agreeing to a little ceremony was not Paul giving his agreement.

BroRog
Jan 18th 2011, 12:58 AM
How so? He's just not 'judging' and being spiritually mature for the weak minded. Becoming a Jew that he might win some doesn't exactly apply because they were supposedly believers already. They were just ignorant. However the same concept holds true. Having been zealous of the law, he understood their mindset. They would not otherwise even hear what he had to say concerning the revelation revealed. What he did, meant absolutely nothing to him or God, but was important to the weak minded. That didn't make them correct, it just made it important to Paul. It could not have made it correct or else Paul would have been contradicting himself. The charge against what Paul taught was accurate and he never denied it, and how could he? Agreeing to a little ceremony was not Paul giving his agreement.I think if you review the passage, it is clear that Paul was agreeing to James request, which was to openly say that he was not teaching the Jews to abandon Moses.

dagar
Jan 18th 2011, 02:12 AM
If that were the case we would not be having this discussion.The passage shows the correct response of a believing Jew facing 'zealous of the law' (Act 21:20) believing Jews. What scripture teaches is that if someone wants to do it, they do it between them and God. Not to be divided over the outward and inconsequential. That is not a back peddling of what Paul taught. Which was simply that neither Jew or Greek, who are both one in Christ, are required to keep ceremony and ritual found in the law.

LookingUp
Jan 19th 2011, 05:45 AM
This is all besides the point I'm trying to make. The point is that they are not obligated to follow the law of Moses any longer. That's why Paul says believers are not under the law, but under grace. If they still choose to observe the law, or at least parts of the law, then they can, but if they think they have to then they are sadly mistaken.BroRog made a good point in a similar thread. He reminded me that the Mosaic Law was for an entire nation and was meant to be kept by the nation as a whole. In this way, the nation would be set apart as God’s own possession—they would be unique from any other nation. From this point of view, an individual really can’t follow the entire Mosaic Law. I agree that a believing Jew is not obligated to follow the Law of Moses. They have as much freedom to keep the Law as to not keep the Law. The mistake is if they think that any part of keeping it contributes to their justification.


But he didn't have to because he said himself he was not under the law.No, he didn’t have to but there were times that we see he wanted to (Acts 18:18; 20:16; 21:17-26).


If Paul thought that Jews were supposed to continue following the law of Moses why would he say that physical circumcision was nothing?

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Paul taught that when someone became a Christian they were free from "the yoke of bondage" which is what the law of Moses placed on people because of the difficulty of following it. Anyone who thought they had to follow the law of Moses was required "to do the whole law". By thinking that they would be "fallen from grace". No one is under the law. We are under grace. We are free from having to be perfect thanks to the sacrifice of Christ. Anyone who thinks they are under the law does not understand God's grace and the freedom we have in Christ. Not freedom to sin, but freedom to follow Him without the need to observe many rituals and ordinances of the law of Moses.I don’t think he teaches that they were required to continue following the Law of Moses, but neither do I think he taught they were required to stop practicing the Law. Physical circumcision is nothing for those who are only doing it out of a desire to be justified by the Law (Gal. 5:4). In Romans, Paul writes that circumcision is of value if one practices the Law (Rom. 2:25). The difference is the motivation for practicing the Law. The follower of the Law in Rom. 2 is one who is motivated out of a circumcised heart. The follower of the Law in Gal. 5 is motivated out of the mistaken belief that he can justify himself through his works.


Yes, but hopefully they realize at some point that God does not require them to do so.

I believe Paul was only Torah observant for the sake of the gospel, as he said, and not because he felt he had to do that. I am 100% convinced of that, actually, because of what he taught overall.So who was he trying to impress in Acts 18:18 (based on Num. 6:2, 5, 9) and 20:16 (based on Deut. 16:16)?


I agree with the things you're saying here but I believe not being under the law also means that believers, including Jewish believers, are not obligated to follow the law of Moses. Paul indicates that those who think they have to observe the law of Moses are weak in the faith.

Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

Once someone like this grows in the faith they will hopefully realize they are not obligated any longer to follow the law of Moses and are free in Christ from the requirements of the law of Moses and that His burden is light (especially compared to the huge task of trying to follow the law of Moses and all it entails).I think there’s more to it. Was James weak in faith? I think the Jerusalem Church used their freedom to minister to the circumcision and that was how it was done. I’m sure James taught that they were free from the curse of the law, but I would imagine that would have just fueled their zeal to follow it.


Our views may not be very far apart on this, as it turns out. Let me just ask you this: do you believe anyone today is obligated to follow the law of Moses? The main point I'm trying to make is that no one is obligated to follow the law of Moses and no one has been since the death and resurrection of Christ.I don’t think anyone today is obligated to follow the Law of Moses.

Firstfruits
Jan 19th 2011, 04:29 PM
Should Jews who come to faith in Jesus remain Jewish in their practice? Why or why not? Scripture only please.

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Firstfruits

John146
Jan 19th 2011, 07:22 PM
BroRog made a good point in a similar thread. He reminded me that the Mosaic Law was for an entire nation and was meant to be kept by the nation as a whole. In this way, the nation would be set apart as God’s own possession—they would be unique from any other nation. From this point of view, an individual really can’t follow the entire Mosaic Law. I agree that a believing Jew is not obligated to follow the Law of Moses. They have as much freedom to keep the Law as to not keep the Law. The mistake is if they think that any part of keeping it contributes to their justification.Agree (I think).


No, he didn’t have to but there were times that we see he wanted to (Acts 18:18; 20:16; 21:17-26).And I believe he wanted to for the sake of the gospel as he talks about in 1 Cor 9.


I don’t think he teaches that they were required to continue following the Law of Moses, but neither do I think he taught they were required to stop practicing the Law.And that's the point I've been trying to make. Glad you agree. Their reasoning for practicing it would make a difference. If they were doing it in order to earn God's favor and for their justification then that would be wrong. Jesus said His burden is light and that would not be the case if He required anyone to follow the law of Moses.


Physical circumcision is nothing for those who are only doing it out of a desire to be justified by the Law (Gal. 5:4).Right.


In Romans, Paul writes that circumcision is of value if one practices the Law (Rom. 2:25).Exactly.


The difference is the motivation for practicing the Law.I agree.


The follower of the Law in Rom. 2 is one who is motivated out of a circumcised heart. The follower of the Law in Gal. 5 is motivated out of the mistaken belief that he can justify himself through his works.Yep.


So who was he trying to impress in Acts 18:18 (based on Num. 6:2, 5, 9) and 20:16 (based on Deut. 16:16)?No one. I believe he was doing what he did there for the sake of the gospel and leading other Jews to Christ and not because he felt he had to do it. Again, my understanding of that comes from what he said in 1 Cor 9.


I think there’s more to it. Was James weak in faith? I think the Jerusalem Church used their freedom to minister to the circumcision and that was how it was done. I’m sure James taught that they were free from the curse of the law, but I would imagine that would have just fueled their zeal to follow it.You lost me here. Can you try to clarify the point you were making here?


