The Council gathers; how it might have been. (Fair Use)
Notes on the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15
By Scout
Preface
This is an excerpt from notes that I am making for myself on the disposition of the Law of Moses after Jesus. While my account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 accords with orthodox Christianity, it differs greatly from the Armstrongist interpretation. I had hoped to find material on this topic in an archive of Armstrongist writings but could not locate anything documented. I do recall oral interpretations of the Jerusalem Council from my WCG days. The Jerusalem Council is an important event in church history that should not be neglected. In it is found the view of the early church on the Law of Moses.
Circumcision, the Law and the Council
Paul and Barnabas went through Asia Minor making disciples and establishing a congregational church infrastructure. They taught in these churches and appointed elders. This is chronicled in Acts 15:19-28. But in the wake of all their missionary work, another group of men came along preaching a different gospel. This group is broadly known as the Circumcision Party (Greek, tous ek peritomes, those of the circumcision). Pulling together some fragments of information, one may determine that the group consisted of Jews who had some association with James in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:12) and who were in some cases Pharisees (Acts 15:5). There is no evidence that they were in any way credentialed by James or the Jerusalem church.
The congregations established by Paul and Barnabas would have been taught the Gospel (Acts 14:21). These were Gentile congregations (Acts 15:12) but they apparently had some access to the Hebrew scriptures (Acts 15:21). Other scriptures indicate that there were also some Jews in these early congregations. The Circumcision Party was preaching to them that in order to be saved they had to 1) be circumcised and 2) keep the Law of Moses. They were diligently trying to undo the work that Paul and Barnabas had done. Paul and Barnabas opposed them vehemently (Acts 15: 2). It is obvious from this sequence of events that Paul and Barnabas preached the Gospel to these newly planted churches and the preaching did not include anything about being circumcised or keeping the Law of Moses. This absence of the Law of Moses in Christianity engendered the conflict that led to the Jerusalem Council.
It is worthwhile to consider the playbook that the Circumcision Party was following with these newly planted, mostly Gentile congregations. These scattered congregations had a high view of Jesus. The teaching of Paul and Barnabus would have assured this. Jesus was the way to eternal life and the resurrection and participation in the divine nature. And then the Circumcision Party sought out these congregations and brought them a different message. It is impossible to know the precise message they brought but deductions can be made from Paul’s writings, especially Galatians. They depreciated Jesus. They said that Jesus was not the great person that Paul and Barnabus described. In fact, salvation was not in Jesus alone. Jesus was not an effective Savior. Christians would also have to qualify for salvation by being circumcised and keeping the Law of Moses. This shifted attention away from the New Testament and back to the Law and the Prophets. It also tipped the balance of power in the favor of traditional Late Second Temple Judaism and the Pharisees. The new Christian Movement would become Judaized. And if the effort were successful, the Phariseeism which was dominant in Judaism would also be dominant in Christianity.
The Circumcision Party seems to have been very persuasive in their anti-Christian operations in Asia Minor. Paul pointed out to Peter that he buckled to this group in Antioch. Paul observed to Peter that he lived like a Gentile. Paul accused Peter and the other Christian Jews in the Antioch congregation of being hypocrites because they suddenly would not eat with Christian Gentiles. Paul states that in their sudden return to the Law of Moses under the influence of the Circumcision Party, they stood condemned. This is telling language – that taking up the Law of Moses again is worthy of condemnation. Paul, taught by Jesus, believed that the Old Covenant and the Law of Moses were abrogated as we know from his later writing. But the Church as a whole had no official pronouncement on it. The work of Paul and Barnabas in Asia Minor occasioned the need for that pronouncement. This was to prevent the newly established congregations from being pressured by two forces at work against Christianity: 1) the activities of the Circumcision Party and 2) the hostile effect of local Jewish synagogues (Acts 14:2, Acts 15:21).
[Note: Paul was taught by Jesus personally and learned that the Law of Moses was cancelled. Herbert W. Armstrong claimed to have been likewise taught by God in the Des Moines Public Library. Yet, Armstrong came up with a view that contradicted Paul completely. Paul taught salvation in Jesus alone with good works as a product of this. Herbert W. Armstrong taught salvation in Jesus plus qualification through a lifetime of law keeping based on the doctrine that the Law of Moses is still in effect. Paul taught that salvation was a real event in the life of the Christian now. Herbert W. Armstrong taught that for the believer salvation was held in suspense until the believer’s life was over and judgment could happen.]
The outcome of the Council deliberations is that there were certain parts of the Law of Moses that Christians should observe with a particular sensitivity towards the Jewish community. This would be in addition to the Law of Christ (later documented as the Sermon on the Mount and other behavioral principles found in the New Testament writings) as taught to them by Paul and Barnabus. But it is important to notice that the Jerusalem Council did not discard the Law of Moses wholly. This suggests that there would be some continuing value of the legislation in Christianity though not in soteriology.
Excerpt Summation
The Jerusalem Council was a milestone event in the cancellation of the Law of Moses as a pathway to salvation. But the Jerusalem Council did not issue a blanket statement wholly discarding the Law of Moses. It reflected, after all, the nature of God for a certain group of people during a certain time in history. It had gravitas in other ways that will be addressed below. [The further discussion “below” is not included in this excerpt.]
Note: The photo at top is a picture of Mizrahi Jewish men having a discussion. They are the most like ancient Jews in appearance. I believe the artifact in the center is the scroll of the Torah wrapped in cloth. I have chosen this because the art work showing scenes from the Bible in Western Christianity invariably portrays Western Europeans instead of Jews.
202 comments:
1 – 200 of 202 Newer› Newest»"The photo at top is a picture of Mizrahi Jewish men having a discussion...I have chosen this because the art work showing scenes from the Bible in Western Christianity invariably portrays Western Europeans instead of Jews."
Wolverton was always drawing white people wearing kheffiyehs for some reason.
Might I say that the kheffiyeh is wonderful for working outside if you soak it first. I have a few and I like wearing them when working on the house. But its unlikely to have been known to the Hebrews.
Wonder how long it will take till Nazi Boy mouths off about the Jews pictured.
Armstrongism does not like to talk about the Jerusalem Council (for obvious reasons). However, when they do talk about it, they spin it as simply being a controversy over whether or not Gentile Christians should be circumcised. Notice this passage from CGI's Systematic Theology Project (which is basically the same one generated during the 1970's in the Worldwide Church and caused so much controversy and was vetoed by Herbie, because it threatened his authority to set doctrine within the church):
"The Jews in the time of the New Testament understood the importance of the law and the many promises about blessings for observing it. The problem was that many went on to assume that salvation came by observing it. When Paul and other writers showed them this assumption was incorrect, it became a major stumbling block. Even after the Church had been in existence for almost 20 years, it was still necessary to call a conference over the
question of circumcision, since some still believed salvation was impossible without it (Acts 15). Paul had a deep and abiding appreciation for the law (Rom. 6; 7:12; 1 Cor. 7:19), yet he also understood law-keeping did not earn salvation."
It's like they read the first verse of the fifteenth chapter of Acts and stop reading: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'” They ignore the fifth verse: "But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.'”
Torah pointed to Jesus and fulfilled it! He embodied the tenets of the Old Covenant (The rituals, sacrifices, and moral requirements). He also drew two commandments from Torah and told his disciples that they comprehended the intent of God's law. The Sermon on the Mount corrected the Jewish understanding of the laws relevance to the morality of the love which underpinned the terms of both the Old and New Covenants. I am well aware of the fact that a considerable number of traditional Christians (like their Armstrongist brethren) would like to have it both ways and retain (cherry-pick) some of the commandments of Torah. Once again, I have never seen a logical and scriptural premise for doing so. New Testament Christians are operating under a different iteration of God's Law - NOT under ANY of the commandments of Torah - other than the two which Christ specified. Yes, some of the commandments of Torah are comprehended within those two, but the standard is different. The New Covenant is NOT synonymous with the Old one - it is NEW!
"Wonder how long it will take till Nazi Boy mouths off about the Jews pictured."
That might rate as the most vacuous comment ever.
What if he never says that, and it's just what you say he is going to say? What's the point?
Dear RSK, I might actually try that neat idea of soaked kheffiyeh for yard work in 90° + weather this summer, thanks!
Most of the Jews in Israel today, and in the West, look like Europeans and are probably not Jews biblically, but converts to Judaism.
Are Scout and M.J. the same person?
"Armstrongism does not like to talk about the Jerusalem Council ... "
Untrue. False. Nonsense. Not so. I heard a lot about it in "Armstrongism."
After rereading my comment when it was posted, I wanted to clarify: Torah pointed to Jesus, and he fulfilled it!
"...some of the commandments of Torah are comprehended within those two...."
******
No.
On these two commandments hang ALL the law and the prophets -Mat 22:40.
I don't think one could reasonably argue for a cancellation or abolishment of the law, but rather an unenforcement of it. Same law, different administration. No longer an administration of death, now an administration of grace.
A good explanation of the Council and divisions of the time. Thanks for taking the time.
Agree Armstrong diverged from Paul markedly - Armstrong said doing of law was a requirement to be saved. We read how towards the end Paul wrote it was only Luke, who had traveled with Paul on many of his missionary journeys, remained. The circumcision party and the 'doers' had influence. Very much doubt Apostle Armstrong would have been any friend of Paul.
The important question for Armstrongists is why does the decision arrived at by the Jerusalem Council about what Gentiles Christians should observe not include the Sabbath, holy days, clean and unclean foods and tithing, for example. I had a discussion about this with a fellow WCG member back in about 1994. Time flies. He shortly thereafter joined David Hulme’s denomination. I don’t know what the denomination is called.
He stated that the Gentile Christians were already keeping the Law of Moses so there was no need to include the Sabbath and other requirements in the decision made by the Jerusalem Council. And he cited the following verse:
“For from ancient generations, Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.” (ESV, Acts 15:21)
So, this church member’s view (I don’t think it was just his view. I think he got this from the pulpit.) was that the Gentile churches had a ready source of the Law of Moses and so there was no need for the Jerusalem Council to include a statement detailing the Torah and mentioning the Sabbath and other yet binding requirements kept by the WCG. And the few requirements specified by the Jerusalem Council are from the ceremonial law.
This makes no sense for the following reasons:
1. The contention in Acts 15 is about the Law of Moses, clearly stated, not about the sacrificial law only. Circumcision, also, pre-existed the sacrificial law. Nowhere does the scripture limit the contention about the Law of Moses to just the sacrificial law. Nowhere in scripture does the "Law of Moses" as a term refer just to the sacrifices.
2. The Circumcision Party was attacking these Gentile congregations because they were NOT keeping the Law of Moses. One cannot assume they were keeping the Law of Moses before the Jerusalem Council when the fact that they were NOT keeping the Law of Moses is the very source of the controversy. (Pardon my all caps.)
Armstrongists use the artful dodge that the scripture is speaking of only the sacrificial law in a number of critical, theological arguments. But I do not recall any exegesis of this. Only assertions.
Scout
"How do we know if "Nazi Boy" is either a Nazi or a Boy?"
I doubt he is a boy, but instead is a disturbed man. He sends multiple posts a day filled with antisemitic, Hitler-praising garbage that will never see the light of day. He says that the 11 million people who died in German concentration camps died of typhoid and other disease. None were killed in the gas chambers or burned in the ovens. He thinks he is pushing my buttons, but he is not. He consistently presents himself as an imbecilic moron.
Scout and Lonnie C Hendrix,
Thank you for your post and comments.
The Bible is undoubtedly the most remarkable book ever to have been written.
Certainly Mystery of the Ages fades into obscurity when compared to it, lol.
Scout your photo of the Mizrahi Jews caught my attention. Israel is an amazing melting pot of culture. Walking the streets of its cities and towns one is confronted by a huge array and kaleidoscope of peoples making up this vibrant land. Jews come in all shapes and sizes, lol. I myself lived there for 2 years and mixed readily with Jews from the Uk Europe USA that looked just as I do, a European, I am Jewish, and of course untold numbers from Iran Iraq Egypt Syria Ethiopia etc etc and Asia, who looked distinctly ‘Asian’. Sharing a common language and genetics yet from vastly different backgrounds. We were scattered worldwide indeed. But we never forgot who we were. And are now being regathered to our ancestral homeland. The impact this people have had is incredible, for such a small group, around 0.002% of the world’s population.
This is a dilemma for Armstrongism as is trying to explain BI and of course the Book of Acts, especially chapter 15.
Shabbat Shalom to you all.
Anonymous 12:34
I am not Miller Jones but through orthodox Christianity, I find common cause with him.
Scout
Anonymous 12:24 wrote, "Most of the Jews in Israel today, and in the West, look like Europeans and are probably not Jews biblically, but converts to Judaism."
While what you say may apply to a small percentage of European Jews, it does not apply to the bulk of them. The Ashkenazi Jews are numerous in Western and Eastern Europe and look European. This is because they are a mix of Southern European and Jewish. They are genetically very close to Italians.
Is a person of mixed Gentile/Jewish ancestry a Jew? I don't know. Jews can be defined in different ways. Jews who are nearly full-blooded still live in the Middle Eastern countries and and are genetically closest to the Arabic-speaking people who occupy Gaza and the West Bank.
Jesus, in appearance, would fit neatly into the picture I have provided for this article.
Scout
Anonymous 12:36
If you can find a document that defines the Armstrongist position on the Jerusalem Council, I would appreciate hearing about it.
Thanks.
Scout
A friend in the military suggested it to me. Now, my neighbors really gave me the stink eye when I first started using it, but over time I've caught them ripping off the idea.
I cannot recall a reference myself.
That said, I was (at the time) mostly disinterested in the history in the New Testament and probably am just not recalling other references (Even my old Mesopotamian Studies instructor used to tease me that I hated everything Hellenic or Roman). Theologically, it seems to me that it had to be mentioned fairly regularly so they could apply their workarounds. Even if they didn't like to dwell on it.
I believe Malcolm X had a similar reaction when he went to Mecca for the first time.
The Gentile converts were just beginning to learn, about the gospel, about Moses, about the law. The council decided not to burden them with circumcision but instead four things that can or could have immediate negative impact on their health and well being. The council knew the new converts are attending or will begin to attend the synagogues every sabbath where and when the converts would learn more.
Yes, Christ said "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:40, ESV) I was thinking in terms of the Ten compared to commandments about mixing fibers or planting two kinds of seed when I wrote that "some" of the commandments were comprehended. You are correct - In this instance, my wording was inarticulate and technically inaccurate. Sorry, I am still human.
Scout and I are two different people who agree on a wide range of theological issues. We are brothers in Christ. However, if you look closely, you will discern a few subtle (but inconsequential) differences in both our styles and perspectives.
Scout @ 4:23:00 PM PDT
‘They are genetically very close to Italians’.
This may surprise many. But it is rather true.
Through science today we can track our ‘genes’, that is Ashkenazi Jewry, to 4-5 Italian women.
Professor Henry Abramson has a series of lectures on YT where he goes into good detail about the origins of the Jewish peoples, particularly of European Jewry. I have followed him for around 3 years and he is a great scholar and speaker. Well worth seeking out. My own Ashkenazi roots are from the Czech Republic and down to Italy and to the Levantine coastal areas. The genetic and historical links are fascinating.
It all blows BI sharply out of the water.
Jewish Halacha (law) states that one’s mother, if Jewish herself, determines who is Jewish. In other words if your mum is Jewish, you are. Karaite Jews who don’t observe the ‘Oral Law’ differ on this.
To the outside observer this may sound all rather confusing, but then our own experiences tell us that confusion is rather common amongst the hugely divided Armstrong movement.
The article contains a geographic error. Herbert Armstrong was taught by Jesus in the Portland, Oregon, public library, not the Des Moines public library. It is very important to get that correct. Des Moines means "from the monks", and obviously Jesus would not teach Mr. Armstrong in a place named for a bunch of pork-eating, Christmas-keeping, Sunday-observing, rebellious, Catholic monks. Portland, on the other hand, was named for Portland, Maine, and the name Portland comes from the old English word portlanda, which means "land surrounding a harbor". Obviously, Jesus was providing a harbor for his truth in a sea of deception by enlightening Mr. Armstrong in Portland, Oregon. We might also note that the name Oregon may come from the Spanish word oregano. Used since the middle 18th century, the Spanish word orégano is derived from the Latin orīganum which itself comes from Classical Greek ὀρίγανον (orī́ganon).The ultimate origin is disputed; some claim it is a compound Greek term that consists of ὄρος (óros) meaning "mountain", and γάνος (gános) meaning "joy", thus, "joy of the mountain". Obviously, we can conclude that the mountain of truth which was revealed to Mr. Armstrong in Oregon brought great joy, at least to Mr. Armstrong. Or we can write this entire comment off as word salad gibberish. I like ranch dressing on my salad.
What about that ole Council of Pasadena.
the point is, that 12:16 likely is "nazi boy" posing as an anon. responder to 11:26 eh?
Let's assume that all the following are "givens":
1. "Nazi boy" is really a Nazi.
2. He is really a he.
3. He is really a boy.
4. He is mentally disturbed.
5. He is obsessed.
6. He is pro-Hitler.
7. He is antisemetic.
None of the above seems to have anything to do with this article or whether or not anything "Nazi boy" says is actually true or false. Even a crazy person could be correct on certain points.
Anonymous 4:01
When I was growing up my Dad mentioned a number of times that Jews were a pure people. Jews married only other Jews, he said. This view of course is flawed. While Jews have maintained strong traditions, they also have intermarried. Jews tend to be haplogroup J. But Ashkenazi Levites are haplogroup R, a common European haplogroup. There must be some interesting history behind this.
