PDA

View Full Version : What was Paul doing? Animal sacrifices



ChangedByHim
Aug 22nd 2017, 03:20 PM
What do you think Paul was doing in Acts 21 when he participated in animal sacrifices in the temple? I somewhat struggle with all possible resolutions to this question, unless you have one I haven't heard.

“Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.”
Acts‬ 21:26‬ NKJV‬‬

keck553
Aug 22nd 2017, 04:17 PM
Animal sacrifice was for more than just sin offerings.

ChangedByHim
Aug 22nd 2017, 06:55 PM
Animal sacrifice was for more than just sin offerings.

I'm not disputing that, but were any of the offering types still valid after the cross?

DavidC
Aug 22nd 2017, 07:20 PM
No, animal sacrifices were not valid after the cross.

I think Paul participated because he said he would become whom ever to win people for Christ.
1 Cor 9:22

Br. Barnabas
Aug 22nd 2017, 07:40 PM
He was not participating in an animal sacrifice. The men he went to the temple with were completing the Nazarite vow, they were cutting off their hair and burning it as a symbol of the ending of the vow. Paul did not actually make a sacrifice, usually only the priests or Levites would make the sacrifice at this time, people would come to the Temple and buy approved animals to have sacrificed. We also have to remember that at this time Christianity was still mainly a sect of Judaism, especially in Jerusalem, they were still following the Law, worshiping in the Temple, and following Jewish customs. The Gentiles had requirements that they were to abstain from, that did not have a bearing on the Jewish Christians, Luke reminds the Gentiles what they are to abstain from in Acts 21 (food sacrificed to idols, blood, strangled animals, and sexual immorality).

We have to remember that Christianity as we have it today and even by the time of the Early Church Fathers took time to develop, it was not like once Pentecost happened boom Christianity is its own thing with all its doctrine and ritual ironed out. Most Christians were still Jews or God-fearing Gentiles (that is Gentiles who hung out in Synagogues and tried to follow the Jewish Law, but didn't want to get circumcised and fully convert to Judaism); remember what happened when Paul preached to proper pagans and philosophers in Athens at the Areopagus, he was mocked and a most didn't believe (granted there were a few that did believe, but not nearly as many as in the other Gentile cities).

So to answer the question of if he sinned, I would say no, he did what the leader of the church at Jerusalem asked him to do and he followed his own conscience in the matter. If he had a theological problem with offering or paying for sacrifices then he would have objected. We know that Paul had no problem with standing up to other leaders in the church, examples Acts 15 disagreeing with the people from Judea, disagreeing with Judaizers, and disagreeing with Peter. I would be more concerned with him possibly sinning by not following the promptings and warnings of the of the Holy Spirit by continuing on to Jerusalem in Acts 21; instead of following the disciples that he stayed with in Tyre, the prophecy of Philip the deacon's daughters, and Agabus in Caesarea, which all said don't go to Jerusalem.

Br. Barnabas
Aug 22nd 2017, 07:50 PM
No, animal sacrifices were not valid after the cross.

I think Paul participated because he said he would become whom ever to win people for Christ.
1 Cor 9:22

These people were already Christians, they were part of the Church in Jerusalem, that is why James said "we have four men under a vow." They were part of his congregation.

Trivalee
Aug 22nd 2017, 08:18 PM
What do you think Paul was doing in Acts 21 when he participated in animal sacrifices in the temple? I somewhat struggle with all possible resolutions to this question, unless you have one I haven't heard.

“Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.”
Acts‬ 21:26‬ NKJV‬‬

An interesting observation. The text suggests some kind of sacrifice according to the Mosaic covenant, but there is nothing implicit that it an animal sacrifice, but I may be wrong.

This leads me to conclude that the early Jewish converts somehow integrated part of the law (Judaic customs) into Christian worship. This would make sense if you remember that the complete "blueprint" of Christianity as we have it today was yet at its formative stage back then.

Another reason I suspect for the sacrifices is to appease the unbelieving Jews that the new religion (Christianity) is not too far removed from the tradition and practices they have observed since coming out of Egypt and that it is the same God.

Trivalee
Aug 22nd 2017, 08:31 PM
These people were already Christians, they were part of the Church in Jerusalem, that is why James said "we have four men under a vow." They were part of his congregation.

That's not exactly true. It is an unwinnable argument that all the Jews in the temple were converted.

Acts 21: 27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,

28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

Verses 27-28 clearly show that not ALL the Jews were believers as claimed. Remember the uproar when Paul challenged them in Ephesus? Those who lost trade because Paul condemned Diana as no more than an idol, moved the people to lynch Paul...plus they falsely accused Paul of bringing a Gentile into the temple.

Br. Barnabas
Aug 22nd 2017, 08:58 PM
That's not exactly true. It is an unwinnable argument that all the Jews in the temple were converted.

Acts 21: 27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,

28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

Verses 27-28 clearly show that not ALL the Jews were believers as claimed. Remember the uproar when Paul challenged them in Ephesus? Those who lost trade because Paul condemned Diana as no more than an idol, moved the people to lynch Paul...plus they falsely accused Paul of bringing a Gentile into the temple.

I am not saying that the people in the Temple were Christians. I am saying that the people that James mentioned under the vow were Christians; since he says we have four men under a vow. The use of we would assume that they belong to the Church in Jerusalem or belong to the Christian sect of Judaism at the time. Of course not all Jews were believers, there were many spread throughout Judah and the Gentile world who were Jew who had rejected or were ignorant of the Gospel.

Tony P
Aug 22nd 2017, 09:15 PM
What do you think Paul was doing in Acts 21 when he participated in animal sacrifices in the temple? I somewhat struggle with all possible resolutions to this question, unless you have one I haven't heard.

“Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.”
Acts‬ 21:26‬ NKJV‬‬

Animal sacrifices are not the abominations as many Christians see them. Jesus was the one on Mount Sinai that gave the orders to Moses that were to be carried out forever by the house of Israel. (If you don't know that Jesus is the God on Sinai with Moses, read Psalm 81. That same God is returning.) Jesus Himself said several times that they should follow and keep the law to be saved. Further, Zechariah 14 makes it rather clear that sacrifices will resume during the Millennium. So, we should seek to figure out why rather than seek to dismiss it.

Nowhere in the law does it imply that it is temporary. In fact, it says repeatedly that the ordinances are to be observed forever. Jesus also never indicated the law was to dismissed in any way. All this is for the physical descendants of Israel, not Gentiles. The first church counsel made that clear in Acts 15. But, nowhere in Acts 15 does it say Jews no longer need to follow the law. If Paul indeed went and made an animal sacrifice in the temple, he was following the law that applied to him and the rest of the disciples. A Jew following the law does not in any way undo the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. That is the misnomer that causes confusion.

tea
Aug 23rd 2017, 08:47 AM
I think it is important to note that Paul was not a perfect man in the flesh; like you and I he sinned.

I am not God, so I don t know, but another instance where it seemed he sinned, was circumcising Timothy.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 23rd 2017, 09:00 AM
What do you think Paul was doing in Acts 21 when he participated in animal sacrifices in the temple? I somewhat struggle with all possible resolutions to this question, unless you have one I haven't heard.

“Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.”
Acts‬ 21:26‬ NKJV‬‬

Re:
'Paul was doing in Acts 21 when he participated in animal sacrifices in the temple?'

I do not see in Acts 21 where 'Paul participated in animal sacrifices in the temple'.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 23rd 2017, 09:05 AM
Animal sacrifices are not the abominations as many Christians see them. Jesus was the one on Mount Sinai that gave the orders to Moses that were to be carried out forever by the house of Israel. (If you don't know that Jesus is the God on Sinai with Moses, read Psalm 81. That same God is returning.) Jesus Himself said several times that they should follow and keep the law to be saved. Further, Zechariah 14 makes it rather clear that sacrifices will resume during the Millennium. So, we should seek to figure out why rather than seek to dismiss it.

Nowhere in the law does it imply that it is temporary. In fact, it says repeatedly that the ordinances are to be observed forever. Jesus also never indicated the law was to dismissed in any way. All this is for the physical descendants of Israel, not Gentiles. The first church counsel made that clear in Acts 15. But, nowhere in Acts 15 does it say Jews no longer need to follow the law. If Paul indeed went and made an animal sacrifice in the temple, he was following the law that applied to him and the rest of the disciples. A Jew following the law does not in any way undo the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. That is the misnomer that causes confusion.

How evident has the confusion become! Good Lord, help us!

tea
Aug 23rd 2017, 09:47 AM
What do you mean Gerhard?

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 23rd 2017, 10:19 AM
What do you mean Gerhard?

I mean I believe the Scriptures ... only. And there's NOTHING in Acts 21 saying or implying that Paul made animal or blood sacrifice. On the contrary the WHOLE of Acts 21 clearly shows right the opposite. And in 21, it says Paul "was praying in the temple", and that he was "found not guilty of what the Jews accused him of."
But here come his accusers and accuse Paul that he 'sinned'. Goodness gracious... 2000 years later the same faked story!

Br. Barnabas
Aug 23rd 2017, 12:04 PM
I mean I believe the Scriptures ... only. And there's NOTHING in Acts 21 saying or implying that Paul made animal or blood sacrifice. On the contrary the WHOLE of Acts 21 clearly shows right the opposite. And in 21, it says Paul "was praying in the temple", and that he was "found not guilty of what the Jews accused him of."
But here come his accusers and accuse Paul that he 'sinned'. Goodness gracious... 2000 years later the same faked story!

In the context they are completing a Nazarite vow and this requires 3 sacrifices to be made and the hair to be burnt with the sacrifices. Just because it is not explicit in the text does not mean that we cannot tell from context what is going on.

CadyandZoe
Aug 23rd 2017, 12:18 PM
I'm not disputing that, but were any of the offering types still valid after the cross?

Of Course. The only aspect of the Mosaic Law that was replaced by the cross of Christ was the day of Atonement.

DavidC
Aug 23rd 2017, 01:10 PM
What do you think Paul was doing in Acts 21 when he participated in animal sacrifices in the temple? I somewhat struggle with all possible resolutions to this question, unless you have one I haven't heard.

“Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.”
Acts‬ 21:26‬ NKJV‬‬

Maybe it is the case that the law was so ingrained in Paul, it was an instinctive act for him to offer sacrifices. In conjunction, both Jews and believers might have been skeptical of Paul, Jews because he used to be a Pharisee leader, and believers because
he persecuted and had some killed. It seems to me anyway that Paul is trying to be all things to all people, too. Appeasing both sides.

Along with following rituals of the law in Acts 18:18, he cut off all his hair before sailing to Syria because he had made a vow, nazarine vow? He definitely continues doing Mosaic Law requirements.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 23rd 2017, 02:46 PM
In the context they are completing a Nazarite vow and this requires 3 sacrifices to be made and the hair to be burnt with the sacrifices. Just because it is not explicit in the text does not mean that we cannot tell from context what is going on.

Just because it is not explicit in the text does not mean that we must assume it was '3 sacrifices to be made and the hair to be burnt with the sacrifices'.

Where does that, come from? From the Torah? or from Judaism in Christian times?

Certainly not from Acts 21! For what in fact was going on is point for point proposed in verses 23,24, where it is written, "We have four men which have a vow on them --'them', the multitude that came together because they would in any case have heard that Paul was coming -- Take THEM and purify yourself with / through them ... Then Paul took the men and the next day purifying himself with them, entered into the temple."
Being treated as the guest of the four men, Paul was accepted and was allowed by the Jewish rulers of the temple to enter. The manner in which the four men purified themselves is of no importance; all that mattered is that their company served to protect both Paul and the temple from becoming defiled in the eyes of THOSE DECEIVED JEWS.

Now must Christians --Paul and company-- act deceived like the Jews? Rather use the opportunity to further the cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and act alert and sure.

ChangedByHim
Aug 23rd 2017, 02:48 PM
Of Course. The only aspect of the Mosaic Law that was replaced by the cross of Christ was the day of Atonement.

So you contend that under the New Covenant we are to practice all aspects of the mosaic law except the day of atonement??? Because that's what your post states. Just clarifying.

keck553
Aug 23rd 2017, 03:20 PM
So you contend that under the New Covenant we are to practice all aspects of the mosaic law except the day of atonement??? Because that's what your post states. Just clarifying.

We're not under the Mosaic Law. Paul was, and as long as the Temple stood, Christians were still hanging out there.

CadyandZoe
Aug 23rd 2017, 04:26 PM
So you contend that under the New Covenant we are to practice all aspects of the mosaic law except the day of atonement??? Because that's what your post states. Just clarifying.

I contend that the Jews living during the Millennial Period will practice all aspects of the Law of Moses except, of course, the Day of Atonement. Gentile believers will not be obligated to keep Moses during that time period. Consider the following passage

Deuteronomy 30:
1“So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the Lord your God has banished you, 2 and you return to the Lord your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, 3 then the Lord your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. 4 If your outcasts are at the ends of the earth, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you back. 5 The Lord your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers.

6 “Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. 7 The Lord your God will inflict all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. 8 And you shall again obey the Lord, and observe all His commandments which I command you today. 9 Then the Lord your God will prosper you abundantly in all the work of your hand, in the offspring of your body and in the offspring of your cattle and in the produce of your ground, for the Lord will again rejoice over you for good, just as He rejoiced over your fathers; 10 if you obey the Lord your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul.

keck553
Aug 23rd 2017, 04:48 PM
"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

TrustGzus
Aug 23rd 2017, 05:56 PM
What do you think Paul was doing in Acts 21 when he participated in animal sacrifices in the temple? I somewhat struggle with all possible resolutions to this question, unless you have one I haven't heard.

“Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.”
Acts‬ 21:26‬ NKJV‬‬

I appreciate your accepting this for what it says. I've heard so many whitewash Paul. Of course, we love Paul and are thankful for all the ways God used him and gave us wonderful epistles to nourish our faith.

However, he was a fallible human being. James Montgomery Boice is the only commentary I've read where he basically says Paul blew it. Boice doesn't think his case is airtight but he thinks God did not want Paul in Jerusalem but that Paul had a strong, obstinate, and determined personality. That helped him to accomplish much of what he did. However, here it went wrong. Boice suggests God had Paul arrested to prevent him from going through with this.

Interesting commentary and I'm thankful to have read that and to have found out others think Paul messed up here and I'm not alone in my opinion.

ChangedByHim
Aug 23rd 2017, 06:16 PM
I appreciate your accepting this for what it says. I've heard so many whitewash Paul. Of course, we love Paul and are thankful for all the ways God used him and gave us wonderful epistles to nourish our faith.

However, he was a fallible human being. James Montgomery Boice is the only commentary I've read where he basically says Paul blew it. Boice doesn't think his case is airtight but he thinks God did not want Paul in Jerusalem but that Paul had a strong, obstinate, and determined personality. That helped him to accomplish much of what he did. However, here it went wrong. Boice suggests God had Paul arrested to prevent him from going through with this.

Interesting commentary and I'm thankful to have read that and to have found out others think Paul messed up here and I'm not alone in my opinion.

I'm about 60/40 that Paul blew it in some way. Of course, that means that James and the elders in Jerusalem did as well. That said, we know that Peter messed up in his handling of the Jew/Gentile matter. I'm not convinced that Paul violated the Spirit's direction, but I'm pretty convinced that he compromised. He either did so with the Sprit's permission to keep the peace or he did so to be a man pleaser after he was warned not to go to Jerusalem.

keck553
Aug 23rd 2017, 06:22 PM
Keeping in mind the writer of Hebrews said the (Levitical) Law was fading away.....not that it was instantly wiped off the face of the earth.

Pbminimum
Aug 23rd 2017, 06:22 PM
I'm about 60/40 that Paul blew it in some way. Of course, that means that James and the elders in Jerusalem did as well. That said, we know that Peter messed up in his handling of the Jew/Gentile matter. I'm not convinced that Paul violated the Spirit's direction, but I'm pretty convinced that he compromised. He either did so with the Sprit's permission to keep the peace or he did so to be a man pleaser after he was warned not to go to Jerusalem.
With Paul , I think there is the chance that perhaps he was "being all things to all people, so that he may win some". Who knows ?

Brother Mark
Aug 23rd 2017, 06:26 PM
The other thing to keep in mind... how much did Paul know at that time? How much revelation did he have when this event occurred?

Kalahari
Aug 23rd 2017, 06:30 PM
Acts 19:21 and Acts 20:22 let us to believe that Paul went to Jerusalem by the guidance of the Spirit. I believe that the prophesies of his bondage and warning not to go was a test of his obedience as was the test of the prophet to not eat and when he did died because he believed another prophet.

What I am not sure of is if his agreeing with James and the other leaders was in accordance to the Spirit. The fact that he could not complete this act lets me to think that it was not.

keck553
Aug 23rd 2017, 06:30 PM
The other thing to keep in mind... how much did Paul know at that time? How much revelation did he have when this event occurred?

He had a lot less than we do now. All available Scripture at the time was the TaNaKh. These folks literally had to figure all this stuff out, especially the Levitical order (and I don't mean just atonement). That was a process, just as our sanctification is a process.

Trivalee
Aug 23rd 2017, 06:53 PM
I am not saying that the people in the Temple were Christians. I am saying that the people that James mentioned under the vow were Christians; since he says we have four men under a vow. The use of we would assume that they belong to the Church in Jerusalem or belong to the Christian sect of Judaism at the time. Of course not all Jews were believers, there were many spread throughout Judah and the Gentile world who were Jew who had rejected or were ignorant of the Gospel.

You may or may be right that the four were converts as there is nothing stated to suggest either way. The emphasis here was the upholding of the law and the church led by James was eager to show that they are adherent to the law.

What I find remarkable in Acts 21 is the fact the church did not put away the law (verses 20-21).

Trivalee
Aug 23rd 2017, 07:03 PM
I think it is important to note that Paul was not a perfect man in the flesh; like you and I he sinned.

I am not God, so I don t know, but another instance where it seemed he sinned, was circumcising Timothy.

Circumcision can hardly be regarded a sin in any shape or form. Here are Paul's thoughts on circumcision:

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Trivalee
Aug 23rd 2017, 07:10 PM
So you contend that under the New Covenant we are to practice all aspects of the mosaic law except the day of atonement??? Because that's what your post states. Just clarifying.

Unless you are a Jew, the Law has no bearing on you as a Gentile. But yes, apparently the church in its formative years clearly followed the law:

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses [the Law], saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

Brother Mark
Aug 23rd 2017, 07:16 PM
He had a lot less than we do now. All available Scripture at the time was the TaNaKh. These folks literally had to figure all this stuff out, especially the Levitical order (and I don't mean just atonement). That was a process, just as our sanctification is a process.

Yes. And how long was it after the counsel in Jerusalem where they were arguing over what parts of the law were meant for the new Gentile believes to keep? As you have pointed out, the law was fading away as revelation came.

Trivalee
Aug 23rd 2017, 07:43 PM
I appreciate your accepting this for what it says. I've heard so many whitewash Paul. Of course, we love Paul and are thankful for all the ways God used him and gave us wonderful epistles to nourish our faith.

However, he was a fallible human being. James Montgomery Boice is the only commentary I've read where he basically says Paul blew it. Boice doesn't think his case is airtight but he thinks God did not want Paul in Jerusalem but that Paul had a strong, obstinate, and determined personality. That helped him to accomplish much of what he did. However, here it went wrong. Boice suggests God had Paul arrested to prevent him from going through with this.

Interesting commentary and I'm thankful to have read that and to have found out others think Paul messed up here and I'm not alone in my opinion.

Personally, I wouldn't take Boice seriously.

Jesus was with Paul always. It is down to Paul's obstinate streak that he was chosen for the more arduous task of preaching to the Gentiles in the first place. I don't believe there's any basis to accuse Paul of insubordination given that he was forbidden by the Holy Spirit from going to Asia Minor to preach (Acts 16:6) and was directed instead, to go to Macedonia and he obeyed.

It was the same journey to Jerusalem that also took him to Rome, the heart of the pagan world. Converting Rome (even though it took several years later) was key for the ancient world to formerly accept Christianity and by implication, you and I are Christians today. Here is a passage that confirms that his trials in Jerusalem and the subsequent need for redress in Rome was orchestrated from heaven.

Acts 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

TrustGzus
Aug 23rd 2017, 09:08 PM
The other thing to keep in mind... how much did Paul know at that time? How much revelation did he have when this event occurred?

Well, it's after he wrote Romans. After Galatians.

Brother Mark
Aug 23rd 2017, 09:30 PM
Well, it's after he wrote Romans. After Galatians.

If it was after Romans, then he knew we were dead to the law in order to be married to Christ. Like others, I had always assumed he was being a Jew to the Jews, etc. as Romans speaks about.

ChangedByHim
Aug 23rd 2017, 09:51 PM
The other thing to keep in mind... how much did Paul know at that time? How much revelation did he have when this event occurred?


He had a lot less than we do now. All available Scripture at the time was the TaNaKh. These folks literally had to figure all this stuff out, especially the Levitical order (and I don't mean just atonement). That was a process, just as our sanctification is a process.

Among other books, Paul had already written Romans and Galatians by this point. Unless he didn't understand what he'd written, I'm pretty sure that he knew that the mosaic law and animal sacrifices had already concluded.

keck553
Aug 23rd 2017, 10:10 PM
Among other books, Paul had already written Romans and Galatians by this point. Unless he didn't understand what he'd written, I'm pretty sure that he knew that the mosaic law and animal sacrifices had already concluded.

So the author of Hebrews didn't know what he (or she) was talking about?

ChangedByHim
Aug 23rd 2017, 10:22 PM
So the author of Hebrews didn't know what he (or she) was talking about?
I really don't get your question to me. All of the authors understood what they were writing.

DavidC
Aug 23rd 2017, 11:19 PM
What the....it's inconclusive? No one really knows what the answer is?

I waited all day....lol.

Brother Mark
Aug 23rd 2017, 11:21 PM
I really don't get your question to me. All of the authors understood what they were writing.

he's referring to where the writer of Hebrews said the regulations/law was "fading away". He mentioned it earlier in the thread. When was Hebrews written? Any chance it was written before Romans?

ChangedByHim
Aug 24th 2017, 12:28 AM
he's referring to where the writer of Hebrews said the regulations/law was "fading away". He mentioned it earlier in the thread. When was Hebrews written? Any chance it was written before Romans?

OK... Hebrews 8:13, I suppose. The vanishing is in practice, not a doctrine. Jesus said, "IT IS FINISHED" not, "It is finishing."

ChangedByHim
Aug 24th 2017, 12:30 AM
What the....it's inconclusive? No one really knows what the answer is?

I waited all day....lol.
This is not something that can be empirically conclusive.

Brother Mark
Aug 24th 2017, 12:39 AM
OK... Hebrews 8:13, I suppose. The vanishing is in practice, not a doctrine. Jesus said, "IT IS FINISHED" not, "It is finishing."

Yes. But we also have a gradual revelation of what that really meant. For instance, remember that it seemed "good to us and the Holy Spirit" about what the Gentiles were supposed to do concerning the law.

Acts 15:28-29

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
KJV

So while I agree with you, that it was finished at the cross. I am not sure that apostles had that revealed to them immediately. Paul had it revealed before he penned Romans 7. But in Acts 15, there was still a portion of the law applied to the Gentiles such as not eating anything strangled or with the blood. Maybe I am mistaken here for I have not fully studied this out. I am glad you started the thread because it was me thinking....

ChangedByHim
Aug 24th 2017, 02:24 AM
Yes. But we also have a gradual revelation of what that really meant. For instance, remember that it seemed "good to us and the Holy Spirit" about what the Gentiles were supposed to do concerning the law.

Acts 15:28-29

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
KJV

So while I agree with you, that it was finished at the cross. I am not sure that apostles had that revealed to them immediately. Paul had it revealed before he penned Romans 7. But in Acts 15, there was still a portion of the law applied to the Gentiles such as not eating anything strangled or with the blood. Maybe I am mistaken here for I have not fully studied this out. I am glad you started the thread because it was me thinking....

I've read the statements that Paul made about the Law in Romans and Galatians, as have you. I agree that the point made in Hebrews is that in practice it would vanish, fade away. However, Paul was not ignorant on the subject in any way. It seems that he succumbed to the pressure of this 'fading away' mentality. I'm not convinced that he compromised in a negative way, but I'm also not ruling it out.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 24th 2017, 03:42 AM
What do you think Paul was doing in Acts 21 when he participated in animal sacrifices in the temple? I somewhat struggle with all possible resolutions to this question, unless you have one I haven't heard.

“Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.”
Acts‬ 21:26‬ NKJV‬‬

Re:
'What do you think Paul was doing in Acts 21 when he participated in animal sacrifices in the temple?'

Paul did not 'do' or 'participate in animal sacrifice in the temple'.

“Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.”

The roles are exchanged! Paul now takes the lead, and instead of submitting to the rituals here described, "announces the expiration of the days of purification"! That's 'what was going on in the temple' --no perpetuation of blood sacrifices, but the "expiration"--"end" of it forever "announced" by the apostle of Jesus Christ in the Power and Authority of the Holy Spirit!

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 24th 2017, 03:52 AM
In the context they are completing a Nazarite vow and this requires 3 sacrifices to be made and the hair to be burnt with the sacrifices. Just because it is not explicit in the text does not mean that we cannot tell from context what is going on.

Paul took, nor 'completed', any 'Nazarite vow' Period
Paul wasn't even a Nazarite and never became one! What joke would his Romans 14 and other statements about food have become if he did.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 24th 2017, 04:09 AM
Of Course. The only aspect of the Mosaic Law that was replaced by the cross of Christ was the day of Atonement.

You of course realize that this claim has never been made before as it is recently being made during the 21st century. I cannot remember even that I ever crossed mention of it from the twentieth century. So, it's a complete novelty begun with Wednesday crucifixionists and SDA, and has become a brand of their exclusive theology and dogma.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 24th 2017, 04:23 AM
So you contend that under the New Covenant we are to practice all aspects of the mosaic law except the day of atonement??? Because that's what your post states. Just clarifying.

Clear logic makes keen observation.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 24th 2017, 04:40 AM
Circumcision can hardly be regarded a sin in any shape or form. Here are Paul's thoughts on circumcision:

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

Amen!

Amen to Paul's teaching --- no mere attempt at unravelling incidental 'information' but teaching through the Spirit of Christ with clarity, authority and finality. What can be clearer for anyone with real interest in Christ?

Aristarkos
Aug 24th 2017, 07:34 AM
What do you think Paul was doing in Acts 21 when he participated in animal sacrifices in the temple? I somewhat struggle with all possible resolutions to this question, unless you have one I haven't heard.

“Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.”
Acts‬ 21:26‬ NKJV‬‬

The Mosaic Law will not go by but by fulfillment:

Mat 5:18 « For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. »

This means fulfilled by the nation of Israel, not in their own strength (Old Covenant) but by grace in God's strength (New Covenant Jer. 31:31). Please note the « Till heaven and earth pass », which will not happen until the « age (aion) to come » (Mat. 12:31) has ended. Rev. 21. During the whole coming aion the Law will be fulfilled:

Isa 2:3 « And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. »

Paul was observing the Law as a Jew for the Jews in Jerusalem who accused him of teaching against the Law:

Act 18:13 « Saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law »

Problems as stated in the OP only arise because of not rightly dividing the Word of Truth, not seeing the Road of Salvation. Although Paul preached that in Christ there is « neither Jew nor Greek » in Gal. 3:28, that doesn't mean — nor says anywhere in Scripture — that the ethnic Jew ceased to exist. On the contrary, during the whole period of Acts Paul first went to synagogues to preach the Jews and even writes in Romans (the last letter he wrote during Acts):

Rom 1:16 « For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. »

During Paul's preaching in Acts, the Kingdom of Heaven (The Kingdom promised in the O.T. with the Messiah as King) was still preached and Paul's work was to provoke Israel to jealousy (Rom. 10:19; 11:11), this was the grafting of the wild branches on the Olive Tree (Rom. 11:17) — type of Israel's Spiritual privileges — to stimulate the Tree to bear fruit.

While in the flesh, there was still a difference between the gentiles and the Jews even though this was spiritually erased when they were all « in Christ Jesus » and will be so literally after the resurrection.

So all Paul did in Acts 21 was showing he still followed the Law and therefore could say:

Act 25:8 « While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all. »

Animal sacrifice in itself never had any value, the blood of beasts can not wash away sin. It has been in the past and will be in the aion to come a ritual that points to the real Sacrifice of our Lord Christ Jesus.

Aristarkos

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 24th 2017, 08:27 AM
The Mosaic Law will not go by but by fulfillment:

"Christ the all in all fulfilling Fullness of God." "He shall not come to deal with sin, again!"

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 24th 2017, 08:38 AM
Animal sacrifice in itself never had any value, the blood of beasts can not wash away sin. It has been in the past and will be in the aion to come a ritual that points to the real Sacrifice of our Lord Chris Jesus.

In the past animal sacrifice never had any value, but will in the aeon to come have the 'real value' of 'a ritual that points to the real Sacrifice of our Lord Christ Jesus'?

That's an aeon too late, because 'the real value' of any 'ritual in the past', was, that it 'point(ed) to the real Sacrifice of our Lord Christ Jesus' that washed sin away.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 24th 2017, 08:48 AM
Isa 2:3 « And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. »

Paul was observing the Law as a Jew for the Jews in Jerusalem who accused him of teaching against the Law:


Paul believed in Christ, for Paul, Christ The Law out of Zion and Christ, the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

CadyandZoe
Aug 24th 2017, 11:42 AM
Acts 19:21 and Acts 20:22 let us to believe that Paul went to Jerusalem by the guidance of the Spirit. I believe that the prophesies of his bondage and warning not to go was a test of his obedience as was the test of the prophet to not eat and when he did died because he believed another prophet.

What I am not sure of is if his agreeing with James and the other leaders was in accordance to the Spirit. The fact that he could not complete this act lets me to think that it was not.

Yes, James and Paul were in agreement in accordance with the Spirit.

CadyandZoe
Aug 24th 2017, 11:45 AM
Yes. And how long was it after the counsel in Jerusalem where they were arguing over what parts of the law were meant for the new Gentile believes to keep? As you have pointed out, the law was fading away as revelation came.

The Law was not fading away. Rather, the Old Covenant was fading away. There is a difference.

CadyandZoe
Aug 24th 2017, 11:47 AM
You of course realize that this claim has never been made before as it is recently being made during the 21st century.Paul claimed it in his letter to the Hebrews.

TrustGzus
Aug 24th 2017, 11:53 AM
I'm pretty sure the author of Hebrews knew what was going on too. With all the focus on the words "fading away" or "about to pass away", note right before that the author says the first covenant is obsolete! He's pretty clear in Hebrews 9:25-26 and 10:11-14 are very clear. One offering by Christ took away sins. It's over.

Br. Barnabas
Aug 24th 2017, 12:22 PM
Paul took, nor 'completed', any 'Nazarite vow' Period
Paul wasn't even a Nazarite and never became one! What joke would his Romans 14 and other statements about food have become if he did.

He did when he cuts his hair in Acts 18, he had a vow. The only vow requiring one's head to be shaved/hair to be cut is the Nazarite vow. Paul is paying for the completion of the other men's vow and finishing his own vow.

I am sorry if you think that it contradicts Romans 14 but Paul took the vow and completed it. Dietary restrictions and sacrifice are very different dogmas.

You have to remember that Paul is mostly still actually preaching to Jews and God-fearing Gentiles (Gentiles who knew and understood the Jewish Law and customs); he is trying to bring the God-fearing Gentiles into The Way because he knows they won't have to follow all the requirements of the Law. But Paul is still a Jewish-Christian and while he relaxes some of his Jewish practices while with the Gentile believers, he is still very much Jewish.

Brother Mark
Aug 24th 2017, 12:43 PM
I'm pretty sure the author of Hebrews knew what was going on too. With all the focus on the words "fading away" or "about to pass away", note right before that the author says the first covenant is obsolete! He's pretty clear in Hebrews 9:25-26 and 10:11-14 are very clear. One offering by Christ took away sins. It's over.

Yep. The regulations of the covenant faded with the covenant. When was Hebrews written? When Paul wrote Romans, he was saying we are dead to the law. But Hebrews takes a different tact, saying that the covenant is fading away and with it, the regulations of the covenant. Paul mentioned something similar in his letter to the Corinthians about the glory of the old covenant fading away.

CadyandZoe
Aug 24th 2017, 02:55 PM
I'm pretty sure the author of Hebrews knew what was going on too. With all the focus on the words "fading away" or "about to pass away", note right before that the author says the first covenant is obsolete! He's pretty clear in Hebrews 9:25-26 and 10:11-14 are very clear. One offering by Christ took away sins. It's over.

I agree with this. At the same time, though, Paul asserts that the blood of bulls and goats NEVER took away sins and yet, God instituted them anyway. By this we know that they serve another purpose, which means that the death of Christ on the cross, which DID serve to take away sins, did not fulfill the original purpose of the animal sacrifices. Do you follow me? :)

Suppose I buy a new, electric screw driver. I intend that my new electric screw driver serve the same purpose as my old hand-held screw drivers. Now, consider my hammer, which has an entirely different purpose than my old screw drivers. Will my new electric screw driver eliminate my need for a hammer? Not really. My hammer was never intended to fasten screws, though some people might think so.

The same goes for the law of Moses, which God intended to achieve purpose 'B', but the Pharisees used for purpose 'A'. God never intended the law of Moses to serve purpose 'A'; he provided the cross of Christ and faith in Jesus to serve purpose 'A'. And since God provided a means to achieve purpose 'A'; and he intended the law of Moses, including the animal sacrifices to achieve purpose 'B', then purpose 'B' still remains.

A common narrative put forth by well-meaning Christians is this. God intended the law of Moses to achieve purpose 'A'. But man was so morally inept that his plan failed. So then, God decided to provide another way to achieve purpose 'A', forgiveness, mercy, and propitiation through the cross of Christ. According to this narrative, then, the cross of Christ nullified the law of Moses, rendering it null and void, which is why it seems odd that Paul would continue to practice a religion he considered "dung" by comparison to gaining Christ. But in order to understand why Paul would continue to practice his religion we need to understand Paul's mindset with respect to the law of Moses. He does not share the common Christian narrative, i.e. that God intended the Law of Moses to achieve purpose 'A' or that man was too morally inept to keep the law of Moses. Instead, Paul argues that, contrary to the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, the Law of Moses was NEVER intended to achieve purpose 'A'. God gave the law, including the animal sacrifices, for an entirely different purpose altogether.

He also argues that a proper understanding of the cross of Christ, unites both Jews and Gentiles into a new "humanity" without destroying one or the other. Jews can continue to be Jewish and Gentiles can continue not being Jewish.

keck553
Aug 24th 2017, 03:56 PM
Yep. The regulations of the covenant faded with the covenant. When was Hebrews written? When Paul wrote Romans, he was saying we are dead to the law. But Hebrews takes a different tact, saying that the covenant is fading away and with it, the regulations of the covenant. Paul mentioned something similar in his letter to the Corinthians about the glory of the old covenant fading away.

I think 'dead to the Law' for Paul (he was a Jew afterall) is in context with "salvation by works (of the Law)." While the Temple still stood, it remained a gathering place for Christians. Not too many details are written about how they practiced their faith and traditions in terms of the Law of Moses, but there are a few hints in Acts of which a couple are pretty obvious:

Havdallah - Acts 20
Paul bringing a sacrifice and making a Nazerite vow

Some things aren't written about, but in order to remain employed and be "favored" by the community (which they were until around AD50), can we ask -

Were Jewish born babies still circumcised on the eighth day? (probably)
Did Messianic Jews (Christians) observe Sabbath? (definitely - remember the blue laws? Multiply that by 10,000)
Did a woman bring an offering after she bore a child? (probably)
Were Messianic Jews ritually clean when they entered the Temple? (this was mandatory - look what happened when they thought Paul brought a Gentile)

I think Christian Jews respected their own cultural identity in practice, just as they do these days, without expecting (or even desiring) Gentile Christians to follow suit. (If only some Christians congregations could do likewise).

While the non Christian Jews still treat Messianic Jews as apostates, that doesn't stop Messianic Jews (real Messianic Jews) from being Jews and practicing the customs they grew up with.

Trivalee
Aug 24th 2017, 03:58 PM
he's referring to where the writer of Hebrews said the regulations/law was "fading away". He mentioned it earlier in the thread. When was Hebrews written? Any chance it was written before Romans?

Paul wrote Hebrew....

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 25th 2017, 02:04 AM
He did when he cuts his hair in Acts 18, he had a vow. The only vow requiring one's head to be shaved/hair to be cut is the Nazarite vow. Paul is paying for the completion of the other men's vow and finishing his own vow.

'...cuts his hair in Acts 18...' verse? Any other verse?

'...he had a vow...'? Where? Was the 'Nazarite vow' bought for money?!

'...Paul is paying for...' X. 'dapanaoh' - to be at the expence of' √. Acts 21:24. Paul's hosts paid for him; not he for them.

Now if Paul did all the Jewish requirements, why behaved the Jews the way they did in verse 30?

randyk
Aug 25th 2017, 02:49 AM
Paul may have known from the start the legal process by which the OT ended and the NT had begun, with all of the change in laws that involves. Paul had no trouble observing Jewish customs, knowing that he was not observing practices that had any value whatsoever in terms of justification. He just didn't want to upset *Jews.* As for Christians Paul was very strong in opposing the practice of the Law for the purpose of actual justification.

There is a constant problem with some in confusing the general concept of *lawful behavior" with the "Law of Moses." The Law of Moses was at the core of the Old Covenant, and was completely fulfilled in Christ, leaving no further need for practicing the Law in any form whatsoever. The only purpose one might have to want to practice the Law would be for its cultural value, so as not to offend Jews, or to recognize the cultural significance of these practices.

If it is thought there is no "lawful behavior" with the Law of Moses gone, that is wrong. Christ instituted his own law as something greater than the Law of Moses, inasmuch as he produced freedom from the bondage of practicing the Law, as well as eternal justification. One can still be righteous by observing principles of "lawful behavior" without all of the external ceremony associated with the Old Covenant. Following Christ means to follow *his example,* which is by definition "lawful behavior." And like the Law of Moses it is a matter of being subject to spiritual principles of righteousness that existed since the creation of man.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 25th 2017, 08:37 AM
Yep. The regulations of the covenant faded with the covenant. When was Hebrews written? When Paul wrote Romans, he was saying we are dead to the law. But Hebrews takes a different tact, saying that the covenant is fading away and with it, the regulations of the covenant. Paul mentioned something similar in his letter to the Corinthians about the glory of the old covenant fading away.

"For if that first (place) tabernacle (skehneh) which Moses made ... had been faultless, then no place, no true Tabernacle or Sanctuary which the Lord pitched, which the Majesty in the heavens (Christ) is Minister and Mediator of, should have been sought."

An <<old covenant>> that GOD covenanted? Never! That CHRIST is or had been the Minister and Mediator of? God forbid!

Br. Barnabas
Aug 25th 2017, 12:27 PM
'...cuts his hair in Acts 18...' verse? Any other verse?

'...he had a vow...'? Where? Was the 'Nazarite vow' bought for money?!

'...Paul is paying for...' X. 'dapanaoh' - to be at the expence of' √. Acts 21:24. Paul's hosts paid for him; not he for them.

Now if Paul did all the Jewish requirements, why behaved the Jews the way they did in verse 30?

Acts 18:18 "After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers[c] and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow."

The vow does not require money, but Paul like most people did not have the animals on hand for the sacrifice so he would have bought them at the Temple. Since the Temple had animals that had no blemish or spot. You can see further Jesus kicking out the money changers, not because they were selling animals; but because they were taking up space inside the Temple walls that was supposed to be for people to worship.

Acts 21:23-24 " Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law."

Paul is paying their expenses it is plain language there; the purpose is so that it will make the Jews and others who were hostile toward The Way and towards Paul see that he observes the law and is a good Jew as well. Since the Christian movement at this time is still a sect of Judaism, like the Essences, Pharisees, and Sadducees were.

