The Law

[Webb]

And surely we agree only sacred history ( the Bible ) is our standard.

 

[Drew]

The Law was given to Israel,no where in Genesis,Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers or Deuteronomy is Israel referred to as the Jews.
Israel and Jews is not used interchangeably,like it is for the state of Israel.

The point is that the Law of Moses was given to the 12 tribles of Israel at Sinai, and was intended form them and them alone.

 

[JJsaint]

The point is that the Law of Moses was given to the 12 tribles of Israel at Sinai, and was intended form them and them alone.

But Jesus did not destroy or take away the law.

 

[Webb]

Jesus didn't destroy the law, He fulfilled it. There is a difference.

 

[Drew]

But Jesus did not destroy or take away the law.

I believe that He did indeed "take away the law".

Some examples:

1. He represented Himself as the place to go for cleansing. In the Law of Moses, it was the temple that served this function;

2. He clearly challenged the purity laws (part of the Law of Moses) by asserting that all foods are clean. The Law of Moses clearly asserts otherwise;

3. His cleansing of the temple was arguably a symbolic statement that the temple system was about to be done away with. And the temple was at the centre of the Law of Moses;

4. He intentionally became ritually unclean by touching lepers and a bleeding woman.

And there are probably more. I believe that Jesus undertook a number of symbolic actions to indicate that the time of the Law of Moses was coming to an end.

 

[JJsaint]

I believe that He did indeed "take away the law".

Some examples:

1. He represented Himself as the place to go for cleansing. In the Law of Moses, it was the temple that served this function;

2. He clearly challenged the purity laws (part of the Law of Moses) by asserting that all foods are clean. The Law of Moses clearly asserts otherwise;

3. His cleansing of the temple was arguably a symbolic statement that the temple system was about to be done away with. And the temple was at the centre of the Law of Moses;

4. He intentionally became ritually unclean by touching lepers and a bleeding woman.

And there are probably more. I believe that Jesus undertook a number of symbolic actions to indicate that the time of the Law of Moses was coming to an end.

Cleansing the Temple does not imply Jesus had taken away the law.
There were people in there who were doing what shouldn't be done in the Temple.

If someone ''sold and bought'' inside your Church - would you or you congregation cast them out?

Jesus healed people because God wanted us to have a good life,it does not really imply that the law was taken away.

As for purity - the food laws are still in effect,a chapter misinterpreted by Christians is Acts 10 - the vision of Peter some say it has 2 meanings some 1 meaning.

Acts 10:14:But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

This is about Cornelius,you can read further on.(Acts 10:28)
If the food laws were done away with why did Peter state the above statement?
Also read 2 Maccabees 7

 

[Webb]

Hi JJSaint---Your post # 43 reads: "But Jesus did not destroy or take away the law." However, the Hebrew writer begs to differ: "Lo I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all'' 10:9,10.

 

[Drew]

Cleansing the Temple does not imply Jesus had taken away the law.
There were people in there who were doing what shouldn't be done in the Temple.

This is debatable. Some scholars think that Jesus' action in the temple was a symbolic declaration that the entire Law of Moses was coming to an end. Granted, I have not made the actual case yet, but this is a possibility that needs to be considered.

If someone ''sold and bought'' inside your Church - would you or you congregation cast them out?

You cannot assume that this is the motivation for what Jesus did in the temple. Or perhaps more precisely, you cannot assume that even if Jesus was upset at the commercial activity, that He was not also making a more important statement - the time of the Temple (and therefore of the Law) was coming to an end.

If Jesus healed people because God wanted us to have a good life,it does not really imply that the law was taken away.

But Jesus did so in a manner that was other than what the Law called for. I do not see how this is not a challenge to the status of the Law of Moses.

As for purity - the food laws are still in effect,a chapter misinterpreted by Christians is Acts 10 - the vision of Peter some say it has 2 meanings some 1 meaning.

Acts 10:14:But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

This is about Cornelius,you can read further on.(Acts 10:28)
If the food laws were done away with why did Peter state the above statement?
Also read 2 Maccabees 7

We can talk about this in detail if you like. I am very familiar with the Acts 10 passage, and I see nothing in it to challenge the position that Jesus (not to mention Paul) declared that the Law of Moses was coming to an end.

 

[Webb]

Pertaining to "food laws" Paul wrote: "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." I Tim. 4: 4,5.

 

[JJsaint]

We can talk about this in detail if you like. I am very familiar with the Acts 10 passage, and I see nothing in it to challenge the position that Jesus (not to mention Paul) declared that the Law of Moses was coming to an end.

This vision has one meaning - not 2.


Also with the vision it does not say there were unclean animals,people assume there were!!!!


Acts 10:12:Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

Acts 10:13-15:13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.


If Peter had never eaten anything common or unclean obviously he had never eaten unclean animals or broken the food laws.


Acts 10:17:Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
Acts 10:19:While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.