Jews come in all sizes and shapes now by in ancient times that was not so. Anthropologists have defined the average Jewish appearance. I read in an article that we could guess at the appearance of Jesus if he was an average Jew of his day. He was 5'1". He weighed 110 pounds. From other sources, he had a gracile build. Curly dark hair and dark eyes. He was olive-skinned. This is not the Jesus you see depicted in Western Art.
Scout
re Scout earlier comment 2.44 >
I agree with your conclusions re the gentiles.
The context clarifies:
19 “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
20 but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood.
21 For Moses has had those who proclaim him in every town from ancient times, because he is read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
This verse 20 concerns certain gentile practices that were a cause of offence to Jews who were believers.
The four rules decided upon were that Gentile Christians should abstain from food polluted by idols, sexual immorality, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. The instructions were designed to promote peace within the early church.
“ For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.“
The word “For” is assigning a reason - used elsewhere when presenting an argument/ explanation or intensification; much the same as using “because”.
The purpose ,therefore , is to ensure there was no offence to the Jewish believers who , understandably, still followed Mosaic customs/laws, or to Jews generally who were not believers.
The laws of Moses were actively and regularly preached - hence the counsel to stop doing those things that were customary to Gentiles, but not to Jews
- Were it not for the offence, they could have continued to do those things that were the custom of Gentiles. They could have continued to eat meat sold in the market place by the pagan priests - meat which had been offered in sacrifice to a pagan deity, and accordingly likely sold at a good discount , hence the attraction to some believers
- it appears some Gentile believers also ate the sacrificed meat in the temple grounds because of what we read in 1 Corinthians.
Either ground concerning sacrificed meat/ idols became cause for the offence
It was concerned with conscience/offence because of those verses cited from 1 Corinthians, where Paul writes of the same issue.
As noted, Paul’s words in Corinthians were written some five years after the Jerusalem Council. Noteworthy is the fact Paul refers solely to meat sacrificed to idols, and matters of conscience.(Reference to sexual matters after careful analysis shows this matter is best regarded as directly connected with the sacrificial meat / idol issue).
The verse 21 starting with ''For...'' is not connected with Gentiles attending synagogues rather it is to do with the fact as noted Jewish` believers had to be protected because they had sensitive consciences and were easily offended.
There is quite a good write up in Got Questions: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jerusalem-Council.html
Armstrong and his associates at every turn would emphasize law keeping - the teachings of Paul were and are an offence to them.
Scout @ 6:45:00 PM PDT
A few decades ago I walked into a Printing business to get some copies made of some material I had and was met at the counter by two young men, who were European looking but both with thick black hair and beards eyes etc.
Their personal tags had names I guessed were Iranian maybe Armenian or perhaps from Georgia. Pronounceable they were not.
They turned out to be Assyrian.
A distinct group in their own right. And they do not all look as I was told, as they do. Some look very middle eastern. Their history is as interesting as that of the Jewish people. With their own traditions and religious rituals. Most are Christians.
Germans they are not, as Germans are not Assyrian, although Assyrians are to be found there as elsewhere on the globe. And they are thriving in their small communities. Their presence is undoubtedly an embarrassment for Armstrongism, and there’s no denying their historical ties to the mid east.
If scout and m.j. are the same person one would expect them both to deny it. So such denials are meaningless. What is necessary is to hear from a trustworthy non-anonymous person (using their real name) who knows both of them personally.
I was expecting an attack on genuine Christianity just prior to the feast of unleavened bread, and this was it. I was expecting it to come from Dennis, but perhaps his is yet to come.
These types of articles appear like clockwork as each OT feast day approaches.
Why would the "Jerusalem Pillars", Peter, James, John.., defer to the "authority" of Paul; why should they buy his 'road to Damascus'/ translation to heaven story; why did many buy HWA's claim of authority and 'new truth' of British-Israelism that would 'open the scriptures to understanding' and reveal a date for the second advent (1972)
"Paul taught salvation in Jesus alone with good works as a product of this."
But you leave out the fact that "good works" includes the keeping of God's law, so your statement is misleading and HWA did not contradict Paul. Actually, you contradict Paul.
"After rereading my comment when it was posted, I wanted to clarify: Torah pointed to Jesus, and he fulfilled it!"
He fulfilled it, He did not abolish it. Had He not fulfilled it He could not have been the atoning sacrifice and we would all still be under the death penalty.
Anonymous 9:19
The modern Assyrians are a mixed people. They have a large presence of haplogroup J which is a Middle Eastern haplogroup. But they also have a large presence of haplogroup R1b which is an Indo-European haplogroup. The haplogroup structure of their populations in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey is similar to the Armenians. Moreover, Assyrians, like the Armenians, live at the boundary between Middle Eastern people and Indo-European people with the attendant mixing. They also appear not to be homogenous over their geography. At different locations you will find different genetic profiles.
Modern Assyrians have intrigued me as a group of people. Though there are claims, I do not know if they descend from the ancient Assyrians at all. I know of one archaeogenetic study of ancient Assyrians and it indicates that the ancient Assyrians were haplogoup J like the ancient Jews. They were near cousins of the Jews and the idea that they are related to the Indo-European Germans is facetious. The ancient Assyrians had trading networks that extended up into Anatolia where they encountered Indo-Europeans. One scientists believes that the Assyrians acquired their R1b signal from intermixture with Armenians who are also a boundary people who reflect both Indo-European and Middle Eastern haplogroups.
So, if you have a mosaic of haplogroups including J, R and T, as we have in the modern Assyrians, which haplogroup might be connected to the ancient Assyrians. We don't know and must look to archaeogenetics. I am hoping more evidence will emerge.
Scout
James tells us that the Law of Moses (law is singular) is a package deal, all 613 laws. To break one is to break all of them. The Council suggested that some of the law be kept so as not to offend the Jews. The greatest commandment is to love one another, or "do the loving thing." We shouldn't offend others. To do so would hinder evangelism.
Annonymous,
Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 7:00:00 AM PDT
James is referring to the 10 Commandments. To love God (the first four commandments) and man (the next six) is to fulfill two royal commandments.
Anonymous 5:08 wrote, "The Gentile converts were just beginning to learn, about the gospel, about Moses, about the law. The council decided not to burden them with circumcision but instead four things that can or could have immediate negative impact on their health and well being. The council knew the new converts are attending or will begin to attend the synagogues every sabbath where and when the converts would learn more."
Thank you for this counterpoint. Let me tell you why I think this view doesn’t work. If Paul and Barnabas intended to teach these Gentile churches to keep the Law of Moses and just had not gotten around to it, why was the Circumcision Party so upset? Why was the Circumcision Party tracking Paul and Barnabas? And if Paul and Barnabas believed the Law of Moses was in force and the Circumcision Party believed the Law of Moses was in force and the church leaders in Jerusalem believed the Law of Moses was still in force, then they were all on the same page – and why then have a council in Jerusalem to settle a controversy. Apparently, there was no controversy. But there was a controversy and this is reflected in the Epistle to the Galatians as well as Acts 15.
Claiming that Paul and Barnabas did not want to expose new converts to the Law of Moses because it was too much for them to handle and yet later claim that they had the Law of Moses available to them through the synagogue system just does not work. These two views contradict.
I appreciate the fact that as an Armstrongist you have offered a different theory of these events but it is just not compatible with scripture. Paul stated explicitly that the Law of Moses was abolished in Ephesians 2:14-15. A resolution of the Jerusalem Council issue that supports the Armstrongitst view that the Law of Moses is still in force is critical for Armstrongist theology to have credibility. Armstrongists need to come up with a sound and tight exegesis concerning this topic. Nothing less will do. A sound bite response that expresses a weak eisegesis just does not have traction.
Scout
Circumcision or not, it can be argued that CIRCUMCISION , "Looks Better". My wife agrees, as do most women.
Anonymous 5:06 wrote, "But you leave out the fact that "good works" includes the keeping of God's law, so your statement is misleading and HWA did not contradict Paul. Actually, you contradict Paul."
Keeping the Law of Moses after Jesus certainly can be included in the category of good works. (Although I believe Christians would balk at some of the Mosaic legislation such as the implict approval of slavery and stoning as a punishment.) The Law of Moses represents an ethical standard that reflects the nature of God for a certain people at a certain time. My opinion is that the Jerusalem Church, consisting principally of Jews, continued to observe the Law of Moses and Temple worship in some form up until about 70 AD. The Judaic faith and Christianity are both forms of Late Second Temple Judaism. I believe that Christians and Jews probably worshipped together in the Temple.
Where Paul and I are on the same side and in contravention to HWA is that Pauline theology, in which I believe, does not assert that good works, whether stemming from observance of the Law of Moses or otherwise, are a requirement for salvation. The good works are instead something that a believer generates because he has faith and is saved. HWA taught that good works along with the sacrifice of Jesus lead to salvation. This is a heretical position. This heresy is encompassed in the uniquely Armstrongist doctrine of Qualification for Salvation.
This is a lengthy discussion and you can find more here if you have an interest:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/01/bootstrapping-salvation-disturbing.html
Paul said by grace, through faith you are saved. HWA said by grace, through faith and a lifetime of accumulating an appropriate number of good works and then you might be saved at the end. HwA died not knowing whether he was saved - based on his theology. He died still trying to qualify for salvation with no idea if he were even close. And the Gospel is not good news but a dire warning. This model of "salvation" fits with a pre-occupation with dire apocalyptic prophecy and an atmosphere of fear.
Scout
Anonymous 5:10 wrote, "He fulfilled it, He did not abolish it. Had He not fulfilled it He could not have been the atoning sacrifice and we would all still be under the death penalty."
I don't mean to elbow in on this exchange with Miller Jones but let me make a short comment before I head off to the grocery store. I believe Jesus did abolish the Law of Moses. And this can be found in the writings of Paul. For instance, in Ephesians 2:14-15. But he did not abolish it for all purposes. I think there are still some useful purposes for the Law of Moses asserted in the New Testament. It is just no longer a behavioral prescription. It has been replaced by the behavioral prescriptions contained in the Law of Christ.
This leaves us with the view that the word "fulfill" is like fulfilling the terms in a contract. Once the terms are fulfilled, the contract is closed. And the terms are no longer binding. Paul used the analogy of a woman whose husband dies and now is free from the marriage covenant.
I agree with your second sentence. But the second sentence has nothing to do with whether or not the Law of Moses was abolished.
Scout
Anonymous 5:10 wrote, "He fulfilled it, He did not abolish it. Had He not fulfilled it He could not have been the atoning sacrifice and we would all still be under the death penalty."
I don't mean to elbow in on this exchange with Miller Jones but let me make a short comment before I head off to the grocery store. I believe Jesus did abolish the Law of Moses. And this can be found in the writings of Paul. For instance, in Ephesians 2:14-15. But he did not abolish it for all purposes. I think there are still some useful purposes for the Law of Moses asserted in the New Testament. It is just no longer a behavioral prescription. It has been replaced by the behavioral prescriptions contained in the Law of Christ.
This leaves us with the view that the word "fulfill" is like fulfilling the terms in a contract. Once the terms are fulfilled, the contract is closed. And the terms are no longer binding. Paul used the analogy of a woman whose husband dies and now is free from the marriage covenant.
I agree with your second sentence. But the second sentence has nothing to do with whether or not the Law of Moses was abolished.
Scout
"Corinthians was written 5 years later"
Yes, but what about Galatians, written at the same time, 50AD
In Galatians, Paul abolishes sabbaths & holydays as well
Scout, this is Fri 5:08:
Thank you for your comments. My comment could be construed as simplistic. I do think however the phrase "Law of Moses" includes up to 613 laws but is a reference point where more must be stated or written as to exactly what a writer is referencing in the law of Moses: the 10 commandments? All laws in Ex 20-23? Other? All 613 laws?
I think based on Hebrews 9 the ordinances and laws abolished-Eph 2:14-15; Gal 9:10-are those related to the Levitical priesthood: washings, sacrifices, fleshly laws, etc but not the entire law of Moses was abolished. I don't think Paul and Barnabas intended to teach Gentiles that all of the law of Moses must be kept. The controversy appears to be which laws are to be observed and which laws not to observe.
I love topics like these, and blog entries which have been put together by deep thinkers. For some time now, I have believed that Herbert W. Armstrong, through his opinions and teachings, has put a lock on his once and present followers' minds so that they can neither understand or receive salvation. It's totally beyond them (and I struggle and consider myself to be part of that group, so am not just attempting to put these folks down) to understand. I look forward to this type of article, and hope that repetition, and expressing it with slightly different verbiage and analogies, will eventually help all of us. It is just a shame to have a group of sincere individuals who have been so screwed over, spiritually speaking that they view atheism and agnosticism as the only logical alternatives once they come to their senses enough to see Armstrongism for what it is, and to realize that they must leave.
The implications of the Jerusalem Council's edict went far beyond what is generally recognized. It marked the beginning of separation of the early Christian church from Judaism. Gentiles and the uncircumcised were allowed to go no further into the Temple than the "Court of the Gentiles", because they were considered unclean. Not being circumcised meant that an individual was not permitted to fully participate in all of the rituals which were part of the Jewish faith.
Here we go again, more strivings about the law.
The law of Moses reflected "the nature of God" BUT "the law of Moses is abolished, cancelled, abrogated"??
There are STILL "certain parts of the law of Moses that Christians should observe"?
"There are STILL some useful purposes for the law of Moses asserted in the N.T."?
"The Jerusalem council DID NOT discard the law of Moses wholly--suggesting there would be some continuing value of the legislation"?
I'm sure Scout knows what he means even if I find some of it contradictory. Concerning the Jerusalem Conference, I think the bottom line was this:
Do the Gentiles need to be circumcised AFTER THE MANNER OF MOSES now that they have been circumcised AFTER THE MANNER of CHRIST? (Acts 15:1, Colossians 2:11). Interesting question!
Physical circumcision was a physical identifying sign of who belonged to God. Without it, the Gentiles were strangers, aliens, and without God (Ephesians 2:12).
But now, through the Gospel (Eph.3:6) they had access " by one spirit unto the Father (2:18)" and possessed the new identifying sign recognized by God, the spirit of Christ (see Romans 8:9). Thus circumcision is now "inward, of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter" . . ."that we should now serve (the law) in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter (Romans 2:29, 7:6).
Call this new process what you will, the law magnified, the Torah transformed (Lonnie), or the Law of Christ. None of these ideas cancel the law of Moses, but include it in its highest form and substance as we see depicted in the new testament (see 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, 9:8-11).
Scout,
You're not worth listening to. And your archaeogenetics material is futile. You're described in 1 Tim 6:20 and 1 Cor 3:19 and numerous other places. In your summation, you suggest that the law of Moses might have some validity but then, at 9:09 above, you say the law of Moses is abolished. Stop beating a dead horse. We've gone over this track before. The end is approaching and you still can't get to step 1.
You remind me of the rebel Jews in the night court session who thought they had "something" against the Messiah. Like some of our foolish ministers in the church today, they were SO SMART to take on the Messiah. They were sure that they would find something wrong with him and His doctrine.
"The implications of the Jerusalem Council's edict went far beyond what is generally recognized."
Not true because the events portrayed are entirely fictitious.
Anon 2:36:00 PM PDT
‘Not true because the events portrayed are entirely fictitious’.
Like the moon landings and Biden’s election victory over Trump. And the death of Elvis lol.
Regardless of the above comments the Jerusalem Council edicts were earth moving and astonishing and to this day, as we can see have lead to enormous consequences and confusion and controversy.
I call them the Three C’s……….
How can you say that, 2:36? We have the written records, preserved by the Roman Catholic Church, right in our Bibles! Paul's Gentile churches lovingly curated his epistles, the gospels, and other documents, as written, in Greek.
I believe our friend is suggesting that Luke is not a trustworthy witness to said event.
Scout @ 6:26:00 AM PDT
Wikipedia has some excellent material on the Assyrians.
Place Assyrians in google and follow wiki.
Material includes genetics and haplogroups. Assyrian history is colourful but also tragic.
They have suffered enormous trauma as a people and their stories often mirror those of the Jews down through the centuries. An almost unknown ethnic group and invisible to Armstrongism.
Their presence poses serious problems for BI ‘theory’.
Thank you for your posts.
Anonymous 11:23 wrote, "I think based on Hebrews 9 the ordinances and laws abolished-Eph 2:14-15; Gal 9:10-are those related to the Levitical priesthood: washings, sacrifices, fleshly laws, etc but not the entire law of Moses was abolished."
Thank you for this counterpoint. This is a standard Armstrongist reflex. You find a reference to the Law of Moses being abolished and naturally it refers only to the sacrifices. There is nothing in the surrounding text to make one think that this refers only to the sacrifices. If you wish to reduce the statement by excluding some body of Law from being abolished, you have to exegete it. You cannot just say “I think…” and then pour out a homemade, unsupported conclusion. This reflexive response to scripture is dangerous. It converts what the Bible says to malarkey with a blink of an eye.
The ball is in your court. Ephesians says that the Law of Moses was abolished. That statement comports with the Jerusalem Council. Now you need to bring us the exegesis that says Ephesians refers only to the sacrifices. If you have no exegesis, you have no case.
Scout
BP8
The Law of Moses is no longer our behavioral standard. Rather, the Law of Christ is. But both the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ originate with God. So naturally there is overlap at the level of morality. Both contain the Ten Commandments, for instance, with Christ as our Rest instead of a physical day in the New Testament. To say the Law of Moses is abolished but that its moral force still has effect is not a contradiction.
Let me give you a concrete example. You no longer have to shout 'Unclean!' when approaching other people if you have some kind of skin rash or infection. That was in the Law of Moses for purpose of health and controlling disease spread. It is neither sacrificial or ceremonial. It is a matter of daily living. It is interesting that Armstrongists do not do this since it is still in force, as they believe.
