The Ten Commandments in the Old Covenant
Lonnie Hendrix
In the most recent issue of The International News, CGI’s Vance Stinson attempted to refute the notion that the Decalogue’s (Ten Commandments) inclusion in the Old Testament renders it inapplicable to the people of the New Covenant. In The Old Covenant and the Ten Commandments, he challenged New Covenant Theologyauthor Steve Lehrer’s assertion that Deuteronomy 4:13-14 inextricably binds the Ten Commandments to the Old Covenant. Mr. Stinson’s argument against this notion was presented in four points. They are: 1) “no serious theologian would ever claim that the Sinaitic Covenant consisted solely of the Ten Commandments,” 2) “no knowledgeable Bible student claims that all the laws of the Old Covenant pertain exclusively to the people under that covenant,” 3) “New Testament treatment of the Decalogue supports the Decalogue’s permanency and universality,” 4) “All conservative evangelical pastors, teachers, apologists, and theologians, as well as many outside evangelical circles, believe there is an objective universal moral law that has been in place from the beginning of human history..”
In the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, we read: “And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you. You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you…See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it…And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? Only take care, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things that your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. Make them known to your children and your children's children— how on the day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, the Lord said to me, ‘Gather the people to me, that I may let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children so…Then the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and rules, that you might do them in the land that you are going over to possess.” (Verses 1-14, ESV)
Notice that the Ten Commandments were made an integral part of the covenant which God made with Israel. Clearly, this passage of Scripture makes very plain that the Ten Commandments were incorporated into the terms of that agreement between God and the people of Israel. In the words of Mr. Stinson, “no serious theologian” would dispute the notion that the Decalogue was included among the other statutes and promises which constituted that agreement! Likewise, “no knowledgeable Bible student” would dispute the fact that the Old Covenant was made exclusively with the children of Israel. In other words, the terms outlined in Torah (all of the terms) constituted the agreement between God and those people. Indeed, the only way that Gentiles could become part of that covenant was to join themselves to Israel and accept all of the provisions outlined in Torah.
Now, the Epistle to the Hebrews clearly states that the New Covenant renders the Old one obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). Moreover, this same chapter makes plain that the New Covenant is established on better terms and promises than those which underpinned the Old one! Hence, if we accept that the New Covenant was established on different terms and promises, and that it was intended by God to be universal – that is – open to everyone (not just the children of Israel), I would think that the next logical question is: How do the terms of the New Covenant differ from those of the Old Covenant?
According to Mr. Stinson, the New Testament supports the “permanency and universality” of the Decalogue. To support this contention, he noted that the Epistle of James enumerated a couple of the Ten Commandments. More particularly, James wrote: “If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” (James 2:8-13)
Notice that James begins his thought by referring to Christ’s condensation of the Law into two great commandments. He mentions the second one, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Then he went on to say that violating even one of the Ten Commandments makes one guilty of violating the whole! In other words, James message here supports Christ’s summary of the terms of the Old Covenant – Torah (including the Decalogue) – into two great commandments. Moreover, James’ point reinforces Christ’s further distillation of the Law into one great principle (Matthew 7:12) – which, incidentally, was also echoed by Paul (Romans 13:9 and Galatians 5:14) and John (I John 2, 3, and 4).
Although Mr. Stinson went on to acknowledge that “the two great commandments on loving God and neighbor are a summary of the Ten Commandments,” he seems completely unable to comprehend that THIS is the very thing which Christ incorporated into the terms of the New Covenant! In other words, the Decalogue (and I would include the whole of Torah) is an elaboration of those two great commandments. To be even clearer, those two principles comprehend ALL of those individual commandments and render them redundant and unnecessary! The “plain truth” is that those two great commandments constitute the “objective, universal moral law that has been in place from the beginning of human history,” and which are the foundation of the New Covenant. Christ didn’t just fulfill the Law and the prophets by obeying and personifying them – he also fulfilled the Law by distilling it down to its ESSENCE – by making crystal clear God’s original and eternal intent! The people of Israel (operating without God’s Holy Spirit) needed a list of dos and don’ts – which they failed to follow. Christians rely on Jesus Christ and his righteousness and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to achieve God’s original intent (Love) in every aspect of their lives going forward from conversion!
The Decalogue, along with the other individual commandments of Torah, were based on those two great commandments which Christ drew from Torah! ALL of those individual commandments were an elaboration of how those principles (Love for God and neighbor) could be applied to the daily lives of the unconverted, rebellious, and stony-hearted Israelites. Christians (people in whom the Holy Spirit currently dwells) have those two principles written on their hearts. Instead of robotically following a list of dos and don’ts, Christians are learning to apply those universal principles to every area of their lives. To be sure, in so far as the individual commandments of Torah were derived from the same fundamental/universal principles, it would be inappropriate to characterize those commandments as bad, evil, unrighteous, or unimportant. We are, however, clearly stating that it is unnecessary for Christians to wade through this extensive body of legislation and decide which individual commandments are still binding on them under the terms of the present covenant!
Torah (including the Decalogue) is a shadow of the reality that Christians currently possess. Sure, it can help us to more fully understand that reality – who Christ is, what he has done for us, etc.. It cannot, however, replace that reality in our hearts and minds. Christians are circumcised in our hearts, not in our flesh (Romans 2:28-29). Christians rest from our own works in Christ, not by physically observing the Sabbath (Hebrews 4:9-10). We obey the commandments which God has given TO US through Jesus Christ, not by scrupulously observing the dos and don’ts of Torah (Romans 6:14-15, 7:6, and Galatians 5:18). Hence, while the Decalogue was an integral part of the Old Covenant, the principles which underpinned it are an integral part of the New Covenant in Christ.
85 comments:
Another article by the atheists claiming the 10 Commandments are not in force today.
The principles which "underpinned" the Decalogue in the old covenant haven't changed in a new covenant. They still define love to God, yourself, and others. Yes, the two great commandments of love can still be defined today, for physical human beings (you're still a physical being, not yet born again to spirit but may now have the Holy Spirit). One still loves God by observing His sabbath, which incidentally He commands to remember. It was established from creation and wasn't something thought up at Sinai. Does James have to enumerate all 10? Is somehow because James did not mention all 10 that that indicates one is missing, or no longer applicable? Of course not.
Anonymous Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 6:39:00 PM PDT,
You have it backwards. Love for God and neighbor underpinned the commandments of Torah. Those principles define what God requires of us. Those 613 commandments in Torah (including the Ten) defined what God expected of the children of Israel. As Mr. Stinson suggested, the Ten are comprehended by the two. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus Christ said that God's intent went beyond the commandments of Torah. He said that refraining from physically murdering someone (Thou shalt not kill/murder) wasn't sufficient. He said that harboring anger and hatred for another violated the principle behind the commandment. Jesus said it wasn't enough to be physically faithful to one's spouse (Thou shalt not commit adultery) - that lusting after someone other than your spouse violated the principle behind the commandment. Think about it. If a person is truly loving his neighbor, he will not murder, steal from, bear false witness against, or be unfaithful to him/her. He/she will honor and respect their parents and refrain from coveting each other's possessions. Likewise, someone who truly loves God, won't be serving other gods, blaspheming, using God's name inappropriately, or continuing to indulge in the works of the flesh, etc. Christ fulfilled the 613 for us and distilled them all down to their essence - the two principles which would govern ALL situations and behaviors, not just the ones delineated by a written commandment! The Pharisees had those 613 commandments, but they failed to understand what had motivated them. Remember, Christ said that the righteousness of the people of the Kingdom would have to exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.
Lonnie, this is a very good article or writing, including your follow-up comment. Scripture tells us that the law was given, (including the 10), to show us what sin is. Sin has already been wrong even before Sinai. The ten given to Israel was a kind of basic 'constitution' with other laws, statues, etc. Sin existed before the 10, hence the flood. Pharisees were meticulous about observance of the law, but refused to 'come to Christ' which is where salvation lies, and the NT scriptures are full of that teaching. The law is not done away as it points out what sin is that we should avoid, but as Galatians points out, it cannot grant salvation. Being found 'in Christ' does not give license to live in sin as Jesus did not. Jesus did not to need to keep the law in order to be righteous, He was without sin because of who He was in human form, yet He observed the things of the law as He was born under that covenant, but in a purer form as the example of Sabbath observance when He declared Himself "Lord of the Sabbath".
On the topic of law and/or Grace, the New Testament is schizophrenic which is why the topic will never go away or be resolved to the satisfaction of Christianity. Thus, all the various beliefs, denominations and schisms. Even Paul, who is the culprit in this, can be misunderstood or waver in the impressions he gives on the topic depending.
As with most topics in the NT, it simply depends which person or book you read.
One would think the Deity would pick better salesmen or be clearer to begin with. Add to this 2000 years of doctrinal evolution and politics, and here we are...
6:39 wrote, "One still loves God by observing His sabbath, which incidentally He commands to remember. It was established from creation and wasn't something thought up at Sinai."
As you point out, the Sabbath was established at the creation. That means that it was not a part of the eternal, moral law that originates in God's behavior. He is a law unto himself. Jesus points out that it was created for man. But later in the NT the Sabbath is shown to be a shadow of Jesus. It was not listed among those items in the Law of Moses that should be carried forward to the Gentiles in Acts 15. Armstrongists torture the scriptures in Acts 15 to make it sound like Christians were already keeping the Law of Moses. It just doesn’t fly. I will go toe-to-toe with you on this point.
I remember the Sabbath, a cessation from sin, in Jesus Christ who is now our Sabbath. If you want to keep the Sabbath, that's fine. But you cannot pretend that it is a requirement for salvation.
Rider
Dennis,
I think that the schizophrenia extant on this topic is more apparent among Christians than it is within the canon of writings which they all claim to follow. Indeed, we see the genesis of this debate within those writings. The Church was wholly Jewish in character for several years following the events described in the canonical gospels (the people were all Torah observing Jews). However, sometime during the middle years of the First Century, there was a large influx of Gentile believers who had little or no experience with Torah/Judaism. Hence, the question: What was the proper relationship of these folks to Torah?
Understandably, some of those original Jewish Christians felt that those newer Gentile converts should be obligated to observe some or all of the provisions of Torah. Others, however, clearly believed that Christ had fulfilled the requirements of Torah and had instituted a New Covenant - rendering the Old one and its terms obsolete. From the perspective of the book of Acts and Paul's epistle to the Galatians, this view triumphed over the Jewish view (but the debate obviously continued).
Now, while I am aware that you reject such notions, I believe that the events of 70 C.E. represented a Divine intervention to make the triumph of the Gentile brand of Christianity more definitive (It was no longer even possible to meet the obligations of Torah as outlined therein). Even so, human nature being what it is, the debate has continued up to the present day. We have a tendency to complicate things and be contentious. Intellectually, it is much more interesting to some folks to try to construct a rationale for making some or many of the provisions of Torah binding on Christians (depending on the agenda and perspective of the individual).
Nevertheless, from a Scriptural and historical perspective, the narrative of the Legalists is NOT supported by the facts. The truth is that Sunday observance began in the First Century and things like festival observance and clean and unclean meats had almost completely disappeared among Christians by the dawn of the Second Century. The writings of the early Church "Fathers" (which these folks love to dismiss and/or completely ignore) makes this very clear to anyone who is willing to objectively examine their evidence. Once again, however, as some of us tend to be more emotional than rational, I fully expect this debate to continue. Even so, for many of us, the question was clearly and definitively settled long ago, and this debate is academic. In other words, the canon and history are much clearer than the debate would suggest (even the writings attributed to James and Peter acknowledge Christ's fulfillment and distillation of Torah).
Lonnie Hendrix wrote, "Now, the Epistle to the Hebrews clearly states that the New Covenant renders the Old one obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)."
First, the article is nicely done. Bravo.
I would like to point out that citing Hebrews 8:13 by itself triggers a specific and instant reaction in Armstrongists. They are programmed to go immediately into “reject” mode. The artful dodge that they have been steeped in is this (I first heard GTA make this argument on the radio broadcast last century): The covenant became obsolete but the covenant is an agreement about the law so this becoming obsolete does not apply to the law itself but just to the agreement about the law. And the follow-on is that the Law is still in force under new terms of greater stringency. (This view, I think inadvertently, condemns all Armstrongists to hell because they do not keep the Law at the jot and tittle level as GTA’s dogma would require.)