Peter did not know what the vision meant if it had 2 meanings he would have known that it meant it was OK to break the food laws.
But Peter thought on,and finally Knew what it meant when he makes the statement....


Acts 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.


Also read 2 Maccabees 7- If the food laws were done away with these people's deaths would be pointless!


1 It came to pass also, that seven brethren with their mother were taken, and compelled by the king against the law to taste swine's flesh, and were tormented with scourges and whips.
2 But one of them that spake first said thus, What wouldest thou ask or learn of us? we are ready to die, rather than to transgress the laws of our fathers.
3 Then the king, being in a rage, commanded pans and caldrons to be made hot:
4 Which forthwith being heated, he commanded to cut out the tongue of him that spake first, and to cut off the utmost parts of his body, the rest of his brethren and his mother looking on.
5 Now when he was thus maimed in all his members, he commanded him being yet alive to be brought to the fire, and to be fried in the pan: and as the vapour of the pan was for a good space dispersed, they exhorted one another with the mother to die manfully, saying thus,
6 The Lord God looketh upon us, and in truth hath comfort in us, as Moses in his song, which witnessed to their faces, declared, saying, And he shall be comforted in his servants.
7 So when the first was dead after this number, they brought the second to make him a mocking stock: and when they had pulled off the skin of his head with the hair, they asked him, Wilt thou eat, before thou be punished throughout every member of thy body?
8 But he answered in his own language, and said, No. Wherefore he also received the next torment in order, as the former did.
9 And when he was at the last gasp, he said, Thou like a fury takest us out of this present life, but the King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life.
10 After him was the third made a mocking stock: and when he was required, he put out his tongue, and that right soon, holding forth his hands manfully.
11 And said courageously, These I had from heaven; and for his laws I despise them; and from him I hope to receive them again.
12 Insomuch that the king, and they that were with him, marvelled at the young man's courage, for that he nothing regarded the pains.
13 Now when this man was dead also, they tormented and mangled the fourth in like manner.
14 So when he was ready to die he said thus, It is good, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God to be raised up again by him: as for thee, thou shalt have no resurrection to life.
15 Afterward they brought the fifth also, and mangled him.
16 Then looked he unto the king, and said, Thou hast power over men, thou art corruptible, thou doest what thou wilt; yet think not that our nation is forsaken of God;
17 But abide a while, and behold his great power, how he will torment thee and thy seed.
18 After him also they brought the sixth, who being ready to die said, Be not deceived without cause: for we suffer these things for ourselves, having sinned against our God: therefore marvellous things are done unto us.
19 But think not thou, that takest in hand to strive against God, that thou shalt escape unpunished.
20 But the mother was marvellous above all, and worthy of honourable memory: for when she saw her seven sons slain within the space of one day, she bare it with a good courage, because of the hope that she had in the Lord.
21 Yea, she exhorted every one of them in her own language, filled with courageous spirits; and stirring up her womanish thoughts with a manly stomach, she said unto them,
22 I cannot tell how ye came into my womb: for I neither gave you breath nor life, neither was it I that formed the members of every one of you;
23 But doubtless the Creator of the world, who formed the generation of man, and found out the beginning of all things, will also of his own mercy give you breath and life again, as ye now regard not your own selves for his laws' sake.
24 Now Antiochus, thinking himself despised, and suspecting it to be a reproachful speech, whilst the youngest was yet alive, did not only exhort him by words, but also assured him with oaths, that he would make him both a rich and a happy man, if he would turn from the laws of his fathers; and that also he would take him for his friend, and trust him with affairs.
25 But when the young man would in no case hearken unto him, the king called his mother, and exhorted her that she would counsel the young man to save his life.
26 And when he had exhorted her with many words, she promised him that she would counsel her son.
27 But she bowing herself toward him, laughing the cruel tyrant to scorn, spake in her country language on this manner; O my son, have pity upon me that bare thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee such three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age, and endured the troubles of education.
28 I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not; and so was mankind made likewise.
29 Fear not this tormentor, but, being worthy of thy brethren, take thy death that I may receive thee again in mercy with thy brethren.
30 Whiles she was yet speaking these words, the young man said, Whom wait ye for? I will not obey the king's commandment: but I will obey the commandment of the law that was given unto our fathers by Moses.
31 And thou, that hast been the author of all mischief against the Hebrews, shalt not escape the hands of God.
32 For we suffer because of our sins.
33 And though the living Lord be angry with us a little while for our chastening and correction, yet shall he be at one again with his servants.
34 But thou, O godless man, and of all other most wicked, be not lifted up without a cause, nor puffed up with uncertain hopes, lifting up thy hand against the servants of God:
35 For thou hast not yet escaped the judgment of Almighty God, who seeth all things.
36 For our brethren, who now have suffered a short pain, are dead under God's covenant of everlasting life: but thou, through the judgment of God, shalt receive just punishment for thy pride.
37 But I, as my brethren, offer up my body and life for the laws of our fathers, beseeching God that he would speedily be merciful unto our nation; and that thou by torments and plagues mayest confess, that he alone is God;
38 And that in me and my brethren the wrath of the Almighty, which is justly brought upon our nation, may cease.
39 Than the king' being in a rage, handed him worse than all the rest, and took it grievously that he was mocked.
40 So this man died undefiled, and put his whole trust in the Lord.
41 Last of all after the sons the mother died.
42 Let this be enough now to have spoken concerning the idolatrous feasts, and the extreme tortures.

