Definitive Answer on Legalism & Judaizing

[ivdavid]

O God, open our hearts and minds to understand Your will and to be faithful to Your written Word. In Jesus' name, Amen.

First and foremost, I'd like to state emphatically that all Christians are freed from observing the Law and anyone stating otherwise goes against the written Word of God.

This post is almost an exposition of the entire Epistle to the Galatians that would clear all ambiguities. This rather elaborate study of Scripture is warranted in order to avoid any twisting or misuse of isolated verses.

Apostle Paul begins the Epistle on a very serious note - the perversion of the Gospel and the gravity of its consequences.
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Then following Paul's authority of divine origin, he goes to Jerusalem sent by revelation to defend the Gospel he preached to the gentiles. The jews had trouble coming to terms with this because very clearly Paul was preaching the non-necessity of observing the Law.
Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Gal 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

The events of that meeting is elaborated in Acts 15.
Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

(The following verses show that they talk about a time after the gentiles were justified into Christ and after they received the Holy Spirit - they now wanted to know if they were still to be circumcised and follow the Law. Note that the gentiles are called disciples and not unbelievers, thereby testifying that they're already Christians having the Holy Spirit and not mere unbelievers waiting for redemption and justification.)
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Then James goes on to conclude after citing Scripture from the OT...
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

The Holy Spirit has inspired and permitted this -
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Act 15:31 Which when they [gentiles] had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

Regarding why the above instructions were given is apparently clear even to the layman - meat offered to idols is not to be eaten for it consists of communion with devils (1Cor 10: 20-21), from strangled meat because of blood in it - for in blood there is life (Gen 9:4, Deut 12:23), and from fornication because it is immoral and is not what a child of God does. These have nothing to do with keeping the Law - rather it is to be Holy in God's sight.

Getting back to Galatians chapter 2, it's clear that Peter and Paul have themselves stopped keeping the Law.
Gal 2:14 When I saw that they were not walking a straight path in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you have been living like a Gentile, not like a Jew. How, then, can you try to force Gentiles to live like Jews?"
Gal 2:18 If I start to rebuild the system of Law that I [Paul] tore down, then I show myself to be someone who breaks the Law.

Paul, however, kept up the Law in front of jews to save some of them - who were weak in faith and who couldn't even think of violating the Law that they had been brought up on. Paul suffered these in order to win over these jews though there is no value in circumcision and the OT Law. Note here, Paul has nothing against circumcision and keeping the Law among the jewish Christians who were brought up on it and who would have lost faith if these were wrenched from them - but he strongly condemned anyone trying to burden any Christian with these oppressive demands, for all are bound to the Law of the Spirit which is the Law of Liberty (Romans 8:2, James 1:25, James 2:12).
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

So Paul agrees to show that he himself keeps the Law in order not to be an offense to the jewish believers.
1Co 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
1Co 9:20 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;

But this didn't affect the freedom of the gentiles which continued, as seen here...
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

I think the point has been clearly established here but I'd still press ahead to leave absolutely no room for doubt. Galatians 3 clearly states that justification and regeneration and the receiving of the Holy Spirit is not dependent on the Law -
Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Not only that, but your sanctification ie being made perfect is not by the Law of works but by grace through faith. You please God by faith and not by your 'loving' obedience to the Law - which is not of faith.
Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him
Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Galatians 3 coupled with Romans 4 talks about how Abraham was justified by faith and not by works, by the Law, nor by circumcision. Galatians 4 talks about how the gentiles were not to become slaves of the Law again after being freed by Christ.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
Gal 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Gal 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

A further conclusion and a warning.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Gal 5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
Gal 5:8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
Gal 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Gal 5:12 I wish that the people who are upsetting you would go all the way; let them go on and castrate themselves! [Good News Translation]

The discussion is whether the Law is necessary or not and it clearly is NOT necessary - neither for justification nor sanctification. But that doesn't mean we swing to the other side of the pendulum and condemn the Law - we need to walk the narrow straight path.
The Law is holy and spiritual.(Romans 7:12,14)
The Law served a purpose till Christ came.(Gal 3:23-26, Gal 4:1-5)

The conclusion is that - for those jews who are brought up in the Law and who become Christians and who are weak in faith to believe that the Law is no longer necessary, they can keep it - it's a matter of indifference in the sight of God as the Holy Spirit Himself has permitted the gentiles not to keep it at all, in order not to burden them.

But let not this be twisted and inferred that Christians have inherited the Law of Liberty and so need not uphold anything.
Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Jesus indeed didn't come to destroy the Law and the Prophets - He came to fulfill and so are we expected to do so -
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

But what's crucial here is that we realize that Jesus has defined ALL the Law and the Prophets in these 2 commandments thereby including all the jots and tittles in them(Matt 5:18) -
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

So Jesus hasn't come to destroy the Law, He has enabled us to uphold and fulfill it in obeying the Law of the Spirit whose yoke is light (Matt 11:30) through faith by Grace. Through the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, we are able to love God as He truly should be loved and we consequently are also able to love our neighbors as ourselves thereby fulfilling 'all the law and the prophets' by grace through faith.

(King James Version referred, emphasis mine)

The Scriptures have illuminated and God has spoken through His Word. All Glory and Praise be to Him. In Jesus' name, Amen.

 

[glorydaz]

Great post. :amen

 

[veteran]

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?

In 1 Cor.10:27, Apostle Paul taught that if you're invited to dine with an unbeliever and go, to eat whatsoever is set before you, asking no questions for conscience sake. So if alligator tail is set before you, eat and don't judge. But when you get back home, would you continue eating outside God's health law if that's what you're used to? God's health laws are still in effect today. Eat outside the list and our bodies won't be as healthy; that's a no brainer. But do you see how Paul showed by that example that we are no longer under bondage to that health law, because for the sake of The Gospel, hoping to bring the unbeliever to Christ, we have that liberty in Christ Jesus. This is why the Apostles in Gen.15 commanded for Gentiles to stay away from things like eating blood, etc. But I see nothing wrong with folks learning the difference per God's health law what is best for them to eat for prime health of their bodies, yet we're not to make a religion out of it as it was under the Old Covenant.

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.

I agree on the spiritual reason for Baptism in Christ Jesus, in that ritual Baptism is to outwardly show the spiritual operation for a believer on Christ Jesus, since Jesus set the example for us. But as applied to the law, that's different than merely washings for cleanliness. And the living waters of Life is a shadow for God's River that will manifest again on earth in the future, per Ezek.47 and Rev.22. That's it's ultimate meaning, emitting from the throne of God and The Lamb.

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.[/quote]

By the coming of the New Covenant to end the Old Covenant, we understand HOW the Old Covenant ended by what it contained, because it was about required ritual through the Levitical priesthood, ceremonial worship, animal sacrifices, offerings, basically "handwriting of ordinances" in the law (Colossians 2:13-14). That doesn't mean Christ nailed all the law to His cross. It's quite obvious that God's laws also include the basis of operation in His creation as a whole, including civil law.

The Christian concept of being dead to the law is about walking by The Holy Spirit Which shows us HOW to follow what God would have us do. If we walk by the Spirit, then we are dead to the law, BECAUSE, we won't be doing anything that's against God's laws (Gal.5). That's the newness and liberty in Christ we have through Him. IF we walk by our flesh instead, THEN we put ourselves back under bondage to the law. By that Apostle Paul showed much of God's law is very much still in effect, but for the sinner. As Paul also said in 1 Timonthy 1, the law was not made for the righteous, but for the lawless and disobedient. But what you seem to be dwelling on more, is the Old Covenant ritual and ordinances, things which Christ nailed to His cross. There is absolutely no requirement today for animal sacrifice, which to do now is an abomination, seeing how Christ was made the Perfect Sacrifice for ever (Heb.10:12).

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.[/quote]

I don't see Christ's literal Resurrected Body the same as you, it's apparent. We all must now go through Christ Jesus to The Father, for He is our ONLY Mediator now. In the future, we will dwell with Christ, and He with us. But we will still serve Him. This reveals the New Covenant verily ended the Old Covenant requirement of the Levitical priesthood. And how can the Old Covenant still be in effect without that Levitical priesthood? Since 70 A.D. the daily sacrifices and Old Covenant ritual has not been possible, since there no longer is a temple in Jerusalem. But what will you follow if the orthodox Jews in Jerusalem that still refuse Christ Jesus as Messiah today build another temple there, and reinstitute the old Levitical priesthood, and animal sacrificies as they plan to do? Can you not see how the newness and liberty we now have in Christ Jesus under the New Covenant keeps us apart from falling away back into all those things?

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.[/quote]

I believe God still calls certain ones in the Churches to lead us, but they are not representatives like the Patriarchs, OT prophets, and Christ's Apostles were. Still they are totally different than the old Levitical priesthood. I too believe Christ Jesus has always been High Priest, even before He was born through Mary's womb. But I completely disagree... that ALL of God's law is still in effect, because Christ did fulfill the ordinances in God's law, and the main ordinances were the blood ordinances, like animal sacrifice.

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.

