New Testament View of the Old Testament

[Godfrey]

RND -

They were to be an example for the nations:

Yes, as an example of holiness, but not in the sense of being an exemplar, to be copied.

They were to explain and teach all the laws, statutes and ordinances to the nations.

No way. Where do you get that from?

Let me cite those verses in the NIV so I can understand the English better :

5-6:See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people."
7-8:What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?

Where in those verses does it say the Israelites (to whom the verses are unambiguously addressed, see v.1) are to explain and teach the laws? It says they are to observe them and, by doing so, show their wisdom and understanding to the surrounding nations. Vv.7-8 are plainly rhetorical.

Who they were to teach the laws to is made clear immediately afterwards in v.9:

Teach them to your children and to their children after them.

If the Israelites were to teach the surrounding nations the Law, then:

• Why is there no record of them ever doing so in the OT?[/*:m:2eewhdec]
• Why didn’t Daniel put the Babylonian Civil Service on a kosher diet?[/*:m:2eewhdec]
• When kings are recorded as having done what was right in the eyes of the Lord, it invariably refers to internal reform. Why never to teaching the Gentiles the Law?[/*:m:2eewhdec]
• And if they never did teach Gentiles the Law, why didn’t the Lord rebuke them for the omission?[/*:m:2eewhdec]

Under a covenant, there are benefits, and there are obligations. The benefits of the old covenant to the Jews are that God will be their God, that He will bring them into the Promised Land and that He will bless and protect them. The obligation is that they keep the Law. You are saying the Gentiles were to be told to keep the obligations. Without the benefits!

If you have a mortgage, it is fine for the lender to say, “I will lend you the money, and you repay me monthly.†It makes no sense to say, “I will lend you the money, and you repay me monthly. And tell your neighbours to repay me as well.â€Â

It's just as well you don't have to keep the old covenant, 'cos

Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. - Deut.4.2

 

[RND]

Yes, as an example of holiness, but not in the sense of being an exemplar, to be copied.

What would be God's point in making the COI an example but one that wasn't to be patterned after? That seems rather self-defeating if you ask me.

[quote:zmrtsnj5]They were to explain and teach all the laws, statutes and ordinances to the nations.

No way. Where do you get that from?

Let me cite those verses in the NIV so I can understand the English better :

5-6:See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people."
7-8:What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?

[/quote:zmrtsnj5] God was stressing a very vital point and one that must be emulated in the life of a Christian today. Christians are to be "salt of the earth" people, loving and attractive in our own being that we draw others to Christ. The COI were tasked no differently. They were to use the laws and commandments God gave them to be an example to other nations.

This is why kings came from far and wide to see Israel because of the way the Lord had blessed them. In the NIV you quoted this is made abundantly clear when is says, "...for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people."

Where in those verses does it say the Israelites (to whom the verses are unambiguously addressed, see v.1) are to explain and teach the laws? It says they are to observe them and, by doing so, show their wisdom and understanding to the surrounding nations. Vv.7-8 are plainly rhetorical.

Tell me something. Is there anyone in your life that you have admired for the type of life they have led? The type of work the do? Have you ever wanted to know how they achieved what they accomplished?

Just as we do with others we admire in our lives the nations surrounding Israel were to be enthralled with the Nation of Israel and how she became so great. Just as we are mentored by influential people in our lives the nations were to be as well. When one sees why someone is doing so well is hard not to ask them their secret. So too were other nations when inquiring about the greatness of Israel.

[quote:zmrtsnj5]
Who they were to teach the laws to is made clear immediately afterwards in v.9:

Teach them to your children and to their children after them.

If the Israelites were to teach the surrounding nations the Law, then:

• Why is there no record of them ever doing so in the OT?[/quote:zmrtsnj5]
  
  I think there is plenty of records of what the COI were supposed to do and what they were supposed to teach. The fact that they didn't do so regularly doesn't mean they weren't instructed to teach.
  