James Tabor pointed out that law enforcement could not appeal to the embattled Branch Davidians in the Waco Compound with rationality alone. They had to make a Biblical appeal or the BDs would not listen. Following this principle, It is often necessary to quote Hebrews 7:13 in conjunction with Hebrews 8:13. This clearly shows that the Law (entolē in Greek, used by Jesus in Matthew to refer to the Torah) was also set aside, not just the covenant (agreement) about the Law. With the combination of these two scriptures, the intent of the author of Hebrews then clearly emerges.
Rider
Dennis:
I think you are referring to the controversy between the Catholics and Protestants over salvation and works. This is rooted in the seeming divide between Paul and James. The denominational conflicts notwithstanding, there is an interpretation that resolves the differences between Paul and James.
I think the divide over this issue will go on forever but not because of NT theology but because battling denominations want to keep the conflict active. It is not a theological issue but a human issue that is, unfortunately imposed on the scripture. This faux polarization teaches us not about God and the scripture but about humanity.
Rider
Fantastic article Lonnie. If only those who need this truly good news would receive it (after doing their own study). But the legalists are as stiff necked as OT Israel was. Unfortunately, it will cost them dearly.
I read this a few months ago and pray some will take it to heart.
"The law does not promise freely, but under the condition that you keep it completely. And if someone should transgress it once, the law or legal covenant, does not have the promise of the remission of sins. On the other hand, the Gospel promises freely the remission of sins and life, not if we keep the law, but for the sake of the Son of God, through FAITH."
Casper Olevianus
ROMANUS NOTAE written in 1579, A.D.
To Rider. I wholeheartedly agree with your comments. Tragically, I also agree with your comment about Armstrongists who will be condemned to Hell forever for believing they must keep the Commandments, when it is genuinely not possible for a human to do. They camp out on the bad news, never receiving the greatest news possible, i.e. faith in Jesus. So many shout "atheist" to anyone (like Lonnie, et al) as seen in comments above, when NOTHING could be further from the truth. A burning, haunting desire to free people from doctrinal error that will cost them everything is mocked. It is nothing short of tragic, that most who are die-hard "commandment keepers" are deceived into thinking that A. it is possible and B. it is their guarantee of eternal life. I wish they would just crack open the Book of Galatians and read it. Paul could not have been any clearer. Then Hebrews and Romans reinforce it further. But most will never see the light, but that is certainly not a reason to not try!
Hebrews 8:13 is about agreements, not about laws per se.
Hebrews 7:11-13 is about laws given with and based on the Levitical priesthood, were added during Moses' time, are not the whole Torah. A better translation of Heb 7:12: For the priesthood being transferred, there is made of necessity a removal (Greek word for removal is same Greek word for "removing" in KJV Hebrews 12:27) also of the law (law based on the Levitical priesthood, verse 11).
Acts 15: verse 21: the sabbath, still exists, when Gentiles can learn more about God.
Col 2:16-17: shadow of things to come (Jesus already came)...only the church (the body of Jesus - Col 1:24) should do the judging.
Keep the Sabbath and follow Jesus and he is your God. Keep Sunday and follow Lonnie and he is your god. Do what Jesus did. Keep the Sabbath.
Jesus taught us to do good on the Sabbath by His actions and by His words showing us that the true spiritual rest comes from worshipping our creator by obeying His words. When you claim to keep the Sabbath as the Lord instructed, remember it is lawful to do good works on the Sabbath and every day. Every day is a good day to do good works.
A falsehood of a legalistic seventh day observance is acting like that is the way to worship God, when in reality the Lord said it was a gift for mankind. A gift for your servants, a gift for your animals, a rest for your land, a restoration of your slaves, etc.
It always pointed to the grace of our God and Savior. It was never meant to be about whether or not you picked up sticks. So, if you keep the Sabbath, remember to keep it like the Lord instructed. And do good. If you use it to bludgeon other Christians because they do good 7 days a week and you only want to keep 1 day, reflect on the fact that Jesus purposely challenged the religious leaders by doing good on the sabbath because He wanted to reveal the heart of judgement and hatred the religious leaders had for others. Make sure the light that is within you isn’t darkness. And do not judge others who follow after Him. The Creator is greater than the creation.
Anonymous Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 10:44:00 AM PDT,
The laws were part of the agreement. And, even with your emendations/interpretations of Hebrews 7:11-13, you can't escape the fact that the Law was modified. As for Acts 15:21, there's no way to make it support Sabbath observance - Read it: "For these laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations.” In other words, Torah has its advocates - we don't need to advocate for it! Let's quote the full text of that passage from Colossians too: "So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ himself is that reality." This is consistent with Christ's statement that he came to FULFILL the Law!
Anonymous Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 1:28:00 PM PDT,
Christians in the First Century inaugurated Sunday observance over 1,900 years before Lonnie was a gleam in his father's eye! And, as I have related on numerous occasions, I don't have a church, and I'm not looking for disciples. I suggest that you study these issues for yourself and not blindly accept what ANYONE has written in an article or a booklet! Moreover, just because someone has reached different conclusions from the ones you've reached, that doesn't mean that they aren't sincerely trying to follow Jesus and remain within God's will.
Thanks to Anonymous Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 12:51:00 AM PDT, Rider and DW - great comments!
I was once at a shopping mall Friday evening. The holy spirit tapped me on the shoulder to remind me that the Sabbath is near. This is a simple proof (to me) that:
No Sabbath keeping = no salvation.
10:44
There are good reasons why all the points you mention will not stand up. But I will just respond to one point that is complex and much used by Armstrongist to try to support the Torah still being in effect (although they don't observe the whole Torah, even minius the ceremonial laws and the ministration of death):
You wrote, "Acts 15: verse 21: the sabbath, still exists, when Gentiles can learn more about God."
My response:
Herman Hoeh wrote that the four points that came out of the Jerusalem Council occurred two places in the Torah:
1. "These four points were originally part of the civil law of Moses."
2. "They were also included later with the added ceremonies to regulate the typical sacrifices."
Hoeh asserts that the Jerusalem Council was only about the added ritualistic laws - not the Mosaic Law. (I would contend that the sacrifices are a part of the Mosaic Law.) And the civil laws of Moses continued to be in force after the Jerusalem Council and are a part of the New Covenant legislation. We must, then, ask ourselves why these laws, if they occurred in two places in the Torah, were repeated as the conclusion of the Jerusalem Council deliberations. If the civil laws of Moses were still in force and these laws were included in those civil laws, there is no need to pick them out and repeat them. All the council had to do is say, "Follow the Mosaic Law and you'll be fine." The clear context is that the four points were all that the Gentiles had to observe (in addition to the broader scope of the Sermon on the Mount) from the Old Testament legislation.
James observes that ". . . Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every Sabbath in the synagogues.” The Council had to make legislation not only for the Gentiles but also the Jewish Christians. The Jewish Christians wanted to see traditions and customs continue, even though they did not have the same force and relevance under the NT. They were not a pathway to salvation but they were a good ethical code. What James is saying is that even though there is no need for the Gentiles to keep the Mosaic traditions, Jewish Christians may continue to access these traditions for there is an active reservoir of Judaic culture in the synagogues. There will be no curtailment or loss of the Judaic culture by the Council's decision for Gentiles.
Had the Council meant to support the perpetuation of the Law of Moses through this statement, then the Apostle Paul in his evangelism was a heretic. And, further, Armstrongists would be totally out of compliance because they follow only select laws from the total civil Mosaic legislation which Hoeh says is still in force. Paul says those laws are a package. There is no halfway.
Rider
6:56 said: "No Sabbath keeping = no salvation."
That is a load of crap. Utter heretical nonsense.
While I realize this is a troll comment, still want to respond as this is actually real thinking in the cult.
Salvation is not dependent upon keeping the sabbath, eating kosher, keeping holy days, tithing or any of the other things the cult claimed were required.
The thief on the cross is evidence of that. Salvation is only dependent upon Jesus and has nothing to do with the law.
You can read stuff by Lonnie at great length (excuses, excuses) and many others like him and follow them, or you can read the gospels and follow Jesus who kept the law and the Sabbath, and so did his disciples.
If all the "followers" of Jesus, including Paul, told me to keep Sunday I would still follow Jesus. Who is Paul? Compared to Jesus he is a TOTAL ZERO! He is not God. No man can be trusted.
The purpose of the Sabbath is to keep close to God. This parallels baby animals remaining physically close to their parents in order to survive. If people are not close to God, they will eventually become demons. So again, no Sabbath keeping means no eternal life. And no, I'm not trolling.
MJ/LCH 8/23 7:25AM said:
“…I believe that the events of 70 C.E. represented a Divine intervention to make the triumph of the Gentile brand of Christianity more definitive…
…The truth is that Sunday observance began in the First Century and things like festival observance and clean and unclean meats had almost completely disappeared among Christians by the dawn of the Second Century…”
At present I would state my personal view is that God may have allowed this “triumph” not because He approved of it, but to fulfil prophecy regarding the rise of a false church allied with the beast state, which has continued to this day.
Dennis wrote,
"On the topic of law and/or Grace, the New Testament is schizophrenic which is why the topic will never go away or be resolved to the satisfaction of Christianity. Thus, all the various beliefs, denominations and schisms. Even Paul, who is the culprit in this, can be misunderstood or waver in the impressions he gives on the topic depending."
The schizophrenia is not in the Bible but in the people appropriating it for their agendas rather than letting it speak for itself. The message is clear: A Christian receives Salvation by grace and has faith demonstrated in obedience to God. It is not contrary but complimentary.
When addressing new Gentile converts in Acts 15, James makes a judgment that there are specific behaviors that they need to be made aware of and that they are obligated to observe ("these necessary things"). And he points out that they can learn more about the law on the Sabbath day. There was never a controversy about the Sabbath day. It was always implied as now part of Christian custom.
The schizophrenia is present when people try to justify their own sins by selective interpretation of the Bible. I will give some examples that I find to be obvious.
1. The Catholic Church practices idolatry with all of the icons and veneration of Mary, pictures of Jesus, etc. This is something that developed in the history of that sect. They deny it and use doublespeak when addressing the issue. They say they are not really worshipping the image but using it as an icon of the real Jesus or Mary. But isn't that the very definition, at least Biblically, of idolatry.
Exodus 20:
4You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Oh, but they conveniently have deleted that obvious commandment from their list. Why? Because it describes their sin.
How can we judge if this behavior is idolatry? Look at their reactions when their idols are desecrated.
2. Homosexuals who want to be Christian but continue to practice that behavior use nonsensical arguments to gloss over the clear commandments against that practice. One of the necessary things for new converts is to avoid sexual immorality. How do they know what that is? It is not arbitrary. It cannot be avoided by just having love in their heart. We find the definition of that in the law.
3. Some people who believe in burning in hell for all eternity may be using that doctrine to justify their hate for others. That is the opposite of the God of the Bible, who wants all to come to Salvation through Jesus and actually lets us know how He is doing that. I know that God loves Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc. and will give everyone an oportunity to know Him.
Some believe that because I choose to observe God's teachings, I am now condemned to hell. I guess if I just do nothing after baptism, I would be better off, in their opinion. If Salvation is a free gift. And I agree that it is. How will obeying God disqualify me from that free gift?
Jesus introduced a new hermeneutic for the Hebrew Scriptures, the body of writings which we now refer to as the Old Testament. Jesus said that he came to this earth to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. Thus, his disciples interpreted and understood those writings through the lens of Jesus of Nazareth. The writings of those disciples (the ones we now refer to as the New Testament) constantly interpret Old Testament passages as pointing to Jesus. Moreover, if one were to take the time to compare the way that Jews interpret those same passages, he/she would see that the respective understandings of those passages are so different in so many instances that one would think that they were discussing completely different Scriptures! Let's be clear about this point, understanding the Hebrew Scriptures through the Christ event imposes a radically different perspective on the Torah and the writings of the prophets! Hence, if we try to understand those writings in the same way that the Israelites understood them, we will inevitably stray from the way that Christ wanted his disciples to understand them!
