Definitive Answer on Legalism & Judaizing

[veteran]

The Old Covenant definitely is now... dead.

Heb 8:6-13
6 But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
(KJV)

The New Covenant ended the old covenant. Christ brought the New Covenant through His Blood shed on the cross. We no longer need to go through ANY flesh priest to commune with God, nor do we need a temple, tabernacle, animal sacrifices, etc., for Christ tore the veil between man and God down. We only need go through Christ Jesus.

And by Christ becoming the Mediator of a better Covenant, He literally fulfilled things in the law, which only have existence in Him now. For example, Christ became our Passover sacrificed for us per 1 Cor.5:7. The Passover did not end, it has continued in Christ, which means observing it a better way, and not by the bondage of animal sacrifice and Old Testament ritual it originally required. Christ also now is our Sabbath Rest per Hebrews 4. We are to be in Christ everyday now, which is a better way, instead of bondage to holding to a certain day which even Israel of old couldn't be perfect in keeping.

When Hebrews quotes the OT about God writing His laws in the hearts of His people per the New Covenant, it means by The Holy Spirit, Which Christ said would teach us all things. It was especially the 'ordinances' which Christ Jesus fulfilled on His cross, which means all the Old Covenant ceremonial and ritual worship, especially blood sacrifices.

Judaism is specifically about following the traditions of the Pharisees, even today. The idea that Christianity had its roots from Pharisee traditions is a gross lie. Many of the traditions and doctrines of the Pharisees came from a group of men who assumed power over God's people and put them deeper into bondage than what God had intended, and is why Christ Jesus rebuked their traditions.

 

[jasoncran]

packrat, ever heard of the messianic jews?
They celebrate some of the feasts and the christian holydays.

 

[glorydaz]

We are no longer under the law....

What does it mean to be under the law?

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

What does this passage mean? Is it talking about the idea that we are free from the consequences of disobeying the law or that we are no longer obligated to obey the law?

We're not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage...the law was bondage.

Sin is bondage. God's teachings (i.e. "Law") are what sets us free. Imagine if we did not have the Torah and knew nothing of it. How then could we answer the Enemy on difficult theological questions? How could we even say that Christ fulfilled the Torah and was thus the promised Messiah? Our obedience of the Torah is required for our own benefit in many ways. One way we benefit from it is by knowing Jesus as the true Messiah. If we did not know this then we would still be in bondage to sin.

First, let me say...your attitude is very refreshing. It's not often I find someone speaking softly when discussing this issue.

I'm going to break your post up a bit to give it the attention it deserves.

When Jesus came, he fulfilled the law as it was given to Moses...not as the Pharisees interpreted the law. His sermon on the mount speaks to that. By His perfect obedience, he took upon himself the penalty and the curse of the law, and with his death, He rendered the law inoperative for the believer.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The curse of the law, which could not impart righteousness because no one could perfectly follow the law, was taken at the cross. Christ fulfilled the law in our place...he took the curse of the law on our behalf.

His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

It is not by obeying the Torah that we obtain righteousness...our righteousness comes from having Jesus' righteousness imputed to us. What following the law could not do...His death did do. He kept the law so we didn't have to. Our righteousness is now obtained by His death and resurrection...not by our works of keeping a law that only brought death. Obeying the law does not impart righteousness, but faith in Christ's work on the cross does.

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

 

[glorydaz]

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Galatians 5:14 is a very beautiful passage! I'm glad you listed it. Interestingly enough the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself is one of the laws found in God's Torah. See Leviticus 19:18. Don't be surprised that you find it in the Torah either. God is the same as he has always been. Christ was teaching from God's Torah. To assert that Christ's law is different than God's law is to adhere to Marcionism. To fulfill does not mean to abolish. Christ made a distinction between these two. If you didn't catch that in one of my first four posts then you can take a quick peek at it again. If the Torah had been done away with then we would not be obligated to follow this beautiful commandment.
We would be required to follow it because Jesus gave it to us in the New Covenant. Is this law so hard to follow...compared to what Jesus gave us?
[quote="Leviticus 19:18":321ulsnv] Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Do you see what Jesus did with this commandment? Not only shall we not avenge nor bear any grudge against our neighbor, but we're to love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who despitefully use or persecute us.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Jesus fulfilled all things written in the law of Moses...and those things from the prophets and the psalms.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. [...]