  

  [/*:m:zmrtsnj5][*]Why didn’t Daniel put the Babylonian Civil Service on a kosher diet?

  How do we know that Daniel didn't influence many to eat healthier and better. You make the assumption that because everyone didn't do so that no one did so which is simply a bad assumption.
  
  

  [/*:m:zmrtsnj5][*]When kings are recorded as having done what was right in the eyes of the Lord, it invariably refers to internal reform. Why never to teaching the Gentiles the Law?

  What about when gentiles did right in the sight of the Lord because of His law? Who taught the gentiles the proper way to worship the Lord?
  
  

  [/*:m:zmrtsnj5][*]And if they never did teach Gentiles the Law, why didn’t the Lord rebuke them for the omission?[/*:m:zmrtsnj5]

Um, I think the evidence that Israel didn't live up to the charter they agreed to live up to and their subsequent banishment from the land is evidence alone they didn't do what they were supposed to do.

Under a covenant, there are benefits, and there are obligations. The benefits of the old covenant to the Jews are that God will be their God, that He will bring them into the Promised Land and that He will bless and protect them. The obligation is that they keep the Law. You are saying the Gentiles were to be told to keep the obligations. Without the benefits!

Not at all! The evidence that they did the will of God would be evidence of who there God is!

If you have a mortgage, it is fine for the lender to say, “I will lend you the money, and you repay me monthly.†It makes no sense to say, “I will lend you the money, and you repay me monthly. And tell your neighbors to repay me as well.â€Â

No, that doesn't make sense. What does make sense is someone invariably pleased with their lender telling their friends that are considering buying a house all about the wonderful benefits in choosing the lender they chose!

It's just as well you don't have to keep the old covenant, 'cos

So you mean I'm free to murder. steal and rob because I'm a gentile but not a Jew? Wow, that's woefully inconsistent of God don't you think?

 

[Godfrey]

God was stressing a very vital point and one that must be emulated in the life of a Christian today. Christians are to be "salt of the earth" people, loving and attractive in our own being that we draw others to Christ. The COI were tasked no differently. They were to use the laws and commandments God gave them to be an example to other nations.

This is why kings came from far and wide to see Israel because of the way the Lord had blessed them. In the NIV you quoted this is made abundantly clear when is says, "...for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, "Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people."

...

Tell me something. Is there anyone in your life that you have admired for the type of life they have led? The type of work the do? Have you ever wanted to know how they achieved what they accomplished?

Just as we do with others we admire in our lives the nations surrounding Israel were to be enthralled with the Nation of Israel and how she became so great. Just as we are mentored by influential people in our lives the nations were to be as well. When one sees why someone is doing so well is hard not to ask them their secret. So too were other nations when inquiring about the greatness of Israel.

RND, we are not disagreeing about the fact that they were to show a different standard, but you cannot jump from that to the idea that Gentiles were supposed to observe the Law without some scriptural evidence.

I think there is plenty of records of what the COI were supposed to do and what they were supposed to teach. The fact that they didn't do so regularly doesn't mean they weren't instructed to teach.

Well - chapter and verse, please - where are the Israelites specifically told to get the nations observing the Law?

I appreciate your extensive response, but I think I can safely stand on my original statement that Gentiles are not required to keep the old covenant.

[quote:399kui6i] It's just as well you don't have to keep the old covenant, 'cos

So you mean I'm free to murder. steal and rob because I'm a gentile but not a Jew? Wow, that's woefully inconsistent of God don't you think?[/quote:399kui6i]

Of course you're not free, not if you're a Christian. What does the new covenant say? That’s what matters.

You are in America and I am in Britain. Glossing over the question of state and federal legislation, both American and British legislation define murder as a criminal act – but you don’t say, “I mustn’t commit murder because it’s against British law,†or “I’m not under British law, therefore I’m free to commit murder,†do you? Why should you? British law has never held sway in California.

