Clothing Laws?

[Gman]

Cant you guys clearly see that you're continuous highlighting of the law over and over is actually shifting the entire focus from Christ. Yeshua came to fulfill and magnify the law, what is that? where did you even came up with the idea? highlighting the law??? The law came through Moses, but truth and grace came through Jesus Christ, it is really that much simple. Christ didn't highlight the law, he highlighted grace to which the law owes no part.

No.. You are missing the point.. Christ is the law in the flesh.. John 1:1-4. What we are saying is that we don't even know what grace is apart of the Law. So we need the law to DEFINE what grace is.. Not to justify oneself by the Law. That was never the intention.

To get rid of the law is to get rid of Christ...

I think the law was placed to imitate what Christ would do and not the other way around. The law in itself is nothing except a standard based on works. What sets it apart is that it would one day be perfected in one being alone paving way for salvation for mankind which the law itself could never bring. That is the plain reason we have a new covenant and an old one. You can not be under both at the same time.

No... The Law IS something more than just standards... It is HOLY...

Romans 7:12, “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”

What set's us apart is when we OBEY the Law. Seriously, what do you think would happen if we destroyed all the laws of our country here? Remove all the stops signs, prisons cells, speeding laws, cops, etc...? What exactly do you think would happen to our world? Do you really think we would hold hands and love each other?

http://www.openbible.info/topics/being_set_apart

if by God's law you mean the Law given by Moses then I am afraid that is indeed the Galatians heresy.

what does verses like these mean to you:
Ephesians 2:15
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace...

Again, Christ did not come to abolish the Laws otherwise He would be abolishing Himself. He abolished the enmity between Jew and Gentile engendered by the Law. Because of the inclusion of gentiles into the greater people of Israel, the Law is no longer a wall of separation.In Christ, Gentiles have the prerogative to take hold of the covenent and take on the commandments. The enmity that kept Jews and Gentiles on opposite sides of the torah wall has been removed.

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

???

Look at the following verse
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!..


what is paul saying? should we comit sin when "we are not under the law" but under grace? The point of the verse is different but the premise is crucial here. He goes on to say whether we should sin or not under grace, not under law because we all know how the law treats sin. It doesn't get much clearer than this. We are not under the law, period.

We do NOT use the law to justify ourselves.. Then we would be under legalism of the Law. Therefore we are not under the legalism of the Law but under grace.

The point of your following of the law is not required by God, you may follow it but at least God doesn't require it.

We don't follow the law to get browie points by G-d or for salvation.. That is clear. NO ONE is justifed by G-d's laws, no one Galatians 3:11. But that doesn't mean we destroy G-d's Laws now either. Out of love we respect them and follow them the best we can.

[Gman]

That's my point, G. And likewise, nor do you. When you put people under the Law when Paul says explicitly that are not under it, you presume to lay upon men a burden God does not, and you are preaching a false Gospel (Gal. 1:8-9).

Again... We are NOT under the Law to obtain our salvation.... I'll have to repeat it again.. We are NOT under the Law to obtain our salvation... That would be silly because NO ONE including me could ever fulfill it. Only Christ did.

So why do we want to follow G-d's laws? According to scripture, we follow and keep them because we want to LOVE G-d!!!!!

1 John 5:3-4, “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.”

And, again, there's nothing here saying we are not a part of the commonwealth of Israel.

No.. Let's read the verse again..

Ephesians 2:11-13
11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you (GENTILES) were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you (GENTILES) who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

This verse speaks very very clearly that the gentiles or "once" gentiles in the flesh (without Christ) being aliens to the commonwealth of Israel have now been brought near. Near to what? The commonwealth and promises of Israel.

You are both reading into the text something you want to see. He says that we were without Christ; why, because we were not part of Israel. Christ is the Jewish Messiah, and being non-Jews, we were separated from the covenants and thus without hope and without God. The solution to the problem of being without God isn't being united with Israel's commonwealth. It is to be in Christ.

Well that's too bad for you then... Because the Bible clearly states that G-d is going to establish a new covenant with the people of ISRAEL and the people of Judah. Also in Jer. 31:31-34.

