The Law

[RickD]

Gman wrote:
I talked to some Orthodox Jews once at the Kotel and they told me that they couldn't stand JC. In fact they didn't even want to pronounce His name because of the way Christians have persecuted Jews and made a mockery of G-d's commandments.

No G. I'm talking about Jews who from the scriptures have been looking for their Messiah, and then God opens their eyes, and they see Jesus for who he really is. Their true Messiah. Have you ever seen a Jew come to faith in Christ? I guess what I'm getting at, is that I know the joy one has when he comes to Christ. And it seems like the joy may be multiplied in someone who was searching for his Messiah and has finally found Him.

[Gman]

Gman wrote:
I talked to some Orthodox Jews once at the Kotel and they told me that they couldn't stand JC. In fact they didn't even want to pronounce His name because of the way Christians have persecuted Jews and made a mockery of G-d's commandments.

No G. I'm talking about Jews who from the scriptures have been looking for their Messiah, and then God opens their eyes, and they see Jesus for who he really is. Their true Messiah. Have you ever seen a Jew come to faith in Christ? I guess what I'm getting at, is that I know the joy one has when he comes to Christ. And it seems like the joy may be multiplied in someone who was searching for his Messiah and has finally found Him.

Oh.. I see.. Sorry. I haven't seen it happen myself. And I think we should be doing all we can to help.. But I think it's going to be really cool when they see Yeshua coming back to earth for them... Like a big fireball. I keep getting these pictures in my mind over and over again about it. But I believe it will take a near catastrophe for them to call out corporately for Messiah. But when they do it will pretty much be game over.

[KBCid]

Technically we and the Jews are still brothers..

Well technically they are natural branches. The rest are grafted in. Same tree tho

Yes.. As long as that tree is rooted in Yeshua. My personal belief on that is many will convert when they see Him coming through the clouds, when they call out for their Messiah Matthew 23:39, Zech 12:10-11. But I think they will be happy with Yeshua when they find out that He was a Jew all along and that all the Torah laws will come back under Him. Yeshua will actually not be coming against His Jewish people. He will be coming to protect and exult them. Anyways this is how I see it. Until the time comes, we will have to play along with the plot... And wait..

Agreed the root or foundation is Christ. He is our example.... to follow.

On Preaching Christ Our Example.

"Let as make man IN OUR IMAGE; AFTER OUR LIKENESS:" in these words of the Council of Creation, with which the Bible history of man opens, we have the revelation of the Eternal purpose to which man owes his existence, of the glorious eternal future to which he is destined. God proposes to make a GODLIKE CREATURE, a being who shall be His very image and likeness, the visible manifestation of the glory of the Invisible One.
To have a being, at once created and yet Godlike, was indeed a task worthy of Infinite Wisdom. It is the nature and glory of God that He is absolutely independent of all else, having life in Himself, owing His existence to none but Himself alone. If man is to be Godlike, he must bear His image and likeness in this too, that he must become what he is to be, of his own free choice; he must make himself. It is the nature and glory of the creature to be dependent, to owe everything to the Blessed Creator. How can the contradiction be reconciled?—a being at once dependent and yet self-determined, created and yet Godlike. In man the mystery is solved. As a creature God gives him life, but endows him with the wonderful power of a free will; it is only in the process of a personal and voluntary appropriation that anything so high and holy as likeness to God can really become his very own.

When sin entered, and man fell from his high destiny, God did not give up His purpose. Of His revelation in Israel the central thought was: "Be ye holy, as I am holy." Likeness to God in that which constitutes His highest perfection is to be Israel’s hope. Redemption had no higher ideal than Creation had revealed; it could only take up and work out the Eternal purpose.

It was with this in view that the Father sent to the earth the Son who was the express Image of His person. In Him the God-likeness to which we had been created, and which we had personally to appropriate and make our own, was revealed in human form: He came to show to us at once the Image of God and our own image. In looking upon Him, the desire after our long-lost likeness to God was to be awakened, and that hope and faith begotten which gave us courage to yield ourselves to be renewed after that Image. To accomplish this, there was a twofold work He had to do. The one was to reveal in His life the likeness of God, so that we might know what a life in that likeness was, and understand what it was we had to expect and accept from Him as our Redeemer. When He had done this, and shown us the likeness of the life of God in human form, He died that He might win for us, and impart to us, His own life as the life of the likeness of God, that in its power we might live in the likeness of what we had seen in Him. And when He ascended to heaven, it was to give us in the Holy Spirit the power of that life He had first set before us and then won to impart to us.

The Protestant Churches owe their origin to the revival of the second truth. The truth of God’s pardoning and quickening grace took its true place to the great comfort and joy of thousands of anxious souls. And yet here the danger of one-sidedness was not entirely avoided. The doctrine that Christ lived on earth, not only to die for our redemption, but to show us how we were to live, did not receive sufficient prominence. While no orthodox Church will deny that Christ is our Example, the absolute necessity of following the example of His life is not preached with the same distinctness as that of trusting the atonement of His death.