The reason they got so mad is explained in verse 29. They thought he brought a Gentile into the Temple, the Gentiles/God-fears, had their own part of the Temple the very outer court, where they were to worship. Paul being a Jewish man could go into the innermost court. Which is where he presumably was since the other Jews freak out because they saw him with what they assumed was a Gentile in town (Tromphimus the Ephesian) and now see him with people inside the Temple, who they might not know and from verse 29 "and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple." Not sure if you know this but according to the deal they made with the Romans that we learn about from historical sources like Josephus; if a Gentile went into the inner court of the Temple the Jewish people were allowed to kill them on the spot. Also the reason that the Roman authorities were able to get to Paul so fast was they had set up a garrison tower right next to the Temple so that if things got out of hand they could have feet on the ground right away. So the Jews seeing Paul, who they are being told is a good Jew, come into the Temple with what they suppose is/are Gentiles, get pretty mad and try to exercise their right to kill these people and if Paul gets beaten and killed in the fray, well you know accidents happen.

keck553
Aug 25th 2017, 03:42 PM
"For if that first (place) tabernacle (skehneh) which Moses made ... had been faultless, then no place, no true Tabernacle or Sanctuary which the Lord pitched, which the Majesty in the heavens (Christ) is Minister and Mediator of, should have been sought."

An <<old covenant>> that GOD covenanted? Never! That CHRIST is or had been the Minister and Mediator of? God forbid!

Let's put this in context:

"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another."

What was wrong with the first covenant? The next portion tells us:

"But when God found fault with the people, He said: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.…"

That is what was wrong with the first covenant.

divaD
Aug 25th 2017, 04:09 PM
No, animal sacrifices were not valid after the cross.

I think Paul participated because he said he would become whom ever to win people for Christ.
1 Cor 9:22

Do you think Paul really meant it like that though? What if the person he was trying to win over was a murderer? Does that mean he too would become a murderer in order to try and win this murderer for Christ?

keck553
Aug 25th 2017, 04:55 PM
I don't think Paul meant it like that. This was normal practice when the Temple stood.

randyk
Aug 25th 2017, 07:49 PM
When the author of Hebrews said the Old Covenant infrastructure was passing away I think he was referring to the fact the temple was still standing, and the Jews were still administering the Old Covenant Law. It has not a thing to do with the notion the Old Covenant was still legally in effect--it was not!

It was just still being practiced, even though it had been nullified on a legal basis. God no longer honored that covenant. Christ had died, period! Nothing more could be done with respect to justification. Christ was the *only* possible basis for justification. Once Christ had died, the Old Covenant practices became, by default, moot.

But the Jews went on practicing the Law as if it was still in effect. That is what the author of Hebrews was saying, that the temple worship was still in the process of passing away, even though legally it was already gone.

This has nothing to do with Paul observing elements of the Law, except for the fact it was because Jews were still practicing it in their culture. It would be the same today with Jews observing Sabbath in their culture. If we are not to offend them while visiting them in their culture it is a kindness to avoid working on the Sabbath.

It doesn't mean we legally recognize Sabbath Law. Rather, it means we respect the Jews and their religious concerns. We do not recognize the assumptions behind their religious observances, such as the basis of justification. But we can show respect for their cultural values and celebrations.

I should add that taking vows is not limited to an OT practice. Vows were only prohibited by Jesus in the sense of of the wrong use of them. They were not to be accompanied by oaths.

Paul made use of the Jewish cultural way of expressing vows so as to not offend the Jews, who wanted to kill him and his associates. He was not validating justification under the Law. He was only utilizing Jewish cultural expressions to make his vows known publicly, showing his respect for the principles of the Law. For Paul, *all* the principles of the Law were fulfilled in Christ. Even taking vows was an expression of saying "Yes in Christ" (2 Cor 1.19).

CadyandZoe
Aug 25th 2017, 09:31 PM
When the author of Hebrews said the Old Covenant infrastructure was passing away I think he was referring to the fact the temple was still standing, and the Jews were still administering the Old Covenant Law. It has not a thing to do with the notion the Old Covenant was still legally in effect--it was not!

It was just still being practiced, even though it had been nullified on a legal basis. God no longer honored that covenant. Christ had died, period! Nothing more could be done with respect to justification. Christ was the *only* possible basis for justification. Once Christ had died, the Old Covenant practices became, by default, moot.

But the Jews went on practicing the Law as if it was still in effect. That is what the author of Hebrews was saying, that the temple worship was still in the process of passing away, even though legally it was already gone.

This has nothing to do with Paul observing elements of the Law, except for the fact it was because Jews were still practicing it in their culture. It would be the same today with Jews observing Sabbath in their culture. If we are not to offend them while visiting them in their culture it is a kindness to avoid working on the Sabbath.

It doesn't mean we legally recognize Sabbath Law. Rather, it means we respect the Jews and their religious concerns. We do not recognize the assumptions behind their religious observances, such as the basis of justification. But we can show respect for their cultural values and celebrations.

I should add that taking vows is not limited to an OT practice. Vows were only prohibited by Jesus in the sense of of the wrong use of them. They were not to be accompanied by oaths.

Paul made use of the Jewish cultural way of expressing vows so as to not offend the Jews, who wanted to kill him and his associates. He was not validating justification under the Law. He was only utilizing Jewish cultural expressions to make his vows known publicly, showing his respect for the principles of the Law. For Paul, *all* the principles of the Law were fulfilled in Christ. Even taking vows was an expression of saying "Yes in Christ" (2 Cor 1.19).When did Israel break the so-called Old Covenant?

keck553
Aug 25th 2017, 09:40 PM
When did Israel break the so-called Old Covenant?

Probably on day one.

randyk
Aug 26th 2017, 06:51 AM
When did Israel break the so-called Old Covenant?

They broke it repeatedly--every time they worshiped, as a people, idols. Every time they, as a people, fell into immorality, or capitulated to injustice, they broke the Old Covenant of Law.

It became more serious infractions at times when God allowed foreign nations to overwhelm them and to enslave them, or to require payments from them. But the ultimate fracture of the Old Covenant came when the Prophets said so, in the time of the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. In those times God said they were divorced, and would be "put away" as in a divorce. They were exiled, and removed from their worship of God. The temple, symbolizing their union with God, was destroyed.

At this time Israel was allowed to maintain a bare semblance of worship under the Law, in the hope that they would be restored under the covenant they had broken. In fact they were told they would be forgiven and restored under the Old Covenant. So they maintained obedience under the Law insofar as they could, even though so many of their laws required the temple service, and could not be followed, since their temple had been destroyed.

But this national failure under the Old Covenant failed for a last time in the generation of Christ. Jesus said he would've restored Israel, but would not, because they were rejecting him. That is the final breaking of the Old Covenant. They allowed their leadership to reject Christ, and so lost any hope of observing their Law.

And their Law was meant to lead to Christ. In rejecting Christ they failed to recognize the whole purpose of the Law, which was to accept Christ.

And so Israel broke the Old Covenant for a last time when the nation rejected Jesus as their Messiah. The religious establishment at that time had become ceremonial and empty of genuine virtue. Corruption had set in. And the people, despite John the Baptist's ministry, caved to the religious establishment. In the end the Jews not only rejected God's judgment in putting them under the Romans, but they determined to fight the Romans without God's blessing at all.

When Jesus died the veil was ripped in two. This signalled the end of the temple worship, and the end of the Old Covenant, without any hope of a return to it. At any rate, it had meant to lead to Jesus as its ultimate fulfillment and replacement. That was lost along with their loss of the Old Covenant.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 26th 2017, 07:26 AM
Let's put this in context:

"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another."

What was wrong with the first covenant? The next portion tells us:

"But when God found fault with the people, He said: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.…"

That is what was wrong with the first covenant.

Yea, the fault was the people's covenant --- which never was God's Covenant, never God's forever NEW Covenant, God's only Covenant ever, for ever. From Genesis, through the OT and beyond the OT until "God, in these last day BY THE SON spake", the Son who became, fulfilled and was, The Word in the Person of the Man of Nazareth.

Note 'covenant' is cursive in the KJ. The translators were not only not sure; they were wrong, because the overall context deals with the bygone "sanctuary made with hands" : "not the true Sanctuary" which is Christ. Or rather, the context deals with both, but in contrast, not as the same.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 26th 2017, 07:47 AM
Acts 21:23-24 " Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law."
Paul is paying their expenses it is plain language there

"We have four men who have a vow ON THEM-selves; take (use) them and BE thou purified by them being together with them (or in their company), these having (or "because these have") taken vow on themselves (at their own expense) and depend you, on them", is the plain language here, in Acts 21:23,24.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 26th 2017, 10:24 AM
When Jesus died the veil was ripped in two. This signalled the end of the temple worship, and the end of the Old Covenant, without any hope of a return to it. At any rate, it had meant to lead to Jesus as its ultimate fulfillment and replacement. That was lost along with their loss of the Old Covenant.


When Jesus died the veil was ripped in two. This signalled the end of the temple worship, and the end of the old blood sacrifices and priestly system as well as place of worship ... 'without any hope of a return to it' EVER!

It meant Jesus as its ultimate fulfilment meant its replacement.

Unfortunately man with his sinning just went on in his old ways of vain covenanting fidelity to God's ever new old Covenant of Grace.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 26th 2017, 11:05 AM
...the Jews seeing Paul, who they are being told is a good Jew, come into the Temple with what they suppose is/are Gentiles, get pretty mad and try to exercise their right to kill these people and if Paul gets beaten and killed in the fray, well you know accidents happen.

Paul "proclaimed the end of the days of purification ... After almost seven days Jews from Asia, when they saw Paul in the temple (again), stirred up everybody and grabbed Paul, crying out, Israelites, help! This is the man who teaches all everywhere against the people (of Israel), against the Law, and against this place (of worship, the temple)." Not pro- or for it! "And further, this (Paul) is the man who brought Greeks into the temple even, and polluted this place -- because they had seen with Paul in the CITY, Trophimus an Ephesian whom they SUPPOSED Paul had brought into the temple" while he in fact never did.

...completely another story....

CadyandZoe
Aug 26th 2017, 11:46 AM
Probably on day one.

And yet, the law of Moses didn't end on day one.

CadyandZoe
Aug 26th 2017, 12:00 PM
They broke it repeatedly--every time they worshiped, as a people, idols. Every time they, as a people, fell into immorality, or capitulated to injustice, they broke the Old Covenant of Law.

It became more serious infractions at times when God allowed foreign nations to overwhelm them and to enslave them, or to require payments from them. But the ultimate fracture of the Old Covenant came when the Prophets said so, in the time of the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. In those times God said they were divorced, and would be "put away" as in a divorce. They were exiled, and removed from their worship of God. The temple, symbolizing their union with God, was destroyed.

At this time Israel was allowed to maintain a bare semblance of worship under the Law, in the hope that they would be restored under the covenant they had broken. In fact they were told they would be forgiven and restored under the Old Covenant. So they maintained obedience under the Law insofar as they could, even though so many of their laws required the temple service, and could not be followed, since their temple had been destroyed.

But this national failure under the Old Covenant failed for a last time in the generation of Christ. Jesus said he would've restored Israel, but would not, because they were rejecting him. That is the final breaking of the Old Covenant. They allowed their leadership to reject Christ, and so lost any hope of observing their Law.

And their Law was meant to lead to Christ. In rejecting Christ they failed to recognize the whole purpose of the Law, which was to accept Christ.

And so Israel broke the Old Covenant for a last time when the nation rejected Jesus as their Messiah. The religious establishment at that time had become ceremonial and empty of genuine virtue. Corruption had set in. And the people, despite John the Baptist's ministry, caved to the religious establishment. In the end the Jews not only rejected God's judgment in putting them under the Romans, but they determined to fight the Romans without God's blessing at all.

When Jesus died the veil was ripped in two. This signalled the end of the temple worship, and the end of the Old Covenant, without any hope of a return to it. At any rate, it had meant to lead to Jesus as its ultimate fulfillment and replacement. That was lost along with their loss of the Old Covenant.

Here again, you are confusing or conflating the Law of Moses with the Mt. Sinai covenant. Think about it, how many times can a covenant be broken? Only once. The first time the terms of the covenant were violated, the covenant was broken. After that, the covenant was never unbroken so as to be broken again.

But when was the covenant broken? Was the covenant broken prior to Jeremiah 31:31? The answer is yes.

And yet, it was said, Jesus kept the Law perfectly. So even though the covenant was broken, he kept and practiced the Law perfectly. Jesus practiced the Law to fulfill all righteousness. Any Jewish Jesus-follower would have done the same thing. They would do as their leader did, fulfill all righteousness.

Therefore, during Paul's time, the law was still in effect even though the Old Covenant was passing away and Jesus Christ had inaugurated the New Covenant in his blood. The transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant did not negate or cancel out the Law. Jesus practiced the law and he was perfect and he never sinned, even as the Old Covenant was already broken and passing away. Paul would do the same thing. Just as Jesus fulfilled all righteousness in the context of the Law of Moses, Paul would also fulfill all righteousness in that same context.

Paul declared that the Gentiles were not required to live Jewishly; But to conclude, therefore, that the Jews were not required to live Jewishly would be to take Paul's arguments beyond what he intended.

Brother Mark
Aug 26th 2017, 12:11 PM
Here again, you are confusing or conflating the Law of Moses with the Mt. Sinai covenant. Think about it, how many times can a covenant be broken? Only once. The first time the terms of the covenant were violated, the covenant was broken. After that, the covenant was never unbroken so as to be broken again.

But when was the covenant broken? Was the covenant broken prior to Jeremiah 31:31? The answer is yes.

And yet, it was said, Jesus kept the Law perfectly. So even though the covenant was broken, he kept and practiced the Law perfectly. Jesus practiced the Law to fulfill all righteousness. Any Jewish Jesus-follower would have done the same thing. They would do as their leader did, fulfill all righteousness.

