Following OT Law

[Guest shiloh357]

I think this is where we part ways concerning keeping the ethical part of the Law. However I imagine most of it is restated in the NT, so we both might be keeping the same thing despite our differences of opinion.

The fact that they are restated in the New Testament actually upholds the continuity of the law of Moses, not its termination. The writers of the New Testament were Torah-observant Jews and they viewed the Torah from that point of reference. God did not circumvent that perspective, but rather used it as a vehicle to express His will to us.

There is a schoool of thought that holds to the notion that the New Testament has a "new law" that sets aside the Torah given at Sinai. It is further held that there are commandments in this "new law" that look like some of the commandments given at Sinai, but that the commandments at Sinai were abolished in totality and replaced by a "new law." Often this is referred to as "the law of Christ," which is held erroneously to be a replacement of the Torah given at Sinai. The law of Christ IS the Torah given at Sinai, as both find their fulfillment in love. Paul is simply referring to the Torah given at Sinai, as Messiah's Torah.

The phrase "law of Christ" in Hebrew would be rendered as "Torah of Messiah." The word "Torah" actually means, "teaching." Gal. 6:2, from a more proper hebraic rendering should be understood thusly: "Bear one another's burden and so fulfill (fully express) the teaching of Messiah." (John 13:34, 15:12). The teaching of Messiah is "love" which is the chief and fullest expression of the Torah given at Sinai (Mark 12:28-31).

[JCISGD]

When Paul rebuked Peter for playing the hypocrite he did not say it was for living as they did, but because Peter reverted to Judaism when those of the circumscision were present.

This is solid proof that the apostles did not insist on gentiles living by the Torah, and neither should we. The ten commandments pertain to all human beings while in these bodies, but the laws given to Israel do not all apply to Christians.

Answer me this, must a Christian be circumcised?

If you say yes you are adding to scripture.

[KC02]

The "law of Christ" is referred to exactly one time (Gal 6:2) so a definition isn't easy to come by. But it appears that you are exactly right. The "law of Christ" is the Law given at Sinai. Some people use it incorrectly. Gal 6:2 shows us how to obey the Law.

Let's look at the Jerusalem counsel again. It gives a fairly plain picture of what God expects for believers:

Acts 15:5 (NIV) Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

What was the answer to this charge?

v 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Only four things! Notice that adherence to the Law isn't required, not even all of the dietary laws or the "ethical" part of the Law.

The NT is full of ethics and I believe that is all that we need to live by.

I know Catholics have additional laws and guidelines called canon law. Some of the Messianic Christians want to obey parts of the Mosaic Law. I don't have a big problem with it until you insist that I too must obey the Law. Or that I am missing some kind of blessing.

If I am born again, I have a much bigger blessing than the Old Covenant could ever offer. I can see Jesus in all of the Jewish ceremonies. So why should I involve myself in a ritual when I can simply pray and get in touch with Christ personally?

If I went back to the Law, I would feel like I had forsaken Christ and had backslid. I think that is exactly what Paul taught (scripture reference in my last post).

So continue on and give me the liberty to do the same in my walk with Christ.

I think this is where we part ways concerning keeping the ethical part of the Law. However I imagine most of it is restated in the NT, so we both might be keeping the same thing despite our differences of opinion.

The fact that they are restated in the New Testament actually upholds the continuity of the law of Moses, not its termination. The writers of the New Testament were Torah-observant Jews and they viewed the Torah from that point of reference. God did not circumvent that perspective, but rather used it as a vehicle to express His will to us.

There is a schoool of thought that holds to the notion that the New Testament has a "new law" that sets aside the Torah given at Sinai. It is further held that there are commandments in this "new law" that look like some of the commandments given at Sinai, but that the commandments at Sinai were abolished in totality and replaced by a "new law." Often this is referred to as "the law of Christ," which is held erroneously to be a replacement of the Torah given at Sinai. The law of Christ IS the Torah given at Sinai, as both find their fulfillment in love. Paul is simply referring to the Torah given at Sinai, as Messiah's Torah.