It is hardly necessary to point out what influence the mode of presenting this truth will exercise in the life of the Church. If atonement and pardon be everything, and the life in His likeness something secondary, that is to follow as a matter of course, the chief attention will be directed to the former. Pardon an peace will be the great objects of desire; with these attained, there will be a tendency to rest content. If, on the other hand, conformity to the image of God’s Son be the chief object, and the atonement the means to secure this end, as the fulfilment of God’s purpose in creation, then in all the preaching of repentance and pardon, the true aim will ever be kept in the foreground; faith in Jesus and conformity to character will be regarded as inseparable. Such a Church will produce real followers of the Lord.

In this respect the Protestant Churches need still to go on unto perfection. Then only will the Church put on her beautiful garments, and truly shine in the light of God’s glory, when these two truths are held in that wondrous unity in which they appear in the life of Christ Himself. In all He suffered for us, He left us an example that we should follow in His footsteps. As the banner of the cross is lifted high, the atonement of the cross and the fellowship of the cross must equally be preached as the condition of true discipleship.

It is remarkable how distinctly this comes out in the teaching of the blessed Master himself. In fact, in speaking of the cross, He gives its fellowship more prominence than its atonement. How often He told the disciples that they must bear it with Him and like Him; only thus could they be disciples, and share in the blessings His crossbearing was to win. When Peter rebuked Him as He spoke of His being crucified, He did not argue as to the need of the cross in the salvation of men, but simply insisted on its being borne, because to Him as to us the death of self is the only path to the life of God. The disciple must be as the Master. He spoke of it as the instrument of self-sacrifice, the mark and the means of giving up our own life to the death, the only path for the entrance upon the new Divine life He came to bring. It is not only I who must die, He said, but you too; the cross, the spirit of daily self-sacrifice, is to be the badge of your allegiance to me. How well Peter learnt the lesson we see in his Epistle, Both the remarkable passages in which he speaks of the Saviour suffering for us—("Christ suffered for us; who bare our sins upon the tree;" "He suffered, the just for the unjust")—are brought in almost incidentally in connection with our suffering like Him. He tells us that as we gaze upon the Crucified One, we are not only to think of the cross as the path in which Christ found His way to glory, but as that in which each of us is to follow Him.
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/m ... t/lc32.htm

Note here: I have not studied the beliefs of http://www.worldinvisible.com/ The page referenced above is the first I have encountered from them and in its words it has the essential meaning I wish to convey on the topic at hand. Do they hold all the proper essential understandings? this I would have to investigate further. This is why I have saved them in favorites so that I can go back and look further. However, these words that they wrote will always embody the intent of my current understanding.

[Topanga]

As i have stated in other posts, i comsider this discussion about the Law very important. how else can christians disern what is and is not sin. Simply quoting the big ten doesn't cover it. For instance, is sex before marriage allowable ? The big 10 only covers adultery, adultery is sex with another person's spouse. The 10 commandments do not cover the issue of homosexuality either. Don't just brush off these issues, there are major Church schisms happening right now as Christians struggle with these questions. The Episcopal church is dividing on the issue of homosexuality right now. Sex before marriage is an issue that many Christians struggle with, some have expressed it on this forum. So the question remains, which parts of the Mosiac law are still considered sin ? I would like to know, because frankly, I want to be free to do as much as possible as long as it isn't sin.

[cheezerrox]

Topanga, I want to welcome you to the forum. The questions you're asking have been asked by a lot of people, including myself, and I think they need definite, solid answers as well. You're not alone in thinking that the Law, or the Torah, has something to do with believers in and followers of Jesus. More and more people in the church are starting to question Christianity's handling of the Torah and of the Old Testament as a whole.

What is right and wrong is defined by the Torah, or the first five books of the Bible. No more, no less. This doesn't mean the teachings of the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles are unnecessary or superfluous, but it means that they didn't bring anything NEW. No new commandments or abolishing of old ones. They simply showed us how to understand, interpret, and apply the Torah correctly. Hence why Torah, or the OT, was quoted extensively by all of them.

If you have any questions or want to talk more extensively about this subject feel free to private message me.

[RickD]

Just when it was quiet around here, this thread was stirred up again. Thanks cheezerrox!

Here's a great article that I found helpful:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articl ... redux.html

[jlay]

As i have stated in other posts, i comsider this discussion about the Law very important. how else can christians disern what is and is not sin. Simply quoting the big ten doesn't cover it. For instance, is sex before marriage allowable ? The big 10 only covers adultery, adultery is sex with another person's spouse. The 10 commandments do not cover the issue of homosexuality either. Don't just brush off these issues, there are major Church schisms happening right now as Christians struggle with these questions. The Episcopal church is dividing on the issue of homosexuality right now. Sex before marriage is an issue that many Christians struggle with, some have expressed it on this forum. So the question remains, which parts of the Mosiac law are still considered sin ? I would like to know, because frankly, I want to be free to do as much as possible as long as it isn't sin.