Under the New Testament we do not have to shout 'unclean'. But the moral content of the law persists. It is important that we seek to prevent the spread of disease as a means of loving your neighbor. Wearing a mask in a respiratory epidemic is an example of this.
You get the idea. There are other uses of the Law of Moses besides the conservation of its moral intent. But I will not go into it here.
Scout
The law of Moses is still in effect. Unbelievers and those who are workers of inquity are still judged by that holy, righteous and just law. The law shows us our sin, points us to our need for Christ and should scare every single one of us into confessing our need for God. It hasn’t lost its force. It’s only when you understand just how much you have been forgiven that the law has its full effect. You are guilty.
Until you become a believer, the law condemns you. Period.
The exegesis in part: Moses is not mentioned in Eph 2:14-15. The blood of Christ is mentioned in verse 13 and having abolished in His flesh in verse 15. The verses refer to Christ's sacrifice.
"Like the moon landings and Biden’s election victory over Trump. And the death of Elvis lol."
You are wrong. The moon landing was real, and Evis is dead.
There's nothing homemade, unsupported conclusion, reflexive response to scripture, dangerous, and malarkey about the following.
Matthew 19:
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,
19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.'
It's very simple. No commandment keeping means no eternal life.
Scout at 609
I love it when someone tells me what the Bible says then when you look it up it doesn't say that. Ephesus 2 is such an example, for no where in that chapter do we find the term, "the law of Moses"!
"For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the LAW OF COMMANDMENTS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCES; for to make in Himself of two, one new man, so making peace." (14-15).
This is a unique expression and widely open to interpretation. Is the term synonymous with the law of Moses? Why didn't he just say, the law of Moses and avoid the confusion? Is there more here that meets the eye?
What does the term mean? I'm not going to say but I think Byker Bob's opinion at 1249 is a place to start.
BP8 8:12
Paul is talking about what separates Jews and Gentiles. That is the Law of Moses. The separation does not include just the sacrifices but the entire legislation. For instance, the Sabbath has a dividing effect. This is standard interpretation for this passage. You might have a look at the notes in The Jewish Annontated New Testament for Ephesians 2:14-15. This is a commentary on the New Testament (NRSV) by Jewish scholars. They have no trouble understanding what Paul is writing about.
If it is not the Law of Moses Paul is writing about, what then is it? What is "the law with its commandments and ordinances"? The Code of Hammurabi? Nothing else fits. And once again, it comports with the Jerusalem Council as I and other Christians have interpreted it. And remember that the "law with its commandments and ordinances" is replaced by the Law of Christ which includes the Ten Commandments and many, many other laws.
Scout
Of course these attacks happen especially before Passover and Tabernacles season. They HATE them but have a nice lifestyle off the back of pretending they believe.
They attempt to DESTROY Passover and Tabernacles in real life. This blog is only a reflection of the gross spiritual ill health of rebels from within the churches of God.
Anonymous 6:41 wrote, "The law of Moses is still in effect. Unbelievers and those who are workers of inquity are still judged by that holy, righteous and just law..."
I agree with you in part. I believe that the Law of Moses does define sin to Jews who know the Law. Paul said he would not know sin if it were not for the Law of Moses. This is a continuing function of the Law of Moses - the defining of past sin to Jews.
But it is not the defining principle for Gentiles who do not know the Law. Those who come to Christ from a non-Judaic background are best taught sin from the Law of Christ. The Law of Moses is then a part of the historical background.
Scout
Anonymous 6:47 wrote, "The exegesis in part: Moses is not mentioned in Eph 2:14-15. The blood of Christ is mentioned in verse 13 and having abolished in His flesh in verse 15. The verses refer to Christ's sacrifice."
This is not an exegesis, even in part. You cite some verses but do not connect them with logic only assertion. You need to do a lot more work on your idea before you even think about believing it.
Scout
Anonymous 7:45 cites Matthew 19:16-19
This is an excellent passsage for Armstrongists. The young man approaches Jesus and says "what good deed must I do to have eternal life." This is what Armstrongism is all about - qualifying for the Kingdom through works. The answer, of course, is that there is nothing that you can DO to get eternal life. You must trust in Jesus with faith to receive eternal life. Faith will then lead you to a new life but the new life of good is a product and not the cause. Jesus is the only cause.
Jesus then leads the young man down a logical path that demonstrates to him that there is nothing that he can do to get eternal life. The young man claims to have kept the law - like a self-assured Armstrongist. But Jesus then speaks in terms of perfection and quickly finds a standard the young man cannot meet. Jesus concludes that with man and the way that man sees things by doing works it is impossible. But with God all things are possible - the conferring of grace, not doing, brings life.
The outcome: there is no salvation in deluding yourself that you are keeping the Law of Moses.
Scout
It's sort of amusing to see the commenters tie themselves in knots trying to justify their position that the law is "done away".
The law was abolished, but it's not really abolished because some parts of it are of value, but not all of it, only the parts "in Christ" are in effect, but only when necessary, etc, etc, etc.
What it all boils down to is: I'll decide for myself what is good and what isn't. Hence, the downfall of man.
Anonymous 1:24
It is unfortunate that when someone raises substantive questions about your beliefs that you find reasons not to give serious consideration.
I do not believe I can destroy any of the holy days described in the Law of Moses. In fact, I believe these days have instructional value. I do very ardently believe that they are not required for salvation. And to make them required for salvation reminds me of Paul's statement, "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."
So, I hope your holy day observances will be full of grace and not about works.
Scout
I may be giving him more credit than he deserves, but I have come to believe that HWA embraced and taught British Israelism soas to refute those who would cite the Jerusalem Council's edict to prove that non-Jews of today are not required to keep the Law of Moses.
By making those of us who are English-speaking Anglo-Saxon gentiles into Manasseh and Ephraim, he cut that interpretation of James's words off at the pass. He taught us that not only were Israelites who has lost or forgotten our identities, but so also were the nations of Western Europe!
HWA also claimed the primacy of Peter. By denying that the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church had come from Paul's gentile churches, he refuted the idea that both of those large churches we see today were the byproducts of centuries of governance under the bindings and loosings inherent in primacy of Peter.
He really worked hard at establishing that he, HWA, had an exclusive, and that he alone could lead his members down the path to salvation, all the while relying on very questionable extrabiblical resources such as Alexander Hislop, and J.H. Allen.
Scout writes "I do very ardently believe that they (the holy days) are not required for salvation."
If one looks at nature, a baby animal separated from its parents often means certain death. Likewise, the Sabbath and holy days are tools of remaining close to our parents, God the Father and Christ in order to avoid moral ruin.
No Sabbath/holy-day keeping equals no eternal life.
Anonymous 7:27
Some responses:
"It's sort of amusing to see the commenters tie themselves in knots trying to justify their position that the law is "done away"."
Much the opposite. The scripture is clear. It is the advocates of the keeping of the Law of Moses who are doing the twisting. The fact that their arguments are reflexive does not mean they are also true and persuasive.
"The law was abolished, but it's not really abolished because some parts of it are of value, but not all of it, only the parts "in Christ" are in effect, but only when necessary, etc, etc, etc."
Paul himself speaks of the letter of the law as opposed to its spiritual value. It is not a great and onerous stretch of intellectual prowess to understand that the law can have letter meaning and a moral meaning. The letter may go away and the moral may persist. Not a hard concept.
"What it all boils down to is: I'll decide for myself what is good and what isn't. Hence, the downfall of man."
I am not sure where you got that conclusion. Christianity asserts laws. Paul refers to this as the Law of Christ. Christians do not believe they can decide what is moral for themselves. They are guided by the New Testament and seek to follow it. Armstrongists claim to be guided by the Law of Moses but don't follow it. It is the latter that plays a role in the fall of man. Given this situation, it is puzzling why Armstrongists claim to be law-keepers and that Christians are not.
Scout
I find these back and forth ramblings to be quite interesting. Especially since each side does not seem to understand what the actual teachings of the original group taught and believed.
And, it is really funny to see how our “Bobbsy Twins” Scout/Lonnie are so desperate to show they are the only real Bible scholars here.
Frankly, it is just their INTERPRETATION vs that of the other side which is also suspect. Scout even wrote “ And once again, it comports with the Jerusalem Council as I and other Christians have interpreted it.”
Who cares how Scout interprets things. His interpretation is just as fallible as anyone else’s interpretation.
So, who is a Jew? A person from any of the twelve tribes? A person who is a descendant of only the tribe of Judah? A person who lived in Judea, no matter his lineage? Like the mixed American of today, no matter his ancestry, is an American because he lives in the borrower os America? What happylog do we follow in that case?
I know the Scripture says the law is spiritual. But, where does it say it is a moral law?
I would like to know at what point in the past did Scout and Lonnie start their experience with AC and the WWCG. That would help explain a lot.
As for me, I began in 1955/6. So, a lot I read here does not compute with my experience at all. So, fess up folks, how many decades of experience do you carry on your poor put down beaten up prisonship living under SS troops of the Worldwide ministry?
Thanks, looking forward to the real HONEST replies for a change.
Oops, didn’t catch what the spell checker did. It should be “within the borders of America.” Not “borrowers os.”
Scout @852 is asking, what is Paul referring to in Eph.2:15 if it's not the law of Moses?
Since the term "law of Moses" is not mentioned by name but an obscure and unique phrase is, my short answer is he was referring to the commandments and traditions of MAN, which in this case included the oral law which was added to the written law (Judaism).
The law of God contains commandments and ordinances but is NEVER referred to as "the law of commandments CONTAINED in ordinances". Paul could have easily said the law of Moses if that is what he meant but he didn't. Why not?
In Colossians Paul delt with a specific problem where he says,
"Let no man judge you", 2:16.
"Let no man beguile you", 2:18.
In Ch. 2:20-23, he asks "if you be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world (sounds similar to Eph.2:15, having abolished in his flesh the enmity), why are you subject to ordinances which perish with the using, after the commandments and doctrines of men"? Notice that it is not God's commandments in question here.
In Matthew 15, Jesus Christ faced the same situation with the religious leaders who asked him, " why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders"?
Christ was a circumcised Jew and yet he was being called out and "separated" from the pack over (not God's law) man made traditions!
His answer, "why do you transgress the commandments of God by your tradition? You have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. In vain do they worship me (God) teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (vs.3-9).
Here Christ is upholding the law of Moses while denouncing the traditions of men, showing what the real problem was at the time. Also, as long as this religious establishment remained in place, do you think the problem was going away anytime soon? History says it did not!
If you're not willing to accept this explanation, then consider that even in the OT, the law was explicit that the stranger was not banned by the law from God but could be fully assimilated into Israelite society if he met God's terms. There was one law for the stranger and the home born (Exodus 12:43-49). Strangers were even allowed to offer sacrifices and share fully in the worship of God. But by the time of the second temple, all that had changed.
Byker Bob at 1249 makes reference to the wall of separation and the clash caused by the transition from Judaism (the flesh) to Christianity (the spirit). Most sources admit that process involved much more than the law of Moses.
See the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1986, vol.2, pg.1150, article "Judaism", and vol.4, pg. 117-122, article "Religions of the Biblical World / Judaism".
This is just another example that "misuse doesn't cancel out use". Paul continued to preach from the law of Moses, even using that terminology, and brought its meaning out to the fullest extent. He was however always careful, as you continue to point out, that law keeping of any kind was not meant or required for justification and salvation.
And then there's this (oooofff): ....Heb 5:9: being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Others, more learned and wiser than myself have pointed out that this wall of separation was the delineation point at which Christianity expanded beyond the Jewish culture, was proven as applicable and functional in various cultural settings, and began its expansion into a world class religion. This of course was the plan from the very beginning! Jesus Christ was born, lived his perfect life, died, and was raised from the dead, a fit sacrifice to pay for man's sin debt, past, present and future.
For millennia, it has been recognized that in a legal contract, the terms of a covenant or contract remain in force until one party dies. If that takes place, there must be a new contract, or the original is abrogated. When Jesus died on the cross, God literally died! So also did the Levitical priesthood. The curtain in the temple tore from the top down. Jesus enumerated the terms that would be part of the new contract, an expansion from the physical law into the spirit or intent of the law, as exemplified by the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Two Great Commandments of the Lord. The Levites are no longer the administrators of the covenant.
I don't have the chapter and verse on the tip of my tongue right now, but there is a scripture in the prophets which (I'm paraphrasing) states that if you keep the law, you must keep all of it. You are actually under a curse if you choose selective parts of it.
Something decidedly different was going on in the first century! Something which the teachers of Armstrongism failed to pick up on.
BB
People in free countries around the world have proven that happiness is possible no matter what holidays you keep, how you dress, what you eat, or the basic simple laws that protect you as you go about working and raising your family.
I never had any problem with the sabbath and holy days. My Jewish friends loved and appreciated them. I still do the clean meats thing 49 years after leaving. And, It gives me great happiness to give to charity. But, as I have oft remarked, presentation is EVERYTHING! You can make a young child hate ice cream and literally vomit in it.
When you present good things to people in a depressing, Kafkaesque manner, and add horrible draconian authoritarianism to it, with regular dosages of fear-mongering and spreading distrust of everything but your own little group, you make people miserable and create personality disorders in them. You ruin the lives of their children.
HWA, the Radio or Worldwide COG, took some things which people could have been very happy in, as most observant Jews are, and because of the mode of presentation and enforcement, turned them from delicious chocolate ice cream into pure, untreated shit! How could any human do this to stuff from God? And why did we allow it?
Byker Bob wrote: For millennia, it has been recognized that in a legal contract, the terms of a covenant or contract remain in force until one party dies. If that takes place, there must be a new contract, or the original is abrogated
Thanks for the post.
So, even today if a mate dies we can marry a new mate under a new marriage bond/covenant. But, guess what? The new marriage is bound to follow the same rules of marriage as with the past mate.
Besides, if the law is done away then there is no need to ever repent. There is no need for grace. Without law there is no transgression or sin to repent of. Do away with the law you’ve done away with sin, you’ve done away with grace, and you’ve done away with the need for a Savior to die for your sins.
I find the reasoning of our resident “Bobbsy Twins” to be like the reasoning of a Christian I discussed the Bible with two weeks ago. He explained he was saved at age 5. Went to church with and without parents for years. And, had read some of the Old Covenant, but has NEVER read the New Covenant. But, he said he KNEW what the NC taught anyway. How? By what the preachers had preached in the church.
This is part of the reason one cannot get through to many people. They know it all because Christians say they do. And, theirs is the only valid “interpretation.”
Oh well, times are soon to change.
Very nicely articulated, Byker Bob!
To the commentator who finds "these back-and-forth ramblings to be quite interesting,"
I began listening to the radio program in the 1960's and was baptized in 1978. I have an extensive knowledge and experience of Armstrongism. Thankfully, I am still learning about the Bible and hope to continue to do so until I draw my last breath. Yes, my perspective on Armstrongism is very different from yours - makes me wonder if you were sleepwalking, or in a completely different organization! The Worldwide Church that I remember was full of error and tyrants. Yes, many of us were kind and well-meaning, but there was a whole lot of tares within that field too!
Good, sensible comments, 10:14.
Scout keeps beating a dead horse. Same old, same old. A rebel trying to eliminate the law of God, confusing the law of Christ with the law of Moses, unable to tell the difference. We have to be careful with our terms, since the law of Moses means one thing to one and another thing to another. It's clear from Mt 5-7 that Christ gave us the higher law out of the law of Moses and that is what is at issue here. People like him can't understand this because they never were a part of the faith, always searching, doubting, questioning and never being able to come to a firm knowledge of the truth, being bewitched by what the Protestants and Catholics teach (like the old WCG heads), not being able to understand that there is a righteous standard to be maintained when saved (Rom 5:21; Grace reigns THROUGH RIGHTEOUSNESS unto salvation and not by itself, as Luther taught, and that righteousness must be better than the Pharisees; Mt 5:17-20)
Scout says we are saved by grace apart from the law. Good for you. You read Luther too. Well, show me your faith without your works (Ja 2:18) for faith without works is dead (2:20). And faith by works is perfected (v22). Jesus is clear about doing good works (Rev 2:5) and we do it because it is commanded, and in order to secure our salvation. This is from the pastor of the Jerusalem church. Armstrongists know this but the COG rebels and Catholic and Protestant sympathizers try to cover it up, being flustered by how one may be saved if he is commanded to do good works.
Scout says the ball is in our court. No, it's in HIS court because the faithful ones know how they were saved and what commandments to keep. Many scriptures support the law of Christ (which is derived from the law of Moses), such as Mt 5:17-20 and Rom 3:31 (from Paul himself). The Acts 15 council had to be called because of specific issues and it wasn't just to avoid offending the Jews (which is the common explanation). Look at them, they revolve around eating, drinking and sexual purity, all of which are moral issues (though some would disagree) and not purely ceremonial in nature such as circumcision.
As for Eph 2:15, it was not a good translation done by the Catholics in 1611 so we need to retranslate it, just like Acts 12:4 (Easter into Passover) and several others. We know that the law is upheld in Mt 5:17-20, 19:18 and Rom 3:31 and in John's letters and that the lesser laws of Moses are not necessary (Acts 15:24). Therefore after many years of thought I propose this translation: "Having abolished in His flesh the hostility TOWARD the law of commandments (such as the decalogue) and statutes (re the feasts) in order to make of two one new man..." Even in the KJ translation you find here and there subtle degradations of the law though not enough to deter faith or knowledge of other clear scriptures.
