PDA

View Full Version : Sinai Covenant & its Mosaic Law: Abolished or Renewed?



LookingUp
Dec 28th 2012, 11:56 PM
The Mosaic Law, also known as “the Law” or Torah, was given to Israel through Moses. The Torah is the set of instructions of the Sinai Covenant (“Old Covenant”) that God commanded of Israel with the understanding that if one was not careful to observe all the words of this law, then that one would be cursed and his name blotted out from under heaven (Deut. 28:58; 29:20). Some Christians believe that the Sinai Covenant with its set of instructions (the Mosaic Law) has been abolished. But I think it’s inaccurate to say it’s been abolished; I believe Scripture teaches it’s been renewed by removing the curses contained within the Law and empowering those with faith to walk in His statues by the Spirit.

It is written that this SAME Law “will go forth from Zion” (Isaiah 2:3) during the messianic reign. When Isaiah wrote the word “Torah” to describe that which would go forth from Zion, he was talking about the same Mosaic Law that some Christians think is entirely abolished.

God Himself said of the Law/Torah, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it” (Jer. 31:33). This is the new covenant God makes with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:8; 9:15; 12:24). This is the same new covenant in which Gentiles are invited to partake (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Eph. 2:12, 19; Acts 15:8-9, cf. Acts 2:38-39). The new covenant is not a change in content but a change in empowerment. With the new covenant, God will write His commandments on Israel’s hearts instead of imposing them from outside, as we see with the Sinai Covenant. But it’s the very same Law/commands.

Although there are commands common to all, I am no more saying that Gentiles should follow the Mosaic Commands given for Jews than I am saying that men should follow the commands given for women. I’m just saying that God’s Holy Law will be written on the hearts of Israel, will go forth from Zion, and all are invited to partake in this new covenant God made with Israel.

And, of course, the curse of the Sinai Covenant (Deut. 28:58; 29:20) is no more because Christ redeemed Israel from the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13) in order that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we all would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (Gal. 3:14). The “promise of the Spirit through faith” is the element of the new covenant that makes dying no longer an issue in the established messianic kingdom. What the Tree of Life once gave (i.e. immortality), the Spirit does (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45). Where Adam failed, we won’t because His Law will be written on our hearts and we will walk in His statutes by the Spirit. Only one problem, we’ve sinned and the wages of sin is death, which is, of course, permanent. But Christ also dealt with the power of death (Heb. 2:14-15) and in Christ our sins are forgiven and death will not be able to hold us in its grip. Because of Christ, death will not hold us, we will be raised, and we will be given the Spirit of Life (i.e. immortality), which is the life-giving element of the new covenant in Christ’s blood, and we will be empowered to walk in His statutes.

So, are we to believe that the Law that is written on the hearts of Israel that goes forth from Zion is completely abolished? Yet, one New Testament author does confirm that with the coming of the new covenant, something does, indeed, “pass away” (Heb. 8:13). So, what passes away? The Mosaic Law that, according to Paul, is holy, righteous and good (Romans 7:12)? The Law that, through faith, is established (Romans 3:31)?

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until ALL is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18). Jesus says here that he came to fulfill “the Law and the Prophets.” There is still a messianic reign in “the Law and the Prophets” that Jesus has yet to fulfill. Again, it is during this reign that God writes His Torah/Law on the hearts of His people.

So, then, what was “growing old” and “ready to disappear” in Heb. 8:13? The things Jesus himself replaced in order to renew/revamp the Sinai Covenant. Jesus became the new High Priest and sacrifice (Heb. 9:11-12). Shortly after this was written the temple was destroyed and the system involving a Levitical High Priest and animal sacrifices came to an end. But this signified a renewal of the Sinai Covenant, not an utter end to it.

Did the Sinai Covenant pass away (Heb. 8:13)? Yes and no. Does a caterpillar pass away in order to become a butterfly? So, then, the Sinai Covenant did “pass away” when Jesus became the new High Priest and sacrifice, but we see that the death of old things is necessary to bring them to new life. The Sinai Covenant has “passed away” and is revamped and made new in a similar way that we have “passed away” and are revamped and made new (2 Cor. 5:17) and in a similar way the earth will be revamped and made new (Isaiah 65:17; Rev. 21:1). The Sinai Covenant has become the New Covenant in Christ’s blood (1 Cor. 11:25). The “old man” (Rom. 6:6) has become the New Creature in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). He is making all things new (Rev. 21:5).

jesse
Dec 29th 2012, 10:10 AM
There are overwhelming similarities between the age of law and the age of Grace. Consider that Israel was saved out of Egypt by blood and by power. Then given the law. Then given sacrifice as an admission of sin. Similarly we are saved by Christs blood and power. Given commandments. And told to remain in the light by admission of sin. Very similar program. (There is much more to each program but I am just making a point)

Kahtar
Dec 29th 2012, 03:12 PM
I agree with about 99% of what you wrote there LookingUp. The 1% is the difference you put between Jew and Gentile. Paul tells us that in Christ, there is no more Jew or Gentile, male or female. All are one. He also tells us that we, who were once Gentiles, are no longer, because we have been grafted into the commonwealth of Israel. Thus, we are Israel, and what applies to Israel then applies to us.
Very good article. You'll get alot of heat from it of course.;)

Walls
Dec 29th 2012, 05:59 PM
I agree with 95 % of what you have written. I only differ in the following;

Galatians 3:13 does not say that Christ saved Israel from the curses of the Law. It says that He saved "us" (the Churches in Galatia) from this curse. Thus, there is no evidence that the New Covenant will not contain curses. What is does contain is that the ability to keep the Law will be guaranteed by it being written on the heart and not on tables of stone. The threat remains but is never called into play.
All indication, especially from Ezekiel, show that even the Levitical Priesthood and Sacrifices are exactly the same as the Siniatic Covenant. It is not the Law that changes, but the Covenant. The commandments and ordnances are the same. It is only a "New" Covenant (in that day).

There is a reason why the Law was given to Israel. It was because God dwelt "among them." The morality, washings, diet and ordnances concerning the service of the Temple where to ensure a physically clean nation WHERE GOD DWELT. In the Church, God does not dwell "among" the Christians. He dwells "IN" them. The flesh of a Christian is not cleansed by Christ's sacrifice. It is counted as killed with Christ on the cross (Rom.6:1-8, Gal.2:20). That is why the "Jewishness" of a Jewish convert is annulled in the Church. He has become a new man subject to the New Testament way of things.

LookingUp
Dec 29th 2012, 06:13 PM
There are overwhelming similarities between the age of law and the age of Grace. Consider that Israel was saved out of Egypt by blood and by power. Then given the law. Then given sacrifice as an admission of sin. Similarly we are saved by Christs blood and power. Given commandments. And told to remain in the light by admission of sin. Very similar program. (There is much more to each program but I am just making a point)Thanks for the post, jesse. There certainly are overwhelming similarities between the Sinai Covenant made with Israel, in which Gentiles had to become proselytes to enter into, and the New Covenant made with Israel, in which Gentiles enter through faith alone. I also agree there's much more to each covenant. For example, I believe Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 (anger, lust, divorce, vows, retaliation, etc.) was an introduction of what's expected of those who enter into the new covenant with God. He wasn’t abrogating the law; he’s teaching an even higher standard than what the law permits or demands. For example, the “eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth” was a MAXIMUM for vengeance to prevent the sort of revenge cycle that characterizes near eastern societies. You cannot go beyond recompense for the injury you’ve suffered; that’s the limit of your rights as the injured party. Jesus moves his disciples BEYOND the limitation of their rights by exhorting them not to avail themselves to even the recompense which is rightfully theirs. The Law/Torah gives you right to “such-and-such” and nothing more; but by the grace of God, go beyond focusing on what you have the right to and extend mercy and grace to those who hurt you. By the way, the “eye for eye, and tooth for tooth” was not understood as literal by the ancients but an equivalent monetary retribution (except in the case of life). And the teaching of living out the spirit of the law continues: it’s not enough to obey the letter of the law by not committing adultery or murder; you must go beyond the letter and embrace the spirit of the law by being faithful to your wife and kind to your fellow man in your heart. It’s not enough to obey the letter of the law by fulfilling your oaths; you must go beyond the letter and embrace the spirit of the law by being so transparently honest that no one would require an oath of you. Jesus is digging more deeply into the Law/Torah to bring forth its heartfelt intent and we are all called to live Torah at that level. Grace elevates us to a higher standard.

LookingUp
Dec 29th 2012, 07:04 PM
I agree with about 99% of what you wrote there LookingUp. The 1% is the difference you put between Jew and Gentile. Paul tells us that in Christ, there is no more Jew or Gentile, male or female. All are one. He also tells us that we, who were once Gentiles, are no longer, because we have been grafted into the commonwealth of Israel. Thus, we are Israel, and what applies to Israel then applies to us.
Very good article. You'll get alot of heat from it of course.;)Thanks for your input, Kahtar. The difference I continue to see between Jew and Gentile is no greater than the difference I continue to see between males and females. For example, if you’re a male, I’m assuming you still consider yourself male? When Christ says that there is no more Jew or Gentile, male or female, he doesn’t mean we lose our nationality or our gender, for we see that the beauty of the Body of Christ is that it is made up of a plethora of nationalities (and genders): “…for you were slain and purchased for God with your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). “…a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne…” (Rev. 7:9). If everyone lost their nationality or if God thought nationality insignificant for those in Christ, I don’t think John would have recognized the various tribes, peoples, tongues, etc.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ” Gal. 3:28). The preceding verses give us insight into what Paul’s talking about here:

“For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. …so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. ..so that we may be justified by faith. …For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:18-27).

All Paul is saying is that we all come to God on the same ground, and that ground is through faith in Christ Jesus. In other words, we’re all saved the same way. “And God who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them cleansing their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:8-9).

The preceding and following chapters, too, give insight into what Paul is saying. The believers in Galatia were being swayed by some Jews to believe that circumcision (adherence to the Law) was required in order to be accepted by God. Paul explains that it is through faith in Christ that one is accepted by God and ALL come to Him that very same way.

Noeb
Dec 29th 2012, 07:17 PM
LookingUp, how would you describe what "law written on our heart" means? How do you think that happens? Thanks!

LookingUp
Dec 29th 2012, 08:39 PM
I agree with 95 % of what you have written. I only differ in the following;
1. Galatians 3:13 does not say that Christ saved Israel from the curses of the Law. It says that He saved "us" (the Churches in Galatia) from this curse.I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. Israelites who enter into the new covenant with God through faith in Jesus are no longer subject to the curses of the Law in the Sinai Covenant. They will not be cursed and their name will not be blotted out from under heaven (Deut. 28:58; 29:20).


Thus, there is no evidence that the New Covenant will not contain curses.I’ve never seen any Scripture saying there are curses associated with the new covenant.


What is does contain is that the ability to keep the Law will be guaranteed by it being written on the heart and not on tables of stone. The threat remains but is never called into play.I agree with the first sentence, but I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the second. What threat remains?


All indication, especially from Ezekiel, show that even the Levitical Priesthood and Sacrifices are exactly the same as the Siniatic Covenant. It is not the Law that changes, but the Covenant. The commandments and ordnances are the same. It is only a "New" Covenant (in that day).Just because Ezekiel shows the Levitical priesthood intact doesn’t mean there are animal sacrifices for sin. “By this we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but he, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God…for by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified…Now where there is forgiveness of these things there is no longer any offering for sin” (Heb. 10:11-18).

I wouldn’t say there is a change in the content of the Law, but because one sacrifice for sins for all time has been offered and empowerment is given to walk in His statutes by the Spirit, any activities required in the Law that relates to the weakness of the flesh is enacted in conformity with the New Covenant rather than in conformity with the Sinai Covenant (i.e. offering time after time the same sacrifices which can never take away sins).


There is a reason why the Law was given to Israel. It was because God dwelt "among them." The morality, washings, diet and ordnances concerning the service of the Temple where to ensure a physically clean nation WHERE GOD DWELT. In the Church, God does not dwell "among" the Christians. He dwells "IN" them. The flesh of a Christian is not cleansed by Christ's sacrifice. It is counted as killed with Christ on the cross (Rom.6:1-8, Gal.2:20).And yet we see the Jerusalem Jews continuing to participate in some of these things. Jesus continued to live according to the letter of the Law while always putting the Spirit of the Law in the forefront. If the letter of the Law says, “wash,” then wash, just so long as the Spirit of the Law is not neglected. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice, and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others” (Matthew 23:23).


That is why the "Jewishness" of a Jewish convert is annulled in the Church. He has become a new man subject to the New Testament way of things.Being called to live out the Spirit of the Law does not “annul Jewishness,” if anything, it establishes it (cf. Rom. 2:29).

LookingUp
Dec 29th 2012, 09:34 PM
LookingUp, how would you describe what "law written on our heart" means? How do you think that happens? Thanks!I think the new covenant’s “law written on hearts” works hand in hand with the empowerment given by the Spirit to walk in His statutes. In brief, the law is not only written on hearts but empowerment is given to walk in that law. Specifically, it’s the Mosaic Law, but given the empowerment of the Spirit with the coming of God’s grace in Christ, it not only elevates man to a particular standard of living (one purpose of the letter of the Law) but it elevates man to an even higher standard: to live out the Spirit of the Law as described in the Matthew 5 teaching on anger, lust, divorce, retaliation, etc. Now, although I believe as Christ’s disciples we are called to live out that higher standard now, I don’t believe the full implementation of the new covenant has emerged. We certainly aren’t experiencing the level of spiritual manifestation described in Jeremiah. We do see in early Acts a short-term manifestation of the Spirit and I think this foreshadows the broader outpouring in the eschaton. This doesn’t mean that anyone should, then, limit themselves to the letter of the Law, because Paul does say that because the Law cannot condemn us (because of God’s grace in Christ), we are to serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter (Rom. 7:6). Until the broader outpouring occurs, we walk according to the Spirit, rather than the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us (Rom. 8:4).

Noeb
Dec 30th 2012, 06:35 AM
I think the new covenant’s “law written on hearts” works hand in hand with the empowerment given by the Spirit to walk in His statutes. In brief, the law is not only written on hearts but empowerment is given to walk in that law. Specifically, it’s the Mosaic Law, but given the empowerment of the Spirit with the coming of God’s grace in Christ, it not only elevates man to a particular standard of living (one purpose of the letter of the Law) but it elevates man to an even higher standard: to live out the Spirit of the Law as described in the Matthew 5 teaching on anger, lust, divorce, retaliation, etc. Now, although I believe as Christ’s disciples we are called to live out that higher standard now, I don’t believe the full implementation of the new covenant has emerged. We certainly aren’t experiencing the level of spiritual manifestation described in Jeremiah. We do see in early Acts a short-term manifestation of the Spirit and I think this foreshadows the broader outpouring in the eschaton. This doesn’t mean that anyone should, then, limit themselves to the letter of the Law, because Paul does say that because the Law cannot condemn us (because of God’s grace in Christ), we are to serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter (Rom. 7:6). Until the broader outpouring occurs, we walk according to the Spirit, rather than the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us (Rom. 8:4).That's what I thought, though I don't know how it's the Mosaic Law. The Spirit of Promise through the Abrahamic Covenant was 430 years before the Mosaic Law and came because Abraham obeyed God's law. The Mosaic Law and Sinai Covenant was added later and does not change or effect in any way the previously existing Law and Covenant.

Jeremiah07
Dec 30th 2012, 10:20 PM
The answer is in the bible, Jesus Christ said himself "do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets"

Matthew 5:17-19
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

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


Jesus Christ came as a High Priest forever in the order of Melchizedek, and for when there is a change in priesthood there must also be a change in the Law.(Hebrew7:11/6:20/7:12)
O.T. Sabbath= sacrifice 2 lambs, bake 12 loaves od bread 2/10 of an ephah, no working on the Sabbath, drink offering etc.. very difficult to keep.
N.T. Sabbath= Spirit and Truth, Jesus went as it was his custom and read from the bible and everyone was focused meaning they were not thinking about how to pay their bill or physical things during the sermon.
(Luke4:16-20)

LookingUp
Dec 30th 2012, 11:43 PM
That's what I thought, though I don't know how it's the Mosaic Law.It’s not disputable. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah and Jeremiah is the word used for the Mosaic Law. God says it is that which will “go forth from Zion” and be “written on hearts.”


The Spirit of Promise through the Abrahamic Covenant was 430 years before the Mosaic Law and came because Abraham obeyed God's law.God’s holy Law existed before it was specifically tailored and codified for the nation of Israel.


The Mosaic Law and Sinai Covenant was added later and does not change or effect in any way the previously existing Law and Covenant.Paul didn’t say anything about a previous law in Gal. 3:17. So, what are you talking about?

But I agree that we’re all accountable to God’s Holy Law. And Jesus, through his teachings and his life demonstrated the spiritual intent and scope of the Mosaic Law. He met the requirements of the Law by obeying it perfectly in thought and deed, both in the letter and in the intent of the heart.

LookingUp
Dec 31st 2012, 01:45 AM
Jesus Christ came as a High Priest forever in the order of Melchizedek, and for when there is a change in priesthood there must also be a change in the Law.(Hebrew7:11/6:20/7:12)There was a change in the Law, but it wasn’t in the content of the Law; it was a change in the method. The one sacrifice for sins for all time has been offered and empowerment to walk in His Law by the Spirit is available through the New Covenant in Christ’s blood.


O.T. Sabbath= sacrifice 2 lambs, bake 12 loaves od bread 2/10 of an ephah, no working on the Sabbath, drink offering etc.I’m not saying that the Jerusalem Jews continued with animal sacrifice for sin, but we do see them continuing to observe Mosaic Law (Acts 21).


very difficult to keep.Not according to God (Deut. 30:11). Not according to the Apostle John (1 John 5:3). Not according to Jesus (John 14:15).

Noeb
Dec 31st 2012, 07:41 PM
It’s not disputable. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah and Jeremiah is the word used for the Mosaic Law. God says it is that which will “go forth from Zion” and be “written on hearts.”It's also the same word used here before the Mosaic law,
Job 22:22 Receive, I pray thee, the law from his mouth, and lay up his words in thine heart.

Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

and here,
Pro 1:8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:

Pro 6:20 My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:

It's also here referring to the gospel and spirit of the law,
Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
Isa 42:2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
Isa 42:3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
Isa 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
Isa 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Isa 42:9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.

Isa 42:20 Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.
Isa 42:21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.

Isa 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
Isa 51:2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.
Isa 51:3 For the LORD shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody.
Isa 51:4 Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people.
Isa 51:5 My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.

Many people have a big problem with understanding and quoting scripture. They teach what they know nothing about. It's been happening a lot here in Bible Chat lately. We keep seeing people that do not know the Scripture posting the following.....

KJV
"Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:"

ESV
"Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;"

but that's not the entire verse, much less the context. See
Isa 42:4 "his law"
Isa 42:21 "he will magnify the law"?
Isa 51:4 "a law"

It's the same word used for what Abraham obeyed, the Mosaic law, and a mothers. Means nothing. It's just a word that means direction/instruction. You cannot say "oh, it's the same word used for the Mosaic law so......" because I could say "oh, it's the same word used for the law Abraham obeyed......"

What we need to be concerned with is Christ's law. The spirit of the law. God's law, not some shadow thereof.
Isa 42:21 "he will magnify the law"
is
Mat 5:17 "but to fulfil".
It means to complete, to fill to the full, to show perfectly. It is more than the Mosaic Law which was just a shadow of the real deal. It is the spirit, not letter of the law. The inward, not the outward. It's what Christ came to live, show us, and give us power to walk. It, and only it, can be what is written on our heart (spirit). The Mosaic is impossible to write on a spirit.

The context is the spirit of The Law
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.




God’s holy Law existed before it was specifically tailored and codified for the nation of Israel.Then roll with "God’s holy Law existed before" the Mosaic, like Jesus and Paul did!



Paul didn’t say anything about a previous law in Gal. 3:17. So, what are you talking about?When he spoke of Abraham he spoke of the law Abraham obeyed.



But I agree that we’re all accountable to God’s Holy Law. And Jesus, through his teachings and his life demonstrated the spiritual intent and scope of the Mosaic Law. He met the requirements of the Law by obeying it perfectly in thought and deed, both in the letter and in the intent of the heart.Then why revert to the letter? How, revert to the letter?

LookingUp
Dec 31st 2012, 10:55 PM
Noeb,

God’s holy Law existed before it was specifically tailored and codified for the nation of Israel. People were unable to perfectly observe God’s Law from their hearts before it was tailored and codified and after. But the tailoring and codification had the useful effect of highlighting a weakness in man. I’m not saying that all Jews only obeyed outwardly, but their sin and continual offerings revealed a weakness in their flesh that only God could remedy. And for some, their failure to obey inwardly led to an exclusively outward appearance of obedience.

So, it’s the Mosaic Law which goes forth from Zion. The same Law which Jesus exalted and magnified by teaching and living its spiritual intent. And how did Jesus demonstrate its spiritual intent? He did it by obeying it in both letter and intent of the heart. I believe through his teaching, he invited his disciples to do the same.

The New Covenant offers a permanent cleansing of sin and empowerment by the Spirit to walk in His Law, both in letter and intent of the heart. We certainly aren’t experiencing the level of spiritual manifestation described in Jeremiah, and therefore I don’t believe the full implementation of the New Covenant has emerged. We do see in early Acts a short-term manifestation of the Spirit and I think this foreshadows the broader outpouring in the eschaton. This doesn’t mean anyone should, then, limit themselves to the limit of the Law and neglect the spiritual intent of the Law, but we are not yet given the empowerment described in Jeremiah. Until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in and the ushering in of the Kingdom, we are to walk according to the Spirit through faith in Christ so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us (Rom. 8:4).

jesse
Jan 2nd 2013, 09:06 PM
If I had one wish, it would be to fully understand what on earth God is talking about in regards to the Law and Christ.

I really wish we could all compile notes and come to some conclusion.

I think at some points we are arguing without cause. For instance. It can be true that Jesus both fulfilled and abolished the law.

Noeb is saying that fulfilled means to fill to the fullest. So take the 613 OT laws and "do away" or "bring to completion" the civil and cerimonial ones... then add a whole bunch and you get 1050 NT laws (at the very least.) 613<1050 That to me is fulfilled, no? It is fulfilled in that, laws which pictured Christ are brought to their fulness and it is fulfilled in that it is made greater. Christ magnified the law. He made is stricter (for those who do not believe). Yes no?

However, it is true what Walls said as well. We are not cleansed so that God may "dwell among us" we are dead and Christ lives in us. The law is abolished (for those who believe). Eph2:15

Also, God did not save (national) Israel through Christs death. He saved those who believed (the church.)