In the book of Isaiah, in the passage about the Servant of the Lord (Jesus), we read: "The Lord is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake; He will exalt the law and make it honorable." (42:21, NKJV) In the KJV, the word "exalt" is translated as "magnify," and the original Hebrew word literally means to grow or make greater. Likewise, the Hebrew word translated here as "honorable" means glorious, majestic, or noble. Hence, the passage is literally suggesting that God will (sometime in the future - also implying that it wasn't then currently so) make the Torah/Law glorious/majestic/noble! And Jesus Christ did just that! Jesus didn't just fulfill Torah by obeying it, he also magnified/exalted/made it greater! Likewise, Jesus made Torah honorable/glorious/majestic/noble by distilling it down to its essence and making it universal.
Take for instance the Sabbath. The Gospels inform us that Jesus taught his disciples that the Jews who scrupulously observed the Sabbath had completely failed to understand and appreciate the premise behind the commandment - the reason which God gave it to them. Jesus said that the intent/motivation behind the commandment was for people to cease from performing their own wicked works and do God's work - to do good, to nurture and uplift each other, and to be thankful for the things which God had provided for them! In other words, the whole point wasn't the physical observance of the day!!!! Unfortunately, too many of us continue to fully understand and appreciate that Jesus Christ has ushered in a NEW Covenant - an NEW and different way of understanding God and his will. "Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us THROUGH HIS SON." (Hebrews 1:1-2, NLT) You can call this New Covenant Theology - I call it the TRUTH!
There's a poor town in America with about two thousand people. They have twenty different Christian churches. Everytime there's a disagreement, they put up a new church. This is a microcosm of Christianity and religion as a whole. While claiming that their church has "The Truth," they have simply bent "truth" to conform to their needs.
The ACOGs are no different. They know tyranny is condemned in the bible, but they keep doing it since it feels so good and favors the irresponsible.
Miller said,
"Jesus said that the intent/motivation behind the commandment was for people to cease from performing their own wicked works and do God's work - to do good, to nurture and uplift each other, and to be thankful for the things which God had provided for them! In other words, the whole point wasn't the physical observance of the day!!!!"
If that was the point that Jesus made, it wasn't clear to His disciples because they continued to keep the Sabbath and referred to the seventh day as the Sabbath. What could the reason be?
Could it be perhaps because He said, "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Or was it when He said, "the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."
And if Jesus taught that the physical observance (it is also very spiritual) was no longer relevant, why did the writer of Hebrews write a long section (chapters 3 and 4) warning against being disobedient to God, linking the Sabbath to creation (4:4), saying a keeping of the Sabbath remains for God's people (4:9), and warning believers to be diligent in obedience to God (4:11)? Miller, your interpretation justifies disobedience and slackness.
What was so wrong with the Sabbath that Jesus needed to redefined it in the New Covenant? What was the big problem with the Old Covenant?
"or if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people. (Hebrews 8:7-8) It wasn't the law that was the problem. It was the people. In the New Covenant, God writes His law on our hearts and minds through His Spirit. The Spirit enables us to have a willing heart that seek to love God, and that includes, among many other wonderful gifts, keeping His Sabbath.
By keeping it, Christians declare that they worship the true God who created the Universe. It is a testimony of their love for Jesus, Creator and Savior.
You're performing wicked works?
Jeff,
Christ's disciples continued to keep the Sabbath because they continued to be Jews. Even so, Sunday observance could not have been so pervasive by the end of the First Century if they hadn't accepted it during their lifetimes! The narrative that the Church suddenly dropped Sabbath-keeping and substituted "pagan" Sunday observance is absolutely absurd!
As for Christ's instructions about breaking the least commandment and instructing others to do so, it would help to quote the entire passage (that is - if we truly wish to understand what Christ said). We read: "Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!" (Matthew 5:17-20, NLT) Notice, that Jesus said: 1) that he came here to accomplish the purpose of the commandments (fulfill, KJV), 2) that nothing, not even the smallest detail of the Law would disappear "UNITL ITS PURPOSE IS ACHIEVED" (Did Christ achieve its purpose - fulfill it - OR not?), 3) So/therefore/consequently, anyone who was then ignoring those commandments or teaching others to do the same would "be called the least in the Kingdom," 4) Likewise, anyone who was currently obeying God's Law and teaching them would "be called great in the Kingdom," 5) Even so, he went on to warn them that their righteousness would have to exceed the righteousness of the Torah-observant religious leaders of that day. Notice too, that these comments are sandwiched between the Beatitudes and Christ's elaboration on what motivated various commandments and what God really intended and expected when they were promulgated.
Moreover, your understanding of the Epistle to the Hebrews is radically different from mine. I believe that the author was very clear that the Israelites, despite their entry into the Promised Land and physical Sabbath observance, had NEVER entered God's rest! Hence, the rest which remains for the people of God is the one found in accepting what Jesus of Nazareth had done for them/us! Thus, I would say that your interpretation justifies disobedience and idolatry (worshipping the Sabbath over the One who instituted it)!
It wasn't that ANYTHING was wrong with the Sabbath. As you suggested in your comment, the problem was in the way that the people observed it! If the mere observance of the Sabbath demonstrates that we worship the true God and love Jesus, then why wasn't the observance of the children of Israel acceptable? Christ kept the commandments (including the fourth one) for us, and then he magnified the original intent and meaning of those commandments (including the fourth one), distilled/summarized them into their essence, and made it possible for those principles to be universally applied.
Anonymous Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 3:15:00 PM PDT asked: "You're performing wicked works?" Yes, sometimes, and so are YOU! "If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth."
"I am not come to destroy, but to [fulfill" - Strong's 4137]. The meaning is, is it not, that love should be the motive in obeying the commandments.
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be [fulfilled" - Strong's 1096]. Two different Greek words for fulfill(ed). The meaning is ... till all comes to pass, or, until all shall happen.
The heaven and earth are still here. It takes a very broad substantial understanding of all the scriptures to understand the "jot and tittle" is not every law mentioned in the OT but they are in the 10.
Heaven and earth are still here. So is the sabbath, seventh, day. Period.
8:50 "Period"
LOL! Just because you say so does not meant is true. New Covenant Christians do not need to follow Sabbath keeping, tithing, or any of the other unnecessary things some cult leaders claim is required.
I hate autocorrect! "continue NOT to fully understand..."
Well, turn it off!
RSK,
lol, I'm afraid the typos would be even worse without it!
Miller,
"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved."
How would the crowd listening to Jesus understand "until heaven and earth disappear"? The same way a modern reader would. Heaven and earth are still here. Pretty clear. The law remains to fulfill its purpose.
Paul asks in Galatians, "What purpose then does the law serve?" (Galatians 3:19, NKJV)
The answer:
"It was added because of transgressions" (Galatians 3:19, NKJV)
What does that expression mean? Years ago, when I attended the Birmingham, AL church, we had services one day in a room that also served as a classroom for elementary students. I noticed written on the door a sign posted that said "Classroom Rules." Underneath, it read, "No running. No hitting. No shouting." I wondered if there was a time before the teacher posted those rules when the class behavior was becoming unmanageable. I imagined some of the children were running around wildly. Perhaps one student hit another student. Shouting was commonplace. Because of these "transgressions," the teacher became fed up and codified the rules for the class.
Before the list of rules was posted, was it okay to run wildly? Was it alright to hit someone or shout loudly? Those actions were always wrong and disruptive to the classroom. Posting the list let the children know that those actions were bad and most likely would result in some sort of discipline. Before the Ten Commandments were given, was murder wrong? Was adultery wrong? Was bearing false witness wrong? These actions were always wrong. By codifying the law, God lets us know that they are sinful, and He holds us accountable. What is the purpose of the law?
"till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made;" (Galatians 3:19, NKJV). The law lets us know we need a Savior.
"But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." (Galatians 3:22, NKJV)
Why would Paul write this if the purpose of the law was "fulfilled"? The Scripture could not confine all under sin if the law is done away. Why does Paul write like the law still serves a purpose? Next verse:
"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." (Galatians 3:23, NKJV) Before we put faith in Jesus, the purpose of the law shows us that we are sinners. It is like a schoolmaster to us before we put faith in Christ.
After we put our faith in Jesus, we are now justified by faith!
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28 NKJV) So, is Paul saying that the law no longer has a purpose once we exhibit faith?
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Romans 3:28 NKJV) He is in agreement with James about living faith.
The law does not bring salvation, our faith in Christ does! But true faith results in obedience to Jesus.
"Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?" (Romans 6:16 NKJV)
Paul is not double-minded. The theology he teaches is clear and consistent. Peter gives us a warning about twisting the words of Paul.
"Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:14-16)
Jeff,
Thanks for that summary and reiteration of the Armstrongist position on the Law. For those who are unfamiliar with the teaching of Herbert Armstrong and his disciples, this will serve as a good primer. Of course, I could quote the exact same passages of Scripture to support my views, and we would be off and running again. I believe this view of the Law demands a twisting or gross perversion of what Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, John, and the anonymous author of Hebrews had to say on the subject. So, there we are. I've seen your arguments before. If I were to be persuaded of your position, I would need to see different arguments - ones that I haven't already investigated - ones which addressed the passages and interpretations which I've put forward.
Miller,
I am aware you would not be persuaded. I wrote this summary for those who may be investigating the subject or those sitting on the fence to consider. I am actually adopting Paul's argument about the topic. And I hope anyone in the COGs who thinks they receive salvation by law-keeping would also consider what Paul clearly says.
The God I serve is a magnificent Creator, and I believe He can do great work in me and other Christians. And when I say great work, I mean His Spirit transforming us into what He knows we can be. Loving and serving others. Letting the light of Christ shine through us. And I know that would be impossible except for Jesus living in us.
Matt 21:28-Matt 21:32 NKJV
"But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, 'Son, go, work today in my vineyard.' He answered and said, 'I will not,' but afterward he regretted it and went. Then he came to the second and said likewise. And he answered and said, 'I go, sir,' but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said to Him, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you.
Jesus is pleased with doers; that is where my faith leads me.
Jeff said:
"When addressing new Gentile converts in Acts 15, James makes a judgment that there are specific behaviors that they need to be made aware of and that they are obligated to observe ("these necessary things"). And he points out that they can learn more about the law on the Sabbath day. There was never a controversy about the Sabbath day. It was always implied as now part of Christian custom."
Acts 15:21 "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."
Somehow, I find it hard to believe that a newly minted, uncircumcised Gentile Christian would be breaking down the doors of the local synagogue on the sabbath to learn more about Moses back then. How is one supposed to 'grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ' when the vast majority of the folks you are worshipping with are clueless about Christ?
In Acts 13, Paul went to preach Christ in synagogues that included God-fearing gentiles, but we have to assume those gentiles were Jewish converts and not Christians, otherwise Paul would have been sticking his neck out just to preach to the choir.
As for Moses being preached every sabbath, James was just affirming the few restrictions put on Gentile believers in Acts 15 were scripturally based and not arbitrary. God had certain basic moral expectations of all nations going back to Noah and Acts 15 reflects that.
Jeff,
Sorry, your comments appeared to be addressed to me. Hence, my response. Without faith in Jesus Christ, it is impossible to please God. God is gratified and respected when we accept what his Son has done for us and do are very best to love, help and support each other. THAT is the doing which God appreciates, not by extraordinary efforts to scrupulously follow a list of dos and don'ts. This is where my faith leads me.
I continue to observe the Sabbath and very much enjoy doing so. I am NOT, however, under any illusion that God requires me to do so, that it will save me, or earn me a reward in God's Kingdom. Torah is useful for the reasons Paul enumerated - It was an integral part of God's covenant with the children of Israel. For us, it pointed to Christ and underscored our sinfulness. Christ distilled Torah's essence and made that a universal requirement for the people of God.
do OUR very best - Ugh!
Miller
"Sorry, your comments appeared to be addressed to me."
They are. And with any debate, we are probably mostly preaching to our own crowd than the opposite side. But I enjoy discussing scripture nevertheless. Thanks for your effort.
I am glad you continue to enjoy the Sabbath, it is a tremendous blessing.
I’ve tried to understand what Armstrongite law but can only conclude that keeping the law is a moving target based on how Armstrongites juggle it, at any given time. Perhaps their ability to redefining what the law on the law is stems from their belief that they will be Gods as God is God and they are just getting a jump start on that by whim-dictating what Christians must do.