If they don't think the Sabbath command is worth keeping after they have been "saved", why would they want to keep the Feasts, such as UB as commanded by Paul in 1 Cor 5:8? Why would Paul command the Unleavened Bread festival to be kept if the feasts were declared null and void with the law of Moses at Jesus' death? Scout's says they're good for "instructional value". That's like saying, "Thanks for the lesson, Lord, but it doesn't mean anything to me practically speaking". Christ is the High priest, not an English literature teacher giving us spiritual lessons just to puff us up with impractical knowledge and idealism.
No society can function without law. The law can never be done away.
BP8 wrote, "Since the term "law of Moses" is not mentioned by name but an obscure and unique phrase is, my short answer is he was referring to the commandments and traditions of MAN, which in this case included the oral law which was added to the written law (Judaism)."
The fact that the Law of Moses is not mentioned proves nothing. The phrase you call obscure is perfectly understandable in Greek. Look it up in the Bible Hub and you will find that there is almost no variation in the way that it is translated. As regards style, there is considerable doubt that Paul actually wrote Ephesians himself. It may have been written by one of Paul’s disciples. Hence, the difference in wording that you detect.
What you have done is given us a speculation about what you think the phrase might mean. Without any research to give this credibility it does not constitute an exegesis but simply a one-off eisegesis.
A much better explanation is that the phrase refers to that which separates Jews and Gentiles from each other. That is the Law of Moses. This is not a one-off. I gave you a reference to this interpretation in a volume used by both Jews and Christians. The great weight of New Testament scholarship is against you. And for good reason.
But we may also find this in the Torah itself. Moses said:
”Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” (Deut 4:5-6)
The Law gave the Jews a separate and God-ordained status among the nations. It is what separated them from the Gentiles. There are other scriptures that support this one in Deuteronomy. This separation between Gentiles and Jews is what Paul is addressing in Ephesians 2. Why would Paul believe that Jesus abolished the Jew-Gentile hostilities based purely on human reason? Think of what the British, Americans and Germans did to the Ashkenazi during WW 2. That hostility flourishes. Jesus abolished the Law which identifies Jews as separate, better, cleaner than Gentiles. This is what makes sense in the Biblical context from Genesis to Revelation.
I appreciate Byker Bob’s discussion of this topic.
Scout
Byker Bob 11:29
You've got it right. Nicely done.
Scout
Anonymous 9:54
Hi. I remember you from months ago. You're the guy who likes to brag about how long you have been associated with Armstrongism and all the "celebrities" from the old days that you knew. You want to tell me how much longer you have been in the church than I have and how many more important people you know than I do. All of that is novel but it does not engage the debate. So I am just as disinclined to respond to your posts now as I was months ago.
Scout
Jesus was our example. He fulfilled the law. So should we.
John said that all liars will be in the lake of fire. Why? Because lying is against that "terrible" law that God made for our good.
Here’s the chapter and verse for you:
“For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.””
Galatians 3:10 ESV
Scout wrote: So I am just as disinclined to respond to your posts now as I was months ago.
Of course you are. You know there is a problem not knowing clearly what was taught in the first place. And, you present your assumptions as what was taught, but they are only your assumptions.
For example, I was never taught that my salvation was gained by keeping the law. Yet, you and others claim that was the teaching. Why? Because if that wasn’t the teaching your argument is valueless.
Let’s see how long you can keep up this facade of knowing more than you do.
As to the problem folks you mention in the leadership, you miss a very big point. But, if you had experienced it you would give us a different story. Just a few years before you came in touch with the church a bunch of new people began their insidious work to change and destroy the church. Of course, this is never discussed on this site, or by you. It would destroy the narrative. You might be surprised by who some of those folks were. And, it was very clear to many of us who paid attention.
Scout, you have an awful lot to learn.
Thanks for your response anyway, most instructive.
To the commentator who liked BP8's 10:14 comments,
It sounds like you're the one beating a "dead horse" and Armstrongist like yourself are the real rebels. Scout has been advocating for the iteration of God's Law that is Christ's Law or the Law of Love. A Christian who has been saved by his/her faith in Christ and has received the Holy Spirit will love God and his fellow humans! This is the evidence that he has been saved and is motivated by God's Spirit! Even so, our righteousness before God is through the righteousness imputed to us by Jesus Christ. We stand clean before God because of what Christ has done for all of us. Sorry, NO amount of Sabbath and Holy Day keeping can earn you a spot in God's Kingdom - PERIOD!
You and all Armstrongists are trying (unsuccessfully) to obey some of the commandments of Torah - which were clearly intended for the Israelites as part of God's covenant with them. Christians, on the other hand, are part of the NEW Covenant which is based on the life, teachings, sacrifice, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. True Christians follow Christ's Sermon on the Mount and his distillation of Torah into the Two Great commandments - they are the ones who have the testimony of Jesus Christ and obey God's commandments!
Thanks, Scout, Lonnie, and BP8 for the kind words.
I was a kid in '55 and '56 and was really into Elvis and Fats Domino, Little Richard, and all the latest cars like the new Fords and Chevies, life was fun and exciting until my Dad read the US and BC in Prophecy to myself and siblings on a warm Saturday afternoon. Life suddenly took a scary dive behind the storm clouds. So, I guess you could say that my Armstrong experiences began in that same classic era, and of course I noticed every little detail and evaluated how it all affected our lives. We were ripped from from singing "Jesus Loves the Little Children" in Sunday School to hearing GTA tell an "N-word" joke to the Feast of Tabernacles crowd first year in the new steel building. I never dreamed in those days that we'd all live such long lives and many would die of old age instead of being changed into spirit beings, or be martyred by the Germans to save our stubborn Laodicean souls.
Now to my point. The Sinai Covenant was not the only covenant, or set of laws, active in Old Testament times. God entered into a covenant with Noah, and the rainbow became the symbol or seal of that covenant. There were seven laws God gave to Noah. These prohibited worshipping idols, cursing God, murder, adultery and sexual immorality, theft, and eating flesh torn from a living animal. The seventh was the obligation to establish courts of justice. According to the Talmud, these were first given to Adam, and then reiterated to Noah. They are contained in various passages of the book of Genesis. Gentiles (non-Jews) who wanted to live amongst the Jews were not required to convert to Judaism and observe the entire 613 laws, but to keep the seven laws of Noah in order to have their place in the world to come. What James decreed (known today as The Apostolic Decree) was the traditional Hebrew understanding of the requirements for the Gentiles who wished to live as and amongst the Jews. The Eastern Orthodox church retained the Apostolic Decree following its split from the RCC in 1054. It is still practiced today.
HWA always taught that requirements for Jews and Gentiles, and later Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians were one and the same. He was on the wrong side of the historic Jewish understanding of this as we can know from the Talmud, and the early histories of the Christian Church. HWA actually dismissed the Ante-Nicene fathers, and their writings, as being "Catholic", although that progression of church leaders began with those whom the original Apostles laid hands upon, and the successive generations which followed them.
I can see where this could be very difficult for some to know, but it is fairly easily researched and established. My interest was first piqued on this topic by a man named Jared Olar, who was a legitimate historian, and at one time contributed to various of our Armstrong-related forums and blogs. He was the reason why I read all the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers that I could find in English, and why I read the entire works of Josephus. It's amazing how just one little tidbit can set one off on an incredible study.
BB
5:56 wrote: "Jesus was our example. He fulfilled the law. So should we."
You are incapable of fulfilling the law. You cannot and never will keep it during your lifetime. It is impossible to keep even half of it because if you break just ONE of the laws you have broken all of them.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
"For whoever keeps the whole Written Law and slips in one thing, he is condemned by the entire Law."
Well now let me get this straight: You Scout agree with BB then that the Levitical priesthood (LP) is no more. I agree also so wouldn't all those sacrificial, fleshly, washy laws (Gal 9) associated with the LP, including tithing !!!, now be no more, are now abolished, but, other laws not associated with the LP, not given under the LP (Heb 7:11-12) such as the sabbath and 3 feasts (Ex 23:14-16) and the 10 in the law of Moses, be still valid, not abolished?? Could not the laws mentioned in Eph 2:14-15 be those and only those associated with the LP and not the entire law of Moses? Yes. The distinction is laws "under", associated with the LP are abolished and other laws are not.
Correction: (Heb 9) in line 2 in 6:49.
NO2HWA at 636
I have not performed the extensive research on the subject that Scout demands, nor can I produce the many extra biblical sources for a proper exegesis, but I can offer a couple of Bible verses that seem to say we CAN fulfill the law.
Romans 13:8
Owe no one anything but to love one another. He that loveth another HATH fulfilled the law.
Romans 8:4
Christ condemned sin in the flesh in order that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in US, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit.
Anonymous 1:59
I found your post to be a conglomeration of ideas, none of them well developed. Some statements made no sense or were ambiguous.
Your attack on me is an attack on Christianity in general. I am using orthodox Christian concepts. And I do know what the Law of Christ is. I did not discuss it in any of my posts. I only gave it passing mention. So, I don't know how would know what I thought about the concept. The Law of Christ is consistent with the Law of Moses. But it greatly transcends the Law of Moses. And it does not in general include the letter of the Mosaic Law though there are some exceptions. In brief.
I think that is all the time I can spend with you. Bye.
Scout
I'm going to bed. I'll see you tomorrow morning. I have more to say.
Scout
Boy Howdy! Life would be so much easier, and we'd have so much less to try to figure out, if only the Jews had welcomed and accepted Jesus Christ as their long-awaited Messiah! I will say one thing for them, the Jews do have a very good working concept of what is untenable without the Temple or the Kohanime. Obviously, HWA would disagree with them about the tithing. The old man certainly bought into the parsing of the law which the Seventh Day Adventists put forth as their handling of such matters. I understand that some influential COGlodytes had even convinced the SDA's brilliant researcher Dr. Sam Bacchiocchi that the Torah Holy Days were to be kept.
BB
Boy Howdy! Life would be so much easier, and we'd have so much less to try to figure out, if only the Jews had welcomed and accepted Jesus Christ as their long-awaited Messiah! I will say one thing for them, the Jews do have a very good working concept of what is untenable without the Temple or the Kohanime. Obviously, HWA would disagree with them about the tithing. The old man certainly bought into the parsing of the law which the Seventh Day Adventists put forth as their handling of such matters. I understand that some influential COGlodytes had even convinced the SDA's brilliant researcher Dr. Sam Bacchiocchi that the Torah Holy Days were to be kept.
BB
"You are incapable of fulfilling the law. You cannot and never will keep it during your lifetime."
While perfection is not possible for human beings, a high moral standard is.
When some members pecked on me during services and I complained, they often exploded in my face and played the victim by slandering me to the minister and others. Such behavior is unacceptable and is an example of why the lake of fire exists.
My friend Scout at 300 has issued a stern rip on me by writing, "what you have done is give us a speculation about what you think the phrase might mean. Without any research to give this credibility, it does not constitute an exegesis but simply a one off eisegesis".
Ouch!
Did I make the mistake in thinking this is a simple blog with a section following the post inviting comments? Had I known this was the place to submit a doctrinal thesis or book manuscript I may have reconsidered. As it was, I think the scriptures and sources I produced were credible enough to make my point.
My responses to some of the general issues raised on this topic:
1. Regarding the argument, “Jesus kept the Law of Moses and we need to follow his example.”
Jesus obeyed the Law perfectly. He stated that the Law and the Prophets were about him. This included all the sacrifices and Temple worship. It included all 613 of the commandments in the Torah. It included any principles contained in the Prophets. This is what Jesus did. This is what he fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-20)
You cannot do only the Sabbath, holy days, tithing, some attempt at the dietary laws and believe that you have followed Christ’s comprehensive example. That is naïve. Then, of course, there is the question of whether the New Testament tells you to follow Christ’s comprehensive example or if you should follow his words. His words describe a Way that is different from the Law and the Prophets.
2. Regarding the argument, “When it says Law it means only the sacrifices.”
Paul is not precise in his use of terminology when it comes to identifying what law he is talking about. It would have prevented a lot of debate if he had been more descriptive. Armstrongists frequently use the argument that Paul is speaking about only the sacrifices but provide no exegesis for that idea. So, this argument is frequently nothing more than a presumption. For that reason, when Paul says the Law in an unqualified way, he means the Law and the Prophets unless research and exegesis can demonstrate that he does not mean that. You cannot presume, you have to bring it. Because Armstrongists do not follow this principle, they have made a grave error in interpreting what Law was “added because of transgression.”
3. Regarding the argument that keeping the Law of Moses is required for salvation.
Armstrongists believe that Law of Moses is written on their hearts and is required for salvation. in effect, they cancel their salvation because they do not keep the Law of Moses. It’s not that they try and fail and must ask forgiveness. It is that they do not try at all to keep the comprehensive Law. Roderick Meredith claimed that keeping the Law was not difficult at all and that he went days without a transgression. Yet, he spent every Feast of Tabernacles in a swank hotel instead of a brush arbor like the Law of Moses requires. As far as I know, he did not wear tassels on his garments. His law-keeping was at best naïve. By requiring a standard for salvation that they intend to only partially keep, Armstrongist have effectively cancelled their salvation. Yet, why do they strive so energetically to defend keeping the Law of Moses? It is the noose around their necks.
4. There is nothing wrong with observing the Law of Moses.
The Law of Moses has moral content. Most Christian denominations recognize the moral content of the Law of Moses and retain it. (Even though HWA falsely claimed that the Christian churches taught that the law was done away.) But, beyond that, there is nothing wrong with keeping the letter of the Law. What is wrong is to believe that it is a condition that must be fulfilled in order to achieve salvation. This is salvation by works. The Armstrongist Doctrine of Qualifying for the Kingdom is salvation by works under another name. I believe the Jerusalem Church observed some form of the Law of Moses as a matter of maintaining Jewish culture. I do not believe they observed it as a requirement for salvation. If they had, the Jerusalem conference would have never happened. Good works of any sort are correlated with salvation but are not a cause of salvation.
5. The Law of Christ subsumes the Law of Moses.
This is the idea that the Law of Moses is still in force and Jesus added to it. This has all the problems of point 3 above. Moreover, this does not comport at all with Paul’s language in the extensive analogy he uses in Romans 7:1-6. He describes being “dead to the Law” and “free from the Law” and “released from the law”. Paul’s language explicitly contravenes this theory.
Scout
BP8, Buddy, you should have been around with us on some of the other blogs! Really deep, exhaustive, multi part series approaching British Israelism and other topics from every possible perspective. You may not believe this, but Bob Thiel actually used to participate in some of the discussions on the other blogs until Jared Olar just totally blew him out of the water refuting "The True History of the True Church", yet Bob still teaches that as if the discussion had never taken place.
The stereotype the ACOGs present are of some member allowing a root of bitterness to creep in and then suddenly attacking "The Truth" and being given over to a reprobate mind. That is not an accurate picture. Many of us continued searching for truth, and really studied all of these matters deeply in ways which were never permitted during our days in Armstrongism. Research was always fine in WCG, so long as members reached the pre-approved conclusions. There is a time honored process of following an evidentiary trail and allowing facts to lead one to truth. HWA always used debate style research, in which one gathers only the facts which enable one to win one's side of the debate and to refute the other side. It is effective, and plays well to one's crowd, but often prevents one from actually arriving at truth. Also, a debate is a black and white scenario, presuming that there are only two equal and opposite sides.
Glad to have you aboard and involved in the discussions. I can tell you realize that things are a little bit different from what we were all accustomed to, but this stuff is real. Very real, and we take it seriously.
BB
Colossians 2:16-17 (Living Bible)
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.
Also, HWA never understood or properly taught Matt 17. In the vision, Moses symbolized the law, and Elijah symbolized the prophets. God's voice from heaven directed the disciples to listen to His Son.
Why would He do that? He was informing the disciples that they were to give deference to the words of Jesus, above and beyond the law and the prophets. God was presenting the correct priorities for the benefit of Peter, James, and John.
Tassel law, even law of booths for FOT, were added "under"-Heb 7:11-the Levitical priesthood (LP). Before the LP was set up the feast was known as the feast of ingathering, not booth/tabernacle. I dare say these laws are now no more, meaning tassels and constructing a booth are not required, now. It looks like even the "holy days" of Tishri 1, 10, and 22 were added under the LP, may now be no longer mandatory. Jesus Christ is our atonement/reconciliation-Romans 5:11. Noise does not have to be made so God would remember Israel on the Armstrongish "feast of trumpets", of which scripture in the Hebrew does not specify trumpets-Lev 23:24 and a feast (Hebrew chag or hag or chagag), but the occasion is a sabbathon and a memorial (who remembers what?).
Tonto said: “Circumcision or not, it can be argued that CIRCUMCISION , "Looks Better". My wife agrees, as do most women.”
But, just because something looks better to someone doesn’t make it better or right in truth or reality. Case in point is that so many men wax or shave their chests if not their whole body to “look better” to another person predominantly because popular culture coming out of Hollywood depicts a hairless adult male as “normal” and “sexy.” Truth is they look like prepubescent adults! No wonder pedophilia has increased as this perversed look has become widespread. Furthermore I would always recoil at the sight of another penis especially an uncut penis—maybe it’s because I am a male. But I believe this is a natural reaction since an erect uncut penis will have the foreskin retract meaning it is ready for sex. A cut penis like a hairless adult male is again basically an unnatural Western phenomenon foisted on the world by Hollywood. Both are imo symptoms of a sick culture.
BB
Thanks for the note, I do appreciate it. Concerning my latest retort to Scout, I was just having some fun with him. Lol
I do marvel at what prolific writers most of you guys are. That's one thing I'm not. With the equipment I use coupled with questionable eye sight, I try to keep things as brief as possible. An exegesis would be tough just typing it out. Plus, I've handicapped myself by getting rid of most of my books, study helps and papers that I accumulated over a 50 year span. In 2018 I moved across the country and just had to get rid of a lot of stuff. I thought my memory could carry me forward but that's not always the case. On some topics I feel like I'm literally starting from scratch! Maybe that's a good thing.