Not everything in the first five Books written through Moses have been fulfilled yet. In that I agree. And some of that's about prophecy, even as Genesis 49 is future prophecy given through Jacob to the 12 tribes of Israel for the last days. Christ said not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until... what? Until "all be fulfilled". Does that mean the heavens and earth must pass before anything written in the law can be fulfilled? No, for Christ fulfilled the handwriting of ordinances in the law, nailing it to His cross. In the verse prior, He also included what the OT prophets were given to write, along with the law. Much of it has already been fulfilled, and will continue to be fulfilled from then, all the way up to the coming of the new heavens and a new earth. Then all will be fulfilled. That's the meaning.

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.

What our Lord Jesus revealed was an ongoing fulfillment until everything is completed by the time the passing of heaven and earth comes. You're looking at it like nothing can be fulfilled until... the heavens and earth pass. Christ fulfilled the Passover sacrifice by BECOMING our Passover Lamb sacrificed for us. We no longer need to kill a lamb and smear its blood, nor hold Passover how the Old Covenant ritual required. We are now to recognize Christ Jesus as our Christian Passover today, and observe it through Him.

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.

Christ came to interpret the spirit of the law for us, and bring mercy and grace. We don't go around executing people like was required in many cases under the law per the Old Covenant. This could be a huge topic in itself. But I think it's about making a distinction between His people on earth today who love Him and seek to follow His commandments vs. the wicked who obtain more mercy under the New Covenant in hopes they might be turned and come to Christ. It is our job in Christ to help the wicked turn from their ways and come to Christ, whereas in Old Covenant times the wicked would simply be executed. I forget the British guy's name, but he was the darling of philosophical atheists for many years, and he turned to Christ only a couple of years ago. In time though, but not in this present world, God's laws are going to be established fully for everyone to follow. But that still is not the Old Covenant itself.

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.

I associate the word 'Judaism' with the Pharisee tradition you speak of. Judaism represents the Jew's religion which Apostle Paul was deceived by and caused him to persectute the Church before Christ converted him. That system of men's doctrines was something that came later, most likely out of the 70 years Babylon captivity of the house of Judah. The Old Covenant was offered by God to all Israel in OT times, and the tribe of Judah was to have possession of the sceptre and law. So I see the term Judeo-Christian as a false term, since the heritage within God's Word where Christian doctrine came from has nothing to do with the religion of the Jews. Also, per the Jewish historian Josephus, the title of Jew from the tribe of Judah only first began to be used by those of the house of Judah returning to Jerusalem from the Babylon captivity. He said it is the name which all those returning took, including all that lived in the land of Judea, meaning Gentiles who lived in Judea too. This is how Paul who was born of the tribe of Benjamin also claimed to be a Jew, because the tribes of Benjamin and Levi were included with Judah as the "house of Judah". That title of Jew never implied all Israelites originally.

 

[Packrat]

First and foremost, I'd like to state emphatically that all Christians are freed from observing the Law and anyone stating otherwise goes against the written Word of God.

The issue has never been with observance of God's laws but with the distortion of them into a legalistic system. This is the bondage Paul speaks of.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

As can be seen in many of Paul's writings the perversion of the Gospel often refers to the idea that we need to keep God's Law in the minutest point to be saved. This is wrong because it is a classic example of us trying to earn our way into the Kingdom of God through legalistic acts. Just think - if you believed you had to keep God's Law in order to be saved you would dip into legalism, too, wouldn't you? This is what Paul argued against. Those who say that we need to keep God's Law to be saved likely aren't saved themselves because they are not trusting in God's work through Christ.

Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Gal 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Gal 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Gal 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

These passages in Galatians merely mean that some Jews who practiced legalism came in disguised as believers so that they could turn people astray from relying on Christ as their atoning sacrifice and then rely on keeping the law in its legalistic form to be saved.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

This has nothing to do with what I believe. This passage is saying that the Pharisees believed circumcision necessary for salvation. It isn't.

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Again, the yoke they could not bare is the distortion of the Torah into legalism. It is not the Torah itself.

Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

You have left out Acts 15:21 which says, "For from the earliest times, Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, with his words being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." By giving them only a handful of laws they were saying those were the basics and the rest they would learn in the synagogues because there God's Torah is taught every Sabbath. They didn't want to place all of divine doctrine on new believers at once, because that would be too much for them. So they just picked the basics, told them to observe those laws and concluded that they would learn the rest as they attended synagogue every Sabbath.

Regarding why the above instructions were given is apparently clear even to the layman

Especially when read within context.

These have nothing to do with keeping the Law - rather it is to be Holy in God's sight.

They have everything to do with keeping God's Torah, because they were a part of God's teachings. In Leviticus 19:2 God tells us to be holy because he is holy. And this is in the context of God giving the Twelve Tribes his laws. I'm not sure I understand you, friend.

Gal 2:14 When I saw that they were not walking a straight path in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you have been living like a Gentile, not like a Jew. How, then, can you try to force Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Paul is admonishing Peter because Peter has been acting like a Gentile around Gentiles and acting like a legalistic Jew around legalistic Jews. However, Galatians 2:12 does not mean that Peter was eating unkosher food. The legalistic Jews had a tradition of not eating at the same table as Gentiles. So, Peter was eating at the same table as Gentiles and then when legalistic Jews came he was afraid of them and stopped eating at the table with other Gentiles in accordance with the Jews' legalism. So Paul takes note of Peter's hypocritical behavior and says, "You act like a Gentile and then when the Jews come around you try to force the Gentiles into legalism!" Paul then goes on to explain, "even so, we have come to realize that a person is not declared righteous by God on the ground of his legalistic observance of Torah commands, but through the Messiah Yeshua's trusting faithfulness." See, Peter was acting like a Gentile around the Gentiles and then changed his behavior to be in line with those who observed legalism because he was afraid of them (Galatians 2:12). Peter was saying, "You hypocrite! You act like a Gentile and then you act like a legalistic Jew. But regardless of this all, don't you know that legalism isn't necessary to be saved because we are saved by God through Jesus?"

Gal 2:18 If I start to rebuild the system of Law that I [Paul] tore down, then I show myself to be someone who breaks the Law.

This "system of Law" is legalism. The Law, itself, however is holy and should be obeyed if we love God and our fellow Man. And we see even from Jesus' testimony (Matthew 15:3-6) that the Pharisees were breaking the Law with their legalistic traditions. This is all Paul is talking about. He's not saying, "If I rebuild the Law then I break the Law." That doesn't make any sense.

but he strongly condemned anyone trying to burden any Christian with these oppressive demands, for all are bound to the Law of the Spirit which is the Law of Liberty

Christ taught observance to the spirit of God's Law. And it was the spirit of God's Law which set us free from the letter of the Law (that is observance of legalism). A classic example of this is found when the Pharisees burdened people with the letter of the Law by defining a system of rest for the Sabbath day. If you walked a certain number of steps, wrote a certain number of letters, it was determined that you were legally working on that day. So everyone lived in fear that by doing some small thing they might be disobeying the Law by working on the Sabbath. And that actually ended up being as much work as working on the Sabbath would be. So Christ told them that they were defeating the spirit of the Law with their legalistic traditions. And thus Christ set us free from legalism to enjoy our Sabbath day of rest. This is our liberty. The Law of God was never meant to be an evil yoke of bondage as so many here have portrayed it to be. But that is the way the Pharisees made it. The Law of Christ is the Law of God in its fullest sense - both letter and spirit. We are not to murder nor are we to hate. We are not to commit adultery nor are we to lust. The New Covenant did not destroy God's laws but reinforced them by such teachings as the above.

(Romans 8:2, James 1:25, James 2:12).

Hmmm... I'm not sure what relevance to the topic at hand these have. Could you explain, please?

Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

So Paul agrees to show that he himself keeps the Law in order not to be an offense to the jewish believers.

Yes, Paul's act showed that he himself kept God's Torah, but - more to the point they were asking him to prove - his act showed that he did not teach against its observance. Acts 21:21 says in part, "They have been informed [...] you teach all the Jews [...] to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise [...]" And Acts 21:24 says in part, "[...] Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law." So why did you say that both Peter and Paul did not keep the Law? Paul loved God's Torah and was observant of it and taught others to observe it. Do you think Paul was being deceitful here or sarcastic in his actions or lying through them? I believe he knew full well what he was doing and that he chose to put an end to the rumors about him because he observed the Torah and taught in favor of its observance.

What many people fail to understand about Paul is that he seems to have a rhetoric of his own. We can see this from Galatians 5:2-4 where Paul uses circumcision to mean something that God-ordained circumcision did not. Verse 4 reads, "You who are trying to be declared righteous by God through legalism have severed yourselves from the Messiah! You have fallen away from God's grace!" Paul is not saying that those who circumcise themselves cannot be saved by Christ. This would be contradictory to the Gospel. He is saying that those who try to justify themselves before God by their strict observance to God's Law have already circumcised themselves from Christ (i.e. cut themselves off from Christ). It is simply Paul's very clever way of speaking out against justification through legalism.

Even Peter in 1 Peter 3:1-2 uses "conversation" to mean something other than literal conversation. He uses "conversation," along with "without the word," to imply influential discourse through action rather than words (Young's Literal Translation). This is making a contrast between what is normally considered conversation and what we should do in place of conversation (i.e. speak with our actions). This is akin to saying, "Actions speak louder than words." The Conversation of actions is not the Conversation of words in the same way the Law of God is not the legalistic Law.

