| Author | Message | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 297 Registered: 7-2005  |
Talking with adventists, the subject of the Jerusalem's council from Acts 15 arised often. Here it was debated the issue of the necessity for gentiles to be circumcised and keep the law (Acts 15:5). When faced with apostle Peter's question: adventists readily put in front the idea that Peter, as Paul, was talking about the law as a means of salvation, not the law per se. The law is a yoke only when someone is trying to get salvation by keeping it, when someone is trying to use it in a wrong way. The law, the adventists are saying, is not a yoke, a burden that nobody is able to bear. They point that the debate was with some from the party of the Pharisees, with other words, it was a debate with a wrong concept of the law sustained by the pharisees. I insisted that indeed the law itself is a yoke, nobody kept it and nobody will keep it, because we have flesh, but adventists brought another text in the discussion :
Despite the fact that in context the apostle Paul use this argument to demonstrate that the jews who hear the law are in the same situation as the gentiles, under sin (Romans 3:9), that nobody is righteous, adventists still insists that the condition of salvation, of justification, is the keeping of the law. When I pointed to the fact that even the jews were not able to bear the yoke of the law, because it was impossible for them to keep it, I encountered the next counterargument from a friend of mine. He wanted to disprove my argument that nobody is righteous in the sight of God by his keeping of the law, and he searched his Bible and found two people who, after the record of the Bible, were righteous in the sight of God by keeping the law. With other words, some sort of righteous by works. The two examples are Zechariah and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist.
I'm interested how you understand this text from an evangelical, gospel point of view. | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 158 Registered: 4-2006  |
Very interesting, I don't think it is some sort of righteous by works, fx Galatians 2:21 state: I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" NIV translates luke 1:6 as this: "Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly." Maybe Zechariah and Elizabeth were sincerely in their walk with God and God aproved them for it, and they kept the commandments very well and the people could not find one thing to put a finger on. The Message parafrases it: "Together they lived honorably before God, careful in keeping to the ways of the commandments and enjoying a clear conscience before God." Maybe some of the commentaries here would help: http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/luke/mhc/luke1.htm Jesus is my righteousnes | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4503 Registered: 12-2003  |
Jackob, I don't see Luke 1:6 saying that Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous BECAUSE they kept the commandments and statutes. I see it saying they were righteous in God's eyes, and as God-fearing Jews they were blameless in their observance of the law by faith. Hebrews 11 is full of Old Testament people who were under the law, but they are commended for their faith. They were dreadful sinners, actuallyóthink even of Jephthah who sacrificed his daughter to keep a vowóbut by faith they were considered righteous before God. Zechariah and Elizabeth were in this same category. They were righteousóas are ALL humans ever considered righteousóby faith in God's promises. In fact, their faith and faithfulness to God and His promises prepared them to receive the HUGE assignment from Godóto bear the forerunner of the Messiah who was actually "born again" before birth. Hebrews 11 is the chapter that explains human righteousness, both under and out from under the law. It is always by faith. Those people in Hebrews 11 who lived under the law nevertheless broke the lawóyet they were considered righteous. They were considered righteous because of their faith in God. That is why Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous before God. Colleen | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 112 Registered: 11-2004 |