The Scriptures never say that Jesus fulfilled everything. They simply say that he came to fulfill everything. You might have inferred that he fulfilled everything from John 19:28-30, but in which way did he fulfill the Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashana) which Paul predicts in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17? In light of this I would say that what is meant by fulfilling "all" is that all pertaining to Jesus' sacrifice was fulfilled. However, he has yet to come back for his bride. Also keep in mind that when he had said, "It is finished," or, according to the CJB, "It is accomplished," he had yet to be buried in a rich man's tomb or even rise from the dead.[/quote:321ulsnv]
If He came to fulfill....you can be assured, He did fulfill.
His death fulfilled that prophecy concerning the tomb...just as the prophecies of His resurrection were fulfilled. Remember...He was crucified from the foundation of the world, too. When God speaks, we consider it done.

The law is still the schoolmaster for those without faith. The law brings people to Christ by showing them their sin. After we enter into the promise by faith, we become children of God...no longer under a schoolmaster but under the leading of the Holy Spirit.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

 

[glorydaz]

Christ fulfilled every single one of the OT feasts - He fulfilled it ALL.

I'm interested to read your perspective on the Feast of Trumpets and its fulfillment.

I hope you don't mind if I give my opinion, as well.

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

Jesus is our Sabbath rest. Just as the consumation of the marriage will take place when our Lord returns, the consumation of the feast of trumpets and tabernacles will occur when He comes again. We still rest in Him now, and He still tabernacles with us now...but there is a future fulfillment, as well...when trumpets will sound and we will see Him face to face.

There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

 

[Geo]

Sounds like you all misunderstand a few things. And perhaps do not realize who the Pharisees of today are. Most of the big "christian" holidays are pagan and not even remotely christian, or biblical by a long shot. Following these is following the commandments of men, or in other words that is legalism as per definition.

The feasts or sabbaths of the Lord are for His people, and that means His people in the Spirit, not in the flesh. I did a study on OT prophets that confirm that these holidays are kept during the coming millennium by His people. So all that persist on their pagan "holidays" will have a "hard time to adjust" to God's reality - perhaps that is what is meant by "to rule all nations with a rod of iron" in Revelation.

 

[DarcyLu]

Sounds like you all misunderstand a few things. And perhaps do not realize who the Pharisees of today are. Most of the big "christian" holidays are pagan and not even remotely christian, or biblical by a long shot. Following these is following the commandments of men, or in other words that is legalism as per definition.

The feasts or sabbaths of the Lord are for His people, and that means His people in the Spirit, not in the flesh. I did a study on OT prophets that confirm that these holidays are kept during the coming millennium by His people. So all that persist on their pagan "holidays" will have a "hard time to adjust" to God's reality - perhaps that is what is meant by "to rule all nations with a rod of iron" in Revelation.

hi Geo, it is interesting and when Packrat asked my perspective on the "Feast of the Trumpets" i researched it as honestly i had no perspective on it lol and what i found was this feast will be in correlation to the "last trump" blown (1 Cor 15). would you mind sharing what you found out about the feast of the trumpets if anything, as now my curiosity is peaked. thanks.

 

[glorydaz]

Sounds like you all misunderstand a few things. And perhaps do not realize who the Pharisees of today are. Most of the big "christian" holidays are pagan and not even remotely christian, or biblical by a long shot. Following these is following the commandments of men, or in other words that is legalism as per definition.

The feasts or sabbaths of the Lord are for His people, and that means His people in the Spirit, not in the flesh. I did a study on OT prophets that confirm that these holidays are kept during the coming millennium by His people. So all that persist on their pagan "holidays" will have a "hard time to adjust" to God's reality - perhaps that is what is meant by "to rule all nations with a rod of iron" in Revelation.

Has the whole world gone daffy?

What, pray tell, are you talking about?

The feasts are for the Lord...to begin with, not the people.
And are you this touchy over the Passover, as well?
Most people would agree at least four of the seven feasts were fulfilled already.
The rest believe the fall feasts have been symbolically fulfilled.

So, what is it that brings this one?