The apostle Paul said that even those without the Law can know sin. The Law was given that the trespass might increase.
Edit: Understand that the actual Hebrew Law made it a sin to plant different types of crops in the same field. So, when you say, 'how else can....' you need to fully understand what you are saying.

Through grace you are free and not under the law. Does that mean you should do whatever you want? Heaven forbid. Why? Because of identity.
If you are trying to live up to any outside moral standard then what you are saying is that you are under the law.
The idea that that we need to find out what is right and wrong and then focus on "doing" the right and 'avoiding' the wrong, has it backwards. When we trust in Christ, and just as important, who we ARE in Christ, we can live a life that transcends morality. Christ is (he really is) in the believer.

The outside moral code was the old. But, the OLD IS GONE. Behold ALL things are made new.
In the new, you have been made complete. (Col. 2:10) You do not need to go back to an old dry well to drink. You will die of thirst.

Paul said it this way. "Before FAITH came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was LATER to be revealed." (Gal. 3:23)
Christ really is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (Romans 10:4)
Prior to Christ's death, the old was still in affect. How do we know? "because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living." (Hebrews 9:17) Also Jesus said, "This cup which is poured out for you (speaking of his coming death) is the NEW covenant in My blood." (Luke 22:20)
Hebrews goes on, "But whatever is becoming OBSOLETE and growing old is ready to dissapear." (Heb. 8:13)

Before Jesus' death the OC was still in affect. His teachings to Israel were consistent with this reality. Why people want to go back and live under the Law is beyond me. To treat it as some measure of whether we are loving Jesus.
We have been released from the law. (Romans 7:6)
If you want to bear fruit you need to trust that you have died to the Law. (Romans 7:4)
If you want to stop sinning, what will be more effective. To follow the Law, which Paul said arouses the sinful desires (Rom. 7:5), or should we trust that we are actually dead to sin, and we really are the righteousness of God? And that we already have total victory. The truth is so much better.

Pro-nomians are so worried that this freedom is a license to sin, that they can't even see that they are in fact sinning themselves. They are refusing to trust that Christ really did FULFILL the Law and ALL its requirements. They chose to live under their will (as in will power) as opposed to the will which is in effect.

[cheezerrox]

The problem is that the traditional Christian understanding of the Torah (the Law) and the Old Covenant are flawed right from the outset because of the way they define the Old Covenant, and what they believe about believers before Yeshua came. Christianity says that the Torah was a curse, and that it was a burden, and that it somehow is completely separate and opposed to grace and faith. Christianity says that the Old Covenant was the Law, and the New Covenant is the Gospel, as if they're inherently opposed. The Old Covenant was EXTERNAL, where you had to EARN righteousness through obeying laws and regulations and rituals. Faith was not necessary and/or central. Now, under the New Covenant, everything is internalized.

This is Biblically absurd, and the irony of it is that Paul himself, who traditional Christians go to first in their arguments for why the Law is done away with, goes to great lengths to show that the believers in the "Old Testament" times were saved the same exact way we are today; by faith! Romans 4 says that Abraham and David were saved by faith just as we are today. How was Abraham justified? By faith, not by works (verse 2)! One might say, "Abraham predates the covenant at Sinai, so this is irrelevant." Therefore, Paul, in true rabbinical fashion, predicts what the opposition might say next, and points then to David, who G-d credited righteousness to by faith and not by works as well (verse 6). Paul even claims that the Torah contains the Gospel within it! He defines the promise given to Abraham as the Gospel in Galatians 3:8. Hebrews 11, whether or not you believe Paul authored it, also makes abundantly clear that those who lived before the Mashiach (Messiah) came were justified totally by faith alone. Someone who affirms the Torah's statement that Abraham was considered righteous because of his faith (Gen 15:6) and the Tanakh's assertion that the Torah is the "way of faith" (Psalm 119:30; the word in Hebrew for "faith" and "faithfulness" is the same) finds no surprises here.

A fundamental problem in traditional Christianity's hermeneutic and understanding of Scripture is their understanding of what the Old and New Covenants are. They're only discussed in three places in Scripture, Jeremiah 31:31-34, 2 Corinthians 3, and Hebrews 8 (which quotes Jeremiah 31). Obviously, because Jeremiah is the first place where these covenants are talked about and defined, because it's in the Tanakh which forms the foundation for our understanding of the Apostolic Scriptures, and because one of the other of the three places in Scripture this subject is talked about quotes Jeremiah, our primary focus in defining these covenants should be Jeremiah 31.