There is also some point Noeb is trying to make and I am not sure I understand... I get that Jesus was not an Aaronic priest he was of the line of Melchizedek. Which came before the Mosaic law. However it seems as though Noeb is pointing to the time of Abraham and the law he was under specifically? And he is completely disregarding (and for good reason) the idea that the Mosaic law was always in effect. However, I just don't understand what he is saying. I would like to have it spelt out for me so I can understand.

Overall I wonder what we are even talking about here... Does anyone asides from LookingUp agree with this statement?


There are overwhelming similarities between the age of law and the age of Grace. Consider that Israel was saved out of Egypt by blood and by power. Then given the law. Then given sacrifice as an admission of sin. Similarly we are saved by Christs blood and power. Given commandments. And told to remain in the light by admission of sin.

If you agree... then the implications solve many questions of the law simply because we can understand it within the context of our own age. For instance, could the law save? No that was not the intended purpose. They were already saved when they were given the law. However, other questions come up when you are dealing with the descendants of national Israel. The descendants had not been saved as a whole... therefore, the law which acted no differently then it does today... becomes a school master to lead someone to the understanding of their sinfulness. Just like growing up in a christian home under christian rules and going to church does not make you a christian... but it should lead you to that understanding. So then if Christ came and made the law greater... it should do nothing more than to impart more grace to those who have already received grace... and to further condemn those who already stand condemned. Yes no?

fewarechosen
Jan 2nd 2013, 09:36 PM
the law written in hearts is when you get the Holy Spirit

the mosaic laws like the stuff below is the type of thing that no longer applies. you dont have to sacrifice sheep and cattle anymore. if the "whole" of mosiac law has to be followed then you would still have to kill sheep and cattle till this day.

Lev 1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
Lev 1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
Lev 1:3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
Lev 1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
Lev 1:5 And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

RabbiKnife
Jan 2nd 2013, 09:41 PM
You buy a car.

You sign an agreement that says you will make 24 payments of $1000 each.

You make all 24 payments.

You have fulfilled the contract.

Now, how many more payments do you have to make?

Can the other party take you to court and make you do anything under the contract?

Why or why not?

Noeb
Jan 3rd 2013, 01:28 AM
Noeb is saying that fulfilled means to fill to the fullest.show perfectly -- magnify



It is fulfilled in that, laws which pictured Christ are brought to their fulness and it is fulfilled in that it is made greater. Christ magnified the law.Yes



He made is stricter (for those who do not believe). Yes no?Yes and no. It was always stricter. God told Israel to circumcise their heart back when he was giving the laws, where Deuteronomy? The spirit of the law came before the letter of the law and all men are born with The Law. It's not like it was some new revelation that lusting for a woman and thinking about killing someone was was sin. That was always true and all men knew it because they hold the truth and know God.



There is also some point Noeb is trying to make and I am not sure I understand... I get that Jesus was not an Aaronic priest he was of the line of Melchizedek. Which came before the Mosaic law. However it seems as though Noeb is pointing to the time of Abraham and the law he was under specifically? And he is completely disregarding (and for good reason) the idea that the Mosaic law was always in effect. However, I just don't understand what he is saying. I would like to have it spelt out for me so I can understand.Paul wasn't concerned with the outward ceremonial for righteousness or inheritance. The Spirit of Promise and righteousness by faith comes only through the Abrahamic Covenant which was 430 years before the Mosaic Law. Which Law does not and cannot change or effect in any way the previously existing Abrahamic Covenant for those under it. Unless a covenant explicitly acknowledges and changes a previous covenant, which the Mosaic law did not do to the preexisting covenant with Abraham, the preexisting covenant is the one that holds up in court. Do you understand? Once Paul found himself in the Abrahamic covenant he was no longer in the Sinai. After all, the Mosaic law itself pointed to Christ.

ESV
Gal 3:12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them."
Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"--
Gal 3:14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.
Gal 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.
Gal 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Gal 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.

LookingUp
Jan 3rd 2013, 02:16 AM
It can be true that Jesus both fulfilled and abolished the law. I don’t see how it can be said that Jesus abolished something that “goes forth from Zion” and the vital element of the New Covenant which is “written on hearts.”


He made is stricter (for those who do not believe). Yes no? God never wanted anyone to simply obey the letter of the Law and neglect the deeper spiritual intent of the Law, but, yes, I think grace elevates us to a higher standard than what the letter of the Law required.


The law is abolished (for those who believe). Eph2:15“Do not kill,” “Do not steal,” "observe the Sabbath," etc. were never against anyone.

Christ didn't redeem anyone from the Law but from the curses within the Law:

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law…in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:13-14).

Christ didn't abolish the law but the enmity within the Law:

“For he himself…by abolishing in his flesh the enmity...thus establishing peace” (Eph. 2:14-15).

Christ didn't cancel out the Law but but the certificate of debt within the Law:

“…having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us” (Col. 2:14).


Also, God did not save (national) Israel through Christs death. He saved those who believed (the church.) The early Church believers were a part of national Israel. They were remnant Israel (cf. Rom. 11:1-5).

jesse
Jan 4th 2013, 07:18 AM
show perfectly -- magnify


Yes


Yes and no. It was always stricter. God told Israel to circumcise their heart back when he was giving the laws, where Deuteronomy? The spirit of the law came before the letter of the law and all men are born with The Law. It's not like it was some new revelation that lusting for a woman and thinking about killing someone was was sin. That was always true and all men knew it because they hold the truth and know God.


Paul wasn't concerned with the outward ceremonial for righteousness or inheritance. The Spirit of Promise and righteousness by faith comes only through the Abrahamic Covenant which was 430 years before the Mosaic Law. Which Law does not and cannot change or effect in any way the previously existing Abrahamic Covenant for those under it. Unless a covenant explicitly acknowledges and changes a previous covenant, which the Mosaic law did not do to the preexisting covenant with Abraham, the preexisting covenant is the one that holds up in court. Do you understand? Once Paul found himself in the Abrahamic covenant he was no longer in the Sinai. After all, the Mosaic law itself pointed to Christ.

ESV
Gal 3:12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them."
Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"--
Gal 3:14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.
Gal 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.
Gal 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Gal 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.


I think I see what you are saying. I guess what I am asking is this. If the covanant given to Abraham existed before the law... then those under the law were only those who were not under the covenant of promise. No yes? So... although it applies to us now... it also applied to them. yes no?

Walls
Jan 4th 2013, 02:42 PM
In a previous posting on another thread concerning this matter, I posted the following verses at the request of LookingUp. They present, within their contexts, and standing alone as statements of the Holy Spirit, a massive weight of evidence that the Law does not apply to the Christian in any way. They even go further to put any Christian partaking of them offsides of Christ's work (Gal.5:2). They should be read slowly and carefully, because one of the consequences of returning to the Law is making the Work of Christ of "no profit". As the Father places great value on His beloved Son's work, any demeaning of this Work is dangerous ground for the Christian. In 1st Corinthians 11 we have a dire warning about demeaning the blood of Christ by taking the Lords Table without dealing with our sins. How much more do we stand in danger of the Father's wrath if we demean His whole Work.

Ac 13:39 "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

Ac 15:24 "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:"

Ro 3:20 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

Ro 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Ro 4:14 "For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:"

Ro 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."

Ro 7:6 "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

Ro 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Gal 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Gal 2:21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Gal 3:2 "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

Gal 3:5 "He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

Gal 3:10 "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

Gal 3:11 "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

Gal 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"

Gal 3:18 "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise."

Gal 3:19 "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."

Gal 5:4 "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."

Gal 5:18 "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."

Eph 2:15 "Having 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;"

Php 3:9 "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:"

Tit 3:9 "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."

Heb 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

Heb 7:16 "Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life."

Heb 7:19 "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God."

Heb 10:1 "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

Heb 10:8 "Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;"

Jas 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

What is granted is;

The Law of Moses was good and spiritual (Rom.7:12, 14)
The Law of Moses is a Covenant with Israel alone. Neither the nations nor the Church have any part of it
The New Covenant of Law (Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8) is only made with Israel, not the Church, nor the nations
Christ fulfilled the Law to its last jot and tittle
Israel, having completely broken the Law of Moses will fulfil the Law of the New Covenant in the Millennium. Thus Christ's words that it would be fulfilled are true
There is no indication that the Law of the New Covenant is any different to the Law of Moses. It is only the Covenant that is replaced since that of Sinai is broken
That the Jews of the early Church continued in the Law is understandable considering that they knew no other way, and that the Law was not only their religion of 1'500 years, but their culture as well. But it is, by their own admission, valueless in the Church. From the Apostles' admission in Acts 15, to the sheet from heaven full of unclean animals to Peter, to Paul's letter to the Galatians, the Law of Moses has no place in the Church.
The Temple is central to the Law of Moses (Deut.12:5-14). God caused it to be destroyed in 70 AD

Any man attempting to place the Law of Moses on Christians is called a "False Brother" and must not be yielded to for one hour (Gal.2:3-5)

RabbiKnife
Jan 4th 2013, 02:44 PM
Can anyone -- or is anyone -- willing to define "fulfilled."

-SEEKING-
Jan 4th 2013, 03:23 PM
Can anyone -- or is anyone -- willing to define "fulfilled."

I'll take a crack at it.

To meet a set criteria. Or Think of having a checklist, and now all the items are checked off.

RabbiKnife
Jan 4th 2013, 03:27 PM
I'll take a crack at it.

To meet a set criteria. Or Think of having a checklist, and now all the items are checked off.

Exactly. Which is why this entire discussion has never made any sense to me.

Walls
Jan 4th 2013, 05:49 PM
Exactly. Which is why this entire discussion has never made any sense to me.

I would share your sentiments. It should be clear to all Christians that the Law of Moses has no application to them. But isn't it amazing how the Holy Spirit could look ahead all these centuries and see that it would be a problem even among the nations, and write at such length to squash the arguments of the proponents of a return to the Law for any reason. Well has the Holy Spirit written in Philippians 3:2-7; "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ."

It certainly is strong language to call them "dogs" within the context!

And again Galatians Chapter 1 calls them "those who trouble you" and "let them be accursed". And in Chapter 5:12-13, "I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off! For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 06:04 PM
Guys, you all seem to be forgetting that Law keeping is central in the messianic kingdom. Jews are asked to keep the Law and Gentiles aren't. However, Gentiles are asked to keep the morals inherent in the Law. All those verses, Walls, are for Gentiles (Mosaic Law is not for Gentiles) or they're for Jews who want to establish and maintain their justification through Law keeping (Mosaic Law doesn't justify).

According to Peter, James, Paul, etc. (i.e. the early disciples), the Law was to be continued by Christian Jews but it was not to be asked of Gentiles coming to faith in Christ. This is pretty much common knowledge. Why were Jews encouraged (by the Jerusalem disciples) to continue and not Gentiles? Probably because Law keeping is seen in the messianic kingdom. In the kingdom, Israel expresses God’s holiness through Law keeping and God glorifies Israel and the nations are blessed by this reciprocal relationship of love and honor.

Nevertheless, it is taught that one is not guaranteed entrance into the kingdom by Law keeping; one must trust God’s message in His Messiah or all the Law keeping in the world is like washing the outside of the cup and forgetting about the filth inside.

But, look, the covenants are made WITH Israel, not with Gentiles. God chose Abraham and the nation of Israel became God’s project. He asked them to enter into a covenant with Him and Israel agreed to the terms. Why would Gentiles be obligated to terms Israel agreed to? History shows that Israel failed to keep those terms and God promised He would make a new covenant WITH Israel, one that she wouldn’t break: He would write His Law on her heart. Notice that Israel doesn’t “agree” to the same terms for this new covenant, God simply says, “I will write and they will do.”

So, now God comes along and establishes the new covenant in His own Messiah’s blood and offers to the Gentiles a chance to participate in the blessings of this new covenant by faith in Jesus and some Jews were offended by it. Well, that’s what the messianic kingdom is about, isn’t it? Israel is a light to the nations and the nations are pierced to the heart and seek to please God. But Scripture never says that Gentiles become Jews and begin expressing God’s holiness through Law keeping in the unique way that Israel does, because that reciprocal relationship of love and honor is reserved for God and Israel.

So, the new covenant is not operating at full capacity, because although the promises of the covenant are presently offered by faith in Messiah, Israel has yet to come to faith in Messiah and begin the reciprocal relationship with God as described in the prophecies.

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 06:13 PM
In a previous posting on another thread concerning this matter, I posted the following verses at the request of LookingUp. They present, within their contexts, and standing alone as statements of the Holy Spirit, a massive weight of evidence that the Law does not apply to the Christian in any way. They even go further to put any Christian partaking of them offsides of Christ's work (Gal.5:2). They should be read slowly and carefully, because one of the consequences of returning to the Law is making the Work of Christ of "no profit". As the Father places great value on His beloved Son's work, any demeaning of this Work is dangerous ground for the Christian. In 1st Corinthians 11 we have a dire warning about demeaning the blood of Christ by taking the Lords Table without dealing with our sins. How much more do we stand in danger of the Father's wrath if we demean His whole Work.Don’t you even see what you’re saying? If what you say is true, Peter, James and the entire group of Jerusalem disciples were demeaning God’s work. Think about it.

RabbiKnife
Jan 4th 2013, 06:17 PM
Law keeping has nothing to do with the messianic kingdom.

The kingdom is about grace and relationship, not law.

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 06:22 PM
Law keeping has nothing to do with the messianic kingdom.

The kingdom is about grace and relationship, not law.Then, you haven't read the Prophets? If you have, what do you do with the passages about the messianic kingdom that describe law keeping?

-SEEKING-
Jan 4th 2013, 06:31 PM
Then, you haven't read the Prophets? If you have, what do you do with the passages about the messianic kingdom that describe law keeping?

I'm not much of a OT guru. Can you post some of the passages you mentioned. Thanks.

RabbiKnife
Jan 4th 2013, 06:37 PM
The law is 100% absolutely fulfilled. Period.

But, if people want to bind themselves to a dead horse, you can't stop them.

Kahtar
Jan 4th 2013, 06:59 PM
It cracks me up how people will within one statement say we are not under law, that following the law is against the work of Christ, and then turn right around and suggest that Christians should not sin.

....the Law does not apply to the Christian in any way....demeaning the blood of Christ by taking the Lords Table without dealing with our sins.
What does the Word say?
1John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
:dunno:

RabbiKnife
Jan 4th 2013, 07:02 PM
The law being referred to is as Jesus described it: Love God, Love People.

Kahtar
Jan 4th 2013, 07:25 PM
The law being referred to is as Jesus described it: Love God, Love People.

Right. He stated, as did Paul, that loving God and loving neighbor fulfills the law. But, if the law is done away with, and obeying it is against the work of Christ, then why fulfil it? If obeying the law is against the work of Christ, then, as was implied, we should avoid it like the plague, and thus not try to fulfill it by loving God or neighbor.

RabbiKnife
Jan 4th 2013, 07:31 PM
Agreed. We cannot fulfill the Law. No man ever could, except Jesus. Trying to fulfill the Law is like trying to pay for a car that you already own and have paid for.


Loving God and loving my neighbor does not fulfill the Law (as in OT/Old Covenant).

JESUS fulfilled the Law. The life that I now live I live in Him.

His command to me, under the New Covenant, is to love God and to love my neighbor.

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 07:45 PM
I'm not much of a OT guru. Can you post some of the passages you mentioned. Thanks.
Jer. 31:33 Torah written on hearts in kingdom
Ezek. 11:19-20 Will walk in statutes and observe ordinances in kingdom
Ezek. 36:26-27 Will walk in statutes and observe ordinances in kingdom
Micah 4:1-2 Torah will go forth from Zion and nations will stream to it
Isaiah 2:2-4 Torah will go forth from Zion in kingdom
Isaiah 61:6 Priests in kingdom
Isaiah 66:21 Priests and Levites in kingdom
Zech. 8:21-23 Priests in kingdom
Jer. 33:18 Levitical priests in kingdom
Isaiah 66:23 Observance of holy days and Sabbath in kingdom
Zech. 14:16-19 Observance of Feast of Tabernacles in kingdom

Kahtar
Jan 4th 2013, 07:55 PM
Agreed. We cannot fulfill the Law. No man ever could, except Jesus. Trying to fulfill the Law is like trying to pay for a car that you already own and have paid for.True statement. No argument there.


Loving God and loving my neighbor does not fulfill the Law (as in OT/Old Covenant).
Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
What law do you think it does fulfil then? Or is this verse a lie?


JESUS fulfilled the Law. The life that I now live I live in Him.True statement. No argument here.


His command to me, under the New Covenant, is to love God and to love my neighbor.Yes, it is.
What are the terms of that new covenant. Do you know?

Noeb
Jan 4th 2013, 07:58 PM
I think I see what you are saying. I guess what I am asking is this. If the covanant given to Abraham existed before the law... then those under the law were only those who were not under the covenant of promise. No yes? So... although it applies to us now... it also applied to them. yes no?Yes

No -It could not apply to them because the seed, Christ, had not come. Since Christ came, they are no longer under the law.

The first covenant, fulfilled by the revealed (Galatians 3:23-25) faith in Christ, assumes power over the (weak throught the flesh) second covenant.

Galatians 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

-SEEKING-
Jan 4th 2013, 08:26 PM
Jer. 31:33 Torah written on hearts in kingdom
Ezek. 11:19-20 Will walk in statutes and observe ordinances in kingdom
Ezek. 36:26-27 Will walk in statutes and observe ordinances in kingdom
Micah 4:1-2 Torah will go forth from Zion and nations will stream to it
Isaiah 2:2-4 Torah will go forth from Zion in kingdom
Isaiah 61:6 Priests in kingdom
Isaiah 66:21 Priests and Levites in kingdom
Zech. 8:21-23 Priests in kingdom
Jer. 33:18 Levitical priests in kingdom
Isaiah 66:23 Observance of holy days and Sabbath in kingdom
Zech. 14:16-19 Observance of Feast of Tabernacles in kingdom

Just something that jumped out at me quickly. This appears more about OT times than the present. Especially with the mention of Priests and Levites.

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 08:38 PM
The law is 100% absolutely fulfilled. Period.

But, if people want to bind themselves to a dead horse, you can't stop them.
So, since Jesus fulfilled the Law, you don’t have to? No. Jesus fulfilled the Law, lived without sin and thus conquered death. The curse of death and the curse of the Law cannot condemn those in Christ: death will not hold us. Furthermore, the new covenant in his blood was established: you will not sin any longer. Christ did two important things for us and not one of them means we no longer keep the Law of God.

Because he conquered death, you will be raised. But immortality is not such a good thing if you’re sinning forever. God will raise us and transform us from the inside out (i.e. glorified body everyone speaks of). The Sinai Covenant was a picture of the outside-in methodology and the New Covenant is a picture of the inside-out methodology. Just because God’s intention is for us to walk from the heart (inside-out method) rather than walk from the flesh (outside-in method) doesn’t mean we are to no longer keep the Law of God.

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 08:39 PM
The law being referred to is as Jesus described it: Love God, Love People.Yes, Jesus expressed his love for God by keeping the Mosaic Law.

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 08:41 PM
Just something that jumped out at me quickly. This appears more about OT times than the present. Especially with the mention of Priests and Levites.They're in context of the messianic reign.

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 08:42 PM
Yes

No -It could not apply to them because the seed, Christ, had not come. Since Christ came, they are no longer under the law.They're no longer under the curse of the Law.

percho
Jan 4th 2013, 08:59 PM
It cracks me up how people will within one statement say we are not under law, that following the law is against the work of Christ, and then turn right around and suggest that Christians should not sin.

What does the Word say?
1John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
:dunno:

Christ was born under the law. The law that said. in the day thou eatest thereof dying thou shall die. That man sinned. Sin is the transgession of the law. The wages of sin death. Adam brought death to all men. Christ did not sin but gave his life a ransom for many. He died. My opinion is, not from scripture, but my opinion. Had he not done that it would have been sin and he would have died and there would not have been any hope of life. But remember God who can not lie had made a promise before Adam was created of the hope of eternal life.

Therefore how was the law fulfilled.

It was fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth laying down his sinless life for us. The faith of Christ. And being God the Father raised him from the dead no more to return to corruption he is a new creation of man with the law of God within him. This is speaking of Jesus of Nazareth. "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God." Romans 6:9,10

That is the image of God in which we are to be regenerated. Rom 6:5,8 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also of resurrection: Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: (And) Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Regeneration at his appearing and his kingdom. Judgement of the quick and the dead.

The law isn't changed the people are changed fulfilling the law in them.

Kahtar
Jan 4th 2013, 09:13 PM
Christ was born under the law. The law that said. in the day thou eatest thereof dying thou shall die. That man sinned. Sin is the transgession of the law. The wages of sin death. Adam brought death to all men. Christ did not sin but gave his life a ransom for many. He died. My opinion is, not from scripture, but my opinion. Had he not done that it would have been sin and he would have died and there would not have been any hope of life. But remember God who can not lie had made a promise before Adam was created of the hope of eternal life.

Therefore how was the law fulfilled.

It was fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth laying down his sinless life for us. The faith of Christ. And being God the Father raised him from the dead no more to return to corruption he is a new creation of man with the law of God within him. This is speaking of Jesus of Nazareth. "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God." Romans 6:9,10

That is the image of God in which we are to be regenerated. Rom 6:5,8 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also of resurrection: Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: (And) Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Regeneration at his appearing and his kingdom. Judgement of the quick and the dead.

The law isn't changed the people are changed fulfilling the law in them.I mostly agree with what you are saying here. Except, there were parts of the law that were changed (not done away with). They had to do with the temple and the priesthood, and the sacrifices. A temple still exists, and the priesthood still exists. We ourselves and now the temple, and we are a kingdom of priests, and Christ is our High Priest. There is no longer a division between Jew and Gentile, male and female, for all are one in Christ, thus, the gentiles are not excluded from service.
As for the sacrifices, we still place our trust in the blood of the Sacrifice, but now it is the blood of the True Lamb of God. We as priests however, do still offer sacrifices. The sacrifice of praise, and worship, and our own selves. That is our reasonable service.
But as to the rest, it has not changed. How it is administered has changed. Now it is written upon our hearts. It is not done away with.
But there are laws that have been done away with. Those would be the ordinances of 'the oral law' which were in opposition to God's law.

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 09:17 PM
The law isn't changed the people are changed fulfilling the law in them.I agree with this. Because Christ was sinless, death could not hold him. In him, we, too, will be resurrected to immortality. But who wants to live while continuing to sin eternally? God will not only raise our bodies but transform them. How? He says He will establish a new covenant with Israel and in this covenant He writes His Law on their hearts and they will walk in His statutes and sin no more. God offers to Gentiles the promises of this covenant by faith in Christ. He will transform our hearts and we will be changed from the inside out. Until the redemption of our bodies and Israel's time of fullness, we keep requirements of the Law according to the Spirit. Again, Peter, James and the rest of the early disciples did this and continued observance of Mosaic Law.