 

[veteran]

Sounds like you all misunderstand a few things. And perhaps do not realize who the Pharisees of today are. Most of the big "christian" holidays are pagan and not even remotely christian, or biblical by a long shot. Following these is following the commandments of men, or in other words that is legalism as per definition.

The feasts or sabbaths of the Lord are for His people, and that means His people in the Spirit, not in the flesh. I did a study on OT prophets that confirm that these holidays are kept during the coming millennium by His people. So all that persist on their pagan "holidays" will have a "hard time to adjust" to God's reality - perhaps that is what is meant by "to rule all nations with a rod of iron" in Revelation.

When Christ returns, we all will follow His laws. And we will keep only the feast days which God ordained, for the Jews also have days they observe which God did not give.

 

[ronniechoate34]

Debate much?


Ro:1:29: Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,


2Co:12:20: For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:


Or debate too much? Really it's waay too much.

 

[Geo]

Hi DarcyLu, actually I agree with Veteran's last post and the best way to define what is meant in detail is to read the OT by yourself and let the Holy Spirit reveal what verses apply only in the past or/and also in the future. I recommend this because whatever people claim to have understood themselves, all mix it with just enough of private understanding to give reason to others to shoot the whole thing down from every angle they haven't understood themselves yet. And there's a lot of reading required to verify every claim.

Even if kept very basic it's already beyond the willingness to consider, for most. One example here, the final concluding message that ends the book of Isaiah:

"For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

There are several things to note here:

1) new heavens and the new earth are not yet
2) however "all flesh comes to worship before the LORD"
3) and when that will happen the time is still counted as from "one new moon to another" and "from one sabbath to another"

that can only be the millennium, because never before has ALL flesh gone anywhere to worship the same God. The sabbath is intact in an observable way, unlike the "spiritual version - so called" that claims everything observable has ceased to exist. Yet that's not what happened, nor will it happen within the next 1000 years.

 

[Packrat]

Hello, everyone! I'm back! I just wanted to comment on a few of your posts. I've read them all. And I'd like you to read my post in its entirety before you respond, because I may not get straight to the point since I'm addressing multiple people's concerns which only examine parts of the point at a time. Please be patient!

What kind of sacrifice are you talking about?

Without sounding redundant, I thought it was apparent from the context of the passages you listed. You said: "I gave you the verses about what God desires....not sacrifices but a contrite heart." So I was talking about whatever sacrifices you were referring to (which I assumed were the sacrifices as outlined in the Old Testament). I didn't think that we were talking about "giving up television for a good cause" as being done away with. I thought we were considering whether or not the animal sacrifices as shown in the OT were done away with.

The Old Covenant definitely is now... dead.

Even if that is the case, how have the symbolic earthly representations as outlined in the Torah been done away with? There've always been symbolic representations and there've always been spiritual truths in effect throughout the OT. For example, ceremonial cleanliness was symbolic of spiritual cleanliness (in my understanding), yet we were still commanded to follow the OT regulation of ritual purity. If a spiritual truth had always existed in fulfillment of this OT regulation then why would you think that just because Christ fulfilled the others does not mean we should still obey them today? Christ's blood cleaned us spiritually, but do you not think God himself had been spiritually clean all of the time, even when he enacted the ritual Torah representation of spiritual cleanliness? Or do you believe that Christ's blood was not retroactive so the Jews of the OT had to seek ways of becoming spiritually clean through ritual washing?

Some people will say, "Christ is our baptism!" and that's true. But we still observe the Torah ritual of baptism to this day. When Christ told the woman at the well that he was the water of life he meant that as an allusion to the Torah ritual of Baptism. People were to be baptized in "living water" (i.e. water that supports life because it is aerated) in order to be ceremonially clean. In the same way Christ, our Living Water, baptizes us so that we may be spiritually clean.

The New Covenant ended the old covenant.

Again, the New Covenant may've ended the Old, but it never ended the obligation to obey God. It only reinforced obedience to God by setting God's laws on our hearts and in our minds (Hebrews 8:8, 10, 12). The Pharisees had God's laws in their minds, but they did not have them on their hearts.