This site is both interesting and thought provoking and I'm happy I can contribute and get to know the many personalities involved.
I have to say reading through all this I’m in BP8’s camp. I find his/her arguments consistent and in line with my understanding of Scripture. So thanks BP8 for your well written responses!
Ok so why are random Jewish students being condemned today in U.S. universities by pro-Palestinian protestors? Only some o' the targeted Jewish kids support retaliation on Iran...& some don't. The ones who don't are simply Jews keeping certain "holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths". (and it appears they are being "condemned" for it [being Jewish] )
How come all the free pass on the protestors condemning our U.S. Jewish kids?
How about seeing what was actually taught, vs assumptions claiming to be the teachings.
Try this to start: COMMENT: You cannot "earn" your salvation by
keeping either the Ten Commandments or any
other law of God. Eternal life is clearly a gift from
God! No one could earn immortality in 10,000 life-
tỉmes of keeping the Ten Commandments!
But neither can you enter into eternal life as a
lawbreaker! (For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23, KJV)
Jesus Christ plainly and emphatically stated that Christians are to endeavor to keep the Ten Commandments with their
whole beings and with His spiritual help through
the Holy Spirit, trusting in Him to mercifully apply
His sacrifice on their behalf when and where they
fall short, and as they repent (I John 1:7-9).
The whole idea is to make the truth plain, the Plain Truth.
This is why the Living Bible makes it plain in modern American-English.
Colossians 2:16-17
"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"
I don't know, 11:47. All I can tell you is that even after all these years out of Armstrongism, I still identify as a Jew, regardless of my own ethnic heretage. If I saw some Jewish guy being attacked by Arabs, I'm afraid I'd have to jump in and help him.
What if Living Bible is a little distant from original stylus-pen papyrus?
Reformed writer Michael Marlowe criticized the edition, saying that it was "the dumbing-down of the Biblical text to a grade-school level" done "in keeping with the linguistic and educational trends of the time." Marlowe further accused Taylor of "wrest[ing] the scripture so as to conform it to Arminian teachings about salvation."
What is the heresy of Arminianism?
Arminianism teaches that God is not sovereign over the entirety of the created order. It teaches that men may frustrate God's plan, resist the Holy Spirit, and reject God even if God comes to them to change their heart by His grace.
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/Living%20Bible/lb_exposed.htm
6:19, only loving earns your way into the kingdom? Not resting (by Sabbath-keeping) or celebrating (holydays)? Let's see. Does that mean that you don't keep Sunday or Easter or sing in church if you are saved by grace? (Speaking of resting on the Sabbath as a way of "earning your way" in, why does Heb 4:1-11 speak of a rest that is coming for those who cease from their labour as God did from His at creation?)
Obviously you didn't read above where Scout contradicts himself re the value of the law of Moses while expressing a different sentiment in his summation.
I see you don't like the word commandments; thus John's letters mean little to you. Look at 1 Jn 2:3-5,7; 3:4,22,24; 5:2-3, 2 Jn 6.
Christians are to obey the sermon on the mount too? Right, including the commandments in 5:21, 27, while v31 under certain conditions, and v38 is nullified, while v43 is amended.
Right, 6:05, the further you get away from the KJ and NKJ, the further you get away from the best translations.
Just like all the corruption in the churches, many of the translations are corrupt.
Re Col 2:16-17 in the LB translation, one might ask, what's wrong with keeping the shadow of the reality if the shadow cast is from Christ? Look at Acts 5:15, where being in the passing shadow of Peter meant being healed. Yes, the law had a shadow of good things to come but come it has, thanks to the Lord, who explained it to us in detail on the mount (Mt 5-7), elevating 5:21 and 5:27, setting conditions on 5:31, nullifying 5:38, altering 5:43, etc. As the Melchizedekian high priest he has the right to change it and overrule the Levite, as per Heb 7:12. And this is essentially what everyone in Christianity is arguing about, what laws do we keep or not keep.
Look at the apostles in Acts 15. They agreed to avoid meats offered to idols (15:29) yet Paul later permitted its consumption if no offence was involved (1 Cor 8). Does that mean that Paul went against church doctrine (as some unstable members or ministers today might suggest)? No. He clarified the conditions under which one may use or not use this privilege.
Most people in civilized nations throughout history have had the seven Noachian Laws as the foundation of their cultures, 8:54! Anyone who has not has been seen as being ignorant savages.
Having experienced a malignant narcissist in one's life , be it at home, at work, at services or elsewhere is proof why living by the ten commandments is a requirement for eternal life. These demons in human flesh make their victims lives a living hell. It's self evident to these victims why God will destroy them in the lake of fire.
That the above bible juggling posts avoid looking at the world around them is telling. After all, the bible, like any manual, is just a description of what exists in the real world.
Ephesians 2:15
Eph 2:15 Having abolished [katargea] in his flesh the enmity [echthra], even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Did Paul, in Ephesians 2:15, teach that Jesus abolished the law with all its commandments and regulations, as alleged by some?
Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
“At first sight this is a surprising declaration. How can the apostle declare that Christ abolished the law, when Christ himself in the Sermon on the Mount specifically declared the opposite, that he had not come to abolish it but to fill it? We shall see that the discrepancy is only verbal; in substance they were referring to the law in two DIFFERENT SENSES” (John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, BST, pp.99-100).
“Paul of course is not writing for the twentieth century church... Too often he has been disengaged from his context and dragged into the modern era to support this or that theory in a proof-text fashion...” (Charles B. Cousar, Galatians, Interpretation, p.80).
The context of the text below is important in regard to the blue and red highlights.
Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, BEING ALIENS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13 BUT NOW IN CHRIST JESUS YE WHO SOMETIMES WERE FAR OFF ARE MADE NIGH by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the ENMITY [ECHTHRA], even [not in the Greek, hence in italics] the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the ENMITY [ECHTHRA] thereby:
Eph 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Eph 2:19 NOW THEREFORE YE ARE NO MORE STRANGERS AND FOREIGNERS, BUT FELLOWCITIZENS WITH THE SAINTS, AND OF THE HOUSEHOLD OF GOD;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished [katargea] ... the law of commandments contained in ordinances
Ro 3:31 Do we then abolish [katargea] the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Co 3:7 the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stones
Eph 2:15 the enmity [echthra] ... the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
“It is not the law as a revelation of the character and will of God that has been done away with in Christ. IN THAT SENSE OF THE TERM the question and answer of Rom 3:31 remains valid: “Do we overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” The righteousness required by the law of God is realized more fully by the inward enabling of the Spirit - in Jew and Gentile alike - than was possible under the old covenant. But the law as a written code, threatening death instead of imparting life, is done away with in Christ, as Paul argues in 2 Cor 3:6-15. And when the law IN THAT SENSE is done away with, the barrier between Jew and Gentiles is removed. Jewish particularism and Gentile exclusion are things of the past...” (F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT, pp.298-99).
Part 2
Law without the Spirit/Law with the Spirit
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
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 in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
“When the items of continuity found in the New covenant are tabulated in this passage, they are ... (2) the same law, My torah (note, not a different one than Sinai)...” (Walter C. Kaiser, Towards and Old Testament Theology, p.223).
Mal 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb [= Sinai] for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
"The law is referred to here [in Malachi] (and this is the very point which has been overlooked), not according to its accidental and temporary form, but according to its essential character, as expressive of the holiness of God, just as in Matt. 5:17... The laws, which were afterwards given in the plains of Moab, are also included in the expression "in Horeb." For they were merely a continuation and further development; the foundation was fully laid at Sinai" (E.W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, Vol.4, pp.190-91).
"The problem with the Sinai covenant was not with the law itself, but, as Ezekiel and Jeremiah testify, with the people whose hearts remained hardened under it.
Ro 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Ro 7:14a For we know that the law is spiritual: (AV).
"The law remains for Paul, as it did for the Jewish traditions of his day, the holy, just and good expression of God's covenantal will (Rom 7:12). Indeed, Paul characterizes the law itself as "spiritual" (7:14). As the expression of God's abiding will, it is not the law per se that kills, or any aspect or perversion of it, but the law without the Spirit, that is, the law as "letter." Devoid of God's Spirit, the law remains to those who encounter it merely a rejected declaration of God's saving purposes and promises, including its corresponding calls for repentance and obedience of faith. Although the law declares God's will, it is powerless to enable people to keep it. Only the Spirit "gives life" by changing the human heart...” (Scott J. Haffemann, 2 Corinthians, NIVAC, p.132).
Old Shepherds/New Shepherds
Eze 34:10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.
Jer 23:4 And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the LORD.
“According to Ezekiel 34, the expected change in Israel’s governance will be accomplished not so much in the change in the nature of the office but through a change in the nature of the occupant” (Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel & the Leaders of Israel, p.47).
Part 3
Law-keeping a Response to Salvation
Lev 19:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 19:2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
Lev 19:3 Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.
Lev 19:18b but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
“Man is expected to respond to God’s grace. But how? This is the role of the law. The law explains how men are to imitate God. The NT insists that the law is not a means to salvation, but a response to salvation. The disciple is not merely to observe the letter of the commandments. His righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. He must be perfect as his heavenly Father is perfect (Matt 5:17-48)” (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT, p.34).
Validity of the Law
Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
"The word ‘therefore' introduces the deduction which Jesus now draws for his disciples from the enduring validity of the law and his own attitude with respect to it. It reveals a vital connection between the law of God and the kingdom of God. Because he has come not to abolish but to fulfil, and because not an iota or dot will pass from the law until all has been fulfilled [this phrase is hyperbole], therefore greatness in the kingdom of God will be measured by conformity to it. Nor is personal obedience enough; Christian disciples must also teach to others the permanently binding nature of the law's commandments...” (John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, BST, p.74).
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 in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Ro 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled [pleroo] in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
"It was a new heart-righteousness which the prophets foresaw as one of the blessings of the Messianic age, ‘I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts,' God promised Jeremiah (31:33). How would he do it? He told Ezekiel: ‘I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes' (36:27). Thus God's two promises to put his law within us and to put his Spirit within us coincide. We must not image (as some do today) that when we have the Spirit we can dispense with the law, for what the Spirit does in our hearts, is precisely, to write God's law there. So ‘Spirit', ‘law', ‘righteousness' and ‘heart' all belong together... Now it is this deep obedience which is a righteousness of the heart and its is possible only in those whom the Holy Spirit has regenerated and now indwells” (John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, BST, p.75).
Part 4
Gal 5:14 For all the law [nomos] is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Lev 19:18b but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
“... torah (nomos, law) is composed of both narrative and legal code, never exclusively the one or the other. Paul in reading the torah as a narrative has come to see Jesus as the decisive chapter in an otherwise unfinished story. He is the one to whom the torah is directed. But that does not mean a negation of the legislative dimensions of the torah, only a fresh perspective on it.
1 Cor 9:21 .... though I am not free from God’s law
but am under Christ’s law ... (NIV).
“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).
It is God’s law, given by Moses (Neh 10:29) , but summed up in the command to love and interpreted in the light of Christ.
Mt 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Dt 5:21 Neither shalt thou desire [epithumeo, LXX] thy neighbour's wife,
Mt 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who is looking on a woman to desire [epithumeo] her, already committed adultery with her in his heart. (LSV).
“In the Sermon on the Mount, as Calvin correctly expressed it, we see Jesus not ‘as a new legislator, but as the faithful expounder of a law which had already given’. The Pharisees had ‘obscured’ the law; Jesus ‘restored is integrity’.... His purpose ... [was] ‘to reveal the full depth of meaning that it was intended to hold’...
“Christian righteousness must exceed pharisaic righteousness.
“Yet the advocates of the ‘new morality’ or ‘situational ethic’ are in principle trying to do exactly what the Pharisees were doing. True, they claim to take Christ’s part against the Pharisees, but they resemble the Pharisees in their dislike of the law. They regard the law as rigid and authoritarian, and (just like the Pharisses) they attempt to ‘relax’ its authority, to loosen its hold. So they declare the category of law abolished (which Jesus said he had not come to abolish) and they set law and love at variance with each other (in a way which Jesus never did). No. Jesus disagreed with the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law; he never disagreed with the acceptance of its authority. Rather the reverse. In the strongest possible terms he asserted its authority as God’s Word written, and called his disciples to accept its true and deeply exacting interpretation” (John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, BST, pp.81, 72, 80-81).
Old Covenant and New Covenant (Mosaic and Ezekielian Torahs)
Five main sacrifices
Lev 1:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If [ki] any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD,
Lev 1:3 If his offering be a burnt offering
Lev 2:1 And when any will offer a grain offering
Lev 3:1 And if his oblation be a sacrifice of peace offering
Lev 4:32 And if he bring ... a sin offering [hatta’t]
Lev 6:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering
Eze 46:12 Now when [ki] the prince shall prepare a voluntary burnt offering or peace offerings voluntarily unto the LORD
Eze 44:29 They shall eat the grain offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering; and every dedicated thing in Israel shall be theirs.
Part 5
Cleansing from ritual impurity
Lev 15:13 And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing...
Lev 15:14 And on the eighth day he shall take to him two turtledoves, or two young pigeons
Lev 15:15 And the priest shall offer them, the one for a purification offering [hatta’t], and the other for a burnt offering;
Eze 44:26 And after he is cleansed, they shall reckon unto him seven days.
Eze 44:27 And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his purification offering [hatta’t]...
Circumcision
Ex 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
Eze 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.
Law and Gentiles in the Millennium
Isa 2:3 And many people [‘ammim] shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people [‘ammim].
Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations [goyim] which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Male strangers/goyim will have to be circumcised to participate in temple worship in the Millennium.
No division of the Law into Moral and Ceremonial Laws
“The expression ... “commandments and regulations” ... has sometimes been understood to imply that only part of the law is abolished: the ceremonial or other statues that divide Jews from Gentiles, or those elements that are “in decrees” made by those who interpret the law...
“The assumption that the law is divisible has little support in Jewish texts. Both apologetic writers like Josephus and the writer of Letter of Aristeas and intersectarian text like the CD and 4QMMT assume that Moses’ legislation, including the peculiarly Jewish rites and customs and proper halakhic interpretation, belong together...
“Therefore, Ephesians refers to the whole law...” (Pheme Perkins, The Letter to the Ephesians, NIB, Vol.11, pp.399-400).
Part 6
The Presence of the Future
Promotion
“Our other hermeneutical suggestion [to understand the parables] is related to the fact that all of Jesus’ parables are in some way vehicles that proclaim the kingdom. Hence it is necessary for you to immerse yourself in the meaning of the kingdom in the ministry of Jesus. In this regard we highly recommend that you read George E. Ladd’s The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974)” (Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth, 4th ed., p.167).
“Preface
“ “The bond that binds [the two Testaments] together is the dynamic concept of the rule of God.” So wrote John Bright in his study of the Kingdom of God, which dealt primarily with the Old Testament hope. If this is true, it should come as a surprise that few of our critical studies on the teaching of Jesus and the Kingdom of God make use of the dynamic concept of the rule of God as the integrating center for Jesus’ message and mission” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.xi).
Mt 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
“Evangelical Christians have been so exercised with the eschatological or futuristic aspects of the Kingdom of God that is has often ceased to have immediate relevance to contemporary Christian life except as a hope. Thus the very term, the “Kingdom of God,” to many Christians means first of all the millennial reign of Christ on earth. This, however, misplaces the emphasis of the Gospels. The distinctive characteristic about Jesus’ teaching is that in some real sense, the Kingdom of God has come in his person and mission (Matt 12:28)” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.xi).
Mk 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
“The mystery of the Kingdom (Mark 4:11) is the secret of its unexpected irruption in history. This is not to minimize the futuristic aspect of the Kingdom. The Old Testament prophets constantly looked forward to the Day of the Lord when God would establish his reign in the earth” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., pp.xi-xii).
Mk 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time ... and in the age to come eternal life.
“It is clear in the Gospels that the Kingdom of God belongs to the age to come and is an eschatological blessing (Mark 10:23-30). It is the purpose of this book to expound how and in what sense the eschatological Kingdom has come become a present reality in Jesus’ mission... Our primary purpose is to expound the theology of the Synoptic Gospels as to the Kingdom of God” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev.ed., p.xii).
“The message of the entire Bible is that God has acted in redemptive history; and the Gospels represent Jesus as the place in history where God’s redemptive acts reached a definitive climax... the biblical record bears witness that God has acted in history, especially in Jesus of Nazareth, that in him God has disclosed his kingly rule” (George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future, Rev. ed., p.xiii).
Anonymous 7:55 wrote, "Obviously you didn't read above where Scout contradicts himself re the value of the law of Moses while expressing a different sentiment in his summation."
This is not difficult to understand. The Law of Moses has many aspects - like any body of legislation. We are most familiar with two categories that apply to law: 1) the letter of the law 2) and the moral content of the law. So the idea that one category would be suspended and the other category remain yet viable should not be strange to you.
While the Law of Moses no longer defines our behavioral life, it does serve, for instance, as a witness to the New Testament (Romans 3:21). And it continues to be useful in other ways.
Notice. When I wrote “the Law of Moses no longer defines our behavioral life”, do not fall victim to the usual Armstrongist flawed thinking. When Armstrongists see a statement like that, they leap to the conclusion that someone is saying there is no law and that means evil may thrive. Yes, there is still a law and it is called the Law of Christ and it is consistent with the moral content of the Law of Moses but typically not the letter.