So let’s take British law as the old covenant and American law as the new. There was a time when British law held sway on the east coast of America. But after the War of Independence, that law had no more jurisdiction and the newly independent colonists wrote new laws. That moment is like the Sermon on the Mount: Jesus sat down with his Jewish disciples and began to rewrite the rule book for them.

So when immigrants arrived in the USA during the nineteenth century, British immigrants were like Jews becoming Christians, leaving the old covenant for the new. They had been under British law, now they were under American law. But immigrants from everywhere else, Germany or Italy or wherever, were like Gentiles becoming Christians – British law had absolutely no relevance for them whatever, regardless of whether its provisions agreed with American law.

So Christians, whether of Jewish or Gentile origin, are alike in the new covenant. You know what it says:

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." - Matt.5.22

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. - Rev.21.8

He who has been stealing must steal no longer - Eph.4.28

NIV

 

[Drew]

I appreciate your extensive response, but I think I can safely stand on my original statement that Gentiles are not required to keep the old covenant

You are correct. I have never seen anyone produce scriptural evidence to support the assertion that Gentiles are required to keep the Torah. Quite the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that God gave Israel the Torah specifically to set them apart from the nations.

Paul, for example, clearly believes that Torah is for Israel and Israel alone.

 

[Godfrey]

I appreciate your extensive response, but I think I can safely stand on my original statement that Gentiles are not required to keep the old covenant

You are correct. I have never seen anyone produce scriptural evidence to support the assertion that Gentiles are required to keep the Torah. Quite the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that God gave Israel the Torah specifically to set them apart from the nations.

Paul, for example, clearly believes that Torah is for Israel and Israel alone.

Quite. There's no OT equivalent of

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations

 

[Free]

I have never seen anyone produce scriptural evidence to support the assertion that Gentiles are required to keep the Torah. Quite the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that God gave Israel the Torah specifically to set them apart from the nations.

Such as:

Exo 31:16 Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. (ESV)

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."
....
Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
Act 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." (ESV)

 

[RND]

RND, we are not disagreeing about the fact that they were to show a different standard, but you cannot jump from that to the idea that Gentiles were supposed to observe the Law without some scriptural evidence.

OK.

Deu 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that [is] within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:

Well - chapter and verse, please - where are the Israelites specifically told to get the nations observing the Law?

I love the old "chapter and verse, please!"

The above verse should be one clue as to what the children of Israel were to do when it came to instructing strangers.

I appreciate your extensive response, but I think I can safely stand on my original statement that Gentiles are not required to keep the old covenant.

Suit yourself. It is fairly obvious, even to the casual observer that the laws of Israel were to be observed by strangers "that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God."

Considering that Israel was at the conjunction of the two major continents of the day and smack dab in the middle of the most heavily traveled trades routes the purpose of the Israelite nation was crystal clear: To teach those travelers and strangers about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And when one honestly considers that things for the inhabitants of the nation of Israel, headed by their king Jesus Christ haven't changed at all, in that we are still to tell travelers and strangers about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (that is Jesus Christ) then one can see we have the same mission as our forefather's in Israel did.

Mic 4:2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

 

[Cyberseeker]

Howdy everyone,

I am working on my thoughts about how to view the New Testament in light of the Old Testament. I have some thoughts of my own, but I would be interested to hear other people's thoughts.

Hi Isaac, sorry Ive come late.

Ive been doing a study on Jeremiah 31 and contrasting clause by clause how the promised new covenant contrasted with the old one. Is this any help to what you are looking at?