I don’t think anyone today is obligated to follow the Law of Moses.I agree and I think that's the main thing that people need to understand, especially Jews.

LookingUp
Jan 19th 2011, 10:40 PM
You lost me here. Can you try to clarify the point you were making here?I can't imagine that James and the elders, who were ministers to the circumcision (Gal. 2:7-9), were weak in faith. My guess is that they used their freedom in Christ to minister to the circumcision through Torah observance rather than using their new-found freedom to alienate potential converts. Or maybe (and more likely) that wasn’t even a consideration. Their entire lives had been Torah observance—I can’t imagine wanting to change something you love. There was nothing unholy about the Law of Moses—there was no reason to stop observing it. It seems to me that the realization that the curse had been lifted would have been a liberating experience that would have led to greater zeal and joy in following the Law.

You seem to be under the impression (although I could be wrong) that those who choose to follow the Law of Moses are weak in faith. Were James and the members of the Jerusalem Church weak in faith? If not, why did they continue to follow the Law of Moses?

The Mighty Sword
Jan 19th 2011, 10:55 PM
Jesus was a Jew, the Apostles were Jews hence the title " Messianic Jews ".

Now regarding OT Law:
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

John146
Jan 20th 2011, 06:48 PM
I can't imagine that James and the elders, who were ministers to the circumcision (Gal. 2:7-9), were weak in faith.I'm not saying they were. Maybe a few of them were, but for the most part they probably were not. James certainly wasn't weak in faith.


My guess is that they used their freedom in Christ to minister to the circumcision through Torah observance rather than using their new-found freedom to alienate potential converts.That would be my guess as well.


Or maybe (and more likely) that wasn’t even a consideration.Why would that be more likely considering what Paul said in 1 Cor 9:19-23? Though Paul refers to himself in that passage I would think James understood that concept and applied it as well.


Their entire lives had been Torah observance—I can’t imagine wanting to change something you love. There was nothing unholy about the Law of Moses—there was no reason to stop observing it. It seems to me that the realization that the curse had been lifted would have been a liberating experience that would have led to greater zeal and joy in following the Law.You lost me again here. Where do you get the idea that they loved following the law of Moses? It was a major burden. The removal of the curse of the law would not lead to greater zeal and joy in following the law it would have led to greater zeal and joy because of being set free from the burden of the law and its many requirements. I believe that's why Jesus made sure to point out that His burden is light. He doesn't require the many things that the law of Moses does.


You seem to be under the impression (although I could be wrong) that those who choose to follow the Law of Moses are weak in faith.Only if they think they have to do so, which shows a lack of understanding on their part. When I said they are weak I was referring to Romans 14 when Paul says that those who think they can only eat certain things are weak. They lack discernment. That could apply to Jews who think they can only eat certain things because of the law of Moses.


Were James and the members of the Jerusalem Church weak in faith? If not, why did they continue to follow the Law of Moses?I would think for the same reason as Paul: for the sake of the gospel to lead those who were Jews and who still followed the law of Moses to Christ. If they had discernment they would have understood that they were not under the law. I'm pretty sure James would have understood that so I don't believe for a second that he thought he was still required to follow the law of Moses at that point.

LookingUp
Jan 20th 2011, 07:48 PM
Why would that be more likely considering what Paul said in 1 Cor 9:19-23? Though Paul refers to himself in that passage I would think James understood that concept and applied it as well.

You lost me again here. Where do you get the idea that they loved following the law of Moses?O how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day. Psalm 119:97

I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart. Psalm 40:8

Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Your law. Psalm 119:18

So I will keep Your law continually, forever and ever. Psalm 119:34

I shall delight in Your commandments, which I love. And I shall lift up my hands to Your commandments, which I love; and I will mediate on Your statutes. Psalm 119:47-48

Those who love Your law have great peace, and nothing causes them to stumble. Psalm 119: 165

I long for Your salvation, O LORD, and Your law is my delight. Psalm 119:174


It was a major burden. The removal of the curse of the law would not lead to greater zeal and joy in following the law it would have led to greater zeal and joy because of being set free from the burden of the law and its many requirements. I believe that's why Jesus made sure to point out that His burden is light. He doesn't require the many things that the law of Moses does.There were thousands among the Jews who had believed through the teaching of the Jerusalem Church. I’m sure this teaching would have included the news of the lifting of the curse. Yet these believers were “all zealous for the Law” (Acts 21:20). Why were they still “zealous for the Law.” Were they all weak in faith? I don’t think so.

The burden was not the commandment. “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, not is it out of reach. …but the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart that you may observe it.” (Deut. 30: 11-14). The commandment did not lead to the burden; the fear of the curse did. Removing the curse doesn’t mean the commandment was wrong. Just because a police officer won’t get a ticket for speeding doesn’t mean he should speed—having a speed limit is still a good law. Even if the law did not have jurisdiction over him, he would desire to obey the law because it is a good law. The Jerusalem Church loved the law and continued to obey it because it was a good law.

The Mosaic Law is not in effect in that it can hold someone in bondage under the curse (in this way, no one is under obligation to obey it). But it is a good law and those who want to remain following it (to the extent that's feasible), should do so.

John146
Jan 20th 2011, 09:24 PM
O how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day. Psalm 119:97

I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart. Psalm 40:8

Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Your law. Psalm 119:18

So I will keep Your law continually, forever and ever. Psalm 119:34

I shall delight in Your commandments, which I love. And I shall lift up my hands to Your commandments, which I love; and I will mediate on Your statutes. Psalm 119:47-48

Those who love Your law have great peace, and nothing causes them to stumble. Psalm 119: 165

I long for Your salvation, O LORD, and Your law is my delight. Psalm 119:174I had a feeling you would refer to verses like these. Was David referring to the entire law of Moses there? Did he find delight in the killing of animals as sacrifices? God didn't (Heb 10:6-8). So why would David? Did he enjoy being restricted in what he could eat? Did he enjoy all the rituals and restrictions of the law? Is that really what he was saying in those verses? I don't believe so. I believe David is referring particularly to God's moral law there in particular and not saying He loves rituals, restrictions on certain things like what to eat, and animal sacrifices and such. In Hebrews 8:6-13 it refers to Jeremiah 31:31-34 which talks about God one day writing His law upon the hearts of His people and that would occur when the new covenant was ushered in, which it was by the blood of Christ. Is it the law of Moses that He writes on our hearts? I don't believe so.


There were thousands among the Jews who had believed through the teaching of the Jerusalem Church. I’m sure this teaching would have included the news of the lifting of the curse. Yet these believers were “all zealous for the Law” (Acts 21:20). Why were they still “zealous for the Law.” Were they all weak in faith? I don’t think so.Let me clarify something about how I see this. When I said those who think they are still under the law are weak it's more that they lack discernment regarding the new covenant in contrast to the old covenant and not necessarily that their faith is weak. If they were so zealous for the law that they were more zealous for the law of Moses than the law of Christ then that would not be a good thing. If they thought they were still under the law of Moses instead of under grace that also would not be good because that would show a lack of understanding of what Paul taught.