HaShem through Jeremiah defines the Old Covenant as the one that he made with the Israelites as he took them out of Egypt, that they broke (recall the golden calf incident that occurred IMMEDIATELY after the giving of the Torah and the appearance of the L-rd's glory on Sinai). He defines the New Covenant as made with ISRAEL (not with anyone else; ie, not with the gentiles. Hence the need for gentiles to be grafted in (Romans 9-11) and to brought near to Israel as members of its commonwealth (Ephesians 2)), as having His Torah (not "law") written upon the heart, His being Israel's G-d and their being His people, the lack of need for people to encourage each other to be faithful to G-d (verse 34; "to know" in Hebrew, in a covenantal sense, means to be true to the covenant), and as having the forgiveness of Israel's iniquity and sins as the root and reason for their faithfulness.

Traditional Christianity says that the Old consisted of externals, and now the "law" or Torah is written upon the heart, being about faith and spirituality as opposed to works and extensive rituals. But this is not even close to what this passage is saying. Biblically, to have something on or in the heart, simply means to be faithful (Deut 6:4-6, 11:18). And I say faithful because it includes both the ideas of having faith, AND of actually, literally being obedient. If the Torah is written on the heart, that means that you will be FAITHFUL to it, to the G-d Who gave it.

Now look at 2 Corinthians 2 from this perspective. Verse 14 is where the phrase Old Covenant comes in. Verses 12-16 say,

"Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, and are not like Moshe (Moses), who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Mashiach. But to this day whenever Moshe is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the L-rd, the veil is taken away."

How does Paul see the Old Covenant? It lacks faith! He says that those who are under the old covenant have their "minds.. hardened" and a "veil.. over their heart." It's the same hardness of mind that the unfaithful sons of Israel had who built the golden calf after seeing G-d and receiving His Word. The hardness and veil is removed "in Mashiach," and that SAME "Old Covenant," or those same Scriptures, the Torah, when read with eyes of faith in the Messiah and Son of G-d, become the New Covenant.

Look also at verses 1-11, where Paul discusses the New Covenant.

"Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you? You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Mashiach, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living G-d, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such confidence we have through Mashiach toward G-d. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from G-d, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moshe because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory."

A problem that many fall into is causing Paul to be giving an ultimatum. This is the same error that Christians in the past ages have fallen into in interpreting Paul's discussion of the relationship between the flesh and spirit in places like Romans 8 and Galatians 5. The Church came to consider the "flesh," as in all things physical, as inherently evil or apart/opposed to G-d and spiritual things. Only heaven and the spiritual realms had holiness. Further influenced by Platonism, the Church became dualistic in its worldview and came to find creation and all things material to be burdens and evils. Practices of pagans were imitated, where people would punish their flesh by doing themselves harm in order to strengthen their "spirit." Creation is not "good" as G-d declared it in Genesis 1, and the chief desire is to one day go off to live in heaven to be with the L-rd. However the Jewish and Biblical idea is that there will be a BODILY resurrection and eternal life in the kingdom with G-d dwelling among us. It will be a new heavens and earth, but STILL heavens and earth. The goal of creation is not for us to go up to be with G-d, but for G-d to come down and dwell with us in His self-condescending love. This was realized progressively in the Tabernacle, the Temple, and perfectly in the Mashiach, Yeshua. That which is material is not opposed to things that are spiritual; in fact, anything can be done or used for the glory of G-d. "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the Name of the L-rd Yeshua, giving thanks through Him to G-d the Father" (Colossians 3:17). "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of G-d" (1 Corinthians 10:31). There's a great article on this by Tim Hegg.

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArt ... udaism.pdf

But, as far as Paul's distinction between letter and Spirit, one has to stop imagining him to be making dichotomies. The flesh WITHOUT the Spirit is bad; the letter WITHOUT the Spirit is bad. Paul's essentially saying that the Old Covenant + faith = New Covenant. He's saying the same exact thing by saying the letter + the Spirit = New Covenant. Likewise, the letter - the Spirit = the Old Covenant. Jeremiah and Paul both present the difference between the Old and New Covenants to be FAITH! They're not two different time periods, or dispensations, or ways to salvation, or ways to know G-d. There's one way to salvation and one way to know G-d, and that's faith. Our faith is the same as Abraham's faith, Moses' faith, and David's faith. Their faith was in the Mashiach, just as ours is, only they looked forward and we look backward. Yeshua says Abraham SAW His day, the author of Hebrews says Moshe chose the reproach of MASHIACH over the treasures of Egypt, David wrote of the Mashiach to come all throughout the book of Psalms.

