Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
A Cultural Bible
- Thread starter Former Christian
- Start date
Drew
Member
It has been my experience that people will cling to the view they have held, even if the evidence against it is overwhelming.
For this issue, I believe the evidence is indeed very compelling - when Paul denies justification by "works", He is saying "membership in God's family is not limited to Jew - those who do the 'works' of the Law of Moses"; He is not saying that "good works" are not important for salvation.
Paul was a Jew. And he was immersed in Jewish culture and had some things to say to Jews and Jews only. So, yes, much of what he writes is informed by that.
As for Martin Luther: At the time of the reformation, there was this notion swirling about that you could "earn" your way to salvation. Luther was right to see that view as mistaken, but was (in my opinion) mistaken to make the case by using Paul's statements denying justification by works.
Drew
Member
The law was given to all Israel - the 12 tribes. I use the term "Jew" to denote all the tribes. If you are not comfortable with that, please subsitute "a member of the 12 tribes" whenever you read "Jew" in one of my posts.
The Law was given at Mount Sinai.
All 12 tribes were represented there and the law was for all of them.
The Bible - both Old and New Testaments - make it clear that the Law of Moses was given to the "12 tribes of Israel" and to them only (with the exception of the odd Gentile who was otherwise adopted into their close-knit and exclusivist culture.
It is commonly believed that the Law of Moses is for all, but this demonstrably not the case. Do I need to provide the relevant arguments - I doubt you will find a serious theologian / historian who would believe that the Law of Moses was something intended for all mankind.
So for 4000 years of recorded history, anyone not of the nation of Israel, was left on their own, with no moral guidelines? God would do that to them? Allow them to incur all that comes from doing what was right in their own sight?
When Cain was told "sin lieth at the door" he had no way of knowing what sin was or how to avoid it? Gen 4:7
How about Sodom and Gomorrah, they had no inkling of what sin was? Gen 18:20
How in the world did Abimelech know that adultery was sin?
Gen 20:9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.
How did Joseph know? He was separated from his family, living in Egypt, prior to Sinai, yet he knew fornication/adultery was sin...
Gen 39:9 There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?
Job (contemporary with Abraham) knew about sin.
Just what is sin?
1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Sin is transgressing the law. How could there have been sin prior to Moses? there was law prior to Moses.
Drew
Member
Strawman. No one is saying that other human beings are not "aware" of divine moral principles. In fact, Paul affirms that all men are indeed aware in this sense (Romans 1). The fact that the Law of Moses was given to Israel alone does not mean that the rest of humanity is "ignored" by God in terms of moral guidance.
Are all human beings subject to the American Constitution? Of course not, only 300 million of 6 billion are. Does this mean all these other people have no moral compass? Of course not.
The Bible is quite clear - the Law of Moses was given to Jews and Jews only. It is becoming clear that this case will need to be made more fully. I will endeavour to do so in future posts.
Well, yes, but not necessarily the law of Moses. If you can show me a Bible that says sin is "transgressing the law of Moses" - this side of the cross - then you will have a case.
Drew
Member
Here is one of many arguments that can be mounted to the effect that the Law of Moses is only for Jews:
Here is Romans 3:28-30 in the NASB:
28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
The very logic of this statement leaves us no option other than to conclude that Paul sees the Law of Moses applies only to Jews. It is true that the text does not assert this directly, but that does not matter.
Let’s go through this carefully. First, Paul says that justification has no dependency on doing the works of the Law. Fine. Now the “or†is critical – it is clear that what follows the “or†is some expression of what would need to be true in order for justification to indeed be based on doing the works of the Law. That is simply how an “or†clause functions if it follows an assertion of what is the case and takes the form of a question. If I assert “A is true, or is B true?â€, I am necessarily saying that if B were indeed true, this would overturn the assertion that A is indeed true.
Consider this example:
I maintain that I see snow falling outside, or am I in country X?
Here is the point – even if we do not know what country is actually being referred to, we can be sure that country X is one where it never snows. So the following example indeed makes sense:
I maintain that I see snow falling outside, or am I in Jamaica?
….precisely because if I were in Jamaica, this would most assuredly invalidate the assertion that it is snowing outside. By contrast, the following simply makes no sense:
I maintain that it is snowing outside, or am I in Canada?
This statement makes no sense – the form of the question: “A is true or is B true†simply demands that B be some assertion that, if true, would show that A is false. But observing snow falling in Canada obviously does not over overturn the assertion that I observe snow falling.
Now having established that if the B clause were indeed true, the A clause would be false, we need to ask what the content of B really is. This is where verse 30 becomes important. I assert that the following is a correct re-working of Paul’s text:
28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only and not of the Gentile because He (God) will only justify Jews? Is He not the God of Gentiles also, that is, will He not justify Gentiles too? Yes He is God of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
I suggest this rephrasing simply because it makes the rest of the argument easier to follow. I am quite confident that this rework in no way distorts the meaning of the text.