The phrase "law of Christ" in Hebrew would be rendered as "Torah of Messiah." The word "Torah" actually means, "teaching." Gal. 6:2, from a more proper hebraic rendering should be understood thusly: "Bear one another's burden and so fulfill (fully express) the teaching of Messiah." (John 13:34, 15:12). The teaching of Messiah is "love" which is the chief and fullest expression of the Torah given at Sinai (Mark 12:28-31).

[Guest yod]

Kc, you are missing a blessing. But you will never know how much...at least not until Yeshua's return when EVERYONE will keep the Feasts

[Guest shiloh357]

The "law of Christ" is referred to exactly one time (Gal 6:2) so a definition isn't easy to come by. But it appears that you are exactly right. The "law of Christ" is the Law given at Sinai. Some people use it incorrectly. Gal 6:2 shows us how to obey the Law.

Let's look at the Jerusalem counsel again. It gives a fairly plain picture of what God expects for believers:

Acts 15:5 (NIV) Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

What was the answer to this charge?

v 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Only four things! Notice that adherence to the Law isn't required, not even all of the dietary laws or the "ethical" part of the Law.

Okay, well there is a bit of explanation needed here:

In hebraic thought, the commandments of God are seen as paradigms or what we might call a behavioral frame of reference. Even the Torah given at Sinai did not cover every possible sin a person could commit. For example, the commandment against making a graven image would naturally cover making images in metal, wood stone, or on paper, etc. The medium used was irrelevant. The point was not to make any images of gods to worship. The commandment against adultery was seen as a commandment against all sexual impurity.

So when you have these four commandments, two of them are ethical. The commandment against Idolatry and fornication have a much broader application than simply bowing down to an idol and sleeping with a prostitute, but would include all activities that are cognatic to those behaviors and would also include any desires to commit those sins, as well. So it was, from standpoint of the people at that time, more complex than just four simple laws.

As for the dietary commandments, there is something else you are missing. The two laws concerning meat was that it was not to come from an animal that had been strangled and that it cannot contain blood. These laws pertain to a body of Jewish law called "kashrut" which is the method of preparing meat for consumption. Jewish law forbids the eating of any meat that has not been prepared according to kashrut.

If you were a Gentile believer and you took that letter from the Apostles seriously, then you would have to find meat that met the requirements set forth. The ONLY place you could have gone that would have guaranteed that your meat had not come from a strangled animal and did not contain blood, was from a Jewish butcher. That would have limited where you could have gotten your meat and it would have limited the kind of meat you could have consumed, as Jewish butchers would not have offered any pork products. Essentially, the Apostles sent out a letter (which they also ascribed to be from the Holy Spirit) that required Gentile believers of their day to consume only kosher meat.

Keep in mind that what the apostles laid down was not doctrinal in nature and is not meant for all people for all time, but served a necessary purpose for that day given the Judaizing threat. The letter in Acts 15 was written to combat a threat and potential stumbling block for the Gentiles of that day and age.

The NT is full of ethics and I believe that is all that we need to live by.

Yes, but the point is that the NT was not written in a vacuum. It is written out of OT knowledge. The Jews who wrote the New Testament were still Torah observant Jews and they drew from the Torah when they wrote the NT. The NT is not a stand alone document apart from the NT, but is an expansion on what has already been revealed. The NT is written in the terminology of the Festivals and Sacrifices. It draws from OT imagery and teachings. From the perspective of the writers, they were teaching the Torah of Moses as it is understood in the light of the coming of Messiah.

So why should I involve myself in a ritual when I can simply pray and get in touch with Christ personally?

Did I say ANYTHING about you having to perform rituals??? I am not talking about living like a Jew. Why do you insist on assigning that to this discussion???

If I went back to the Law, I would feel like I had forsaken Christ and had backslid.

So you don't honor your father and mother? You don't love your neighbor as yourself? You regularly take God's Name in vain??? Do you not see how utterly absurd your remark is??

I think that is exactly what Paul taught (scripture reference in my last post).

Paul taught that??? Paul who performed sacrifices?? Paul who personally circumcised Timothy??? How do you reconile that?

