| Author | Message | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1028 Registered: 5-2007 |
Leigh Anne had asked in another string a week or so ago, "A couple of people here have presented to you that the law was given only to the Children of Israel, and not to gentiles. I haven't seen you answer about that. I'm curious to know what your thoughts are. I really appreciate how you are trying to get everything straight, but who the law was written for in the first place is kind of a big one to consider..." J: I think that is a good question and it keeps coming back to my thoughts. I think the propensity for Christians to identify with the 10 Commandments is rooted in association with the roots of the Christian faith system. For one , we know that the Jews were "entrusted with the very words of God". Jesus replied, "if ye love Me, keep My Commandents" There are other inferences to the law as a whole all over the Bible as applying also to Gentiles. Isaiah 56: 6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant— 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. and 42:6 “I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles I have been looking at the base statements concerning the Jews and Gentiles (Christians) Do we conclude that the Law was isolated from the Gentiles as a whole? Or just in the context of the covenant? Paul says we establish the law (Christians are not without law) but in the context of the new Covenent. Hebrews 8:10 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. So, I think it is quite natural to make the association with the whole of One God and the History of the Jews and the Christians. Tradition has played a large part of it as well. Clearly, the Covenant law was given to the Jewish people. Were the 10C strictly limited to the Covenant only? The premise of the whole train of Paul's teaching is the whether the Christian is under an entirely new law system. How is it defined? Strictly Spiritual, non verbal. Then why does Paul say , I would not have known what sin was except for...... Jim (Message edited by jim02 on November 19, 2010) | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1524 Registered: 7-2007 |
The New Covenant (testament) does have an entirely new law system. We are now in the "ministry of the Spirit" [2nd Corinthians 3:8]. Jim; say a person makes several wills during his lifetime and then he dies. Which will do you go by? You go by the last will and testament. Likewise a Christian goes by God's last testament. And in this new covenant [testament], He said that all the various types of Sabbaths were fulfilled [Colossians 2:16,17] by Christ. (In case you're wondering about that particular old-covenant command.) | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 571 Registered: 1-2006  |
Hi Jim It's my opinion that the Law of Moses was never given or intended for the gentiles, or the church. Deut 4:7-8, Ps 147:19-20, and Mal 4:4 Bob | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1029 Registered: 5-2007 |
Bob, Deut 4:7 What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? 8 And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today? When I read this , the thought that comes to me is that if any Gentile realizes this fact, they would naturally want to be included, accepted and in favor with God. thus Isaiah 56: 6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant— 7 these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. My point being, belief in the One God and the Law appears to have been available to Gentiles. Yet, I do agree that it was given to the Jews alone. However, they were to be a light to the gentiles. In view of this. I think it natural to at least consider that the law was extendable to the believing Gentile and this in itself sets up the confusion of Gentiles in the new covenant thinking they are to keep the law too. One of the pivot points of confusion is defining the meaning of "My laws upon their hearts". One group says the same verbatum laws of the tablets of stone, others say it is Spiritually discerned and not of the letter. I am leaning towards the Spiritual view, especially in view of Paul's teachings. Yet, I struggle to maintain peace on this topic because the tendrils of the old teachings confuse me. The feeling is like this, when Peter stepped out of the boat, he looked away , then he began to sink. He cried out, Jesus grabbed his hand. Faith...... I look back, I sink, I cry out, praying that God will give me peace about this and deliver me from these doubts. Faith.... But faith must be based on truth, or is that a mistake as well? Can faith stand alone even in confusion? Because more often than not, my faith is in Christ alone despite my confusion and ignorance. Confusion and doubt displaces conviction. If not of conviction, I am caught in condemnantion. How can I escape from that prison? Jim | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1030 Registered: 5-2007 |