Now let’s suppose that the Law of Moses applies to both Jew and Gentile and see how if this text can work with such an assumption:
28For we maintain that a man, whether a Jew doing the Law or a Gentile doing the Law, is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only and not of the Gentile because He (God) will only justify Jews? Is He not the God of Gentiles also, that is, will He not justify Gentiles too? Yes He is God of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
This simply does not make sense! The A clause, that both Jew and Gentile can indeed do the works of the Law and be justified thereby, and the B clause are effectively saying the very same thing – that both Jew and Gentile can be justified. But this cannot be the case in virtue of the argument above about the nature of an “A is true, or is B true?†statement. So it simply cannot be the case that both Jew and Gentile can do the works of the Law of Moses.
By contrast, if it is only the Jew who can do the works of the Law of Moses, then the B clause – that both Jew and Gentile are indeed justified by God - would, if true, indeed overturn the A clause, precisely because the B clause shows that people other than those who do the Law, namely Gentiles, are indeed justified.
So there really is no doubt –this text shows that Paul believes that the Law of Moses applies only to the Jew. The fact that the text does not say this explicitly does not matter – the linguistic form the “assertion of verse 28 followed by the qestion of verse 29†demands it.
Here is Romans 3:28-30 in the NASB:
28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
The very logic of this statement leaves us no option other than to conclude that Paul sees the Law of Moses applies only to Jews. It is true that the text does not assert this directly, but that does not matter.
Let’s go through this carefully. First, Paul says that justification has no dependency on doing the works of the Law. Fine. Now the “or†is critical – it is clear that what follows the “or†is some expression of what would need to be true in order for justification to indeed be based on doing the works of the Law. That is simply how an “or†clause functions if it follows an assertion of what is the case and takes the form of a question. If I assert “A is true, or is B true?â€, I am necessarily saying that if B were indeed true, this would overturn the assertion that A is indeed true.
Consider this example:
I maintain that I see snow falling outside, or am I in country X?
Here is the point – even if we do not know what country is actually being referred to, we can be sure that country X is one where it never snows. So the following example indeed makes sense:
I maintain that I see snow falling outside, or am I in Jamaica?
….precisely because if I were in Jamaica, this would most assuredly invalidate the assertion that it is snowing outside. By contrast, the following simply makes no sense:
I maintain that it is snowing outside, or am I in Canada?
This statement makes no sense – the form of the question: “A is true or is B true†simply demands that B be some assertion that, if true, would show that A is false. But observing snow falling in Canada obviously does not over overturn the assertion that I observe snow falling.
Now having established that if the B clause were indeed true, the A clause would be false, we need to ask what the content of B really is. This is where verse 30 becomes important. I assert that the following is a correct re-working of Paul’s text:
28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only and not of the Gentile because He (God) will only justify Jews? Is He not the God of Gentiles also, that is, will He not justify Gentiles too? Yes He is God of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
I suggest this rephrasing simply because it makes the rest of the argument easier to follow. I am quite confident that this rework in no way distorts the meaning of the text.
Now let’s suppose that the Law of Moses applies to both Jew and Gentile and see how if this text can work with such an assumption:
28For we maintain that a man, whether a Jew doing the Law or a Gentile doing the Law, is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only and not of the Gentile because He (God) will only justify Jews? Is He not the God of Gentiles also, that is, will He not justify Gentiles too? Yes He is God of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
This simply does not make sense! The A clause, that both Jew and Gentile can indeed do the works of the Law and be justified thereby, and the B clause are effectively saying the very same thing – that both Jew and Gentile can be justified. But this cannot be the case in virtue of the argument above about the nature of an “A is true, or is B true?†statement. So it simply cannot be the case that both Jew and Gentile can do the works of the Law of Moses.
By contrast, if it is only the Jew who can do the works of the Law of Moses, then the B clause – that both Jew and Gentile are indeed justified by God - would, if true, indeed overturn the A clause, precisely because the B clause shows that people other than those who do the Law, namely Gentiles, are indeed justified.
So there really is no doubt –this text shows that Paul believes that the Law of Moses applies only to the Jew. The fact that the text does not say this explicitly does not matter – the linguistic form the “assertion of verse 28 followed by the qestion of verse 29†demands it.
Drew
Member
Assuming you are referring to my lengthy post about that verse from Romans 3, I appreciate both your interest and your kind words.
However, I do not think I should really have to make such a painfully detailed argument; I politely suggest the subject text is not that complicated, and that it clearly shows that Paul believes "the law" is only for Jews. Let me try a much simpler line, that of analogy.
Here is the relevant text again:
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,...
Now to the analogy. Imagine this version of the text:
28 For we maintain that an employee should be promoted in a manner that does not depend on whether they adhere to rule X, 29 Or is the boss going to promote male employees only? Is he not also the promoter of female employees also? Yes, of female employees also,...