The burden was not the commandment. “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, not is it out of reach. …but the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart that you may observe it.” (Deut. 30: 11-14). The commandment did not lead to the burden; the fear of the curse did.And what caused that fear? The idea that unless they kept the law perfectly they would not be in right standing with God, right? As James pointed out, to transgress even one law means you're breaking all of it (James 2:10). That's a lot of pressure. It is in that sense that I'm saying it was a burden, especially to those who thought they had to keep it perfectly or else be judged. Jesus said His burden is light. Would that be the case if He required us to follow the law of Moses?


Removing the curse doesn’t mean the commandment was wrong.Where did I say the commandments were wrong? I didn't. You're definitely misunderstanding me to some extent. It isn't that the old covenant was bad or wrong, but it was inferior to the new covenant (Heb 8:6-7). It certainly wasn't sufficient to bring salvation to anyone.


Just because a police officer won’t get a ticket for speeding doesn’t mean he should speed—having a speed limit is still a good law. Even if the law did not have jurisdiction over him, he would desire to obey the law because it is a good law. The Jerusalem Church loved the law and continued to obey it because it was a good law.I never said the law of Moses was bad. You're talking to a straw man here.


The Mosaic Law is not in effect in that it can hold someone in bondage under the curse (in this way, no one is under obligation to obey it). But it is a good law and those who want to remain following it (to the extent that's feasible), should do so.Are you saying they should follow the law of Moses rather than the law of Christ? Shouldn't a Christian want to follow the law of Christ rather than the law of Moses, especially considering the fact that Christians are not under the law? Part of the law is to perform animal sacrifices for sin. Should Christians do that despite the fact that God takes no pleasure in them and the fact that no sacrifice for sin is necessary any longer because of the sacrifice of Christ? You speak in such high regard of the law of Moses that it makes me wonder if you think it wasn't necessary to replace the old covenant with the new covenant. Why would we be no longer under the law and why did the new covenant replace the old covenant if the old covenant of the law is as good as you seem to make it out to be (note that I'm not saying it's bad, but it's still inferior to the new covenant and the law of Christ)?

LookingUp
Jan 21st 2011, 02:16 AM
I had a feeling you would refer to verses like these. Was David referring to the entire law of Moses there?Yes. It was all or nothing.


Did he find delight in the killing of animals as sacrifices? God didn't (Heb 10:6-8). So why would David? Did he enjoy being restricted in what he could eat? Did he enjoy all the rituals and restrictions of the law? Is that really what he was saying in those verses? I don't believe so. I believe David is referring particularly to God's moral law there in particular and not saying He loves rituals, restrictions on certain things like what to eat, and animal sacrifices and such.Let me put it this way. Do you love the gospel of Christ? Does that mean you delight in the killing of Jesus? David didn’t love that the sacrifice had to take place; he loved the reconciliation it brought. That means loving the WHOLE Law. You can’t have reconciliation without the sacrifice.


In Hebrews 8:6-13 it refers to Jeremiah 31:31-34 which talks about God one day writing His law upon the hearts of His people and that would occur when the new covenant was ushered in, which it was by the blood of Christ. Is it the law of Moses that He writes on our hearts? I don't believe so.I believe it is the Law of Christ which is written on hearts, which encompasses the Law of Moses.


Let me clarify something about how I see this. When I said those who think they are still under the law are weak it's more that they lack discernment regarding the new covenant in contrast to the old covenant and not necessarily that their faith is weak. If they were so zealous for the law that they were more zealous for the law of Moses than the law of Christ then that would not be a good thing.The Law of Moses is covered in the Law of Christ. The Law of Christ calls us to a higher standard. Fewer details, maybe, but a higher standard. So if anyone should feel like they have a burden, it’s us. But the burden wasn’t about the commandments, it was about the curse. Jesus took away the curse, not the commandments.


If they thought they were still under the law of Moses instead of under grace that also would not be good because that would show a lack of understanding of what Paul taught.Obeying something out of love does not mean you are “under it.” Again, I believe being “under the law” means that it has authority to condemn you.


And what caused that fear? The idea that unless they kept the law perfectly they would not be in right standing with God, right? As James pointed out, to transgress even one law means you're breaking all of it (James 2:10). That's a lot of pressure. It is in that sense that I'm saying it was a burden, especially to those who thought they had to keep it perfectly or else be judged. Jesus said His burden is light. Would that be the case if He required us to follow the law of Moses?Are we required to follow the Law of Christ? If so, does that burden you? If not, why not?


Where did I say the commandments were wrong? I didn't. You're definitely misunderstanding me to some extent. It isn't that the old covenant was bad or wrong, but it was inferior to the new covenant (Heb 8:6-7). It certainly wasn't sufficient to bring salvation to anyone.

I never said the law of Moses was bad. You're talking to a straw man here.

Are you saying they should follow the law of Moses rather than the law of Christ?Rather than? Of course not. But when you follow the Law of Christ, you are fulfilling the Law of Moses whether you know it or not.


Shouldn't a Christian want to follow the law of Christ rather than the law of Moses, especially considering the fact that Christians are not under the law?What does being under the Law of Christ mean to you? What does that look like to you?


Part of the law is to perform animal sacrifices for sin. Should Christians do that despite the fact that God takes no pleasure in them and the fact that no sacrifice for sin is necessary any longer because of the sacrifice of Christ?No, we shouldn't perform animal sacrifices. Anything related to the curse is no longer necessary.


You speak in such high regard of the law of Moses that it makes me wonder if you think it wasn't necessary to replace the old covenant with the new covenant.Of course the New Covenant is necessary, but God planned it that we couldn’t get to the new without the old. The Law of Moses was a conditional, temporary law used as a tutor. It had a vital purpose in the plan of God. The Law of Moses is not in effect in that it does not have authority to condemn. However, some commandments are contained within the Law of Christ and some are not. The commandments that are not within the Law of Christ are optional. But to the exent that they bring you close to God, they are good.

Are the commands in the Law of Christ optional? Why or why not?


Why would we be no longer under the lawThose in Christ are no longer under the law in that it cannot condemn them.


and why did the new covenant replace the old covenant if the old covenant of the law is as good as you seem to make it out to be (note that I'm not saying it's bad, but it's still inferior to the new covenant and the law of Christ)?The New Covenant isn’t the same thing as the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is about commandments and consequences and the New Covenant is about empowerment. Consequences are not applicable.

By the way, I really enjoy our discussions. It helps me see any errors in my view and helps me refine my thoughts. At no time do I think I've got it all figured out. On the contrary, I come here because I know I don't. If I say something foolish or in error, point it out to me. I want to learn from others who love the Lord. If I don’t seem to agree with what you present, it means nothing against you at all. It just means I don’t totally understand what you’re sharing or I simply see it differently than you at this time in my life.

John146
Jan 21st 2011, 03:59 PM
I believe it is the Law of Christ which is written on hearts, which encompasses the Law of Moses.If that encompasses the law of Moses then should we be performing animal sacrifices and refraining from eating certain things and so on? We are required to follow the law of Christ, right?