Paul, however, does not always make his distinctions between the two Laws apparent in his teachings and so we've gotten them confused. Now because of this some Christians say that Paul teaches against God's Law and others say that he is a hypocrite and yet others say that he is a false apostle. But all he is really saying is that there is a Law of God and there is a legalistic Law; one should be obeyed and the other should not. But he refers to them both as "Law" and thus we confuse the two as being the same because we do not examine the context of Paul's teaching. Paul uses jargon like this which may seem contradictory, but it is actually quite logical when understood within the context of his own rhetoric.

1Co 9:20 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;

It seems like you're taking this passage, along with verse 21, to mean that Paul observes the Torah around other Jews and then rejects it when he is around Gentiles. But didn't Paul already admonish Peter for doing this or something similar to it in Galatians 2:14? Is Paul being hypocritical here? And on how many levels?

Also, did Paul become a prostitute to reach prostitutes? Or did he become a thief to reach thieves? Or was he simply saying that he treated these people as if he were one of them, breaking down cultural boundaries so that they would feel that they could relate to him or at least be comfortable interacting with him?

I don't believe he rejected the Torah in any circumstance but instead looked for common ground so that he could relate to others from different cultures and spread the Gospel in a way that they would be comfortable with.

But this didn't affect the freedom of the gentiles which continued, as seen here...
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

I believe I've already answered this with my explanation of Acts 15:21. What is being shown here is not that they taught against observance of the Torah but that they only taught so much of the Torah. The entire letter to the Gentiles may be read in Acts 15:23-29. What it says is not "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us that you not observe God's Torah [...]" but rather in essence "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with any of it except these following regulations: [etc.]" The Gentiles were free from legalism, but to be free from God's Law is anarchy. Paul knew they would learn more about God's Torah and grow in their relationship with Christ and thus made provision for this by teaching them only a little at first.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

The obvious answer would be by faith. I am not at all in disagreement with this, but I applaud you for mentioning it. For many today believe that you must be baptized to receive the Spirit.

 

[Packrat]

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him

Hebrews 11:5-6 is a decent example of why I observe the Torah. My faith is in God through Jesus' sacrifice. But this is only the first step of the Christian life. If I want to please God then I choose to live by his laws. And I can please him this way as long as I am saved and live my life first by the letter and foremost by the spirit of those laws.

Galatians 3 coupled with Romans 4 talks about how Abraham was justified by faith and not by works, by the Law, nor by circumcision.

And we are not justified by legalistic adherence to God's Law. We are justified by faith in God's atoning sacrifice and we are then able to please God by obeying his Law. This is my whole frame of mind. The phrase "under the law" simply means "burdened beneath legalism." Christ's Law was actually an easy burden to bear because it did not have all of the extra Pharisaical regulations and it revealed to us that the observance of God's Law was ritualistic but its spirit was love. What the Pharisees were stuck on was the ritualistic aspects and they failed to see that God's Torah had love as its basis. Part of what Christ did on this earth was to correct this misnomer. He told us to observe God's Law but to observe it with love in mind and not merely get stuck on the ritual observances. You see? He took it further. He said that any man who has hated has murdered in his heart. He didn't say, "Go ahead and murder because I have fulfilled the law of not murdering and it no longer applies to you." God's Law has always been about our hearts - about love of God and love of Man. See Deuteronomy 10:16. Every law of Christ's in the New Testament has been both a reflection and an amplification of those found in God's Torah.

Galatians 4 talks about how the gentiles were not to become slaves of the Law again after being freed by Christ.

Galatians 4 is saying that before Christ came and we were given the New Covenant our observance of Torah often dipped into slavery to legalism because we did not understand the spirit of the Law. However, now that Christ has come and enlightened us with his teachings we are set free from legalism - this distortion of God's Torah. Both Paul's and Jesus' big issues were between observance of the Torah and observance of legalism which destroys what the Torah was created to do. I think everyone already assumed at that time that the issue was not between observing the Torah and spiritual anarchy, predominantly because it didn't make any sense and thus wasn't worthy of discussion.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Yes. God's Torah was like our school-custodian which guided us to the School-Teacher by his teaching (Torah means 'teaching'). This is evident by its ritual teachings which point to the Messiah. When the Teacher came he explained to us the true meaning and intention of the Torah. We are now no longer under a custodian but now understand what the fulness and meaning of the Torah is so that we can observe it appropriately without being slaves to its distorted form - legalism.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

The Torah had been distorted into legalism because people for generations had misunderstood its purpose. Christ was born into a society burdened under this legalism in order to bring those under the burden of legalism out from underneath it by teaching them the true intention of God's Torah.

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

Verse 9 is a little confusing to me because my translations reads, "[...] weak and miserable elemental spirits [...]" instead of "[...] weak and beggarly elements [...]" So depending on the translation I could read verse 10 two ways. If they are beggarly elements it's completely confusing and verse 10 appears to be speaking of ritual observance of times which even pagans did. If they are spirits then those ritual observances of times may be paganistic or cultic in nature. We see in Galatians 5:20 that the occult is mentioned.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Again, Paul is directing this to people who are trying to be declared righteous by God through their observance of the Law. See Galatians 5:4. They have circumcised themselves from the Messiah and have fallen away from God's grace. Therefore circumcision profits them nothing. When we are saved, neither being circumcised nor not being circumcised profits us anything in respect to salvation. Let's understand what he is saying within context.

The Law is holy and spiritual.(Romans 7:12,14)

Amen.

But let not this be twisted and inferred that Christians have inherited the Law of Liberty and so need not uphold anything.
Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

How is our expression of love determined? Is it based on our own feelings? Many people, well-meaning, have gone off the right path. I believe we should love both God and Man but that the Torah is our guide. If we never were issued the command to not eat meat sacrificed to idols some of us would still be dishonoring God to this day. And if we thought it might be an expression of love by honoring another person's beliefs by eating meat sacrificed to their idols then we would still be dishonoring God. We would be choosing to love Man over God.

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Right on. The New Covenant established the Law by setting it in our minds and on our hearts (Hebrews 8:10-12). All Christians should be mindful of God's commandments and obedient to his Torah out of love for God and Man.

Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

To me this doesn't so much say that the Torah and the Prophets are "defined as" some abstract and invisible methodology of loving God and our neighbor based on our emotions or gut-feelings. But rather that on those great commandments the Torah and Prophets hang. In other words if you took love out of the equation the Torah would collapse. And we saw how that did in fact happen. The Pharisees took love out of the equation and the Torah collapsed. It lost its original meaning.

The Scriptures have illuminated and God has spoken through His Word. All Glory and Praise be to Him. In Jesus' name, Amen.

Indeed. Thank you for your extended exegesis on how we are not saved by legalistic adherence but rather by the grace of God through faith in his atonement. I hope you've enjoyed reading my critique and it is my hope that it will help those reading it come to a better understanding of our role as Christians.

I look forward to meeting all of you - brothers and sisters in Christ - in the Kingdom of our Almighty God. And I wish to close with both the warning and blessing of our Holy Messiah Jesus as found in Matthew 5:19.

 

[ivdavid]

@ Packrat,

I think we should get this sorted out once and for all.

Let's see what we agree upon -
1. Legalism is absolutely wrong.
2. Following the Law has nothing to do with salvation.
3. Salvation is only by Grace through Faith.

So, our point of discussion is not about how to be saved but rather how we are to live after being saved. We've agreed upon this too -
We are to love God with all our heart,mind,soul and strength and we are to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Here we diverge in our faith -
1. You believe that this love should be expressed through the non-legalistic observance of the Torah.

I believe we should love both God and Man but that the Torah is our guide.

2. I believe that it can be expressed through the observance of the laws written in my heart, in faith, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Note, this verse talks about being led by the Spirit, so it's post-regeneration.


Let me state my stance here -
1. I don't believe I need to observe the Torah in its entirety. Which parts I follow and which I don't is through faith, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When unsure, I always look to the teachings of Jesus, Apostle,sermon on the mount and prefer these to the Old Testament Law. Eg: Between OT (Lev 24.20, Deut 19.21) and NT (Matt 5:39), I follow the NT teaching.
2. This does not mean I deny any OT teaching on righteousness(eg: coveting,idolatry etc.). I am only referring to ritualistic teachings like circumcision, observing Holy days, abstaining from certain food and other such laws.
3. This does not mean I am against anyone observing Holy days and foods. I have no reservations against any person who feels he's expressing his love for God through the observance of these ordinances. I am only against advocating it as something that must be done in all its entirety to people who don't believe so.

To reiterate, if you have a personal faith in observing the Law, please continue in your faith through love in a non-legalistic manner.

If I want to please God then I choose to live by his laws. And I can please him this way as long as I am saved and live my life by the spirit and letter of those laws.

But if you feel encumbered, allow the Holy Spirit to strengthen your faith towards complete freedom. Again note, this is your personal faith and should not be generalized. I hope these following statements of yours are not a generalization.

In summary, the Torah still merits our observance though our hope of salvation is found in God through Christ his Son.

In summary God's rules, regulations and appointed times are to be celebrated even today. Nothing has been abolished and done away with. Such regulations as found in the Torah are all still applicable.

I also believe in circumcision of the heart, but I also believe in circumcision of the flesh. It is not necessary for salvation, but it is necessary for obedience.

So, to address some of your concerns...

How is our expression of love determined? Is it based on our own feelings?
To me this doesn't so much say that .... loving God and our neighbor [is] based on our emotions or gut-feelings.