This subject requires much more extensive study than what I've talked about here, but we need to be willing to rethink our philosophies and worldviews, and reevaluate Christian theologies in favor of Biblical theologies. Yeshua said He did NOT come to abolish but to fill up, to flesh out, to make full. You can't fill up something by taking it away or replacing it.

And this does not mean turning to traditional Judaism and the rabbis! Heaven forbid making men who rejected G-d's Son to be our spiritual leaders and authorities (although the study of the Talmud and Midrash can yield plenty of helpful/Biblically accurate fruits). What this means is turning to the Torah, as in the Scriptures. Traditional Judaism is Torah as defined by the rabbis. What we need to turn to is Apostolic Judaism, which is Torah as defined by the L-rd Yeshua and His apostles.

People will inevitably always label those who wish to honor Yeshua and be obedient to the Torah as Judaizers and legalists, they will claim that we do it either out of fear or pride, they will claim we look down on others for not being observant, they will claim we don't really believe in our freedom or liberty. That's okay. Those looking in from the outside won't realize that what looks like bondage is actually liberty (Psalm 119:45). We don't keep Torah to please G-d or avoid His wrath, and we don't use observance as the barometer to measure whether someone "truly loves G-d." Surely some do, but Christians do similar things apart from Torah observance; that's a human thing, not anything related to Torah-pursuance. There are multitudes of Christians who don't think twice of the Sabbath and live immensely more loving and holy lives that are pleasing to G-d than some of the most rigorously observant Messianic and non-Messianic Jews. But just because one is saved or even has a relationship with G-d does not mean they're perfect; in G-d's eyes, yes, all who believe are clean, holy, and perfect. It's not about justification. But we will never escape sin in this world, only in the world to come. So people shouldn't be so sensitive when Messianic claim that Christians aren't doing everything they should be doing; nobody is. Christians keep a lot of the Torah already anyway, they just don't think of it as observance. Messianics should be and often are looking for unity and understanding, not division and pride. And more and more people are listening to what they have to say every day.

Deuteronomy 30:1-8
"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 HaShem your G-d has banished you, and you return to HaShem your G-d and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, then HaShem your G-d will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where HaShem your G-d has scattered you. If your outcasts are at the ends of the earth, from there HaShem your G-d will gather you, and from there He will bring you back. HaShem your G-d 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. Moreover HaShem your G-d will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love HaShem your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. HaShem your G-d will inflict all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. And you shall again obey the Lord, and observe all His commandments which I command you today."

Just when it was quiet around here, this thread was stirred up again. Thanks cheezerrox!

Here's a great article that I found helpful:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articl ... redux.html

That's what I'm here for, Rick, stirring up the pot!

Hebrew4Christians is a great site that has a lot of good info and teachings, but Mr. Parsons (the owner of the site) and I don't see eye to eye on many things, as I'm sure is obvious. However, his site is indicative of the growing interest that so many Christians are beginning to feel in Judaism, Torah, the Jewishness of Jesus and Paul, and the whole Tanakh (Old Testament) in general. Some don't feel comfortable separating too far from their "Christian roots," and are afraid that focusing too much on the Torah or "Judaism" equates to giving the Rabbis as much authority as Yeshua. The problem is that the Torah was never the Rabbis' to begin with, and that it's not defined by them; it is G-d's and the people of G-d's, and is defined by G-d, His Son, and His apostles. You can see this error in thinking in this particular article.

[jlay]

Shew, long post.

One thing is for certain. You will never hear Paul instruct beleivers to follow the law in any form or fashion. Nor will you hear anyone rebuked for not following the law. In all his letters, he had many opportunities to direct believers to simply follow the OT, but he never did. Not once. And keep in mind that he references the Law mulitple times in his letters.

Of course the rebuttal will be something akin to saying that we are promoting breaking the law. Of course there are truths in the law, such as not stealing, but these were true before any formal law was given. A person who is walking in the spirit will not steal. Not because it has anything to do with following the Torah, but because they are living out of the resource of faith. You say, so whats' the difference. The difference is everything.

Further it is a strawman to imply that myself or any anti-nomian is saying that faith didn't play a role prior. I'm not. I'm not saying the Law had the power to save any individual at any time. The Law had to do with the coroporate economy of the nation of Israel and its blessings. Why was Achan stoned for stealing? Because his individual sin couldn't be forgiven? No. Because of the coroporate relationship that was damaged by his deeds. Israel lost the battle to Ai.

A fundamental problem in traditional Christianity's hermeneutic and understanding of Scripture is their understanding of what the Old and New Covenants are. They're only discussed in three places in Scripture, Jeremiah 31:31-34, 2 Corinthians 3, and Hebrews 8 (which quotes Jeremiah 31). Obviously, because Jeremiah is the first place where these covenants are talked about and defined, because it's in the Tanakh which forms the foundation for our understanding of the Apostolic Scriptures, and because one of the other of the three places in Scripture this subject is talked about quotes Jeremiah, our primary focus in defining these covenants should be Jeremiah 31.