Therefore, during Paul's time, the law was still in effect even though the Old Covenant was passing away and Jesus Christ had inaugurated the New Covenant in his blood. The transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant did not negate or cancel out the Law. Jesus practiced the law and he was perfect and he never sinned, even as the Old Covenant was already broken and passing away. Paul would do the same thing. Just as Jesus fulfilled all righteousness in the context of the Law of Moses, Paul would also fulfill all righteousness in that same context.

Paul declared that the Gentiles were not required to live Jewishly; But to conclude, therefore, that the Jews were not required to live Jewishly would be to take Paul's arguments beyond what he intended.

The covenant was made at Sinai and the law contains the regulations of the covenant, and all that faded away. Paul taught that we do not live by the letter of the law for it is the ministry of death. The regulations of the covenant are no longer necessary in the letter. But the spirit of the law remains.

It is also a shadow, and when one has He who casts the shadow, the shadow takes a back seat.

And finally, we are dead to the law and so was Paul. To continue in marriage to the letter of law is to commit adultery.

CadyandZoe
Aug 26th 2017, 02:53 PM
The covenant was made at Sinai and the law contains the regulations of the covenant, and all that faded away. Paul taught that we do not live by the letter of the law for it is the ministry of death. The regulations of the covenant are no longer necessary in the letter. But the spirit of the law remains.I don't think Paul was talking about the letter and spirit of the law the way we mean that. What we mean, arises from the reality that the written law seeks to codify in legal terms an obligatory duty or ethics based on an objective moral standard of right and wrong. We also realize that a single law or set of laws can not contain a rule for every circumstance that might arise. But more importantly, we experience situations and circumstances wherein a man might need to violate the written law in order to uphold the objective moral standard that remains the substance of that written law. In other words, while we broke the letter of the law, we kept the spirit of the law.

Nevertheless, this principle was not in the forefront of Paul's argument in 2Corinthians. He was not thinking in terms of the inadequacy of a written code to prescribe or proscribe one's behavior in each and every situation. He concerned himself with questions of spirituality and matters of inwardness. A man with the proper inwardness doesn't need a written code to guide him or dictate his actions. He always seeks to do the right thing and he always seeks to acquire the wisdom to know the difference between right and wrong.

When comparing his ministry to that of Moses, he says that unlike Moses who ministered death, he ministers life. What makes this true? Paul doesn't mean to suggest that Moses or the Law caused people to die. Rather, his point was to say that the Law defined the conditions under which a person might find life but even so, all it could do, by itself, was stand in condemnation of those who were under it. If someone thought that the Law would bring mercy and pardon from God, they were mistaken. The message of the cross, properly understood, provided a way to find mercy and pardon aside from the praxis of Moses.


It is also a shadow, and when one has He who casts the shadow, the shadow takes a back seat.The analogy of the shadow is found in the book of Hebrews where the comparison is between the day of atonement and the cross of Christ. Paul is claiming that the activity of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement was a shadow of the activity of Jesus Christ to make intercession for his followers. We make a mistake if we assume that Paul means to suggest that the entire law was a shadow. Paul says the law HAS a shadow (in it), not that the law IS a shadow. The specific aspect in view is the activity of the High Priest who made an offering once a year.


And finally, we are dead to the law and so was Paul. To continue in marriage to the letter of law is to commit adultery.That's right. But in the context of Romans 7, the analogy illustrates a person seeking to find justification by the law. In this analogy, being "married" to the law means "being committed to the idea that the praxis of Moses is the means by which God declares a person to be justified." Paul is saying, once that idea dies, we are free to find another means to be justified.

The actual question Paul was answering is this, "On what basis does God grant mercy and pardon?" Paul's opponents and his detractors would argue that God will grant mercy and pardon to anyone who adopt the Jewish praxis, accepting the practices and customs of the scribes and Pharisees, apart from a proper inwardness. It was just as someone here told me, "God doesn't care what you think or feel about the law. All he cares about is whether you do what it says." (or something to that affect.) Paul, on the other hand, argued that God grants mercy and pardon to any individual who believes and aligns himself with the truth, i.e in view of faith.

Brother Mark
Aug 28th 2017, 01:39 AM
I don't think Paul was talking about the letter and spirit of the law the way we mean that. What we mean, arises from the reality that the written law seeks to codify in legal terms an obligatory duty or ethics based on an objective moral standard of right and wrong. We also realize that a single law or set of laws can not contain a rule for every circumstance that might arise. But more importantly, we experience situations and circumstances wherein a man might need to violate the written law in order to uphold the objective moral standard that remains the substance of that written law. In other words, while we broke the letter of the law, we kept the spirit of the law.

I agree. That wasn't what Paul was talking about.


When comparing his ministry to that of Moses, he says that unlike Moses who ministered death, he ministers life. What makes this true? Paul doesn't mean to suggest that Moses or the Law caused people to die. Rather, his point was to say that the Law defined the conditions under which a person might find life but even so, all it could do, by itself, was stand in condemnation of those who were under it. If someone thought that the Law would bring mercy and pardon from God, they were mistaken. The message of the cross, properly understood, provided a way to find mercy and pardon aside from the praxis of Moses.

When Paul speaks of the spirit of the law, he is speaking of what the Law is pointing to and in some cases, whom. When he spoke about not muzzling the ox that treads the corn, he pointed out that God didn't write that for the oxen, but for ministers. Thus, the minister being provided for is the "spirit of the law". When John said "behold the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world", he was pointing out that Jesus was the Passover Lamb and that the spirit of the Passover Feast is about salvation. The spirit of the year of Jubilee is found in Luke 4.

If we look at the spirit of the food laws, we see Jesus speaking of spiritual foods all through the gospels. None of them are about pork. We have to be careful what we eat spiritually. Eating pork doesn't matter. What we take into our minds and hearts matters.


The analogy of the shadow is found in the book of Hebrews where the comparison is between the day of atonement and the cross of Christ. Paul is claiming that the activity of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement was a shadow of the activity of Jesus Christ to make intercession for his followers. We make a mistake if we assume that Paul means to suggest that the entire law was a shadow. Paul says the law HAS a shadow (in it), not that the law IS a shadow. The specific aspect in view is the activity of the High Priest who made an offering once a year.

Lots of shadows are in the law and in the OT. Paul repeatedly referred to them in various places. Jesus spoke of Himself starting with Moses and all the prophets.


That's right. But in the context of Romans 7, the analogy illustrates a person seeking to find justification by the law. In this analogy, being "married" to the law means "being committed to the idea that the praxis of Moses is the means by which God declares a person to be justified." Paul is saying, once that idea dies, we are free to find another means to be justified.

Not only are we not married to the Law (which doesn't mean being justified by it for no one ever was justified by the law) we are no longer "under" the law either. Being justified by law has always been impossible and if that was marriage to the law, then we were never married to it for justification is impossible through law. Thus, marriage to the law does not mean justified by the law.

randyk
Aug 28th 2017, 04:07 AM
Here again, you are confusing or conflating the Law of Moses with the Mt. Sinai covenant. Think about it, how many times can a covenant be broken? Only once. The first time the terms of the covenant were violated, the covenant was broken. After that, the covenant was never unbroken so as to be broken again.


I have no idea why you think a covenant can be broken only once? In law, you can do anything with pen and paper. Whatever agreement you choose to make you can make it stand. Just give up something of value in exchange for something of value from another party and you have a contract.

Even if a contract is ruined, it can be renewed. Just write it on paper and start over with the same terms. That's what God did following the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. He restored Israel to the original Law, had the same temple rebuilt, and required the same 613 laws be followed.



But when was the covenant broken? Was the covenant broken prior to Jeremiah 31:31? The answer is yes.

And yet, it was said, Jesus kept the Law perfectly. So even though the covenant was broken, he kept and practiced the Law perfectly. Jesus practiced the Law to fulfill all righteousness. Any Jewish Jesus-follower would have done the same thing. They would do as their leader did, fulfill all righteousness.


I don't think Jesus "fulfilled" the Law of Moses in the way other Israelites did who were sinful and in need of sin offerings. Jesus fulfilled the Law completely apart from the requirements of the Law for sinful people. He was not sinful at all, and had no need of offerings for sin. He had no need for purification rituals. He didn't need water baptism.

So he fulfilled the Law by becoming what the Law actually had prophesied concerning his coming. He was the "Prophet to come." He was the one who by his own righteousness would supersede the Law, and become a greater priest than the priests of the Law.



Therefore, during Paul's time, the law was still in effect even though the Old Covenant was passing away and Jesus Christ had inaugurated the New Covenant in his blood. The transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant did not negate or cancel out the Law. Jesus practiced the law and he was perfect and he never sinned, even as the Old Covenant was already broken and passing away. Paul would do the same thing. Just as Jesus fulfilled all righteousness in the context of the Law of Moses, Paul would also fulfill all righteousness in that same context.


No, the era of the Law ended at the cross, when the veil was torn, and when Christ gave up his spirit. The practice of the Law thereafter was a matter of Jewish ritual and ceremony--not a a practice accepted by God under any covenant He had with Israel.

The continuing practice of the Law by the Jews was not accepted by God as a condition for blessing, but God may have allowed it in their ignorance as a form of respect for God's perennial relationship with the Jewish people. Therefore, Paul could practice some elements of the Law without endorsing it as currently valid. He was showing respect for his Jewish brethren, and setting an example of respect for the Jewish culture.



Paul declared that the Gentiles were not required to live Jewishly; But to conclude, therefore, that the Jews were not required to live Jewishly would be to take Paul's arguments beyond what he intended.

The Jews can observe Jewish feasts. And Christians can observe Christian celebrations. None of these things have any validity with respect to earning points under the Old Covenant of Mosaic Law. They are only celebrations of a culture in relationship with God. Nothing wrong with that. But for Christians to embrace a covenant that has passed away is absurd and wrong. Jesus fulfilled it all at the cross, and nothing more need be done.

Br. Barnabas
Aug 28th 2017, 12:18 PM
"We have four men who have a vow ON THEM-selves; take (use) them and BE thou purified by them being together with them (or in their company), these having (or "because these have") taken vow on themselves (at their own expense) and depend you, on them", is the plain language here, in Acts 21:23,24.

Your translation and interpretation is not plain language. What version are you using? My quote was from ESV, which is a plain language. NRSV gives the same idea that Paul is joining them and going through the right of purification with them and paying for them to shave their heads.

Br. Barnabas
Aug 28th 2017, 12:24 PM
Paul "proclaimed the end of the days of purification ... After almost seven days Jews from Asia, when they saw Paul in the temple (again), stirred up everybody and grabbed Paul, crying out, Israelites, help! This is the man who teaches all everywhere against the people (of Israel), against the Law, and against this place (of worship, the temple)." Not pro- or for it! "And further, this (Paul) is the man who brought Greeks into the temple even, and polluted this place -- because they had seen with Paul in the CITY, Trophimus an Ephesian whom they SUPPOSED Paul had brought into the temple" while he in fact never did.

...completely another story....

I agree he never brought the Gentile into the Temple. But the Jews who stirred up trouble thought the did bring a Gentile into the Temple and that is why they tried to kill him. Which is why in your translation they say "And further," before talking about bringing a Gentile into the Temple; that was the biggest offense. The Samaritans spoke out against the Temple, but the Jews didn't try to kill them over it.

CadyandZoe
Aug 28th 2017, 01:03 PM
I have no idea why you think a covenant can be broken only once?Consider a circle. How many times do you need to cut a circle until it ceases to be a circle? One. How many holes in the tire does it take until the tire ceases to function as a tire? One. Consider a woman. How many times does it take until she ceases to be a virgin? One.

Consider the tire again. If a child runs over a nail with her bike, it might puncture her tire. If that happens, the tire ceases to function as a tire until the tire is repaired. If her father should place a patch on the hole, he will fill the tire with air again, and his child will ride her bike again.

Consider a man who cheats on his wife, breaking the marriage covenant. Can the marriage be repaired? Yes. But unlike the bicycle tire, the marriage covenant can never be unbroken. The man can never say to his wife, "I never cheated on you." His violation is written on the pages of history and as such, will always remain a reality between husband and wife. Once a trust has been violated, that betrayal can never be undone. It can be forgiven, perhaps even forgotten, but never undone. It only takes one betrayal in order to establish infidelity and an underlying character flaw that is prone to duplicity. No matter how many times the husband sleeps with the other woman, it only takes one time for the marriage vow to be broken.

Even as the Law of Moses was established as the terms of the Covenant, Israel maintained the Law of Moses as the law of the land after the covenant was broken. The Law of Moses didn't cease being the law of the land after Israel and Judah broke the covenant.


I don't think Jesus "fulfilled" the Law of Moses in the way other Israelites did who were sinful and in need of sin offerings. Jesus fulfilled the Law completely apart from the requirements of the Law for sinful people. He was not sinful at all, and had no need of offerings for sin. He had no need for purification rituals. He didn't need water baptism.We need to be clear on this point. Sin offerings were NOT intended for the expiation of sin. A sin offering was a symbolic gesture of penitence, intended to seek God's forgiveness and mercy. I will grant you that Jesus did not need to seek God's forgiveness or mercy. However, the Biblical claim that Jesus was without sin, includes his religious obligations as well as his moral duty. He was devout in the practice of his religion. And, though he didn't need to be baptized by John the Baptist, he stepped into the river with John because, in his own words, "to fulfill all righteousness."