More examples why Christians consider the law as applicable to the Gentiles: Matt 15: 5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. When Christ was having the discussion about what we must do to enter heaven, then saying , do not think He had come to destroy the law...., then listed examples from the law, followed by, till all be fullfilled. Why is it that He did not also say at some point or place in the Gospels that the law would end at the cross? We speak about reading into texts that are not there. This is an example where I think we do read into it. He will write our laws upon our hearts, but where is the text that says these will not be the same laws? Paul says it after the fact as a new teaching, but where is this in the OT.? Could anyone in the OT know or understand that the law was going to end? Isaiah 8:20 (King James Version) 20To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. With a passage like this. Could anyone expect the law to be ended? I am able to grasp so many parts of what Paul is saying, and I even understand when I read his statements about the law ending at the cross. But because he speaks on both sides of the issue I am not able to lock on. So that leads me to look at the OT for precedent showing that the law is temporary and specifically NOT for the Gentiles. Unless I read into it, I have not found those texts as yet. Jim | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1527 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; in the Old Covenant, Gentiles who came to the Lord joined with Israel and kept all the laws that they did. They kept the sign of the Old Covenant - the Sabbath, too. Exodus 31:13 says that the Sabbath was to be the sign. Though the Israelites were careful to keep the sign of the Old Covenant - the Sabbath, did they enter God's rest? See Hebrews 3:16 - Hebrews 4:3: 16 "For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? 17 And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. Hebrews 4 1 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. 2 For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, "As I swore in my wrath,'They shall not enter my rest,'" although his works were finished from the foundation of the world". Jim; To find out what in the New Covenant ask the Lord to show you truth as you read it and don't give up reading the New Covenant [New Testament]. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 774 Registered: 8-2008 |
In the Old Covenant, a foreigner would bind himself to God by undergoing circumcision and declaring his committment to keep all the commandments of the Old Covenant. If this applies to us, then 1)we must be circumcised, and 2) we must keep ALL 613 commandments in the Torah. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1528 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim; you mentioned Matt. 5:17,18 where Jesus says that "one JOT or one TITTLE will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Jim; even Adventists can see that the LAW AND THE PROPHETS would mean ALL the laws given in the Old Covenat. "ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE" - wouldn't that INCLUDE the sacrificial system and circumcism? If not ONE jot or tittle would pass from the law till ALL IS FULFILLED, then it's ALL or NOTHING!!! Either you have to keep ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS or it's ALL BEEN FULFILLED! Adventists routinely missinterpret those verses. But I don't see them making animal sacrifices in their churches!!!!! | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1031 Registered: 5-2007 |
The term 'Moral law' does not appear in scripture, neither are the ceremonial or sacrificial laws subdivided. So we can agree that the covenant included the Testimony (10C) and the laws of Moses which amounted to over 600. Yet, in our theology we do use the term 'Moral laws' to express at least in part the concept of Spiritual law, or the law of Christ. When I see them restated, repeated or pointed out in the NT, I do not see them as precedent or reinstatement, but simply a referal to the original set contained in the tablets. To say that the Apostles reinstate the moral laws gives them the power to create law. I thought only God can do that. Maybe I am wrong about this. Jesus said I will write "My" laws upon their hearts. Yet, OT scripture does not define what those are except to assume that they were the 10C, the only laws He wrote Himself. The assorted points that Paul states concerning the law came from the OT and from inspiration by the Holy Spirit. My consistant problem is establishing a point of reference that authenticates a new doctrine. Over and Over I read, 9 were reinstated. By whose authority? If there is no sin where there is no law, then that means there is no sin at all if the law is canceled at the cross. Yet Paul says if we willfully sin .........no more sacrifice remains. That indicates a continuity to a law. If we say a Spiritual law. It remains undefined and open to individual estimations and impressions of what a Spiritual law is. There is no order in that. No reference point. None of what