We no longer need to go through ANY flesh priest to commune with God

I believe that's what will be in the future when we are made like God and the old heaven and the old earth have passed away. But for now we need Jesus our High Priest to intercede on our behalf. That was the whole point behind having a high priest. Jesus is flesh and he is our High Priest. I don't believe the old high priests had ever been real high priests but always symbolic representations of the true High Priest who had always interceded for us (from the OT to the present time). No Believer could or can go directly to God without our High Priest. In the future when the old heaven and the old earth are done away with we will no longer have any need for a high priest and we will be able to go directly to God.

nor do we need a temple, tabernacle, animal sacrifices, etc., for Christ tore the veil between man and God down. We only need go through Christ Jesus.

I agree with the last of your statements. However, a human intercessor has always only had limited intercession. Moses himself was able to speak more directly with God than Aaron, the "high priest," ever did. It is my belief that Christ has always been our High Priest. Earthly representations have still been commanded us all along (e.g. Hebrews 5:6 & Psalm 110:4 show that Christ seemingly had been a High Priest all along). So, this shows that because Christ is our High Priest this does not abolish any part of the Torah.

I can see what you mean by fulfilling the Torah instead of abolishing it by Christ becoming our High Priest and taking over the role of an earthly high priest. However, this frame of mind would still abolish one of those "jots" or "tittles" Christ was speaking about in Matthew 5:18. Heaven and earth have not passed away, not everything in the Torah has been fulfilled and the animal sacrifices remain an obligation God's people must carry out in the appropriate fashion. If we followed your perspective of "fulfillment" then Christ's fulfillment would be abolishing part of the Torah by doing away with the Torah animal sacrifices when he had already said he had not come to abolish it and that not one jot or tittle would pass away from it until heaven and earth passed away.

which only have existence in Him now. For example, Christ became our Passover sacrificed for us per 1 Cor.5:7

Christ has fulfilled that part of the Torah, yes, but unless one jot or tittle of the Torah has disappeared along with the passing of heaven and earth, then we are still to have our Passover Lambs. 1 Corinthians 5:7 is using symbolism from the Passover Ceremony where everyone was supposed to clean out yeast from their houses and burn it. I don't believe the "old yeast" is referring to God's Torah. It wouldn't make much sense for them in the ancient days to be "getting rid of the" symbolic Passover while observing the symbolic Passover.

The Passover did not end, it has continued in Christ

I agree with that line of reasoning, but I do not agree with what you are implying by it. If you don't quite understand what I'm saying just yet, please feel free to take another look at my last five paragraphs above.

When Hebrews quotes the OT about God writing His laws in the hearts of His people per the New Covenant, it means by The Holy Spirit

Why does it say "hearts and minds"? Just to be redundant? I really don't believe one jot or tittle (the minutest point) of God's Teaching has been done away with, and I don't believe there is any evidence from the Scriptures to lead us to believe that. I believe the Hebrews passage is saying that we will have the laws always in our minds and love them with our hearts (maybe because the Holy Spirit has placed them in our hearts?). See Psalm 119:48 and, if you have the time, the entire Psalm 119.

The idea that Christianity had its roots from Pharisee traditions is a gross lie.

I don't believe anyone here is saying that Christianity had its roots in Pharisaical tradition. Read Matthew 15:3-6. Here Christ upholds God's Torah while criticizing the Pharisees for nullifying it with their own teachings. Another prime example of this is when the Pharisees would not permit him to heal on the Sabbath. Christ said that the Sabbath (part of the Torah) was made for Man (and interestingly enough before the Jews even existed) and not Man for the Sabbath. But the Pharisees had nullified God's Torah by all of their little regulations which made the Sabbath a day of rules rather than a day of rest. Make no mistake, Christ upheld the Torah. It was the teachings of Men which he disapproved of.

packrat, ever heard of the messianic jews?

I have, jason. I don't know what exactly they believe in, but I hope it's obedience to God's Torah and the grace of God through Christ for the sole salvation of all Men.

We would be required to follow it because Jesus gave it to us in the New Covenant. Is this law so hard to follow...compared to what Jesus gave us?

But that's exactly what I'm saying! The New Covenant reinforces the Old. Therefore we should obey the Torah all the more (including this law to love our neighbors as ourselves), while looking forward to our salvation by God through Jesus his Son.

but we're to love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who despitefully use or persecute us.

Amen!

