neo-x wrote:We have to be careful using words like "Biblically ordained way of spending time with G-d" this means a whole different things to a lot of people.
Well, that's true. But, I feel that the words I chose were pretty accurate. Shabbat is Scriptural, and was meant as a day to be kept holy through time spent with G-d. I think all could agree on that, even if we disagree about its relevance today.
Cheez, many cultures do not have Torah and yet they do not condone rape, incest and vile atrocities that the Torah specifically condemns. In fact in light of
Romans 2:15, the point you raised is of even less significance, my friend.
True, but that wasn't my point, brother. My point was that, as Christians, we consider certain laws from the Torah as still binding, such as the prohibition of taking G-d's Name in vain, rape, incest, and for some Christians, getting tattoos. How can we consider any of these laws as still eternally binding when we don't even consider one of the 10 Commandments as binding?
I suggest you see yourself in Christ, its not about pleasing God as its about knowing our place in God through what Christ did. That is what grace is, its not about you and what you did but about Christ and what he did.
This is true, and all believers need to make sure that they don't distort this simple message. But, those who keep Torah and/or Shabbat often don't do so to please G-d, but simply for the same reason we follow the commandments that all Christians follow, because they believe G-d has commanded it. It's not about trying to earn righteousness, it's just following what they believe is G-d's standard. And those who understand this do it with joy.
I think you can manage better than this K. Because this very notion of yours is a man's translation (meaning your's). I can understand your problem but the best thing to do is to read the text in its context and not generally. There are things in the scriptures which have universal appeal and there are thing which do not have universal appeal. You have to see the Bible through Christ and not the other way around. And through this you can see that these things are trivial, what matters is that we live in a spirit filled life, whether we live by a moral code which is Jewish or not, is a secondary issue. If we are in Christ and we trust him and still choose to go through the law or parts of it then it is on our own behalf, it does not add an iota of difference to our merit or makes God more or less pleased. Many Christians, myself included do not follow the law because in Christ, the law does not matter, what matters is that we walk a spirit filled life. Paul clearly shows that the law does not show what we can do in God but rather the opposite, it shows us our weakness and therefore our inability. And it never grants righteousness to anyone. So when all is said and done the law points to Christ, but not with the spirit but with words. In fact one great thing to consider is when Jesus promised his disciples the holy spirit, he called him to be the helper and not the Torah which they already had. The whole point was to let the spirit guide you and not the law. But the spirit would not guide you to follow the law because the law has been the taskmaster and our teacher till Christ came and when we are in Christ we are no longer under the law. Therefore for the spirit to lead us back to the law, is to go into the wrong direction. Its like going to school after you went through the university.
I mean, maybe this is just nitpicking, but don't technically all Christians have a "Jewish moral code," based on the Jewish G-d, the Jewish Messiah, and the Jewish Scriptures? And I completely agree that following Torah doesn't make any difference in our standing before G-d, as far as how righteous or perfect He sees us. All righteousness comes through the Messiah. But, that doesn't stop us from not stealing, not murdering, honoring our mothers and fathers, or loving our neighbors like ourselves, so why should it stop us from following the other commandments? The Torah couldn't be a "helper" because it's not a person, and more importantly not G-d; the Holy Spirit is. The Torah can't offer individual and personal guidance and conviction, it can only do that THROUGH the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:14-18), just like following commands doesn't give righteousness to anyone unless it's done THROUGH faith in the Messiah and in the Spirit (James 2:22, 26).
Galatians 3:23-25 NASB
"But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the Law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."
In Galatians 3:23-25,
pistis, the Greek word for "faith," has the Greek definite article before it each time it's used. It's speaking of specifically the faith in Jesus, the faith that He brought by His death and resurrection (verse 23c). To take this "faith" being spoken of in these verses as saying that before the Messiah came, no one lived by faith but all lived by "Law," or by some kind of legalism, is just a complete misunderstanding.