Paul expressed in the realm of living Spirtually disengages the 10. While the old covenant did end at the cross, I do not see where the 10 ended nor why would they? I have not found in the OT that the 10C were tutorial. Yet Paul makes the statement. Am I arguing with Paul? NO. I am saying that the way one interprets Paul can be 180 out of line with truth. In the overview of Paul's teachings, he appears to me to be expressing a new insightful and Spititual approach to growing in grace while establishing the law. He acknowledges that we are truly messed up, not equipped in of ourselves, but I do not see him doing away with the 10C. Entering into His rest. The bible does not explain that either. Our new theology says it is about resting everyday in Christ and thus no need for a weekly Sabbath. Where in scripture did God or Christ say the 7th day Sabbath ended at the cross? Why did not Christ make that clear to us if it were to be the case? Can an Apostle rescind a law? Did God say , I hereby rescind the 10C? "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple." So now we teach, they were not perfect, there is no rest and not trustworthy. The concept of simple is out the window. The forum taught me to question every position and statement of the SDA. So I did. Now I question every theory. I am not accusing , I am simply saying 9/10ths do not add up. Each of us discerne Spiritually. But it cannot be verified by another man. They did not enter God's rest because they did not combine it with faith. Does this mean that faith has no direction? No basis. No truth to reflect from. I may have faith in Christ and all that should mean to a Christian, but that does not tell me the details of one doctrine over another. If doctrine were a science and Spiritual discernment universal, there would be only one religion. Even Paul realized this. He used the term having a weak conscience. Weak as in ignorant, stupid, misinformed, confused or simple minded. Yet he did not count them as lost. When I have anxious feelings about doing routine things on Sabbath, it is not because I am trying to establish law, it is because I have not recieved conviction that I am free from the 10c. It is not logical that God would end the 10C as a basis and expression of His will. To magnify and make honorable, them cancel them , makes no sense. I have asked Free from what? Never got that answer. (or I missed it) I could be oh so wrong here about all of this, or I might be closer to the truth. It is important enough to not take it on hearsay or a play on words. Feelings? Is that what religon is? Because I will tell you, feelings get me into trouble all the time. I feel I am doing wrong, then I am. I feel secure or I don't. Is that how we know the truth. Preachers that say God told me, I was shown, I was impressed to say, God spoke to me. The bible says, according to the law and the testimony... Feelings, or by what? Just like Adventism. If you buy that, then you will buy this. Eventually you paint yourself into a corner. So it is with all theology. You go from accepting one doctrine pretense or position and then build upon it. The 9/10ths is a non starter for me. Jim | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3493 Registered: 10-2004  |
Jim, this is a Messianic prophecy about Jesus and His New Covenant. This is not talking about what Israel was supposed to be. Notice that verse 4 even talks about His new Law that He would bring. Jeremy | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1032 Registered: 5-2007 |
Asurprise, The people under the Old Covenant had a promise, that was their rest yet to come. Christ is our rest. By faith in Christ, His perfection, substitution , redemption and forgiveness. Not entering that rest would mean, not having faith in Christ. But we are warned , our freedom does not include license. Jesus could read the direction of thought among the people. He said , do not think that I have come to destroy the law..... To me, those words tell me that to do away with the law is a mistake from the very budding thought of it. Jim | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1033 Registered: 5-2007 |
Jeremy , please paste the passage vs 4 , I am not finding it. (what version?) Thanks | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1530 Registered: 7-2007 |
ALL religion is off the devil. Religion is man's efforts to save himself. Christianiy is God reaching down to save man. What you say are Paul's words aren't Paul's at all. It's ALL GOD'S words. The new covenant nullifies the old covenant. For example: If you had a son and made a will that your property would go to your son and then later you had a daughter and made a NEW will that your property would go to your son AND daughter, which would the executor of your estate go by? He would go by your LAST will and testament when you died. Your last will and testament had elements of the first will and testament in it, but it was a totally new testament! And God's New Testament came into effect when Jesus died. Hebrews 9:16 says: "For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament if in force after ment are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives." Jeremiah 31:31 says that He would make a "NEW COVENANT," not "renew" the old one. And what of the nine that are repeated? They aren't the same old nine. They are GREATLY ENHANCED!!! Now the law of the Spirit written on our hearts tells us that abortion and bowing to Arab leaders is wrong - to give an example. | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 1531 Registered: 7-2007 |