No, what Paul was teaching against was using the law to supplant grace as a means of salvation. In our modern vernacular, what Paul was teaching against was legalism which is biblically defined as trying to work your way into the Kingdom of God.

[sheya joie]

Hate your enemy is in an "eye for an eye" tit for tat and in the general rule of violence against any enemy.

'Eye for eye' has to do with punishments; it was not a command to hate anyone.

Let's look at the text:

Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Lev 24:19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;

20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

Deu 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;

17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;

18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;

19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Each of these cases has to do with setting the proper punishment for acts of violence (or, in the final case, an attempted act). It sets the upper limit on what the punishment should be. That is, if someone knocks out another's tooth or eye, the punishment cannot be greater than to have his own tooth or eye knocked out; no capital punishment for a maiming.

Now to what Jesus said:

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Jesus is setting an even stricter limit: forgiveness. The Law had set a limit on punishment, but apparently instead of being viewed as a limit - this much and no more - it was being used as a requirement - the one who knocked out a tooth must have his tooth knocked out! Jesus was saying, no, they had missed the spirit of the Law; it was never intended to sanction revenge but to limit it - and now He was setting a better limit of forgiveness.

[sheya joie]

Answer me this, must a Christian be circumcised?

If you say yes you are adding to scripture.

Paul says plainly that the answer is No.

1Co 7:18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

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

5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

[mizzdy]

hi Sheya and Preist4him, you raise a valid point that i was ignorant of and i conceed that Noah was aware of some creatures being unclean. Wether these are the same as given to the Jews is not so clear. We also do not know what it was that meant they were unclean. That Moses had to give a specific list of those clean and unclean does suggest that many were previuosly ignorant of this and did eat of both.

How could they not be the same animals? God doesn't change as we all know why would He tell one group of people one thing and another group something else, they were and are His children, right? God told Moses to write it down, having lived in Egypt all those years it just may be that too many went the way of the pagan and having all the things written down just seems to give no one the excuse of saying, 'well where is that written'. lol

The fact remains that these rules were given to the Jews as a nation and Peter was told to eat of them. We know this was to show Peter that the Gentiles were now included in Gods plan of salvation, but it would be misleading for God to use a false analogy, and we would expect it to be clarified at a later point atleast, but instead Rom 14 is consistant with a new covenant and new laws.

The fact is that these instructions were given to a mixed mulititude that came out of Egypt, not just Israelites came with them heck Caleb who went out with Joshua to spy the land was from Esau, not an Israelite by any means but still in the end because of His belief and faith he was counted as one just as those who believe in the Messiah are counted into the congregation. If someone wants to eat pork or a fish with different scales that is their decision and no one elses, I think the point in Romans 14 is to not condemn, not to hold your brothers and sisters in contempt because they choose to eat whatever they want, in the end we are told each person will give an account of why they have done the things they do including eating and doing things God has said to do or not to do. I see the end of Romans 14 as a Hebrew minded or Jewish minded thinking, if a gentile brother was eating food God said not to eat to not cause him to stumble in his faith by not eating with him, by to eat with the person, walk with the person and allow the Spirit to do convict the person in the ways God has set forth for him.

Peter lived as a Gentile while he was with them, and it would be very strange if food was not eaten. What was it that Peter suddenly withdrew from when the Jews turned up, it would not be anything immoral and i think we can conclude he was at their table.

We know Peter went with them but we are not told that he ate anything that was unclean. Peters vision isn't about unclean animals but that he is being told that the long held rabbinical law is not from God. True enough it does seem Peter after a lifetime of rabbinical law had a hard time of letting go of certain things. Peter didn't 'live' as a gentile but as someone called by Yeshua to do the work He set out for them certainly a lesson we all can learn.

It is as much speculation to say they were unclean because of defect as it is for me to say it wasnt. But if it was for health reasons it would be strange that those nations who eat them even to this day have not twigged that these foods cause ill health. While it is scientific that pigs can carry parasites etc, this is more to do with the conditions they live in imo. Whatever the case be if anything is done while doubting it is sin.