I think that Armstrongites don’t perform animal sacrifices as required under the law, right? On the other hand, on August 25, 2023, Jeff Reed referred to Matthew 5:18 with a rendering I’ve never encountered, stated as: "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved."
Then Reed informed that heaven and earth are still with us, thereby implying that not even the smallest detail, aka jot and title, have passed from the law.
So to be safe, lock up your sheep, goats, and cows, if you are in the vicinity of an Armstrongite, because they may get knife-happy at any moment – doves, you are on your own, and any uncircumcised among us should run, while you still can.
Yes, Armstrongites will rely on Matthew 5:18 to tell us that the law is required when it suits their purpose, but then they exercise their god-power by cutting up the law to bind us to whatever scraps of it they don’t want to toss out. For example, Armstrongites insist that we must observe their modified version of the Sabbath and the Holy Days of Leviticus 23, but in a Jubile year (seven sabbath years times seven), as commanded in Leviticus 25, just try and get an Armstrongite to return the pruning shears you lent him – he will ghost you like you were Jesus.
Mentioning Leviticus 23 reminds me of another Armstrongite god-power move in which they apparently can carve up a law based on any wild stab at what the “spirit of the law” may be. Armstrongites insist that keeping the Feast of Tabernacles, as described in Leviticus 23 is literally required but when it pleases them, you don’t have to get too literal about it – as in the case of Leviticus 23:40 commanding FOT decorating with three specific types of trees. When it was pointed out that a certain Armstrongite splinter had only decorated with one of the three required types of trees, on August 18, 2023, Reed chopped the actual words of verse 40 by writing:
“The spirit of the law is just to decorate with local flora to celebrate and that is what we do.”
I think Armstrongites have not taken a knife to the laws on which beasties we can eat, as stated in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. For example, camels, rabbits, and pigs are forbidden as unclean meats. But if I apply Reed’s Leviticus 23:40 divination onto the law of unclean meats, of the three unclean animals I’ve mentioned, I think that I’m only required to forgo the camel burgers, because no camels live in my hood. However, before you binge on breakfast bacon, please consult your local Armstrongite minister about which of any three requirements you are allowed to spirit-of-the-law toss out, in every case.
Then we have Acts 10, where three times God commanded St. Peter to “kill and eat” all kinds of unclean animals, even pigs. God also stated we should not call unclean what he has made clean. Armstrongites insist this passage only refers to accepting Gentiles as clean. So Gentiles, the good news is Armstrongites kinda acknowledge you to be clean (though they much, much, much prefer to communicate only with lost Israelites). But the bad news is, you must be on the lookout for knife-happy Armstrongites who interpret a passage in which “kill and eat” is stated three times as somehow only pertaining to Gentiles, not pigs.
We have Armstrongite splinters preaching that tattoos are forbidden, based on Leviticus 19:28, yet Armstrongites are known to wantonly cut off their entire beards in defiance of Leviticus 19:27.
My conclusion is: BEWARE of the Armstrongites, they are tossers who cannot be trusted with sharp objects, or the law.
Galatians 5:4
You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Most Armstrongite splinters do not teach about justification by the righteousness of Jesus, as evidenced by some of the comments in this thread. Some Armstrongites claim that they do teach the doctrine of justification. However, among all Armstrongite groups, the law is preached about much more than Jesus, justification, or grace.
Armstrongite confusion on the law must be rooted in their relationship with, or alienation from, Jesus.
Anyone aspiring to keep the ten commandments is falling way short, since Jesus, the Reality that the law foreshadowed, has magnified the ten commandments.
Armstrongites disagree with being characterized as rejecting Jesus, but they all seem to reject Jesus as the Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4. Yet they don’t seem to provide insight on how Jesus has magnified the Sabbath command.
I’m not aware of any time COGs have preached about resting in the finished work of Jesus. Yet they preach incessantly on the need to work, work, work their interpretation of the law – and thereby never focus on just receiving saving grace.
Since grace cannot be earned or deserved – it can only be received. While Armstrongites are taught to be good doers of their version of the law, they are not taught to be good receivers of grace. Though Armstrongites are constantly taught to be good doers of the law, they obviously fail miserable in thier efforts - this discourages, degrades, and eventually breaks the poor, very hard working Armstrongites.
The lack of attention to simply receiving grace leaves Armstrongites unempowered to fight sin, recover from sin, and accomplish acts of love and mercy.
So, on this fine Saturday, Christianity will be resting, refreshed and secure, in the finished work of Jesus, our Sabbath Rest. While Armstrongites will be working their hardest today.
If only the weary Armstrongites would set aside law for today and instead enter the Sabbath Rest by focusing only on Jesus, his justification, and saving grace.
Matthew 11:28-29
Jesus said:
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 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!”
Trooisto,
Your excellent tongue-in-cheek commentary is much appreciated by me. You underscored the absurdity of the ACOG position on Law and Grace. Thank you!
Getting into the spirit of the whole satire thingie, why does not the Bible mention such an important aspect of the human condition as farting? Truly, this is something exclusive to the animal kingdom (including humans). That part of us is clearly not made in the image of God, because spirit has no digestive system, and therefore does not produce offensive gaseous by-products of chemical reactions in a human's stomach and intestines. This is something which brings great embarrassment to humans, but at the same time, extreme hilarity! And while we are on the subject, why condemn those who laugh at it as being crass and vulgar? Ever hear the song "God Gave Rock n Roll to You"? Well, the same could be said of farting!
Apparently, farting was not considered to be a sin, or evidence of uncleanness under the Old Covenant, because it's not mentioned amongst the 613 laws of Torah. No sacrifices were required, although what would you do? Hand the priest a couple of beans to be thrown on the altar? I'm sure that it's covered by grace under the New Covenant, which brings me to an exciting conclusion! Finally, we have an activity upon which both Old Covenant Christians and New Covenant Christians can agree! Wouldn't it just be a gas if there were more such topics?.
Preface
Jn 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
2Co 1:20a For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ.
A Better Promise - laws written on the heart (cp. Deut 6:6)
Heb 8:6b he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
"The pastor brings the argument of vv.3-5 to its conclusion [v.6]
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
and in vv. 7-13 supports that conclusion with Jeremiah’s prophecy of the New Covenant... As the “Mediator” of the “better covenant” he provides the benefits described in the “better promises of Jer 31:31-34 upon which this New Covenant is “legitimately established”... Not only has he established the New Covenant, but he also continues to make its benefits available. Thus he is not merely its “Mediator” but the “Guarantor” of its perpetual effectiveness (7:22).
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
“These benefits are the ultimate mark of the New Covenant’s superiority. They are so magnificent that further explanation must await the climax of the symphony [8:1–10:18] in 10:15-18...” (Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICOT, pp.362-63).
Lonnie writes:
“Your excellent tongue-in-cheek commentary is much appreciated by me. You underscored the absurdity of the ACOG position on Law and Grace. Thank you!”
Trooisto, in regards to Lonnie’s comment, it would be appreciated if you can confirm that the law is written on your heart, so that there is no doubt that you partake of this better promise of the new NC - while you maybe highlighting “the absurdity of the ACOG position on Law and Grace” you also give an impression, perhaps not intended, that you are hostile to the law.
Seeing that :
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Can you identify/sympathize with the Psalmist?
Ps 119:97 O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. (cp. Ps 1:2).
“The new covenant was a new one in that it could impart this new heart. It was not new in regard to its own substance. “I will be their God, and they shall be my people,” quoted from Jer 31:33, was the substance of the covenant of Moses’ day.... “I will be your God, and you shall be my people” was his promise to them when he had given them his law in the wilderness (Lev 26:1), a promise taken up and applied in apostolic says to the people of the new covenant (2 Cor 6:16)...” (F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Hebrews, rev. NICNT, p.190).
“It is one thing to say that Jeremiah was not given to see what the new covenant would mean for the world, it is entirely another to say that by Israel and Judah he really meant the church... On the other hand, we must not fall into the opposite error of supposing that the new covenant will mean something else for ‘all Israel’ than it does for the Church, that saved Israel will be saved in some other way than is the Church. God does not abolish physical Israel, but in saving it transcends it, just as He does not scrap this earth but renews it” (H. L. Ellison, Men Spake for God, p.92).
"The quality of newness intrinsic to the new covenant is the new manner of presenting God's law and not in newness of content. The people of God will be inwardly established in the law and knowledge of the Lord...
“Redemptive grace reaches its zenith in the full and final realization of this promise through Christ..." (William Lane, Hebrews 1-8, WBC, pp.209-10).
Trooisto writes
“but they all seem to reject Jesus as the Sabbath Rest of Hebrews 4.”
Please explain what you mean. From the context of Hebrews the sabbatismos is yet future.
Heb 4:1 Therefore, since THE PROMISE OF ENTERING HIS REST STILL STANDS, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.
Heb 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day.
Heb 4:9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;
Heb 4:11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.
Heb 4:9 Consequently, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God (NASB).
"The rest which is RESERVED for the people of God is properly called a "sabbath rest" - a sabbatismos or "sabbath keeping"... the meaning is brought out clearly in the NEB rendering: "Therefore, a sabbath rest STILL AWAITS the people of God...
Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
"What then is this sabbath rest which AWAITS them? It is evidently an experience which they do not enjoy in their present mortal life, although it belongs to them as a heritage, and by faith they may live in the good of it here and now. How they may do so is illustrated with a wealth of biographical details in ch. 11. And in that chapter we have further references to the eternal homeland which is the heritage of believers, the saints' everlasting rest - the "better country, that is, a heavenly one" which they desire, the "city" which God has prepared for them, the well-founded city of which he is both architect and builder (11:10, 16).
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
Rev 7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
Rev 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
"..[Hebrews 4] vv 9-10 anticipate the festival of the priestly people of God in the heavenly sanctuary, celebrating in the presence of God the eternal Sabbath with unceasing praise and adoration (Hofius, Katapausis, 109-10)" (William L. Lane, Hebrews 1-8, WBC, p.102).
Anon 614/636
I wish you would use some kind of identifying handle to make it easier to follow your postings. You are literally knocking it out of the park!
Hello Anonymous of August 26 at 6:14: I appreciate the questions you’ve asked. Those inquiries made me examine my commitment to God’s law. I’m delighted to answer your questions, but it may take me a few posts, sprinkled throughout this busy day. I’m sure that I will get so much more out of this exercise than anyone who may read my posts.
You wrote: Trooisto, in regards to Lonnie’s comment, it would be appreciated if you can confirm that the law is written on your heart, so that there is no doubt that you partake of this better promise of the new NC - while you maybe highlighting “the absurdity of the ACOG position on Law and Grace” you also give an impression, perhaps not intended, that you are hostile to the law.
I doubt I could ever convince someone of your persuasion that the law is written on my heart; however, what’s truly valuable is me knowing for certain that God’s law is written on my heart.
First, let’s define the law. Lonnie’s words in the article above are perfect for this task; he wrote: “The two great commandments on loving God and neighbor are a summary of the Ten Commandments … THIS is the very thing which Christ incorporated into the terms of the New Covenant! In other words, the Decalogue is an elaboration of those two great commandments. To be even clearer, those two principles comprehend ALL of those individual commandments and render them redundant and unnecessary! The “plain truth” is that those two great commandments constitute the “objective, universal moral law that has been in place from the beginning of human history,” and which are the foundation of the New Covenant. Christ didn’t just fulfill the Law and the prophets by obeying and personifying them – he also fulfilled the Law by distilling it down to its ESSENCE – by making crystal clear God’s original and eternal intent!”
All law is distilled down to love God and neighbor. I have a HUGE problem with love. Love is NOT me. When I see love in my life, I know – feel it down to my core – that this love is not from me. I’m especially inapt at showing love for God, except for the fact that it’s a little easier for me to show love toward my neighbors – and I feel that taking care of God’s beloved creation is also loving God.
I’m involved in several ministries that provide different types of care for my neighbors and I have invested time and resources into the lives of several individuals living on the edge. I am particularly drawn to prison ministry which has morphed more into local county jail ministry. I’m also involved with three non-profits that assist homeless or vicitmized women and children. I teach a class one evening a week for men re-entering society after incarceration. While I absolutely love the class, I’ve been contemplating giving it up because it’s so heavy that it’s a drain on much more of the week than the one night of the class. I think my decision should/will be based on what’s written in my heart and direction from the Holy Spirit.