The Law of Moses is covered in the Law of Christ.That is not true. You are mistaken. Animal sacrifices are not required under the law of Christ as they were under the law of Moses. Physical circumcision is not required under the law of Christ as it was under the law of Moses. And on it goes. It says the new covenant is better than the old covenant and it replaced the old covenant (Heb 8:6-13). You don't seem to understand what that means.


What does being under the Law of Christ mean to you? What does that look like to you?It looks like this:

Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.


No, we shouldn't perform animal sacrifices. Anything related to the curse is no longer necessary.Then why are you saying the law of Moses is included in the law of Christ?


Of course the New Covenant is necessary, but God planned it that we couldn’t get to the new without the old. The Law of Moses was a conditional, temporary law used as a tutor. It had a vital purpose in the plan of God. The Law of Moses is not in effect in that it does not have authority to condemn. However, some commandments are contained within the Law of Christ and some are not.Okay, now you are saying some are and some are not, but that is not the impression you were giving earlier in your post. Earlier, you seemed to indicate that you thought the law of Christ encompassed the entire law of Moses, which is simply not the case.


Are the commands in the Law of Christ optional? Why or why not?No. Because He didn't say they were optional. If someone isn't loving others then they are breaking His law and are not one of His followers.


Those in Christ are no longer under the law in that it cannot condemn them.We are not under the law of Moses in any sense. Do we obey some of the commands in the law of Moses? Yes, because if we are loving others then we are not murdering them, stealing from them or lying to them and so on. But all of them? No.


The New Covenant isn’t the same thing as the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is about commandments and consequences and the New Covenant is about empowerment. Consequences are not applicable.Which covenant is in effect now?


By the way, I really enjoy our discussions. It helps me see any errors in my view and helps me refine my thoughts.Same here. This is nothing personal. We're both after the truth and that's a good thing. We're helping each other learn and see things more clearly than before so that's well worth it.


At no time do I think I've got it all figured out.I don't either. I know I may come across that way because I'm very confident about what I believe regarding certain doctrines. But there are other doctrines that I feel less certain about.


On the contrary, I come here because I know I don't. If I say something foolish or in error, point it out to me. I want to learn from others who love the Lord. If I don’t seem to agree with what you present, it means nothing against you at all. It just means I don’t totally understand what you’re sharing or I simply see it differently than you at this time in my life.No problem. I look at it the same way.

keck553
Jan 21st 2011, 06:26 PM
Let me put it this way. Do you love the gospel of Christ? Does that mean you delight in the killing of Jesus? David didn’t love that the sacrifice had to take place; he loved the reconciliation it brought. That means loving the WHOLE Law. You can’t have reconciliation without the sacrifice.



I agree here. The Hebrew word David uses is Torah - the term is as indivisible as the term "the way."
A whole lot of peole will read Psalm 51 and see so much in David's heart condition, they tend to forget what comes next:

Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness,
With burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
Then they shall offer bulls on Your altar.

Blood atonement is not forsaken in Psalm 51. It's just that David knew vain sacrifices stunk in God's nostrils. God forgive me if I have cast vanity upon the blood of my Master! May it never be!

This statement is truely inspired. Thank you.

episkopos
Jan 21st 2011, 10:08 PM
1 Cor. 7:24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

I think if a man that already practices Judaism is called of God, then he should continue in that.

BUT, a nominal Jew should NOT use Christ as an excuse to become MORE jewish. That would be adding the law to grace...which is foolishness of course!

LookingUp
Jan 21st 2011, 10:21 PM
If that encompasses the law of Moses then should we be performing animal sacrifices and refraining from eating certain things and so on? We are required to follow the law of Christ, right?

That is not true. You are mistaken. Animal sacrifices are not required under the law of Christ as they were under the law of Moses. Physical circumcision is not required under the law of Christ as it was under the law of Moses. And on it goes. It says the new covenant is better than the old covenant and it replaced the old covenant (Heb 8:6-13). You don't seem to understand what that means.

It looks like this:

Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. Do you think refraining from eating pork (& all the other laws) is more of a burden than bearing one another’s burdens?


Then why are you saying the law of Moses is included in the law of Christ?

Okay, now you are saying some are and some are not, but that is not the impression you were giving earlier in your post. Earlier, you seemed to indicate that you thought the law of Christ encompassed the entire law of Moses, which is simply not the case.
No. Because He didn't say they were optional. If someone isn't loving others then they are breaking His law and are not one of His followers.If someone broke the Law of Moses, they were not within the covenant. If someone breaks the Law of Christ, they are not within the covenant. If you were a thief under the Law of Moses, you were judged and condemned. If you are a thief under the Law of Christ, you will be judged and condemned. How is there a difference here? Sounds like we’ve been taken from under one law that can curse us and put under another law that can curse us.


We are not under the law of Moses in any sense. Do we obey some of the commands in the law of Moses? Yes, because if we are loving others then we are not murdering them, stealing from them or lying to them and so on. But all of them? No.

Which covenant is in effect now?I'll tell you what I think, but I don't want to go down this road right now. I'm pre-mill. (& I know you are not), so I believe the the New Covenant is not in full swing. It's realization, for now, is more in principle than in actuality.


Same here. This is nothing personal. We're both after the truth and that's a good thing. We're helping each other learn and see things more clearly than before so that's well worth it.

I don't either. I know I may come across that way because I'm very confident about what I believe regarding certain doctrines. But there are other doctrines that I feel less certain about.

No problem. I look at it the same way.Then, we’ll keep moving forward. :)

keck553
Jan 21st 2011, 10:53 PM
Do you think refraining from eating pork (& all the other laws) is more of a burden than bearing one another’s burdens?
Do you mind if I comment?
It would be a burden for me to eat something you have to cook enough to kill the worms in it. Carrrying another's burden is a higher standard and a weigtier deed for sure.


If someone broke the Law of Moses, they were not within the covenant. If someone breaks the Law of Christ, they are not within the covenant. If you were a thief under the Law of Moses, you were judged and condemned. If you are a thief under the Law of Christ, you will be judged and condemned. How is there a difference here? Sounds like we’ve been taken from under one law that can curse us and put under another law that can curse us.

What if I was not under the Law in the first place? To become aware of sin, don't you have to be under the Law of Moses in the first place since it defines transgressions? How does someone who isn't under the Law know they've sinned? This isn't a rhetorical question. There has to be a standard somewhere - and any righteous standard would by default come from God - so how does this Gentile who was never under the Law of Moses become aware that he broke a law and needs atonement from the One Who came to atone for breaking the Law of Moses? Has anyone really thought about this or am I just nieve?

BroRog
Jan 21st 2011, 11:22 PM
Do you mind if I comment?
It would be a burden for me to eat something you have to cook enough to kill the worms in it. Carrrying another's burden is a higher standard and a weigtier deed for sure.