• New Covenant
  Law written internally in heart and mind.
  Jer 31:33; Ezekiel 36:26[/*:m:38asktu5]
• Old Covenant
  Law written externally on tablets of stone.
  Deut 4:8,13; Deut 11:32[/*:m:38asktu5]

• New Covenant
  I will be their God in the sense of ‘relationship.’
  Jer 31:33[/*:m:38asktu5]
• Old Covenant
  I will be their God in the sense of ‘judge.’
  Deut 17:2-5; Heb 10:28[/*:m:38asktu5]

• New Covenant
  Knowledge of the Lord personally experienced.
  Jer 31:34[/*:m:38asktu5]
• Old Covenant
  Knowledge of the Lord dictated by written law.
  Deut 6:8; Gal 4:24[/*:m:38asktu5]

• New Covenant
  Sins forgiven and remembered no more.
  Jer 31:34; 1 John 3:5[/*:m:38asktu5]
• Old Covenant
  Sins covered but not taken away.
  Hebrews 10:11[/*:m:38asktu5]

 

[Godfrey]

Well, RND, you seem to be changing your ground a bit. From a flat

They were to explain and teach all the laws, statutes and ordinances to the nations.

you now seem to be moving to

They were to explain and teach all the laws, statutes and ordinances to people from the nations who happened to be passing through the Promised Land on one day out of every 2556.

‘Cos Deut.31.12

Assemble the people--

is preceded by Deut.31.10:

At the end of every seven years …

But what does it matter to us? When Jesus gave us the Great Commission, He said

go and make disciples of all nations … and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Everything Jesus commanded – not what the law commanded.

 

[RND]

Well, RND, you seem to be changing your ground a bit. From a flat

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. As for changing my "ground" I think the correct analogy and phraseology would be 'changing my "tune."'

[quote:1yxbxq9m]They were to explain and teach all the laws, statutes and ordinances to the nations.

you now seem to be moving to

They were to explain and teach all the laws, statutes and ordinances to people from the nations who happened to be passing through the Promised Land on one day out of every 2556.

‘Cos Deut.31.12

Assemble the people--

is preceded by Deut.31.10:

At the end of every seven years …

[/quote:1yxbxq9m]

The reading of the book of the law was to be done in the ears of the entire nation of Israel during the solemnity of the year of release. Every seventh year "the solemnity of the year of release" came during the Feast of Tabernacles, when debtors were released from their obligations, see Deut.15:1-4. At this time the entire Levitical law was read in the hearing of all; men, women, and children. The strangers within their gates, were required to listen to the reading of the law. (Deut. 31:11-13).

Now I certainly hope you aren't suggesting that this was the only time the law was to to read to the COI because it certainly wasn't. I mean honestly, read the Shema of Deuteronomy 6 (which comes right after the reading of the Ten Commandments) and ask yourself if these people were ignorant of the law that God gave them or what they were to do with it.

But I think you are missing the main reason as to why this commandment in Deuteronomy 31 was given by God to Moshe to share with the COI and those dwelling within her gates. Maybe that's due to smugness, I don't know. The Ten Commandments were eternal and immutable law and could not be changed. God didn't need a provision to change His eternal and immutable law every seven years because that law never changed. In other words, murder, stealing, idolatry, coveting, lying, etc., were always going to be against the law and the Sermon of the Mount is proof of that.

But the law written in the Book, that law could be amended and changed by God as He saw fit and necessary and those "changes" were to be given to the COI every seven years. This is very much like when the TV and newspapers inform the citizenry of the new laws and statutes that congress or our state legislators pass each year. In that Israel didn't have TV or newspapers to do this they were required to assemble to hear the law every seven years - this way the couldn't say to God, "Nobody told me."

If anything remember this:, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

But what does it matter to us? When Jesus gave us the Great Commission, He said

[quote:1yxbxq9m]go and make disciples of all nations … and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Everything Jesus commanded – not what the law commanded.[/quote:1yxbxq9m] What parts of what Jesus commanded not law or part of the law in your mind? What specific parts of what Jesus taught and all His commandments had nothing to do with the Ten Commandments? Since Jesus Himself wrote the Ten Commandments where does He ever say, "Scratch that! I changed my mind"?

 

[Drew]

RND, we are not disagreeing about the fact that they were to show a different standard, but you cannot jump from that to the idea that Gentiles were supposed to observe the Law without some scriptural evidence.

OK.

Deu 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that [is] within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:

This is not evidence that Gentiles in general were to obey the Torah.