Everywhere I go, I see individuals who desperately need love – hundreds a day. Mostly, I don’t know what the right thing is to do for them; giving money may me more of a hurt than a help. Offering time is not always feasible or welcomed. Mostly, the only thing I do is pray for them. When driving through town, it’s a constant running prayer for the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of my neighbors.
While I’m preoccupied with praying for neighbors, I’m way too frequently convicted that I trample all over my closest neighbors. That bothers me greatly; while I’m disappointed, I’m not defeated in knowing that it is not in me to do any better. However, I do look to Jesus as the source of righteousness and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to perform the work they will to do in my life.
As I am aware that love is so not me, I’m confident that God’s law of love is written on my heart, each time I see love show up in my life.
Anonymous, would you also like to share your personal response to your question of the law being written on your heart?
Anonymous 6:14/6:36,
Paul wrote to the saints at Rome:
Romans 3:19 Obviously, the law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses, and to show that the entire world is guilty before God. 20 For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are. 21 But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. 22 We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.
23 For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. 24 Yet God, in his grace, freely makes us right in his sight. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. 25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, 26 for he was looking ahead and including them in what he would do in this present time. God did this to demonstrate his righteousness, for he himself is fair and just, and he makes sinners right in his sight when they believe in Jesus. 27 Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. 28 So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.
29 After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn’t he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is. 30 There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. 31 Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.
(continued)
4:1 Abraham was, humanly speaking, the founder of our Jewish nation. What did he discover about being made right with God? 2 If his good deeds had made him acceptable to God, he would have had something to boast about. But that was not God’s way. 3 For the Scriptures tell us, “Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith.”
4 When people work, their wages are not a gift, but something they have earned. 5 But people are counted as righteous, not because of their work, but because of their faith in God who forgives sinners. 6 David also spoke of this when he described the happiness of those who are declared righteous without working for it:
7 “Oh, what joy for those whose disobedience is forgiven, whose sins are put out of sight.
8 Yes, what joy for those whose record the Lord has cleared of sin. 9 Now, is this blessing only for the Jews, or is it also for uncircumcised Gentiles? Well, we have been saying that Abraham was counted as righteous by God because of his faith. 10 But how did this happen? Was he counted as righteous only after he was circumcised, or was it before he was circumcised? Clearly, God accepted Abraham before he was circumcised!
11 Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous—even before he was circumcised. So Abraham is the spiritual father of those who have faith but have not been circumcised. They are counted as righteous because of their faith. 12 And Abraham is also the spiritual father of those who have been circumcised, but only if they have the same kind of faith Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13 Clearly, God’s promise to give the whole earth to Abraham and his descendants was based not on his obedience to God’s law, but on a right relationship with God that comes by faith. 14 If God’s promise is only for those who obey the law, then faith is not necessary and the promise is pointless.15 For the law always brings punishment on those who try to obey it. (The only way to avoid breaking the law is to have no law to break!)
16 So the promise is received by faith. It is given as a free gift. And we are all certain to receive it, whether or not we live according to the law of Moses, if we have faith like Abraham’s. For Abraham is the father of all who believe.
(continued)
We are not against the Law. As Paul says, we establish the Law!
The summary of Torah (the Ten Commandments in particular) by Jesus Christ and his apostles gets to the intent/motivation of the Law, and that is what is written on the heart of the people of the Kingdom: Jew and Gentile.
David said that he continuously meditated on God's Law (thought about it), and that he loved it. This is reflected in all of the references to the Law in the New Testament. Christ's distillation of the Law is a wonderous thing. To comprehend the entire character of this legislation (Torah) and present it in a form appropriate for all peoples in all times is magnificent!
In your comments, you wrote: "The quality of newness intrinsic to the new covenant is the new manner of presenting God's law and not in newness of content. The people of God will be inwardly established in the law and knowledge of the Lord." YES! Christ presented God's Law in a new, dynamic, and universally applicable way. Torah was tailored to the circumstances of the children of Israel living in the Promised Land. Christ's version of the Law embraces everyone everywhere!
As for those passages in Hebrew, there is a sense that this sabbatismos is both current and future. Like Christ's distillation of the rest of Torah, this iteration of God's rest is universal/comprehensive, AND IT IS THOROUGHLY GROUNDED IN JESUS CHRIST AND WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR US! This is God's modus operandi - "He" acts and speaks as if what "he" has promised has already been accomplished.
By the way, I very much appreciated the personal and intimate answer which Trooisto provided for your question about the Law written on his/her heart. Sounds like the Law is written on his/her heart - don't you think?
Trooisto
The love that fulfills the law of God is not always proactive! I don't have to manufacture a "good Samaritan" episode in order to love my neighbor.
God is love, a state of being. His spirit makes us like Him, therefore we do.
This Love is shown by what we do, we honor our parents, remember the sabbath, and by what we don't do, make idols, commit adultery, murder, steal, or any kind of harm to our neighbor. Both are a matter of the will, not emotion!
BP8,
I believe Trooisto's expression of his love for God and neighbor is precisely what James had in mind when he wrote: "be doers of the word, and not hearers only," and "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." Christ said that we must do more than send our best wishes to others.
Trooista wrote:
"I think that Armstrongites don’t perform animal sacrifices as required under the law, right?"
They are not required under the law. Jesus is our High Priest and Redeemer.
Trooista wrote:
"On the other hand, on August 25, 2023, Jeff Reed referred to Matthew 5:18 with a rendering I’ve never encountered, stated as: "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved."
I was quoting Miller, who was using the NLT.
Trooista wrote:
"Then Reed informed that heaven and earth are still with us, thereby implying that not even the smallest detail, aka jot and title, have passed from the law."
I am open to any evidence you may have that heaven and earth have passed away. There is a simple standard of understanding the law, and that is through the lens of our high priest, Jesus Christ. Your arguments are outdated and silly.
I invite you to experience the full measure of God's New Covenant by letting Jesus, your Lord and Saviour, lead you into the full riches of God's Grace. You may not understand it yet, but Grace is entirely a part of His Sabbath, Holy Days, and other gifts we do not deserve. God's grace is even evident in the food laws. The Creator gives His creation inside knowledge of what meats are best for human consumption. It just take a little faith in Jesus to accept that He knows what is best for me.
Jeff,
Who is being silly? Of course, heaven and earth haven't passed away, but Jesus Christ has fulfilled/accomplished everything related to Torah (and the Prophets). The tribulation, beast, Christ's return, Kingdom, New Heaven and Earth (the things which we humans see as still to be fulfilled) are regarded by God as a done deal! Remember, time is a created thing - God exists outside of it!
Miller
I wasn't knocking Trooisto or his experience. I don't believe anything I said contradicted it!
A "matter of the will" means one can have the law written on the heart without a personal story to share or point to it. It is a loving response whether you like someone or not, even an enemy! Feelings and emotions are not the test, but how we treat people! We treat them as we want to be treated regardless of the circumstances because it's the right thing to do. That kind of love is there to be used when needed and one has the will to use it.
We may not like a neighbor or enemy but we must treat them as if we did. It's a matter of the will to walk in God's spirit!
Hello Anonymous of August 26 at 6:14 PM: I’d like to comment on a statement you made yesterday. You wrote: “while you maybe highlighting “the absurdity of the ACOG position on Law and Grace” you also give an impression, perhaps not intended, that you are hostile to the law.”
You’ve gotten the impression that I’m hostile to the law, but I believe that impression may be due to your viewpoint on the law. I believe everything commanded by God is completely holy – all of the law is holy.However, Christians are not under the law of the obsolete Old Covenant.
From my viewpoint, I treat the law with more respect than Armstrongites who have stepped beyond their authority to carve up the law and bind what they like on followers and toss out what they don’t like. I find that to be beyond hostile – but will try to curb the use of negative descriptors for this behavior.
Many times on this blog, Armstrongites have used Matthew 5:18 to say that nothing has changed from the law, as Reed did on Friday – they say this to defend, as biblical, their beliefs about the law.
In my post yesterday, I was attempting to demonstrate how that position is not logical. Matthew 5:18 was said by Jesus while he lived a perfect life under the law that required animal sacrifices. As Reed pointed out today, animal sacrifices are no longer required. Therefore, something huge disappeared from the law.
Do you agree that somethings very significant changed from the law?
Do you believe that Jesus accomplished all things?
I believe in the finished work of Jesus, which is a term I have not encountered within Armstrongism.
As Reed also mentioned today, Jesus is our High Priest. When Jesus became our High Priest, the “all things” part of Matthew 5:18 were “accomplished”. Jesus fulfilled the law, as he stated was his purpose in verse 17. The fulfilment of the law lead to a superior New Covenant, with different terms.
I believe it is beyond hostile to reach back into Old Covenant law and bind some things on people, while also rejecting related concepts. Armstrongites have not been given the authority to preach keeping the literal feasts of Leviticus 23, while also rejecting or figuratively keeping verse 40. Likewise, Armstrongites have no authority to remove from the law the Jubile year, which was based on the Sabbath, and commanded in Leviticus 25.
The assumption that Armstrongites honor and keep the law, as commanded by God and displayed in the Old Testament, is simply not true; they reject or ignore most of the law. Our Holy God established his Holy Law, which stands in its completeness, just as he delivered it under the Old Covenant. Armstrongites are hostile to his holiness when they chop up the law based on their whims.
As proof I am not hostile to God’s law, I offer you a few verses that are important to me:
Romans 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.
Romans 13:10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law.
Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Galatians 6:2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.
Hey Lonnie: thanks for the comments you added today and for your support - all is appreciated!
Hello BP8: When I isolated sentences you wrote, I liked them and agreed with you. But as a whole, I’m sorry to say I think I missed some of the point you were making.
For example, I liked these sentences you wrote:
“God is love, a state of being. His spirit makes us like Him, therefore we do.”
However, I’m fuzzy on this sentence: “The love that fulfills the law of God is not always proactive!
I agree that sometimes we are not able or inclined to be proactive, on our own, so the best we can do is refrain from not lying, or committing adultery, or not murdering. I think Jesus magnified these points, and all of the ten commandments, so that we need to do something positive, more than just refrain from negative actions.
I think that there is no need for the ten commandments to be written on our heart – figuratively verbatim – because they have already been perfectly written in the law. I believe God writes the magnified version of the ten commandments on our hearts. That version is infinite – it may be manifested slightly differently in each of us and fresh for all circumstances. We need to obey, as it’s written in our hearts.
For the most part, I see love as proactive – taking action, rather than viewing love as an emotion, in the absence of action.
As you pointed out, the Holy Spirit makes us like God, therefore we do. So, God gets all the credit for any good we may do – and he covers us with Jesus’ righteousness.
Anonymous wrote on Aug 24
"There's a poor town in America with about two thousand people. They have twenty different Christian churches. Everytime there's a disagreement, they put up a new church."
What is this town?
BP8: Earlier today, Lonnie expressed better what I was trying to say.
He wrote:
"Christ presented God's Law in a new, dynamic, and universally applicable way. Torah was tailored to the circumstances of the children of Israel living in the Promised Land. Christ's version of the Law embraces everyone everywhere!"
The law written on our hearts is dynamic.
Jeff said:
"I invite you to experience the full measure of God's New Covenant by letting Jesus, your Lord and Saviour, lead you into the full riches of God's Grace. You may not understand it yet, but Grace is entirely a part of His Sabbath, Holy Days, and other gifts we do not deserve. God's grace is even evident in the food laws. The Creator gives His creation inside knowledge of what meats are best for human consumption. It just take a little faith in Jesus to accept that He knows what is best for me."
If you choose to be a Messianic Christian, that's fine. For many other Christians, the New Covenant is enough, and that's fine too- Col 2:16.
Trooista wrote:
"Jesus fulfilled the law, as he stated was his purpose in verse 17. The fulfillment of the law lead to a superior New Covenant, with different terms."
I really think you are reading too much into what Jesus was saying in verse 17.
