Proper place of the Law

[gdemoss]

After a discussion in another thread I decided to start a thread solely for that purpose of discussion. The following is from the discussion. Please feel free to add to the discussion as the spirit moves you.

<DIR>Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: </DIR><DIR>Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. </DIR><DIR>Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

1Co 7: Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

1Co 7:20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

liberty to wear that yoke, if they pleased.
</DIR>

Nice selection of scripture but your statement that they had liberty to wear that yoke, if they pleased is one that I have questioned because of the selection of scripture you have given.

Were/are the Jews really free from the law? While the law was not given to the Gentile believers was it abolished for Jewish ones? Can a Jew become uncircumcised? I am not settled on the issue and I believe it deserves its own thread....I'll go start one. I would love to hear what you have to say on the issue.

 

[james g]

acts 21:21-25 Paul did this to demonstrate that he never taught Christian Jews to forsake Moses and not to circumcise their children and that they should ignore Jewish customs.

the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law.

Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Gal 3:25

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

 

[gdemoss]

acts 21:21-25 Paul did this to demonstrate that he never taught Christian Jews to forsake Moses and not to circumcise their children and that they should ignore Jewish customs.

the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law.

Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Gal 3:25

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Thanks for the food for meditation. Paul states that Peter is to be blamed. Peter is guilty of hypocrisy. He stopped eating with the gentile believers when the 'certain' Jews came down from Jerusalem. Peter did this out of fear of the circumcision. Paul speaks of building up again that which he destroyed. This would reference using the law for self-righteousness. Is Paul then rebuking Peter for seeking to justify himself before men by adhering to the law? Obviously he isn't trying to justify himself before God adhering to the law. How does this differ from what Paul did in Jerusalem when he took an occasion to the law by liberty? I can't see it clearly and need someone to spit in the clay and anoint mine eyes.

 

[Kit Carson]

Well what Paul was trying to say is that is simply does not matter anymore. Circumcision was a religious rite and a command by God for those under the Law of Moses. It was symbolic in a couple ways, both physical and also spiritual to indicate the willingness of your heart to follow God.

But God changed all that with the coming of his Son Jesus and all things changed and the old Laws were gone. We are now under the sanction of grace, so religious rites, sacrifices, and customs and traditions , were and are no longer a requirement. Circumcision never was a requirement for a heathen Gentile like myself anyway. This was only for those of the Jewish Faith.

But Paul himself circumcised Titus I think it was, and this was OK and nothing wrong with that either way, as it did help to reach out and to mingle with and reach those still holding to the Law and not willing to accept the new. It was a way of having common ground.

In our world of today circumcision is basically a heath consideration, for hygiene and has no religious significance at all.

Our hearts are circumcised when we decide to believe in God. The old ways did not have God within us as the Holy Spirit, so the whole thing was a religious rite, and symbolic of the times.

As for if you wish to carry the burden or the yoke , if one does wish to observe certain customs and traditions , not give them up, Paul is simply saying, this also does not matter, if you wish to because it makes you feel better this is OK too. But they are not a requirement as we now have the Holy Spirit.

Now about the Law. As we know there was a Temple on earth where God came to dwell on earth for a time. There was an area a holy area where only the high priest could enter. All the other priests could not and Gentiles could not even enter into the sanctuary. They had to stay outside. The law was born to show us and to convict us of sin as without it we would not know. And circumcision was a rite of symbolic means to indicate the wish to follow the law.

But that did not work as no one could be perfect or follow the law and to even enter the temple and view God would be instant death. I personally think this was Jesus also, as even the high priest would not have been able to see God and live. As we are born into sin, we are sin and so would be destroyed.

So God fixed all that, with the sacrifice of his Son. So now we are circumcised in our heart by simple acceptance of the Holy Spirit. God does wish to have a relationship with us, and this was the only way this could happen. So now he sees us as sinless by the final sacrifice and is able to be within us all. We are the new temple of God.

Kinda, something like this, I am not a preacher or highly educated, I just have to go on what the Spirit tells me.