This statement from Deuteronomy is drawn from a discourse to the people of Israel. The reference to the "stranger" is not a reference to Gentiles in general, but rather to Gentiles who had been effectively incorporated into the life of the people. Moses is not giving an instruction that all Gentiles are to obey the Torah, but only a very specific sub-set of Gentiles.

 

[RND]

This is not evidence that Gentiles in general were to obey the Torah.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Your position is that everyone in Israel was required to hear the all the law but not everyone had to obey the law? What then was the purpose of God making sure the stranger heard the law?

This statement from Deuteronomy is drawn from a discourse to the people of Israel.

That included instructions for the strangers that resided with the COI - right?.

The reference to the "stranger" is not a reference to Gentiles in general, but rather to Gentiles who had been effectively incorporated into the life of the people.

Which would still be "gentiles."

Moses is not giving an instruction that all Gentiles are to obey the Torah, but only a very specific sub-set of Gentiles.

Drew, are you suggesting that God allowed murder, stealing, lying, idol worship, etc., with other nations but not Israel? Wouldn't that make God inconsistent?

Drew, sadly, you have latched on to a belief that simply cannot be substantiated in any way by scripture. To suggest that those who ventured into the land of Israel were not required to obey the law of God, the Torah - the Ten Commandments and the book of Law is absolutely and simply nonsensical. The "mixt multitude" that came out of Egypt with the COI was every bit responsible to abide by the law of God - how else was God able to determine they "fell into lusting?" Lusting is coveting. Thus it is obvious the mixt multitude violated the 10th commandment. That means if they violated it they were required to obey it!

What you are suggesting is really unbiblical if you ask me. I mean seriously, since Jesus didn't physically address the Sermon on the Mount to me (I wasn't there 2,000 years ago) would you seriously suggest it has nothing to do this me? C'mon!

 

[Drew]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Your position is that everyone in Israel was required to hear the all the law but not everyone had to obey the law?

No, that is not my position. It was only the Israelites who had to obey the Law - the genetic descendents of Jacob, along with miscellaneous Gentiles who had been specifically integrated into their community. I see no evidence in the Scriptures that Gentile in general are supposed to obey the Torah.

Drew, sadly, you have latched on to a belief that simply cannot be substantiated in any way by scripture.

The following text substantiates my position:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26'Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

And there is much more evidence (such as material from Paul). There is really no doubt - the Torah was intended only for ethnic Israel as well as miscellaneous Gentiles that had been incorporated into her. It was not for the wider Gentile world.

 

[Drew]

To suggest that those who ventured into the land of Israel were not required to obey the law of God, the Torah - the Ten Commandments and the book of Law is absolutely and simply nonsensical.

Who said such a thing? I will join you in berating them. As I have clearly stated, certain Gentiles who were integrated into the community of Israel were indeed required to obey the Law of Moses. But the Torah (Law of Moses) was not for the Gentile world in general.

Lusting is coveting. Thus it is obvious the mixt multitude violated the 10th commandment. That means if they violated it they were required to obey it!

This a false argument that has been repeatedly shown to be such. You are reasoning like this:

1. Drew is saying that the Gentiles are not under the Law of Moses;
2. Coveting is prohibited by the Law of Moses;
3. Therefore, Drew is saying that is OK for Gentiles to covet.

I am, of course, saying no such thing. Like others, you seem to think that if there is no written code prohibiting behaviour X, that means that God thinks it OK to do X. Please.

What you are suggesting is really unbiblical if you ask me. I mean seriously, since Jesus didn't physically address the Sermon on the Mount to me (I wasn't there 2,000 years ago) would you seriously suggest it has nothing to do this me? C'mon!

The Sermon on the Mount is not part of the Law of Moses.

 

[RND]

I see no evidence in the Scriptures that Gentile in general are supposed to obey the Torah.

Where in scripture to you see evidence that the "Gentile in general" (whatever that means) could violate and ignore the Ten Commandments and the book of the law?