I have been very careful to provide an analogy that is indeed a "proper" analogy. Challenge me on this, if you can.
Now: Do I really need to explain that "rule X" has to be a rule that only applies to men? I should not have to. If the writer expects the reader to believe that women are also subject to rule X (as well as men), he would expect the reader to also believe that women could be promoted by following it! Do you see the point? The point is this: If the writer believes the foregoing about the reader's beliefs, he would not refute his earlier claim about employees being promoted for reasons other than adherence to rule X by telling the reader something the reader already believes to be true if indeed all people are are subject to rule X, namely that women can be promoted by obeying it! He would need to provide a different reason as to why employees are not promoted based on their following of rule X
Obvious conclusion: the writer believes, like his reader, that only men are subject to rule X.
Now, translating back into the original text, Paul must see "the Law" as something that only Jews are subject to. Otherwise, verse 29 makes no sense!
Last edited by a moderator:
Drew
Member
There are indeed such posters.
Drew
Member
I have provided two posts in the present thread - both dealing with the same Romans 3 couplet of verses - that argue that Paul believes the Law of Moses is for Jews and Jews only.
First, I would not agree that the "rest of the OT is a commentary on the Law" - there is a lot more in the OT than an elaboration of the Law of Moses.
I hope it is clear to you that I believe the following two things:
1. The Law of Moses is a set of commandments given to Jews and Jews only;
2. The Law of Moses has been "set aside" or "retired" at around the time of Jesus.
Given that I believe these two things (or even if I only believed the second), I trust you will understand that I do not think we should be seeking to follow the Law of Moses! In fact, Paul comes down rather heavy on those - like Peter - who want to go that route.
I think you may be implicitly be presenting me with a false "either-or", either (1) the Law still applies, in which case the OT is, of course, highly relevant to us today, or (2) the Law does not apply in which case the OT is reduced to nothing more than an interesting cultural description, of little relevance to us today.
I do believe the Law of Moses has been retired, but I do not think this means the OT is simply of "cultural" interest. I hope to start another thread on this subject.
jasoncran
Member
i know i said that in a jestful and truthful manner. had they actually read the ot they would have easily noticed its only for the isrealites and even the jews of today teach that.
Former Christian
Member
Drew
"I hope to start another thread on this subject."
The OT wrote from the perspective of those under the Law. Thus it seems to me that it is a commentary on the Law, since it isn't the Law itself.
When you start your new thread, I hope you will bring out verses from other sources than just Paul. What did the OT writers themselves say about the Law that leads to your conclusion? What did Jesus say? That sort of thing. I do have some interest in the matter since I've never encountered anyone who said the Law as a whole was written to Jews alone. The Christians I've talked to on the subject at least thought the moral code part of the law applied to Christians today.
If you've already mentioned some of these verses in the other three Law threads, you'll have to forgive me if I haven't had the time to read them all yet. I do have a life outside this forum. It would be nice if things didn't get so spread out like that. But forums are known for the shotgun effect. It's difficult apparently to present a cogent case for anything meandering around one or more subjects.
Of course, you already know my position. I am one of the "such posters" of which you speak. I believe the Law was given through Moses and is the Law of God for all ages. Even the parts that have been fulfilled are for the Christian today. Not in the sense of keeping the ritual, but in the sense of knowing what the ritual was intended for, a showing of something in heaven typified in ritual form. Naturally, to be consistent, I also believe other aspects of the Law are also for us today, such as the dietary Laws. I realize this isn't one of the common Christian positions. But then, I'm not a Christian. And your position, may be as unusual as mine since I've not heard of it before. No doubt, both of our positions would be considered extreme, in opposite directions, by "orthodox" or "mainline" Christianity, or what ever one wishes to call the majority of Christianity.
Thank you for your clear answers on this thread. I knew you could do it if you put your mind to it. And I appreciate that you thought it was worth putting your mind to.
FC
"I hope to start another thread on this subject."
The OT wrote from the perspective of those under the Law. Thus it seems to me that it is a commentary on the Law, since it isn't the Law itself.
When you start your new thread, I hope you will bring out verses from other sources than just Paul. What did the OT writers themselves say about the Law that leads to your conclusion? What did Jesus say? That sort of thing. I do have some interest in the matter since I've never encountered anyone who said the Law as a whole was written to Jews alone. The Christians I've talked to on the subject at least thought the moral code part of the law applied to Christians today.
If you've already mentioned some of these verses in the other three Law threads, you'll have to forgive me if I haven't had the time to read them all yet. I do have a life outside this forum. It would be nice if things didn't get so spread out like that. But forums are known for the shotgun effect. It's difficult apparently to present a cogent case for anything meandering around one or more subjects.