Also, the Greek phrase
upo nomon, translated "under the Law (Torah)," used 10 times in the NT (Ro 6:14, 15; 1 Cor 9:20; Ga 3:23, 4:4, 5, 21; 5:18) only by Paul, has to be understood as a technical term to refer to legalism. There was no way to refer explicitly to legalism in Greek. The use of
upo, or "under," can be neutral and simply mean "in the framework of," but it can also have a negative connotation and indicate oppression in some way, such as in the sense of "in subjection to," or "burdened by." But when Paul means "in the framework of the Law/Torah," he uses the phrase
en nomo, or "in law" (Ro 2:12, 3:19), and also a similar phrase,
ennomos, "en-lawed," used at 1 Corinthians 9:21. By using
upo nomon, Paul's definitely bringing out the oppressive connotation that the phrase can have, because he ALWAYS uses this phrase in the context of oppression, such as here, talking about imprisonment, at Romans 6:14-15 and Galatians 4:4, 5, 21, talking about slavery, and at Galatians 5:16-18, talking about being controlled by the evil desires of the flesh.
So, the Torah was the harsh disciplinarian, the tutor, for the people (presumably Jews) who Paul was talking to at Galatians 3:23-25, because it was perverted into legalism, and "was a yoke that neither [their] fathers nor [they] could bear" (Acts 15:10). It was only when they came to the faith that came through Jesus and received the Spirit could they become righteous, realizing that the outward obedience of commands makes no one righteous.
There was a very good reason that Christ called the legalistic following of the law as a yoke. Please note, there are people who follow the law out of their love of God while being believers; and there are believers who follow the law because they see a merit of goodness in pleasing God in it and yes here is the difference, this latter is the problem because it shifts and ties God's grace from Christ's atonement to our good performance, which is simply wrong.
A misconception is that people, like me, do not follow the law because we think it is bad, or not good enough. No, this is a gross misrepresentation. First Paul clarifies that the law is not bad. I agree, but he also clarifies about what the law can and can not do.
Completely agree with you here, my friend.
Many people follow the law because they say it is good, since God gave it, so it must be good, there must be something right in it. Let me say, I do not have to follow the law because it is good. In fact that is the best thing about Christ's work. It is not about the law being good or bad, it is about relevance, it is the old law carved in stone, we are called in to the new one as the old one was done away with. In essence, the law points to Christ but Christ's work does not depend on the law. The sacrifices and the rituals in the law were a hint of Christ's work, foreseen and established by God, and not the other way around. The law points to Christ but Christ does not point to the law. Christ was not placed to come to fulfill the law, in fact the law was placed so that it can imitate loosely of what Christ was to come and do.
I agree with your reasoning, but disagree with your conclusion. Yes, the Torah is good, yes the Torah points to the Messiah and not the other way around, and yes, Messiah didn't come for the sake of the Torah, but the Torah was put in place for the sake of the Messiah. But, a new covenant doesn't nullify a previous covenant (Galatians 3:17). If G-d had a standard for what He says is good and what is bad, what's right and what's wrong, why would we expect this to change? Jesus said that He didn't come to abolish the Torah (Matt 5:17), so how can you say it's done away with? Jesus said that not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Torah until heaven and earth pass away, and all is accomplished (5:18). Yes, His atonement work is finished (John 19:30), but "all" is certainly not finished, and heaven and earth have certainly not passed away. How then can you "annul one of the least of these commandments, and teach others to do the same" (5:19)? The Messiah and His work are far superior than the Torah; indeed, superior to all other things, because without Him and without it there would be no salvation, no redemption, no hope, and no faith. And yet, just because one is the cornerstone, does not mean the other stones are taken away.
The Sabbath was not made because God wanted man to keep one day holy, that was the way to observe Sabbath but it was not the reason for there being a Sabbath in the first place. It was placed to signify what was God's plan of redemption and our eternal rest which is Christ. Jesus himself proclaimed his authority.
Shabbat certainly had that deeper meaning since the beginning, but to say that was the ONLY purpose of it, I believe, is innaccurate. G-d used it to symbolize the whole covenant that He had with Isra'el (the eternal covenant, Isaiah 24:5, Psalm 111, Psalm 119:160) according to Exodus 31:17 and Ezekiel 20:12, 20:20, and according to Exodus 31:16 it was to be a "perpetual covenant." According to Isaiah 56, the Gentiles who are joined to Isra'el and worship G-d after "His Salvation comes" (Isaiah 56:1) are not to say, "Hashem will surely separate me from his people" (56:3), and are to "keep from profaning Shabbat, and hold fast [G-d's] Covenant" (56:6).