 

[Webb]

JJSAINT --- From your post # 50 you wrote: "---it does not say there were unclean animals, people assume there were!!!"

Peter thought they were--what had been unclean God had now made clean---Acts 10:12-14.

 

[Former Christian]

Nitty gritty. Several translations of Ephesians 2:15.

Eph 2:15 (KJV) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:15 (NKJV) having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
Eph 2:15 (NIVUS) by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
Eph 2:15 (NAS95) by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
Eph 2:15 (RSV) by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
Eph 2:15 (ESV) by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
Eph 2:15 (HCSB) He did away with the law of the commandments in regulations, so that He might create in Himself one new man from the two, resulting in peace.
Eph 2:15 (Douay) Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees: that he might make the two in himself into one new man, making peace
Eph 2:15 (NAB) abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person in place of the two, thus establishing peace
Eph 2:15 (NLT) He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups.
Eph 2:15 (GNB) He abolished the Jewish Law with its commandments and rules, in order to create out of the two races one new people in union with himself, in this way making peace.
Eph 2:15 (NCV) The Jewish law had many commands and rules, but Christ ended that law. His purpose was to make the two groups of people become one new people in him and in this way make peace.
Eph 2:15 (ISV) He rendered the Law inoperative, along with its commandments and regulations, thus creating in himself one new humanity from the two, thereby making peace
Eph 2:15 (NET) when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace
Eph 2:15 (Tyndale - 1526) and hath also put awaye thorow his flesshe the cause of hatred (that is to saye the lawe of commaundementes contayned in the lawe written) for to make of twayne one newe ma in him silfe so makynge peace
Eph 2:15 (Bishops - 1568) Taking away in his flesshe the hatred, euen the lawe of commaundementes, conteyned in ordinaunces, for to make of twayne one newe man in hym selfe, so makyng peace

And, as if the various translations weren’t damaging enough, the most damaging translation of all regarding the idea that the Law is still in effect, wherein the word abrogate is actually used:

Eph 2:15 (Geneva - 1587) In abrogating through his flesh the hatred, that is, the Lawe of commandements which standeth in ordinances, for to make of twaine one newe man in himselfe, so making peace

FC

 

[Webb]

Regardles of multiple translations we are not left with Eph.2:15 alone to know the entire old law was taken away.

 

[Former Christian]

Webb

Can you give me five more just like that?

FC

 

[Webb]

FC

Col.2:14 is the only passage simular in wordage to Eph.2:15. There are others teaching the the duation of the law, but I think you know them. If you insist on more I think I can oblige.

 

[JJsaint]

JJSAINT --- From your post # 50 you wrote: "---it does not say there were unclean animals, people assume there were!!!"

Peter thought they were--what had been unclean God had now made clean---Acts 10:12-14.

The meaning of the vision was revealed when Peter met Cornelius - it does not have 2 meanings - It deals with men,not animals.

''but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean''

 

[Webb]

Certainly there are more than even 2 meanings in Acts 10 and 11.

1. That the Gentile was a candidate for the gospel as well the Jew

2. That morality alone cannot save

3. That foods once unclean ( OT ) now cleansed by God. Note Peter was told to KILL and EAT. God was not talking about cannibalism.

It is my belief that # 1 of the above is the major thrust of Acts 10,11. Now consider please I Tim.1:3-5.

 

[JJsaint]

Certainly there are more than even 2 meanings in Acts 10 and 11.

1. That the Gentile was a candidate for the gospel as well the Jew

2. That morality alone cannot save

3. That foods once unclean ( OT ) now cleansed by God. Note Peter was told to KILL and EAT. God was not talking about cannibalism.

It is my belief that # 1 of the above is the major thrust of Acts 10,11. Now consider please I Tim.1:3-5.

Acts 10:17:Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

Acts 10:!9:While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

Peter did not understand the vision until he met Cornelius - If it had more than 2 meanings he obviously would have understood it!(Before he met Cornelius - which he did not)

 

[Webb]

If the law had not been taken away including food regulations I find it hard to believe God would have used an untruth to represent the truth. What about I Tim.4?

 

[Former Christian]

Webb

Col.2:14 is the only passage simular in wordage to Eph.2:15. There are others teaching the the duation of the law, but I think you know them. If you insist on more I think I can oblige.

I insist.

FC