Of course, you already know my position. I am one of the "such posters" of which you speak. I believe the Law was given through Moses and is the Law of God for all ages. Even the parts that have been fulfilled are for the Christian today. Not in the sense of keeping the ritual, but in the sense of knowing what the ritual was intended for, a showing of something in heaven typified in ritual form. Naturally, to be consistent, I also believe other aspects of the Law are also for us today, such as the dietary Laws. I realize this isn't one of the common Christian positions. But then, I'm not a Christian. And your position, may be as unusual as mine since I've not heard of it before. No doubt, both of our positions would be considered extreme, in opposite directions, by "orthodox" or "mainline" Christianity, or what ever one wishes to call the majority of Christianity.
Thank you for your clear answers on this thread. I knew you could do it if you put your mind to it. And I appreciate that you thought it was worth putting your mind to.
FC
Drew
Member
I would say that there other distinct themes in the Old Testament. One of these is the new creation theme - in books like Isaiah, we get glimpsese of a world fundamentally transformed from its present state. I would say that this not really "law" issue directly or even indirectly.
While Paul clearly believes the Law of Moses was only for the Jews, the Old Testament also attests to this.
Well, for starters, there is this text from Leviticus 20 that shows the Law of Moses (in this case, the food laws) were given to Jews only:
‘You are therefore to keep all My statutes and all My ordinances and do them, so that the land to which I am bringing you to live will not spew you out. 23 Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I will drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them. 24 Hence I have said to you, “You are to possess their land, and I Myself will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey.†I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. 25 You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26 Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.
Clearly, "God" is saying that the keeping of these food laws functions to separate the Jew from the rest of the world.
I am not sure whether Jesus ever directly said anything to the effect that that Law of Moses was for Jews only. But, He certainly did do things that would be understood as a declaration that the time of the Law of Moses was coming to an end.
I am shocked to read this - I believe that almost all serious Biblical scholars believe that the Law of Moses was delivered to the Jews (only) and that it is Biblically clear that God intended this Law to be followed by Jews and Jews only. Note that, despite widespread misunderstanding about this, this does not mean that its "OK" for non-Jews to, for example, commit adultery, or covet their neighbour's ox.
There is much incorrect thinking about this. If I agree that an American law about murder applies to only Americans, I am, obviously, not thereby suggesting that its OK for Canadians to commit murder. So to say that the Law of Moses was given to Jews alone does not place me in a position of having to say that other people were free to do whatever they want.
I trust you understand that the Law of Moses has all sorts of stuff about the Temple. There is only one temple - in Jerusalem. So how can the law be universal? People halfway accross the globe cannot very well go to the temple, can they?
Drew
Member
Really? What about the Temple requirements? What about all the different kinds of sacrifices? Are they to be done everywhere by everbody. How can this possibly be correct, given that there only was one Temple and it is now gone.
We need to remember - the Law of Moses is much, much more than the 10 commandments. So to say that the Law is for everyone is to say that people in Brazil need to go to a temple in Jerusalem for purification. Do you see the problem?
I see no basis for this "splitting up" of the Law into a moral part and a "ceremonial" part - there is, I suggest, no Biblical basis for such a division. Sure, it is division of convenience that allows people to say that parts of the law still apply and other parts don't. But there is no Biblical basis for such a division.
Beside, Paul is quite clear that the Spirit replaces the Law as the source for "moral guidance".
This post has been a little hit and miss, and I would need to say a lot more.
I leave with this assertion: God gave the Law of Moses to the Jews largely to mark them out as a distinct people. If this assertion is true, then, obviously, the Law of Moses is indeed for Jews only. I hope to explain myself further at some time in this, or some other, thread.
Former Christian
Member
Jasoncran
HaVaYaH: (lit. “beingâ€); the Tetragrammaton, G d’s Divine Name of the four Hebrew letters yud-hei-vav-hei, expressing His transcendence of time and space
Is the word HaVaYah pronounced the way it looks, long a, long a, short a?
I’ve always understood the word to be a name that describes self-existence. Names in those days had definite meanings with reference to the persons and places named. The idea that the name expresses transcendence of time and space is interesting. But on the other hand, I see in the bible indications that God is also a part of time and space. Christians tend to put a dividing line between God and creation that I’ve never been able to do. As if God was separate from his creation. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me since creation came from his own speaking. The difference to me between mankind and the rest of creation is that God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul. A special form of life is in mankind. Evolutionism explains the difference between mankind and the rest of creation as a matter of evolution from and within that creation. In my view, that’s a basic difference between Evolutionism and the biblical description of what happened.