Rest assured, love is a feeling of the heart and is an emotion. It doesn't need anything more, as a necessity. Of course, we humans need some 'act of love' to make known our love to everybody - but that's because we can't look into other people's hearts. Well, God can. And that's all there is to it. Of course, a person who says he loves God and goes ahead in persistent covetousness and thievery is a liar. Your acts will betray your lack of love but the presence of love needs no act to confirm it to God. This again doesn't mean that when the opportunity arises to do a good act, you needn't. It all depends on faith. A person who continues ignoring to do a good act, not in faith, while professing love for God is also a liar. Faith is crucial here - I don't think it's a gut feeling - it's more of being completely persuaded that God would approve of your actions.


To clarify some other stuff -

Everytime a verse was quoted regarding how Paul didn't advocate observance of the Torah to the gentiles, you kept stating that it was referring to how they legalistically tried to observe it. If your intent was to show that observing the Torah rituals non-legalistically is not wrong, then I stand by it. Let's leave this discussion at that. But if you're trying to prove that since it isn't wrong, it must be done - then I beg to differ. It's simply a matter of faith.

So, if I have the faith that I can eat anything with thanksgiving to God, then I may do so. But if you then come and show me the Torah and ask me to observe all of it, including abstaining from certain foods, I'd feel otherwise. If you start stressing it (very politely, of course), I may have two minds about it and thereby lose faith. I might start observing it under your influence because I'd feel that God may not approve of me otherwise, but not with my heart in it. This is slipping into legalism. Why would you want to be the cause of someone's loss of faith?

So, if you believe in circumcision of the flesh to please God and I don't, what's the next step? Would you try and persuade me against the faith that I currently hold? What if I'm still not persuaded? Would you judge me and conclude that I'm not a true believer? The exhorting and reproving must happen with respect to acts of righteousness and not such rituals.

You've got to understand what happened in the Galatian church. The Galatian believers were already regenerated and had received the Spirit. They were gentiles and were not observing the Law. But some jews came in their midst and started saying that they had to observe the Law. Why do you think? To get them saved - no, they already had been regenerated. So, they must have appealed to something like pleasing God by observing the Law. And Paul condemned that. You insist on saying that the jews were teaching them to be legalistic and Paul was decrying that. What do you mean by legalism of the Law for a believer? Legalism is doing something without your heart in it. The Galatians obviously were persuaded in their minds but not in their hearts when they got circumcised. So what does Paul do? Does he condemn the jewish people who forced these galatians into circumcision or does he condemn the galatians for doing it without their heart in it? If it's the former, then he very clearly is advocating against the observance of the Torah rituals to people who don't have faith in it.

Paul clearly says that when already in Christ, you don't need to attribute importance to circumcision but rather to faith through love.
Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any strength, but faith working through love.

This verse shows that he was addressing galatian believers and not people waiting to be saved.
Gal 5:7 You were running well. Who hindered you that you do not obey the truth?

The persuasion came from the jews who insisted on observing the Law.
Gal 5:8 This persuasion is not from Him who calls you.

You asked people to keep an open mind when they read your posts. I appeal to the same.

 

[ivdavid]

Furthermore, let's read Romans 14 for this. It tackles this very same problem among believers.

Rom 14:1 Welcome those who are weak in faith, but do not argue with them about their personal opinions.
Rom 14:2 Some people's faith allows them to eat anything, but the person who is weak in the faith eats only vegetables.
Rom 14:3 The person who will eat anything is not to despise the one who doesn't; while the one who eats only vegetables is not to pass judgment on the one who will eat anything; for God has accepted that person.
Rom 14:4 Who are you to judge the servants of someone else? It is their own Master who will decide whether they succeed or fail. And they will succeed, because the Lord is able to make them succeed.
Rom 14:5 Some people think that a certain day is more important than other days, while others think that all days are the same. We each should firmly make up our own minds.
Rom 14:6 Those who think highly of a certain day do so in honor of the Lord; those who will eat anything do so in honor of the Lord, because they give thanks to God for the food. Those who refuse to eat certain things do so in honor of the Lord, and they give thanks to God.

Rom 14:10 You then, who eat only vegetables---why do you pass judgment on others? And you who eat anything---why do you despise other believers? All of us will stand before God to be judged by him.

Rom 14:12 Every one of us, then, will have to give an account to God.
Rom 14:13 So then, let us stop judging one another. Instead, you should decide never to do anything that would make others stumble or fall into sin.

Look at what Paul has to say -
Rom 14:14 My union with the Lord Jesus makes me certain that no food is of itself ritually unclean; but if you believe that some food is unclean, then it becomes unclean for you.

This goes on to say why you are to relinquish your freedom with regards to the Torah rituals when it may affect the faith of other believers. One is freed from the Law but if this freedom may be an obstacle to faith in another believer, then we must relinquish that freedom for the sake of these believers. Do you see that this is what Paul did in Acts 21.
Rom 14:20 Do not, because of food, destroy what God has done. All foods may be eaten, but it is wrong to eat anything that will cause someone else to fall into sin.
Rom 14:21 The right thing to do is to keep from eating meat, drinking wine, or doing anything else that will make other believers fall.
Rom 14:22 Keep what you believe about this matter, then, between yourself and God. Happy are those who do not feel guilty when they do something they judge is right!

It's always about faith through love.
Rom 14:23 But if they have doubts about what they eat, God condemns them when they eat it, because their action is not based on faith. And anything that is not based on faith is sin.

So, the conclusion is - each to his own faith, with respect to keeping ordinances.


On a side note,

Christ taught observance to the spirit of God's Law.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I know that the Law is spiritual but that doesn't mean it has a spirit. Being led by the Spirit very clearly refers to the Holy Spirit - not a 'spirit' of the Law. And surely, you can't limit the Holy Spirit to be a spirit of the law.


Our Father, please open our hearts and minds to understand Your will, so we may be pleasing to You in every way - in faith through love by Your grace. In Jesus' name, Amen.

 

[jasoncran]

packrat , you do realize that the law was for the jew mainly, as that part was of the covenant.
the gentile has no need to be forced into the following the law. he wasnt part of that agreement in the first place. the ten commandments should be a guide as what should be kept in principle, if the love of christ dwells in you, you wont kill and steal, and so on.

are you jewish? i am and they jews of today dont even follow all of the law, impossible.

 

[Packrat]

packrat , you do realize that the law was for the jew mainly, as that part was of the covenant.
the gentile has no need to be forced into the following the law. he wasnt part of that agreement in the first place. the ten commandments should be a guide as what should be kept in principle, if the love of christ dwells in you, you wont kill and steal, and so on.

are you jewish? i am and they jews of today dont even follow all of the law, impossible.

Hey, Jason! I honestly don't know if I have Jewish heritage because of the Diaspora. I do have a question for you though. Because you cannot offer sacrifices to God due to the absence of a Levitical priesthood would you forsake the command of God to love your neighbor (Leviticus 19:18)? What I'm asking in the broadest sense (not just referring to ceremonial or moral regulations) is: "If you can't obey one command would you reject them all?"

A number of verses in the Scriptures show that we as Christians are God's people. We have not supplanted God's people but have been grafted in along with them (Romans 11:24). If we are Christians then we are considered to be "of Abraham's seed (Galatians 3:29) [...]" God gave a number of rules to his people, but would you say that we can kill, steal and commit adultery because the Ten Commandments did not apply to Christians but only to the Twelve Tribes? The truth is that God gave these rules to a single people to show the rest of the world how they would be blessed if they followed God (Deuteronomy 4:6).

Even today I hear Christians quote the words of God, saying, " [...] if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land." But according to these Christians, themselves, this promise of forgiveness and healing does not apply to them because they are not God's people. Contradictory, no? However, we are God's people. We are heirs to the promise. We are the children of Abraham. God's laws apply to all humanity but only the promise of God's Covenant will be given to his people. Consider Zechariah 14:18-19 which shows that Gentile nations are being punished for not observing the Festival of Shelters (i.e. Sukkot). Also consider Hosea 2:23, Revelation 2:9, 3:9, John 8:39-44 and finally 1 Peter 2:9-10. Being a member of God's people is not dependant upon what race we were born into but upon accepting God's Covenant he made with his people. Remember that Ruth was born a Gentile but she became one with God's people.

We see today the effects of disobeying God's commandments: Deuteronomy 28:15, 44. Consider America's national debt. Also consider that many Christians work on the Saturday Sabbath when we should be resting. Then consider this. The sad state of American affairs is linked to political problems but is primarily due to the fact that we - including his own people - have rejected God and his ways.

 

[Packrat]

I believe that it can be expressed through the observance of the laws written in my heart, in faith, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Note, this verse talks about being led by the Spirit, so it's post-regeneration.

You take Galatians 5:18 to mean that if we are led by the Holy Spirit then we do not need to hold ourselves up to the Law as we might to a mirror. We just obey what feels right deep down inside of us, because that feeling is the Spirit talking to us. You are saying that this passage means we are regenerated so that we want to do what is right. Whether or not this is the case, this is not what this passage is saying. It is saying that we are led by the Holy Spirit to follow his laws as he intended instead of falling into legalism.

Let me state my stance here -
1. I don't believe I need to observe the Torah in its entirety. Which parts I follow and which I don't is through faith, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When unsure, I always look to the teachings of Jesus, Apostle,sermon on the mount and prefer these to the Old Testament Law. Eg: Between OT (Lev 24.20, Deut 19.21) and NT (Matt 5:39), I follow the NT teaching.