If He came to fulfill....you can be assured, He did fulfill.
His death fulfilled that prophecy concerning the tomb...just as the prophecies of His resurrection were fulfilled. Remember...He was crucified from the foundation of the world, too. When God speaks, we consider it done.

If you believe that all of the Torah was fulfilled from the beginning of the world, then why were we ever commanded to observe the Torah if not for our own benefit? To clarify my point, if all things were fulfilled in it from the beginning of the world, then why were the earthly representations ever around if fulfillment for some reason meant that the earthly representations would disappear into the spiritual fulfillments? I think I know what Bible passage you're referring to, but I'd like to read it again for myself if you could be kind enough to list it for me. I'd also like to point out, once again, that when Christ had said, "It is finished!" or "It is accomplished" he had not yet been buried in a rich man's grave or risen from the tomb, unless you believe he had done these things in the past where there was no Roman Empire around to crucify him. Don't get me wrong. I believe salvation has always been by faith in God, but what you're saying is a little confusing. Could you clarify?

Jesus is our Sabbath rest. Just as the consumation of the marriage will take place when our Lord returns, the consumation of the feast of trumpets and tabernacles will occur when He comes again. We still rest in Him now, and He still tabernacles with us now...but there is a future fulfillment, as well...when trumpets will sound and we will see Him face to face.

I believe our Sabbath rest is spending eternity with Jesus. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I may be. The Year of Jubilee actually may be symbolic of our eternal rest with Christ or at least his Thousand-Year Reign. So you're saying the Sabbath and the Feast of Trumpets are representative of the same thing? Could you cite Scriptural passages for this so I may examine it?

Sounds like you all misunderstand a few things. And perhaps do not realize who the Pharisees of today are. Most of the big "christian" holidays are pagan and not even remotely christian, or biblical by a long shot. Following these is following the commandments of men, or in other words that is as per definition.

I was thinking the same thing, Geo. The only point I would add more to is the definition of Legalism. Take a quick glance at this: Legalism. I've always believed that Legalism is nullifying the spirit of the law with the letter of the law.

The feasts or sabbaths of the Lord are for His people, and that means His people in the Spirit, not in the flesh.

I believe there are earthly representations of spiritual truths. I don't believe I'm quite following you though. Are you talking about for the Thousand-Year Reign or for eternity?

The feasts are for the Lord...to begin with, not the people.

Why do you believe the feasts are for the Lord and not for the People? Do you also believe every regulation in the Torah, including the Sabbath, was for the Lord and not for Man?

 

[Packrat]

In summary, the Torah still merits our observance though our hope of salvation is found in God through Christ his Son. The believing Jews and Christians are God's People. The Jews who have rejected the Messiah are not God's People. They have been cut off. We, as Christians, have been grafted onto the tree to follow God's Torah along with the rest of his People - the believing Jews.

 

[glorydaz]

What kind of sacrifice are you talking about?

Without sounding redundant, I thought it was apparent from the context of the passages you listed. You said: "I gave you the verses about what God desires....not sacrifices but a contrite heart." So I was talking about whatever sacrifices you were referring to (which I assumed were the sacrifices as outlined in the Old Testament). I didn't think that we were talking about "giving up television for a good cause" as being done away with. I thought we were considering whether or not the animal sacrifices as shown in the OT were done away with.

Once again, I'll have to break this up. The reason I asked what kind of sacrifice you were speaking of was because I had listed out scripture that I felt explained quite well why God does not desire animal sacrifices. The sacrifices of animals were only a shadow of the one true sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. There is no other sacrifice left to be made. Jesus paid the price for sin.
The sacrifices were for one purpose...to reconcile man to God.

And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering, and put it upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court. And so thou shalt do the seventh day of the month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye reconcile the house. In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

They were ever a picture pointing to Christ reconciling mankind to God.

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

The need for bulls and goats is no more. The perfect sacrifice has been made.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

One sacrifice....forever.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

To continue making sin offerings would be to make the cross of Christ a mockery.

Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

 

[Geo]

Hi Packrat, sure no doubt the letter of the law is the basis definition of legalism. In a world where everything became "spiritualized" without scrutiny regarding the question "by what spirit?" we have to make some of the consequences visible legalists fall into:

Matthew 15:9  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

"Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition"

Regarding the Sabbath(s) and eternity I just know what I read, I do not go beyond Scripture, and I try not to mince words by finding alternate renderings. Some "big little" words should be taken with the faith of a child, knowing our Father speaks to us as children first, so we cannot miss the indended meaning unless we choose to do so by our own crafitness.

 

[Packrat]

Hello, glorydaz!

I honestly do believe that we agree on a great number of points and everything that is fundamentally necessary to be saved. The only major point we differ on is whether or not Torah observance is still commanded by God. You believe Christ has fulfilled it by taking upon himself the responsibility of the earthly symbolic roles. I believe Christ has fulfilled it but not by taking upon himself the earthly responsibilities relegated to us. It's such a small point we differ on but one that merits our attention and study. It means the difference between obeying God and not obeying him.

At any rate, I hope that the seeds of truth that mature tomorrow shall be planted in our hearts and minds today. Hopefully one day we can come to a conclusive agreement on this matter. But for now let us continue to explore it. I have learned so much already and feel like I have grown in my understanding of God's age-old plan for us. Through our debate I have come to finally understand the "other half's" perspective on fulfillment. Although I do not believe it is Scripturally supported.

When referring to any of Paul's epistles or teachings to bolster your stance on the unnecessary obedience to the Torah keep in mind that he was a Torah-observant Jew. See Acts 18:21 (Paul's observance of the Feast of Tabernacles), Acts 20:16 (Paul cutting his journey short to be at Jerusalem for the Feast of Weeks/Shavuot), Acts 21:20-26 (Paul was ready to defend the truth to the death; why didn't he just rebuke them? The Jews had the same concern as you do - that Paul was teaching against the observance of the Torah. But Paul went through with the act to show that he wasn't teaching against observance of the Torah. In a definitive moment he dispelled their claims), Acts 15:19-21 (If Paul didn't believe in obeying the Torah then why would he put any of God's laws on the Gentiles in order to make conversion a "less troublesome" process? What did the Gentiles care about God's old, unnecessary laws? They could've been happy without them if God had done away with them). So if Paul did not teach against observance of the Torah, then how should we view his teachings? Perhaps from another perspective?

I do believe there are answers, even if not readily apparent. I will try to address every one of your concerns, including the passages you listed from Hebrews. For now I leave you with this.

P.S. And, Geo, I think I answered my own question. I was confused what you meant about God's fleshy People and God's Spiritual People. But by spiritual People I think you meant the Church and Believing Jews. By "fleshy People" I think you meant the unbelieving Jews. Right?

 

[glorydaz]

Hello, glorydaz!

When referring to any of Paul's epistles or teachings to bolster your stance on the unnecessary obedience to the Torah keep in mind that he was a Torah-observant Jew. See Acts 18:21 (Paul's observance of the Feast of Tabernacles), Acts 21:20-26 (Paul was ready to defend the truth to the death; why didn't he just rebuke them? The Jews had the same concern as you do - that Paul was teaching against the observance of the Torah. But Paul went through with the act to show that he wasn't teaching against observance of the Torah. In a definitive moment he dispelled their claims), Acts 15:19-21 (If Paul didn't believe in obeying the Torah then why would he put any of God's laws on the Gentiles in order to make conversion a "less troublesome" process? What did the Gentiles care about God's old, unnecessary laws? They could've been happy without them if God had done away with them). So if Paul did not teach against observance of the Torah, then how should we view his teachings? Perhaps from another perspective?

First, as to Paul. I believe I see where we're running into a problem. :yes

Notice how Paul was also accused of teaching contrary to the Torah.

And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat, Saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.

And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

Paul could seem to contradict himself, but he was talking about different aspects of the law. The law was our schoolmaster with educational aspects as well as judicial aspects. He loved the law in that it is a lamp unto our feet...just as we love the Old Testament for it's beauty and truth. The educational part of the law isn't "dead", but we are "dead" to the judicial aspects of the law. We are no longer under the law but under grace. It's the same with keeping the Sabbath and the feasts. Paul had followed the law his entire life, he loved certain aspects of the Torah...even though he was no longer bound to follow it.

O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day."