I agree that there is a fundemental problem. You are forgetting that Israel rejected the NC when it was ushered in at Christ's death. The stoning of Stephen was the final straw. Within a couple of decades the entire Temple system would be obliterated. Done.
No temple. No priesthood. No covenant Israel. No Law.

[cheezerrox]

That was a very long post, and it looks like this one will be too. Apologies to anyone who reads the whole thing.

I would disagree about Paul not instructing believers to follow the Torah, but regardless, that's just an argument from silence. Obviously you won't find him saying, "Brethren, follow the Law." You won't find statements like that in the Talmud either. To the 1st Century Jewish mind, there was literally no other way to follow G-d. The Torah is assumed; good works, commandments, all those things are assumed to be derived from Torah. There were only disagreements on HOW to follow the Torah. Now, one might say that this wasn't just some new sect of 1st Century Judaism, but a new way inaugurated by G-d. But you'll never find Yeshua or any of the apostles (including Paul) making any claim to be breaking away from Judaism in any way; they only parted with those who chose to accept the authority of men and rabbis as opposed to the Mashiach of Israel.

In Romans 1:32, Paul condemns those who reject G-d and give away their bodies for degrading passions, specifically in homosexuality, and uses the Torah as the basis for this judgement. The verse says,

"and although they know the ordinance of G-d, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

Where are the "ordinance(s) of G-d" found? Where is there found the death penalty for homosexual intercourse? In the Torah.

To stick with Romans, note also verses 13:8-10.

"Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled Torah. For this, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,' and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of Torah."

Right here Paul instructs believers to obey the Torah and its commandments. If he was just telling them to live a Spirit-filled life, then why refer to their authority as their being commandments? These things would transcend the Torah. But instead, Paul calls for love, not as the way more excellent than the Torah, but the most excellent way that is expressed THROUGH Torah.

Also, let's not forget Romans 7, which says in verse 7 that Paul knows what sin is only through the Torah, and in verse 12 says that the Torah is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Then, there's verse 14. This is a kicker for those who believe that there's one way of the Law, and then the way of the spirit/faith. Paul says that the Law is spiritual, as in of the spirit! They are not opposed, but go together.

On to verse 16, Paul affirms that he agrees with the Torah, confessing that the Torah is good. Verse 22 says that he joyfully concurs with the Torah of G-d in the inner man, and verse 25 again reaffirms that Paul wanted to serve the Torah of G-d, although in his flesh he continued to struggle with sin and disobedience.

1 Corinthians 5:1 has Paul rebuking a member of the Corinthian congregation for being in a relationship that broke Torah, and he ends the subject by quoting the Torah in verse 13, saying, "REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES." He also instructs the believers to keep Passover in sincerity and truth, apart from the pride and divisions that existed among them. He tells them to "keep the feast" in verse 8.

Chapter 7 has Paul telling the congregation that "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of G-d." Now, just as with any piece of writing, it needs to be interpreted in its historical/literary context to be understood accurately. In 1st Century Judaism and Jewish culture, circumcision was a shorthand way of referring to two things: 1) conversion to Judaism, and 2) being Jewish. To "be circumcised" meant to convert, to become a proselyte. If somebody is referred to as "circumcised," it means that they're either Hebrew by birth or a proselyte to traditional Judaism and have become legally and socially a Hebrew. Paul and the apostles determined this wasn't necessary and was actually contrary to the good news of Yeshua in Acts 15. But this doesn't mean that they abolished circumcision as a commandment. Heaven forbid! In Acts 16 Luke records Paul having Timothy circumcised! And right here in this verse, Paul exhorts the congregation to keep the commandments. What he's saying about circumcision is that one's status as a Jew/Hebrew in the eyes of rabbinical Judaism didn't matter; it didn't save anyone, and it didn't make anyone righteous. What matters is actually obeying G-d in faith.

1 Corinthians 9:8-9 says, "I am not speaking these things according to human judgement, am I? Or does not the Torah also say these things? For it is written in the Torah of Moshe, 'YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING.' G-d is not concerned about oxen, is He?" Paul uses the Torah as his authority and his reason for his apostolic ruling.

1 Corinthians 13, the great love chapter, can also be seen as an exhortation to keep Torah. Paul, Yeshua, and the apostles continually affirmed that love (for G-d and for one's neighbor) is the essence of the whole Torah and every commandment, and so by instructing the believers to love and be loving, this would be an encouragement to obey the Torah of the Spirit that's been written on the heart. If love is something apart from the Law, what does it look like? How do we know we're living in it? One could say it's just living a "spirit-filled life," but that's not something you'll find Paul or the apostles saying. Love is objective, there is a way to know what love is and what it looks like. "By this we know that we love the children of G-d, when we love G-d and observe His commandments. For this is the love of G-d, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:2-3). "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15).