In a cursory review, I could not find an explanation of the Law of Christ in Armstrongist writing. I did find a short blurb by HWA where he stated that the Law of Christ and the Law of God (meaning in his parlance the Law of Moses) are the same thing. That is false. The two legislations have separate identities throughout the New Testament. It is because of this misunderstanding, HWA never understood that Christian churches followed a law. He declared that Christian churches had proclaimed the Ten Commandments were “done way”. There is no Christian denomination that believes and teaches that. Christian churches believe in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount and all the many other principles contained in the New Testment. But HWA spoke to a captive audience and my guess is that he knew that nobody was going to fact-check what he said.
Scout
Anoniymous 2:07
Six parts? Seriously? Send us a one paragraph abstract of about six sentences so we can tell whether or not we want to read this?
Scout
Scout wrote: “Six parts? Seriously? Send us a one paragraph abstract of about six sentences so we can tell whether or not we want to read this?”
Seriously Scout? You can’t read a few sentences of part 1, and decide you want to read the rest? Evidently Gary felt it was good enough to post all six.
I was able to read all six with no problem. And, I suspect others have also.
Your statement about a “cursory” look at the WCG material explains it all. That is why your interpretation of what was really taught and believed is way off.
Plus, remember, you are the one who asked for an In depth explanation, right?
Well, one was posted in six parts, and you don’t want to read it? Please don’t avoid legitimate attempts to rebuke your assumptions of what was taught by the WCG. Please stop creating straw dogs and then try destroying them. Three quotes have already been posted on this site showing from official WCG writings that one is not saved or justified by just keeping the law.
Thanks, though, for inspiring some real rebuttal discussions. I always enjoyed the ones we had at Manor Del Mar Friday nite Bible discussions.
Armstrongites cannot get around Colossians 2:16-17
"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"
126 comments on this one as of Apr. 23 2pm eastern time...never saw this much response to an article in a long time. blue ribbon journalism award 🥇🏆
Part 6 wrote, "Seriously Scout? You can’t read a few sentences of part 1, and decide you want to read the rest?"
I can read it. I won't read it. I would like an in depth discussion but I would like to see an Introduction at the beginning that sets the direction of your writing. Then I would like to see a conclusion that is logically related to a logical discourse that forms the body of your writing. I would like to see scriptures not simply quoted but accompanied by an explanation of their logical connection with the topic. Lay out your rebuttal in a series of a few brief statements and I will be glad to respond. I don't want to have to use the Vulcan Mind Meld to figure out what you are saying.
And I would imagine the discussions at Manor Del Mar never stepped outside the boundaries of Armstrongism into Christianity.
Scout
Regarding your last sentence, 8:45, know what you mean. I liked the beer!
To Scout at 12:11
As usual Scout you are making false and inaccurate assumptions.
Assumption #1: That you are the only one here who can control how we should write to please you. You don’t. I have seen no post like yours telling you what kind of writing we will accept from you.
#2: You again falsely assume something you really didn’t investigate. I am not the author of the six part presentation you cannot, so it seems, easily rebut.
#3: Once again you assume something, inaccurately again, present it as the correct assumption, and then you proceed to tear down your false assumption. You were not, it appears, ever in those Manor Del Mar get togethers. So you have no standing on making such statements.
#4: You have applied YOUR assumptions and interpretations to all AC WCG efforts as being their beliefs and practices. Again, you are wrong.
It appears to me, after reading much of your posts, that you resist being questioned on a much higher level than you claim about HWA. Hmmm… beware accusing others when you are doing the same thing. Seems like I remember a verse or so saying something like that. Do you happen to remember where it is. :)
1:38
Sorry. Never mind.
Scout
Well said, 8:45 and 1:38.
But more falsities from the fellow who posted at 11:11, who picked a bad translation out of a hat of existing bad translations, when he quoted Col 2:16-17. A better challenge would have been to ask for an explanation of v14.
Paul really said, "Don't let anyone condemn you for NOT celebrating the feasts and Sabbaths?" Then why does Paul in 1 Cor 5:8 command us to keep the feast? There is no adverb NOT in the KJ so who put it there? They were not being judged for NOT celebrating those days; instead they were being criticized FOR keeping those days. Therefore the logical reason is who should judge the practices? Why, the church of course, the body of Christ, the wise ones (who should be wise enough). (v7) "Let no one judge you on these matters but the body of Christ" is how it should read. (And, yes, they are big shadow of things to come, bigger than you can imagine, related to the Lord's coming, maintaining holiness, relying on the blood for forgiveness, the rest of the kingdom on earth, etc.)
The discussion here is not about Christ being the substance (the commonplace explanation) but about who should be doing the judging of these practices.
I believe that what we've just witnessed is the difference between an Ambassador education, and a real education. Also, the reason some people are predisposed towards remaining in cults.
(Sigh!) We've seen this so many times before that it can become saddening and discouraging.
I judge Tue 3:53 PM is correct (I must be in the church).
I'm guessing there is some law(s) the "reality" people who cite the word "reality" from Col 2:17 just don't like.
Well if that's how you and the blog writers feel NO2HWA then why not move on ? Why remain wallowing in hate for a life you don't respect? Who's the prisoner ?
Yeah, like going to Jerusalem for the festivals, gathering branches to construct booths for Tabernacles, or wearing clothing made of blended fabrics. Some folks are ready to chuck the law(s) they don't like at the drop of a hat!
Haven’t you been around long enough Scout on this blog to know that the person who posted their response in 6 parts usually does so citing various reference works?! And I for one have repeatedly remarked I’m grateful for their contributions! I don’t understand how some people can’t comprehend different styles of writing except for the traditional form ie introduction, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, etc and then conclusion. But, I guess to each their own…
what if we in reality just witnessed some pushing "The Living Bible" onto the rest of us
“And Jesus said to them, “Can you make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.” He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment. If he does, he will tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’
Luke 5:34-39 ESV
New Covenant, new wine, new wineskins.
Old Covenant, first public miracle, Nile River turned to blood. Passover instituted with the blood of the lamb and the death of the first born.
New Covenant, first miracle, water into new wine. Better wine. Better than the first wine presented at the wedding ceremony. Better than expected. Covenant instituted at the Lords Supper and sealed by his blood on the cross, veil tore, death raised to life, the Way to reconciliation opened.
We have all been completely washed, cleansed and resurrected by the blood of the new covenant. Freely given, freely received and we are meant to bring more people to Jesus Christ so He can heal them.
The shadows are gone. There are no shadows in bright light anyway.
Anonymous 3:53
Colossians 2 is best understood in the context of the Colossian heresy. The First Century Jewish Apocalyptic Movement believed that keeping the Law of Moses was a requirement for salvation. (This is an adversarial strategy aimed at the New Testament that occurs over and over again.) They were also ascetic and seemed to be involved in angel worship.
A careful translation of Colossians 2:17 by a notable scholar is as follows:
"Therefore, let no one judge you for eating and drinking, or for taking part in a festival or in a new moon celebration or the Sabbaths; these are a shadow of things to come, but the solid body thereof is the Annointed." (The New Testament translation by David Bentley Hart.)
There are many different theories on how this passage should be understood. I will state my own theory. I believe that the first clause of the passage refers to Jews and maybe others in the Colossian congregation who were still following the practices of the Law of Moses. There is nothing wrong with doing that. It is very likely that the Jerusalem Church was still observing Mosaic injunction. It becomes heresy only when these observances are seen to cause salvation in lieu of or along with Jesus.
Then Jews from the Apocalyptic Movement brought to the Colossian congregation their ideas. Paul got wind of this and the Epistle to the Colossians was written. One of the principal teachings of the Apocalyptic Jews was the diminution of Jesus. We can tell what the Apocalyptics were preaching by noting what Paul was asserting as a counterpoint to their philosophy. They denied that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily (Colossians 2:9). The Apocalyptics also denied that Christians were complete in Christ (2:10). They asserted that Jesus was not adequate for salvation and circumcision was required (2:11). This is all very similar to what the Circumcision Party taught and is recounted in other Epistles.
Then later in Colossians 2:16-17 Paul states that the Colossian Christians should not let these Apoclyptics judge them in regard to eating and drinking and taking part in some of the festivals. They Apocalyptics were criticizing the Colossians Christians over these Mosaic observances by saying that these practices were required for salvation when the Colossian Christians had been taught by Paul that they were not. They were just customs – a continuation of Jewish culture that in no way substituted for Jesus. The Apocalyptics were asserting to the Colossian Christians that they were not taking these practices seriously and that they were spiritual lax. (If the Apocalyptics had had the term back then, they would have called the Colossian Christians “Laodicean.”) This advocating of the Law of Moses by the Apocalyptics as the pathway to salvation comported with their belief in the diminution of the Godly power and salvific force of Jesus.
So, Paul told the Colossians not to let these people judge their manner of following Mosaic observances as cultural practices. That these practices were, after all, only pointers to Jesus.
I know there are many theories about what is going on in Colossians. The least plausible is the theory that Armstrongists advocate. If somehow the flimsy Armstrongist theory could be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt, what would you have? A single one-off that did not comport with what New Testament authors wrote in general. One might favor dropping Colossians from the canon, ascribing it to Judaizers.
Scout
God inspired Colossians; Scout suggests dropping it.
Scout has written: “ I will state my own theory. I believe that……..”
Thus it is written, thus it must be true, but for who?
If we wrote such statements I don’t think Scout would look upon them as being scholarly or authoritative. Yet, we must accept his theories and beliefs as the final draft??. NOT.
Jeez, 10:27! Guess we know you did not serve in the US Marine Corps! Thin skin there, buddy boy! Those who are confident in their research, thought processes, and conclusions generally do project an authoritative aura.
Just sayin'.
Scout
Your post at 724 seems to add credence to my theory (4/21/1014) that it was not the law of Moses in question in Ephesians 2, but human factors causing the chaos.
You write, "the Jews from the Apocalyptic movement brought to the Colossian congregation their ideas . .!"
--"they pushed customs, Jewish culture "
--"they advocated the law of Moses as a pathway to salvation ", which is no fault of the law.
This correlates, not with the law, but the " rudiments of this world, the philosophy, traditions, and commandments of men" (Colossians 2:20-23, Matt.15:3-9), or in this case, Judaism, with its oral law interpreting the written law.
"6 page man" in his lengthy exegesis asks, "did Paul in Eph.2:15 teach that Jesus abolished the law with all its commandments and regulations as alleged by some"? NO!
Eph.2:15 says, " having abolished (katargeo) the enmity, the law of commandments CONTAINED in ordinances.". Whereas Romans 3:31 asks, "do we then abolish (katargeo) the law because of faith? No, we establish the law".
What is abolished in Eph.2 is not God's law, but the enmity (echthra), Strong's # 2189, meaning, hostility, hatred, reason for opposition. There are 6 places where this is used in the N.T. and in 4 places, leaving Eph.2 out, it is self evident as to what is generating the opposition.
Luke 23:12/ Galatians 5:20 ( hatred, a manifestation of the flesh)
Romans 8:7 (the carnal mind, hostile to the law of God)
James 4:4 (friendship with this world).
In all these cases we are dealing with enmity caused by the flesh, the carnal mind , and the world. So does this theme continue or are we supposed to believe that in Eph.2:15-16, what we see is the result of what the Bible calls " holy, just and good, that which is good and right in God's sight, His law? (Rom 7:7, Deut 6:18).
Is this enmity producing agent the law of Moses or the tenants of Judaism, oral additions and traditions which clearly were intended to separate the Jew from the Gentile? Oh, these rules had a "show of wisdom" to the carnal man but was actually "vain decit, the traditions of men, the rudiments of this world, and not after Christ", (Colossians 3:23, 2:8). Christ called this " vain worship ", totally lacking the necessary righteousness required for entering the Kingdom of God (Matt. 5:20).
God prohibits adding to or taking away from His word, as well as misusing it for one's own selfish purpose, or for a purpose never intended in the first place, such as justification by law.
Judaism, with its laws of commandments CONTAINED in ordinances was/is designed to separate the Jew from the Gentile, even as the WCG Talmud was to separate the church from this world. Both are flesh oriented religions imposed by carnal men and designed for control, self glorification, and the praise of man (see Romans 2:17-29).
Regarding the Judaizers, Galatians 6:12-13 says, " as many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised , that they may glory in your flesh".
For us, Christ has rendered those things "katargeo", powerless, of no effect, done away, abolished (Galatians 5:1). Stand fast!
.
20:24
Being around the military for about 20 years, ,6 years overseas on and off military bases, martial arts student to teacher over decades, etc. makes your ill informed comment irrelevant.
But, thanks for the try anyway.
Anonymous 9:01
Sorry. I will explain further and maybe this will clarify. I was speaking in hypothetical terms. I was not suggesting that the properly intpreted book of Colossians be dropped from the canon. But what would you do if you had a book in the canon that contradicted the flow of ideas in the rest of the New Testament?
I might ask you. How do you know that God inspired Colossians? The majority of scholars do not believe Paul wrote it.
Scout
Anonymous 10:27 wrote, "If we wrote such statements I don’t think Scout would look upon them as being scholarly or authoritative."
At least I stated that it was my own theory. I am accustomed to having Armstongists simply declare their viewpoints as truth because they heard some sound bites from the pulpit or read something written in Armstrongist literature. You ask them to defend the idea and they go away and you never hear from them again or you get a bunch of ad hominem rhetoric.
Scout
BP8 2:16 wrote, "This correlates, not with the law, but the " rudiments of this world, the philosophy, traditions, and commandments of men" (Colossians 2:20-23, Matt.15:3-9), or in this case, Judaism, with its oral law interpreting the written law."
The "wall" dividing Jews and Gentiles could not possibly have been worldly philosphy of men. Ephesians does not mention in the text surrounding Ephesians 2:15 any worldly philosphies. It taxes the imagination to believe that when the Ephesians read this epistle in their congregation that they said to themseleves that Ephesians 2:15 referred to the Epicureans or the Gnostics.
This is what Peter said in Acts 10:18:
"And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
Jews believed that Gentilesl were unclean. Yet, this division would have never occured to the Ephesians even though the Jewish and Gentile Christian communities were the most relevant communities to their lives? They would be thinking instead about Gnosticism? Peter, Barnabas and some other Jewish Christians would not eat with Gentile Christians when the Circumcision Party came around. And Paul got in Peter's face. Yet, Paul in Ephesians 2:15 could not be referring to the Law of Moses? Gimme a break.
If that is not enough, here is an explicit statement from Paul in Romans 7:4:
"In the same way, my brothers and sisters, you have died to the law through the body of Christ..."
And here the law is not the philosphy of the Epicureans or the Gnostics. In this same passage, in Romans 7:7 Paul cites a statement from the Law of Moses and not the Talmud.
The Law of Moses was abolished by Jesus. It was replaced by the Law of Christ which was consistent with the moral content of the Law of Moses but transcended it otherwise. A better law. Better promises. In the Law of Christ, Jesus is our sabbath rest and it is no longer a physical day. Armstrongists need to wake up and smell the coffee. Millerism died in 1844.
Scout
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2024/04/torah-was-for-israel.html
Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
5:59 wrote, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."
Yes it is. But the covenant that implements it is inferior to the covenant that implements the Law of Christ. Do you want to go with second best especially when God does not require it? Paul felt like the only purpose the first covenant and its law served was to "kill" him. Read the next few verses.
Scout
Dropping Colossians...would that be anything like Herr Martin Luther dropping James as an "epistle of straw"
Yowzaa! This one's really racking up the numbers. Nothing like the Jon Brisby thread, but it's getting up there!
Scout writes:
“The Law of Moses was abolished by Jesus. It was replaced by the Law of Christ which was consistent with the moral content of the Law of Moses but transcended it otherwise. A better law.”
Ne 10:29 all these now join their brothers the nobles, and bind themselves with a curse and an oath to follow the Law of God given through Moses the servant of God (NIV).
The law of Moses was God’s law; hence Scout could have written:
“The law of God was abolished by Jesus. It was replaced by the law of Christ which was consistent with the content of the Law of God but transcended it otherwise. A better law”.
From my previous post:
1 Cor 9:21 .... though I am not free from God's law
but am under Christ's law ... (NIV).
"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).
It died in 1844 because they had PTSD for 11 years after the shocking 1833 grand meteor shower.
Face it Armstrongites, your tithe landlords cannot get around Colossians 2:16-17
"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" [LB translation]
Funny how Jesus refers to the old covenant law as Moses law.
I guess He was misleading everyone into thinking there is a distinction between Moses law and the Way.
Anonymous 2:39
You are making a fundamental error in logic. You are mistaking nomenclature for category. If I refer to a zebra and a clydesdale as both equines, the same name does not make them the same horse. The same nomenclature does not make the same category happen.
The Law of Christ and the Law of Moses are both Laws of God. They reflect the nature of God but they are designed for people in different circumstances. See Miller Jones' recent essay.
I will not go further. But let me say that in your life, I would imagine that there is some recognition of this principle. I doubt that you are wearing tassels on your clothing right now. And if you have ever had a skin rash, I doubt that you went around shouting "Unclean!" as you approached people. There is a profound difference between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ, yet both are Godly.
Scout
And, 7:59, it gets deeper:
John 2:13 "For the Jews' Passover was at hand."
Why would St. John make a statement like that?
Scout writes:
“I doubt that you are wearing tassels on your clothing right now. And if you have ever had a skin rash, I doubt that you went around shouting "Unclean!" as you approached people.”
You are right I am not wearing tassels/geilim right now. But I do have them - ones that clip on to a belt loop - not quite on the four corners of a garment.
Lev 13:46 As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp.
Lev 15:31 “ ‘You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place, which is among them.’ ”
Leaving aside that the Leviticus legislation appears specifically to be part of the Sinai/Horeb covenant as opposed to the covenant renewal in the plains of Moab, where presumably legislation would be modified for the people living spread out in the land, as opposed to being in the camp; I have never had a serious skin disease to warrant so doing.