Here is the context from the ERV. (The ERV uses simpler vocabulary and shorter sentences while maintaining the integrity of the original texts - Bible Gateway)
Matthew 5 ERV
"17 Don't think that I have come to destroy the Law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. I have come not to destroy their teachings but to give full meaning to them. I assure you that nothing will disappear from the law until heaven and earth are gone. The law will not lose even the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter until it has all been done.
A person should obey every command in the law, even one that does not seem important. Whoever refuses to obey any command and teaches others not to obey it will be the least important in God's kingdom. But whoever obeys the law and teaches others to obey it will be great in God's kingdom. 20 I tell you that you must do better than the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. If you are not more pleasing to God than they are, you will never enter God's kingdom."
I prefer to listen to Jesus than your interpretation of Him. How do you think the crowd reacted to what He was saying? Was there any ambiguity? What did Jesus immediately do after that? He brought fuller spiritual meaning to the law in His explanations.
The religious leaders of the time did not understand God's law. They thought it provided salvation and were hypocritical in their practice. They were incorrect. Jesus came to restore the original meaning of the law.
"And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness." Genesis 15:6 NKJV
Salvation has always been through faith by grace. Dispensationalism is a fabrication born of 19th-century ignorance.
You accuse me of picking and choosing laws and ignoring others. I do not. I keep it as my High Priest instructs. The law does not save me, but I obey it because I am saved. Obedience is a by-product of faith. You say I do not follow the sacrificial system. I do it through my Saviour. Most of the law doesn't apply to me because I keep it through the Holy Spirit by loving my neighbor and God. When I break it, that's when it applies. But we all need to work towards perfection by studying God's word and letting Jesus work through us, perfecting us.
2 Peter 1 NKJV
5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I find it odd that some Christians do not want to follow the simple words of their Savior and His clear example.
"He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked."
Jeff,
Per those verses you quoted from Matthew 5 in the ERV, are you suggesting that Christ didn't get the Law done (obeyed) for us? If he didn't, then how do you justify changing and/or dismissing whole portions of Torah? How is your following the commandments related to the sacrificial system through Christ superior to our following the Torah through Christ's fulfillment of it and distillation of it into two great principles? Either way, you cannot get around the fact that the Law has changed - that some of those commandments have at least practically speaking "disappeared" from the Law!
Answering Miller who wrote:
"Per those verses you quoted from Matthew 5 in the ERV, are you suggesting that Christ didn't get the Law done (obeyed) for us?"
Jesus obeyed the law perfectly. But that does not mean we no longer have an obligation to keep it. Jesus did not murder, so does that mean that I am now free to murder? Where does it say that in the Bible? The law was never meant to bring salvation (Galatians 3:21 NKJV). So why would we need Jesus to keep it for us? Sadly, entire theologies are built on a misinterpretation of one verse, Matthew 5:17.
We are sanctified (made holy) by His death! That brings salvation!
"By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10 NKJV)
We are sealed through faith by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed eternal life. We accept His one-time sacrifice to redeem all our sins (past, present, and future). It is done.
"In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:13,14 NKJV)
Romans 5 NKJV
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
Jesus' obedience (His sacrificial death) is contrasted with Adam's disobedience (eating the forbidden fruit in the garden).
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,
This is another confirmation from Paul that he believed the law was given to show mankind our sins. And our need for a Savior.
21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
It has always been about Grace.
The law has not passed away (not one jot or tittle). It is still there. We can read it. It is now administered through Jesus Christ as our High Priest.
So, what parts are relevant to a New Covenant Christian? First, let's look at what is not relevant?
All laws that were administered by the Levitical priesthood. So that includes sacrifices, ritual purity, altars, the temple, and the like. That would also include many civil laws enforced by courts. Christians do not enact the death penalty for any laws (John 8:7). The civil laws provide insight on how a goverment should provide justice.
Laws that are for certain circumstances we do not encounter in our life. (For example, the parapet on the roof. Although loving our neighbor applies to making our house safe.)
So, what remains relevant?
The various moral laws. Although if I show love for our neighbor, we will keep these, our love may need refining. Christians will grow spiritually. For example, many Christians are ignorant about it being immoral to charge interest to the poor. (Leviticus 25:36) So, owning or working at a title loan company or predatory lender is not loving my neighbor. It is good to learn from the weightier matters of the law.
Sabbath and Holy Days. They were kept by Jesus and the New Testament church (1 Corinthians 5:8 NKJV), and these celebrations' spiritual aspects benefit Christians.
Health laws are also beneficial.
You wrote:
"Either way, you cannot get around the fact that the Law has changed - that some of those commandments have at least practically speaking "disappeared" from the Law!"
The change in the Law with Jesus, our High Priest, makes most of it irrelevant to a Christian's daily life. But by studying it, we can learn more about God's righteousness. For example, I can learn about Christ and the Day of Atonement by reading about the two goats without going though the rituals.
The Law does not give us salvation.
If I thought the law provided salvation, perhaps the gotcha remarks would bother me. They don't.
Jeff,
I detect a note of defensiveness in your last comment (8:25) - I was NOT playing "gotcha"! You quoted from Paul's epistle to the Romans: "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." Did you catch that? We are made righteous by Christ's obedience to God's Law!
YOU are the one who is trying to rationalize away certain aspects of the Law, NOT me! I see the Law as Scripture sees it - as a comprehensive whole. I am NOT saying that the Law was done away with - I am saying that Jesus Christ fulfilled and distilled ALL of it for us. Once again, we have the essence of the entire Law embodied in those principles which Christ gave to us and his apostles reinforced in their writings.
Paul, Peter, James, John, and the anonymous author of the Epistle to the Hebrews preached Jesus Christ from the Torah, Prophets, and writings of the Hebrew Bible. The Torah still points to Christ. It still speaks to us in 2023 about him! YOU are the one who is saying that parts of the Law are irrelevant! I am saying that Christ's work and reinterpretation of Torah makes our observance of the individual commandments therein by Christians redundant and unnecessary! Again, if we are truly loving God and each other, we don't need an individual commandment instructing us not to erect an idol or murder each other!
Even so, I'm thankful that you do see that keeping the Law does NOT provide us with salvation - that that is accomplished through our acceptance of Christ's obedience to the Law and his willingness to receive the punishment which we deserved. And, yes, we (Christians) can still learn about how Christ's atonement works by studying the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus without employing two goats and consecrating a High Priest to perform the rituals for us. If you want to keep the Day of Atonement through Christ, then may you be blessed in doing so (and I'm being sincere). Nevertheless, don't try to tell the rest of us that we are required to do so, or that keeping it is the only way to truly please God!
Thanks Trooisto for your response.
You wrote:
“I doubt I could ever convince someone of your persuasion that the law is written on my heart; however, what’s truly valuable is me knowing for certain that God’s law is written on my heart.”
Why would you doubt? From previous exchanges?
I cannot make a value judgment either way; words and actions may be suggestive, but ultimately it is between you and God.
In regards to ‘outreach’ you are a far better person than me.
I prefer not to share my examples in regard to the second great commandment. My negative examples of law-breaking out-weigh the positive, so I would be a hypocrite to do so - it could follow that I am a better person than what I am.
Not exactly knowing what you mean by “living on the edge,” I can say that I have lived on the fringe of society and have found myself, in some ways, more comfortable with ‘fringe’ people than with ‘non-fringe’ people - though with some you had to be on your guard - but that was part of the ‘territory’ at the time.
Having inherited a wild and destructive disposition, which still plagues me today, interest in Bible topics helps keeps me somewhat on the straight and narrow.
I appreciate that you feel passionate about your beliefs, I am also passionate for mine, but less polemic. I try to follow Pr 15:1 - A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger - in my posts.
After posting my post addressed to you, using the word “hostile,” I felt that I had not kept to my posting policy; and should have been more diplomatic - I had toyed with other words but was having difficult coming up with an appropriate word and became impatient and settled on “hostile” - my [selective?] passion for the law, as a response to salvation, got the better of me in regard to your satire - thankfully you took no offence, at least expressed, to it.
Lev 19:2b Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
Lev 19:17a Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart:
Lev 19:18b but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
As an aside, as you may have guessed, Leviticus is one of my favourite books. Being familiar with the complicated sacrificial system gives me a better insight into the seriousness of both sin and sacrifice; unfortunately that appreciation doesn’t always provide the best results.
In a previous post addressed to me you wrote:
"Hello of Renewed Old Covenant Theory: I'm sorry, but you do not keep the law that you say is in effect"
Seeing that we have disagreed over the “law” in previous posts this year I don’t think revisiting them will change anything.
But just two points in regard/reminder to the previous exchange: (1) for me sacrifices have not disappeared from the law (cp. Eze 40:38-43; 42:13-46:23) ; in the Messianic Age sacrifices will be required for the purifying of the flesh, not for the purging of the conscience; the latter could only be done by Jesus; animal sacrifices were never designed for this.
(2) "iwra ("iota") is the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet but translates an underlying reference to the smallest Hebrew letter , the yod... We have here thus A DELIBERATE HYPERBOLE - AN OVERSTATEMENT that is designed to drive home the main point that the law be fully preserved..." (Donald Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC, p.106). The ancient Near Eastern people loved hyperbole; cp. also Mt 3:9.
"It was thus possible for Matthew to affirm the categorical statement of verse 18 while himself exhibiting remarkable freedom in altering jots and tittles in his scriptural quotations..." (Douglas R.A. Hare, Matthew, INT, pp. 47-48).
As an aside: While I am a Sabbath-keeping non-Trinitarian my best, and longest, friend is a Sunday-keeping Trinitarian. We have discussed these issues many years ago and they no longer come up in conversation. As we accept each others' beliefs we can still discuss a wide range of Biblical topics.
Thanks Trooisto for your response.
You wrote:
“I doubt I could ever convince someone of your persuasion that the law is written on my heart; however, what’s truly valuable is me knowing for certain that God’s law is written on my heart.”
Why would you doubt? From previous exchanges?
I cannot make a value judgment either way; words and actions may be suggestive, but ultimately it is between you and God.
In regards to ‘outreach’ you are a far better person than me.
I prefer not to share my examples in regard to the second great commandment. My negative examples of law-breaking out-weigh the positive, so I would be a hypocrite to do so - it could follow that I am a better person than what I am.
Not exactly knowing what you mean by “living on the edge,” I can say that I have lived on the fringe of society and have found myself, in some ways, more comfortable with ‘fringe’ people than with ‘non-fringe’ people - though with some you had to be on your guard - but that was part of the ‘territory’ at the time.
Having inherited a wild and destructive disposition, which still plagues me today, interest in Bible topics helps keeps me somewhat on the straight and narrow.
I appreciate that you feel passionate about your beliefs, I am also passionate for mine, but less polemic. I try to follow Pr 15:1 - A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger - in my posts.
After posting my post addressed to you, using the word “hostile,” I felt that I had not kept to my posting policy; and should have been more diplomatic - I had toyed with other words but was having difficult coming up with an appropriate word and became impatient and settled on “hostile” - my [selective?] passion for the law, as a response to salvation, got the better of me in regard to your satire - thankfully you took no offence, at least expressed, to it.
Lev 19:2b Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
Lev 19:17a Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart:
Lev 19:18b but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
As an aside, as you may have guessed, Leviticus is one of my favourite books. Being familiar with the complicated sacrificial system gives me a better insight into the seriousness of both sin and sacrifice; unfortunately that appreciation doesn’t always provide the best results.
In a previous post addressed to me you wrote:
"Hello of Renewed Old Covenant Theory: I'm sorry, but you do not keep the law that you say is in effect"
Seeing that we have disagreed over the “law” in previous posts this year I don’t think revisiting them will change anything.
But just two points in regard/reminder to the previous exchange: (1) for me sacrifices have not disappeared from the law (cp. Eze 40:38-43; 42:13-46:23) ; in the Messianic Age sacrifices will be required for the purifying of the flesh, not for the purging of the conscience; the latter could only be done by Jesus; animal sacrifices were never designed for this.
(2) "iwra ("iota") is the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet but translates an underlying reference to the smallest Hebrew letter , the yod... We have here thus A DELIBERATE HYPERBOLE - AN OVERSTATEMENT that is designed to drive home the main point that the law be fully preserved..." (Donald Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC, p.106). The ancient Near Eastern people loved hyperbole; cp. also Mt 3:9.