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 09:19 PM
I mostly agree with what you are saying here. Except, there were parts of the law that were changed (not done away with). They had to do with the temple and the priesthood, and the sacrifices. A temple still exists, and the priesthood still exists. We ourselves and now the temple, and we are a kingdom of priests, and Christ is our High Priest. There is no longer a division between Jew and Gentile, male and female, for all are one in Christ, thus, the gentiles are not excluded from service.
As for the sacrifices, we still place our trust in the blood of the Sacrifice, but now it is the blood of the True Lamb of God. We as priests however, do still offer sacrifices. The sacrifice of praise, and worship, and our own selves. That is our reasonable service.
But as to the rest, it has not changed. How it is administered has changed. Now it is written upon our hearts. It is not done away with.
But there are laws that have been done away with. Those would be the ordinances of 'the oral law' which were in opposition to God's law.Very nice post!

Walls
Jan 4th 2013, 09:19 PM
OK LooingUp

Since your last postings I think we can redirect the conflict of the thread. If I have read correctly, you are proposing that while Gentile believers are exempt from the Law, Messianic Jews are subject to it. So may we, either here, or in a new thread, thrash out the "position" of a Christian and/or a Messianic Jew.

Taking much liberty among you all for the sake of reconciliation of the two poles (polemic), I would like to propose, without a resolution of my own, what the two poles which cause this conflict represent. And these two poles are not uncommon to this Forum, nor to my years as a Christian. I will try to be brief.

One side (or pole) recognises that the Church is made of believers from the nation of Israel and believers from the nations. As the believers from the nation of Israel were subject to the God-given Law of Moses, they, as Jews must continue in it. The believers from the nations, having no such Law, only the Covenant of Noah (in which we may not eat blood in the meat) are only subject to that Law (Act.15:20, 29, 21:25). This side recognises that the Law of Moses is good and spiritual and notices that the Church in Jerusalem continued in this Law without serious protest from the Apostles who were trained by Jesus Christ for 3 1/2 years.

The other side of the polemic recognises that the Church is made of believers from both the nation of Israel and the nations. They understand that the moment a Jew or Gentile becomes a believer, their heritage, or nationality, or ethnicity, is void and they become One New Man, with a New set of constraints - (1) the ca, 2'400 commands of the New Testament, and (2) the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom.8:2). That is, the Jewish heritage and culture and religion of the Jew falls away and the Jew/Jewess is subject to the above, and the nationality, heritage, customs and idol worship of the member of the nations also falls away, and BOTH become subject to the 2'400 commands of the New Testament AND the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus. This pole recognises that Paul, trained by the resurrected Lord for 14 years energetically opposed any form or practice of Law in the Church.

I offer no solution to this in this posting (although from previous postings my position can be deduced). I suggest we turn the argument - based on scripture, and in the sure knowledge that we are all in a state of learning, and in an atmosphere of mutual repect and brotherly love, to which of the two poles most fits scripture.

As a by-product of this argument, can we establish whether thet Messianic Kingdom only relates to the Jews in the Millennium, or whether it relates to the Church in the Millennial Kingdom?

God bless you all - Friend and Foe

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 09:40 PM
I wouldn’t say they’re subject to it because of the terms of the Sinai Covenant. I wouldn’t even use the term “subjection” as the way to describe it, because that suggests the old way of things, “If you are not careful to observe all the words of this law, then your name will be blotted out from under heaven.” A Christian Jew’s observance of Mosaic Law (less the physical offering for sin, of course) must be carried out with the understanding that these expressions of covenant relationship with God do not justify. We do not yet know what the practices and rituals will look like in the messianic kingdom. There is reason to believe that there is much crossover and similarity. Thus, I think it prudent for a Christian Jew to continue observance in such ways. And I think it a mistake for Gentile Christians to encourage a Jew to end observance. Our example should be what we see the early disciples doing. Paul never encouraged Jerusalem Jews to end observance and the Jerusalem Jews never encouraged Gentiles to begin observance.

The things I question in your post, Walls, are that the meaning of “neither Jew nor Gentile” means nationality becomes void and that Paul opposed any form of Law in the Church, the Body of Christ.

In context, the point Paul is making with the “neither Jew nor Gentile” comment is that we all come to God in the same way: by faith in Christ (check out some commentaries). The previous covenant (Sinai) said that the only way Gentiles can come into covenant relationship with God was through circumcision (i.e. becoming a proselyte). Although technically this was true, God, through Paul’s teaching in Romans 2, showed them that physical signs of covenant relationship (i.e. flesh circumcision) were meaningless if spiritual signs (i.e. heart circumcision) were not also present. So, the Romans 2 teaching demonstrated that this shift in thought (“neither Jew nor Gentile”) should have been readily embraced. It is those with faith (i.e. circumcised heart), demonstrated by keeping the requirements of the Law (whether Jew or Gentile), who are considered in covenant relationship with God. The cleaning of the outside of the cup doesn’t matter (i.e. circumcision, etc.); it’s the filth inside the cup that needs cleansing (i.e. circumcised heart by faith), demonstrated by keeping the requirements of the Law that relate to morality (cf. Rom. 2:21-25).

Paul wasn’t opposed to any form of Law in the Church. If he were, why did he not oppose the Jerusalem Church for observing the Mosaic Law? Paul was opposed to observance of Law for justification. It’s really that simple. If you would simply go back and read these texts (chapters at a time, rather than a couple verses at a time), with that in mind, you will see that not only did Paul not speak against circumcision but encouraged the Jew to continue with observance (1 Cor. 7:18). Why? Because circumcision and uncircumcision is nothing in terms of justification. What matters is keeping the requirements of God (Rom. 2:26; 1 Cor. 7:19). Physical circumcision and other outward observances are no guarantee of covenant relationship with God and they’re no guarantee of justification. Keeping the commandments of God that reflect the morality inherent within the Law do demonstrate covenant relationship and justification of the one who keeps them, because it is a sign of a circumcised heart through faith in God’s message. None of this, however, excludes participation in the outward observances of Mosaic Law.

Noeb
Jan 4th 2013, 10:24 PM
LookingUp,

Galatians 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Redeemed from the curse of the law
Because
all have sinned
because
all were under the law and no one kept it. Redeemed from the curse of the law because we are under the first covenant of faith and grace and not the second of law. Paul is very clear once we are in Christ we are not under the law. He does not just say we are not under the curse of the law. You can't be under the curse if you are not under the law.

Kahtar
Jan 4th 2013, 10:55 PM
OK LooingUp
......
I offer no solution to this in this posting (although from previous postings my position can be deduced). I suggest we turn the argument - based on scripture, and in the sure knowledge that we are all in a state of learning, and in an atmosphere of mutual repect and brotherly love, to which of the two poles most fits scripture.

As a by-product of this argument, can we establish whether thet Messianic Kingdom only relates to the Jews in the Millennium, or whether it relates to the Church in the Millennial Kingdom?

God bless you all - Friend and Foe
I know you were addressing LookingUP, but if I may?
First, I am pleased actually, with most of this discussion so far, as we have mostly all remained civil with each other even while disagreeing. That is how it should be.

As to your two poles, I believe these are a fair assessment of two poles. I think, however, there is a third. It is thus:
The Church is made of believers from both the nation of Israel and the nations. They understand that the moment a Jew or Gentile becomes a believer, their heritage, or nationality, or ethnicity, is void and they become One New Man, True Israel, with the same set of constraints, but a new medium, the heart instead of tables of stone - (1) the 2,400 commands of the New Testament are not a new set of laws, but rather a clarification of the same law, and (2) the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom.8:2) is the law of God, for Jesus is God, and never taught anything but what He heard from the Father, and commanded his disciples to go and teach all nations everything that He had taught them. the Jewish heritage and culture does not fall away, but Gentiles are grafted into it, and the religion of the Jew, ie Talmudism, falls away. This pole recognises that Paul, trained by the resurrected Lord for 14 years did not oppose practice of Law in the Church if used lawfully, but absolutely opposed using the law for salvation or justification, and the commandments of men. He stated that he never taught against the law of God, and demonstrated on more than one occasion his obedience to it.

As to whom the Messianic Kingdom relates, I would state that the Messianic Kingdom relates to both the Jew and the Gentile, ie the true Israel, because in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile.

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 11:22 PM
I know you were addressing LookingUP, but if I may?
First, I am pleased actually, with most of this discussion so far, as we have mostly all remained civil with each other even while disagreeing. That is how it should be.

As to your two poles, I believe these are a fair assessment of two poles. I think, however, there is a third. It is thus:
The Church is made of believers from both the nation of Israel and the nations. They understand that the moment a Jew or Gentile becomes a believer, their heritage, or nationality, or ethnicity, is void and they become One New Man, True Israel, with the same set of constraints, but a new medium, the heart instead of tables of stone - (1) the 2,400 commands of the New Testament are not a new set of laws, but rather a clarification of the same law, and (2) the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom.8:2) is the law of God, for Jesus is God, and never taught anything but what He heard from the Father, and commanded his disciples to go and teach all nations everything that He had taught them. the Jewish heritage and culture does not fall away, but Gentiles are grafted into it, and the religion of the Jew, ie Talmudism, falls away. This pole recognises that Paul, trained by the resurrected Lord for 14 years did not oppose practice of Law in the Church if used lawfully, but absolutely opposed using the law for salvation or justification, and the commandments of men. He stated that he never taught against the law of God, and demonstrated on more than one occasion his obedience to it.

As to whom the Messianic Kingdom relates, I would state that the Messianic Kingdom relates to both the Jew and the Gentile, ie the true Israel, because in Christ there is no Jew or Gentile.Wow, again, I really like this post. The only thing I might question is the idea that nationalities aren't recognized within the body of Christ. We are one, indeed, but part of the beauty of our oneness is that our various nationalities are recognized and embraced and this recognition symbolizes the power of God to transcend the boundaries of nationality.

Kahtar
Jan 4th 2013, 11:47 PM
Wow, again, I really like this post. The only thing I might question is the idea that nationalities aren't recognized within the body of Christ. We are one, indeed, but part of the beauty of our oneness is that our various nationalities are recognized and embraced and this recognition symbolizes the power of God to transcend the boundaries of nationality.Thanks:) I agree with your assessment here actually. It's easy to read too much into the oneness thing. We see the same transcendency(my spell check doesn't think that's a word, lol) in His giftings to us. We are all one body, but there are prophets, healers, interpreters of tongues, etc. I personally think we see the same thing in the various denominations as well. We are all one body, but there are some that catholic, some baptists, some pentecostals, etc. and different people are attracted to the different churches. It's not perfect, and often not pretty. Still His bride tho.

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 11:50 PM
LookingUp,

Galatians 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Redeemed from the curse of the law
Because
all have sinned
because
all were under the law and no one kept it. Redeemed from the curse of the law because we are under the first covenant of faith and grace and not the second of law. Paul is very clear once we are in Christ we are not under the law. He does not just say we are not under the curse of the law. You can't be under the curse if you are not under the law.So, Jesus didn’t destroy the curse for those with faith in him? He just removed us from the Law? From what I can discern, Jesus actually destroyed the curse of death. And not only that but the new covenant in his blood will empower those with faith to walk in God’s Law by the Spirit. So, maybe in essence he redeemed us from the entire Law that says, "Do this or die" but we are alive to the Law that says, "I will cause you to walk in My Law by the Spirit and you will, indeed, live."

LookingUp
Jan 4th 2013, 11:55 PM
Thanks:) I agree with your assessment here actually. It's easy to read too much into the oneness thing. We see the same transcendency(my spell check doesn't think that's a word, lol) in His giftings to us. We are all one body, but there are prophets, healers, interpreters of tongues, etc. I personally think we see the same thing in the various denominations as well. We are all one body, but there are some that catholic, some baptists, some pentecostals, etc. and different people are attracted to the different churches. It's not perfect, and often not pretty. Still His bride tho.I like what you’ve touched upon here. Not only do the nationalities within the body of Christ demonstrate the power of God to transcend nationality but the denominations within the body of Christ demonstrate the power of God to transcend doctrine.

-SEEKING-
Jan 5th 2013, 12:46 AM
They're in context of the messianic reign.

And by messianic reign, what do you mean specifically? Is that a time when the Messiah rules the world as King?

LookingUp
Jan 5th 2013, 01:10 AM
And by messianic reign, what do you mean specifically? Is that a time when the Messiah rules the world as King?Outwardly, yes.

Noeb
Jan 5th 2013, 03:52 AM
So, Jesus didn’t destroy the curse for those with faith in him?Well, that's pretty strange wording. Jesus destroys the works of the devil -1Jn 3:8; Heb 2:14, but the curse still exists. The soul that sins shall die. The curse, death, will be swallowed up in victory, yes.



He just removed us from the Law?We cannot be under law and grace. It's either one or the other. We either operate with the law and our flesh, or we operate with the law and grace. Under grace, we have forgiveness if we sin. That wasn't the case under the law -Rom 3:19-28.

Note: under law is not about the Mosaic Law, but The Law that existed before and after in and for all men.
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 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;


Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Kahtar
Jan 5th 2013, 03:59 AM
I like what you’ve touched upon here. Not only do the nationalities within the body of Christ demonstrate the power of God to transcend nationality but the denominations within the body of Christ demonstrate the power of God to transcend doctrine.
Yep, you got it. Too bad that the bride has so much difficulty in that area.;)

LookingUp
Jan 5th 2013, 04:28 AM
…The soul that sins shall die...Not for those with faith in him. You and I still sin, sadly. But because we have put our trust and hope in God and have sworn allegiance to His Messiah, as evidenced by our fruit, we will be raised from death. It has no power over us because of him.


We cannot be under law and grace. It's either one or the other. We either operate with the law and our flesh, or we operate with the law and grace. Under grace, we have forgiveness if we sin. That wasn't the case under the law -Rom 3:19-28. True. We are not under judgment of general law leading to death or judgment of the law of Sinai (i.e. curses also leading to death); we’re under judgment of the law of Christ (i.e. blessing).


Note: under law is not about the Mosaic Law, but The Law that existed before and after in and for all men.I think you’re kind of convoluting some things. Messiah did two important things for mankind. He conquered death so that the curse of the law of which you speak cannot condemn us and we will be raised to life. But resurrection to life without also a transformation of heart would be useless. We’d live forevermore while continuing to sin. The shed blood of Jesus also became the blood of the New Covenant by which the Spirit is poured out on those with faith and one’s heart is transformed and he walks in God’s commandments by the Spirit, thus never to sin again.

Noeb
Jan 5th 2013, 05:35 AM
Not for those with faith in him.It's not destroyed. You said it was. If it was destroyed it wouldn't exist. Like the works of the devil not happening (destroyed) through Christ. They don't exist because they didn't happen.



True. We are not under judgment of general law leading to death or judgment of the law of SinaiGentiles were never under the Sinai covenant.



I think you’re kind of convoluting some things.How's that? When Paul says under law and all sinned, he can't be talking about the Mosaic. I haven't convoluted anything. Whatever the law says, it says to those under it that all under it may become guilty -world. Nothing to convolute there. Some people try to excuse works of the law as works of the Mosaic law, but that's incorrect. It's....'I'm a good person'. Saved because of your goodness. Like Fenris trying to say 'breaking one law isn't enough and doesn't exclude you from being righteous. That's a Christian teaching that didn't exist pre ancient greece'. This is works of the law -righteous through the flesh.

LookingUp
Jan 5th 2013, 06:45 AM
It's not destroyed.You are mistaken. Death was destroyed. “…Christ Jesus, who abolished death…” (2 Tim. 1:10). This doesn't mean Christ abolished "dying" but it does mean he abolished "death" (i.e. death is not permanent for those in Christ).


Gentiles were never under the Sinai covenant.Right.


How's that? When Paul says under law and all sinned, he can't be talking about the Mosaic. I haven't convoluted anything. Whatever the law says, it says to those under it that all under it may become guilty -world. Nothing to convolute there. Some people try to excuse works of the law as works of the Mosaic law, but that's incorrect. It's....'I'm a good person'. Saved because of your goodness. Like Fenris trying to say 'breaking one law isn't enough and doesn't exclude you from being righteous. That's a Christian teaching that didn't exist pre ancient greece'. This is works of the law -righteous through the flesh.I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. I’m just seeing a broader picture than you are. You narrow it down to the previous law (i.e. wages of sin is death) and then say all are redeemed from it (i.e. death is abolished). I don’t disagree. Death is conquered and all in Christ will not be held by death. But there’s also something God was/is doing with Israel. Through Israel, God chose to make a way for mankind to never sin again. No one wants to sin eternally. Through the New Covenant we’re given empowerment by the Spirit to walk in God’s Law.

percho
Jan 5th 2013, 07:06 AM
I mostly agree with what you are saying here. Except, there were parts of the law that were changed (not done away with). They had to do with the temple and the priesthood, and the sacrifices. A temple still exists, and the priesthood still exists. We ourselves and now the temple, and we are a kingdom of priests, and Christ is our High Priest. There is no longer a division between Jew and Gentile, male and female, for all are one in Christ, thus, the gentiles are not excluded from service.
As for the sacrifices, we still place our trust in the blood of the Sacrifice, but now it is the blood of the True Lamb of God. We as priests however, do still offer sacrifices. The sacrifice of praise, and worship, and our own selves. That is our reasonable service.
But as to the rest, it has not changed. How it is administered has changed. Now it is written upon our hearts. It is not done away with.
But there are laws that have been done away with. Those would be the ordinances of 'the oral law' which were in opposition to God's law.

Good post. Permit me to ask. How was Jesus the Christ shown to be a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec? Of what order of priesthood are we?

percho
Jan 5th 2013, 07:13 AM
I agree with this. Because Christ was sinless, death could not hold him. In him, we, too, will be resurrected to immortality. But who wants to live while continuing to sin eternally? God will not only raise our bodies but transform them. How? He says He will establish a new covenant with Israel and in this covenant He writes His Law on their hearts and they will walk in His statutes and sin no more. God offers to Gentiles the promises of this covenant by faith in Christ. He will transform our hearts and we will be changed from the inside out. Until the redemption of our bodies and Israel's time of fullness, we keep requirements of the Law according to the Spirit. Again, Peter, James and the rest of the early disciples did this and continued observance of Mosaic Law.

Another very good post and permit me to ask concerning this verse.

and now he hath obtained a more excellent service, how much also of a better covenant is he mediator, which on better promises hath been sanctioned, Hebrews 8:6 YLT

What is and how did he (Jesus) obtain a more excellent service? What is and how was the better promises sanctioned?

I ask for I believe this is relative to our condition/nature under the new covenant.

Kahtar
Jan 5th 2013, 02:58 PM
Good post. Permit me to ask. How was Jesus the Christ shown to be a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec? Of what order of priesthood are we?
Honestly, I have not studied out, nor read anything, on the Melchi priesthood. I don't think I can adequately answer your questions. There is very little information provided in the scriptures. With what we have, we can draw some (probably erroneous) conclusions. That's about it.
The scripture doesn't actually say of what order we are, but if our High Priest is after the order of Mechi, then it would make sense that we his priesthood are as well.
Here are a couple scriptures:
1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Here are a few about Christ:
Psalm 110 the entire psalm. It tells us some of what our High Priest will do.
Hebrews 5:9-11 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
This one tells us why there is so little information provided. We probably would not understand it anyway. Paul was difficult even for Peter to understand. How much better shall we 2 millenia later with a Greekized western mindset be able to understand it?:D
Hebrews 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
This one, and the next, tells us a tiny bit about Christ entering the True Holy of Holies with His blood on our behalf.
Hebrews 7:23-28 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

If you have any further info, please share.

Kahtar
Jan 5th 2013, 05:43 PM
Okay Percho, I did a wee bit of digging. Here is what I have put together thus far:
First, because there is so little data given in scripture regarding that priesthood, all we can do is derive some very basic elements of the priesthood from what is given. So here we go:
As per Hebrews, the Levitical priesthood unable to achieve perfection. What was the goal/end?
The purpose of the Levitical priesthood was twofold, to minister to God, and to minister to and for the people. The High Priest was to make the atonement for the people. But the Levitical priesthood failed to minister to God, and deceived and stole from the people, failing miserably that aspect. And, the blood of bulls and goats could not take away man's sin, only cover it.
The Melchi priesthood acheived that perfection. Christ ministered to God, He ministered to the people, is ministering for them, and His own blood did not just cover sin, but took it away completely, one time for eternity.
Levitical priesthood was made of of mere sinful men. Christ was sinless and eternal.
The Levitical priesthood required many men, through the centuries, offering the blood of animals, whereas the Melchi priesthood entered one time with His own blood to satisfy the requirement of sin for all time.
It is a never-ending priesthood.
The royal priesthood that Peter spoke of was referring to those in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithnia.
Thus, they were most likely Gentiles, and they certainly were not of the Levitical priesthood, as indicated by '...which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God...'.
1 Peter 2:9-10 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Clearly the Melchizedek priesthood existed before the Levitical priesthood.
There must have been governing laws, even though they are not given in scripture.
We see Abraham recognizing his authority and offering tithes and offering to him, for instance.
Is it possible that it has always existed? Did it continue to exist even after the Levitical priesthood came to be?
Surely Our High Priest, when he comes again, will teach the proper procedure to his priesthood.
The name Melchizedek, pronounced 'malkee-tseh'dek'(accent on tseh) comes from two Hebrew words: melek, which means 'king', and tsedeq, which means 'right' or 'righteousness'. Thus, the name means 'King of Righteousness'.
From Genesis 14:18 we understand that Mel was indeed a king, of a place called Salem. Salem means 'peace' or 'peaceful'. Thus, Mel was King of Peace, King of Righteousness.
Psalm 110 speaks of Christ as being of the order of Melchizedek, and Hebrews confirms that Jesus the Christ was that One.
And in Hebrews we learn that Christ is our High Priest.
Further we learn in other scriptures that Christ is also our King who will bring peace to earth.
Thus, He is the True King of Peace, King of Righteousness.
Scripture does not inform us who Mel in Genesis actually was.
Many believe he was the pre-incarnate Christ, others suggest Shem (Melchizedek was actually a title, not a name).
We do know he was the king of Salem, which later became Jerusalem (which means 'teaching peace').
We also have another picture in scripture. That is David. He was, clearly, the king of Israel.
Yet he did some priestly type things as well, dancing before the ark of the covenant, offering sacrifices, eating the showbread, etc.
We know that the whole exodus, wilderness wandering, tabernacle, sacrifices and priesthood are shadows.
As such, we can glean much information from them.
For instance, I did a study a while back on the priesthood, comparing the commands and functions of the Levitical priesthood with what we are told in the New Testament.
From a spiritual perspective, virtually every command given the Levitical priesthood has it's counterpart in the lives of Christians today.
We are indeed a kingdom of priests, and our spiritual functions match the physical functions of the Levitical priesthood.
Thus, assuming that the Levitical priesthood is a shadow of the Melchi priesthood, we get a (somewhat dim) picture of what that priesthood looks like.
Hebrews compares the Levitical priesthood with the Melchi priesthood, and points specifically to the eternality of the Melchi, as opposed to the continually dying Levitical priesthood.
The fact that the Melchi priesthood is eternal is a primary point in Hebrews.
We can start with this and see what happens.:lol:

LookingUp
Jan 5th 2013, 06:54 PM
Another very good post and permit me to ask concerning this verse.

and now he hath obtained a more excellent service, how much also of a better covenant is he mediator, which on better promises hath been sanctioned, Hebrews 8:6 YLT

What is and how did he (Jesus) obtain a more excellent service?The more excellent service is the position of High Priest and King. He obtained it through his life and through the cross. What would you say?