Matthew 3:13-15
13 Then Jesus *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. 14 But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” 15 But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he *permitted Him.


No, the era of the Law ended at the cross, when the veil was torn, and when Christ gave up his spirit. The practice of the Law thereafter was a matter of Jewish ritual and ceremony--not a a practice accepted by God under any covenant He had with Israel. I think even a casual review of the New Testament will reveal that, on the contrary, the era of the Law had not ended at the cross. I don't believe the veil was torn in order to declare that the era of the law had ended. The veil covered the holiest of holy places, which represented God's presence among his people. The veil was his covering, so to speak. The tearing of one’s clothes is an ancient tradition among the Jews, and it is associated with mourning, grief, and loss. God tore the veil as an expression of mourning and loss.

ChangedByHim
Aug 28th 2017, 03:47 PM
I have no idea why you think a covenant can be broken only once? In law, you can do anything with pen and paper. Whatever agreement you choose to make you can make it stand. Just give up something of value in exchange for something of value from another party and you have a contract.

Even if a contract is ruined, it can be renewed. Just write it on paper and start over with the same terms. That's what God did following the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. He restored Israel to the original Law, had the same temple rebuilt, and required the same 613 laws be followed.



I don't think Jesus "fulfilled" the Law of Moses in the way other Israelites did who were sinful and in need of sin offerings. Jesus fulfilled the Law completely apart from the requirements of the Law for sinful people. He was not sinful at all, and had no need of offerings for sin. He had no need for purification rituals. He didn't need water baptism.

So he fulfilled the Law by becoming what the Law actually had prophesied concerning his coming. He was the "Prophet to come." He was the one who by his own righteousness would supersede the Law, and become a greater priest than the priests of the Law.



No, the era of the Law ended at the cross, when the veil was torn, and when Christ gave up his spirit. The practice of the Law thereafter was a matter of Jewish ritual and ceremony--not a a practice accepted by God under any covenant He had with Israel.

The continuing practice of the Law by the Jews was not accepted by God as a condition for blessing, but God may have allowed it in their ignorance as a form of respect for God's perennial relationship with the Jewish people. Therefore, Paul could practice some elements of the Law without endorsing it as currently valid. He was showing respect for his Jewish brethren, and setting an example of respect for the Jewish culture.



The Jews can observe Jewish feasts. And Christians can observe Christian celebrations. None of these things have any validity with respect to earning points under the Old Covenant of Mosaic Law. They are only celebrations of a culture in relationship with God. Nothing wrong with that. But for Christians to embrace a covenant that has passed away is absurd and wrong. Jesus fulfilled it all at the cross, and nothing more need be done.

Excellent responses Randy!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to randyk again.

randyk
Aug 28th 2017, 03:49 PM
Consider a circle. How many times do you need to cut a circle until it ceases to be a circle? One. How many holes in the tire does it take until the tire ceases to function as a tire? One. Consider a woman. How many times does it take until she ceases to be a virgin? One.

Consider the tire again. If a child runs over a nail with her bike, it might puncture her tire. If that happens, the tire ceases to function as a tire until the tire is repaired. If her father should place a patch on the hole, he will fill the tire with air again, and his child will ride her bike again.

Consider a man who cheats on his wife, breaking the marriage covenant. Can the marriage be repaired? Yes. But unlike the bicycle tire, the marriage covenant can never be unbroken. The man can never say to his wife, "I never cheated on you." His violation is written on the pages of history and as such, will always remain a reality between husband and wife. Once a trust has been violated, that betrayal can never be undone. It can be forgiven, perhaps even forgotten, but never undone. It only takes one betrayal in order to establish infidelity and an underlying character flaw that is prone to duplicity. No matter how many times the husband sleeps with the other woman, it only takes one time for the marriage vow to be broken.

Even as the Law of Moses was established as the terms of the Covenant, Israel maintained the Law of Moses as the law of the land after the covenant was broken. The Law of Moses didn't cease being the law of the land after Israel and Judah broke the covenant.


Nobody here is arguing against the idea that Israel sinned under the Law, thus violating the covenant in some manner. The whole purpose of the Law was to *deal with* the problem of breaking the Law! But there is a big difference, of course, between violating the Law in matters of smaller sins and breaking the Law as a covenant. It is the difference between "patching the tire" and throwing away the bike!

So the question becomes: how does a broken covenant get repaired? We know the Law was given to repair the sins that violated the covenant. That's what sin offerings did. But how do you repair a contract that has not been successfully followed through on? If a party fails to meet payments on a house, and the house is foreclosed on, how can the house be brought back into a contract that has failed?

Well, my argument is that is exactly what happened. The Contract between God and Israel failed--not just in small ways, but the Contract as a whole failed. And yet God reinstated it. That is exactly what we read. Following the captivities of Israel God had the temple rebuilt and the old Law reestablished, together with its identical covenant commitments. Israel still had to obey the Law, and God agreed to bless those efforts, and to curse any failures.



We need to be clear on this point. Sin offerings were NOT intended for the expiation of sin. A sin offering was a symbolic gesture of penitence, intended to seek God's forgiveness and mercy. I will grant you that Jesus did not need to seek God's forgiveness or mercy. However, the Biblical claim that Jesus was without sin, includes his religious obligations as well as his moral duty. He was devout in the practice of his religion. And, though he didn't need to be baptized by John the Baptist, he stepped into the river with John because, in his own words, "to fulfill all righteousness."


Yes, my point was that Jesus got water baptized not because he needed it, but rather, to fulfil the prophecies of his coming, both as the Redeemer from sin and as an example for those who need to repent. Jesus, however, had no need to repent. If He had actually followed the Law as though he were himself a sinner he would've been dishonest, which is impossible. To act as if he was a sinner would've been a lie! So it would *not* be a "devout observance" for Jesus to pretend he was a sinner. He only showed an example, by water baptism, of what sinners should do.

But I disagree with you on the matter of forgiveness of sin through animal sacrifices. Animal sacrifices were precisely the things God chose to use to forgive Israel their sins. Obedience in this matter is precisely what God chose to use as the means of forgiveness. It was not, I agree, a forgiveness for sin on an *eternal basis.* But it was in fact forgiveness for sin, and a reprieve from punishment for those sins. You will not be able to prove otherwise!



Matthew 3:13-15
13 Then Jesus *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. 14 But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” 15 But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he *permitted Him.

I think even a casual review of the New Testament will reveal that, on the contrary, the era of the Law had not ended at the cross. I don't believe the veil was torn in order to declare that the era of the law had ended. The veil covered the holiest of holy places, which represented God's presence among his people. The veil was his covering, so to speak. The tearing of one’s clothes is an ancient tradition among the Jews, and it is associated with mourning, grief, and loss. God tore the veil as an expression of mourning and loss.

Tony P
Aug 30th 2017, 05:07 AM
How evident has the confusion become! Good Lord, help us!

I think you missed the whole point.


I mean I believe the Scriptures ... only.

This is called an oxymoron. Good luck!

CadyandZoe
Aug 30th 2017, 08:33 PM
Nobody here is arguing against the idea that Israel sinned under the Law, thus violating the covenant in some manner.Of course not, what gave you that idea? The locus of the discussion was suppose to be Paul's rational for keeping Moses.


The whole purpose of the Law was to *deal with* the problem of breaking the Law!I disagree, the Bible explicitly states two purposes for the law, neither of which is what you claim. First of all, and primarily, the purpose of the Law was to define what it meant to be a holy people. This is clearly stated as the purpose in the OT. Second, Paul also says that the purpose of the law was to act as a guardian or a tutor, which is explicitly stated in the New Testament.


And yet God reinstated it.Provide scripture.


That is exactly what we read. Following the captivities of Israel God had the temple rebuilt and the old Law reestablished, together with its identical covenant commitments. Israel still had to obey the Law, and God agreed to bless those efforts, and to curse any failures.You are confusing the Covenant with the Law again.


Animal sacrifices were precisely the things God chose to use to forgive Israel their sins.Negative. God agreed to accept animal sacrifices as a token of the heart attitude of the penitent. The sacrifices as such did nothing.

No such thing as transitory forgiveness.

randyk
Aug 31st 2017, 04:17 AM
Of course not, what gave you that idea? The locus of the discussion was suppose to be Paul's rational for keeping Moses.

I disagree, the Bible explicitly states two purposes for the law, neither of which is what you claim. First of all, and primarily, the purpose of the Law was to define what it meant to be a holy people. This is clearly stated as the purpose in the OT. Second, Paul also says that the purpose of the law was to act as a guardian or a tutor, which is explicitly stated in the New Testament.


And I disagree with you, as well. The purpose of the Law was given in Scripture as a means of dealing with lawlessness, and to remedy the problem of breaking the Law. It provided sin offerings, purification rituals, and all manner of symbolism to show the contrast between lawlessness and right living. Actually, this is not inconsistent with what you described as being the purposes of the Law.



Provide scripture.


What for--to prove that God reinstated the Law of Moses following the Babylonian Captivity? Surely you know the Bible? Haven't you read about the Persian Restoration?



You are confusing the Covenant with the Law again.


This is not a confusion. The Old Covenant *is* the Law! Prove otherwise with Scripture!



Negative. God agreed to accept animal sacrifices as a token of the heart attitude of the penitent. The sacrifices as such did nothing.

No such thing as transitory forgiveness.

You are contradicting yourself. 1st you say God accepted animal sacrifices--these were *sin offerings.* Then you say they did nothing.

As to "transitory forgiveness," just read Hebrews, where it is stated that animal sacrifices only served to forgive a sin until the next sin was committed...

Heb 10.1 For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins....
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.


Notice above the words indicating that these sacrifices did not "cleanse once for all." This means that they had the value of a *temporary cleansing*--one that did not "cleanse once for all." This is a transitory forgiveness. Israelites were forgiven for a particular sin through the ritual of an animal sacrifice, but the animal sacrifice did not bring *eternal forgiveness.* Though they were clearly forgiven for their sin, they were not thereby cleansed of either their sin nature or of future sins. It was strictly a momentary cleansing, enabling them to be restored in relationship with God.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Aug 31st 2017, 12:27 PM
It was strictly a momentary cleansing, enabling them to be restored in relationship with God.

No OT sacrifices were itself 'cleansing' sin, or itself were 'enabling (any) to be restored in relationship with God', not even 'strictly momentary'.
But by the faith and hope of the Promised Messiah, then as today, "in Christ" all who believe in Him, are, forgiven their sins through the only "Lamb-of-God" who for many (all the elect of God) "have obtained" the Resurrection of Life: which none ever were saved eternally, WITHOUT!

CadyandZoe
Aug 31st 2017, 02:25 PM
And I disagree with you, as well. The purpose of the Law was given in Scripture as a means of dealing with lawlessness, and to remedy the problem of breaking the Law.Here I need you to provide scripture to establish your position. I maintain that the Bible gives two explicit statements concerning the law's purpose, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament and you have yet to ask me to cite them. Are you not even curious to know them?


What for--to prove that God reinstated the Law of Moses following the Babylonian Captivity?No. I want you to provide scriptures for the idea that God reinstated the covenant. And yes, I do know the Bible. And I know that it wasn't God who reinstated the Law of Moses it was the people themselves. Nevertheless, you also maintain that God reinstated the covenant, which is not found in scripture.


This is not a confusion. The Old Covenant *is* the Law! Prove otherwise with Scripture!I have proven this many times to you. So I won't go into a detailed proof at this time.

In the following passage God indicates WHEN he made the covenant with Israel.

Jeremiah 31:
1 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.

Question: When did God make his covenant with Israel?
Answer: In the day I led them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

The following passage describes this moment.

Exodus 6:
6 Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. 7 Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you for a possession; I am the Lord.’”

The Law of Moses is NOT the Covenant. The covenant is "I will take you for My people, and I will be your God." THIS is the covenant the people broke.


You are contradicting yourself. 1st you say God accepted animal sacrifices--these were *sin offerings.* Then you say they did nothing. That's not all I said. Remember, I said God accepts the animal sacrifices as "a token" of an inner attitude. God accepts them on that basis; but he also rejects them when the proper attitude is missing. Witness Isaiah chapter one.



As to "transitory forgiveness," just read Hebrews, where it is stated that animal sacrifices only served to forgive a sin until the next sin was committed...

Heb 10.1 For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins....
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.


Notice above the words indicating that these sacrifices did not "cleanse once for all." This means that they had the value of a *temporary cleansing*--one that did not "cleanse once for all." This is a transitory forgiveness. Israelites were forgiven for a particular sin through the ritual of an animal sacrifice, but the animal sacrifice did not bring *eternal forgiveness.* Though they were clearly forgiven for their sin, they were not thereby cleansed of either their sin nature or of future sins. It was strictly a momentary cleansing, enabling them to be restored in relationship with God.I see the source of your mistake. You think Paul is talking about ritual cleansing, when in fact he is talking about the cleansing of the conscience of the penitent. Here Paul is not talking about God's forgiveness; he is talking about the assurance one might have that indeed, God has forgiven him. Paul doesn't maintain that God's forgiveness is transitory. He argues that God's disposition with respect to whether or not he has forgiven the penitent can't be known by means of the animal sacrifice because neither the High priest or the penitent hear directly from God, "I forgive you." By contrast, God has said, with a voice from heaven, that he forgives those who believe in his son. The believer can't reach his "teleosis" until he can have certainty that God himself has accounted him among the justified. The High priest can't give that kind of certainty, whereas Jesus can.

randyk
Aug 31st 2017, 06:59 PM
No OT sacrifices were itself 'cleansing' sin, or itself were 'enabling (any) to be restored in relationship with God', not even 'strictly momentary'.
But by the faith and hope of the Promised Messiah, then as today, "in Christ" all who believe in Him, are, forgiven their sins through the only "Lamb-of-God" who for many (all the elect of God) "have obtained" the Resurrection of Life: which none ever were saved eternally, WITHOUT!