"It was thus possible for Matthew to affirm the categorical statement of verse 18 while himself exhibiting remarkable freedom in altering jots and tittles in his scriptural quotations..." (Douglas R.A. Hare, Matthew, INT, pp. 47-48).
As an aside: While I am a Sabbath-keeping non-Trinitarian my best, and longest, friend is a Sunday-keeping Trinitarian. We have discussed these issues many years ago and they no longer come up in conversation. As we accept each others' beliefs we can still discuss a wide range of Biblical topics.
Jesus did not obey the law FOR us, so we don't have to. He obeyed the law as an example for us.
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that OBEY him........
Hello Anonymous of August 30 at 12:47 PM: I’m glad you returned. I enjoyed your post; especially the insights into your personal nature. I agree that I am too polemic and that the wisdom you shared from Proverbs 15:1 is a much better way to treat people.
I guess I view an anti-Armstrong blog as a slugfest; it’s not for the faint of heart, it’s often not pretty. The articles themselves are polemic and tend to evoke like response. I view these posts as how men (and a few women) enjoy heavy-hitting conversations – and I’m always ready to rumble. I hope I would have mercy on the weak; but see no need to go easy on those who are capable of both evil-speaking and firing back.
I think the examples of Jesus being gentle speak loudest, but he did speak strongly on occasion too. I often tell my kids (jokingly mostly – because I have no idea where such well-behaved kids came from), “Do you want me to go all Jesus whips and table flips all over this house?”
May I hide behind verses like Psalm 97:10 to say I’m calling out the evil that God hates? In this type of slugfest, I think a gentle calling one out on heresy, hypocrisy, and general COG-odd weirdness would go unnoticed by the perps and thereby the truth would not be defended.
Hello again Anonymous of August 30 at 12:47 PM: I had no problem with you writing that I seem hostile to the law - because that is fair game for discussion. I appreciate you having rules for decorum and kindness – but in this case you have to use words that cut to the point, or you will not get my attention, or the attention of anyone else.
I’m amazed that your favorite book is Leviticus. Again, I really enjoyed gaining insight on who you are as a person – you provided a lot of fascinating detail in a short post.
I’m seriously curious, and I’m not trying to be offensive, do you strictly adhere to the fabric law in Leviticus 19? If you are male, do you shave the corners of your beard? Do you engage in the purification rituals that apply to your gender? Do you enforce or advocate for the death penalty for the sins described in Leviticus 20?
I realize that I’m too petty, but I have a burning desire to know if you FOT decorate with the three types of trees commanded in Leviticus 23:40? I’m hoping someone has a more faithful witness to this law than the others I’ve encountered.
I don’t doubt that earlier this year I wrote to you: I'm sorry, but you do not keep the law that you say is in effect.”
I wrote that because I don’t believe that anyone does or can keep all of those laws which are commanded in the obsolete Old Covenant. God nullified the Old Covenant and punished the people because the people did not obey. Are you saying that you are keeping every law required under the Old Covenant? Or, are you saying you figuratively keep the laws of the Old Covenant by keeping the commands to love God and neighbor?
Hebrews 7 shows us that with Jesus as our High Priest, how the previous priesthood is abolished, as well as animal sacrifices. Hebrews 8 defines the New Covenant as superior and not like the old.
I’ll close with Galatians 2:21
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
Hey Anonymous of August 30 at 12:47 PM: I was intrigued by you noticing my reference to people living on the edge.
You wrote: “Not exactly knowing what you mean by “living on the edge,” I can say that I have lived on the fringe of society and have found myself, in some ways, more comfortable with ‘fringe’ people than with ‘non-fringe’ people - though with some you had to be on your guard - but that was part of the ‘territory’ at the time.”
I meant those people who are living on a razor thin edge between life and death – which is all people except those who rest in the assurance of life with Jesus.
I don’t think I’m mad at God, but I get very concerned and perplexed about why he doesn’t step in and save these people who have no other hope. I have a lot to learn about leaving everything up to God – and I do believe that God will rescue them all in the right time – perhaps this is one commonality I share with Armstrongites. However, I do not believe it’s permissible to ignore their current plight by dismissing their need with the excuse that they’ll get their chance in the Kingdom.
Most of those edgers have no knowledge or interest in God. However, I know one addict who can quote Scripture better than I can, yet I doubt his damaged brain could support him even if he gave up meth today. I know two other addicts who are rather handy with Scripture. In church, I sat next to one man who had just been released from prison and he recited by memory each scripture the pastor mentioned – sadly, he re-offended.
I think your experiences with the fringe are valuable – maybe you are called to “outreach”?
Four types of trees in Lev 23:40: beautiful, palm, leafy, willow. Oh how the COGers have failed in the last 90 years: I'll bet not one member took of the four types of trees during the FOT.
Trooisto wrote:
“I think the examples of Jesus being gentle speak loudest, but he did speak strongly on occasion too.”
The operative phrase is on occasion. But generally, on this blog, speaking strongly has the opposite effect to the one that strong speech is trying to emphasize.”
Also, on this blog when one posts, one is preaching to the choir. One can present a well presented argument and still not be accepted, even if true.
So I find that it is self-defeating to be polemic. I would not say “gentle” is an apt description of your calling out. You give the impression that you enjoy ‘slugfests’ which seems contrary to your commitment to the second great commandment.
If I “have to you have to use words that cut to the point, or you will not get my attention” then I am not really interested in engaging. For me well reasoned argument, informed by love of neighbour, is going to get my attention.
You write:
“Hebrews 7 shows us that with Jesus as our High Priest, how the previous priesthood is abolished, as well as animal sacrifices.”
I have been reading and collecting the best in Bible scholarship for over 35 years. Of this literature the material on the Bible as ancient-Near Eastern literature - for example “The Lost World” series - has been helpful in understanding Hebraic argument. In light of this and Jer 33:14-22 and Ezekiel I do not accept that Heb 7 argues that the priesthood and animal sacrifices has been abolished. As mentioned in previous posts, the success of the Messianic Age requires two priesthoods.
In discussing Old and New Covenants, including the law, it is helpful to be on the same page. The covenant is summed up in the three part covenant formula - “I will be your God, “you will be my people,” and “I will dwell among you”. In regard to the last “with you” may be helpful; in the Mosaic Tabernacle and the Solomonic Temple Jesus Christ had a dwelling presence in Israel; but not in the Second Temple - God was “with” his people more in the sense of Eze 11:16 & 2 Cor 6:16.
Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.
Ge 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
Ge 25:2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
In the New Covenant there are two dispensations - the ‘Sarah’ Administration, which is the Church Age and spans between the First and Second Advents; and the ‘Keturah’ administration which is the Kingdom Age and begins with the Second Advent. The implication of six sons suggests the bounty of conversion of the Kingdom Age.
The implication of Administration is that the way God’s law is in effect differs. In the future theocracy then the law can be fully implemented; in the time of Christ the implementation was limited due to the Romans.
Animal sacrifices will be resumed when a temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem for which the Jews are preparing. An earthquake centred on or near the Temple Mount may assist in bringing the plan to fruition. And of course when the Millennial temple is built sacrifices will be required.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws [nomous] into their mind, and write them in their hearts:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law [torah] in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Also under the Old Covenant it was ‘torah’ without the Law and now under the New Covenant it is ‘torah’ with the Law.
"Debating the Bible, especially Torah, and coming up with creative readings to address changing times was a mark of faithful Judaism. Jews were not "legalistic" about handling the Law, which is still a common Christian caricature.
Part 2
“Even though scripture was God's word and binding, they understood that the Bible - including Torah - was not a rulebook to be followed to the letter at every point" (Peter Enns, The Bible tells me so, p.174).
"He can call it "the law of Christ" (cf. 1 Cor 9:20-21). By that he does not mean a different code or document; it is the Mosaic law, but summed up in the command to love and interpreted in the light of Christ” (Charles B. Cousar, Galatians, Interpretation, p.82).
A better promise of Heb 8:6 is writing of the law/s [torah, Heb; noumous, Gk] on the heart. The difficult is which laws are to be kept in the Church Administration of the New Covenant? Some argue that only the laws mentioned in the NT should apply - I do not agree with this judgment. I would suggest that the laws that Christians will keep in the Kingdom Administration should also be kept:
Sabbath (46:1, 4; Isa 56:6).
Passover (Eze 45:21a, 45:22 - the Passover sacrifice is now a public event, with a different animal and different function).
Unleavened Bread (Eze 45:21a, 45:23-24)
Feast of Tabernacles (Eze 45:25, Zech 14:16).
I do you strictly adhere to the fabric laws; or shave the corners of my beard; but do engage in minor purification rituals - showering instead of bathing - from a hygienic perspective. My judgment would be unacceptable to NT law keepers.
Lev 23:40 And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days.
Ne 8:15 And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.
“... the returning Babylonian Exiles clearly modeled themselves on the text of Lev 23:340, but they interpreted it in the light of v.42, namely that the prescribed species of vegetation referred to the building materials of the booths... this is not the plain meaning of the text: the object of taking these species is “you shall rejoice before YHWH” (v.40) and refers to processions around the altar, as part of a larger ritual complex, to supplicate God for adequate and timely rains during the coming agricultural year...
“The fundamental question, however, is: Is there any relationship between the lists in Lev 23 and Neh 8? Ostensibly, the differences are irreconcilable:
1. In Nehemiah, there are five species; in Leviticus, four.
2. Olive branches and pine braches (lit. “leafy branches of an oil tree”) are not in Leviticus.
3. Conversely, the fruit of the majestic tree and the willows of the brook are not in Nehemiah...” (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus, 23-27, AB, pp.2064-65).
Leaving aside a discussion on the fulfillment of Lev 23:40, in the Church Age, at least for me, judgments need to be made on how to observe torah since Christians do not live in an agrarian based theocracy.
While I accept, for the present, the COG tradition of local feast sites, I have not been able to come to an acceptable judgment in relation Neh 8:15 - it may be easier for people for moving from summer to fall (NH) but not so for those moving from winter to spring (SH) - too cold to rejoice :). At least for the COG tradition it fulfils in a sense the pilgrimage and living in temporary accommodation of the feast.
While I can accept being called a hypocrite for not following the letter of the law of many laws related to the ancient Near Eastern theocracy; I think that those who restrict the following of only those mentioned in the NT are on shaky ground.
Trooisto in a previous post you quoted a number of Scriptures to support your passion for the law written on your heart. But they only related to the Second Great Commandment, not the First - which is odd.
Regards
Hello Leviticus Lover (that's not an insult, right?): I haven't had the time to address all your points in previous points, and now there are new ones to cover. Sorry to say that I think a lot of what you wrote went over my head, but I can address your last statement easily.
I wrote that I believe caring for God's beloved creation is also loving God. I cited a few scriptures that support that point. Loving your neighbor does fulfill the entire law:
Galatians 5:14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
However, on the topic of loving God, I also believe that the Sabbath command has been magnified to make holy every "today". Entering the Sabbath Rest is not just a sunset Friday to sunset Saturday event. So, spending time with God, reading Holy Scripture, meditating, being thankful and praising is a daily act of worship.
Hello Anonymous of August 31, 2023 at 11:45: you corrected me; I thought that only three types of trees were mentioned in Leviticus 23:40 with the term "beautiful" describing the other three. However, you are probably correct since the other Anonymous, whom I've referred to as Leviticus Lover, seems to agree with you.
I guess I need to revise my understanding of the Reed Rule, in which it's postulated that when three things are commanded, the spirit of the law is fulfilled in being obedient to one. So now the Reed Rule is when four things are commanded, keeping the spirit of the law is achieved by being obedient to one of the four.
I've also introduced the Reverse Reed Rule, but that one has not seemed to get any traction. In light of the Reed Rule, I think the converse could also be true:
when four things are forbidden, if you just avoid one of the four, you've kept the spirit of the law. So, if camels, swine, rabbit, and hyrax are forbidden, if you just turn down a meal of hyrax (easier to do since no one knows what they are), then you've fulfilled the Spirit of the law. Although I cannot shake the concern that Armstrongites may actually believe that newly clean Gentiles are now edible based on the command to "kill and eat" in Acts 10.