1 Corinthians 14:34 has Paul referring to the Torah as his authority for an apostolic ruling.

Those are just some examples of Paul encouraging the believers to observe the Law.

And yes, I believe anti-nomianism is promoting breaking the Torah (hence the name of the positon ), but I wouldn't use that as a rebuttal. I understand the position of ant-nomians isn't promoting breaking G-d's Word, but promoting living by "faith," but I would say that the concept of faith or righteousness that is in contradiction with G-d's Word (the Torah) is unbiblical.

I also understand the difference between stealing because one's living by faith as opposed to just obeying the Law. But again, you're making a false dichotomy. Obeying G-d's commandments takes faith. Following the Law is called the way of faith by G-d (Psalm 119:30). Now, if somebody were just to obey the Law because of cultural reasons, or because they think it'll make him/her holy or righteous in G-d's eyes, or because of pride in their own "spirituality," or for any other reason apart from faith in G-d and the desire to glorify His Son and sanctify His Name, then that's NOT the way of faith, and that's not TRULY obeying the Torah. The Torah commands faith as well, and love of G-d.

I understand as well that you're not implying that faith didn't play a role prior, or that the Law had the power to save any individual at any time. But that has been the position of the Church for a significant amount of her existence. But the problem with you're seeing the Law as simply having to do with the nation of Israel and its blessings is that you're seeing yourself and all believers as OTHER than Israel. Israel is made up of the descendants of Abraham, for sure, and believers have not replaced physical Israel as "spiritual" Israel. But Paul himself makes abundantly clear that any gentile who comes to G-d in faith is joined TO Israel. They don't become Jews, but they become fellow heirs of the promise and members of the commonwealth of Israel.

As far as your argument that without a Temple and a priesthood there's no relevance in the Torah right now, what do you think of the Babylonian exile? Was obedience to Torah obligatory when Israel was exiled from the Land (and the Temple) and couldn't perform the sacrificial ministry?

[Gman]

Shew, long post.

One thing is for certain. You will never hear Paul instruct beleivers to follow the law in any form or fashion. Nor will you hear anyone rebuked for not following the law. In all his letters, he had many opportunities to direct believers to simply follow the OT, but he never did. Not once. And keep in mind that he references the Law mulitple times in his letters.

Unfortunately your claims are completely false... Paul says many times to establish the law... You have to have your head removed not to get this.

Romans 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”

Romans 2:13, “for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.”

Romans 7:1, “Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?”

Romans 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

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

On top of that you disobey Jesus Himself... To name a few verses..

Matthew 5:17-19, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 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. 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.”

Matthew 19:16-17, “Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? So He said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Of course the rebuttal will be something akin to saying that we are promoting breaking the law. Of course there are truths in the law, such as not stealing, but these were true before any formal law was given. A person who is walking in the spirit will not steal. Not because it has anything to do with following the Torah, but because they are living out of the resource of faith. You say, so whats' the difference. The difference is everything.

No.. You can't pick and choose your own verses out of G-d's laws and then call it your own mystical love-faith law. You can't say one thing is still relevant and another not.

Further it is a strawman to imply that myself or any anti-nomian is saying that faith didn't play a role prior. I'm not. I'm not saying the Law had the power to save any individual at any time. The Law had to do with the coroporate economy of the nation of Israel and its blessings. Why was Achan stoned for stealing? Because his individual sin couldn't be forgiven? No. Because of the coroporate relationship that was damaged by his deeds. Israel lost the battle to Ai.

Therefore according to this logic, since a coroporate relationship that was damaged, all law's are now void? There is no logic to this whatsoever..

I agree that there is a fundemental problem. You are forgetting that Israel rejected the NC when it was ushered in at Christ's death. The stoning of Stephen was the final straw. Within a couple of decades the entire Temple system would be obliterated. Done.
No temple. No priesthood. No covenant Israel. No Law.

No.. No.. No... Has G-d rejected Israel?? What did Paul say?

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

[Gman]

I even forgot one...

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED!!!! So you think G-d is done with Israel? BULL.... With a capitol "B". Anyone who opposes what G-d is trying to do with Israel will have to give an accounting of themselves on judgement day.

[Gman]

The apostle Paul said that even those without the Law can know sin. The Law was given that the trespass might increase.
Edit: Understand that the actual Hebrew Law made it a sin to plant different types of crops in the same field. So, when you say, 'how else can....' you need to fully understand what you are saying.

Through grace you are free and not under the law. Does that mean you should do whatever you want? Heaven forbid. Why? Because of identity.

Because of identity? Is not Jesus G-d?? Jesus GAVE US ALL THE LAWS whether they are in the OT or NT.... Grace does not mean that we destroy G-d's laws now....