I agree that the Law of Moses provided cleansing for sin. But I do not agree that it was anything other than temporary. That's what Hebrews 10 teaches, along with many other NT passagess.

randyk
Sep 1st 2017, 12:05 AM
Here I need you to provide scripture to establish your position. I maintain that the Bible gives two explicit statements concerning the law's purpose, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament and you have yet to ask me to cite them. Are you not even curious to know them?


No, I know what the purpose of the Law was. It had a number of reasons, and I'm not sure counting the reasons has any validity. Can you cite me a Scripture that says how many reasons, specifically, the Law must have for its purpose? As to proving that the Law was given to counter lawlessness that is ludicrous! Obviously, Law is against lawlessness! ;)



No. I want you to provide scriptures for the idea that God reinstated the covenant. And yes, I do know the Bible. And I know that it wasn't God who reinstated the Law of Moses it was the people themselves. Nevertheless, you also maintain that God reinstated the covenant, which is not found in scripture.


This is beyond ridiculous. Anybody who knows Scriptures recognizes in the Persian Restoration that reinstitution of temple law!



I have proven this many times to you. So I won't go into a detailed proof at this time.


You have *never* proven to me that the Old Covenant is not the Law! The Law of Moses was the basis of establishing God's previously ratified covenant with Abraham. Since the Law failed to establish that covenant forever, it was only a temporary form of God's covenant with Israel, rendering it an "Old Covenant."



In the following passage God indicates WHEN he made the covenant with Israel.

Jeremiah 31:
1 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.

Question: When did God make his covenant with Israel?
Answer: In the day I led them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

The following passage describes this moment.

Exodus 6:
6 Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. 7 Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 8 I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you for a possession; I am the Lord.’”


The covenant God made with Abraham actually began with Abraham. This covenant came to be established on the basis of the Law of Moses in the time of Moses, specifically when God brought Israel up out of Egypt. It was when God gave to Moses His Law for the people of Israel. This is what we today call the "Old Covenant."



The Law of Moses is NOT the Covenant. The covenant is "I will take you for My people, and I will be your God." THIS is the covenant the people broke.


The Law of Moses is the time when God used that Law to establish the Abrahamic covenant with Israel, at the time when He brought them out of Egypt. That was the Law, or the Covenant, that they violated. It could not end the Abrahamic Covenant. But it could certainly end that form of the Covenant that was encapsulated by the Law of Moses. Breaking that Law destroyed Israel's covenant relationship with God that had been based on the Law of Moses. It was beyond just breaking a law or two that could be atoned for under the Law itself, by offering various sacrifices. Rather, violating the Law as a whole took place when Israel apostacized from the Law, abandoning both the Law and their God completely for other gods and pagan practices.



That's not all I said. Remember, I said God accepts the animal sacrifices as "a token" of an inner attitude. God accepts them on that basis; but he also rejects them when the proper attitude is missing. Witness Isaiah chapter one.


Yes, that contradicts what you said, that the sin offerings did nothing. They were not just "tokens." They were the very means of forgiveness, and constituted concrete acts of obedience that God accepted on Israel's behalf. Nobody here was talking about a "bad attitude." This has to do with how animal sacrifices benefited Israel in terms of bringing them forgiveness--temporary forgiveness, as opposed to eternal forgiveness.



I see the source of your mistake. You think Paul is talking about ritual cleansing, when in fact he is talking about the cleansing of the conscience of the penitent. Here Paul is not talking about God's forgiveness; he is talking about the assurance one might have that indeed, God has forgiven him. Paul doesn't maintain that God's forgiveness is transitory. He argues that God's disposition with respect to whether or not he has forgiven the penitent can't be known by means of the animal sacrifice because neither the High priest or the penitent hear directly from God, "I forgive you." By contrast, God has said, with a voice from heaven, that he forgives those who believe in his son. The believer can't reach his "teleosis" until he can have certainty that God himself has accounted him among the justified. The High priest can't give that kind of certainty, whereas Jesus can.

No, I'm not saying that, Paul's not saying that, and the author of Hebrews is not saying that. This is about ritual cleansing and the reality that God required it and thus used it to bring forgiveness to the worshiper. It matters not whether this was a ritual or a symbol. Obedience in the matter of this ritual brought both forgiveness and cleansing, period. And this cleansing was only temporary because the worshiper had a sin nature and would sin again, meaning that the sacrifice would have to be offered again. There was no *eternal forgiveness* under these rituals of the Law. They were all to be done with good conscience, with sincerity, and with the full understanding of the priests.

CadyandZoe
Sep 1st 2017, 01:11 PM
No, I know what the purpose of the Law was. It had a number of reasons, and I'm not sure counting the reasons has any validity.Well, come back to me when you ARE sure. In the mean time, where are your scriptures that prove YOUR point?


This is beyond ridiculous. Anybody who knows Scriptures recognizes in the Persian Restoration that reinstitution of temple law! Are you sure your ideas come from the Bible? It's hard to tell since you don't cite passages to prove your points.


You have *never* proven to me that the Old Covenant is not the Law!Sure I did. The fact that you weren't convinced is a different question.


The Law of Moses was the basis of establishing God's previously ratified covenant with Abraham.Scripture please.

Look Randy, in my humble opinion, you need to return to the scriptures to acquire the true facts of the matter. I don't know where you are getting your information. As I said, the Bible is explicit when it speaks about the reason and purpose God gave Israel the law, and it isn't saying what you are saying. You don't argue from the scriptures but rather you argue from a narrative you have constructed in your own mind, which makes sense to you. But your internal narrative is wrong in many cases and needs to be corrected with scripture.

For example, the following passage is among many like it, giving an explicit reason why God gave his law to the people.

Deuteronomy 28:9
The Lord will establish you as a holy people to Himself, as He swore to you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in His ways.

The purpose of the law was to establish Israel as God's holy people.


Yes, that contradicts what you said, that the sin offerings did nothing. They were not just "tokens." They were the very means of forgiveness, and constituted concrete acts of obedience that God accepted on Israel's behalf.You are wrong. Totally wrong. And no wonder since you argue from your narrative rather than the scriptures.

Here is another scripture that violates your narrative.

Hebrews 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Do you see that? Paul is telling you that the blood of bulls and goats was NEVER the means of forgiveness. Period. What is the BIBLICAL means of forgiveness?

Psalm 32:
How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
Whose sin is covered!
2 How blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity,
And in whose spirit there is no deceit!
3 When I kept silent about my sin, my body wasted away
Through my groaning all day long.
4 For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me;
My vitality was drained away as with the fever heat of summer. Selah.
5 I acknowledged my sin to You,
And my iniquity I did not hide;
I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord”;
And You forgave the guilt of my sin.


The means of forgiveness has always been an honest and contrite heart, who confesses sin in prayer. Confession is the means to forgiveness. Repentance is the means to forgiveness. It always has been. and it always will be.

Psalm 51: (abbreviated)
. . .
6 Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,
And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.
. . .
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me away from Your presence
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.
. . .
16 For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.
18 By Your favor do good to Zion;
Build the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then You will delight in righteous sacrifices,
In burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
Then young bulls will be offered on Your altar.

Once again we see the means to forgiveness is a broken spirit and a contrite heart, and the prayer is for a willing spirit and a clean heart. David fully understands that the blood of bulls and goats is NOT the means to forgiveness. Rather, the blood of bulls and goats, sacrificed by a people who love God with all their heart, soul, spirit and mind, contrite in heart but pleading for a willing and clean heart, establishes them as God's holy people. Under these conditions, God will delight in the offerings of bulls.


Nobody here was talking about a "bad attitude."I did. And I'm not nobody.


This has to do with how animal sacrifices benefited Israel in terms of bringing them forgiveness--temporary forgiveness, as opposed to eternal forgiveness. No, this is about why Paul would continue to offer sacrifices in light of everything he said about justification by works.

randyk
Sep 1st 2017, 03:51 PM
Well, come back to me when you ARE sure. In the mean time, where are your scriptures that prove YOUR point?

Are you sure your ideas come from the Bible? It's hard to tell since you don't cite passages to prove your points.

Sure I did. The fact that you weren't convinced is a different question.

Scripture please.

Look Randy, in my humble opinion, you need to return to the scriptures to acquire the true facts of the matter. I don't know where you are getting your information. As I said, the Bible is explicit when it speaks about the reason and purpose God gave Israel the law, and it isn't saying what you are saying. You don't argue from the scriptures but rather you argue from a narrative you have constructed in your own mind, which makes sense to you. But your internal narrative is wrong in many cases and needs to be corrected with scripture.

For example, the following passage is among many like it, giving an explicit reason why God gave his law to the people.

Deuteronomy 28:9
The Lord will establish you as a holy people to Himself, as He swore to you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in His ways.

The purpose of the law was to establish Israel as God's holy people.

You are wrong. Totally wrong. And no wonder since you argue from your narrative rather than the scriptures.

Here is another scripture that violates your narrative.

Hebrews 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Do you see that? Paul is telling you that the blood of bulls and goats was NEVER the means of forgiveness. Period. What is the BIBLICAL means of forgiveness?

Psalm 32:
How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
Whose sin is covered!
2 How blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity,
And in whose spirit there is no deceit!
3 When I kept silent about my sin, my body wasted away
Through my groaning all day long.
4 For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me;
My vitality was drained away as with the fever heat of summer. Selah.
5 I acknowledged my sin to You,
And my iniquity I did not hide;
I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord”;
And You forgave the guilt of my sin.


The means of forgiveness has always been an honest and contrite heart, who confesses sin in prayer. Confession is the means to forgiveness. Repentance is the means to forgiveness. It always has been. and it always will be.

Psalm 51: (abbreviated)
. . .
6 Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being,
And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom.
. . .
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me away from Your presence
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation
And sustain me with a willing spirit.
. . .
16 For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.
18 By Your favor do good to Zion;
Build the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then You will delight in righteous sacrifices,
In burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
Then young bulls will be offered on Your altar.

Once again we see the means to forgiveness is a broken spirit and a contrite heart, and the prayer is for a willing spirit and a clean heart. David fully understands that the blood of bulls and goats is NOT the means to forgiveness. Rather, the blood of bulls and goats, sacrificed by a people who love God with all their heart, soul, spirit and mind, contrite in heart but pleading for a willing and clean heart, establishes them as God's holy people. Under these conditions, God will delight in the offerings of bulls.

I did. And I'm not nobody.

No, this is about why Paul would continue to offer sacrifices in light of everything he said about justification by works.

The issue for me is not my lack of Scripture verification, but rather, *how* we are interpreting the Scriptures already laid out. You seem to be relying on Scripture passages divorced from their context.

For example, when you assert that animal sacrifices have no value with respect to forgiveness, you have to acknowledge that the context determines what is actually meant by this. I could say animal sacrifices have no value with respect to forgiveness *if* I am insincere or have a bad attitude. Or, I could say animal sacrifices were worthless in regard to granting us eternal life. You see, it is *context* that determines what Scripture statements mean. We cannot just recklessly apply these things.

Again, I do not need to provide Scriptures to prove that the Law was given to combat *lawlessness.* It is a truism. We don't need to *count* biblical reasons for the Law. That's silly, in my view.

Finally, I don't need to prove that the Law was reinstituted during the Persian Restoration. Again, this is so obviously true that nothing more needs to be said. A very large portion of the Bible was devoted to this fact, so that nothing more needs to be said. In fact, it is so well-established that it suggests *you* are the one who needs to disprove it, rather than the other way around.

Your suggestion that I'm doing some kind of "end around" the Scriptures is therefore of no concern to me. I will bring up more Scriptural arguments once you have acknowledged the ones already on the table.

CadyandZoe
Sep 1st 2017, 04:59 PM
The issue for me is not my lack of Scripture verification, but rather, *how* we are interpreting the Scriptures already laid out. You seem to be relying on Scripture passages divorced from their context.

For example, when you assert that animal sacrifices have no value with respect to forgiveness, you have to acknowledge that the context determines what is actually meant by this. I could say animal sacrifices have no value with respect to forgiveness *if* I am insincere or have a bad attitude. Or, I could say animal sacrifices were worthless in regard to granting us eternal life. You see, it is *context* that determines what Scripture statements mean. We cannot just recklessly apply these things.

Again, I do not need to provide Scriptures to prove that the Law was given to combat *lawlessness.* It is a truism. We don't need to *count* biblical reasons for the Law. That's silly, in my view.

Finally, I don't need to prove that the Law was reinstituted during the Persian Restoration. Again, this is so obviously true that nothing more needs to be said. A very large portion of the Bible was devoted to this fact, so that nothing more needs to be said. In fact, it is so well-established that it suggests *you* are the one who needs to disprove it, rather than the other way around.

Your suggestion that I'm doing some kind of "end around" the Scriptures is therefore of no concern to me. I will bring up more Scriptural arguments once you have acknowledged the ones already on the table.

Okay. Have it your way.

randyk
Sep 1st 2017, 08:44 PM
Okay. Have it your way.

Again, this is not just "having it my way." Do I really need to prove that the Law of Moses was reinstated after the Babylonian Captivity when we read about Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, as well as Cyrus, and Artaxerxes? Jeremiah and Ezekiel anticipated a restoration of the Law of Moses following the Captivity. The NT account of Jesus' ministry took place in the very context of a restored Israel! Obviously this does not, therefore, need to be proved--either that Israel was restored from Captivity or that the Law was reestablished with the rebuilding of the temple.