I've found this link to be helpful: http://www.biblebb.com/files/KSS/kss-eliz.htm Partially pasted below. 1. She Was Righteous (LUK 1:6). LUK 1:6 "Both of them [Zechariah and Elizabeth] were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly." a) She was "upright in God's sight". "Upright" (dikaios) means "correct". 1) she was not righteous in herself. a] Scripture teaches that, "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one" (ROM 3:10-12). b] It also says, "no one will be declared righteous in his [God's] sight by observing the law" (ROM 3:20), because, "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it (JAM 2:10). 2) she was "approved" by God: a] she was "imparted" righteousness. i] this is a legal designation that means she was rendered a verdict of approval before God's judgment bar. ii] she lived in the O.T. form of piety which called a believer to walk in faith before God through acts of obedience and sacrifice as prescribed by the Law and to believe in a "savior" who would pay the ultimate sacrifice for sins. -- sin called for the substitutional death of an animal, a "blood sacrifice", as an atonement (the life is in the blood, LEV 17:11). -HEB 9:22 "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." -- O.T. sins were "covered" by the blood of sacrificial animals but were not erased. -PSA 32:1 "Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered." -HEB 10:1,2 "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins." -HEB 10:4 "because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." b] she would have "imputed" righteousness in Christ: *Righteousness by "imputation" means that a "sinners guilt is laid upon the Savior, and the Savior's righteousness upon the sinner", Wm. Hendriksen, "New Testament Commentary": Luke, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1978, pg.66. The grace of God in the atoning death of Christ would provide Elizabeth and all believers with the only true righteousness, that which was Christ's. 3) others were "reckoned" righteous: a] Abraham "believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness" (GEN 15:6). b] Job "was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil" (JOB 1:1). c] Joseph "was a righteous man" (MAT 1:19). d] Simeon "was righteous and devout", LUK 2:25. *Again it was the faith of these individuals that generated their good works, and it was their faith that brought them into a right standing with God. b) She "observed all the Lord's commandments and regulations". 1) definition of words: a] "observed" (poreuo) means "to go", "following", "walking". b] "commandments" (entole) means injunctions, orders, commands. c] "regulations" (dikaioma) means "ordinances". *To "observe the Lord's commandments and regulations" means to follow the spirit and letter of the compelling commands and rules of God. 2) she observed "all" the requirements. a] "all" (pas) means "every". *This indicates that she considered all Scripture as binding and important, and that she did not pick and choose what she would endeavor to keep. b] she could not possibly keep "all" the commandments and regulations of the Law since the O.T. contains hundreds of requirements for a Jew to observe- but Elizabeth's attitude and actions were such that she sincerely fulfilled her obligations as much as she was able to. c) She was "blameless" (amemptos) means "faultless" or "unblamable". 1) she was blameless before men: i.e. no one could bring a charge against her in the matter of the Law's observance. 2) she was not blameless before God. a] she fell short of the standard of perfection. i] "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (ROM 3:23). ii] "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way" (ISA 53:6). iii] "If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives" (1JO 1:10). b] she could not be justified before God on the basis of her works. i] justification is by grace alone. -- GAL 3:11 says, "Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, 'The righteous will live by faith.'" -- GAL 2:16 ..."know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." -- TIT 3:5-7 "He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." -- EPH 2:8,9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast." ii] our works are defiled. -- ISA 64:6 "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away." d) She called God "Lord". 1) God was the Lord of her life. a] "Lord" (kurios) means "authority" or "master". b] God is called "Lord" (kurios). i] In LUK 1:45 Elizabeth said, "Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!" ii] "Lord" (kurios) is used again in verse 46, when Mary said, "My soul glorifies the Lord..." "Lord" was also used when Gabriel announced the incarnation to Mary, "He [Jesus] will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David (LUK 1:32). "LORD" MEANS THE ONE WHO HAD ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY, TO WHOM THEY OWED COMPLETE OBEDIENCE- GOD HIMSELF. c] Jesus is called "Lord" (kurios). LUK 1:43 "But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" i] Elizabeth knew that God had miraculously become a human baby. -- It had been prophesied: Isaiah had prophesied that, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel (ISA 7:14). And Matthew adds, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us" (MAT 1:23). -- The Holy Spirit had revealed it to Elizabeth (LUK 1:41). -- the baby within her own womb "leaped for joy" as confirmation of the presence of the "Lord" (LUK 1:44). ii] Elizabeth spoke prophetically, "repeating and endorsing the angel's prophecies about the person, nature, and work of Mary's son", R.C.H. Lenski, "St. Luke's Gospel", Augsburg Publishing House, 1946, pg.82. *the angel Gabriel had said to Mary that her son would be: -- Jesus, "the Lord saves" (LUK 1:31). -- Son of the Most High (LUK 1:32). -- Messiah (LUK 1:32,33). -- Son of God (LUK 1:35). 