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

 

[Packrat]

Hey, glory! I noticed you overlooked the point I was making, so I'd like to leave you with an understanding of what I was trying to say. You said, "Notice how Paul was also accused of teaching contrary to the Torah." In Acts 21:20-26 Paul was not accused of teaching contrary to the Torah. He was accused of teaching contrary to the observance of the Torah. There is a difference. And the difference was enumerated by you, yourself. You said there is a teaching part of the Torah and a judicial part of the Torah. I don't think any Christian in their right mind would teach against the Torah (i.e. "teach contrary to the Torah"), because the Torah's lessons pointed to Christ. However, the passage in Acts 21 was not concerned with Paul teaching against the teachings of the Torah but more specifically with teaching against observance of those teachings. However, Paul dispells their concerns, reaffirming that he is not teaching against the observance of the Torah. It is already understood that he was not teaching against the lessons of the Torah. That was not their concern per se. So, my point was: if Paul affirmed by his actions that he was not teaching against the observance of the Torah, should we assume that any part of his teachings in his epistles are teaching against the observance of the Torah?

And your comment in saying, "... but we are 'dead' to the judicial aspects of the law," I'm guessing is based on one of Paul's teachings and was meant to say that we don't have to observe the Torah. However, what I was saying was that Paul already affirmed through his actions that he never meant to teach against the observance of the Torah. So looking back at the passage of Paul's teachings you studied to give you that conclusion, what new conclusion can you come up with in light of this?

I should get busy, but I just wanted to tie up any loose ends. I didn't anticipate being misunderstood. It was the interest in what people had to say on the matter that hooked me and drew me in again. :gah

 

[Packrat]

The need for bulls and goats is no more. The perfect sacrifice has been made.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Let me first say that if animal sacrifices could have ever atoned (i.e. make us right with God) for our sins (different sacrifices atoned for different kinds of sins; sin offerings only atoned for unintentional sins I believe) then there would be little need for Christ's sacrifice. But Paul implies in Galatians 3:21 that righteousness cannot be attained by the law. So how could we ever have made ourselves right with God through sacrificing an animal? The answer, I believe, lies in Paul's illustration of the Torah being our custodian and the notion that Christ was sacrificed from the beginning of the world. If we look back at Abraham we see that he was made right with God by faith. It has always been about faith. What exactly faith means to me is: faith enough to accept Christ's sacrifice as God's payment to atone for our sins. Christ made the sacrifice, yes, but unless we have faith enough to accept that sacrifice we're not going to have our sins atoned for.

So going back to Hebrews 10:4 we see that the "blood of bulls and of goats" never took away our sins. So really this verse is inconsequential to the topic at hand. In my limited understanding of God's plan of atonement it was always Christ's blood which had done that for us. And the act of sacrificing an animal was simply our way of trusting in God's plan of atonement. In that respect we were justified by faith in God through his payment (i.e. Christ) for us. If Christ had never been fated to sacrifice himself for our sins then faith would do nothing for us. Likewise if we have not faith in Christ's sacrifice then his sacrifice does nothing for us. Both are necessary but the main focus is on God's payment of his own blood. I hope that's right, but again it's my own limited understanding of the inner workings of atonement and salvation.

One sacrifice....forever.

And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

One sacrifice for sins forever, yes. But what about the sacrifices in the Old Testament that were commanded us to obey? I'm not sure this passage means what you think it means.

To continue making sin offerings would be to make the cross of Christ a mockery.

Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Nowhere in Scripture does it state that it would be a mockery of God to follow the Torah sacrificial regulations appropriately. You seem to think this passage states: "Now where Christ has atoned for these sins we no longer need to offer sin sacrifices to atone for our sins." What I think it means is: "Now where Christ has atoned for these sins there is no further sin offering that can atone for our sins outside of his sacrifice."

Sorry for the wait, and I hope that clarifies my position.

 

[glorydaz]

Packrat,

I'm not really sure I'm getting it all....I'll read it a couple more times, though, to see what I'm missing.

Paul made himself accommodating as much as possible.
Through it all, he was leading men to follow the spirit and not the letter of the law.
The observances of the law were shadows of the gospel of grace.
I'm not sure which "observances" you're referring to...sorry, but perhaps I'm just a bit dense this morning. As I say....I'll read your posts more carefully and try to do a better job responding.

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.