But if I had a serious skin disease I would not shout out unclean as I would be surprised if anyone would understand the implication and secondly it would be to avoid be taken away by men in white coats.
Trying to wrap my head around this. Let's see, what would I do if I were boogieing along, minding my own business, and suddenly heard someone exclaim "Unclean!".
If we were dining out, and another patron were walking out of the mens room followed by a waiter, I'd assume that the waiter hadn't washed his hands.
A man or woman announcing "unclean" while walking down the street, uh, maybe a religious nut, with Tourette's, who had just been studying Leviticus.
A dude walking out the front door of a hotel and saying it as he pointed to a lady? Aw sheeitt!!! Somebody's got an std!
Mom yelling it as kids come in? They didn't wipe their shoes on the mat.
The only way you could be sure though is if you were living in a society where the meaning were published and known by everybody! It's not unlike one's perception from living in any bubble, and kind of what makes people like the Scientologists cultic!
And, now that I think about it, these days, wouldn't it be like a tree falling in the forest, what with everyone into their electronic devices and earbuds and such?
Apologies to the members of the deity, but that particular law has done been rendered obsolete!
Is Ephesians 2:15 referring to the law of Moses or something else?
I'm going to take one last stab at this before I call it a day. Before I start I want to assure everyone that I am not a legalist, nor one who believes the law is a pathway to salvation, nor one who believes we should keep all the Torah literally. I do believe the Torah is both kept and fulfilled by walking as Jesus did, after the spirit, (Romans 8:4).
Right or wrong, my perception upon reading certain posts is that the law and old covenant are often placed in a disparaging light, where it is almost insinuated that it's God's fault that negative things happened. And because the law and OC only applied to Israel, the Gentiles were better off for it. So, by getting rid of the problem (law and OC), all is well and good.
It's probably just me, but regardless I don't buy that scenario. I think blame needs to be placed where blame in due. Enter Ephesians 2:15.
Scout writes, "the Jews believed the Gentiles were unclean" causing division.
Why would they believe that? He insists the law of Moses is the culprit, but is that true?
Scout also quotes Acts 10:28 where Peter states, "you know how that it is an UNLAWFUL thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation". Unlawful according to who? what? The written law or something else?
Jesus Christ ate with public and and sinners of every kind. If He was violating the law of Moses, that would be sin and He could not be the Saviour of the world.
Bullinger's comment on this verse in Acts is, "themis (unlawful) is that which is established by custom or useage", not God's law. See John 5:10 for another example.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1986, vol.1, pg. 912, article "Defilement" states, "the scope of defilement (in the NT) in its various degrees has been greatly widened by RABBINISM into a complex and burdensome system whose shadow falls over the whole NT life. Ceremonial defilement is mentioned in the NT, but not approved; by eating with unwashed (common), not ceremonial cleansed hands; eating common food (Acts 10), by intimate association with Gentiles, such as eating with them or entering into their houses, WAS NOT EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN in Mosaic law"!
Adin Steinsaltz, "The Essential Talmud" (Basic books, 1976, pg.14-15,) writes, "when one speaks of Jewish law, one is generally speaking of the oral law, which has long since been committed to writing, and is not strictly oral any longer".
The renowned scholar Jacob Neusner, author of several books on "Judaism", relays the same facts, that the law of Moses was not the problem causing division, but man made additions and perversions of the written law, which Scripture condemns.
1 Timothy 1:8 says, "the law is good if a man use it lawfully", showing that at the time someone or somebody was misusing it. Christ said that major doctrines were being taught based on human traditions and commandments that perverted the law of God (Matt.15). Could this possibly have been going on in Ephesus?
In Scout's original post he admits that the Circumcision party was very persuasive and Asia minor was their stomping ground, demonstrating the possibility that perversion and division was a concern. He also said that Peter and others would not eat with the Gentiles when the Circumcision party came around. Why not . .because of the law? No, the Circumcision party cared as much about the real meaning of the law as politicians today care about the constitution (see Galatians 6:12-13 again).
So, was the law of commandments CONTAINED in ordinances (Eph.2:15) really the law of Moses by another name and therefore abolished, or is it referring to the traditions, commandments and doctrines of men based on human custom and usage (rank Judaism)? I believe it to be the latter for If it be the former, we have a blatant contradiction between Ephesians 2:15 and Romans 3:31!
This is from another part of the notes I was writing on the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses plays a valuable role in the soteriological model under the New Testament. Paul said he would not have known what sin was were it not for the Law of Moses. And it requires a cognizance of sin for salvation to be pursued. Romans 7:1, Paul is speaking to Jews who know the Law of Moses. Romans 7:7, the Law is not sin but it is the means by which Jews are able to recognize what sin is. And this impels them to seek salvation.
This whole process does not mean that the Law is sin or should be discarded. The soteriological process, rather, upholds the Law of Moses. But because it plays a role in helping the Jews to know sin, that does not mean it is intended to be a behavioral prescription. The behavioral prescription in the Law of Christ. The Jews were under the Law and their sin was defined by the Law until Christ came.
We are saved by faith. A faith that comes through the recognition that the Law will simply kill us. The Law does not give life, faith does. So, Paul says:
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law."
He is not saying that we establish the law to be our behavioral standard. He is saying that the law is an established factor in the soteriological model because it permits the recognizion of sin. Without the instruction in sin that the Law of Moses provides, the model of salvation does not work for Jews. That is how it is established.
Scout
BP8 6:09
I dashed off my statement at 9:05 last night just before I went to bed. While it addresses the fundamental reason behind Romans 3:31, there are still some issues you raised that are yet loose ends. I can offer my view on these loose ends. And I believe my view is aligned with the Christian Movement.
A point that you raise is that many of the Jewish practices that divided Jew from Gentile are not really a part of the Law of Moses but originate in the oral tradition. While there is not a neat, concise statement that Gentiles are unclean in the Law of Moses, the concept is found through out the Law of Moses. God gave them the Law of Moses to make them a separate people from their neighboring nations in the Middle East. Here are a couple of archetype scriptures:
“Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you” (Leviticus 18:24)
“For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.” (Deuteronomy 14:2)
So, Jew naturally concluded, “We’re holy and they are not. In fact, they and their religion and practices are an abomination.” It is worthwhile to look up the word abomination in a concordance. The Jews ritualized this fundamental concept found in the Law of Moses by designating Gentiles to be “unclean.” The ritualization may be in the oral tradition but the fundamental principle is from the Law of Moses.
(to be continued)
Scout
BP8 6:09 wrote, “Jesus Christ ate with public and sinners of every kind. If He was violating the law of Moses, that would be sin and He could not be the Savior of the world.”
I personally doubt that Jesus had much of an engagement with Gentiles during his life time. Eating with the pubic or sinners is a different matter. That is fine as long as they be Jews. The expansion of the church into the Gentile world is a characteristic of later Pauline practice and theology.
BP8 6:09 wrote, “1 Timothy 1:8 says, "the law is good if a man use it lawfully", showing that at the time someone or somebody was misusing it.”
I believe this is true, if the Law of Moses is used as a source of ethics tempered by the larger and transcending Law of Christ. I believe this is what the Jerusalem Church was doing. But the issue was forced by the Circumcision Party and had to be sorted out by the Jerusalem Council.
BP8 6:09 wrote, ”He also said that Peter and others would not eat with the Gentiles when the Circumcision party came around. Why not . .because of the law? No. . .”
The Law of Moses contained language and directives that separated Jews from Gentiles. This was ritualized as uncleanness somewhere along the way. This “uncleanness” idea was implemented in Late Second Temple Judaism. The Circumcision Party, of course, advocated this. And Peter, Barnabas and some other Christian Jews were a case of recidivism.
A modern form of this division was found in the Worldwide Church of God. When I was a member we were we should not associate with people outside the WCG because they would drag us back into sin and “the world.” This was in spite of the fact that the leaders named the denomination “Worldwide.” Instead, it was very insular and denied that it pursued outreach. Circumcision Party redux.
The Law of Moses was instantiated for the Jewish people, living in Palestine and having either a Tabernacle or Temple for liturgy. It was not made for the Gentiles. This is one of the many subtexts of the Jerusalem Council.
Ephesians 2:15 refers to the abolishing of the Law of Moses. And it comports nicely with Romans 7:1-6. It has been replaced by the Law of Christ and salvation by grace through faith.
Scout
Scout @732
I'm not going to delineate, but I think much of what you just said made my case.
We will just have to let the people decide.
Nothing in the passage about the apocalyptics arguing that those days in Col 2:16 were "required for salvation", Scout, 7:24.
You law-haters keep going with the law-haters of that era because you hate the law yourself and don't want to obey it, failing to see that the law of Christ includes the feasts (and if it includes the feasts, it includes the sabbaths, and regulations on eating and drinking). Paul commanded the Corinthians to keep the feasts. You conveniently ignore 1 Cor 5:8 by going off on a narrow, rocky road of reasoning full of errors.
As you said, from the beginning there were always arguments over what laws to keep and what not to keep. We aren't talking about being saved by works here. We're not stupid. We are talking about righteousness. And if your righteousness can't reach to a holiness you will not see the Lord. (Mt 5:20, Rom 6:19)
Keeping the law of Christ (if you don't like the terms "law" or "law of Moses") is required for salvation. If you don't obey him, your place will be in the lake of fire. Even Paul was afraid of not "qualifying". (1 Cor 9:27) A king requires obedience. That's why Satan fell.
You wrote: "The Apocalyptics were asserting to the Colossian Christians that they were not taking these practices seriously and that they were spiritually lax." What?? THE COLOSSIANS WERE BOTH ACCUSED OF TRYING TO EARN THEIR SALVATION AND OF BEING LAX AND NOT TAKING THOSE PRACTICES SERIOUSLY? You are tripping over yourself with your specious arguments.
Drop Colossians out of the canon? Right, they have been trying to do that from the beginning, alter the scriptures in some way or another, as per Rev 22:18-19.
What? You can't read? Paul says, "keep the feast" (1 Cor 5:8), and with it the restriction on types of bread (the "eating" part of Col 2:16), which the law-heaters didn't like, 30 years after the crucifixion.
People, realize that when Scout argues that the law of Moses has been abolished he is distinguishing it from the law of Christ, yet he is still blind when he fails to see that the holydays and sabbaths (Col 2: 16, 1 Cor 5:8) were a part of the higher law still retained. When Christ says He is Lord of the Sabbath and that the Sabbath was made for man, He affirms the Sabbath law. Scout is foolish to throw out the Sabbath command in the decalogue with the lesser laws of Moses. There was no morphing or erasing of the letter done here to make it more appealing to the flesh.
What is separating us today is the issue of which laws are valid and which laws are not.
BP8's argument is persuasive but I still believe that it should be translated "abolished the enmity TOWARD the law (which is what we are talking about right now)". Commandments and statutes are in both laws, Moses and Christ, so the KJ translation doesn't help make things clear. I believe it is spurious, meant to discourage the keeping of the law of Christ, confusing the law of Moses/Old Covenant with the law of Christ. If Paul really hated the "commandments", why does he quote the 5th comamndment in Eph 6:2?
Scout also confuses you with his quote of Rom 7:4. He still hasn't learned anything and the apostates in WCG butchered this meaning too. Becoming dead to the law means the old man dying for the sins committed against it, since the wages for sinning against it is death. It doesn't mean that you have a new lease on life to break it again and do what you want. Since we figuratively died when we repented and were baptized, we were freed from the law's penalty for our sins, and are free to marry Christ.
Yes, some laws don't apply anymore, are abolished, such as Mt 5:38, but many are still retained. It's that overlap that we as a church cannot agree on.
To say that the Sabbath is no longer in force and not a part of the law of Christ (who said that the Sabbath was made for man and that He is Lord of the Sabbath) is a blasphemy. Even many Pentecostals teach and believe in the Sabbath command as commandment from Christ even if they keep it on Sunday. And how many of them keep it properly? It's not a day to run around and do your pleasure. (Is 58:13; 56:1-2)
So someone wants to throw out Col but keep Eph?
BP8 9:15
One of the matters at issue is the phrase in ephesians: "the law of commandments contained in ordinances." (the word "contained" is in italics in the KJV.) You have attempted to connect it with human ordinances or ideas. One must consider that law, philosphically, consists of its moral content which is then mapped into a behavioral expectation. For instance, the Law of Moses prescribes that if you have a skin rash, you must shout "Unclean" as you approach other people so they will not be rendered contaminated or unclean. This is a law in at least two moments. The first moment is its moral content which is to say that "one should love others by making sure that one does not transmit disease to them."
This morality exists as an abstraction away from the Law of Moses. The second moment in the law is a decree or ordinance and it says "you must shout "Unclean" as you approach others."
This is typically thought of as the Letter of the Law - which in our case is the Law of Moses which implements the morality in a version of behavior.
I believe that the phraseology that Paul uses in Ephesians 2:15 is telling us that the moral force of the Law of Moses persists even though the letter is dropped. This is not something I concocted but is standard Christian belief. In fact, most Christian denominations believe that the letter of the Law of Moses has faded away but the morality persists. (In spite of the fact that HWA always claimed that orthordox Christianity is antinomian.)
To demonstrate its Christian acceptance, here is a passage from Ellicott's Commentary pertaining to Ephesians 2:15 that addresses this topic:
"Now, of the relation of Christ to the Law, St. Paul says, in Romans 3:31, "Do we make void the Law? God forbid! Yea, we establish the Law."The Law, therefore, is abolished as a law "in ordinances"--that is, "in the letter"--and is established in the spirit. (2) "The law of commandments in ordinances." The word here rendered "ordinance" (dogma) properly means "a decree." It is used only in this sense in the New Testament (see Luke 2:1; Acts 16:4; Acts 17:7; Hebrews 11:23); and it signifies expressly a law imposed and accepted, not for its intrinsic righteousness, but on authority; or, as Butler expresses it (Anal., Part ii., Ephesians 1), not a "moral," but "a positive law.""
Good discussion. Bye.
Scout
Anonymous 1:08
Apparently, you have understood nothing that I have written on this topic.
Scout
I have said just about everything that I feel is warranted on this topic. Anonymous 1:08 is simply a repetition of earlier responses from those in disagreement with what I have written. I think it is time to quit. Those who have just now showed up can read what has already been written.
Thanks to all for a good discussion, whether pro or con. Thanks to Gary for his patience.
Scout
Uh, the spirit and "morality" of the law will always be definable, by words, letters, on paper or parchment or in cyberspace or.......
Eph 2:15 Having abolished IN HIS FLESH [sarx] THE ENMITY [echthra], even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Eph 2:22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
While I agree with Scout that “the law of commandments in ordinances” refers to God’s law, given by Moses, it is not the law that is annulled but the enmity/the curse that results from breaking it.
Ro 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Ro 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, CONDEMNED SIN IN THE FLESH [sarx]:
Ro 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Ro 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind is ENMITY [echthra] against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
In verse 2 “Paul’s confirms the truth of the previous statement. In the new epoch inaugurated by the sending of God’s Son and the outpouring of God’s Spirit, the Spirit acts on human hearts to bring about the obedience to the law and engender life. Many commentators regard the word law (nomos) in the phrase the law of the Spirit to refer to a ‘principle’. Paul uses the word ‘law,’ however, in 8:3 to refer to the Mosaic law and presents us coming under the control of either the flesh or the Spirit. He does not intend his original audience to guess whether the word nomos refers to the Mosaic law or a principle. HE USED THE WORD SEVENTY-PLUS TIMES IN THE LETTER CONSISTENTLY TO REFER TO THE MOSAIC LAW. Here he describes it under the influence of different force spheres. THE LAW OF THE SPIRIT ... IN CHRIST JESUS REFERS TO THE MOSAIC LAW IN THE POWER SPHERE OF THE SPIRIT that makes the believer’s fulfilment of the law possible. THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH REFERS TO THE MOSAIC LAW IN THE POWER SPHERE OF THE FLESH where sin warps and exploits it (7:11) so that it produces condemnation and eternal death. Since the law is ‘spiritual’ (7:14), it only operates as God intended in the sphere of the Spirit...
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 in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Eze 36:26a A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you:
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
“Paul’s argument is this. Sin worms its way in through the portal of the flesh and distorts the law and deforms humanity. The Spirit’s power re-forms those who are in Christ and transforms them so that they can fulfil ‘the just requirements of the law’ (8:4) and be conformed to the image of God’s Son (8:29). Freedom does not come from trying to conform to a written code but only from surrendering oneself completely to the control of God’s Spirit. Paul asserts that under the Spirit’s power the external law develops into an interior law (Jer 31:33) - in this case ... the Christian law of love...
“In the Old Testament, humans present the sin offering TO God. In the sin offering of God’s Son, God is the one who offers it FOR humans. Christ’s solidarity with humans meant that he took upon himself our sinfulness, endured the curse of the law when he was hanged on a cross (Gal 3:13), and redeemed us from the law’s death sentence...
Part 2
2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
“The law that is so ineffective in the sphere of the flesh becomes renewed in the sphere of the Spirit when God gives believers a spiritual heart transplant. Paul does not cite God’s promises in Ezekiel 36:16-27 and Jeremiah 31:33; nevertheless they inform his views (cf. 2 Cor 3:3, 6)...
“Paul assumes that these promises that once were understood to be limited to Israel have been universalised to include Gentile believers, since all believers received the Spirit” (David E. Garland, Romans, TNTC, pp.259-264).
2Co 3:7a But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious...