What if I was not under the Law in the first place? To become aware of sin, don't you have to be under the Law of Moses in the first place since it defines transgressions? How does someone who isn't under the Law know they've sinned? This isn't a rhetorical question. There has to be a standard somewhere - and any righteous standard would by default come from God - so how does this Gentile who was never under the Law of Moses become aware that he broke a law and needs atonement from the One Who came to atone for breaking the Law of Moses? Has anyone really thought about this or am I just nieve?Technically, there is a difference between evil, sin, and transgression. The Gentile is condemned without the Law, not because he sinned or transgressed, but because he is evil. One does not need a law, even a divine law, to define good and evil. Good and evil defined in terms of our morality, not our legislation.

The difference between sin and transgression is this: a transgression is a violation of the law, which applies whether the commandments are civil, or criminal. A trangression is a sin; all violations of the law are transgressions and sinful. There may be, however, other evil actions that have not been codified in a law or legistated by the government. These evil actions are sinful, even though a law has not been made against it.

Also, we tend to forget or just don't know that the term sin has at least two connotations: 1) to act immorally, or against the will of God, or 2)to act in such a way as to break the covenant of God. A person is counted as a sinner in the first sense, if they do something evil, whether that sin has a law against it or not. A person is counted as a sinner in the second sense if that evil act is intended to breach or break the covenant. Under Moses, sins and transgressions are both forgivable as God has promised mercy to those who offer the appropriate offering with a contrite heart. However, there are times when a man or a woman simply says, "I've had it with this covenant", and when this person repudiates the covenant, he or she becomes a sinner in the second sense. Gentiles, not being under the covenant at Mt. Sinai are considered "sinners" in the second sense. Consider the following passage from Galatians and notice how Paul uses the term "sinner" as he contrasts being a Jew with being a sinner.

We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! For if I rebuild what I have destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. Galatians 2:15-18

LookingUp
Jan 21st 2011, 11:29 PM
Do you mind if I comment?
It would be a burden for me to eat something you have to cook enough to kill the worms in it. Carrrying another's burden is a higher standard and a weigtier deed for sure.


What if I was not under the Law in the first place? To become aware of sin, don't you have to be under the Law of Moses in the first place since it defines transgressions? How does someone who isn't under the Law know they've sinned? This isn't a rhetorical question. There has to be a standard somewhere - and any righteous standard would by default come from God - so how does this Gentile who was never under the Law of Moses become aware that he broke a law and needs atonement from the One Who came to atone for breaking the Law of Moses? Has anyone really thought about this or am I just nieve?Hi keck553. I think this falls under Romans 2:14-16--"for when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing them or defending them...".

keck553
Jan 21st 2011, 11:50 PM
Technically, there is a difference between evil, sin, and transgression. The Gentile is condemned without the Law, not because he sinned or transgressed, but because he is evil. One does not need a law, even a divine law, to define good and evil. Good and evil defined in terms of our morality, not our legislation.

I assume you are referring to Romans. I can accept that. I do not think man can define good and evil on his own. There is no law without a lawgiver, no morality without a reference point. Since we are corrupt, we fall far short of defining morality. I believe this is where existentialism applied to evolution falls apart, but that's for another thread...........that's just my opinion and it may not be worth much.


The difference between sin and transgression is this: a transgression is a violation of the law, which applies whether the commandments are civil, or criminal. A trangression is a sin; all violations of the law are transgressions and sinful. There may be, however, other evil actions that have not been codified in a law or legistated by the government. These evil actions are sinful, even though a law has not been made against it.

I'm sorry, I've totally lost you here....In hebrew there are three types of transgressions - basically a transgression that is unavoidable or ignorance and the transgressor discovers it, then makes atonement, a transgression that the person is concious of, but they 'lost control.' The third is flat out rebellion, for which there is no atonement in the Law for an individual; but apparently there is in Jesus?? I think there is s hebrew term for each of these....chatah, avone and I can't remember the word for rebellion.

Also, we tend to forget or just don't know that the term sin has at least two connotations: 1) to act immorally, or against the will of God, or 2)to act in such a way as to break the covenant of God. A person is counted as a sinner in the first sense, if they do something evil, whether that sin has a law against it or not. A person is counted as a sinner in the second sense if that evil act is intended to breach or break the covenant. Under Moses, sins and transgressions are both forgivable as God has promised mercy to those who offer the appropriate offering with a contrite heart. However, there are times when a man or a woman simply says, "I've had it with this covenant", and when this person repudiates the covenant, he or she becomes a sinner in the second sense. Gentiles, not being under the covenant at Mt. Sinai are considered "sinners" in the second sense. Consider the following passage from Galatians and notice how Paul uses the term "sinner" as he contrasts being a Jew with being a sinner.

Ok...I'll accept that for now. I don't want to get too metaphysical and derail the thread.

keck553
Jan 21st 2011, 11:51 PM
Hi keck553. I think this falls under Romans 2:14-16--"for when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing them or defending them...".

But even these morals are written by the finger of God, aren't they? Are these the ones that people seem to refer to as "Noah laws?"

BroRog
Jan 22nd 2011, 12:38 AM
I assume you are referring to Romans. I can accept that. I do not think man can define good and evil on his own. There is no law without a lawgiver, no morality without a reference point. Since we are corrupt, we fall far short of defining morality. I believe this is where existentialism applied to evolution falls apart, but that's for another thread...........that's just my opinion and it may not be worth much.I think Adam and Eve's experience with the "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil" demonstrates that mankind is capable of knowing right and wrong. We just choose to do wrong sometimes.


I'm sorry, I've totally lost you here....In hebrew there are three types of transgressions - basically a transgression that is unavoidable or ignorance and the transgressor discovers it, then makes atonement, a transgression that the person is concious of, but they 'lost control.' The third is flat out rebellion, for which there is no atonement in the Law for an individual; but apparently there is in Jesus?? I think there is s hebrew term for each of these....chatah, avone and I can't remember the word for rebellion. Yes, I think it was Fenris who pointed these out to me once. And I hope he forgives me for not remembering the exact word for each category.

dagar
Jan 22nd 2011, 01:24 AM
The Gentile is condemned without the Law, not because he sinned or transgressed, but because he is evil. One does not need a law, even a divine law, to define good and evil.This is so completely contrary to Scripture I have to ask what scriptures you based this on?

BroRog
Jan 22nd 2011, 01:48 AM
This is so completely contrary to Scripture I have to ask what scriptures you based this on?The Bible.

I said, "Gentile is condemned without the Law . . ."

This comes from Romans 2,


For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

I said, "One does not need a law, even a divine law, to define good and evil."

This comes from Romans 5,


Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

The point here is that even though mankind prior to Moses didn't have God's law, mankind was under condemnation from God. Just because a sin can't be imputed, it doesn't mean that sin was absent.

GodIsGreat2me
Jan 22nd 2011, 01:56 AM
Should Jews who come to faith in Jesus remain Jewish in their practice? Why or why not? Scripture only please.

The Lord told me,

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.

dagar
Jan 22nd 2011, 03:02 AM
The Bible.

I said, "Gentile is condemned without the Law . . ."

This comes from Romans 2,Well, that's the written law. You did not finish.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Gentile does not have the written law but has The Law. All men do. God does not judge by the written law but by Law written in their heart. What matters.