Romans 6:1-2, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?”

If you are trying to live up to any outside moral standard then what you are saying is that you are under the law.
The idea that that we need to find out what is right and wrong and then focus on "doing" the right and 'avoiding' the wrong, has it backwards. When we trust in Christ, and just as important, who we ARE in Christ, we can live a life that transcends morality. Christ is (he really is) in the believer.

So what is Christ's law in Christ? Answer... Just love, love, love... Make up your own rules. You have no foundation outside of G-d's commandments. And any you do have is just picking and choosing and denying the rest... So you do have a form of it, but it is deceiving also.

The outside moral code was the old. But, the OLD IS GONE. Behold ALL things are made new.
In the new, you have been made complete. (Col. 2:10) You do not need to go back to an old dry well to drink. You will die of thirst.

Completely wrong... G-d's laws are not rubbish old rags.. Rather we are old rags, but not His teaching or commandments. Luke 5:37

Paul said it this way. "Before FAITH came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was LATER to be revealed." (Gal. 3:23)

Galations 3:23 in no way negates G-d's laws. Sure, some can use G-d's laws to promote legalism unto salvation, but that is NOT it's purpose. It's purpose it to promote unity among the believers, not righteousness..

Christ really is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (Romans 10:4)

No... Now look at how it is said in the NIV. It is the culmination of the law not END.....

Romans 10:4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

And if you look at the greek word for "end" it means "Telos" which is the same word we get for telescope or "aim." Therefore Christ is the AIM of the law.. Not end. Holy cow...

Prior to Christ's death, the old was still in affect. How do we know? "because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living." (Hebrews 9:17) Also Jesus said, "This cup which is poured out for you (speaking of his coming death) is the NEW covenant in My blood." (Luke 22:20).

G-d made the covenants ONLY between the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31-32, Hebrews 8:6-13). There are no separate new covenants of the gentiles.. That is simply an illusion...

Hebrews goes on, "But whatever is becoming OBSOLETE and growing old is ready to dissapear." (Heb. 8:13)

No way... Are you still in the flesh? Then G-d's laws are still in effect until we get into heaven.

Before Jesus' death the OC was still in affect. His teachings to Israel were consistent with this reality. Why people want to go back and live under the Law is beyond me. To treat it as some measure of whether we are loving Jesus.
We have been released from the law. (Romans 7:6)

Why go back to G-d's laws?? Because that is commanded by Jesus Himself. To promote unity, love, and identity. They are not evil...

If you want to bear fruit you need to trust that you have died to the Law. (Romans 7:4)

No.. You are missing the point of Paul's message. Now jump down to verse 7. We never destroy G-d's law.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

If you want to stop sinning, what will be more effective. To follow the Law, which Paul said arouses the sinful desires (Rom. 7:5), or should we trust that we are actually dead to sin, and we really are the righteousness of God? And that we already have total victory. The truth is so much better.

There is no truth if you choose to separate from G-d's commandments.

Pro-nomians are so worried that this freedom is a license to sin, that they can't even see that they are in fact sinning themselves. They are refusing to trust that Christ really did FULFILL the Law and ALL its requirements. They chose to live under their will (as in will power) as opposed to the will which is in effect.

We will never be able to fulfill G-d's commandments outside of the Holy Spirit or Christ's messages.

Again if you think that laws are so bad, why don't you remove all the millions of laws that make up the United States? Even more than the commandments of G-d.. Do you propose we live in chaos?

[RickD]

Congrats, Gman! You have just successfully attacked and killed an entire army of straw men that you created! Of everything jlay said, you changed it into something he wasn't even saying, then attacked what jlay never even said.

Gman, how's your Aunt Sally?

Just once, I'd like you to really listen to what someone with a differing belief than yours has to say. Really try to understand without adding your own endings to what someone else said.

Mr. X says: "the law has served its purpose, by showing us we are sinners, and need Christ".

Gman says: "the Law is not evil".

One reading the thread says to himself, "where did Mr. X call the law evil?"

[Gman]

Congrats, Gman! You have just successfully attacked and killed an entire army of straw men that you created! Of everything jlay said, you changed it into something he wasn't even saying, then attacked what jlay never even said.

The only straw man that exists is in his free grace crapology.

Gman, how's your Aunt Sally?

She's doing fine.. And she'll even be better once she get's off the clown central theology of free grace...

Just once, I'd like you to really listen to what someone with a differing belief than yours has to say. Really try to understand without adding your own endings to what someone else said.

Mr. X says: "the law has served its purpose, by showing us we are sinners, and need Christ".

Gman says: "the Law is not evil".

One reading the thread says to himself, "where did Mr. X call the law evil?"

Many times.. And he also believes that it is a curse, which I've tried to correct him numerous times. G-d's commandments SAVE us from His curse, but His commandments are not curses themselves.