Pigs are unclean animals, ever been to a hog farm? pigs don't sweat so the impurities are kept in the body which ends up in the meat, that is why we are told to cook pork completely to try and kill off the stuff that is in the meat. No matter what condition pigs are kept in they still do not sweat and most need to wallow in mud or something to keep them cool or they can die. Most of us grew up eating the stuff have become used to the meat and for the most part no harm has come to us. I personally haven't been able to eat pork for decades and never realized as a kid that bacon, ham and stuff I was eating was what was making me sick. I personally am not going to tell anyone what to eat or do.

Could Peter really eat with the gentiles with no doubt if these animals were still unclean for him.

Rom 14 is clear proof that something major has changed, and i contend that it is now more important to turn sinners from sin and back to God, than it is to observe certain rules given to the nation of Israel. Im not saying there is no value in these observances, just dont try to put them on other.

Hate your enemy is in an "eye for an eye" tit for tat and in the general rule of violence against any enemy.

[JCISGD]

hi Mizzdy, i think i need to make some clarifications as it appears to me you misunderstand my motives and content.

Most of all i am not arguing for restrictions and therefore why do you mention condemnation re my mention of Rom 14. I have only been arguing for the freedom i believe christians have in reguard to what they eat and what days they observe.

It cannot be proved either way that these unclean animals were the same or that they were since the fall. It is also not nescessarliy so that they are unclean by defect as opposed to mere command of God for a specific people.

You seem to be unaware that after the fall God set about winning us back. After the cleansing of the flood He chose Abraham to form a nation that would be so different to those around them that He could then use them as a "light" to all the other nations. To do this He gave them certain restrictions and cerimonies that would set them apart and point towards the coming messiah, but the Jews would not be ruled by God and for 400 yrs before Christ, God was silent and sent no prophets.

God foreknew the law although good would not keep the Israelites faithful, and His plan was always that He would send His own Son to do what the law could not.

If anyone wants to go back to the laws and restrictions that failed to get results they are welcome by me, im just saying dont give others advice that amounts to that.

Im not saying there is no merit in any of these laws and holy days, just dont think they make you more holy than your brothers and sisters who do not observe them.

I think your thoughts on pigs are more speculation than fact. I grew up on a farm and pigs do not die if they dont have mud where i come from. The fact that they dont sweat does mean they must have diseases or cause illness.

One of the oldest men to die here in NZ lived on a regular diet of greasy bacon and eggs, and the diets of many others who enjoyed long healthy lives disproves that these foods are unclean by defect atleast.

I conceed i have no proof that Peter ate with the Gentiles, but what then was he playing the hypocrite in? ever stayed with other people without eating their food? Either way you have conceeded that they ate with them untill God corrected them, which would be sin as they had broken the command not to eat such foods if God had not now called them clean.

I have stated previously that I dont think Peters vision was about food but also that the use of false analogies are bad form and would not be used by the Holy Spirit to portray truth. Where do you get the idea Rom 14 speaks of Rabbinacal law?

Peters vision showed him that God now accepted repentant Gentiles as clean, and that they no longer had to convert to Judaism to be accepted as Christ now superceeded the law.

I have no objection to what foods and days you or anyone else likes to observe, but let no one insist Christians are less spiritual if they observe differently. Rom 14 makes this absolutly clear does it not?

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (JCISGD @ Dec 27 2009, 01:56 PM)

Hate your enemy is in an "eye for an eye" tit for tat and in the general rule of violence against any enemy.

"Eye for an eye" refers to monetary compensation for an injury that you cause someone else, according to how it was originally understood. If you injured a person, whether intentionally or not, you were required to pay for the treatment, as well as pay compensation for any wages that were lost by the person you injured.

The "tit for tat" concept was/is a rabbinic perversion of that commandment. In Jesus' day, it had been perverted to be used as permission for taking revenge on another person. Essentially some of the Rabbis corrupted the commandment to mean that if you were injured then it was your right to exact the same injury on the person who injured you. Jesus was teaching against that pervsion of the commandment.