What is and how was the better promises sanctioned?Promises related to life in the eternal kingdom sanctioned by God. What would you say?


I ask for I believe this is relative to our condition/nature under the new covenant.Please share. :-)

percho
Jan 6th 2013, 02:41 AM
The more excellent service is the position of High Priest and King. He obtained it through his life and through the cross. What would you say?

Promises related to life in the eternal kingdom sanctioned by God. What would you say?

Please share. :-)

I will share with both Kahtar and yourself with this quote under your post for space sake.

I agree the more excellent service is Jesus being High priest after the order of Melchisedec and I asked Kahtar how that came about. I believe Hebrews 5: 5,9,10 show that the day it was said, thou art my Son today I have begotten thee was the day he qualitified as high priest after the order of Melchisedec this also being the same moment he was perfected/completed/matured becoming the author (first cause) of eternal salvation. That is the day God his Father raised Jesus from the dead. That day, Jesus, who had become obedient unto death even the death of the cross, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world 1 Peter 1:19,20 received the promise of God who cannot lie, the hope of eternal life.Titus 1:2 He Jesus became the author of eternal life by the resurrection from the dead. It is from the resurrection of Jesus from the dead we have (by the sheding abroad of the Holy Spirit) hope of eternal life called lively hope in 1 Peter 1:3 see also Titus 3:6,7 Jesus has received the promise of hope through the faith of obedience unto death and we have received the Holy Spirit making us heirs (not yet inheritors) of the same promise of hope. Jesus receiving the hope, promise was by the grace of his Father God. By grace are ye saved through the faith (of Jesus, being understood).

Being of the order of Melchisedec requires eternal life see Hebrews 7:15,16 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Therefore back to my second question to Kahtar I believe we shall be priest after the order of Melchisedec. Now take a look at Hebrews 6:20 which should spread some light upon the controversial passage that preceeds. 6:20 YLT whither a forerunner for us did enter -- Jesus, after the order of Melchisedek chief priest having become -- to the age.

We will become as he is for he is the forerunner of us.

The better promises is the hope of eternal life after which we become inheritors the law of God will be in us, we also will have fulfilled the law.

Rufus
Jan 6th 2013, 03:20 AM
Law keeping has nothing to do with the messianic kingdom.

The kingdom is about grace and relationship, not law.

That breath of fresh air is appreciated in here and sorely needed. :)

Rufus

Rufus
Jan 6th 2013, 03:26 AM
Right. He stated, as did Paul, that loving God and loving neighbor fulfills the law. But, if the law is done away with, and obeying it is against the work of Christ, then why fulfil it? If obeying the law is against the work of Christ, then, as was implied, we should avoid it like the plague, and thus not try to fulfill it by loving God or neighbor.

Can you tell me, please, of what you think the Law of Moses consists?

Thanks,

Rufus
Jan 6th 2013, 03:33 AM
Yes, Jesus expressed his love for God by keeping the Mosaic Law.

So...Jesus didn't express his love toward his neighbor by keeping the Mosaic Law?

Rufus
Jan 6th 2013, 03:41 AM
Outwardly, yes.

But scripture says that upon Christ's return he will deliver up his kingdom to his Father, which happens at the Resurrection (1Cor 15:20ff.). But doesn't the resurrection occur at Part A of his return -- the stealth 2nd Coming when the rapture also takes place?

LookingUp
Jan 6th 2013, 03:52 AM
So...Jesus didn't express his love toward his neighbor by keeping the Mosaic Law?Kahtar wrote, “sin is transgression of law.”
RabbiKnife wrote, “law being referred to as Jesus described it: Love God, Love People.”

Yet, Jesus expressed his love for God and others by keeping the Mosaic Law. The way in which Jesus loved was by observing the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

LookingUp
Jan 6th 2013, 03:56 AM
But scripture says that upon Christ's return he will deliver up his kingdom to his Father, which happens at the Resurrection (1Cor 15:20ff.). But doesn't the resurrection occur at Part A of his return -- the stealth 2nd Coming when the rapture also takes place?It doesn’t say this is “at the resurrection”; it says it happens at “the end.”

Rufus
Jan 6th 2013, 04:01 AM
Well, that's pretty strange wording. Jesus destroys the works of the devil -1Jn 3:8; Heb 2:14, but the curse still exists. The soul that sins shall die. The curse, death, will be swallowed up in victory, yes.


We cannot be under law and grace. It's either one or the other. We either operate with the law and our flesh, or we operate with the law and grace. Under grace, we have forgiveness if we sin. That wasn't the case under the law -Rom 3:19-28.

Note: under law is not about the Mosaic Law, but The Law that existed before and after in and for all men.
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 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;


Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

But 3:19 should be understood in its larger context -- of what Paul said earlier (cf. Rom 2:12-15). "The Law" that Paul is talking about is indeed the Law of Moses, for he even contrasted the Gentiles who were not given this Law with the Jews who were given this Law. The only Law the Gentiles had, basically, was that which was intuitively revealed or came via oral tradition to them. It was not the Law of Moses that came by divine revelation. The law that came by this latter type of revelation differed significantly from the law given by Intuitive Revelation.

Rufus
Jan 6th 2013, 04:16 AM
It doesn’t say this is “at the resurrection”; it says it happens at “the end.”

But is not death abolished at the resurrection (v. 26)?

And isn't the entire creation in "anxious longing" and is waiting "eagerly" for the "revealing of the sons of the God"? And isn't this revealing nothing less than when believers receive the "redemption of our body", for which we also "eagerly" await? Surely in Romans 8 Paul is alluding to the Curse that was placed upon all creation after the Fall, and there were numerous ways in which this curse manifested itself -- but the ultimate curse was death for our first parents' disobedience. Death is the ultimate enemy and the last enemy. And Death gets swallowed up and vanquished forever at the Resurrection!

LookingUp
Jan 6th 2013, 05:42 AM
But is not death abolished at the resurrection (v. 26)?

And isn't the entire creation in "anxious longing" and is waiting "eagerly" for the "revealing of the sons of the God"? And isn't this revealing nothing less than when believers receive the "redemption of our body", for which we also "eagerly" await? Surely in Romans 8 Paul is alluding to the Curse that was placed upon all creation after the Fall, and there were numerous ways in which this curse manifested itself -- but the ultimate curse was death for our first parents' disobedience. Death is the ultimate enemy and the last enemy. And Death gets swallowed up and vanquished forever at the Resurrection!
Scripture seems to teach that death is swallowed up in stages. Christ officially abolished death at his resurrection (Heb. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:10), yet we continue to die. For those in Christ, death truly is swallowed up already but the actualization of that reality is at the resurrection. At the resurrection, prior to the millennial kingdom, death is abolished for us in actuality, but during the millennial kingdom, it appears people continue to die.

It’s not crystal clear for me yet, but I see a common pattern of progressive transformation of things: Sinai Covenant gradually transforms into New Covenant; old man gradually transforms into new creature; old heavens and earth (present through millennial kingdom) gradually transform into new heavens and earth (eternal state).

I’m not completely sure what to make of it yet.

Nick
Jan 6th 2013, 05:55 AM
I don't see why this is such a debate. All we have to do is look at what Jesus said in Mt. 5:17-19 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

What commandments is Jesus referring to if not the Mosaic Law? Has everything that was prophesied been fulfilled? I would think not. The "Law and the Prophets" was a regular expression Jews of Jesus’ day used to refer to the entire Old Testament. (See Matthew 7:12; 22:40; Acts 24:14; 28:23; Romans 3:21.) The Old Testament comprises the Holy Scriptures or the sacred writings of the Jewish faith. It was through these writings that Jews thought they could understand the will of God and have eternal life (John 5:39, 45).What Jesus said, then, was the Old Testament as a body of "God-breathed" literature would not be set aside or abolished. His concern was not specifically the Sabbath or the Ten Commandments. It was the entire Old Testament.

LookingUp
Jan 6th 2013, 06:35 AM
I don't see why this is such a debate. All we have to do is look at what Jesus said in Mt. 5:17-19 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

What commandments is Jesus referring to if not the Mosaic Law? Has everything that was prophesied been fulfilled? I would think not. The "Law and the Prophets" was a regular expression Jews of Jesus’ day used to refer to the entire Old Testament. (See Matthew 7:12; 22:40; Acts 24:14; 28:23; Romans 3:21.) The Old Testament comprises the Holy Scriptures or the sacred writings of the Jewish faith. It was through these writings that Jews thought they could understand the will of God and have eternal life (John 5:39, 45).What Jesus said, then, was the Old Testament as a body of "God-breathed" literature would not be set aside or abolished. His concern was not specifically the Sabbath or the Ten Commandments. It was the entire Old Testament.I think part of the problem is that people look at Paul’s “not under law but under grace” material and immediately assume that that must mean that the Mosaic Law once associated with the Sinai Covenant does not apply to those in Christ. That’s not entirely accurate. The New Covenant in Christ’s blood does not liberate one from the righteous lifestyle advocated by the Mosaic Law; it liberates one from establishing and maintaining that righteousness oneself. Our flesh died with Christ and no longer strives with the Law and thus it cannot condemn us. We are alive to the Law of Christ and by the Spirit, we fulfill the righteous requirements of the Mosaic Law.

And, I guess, some think that “by the Spirit” means that since Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law, we can sit back and do whatever we want to just so long as we interpret what we do as “loving God and neighbor.” The thing is, God gave us many examples of what “loving God and neighbor” looks like, yet we’re so afraid to look like we’re “under the Law” we refrain from doing anything that resembles expressing love for God and neighbor according to the “Mosaic way" of doing things. Which isn't so bad but then we discourage others from expressing love this way. Well, guess what, people, Jesus expressed his love for God and neighbor by observing the letter of the Mosaic Law. Yes, of course, he lived the spirit of the Law. But the point is that one can observe the letter and at the same time live the spirit of the Law. So, let those who express love for God this way be!

Noeb
Jan 6th 2013, 04:22 PM
You are mistaken. Death was destroyed. “…Christ Jesus, who abolished death…” (2 Tim. 1:10). This doesn't mean Christ abolished "dying" but it does mean he abolished "death" (i.e. death is not permanent for those in Christ).Until Revelation 20:14; 22:3, it still exist. Just like, though he has been made King, he's not until Revelation 11:5--. He abolished death "through the gospel -2Ti 1:10". Which says we will rise in the future because he first rose in the past. I could post a few verses and we could play scripture pong, but why? Death still reigns. Even in the messianic kingdom.



I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. I’m just seeing a broader picture than you are. You narrow it downI'd say it's the other way around. That you are narrowing the bigger picture of the spirit of the law, with the letter of the law that was added. If I'm narrowing the big picture down, why did Jesus come teaching the spirit of the law and not the letter?



to the previous lawThe previous law is God's character and standard. It's why we are His Image. It's what Enoch, Job, Noah, Abraham,......followed. It is the big picture.



(i.e. wages of sin is death) and then say all are redeemed from it (i.e. death is abolished). I don’t disagree. Death is conquered and all in Christ will not be held by death. But there’s also something God was/is doing with Israel. Through Israel, God chose to make a way for mankind to never sin again.So the Mosaic had to be added? It was his will? Remember, it was added because of transgression. So was this his will? God was bringing Christ in the flesh through Israel (Rom 9:5) for quite some time without the need of some laws being written in stone. Would we have the letter of the law if Israel followed the spirit of the law?

BTW, thanks for the discussion. I love your love for the truth and searching the scriptures. :)

Noeb
Jan 6th 2013, 04:32 PM
But 3:19 should be understood in its larger context -- of what Paul said earlier (cf. Rom 2:12-15). "The Law" that Paul is talking about is indeed the Law of Moses, for he even contrasted the Gentiles who were not given this Law with the Jews who were given this Law. The only Law the Gentiles had, basically, was that which was intuitively revealed or came via oral tradition to them. It was not the Law of Moses that came by divine revelation. The law that came by this latter type of revelation differed significantly from the law given by Intuitive Revelation....it's the Mosaic.....but then it's not.....
This proves the point exactly. Paul is referring to the morality in The Law just as Jesus did. We can at least agree on that, can't we? That IS the larger context.

Noeb
Jan 6th 2013, 04:34 PM
I think part of the problem is that people look at Paul’s “not under law but under grace” material and immediately assume that that must mean that the Mosaic Law once associated with the Sinai Covenant does not apply to those in Christ.Or maybe the problem is people looking at Paul's use of the word "law" and assuming 'Mosaic'. Do we think Paul's understanding differed from Jesus'?

Noeb
Jan 6th 2013, 04:54 PM
I don't see why this is such a debate. All we have to do is look at what Jesus said in Mt. 5:17-19 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

What commandments is Jesus referring to if not the Mosaic Law? Has everything that was prophesied been fulfilled? I would think not. The "Law and the Prophets" was a regular expression Jews of Jesus’ day used to refer to the entire Old Testament. (See Matthew 7:12; 22:40; Acts 24:14; 28:23; Romans 3:21.) The Old Testament comprises the Holy Scriptures or the sacred writings of the Jewish faith. It was through these writings that Jews thought they could understand the will of God and have eternal life (John 5:39, 45).What Jesus said, then, was the Old Testament as a body of "God-breathed" literature would not be set aside or abolished. His concern was not specifically the Sabbath or the Ten Commandments. It was the entire Old Testament.You're almost there. I went looking at commentaries to see what they had to say. The JFB Commentary being my favorite, again (and not surprisingly) seems to agree with my view.

JFB Commentary
"Mat 5:17
Mat_5:17-48. Identity of these principles with those of the ancient economy; in contrast with the reigning traditional teaching.
Exposition of Principles (Mat_5:17-20).
Think not that I am come — that I came.
to destroy the law, or the prophets — that is, “the authority and principles of the Old Testament.” (On the phrase, see Mat_7:12; Mat_22:40; Luk_16:16; Act_13:15). This general way of taking the phrase is much better than understanding “the law” and “the prophets” separately, and inquiring, as many good critics do, in what sense our Lord could be supposed to meditate the subversion of each. To the various classes of His hearers, who might view such supposed abrogation of the law and the prophets with very different feelings, our Lord’s announcement would, in effect, be such as this - “Ye who tremble at the word of the Lord, fear not that I am going to sweep the foundation from under your feet: Ye restless and revolutionary spirits, hope not that I am going to head any revolutionary movement: And ye who hypocritically affect great reverence for the law and the prophets, pretend not to find anything in My teaching derogatory to God’s living oracles.”
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil — Not to subvert, abrogate, or annul, but to establish the law and the prophets - to unfold them, to embody them in living form, and to enshrine them in the reverence, affection, and character of men, am I come.

Mat 5:18
For verily I say unto you — Here, for the first time, does that august expression occur in our Lord’s recorded teaching, with which we have grown so familiar as hardly to reflect on its full import. It is the expression manifestly, of supreme legislative authority; and as the subject in connection with which it is uttered is the Moral Law, no higher claim to an authority strictly divine could be advanced. For when we observe how jealously Jehovah asserts it as His exclusive prerogative to give law to men (Lev_18:1-5; Lev_19:37; Lev_26:1-4, Lev_26:13-16, etc.), such language as this of our Lord will appear totally unsuitable, and indeed abhorrent, from any creature lips. When the Baptist’s words - “I say unto you” (Mat_3:9) - are compared with those of his Master here, the difference of the two cases will be at once apparent.
Till heaven and earth pass — Though even the Old Testament announces the ultimate “perdition of the heavens and the earth,” in contrast with the immutability of Jehovah (Psa_102:24-27), the prevalent representation of the heavens and the earth in Scripture, when employed as a popular figure, is that of their stability (Psa_119:89-91; Ecc_1:4; Jer_33:25, Jer_33:26). It is the enduring stability, then, of the great truths and principles, moral and spiritual, of the Old Testament revelation which our Lord thus expresses.
one jot — the smallest of the Hebrew letters.
one tittle — one of those little strokes by which alone some of the Hebrew letters are distinguished from others like them.
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled — The meaning is that “not so much as the smallest loss of authority or vitality shall ever come over the law.” The expression, “till all be fulfilled,” is much the same in meaning as “it shall be had in undiminished and enduring honor, from its greatest to its least requirements.” Again, this general way of viewing our Lord’s words here seems far preferable to that doctrinal understanding of them which would require us to determine the different kinds of “fulfillment” which the moral and the ceremonial parts of it were to have.

Mat 5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break — rather, “dissolve,” “annul,” or “make invalid.”
one of these least commandments — an expression equivalent to “one of the least of these commandments.”
and shall teach men so — referring to the Pharisees and their teaching, as is plain from Mat_5:20, but of course embracing all similar schools and teaching in the Christian Church.
he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven — As the thing spoken of is not the practical breaking, or disobeying, of the law, but annulling or enervating its obligation by a vicious system of interpretation, and teaching others to do the same; so the thing threatened is not exclusion from heaven, and still less the lowest place in it, but a degraded and contemptuous position in the present stage of the kingdom of God. In other words, they shall be reduced by the retributive providence that overtakes them, to the same condition of dishonor to which, by their system and their teaching, they have brought down those eternal principles of God’s law.
but whosoever shall do and teach them — whose principles and teaching go to exalt the authority and honor of God’s law, in its lowest as well as highest requirements.
the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven — shall, by that providence which watches over the honor of God’s moral administration, be raised to the same position of authority and honor to which they exalt the law."


and Paul said
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Nick
Jan 6th 2013, 05:20 PM
I think part of the problem is that people look at Paul’s “not under law but under grace” material and immediately assume that that must mean that the Mosaic Law once associated with the Sinai Covenant does not apply to those in Christ. That’s not entirely accurate. The New Covenant in Christ’s blood does not liberate one from the righteous lifestyle advocated by the Mosaic Law; it liberates one from establishing and maintaining that righteousness oneself. Our flesh died with Christ and no longer strives with the Law and thus it cannot condemn us. We are alive to the Law of Christ and by the Spirit, we fulfill the righteous requirements of the Mosaic Law.

And, I guess, some think that “by the Spirit” means that since Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law, we can sit back and do whatever we want to just so long as we interpret what we do as “loving God and neighbor.” The thing is, God gave us many examples of what “loving God and neighbor” looks like, yet we’re so afraid to look like we’re “under the Law” we refrain from doing anything that resembles expressing love for God and neighbor according to the “Mosaic way" of doing things. Which isn't so bad but then we discourage others from expressing love this way. Well, guess what, people, Jesus expressed his love for God and neighbor by observing the letter of the Mosaic Law. Yes, of course, he lived the spirit of the Law. But the point is that one can observe the letter and at the same time live the spirit of the Law. So, let those who express love for God this way be!

I believe that's the main problem (bolds). It's almost as if people's interpretation of Gal 3:10 supersedes what Jesus said. Paul actually wrote 4 letters to the Corinthians clarifying what was (to them anyway) a confusing message. I believe Jesus's message, especially the Sermon on the Mount was clear in that we (Christians) are still bound by these laws, not for salvation, but to live a holy life. Jesus not only desired that His followers adhere to these commandments, He wished that they would go above and beyond them. He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." He desired not only an outward observance of these laws, but an inward observance as well.

Noeb
Jan 6th 2013, 06:02 PM
I believe that's the main problem (bolds). It's almost as if people's interpretation of Gal 3:10 supersedes what Jesus said. I believe Jesus's message, especially the Sermon on the Mount was clear in that we (Christians) are still bound by these laws, not for salvation, but to live a holy life. Jesus not only desired that His followers adhere to these commandments, He wished that they would go above and beyond them. He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." He desired not only an outward observance of these laws, but an inward observance as well.

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time" meaning, God did not say this. This is the tradition of men. I can hate as long as I don't actually murder. Jesus was contrasting what men said and did to what He actually said. He wasn't saying he "not only desired that His followers adhere to these commandments". He was saying (but I say unto you) the commandment always meant not to hate.
"but I say unto you" ----I am The Law giver and this is what it always meant -do not hate.

Lev 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.
Lev 19:11 Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
Lev 19:12 And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Lev 19:13 Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.
Lev 19:14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.
Lev 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
Lev 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.
Lev 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Rufus
Jan 6th 2013, 07:12 PM
Scripture seems to teach that death is swallowed up in stages. Christ officially abolished death at his resurrection (Heb. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:10), yet we continue to die. For those in Christ, death truly is swallowed up already but the actualization of that reality is at the resurrection. At the resurrection, prior to the millennial kingdom, death is abolished for us in actuality, but during the millennial kingdom, it appears people continue to die.

I don't see how you get "stages" out of the Hebrews passage. In 2 Tim, it's simply saying that Christ abolished death, and he did that at his resurrection. At his resurrection, he conquered death. The tomb could not hold him. Of course, through his resurrection, he brought spiritual life to believers. But in 1 Cor 15, it's pretty clear to me that "the end" is being equated with the the end of his reign, which happens when physical death is abolished. And physical death (the curse for Adam's sin) is abolished at the resurrection, and the resurrection doesn't happen in stages. It happens at the Second Coming.

Likewise, in Rom 8:19-23, Paul is clearly alluding to the curse placed upon the earth due to Adam's sin. All doubt can be removed by the curse language in v.22, wherein Paul is alluding back to Gen 3:16. Eve's curse was pain in child-bearing, but birth pains are also symbolic of all pain and suffering on the earth. And so, due to all the curses God pronounced on the Serpent, on Eve and on Adam after the Fall, the entire creation has been in bondage to corruption -- corruption that resulted from sin.