Drew, sadly, you have latched on to a belief that simply cannot be substantiated in any way by scripture.

The following text substantiates my position:

You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26'Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

And there is much more evidence (such as material from Paul). There is really no doubt - the Torah was intended only for ethnic Israel as well as miscellaneous Gentiles that had been incorporated into her. It was not for the wider Gentile world.

The following text in no way substantiates your position Drew. You are suggesting that God allowed murder, rape, stealing, idol worship, other God's, coveting, etc., in other parts of the world but not in Israel. You argument is completely backwards from scripture and the parallels between the Gospel given to Israel through types and shadows and the reality of the Gospel lived out in the life of Jesus Christ! Dreadfully woeful exegesis Drew.

 

[RND]

To suggest that those who ventured into the land of Israel were not required to obey the law of God, the Torah - the Ten Commandments and the book of Law is absolutely and simply nonsensical.

Who said such a thing?

You did.

I will join you in berating them. As I have clearly stated, certain Gentiles who were integrated into the community of Israel were indeed required to obey the Law of Moses. But the Torah (Law of Moses) was not for the Gentile world in general.

Drew, anyone venturing into the land of Israel was required to obey the law of God. Period.

Lusting is coveting. Thus it is obvious the mixt multitude violated the 10th commandment. That means if they violated it they were required to obey it!

This a false argument that has been repeatedly shown to be such. You are reasoning like this:

1. Drew is saying that the Gentiles are not under the Law of Moses;
2. Coveting is prohibited by the Law of Moses;
3. Therefore, Drew is saying that is OK for Gentiles to covet.

Drew, that's exactly what you are doing. I think the sad part is that you don't see it.

I am, of course, saying no such thing. Like others, you seem to think that if there is no written code prohibiting behaviour X, that means that God thinks it OK to do X. Please.

Your words Drew are being used against you at this point Drew.

The "mixt multitude" that travelled with the Israelites were not ethnic Hebrews and yet they were found in violation of the law of God and they paid the price for there disobedience. I'm sorry Drew but your argument is completely nonsensical.

What you are suggesting is really unbiblical if you ask me. I mean seriously, since Jesus didn't physically address the Sermon on the Mount to me (I wasn't there 2,000 years ago) would you seriously suggest it has nothing to do this me? C'mon!

The Sermon on the Mount is not part of the Law of Moses.

That wasn't the question I asked was it? I asked it the Sermon on the Mount applicable to me even though I wasn't around when it was given. BTW, when Jesus says, "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." What "law" was He discussing? What "law" was He explaining? What "law" was He expanding? What "law" was He "filling full?"

 

[Drew]

To suggest that those who ventured into the land of Israel were not required to obey the law of God, the Torah - the Ten Commandments and the book of Law is absolutely and simply nonsensical.

Who said such a thing?

You did.

I agree with you on this issue and should have read your statement more carefully. But this does not affect my main point, which is that the Torah was not for the broader Gentile world. True, Gentiles who entered the community were expected to obey it.

Lusting is coveting. Thus it is obvious the mixt multitude violated the 10th commandment. That means if they violated it they were required to obey it!

This a false argument that has been repeatedly shown to be such. You are reasoning like this:

1. Drew is saying that the Gentiles are not under the Law of Moses;
2. Coveting is prohibited by the Law of Moses;
3. Therefore, Drew is saying that is OK for Gentiles to covet.

Drew, that's exactly what you are doing. I think the sad part is that you don't see it.

Nonsense. I have already explained to you many times how nonsensical it is to assert that the absence of a law against X constitutes permission from God to do X. If there was no law against kicking puppies, does that mean its OK to kick puppies? Of course not.

 

[Drew]

That wasn't the question I asked was it? I asked it the Sermon on the Mount applicable to me even though I wasn't around when it was given.

But this is hardly an argument that the Law of Moses applies to all people in the world. I have never been arguing that it does not apply to all Gentiles "because they were not around when it was given". I am arguing that the Scriptures themselves tell us that the Law of Moses only applied to the "community" of Israel.