Mark 2:27-28, Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
And he clearly broke the Sabbath when he and his disciples went through the fields and they started to eat. It was explicitly punishable by death according to the law. Some people claim that he did not break the Sabbath but more so the way it was kept, but to be honest to the passage he broke the Sabbath full force and head on, to explain to them that he was the master of it.
Indeed, that verse says itself that Shabbat was made for MAN. Even if you say it means specifically the Jewish people, it still says that at least one of its purposes was to be for G-d's people.
Also, it was not a violation of Shabbat, by any means, according to Scripture. It was according to the Oral Torah and the rabbinical ordinances, as followed and manipulated by the Pharisees of Jesus' day, but there's simply nowhere in the Written Torah where walking through a field and picking at grain to eat is forbidden. That's certainly not work.
The tricky thing is, people who want to follow the law (I mean people who really want merit on following the law) after coming to Christ are in a tricky situation. The scriptures say that those who walk in the law shall be judged by the law, meaning people who do not depend on grace but on their acts with regards to the law to please and obey god, even if that is done with a good heart, can be of devastating effect since the scriptures clearly tell us that breaking a single commandment is like breaking the entire law. I wonder, if standing before God would they want to be judged by the law (since if you try to follow the law, you can not do it casually) or by grace, and if by grace then the law and its measures do not matter at all (hence no reason for me to follow them as Christ's work made them irrelevant), and if not by grace then we are all guilty because no one is perfect. The problem here is, to the people who want to follow the law because they think they have to, as the law consists of the commandments of God, and the disobedience of not observing the law will be displeasing to God, fail to realize that they have little choice in the matter. Either the law applies as a whole or it doesn't. Else we are in an endless debate of what we should and should not follow. But please note, my wish to follow the law and the inability to not fully follow it has no bearing on the truth that in following the law I am already subjected to its fullness. Therefore I can choose what to follow or what not but it doesn't dictate how the law treats me, which is if I fail a single commandment, I have broken the entire law which is what leads to condemnation.
Again, following the Law as a way of earning salvation or merit before G-d is unscriptural, and an error, plain and simple. But you fail to distinguish between that legalism and following the Torah out of honest conviction that it's simply the standard that we are supposed to live by (as interpreted and transformed by the New Covenant), still in these days. Scripture doesn't say that the Torah is some kind of unbearable burden that cannot be followed. Instead, it says,
Deuteronomy 30:11-14
"For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it."
I mean, really, read Psalm 119. Is that Psalm not inspired? And I agree, either the Law applies as a whole or it doesn't. To say that it's been "fulfilled" and is irrelevant, is to still follow just parts of it, as I've pointed out. Instead, it must apply as a whole. The beauty of the Messiah's work is that the Torah's punishments no longer apply to us; we are innocent, we are forgiven, we are saved. No one is righteous, no one is perfect, in and of themselves, and therefore we stumble and we sin. The Torah had provisions for atonement, through sacrifice. But now that the perfect atonement has been made, we are no longer under condemnation. We simply walk by the Spirit. Indeed, if the commandment was not too difficult for Moses' crowd, how is it for those of us who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit?
This is the reason why going back to the law as a "commandment of God" makes no sense since God himself gave a new commandment. Because the purpose of the law is to point out sin and condemn it and through this all fall short. The law does not bring righteousness, since it is not under its authority. Because being righteous means to be without sin and the law was given for the very opposite reason, it was given to sinners, who sinned. The law is not for those who are without sin for they would not need the law in the first place.
No one is going back to the Law as a "commandment of G-d." It never stopped being a commandment of G-d. The early believers followed it, Jew and Gentile, and not until post-Biblical times was it no longer followed. Just because the Torah doesn't save us doesn't make it irrelevant. You would agree that Christian legalism saves no more than Jewish legalism, and yet, we still follow the same commandments given explicitly in the NT, without expecting salvation for doing so. Why is following the Torah, which throughout Scripture G-d ALWAYS called His people back to, any different, when all the preachers of the Gospel followed it as well, and never said the Torah is now done away with?