Leviticus 24:20 was not saying that we should retaliate and do unto others as they have done unto us. It was saying that the legal courts should do unto others as they have done unto us. This essentially made people think before they acted and thus observe Christ's words from Matthew 7:12. If they treated us in a mean manner, then the Law would do unto them as they had done unto us. This was to make them want to do unto others as they would have them do unto them. And, indeed, this sums up the Law as found in Leviticus 24:20.

I think we should also keep in mind that turning the cheek in the way Christ taught us to do in that passage would've turned the tables on the offender. If the offender wanted to strike us again it would have made him liable to insult himself. Christ wasn't advocating peaceful submissiveness to an antagonist. He was advocating the devising of clever and peaceful means to end conflict so that the legal action of Leviticus 24:20 didn't have to be taken. To paraphrase what I believe he was saying: "You have been taught to take legal recourse, but I teach you peaceful means to avoid even having to bring legal recourse against anyone." Read http://www.dharmagates.com/other_cheek.html And what do you think God desires best? Legal action or peaceful coexistence? Sacrifice or a right heart which would preclude sacrifice?

2. This does not mean I deny any OT teaching on righteousness(eg: coveting,idolatry etc.). I am only referring to ritualistic teachings like circumcision, observing Holy days, abstaining from certain food and other such laws.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that all Scripture is profitable for training in righteousness. Keep in mind that in Paul's days the only Scripture around was the Old Testament since the New had yet to be written. At any rate, all Scripture means also circumcision, abstaining from consuming items that are NOT to be food, etc.

But if you feel encumbered, allow the Holy Spirit to strengthen your faith towards complete freedom.

You've almost hit the nail right on the head! I applaud you! This is our freedom. We are to live according to the Law, but if we are reading into it too much and thus become encumbered (legalism) we have the ability to step back, look at the big picture (love) and adjust our obedience to it accordingly. Way to go! ;)

Rest assured, love is a feeling of the heart and is an emotion. It doesn't need anything more, as a necessity.

Not at all. Love is not just a feeling. If a couple got married and their feelings waned that would not mean their love for one another waned. That's just passion. Love may include feeling, but it is also about dedication even after the feeling leaves us. Love can induce feelings, but feelings are quite temporary and the heart is deceitful. Love sticks with it through the sunshine and the rain.

Faith is crucial here - I don't think it's a gut feeling - it's more of being completely persuaded that God would approve of your actions.

That seems awfully close to saying, "Trust yourself. Trust your feelings. Do what feels right." I'm not at all sure that God would approve of my actions if I didn't live my life by what he taught (his Torah).

I might start observing it under your influence because I'd feel that God may not approve of me otherwise, but not with my heart in it. This is slipping into legalism. Why would you want to be the cause of someone's loss of faith?

A number of things come to mind. 1.) If you believed it to be what God wanted for you then you would be observing it for your love of and dedication to God; not because I showed you what God had already told us to do.

2.) Legalism is not observing the law while not wanting to. That would just be unwilfully law-abiding. :D Legalism isn't even trying to earn your way into the Kingdom of God. But that was often what caused legalism. Legalism is observing the law so closely that you miss the point of it and end up defeating the true purpose (i.e. spirit, intent, purpose) of the Law.

3.) Legalism does not necessarily cause a lack of faith but rather can arise from a lack of faith. But even then a true believer can fall into legalism and still remain a believer. If they do then they are simply mistaken in their practice of the Law.

4.) Those who don't believe God's Torah is applicable for us today have the weaker armor, and their faith is thus more prone to failure. I believe they have been taught lies which are the chinks in their armor that the enemy's darts can pierce through. They are not wholly to blame, but misinformation and lack of knowledge is. They are incapable of reconciling the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New, because they do not understand his ways. When someone poses them a difficult question they stumble and fall from the faith. But when I look at the Scriptures I understand that the Torah in the Old Testament has always been based on love - even in its judicial decrees. And, contrary to what others may claim, the spirit of the Torah - love - will always be applicable to those who wish to please God. I stand that much firmer in my faith because of my basic understanding, and it is my hope that everyone of you will do the same.

So, if you believe in circumcision of the flesh to please God and I don't, what's the next step? Would you try and persuade me against the faith that I currently hold? What if I'm still not persuaded? Would you judge me and conclude that I'm not a true believer? The exhorting and reproving must happen with respect to acts of righteousness and not such rituals.

I don't believe I've ever accused anyone of not being a believer because they do not follow his laws. As I've already stated, following his laws is not a prerequisite for salvation. On the other hand I've been called an unbeliever because I attempt to follow God's laws. One man came right out and told me, "Anyone who observes the Old Testament laws cannot be a Christian." My only response to this man was, "'Ok." On the contrary, whether or not you are a true believer is not up to me or him to determine. The Scriptures say that we are saved by faith in God's atoning sacrifice through Christ.

You've got to understand what happened in the Galatian church. The Galatian believers were already regenerated and had received the Spirit. They were gentiles and were not observing the Law. But some jews came in their midst and started saying that they had to observe the Law. Why do you think? To get them saved - no, they already had been regenerated. So, they must have appealed to something like pleasing God by observing the Law. And Paul condemned that.

Your claim that "[...] they must have appealed to something like pleasing God by observing the Law" is one possible answer, but there is nothing in the text which supports this. As a matter of fact, Paul knew full well that the Jews who attempted to legalize people were arguing that you had to obey the Law in order to be saved. To these Jews the believers weren't right with God because they weren't following God's Torah. This is what Paul decried. There is nothing in the text which points to Paul condemning people who are saying, "You should observe the Torah because it is pleasing to God." Paul wouldn't've had any problem with this. See 1 Corinthians 7:19. Here Paul is saying the exact same thing except he clarifies, "Keeping God's commands is what counts." In other words, "Undergoing circumcision to be a Jew (because circumcision was the number one sign of accepting God's covenant and thus becoming a Jew) does not matter when you are already called to be one of God's people. What does matter is keeping God's commands." Circumcising of the flesh didn't matter in becoming one of God's true people; circumcising of the heart was what mattered. Circumcision of the flesh would only come afterward out of our obedience to God. In essence he was saying that being a physical Jew is not necessary for inheriting the promise that was promised to God's people, because you have already become one of God's people. But if you are going to undergo circumcision you should do it because you are trying to keep the commands of God.

You insist on saying that the jews were teaching them to be legalistic and Paul was decrying that. What do you mean by legalism of the Law for a believer? Legalism is doing something without your heart in it. The Galatians obviously were persuaded in their minds but not in their hearts when they got circumcised. So what does Paul do? Does he condemn the jewish people who forced these galatians into circumcision or does he condemn the galatians for doing it without their heart in it? If it's the former, then he very clearly is advocating against the observance of the Torah rituals to people who don't have faith in it.

Again, that is not what legalism is. Legalism is defeating the spirit of the law with the letter of it. But true lawful observance is obeying the letter of the Law within the parameters of its intentions (which are love of God and love of Man). The letter of the law isn't wrong, but it can be used for wrong. And we've seen many lawyers in our own time do this.

What is legalism of the Law for a believer? I'm unsure if you're asking the right question, but I will attempt to answer your concerns. You are saved by faith in God's atoning payment for us. However, some people were trying to become saved by legalism. Now, legalism for a believer would be defeating the spirit of the law with the letter of the law (i.e. the same definition it holds for everyone). However, the believer would not be trying to earn his way into the Kingdom of God via legalism; otherwise he would not be a believer. And if the believer is not wary he may end up doing just that. But that would be because he does not know the Scriptures well enough to know otherwise.

Paul clearly says that when already in Christ, you don't need to attribute importance to circumcision but rather to faith through love.
Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any strength, but faith working through love.

Just as he clearly says in Galatians 5:2 that if you're circumcised you can't be saved? I thought Christ paid the price for our sins. Isn't this preaching another gospel? Paul rarely says anything clearly. You need to understand his rhetoric and his audience in order to understand what he's saying.

The end result, as we see, is that the rest of the chapter does not support the interpretation that "It is unimportant to be circumcised when you have been saved." When was it ever important except only to be in obedience to God's will? Abraham was justified by faith - not by works - and even he was circumcised. Galatians 5:22-23 says, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, humility, self control. Nothing in the Torah stands against such things." Thus this verse within context seems to say, "You do not need circumcision in order to become a Jew first so you can attain the promise when you have already been accepted as heirs of the promise [...]" We are united with the Messiah so circumcising ourselves in order to be a Jew is not a prerequisite to attaining the promise of the Covenant (i.e. it does not profit us anything). Rather we are to circumcise our hearts.

This verse shows that he was addressing galatian believers and not people waiting to be saved.
Gal 5:7 You were running well. Who hindered you that you do not obey the truth?

Yes, he was addressing Galatian (i.e. Gentile) believers. In other words these Gentile believers didn't practice the Law originally. But let's keep in mind that Jews came into the picture and started teaching them either their laws or God's. I believe there were also other cultic ideas the Jews were teaching the Gentile believers and that the Jews themselves were Gnostic in their faith. This is only hinted at within Paul's letter to the Galatians (e.g. 1:8, 4:8-9, 5:20) but becomes much more apparent in a similar passage in Colossians 2:14-23. These Gnostic Jews were ascetics - hence Colossians 2:21. I forget the actual name for them, but I could look it up if you wanted.