Leviticus Lover also turned me on to Nehemiah 8, which contains instructions to make your FOT temporary dwelling, on your own property, out of five types of trees. That's a very different command than the COG version of staying in hotels made by someone else.
More proof that the COGs don't keep the law that they claim to keep.
Lover of Leviticus: one of the things you wrote, which I did not understand, is this statement, in light of the last sentence:
"I do you strictly adhere to the fabric laws; or shave the corners of my beard; but do engage in minor purification rituals - showering instead of bathing - from a hygienic perspective. My judgment would be unacceptable to NT law keepers."
I gather that you strictly adhere to the fabric law and the command not to shave the corners of your beard. However, you've decided against strict adherence to the purification rituals - correct?
You seem to be saying that you've determined that showering is more hygienic than bathing, so you can bend the bathing command - right?
Is that not changing more than the slightest iota of the law?
Where do you get your authority to changed what God commanded?
And, how far can you go in changing what God commanded?
Can one forgo the bath and the shower, and just do a quick dab, dab with a moist towelette?
While I do believe the COGs are full of hypocrisy, I'm not calling you a hypocrite ... yet, I just want to understand how you can say one law such as observing the FOT is commanded, and then not be concerned with the laws regarding how the FOT is commanded to be kept.
From my limited perspective, more love for God is shown by Christians who genuinely believes that the FOT was a shadow that pointed to Jesus, and since we now have Jesus with us, we are not bound to observe the FOT - as opposed to the those who believe that God commands the keeping of the FOT but, we can keep it any way we want, while insisting that we have not changed a jot or title of the law like those rebellious, false Christians.
Trooisto writes:
“Is that not changing more than the slightest iota of the law?”
Let me state categorically, Matthew 5:18 is HYPERBOLE; just as cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin; plucking out your eye if it causes you to sin; praying that a mountain be moved and cast into the sea; raising up stones to Abraham, etc.
This is what I posted above:
(2) "iwra ("iota") is the smallest letter of the Greek alphabet but translates an underlying reference to the smallest Hebrew letter , the yod... We have here thus A DELIBERATE HYPERBOLE - AN OVERSTATEMENT that is designed to drive home the main point that the law be fully preserved..." (Donald Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC, p.106). The ancient Near Eastern people loved hyperbole; cp. also Mt 3:9.
"It was thus possible for Matthew to affirm the categorical statement of verse 18 while himself exhibiting remarkable freedom in altering jots and tittles in his scriptural quotations..." (Douglas R.A. Hare, Matthew, INT, pp. 47-48).
1Sa 29:5 Is not this David, of whom they sang one to another in dances, saying, Saul slew his thousands, and David his ten thousands?
It is suggested that Israel used a factor of ten in hyperbole. It is more likely that Solomon had only 70 wives and 30 concubines.
In the Sumerian king lists Alulim reigned 28,000 years; En-men-lu-ana reigned for 43,200 years; see for more examples.
If these numbers are divided by 60, the numerical base for the Sumerians and Babylonians, then these numbers are more in align with Genesis 5.
Dt 29:14 Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;
Dt 29:15 But with him that standeth here with us this day before the LORD our God, AND ALSO WITH HIM THAT IS NOT HERE WITH US THIS DAY:
There are a couple of ways at looking at the 600,000 men on foot (Ex 12:37); hyperbole, hence 60,000 or in relation to Deut 29:
“Another theory construes the total number as envisaging the Israelite population at the close of the “Exodus era,” which culminated with the completion of the Temple by King Solomon; 600,000 adult males would be a realistic statistic for this period” (Nahum M. Sarna, Exodus, The JPS Torah Commentary, p.62).
Mt 18:24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
“The amount owed by one person (10,000 talent) was incomprehensible. This indicates hyperbolically the incalculable debt owed by the servant” (Michael J. Wilkins, Matthew, NIVAC, p.623).
Part 2
1Ch 22:14 Now, behold, in my trouble I have prepared for the house of the LORD an hundred thousand talents of gold, and a thousand thousand talents of silver; and of brass and iron without weight; for it is in abundance: timber also and stone have I prepared; and thou mayest add thereto.
“David had been unstinting in his amassing of resources to give Solomon a head start in his personal assignment. His vision of the temple as a magnificent showpiece for God (1Ch 22:5) was no idle dream but an incentive to live up to. The colossal number of talents of gold and silver in verse 1Ch 22:14 takes the thoughtful reader aback. They are considerably larger than those of 1Ch 29:4 (and 1Ch 29:7), while Solomon's import of 420 talents of gold from Ophir in 1Ki 9:28 was obviously intended to be a breathtaking amount. These factors call into question the literal interpretation of the numbers. Such numbers as have been supplied hitherto in Chronicles all seem to have had a rational basis in relation to their literary source or context. Later in Chronicles, however, sometimes mammoth numbers are mentioned that set the mind reeling. These considerations suggest that the Chronicler at times resorted to his own branch of mathematics, rhetorical mathematics, which must be respected for its intention. Indeed, it is idiomatic in English to reuse precise mathematical language to convey hyperbole, as when we say "Thanks a million!" or "A thousand pardons!" Rhetoric is a valid use of language; the prosaically minded reader needs to be aware of linguistic dimensions beyond what he or she may personally be accustomed to. In this case the intent is to convey that no expense was spared in David's generous provision of raw materials. The huge numbers are meant to have the same rhetorical effect as the accompanying phrases "beyond measure" and "no limit" (1Ch 22:14, 1Ch 22:16), and the juxtaposition of these phrases is not insignificant. David's generosity was probably mentioned not simply for its own sake, but as a model for his own generation. David was generous - hint, hint! It behooved them in turn to be generous in financial support of the temple” (Leslie C. Allen, The Preacher's Commentary, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Vol. 10).
“... the Bible is an ancient book and makes sense if we look at it in ancient ways” Peter Enns, The Bible tells me so, p.187).
"One of the greatest obstacles we face in trying to interpret the Bible is that we are inclined to think in our own cultural and linguistic categories. This is no surprise since our categories are often all that we have, but it is a problem because our own categories often do not suffice and sometimes mislead" (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, pp.67-68).
"Most of us are probably unprepared, however, for how different the ancient world is from our own. As should be obvious - though to many it’s apparently not - the Old Testament is more familiar to the culture of the ancient Near East, and the New Testament to the culture of the Greeks and Romans, than either is to our twentieth-first century world. We're thousands of years and thousands of miles removed. It means we frequently need to put the brakes on and ask whether we're reading the Bible in light of the original culture or in light of contemporary culture. While the Bible's values were very different from ancient cultures, it obviously communicated in the existing languages and within cultural customs of its days" (John H. Walton & D. Brent Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture, p.13).
Hello He Who Loves Leviticus: Hyperbole? No way. There’s no benefit to exaggerating in Matthew 5 – if you take it at as hyperbole – the meaning doesn’t change. Whether were talking not a jot or a tittle, or a whole lot of jots and tittles, or whatever the opposite of jots and tittles are, the verse means the same thing. The law is intact until it is fulfilled. Jesus has fulfilled all things, including the law.
As we know, there have been many changes to the law. Animal sacrifices are not going down, and COGs refuse to FOT decorate or make their own temporary dwellings in the commanded manner. Even you have changed the law regarding ritual bathing. Although I suspect that all Armstrongites advocate for and would like to enforce the death penalty for the sins described in Leviticus 20, which you did not comment on, I think they know that it would ensnare them all.
Regarding the law, Armstrongites do whatever they want while condemning the “so called Christians” for not doing what the Armstrongites want them to do. Yet, Armstrongites universally say that the law is still enforce and that they keep the law.
Whether it’s CGI claiming that they can keep what they decide is the spirit of the law, when it’s handy for them not to keep the actual law, or CGI claiming portions of the law are irrelevant, or the standard, ridiculous Armstrongite mantra insisting that nothing has changed from the law – the truth is if you are interested in law, truth, or Jesus, no need to consider any GOG-odd confusion. Same goes for some of the authors you are into; you can find a someone who can validate every opinion under the sun but, that doesn’t mean those opinions are worth much.
What do you think has changed in the world since the entry of Jesus at the first Christmas, the sacrifice of Jesus, and the Easter event of his resurrection?
The Holy Kiss Question
Lk 7:45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
" ‘In the ancient world one kissed the hand, breast, knee or foot of a superior, and the check of a friend. Herodotus mentions kissing the lips as a custom of the Persians. Probably from them it came to the Jews'.... In New Testament times it might be expected from a host to a guest (Luke 7:45), and it was a gesture of goodwill which made Judas's kiss so heinous (Luke 22:48) Not much is known of kissing in the early church, but it is usually held that men kissed men and women kissed women, and that kiss was on the cheek..." (Leon Morris, TNTC, p.109).
Ro 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
1Co 16:20 All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.
2Co 13:12 Greet one another with an holy kiss.
1Th 5:26 Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.
1Pe 5:14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.
"... five such appeals in the NT. There can be little doubt that this form of greeting prevailed in the church from the very beginning. Most likely it was a carryover from Judaism and from the culture in general. Its background in Judaism can be found in the greeting of both family (e.g., Gen 27:26; (cf. Luke 15:20) and friend (1 Sam 20:41); it was also the evidence of reconciliation (Gen 33:4)" (Gordon D. Fee, Corinthians, rev. NICNT, p.924).
"The imperative to greet all God's people occurs only occasionally in Paul's letters, and with the modifier "with a holy kiss".... But it is especially noteworthy that it occurs in this letter, where friendship is what drives so much that it is said, since a "kiss" in Greco-Roman culture was a natural greeting between friends, and especially within families, which is now the assumed relationship in the preceding vocative, "brothers and sisters." Thus this word is a reminder to the whole community to keep their internal friendship alive, and demonstrate it regularly with the kiss that denoted friendship... The "kiss" in this case would not be on the mouth, but on both cheeks, as it still is in some Eastern European countries..." (Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT, p.232).
"Now that the letter was ended, it was appropriate for the readers to greet one another in their customary way, with "the kiss of love." Paul mentions the "holy kiss' at the end of four of his epistles (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess 5:26),evidently expecting that it would be followed in the service in which the letter was read. Peter uses the less formal "kiss of love," which expressed the meaning of the act. In the ancient world kisses were normally exchanged among family members (parents and children; brothers and sisters; servants and masters) and at times between rulers and their clients... The familial kiss probably forms the background to the NT practice, for fellow-Christians were considered brothers and sisters. This affectionate kissing was normally on the cheeks, forehead, or hands..." (Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, NICNT, pp.204-05).
"Accommodation refers to the fact that Lord communicates his values to us in a way that we can understand, namely by using the cultural realities that exist in our society. For example, in 1 Thessalonians 5:26, the Lord commands through Paul that the Christians at Thessalonica should greet one another ‘with a holy kiss'. In ancient Greek society, as in some modern societies, it was common for men to greet one another this way as a sign of friendship and love... the Lord wanted Christian men to show brotherly love to one another” (Jay Sklar, Leviticus, TOTC, pp.55-56).
Trooisto, do you, as directed by Paul in the NC, greet you brothers in Christ with a holy kiss?
BTW, were you ever an “Armstrongite”?
He Who Loves Leviticus: sorry, I don’t even know what a holy kiss is. It’s interesting how some women move in for a kiss immediately, some are huggers, while others extend a hand for a handshake, and others just smile. I prefer just smiling while saying hello. Men never try to kiss; a few are huggers, and most are hand-shakers – again, I’d just prefer a smile. However, as a Christian, I’m free to act in the manner that is culturally appropriate and comfortable.
You, as a believer in the law, a law that has not changed, have no such freedom. Freedom in Christ is very different than being bound to Old Covenant law. You can't have both.
Galatians 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Galatians 5:1
Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free?
John 8:34, 36
Whoever practices sin (1 John 3:4) is the servant of sin. If the Son therefore shall make you free, you are free indeed.
This is accomplished through the grace of God, the forgiveness of sins, God writing His LAW on the heart, and walking in the spirit, which happens to be the new covenant!
The law is not the problem, but using it for the wrong reasons, self justification and vain glory (Galatians 5:4, Romans 10:3)!!!
See how easy that was? Your welcome!
Post a Comment