Going to the law for guidance is strange to me, because it was the start of the path that lead us to Christ and the holy spirit, which guides us. Why would it lead back to the start is, beyond me.
One purpose of the Torah was to lead to the Messiah (Romans 10:4), but that is not its FULL purpose. You have to assume that, but, the Scripture don't say that.
Like I said earlier, anyone following the Torah to obey God more, is in trouble but anyone following Torah culturally or just because they want to and like to, can be a Christian and be under grace. It is a heavier yoke but fortunately enough it doesn't affect the work of the cross and so believers can choose to do so and rejoice in God. But people who want to keep the law because they are afraid of displeasing God or they think that the law has some sort of a higher ground, are wrong. That is adding to yourself the yoke which Christ has already lifted. And that my friend is wrong.
For those of us who are convicted to follow Torah, I beleive we'd be in more trouble if we didn't, even if only for the fact that we are convicted. I see it not as a heavier yoke, as I'm sure the vast majority of Messianics would agree, but see it as liberty (Psalm 119:45). "I shall delight in [His] Commandments, which I love" (Psalm 119:47). You may find it hard to convince people that what they find joy in is actually a burden.
jlay wrote:Resting will not connect you to the Jewish people, nor should that need be a concern for this time. Today, there is one new man, and being a Jew has no added value. All are equal through Christ. To put ANY emphasis on Jewish traditions for the believer is to say the "jew" still has more value. If one says they are demonstrating their "love" God by doing Jewish things, then they also imply that one's who do not, aren't. Not sure how this is missed. To say it is "Biblcal" really misses the point. It is also biblical to send menstruating woman into isolation, and to stone Sabbath breakers.
True, I don't find keeping Shabbat to connect with the Jewish people to be a very good reason to keep it, but, many do so, both Jew and Gentile, out of cultural connection to the Jewish people. But, I'll retract that as a reason. The only reason I believe someone should keep Shabbat, and the reason I keep it, is out of conviction. And there is certainly no difference between Jew and Gentile, when it comes to salvation, or when it comes to what's required of someone (although everything is still to the Jew first, then to the Greek Romans 2:9-10). No one's putting emphasis on Jewish practices or Jewish things, what I and others put emphasis on are Biblical laws. You can call it Jewish, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a part of G-d's covenant that He made, and that covenant is said to be eternal according to Scripture. Some may say they're Torah pursuant out of love for G-d, and while I don't think this is innacurate (at least when said by those who are sincere), I don't believe it's a good reason to give. The reason people should be Torah pursuant is that they believe it's the way we're meant to live. It is Biblical to see menstruating women as ritually unclean, but according to this law, at Leviticus 15:29-30, to follow fully this commandment concerning menstrual purity, priests and sacrifices are necessary, so the commandment obviously cannot be followed the same way, if at all. Stoning Shabbat breakers is Biblical too, but it's also un-Biblical to commit ANY executions at this point in time, so, that's not really relevant.
Neo is right on regarding Romans 2. Paul was building a case, much like a legal case. It was very difficult for 1st century Jews who had been trained all their life to believe they were special, their laws were special, etc. to suddenly hear, that this no longer had any value. That being Jew offered you no more favor than being a dirty gentile. They have only the history that they were trusted with the oracles of God.
Indeed, there's no special privelage in being a Jew as opposed to being a Gentile, and that was the meaning of Peter's vision at Acts 10 (Acts 10:28). But, at Romans 2:17-24, Paul doesn't say, "But if you bear the name 'Jew' and rely upon the Law and boast in G-d...do you realize that the Law is nothing anymore?" Instead, he says, "You who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?.." He points out that boasting in receiving the Torah is foolish, and that appearing "religious" and not being a dirty Gentile did nothing to make you righteous, and that the hearers of the Torah will not be justified, but the doers of Torah (verse 13, James 1:22). In fact, Romans 2:13, 26-27 seem to speak of the Torah in rather positive terms. And this culminates in Paul's statement at Romans 3:31, that the Torah is not nullified through faith, but is established.
Brilliant post Neo!! You explained everything perfectly!