2) God was her Savior. a] the law had revealed her need for a Savior. i] the Law had revealed her sin. -- ROM 3:20 "through the law we become conscious of sin." -- ROM 7:7 "I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, 'Do not covet.'" ii] the Law had provoked sin in her. -- ROM 7:8-11 "But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death." -- ROM 5:20 "The law was added so that the trespass might increase." b] the Law had revealed the way of salvation. i] GAL 3:24 "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith." ii] ROM 5:20,21 "The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." *Elizabeth had placed her faith in the work of the Savior Who would make complete atonement for her sins and give her the righteousness of God. PSA 32:1,2 "Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit." | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 298 Registered: 7-2005 |
I suggested to my friend a different possible interpretation, based on what apostle Paul said about his situation before conversion, when he was a persecutor of the church:
I suggested this possible interpretation because immediately after Zechariah is recommended for his blameless life before God, he is presenting making a mistake, refusing to believe what God said, a serious sin which attracts God's corrective punishment. Even about Job, God said that he was blameless, but at the end of the book we found him repenting. My view is that God uses this examples of people regarded as blameless to show us that even the best examples are not perfect and need redeption. Of course, I don't become dogmatic here, all that it was said on this thread may be true, all I'm saying is that the text permit different interpretations. In the future I will use the insights brought by Mwh, Colleen, and U2bsda, because my suggestion that Zechariah and Elizabeth was blameless as the apostle Paul before conversion had upset my scholar friend in such a way that he almost cursed me, saying that I'm beyond reach and he will not talk to me any longer. I guess I made a mistake by my suggested interpretation. | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 159 Registered: 4-2006 |
Jackob, Wow, sometimes the reactions can be tough. Interesting comparision. Oh and hows the conversation going with my SDA friend? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4507 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jackob, actually, I believe you gave your friend a very good explanation. I think his anger stemmed from the fact that he had no good answer, and it touched him in a vulnerable spot personally. I believe you are right. According to the law, Zech and Elizabeth were righteous. Apparently, from the implication of the text, they also trusted God and were righteous in God's eyes as well. I don't think you gave a bad answer, Jackob. I think it was good. Your friend was upset because you didn't accept his idea that their law-keeping made them righteous. And you are right about that! Their righteousness was not from keeping the law. To other Jews they probably seemed righteous from a legal sense, as you pointed out. But that did not define true righteousness. Your friend WANTS the obedience to the law to result in righteousness. He will likely be upset with whatever answer you give him, because you will never be able to affirm what he wants to believe! Colleen | ||
| Zjason Registered user Username: Zjason Post Number: 47 Registered: 11-2005 |
Ok. So I read a little "cracker jack" sized flyer that one of the kids picked up at church. It says, among other things, that our renewal to Christ and having the indwelling Holy Spirit in us will result in our obedience to the Law. So it gives the impression that God empowers us to keep the Law. How do they qualify this in relation to what the Bible says? | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4510 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jason, that argument is the age-old argument that the "law" God writes on our hearts is the 10 Commandments. In order to come up with that assumption, they have to ignore a great many textsóthe entire book of Galatians for starters, and the book of Romans, especially chapters 3, 7, 8, etc. They also have to ignor Colossians and Hebrews. Further, they have to believe that the law was split into parts: ceremonial, civil, and moral. Yet the Bible never gives any hint that the law was divided into parts. On the contrary, the law is always spoken of as a whole, in both testaments. The tradition of separating the moral law from the rest of the law wasn't introduced until the early centuries of the church. You can read about this historical phenomenon in a Proclamation article entitled "The Unity of the Law" here: http://formeradvent.temp.powweb.com/Proclamation2005_JulAug.pdf Scroll down to page 6 on the link above, and you'll find the article. Adventists use this argument, of course, to justify the requirement of Sabbath. Their foundational argument, however, is faulty. The law is a unitónever dividedóand Jesus fulfilled it all. He now replaces the law in our hearts, and He Himself, through His Spirit, functions as our moral Guide and transforms us. Colleen | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 7 Registered: 8-2006 |