It is highly significant that Paul, personifies the creation by drawing a parallel between it is "anxious longing" and our longing and eagerness for our bodily resurrection, i.e. the "redemption of our body". The redemption of our bodies marks the end of physical death forever. And likewise, our resurrection must also mark the end of the earth's "slavery to corruption", otherwise the parallel in the passage makes no sense.

So, now the question becomes: When do these two events occur? When does our resurrection take place and when does the earth become free from its slavery to corruption? The answer should be obvious. They both occur at the Second Coming. This is why Paul ties in the earth's curse with our curse of physical death. In fact, we can even nail this down tighter: The both occur on the Day of the Lord (cf. 1Thes 4:13-5:2; 2Pet 3:1-10). And the Day of the Lord is the Second Coming. That is the day He returns in all his glory, to raise the righteous, rapture the living, raise the wicked, judge the righteous first then the wicked, then create the new heavens and new earth. All on the Day of the Lord.

This is why all creation is waiting anxiously for its own redemption and is in eager anticipation of the saints' bodily redemption. First, the saints are redeemed, meaning all physical death for all time is abolished. Then the earth will be "redeemed" when it experiences its "rebirth" which happens when the old order is destroyed and everything is created new by Jesus.



It’s not crystal clear for me yet, but I see a common pattern of progressive transformation of things: Sinai Covenant gradually transforms into New Covenant;

That "transformation" (or more appropriately, transition period) has already taken place and is finished. It started at Jesus' death on the cross when the thick curtain between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies in the temple was rent in two. That signified the "end of sacrifices" spoken of in Daniel. That marked the beginning of the end of the Old Covenant. But the final curtain came down in 70 A.D. when the "people of the prince" came and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, as Daniel and Jesus had prophesied. This period of time that elapsed between the Cross and 70. A.D is precisely the reason for the kind of language used in Heb 8:13 about the Old Covenant, i.e. "becoming obsolete and growing old and ready to disappear". But in another place, the same writer wrote that God "takes away the first covenant in order to establish the second" (10:9), which clearly tells us that the two covenants were so unalike (Jer 31:32) they could not peacefully co-exist! The New Covenant era was phased in and the Old Covenant phased out entirely in Jesus' generation, e.g. "this generation will not pass away...".

It also accounts for Paul's language in 2 Cor 3:1-11 in which he makes several contrasts between the New and Old Covenants. In v10, he speaks of the Old Covenant as one that "had glory" and "has no glory", yet at the same time in the next verse he spoke of it as one that "fades away". In other words, it was still in the process of fading away, since he penned those words prior to 70 A.D.


old man gradually transforms into new creature; old heavens and earth (present through millennial kingdom) gradually transform into new heavens and earth (eternal state).

Yes, sanctification is a process. But the old heavens and earth will be destroyed at the Second Coming per Peter. In fact, in 2 Pet 3, there is no 1,007-year gap between the 2nd advent and judgment and recreation.


I’m not completely sure what to make of it yet.

You've been probably thinking that as you have been reading this. :biggrin:

Noeb
Jan 6th 2013, 07:26 PM
It’s not crystal clear for me yet, but I see a common pattern of progressive transformation of things: Sinai Covenant gradually transforms into New Covenant; old man gradually transforms into new creature; old heavens and earth (present through millennial kingdom) gradually transform into new heavens and earth (eternal state).I don't see progression in these. Where do you see progression?

LookingUp
Jan 6th 2013, 08:01 PM
Death still reigns. Even in the messianic kingdom.We aren’t in disagreement. See post #78.


I'd say it's the other way around. That you are narrowing the bigger picture of the spirit of the law, with the letter of the law that was added. If I'm narrowing the big picture down, why did Jesus come teaching the spirit of the law and not the letter?If letter of the Law was meaningless, Jesus would not have had to be born under the Law and observe it. Technically, then, the Son could have been born under any nation and proved to live the Spirit of the Law without observing the letter of the Law at all. But the way Jesus fulfilled the letter of the Law (or magnified it) was by observing it while living the heartfelt intent of it as well. One doesn’t necessarily exclude the other. Although, in some cases, limiting yourself to the letter of the Law can hinder you from demonstrating the full spiritual intent of the Law.


The previous law is God's character and standard. It's why we are His Image. It's what Enoch, Job, Noah, Abraham,......followed. It is the big picture.God’s previous Law doesn’t make Mosaic Law wrong or evil. It was specifically tailored for this nation in order that they could express God’s holiness in a very specific way. Meanwhile, the curses and sacrificial system within the Law had the useful effect of highlighting man’s sin. Jesus came along and magnified this specific Law by demonstrating the spiritual intent of it, but this doesn’t invalidate the Mosaic Law.


So the Mosaic had to be added?I don’t know that I’d say it had to be added, as in if He hadn’t then His plan would not have worked out. I think He added it to enhance His plan.


Would we have the letter of the law if Israel followed the spirit of the law?Lots of speculation going on between us. But, I’ll play along. I think things would have turned out EXTREMELY different had Israel followed the Spirit of the Law. I’m not sure what it would have looked like, though.

I do have this thought, that will surely be met with some resistance, but, oh well... I think the Ezekiel Temple would have been built and the final Messiah (Jesus) would have come to a people who recognized him immediately if Israel had repented en masse. He would still have had to die but it wouldn’t have gone down, obviously, as we see in history.


BTW, thanks for the discussion. I love your love for the truth and searching the scriptures. Thanks!

Noeb
Jan 6th 2013, 08:09 PM
If letter of the Law was meaningless

God’s previous Law doesn’t make Mosaic Law wrong or evil.I did not say it was meaningless, wrong or evil. Paul was accused of the same by those that did not understand.

LookingUp
Jan 6th 2013, 08:22 PM
I believe Jesus's message, especially the Sermon on the Mount was clear in that we (Christians) are still bound by these laws, not for salvation, but to live a holy life. Jesus not only desired that His followers adhere to these commandments, He wished that they would go above and beyond them. He said, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." He desired not only an outward observance of these laws, but an inward observance as well.I agree with this, but none of this excludes observing Mosaic Law.

LookingUp
Jan 6th 2013, 08:27 PM
I did not say it was meaningless, wrong or evil. Paul was accused of the same by those that did not understand.Then why can't a Christian Jew observe it?

LookingUp
Jan 6th 2013, 08:33 PM
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time" meaning, God did not say this. This is the tradition of men. Not true. “You have heard that the ancients were told…” (Mt. 5:21) NAS


Jesus was contrasting what men said and did to what He actually said. Jesus wasn’t abrogating the Law, as he points out before his discussion on the Law (Mt. 5:17). He’s teaching an even higher standard than what the law permits or demands. For example, the “eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth” was a MAXIMUM for vengeance to prevent the sort of revenge cycle that characterizes near eastern societies. You cannot go beyond recompense for the injury you’ve suffered; that’s the limit of your rights as the injured party. Jesus moves his disciples BEYOND the limitation of their rights by exhorting them not to avail themselves to even the recompense which is rightfully theirs. The Law/Torah gives you right to “such-and-such” and nothing more; but by the grace of God, go beyond focusing on what you have the right to and extend mercy and grace to those who hurt you. By the way, the “eye for eye, and tooth for tooth” was not understood as literal by the ancients but an equivalent monetary retribution (except in the case of life). And the teaching of living out the spirit of the law continues: it’s not enough to obey the letter of the law by not committing adultery or murder; you must go beyond the letter and embrace the spirit of the law by being faithful to your wife and kind to your fellow man in your heart. It’s not enough to obey the letter of the law by fulfilling your oaths; you must go beyond the letter and embrace the spirit of the law by being so transparently honest that no one would require an oath of you. Jesus is digging more deeply into the Law/Torah to bring forth its heartfelt intent and we are all called to live Torah at that level. Grace elevates us to a higher standard.

Rufus
Jan 6th 2013, 08:44 PM
We aren’t in disagreement. See post #78.

God’s previous Law doesn’t make Mosaic Law wrong or evil. It was specifically tailored for this nation in order that they could express God’s holiness in a very specific way. Meanwhile, the curses and sacrificial system within the Law had the useful effect of highlighting man’s sin. Jesus came along and magnified this specific Law by demonstrating the spiritual intent of it, but this doesn’t invalidate the Mosaic Law.

Can you define for me what you mean by "Mosaic Law"? Of what does that law consist?

LookingUp
Jan 6th 2013, 08:53 PM
Can you define for me what you mean by "Mosaic Law"? Of what does that law consist?The Law God gave to Israel through Moses. You can find more details in the Bible or online. Did you read the opening post?

LookingUp
Jan 6th 2013, 09:38 PM
I don't see how you get "stages" out of the Hebrews passage. In 2 Tim, it's simply saying that Christ abolished death, and he did that at his resurrection. At his resurrection, he conquered death. The tomb could not hold him. Of course, through his resurrection, he brought spiritual life to believers. But in 1 Cor 15, it's pretty clear to me that "the end" is being equated with the the end of his reign, which happens when physical death is abolished. And physical death (the curse for Adam's sin) is abolished at the resurrection, and the resurrection doesn't happen in stages. It happens at the Second Coming.,,What you’ve written makes sense, but there is prophecy yet to be fulfilled (Isa. 65:17-25; 66:18-24). Isaiah’s prophecy overlaps the kingdom where death is still present with the eternal state in these passages. Death continues in the millennial kingdom. So, it appears that the vanquishing of death is progressive.


That "transformation" (or more appropriately, transition period) has already taken place and is finished. Reality tells me otherwise. We aren’t experiencing the level of spiritual manifestation brought by the implementation of the new covenant as described by Jeremiah, and therefore I don’t believe the transition is complete.


It started at Jesus' death on the cross when the thick curtain between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies in the temple was rent in two. That signified the "end of sacrifices" spoken of in Daniel. That marked the beginning of the end of the Old Covenant. But the final curtain came down in 70 A.D. when the "people of the prince" came and destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, as Daniel and Jesus had prophesied. This period of time that elapsed between the Cross and 70. A.D is precisely the reason for the kind of language used in Heb 8:13 about the Old Covenant, i.e. "becoming obsolete and growing old and ready to disappear".Completely agree.


But in another place, the same writer wrote that God "takes away the first covenant in order to establish the second" (10:9), which clearly tells us that the two covenants were so unalike (Jer 31:32) they could not peacefully co-exist! The New Covenant era was phased in and the Old Covenant phased out entirely in Jesus' generation, e.g. "this generation will not pass away...". The covenants may be quite different, but the Law remains the same. As I’ve mentioned before, the change was not in the content but in method (i.e. empowerment by the Spirit rather than by the flesh).


It also accounts for Paul's language in 2 Cor 3:1-11 in which he makes several contrasts between the New and Old Covenants. In v10, he speaks of the Old Covenant as one that "had glory" and "has no glory", yet at the same time in the next verse he spoke of it as one that "fades away". In other words, it was still in the process of fading away, since he penned those words prior to 70 A.D.Agreed. The Sinai Covenant slowly faded.

Rufus
Jan 6th 2013, 10:19 PM
What you’ve written makes sense, but there is prophecy yet to be fulfilled (Isa. 65:17-25; 66:18-24). Isaiah’s prophecy overlaps the kingdom where death is still present with the eternal state in these passages. Death continues in the millennial kingdom. So, it appears that the vanquishing of death is progressive.

We're in the millennial kingdom. This is the "1,000-year" reign of Christ.

The best way to interpret prophecy which is frequently written in poetical, figurative, symbolical language which can be obscure and difficult to interpret is through careful study of the clear, unambiguous, didactic portion of scriptures. The Isa 65 passage, for example, is talking about the New Heavens and New Earth, in which there will be no aging or death. It's simply was written to accommodate the understanding of the readers at that time. It was describing an eternal kingdom in earthly terms because that is how the Jews related to the Mosaic Covenant in terms of staying in the Land and prospering in it. But when we get to the NT we are told that only righteousness will dwell in the new creation, so how could there be any death? And look how Rev 21 reads:

Rev 21:1-4
21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them, 4 and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away. "
NASB


Reality tells me otherwise. We aren’t experiencing the level of spiritual manifestation brought by the implementation of the new covenant as described by Jeremiah, and therefore I don’t believe the transition is complete.

I don't understand. We're not talking about spiritual transformation. I'm talking (at least) about the [i]transition period[/b] from Old Covenant to the New. By 70 A.D. most of (if indeed not all) of the NT scriptures had been penned and many of those epistles had already started to be circulated throughout the Church.


The covenants may be quite different, but the Law remains the same. As I’ve mentioned before, the change was not in the content but in method (i.e. empowerment by the Spirit rather than by the flesh).

The Mosaic Covenant is the Law -- all 613 commandments worth!


Agreed. The Sinai Covenant slowly faded.

It quit fading in 70 A.D.

Gotta run.

Noeb
Jan 6th 2013, 10:30 PM
Not true. “You have heard that the ancients were told…” (Mt. 5:21) NASThat's the teaching of men. Where do you find in the law.....
"Mat 5:21.......and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:"
?


Jesus wasn’t abrogating the LawI didn't say he was. He was showing perfectly (fulfilling) the law.



as he points out before his discussion on the Law (Mt. 5:17). He’s teaching an even higher standard than what the law permits or demands.Where does it say this? No where. It says he is teaching a higher standard than men.



For example, the “eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth” was a MAXIMUM for vengeance to prevent the sort of revenge cycle that characterizes near eastern societies.Men taught eye for an eye, but that was reserved for the judicial system, not individuals. God never said eye for an eye was for individuals to carry out.

This is seen throughout the chapter and teaching. He's not taking the law higher, but teaching it as it was intended. If you think he's taking the law higher you do not know what the law says.

Rufus
Jan 7th 2013, 01:09 AM
So, then, what was “growing old” and “ready to disappear” in Heb. 8:13? The things Jesus himself replaced in order to renew/revamp the Sinai Covenant. Jesus became the new High Priest and sacrifice (Heb. 9:11-12). Shortly after this was written the temple was destroyed and the system involving a Levitical High Priest and animal sacrifices came to an end. But this signified a renewal of the Sinai Covenant, not an utter end to it.

Okay...so, let's start here:

Heb 7:12
12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also
NASB

A few questions:

1. Do you agree that the entire Law had to change? The writer did not say a mere "change IN the law" but a change of law.

2. Why do you think he said a change of law was necessary? On what basis did he make this remarkable statement?

3. What is the new law that went into effect to supersede the Mosaic Law? Don't forget: Mosaic Law = Mosaic Covenant, Old Covenant or First Covenant.

4. What part of the Mosaic Covenant is relevant to Christians under this New Covenant economy?

5. How do we know what is relevant for us today?

6. Can you tell me in which way(s) the New Covenant is unlike the Old (Jer 31:32)


Did the Sinai Covenant pass away (Heb. 8:13)? Yes and no. Does a caterpillar pass away in order to become a butterfly?

Bad analogy. Writer in Hebrews did not say a change in the law's form. There was actually a change of law that is absolutely necessary. Something replaced the law. Apparently, the Law of Moses isn't like the U.S. Constitution, for example, that can be amended.

I'm including a link below to a site that offers one of the best commentaries I've ever read on Mat 5:17-19. It's a long read but very worthwhile in my opinion.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/fulfils_arlandson.pdf

Once you begin to understand that the New Covenant fulfills the Old and look at Jesus as the eschatological fulfillment of the "Law and the Prophets" (i.e. the entire OT), then things will start to make a lot more sense. Jesus has fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant in its entirety, has fulfilled OT Types and has fulfilled, is fulfilling and will yet fulfill OT prophecies. (We should never forget Typology.) This eschatological view and interpretation of the above passage is warranted and justified because Jesus himself did say in various ways and places in the Gospels that the OT was all about Him! And it's also warranted because the Christian Faith finds its ground in the OT! (Don't forget: The teaching and preaching of the gospel was strictly out of the OT scriptures for decades in the first century church!)

LookingUp
Jan 7th 2013, 01:54 AM
1. Do you agree that the entire Law had to change? The writer did not say a mere "change IN the law" but a change of law.Yes, the Law of Moses changed to the Law of Christ. But that doesn’t automatically mean that nothing in the previous Law resembles practices in the new Law.


2. Why do you think he said a change of law was necessary? On what basis did he make this remarkable statement?Because He found fault with the people (Heb. 8:8). That’s why the change was in the method (i.e. empowerment) rather than in the content. The fault within the Law wasn’t the content; it was within the people who observed it (i.e. sin).


3. What is the new law that went into effect to supersede the Mosaic Law? Don't forget: Mosaic Law = Mosaic Covenant, Old Covenant or First Covenant.The new law is the Law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal 6:2).


4. What part of the Mosaic Covenant is relevant to Christians under this New Covenant economy?The Sinai Covenant has transformed into the New Covenant in Christ’s blood.


5. How do we know what is relevant for us today?I’m not completely sure what you’re asking. But if we put our faith in Christ and walk accordingly, we will fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law (Rom. 8:4). Again, this doesn’t exclude practices and rituals of the Mosaic Law (i.e. kosher, Sabbath observance, participation in feasts of LORD, etc.).


6. Can you tell me in which way(s) the New Covenant is unlike the Old (Jer 31:32)Sure. It’s an inside-out methodology rather than an outside-in methodology. God writes His Law on Israel’s hearts instead of imposing them from outside—but it’s still the same commandments. Again, it’s not a change in content but a change in empowerment.


Bad analogy. Writer in Hebrews did not say a change in the law's form. There was actually a change of law that is absolutely necessary.The only thing that's spoken of as changed is the High Priest and sacrifice.

Rufus
Jan 7th 2013, 04:55 AM
Yes, the Law of Moses changed to the Law of Christ. But that doesn’t automatically mean that nothing in the previous Law resembles practices in the new Law.

But it could mean that the nature of the law changed and how the law is to function under the New Covenant.


Because He found fault with the people (Heb. 8:8). That’s why the change was in the method (i.e. empowerment) rather than in the content. The fault within the Law wasn’t the content; it was within the people who observed it (i.e. sin).

Ahh...you overlooked the previous verse in which it is stated that the first covenant was not without fault. But be that as it may, you're taking a wild stab at an answer, which is not even remotely the reason for the necessary change of law. The real reason for the necessity of change is legal in nature. In fact, the reason is stated in the law itself. The Old Covenant is self-restrictive. It's a closed covenant. It's a done deal. No revisions. No changes. No amendments.

Deut 4:2
2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
NASB

And,

Deut 12:32
32 "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.
NASB

Since nothing whatsoever could be added to or taken away from the Mosaic Covenant, this obviously means the Law (as in the entire body of Law) must stand perpetually or another entirely New Covenant would have to be made to supersede it. And this is why the Old Covenant is obsolete, has been taken away, has disappeared and no longer has any glory. The New Covenant is as superior to the Old as Christ is to Moses.


The new law is the Law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal 6:2).

And what about the Law of Faith, Law of the Spirit and the Law of Liberty?


The Sinai Covenant has transformed into the New Covenant in Christ’s blood.

You didn't answer my question. Since you think that the Mosaic Covenant is still in effect, then I think you should tell us what commands specifically in that covenant apply to Christians. How about the penalties, for example, in Leviticus 20? Are we good to go with those today? What about the 4th commandment? Saturday? Sunday Both? Either or? And should the sabbath be observed in our houses as it was in the OT, or anywhere we want? And what about dress codes for all the New Covenant priests today. Do the OT codes apply? In fact, earlier didn't you say that the Mosaic Covenant is equal to the New? Or am I confusing you with someone else?


I’m not completely sure what you’re asking. But if we put our faith in Christ and walk accordingly, we will fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law (Rom. 8:4). Again, this doesn’t exclude practices and rituals of the Mosaic Law (i.e. kosher, Sabbath observance, participation in feasts of LORD, etc.).

Actually the text says that the "law will be fulfilled in us" -- not by us.

And you're saying that all the Mosaic Law requirements are still binding on Christians today?


Sure. It’s an inside-out methodology rather than an outside-in methodology. God writes His Law on Israel’s hearts instead of imposing them from outside—but it’s still the same commandments. Again, it’s not a change in content but a change in empowerment.

That's it? That's all you could come up with? I came up with 61 different ways that the New Covenant is unlike the Old.


The only thing that's spoken of as changed is the High Priest and sacrifice.

This is true in that particular passage, however this one "tiny little" change still required a change of law.
So, are you telling us that the entire Mosaic Covenant is binding upon Christians today, save for those pertaining the priesthood and sacrifices? The priesthood and sacrifices are the only two ways that the New Covenant is unlike the Old? What about all the various feast days? What about the Year of Jubilee? You do know, right, that the Mosaic Covenant, according to most reputable scholars, contains 613 statues, ordinances and commandments? The nature of the New Covenant isn't radically different? The Law of Christ functions in the same way as the Law of Moses?

And what about the OT dietary statutes? They still binding or is all food clean today?

Let me toss out just one very radical difference between the two covenants, which has profound implications: The Old was conditional in nature. The New is unconditional and unilateral in nature. The Old contained a slew of "ifs"; the New does not. Not one because its fulfillment is not dependent upon those whom God sovereignly calls into covenant relationship him.

Noeb
Jan 7th 2013, 05:44 AM
If you think he's taking the law higher you do not know what the law says.LookingUp, I ask you (or anyone) to review Matthew 5 and the Law and let me know what is new in Matthew 5. What did Jesus say that you think is a higher level than the Law? Also might want to review the JFB Commentary (http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/matthew/matthew-5.html) just so you don't think I'm alone.

Rufus
Jan 7th 2013, 05:47 PM
LookingUp, I ask you (or anyone) to review Matthew 5 and the Law and let me know what is new in Matthew 5. What did Jesus say that you think is a higher level than the Law? Also might want to review the JFB Commentary (http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/matthew/matthew-5.html) just so you don't think I'm alone.

Please give your commentary on vv.21, 22. How was Jesus' explanation no different from the Law? But before you begin, I would remind you that Jesus begins his exposition on the 6th commandment in v.22 with but, clearly indicating that he's about to say something different because this term denotes a contrast. In fact, right off the bat, he's implicitly contrasting his authority with that of Moses.

Thanks. I look forward to your exposition.

Noeb
Jan 7th 2013, 06:04 PM
LookingUp said "Then why can't a Christian Jew observe it?"

To the minimal extent it's possible they can. A gentile could for that matter. I said this already. I don't know why, since one can't even begin to do it all, which is the requirement.

Noeb
Jan 7th 2013, 06:11 PM
Rufus, did you read the JFB like I asked? Saves me a lot of time and typing.