“also the yod, all of creation as a yod. meaning god is in it.
this is where it gets almost too much. it means that god made all and in all, but that isnt a panthiestic concept just that as we say whereever we look at nature it gives glory to god. each thing has a spark. i would have to talk to jeff to ensure that is correct.â€
The matter of Pantheism is one area where Christianity and I part company. Pantheism regards the universe as a manifestation of God or identifies the universe with God. I believe that idea to be true. I don’t believe that God and the universe is near as separate as Christianity has claimed. In my view, God and the universe are the same yet different. Not that they are separate. One more reason why I’ll never revert to being a Christian. And the fact that the majority of Christians favor the idea of Evolutionism instead of the biblical description is another. In my view, to turn Genesis into a metaphor only shows that the rest of the Bible, that is based on a metaphor, is just as metaphorical.
Do the Jews think that the Jewish idea of God and of YHWH is due to some form of cultural influence or due to revelation?
“now you see why its not that easy to just dismiss the tanach.â€
Christians rarely dismiss the Tanach altogether. If my understanding of the term as a reference to the OT is correct. They just don’t believe its all relevant to the Christian today. It’s a pick and choose situation in Christianity. Which is what the controversy concerning the Law is about. The question in that controversy is, how much of the Law actually applies to Christians today? The answers to that question has proven to be as diverse as Christianity itself. Drew and I representing the two extremes, none or all.
FC
HaVaYaH: (lit. “beingâ€); the Tetragrammaton, G d’s Divine Name of the four Hebrew letters yud-hei-vav-hei, expressing His transcendence of time and space
Is the word HaVaYah pronounced the way it looks, long a, long a, short a?
I’ve always understood the word to be a name that describes self-existence. Names in those days had definite meanings with reference to the persons and places named. The idea that the name expresses transcendence of time and space is interesting. But on the other hand, I see in the bible indications that God is also a part of time and space. Christians tend to put a dividing line between God and creation that I’ve never been able to do. As if God was separate from his creation. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me since creation came from his own speaking. The difference to me between mankind and the rest of creation is that God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul. A special form of life is in mankind. Evolutionism explains the difference between mankind and the rest of creation as a matter of evolution from and within that creation. In my view, that’s a basic difference between Evolutionism and the biblical description of what happened.
“also the yod, all of creation as a yod. meaning god is in it.
this is where it gets almost too much. it means that god made all and in all, but that isnt a panthiestic concept just that as we say whereever we look at nature it gives glory to god. each thing has a spark. i would have to talk to jeff to ensure that is correct.â€
The matter of Pantheism is one area where Christianity and I part company. Pantheism regards the universe as a manifestation of God or identifies the universe with God. I believe that idea to be true. I don’t believe that God and the universe is near as separate as Christianity has claimed. In my view, God and the universe are the same yet different. Not that they are separate. One more reason why I’ll never revert to being a Christian. And the fact that the majority of Christians favor the idea of Evolutionism instead of the biblical description is another. In my view, to turn Genesis into a metaphor only shows that the rest of the Bible, that is based on a metaphor, is just as metaphorical.
Do the Jews think that the Jewish idea of God and of YHWH is due to some form of cultural influence or due to revelation?
“now you see why its not that easy to just dismiss the tanach.â€
Christians rarely dismiss the Tanach altogether. If my understanding of the term as a reference to the OT is correct. They just don’t believe its all relevant to the Christian today. It’s a pick and choose situation in Christianity. Which is what the controversy concerning the Law is about. The question in that controversy is, how much of the Law actually applies to Christians today? The answers to that question has proven to be as diverse as Christianity itself. Drew and I representing the two extremes, none or all.
FC
Former Christian
Member
John 8:32
“How do you feel about forgiving and showing mercy to a child molester who murders little children after having his/her way with them? Hypocritical to put them to death?â€
The verses you mentioned (Matt 5:27-32) have been interpreted with just about every meaning imaginable. From literal to metaphorical.
Jesus is here explaining one of the ten commandments. He states the Law and then gives a commentary.
What I wonder is, how much of culture enters into his commentary? How much of OT culture, how much of first century culture? Or did culture have anything to do with it at all? And how much of culture enters into the contemporary interpretations of such verses? The question I see in Christianity is how much of the bible is due to revelation and how much due to culture. That can only result in great diversity in views since the combinations are endless.
Infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Seems the Vulcans were right after all. Interesting that their religion is nothing like either Christianity or the bible. But it does fit rather nicely with cultural diversity and the philosophy of cultural Relativism that goes with it. As did all of the original Star Trek TV series. Roddenberry was very much a cultural relativist. No different from the creators of Babylon 5. Another popular Science Fiction series. Interesting how much influence the original Star Trek had on American, Western, culture. Merely by presenting cultural Relativism in a positive light. Too bad his wife passed away. I would have liked to ask her whether that affect was in his original intention or just a happy consequence.
“Well then, since Judah was one of twelve (thirteen) tribes, I suppose that leaves Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin to their own devices apart from the law.â€
Interesting idea. If I understand you correctly, you’re asking if the Jewish religion was divided into two parts. Which part do you think modern Judaism is following today?