Hebrews 8:6-12
6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more. ”

Christ also said that he came for the lost sheep of Israel. Not the lost sheep of the gentiles...

Matthew 15:24
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

You have an unstated premise here, namely, that the only way to have hope and to be with God is to be a part of Israel. That's not true. In OT times, it was true, but Christ has extended the promise to the Gentiles as well. That's what made the Gospel so perplexing to Peter--even the Gentiles can be saved. You are basically undoing all of that work.

No that isn't want it is saying... It states that you automatically become a part of Israel when you believe. You don't have to do anything but believe..

Anyway, the point is simply that the text doesn't say that we are made part of Israel in Christ. It says that since we were NOT a part of Israel, we were not heirs to the promise. But that is changed in Christ. Your unstated premise needs to be proved before you can get that out of the text. Shy of that, you are, again, just reading your theology into the text and coming up with a false gospel in doing so.

Well that contradicts scripture then if you think we are not heirs to the promise..

Galatians 3:29
29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Citizenship in the Kingdom of God. You do realize that the Kingdom is centered in Israel but not identical with it, right? If everyone in the Kingdom is part of Israel, then it makes no sense for the OT to talk about the nations (e.g., Egypt) coming to worship in Jerusalem.

Again, that's another unstated, and incorrect, premise in your theology.

Again you are contradicting scripture to twist it into your own theology... How do we know? Because nowhere in the context of this verse does it ever say "Citizenship in the Kingdom of God." Nowhere... We are citizens to the commonwealth of Israel. Period.

So then you either have to argue that the commonwealth of Israel is not Jewish (which is absurd), or you have to argue that the Church is the New Israel (which is heresy).

Both the Jew and Gentile are, for now, united in one new body--the Church. The Church is not under the Mosaic Law, since the Mosaic Law governs Israel. The Church is saved thanks to Israel's salvation (which is yet future), for we will reign with Israel. We are not identical with her.

The only heresy I see is you destroying the commonwealth of Israel. Which is made up of both Jew AND Gentile... Together WITH Israel, but not replacing her either.

Primarily to Israel, and that for universal blessing.

Correct... G-d's covenants are made directly to ISRAEL..

But you cited this verse to prove that we are a part of Israel's commonwealth. The verse doesn't say that. Not even close. It says that Gentiles through faith in Christ are Sons of God. Your unstated premise is that Sons of God are always part of Israel's commonwealth. Prove that.

I already have... We are a part of Israel...

Read Ephesians 2:11-13 and ..

Ephesians 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

You've provided NO verses that say as much. You cited one that used the phrase and noted that Gentiles were not a part of Israel's commonwealth, and then assumed the verse teaches that we are now a part of Israel, when in fact, it does not say that. You are going beyond the text

So, again, do you have ANY verses in Scripture that says the Gentile is a citizen of Israel?

I've got no verse that says that a Gentile is a citizen of Israel... Only a part of the commonwealth of Israel as stated in Ephesians. But here is another question for you... How exactly did one become a citizen of Israel back in the OT times? What about the gentile Ruth and others?

Wrong, ALL mention Israel. "We" and "Us" in Galatians always refers to Israel. "You" always refers to the Galatian Christians. "They" refers to the Judaizers Paul was so against. Moreover, Paul does not say that we are free from the curse pronounced in Deut 27-28.

You have absolutely no proof of that assertion.. Again, you are guilty of reading your own theology into it...

It compares the LAW to a curse; it compares the LAW to a jailor; it compare the LAW to a nanny; it compares the LAW to a house manager; it compares the LAW (and those who live under it) to the slave woman Hagar and says it (and her children) are to be EXPELLED, since they share NO INHERITANCE with the children of freedom (those not under the Law).

No... G-d's Laws are NOT curses... Nor is it a jailor, etc.... It is only bad if we turn them into legalism...

1 Timothy 1:8 We know that the Torah is good, provided one uses it in the way the Torah itself intends.

Romans 7:7, What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

Romans 7:12, “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”

Further, your suggestion that we are under all the Law except Deut 27-28 is repugnant. You can't pick and choose which part of the Law you want to be under.