JFB Commentary
"21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time--or, as in the Margin, "to them of old time." Which of these translations is the right one has been much controverted. Either of them is grammatically defensible, though the latter--"to the ancients"--is more consistent with New Testament usage (see the Greek of Ro 9:12, 26; Re 6:11; 9:4); and most critics decide in favor of it. But it is not a question of Greek only. Nearly all who would translate "to the ancients" take the speaker of the words quoted to be Moses in the law; "the ancients" to be the people to whom Moses gave the law; and the intention of our Lord here to be to contrast His own teaching, more or less, with that of Moses; either as opposed to it--as some go the length of affirming--or at least as modifying, enlarging, elevating it. But who can reasonably imagine such a thing, just after the most solemn and emphatic proclamation of the perpetuity of the law, and the honor and glory in which it was to be held under the new economy? To us it seems as plain as possible that our Lord's one object is to contrast the traditional perversions of the law with the true sense of it as expounded by Himself. A few of those who assent to this still think that "to the ancients" is the only legitimate translation of the words; understanding that our Lord is reporting what had been said to the ancients, not by Moses, but by the perverters of his law. We do not object to this; but we incline to think (with BEZA, and after him with FRITZSCHE, OLSHAUSEN, STIER, and BLOOMFIELD) that "by the ancients" must have been what our Lord meant here, referring to the corrupt teachers rather than the perverted people."

Post #86 and 98 is where I previously answered.

Noeb
Jan 7th 2013, 06:28 PM
Oh, and just a reminder, Jesus prefaced by saying we are salt and light and must have a different kind of righteousness than what the current system was teaching. Inward of God not tradition of men.

LookingUp
Jan 7th 2013, 07:22 PM
Oh, and just a reminder, Jesus prefaced by saying we are salt and light and must have a different kind of righteousness than what the current system was teaching. Inward of God not tradition of men.Mosaic Law was not tradition of men, fyi. :-)

LookingUp
Jan 7th 2013, 07:31 PM
Ahh...you overlooked the previous verse in which it is stated that the first covenant was not without fault. I didn’t overlook it. The verse I quoted explained why the first covenant had fault: it was with the person, not the Law. Paul explains that, too, when he says the Law is holy and it’s the sin in man that was the problem


Deut 4:2
2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
NASBAnd “they” didn’t add or take away from it.


Since nothing whatsoever could be added to or taken away from the Mosaic Covenant, By “them.”


or another entirely New Covenant would have to be made to supersede it.And it does. The Sinai Cov. became the New and the Mosaic Law became the Law of Christ.


And what about the Law of Faith, Law of the Spirit and the Law of Liberty?What about it?


You didn't answer my question. Since you think that the Mosaic Covenant is still in effect,The Mosaic Covenant associated with the Sinai Cov. is not in effect.


Or am I confusing you with someone else?You must be confusing me with someone else. Instead of me writing things over and over again. Why not just read my previous posts?

LookingUp
Jan 7th 2013, 07:33 PM
Please give your commentary on vv.21, 22. How was Jesus' explanation no different from the Law? But before you begin, I would remind you that Jesus begins his exposition on the 6th commandment in v.22 with but, clearly indicating that he's about to say something different because this term denotes a contrast. In fact, right off the bat, he's implicitly contrasting his authority with that of Moses.

Thanks. I look forward to your exposition.It's not "Moses' Law." The Law was given to him by God. Jesus is not contrasting his own Law. He's simply digging deeper into Torah to bring forth its heartfelt intent.

Noeb
Jan 7th 2013, 07:48 PM
Which was the original intent. Therefore Jesus is teaching the law, not elevating it to a higher standard. Again, there's nothing new in Matthew 5, therefore he was contrasting the law with the system of man. He is contrasting it with something.......what?

Rufus
Jan 7th 2013, 08:13 PM
Rufus, did you read the JFB like I asked? Saves me a lot of time and typing.

Actually, I prefer for posters to make their own arguments in their own words. Sometimes I post links to sites, such as I did yesterday with the British commentator on Mat 5:17-19, but I try not to use the words of others to support my case. The link was more for informational purposes only.


JFB Commentary
"21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time--or, as in the Margin, "to them of old time." Which of these translations is the right one has been much controverted. Either of them is grammatically defensible, though the latter--"to the ancients"--is more consistent with New Testament usage (see the Greek of Ro 9:12, 26; Re 6:11; 9:4); and most critics decide in favor of it. But it is not a question of Greek only. Nearly all who would translate "to the ancients" take the speaker of the words quoted to be Moses in the law; "the ancients" to be the people to whom Moses gave the law; and the intention of our Lord here to be to contrast His own teaching, more or less, with that of Moses; either as opposed to it--as some go the length of affirming--or at least as modifying, enlarging, elevating it. But who can reasonably imagine such a thing, just after the most solemn and emphatic proclamation of the perpetuity of the law, and the honor and glory in which it was to be held under the new economy? To us it seems as plain as possible that our Lord's one object is to contrast the traditional perversions of the law with the true sense of it as expounded by Himself. A few of those who assent to this still think that "to the ancients" is the only legitimate translation of the words; understanding that our Lord is reporting what had been said to the ancients, not by Moses, but by the perverters of his law. We do not object to this; but we incline to think (with BEZA, and after him with FRITZSCHE, OLSHAUSEN, STIER, and BLOOMFIELD) that "by the ancients" must have been what our Lord meant here, referring to the corrupt teachers rather than the perverted people."

Post #86 and 98 is where I previously answered.

The commentary is anything but persuasive. First of all, where it is written in the bible that the "ancients" were given special or divine revelation -- written revelation prior to Moses?

And if Jesus was referring back to oral tradition (divine revelation passed on by word of mouth), one would think that to his very Jewish audience he would have appealed to the supreme authority of the Law of Moses (the very Mosaic Covenant), which you say in still enforce today. It seems to me he would have taken the opportunity to appeal to its eternal authority. But I say to you that he didn't because the Mosaic Covenant was a conditional covenant and, therefore, strictly temporary, as are all conditional covenants! (The reason conditional covenants are temporary because they have all invariably ended in utter failure!) This stands in sharp contrast to the New Covenant which is eternal (Heb 13:20), and will not end in failure but God Almighty himself will fulfill his own promise.

Your commentator's argument also falls flat because he fails to prove his theory. One of the things that he could have done that would have gone a long way to bolster his argument was to have used the Mosaic Law to show how Jesus was simply appealing to it implicitly in refuting the "ancients".

Or if the Mosaic Covenant is still enforce today and still has full authority over all the people of God for all time, then why didn't Jesus explicitly make this point? Instead of him saying, "But I say unto you...", he could have just as easily have said, "But isn't it written in the Law"? Or "But what did Moses say unto you"? He didn't say these kinds of things, however, because he was exerting his own authority over the Law of Moses. He was indeed establishing his infinitely superior spiritual interpretation of the Law.

The argument also lacks punch because the Jews were the chosen people of God. They were God's covenant people! They would not have understood Jesus' words as the commentator suggests. They and they alone were the most privileged people upon the face of the earth because they alone were entrusted with divine revelation. They alone were entrusted with the "oracles of God", to borrow Paul's phrase. How would they relate to Gentiles who operated on what...mere oral tradition? The Gentiles were never the favored people of God. The Gentiles, up to the time of the New Covenant, were always excluded from the commonwealth, the promises, the covenants, etc. Jews, generally, looked down their noses on unclean Gentiles! Even Jesus himself contrasts Jews with Gentiles in his sermon (Mat 5:47; 6:7, 32). So, why in the world would he appeal to the supposed authority of unrecorded oral tradition given to Gentiles? It makes much better sense to appeal to the Jewish ancients who received the Law of Moses! That would have made a lot more sense to Jesus' audience. They would have easily related to that and more readily received His teaching because He would have been speaking about their ancestors.

For these reasons, I reject the commentator's imaginative interpretation.

Rufus
Jan 7th 2013, 08:24 PM
It's not "Moses' Law." The Law was given to him by God. Jesus is not contrasting his own Law. He's simply digging deeper into Torah to bring forth its heartfelt intent.

In a very real sense it was "Moses' Law". To the Jews, Moses was undoubtedly the greatest prophet in all their history. He was the lawgiver! He was the one who mediated between the people and God. God made his covenant with the Jews through Moses. He was the one who performed great miracles by the "finger of God". In fact, Moses is a type of Christ in numerous ways. But isn't the antitype always superior to the type? Isn't a copy of shadow always inferior to the substance? Likewise, The Law is Moses is markedly inferior to the Law of Christ. And when has God ever put anyone under two laws!? Even Paul said he wasn't under the Law of Moses, but under the Law of Christ.

Noeb
Jan 7th 2013, 08:26 PM
Did you really just say all that? Where did you get any of that? Read the JFB and re-read the portion of the JFB and my words. I'll comment more later.

Rufus
Jan 7th 2013, 08:53 PM
In reply to Lookin'Up:


I didn’t overlook it. The verse I quoted explained why the first covenant had fault: it was with the person, not the Law. Paul explains that, too, when he says the Law is holy and it’s the sin in man that was the problem

But neither did you quote it! The Mosaic Covenant, due its condtional nature, could not save anyone. Therein was its "fault" Therein is why it's markedly inferior to the New Covenant. (Also, I'm up to 63 ways in which the New Covenant is unlike the Old!)


And “they” didn’t add or take away from it.

Of course they would have been! They would have taken away the old Levitical priesthood order and added a new priesthood order!


Since nothing whatsoever could be added to or taken away from the Mosaic Covenant,
By “them.”

What is your point exactly? That God could go back on his covenant!? That once he gave it, he could change it? Can you point to any precedent in scripture when God modified a covenant ratified in blood?


or another entirely New Covenant would have to be made to supersede it.
And it does. The Sinai Cov. became the New and the Mosaic Law became the Law of Christ.

Support your contentions from scripture. You have quite the imagination.


What about it?

Aren't those part of the New Covenant? Aren't they synonymous with the Law of Christ?


The Mosaic Covenant associated with the Sinai Cov. is not in effect.

God made only one covenant with the Jews in the wilderness after the Exodus, albeit given twice to Moses. Read Jeremiah 31 again.

Also, here's a litlte "factoid" for you to chew on: Do you know that Jesus Christ never appealed to this "Sinai Cov'"? Do you know he never said that anything was written about him in this "Sinai Cov."? Are you also aware that none of the NT writers ever spoke about this "Sinai Cov.? Therefore, it's begging to be asked of you: Whose invention is this "Sinai Cov."?


You must be confusing me with someone else. Instead of me writing things over and over again. Why not just read my previous posts?

You're a hard read because so much of what you say makes so little sense. But I will keep your suggestion in mind going forward.

Rufus
Jan 7th 2013, 09:06 PM
Did you really just say all that? Where did you get any off that? Read the JFB and re-read the portion of the JFB and my words. I'll comment more later.

Yes, I did! To what did you object? That I interpreted the JFB as meaning the "ancients" were people who existed prior to the Law of Moses? If you object to that, then that even makes my other objections even stronger. If Jesus was referring to simply to Jewish "traditions" (human inventions of Jewish ancients, that is) as being the perversions of intent of the Law of Moses, then surely he could He could have driven the nail home much more solidly by appealing to the REAL DEAL: to the Law of Moses itself! He could have appealed to the "everlasting" authority of that law! But he did not. Neither did JFB to support his case by quoting from the Law to show, specifically, how those "Jewish ancients" (?) so badly botched and misinterpreted the Law of Moses. Jesus missed a golden opportunity to appeal to that "perpetual" authority of the Law.

LookingUp
Jan 7th 2013, 10:08 PM
In a very real sense it was "Moses' Law". To the Jews, Moses was undoubtedly the greatest prophet in all their history. He was the lawgiver! He was the one who mediated between the people and God. God made his covenant with the Jews through Moses. He was the one who performed great miracles by the "finger of God". In fact, Moses is a type of Christ in numerous ways. But isn't the antitype always superior to the type? Isn't a copy of shadow always inferior to the substance? Likewise, The Law is Moses is markedly inferior to the Law of Christ. And when has God ever put anyone under two laws!? Even Paul said he wasn't under the Law of Moses, but under the Law of Christ.I agree. Still, it's God's Law.

LookingUp
Jan 7th 2013, 11:29 PM
This thread is all over the place. Although I think Noeb has kept up with my posts and probably knows where I stand, I don’t think Rufus does. So, I’m going to sum up my thoughts. I believe it’s more accurate to say the Sinai Covenant is renewed rather than abolished. The New Covenant is the only covenant now in force. The Mosaic Law associated with the Sinai Covenant is also renewed, and it is the Law of Christ that is associated with the New Covenant. Although it is now called the Law of Christ, it is implied that the Law of Moses goes forth from Zion. The main differentiating element between the covenants is empowerment by the Spirit. Thus, the content in the Law of Christ contains the content in the Law of Moses, but it may or may not look differently when enacted due to the changes within the Law (i.e. High Priest, sacrifice for sin) and changes within the covenant (i.e. empowerment).

Although I know there are varying beliefs about the millennial kingdom (present or future?), I remain convinced that the full implementation of the New Covenant has not yet emerged, because we aren’t seeing the level of spiritual manifestation described in Jeremiah. Thus, it is my contention that we are in in an interim between covenants where the new has been enacted for those with faith yet is not fully in force. Thus, we should follow the early disciples’ example and encourage Christian Jews to continue to give expression to their love for God through familiar Mosaic practices.

Further, as BroRog pointed out in another thread, we should give them the same advice Paul gave his fellow Jews:

1Cor. 7:17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called [when he was already] circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised . 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [what matters is] the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that [condition] in which he was called.

When Paul writes, “let him not become uncircumcised,” that means he is not to give up his Jewishness in order to follow Jesus.

-SEEKING-
Jan 7th 2013, 11:41 PM
Outwardly, yes.

So then, just based on a casual observation, this is a Kingdom that has not yet appeared. The Messiah is not ruling the world as the world is under the dominion of many leaders.

Rufus
Jan 7th 2013, 11:47 PM
I agree. Still, it's God's Law.

Do you also agree that Paul said he wasn't under two laws? Have you ever wondered why?

LookingUp
Jan 7th 2013, 11:47 PM
So then, just based on a casual observation, this is a Kingdom that has not yet appeared. The Messiah is not ruling the world as the world is under the dominion of many leaders.It doesn't mean Jesus is not King now. It simply means that things are not yet what they will be under his kingship.

LookingUp
Jan 7th 2013, 11:53 PM
Do you also agree that Paul said he wasn't under two laws? Have you ever wondered why?I don't recall Paul saying, "I'm not under two laws." But, anyway, would you like to share something?

Rufus
Jan 8th 2013, 12:05 AM
This thread is all over the place. Although I think Noeb has kept up with my posts and probably knows where I stand, I don’t think Rufus does. So, I’m going to sum up my thoughts. I believe it’s more accurate to say the Sinai Covenant is renewed rather than abolished. The New Covenant is the only covenant now in force. The Mosaic Law associated with the Sinai Covenant is also renewed, and it is the Law of Christ that is associated with the New Covenant. Although it is now called the Law of Christ, it is implied that the Law of Moses goes forth from Zion. The main differentiating element between the covenants is empowerment by the Spirit. Thus, the content in the Law of Christ contains the content in the Law of Moses, but it may or may not look differently when enacted due to the changes within the Law (i.e. High Priest, sacrifice for sin) and changes within the covenant (i.e. empowerment).

Although I know there are varying beliefs about the millennial kingdom (present or future?), I remain convinced that the full implementation of the New Covenant has not yet emerged, because we aren’t seeing the level of spiritual manifestation described in Jeremiah. Thus, it is my contention that we are in in an interim between covenants where the new has been enacted for those with faith yet is not fully in force. Thus, we should follow the early disciples’ example and encourage Christian Jews to continue to give expression to their love for God through familiar Mosaic practices.

Further, as BroRog pointed out in another thread, we should give them the same advice Paul gave his fellow Jews:

1Cor. 7:17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called [when he was already] circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised . 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [what matters is] the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that [condition] in which he was called.

When Paul writes, “let him not become uncircumcised,” that means he is not to give up his Jewishness in order to follow Jesus.

Please quote, specifically, what you think you are seeing in Jeremiah and explain your understanding of it.

Also explain, please, how one becomes uncircumcised after the deed has been done?

The best way to understand 1Cor 7:18 is in its context. And that Paul summed up nicely in v.24. So, what is your point.
Circumcision or uncircumcision mean nothing in this New Covenant economy.

Also, just as a very interesting and curious aside, note that Paul in 1Cor 7 also said that what matters is the "keeping the commandments of God" This phrase and what Jesus also used often "my commandments" is very much New Covenant language. For example, toward the end of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, he talks about "keeping my words". In John, he didn't say that if you loved him that you would keep the Law of Moses, but instead said, "you'll keep my commandments".

Also, I'm still waiting to hear from you on which of the 613 statutes, ordinances and precepts in the First Covenant are Christians obligated to keep today?

And do you observe the sabbath as required under the Old Covenant?

Rufus
Jan 8th 2013, 12:07 AM
I don't recall Paul saying, "I'm not under two laws." But, anyway, would you like to share something?


1Cor 9;20,21. Clearly, Paul saw the superiority of the Law of Christ.

LookingUp
Jan 8th 2013, 12:16 AM
Please quote, specifically, what you think you are seeing in Jeremiah and explain your understanding of it.

Also explain, please, how one becomes uncircumcised after the deed has been done?

The best way to understand 1Cor 7:18 is in its context. And that Paul summed up nicely in v.24. So, what is your point.
Circumcision or uncircumcision mean nothing in this New Covenant economy.

Also, just as a very interesting and curious aside, note that Paul in 1Cor 7 also said that what matters is the "keeping the commandments of God" This phrase and what Jesus also used often "my commandments" is very much New Covenant language. For example, toward the end of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, he talks about "keeping my words". In John, he didn't say that if you loved him that you would keep the Law of Moses, but instead said, "you'll keep my commandments".

Also, I'm still waiting to hear from you on which of the 613 statutes, ordinances and precepts in the First Covenant are Christians obligated to keep today?

And do you observe the sabbath as required under the Old Covenant?I've decided not to answer this because it's obvious you aren't reading my posts. Some of your answers are in my posts. So...there you have it. Until you stop asking me questions I've already answered, I won't answer new questions.

Noeb
Jan 8th 2013, 04:28 AM
I forgot to answer you. Sorry.

I don’t know that I’d say it had to be added, as in if He hadn’t then His plan would not have worked out. I think He added it to enhance His plan.Kinda like including the Gentiles through Israel rejecting him? I agree.



Lots of speculation going on between us. But, I’ll play along. I think things would have turned out EXTREMELY different had Israel followed the Spirit of the Law. I’m not sure what it would have looked like, though.

I do have this thought, that will surely be met with some resistance, but, oh well... I think the Ezekiel Temple would have been built and the final Messiah (Jesus) would have come to a people who recognized him immediately if Israel had repented en masse. He would still have had to die but it wouldn’t have gone down, obviously, as we see in history.I agree with this also.

Noeb
Jan 8th 2013, 04:39 AM
Actually, I prefer for posters to make their own arguments in their own words. Sometimes I post links to sites, such as I did yesterday with the British commentator on Mat 5:17-19, but I try not to use the words of others to support my case. The link was more for informational purposes only.Which is what I did. After using my own words I gave a link to the JFB as I said, so that someone wouldn't think I was alone in my interpretation.If you had read.......



The commentary is anything but persuasive. First of all, where it is written in the bible that the "ancients" were given special or divine revelationThey were given the law



written revelation prior to Moses?it doesn't, and no one said they did



And if Jesus was referring back to oral tradition (divine revelation passed on by word of mouth), one would think that to his very Jewish audience he would have appealed to the supreme authority of the Law of Moses (the very Mosaic Covenant),.......

It seems to me he would have taken the opportunity to appeal to its eternal authority.He did. Mat 5:17-19
and I didn't say anything about oral tradition


which you say in still enforce today.Said no such thing!



Your commentator's argument also falls flat because he fails to prove his theory.It is not a lengthy exhaustive commentary, was not intended to be here, and doesn't need to be. This subject alone is a book in and of itself. I also didn't post a link to that effect. A believer knows the law says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife". It's in the Ten man! So they shouldn't think "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." is some new revelation or taking the law higher. It also plainly says not to hate. It was not a new concept.



One of the things that he could have done that would have gone a long way to bolster his argument was to have used the Mosaic Law to show how Jesus was simply appealing to it implicitly in refuting the "ancients".It does use the OT as few times, but that's not the point. You know what the law says don't you? The context doesn't stop in chapter 5, where Jesus says salt and light is different than 'scribes and pharisees'. It goes on to contrast the hypocrites and fools with right behavior of salt and light.



Or if the Mosaic Covenant is still enforce today and still has full authority over all the people of God for all time, then why didn't Jesus explicitly make this point?I have no idea why you keep mentioning covenant when we are talking about law. Focus.



Instead of him saying, "But I say unto you...", he could have just as easily have said, "But isn't it written in the Law"? Or "But what did Moses say unto you"?He did. Mat 5:17-19.....
and in quoting from tradition things everyone knew was not in the law, clearly he was correcting error.



He didn't say these kinds of things, however, because he was exerting his own authority over the Law of Moses. He was indeed establishing his infinitely superior spiritual interpretation of the Law."He was indeed establishing his infinitely superior spiritual interpretation of the Law" over who's interpretation? Ahha!

So.....I didn't come to destroy the law and not one jot or tittle shall pass......but it was not totally correct......here's what you really needed to know......
Really? So Jesus established the authority of the Law to turn around and change it and change the standard? Move the bar? The bar he's fulfilling? He now moved the goal post? That makes sense to you?



The argument also lacks punch because the Jews were the chosen people of God. They were God's covenant people! They would not have understood Jesus' words as the commentator suggests.I don't see anyone confused. It says they were "astonished". The disciples didn't ask a question, or Jesus didn't answer their confusion like we see many times elsewhere. Look up "astonished" and you won't see confusion.



For these reasons, I reject the commentator's imaginative interpretation.What reasons?



If Jesus was referring to simply to Jewish "traditions" (human inventions of Jewish ancients, that is) as being the perversions of intent of the Law of Moses, then surely he could He could have driven the nail home much more solidly by appealing to the REAL DEAL: to the Law of Moses itself! He could have appealed to the "everlasting" authority of that law! But he did not.He did. Mat 5:17-19,
then he proceeded to show perfectly what the Law said.



Neither did JFB to support his case by quoting from the Law to show, specifically, how those "Jewish ancients" (?) so badly botched and misinterpreted the Law of Moses.The JFB is a 'they' not a 'he'. They did and look em up. They pointed out the things that were not in the law. I knew this when I was a babe in Christ. A believer reading Matthew 5, having read the law, should recognize the law does not say "you have heard" and does say "but I say".