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Which all men have
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I said, "One does not need a law, even a divine law, to define good and evil."

This comes from Romans 5,



The point here is that even though mankind prior to Moses didn't have God's law, mankind was under condemnation from God. Just because a sin can't be imputed, it doesn't mean that sin was absent.Well, you are not understanding the passage and book. It says the opposite of what you think. It says they sinned and died because there was Law. It wasn't physically written but written in their heart. Which is what matters.

Most agree.
Rom 5:13-14
For until the law sin was in the world — that is during all the period from Adam “until the law” of Moses was given, God continued to treat men as sinners.
but sin is not imputed where there is no law — “There must therefore have been a law during that period, because sin was then imputed”; as is now to be shown.Some call it the natural law or law of conscience. Whatever one calls it, all have The Law, and sin when they violate it. Without law, there is no sin (Rom 7:7-8). That's basic Bible doctrine. No one is or could be condemned otherwise. Psalms and Romans makes that clear.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Rom 3:5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
Rom 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

Psa 51:3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
Psa 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
Thank you for replying with scripture.

John146
Jan 24th 2011, 06:23 PM
I'll tell you what I think, but I don't want to go down this road right now. I'm pre-mill. (& I know you are not), so I believe the the New Covenant is not in full swing. It's realization, for now, is more in principle than in actuality.Can you tell me your understanding of what exactly the New Covenant is and what exactly you mean when you say it's "not in full swing"?

keck553
Jan 24th 2011, 06:36 PM
Can you tell me your understanding of what exactly the New Covenant is and what exactly you mean when you say it's "not in full swing"?

Maybe he meant the NC hasn't been completely fulfilled, but partially. After all in Joel it is written God's Spirit would be poured out to ALL mankind, God through Jeremiah says He will make hearts of stone to flesh. This has been partially fulfilled, but as we know, not all mankind has the indwelt Spirit of God, nor hearts of flesh. When that fullness comes, I don't think it will necessarily change anything for those who are submitted to Christ and already have accepted these gifts, but it will change the world radically.

I am only throwing this out there as a possibility.

John146
Jan 24th 2011, 07:08 PM
Maybe he meant the NC hasn't been completely fulfilled, but partially.Let's allow her to answer for herself, okay? ;)


After all in Joel it is written God's Spirit would be poured out to ALL mankind, God through Jeremiah says He will make hearts of stone to flesh. This has been partially fulfilled, but as we know, not all mankind has the indwelt Spirit of God, nor hearts of flesh. When that fullness comes, I don't think it will necessarily change anything for those who are submitted to Christ and already have accepted these gifts, but it will change the world radically.

I am only throwing this out there as a possibility.She spoke of it in terms of it being "in full swing". I believe it was in full swing long ago because it was put in full effect by the blood of Christ that He shed on the cross. It was His blood that put the New Covenant "in full swing", not anything that would happen in the future.

keck553
Jan 24th 2011, 08:04 PM
She spoke of it in terms of it being "in full swing". I believe it was in full swing long ago because it was put in full effect by the blood of Christ that He shed on the cross. It was His blood that put the New Covenant "in full swing", not anything that would happen in the future.

I agree it's in full effect. But not with "all flesh" as the prophets described. To me "all flesh" means exactly what it says.

LookingUp
Jan 24th 2011, 10:37 PM
Can you tell me your understanding of what exactly the New Covenant is and what exactly you mean when you say it's "not in full swing"?So, the only part of my post you respond to is the part I said I didn't want to get into? What about the other questions I asked you?

LookingUp
Jan 24th 2011, 10:41 PM
But even these morals are written by the finger of God, aren't they? Are these the ones that people seem to refer to as "Noah laws?"No, I don't think Rom. 2 is referring to the laws given to Noah. I think this relates to the conscience we're born with -- "their conscience bearing witness" (Rom. 2:15).

LookingUp
Jan 24th 2011, 10:58 PM
Maybe he meant the NC hasn't been completely fulfilled, but partially. After all in Joel it is written God's Spirit would be poured out to ALL mankind, God through Jeremiah says He will make hearts of stone to flesh. This has been partially fulfilled, but as we know, not all mankind has the indwelt Spirit of God, nor hearts of flesh. When that fullness comes, I don't think it will necessarily change anything for those who are submitted to Christ and already have accepted these gifts, but it will change the world radically.

I am only throwing this out there as a possibility.I agree that the outpouring of the Spirit was very limited in scope at Pentecost. The prophecy indicates that the outpouring would take place on a much grander scale. I don't agree, however, that it won't look different than it does today. We don't look any different from the flawed Israelites trying to obey the Law of Moses. Yet the prophets reveal that the New Covenant will empower the recipients so that they will not break covenant like they did with the old covenant ((Jer. 31:32). God will cause them to walk in His statutes (Ez. 36:27). I don’t know about you guys, but that does not describe me.

LookingUp
Jan 24th 2011, 11:28 PM
Let's allow her to answer for herself, okay? ;)It's Ok, Eric, I don't mind being called "he"--I just don't like it when people call me "it" :lol:


She spoke of it in terms of it being "in full swing". I believe it was in full swing long ago because it was put in full effect by the blood of Christ that He shed on the cross. It was His blood that put the New Covenant "in full swing", not anything that would happen in the future.Yes, it's His blood that makes the New Covenant possible, but how is it effective without repentance? It is my belief that it was God's intention to turn every one of the sons of the prophets from their wicked ways (Acts 3:25-26). Had the nation repented en masse, they would have seen the full realization of the outpouring of the Spirit and the New Covenant would have gone into full effect. Shortly after this, Jesus would have returned (Acts 3:19-21). Peter’s words echo the words of Isaiah, “A Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” declares the LORD. “As for Me, this is My covenant with them,” says the LORD: "My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring’s offspring,” says the LORD, “from now and forever” (Isa. 59:20-21). This was the promise—the promise of the outpouring of the Sprit and of realization of the New Covenant—that their lack of repentance suspended. It is suspended until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

LookingUp
Jan 25th 2011, 12:09 AM
Can you tell me your understanding of what exactly the New Covenant is and what exactly you mean when you say it's "not in full swing"?Oh alright, but I’m just doing this because I happen to like you.

What is the New Covenant? I see the New Covenant as a change in method; not in standards. Isaiah says that Torah will go forth from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:1-5). Jeremiah says that God will write His Torah on their hearts (Jer. 31). These commandments that go forth from Jerusalem and that are written on hearts are the same commandments they failed to observe under the original covenant. So, it’s not that the commandments will be new; it’s that the people will follow the law from the inside out rather than from the outside in. Again, it’s the method (the empowerment) that changes; not the content. However, I do think the Law that is written on hearts is most likely the Law of Christ, which is the Law of Moses brought forth in its fullness (Mt. 5:17). And I do believe that this is all accomplished through a change in the law, which is in the priesthood. And I do believe that the New Covenant is established through Christ’s blood.