Kit

 

[james g]

Peter ate with the Gentiles, contrary to all Jewish custom and law.Peter walked in the true freedom there is in Christ;for there is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision in Christ.But when these legal disciples of James came down,Peter fell into terror of heart and immediately "drew back" from that liberty in which he had been walking.He took his stand with the men from Jerusalem –"the circumcision.

respect of persons

Peter

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Paul

Act 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

 

[gdemoss]

Peter ate with the Gentiles, contrary to all Jewish custom and law.Peter walked in the true freedom there is in Christ;for there is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision in Christ.But when these legal disciples of James came down,Peter fell into terror of heart and immediately "drew back" from that liberty in which he had been walking.He took his stand with the men from Jerusalem –"the circumcision.

respect of persons

Peter

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Paul

Act 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

These are good points. They foster more questions.

Why was it considered unlawful for a Jew to keep company with one of another nation?

If the answer is that they are unclean, then it has now become lawful by the sanctification of the spirit.

In that case one would still be keeping the law if they ate with sanctified gentile believers right?

One would actually be breaking the law now if they refused to eat with the gentile believers but had respect of persons, right?

Thank you for your answers James, more to ponder upon.

Gary

 

[gdemoss]

But that did not work as no one could be perfect or follow the law
Kit

I am curious how you understand the following scriptures.

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

I always understood this to mean that Paul was able to keep the law blamelessly but of course that doesn't help his cause as one cannot be justified by the law due to the fact that there are things one can do that cannot be justified by the law. One can be justified of these things by walking in the spirit of Christ though.

Romans 8:4 tells us that we who walk in the spirit of Christ fulfill the righteousness that is in the law. I have never understood it to mean that no one 'could' do it. It goes along with a lot of scriptures where God tells people to do things.

Would God be righteous if he told someone to do something they could not do? He would not. Being God one must obey him, yet if one could not obey the command given then God is forcing one into disobedience and is unrighteous.

If I told my 3 year old that she was to run 5 miles everyday in less than 20 minutes or face judgement, would I be righteous? I am her father and she must obey me but cannot possibly fulfill the task required of her. She is not unrighteous, I am.

To say that one cannot keep the law is to call God unrighteous.

Gary

 

[james g]

Good points Gary.One would actually be breaking the law now if they refused to eat with the gentile believers but had respect of persons, right?

Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.



But now I have more questions to ponder upon.

thank you gary for the spit.

 

[gdemoss]

Good points Gary.One would actually be breaking the law now if they refused to eat with the gentile believers but had respect of persons, right?

Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.



But now I have more questions to ponder upon.

thank you gary for the spit.

James, this is one of the points I have been trying to work into the researching of the place for the OT law. Hebrews does speak of a necessary change to the law regarding the change to the priesthood. But in some instances like this it would seem that the law is the same but what is clean and unclean has changed.

I think it is a dire point we must stress when investigating this issue to consider who each scripture we use was written to. James wrote to Jewish believers and it would be expected for him to speak to them in certain ways. This is not to say that we as gentiles are not to use the book as our understanding of the truth that is in it but only to say that there may be truth that only applies to Jewish believers. Same with Hebrews, there is a lot in there that is informative to us but should always be understood as something written directly to Jewish believers.

That said, I would like to bring to mind Acts 15 and the council they had over this issue as pertaining to the Gentile believers. A 'sect' which is the same Greek word used for 'heresy', of the Pharisees who believed rose up and said the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and follow the law of Moses.

This prompted what seems to be an all day event where the greatest men of the Christian faith debated the issue. Doesn't it seem kind of strange that they would bother to debate whether the Gentiles needed to be brought under the law if the Jews were no longer under the law? Peters made the statement "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."

Peters statement is a tough one. It seems like he is saying that no one could keep the law so whats the point of bringing them in bondage to it? I have a difficult time believing that this is what he is saying because of Paul's statement in Philippians "as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." His claim is to have kept the law if that is what I am to understand blameless to mean.

Peter mentioning that justification comes by Christ really has no bearing since one could be under the law but not for the purpose of being righteous. That righteousness can only come by Christ. This is all tied into the statement to the Galatians that if they became circumcised they were debtors to do the whole law. And Paul saying that, Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. The believing Jews had confirmed the covenant and the only catch is the use of the word 'man' in no man disannulleth. Can God then? Did he? Paul makes the statement, do we make void the law through faith? No we establish the law. I don't believe Paul ever told Jews to forsake the law of Moses or stop circumcising their children. Although we have all been made ONE in Christ (Jew & Gentile) I still believe that the Jews are specifically Gods chosen people. We gentiles are a people that he took unto himself as well but in some respects there is still a difference. It is often said "to the Jew first and then the Gentile".