It is a little more nuanced argument to argue whether or not the *covenant* of Moses was annulled and reinstated, if that's what you're interested in? You just have to spell out what you're looking for. My argument there rests on the statements in the Prophets that God *divorced* Israel at the time of the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions. It wasn't an immediate divorce, but in the end both Israel and Judah were *divorced,* or "put away," by God.

If so, then the restoration of Israel was a renewal of the previous marriage contract. The Law, as a practice, never fully went away, although it cannot be said that all 613 laws were being practiced during the captivities. Without a temple, a priesthood, and animal sacrifices, the laws could not be fully followed.

But inasmuch as they were followed indicated the Law would eventually be resuscitated. And with the rebuilding of the temple and with the reestablishment of the priesthood and sacrifices the full covenant of the Law was restored to practice. Beyond that I can't anticipate what your concerns are...

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Sep 2nd 2017, 07:34 AM
Again, this is not just "having it my way." Do I really need to prove that the Law of Moses was reinstated after the Babylonian Captivity when we read about Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, as well as Cyrus, and Artaxerxes? Jeremiah and Ezekiel anticipated a restoration of the Law of Moses following the Captivity. The NT account of Jesus' ministry took place in the very context of a restored Israel! Obviously this does not, therefore, need to be proved--either that Israel was restored from Captivity or that the Law was reestablished with the rebuilding of the temple.

It is a little more nuanced argument to argue whether or not the *covenant* of Moses was annulled and reinstated, if that's what you're interested in? You just have to spell out what you're looking for. My argument there rests on the statements in the Prophets that God *divorced* Israel at the time of the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions. It wasn't an immediate divorce, but in the end both Israel and Judah were *divorced,* or "put away," by God.

If so, then the restoration of Israel was a renewal of the previous marriage contract. The Law, as a practice, never fully went away, although it cannot be said that all 613 laws were being practiced during the captivities. Without a temple, a priesthood, and animal sacrifices, the laws could not be fully followed.

But inasmuch as they were followed indicated the Law would eventually be resuscitated. And with the rebuilding of the temple and with the reestablishment of the priesthood and sacrifices the full covenant of the Law was restored to practice. Beyond that I can't anticipate what your concerns are...

Jesus Christ the Lamb of God Our Passover of the Eternal New Covenant of Grace, is its Eternal Temple, its “High Priest after the Law of Indestructible Life”, its “Sacrifice He made of Himself”, its “Word-of-God”-LAW, who only is to ‘be fully followed’ ‘inasmuch as’ He ROSE from the dead (‘resuscitated’) the Lord and Master of his people, their One and Sovereign Ruler, King and SAVIOUR JUDGE. For with the Resurrection of “the temple of his body”, the 'establishment' of Christ’s High 'Priesthood' and 'full' Covenantal Sacrifice and Law of GOD ‘was restored’.

Isaiah 57
13When Thou criest, let Thy companies deliver Thee;
13ὅταν ἀναβοήσῃς, ἐξελέσθωσάν σε ἐν τῇ θλίψει σου·
but the wind shall carry them all away; vanity shall take them:
τούτους γὰρ πάντας ἄνεμος λήμψεται καὶ ἀποίσει καταιγίς.
but He that putteth his trust in Me shall possess the land,
οἱ δὲ ἀντεχόμενοί μου κτήσονται γῆν
and shall inherit my holy mountain;
καὶ κληρονομήσουσιν τὸ ὄρος τὸ ἅγιόν μου.
14And shall say, Cast ye up, prepare the way before Him,
14καὶ ἐροῦσιν Καθαρίσατε ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ὁδοὺς
take up the stumblingblock out of the way of my people.
καὶ ἄρατε σκῶλα ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ τοῦ λαοῦ μου.
15For thus saith The High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,
15Τάδε λέγει κύριος ὁ ὕψιστος ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς κατοικῶν τὸν αἰῶνα,

Táde légei ho húpsistos en hupsehloís katoikóhn ton aióhna
Thus saith the Most High who dwells on high forever,

hágiois en hagíois ónoma autóhi,
Holies-of-Holies is His Name,

húpsistos en hagíois anapauómenos,
Most High in the most holy place being-rested-up-again,

kai oligopsúchois didoús makrothumían
to the faint-hearted giving perseverance,

kai didoús dzohéhn toís suntetrimménois tehn kardían
and life to the broken-hearted.

CadyandZoe
Sep 2nd 2017, 01:30 PM
Again, this is not just "having it my way." Do I really need to prove that the Law of Moses was reinstated after the Babylonian Captivity when we read about Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, as well as Cyrus, and Artaxerxes?No, THAT is not in dispute.


. . . if that's what you're interested in?You mean you didn't know?


And with the rebuilding of the temple and with the reestablishment of the priesthood and sacrifices the full covenant of the Law was restored to practice.This you have not proved. The Bible does not contain a statement wherein it explicitly or implicitly says that the covenant was restored. As Paul argues from Jeremiah, if the covenant was restored, there would be no need for a new one.

randyk
Sep 2nd 2017, 04:32 PM
You mean you didn't know?

This you have not proved. The Bible does not contain a statement wherein it explicitly or implicitly says that the covenant was restored. As Paul argues from Jeremiah, if the covenant was restored, there would be no need for a new one.

Maybe I can't give you these truths in the exact form that you require. I have to quote Scriptures in the language they use. But in essence the Covenant, which began with Abraham, came to be encapsulated within the Law of Moses, and continued as long as Israel remained "married" to that agreement. We're not here talking about limited failures under the Law, but rather, a wholesale abandonment of the Law together with its terms.

So the language I use for the duration of the Covenant has to do with distinguishing between these limited infractions and the wholesale apostasy of Israel from observance of the Law. When the nation capitulated to paganism, and forsook any meaningful obedience to the Law, the Covenant for all intents and purposes, was broken. And this is the language the Prophets used. It is not hard to find.

For example, in Jeremiah and in Ezekiel it is quite easy to find these prophets describing a situation so bleak that judgment, in response to this apostasy, became irrevocable. Israel's marriage to God was then described as a divorce.

Following Ezekiel and Jeremiah we find Daniel describing this judgment against the nation after the fact. It had indeed been a wholesale apostasy by the nation, requiring the nation to wait 70 years for restoration. Do we really need to prove that restoration of Israel to the Promised Land took place, or that the temple was in fact rebuilt? No, we do not!

Isa 50.1 This is what the Lord says: “Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.

Jer 3.8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery.

Hos 1.2 2 When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord.”

CadyandZoe
Sep 2nd 2017, 08:22 PM
[QUOTE=CadyandZoe;3404825][QUOTE=randyk;3404760]Again, this is not just "having it my way." Do I really need to prove that the Law of Moses was reinstated after the Babylonian Captivity when we read about Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, as well as Cyrus, and Artaxerxes?

Maybe I can't give you these truths in the exact form that you require. I have to quote Scriptures in the language they use. But in essence the Covenant, which began with Abraham, came to be encapsulated within the Law of Moses, and continued as long as Israel remained "married" to that agreement. We're not here talking about limited failures under the Law, but rather, a wholesale abandonment of the Law together with its terms.

So the language I use for the duration of the Covenant has to do with distinguishing between these limited infractions and the wholesale apostasy of Israel from observance of the Law. When the nation capitulated to paganism, and forsook any meaningful obedience to the Law, the Covenant for all intents and purposes, was broken. And this is the language the Prophets used. It is not hard to find.

For example, in Jeremiah and in Ezekiel it is quite easy to find these prophets describing a situation so bleak that judgment, in response to this apostasy, became irrevocable. Israel's marriage to God was then described as a divorce.

Following Ezekiel and Jeremiah we find Daniel describing this judgment against the nation after the fact. It had indeed been a wholesale apostasy by the nation, requiring the nation to wait 70 years for restoration. Do we really need to prove that restoration of Israel to the Promised Land took place, or that the temple was in fact rebuilt? No, we do not!

Isa 50.1 This is what the Lord says: “Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.

Jer 3.8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery.

Hos 1.2 2 When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord.”

The point is this. The reason why Paul felt comfortable living as a Gentile among Gentiles is because the covenant was NOT in effect. The covenant was broken and was in default. Had the covenant been in effect, he would have been obligated to live Jewishly all the time.

randyk
Sep 2nd 2017, 10:35 PM
The point is this. The reason why Paul felt comfortable living as a Gentile among Gentiles is because the covenant was NOT in effect. The covenant was broken and was in default. Had the covenant been in effect, he would have been obligated to live Jewishly all the time.

I don't believe the Old Covenant, the Law, was in effect in Paul's day! I don't believe it was in effect from the time Jesus died on the cross! Now that you've said this I'm wondering where our disagreement is?

randyk
Sep 2nd 2017, 10:46 PM
Jesus Christ the Lamb of God Our Passover of the Eternal New Covenant of Grace, is its Eternal Temple, its “High Priest after the Law of Indestructible Life”, its “Sacrifice He made of Himself”, its “Word-of-God”-LAW, who only is to ‘be fully followed’ ‘inasmuch as’ He ROSE from the dead (‘resuscitated’) the Lord and Master of his people, their One and Sovereign Ruler, King and SAVIOUR JUDGE. For with the Resurrection of “the temple of his body”, the 'establishment' of Christ’s High 'Priesthood' and 'full' Covenantal Sacrifice and Law of GOD ‘was restored’.

Isaiah 57
13When Thou criest, let Thy companies deliver Thee;
13ὅταν ἀναβοήσῃς, ἐξελέσθωσάν σε ἐν τῇ θλίψει σου·
but the wind shall carry them all away; vanity shall take them:
τούτους γὰρ πάντας ἄνεμος λήμψεται καὶ ἀποίσει καταιγίς.
but He that putteth his trust in Me shall possess the land,
οἱ δὲ ἀντεχόμενοί μου κτήσονται γῆν
and shall inherit my holy mountain;
καὶ κληρονομήσουσιν τὸ ὄρος τὸ ἅγιόν μου.
14And shall say, Cast ye up, prepare the way before Him,
14καὶ ἐροῦσιν Καθαρίσατε ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ὁδοὺς
take up the stumblingblock out of the way of my people.
καὶ ἄρατε σκῶλα ἀπὸ τῆς ὁδοῦ τοῦ λαοῦ μου.
15For thus saith The High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,
15Τάδε λέγει κύριος ὁ ὕψιστος ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς κατοικῶν τὸν αἰῶνα,

Táde légei ho húpsistos en hupsehloís katoikóhn ton aióhna
Thus saith the Most High who dwells on high forever,

hágiois en hagíois ónoma autóhi,
Holies-of-Holies is His Name,

húpsistos en hagíois anapauómenos,
Most High in the most holy place being-rested-up-again,

kai oligopsúchois didoús makrothumían
to the faint-hearted giving perseverance,

kai didoús dzohéhn toís suntetrimménois tehn kardían
and life to the broken-hearted.

We are agreed on this, Gerhard! It's interesting you gave me this. My brother and I were just sharing on Isaiah. He is beginning a study of it. I told him the two major divisions, 1-39 and 40-66 roughly parallel the number of books in the Old and New Testaments. And he told me that from 40-66 there appear to be three sections of nine chapters each. The chapter you mentioned ends a section with the phrase: “There is no peace,” says my God, “for the wicked.”

You will find this phrase also at the end of ch. 48. :) But what does this have to do with the price of rice in China? ;)

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Sep 3rd 2017, 07:07 AM
We are agreed on this, but what does this have to do with the price of rice in China?

In view of your concluding question, how 'are we agreed on this'?

Isaiah here tells about Jesus Christ "THE SON OF MAN" who faithfully kept God's Covenant-sign of grace, the Sabbath (chapter 56), RAISED FROM DEATH'S FAST IN THE GRAVE over the Sabbath (chapter 57), and through RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD "ON THE SABBATH" (chapter 58) "being rested up again": "His Name, Holies-of-Holies, Most High in the most holy place (OF HIS GRAVE) being-rested-up-again"
... nothing of the SDA nonsense of a 'heavenly sanctuary'!

Are we still in agreement here? If we are, To God all the praise and thanks!

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Sep 3rd 2017, 07:42 AM
I don't believe the Old Covenant, the Law, was in effect in Paul's day! I don't believe it was in effect from the time Jesus died on the cross! Now that you've said this I'm wondering where our disagreement is?

There is no 'old covenant' except that of man in all the Bible. God never 'made' an 'old covenant' nor 'made new' an 'old covenant'.

The two Covenants of God's, is an (modern day) INVENTION. Man's 'undertaking', man's 'will' and inevitably man's disobedience and failure ... there's your 'old covenant'.

CadyandZoe
Sep 3rd 2017, 12:11 PM
I don't believe the Old Covenant, the Law, was in effect in Paul's day! I don't believe it was in effect from the time Jesus died on the cross! Now that you've said this I'm wondering where our disagreement is?

It wasn't in effect in Jeremiah's day either.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Sep 4th 2017, 12:06 PM
It wasn't in effect in Jeremiah's day either.

Correct. It came into effect when Adam and Eve covenanted with the snake in Eden.

CadyandZoe
Sep 4th 2017, 05:12 PM
Correct. It came into effect when Adam and Eve covenanted with the snake in Eden.

I don't know what you mean.

Gerhard Ebersoehn
Sep 4th 2017, 06:18 PM
I don't know what you mean.

Read Exodus 19:1-8; especially verse 8! Man covenanted 'the old covenant'! "God found fault with them" --not with HIS Covenant.