Paul and James both say to break one part is to break all of it. Jesus said that Scripture cannot be broken. To suggest that the Law remains but not the part that says you are in trouble if you break it points to a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the Law itself. It is written in the form of a vassal treaty. The curses are an essential element. To break the Law is to come under those curses. To keep it is to reap the blessings enumerated in Deut 28. You divide up the Law as if some can be kept some some not, as if some is fulfilled and some not, as if some is active and some is not. That's not the way it works, Gman. You have absolutely no biblical basis for making that distinction. The Law is a whole. Your dividing it into active and inactive parts is just a sign that you don't take it seriously.

LOL.. Because that exactly is what you are doing... You are the real one dividing it... And not only divide G-d's word or Laws, but also wanting to eliminate them as well... Far more worse..

So Paul is wrong? The Law is not a curse? It isn't a jailor? It isn't a nanny? It isn't a house manager? It isn't a slave women to be expelled from the people of God?

No... YOU are wrong not Paul... G-d's laws are not curses... Do you really think G-d is going to write curses (His Law) into your heart and mind???? Read Hebrews 8....

Hebrews 8:10
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

Beyond that, you are wrong about James 1:25. The "perfect law" is not the Mosaic Law. It is identical to the Royal Law (see Jas. 2:8), which is to love one another. That law does bring freedom.

Again another made up term by you... No where does it say that we ever have to give up on the other laws of G-d... Rather we need them to identify sin in our lives..

Apparently He came to fulfill and not destroy everything but Deut 27, right?

I'll tell you the same thing I used to tell PL -- if you want to sight a bunch of verses, offer some commentary as to what you think it is saying. Just quoting a lot of verses doesn't add anything to the conversation. I know what they all say and agree with all of them.

No.. We never destroy G-d's laws... That is your motive.

If you want to keep the Law for cultural or aesthetic reasons, then fine. There's nothing sinful in observing its commandments anymore than there is anything sinful in observing any tradition we choose (so long as that tradition doesn't violate the Gospel). What IS sinful is telling people that they are under the Law, that they are obligated to keep it, and that to fail to do so is sinful. It's the first heresy the Church faced. It is one that some on this board and are still propagating. It's dangerous. It needs to stop.

Again no one is justified by observing or doing the Law... We follow G-d's Laws not for salvation but in obedience to Him...

[Gman]

Jac wrote:
What IS sinful is telling people that they are under the Law, that they are obligated to keep it, and that to fail to do so is sinful. It's the first heresy the Church faced. It is one that some on this board and are still propagating. It's dangerous. It needs to stop.

This is a pretty strong charge here. Gman, cheezerrox, are you claiming that we as Christians are "under the Law, are obligated to keep it, and that to fail to do so is sinful."
Could you please explain if this is or isn't what you're saying? I think this needs clarification before we continue.

Let me clarify.. We do NOT put ourselves under the Law to justify ourselves unto salvation. We follow G-d's Law in obedience when we try to follow Him in Love..

1 John 5:3-4, “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.”

And how do we know we love Him? When we keep His commandments....

1 John 2:3-7, “Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning.”

[RickD]

Gman, with all that you said, you still didn't answer the question that was the point of contention. The question that we are looking for an answer to, is:

are you claiming that we as Christians are "under the Law, are obligated to keep it, and that to fail to do so is sinful."

In other words, if we don't keep the law, meaning the sabbath and/or clothing laws, are we sinning? That specific area is where the confusion lies. Hopefully you can clear it up once and for all, so we can move on.

[Jac3510]

I'm going to wait for Gman to give a simple answer to Rick's repeated question before I go any further. Gman needs to tell us whether or not those of us who don't keep the Sabbath and who wear mixed fabrics are sinning. He keeps repeating the strawman that he doesn't keep the Law to be saved. No one thinks he does.

As I said, he needs to answer that question first: when Christians break the Mosaic Law, are they sinning? Yes or no?