BTW, when Jesus says, "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." What "law" was He discussing? What "law" was He explaining? What "law" was He expanding? What "law" was He "filling full?"

He was discussing the Law of Moses.

But this is hardly an argument that the Law of Moses was for people other than the community of Israel. Let's say we agree that Jesus' teaching here on divorce is "universal" in terms of who it applies to. That does not mean the original teaching on divorce was universal. In fact, we have tons of reasons to think that Jesus radically "re-defines" and "enlarges" who "true Israel" is through his Ministry.

 

[RND]

I agree with you on this issue and should have read your statement more carefully. But this does not affect my main point, which is that the Torah was not for the broader Gentile world. True, Gentiles who entered the community were expected to obey it.

Thanks for admitting your huge error Drew. Hopefully that is something you can now toss in the trash where is belongs.

Drew, let's look at things logically for a moment if we can. Why did immigrants flock to this country in the droves that they did? When word got out what a great country this was for the myriad of reasons cited people desired to come to this country and flea the oppression of the governments where they were from from and seek new opportunities for a better life right? Can we agree on that?

Were those immigrants required to obey all the laws of this country while hear even if those laws were different from the laws of the home country?

Just the same, were not the nations of the world to be attracted to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob because of the wisdom and understanding of the COI in the sight of the nations as these nation ventured through the land of Israel? Those nations were to hear all of these statutes and were to go back to their home country and say, "Surely this great nation (Israel) is a wise and understanding people. "For what nation is there so great, who has a God so near to them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?"

I mean this seriously Drew, do you see any parallel between this notion and the spreading the Gospel of Jesus to other nations?

If there was no law against kicking puppies, does that mean its OK to kick puppies? Of course not.

Spirit of the law stuff. So obviously you are now arguing against the very argument you made initially!? Interesting. So just because gentiles weren't given a copy of the Torah (the Ten Commandments and the law of Moses) doesn't mean the were free to violate it now, does it?

 

[Godfrey]

Maybe that's due to smugness, I don't know.

Sorry if I’m coming across as smug, I don’t mean to. I have nothing to be smug about.

Now I certainly hope you aren't suggesting that this was the only time the law was to to read to the COI because it certainly wasn't.

Actually, I was startled to find – in this conveniently grouped list of the 613 mitzvot– that the seven-year reading is the only one (#220). However, Jews are required to learn it, teach it, and make a copy of it (#12, #16).

But that is for Jews – as made plain by the verses Deut.6.7 and 31.19 that underlie #12 and #16. Nowhere is there any expectation that Gentiles - qua Gentiles, as opposed to Gentiles living in Israel - are to be taught or expected to keep the law. The laws relating to Gentiles are summarised in #53-#58 – not a mention of it.

Which is the point I have been labouring all along, and I’ve yet to see any refutation.

But the law written in the Book, that law could be amended and changed by God as He saw fit and necessary and those "changes" were to be given to the COI every seven years.

I never heard that one before:

Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you. – Deut.4.2 NIV

Jesus didn’t think so much of people who rewrote the law. Or are you perhaps saying that the law as we have it is not the one given at Sinai?

Since Jesus Himself wrote the Ten Commandments where does He ever say, "Scratch that! I changed my mind"?

I thought we would come to the Ten Commandments . As I tried to make plain in my first post on the thread, some of Jesus’ commands are identical to those found in the law, some are new, some are tougher, and some of the old law is abolished. And that includes the Ten Commandments, witness Matt.5.27-28.

The Law of Moses said, “Do not climb into bed with a woman you are not married to,†but Jesus says, “Do not even look at a girl and wish you could.â€
- David Pawson, Unlocking the Bible

The standard Jesus requires is so high that the Seventh Commandment is entirely irrelevant. Anyone who meets Jesus’ standards fulfils the righteousness of the commandment. Anyone who simply lives by the Ten Commandments falls short of Jesus’ requirements:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. – Matt.5.20 NIV