So, this brings us to the next question. What do I mean when I say the New Covenant is not in full swing? I determine this simply by looking at what the New Covenant is intended to do and comparing that to reality. As we can see, there are many things that were prophesied regarding the New Covenant that haven’t taken place yet. Nation is still lifting up sword against nation (Isa. 2:4), so we know that hasn’t happened yet. People are still teaching their neighbors how to know the Lord (Jer. 31:34), so we know that hasn’t happened yet. His words continue to depart from the mouth of our offspring (Isa. 59:21), so we know that hasn’t happened yet. The New Covenant is most definitely not “in full swing” yet. I believe that Pentecost was a foretaste of the New Covenant. We see that the scope is very limited. It is my belief that if Israel had repented en masse at that time, the outpouring of the Spirit would have grown into the full realization of the New Covenant promise. Now, we must await the broader outpouring in the eschaton, after the fullness of Gentiles comes in.

John146
Jan 25th 2011, 03:43 PM
Yes, it's His blood that makes the New Covenant possible, but how is it effective without repentance?Being effective and being in effect are different things. To be in effect means it's the covenant that we are now under. The one that is now active, if you will. The first covenant was made obsolete. That's why it's called the old covenant. It was replaced by a better covenant as is described in Hebrews 8-10. From God's perspective, the covenant is completely effective because it accomplished what was necessary to make eternal life and the permanent atonement of sins available to all people. It's effectiveness should not be judged based on how many people put their faith in Christ. He said "It is finished" because He finished all the work necessary to put the new covenant into effect.


It is my belief that it was God's intention to turn every one of the sons of the prophets from their wicked ways (Acts 3:25-26).And He did what was necessary to do that, but every person has to choose whether or not to repent and put their faith in Christ. Whether they do or not does not determine whether or not the new covenant is in effect.


Had the nation repented en masse, they would have seen the full realization of the outpouring of the Spirit and the New Covenant would have gone into full effect.I completely disagree with your understanding of what was necessary to put the new covenant into full effect.


Shortly after this, Jesus would have returned (Acts 3:19-21).I don't know how you get that from that passage. Seems like quite a stretch, IMO.


Peter’s words echo the words of Isaiah, “A Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” declares the LORD. “As for Me, this is My covenant with them,” says the LORD: "My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring’s offspring,” says the LORD, “from now and forever” (Isa. 59:20-21). This was the promise—the promise of the outpouring of the Sprit and of realization of the New Covenant—that their lack of repentance suspended.The outpouring of the Holy Spirit occurred on the day of Pentecost. Just read Acts 2. I am absolutely baffled as to how you can think that has been suspended. The fulfillment of that did not depend on how many of them repented.


It is suspended until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.No, it is not. Many Jews and Gentiles have been saved under the new covenant over the last 2,000 years or so. It is not suspended at all.

John146
Jan 25th 2011, 03:55 PM
Oh alright, but I’m just doing this because I happen to like you.Well, I appreciate that. It does relate to this thread so I think it's worth discussing even if we disagree.


What is the New Covenant? I see the New Covenant as a change in method; not in standards. Isaiah says that Torah will go forth from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:1-5). Jeremiah says that God will write His Torah on their hearts (Jer. 31). These commandments that go forth from Jerusalem and that are written on hearts are the same commandments they failed to observe under the original covenant. So, it’s not that the commandments will be new; it’s that the people will follow the law from the inside out rather than from the outside in.Why would they be required to follow the old covenant when it was made obsolete long ago?


Again, it’s the method (the empowerment) that changes; not the content. However, I do think the Law that is written on hearts is most likely the Law of Christ, which is the Law of Moses brought forth in its fullness (Mt. 5:17). And I do believe that this is all accomplished through a change in the law, which is in the priesthood. And I do believe that the New Covenant is established through Christ’s blood.He shed His blood long ago. With that being the case why would you not believe it was fully in effect at that point?


So, this brings us to the next question. What do I mean when I say the New Covenant is not in full swing? I determine this simply by looking at what the New Covenant is intended to do and comparing that to reality. As we can see, there are many things that were prophesied regarding the New Covenant that haven’t taken place yet. Nation is still lifting up sword against nation (Isa. 2:4), so we know that hasn’t happened yet. People are still teaching their neighbors how to know the Lord (Jer. 31:34), so we know that hasn’t happened yet. His words continue to depart from the mouth of our offspring (Isa. 59:21), so we know that hasn’t happened yet. The New Covenant is most definitely not “in full swing” yet.I believe it most definitely is in full swing and I believe you don't understand what the new covenant is. The new covenant was the means by which God made eternal life and the permanent atonement of sins available to mankind. If you read Hebrews 8-10 you should see that the new covenant replaced the old covenant long ago. What basis is there for thinking the new covenant is only partially in effect? I think that is an insult to Christs work on the cross. What do you think He meant when He said "It is finished"? What do you think He finished?


I believe that Pentecost was a foretaste of the New Covenant. We see that the scope is very limited.What do you mean by that? I don't see where it says the Holy Spirit had to be poured out throughout the world for the new covenant to be in effect.


It is my belief that if Israel had repented en masse at that time, the outpouring of the Spirit would have grown into the full realization of the New Covenant promise. Now, we must await the broader outpouring in the eschaton, after the fullness of Gentiles comes in.Is your basis for saying that it can't happen until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in because of reading Romans 11:26 as if it says "And then..." instead of "And so...."? Romans 11:25 & 26 are not meant to be read chronlogically. In Romans 11:26-27 Paul is referring to the prophecy from Isaiah 59:20-21 and indicating the manner in which "all Israel" would be saved and he is not saying that the entire nation of Israel would be saved after the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. Which Israel is the one of which all of its members are saved? What is your understanding of the following passage:

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

John146
Jan 25th 2011, 03:57 PM
So, the only part of my post you respond to is the part I said I didn't want to get into? What about the other questions I asked you?The first question you asked in that post didn't relate directly to what I had said. I didn't understand your point in the rest of your questions and comments, so that's why I didn't respond to those other questions and comments.

keck553
Jan 25th 2011, 05:56 PM
I agree that the outpouring of the Spirit was very limited in scope at Pentecost. The prophecy indicates that the outpouring would take place on a much grander scale. I don't agree, however, that it won't look different than it does today. We don't look any different from the flawed Israelites trying to obey the Law of Moses. Yet the prophets reveal that the New Covenant will empower the recipients so that they will not break covenant like they did with the old covenant ((Jer. 31:32). God will cause them to walk in His statutes (Ez. 36:27). I don’t know about you guys, but that does not describe me.

I think your perception is valid. This "partial" fulfillment does not negate the struggle against the flesh, a struggle that has brought manifestation to evil, the "shadow of death" if you will. Since that first day of Pentacost, history has shown anti-Semitism to the point of rebellion against whole portions of God's Holy Word, biggotry, inquisitions, forced conversions, crusades, religious overlords who assert their grasp on the keys to salvation, and even more - all done in the name of God, surely these abomonations are not a pleasing aroma, but a foul stench wrought by good or ill intentions prompled by the very pit of hell.

