Which Laws are Binding today??

[firehill]

Common Nana, give it up! Don'tcha know that God divids by race, man's status of so-called 'wisdom' (doctrine of men etc, blah...), and sex?

Why won't you accept it?

[Butler]

Sorry guys, Im no theologist but didnt Jesus say that He came NOT to do away with the old ways?

Like I said before, Im not the "go-to-guy" when it comes to scripture but Im sure Im not wrong.

Sean

[Guest shiloh357]

Conclusion

The Bible teaches that the entire Old Testament law was removed by God. None of it is binding today as authority for any religious practice, and that includes the Sabbath and Ten Commands.

All I had to do was to read this and a red flag goes up. It is very obvious He does not recognize the Old Testament as a part of the Word of God. Jesus said if you love me keep my commandments, and Jesus Himself referred to His OT prophets in the Gospels. This is the type of theology that cause discord and division among Christians and antisemitism, and is nothing but Replacement Theology; and is exactly the reason we have so many apostate mainstream so-called Christian Churches. The Old Testament is just as relevent today as is the New Testament.

He doesn't recognize the entire OT law which cannot be equated to no recognition of the entire OT. The entire OT is not Law. Therefore I'm sure he believes in Jesus' references of himself in the OT.

Is part of the meaning of replacement theology not believing in the laws given in the OT?

I too believe that both testaments are relevent today.

Actually if you read the entire article, the man even includes musical instruments in worship as being included as the OT "law" that was done away with by God.

He is not first guy I have read that holds that silly position. It shows his position on the entire OT. I provided an entire critique of this article in the "Pick and Choose Laws" thread in General Discussion where a duplicate of this article is posted. The article is fundamentally flawed as it operates from several false premises.

[Sherman]

I find what Jesus said to be very helpful on this issue, for example Mt.5.17-20:

17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

So Jesus said that the Law would not pass away until "heaven and earth pass away". So the Law is still in effect; I don't think heaven and earth has passed away yet.

Jesus goes on to note that there will be two major divisions in the kingdom of God. One group will teach and obey the Law. The other group will disobey and teach others to disobey the Law, even if it's just the least insignificant law. And it's very significant to note that both are in the Kingdom though their doctrine and practice is diametrically opposed (Obey or Do Not Obey the Law)!

Of course, this is what we see in the church and was the first major division in the church. The Jews and a few Gentiles respected and sought to obey the Law; the Gentiles disrespected and did not want to obey the Law. This caused much contention in the 1st century church that continues to this day. I suppose we have to answer for ourselves individually; do I want Jesus to consider me "great in the Kingdom" or "least in the Kingdom"?

Blessings,

Sherman

[Floatingaxe]

Of course, this is what we see in the church and was the first major division in the church. The Jews and a few Gentiles respected and sought to obey the Law; the Gentiles disrespected and did not want to obey the Law. This caused much contention in the 1st century church that continues to this day. I suppose we have to answer for ourselves individually; do I want Jesus to consider me "great in the Kingdom" or "least in the Kingdom"?

I am trying to understand what you are saying.

The Gentiles "disrespected" the Law because they were not required to obey it. I don't call that disrespect, actually, although I am sure the first Jewish believers must have been miffed by what they perceived as disrespect.

The Law was fulfilled in Christ. We are free from the bonds of the Law, because Christ is come, and He taught us a new Law...of love.

Peter was taught in a dramatic way that the Law did not apply to Gentiles, and so He also, being a most devout Jew, was also free from it.

Any contention is unnecessary if one has intimacy with Jesus through the Holy Spirit, reads the Word and understands it.

[Guest shiloh357]

Of course, this is what we see in the church and was the first major division in the church. The Jews and a few Gentiles respected and sought to obey the Law; the Gentiles disrespected and did not want to obey the Law. This caused much contention in the 1st century church that continues to this day. I suppose we have to answer for ourselves individually; do I want Jesus to consider me "great in the Kingdom" or "least in the Kingdom"?

I am trying to understand what you are saying.

The Gentiles "disrespected" the Law because they were not required to obey it. I don't call that disrespect, actually, although I am sure the first Jewish believers must have been miffed by what they perceived as disrespect.

The Law was fulfilled in Christ. We are free from the bonds of the Law, because Christ is come, and He taught us a new Law...of love.

Peter was taught in a dramatic way that the Law did not apply to Gentiles, and so He also, being a most devout Jew, was also free from it.

Any contention is unnecessary if one has intimacy with Jesus through the Holy Spirit, reads the Word and understands it.

No that was not what Peter was taught. Peter was taught that Gentiles were not to be considered unclean. The Law still applies to each and everyone of us, even if only with respect to the moral/ethical commandments. Gentiles were never required to live a "Jewish" lifestyle, but the moral commandments were always binding upon all people.

[Sherman]

Good morning everyone,

And I appreciate and understand your comments Floatingaxe. I fully agree that any contention we might have is fully overcome by having relationship with Jesus and recognizing our relationship with eachother.

I do understand our relationship to the Law a little differently than what is commonly taught in most evangelical churches though. Jesus did fulfill the law; Hebrews is an exposition of how He did so. He is our sacrificial lamb and our High Priest. He has made us all priests unto God and the Temple of His Holy Spirit. But it doesn't mean that He has done away with the Law.