Jim, Jesus came to "FULFILL" the law. If He hadn't fulfilled it, you would have to offer sacrifices as well as all the rest in order to be right with God. If you don't mind me answering your question to Jeremy, here's Isaiah 42:4 in the NKJV... 4 He will not fail nor be discouraged, Till He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlands shall wait for His law.” And Jim; which are you saved by? Keeping the law or believing on Jesus? Is it possible to partly save yourself by keeping it? Aren't we supposed to submit to God's righteousness rather than establish our own righteousness? Romans 10:3 Aren't Christians supposed to "live by faith?" Romans 1:17 "and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith" Philippians 3:9 So do you want to stand, even partly, in YOUR righteousness at the end? Isaiah 64:6 says "our righteousnesses are like filthy rags." At the end we'll either be standing ENTIRELY in Christ's righteousness or our own - it's not part and part like Adventism infers. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3494 Registered: 10-2004 |
Jim, I was looking at the NASB:
Jeremy | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1034 Registered: 5-2007 |
Asurprise, ALL religion is off the devil. Religion is man's efforts to save himself. Christianiy is God reaching down to save man. J: That seems a bit agressive. I think religion is man's attempt to obey God. I agree, Christ is God reaching down to save us. What you say are Paul's words aren't Paul's at all. It's ALL GOD'S words. J: I have difficulty with that at times. One one hand I feel the Bible is inspired. but on the other, I think that the Apostles's expressed points of view in their own words. While they may speak the truths of God, I don't think they are speaking verbatum. I also think that the Apostle's intermixed their personal opinions in their writings as evidenced by their commentary styles. The new covenant nullifies the old covenant. J: I agree with that. But it seems to me that the 10C may have not been canceled. I have read that it was in fact part of the Old Covenant. But when Paul speaks about NOT making void the law , this throws me. Jeremiah 31:31 says that He would make a "NEW COVENANT," not "renew" the old one. And what of the nine that are repeated? They aren't the same old nine. They are GREATLY ENHANCED!!! J: They are the same laws , magnified. I don't understand why the 4th is omitted. I see that it is not recorded in the NT as a point of discussion or being taught as a topic of observance. But I don't see it addressed at all and that confuses me, wondering if it is assumed as SDA claim. Paul makes taht one statement about not allowing others to judge us concerning a Sabbath day, but then does not explain it. Neither do any other of the NT books. This leaves me on hold as it were. No countermanded order. We keep going back to the new covenant and even here, it is not explained. All this forces me to grasp at bits and pieces to form the new covenant understandig, all in the face of abundant Old Covenant information. Now the law of the Spirit written on our hearts tells us that abortion and bowing to Arab leaders is wrong - to give an example. I understand the attitudal difference between the letter of the law and the intuitive Spiritual aspect of life. Jim, Jesus came to "FULFILL" the law. If He hadn't fulfilled it, you would have to offer sacrifices as well as all the rest in order to be right with God. J: I agree, he did. But I don't see that he Abolished the 10C. God forbid , we establish the law. And the coastlands shall wait for His law.” J:Yes And Jim; which are you saved by? Keeping the law or believing on Jesus? Is it possible to partly save yourself by keeping it? Aren't we supposed to submit to God's righteousness rather than establish our own righteousness? Romans 10:3 J: I don't think it is that simple. From waht I am picking up in scripture, it is God first and always, His redemptive substitution. But it is also expected growth, fruits, discipline and obedience that are part of this process. There are plenty of warnings. No I don't think I can save myself, but apparently I could lose my soul by neglect and disobedience. We have a part to do in salvation. But I am not sure how that works any more than my understanding about law and grace. Aren't Christians supposed to "live by faith?" Romans 1:17 J: Yes "and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith" Philippians 3:9 J: Ok, if that is all there is, then