But then again, there has always remained a remenant of loving, generous believers, who have become true living sacrifices for the LORD. Those who traded a comfortable life of religion for reform, to publish God's Word for the masses, who defied the haters and changed the world so that the grace and truth of who God really is could go forth in the midst of chaos and vanity.

Blessed are we who live in this county, even in the midst of what I would characterize as "persecution light," for at least we don't have to dodge bullets and bombs on Sunday morning in their congregations. God has given us a unique opportunity, and many, many of His have seized that opportunity, and may God bless those who mourn for righteousness sake. Who love.

Without the fullness of love, we are not worthy to obey God's Law. Without love, we're just beating our heads against a wall of rules and regulations. May our words and actions reflect the Holy One, who set the standard, who lives in us so that perhaps we could grasp a bit of the Artists' brush.

When all sheep are gathered and separated from the goats, then perhaps this shadow of evil will cease it's cast.
May the day of the LORD come soon, that all flesh can be transformed so that this struggle can finally come to a rest. Until then, may God keep His humble servent wrapped in repentance and love.

LookingUp
Jan 25th 2011, 06:23 PM
The first question you asked in that post didn't relate directly to what I had said. I didn't understand your point in the rest of your questions and comments, so that's why I didn't respond to those other questions and comments.I answered your question regarding my understanding of the New Covenant and what it is meant to do. Like I said, I don't want to go down this road right now, so I’m not going to respond to your questions. I will offer a couple more things that may help you understand where I’m coming from. I believe the New Covenant is active to the extent that all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. I believe the New Covenant will be active for national Israel when they repent, and at that time they will receive forgiveness. I believe Jesus took care of two things on the cross: 1) the penalty for not following the Law of Moses (i.e. specific curses applying to the nation of Israel alone), and 2) the penalty for man’s sin (i.e. death applying to all men).

John146
Jan 25th 2011, 09:28 PM
I answered your question regarding my understanding of the New Covenant and what it is meant to do. Like I said, I don't want to go down this road right now, so I’m not going to respond to your questions. I will offer a couple more things that may help you understand where I’m coming from. I believe the New Covenant is active to the extent that all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. I believe the New Covenant will be active for national Israel when they repent, and at that time they will receive forgiveness. I believe Jesus took care of two things on the cross: 1) the penalty for not following the Law of Moses (i.e. specific curses applying to the nation of Israel alone), and 2) the penalty for man’s sin (i.e. death applying to all men).You don't have to respond to what I'm about to say, but I just wanted to point out that the forgiveness of sins and salvation are individual issues, not national. The new covenant is in full swing in that it promises eternal life and the forgiveness of sins to any individual who repents and puts their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. That is what the new covenant is all about. This goes for Jews and Gentiles alike and has been the case for almost 2,000 years now. God is not a respecter of persons. He does not desire the salvation of the people of Israel over the people of any other nation.

LookingUp
Jan 27th 2011, 04:35 AM
You don't have to respond to what I'm about to say, but I just wanted to point out that the forgiveness of sins and salvation are individual issues, not national.I agree that the forgiveness of sins relating to eternal salvation are individual issues. That’s why I said that one of the things Jesus took care of on the cross was the penalty for man’s sin, which is death.


The new covenant is in full swing in that it promises eternal life and the forgiveness of sins to any individual who repents and puts their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. That is what the new covenant is all about. This goes for Jews and Gentiles alike and has been the case for almost 2,000 years now. God is not a respecter of persons. He does not desire the salvation of the people of Israel over the people of any other nation.The other thing that Jesus took care of on the cross was the penalty for not following the Law of Moses (you & I were not under this Law, right, so why would we “need” Jesus for this?). This penalty was not eternal death. This was specific curses that applied to the nation of Israel that related to the withholding of physical blessings and exile from the land.

I do understand how you interpret Romans 11:25-26 and I did give it some thought at one time, but I ended up unconvinced. I will share that part of the reason I rejected that interpretation was based on what I consider the miracle of the existing nation of Israel.

Maybe you could respond to my threads called “What is the redemption of Israel?” and “Why does Israel need to be forgiven?” so we can explore it further using a bit of a different path?

MoreMercy
Jan 29th 2011, 06:58 PM
Believing Jews are commonly called Messianic Jews, Jesus Christ's 11 earliest disciples are/were all Messianic Jews, Jews who believed in and were obedient to Christ Jesus.
As was Judas also, but I don't count him as a disciple of Christ.
As were all of our earliest Church also Jews, but titled Messianic Jews or Nazarenes because they recognized Christ and acknowledged, followed/discipled them selves to and confessed/agreed that Christ Jesus was who He claims to be.


Father bless.

Yeshurun
Mar 2nd 2011, 10:51 AM
Who is Jewish? More correctly, who is an Israelite?: Those who believe in, accept as their God and follow YHWH our Father. All who believe this are Israelites as is written all throughout the Law that anyone who wishes to be considered an Israelite is to be. Jesus was an Israelite and so were the 12 disciples and so, remained "Jewish" as we would call it today. All "Christians" are "Jewish" if they really follow God. So yes all "Jews" and all "Christians" should follow the Law as Jesus did, or, as you put it, remain Jewish (that is true Judaism - that includes Jesus as the Messiah, the Ten Commandments, Saturday Sabbath and the whole Law given to Moses)

RabbiKnife
Mar 2nd 2011, 02:57 PM
Should believing Gentiles remain Gentile?

episkopos
Mar 2nd 2011, 04:05 PM
Should believing Gentiles remain Gentile?

Good point! :)

There is a oneness in Christ. We show our proximity to Him by the oneness we exhibit in Him.

BroRog
Mar 2nd 2011, 05:37 PM
Who is Jewish? More correctly, who is an Israelite?: Those who believe in, accept as their God and follow YHWH our Father. All who believe this are Israelites as is written all throughout the Law that anyone who wishes to be considered an Israelite is to be. Jesus was an Israelite and so were the 12 disciples and so, remained "Jewish" as we would call it today. All "Christians" are "Jewish" if they really follow God. So yes all "Jews" and all "Christians" should follow the Law as Jesus did, or, as you put it, remain Jewish (that is true Judaism - that includes Jesus as the Messiah, the Ten Commandments, Saturday Sabbath and the whole Law given to Moses)Do you have any particular scriptures to back this up?

episkopos
Mar 2nd 2011, 06:20 PM
Who is Jewish? More correctly, who is an Israelite?: Those who believe in, accept as their God and follow YHWH our Father. All who believe this are Israelites as is written all throughout the Law that anyone who wishes to be considered an Israelite is to be. Jesus was an Israelite and so were the 12 disciples and so, remained "Jewish" as we would call it today. All "Christians" are "Jewish" if they really follow God. So yes all "Jews" and all "Christians" should follow the Law as Jesus did, or, as you put it, remain Jewish (that is true Judaism - that includes Jesus as the Messiah, the Ten Commandments, Saturday Sabbath and the whole Law given to Moses)

Asking a Christian to observe a certain day for worship is like asking an athlete if he's getting any exercise! ;)

A Christian is to observe every day unto the Lord.