Noeb
Jan 8th 2013, 04:57 AM
When Paul writes, “let him not become uncircumcised,” that means he is not to give up his Jewishness in order to follow Jesus.Have you considered 1 Maccabees 1:15; Josephus Antiquities 12.5.1?

-SEEKING-
Jan 8th 2013, 05:23 AM
It doesn't mean Jesus is not King now. It simply means that things are not yet what they will be under his kingship.

OH no, I don't doubt that Jesus is King at all. My point is that, and I think you just made mention of it as well, that His Kingship has not begun yet. Similar to when Samuel anointed David to be King. He did not become an active and governing King at that moment, but it was clear the throne would be his eventually.

Rufus
Jan 8th 2013, 05:31 AM
To Everyone Interested:

God spoke through Jeremiah saying that he would make a "new covenant" with Israel and Judah unlike the one that he had made with the fathers when he brought them out from the land of Egypt (31:31,32). For a long time I wondered how this "new covenant" differs from the Mosaic Covenant. In what way wasn't it like the Old Covenant? And in how many ways did it differ? One, two, five, sixteen -- how many? So several months ago, I decided to undertake a study to answer these very questions.

This new covenant was finally instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ at the Last Supper and ratified (like all of God's covenants) in blood -- but this new covenant was very different from the previous ones in that it was ratified in the blood of God's only begotten Son. It's very clear from the NT that this is the only covenant in force and the reason for this (in a nutshell) is because the New Covenant is the fulfillment of all the other covenants. But also, it should be understood that, unlike the Old Covenant, the New is eternal, which clearly implies a necessary ongoing, eschatological fulfillment. But even after all things in heaven and on earth have been fulfilled, the effects of the covenant will be eternal. There simply isn't any other covenant after this New Covenant. This New Covenant is the ultimate fulfillment of all the covenants, which, of course, makes it exceedingly superior to all of them. Another reason why the New Covenant is the last and ultimate covenant is because, as we'll see, Jesus Christ himself is the Covenant! He is God's Covenant to the Father's chosen people!

What I'm going to do below is list 66 ways (recently found a few additional ways, and I'm sure I'll find more!) the New Covenant is unlike the Old. What we'll see is that the two covenants are so radically different, there is no way we can be bound by two of them. There is no way logically, theologically or practically we can pour new wine into old wine skins. Or sew a new piece of unshrunk cloth to old cloth. Such foolish strategies would prove to be futile and, therefore, will not work!

The format I will follow throughout is that I'll list some characteristic peculiar to the Old Covenant (OC) first, then beneath I'll list how the New Covenant (NC) differs, and provide the proof texts in each case. This will be a long post and not an easy read or even a quick study. My advice to those, who care only to skim the quick and easy, is to take a pass on the remainder of this post. But to the rest of you who are ready to tear into some meat of God's word and try to understand the Christian's relationship to these two covenants (theologically and practically) it is my prayer and hope that what follow will aid in that noble endeavor.

1. OC - Conditional, Ex 15:26, 19:3-8
NC - Unconditional, Jer 31:31-34

2. OC - Conditional Nature Speaks to its Temporality Heb 7:12; 8:13
NC - Unconditional Speaks to its Eternality, Heb 13:20

3. OC - Temporary, Waiting Until Promised "Seed" Comes, Gal 3:19
NC - Eternal, Heb 13:20, Ezek 37:26

4. OC - No Inheritance Based on Law, Gal 3:18
NC - Fulfills Promise, Gal 3:18

5. OC - Integral Unit: Cannot Add To or Subtract From, Deut 4:2;12;32
NC - "But I Say Unto You" Mat 5:21-45; Jn 13:34

6. OC - Integral Unit: Cannot Add To or Subtract From, Deut 4:2;12;32
NC - Any Change, Requires Change OF Law, Heb 7:12

7. OC - Tablets of Stone Consist of 10 Commandments, Deut 4:13; 9:9
NC - The Law is THE Commandment, Ex 24:12, Josh 22:5

8. OC - Tablets of Stone are 10 Commandments, Deut 4:13: 9:9
NC - Obligate for One Law, then Must Keep ALL, Gal 5:3

9. OC - All Things of the Law to be Obeyed, Gal 3:10
NC - One Stumble, Guilty of All,Jas 2:10

10. OC - Rule of Life: Keep ALL THE Law, Deut 27:26; Gal 3:10
NC - "If You Love Me...Keep My Commandments", Jn 14:15

11. OC - Rule of Life: Keep ALL THE Law, Deut 27:26; Gal 3:10
NC - Love Fulfills the Law, Rom 13:8-10

12. OC - Rule of Life: Keep ALL THE Law, Deut 27:26; Gal 3:10
NC - Love Fulfills Law of Christ, Gal 6:2

13. OC - Rule of Life: Keep ALL THE Law, Deut 27:26; Gal 3:10
NC - Loving Neighbor Fulfills Royal Law, Jas 2:8

14. OC - Promised Prophet to be Listened to Or Else, Deut 18:18-19
NC - "This is My Beloved Son, Listen to Him", Mk 9:7

15. OC - Ratified in the Blood of Bulls, Ex 24:4-8
NC - Ratified in Jesus' Blood, Lk 22:20

16. OC - Exclusive: Made Only With Israel, Ex 19:3-8
NC - Inclusive: w/Gentiles Jn 10:16, Rom 11:17, Eph 2:11-13

17. OC - Israel's Failure Predicted, Deut 31:27; Josh 24:19
NC - Paul Confident of Saints' Triumph, Phil 1:6; 2:12,13

18. OC - Not Faultless, Heb 8:7
NC - Therefore, Gave Rise to 2nd & Better Covenant, Heb 8:6

19. OC - Priesthood but a Copy and Shadow of Christ, Heb 8:5
NC - Jesus Has More Excellent Ministry, Heb 8:6

20. OC - Ark of The Covenant to be Forgotten, Jer 3:16
NC - Gospel and All it Entails is Eternal, Rev 14:6

21. OC - Obsolete, Weak and Soon to Disappear, Heb 8:13
NC - Better Covenant/Promises, Everlasting, Heb 8:6

22. OC - Shadows, Not the Form, is Taken Away, Heb 10:1, 9
NC - Christ is the Substance, is Established, Heb 10:5-16

23. OC - Knowledge of Sin is by the Law, Rom 3:20
NC - Son Reveals the Father & vice versa, Lk 10:22, Mat 16:17

24. OC - Law Results in Death, Rom 7:10-11
NC - Grace Reigns unto Eternal Life, Rom 5:21

25. OC - Law Given Through Moses, Jn 1:17
NC - Grace & Truth Realized Through Jesus, Jn 1:17

26. OC - 10 Commandments are Ministry of Death, 2Cor 3:7
NC - Brings Ministry of the Spirit of Life, 2Cor 3:8;

27. OC - Blessings: Temporal, Visible in the Land, Deut 28:1-14
NC - Blessings: Spiritual, Eternal in the Kingdom, Eph 1:1-3

28. OC - Letter of Law Kills, 2Cor 3:6
NC - The Spirit Gives Life, 2Cor 3:6

29. OC - The Law Written on Tablets of Stone, 2Cor 3:3
NC - Law Written on Tablets of our Hearts by Spirit, 2Cor 3:3

30. OC - Moses Was Servant of the Law, Jn 1:17
NC - Apostles Were Servants of Grace, New Covenant, 2Cor 3:6

31. OC - Law Was Ministry of Condemnation, 2Cor 3:9
NC - New Covenant is Ministry of Righteousness, 2Cor 3:9

32. OC - Ministry of Condemnation Has Glory, 2Cor 3:9
NC - Ministry of Rigteousness Has Much More Glory, 2Cor 3:9

33. OC - Ministry of Condemnation Had Glory, 2Cor 3:10
NC - Ministry Has Surpassing Glory, 2Cor 3:10

34. OC - When Law was Read, Veil Lies over Israel's Hearts, 2Cor 3:15
NC - Turning to Jesus, Veil is Taken Away, 2Cor 3:16

35. OC - When Old Covenant is Read, Veil Remains Unlifted, 2Cor 3:14
NC - Veil is Removed only in Christ, 2Cor 3:14

36. OC - Moses Hid His Face Due to its Glory, 2Cor 3:13
NC - Apostles Spoke with Boldness of Speech, 2Cor 3:12

37. OC - Law Fades Away Because it Has No Glory, 2Cor 3:10-11
NC - What has Surpassing Glory Remains in Glory, 2Cor 3:10-11

38. OC - Law Enslaves Because Sin is its Power, Gal 5:1-4, 1Cor 15:56
NC - Liberty is Where the Spirit of the Lord is, 2Cor 3:17

39. OC - Law Arouses Sinful Passions in the Flesh, Rom 7:5
NC - Released From and Not Bound to the Law, Rom 7:6

40. OC - Formerly Served in Oldness of Letter, Rom 7:6
NC - But Now Serve in Newness of Spirit, Rom 7:6

41. OC - Paul Not Under Law of Moses, 1Cor 9:20
NC - But Under the Law of Christ, 1Cor 9:21

42. OC - Law Perfects Nothing, Heb 7:18
NC - Christ's Offering Perfects the Sanctified, Heb 10:14-17

43. OC - Jesus Born Under the Law's Jurisdiction, Gal 4:4
NC - Believers Not Under the Law's Jurisdiction, Rom 7:1-6

44. OC - Jesus Fulfilled the Law, Mat 5:17-18
NC - Therefore, Believers Are Released from the Law, Rom 7:6

45. OC - Jesus Fulfilled the Law for Us, Mat 5:17-18
NC - Promise: Law is Fulfilled in Us, Rom 8:4, Jer 31:31-34

46. OC - Law Made Only For the Ungodly, 1 Tim 1:9
NC - Against Fruits of the Spirit, There's No Law, Gal 5:23

47. OC - Blessings and Cursings, Corporate Level, Deut 28
NC - Blessings and Punishment, Individual, Eph 4:7, 1Pet 1:17

48. OC - Covenant of Works, Ex 19:8; 24:3,7; Gal 2:16
NC - Covenant of Grace, Rom 3:24; Eph 2:8,9

49. OC - No Divine Power to Change Heart, Deut 29:4
NC - New Heart Promised, Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26,27

50. OC - Made with Ethnic Israel, Gen 12:2; 46:3
NC - Made w/ Spiritual Israel, Rom 2:28,29; 4:11; 9:6-8

51. OC - Law Brings About Wrath, Rom 4:15
NC - No Violation Without Law, Rom 4:15

52. OC - The Law, a Shadow of Good Things to Come, Heb 10:1
NC - The Person & Work of Christ is the Reality, Heb 10:3-7

53. OC - The First Was Taken Away... Heb 10:9
NC - In Order to Establish the Second, Heb 10:9

54. OC - What the Law Could Not Do...Rom 8:3
NC - God Did by Sending his Son, Rom 8:3

55. OC - Fleshly Mind Cannot Subject Itself to the Law, Rom 8:7
NC - Mind Set on Spirit is Life & Peace, Rom 8:6

56. OC - Synopsis: 10 Commandments Ex 34:28; Deut 4:13;9:9; 1KI 8:9,21
NC - Synopsis: 2 Greatest Commandments, Mat 22:37-40

57. OC - Law Was an Unbearable Yoke, Act 15:10
NC - Jesus' Yoke & Load are Easy and Light, Mat 11:30

58. OC - Law Was a Yoke of Slavery, Gal 5:1
NC - Christ Set Us Free From that Yoke, Gal 5:1

59. OC - Covenant Given on Tablets of Stone, Ex 24:1
NC - God Gave Christ as the Covenant, Isa 42:6; 49:8

60. OC - Came with Threatenings, Thunderings & Lightning, Ex 19:16
NC - Jesus Came Gentle, Humble & To Save, Mat 11:29; Jn 12:47

61. OC - Law Brought A Curse, Gal 3:13
NC - Jesus Redeemed Us From that Curse, Gal 3:13

62. OC - No Inheritance by the Law, Gal 3:18
NC - Inheritance Comes only by Promise, Gal 3:18

63. OC - Israel My Son and first-born Redeemed, Ex 4:22
NC - The Redeemer & First-Born is New Israel, Mat 2:15

64. OC - Not Without Fault, Heb 8:7
NC - Jesus is the Source of our Perfection, Heb 5:9

65. OC - God Dwelt Among Corp. Israel, Ex 29:45,46
NC - Spirit Indwells Each Believer, Rom 8:9-11

66. OC - Temporary, Tutor to Lead to Christ, Gal 3:24
NC - Faith Needs No Tutor, Gal 3.25

Rufus
Jan 8th 2013, 05:39 AM
I've decided not to answer this because it's obvious you aren't reading my posts. Some of your answers are in my posts. So...there you have it. Until you stop asking me questions I've already answered, I won't answer new questions.

Just as I figured, You have no answer.

Noeb
Jan 8th 2013, 06:23 AM
Is "fornication" a sin in "the law and the prophets"?
Ask a Jew, they'll tell you, "No". That's, "you have heard"
But it is. That's, "but I say"

Rufus
Jan 8th 2013, 06:40 AM
It is not a lengthy exhaustive commentary, was not intended to be here, and doesn't need to be. This subject alone is a book in and of itself. I also didn't post a link to that effect. A believer knows the law says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife". It's in the Ten man! So they shouldn't think "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." is some new revelation or taking the law higher. It also plainly says not to hate. It was not a new concept.

Then show me from the Law of Moses where it says that adultery can be committed in the heart. Lusting (coveting) was taught in the OT, but lusting with the eyes was never elevated to the ACT of adultery in the Law of Moses either. In fact, in the 10 commandments, that coveting was limited to a neighbor's wife.

And also show me from the Law of Moses what Jesus taught in vv. 22,23, also.

If you want to wax as though you know something of substance about the Mosaic Covenant, then you should be prepstrf to have these kinds of answers.

Also, it was the custom back when the "ancients" lived to have the law read to them and interpreted for them. This is especially true when the post-Bablyonian Exile synagogue system was established. Therefore, Jesus" words, "You have heard that the ancients were told..." would not hve come as a surprise to his hearers because they, too, were living under the same synagogue system.

And you still haven't answered why Jesus did not address the specific issues he raised directly from the Law. No one knew the Law better than he did. But instead of appealing to the Law of Moses to correct the misinformation the ancient were taught, He Himself corrects it, with the formula, "BUT I say unto you...". He did not say, "But Moses said unto them..." Or "Haven't you read in the Law...?"Or he didn't quote any passage or allude to any passage out of the Law to support his words. He used his own words. So, when he said, "But I say unto you", he is contrasting the bad teaching the ancients received to be sure -- but NOT from the authoritative Law of Moses. And the reason for this is because "thou shall not murder" in the Law was not elevated or internalized to the level of anger or harsh words in the Law of Moses.

Also, Jesus did not establish the authority of the Law in Mat 5:17-19. First of all, Jesus was talking about the whole OT, which most frequently in the NT is referred to as the "Law and the Prophets", even though the Jews held to three divisions in the OT -- the third Division being the "Writings". But this particular division is never used in the NT. The only additional divison that is used are the Psalms, and this only once in Lk 24:44. So, Jesus is clearly talking about the entire OT -- not just the Law of Moses.

Secondly, Jesus was stating the purpose for his coming. His singular purpose was to fulfill the OT scriptures -- all of them. This can be clearly understood when he said,

Matt 5:18
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
NASB

"Accomplished" is the same thing as him saying, "fulfill" in the previous verse. His mission was to accomplish his Father's will as that will was expressed in the Law and the Prophets. Jesus isn't establishing the eternal authority of the Law and the Prophets. Quite the contrary. Those words will pass away "when all is accomplished." And this stands in very sharp contrast to what he said about his own words very late in his ministry,

Matt 24:35
35 "Heaven and earth will pass away , but My words shall not pass away
NASB

Jesus had a very different outlook on his own words than what he did very early in his ministry on the words in the OT. And this is because he was looking at all history form an eschatological viewpoint. His words would carry eternal weight, but not so with the "Law and the Prophets". Without doubt, he has fulfilled the Law of Moses perfectly. Everywhere in the NT, it said that Christ was without sin, that he was righteous, holy, without spot or blemish, etc. However, Jesus still hasn't fulfilled all that is written in the Law about him -- or for that matter in the Prophets either. If Jesus, however, has not fulfilled the demands in the Law, then I have bad news for you: We're all still dead in our sins!

Rufus
Jan 8th 2013, 06:48 AM
The JFB is a 'they' not a 'he'. They did and look em up. They pointed out the things that were not in the law. I knew this when I was a babe in Christ. A believer reading Matthew 5, having read the law, should recognize the law does not say "you have heard" and does say "but I say".

They or he -- doesn't matter. Whoever wrote it is pretty clueless.

But since you think you think you know so much from your infanthood in Christ, then YOU should have no problem answering my questions in my previous post to you (132). (After all, YOU must be quite the expert by now.) But I think you like to talk a good game, but I'm perceiving that you're not equipped to deliver to goods. But I stand to be corrected...once you prove me wrong.

Rufus
Jan 8th 2013, 07:11 AM
That's what I thought, though I don't know how it's the Mosaic Law. The Spirit of Promise through the Abrahamic Covenant was 430 years before the Mosaic Law and came because Abraham obeyed God's law. The Mosaic Law and Sinai Covenant was added later and does not change or effect in any way the previously existing Law and Covenant.

How do you know there wasn't any change? Do you have a special edition of the bible that contains the Abrahamic Law?

Rufus
Jan 8th 2013, 07:19 AM
There was a change in the Law, but it wasn’t in the content of the Law; it was a change in the method. The one sacrifice for sins for all time has been offered and empowerment to walk in His Law by the Spirit is available through the New Covenant in Christ’s blood.

This is a lie. There was no change "in" the law. There had to be a complete change OF law for the reason pointed out earlier. Also, the Mosaic Covenant is a Covenant of Law -- a law that is one solid, indivisible unit. The whole Law stands or falls together. The bible does not teach a three-fold division to the Law of Moses, as so many ignorant, misguided, professing Christians claim. So, when the writer of Hebrews said "change of law", the entire body of law changed. The Law of Moses is no more divisible than God is. All 613 commandments are contained in the Mosaic Covenant.

I'm still waiting on that list from you on which ones we're supposed to keep today.

Rufus
Jan 8th 2013, 07:37 AM
In a previous posting on another thread concerning this matter, I posted the following verses at the request of LookingUp. They present, within their contexts, and standing alone as statements of the Holy Spirit, a massive weight of evidence that the Law does not apply to the Christian in any way. They even go further to put any Christian partaking of them offsides of Christ's work (Gal.5:2). They should be read slowly and carefully, because one of the consequences of returning to the Law is making the Work of Christ of "no profit". As the Father places great value on His beloved Son's work, any demeaning of this Work is dangerous ground for the Christian. In 1st Corinthians 11 we have a dire warning about demeaning the blood of Christ by taking the Lords Table without dealing with our sins. How much more do we stand in danger of the Father's wrath if we demean His whole Work.

Ac 13:39 "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

Ac 15:24 "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:"

Ro 3:20 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."

Ro 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Ro 4:14 "For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:"

Ro 7:4 "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."

Ro 7:6 "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

Ro 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Gal 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Gal 2:21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

Gal 3:2 "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

Gal 3:5 "He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

Gal 3:10 "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

Gal 3:11 "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith."

Gal 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"

Gal 3:18 "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise."

Gal 3:19 "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator."

Gal 5:4 "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."

Gal 5:18 "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."

Eph 2:15 "Having 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;"

Php 3:9 "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:"

Tit 3:9 "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."

Heb 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

Heb 7:16 "Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life."

Heb 7:19 "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God."

Heb 10:1 "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

Heb 10:8 "Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;"

Jas 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

What is granted is;

The Law of Moses was good and spiritual (Rom.7:12, 14)
The Law of Moses is a Covenant with Israel alone. Neither the nations nor the Church have any part of it
The New Covenant of Law (Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8) is only made with Israel, not the Church, nor the nations
Christ fulfilled the Law to its last jot and tittle
Israel, having completely broken the Law of Moses will fulfil the Law of the New Covenant in the Millennium. Thus Christ's words that it would be fulfilled are true
There is no indication that the Law of the New Covenant is any different to the Law of Moses. It is only the Covenant that is replaced since that of Sinai is broken
That the Jews of the early Church continued in the Law is understandable considering that they knew no other way, and that the Law was not only their religion of 1'500 years, but their culture as well. But it is, by their own admission, valueless in the Church. From the Apostles' admission in Acts 15, to the sheet from heaven full of unclean animals to Peter, to Paul's letter to the Galatians, the Law of Moses has no place in the Church.
The Temple is central to the Law of Moses (Deut.12:5-14). God caused it to be destroyed in 70 AD

Any man attempting to place the Law of Moses on Christians is called a "False Brother" and must not be yielded to for one hour (Gal.2:3-5)

Excellent. Someone here really does get it! However, I do disagree with you on one point -- about there being no real difference between the NC and the OC (Law of Moses). But that could make for an interesting discussion at another time, maybe.

But even though the NC is far superior to the Old does not mean that people who think like us diminish the value or denigrate the OT in any way, shape of form. We are told in the NT that the things written in the Old were for our instruction and as examples. We are to learn from those great truths. Our focus, however, as NC people of God, should be to cultivate our personal relationship with God so that his love can work through us by the Holy Spirit within us, and that that love in turn will find concrete ways of expressing itself. In fact, the central focus of the NT is not about law-keeping at all. It's all about learning what Love is, what the true characteristics of Love are and HOW true, biblical love should manifest itself in us and ultimately to people with whom we come into contact -- our brothers and sisters, our neighbors, etc. In short, the NT is a HOW TO LOVE manual because all the law is fulfilled by love.

Rufus
Jan 8th 2013, 07:47 AM
It cracks me up how people will within one statement say we are not under law, that following the law is against the work of Christ, and then turn right around and suggest that Christians should not sin.

What does the Word say?
1John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
:dunno:

But it's also written that love does not rejoice in unrighteousness but with the truth (1Cor 13:6). Also, Love is one of the fruits of the Spirit. How can anyone who truly has the Holy Spirit within him or her want to practice sin? It's also written that against the fruits of the Spirit, there is NO law, since the law was not made for the righteous man (Gal 5:23; 1Tim 1:9) So, on what basis do you get so cracked up?