why the rest of the thousands of words in the new testament? What's the point? So do you want to stand, even partly, in YOUR righteousness at the end? Isaiah 64:6 says "our righteousnesses are like filthy rags." At the end we'll either be standing ENTIRELY in Christ's righteousness or our own - it's not part and part like Adventism infers. J: Again , it is not that simple. If it were, we would only need a one page Bible. Jim | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12003 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jim, I don't think this will resolve for you until you're able to trust Scripture entirely. If you believe parts of it are not God's words to man, you can't possibly trust it to say what it says, and you'll continually find contradictions in it because it won't make sense to you that Jesus would really usher in something NEW that was foreshadowed in the old. If the foundation is cracked, there's no possibility of building a sound building on top. Scripture says of itself that every bit of it is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16). Jesus, in John 15, told the disciples that He would send them the Comforter, and He would lead them into all truth and cause them to remember all that He had said. Jesus was thereby declaring how Scripture would come to be; the Holy Spirit would work in the apostles to remember and understand all truth, and as they wrote it, we could trust it because it was from God. Jesus referred to the OT and showed over and over how He and His kingdom were fulfilling it. Trusting Scripture doesn't come with a flash of insight. It comes with fear of risk for those of us who learned that we had to "interpret" it and re-explain it. But we have to let go of all the fear and decide to "go with" Gods word—and we have to go into what feels like a "free fall" as we decide to trust. God doesn't remove our doubt until we actually act on our belief. You've got to believe Scripture is completely, thoroughly reliable before any of this will make sense. Colleen | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 1035 Registered: 5-2007 |
Colleen, The thought has occurred to me that I have no choice but to let go of this approach. Trying to figure out questions about the law. There is a great deal of teaching in Paul's writings that point us away from the old methods of law keeping in the old covenant. I also agree that the 10C were part of the OC. I grasp we are not without law in any event. I make myself sick and despondant over this whole topic and it especially hits me on Sabbath. I have already realized a hundred times over, that I cannot save myself. When God said let him take hold of my strength that he may make peace with Me... I need to cling to that promise. This law debate I run in my mind has only succeeded in turmoil. I am well past weary of it. I have to let it go. Not to agnosticism. But simply, there must be a better path than this. You describe a freefall. Matthew 11:28-30 (New International Version) 28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” This is the path, if only I can find it. Jim | ||
| Cloudwatcher Registered user Username: Cloudwatcher Post Number: 258 Registered: 5-2009 |
Jim, I'm interested in your thoughts about what Colleen said about the reliability of Scripture...and that it is God's word (not the apostles' version of God's word). I totally agree that you have to start from that foundation, otherwise nothing is going to make sense. This is not an intellectual exercise. Submit yourself to the Spirit, trust the Word and you'll get it. Guaranteed. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 6915 Registered: 9-2006  |
I was reading out of Gods word this morning (and I do receive it as from God by the hands of his chosen ones) certainly not as Jim seems to want to receive it in only part. I would also be interested in hearing more from him as to the total integrity of the Bible, perhaps that is where he needs to concentrate more than on the law. When the total dependence on the integrity of the Bible is established it then gives us the basis for understanding into his word. Certainly without 100% belief in the total integrity of the bible as Gods word to me, rather than part opinion of man, I would have no basis for belief at all. Cloudwatcher is certainly right on, it is not an intellectual exercise. the Bible plainly states that those who come to God must believe that he is God, and if we cannot put 100% trust in his word that it is totally his word, no matter how it came into being, then we cannot know God or what he requires. But I digress, I came upon a scripture out of the book of Malachi this morning which I thought may be of interest to you all. It is located in Malachi 4:1 tru 4:6, pay special attention to 4 where it says Malachi 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. I spells out who it is for (Israel) and includes both the statutes and the judgments, that would include the fourth commandment. I thought it was pretty plainly written.  River |