Jackob, It is easy to understand why your friend is confused on this issue. His prophet states that the apostles enforced ten commandment keeping at the Jerusalem Council. Notice how subtly the phrase is added to the plain scripture. I quote: The Gentile converts, however, were to give up the customs that were inconsistent with the principles of Christianity. The apostles and elders therefore agreed to instruct the Gentiles by letter to abstain from meats offered to idols, from fornication, from things strangled, and from blood. They were to be urged to keep the commandments and to lead holy lives. They were also to be assured that the men who had declared circumcision to be binding were not authorized to do so by the apostles. {AA 195.2} Paul and Barnabas were recommended to them as men who had hazarded their lives for the Lord. Judas and Silas were sent with these apostles to declare to the Gentiles by word of mouth the decision of the council: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater 196 burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well." The four servants of God were sent to Antioch with the epistle and message that was to put an end to all controversy; for it was the voice of the highest authority upon the earth. {AA 195.3} *End quote* If he will not let go of the fundamental idea that EGW spoke for God, he will not grasp the concept that we, like the Bible says are "Free from the law!" Also notice here that there is no verbage or suggestion that this will be a result of being saved. But rather it implies that this is a requirement for the new Christian... Tim | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 116 Registered: 11-2004 |
I think many churches believe in a moral law and that 10 commandments are still binding (except for the 4th). I think this puts those Christians in the position of being easily influenced by SDAs. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2762 Registered: 3-2004  |
I have thought the same thing U2bsda. It concerns me greatly, but I will just have to give that to God also. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4512 Registered: 12-2003 |
Tim, excellent point. As long as there is even the idea in the back of one's mind that Ellen might have spoken for God, he will have to lean toward the idea that all Christians are to be commandment-keepers. U2óI SO AGREE with you. Many churches believe in what is called "covenant theology" instead of "new covenant theology". This understanding says that there is really only one covenant between God and man, but there are many different ways God reveals and keeps this covenant with people. They say that the Mosaic Covenant was just another way God expressed His COVENANT to people, and therefore it is, in a sense, part of the new covenant, since all are related. (I'm oversimplifying here, but this is sort of the idea.) The upshot of this belief is that they insist the law is still valid today for a number of purposes, including as a guide to Christian living. The problem is just what you mentioned, U2óthey don't have a good explanation for changing the fourth commandment to apply to Sunday. Many churches who believe the law still applies actually do believe in observing Sunday as a sacred Sabbath. An deeper problem with this view is that people who believe the central focus of the Bible is God's COVENANT fail to focus on Jesus. Instead of Jesus being the focal point of all the Bible, Covenant becomes the focal point, and Jesus becomes the means of effecting this covenant more fully. Jesus, however, is the focus of all the Bible. Even the covenants foreshadowed His work of reconciliation. Outside of Jesus, our being reconciled to God has no meaning. Outside of Jesus, our election and our work prepared in advance for us to do and our regeneration are moot points. Jesus is the subject and the object of our praise and worship. Covenant theology makes people, as Richard puts it, "pre-Adventists". It does not have Scriptural support for changing Sabbath to Sunday. While there is Scriptural evidence that many early Christians met together on Sunday, the Bible nowhere transfers the sacredness of Sabbath to Sunday. Instead, what it DOES do, is to transfer the rest of Sabbath to Jesus Himself. Hebrews 4, Matthew 11:28, Colossians 2:16-17, etc. clearly show that Jesus becomes the reality that the Sabbath shadow suggested. Your point is so accurate, U2. Colleen |