“And since the rest were not intended to follow that law, I am assuming that having other gods before God, rearing up statues to worship, taking God's name in vain, breaking the Sabbath, dishonoring parents, murder, adultery, stealing, lying and lusting are good practices for the rest who were not intended to follow these commands?â€
Again, if I understand you correctly, you’re asking why any of the Law should apply to us today, including the moral part of the Law? I would add why even though the moral code was repeated, at least in part, under the NT cultural era?
“How in the world did Abimelech know that adultery was sin?
Gen 20:9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done. â€
That seems to be a good question. But Paul himself gave the answer:
Romans 2:
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
(NIV)
Apparently the idea of the Law written in the heart isn’t unique to Christians after all. Maybe it would be more correct to say that the problem with the Jews was that they didn’t have the Law written on their hearts. Only written as an outward Law. What an interesting difference between the Jew and the Gentile. Maybe Drew is right after all. The reason the Gentiles don’t need to keep the Law is because they have the Law written in their hearts. And will be judged accordingly. Which would explain Paul’s later assertion in Romans,
Rom 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
Was the Law written specifically for the Jews because it wasn’t in their hearts, and God wanted to show that it would make no ultimate difference whether the Law was written without or within? That mankind wouldn’t keep it either way? And does this mean that the reference to the Law written in the heart in Hebrews is a reference to putting the Jews on the same playing field as the Gentiles?
I wonder how that bears on the idea of culture? And on the Christian idea of the uniqueness of Christianity in that regard?
FC
“How do you feel about forgiving and showing mercy to a child molester who murders little children after having his/her way with them? Hypocritical to put them to death?â€
The verses you mentioned (Matt 5:27-32) have been interpreted with just about every meaning imaginable. From literal to metaphorical.
Jesus is here explaining one of the ten commandments. He states the Law and then gives a commentary.
What I wonder is, how much of culture enters into his commentary? How much of OT culture, how much of first century culture? Or did culture have anything to do with it at all? And how much of culture enters into the contemporary interpretations of such verses? The question I see in Christianity is how much of the bible is due to revelation and how much due to culture. That can only result in great diversity in views since the combinations are endless.
Infinite diversity in infinite combinations. Seems the Vulcans were right after all. Interesting that their religion is nothing like either Christianity or the bible. But it does fit rather nicely with cultural diversity and the philosophy of cultural Relativism that goes with it. As did all of the original Star Trek TV series. Roddenberry was very much a cultural relativist. No different from the creators of Babylon 5. Another popular Science Fiction series. Interesting how much influence the original Star Trek had on American, Western, culture. Merely by presenting cultural Relativism in a positive light. Too bad his wife passed away. I would have liked to ask her whether that affect was in his original intention or just a happy consequence.
“Well then, since Judah was one of twelve (thirteen) tribes, I suppose that leaves Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin to their own devices apart from the law.â€
Interesting idea. If I understand you correctly, you’re asking if the Jewish religion was divided into two parts. Which part do you think modern Judaism is following today?
“And since the rest were not intended to follow that law, I am assuming that having other gods before God, rearing up statues to worship, taking God's name in vain, breaking the Sabbath, dishonoring parents, murder, adultery, stealing, lying and lusting are good practices for the rest who were not intended to follow these commands?â€
Again, if I understand you correctly, you’re asking why any of the Law should apply to us today, including the moral part of the Law? I would add why even though the moral code was repeated, at least in part, under the NT cultural era?
“How in the world did Abimelech know that adultery was sin?
Gen 20:9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done. â€
That seems to be a good question. But Paul himself gave the answer:
Romans 2:
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
(NIV)
Apparently the idea of the Law written in the heart isn’t unique to Christians after all. Maybe it would be more correct to say that the problem with the Jews was that they didn’t have the Law written on their hearts. Only written as an outward Law. What an interesting difference between the Jew and the Gentile. Maybe Drew is right after all. The reason the Gentiles don’t need to keep the Law is because they have the Law written in their hearts. And will be judged accordingly. Which would explain Paul’s later assertion in Romans,
Rom 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
Was the Law written specifically for the Jews because it wasn’t in their hearts, and God wanted to show that it would make no ultimate difference whether the Law was written without or within? That mankind wouldn’t keep it either way? And does this mean that the reference to the Law written in the heart in Hebrews is a reference to putting the Jews on the same playing field as the Gentiles?
I wonder how that bears on the idea of culture? And on the Christian idea of the uniqueness of Christianity in that regard?
FC
Former Christian
Member
Drew
“the new creation theme - in books like Isaiah, we get glimpsese of a world fundamentally transformed from its present state. I would say that this not really "law" issue directly or even indirectly.â€
A matter of prophecy, I would think. But how much of prophecy is based on Jewish culture? Particularly since the culture is based on the Law. A lot, if contemporary Christian prophets are any indication.