2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
“Paul describes the law carved in letters of stone as the dispensation [lit. ‘ministry’] of death. This is best understood in the light of Romans 7:10 where the apostle says, ‘the very commandment which promised life proofed to be death to me’. Although Leviticus 18:5 may promise life to those who keep the law, Paul knew that no-one does in fact, and that the law can only pronounce the verdict of death over the transgressor...
“Here the old covenant is called the old covenant the dispensation of condemnation, reflecting again that the law operated under it can only condemn those who fail to meet its demands. The new covenant is called the dispensation of righteousness because under its provisions those who are certainly guilty of transgression are nevertheless accounted righteous by God (cf. Rom 3:21-26” (Colin G. Kruse, 2 Corinthians, TNTC, p.95).
"Hence the letter/Spirit contrast is a contrast between the law itself without the Spirit, as it was and still is experienced by the majority of Israelites under the Sinai covenant (cf. 3:14-15), and the law with the Spirit, as it is now experienced by those under the new covenant in Christ.
“... under the new covenant there will no longer be a distinction between those within the community who have a transformed heart and those who do not. By definition, all those who belong to the new covenant community do so by virtue of their transformed nature...
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity [echthra] thereby:
Jer 31:34b for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Eze 37:26a I will make a covenant of peace with them; (NIV).
Eze 37:27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people.
Zec 2:11 And many nations [goyim] shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee
“... in moving from Paul’s day to our own, it is crucial to keep in view the covenant structure and promise of Jeremiah 31:34, both of which informed Paul’s understanding of the gospel: The foundation of the covenant is forgiveness; the provision of the covenant is the Spirit; the consequence of the covenant is obedience; the promise of the covenant is to be in God’s presence forever as his faithful people...” (Scott J. Hafemann, 2 Corinthians, p.133 & 135-36).
Anonymous 3:17 wrote, “Becoming dead to the law means the old man dying for the sins committed against it, since the wages for sinning against it is death. It doesn't mean that you have a new lease on life to break it again and do what you want. Since we figuratively died when we repented and were baptized, we were freed from the law's penalty for our sins, and are free to marry Christ.”
My recollection is that the Armstrongist teaching on this is that if you are baptized into the death of Christ you are dead to the penalty of the Law of Moses but you are not dead to the keeping of the Law of Moses. The problem with this is that it leads to the cancellation of salvation for all Armstrongists. In the following manner. Though the Old Man is dead to sin’s penalty incurred through transgression, now Armstrongists must walk in the newness of life by keeping the commandments. They must struggle through life to produce the works of law-keeping that will qualify them for the Kingdom. (This is salvation by works but that is another related issue.)
The problem with this model is that Armstrongists do not keep the Law of Moses. I am not referring to the idea that they sometimes slip-up and transgress and have to seek forgiveness and are forgiven. I am referring to the fact that they do not intend to observe the 613 laws of the Torah, even if one excludes the sacrifices and what they call “the ministration of death.” They do not wear tassels on their clothing. They do not shout “Unclean” if they have a skin rash. They do not treat their women as if the are unclean when they are in menstruation. They do not stay in brush arbors at the FOT. Then there is the non-sacrificial Temple liturgy. And James seals the cancellation of salvation form Armstrongists by stating, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” Here it is not just a transgression or two, it is a determined approach that intends to keep only select laws.
The marriage analogy of Romans 7:1-6 gives us an expansion of what Paul is talking about when he invokes the idea of “dying to the law.” A woman is “released from the law of marriage” if her husband dies. Paul also speaks of being “free from the Law.” NRSV throughout. This is decidedly not the Armstrongist idea of being free from past sins so now we can keep the Law of Moses perfectly.
I do in fact believe that the Sabbath is yet in force. Jesus is the Sabbath for Christians. He is the Lord of the Sabbath and our Rest. The observance of a physical day can be instructive but it is superfluous.
Christians are dead to both sin and the law. They are dead the law because the Law of Moses is abolished and has been replaced by the Law of Christ which is consistent with the Law of Moses morally (and in some cases in the letter also) but transcends it. Christians walk in the newness of life because Christ lives in them through the Holy Spirit.
Scout
Part 2:
I have an essential disagreement with what you have researched. The idea that you proffer is that the phrases in Romans 8:2 "law of the Spirit" and "law of sin and death" both refer to the Law of Moses but operating under different "power spheres." The hermeneutic is that Paul is always referring to the Law of Moses.
This hermeneutic is something that you are going to have to closely exegete rather than simply assert. The logical problem is this. If I use the terms "cat" and "dog" to refer to the same animal, you never know what I am talking about. I can arbitrarily change meaning as the ad hoc situation may require. Roman 7:1-6 may then be interpreted however you would like. That is facile.
What I do know is that to create a nomenclature structure that permits you to equate "the law of the Spirit" and "the law of sin and death" is novel and has no place in Christian theology.
Scout
After the advent of the Holy Spirit: tassels are not needed to remind of the law. Shout "unclean" if necessary to inhibit spread of disease. Do not have sex with a menstruous woman. Shock: brush arbors were never commanded for the FOT, only take, use tree parts to celebrate, not build a hut. No longer laws exist associated with a non-existent temple and the Levitical Priesthood. The law James refers to does not include all 613 b/c many no longer exist, are abolished, disanulled, of necessity b/c the temple and LP are no more. Observe a physical sabbath day, and three festivals, b/c you're physical, not yet a spirit being.
Unfortunately for Armstrongites Paul, referring to the Law, uses the same word 'shadow' in Heb 10 (and uses the same word 'rudiments'/ 'elements' - elementary principles - in Col & Gal) so Armstrongists' clever eisegesis of Col 2:17 fails!
Scout, you're going nowhere with your wisdom of words. (1 Cor 1-2)
Keeping the law of God is not an attempt at salvation by works; only in your deceived mind it is. Haven't you been listening? John the apostle wrote in several places that we are to keep the commandments, the new ones and the old ones. (1 Jn 2:7) Didn't you just finish saying that we are to keep the law of Christ? There are commanmdments in the law of Christ, did you know? And you are not saved if you are a lawless individual, unless you are under mercy and come out of it in time. Only when you receive repentance and forgiveness are you saved from judgment for your sins.
Armstrongists don't keep the law of Moses, you say? Didn't you just finish saying that we are not to keep the law of Moses except where it overlaps with the law of Christ?
Right, about Ja 2:10. This applies to you too when you say that the Sabbath is "instructive" (has teaching value) yet it is superfluous (unnecessary in your arbitrary imagination). Maybe the other 9 great commandments are the same to you? Or maybe only 2 are relevant? Fool, you still don't know what was put in the ark and what was put on the showbread table.
Wrong, again, in your 3rd-to-last paragraph above, where you try to quote Scripture for a change in between indulging in your own reasoning, not realizing that when you die to the law, like a woman whose husband dies, you are now esposed to Christ and a higher law (with the Spirit, which you referenced, to keep it), for Christ as HUSBAND, KING and HEAD of the church has commandments for His new wife to keep. While quoting Rom 7:1-6 you fail to quote v7 where Paul asks, "IS THE LAW SIN?" (bad, superfluous, unnecessary) The answer? NOT HAPPENING (me ginomai).
The law isn't sin because the law of Christ is found in the OT law. It is holy, just and good. (Rom 7:2) Well said from the one who taught that we are saved by grace (the doctrine that bewitches everyone to despise the law).
You disagree with my research? Nay, it's not mine but revelation by the Spirit. As YOU wrote above, Christ lives in us by the holy Spirit. (1 Cor 14:6)
Anonymous 10:44 wrote, "After the advent of the Holy Spirit: tassels are not needed to remind of the law."
Neither is circumcision and the seventh-day Sabbath needed.
You also wrote, " Shock: brush arbors were never commanded for the FOT, only take, use tree parts to celebrate, not build a hut."
"And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month: 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." Neh 8:14-15 KJV
According to the Jewish Study Bible, the idea of using these branches to form a bouquet is a later innovation of Rabbinic Judaism. This is the Judaism that developed after the destruction of the Temple.
Scout
"But I have been the Lord your God since the land of Egypt; I will make you live in tents again, As in the days of the appointed festival" Hosea 12:9 NASB The verse indicates Israel did not have to be in tree branch booths. Tents were OK. But Lev 23:40-42 could be read and interpreted that tree booths must be made but I don't find that passage specific enough that it commands booths from tree parts. Those during Nehemiah's time could have read into the law more than was there. This reminds me of another time when the law was mistakenly read, when the lambs were killed during the daylight portion of the 14th, and not the evening before, and not "made ready" until night - 2Chr 35:1,14 - of the 15th (the beginning of the Jewish tradition??).
Tassels were to help remember the law but now the Holy Spirit does that. The weekly sabbath is a time to take a break, rest up.
I'm with the scholars who assign a late date for the epistle of James. Thus James is chorusing with the (late appearing) Gospels in reacting against Pauline antinomianism - providing plumb prooftexts for latter-day legalists like EG White, HW Armstrong..
Anonymous 2:51
Let me explain this. You have not understood anything that I have written. I will need to be brief.
You wrote, “Keeping the law of God is not an attempt at salvation by works; only in your deceived mind it is. Haven't you been listening?”
I have stated that you can keep the Law of Moses if you want. The problem only arises when you disbelieve the New Testament or you believe keeping the Law of Moses leads to salvation. Haven’t you been listening?
You wrote, “Armstrongists don't keep the law of Moses, you say?”
The problem is that they claim that the Law of Moses is still binding and that they DO keep it. In searching an archive, I have found that Armstrongists say very little about the Law of Christ. And there is no recognition of what the Law of Christ is that I have seen.
You wrote, “Right, about Ja 2:10. This applies to you too …”
Yes it does. But I am not claiming to keep the Law of Moses as the pathway to salvation (via qualification) and then keeping only a part of it as Armstrongists do. Armstrongists claim that the Law of Moses is written on their hearts. Sins I commit are under the Law of Christ and are forgiven in Christ.
You wrote, “…you fail to quote v7 where Paul asks, "IS THE LAW SIN?"
No, the law is not sin. It is the means by which sin is known. That principle does not alter the analogy to marriage that Paul makes at the beginning of Romans 7.
You wrote,, “The law isn't sin because the law of Christ is found in the OT law.”
That is utterly false. Part of the Law of Moses is found in the Law of Christ – the opposite of what you stated. There is consistency at the moral level between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. Even some of the letter of the Law of Moses is carried over into the Law of Christ. But quit clearly, to anyone who can read, the Law of Christ transcends the Law of Moses.
You wrote, “You disagree with my research? Nay, it's not mine but revelation by the Spirit.”
I doubt that. You referred to me as a fool. That is not to be done in the New Testament. My guess is that you are not a Christian but only think you are. I also believe that responding to you has been a waste of my time but others may benefit from the point- counterpoint.
Scout
Anonymous Sunday, April 28, 2024, at 2:51:00 PM PDT,
I have been following the conversation at a distance for several days now without commenting; but when I saw your comment, I felt compelled to respond. Scout is absolutely on solid scriptural ground when he says that Christians are NOT obligated to obey the commandments of Torah. I also agree with him that you haven't been paying attention. There have been numerous scriptural references provided by the commentators in this thread that conclusively demonstrate that: Torah laid out the CONDITIONAL terms of God's covenant with the children of Israel, those commandments were NOT universal in their application and were clearly NOT intended for Gentiles, Jesus Christ instituted a NEW Covenant based on HIS obedience to Torah and sacrifice of himself for us, and that he summarized Torah into two UNIVERSAL commandments which would be the standard of that NEW Covenant.
Moreover, we ARE saved by the grace which is made available to us through faith in Jesus of Nazareth. Christian obedience to Christ's commandments is merely a reflection of the salvation which we have received because of HIM. Our obedience doesn't earn us ANYTHING. Our obedience merely demonstrates our acceptance of what Christ has done for us and serves as a manifestation of our thankfulness for that, our love for God, and the evidence that we have received God's Holy Spirit. God has circumcised the hearts of his saints, and we have rested from our own works in Christ. Once again, Christ makes us right in God's sight. We are able to stand clean and whole before God because of what Jesus has done for us. We (Christians) have put on HIS righteousness, because we understand that our own righteousness appears only as filthy rags!
Finally, it is as plain as the nose on your faces that Armstrongites and modern Jews do NOT obey Torah! Indeed, after the events of 70 AD it became IMPOSSIBLE to keep the commandments of Torah in accordance with the instructions contained therein. There isn't any Temple currently standing in Jerusalem. There is NO physical Holy of Holies at present. Likewise, Armstrongites turned three pilgrimage festivals into one and designated their own festival observances in cities around the world. Scout is also absolutely right about the booths. Leviticus 23 states that "All native Israelites shall dwell in booths" (NOT campgrounds or hotels). Also, when was the last time that an Armstrongite stoned an adulterer or a son who cursed his parents? Armstrongites cherry pick Torah and call it obedience. No sir, to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear, you have certainly NOT won this debate!
Armstrongites should read Galatians 4:9-10
"..how can it be that you want to go back again and become slaves once more to another poor, weak, useless religion of trying to get to heaven by obeying God’s laws? (10) You are trying to find favor with God by what you do or don’t do on certain days or months or seasons or years" (Living Bible)
So 831, according to your text, what exactly is the real problem described therein?
God's law? The days, months, times and years? Something else?
Since all religions have some sort of rules, and they all observe "days" and seasons of some type, I would say the text is referring to the misuse of those things by man (such as using them as a pathway to salvation) that is the problem!
Man, not the things of God, is the problem and the place to lay blame.
There's no reason to be in doubt about the "Days & Seasons", Paul decodes it elsewhere, Colossians 2:16-17
The Living Bible is a personal paraphrase, not a translation, of the Bible in English by Kenneth N. Taylor and first published in 1971.
Better check the Greek in Biblehub or Strong's or.........of Galations 4:3-10. The "days, months, seasons, years" are of the world, not of God - verse 3.
Kenneth N. Taylor apparently didn't like Jewish Laws - Gal 4:3 Living Bible.
Armstrongists are not even following the advise of their own corpulent 'apostle'
"let the bible interpret the bible" (HWA)
Gal 4:10; Eph 2:15; Col 2:16; Heb 10:1...
BP8 10:24
Paul, in Galatians 4:10, is referring to a general principle of creating special times as a necessary part of salvation. This continues his theme in Galatians 2:16 of being justified by faith and not works. The observation of days and other times falls into the catetory of works.
But why would Paul invoke this idea. From the context, we know that the Circumcision Party (2:2) was at work on the Galatians. They were trying to get the Galatians to practice circumcision and keep the Law of Moses as the pathway to salvation (Acts 15:1).
So, the general principle of observing days as a form of salvation by works encompassed the days and times taught by the Law of Moses. Paul is saying in Galatians 4:8-11, that the Galatians abandoned pagan holidays, came to salvation through faith in Christ and now want to go back to another set of days contained in the Law of Moses that fall under the same principle as the pagan holidays.
Believe me, I understand that this is difficult for Armstrongists to countenance. So let me state the key principle again. It is not wrong to observe the holy days from the Law of Moses for their cultural meaning. It is wrong to observe them as necessary criteria for salvation. The Circumcision Party was teaching the holy days as requirements for salvation. The Circumcision Party taught the entire Law of Moses as being the pathway to salvation. They seemed to have relegated Jesus, though they believed in him, to an adjunct or lesser role in salvation. It was difficult for the Jews to accept the crucified Jesus as the Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to be a great military leader. In addition, Jesus was never loud about proclaiming himself to be God or the Messiah during his years on earth. The Circumcision Party probably grew out of these dynamics along with the fact that the Holy Spirit was not working in them - obvious because they could not recognize the singular importance of Jesus.
So Galatains 4:10 refers to all days and times, including both pagan days and those found in the Law of Moses.
Scout
I wouldn't in the presence of Jesus call His sabbath and three feasts "weak and beggarly elements".
11:29
I feel the same way. But it is hard to interpret Paul's writing any other way. I see Paul's rationale as:
"Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it." 2 Corinthians 3:10
Scout
Compared to the reality (found in HIM), they certainly are "weak and beggarly."
The Armstrongite who doesn't like the Living Bible will find little comfort in the Jerusalem Bible on Colossians 2:16-17
"From now onwards, never let anyone else decide what you should eat or drink, or whether you are to observe annual festivals, New Moons or sabbaths. These were only pale reflections of what was coming: the reality is Christ" (Jerusalem Bible)
What will the Armstrongists say now? That the Des Moines High School Dropout knows more than Jesuit scholars?
If they don't like the Living Bible they sure as hell won't like what The Message Bible says:
16-17So don’t put up with anyone pressuring you in details of diet, worship services, or holy days. All those things are mere shadows cast before what was to come; the substance is Christ.
18-19Don’t tolerate people who try to run your life, ordering you to bow and scrape, insisting that you join their obsession with angels and that you seek out visions. They’re a lot of hot air, that’s all they are. They’re completely out of touch with the source of life, Christ, who puts us together in one piece, whose very breath and blood flow through us. He is the Head and we are the body. We can grow up healthy in God only as he nourishes us.
20-23So, then, if with Christ you’ve put all that puffed-up and childish religion behind you, why do you let yourselves be bullied by it? “Don’t touch this! Don’t taste that! Don’t go near this!” Do you think things that are here today and gone tomorrow are worth that kind of attention? Such things sound impressive if said in a deep enough voice. They even give the illusion of being pious and humble and austere. But they’re just another way of showing off, making yourselves look important.
The MSG is a paraphrase, not a translation, written by Eugene Hoiland Peterson, an American Presbyterian minister.
I know it's a paraphrase, but it still gets to the core of the matter
Exactly NO2HWA, the freewheeling versions are just putting what Paul already said into today's conversational English.
Post a Comment