Another verse often mentioned is where Paul mentions the handwriting of ordinances against us, these where our sins against the Law that have been wiped out, not the law. I believe people often misunderstand Paul because they fail to understand what he writes in the context of the battle that he was facing - legalism, the belief that one can be saved by keeping any set of rules, even the righteous Law of Moses. As you know, Paul's primary message is that salvation is by grace through faith and not by keeping any law. But this doesn't mean that the Law has been done away with; in fact, didn't Paul say that we should uphold the law. Paul was careful to note that that just because we are saved by faith does not mean that we nullify the law, but rather that we should uphold the law. Rom.3.17-31

27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Does this mean that we must become Jews, no; but we should honor, uphold the Law and learn how to apply it in our lives and in our various cultures.

Sadly, the early church, 2nd and 3rd generation Gentile believers increasingly grew to disrespect the Law and even hate the Jews, until by the 4th century, Constantine said that we Christians should have nothing to do with so hated a people as the Jews. Out of this atmosphere came Replacement Theology. I hold more to a GIRJ theology as in we Gentiles are "Grafted In to the Root of Jesse".

Concerning what Peter understood via his visions and subsequent experience with Cornelius is that salvation, acceptance by God, comes by faith and repentance for everyone including the Gentiles, and that Gentiles don't have to become Jews to be accepted by God - major revelation. Later at the Jerusalem Council, Acts 15, Peter encourages the leaders to not make the Gentile believers become Jews in order to be accepted into the community of faith, but rather recognize that God has purified their hearts by faith, accept them into the community, and teach them to:

1) abstain from meat polluted by idols: This entails teaching them to worship God and Him alone and stop partaking in the pagan rituals of their culture, especially the feasts devoted to idols.

2) abstain from sexual immorality: I believe the hearers of this would have understood this as encompassing all of the moral laws. Do not murder. Do not bear false witness. Do not commit adultery. etc.

3) abstain from blood and meat from strangled animals: Again, the hearers would have understood this as a particularization of the Dietary Laws referencing all of the laws not just the two mentioned. Such particularization was a common Jewish Rabbinical means of teaching, using such statements as an outline to a much fuller teaching.

Well, I know this is another long post and thanks for bearing with me. When it comes down to it, I believe we are saved by grace through faith and that we should honor, uphold the Law of Moses as a blessing from God and do what we can to incorporate it in our lives as much as we can. The more we do, the better off we will be.

Blessings,

Sherman

[Yahsway]

Good post Sherman I agree. Shalom

[Sherman]

Good post Sherman I agree. Shalom

Yahsway, thanks and Peace and Wholeness to you too! The Gentile Christian's relationship with the Law is a very challenging discussion. We Gentiles have many challenges to overcome including tradition that is pretty anti-Semetic, and reading an essentially and predominanly Jewish document (the Bible, even the NT) without Jewish blue-tint glasses; rather, we read it through our Gentile red-tint glasses. Thus we are predisposed to misunderstand much of it.

For example, look at the Sermon on the Mount in Mt.5-7, one of the most famous and often quoted portion of scripture. The latter 2/3 rds of it are almost completely devoted to countering the hypocritical attitudes and demonic teachings of the Pharisees. Look at the verses concerning vows. Most people don't realize or take into account that the Pharisees had a whole system of vows developed for one purpose - to empower them to lie and deceive others by making vows that they did not intend to keep. It was this system of vows that Jesus was countering and encouraging people to forsake that system and become people of their word. But if one reads this passage through red-tint glasses, it sounds like Jesus is opposed to anyone making promises or vows which some have taken to extremes and deduced that we should not make vows, promices, covenants, or sign contracts. But that's not what Jesus meant at all - though He says not to make vows.

To understand scripture then, we should do our best to recognize and take into account all cultural and historical information that might can influence our understanding. A Text without a Context is a Pretext - an assumed meaning that often misses the author's intended meaning. But of course thank God that we have the Holy Spirit; through His glasses, we can understand scripture though we are limited in our knowledge of the cultural context.

May the Lord bless you and keep you!

Peace and Wholeness!

Sherman

[OopsMartin]

Good post Sherman I agree. Shalom

Yahsway, thanks and Peace and Wholeness to you too! The Gentile Christian's relationship with the Law is a very challenging discussion. We Gentiles have many challenges to overcome including tradition that is pretty anti-Semetic, and reading an essentially and predominanly Jewish document (the Bible, even the NT) without Jewish blue-tint glasses; rather, we read it through our Gentile red-tint glasses. Thus we are predisposed to misunderstand much of it.

For example, look at the Sermon on the Mount in Mt.5-7, one of the most famous and often quoted portion of scripture. The latter 2/3 rds of it are almost completely devoted to countering the hypocritical attitudes and demonic teachings of the Pharisees. Look at the verses concerning vows. Most people don't realize or take into account that the Pharisees had a whole system of vows developed for one purpose - to empower them to lie and deceive others by making vows that they did not intend to keep. It was this system of vows that Jesus was countering and encouraging people to forsake that system and become people of their word. But if one reads this passage through red-tint glasses, it sounds like Jesus is opposed to anyone making promises or vows which some have taken to extremes and deduced that we should not make vows, promices, covenants, or sign contracts. But that's not what Jesus meant at all - though He says not to make vows.

To understand scripture then, we should do our best to recognize and take into account all cultural and historical information that might can influence our understanding. A Text without a Context is a Pretext - an assumed meaning that often misses the author's intended meaning. But of course thank God that we have the Holy Spirit; through His glasses, we can understand scripture though we are limited in our knowledge of the cultural context.

May the Lord bless you and keep you!

Peace and Wholeness!

Sherman

Well said, Sherman. If we do not take into account cultural, historical, and contextual intent, we become easily duped into committing helicopter theology. We swoop in, pluck a phrase or verse out of it's contextual and historical setting and reform the segregated piece into whatever our building block minds can fit it into, which is much.