James, please by all means. Take a rake through all that I have proposed as possible. Look for gaping holes that would destroy the theory. Ask the tough questions that I haven't seen. Either it is right or it is wrong. I just want to understand the truth. The implications are far reaching as in Jewish circles over the years many have already come claiming to be Christ since Christ has come. Jesus was speaking to Jews when he said "for many shall come in my name". The search for the absolute truth continues.

With Love in Christ Our Lord,

Gary

 

[JonahofAkron]

Good points Gary.One would actually be breaking the law now if they refused to eat with the gentile believers but had respect of persons, right?

Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.



But now I have more questions to ponder upon.

thank you gary for the spit.

'Eating with' and 'eating the same food as' are separate issues.

 

[gdemoss]

'Eating with' and 'eating the same food as' are separate issues.

Very true. Something else that would have to be addressed.

 

[james g]

Peters statement is a tough one. It seems like he is saying that no one could keep the law so whats the point of bringing them in bondage to it? I have a difficult time believing that this is what he is saying because of Paul's statement in Philippians "as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." His claim is to have kept the law if that is what I am to understand blameless to mean.




<DIR><DIR>So he could say with the rich young ruler in Mark 10:20: "…all these I have kept since I was a boy."


</DIR></DIR>until he met Christ on the road to Damascus in Acts 9.
<DIR>Php 3:7 But such things as were gain to me, these I have considered loss for the sake of Christ. </DIR><DIR></DIR><DIR></DIR><DIR></DIR><DIR>unlike the rich young ruler</DIR>

Mar 10:22 But having become gloomy at this saying, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

 

[gdemoss]

Peters statement is a tough one. It seems like he is saying that no one could keep the law so whats the point of bringing them in bondage to it? I have a difficult time believing that this is what he is saying because of Paul's statement in Philippians "as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." His claim is to have kept the law if that is what I am to understand blameless to mean.




<DIR><DIR>So he could say with the rich young ruler in Mark 10:20: "…all these I have kept since I was a boy."


</DIR></DIR>until he met Christ on the road to Damascus in Acts 9.
<DIR>Php 3:7 But such things as were gain to me, these I have considered loss for the sake of Christ. </DIR><DIR></DIR><DIR></DIR><DIR></DIR><DIR>unlike the rich young ruler</DIR>

Mar 10:22 But having become gloomy at this saying, he went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

When Paul met Christ he was introduced to the idea that keeping the law does not make one righteous Heb 7:19. He chose to disregard his trust in righteousness that comes by following the law blamelessly Phil 3:8. And instead follow after Christ, who when a man walks as he did, is then righteous 1 Jo 3:7.

The rich young ruler on the other hand was confronted with the same error but reacted differently. Although he had kept the Law, Christ pointed out where he had been unrighteous outside of the Law. He left unrighteous still, not willing to follow Christ.

Am I missing something?

Gary

 

[JonahofAkron]

When Paul met Christ he was introduced to the idea that keeping the law does not make one righteous Heb 7:19. He chose to disregard his trust in righteousness that comes by following the law blamelessly Phil 3:8. And instead follow after Christ, who when a man walks as he did, is then righteous 1 Jo 3:7.

The rich young ruler on the other hand was confronted with the same error but reacted differently. Although he had kept the Law, Christ pointed out where he had been unrighteous outside of the Law. He left unrighteous still, not willing to follow Christ.

Am I missing something?

Gary

Messiah followed the Law. That's how He walked.

 

[gdemoss]

Messiah followed the Law. That's how He walked.

Your accusing Paul of having not followed the Law as he said he did under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

 

[RJ]

Messiah followed the Law. That's how He walked.

Before Jesus death, everyone was still under the law. In fact,Jesus followed the law perfectly as no one else did or could have and he was the only one made righteoeus by the law.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them".
Matthew 5:17

The law always pointed to the Messiah, from the begining. Where the law was insufficient in bringing salavation, Jesus fulfilled the law by dieing on the cross and then his resurrection, to ushere in a more perfection means of salvation by grace through faith alone.

 

[gdemoss]

In fact,Jesus followed the law perfectly as no one else did or could have and he was the only one made righteoeus by the law.

Ok, please tell me that you misspoke. You really don't think that Jesus was made righteous by the law, do you?