“Clearly, "God" is saying that the keeping of these food laws functions to separate the Jew from the rest of the world.â€
Seems a little arbitrary on God’s part to me, if it’s only a matter of separation.
“I am shocked to read thisâ€
Of those whom I have met and those whom I have read, none have ever referred to the Law in the way you do. They say it was fulfilled. And thus they dismiss all of the Law, with the exception of the moral code that continues into the present day. That too I always thought was a little arbitrary. On the part of Christians, not of God.
“If I agree that an American law about murder applies to only Americans, I am, obviously, not thereby suggesting that its OK for Canadians to commit murder.â€
But you have to admit it gives Canadians freedom to murder without retribution from Americans, if they have no law against it, or a law that allows for murder, themselves.
“I trust you understand that the Law of Moses has all sorts of stuff about the Temple. There is only one temple - in Jerusalem. So how can the law be universal? People halfway accross the globe cannot very well go to the temple, can they?
Really? What about the Temple requirements? What about all the different kinds of sacrifices? Are they to be done everywhere by everbody. How can this possibly be correct, given that there only was one Temple and it is now gone.â€
The Law was initially given to a specific nation. The Tabernacle ritual, a part of that Law, would have been easy to keep in that limited venue. There is a portion in the OT that indicates that originally, what the Jews was given was intended to go from Israel to the world. Unfortunately, I can’t recall where that portion is. Something related to the Priesthood becoming limited to the Levites because of a sin of Israel, I think. Anymore, I don’t read so much from the OT. Maybe because my culture is Gentile. Maybe Jasoncran would remember where that reference is.
The Tabernacle ritual, and only the Tabernacle ritual, was fulfilled in Christ. The ritual was a shadow of something greater. That something greater became reality in human the human time frame after the ascension of Christ and as the Gospel went to the Gentiles. And the Tabernacle in the form of the Temple was destroyed. Not showing that what the ritual represented was destroyed on earth, but that it was fulfilled in heaven. So in what way is that ritual for us today? In my view, it continues to reveal what it typifies. The rest of the Law is unaffected as far as being a guide to daily living, as it was to the Jews.
The reality of what the Tabernacle typifies became embodied in a new ritual, the Lord’s Table. A ritual that is global in extent, or intended to be. Intended to be free from denominational influences. Intended to be a common experience of the New Creation. Intended to be a common experience of that which is eternal in Christ. Intended to be a common experience of the supernatural for all who are in Christ. You will remember that the Apostles initially met in the Temple, along with meeting in homes. Meeting in the Temple ceased when the Temple was destroyed. And you must agree, that if what I assert are the true intentions of God concerning the Lord’s Table, how far below that is the experience of Christians in Christianity when compared to that intention.
Anyway, that’s how I see it.
“I see no basis for this "splitting up" of the Law into a moral part and a "ceremonial" part - there is, I suggest, no Biblical basis for such a division. Sure, it is division of convenience that allows people to say that parts of the law still apply and other parts don't. But there is no Biblical basis for such a division.â€
Yes, I quite agree. It’s why my view is ALL rather than part. And no doubt why your view is NONE rather than part.
“Beside, Paul is quite clear that the Spirit replaces the Law as the source for "moral guidance".â€
What verses do you use to substantiate that assertion? In my view, Rom 8 says something different. Though it agrees in part.
“I leave with this assertion: God gave the Law of Moses to the Jews largely to mark them out as a distinct people. If this assertion is true, then, obviously, the Law of Moses is indeed for Jews onlyâ€
I agree that the conclusion follows naturally from the assertion.
“I hope to explain myself further at some time in this, or some other, thread.â€
I hope you’ll get the opportunity. This is most interesting, since we are virtually on opposite sides of the pole. I would think a new thread would be appropriate, since this thread is intended to be limited to cultural influences on the bible, past and present, apparent or not. What we propose, though it may include the idea of cultural influences, goes beyond that. Or so it seems to me. I would think it would be a popular thread, if the three previous threads on the Law is any indication. Unless, it’s burn out time.
I was looking back at a number of your posts today, looking for your view on a specific idea. I noticed this thread, “ The nation of Israel was given the Law,and it was never given to the the Gentilesâ€. (Dadburn people and their long titles) Another thread called “Preaching the Lawâ€. Strange I have no recollection of them whatsoever. But then I don’t look back so much.
It seems we come down on the opposite sides of the pole on just about everything. Don’t we? Do you think your Church would let us take communion together? I doubt the one I currently attend would allow either of us take communion with them if they knew what we believe.
The denominational character of Christianity in action. LOL
FC
“the new creation theme - in books like Isaiah, we get glimpsese of a world fundamentally transformed from its present state. I would say that this not really "law" issue directly or even indirectly.â€
A matter of prophecy, I would think. But how much of prophecy is based on Jewish culture? Particularly since the culture is based on the Law. A lot, if contemporary Christian prophets are any indication.