[Gman]

Gman, with all that you said, you still didn't answer the question that was the point of contention. The question that we are looking for an answer to, is:

are you claiming that we as Christians are "under the Law, are obligated to keep it, and that to fail to do so is sinful."

In other words, if we don't keep the law, meaning the sabbath and/or clothing laws, are we sinning? That specific area is where the confusion lies. Hopefully you can clear it up once and for all, so we can move on.

I have already answered it... Many times.. We are not obligated to keep His laws unto salvation. However, I would say that if we "say" that we are obligated to Him and His word and don't follow His laws or Torah, then I would question really how much we are obligated to Him.. We sin when we disobey His commandments.

[Gman]

clothing laws..

Don't worry... It's specifically talking about the prayer shawl or Tallit...



You have to read the whole verse..

Deuteronomy 22:11-12
11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together. 12 Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Question: If I keep the Sabbath as a Sunday for worship and communion with God, am I not keeping the spirit of the law and not just sticking to the letter of the law? Is this still considered sinful because I am not following the letter of the law, but instead following the spirit of the law which I believe is to reserve time to commune and worship God?


Dan

[RickD]

In other words, if we don't keep the law, meaning the sabbath and/or clothing laws, are we sinning?

You still didn't answer the question. Are we as Christians, sinning, if we don't obey the Sabbath? The confusion comes because you're not giving a direct answer. So giving another indirect answer doesn't clear it up.

[RickD]

Question: If I keep the Sabbath as a Sunday for worship and communion with God, am I not keeping the spirit of the law and not just sticking to the letter of the law? Is this still considered sinful because I am not following the letter of the law, but instead following the spirit of the law which I believe is to reserve time to commune and worship God?


Dan

Dan, you live in Australia, so When it's Sunday in Oz, it is actually Saturday in Israel. So you're good.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Question: If I keep the Sabbath as a Sunday for worship and communion with God, am I not keeping the spirit of the law and not just sticking to the letter of the law? Is this still considered sinful because I am not following the letter of the law, but instead following the spirit of the law which I believe is to reserve time to commune and worship God?


Dan

Dan, you live in Australia, so When it's Sunday in Oz, it is actually Saturday in Israel. So you're good.

Oh yea

[Gman]

In other words, if we don't keep the law, meaning the sabbath and/or clothing laws, are we sinning?

You still didn't answer the question. Are we as Christians, sinning, if we don't obey the Sabbath? The confusion comes because you're not giving a direct answer. So giving another indirect answer doesn't clear it up.

No.. I have answered it for you.. Of course it is sin.. We sin when we break G-d's commandments.

1 John 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

We do not keep the law for our salvation but we are suppose to keep the law as a result of our salvation.. So that is a big difference..

[neo-x]

Christ is the law in the flesh

Actually you need to prove this. John 1:1-4 does not say this at all.

[Jac3510]

Jac wrote:
What IS sinful is telling people that they are under the Law, that they are obligated to keep it, and that to fail to do so is sinful. It's the first heresy the Church faced. It is one that some on this board and are still propagating. It's dangerous. It needs to stop.

This is a pretty strong charge here. Gman, cheezerrox, are you claiming that we as Christians are "under the Law, are obligated to keep it, and that to fail to do so is sinful."
Could you please explain if this is or isn't what you're saying? I think this needs clarification before we continue.

Well Rick:

In other words, if we don't keep the law, meaning the sabbath and/or clothing laws, are we sinning?

You still didn't answer the question. Are we as Christians, sinning, if we don't obey the Sabbath? The confusion comes because you're not giving a direct answer. So giving another indirect answer doesn't clear it up.

No.. I have answered it for you.. Of course it is sin.. We sin when we break G-d's commandments.

1 John 3.4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

We do not keep the law for our salvation but we are suppose to keep the law as a result of our salvation.. So that is a big difference..

Looks like you have your answer. The charge is justified. Gman is a Judaizer and falls under the anathema of Gal. 1:8-9.

[inlovewiththe44]

So, Jac, I'm genuinely curious: how does the Law fit into our lives as Christians? I understand that we are not required to live under the law, but how should we live? Is the law not a good indicator, if nothing else, on how God wants us to behave?