 

[brakelite]

All walks of life are governed by law. Trade, commerce, sport, entertainment, politics, society as a whole. All have laws.


Why is it then that so many Christians balk and doubt when it comes to the kingdom of God? Why is it that so many Christians, when challenged regarding the laws of God as in the Ten Commandments, (Exodus 20:1-17) start making excuses and claim some theological reasoning why they are no longer valid? Or they quote scriptures believing that they are in fact justifying their stand that Christians are no longer obligated to obedience? As if whatever law condemned men and women before Christ is now cancelled and we are free to do what we want?


Shall not God have laws also to govern His kingdom? Yet so many claim that Christians are exempt, or ‘free’ from the laws of God. Shall the Creator of the universe, who placed such awesome natural laws in place to govern the physical (eg gravity), then choose to dispense with laws to govern the spiritual? Shall the powers and rulers of this world legislate law to govern society yet the God who allows them to rule have no law of His own?

I would like to suggest that God’s laws are as valid and as binding, even more so, than any other law. Even more so for the Christian who claims God as his Father.

 

[RJ]

Ok, please tell me that you misspoke. You really don't think that Jesus was made righteous by the law, do you?

Why the sarcasim?
Jesus was perfect and had no sin and he was the only person to follow the law to the "T". Of course, he performed the law perfectly.
Unfortunately, the rest of mankind could not do the same. That is why he had to die on the cross.

Surely, you misspoke when you stated your shock!
Jesus was the perfect sacricfice, the one who knew no sin but became sin on our behalf! He was absolutely righteous under the law!

 

[gdemoss]

All walks of life are governed by law. Trade, commerce, sport, entertainment, politics, society as a whole. All have laws.


Why is it then that so many Christians balk and doubt when it comes to the kingdom of God? Why is it that so many Christians, when challenged regarding the laws of God as in the Ten Commandments, (Exodus 20:1-17) start making excuses and claim some theological reasoning why they are no longer valid? Or they quote scriptures believing that they are in fact justifying their stand that Christians are no longer obligated to obedience? As if whatever law condemned men and women before Christ is now cancelled and we are free to do what we want?


Shall not God have laws also to govern His kingdom? Yet so many claim that Christians are exempt, or ‘free’ from the laws of God. Shall the Creator of the universe, who placed such awesome natural laws in place to govern the physical (eg gravity), then choose to dispense with laws to govern the spiritual? Shall the powers and rulers of this world legislate law to govern society yet the God who allows them to rule have no law of His own?

I would like to suggest that God’s laws are as valid and as binding, even more so, than any other law. Even more so for the Christian who claims God as his Father.

Really well worded brakelite. And you have a valid point about laws governing everything. But I think you stop short of seeing the whole picture of the need for Law. You know the scriptures well. You know that the Law was not made for the righteous but the unrighteous. Therefore, there will only be a need for law as long as there are unrighteous people who need to be governed. In some instances of Gods law he made things unlawful to do that in and of themselves are not wrong at all, but only wrong because God said so. For instance clean and unclean food.

Usually when someone says that we must keep Gods law, they are referring to the 10 commandments, which are Holy just and good for the purpose that God purposed to use them. Gentile believers are under a greater Law than the 10 commandments, the Law of Christ. The law that states that Christ is the righteousness of God manifest in the flesh and only those who walk as he walked are truly righteous. Those who reply that Christ kept the law, so those that follow him would keep the law in order to be walking as he walked, miss the whole point of what God proved in Christ. There is no law that can govern like the light that was brought into the world. Jesus made it clear. I can sit around all day and picture women in all kinds of wicked ways yet still keep the 7 commandment by the letter. I cannot be righteous by doing so. If I, however, put on the Lord Jesus Christ and walk in him by denying my self through serving God and others as he was an example to do, then I fulfill the righteousness that is in the law without ever even having to know the law. If I truly live a life of self denial then I need not worry about keeping the Sabbath on a particular day of the week because my actions would be fulfilling the righteousness of the Sabbath everyday always.

My question and point of this thread is directed at the Jewish believers. They have born the seal of the covenant that cannot be annulled. My observations are that it seems that they are obligated to keep the law but not for the purpose of being righteous as righteousness comes by following Christ. God hath declared his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past.

What do you think? Is there something in scripture that you can see that refutes this that I am blind to? May our loving Lord guide us into all truth.

Your brother in Christ,

Gary