“Clearly, "God" is saying that the keeping of these food laws functions to separate the Jew from the rest of the world.â€
Seems a little arbitrary on God’s part to me, if it’s only a matter of separation.
“I am shocked to read thisâ€
Of those whom I have met and those whom I have read, none have ever referred to the Law in the way you do. They say it was fulfilled. And thus they dismiss all of the Law, with the exception of the moral code that continues into the present day. That too I always thought was a little arbitrary. On the part of Christians, not of God.
“If I agree that an American law about murder applies to only Americans, I am, obviously, not thereby suggesting that its OK for Canadians to commit murder.â€
But you have to admit it gives Canadians freedom to murder without retribution from Americans, if they have no law against it, or a law that allows for murder, themselves.
“I trust you understand that the Law of Moses has all sorts of stuff about the Temple. There is only one temple - in Jerusalem. So how can the law be universal? People halfway accross the globe cannot very well go to the temple, can they?
Really? What about the Temple requirements? What about all the different kinds of sacrifices? Are they to be done everywhere by everbody. How can this possibly be correct, given that there only was one Temple and it is now gone.â€
The Law was initially given to a specific nation. The Tabernacle ritual, a part of that Law, would have been easy to keep in that limited venue. There is a portion in the OT that indicates that originally, what the Jews was given was intended to go from Israel to the world. Unfortunately, I can’t recall where that portion is. Something related to the Priesthood becoming limited to the Levites because of a sin of Israel, I think. Anymore, I don’t read so much from the OT. Maybe because my culture is Gentile. Maybe Jasoncran would remember where that reference is.
The Tabernacle ritual, and only the Tabernacle ritual, was fulfilled in Christ. The ritual was a shadow of something greater. That something greater became reality in human the human time frame after the ascension of Christ and as the Gospel went to the Gentiles. And the Tabernacle in the form of the Temple was destroyed. Not showing that what the ritual represented was destroyed on earth, but that it was fulfilled in heaven. So in what way is that ritual for us today? In my view, it continues to reveal what it typifies. The rest of the Law is unaffected as far as being a guide to daily living, as it was to the Jews.
The reality of what the Tabernacle typifies became embodied in a new ritual, the Lord’s Table. A ritual that is global in extent, or intended to be. Intended to be free from denominational influences. Intended to be a common experience of the New Creation. Intended to be a common experience of that which is eternal in Christ. Intended to be a common experience of the supernatural for all who are in Christ. You will remember that the Apostles initially met in the Temple, along with meeting in homes. Meeting in the Temple ceased when the Temple was destroyed. And you must agree, that if what I assert are the true intentions of God concerning the Lord’s Table, how far below that is the experience of Christians in Christianity when compared to that intention.
Anyway, that’s how I see it.
“I see no basis for this "splitting up" of the Law into a moral part and a "ceremonial" part - there is, I suggest, no Biblical basis for such a division. Sure, it is division of convenience that allows people to say that parts of the law still apply and other parts don't. But there is no Biblical basis for such a division.â€
Yes, I quite agree. It’s why my view is ALL rather than part. And no doubt why your view is NONE rather than part.
“Beside, Paul is quite clear that the Spirit replaces the Law as the source for "moral guidance".â€
What verses do you use to substantiate that assertion? In my view, Rom 8 says something different. Though it agrees in part.
“I leave with this assertion: God gave the Law of Moses to the Jews largely to mark them out as a distinct people. If this assertion is true, then, obviously, the Law of Moses is indeed for Jews onlyâ€
I agree that the conclusion follows naturally from the assertion.
“I hope to explain myself further at some time in this, or some other, thread.â€
I hope you’ll get the opportunity. This is most interesting, since we are virtually on opposite sides of the pole. I would think a new thread would be appropriate, since this thread is intended to be limited to cultural influences on the bible, past and present, apparent or not. What we propose, though it may include the idea of cultural influences, goes beyond that. Or so it seems to me. I would think it would be a popular thread, if the three previous threads on the Law is any indication. Unless, it’s burn out time.
I was looking back at a number of your posts today, looking for your view on a specific idea. I noticed this thread, “ The nation of Israel was given the Law,and it was never given to the the Gentilesâ€. (Dadburn people and their long titles) Another thread called “Preaching the Lawâ€. Strange I have no recollection of them whatsoever. But then I don’t look back so much.
It seems we come down on the opposite sides of the pole on just about everything. Don’t we? Do you think your Church would let us take communion together? I doubt the one I currently attend would allow either of us take communion with them if they knew what we believe.
The denominational character of Christianity in action. LOL
FC
Isa 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
Isa 2:3 And many people 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.
Things that make you go "Hmmm".