Rufus
Jan 8th 2013, 08:14 AM
In context, the point Paul is making with the “neither Jew nor Gentile” comment is that we all come to God in the same way: by faith in Christ (check out some commentaries). The previous covenant (Sinai) said that the only way Gentiles can come into covenant relationship with God was through circumcision (i.e. becoming a proselyte). Although technically this was true, God, through Paul’s teaching in Romans 2, showed them that physical signs of covenant relationship (i.e. flesh circumcision) were meaningless if spiritual signs (i.e. heart circumcision) were not also present. So, the Romans 2 teaching demonstrated that this shift in thought (“neither Jew nor Gentile”) should have been readily embraced. It is those with faith (i.e. circumcised heart), demonstrated by keeping the requirements of the Law (whether Jew or Gentile), who are considered in covenant relationship with God. The cleaning of the outside of the cup doesn’t matter (i.e. circumcision, etc.); it’s the filth inside the cup that needs cleansing (i.e. circumcised heart by faith), demonstrated by keeping the requirements of the Law that relate to morality (cf. Rom. 2:21-25).

Can you tell me what part of Mosaic Covenant does not relate to morality. Be specific, please.


Paul wasn’t opposed to any form of Law in the Church. If he were, why did he not oppose the Jerusalem Church for observing the Mosaic Law?

For one thing, we don't know all of what Paul said. We do know he spoke of the signs and wonders that God had performed through Barnabas and him.

Secondly, Pharisees who HAD (past tense) believed insisted at that council that the Gentiles be circumcised and to observe the Law of Moses. However, James and Peter were very opposed to that heretical idea. Peter said in part:

Acts 15:10-11
10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."
NASB

In Peter's mind, therefore, the grace through faith that initially saves also sanctifies and preserves the saints. He had no concern whatsoever for the spiritual welfare of the Gentile believers who would also be saved from legalism. In the end, we know what the council's message was to the churches (vv. 19-21). And it wasn't to keep the Law of Moses. So, tell me, Lookin', if not observing the Law (as the Pharisees wanted) was a good thing back then because it was an unbearable yoke, how come it's not an equally good thing for us? Has that yoke become more bearable for us today?


Paul was opposed to observance of Law for justification. It’s really that simple.

So...are you saying, then, that the observance of law is necessary for our sanctification? Is a believer sanctified by law-keeping -- by keeping the Law of Moses?

LookingUp
Jan 8th 2013, 05:30 PM
Rufus, I’m going to be more direct with you, so that you are not left wondering. I choose not to dialogue with you on biblical matters at this time. You continue to ask me the same questions I’ve already answered and mock as if I haven’t. Your teaching approach has an unpleasant air of superiority and your tone is often condescending. This thread was going on very nicely with differing views and with respect and courtesy among posters. Then you came back from your sabbatical and have added a distasteful element of rudeness to this thread in your zeal of promoting your position. I’m sure you have something to teach. I believe all in the Body of Christ do. But when convictions in our doctrines take precedence over our character, it’s time to set the doctrine aside and work on other matters.

Rufus
Jan 8th 2013, 08:54 PM
Rufus, I’m going to be more direct with you, so that you are not left wondering. I choose not to dialogue with you on biblical matters at this time. You continue to ask me the same questions I’ve already answered and mock as if I haven’t. Your teaching approach has an unpleasant air of superiority and your tone is often condescending. This thread was going on very nicely with differing views and with respect and courtesy among posters. Then you came back from your sabbatical and have added a distasteful element of rudeness to this thread in your zeal of promoting your position. I’m sure you have something to teach. I believe all in the Body of Christ do. But when convictions in our doctrines take precedence over our character, it’s time to set the doctrine aside and work on other matters.

I have been very courteous and patient with you. Your real reason for not wanting to dialogue is because you have NO answers to so many of my pointed questions. It's apparent to me that you have been brainwashed by the "Judaizing element" in your church or in the extra-biblical works you're consuming (and I'm not referring to ethnic Jews either!). Most churches and books today have have a strong legalistic character to them, the leadership/authors teaching their flocks, "Well, now that you've been saved you must do that, you must do this, you must do another thing, you must do do something else because by all this law-keeping that's how you know the decision you made once upon a time to become saved was really genuine." Jesus spoke of such professing believers well when he said:

Matt 7:20-23
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'
NASB

One of the greatest insults to God is to turn his magnificent precious grace, that was motivated entirely by his unconditional love, into nothing more than a humanistic, ego-gratifying, back-slapping religion of Dos and Dont's -- as though the warp 'n' woof of Christianity is living by the letter of commandments and rules and regulations -- when this is the farthest thing from the truth. No wonder Paul asked the Galatians:

Gal 3:3
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
NASB

You see, they were were seeking sanctification by keeping the Law. But that's not the goal of sanctification. In fact, it was never the goal of anything Paul taught!

1 Tim 1:5
5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

BIBLICAL Christianity is all about Love -- the love that motivated God to save his people. It's about God who is Love. It's about God loving us first. And it's about God putting HIS love into his people's hearts in order to constrain them to do his will and thereby enabling them to have intimate fellowship and communion with him. But Love demands an object. The object is not the Law of Moses. The object is God, first, then our neighbor. When we love God and our neighbor, then we will fulfill the Law. Our primary goal in Christianity is to learn all about this Love and how to apply it. How true, biblical love will inevitably and invariably find concrete ways of expressing itself -- to our neighbors, to the brethren and to our Creator and Redeemer.

Matt 22:37-40
37 And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
NASB

Rom 13:8-10
8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.

Gal 5:14
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, " You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

James 2:8
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law , according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well.
NASB

But what is going on in this thread? You and other here are trying to convince us or to stimulate us, as it were, to honoring the Law of Moses by keeping it -- the very Covenant that has become obsolete, has been taken away in order to establish the second and superior covenant, that has faded away and has disappeared once and for all in 70 A.D. with the destruction of the temple, which was the centerpiece to the Law! But the writer of the Hebrews understood all this when he wrote:

Heb 10:24
24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,
NASB

See, he didn't say that we should become obsessed over keeping the law. He didn't say that we should stimulate each other to law-keeping. Or stimulate each other to keeping God's commandments. He had his spiritual priorities right! And note the logical order of the phrases -- love -- then good deeds. Why this order? Because true biblical love will issue forth in good deeds! Biblical love will fulfill the Law! And not the Law of Moses, but the Royal Law!

Do you know, we can do NOTHING to please God, apart from the love of God being in our hearts, constraining us to do his will? The love of God puts those holy desires into our innermost being, and CAUSES us to walk in his ways -- to walk in his Spirit. And scripture teaches that as we grow in grace, and cultivate the fruits of the Spirit in our life, we don't have to worry about any Law! There is no law against the nine fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). None! Where is the thread around here that talks about this exceedingly high priority!? Instead you want to talk about a conditional, temporary covenant that was doomed to fail from the outset, and yet somehow is supposed to play this huge role in our Christian lifestyle!? :B

Love is so important that we can't even believe -- come to faith -- unless that faith came though God's love in our heart!

Gal 5:6
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love .
NASB

Paul didn't say that what really means something to Christ is our keeping of the Law of Moses!

Love is so important and such a high priority that not even our faith can cover our sins, but love can!

1 Peter 4:8
8 Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.
NASB

I perceive that someone has really bewitched your mind and corrupted your thinking. You have your priorities all backwards. Does the Law of Moses have a place in the Christian life? You bet! But not the high and lofty position you give it. John said that anyone who doesn't LOVE God doesn't know him and isn't born of Him (1Jn 4:7-8). Why is this? Because Love is from God. God is the SOURCE of Love. He is the only source of love in the universe! Everyone, therefore, who names the name of Jesus Christ, should have as their top priority the cultivation of this highest and loftiest virtue of them all. For I tell you a truth, one can strive with blood, sweat and tears to keep all 613 commandments in the Law of Moses, yet if he doesn't have love in his heart for God, he will perish for all eternity.

1 Cor 13:1-3
13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
NASB

So, Lookin', you go ahead and try to elevate the Law of Moses (which has no glory today) or the Sinai Covenant (whatever that is)and carry that upon your shoulders back up to the Mount where Moses was, and I will counter that boldly with God who is Love, the Love of God in true born again believers and how and why love is the greatest virtue in the universe (1Cor 13:13). And, therefore, this is why love is the quintessential ideal that Christians should be devoting our time and efforts to in acquiring a true knowledge thereof, gaining understanding of its biblical characteristics, cultivating it in our own hearts and learning about all the various practical ways biblical love should manifest itself. You go ahead and boast about that conditional, temporary covenant of law that was doomed to fail from the outset (Deut 31:27; Josh 24:19). Meanwhile, I'll boast of the surpassing superiority of the Eternal, Unconditional Covenant God made in the precious blood of Christ, what motivated the Father to send his only begotten into the world and how that kind of love within God's people will never, never fail. The Law of Moses failed; but Love never fails (1Cor 13:8). The love that constrained God to save us from the very beginning is the same love that preserves us to the very end and will take us into the eternal, visible kingdom (Rom 8:29, 30).

LookingUp
Jan 8th 2013, 09:21 PM
I forgot to answer you. Sorry.No problem. :-)


Kinda like including the Gentiles through Israel rejecting him? I agree.Right.


I agree with this also.:-)

LookingUp
Jan 8th 2013, 09:21 PM
Have you considered 1 Maccabees 1:15; Josephus Antiquities 12.5.1?Yes, interesting.

LookingUp
Jan 8th 2013, 09:22 PM
OH no, I don't doubt that Jesus is King at all. My point is that, and I think you just made mention of it as well, that His Kingship has not begun yet. Similar to when Samuel anointed David to be King. He did not become an active and governing King at that moment, but it was clear the throne would be his eventually.Thought provoking parallel.

Noeb
Jan 8th 2013, 10:02 PM
Rufus, LookingUp has not said what you accuse them of. You've slaughtered both of our words and we can't reason with the unreasonable. Now go ahead and say we won't reply to you because we can't but everyone knows we can because we have been. Take care.

Rufus
Jan 8th 2013, 11:21 PM
Rufus, LookingUp has not said what you accuse them of.

"Them"? There is more than one LU? This indeed is alarming news. :eek:


You've slaughtered both of our words and we can't reason with the unreasonable.

The truth to be told is that both of you appear to have very little true understanding of the scriptures. And if both of you subscribe to Dispensationism, that explains everything. Dispens, generally, can't find their pants' pockets even when both hands are fully immersed therein. :lol:

In fact, if LU had any true understanding of the covenants, he would never have worded the title to this thread the way he did. So...coming right out of the chute, he shot himself in the foot. There's no way on God's little green earth that there can be 67 ways in which the two covenants are unalike, and call all that a mere "renewal". But even more importantly: God has never modified, revised, amended, added to or subtracted from any covenant he has made. When God makes a covenant, that covenant is etched in granite. So, how in the world could LU have come up with the term "renewal"?

Moreover, the Law cannot be abolished either because there are still unfulfilled prophecies in the Pentateuch. And now we know what Jesus meant in Mat 5:17-19, right? His purpose for coming (at least in that passage) was to fulfill, i.e. to "accomplish".


Now go ahead and say we won't reply to you because we can't but everyone knows we can because we have been. Take care.

You certainly won't reply to anything I have written because neither one of you would have any cogent, biblical responses -- at least not apart from torturing the scriptures. :rolleyes:

But to show you what a generous guy I am, I have stumbled upon another distinction between the Old and New Covenants, so I'll share my latest discovery with you. This would bring us up to 67 ways the two covenants differ:

OC - Law Enslaves Because Sin is its Power, Rom 7:9; Gal 5:1-4; 1Cor 15:56
NC - Grace Frees From Sin's Bondage, Rom 6:14

I'm sure this latest addition will make true believers out of both of you. :lol:

LookingUp
Jan 9th 2013, 12:21 AM
By the way, Noeb, thank you for being an example of someone who can disagree and still be courteous and humble. I sincerely appreciate it.

If there’s anything related to the opening post or topic that we still haven’t covered thoroughly, being a bit side-tracked as we were, let me know.

Thanks for the discussion.

Rufus
Jan 9th 2013, 01:11 AM
By the way, Noeb, thank you for being an example of someone who can disagree and still be courteous and humble. I sincerely appreciate it.

Now if you could have thrown in factual than I could have hopped on the appreciation wagon, too. :lol::lol:


If there’s anything related to the opening post or topic that we still haven’t covered thoroughly, being a bit side-tracked as we were, let me know.

Yeah, I have something: You quickly said that the law doesn't justify, but you never did say if the law sanctifies. Do we begin our Christian life without being under law to become justified and then revert back to the law to become holy?

And have you come up with the number of commandments in the Old Covenant that we're supposed to obey in this New Covenant economy?

And you never did say if you are a sabbatarian or not, and if so what kind? Saturday, Sunday, both days? No days?

I'm trying to nail down the extent of law-keeping you think a Christian should do under the Law of Moses.


Thanks for the discussion.

I'll reserve mine until you get back to me. :lol:

Noeb
Jan 9th 2013, 03:18 AM
By the way, Noeb, thank you for being an example of someone who can disagree and still be courteous and humble. I sincerely appreciate it.No, I thank you! I was making another post for Rufus when you posted #139. I realized it would be futile.



If there’s anything related to the opening post or topic that we still haven’t covered thoroughly, being a bit side-tracked as we were, let me know.I'm working on something, though I may just make another thread since it's more about Matthew 5. I'll let you know if I do, in case you're interested.



Thanks for the discussion.Thank you!

LookingUp
Jan 9th 2013, 03:36 AM
No, I thank you! I was making another post for Rufus when you posted #139. I realized it would be futile.Actually, I did the same thing. I was in the middle of responding to one of his posts before it finally sunk in that our dialogue wasn't only lacking parallel reciprocation but it was becoming quite unfruitful overall.


I'm working on something, though I make just make another thread since it's more about Matthew 5. I'll let you know if I do, in case you're interested.A new thread sounds great. I would be interested in digging into that more specifically.

LookingUp
Jan 20th 2013, 07:27 PM
Thanks for the post, jesse. There certainly are overwhelming similarities between the Sinai Covenant made with Israel, in which Gentiles had to become proselytes to enter into, and the New Covenant made with Israel, in which Gentiles enter through faith alone. I also agree there's much more to each covenant. For example, I believe Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 (anger, lust, divorce, vows, retaliation, etc.) was an introduction of what's expected of those who enter into the new covenant with God. He wasn’t abrogating the law; he’s teaching an even higher standard than what the law permits or demands. For example, the “eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth” was a MAXIMUM for vengeance to prevent the sort of revenge cycle that characterizes near eastern societies. You cannot go beyond recompense for the injury you’ve suffered; that’s the limit of your rights as the injured party. Jesus moves his disciples BEYOND the limitation of their rights by exhorting them not to avail themselves to even the recompense which is rightfully theirs. The Law/Torah gives you right to “such-and-such” and nothing more; but by the grace of God, go beyond focusing on what you have the right to and extend mercy and grace to those who hurt you. By the way, the “eye for eye, and tooth for tooth” was not understood as literal by the ancients but an equivalent monetary retribution (except in the case of life). And the teaching of living out the spirit of the law continues: it’s not enough to obey the letter of the law by not committing adultery or murder; you must go beyond the letter and embrace the spirit of the law by being faithful to your wife and kind to your fellow man in your heart. It’s not enough to obey the letter of the law by fulfilling your oaths; you must go beyond the letter and embrace the spirit of the law by being so transparently honest that no one would require an oath of you. Jesus is digging more deeply into the Law/Torah to bring forth its heartfelt intent and we are all called to live Torah at that level. Grace elevates us to a higher standard.I wanted to add something to this post to jesse. Some believe that Jesus was not pushing his disciples to a higher standard but simply exposing the perversion of the leadership and asking those listening to return to the Mosaic Law. I believe Jesus was doing all three things: exposing the perversion of the Pharisees and scribes, asking all to return to the Law, and pushing his disciples to a higher standard (i.e. exalting the Law). Noeb pointed out that much of what Jesus speaks of can be found within the Old Testament, and thus Jesus can’t really be teaching his disciples anything new. Yet, Jesus tells the rich man that in order to ensure a place in the kingdom, he should sell everything he has. There is no such requirement in the Mosaic Law. This, again, points to such a high standard that forces the listeners to ask, “Who then can be saved?” In other words, what Jesus asked—to live an utterly self-sacrificial life in word and in deed—was beyond their ability. Yet, by the grace of God, we are invited to go beyond what on our own is impossible and we walk in faith by the Spirit in order to fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law (Rom. 8:4). Who then can be saved? Jesus answers, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Mt. 19:26).

Noeb
Jan 21st 2013, 04:44 AM
Noeb pointed out that much of what Jesus speaks of can be found within the Old Testament, and thus Jesus can’t really be teaching his disciples anything new.Not accurate. A teaching could be new to some or all of the multitude listening but that doesn't make it a new teaching. See Shammai and Hillel. Two main schools of thought of Jesus' time. Shammai taught what Jesus did concerning divorce. The popular teaching at the time was that of Hillel. So what Jesus taught was not new at all.



Yet, Jesus tells the rich man that in order to ensure a place in the kingdom, he should sell everything he has. There is no such requirement in the Mosaic Law.And Jesus didn't make it a law for all either. The OT is full of God making special demands on individuals. This is nothing new. The law did require- love God with all........



This, again, points to such a high standard that forces the listeners to ask, “Who then can be saved?” In other words, what Jesus asked—to live an utterly self-sacrificial life in word and in deed—was beyond their ability. Yet, by the grace of God, we are invited to go beyond what on our own is impossible and we walk in faith by the Spirit in order to fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law (Rom. 8:4). Who then can be saved? Jesus answers, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Mt. 19:26).Not accurate again. What Jesus asked of the rich man is not what forced the disciples to ask, 'who then can be saved". What Jesus said afterward forced the question. The point was that all have sinned and not even a rich man can earn salvation -impossible. A rich man that followed the law was considered blessed by God, like Abraham was. If someone like that couldn't be sure, how could anyone? Jesus said no one can by what they do, including the disciples that gave up everything.

LookingUp
Jan 21st 2013, 08:34 PM
Not accurate.Sorry about that. Thanks for the clarification! :-)


A teaching could be new to some or all of the multitude listening but that doesn't make it a new teaching. See Shammai and Hillel. Two main schools of thought of Jesus' time. Shammai taught what Jesus did concerning divorce. The popular teaching at the time was that of Hillel. So what Jesus taught was not new at all.In this case, he was not teaching a new concept but correcting them. Right?


And Jesus didn't make it a law for all either.How do you know that? Why would it be for this rich man and not for all?


Not accurate again. What Jesus asked of the rich man is not what forced the disciples to ask, 'who then can be saved". What Jesus said afterward forced the question. The point was that all have sinned and not even a rich man can earn salvation -impossible. A rich man that followed the law was considered blessed by God, like Abraham was. If someone like that couldn't be sure, how could anyone? Jesus said no one can by what they do, including the disciples that gave up everything.The rich man asked what he could do in order to gain eternal life and Jesus told him what to do. This means that if the rich man did it, he’d gain eternal life. Pretty straight forward.

Noeb
Jan 21st 2013, 10:39 PM
Sorry about that. Thanks for the clarification! :-)No problem. You're welcome.



In this case, he was not teaching a new concept but correcting them. Right?Stating the correct interpretation, yes.



How do you know that? Why would it be for this rich man and not for all?Because there is no such command to all? Surely you're not suggesting you can't be saved if you don't sell everything you have and give it to the poor, are you?



The rich man asked what he could do in order to gain eternal life and Jesus told him what to do. This means that if the rich man did it, he’d gain eternal life. Pretty straight forward.Right. If he was willing to love God with all his heart.

LookingUp
Jan 22nd 2013, 01:53 AM
No problem. You're welcome.

Stating the correct interpretation, yes.I agree. :-)


Because there is no such command to all? Surely you're not suggesting you can't be saved if you don't sell everything you have and give it to the poor, are you?According to Jesus’ words to the rich man, in order to inherit eternal life, one must be willing to give up everything to those in need. It’s an act of utter, self-sacrifice. It’s something Jesus did.


Right. If he was willing to love God with all his heart.That’s certainly what it would look like, yes. And Jesus did love God with all his heart and he gave up everything he had.

Noeb
Jan 22nd 2013, 05:00 AM
According to Jesus’ words to the rich man, in order to inherit eternal life, one must be willing to give up everything to those in need. It’s an act of utter, self-sacrifice. It’s something Jesus did.
This is not what you said. You said

Noeb pointed out that much of what Jesus speaks of can be found within the Old Testament, and thus Jesus can’t really be teaching his disciples anything new. Yet, Jesus tells the rich man that in order to ensure a place in the kingdom, he should sell everything he has. There is no such requirement in the Mosaic Law.So I said "Jesus didn't make it a law [should sell everything he has] for all either".

Jesus gave up all, and many have, but it's not a requirement unless God makes it one.

LookingUp
Jan 22nd 2013, 05:33 AM
The point is obtaining eternal life is a matter of the heart. If your heart is not completely pure and spotless, you will not obtain eternal life.

Noeb
Jan 22nd 2013, 02:04 PM
Right. So nothing new or higher.

LookingUp
Jan 22nd 2013, 05:51 PM
Right. So nothing new or higher.Why, then, do Fenris and other Jews say they don't have to be pure and spotless (i.e. "perfect") in order to inherit everlasting life?

Noeb
Jan 22nd 2013, 06:17 PM
I don't know. I pointed out do "all" the law, love God with "all"....to Fenris but.....

LookingUp
Jan 23rd 2013, 06:10 AM
I don't know. I pointed out do "all" the law, love God with "all"....to Fenris but.....So, is it your view that OT Jews, like Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc., etc., thought they were not going to inherit everlasting life? Did these guys really think they qualified as “pure” and “spotless” (i.e. perfect)? Or was the Law not interpreted by the ancients as, “Be perfect or die forever”?

Sounds like the disciples thought this idea of the requirement of perfection to inherit eternal life a new one.

Why did Jesus "earn" immortality?

Noeb
Jan 23rd 2013, 02:43 PM
So, is it your view that OT Jews, like Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc., etc., thought they were not going to inherit everlasting life? Did these guys really think they qualified as “pure” and “spotless” (i.e. perfect)? Or was the Law not interpreted by the ancients as, “Be perfect or die forever”?

Sounds like the disciples thought this idea of the requirement of perfection to inherit eternal life a new one.

Why did Jesus "earn" immortality?I believe they understood God shows mercy to those that love him (Moses). That their walk and sacrifices covered their sin until Messiah came and remitted them. That because God must show mercy for one to be accepted proves a standard no one could reach.

Again, they believed riches were a result of God's blessing, and the mindset was, doing the law obtained eternal life. If the young ruler didn't have it who did? Jesus was correcting these errors. Everyone needs mercy. Note: it's correct that never breaking the law earns eternal life. It's error to think anyone can 100%.