At any rate, there were (and maybe still are) Christians in Slavic countries who sacrificed Christmas hens because it was part of their pagan tradition. They had come to know Christ but certainly we would say that they were going back into slavery to pagan traditions such as Christmas (one of those "days, months, seasons and years" Paul was talking about). In other words, they were believers who blended pagan traditions with supposed-godly traditions.

If they could do it, then the Jews could do it, too. And I believe it is a distinct possibility those Jews were a heretical sect of Gnostics who blended similar concepts in God's Torah (e.g. the "years" may refer to the Sabbath years) with those of their own beliefs about angels. But even if I am wrong, what makes you think this passage is saying we should not be burdened by God's Torah by obeying it?

 

[Packrat]

You asked people to keep an open mind when they read your posts. I appeal to the same.

Indeed. I was raised in a supposed-Baptist household with a father who believed that baptism was necessary for salvation. So I can assure you that I look to the Scriptures for my truth - not to man. Otherwise I would've accepted baptism as necessary for salvation, but I do not. Eventually I came to realize that the Torah was not done away with as so many have said it was. I read my Bible, saw apparent contradictions, examined arguments from different learned scholars on the subject instead of losing faith and finally accepted those which made the most sense to me.

Another time I had a several-day online discussion one-on-one with a very learned individual. He may even be from this site, but I'll refrain from saying who he is. He believed baptism was necessary to receive the Spirit, but I showed him from the Scriptures that it was not. However, this discussion sparked my interest in baptism and showed me its necessity, so I eventually became baptized in the appropriate manner. To say that the Old Testament regulations are useless to us today or that it isn't important to follow them is to admit to a number of contradictions in the Bible and ultimately to undermine one's faith. More than this, it isn't Scripturally supported.

I believe the way I do because of reason and because I believe God is the one true God and does not contradict his nature. While I do not believe we should rely solely upon our feelings to determine what we believe, I feel perfectly fine in my beliefs and feel them to be the absolute truth. I am open to ideas which contradict my beliefs with reason because I do not rely solely upon my feelings.

Our concern should not be whether or not we should observe God's laws but rather how closely we should observe them if we can only observe some of them in accordance to God's commands (i.e. absence of a priestly system, etc.).

 

[ivdavid]

On the other hand I've been called an unbeliever because I attempt to follow God's laws.

Let me reiterate - I have nothing against you following the Law. I'm only saying this should not be stressed upon those who don't believe so.

I'm not at all sure that God would approve of my actions if I didn't live my life by what he taught (his Torah).

That's what faith is all about. You're not sure if you could neglect the ritualistic parts of the Law - that's your faith - you must value it and observe the entire Law out of love for God.
My faith says that I have to be righteous in God's sight which I do learn from the Law, Jesus' teachings, apostolic teachings etc. but that I need not observe Holy Days, ritual foods, circumcision etc.

At any rate, all Scripture means also circumcision, abstaining from consuming items that are NOT to be food, etc.

Did you read the continuation of my post - the 2nd post on this page.
Read the entire Romans 14 for context but specifically Romans 14.14 and Romans 14.20.
I don't think Paul can get any clearer than that. I wish we'd conclude this topic based on Romans 14 which indeed tackles this very same issue.

 

[Packrat]

Hey, folks. Sorry for the long wait. I've just been taking a break, but now I'm back. ivdavid, I will definitely address the verses you've listed in Romans. Let's take a look at them.

Let me reiterate - I have nothing against you following the Law. I'm only saying this should not be stressed upon those who don't believe so.

Oh, no. I don't mean to say that you've called me an unbeliever or judged me or anything like that. I'm simply saying it has been done before by others.

Rom 14:2 Some people's faith allows them to eat anything, but the person who is weak in the faith eats only vegetables.

Yep. Anything seems like anything to me. I mean, it could be human flesh for all we know. Personally, I've always been a little curious how human meat tastes, so I think I'll stop on by the abortion center here and scrape me up some wittles. Don't mind the pun. ;) And don't feel sheepish. We can even join hands and give thanks for the food before we receive it. I hear the placentas go well with butter and garlic.

But coming back to reality here, I'd like to point out that verse 6 shows us that those who fast (abstain from food) do so to honor God, and those who eat instead of fasting do so to honor God. I believe this whole passage is a discussion on fasting and proper ways to fast - including what is permissible to eat when fasting. Its intention is not to address what is kosher (i.e. considered to be food in the society at the time).

Rom 14:5 Some people think that a certain day is more important than other days, while others think that all days are the same. We each should firmly make up our own minds.

This and Luke 18:11-12 are our clues. The Pharisees fasted on two specific days a week and always on those same days (i.e. Monday and Thursday). This isn't talking about the Sabbath being holier than Sunday, etc. God rested on the Sabbath and sanctified it and thus set it apart as holy even before the handing down of the Torah to Moses and the people. It's no dispute whether or not the Sabbath is to be holy, but what is being discussed here is certain other days with regard to fasting. The holiness of the Sabbath or of God's festival days is not necessarily the focus of this passage.

Paul is addressing fasting practices. Notice how he never says, "Some people's consciences allow them to eat pork, so we shouldn't condemn them." Instead he's saying, "Some people's consciences allow them to eat [anything] on days that are designated fasting days by others, while these others abstain from meat and wine (again, notice he does not say, 'While others abstain from pork and shellfish') on those days. Some people even observe different days for fasting. We should not condemn them for this." Anything here does not imply that we can eat anything (including molten lead); anything here means that we can eat anything set apart to be food rather than just eating vegetables on certain days. For example, Catholics believe we can only eat fish as a meat on the "holy" day of Lent, so we are not to condemn them for this. If they do it to honor God then they do it with a right heart and in a right conscience. But, to go to an extreme, I don't believe anyone should eat human flesh on the Sabbath or on any other day of the week for that matter. It's just not food. God told us what we were to consider food and what we were not to.

Within context we can include in this "anything" meat and wine, since it seems that some believers may have been thinking that the drinking of wine was wrong and for a semi-valid reason (Romans 13:13). I, myself, have an aversion to alcohol and will not drink it, but God's Torah does not condemn drinking it. I only believe that those who drink it should not become drunken and those who cannot drink it without becoming drunken should not drink it at all.

Rom 14:14 My union with the Lord Jesus makes me certain that no food is of itself ritually unclean; but if you believe that some food is unclean, then it becomes unclean for you.

And what about Mark 7:14-19? I'll explain the passage in Mark first before I address Romans 14:14. Mark 7:1-3 shows that the Pharisees performed a ritual of washing their hands before they ate. Why did they do this? They believed that if they didn't wash their hands then they would make the food unclean. Then in turn this uncleanness would be transfered to them when they ate it. This food they were eating was declared clean by God (as was all meat designated to be food by God in the Torah), but the Pharisees had declared even clean food to be unclean. This departed from God's command in favor of human traditions (Mark 7:8-9). Verse 19 simply upholds God's Torah by declaring all that was to be food (i.e. that which is clean) as clean.

Now what Paul was doing in Romans 14:14 I suspect was the same thing he did in 1 Corinthians 10:27-29. Paul declared that all food (i.e. that which was declared as clean and thus edible) was clean in and of itself. In 1 Corinthians, the believers were concerned about eating food sacrificed to idols. I don't believe there was a prohibition strictly against eating food sacrificed to idols in the Torah but rather to joining in the worship of pagan gods which included eating meat sacrificed to idols in honor of them. To be honest I can't find a prohibition against eating food sacrificed to idols anywhere in the Torah. I don't believe it ever says that the idol, itself, makes unclean what God has made clean.

What was happening in 1 Corinthians was that the pagans were making an abundance of sacrifices to idols and possibly then selling the sacrificed meat on the market. Paul was simply assuring the Corinthian believers that they shouldn't worry about eating meat from the local markets because idols, themselves, do not defile the meat. For the sake of the once-pagan Christians he told them to abstain from eating meat that they knew was sacrificed to idols so that they would not make the once-pagan Christians slip back into honoring false gods because they were weak in their faith.

Notice he does not say, "For the sake of those who follow God's laws and are thus weak in their faith you shouldn't violate God's laws by eating shellfish." That doesn't make any sense. Will obedience to God's laws bring weakness of faith or knowledge of God's ways? It wouldn't weaken my faith at all if someone else ate in an unkosher way and professed to be a Christian. I would simply conclude that their doing so would be an error. This sin says nothing of God's righteousness or of my faith.

Now while the Corinthians believed that meat sacrificed to idols was not to be eaten and while the Torah seems not to explicitly prohibit the practice of eating idol sacrifices, we can see from Revelation 2:20 that it displeases God. My guess would be because of a heart issue. They honor or commune with false gods and demons by eating meat sacrificed to them (Numbers 25:2). The Corinthians, however, were simply wanting meat to eat that God had already declared clean. They were being cautious not to eat it because it may have been sacrificed to idols.

Now Paul was saying in Romans 14:14 that all food (and food does not include shellfish, pork, human flesh or molten lead) was clean because God had declared it so. But if someone believed that it had been defiled by an idol then to them it was defiled. Basically, we should obey God's laws, but if our conscience pricks our heart outside of God's laws on an unclear issue then we should listen to our conscience or else we are sinning in our heart by doing what we believe to be wrong (even if it is not intrinsically wrong).

Now if anything I've said is wrong, let me know. If you find that there is a prohibition against eating food sacrificed to idols in the Old Testament because idols pollute the food, then let me know. But as far as I know this passage is not slackening God's dietary laws in the least because it has little if anything to do with them.

 

[ivdavid]

Packrat,

I am unable to see all the assumptions that you've drawn. Thank you for replying but this shall be my last post on this thread unless there is any clarification required on what I wrote.

Yep. Anything seems like anything to me. I mean, it could be human flesh for all we know. Personally, I've always been a little curious how human meat tastes, so I think I'll stop on by the abortion center here and scrape me up some wittles. Don't mind the pun. And don't feel sheepish. We can even join hands and give thanks for the food before we receive it. I hear the placentas go well with butter and garlic.

Careful. Don't joke around with the Word of God.
Anything actually means any food(as understood by both jew and gentile) since he was addressing the gentile church in Rome. Paul's assuming that these would understand that he meant only the jewish ritually clean food seems far-fetched.
I'm not able to understand how you can surely interpret the gentile church in Rome to be well-versed with jewish laws and customs and that they fasted on those same particular days and that they stuck to jewish customs etc.

I'd like to point out that verse 6 shows us that those who fast (abstain from food) do so to honor God, and those who eat instead of fasting do so to honor God. I believe this whole passage is a discussion on fasting and proper ways to fast - including what is permissible to eat when fasting.

I see no reference to anything remotely implying fasting in the entire chapter 14 and in fact the entire Book of Romans. If you interpret this to mean 'fasting', then I see no point in my discussing any further - I don't have any more to go on.

The holiness of the Sabbath or of God's festival days is not necessarily the focus of this passage.

It seems too far-fetched that Paul didn't have to mention 'fasting days' but had to mention about how and when they should eat - I mean, i just can't see all the relations that you're drawing all over the place. I don't see any link between days and food mentioned in this chapter - Paul treats days separately and food separately. But you somehow see a relation there and say that this is referring to fasting days - I can never get around it. Each to his faith - as I said earlier.

Instead he's saying, "Some people's consciences allow them to eat [anything] on days that are designated fasting days by others, while these others abstain from meat and wine (again, notice he does not say, 'While others abstain from pork and shellfish') on those days. Some people even observe different days for fasting. We should not condemn them for this."

I just can't get around to deriving this from the context.

Notice he does not say, "For the sake of those who follow God's laws and are thus weak in their faith you shouldn't violate God's laws by eating shellfish." That doesn't make any sense. Will obedience to God's laws bring weakness of faith or knowledge of God's ways?

The way i see it - Paul meant the people who didn't have enough faith to enjoy freedom from the ceremonial laws. They were still concerned about going against God's will by eating anything apart from what was prescribed - they were weak in faith to enjoy that freedom - and Paul asked others not to be a stumbling block to these.
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
The weak in faith believers would be grieved with others whom they think are defiling God's laws (when they actually aren't) and may lose their inner sense of peace. This is what Paul asks to avoid.

I would simply conclude that their doing so would be an error. This sin says nothing of God's righteousness or of my faith.

If your brother's sin does not affect you, then there's something wrong. You should grieve over a brother whom you think is sinning - and I'm guessing that if you warned him, he might happily say that he's free from the ceremonial law, and either you'd sin by judging him or you'd lose your inner peace. This is what is to be avoided in the first place by that brother who should abstain from such foods in your presence - better to give up our liberty for the sake of our brothers in Christ. For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Act 10:11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Act 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

I hope you don't misinterpret this passage too -
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
It doesn't say that the vessel contained only ritually clean food but all manner of beasts.

Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
I see no reference to a fasting day or to a necessity for any washing of hands or feet. I read it as Peter saying that he's never eaten anything unclean(as stated by the Law) and that he wouldn't want to break the law by doing so here as what the Lord is seeming to command.

Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
It doesn't say that God has only cleansed the fasting food(that is already clean) and hence could be eaten - I read that God is teaching the end of the ceremonial law and the beginning of liberty in the Spirit of the Lord.

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
I am almost sure that you'd say that this statement meant a break from legalism - each to his faith.

I appreciate your discussing with me - but as I said, I've explored every possible point that I'm aware of and I'm ending this discussion here. I only hope you wouldn't press your beliefs on anybody else and make them feel wrongly guilty. I think any reader has enough material here to draw his/her own conclusions. Thank you again.

 

[Packrat]

I am unable to see all the assumptions that you've drawn.

I'll clarify and expound my thoughts a little more then.

Careful. Don't joke around with the Word of God.

All I'm doing is pointing out that anything by your definition here includes human flesh. If I want to eat it then who are you to judge? Maybe 1 Corinthians 10:23 comes to mind, but one should read what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 10:18-21. Certainly he would not say that murder is permissible, so this "everything" has limits. What he is saying is that if something seems suspect but does not go directly against God's Law or its intent/purpose/spirit then it is permissible but that it is not necessarily profitable or constructive. In light of this, would you say that eating human flesh is permissible?

Anything actually means any food(as understood by both jew and gentile) since he was addressing the gentile church in Rome. Paul's assuming that these would understand that he meant only the jewish ritually clean food seems far-fetched.

First off and in light of what I just said, does this "anything" have limits? And "far-fetched?" Not at all. There are numerous occasions where Paul addresses Gentile Believers (from all over), instructing them that the legalistic practices of the Jews are wrong or that trying to be declared right by God through observance of the Law is wrong. And how or why would the Gentiles even be concerned about this unless they knew the Law? So the question is not, "Did Gentiles know about Jewish customs?" but rather "Did the Gentiles in Rome know about Jewish customs?"

Let's examine a few passages to determine whether the Romans in Rome were ever taught or ever heard of certain Jewish customs. Acts 16:19-21 shows that Paul was advocating foreign customs; this does not necessitate the Sabbath or other festivals, but it can include it. Acts 2:10-11 shows quite probably that there were Jews and converts to Judaism from Rome. Acts 18:2 and Acts 23:11 show that there were Jews in Rome even before Paul testified of Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. And the fact that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome shows that the Romans considered them somewhat of a problem. The Romans were neither unfamiliar with Jews, nor were they oblivious to the cultures around them (Romans 15:14).

Furthermore, you seem to think that Romans 14:5 is talking about the Sabbath as well as other festivals given to the Jews by God. Why would Paul be speaking to the Romans about the Sabbath and festivals as if they had already heard of them if in fact they had no knowledge of them? Now I still believe that the phrase "a certain day" does not hold the Sabbath and the festivals as its primary focus but rather may simply include them. I'm just showing you from your own reasoning how you seem to contradict yourself - the same way I was showing you from your own reasoning how you would permit others to consume human flesh because it wouldn't be wrong. I'm not twisting the Scriptures; I'm using your own logic.

I'm not able to understand how you can surely interpret the gentile church in Rome to be well-versed with jewish laws and customs and that they fasted on those same particular days and that they stuck to jewish customs etc.

Hopefully you're a little better equipped now to understand my position: Jews interacted with Gentiles in Rome on some level, and certainly Gentile Believers (in general) would have attended synagogues every Sabbath after being saved as Paul relies upon in Acts 15:21.

I see no reference to anything remotely implying fasting in the entire chapter 14 and in fact the entire Book of Romans.

You don't? Romans 14:6 "He who observes a day as special does so to honor the Lord. Also he who eats anything, eats to honor the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; likewise the abstainer abstains to honor the Lord, and he too gives thanks to God." So wouldn't abstaining from eating (even if it only be meat and wine in Romans 14:21) be fasting from something?

I believe it to be evident that Romans 14 talks about fasting. My point about Romans 14:6 referring at least partly to the Pharisees' fasting days was simply my opinion because of the fact it talks about fasting. It may also include days such as the festivals, but nowhere does it mention them. Furthermore, I don't believe the holiness of the Sabbath is up for debate since God commanded us to keep it holy and there is no evidence from the Scriptures that some "spiritual Sabbath rest" has supplanted it. So it would seem these particular days Paul is addressing would be more akin to the Pharisaical tradition of keeping "[...] some days more holy than others [...]"

It seems too far-fetched that Paul didn't have to mention 'fasting days' but had to mention about how and when they should eat

Paul wouldn't have had to mention 'fasting days' and yet had to mention how and when they should eat because he was addressing two groups of people here. Both groups of people could have known about 'fasting days' akin to Pharisaical observances or Jewish man-made customs as found in Zechariah 7:5-6 while only one group observed those days. In essence: "You both know of the concept of certain days being declared holy by men, but only a few of you buy into this." Romans 14:14-15 implies that the Gentile Romans Paul is addressing already had a standard of clean and unclean food and some were observing it. And where do you think they got this standard from?

Paul treats days separately and food separately. But you somehow see a relation there and say that this is referring to fasting days - I can never get around it.

I've given evidence to show that Romans 14 talks about fasting, that the Gentile Romans knew of standards of clean and unclean food and that the Torah is not once clearly taught against here. My assertion that the "days more holy than others" are days akin to the Pharisaical fasting days comes from my observation that the chapter talks about fasting, the Romans knew about Jewish customs and that such a claim would fit well within the context of this chapter. I hope this helps clear up my thoughts.

I just can't get around to deriving this from the context.

Then don't. At least you're thinking. It was my conclusion that since fasting is mentioned in conjunction with certain days as being considered holy by men (nothing is said of what God declares to be holy) it would be possible that such holy days included days for fasting as was culturally evident from Luke 18:11-12. And the Romans knew of Jewish culture.

The way i see it - Paul meant the people who didn't have enough faith to enjoy freedom from the ceremonial laws.

Faith in what? They didn't have enough faith that God saved them by grace through Christ and thus weren't believers, so Paul was perpetuating their lack of faith by telling others not to offend their practice of trying to earn their way into heaven by observing the Torah? That doesn't make much sense to me.

If you mean that they hadn't had enough faith that God had released them from an obligation to obey his laws, then do you admit that they had knowledge of God's laws? Even so, I've already told you that it wouldn't do anything to my faith to see other believers disobeying God. I would simply conclude that they were in error. I believe Romans 14:20-21 is not talking about causing someone to stumble by showing them you don't have to earn your way into heaven. I also believe it's not talking about causing someone to slip from their faith because you, yourself, sin.

We're not weak in faith because we uphold God's laws. On the contrary, Romans 3:28,31 shows us that we uphold the laws of God by our faith. Romans 4:20 tells us that Abraham was strong in his faith, and we know he kept the laws. So those weak in the faith cannot be referring to believers who keep God's commandments. It may make sense, but not reasonable sense. Furthermore, it doesn't fit within the context of Romans.

My opinion of following God's Torah is partly seen in Romans 3:1-2 and Romans 8:7-8. I believe it is beneficial to follow God's laws and that it is what the Spirit-led Christian will desire. Why would the sinful nature follow God's laws as set forth in the Torah when they aren't necessary for salvation? It seems more likely that those who listen to their sinful nature will reject God's laws because they want to live lawless lives and thus they fail to please him.

I believe Romans 14:20-21, in conjunction with Romans 13:13, is talking about causing other believers with alcohol addictions to stumble by drinking wine in front of them. It may also be talking about eating so-called unclean meat sacrificed to idols, thus causing a once-pagan Christian to stumble by falling back into the communion with and worship of his former gods. "[...] anything that causes your brother to stumble," is an umbrella phrase, including in it many possibilities but none of which was disobeying God's laws.

The weak in faith believers would be grieved with others whom they think are defiling God's laws (when they actually aren't) and may lose their inner sense of peace.

I believe that is one possible answer (apart from the evidence supplied that God's laws have not been done away with) since it troubles me every time I see fellow believers openly declaring that God's laws do not apply to them and that they can live lawless lives according to their own feelings and interpretation of what it means to love God and their fellow man. Even though they permit themselves to eat human flesh and participate in homosexual acts, opening up the possibility for contradictions in the Scriptures, it does not cause me to stumble. Quite the contrary, they cause themselves to stumble by their lawlessness. I recently heard a renowned preacher (John MacArthur) proclaim, "[...] circumcision has been abolished [...]" Yes, he said "abolished." At this my jaw dropped, for I knew that like-minded people always believed this but never had I heard such open defiance of Christ's words from a Christian (especially one so well-thought of). Read Matthew 5:17.

That said, I do not believe the answer you have supplied to be the most reasonable one, but rather my own answer which I believe is the most contextually-supported by the Scriptures.

If your brother's sin does not affect you, then there's something wrong.

A brother's or sister's sin may trouble me, but it does nothing to my faith in God. I simply conclude that they are in error. I may provide evidence from the Scriptures to defend the truth and set them on a straight path, and in doing so it may be necessary for me to point out their error (Matthew 18:15). However, what they do with this information is between them and God. It's not for me to be judgmental toward them by showing them ill-will. If God loves them then I believe he will discipline them and bring them closer to himself after they have been confronted with the truth.

I will address Acts later, but I think this is enough to chew over for tonight. ;) Take it easy.

[Edited by me to correct some things I had overlooked.]

 

[Packrat]

The Acts passage is a very interesting story. Some people say it was only symbolic, showing that God was referring to the Gentiles. Other people will say it was both symbolic and literal, not only referring to the Gentiles but also to animals that were previously declared unclean now to be cleansed. However, I do not share the latter opinion and I will explain why as well as give one interesting point that I do not yet fully understand:

1. God declared certain animals unclean for us. When did God ever make them clean for us? And how did he do this? Did he cleanse these unclean animals in that passage in Acts, and if so was it by Christ's blood? In essence, what changed to make such animals clean when God had declared them unclean in his Holy Scriptures? Personally, I believe that he had spiritually cleansed the Gentiles through Christ's blood and that he was not talking about cleansing these unclean animals in any way.
2. There are two words used in this passage: unclean and common. I do not fully understand the meaning of these terms, but have added it to my to-do list to research them. I believe we have a solid understanding of this passage even without knowing the intricacies of these two terms. However, I still believe that the definitive answer on this passage lies with them. For example, what is common may not necessarily be unclean and vice versa. We must understand what God is talking about.
3. The notion that this passage refers primarily - if not entirely - to the cleansing of the Gentiles is upheld by Acts 10:7-8, 16 and 19. First we see that Cornelius sends three men (possibly Gentiles) to Peter's residence. In verse 16 we see that God's vision of the clean and unclean animals occurs three times. In verse 19 while Peter is still trying to figure out what this vision meant (because he knows God wouldn't want him to eat unclean meat) the Holy Spirit tells him that - again - three men have come looking for him.
4. Peter explains what he believes to be the meaning of the vision in verse 34.
5. Acts 10:28, in conjunction with Acts 11:2-3, does seem to uphold the conclusion that God, again, is teaching the observance of his law and a break from legalism. So, yes, I would agree that this passage means a break from legalism.
6. Acts 11:18 also upholds the interpretation of the vision to be symbolic. Furthermore, we see in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is profitable for instruction. And the only Scripture at the time was the Old Testament. And the Old Testament had within it God's whole Law. The only thing that remained was the clarification of the purpose of that Law. So we should understand that the New Testament is foremost an explanation of the Old Testament. If you can provide proof from the Old Testament that God's laws would be abolished in the future when sin still remained in this world then you would have a case. But as is I can't share such an opinion.

In closing, I believe it to be best that everyone uses the brain they've been given to interpret the Scriptures appropriately. If you wish, pray before you begin. But relying upon your feelings to determine what is true because you believe it to be the Holy Spirit's leading is not Biblical. It is Gnosticism. I do not believe that the Holy Spirit would lead me to accept all of God's Law if it were unnecessary. What's the point? Lastly, I reject the leading of a spirit that does not lead me to the Scriptures.

 

[glorydaz]

Matthew 15:10-12

10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

 

[Packrat]

Matthew 15:10-12

10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

Is Jesus saying that if we vomit then we are made spiritually unclean? Is he saying that if a piece of food comes out of our mouths then we are made ceremonially unclean? Is Jesus discussing ceremonial cleanliness or spiritual cleanliness here?

I don't think it ever says in God's Torah that anyone who ever touches an unclean living animal will become unclean. If the animal that did not have the power to make them unclean before when it was alive now has the power to make them unclean when it is dead, how is that? So I'm curious if this uncleanliness was a result of disobedience to God's Torah or a result of actually eating or touching the unclean animal? Did a dead animal have the power to declare us unclean? All I know is that God does not contradict himself, and he certainly hasn't abolished his Law. Those were his words.

I'm leaning toward the notion that cleanliness would be relative to everyone's own perspective of it had God not declared a standard of cleanliness and uncleanliness. For example, some people shower every day; others shower only twice a week. Without a divine standard here, cleanliness is left up to the individual to decide. But in the case of ceremonial and spiritual cleanliness God declares one unclean and one clean. If he declared unclean anyone who touched the carcass of an unclean animal, then it is safe to assume that eating such carcasses made one unclean in God's eyes. But the unclean dead animal making one unclean by eating it may not be the case. It may simply be God declaring them unclean when they eat it because they have disobeyed his Law. Matthew 15:18-20 upholds this idea. Personally, I think that any Christian who eats such unclean animals becomes ceremonially unclean to this day. However, I don't believe it is possible to be made spiritually unclean by such an act of rebellion after one has been declared clean by God after washing in the blood of Christ.

Your thoughts?

 

[glorydaz]

It seems to me the clean and unclean has more to do with "sacrificial" animals, and we see here all creatures were given for food. Some of those rules seem to relate to public health standards. I don't like eating shell fish for instance because they do seem "dirty", and I sure wouldn't eat vultures or rats for the same reason. In a pinch, I suppose I'd eat whatever the Lord provided and be thankful.

And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

 

[faithtransforms]

then where did we come off with the conclusion that we should reject all of the regulations, festivals, rules, etc. which pointed toward the Messiah and embodied actions of his which have been fulfilled and have yet to be fulfilled to this day?

I think it is perfectly ok to celebrate the feasts, and I think it is perfectly ok not to. I don't do it in a traditional way, but I recognize the Day of Atonement and Passover and such. However Paul said there was no need to respect certain days over others. So I think it's a matter of personal decision. I personally believe it's very edifying to study/celebrate the feasts, but it's certainly not a requirement.

As for anything else in the Law (not the teaching but the Law), that has passed.

Btw, I only read the OP, so if this has been said already, feel free to ignore me, lol