Hebrews anyone?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Law, commands, or instructions?
- Thread starter Verifyveritas76
- Start date
If † therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, †(for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Hebrews 7:11-16
Matt 3:1-3
In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
10) And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mark 1:7. & Luke 3:16. Also record this statement whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose.
Acts 13:25-41
And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.
Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read † every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. . . . . . .
And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, . . . . . .
Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
The inability for John to loosen the shoe latchet is a Hebrew idiom used to describe the Patriarch of the Family or the Kinsman Redeemer. Pre Sinai, this man would have occupied the position of priest of Melchizedek, although not THE Melchizedek. The Patriarch could appoint a substitution to act in his name and position and with his authority, yet when the substitute was in the Patriarch's presence he had to acknowledge that the Patriarch was in charge. This is what John is doing, acknowledging the true Kinsman Redeemer, and relinquishing authority and position. A Kinsman Redeemer who would not take care of his house, would be replaced by the next in line by removing one shoe. At the baptism of Jesus, John is submitting the Levitical Priesthood back to the Melchizedek which is then followed by the Spirit anointing Jesus as the Kinsman Redeemer and only begotten of the Father, the Inheritor or Firstborn.
Deut. 25:9&10 her;
Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.
And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.
Ruth 4:7. Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.
The reason that Jesus' shoe wasn't loosed is because he was fulfilling his role as Kinsman Redeemer. John could have only demanded the shoe if Jesus wasn't fulfilling his role and John could have.
I think its worth noting that Paul associates John fulfilling his course with this event. Within a few months, John is imprisoned and within 7 months is killed. At the end of 40 days of testing, Jesus proclaims Isaiah 61 to those listening in the synagogue, on the Day of Atonement when the Great Trump is to sound throughout all the Land in a Jubilee year. All of this happens in the last recorded Jubilee in the history of Israel.
I thought I'd go back through some Dead Sea Scrolls today to refresh. The Damascus Document was one of the most important sectarian documents recovered from the caves around Qumran. Circa 200 BC (I believe that this is a conservative date but the given date is old enough for these purposes). The reason it was so important is the perspective that it gives about life and religious observance for a community that called themselves the 'Yahad'. In Ancient Hebrew this means Yah sees the door. They also considered themselves to be the Sons of Light, the Children of Light and the Sons of Zadoc. I found it interesting that through the majority of the document, the author stresses the crucial importance of observing the Law (Torah) perfectly. They considered themselves to be in a period of time they referred to as the era of wickedness and wrote about it numerous times. The Law must be obeyed until this era ended. This era would continue until a Messiah from Aaron and a Messiah from Israel would be revealed.
"If the seed of Israel lives according to this law, they shall never know condemnation. This is the rule for those who live in camps, who live by these rules in the era of wickedness, until the appearance of the Messiah of Aaron and of Israel."
Later it continues, "And this is the exposition of the regulations by which they shall be governed until the appearance of the Messiah of Aaron and of Israel, so that their iniquity may be atoned for . . . ". The Damascus Document concludes with the final caveat, "This is the exposition of the regulations that they shall follow during the era of wickedness . . . "
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Hebrews 7:11-16
Matt 3:1-3
In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
10) And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mark 1:7. & Luke 3:16. Also record this statement whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose.
Acts 13:25-41
And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.
Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read † every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. . . . . . .
And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, . . . . . .
Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
The inability for John to loosen the shoe latchet is a Hebrew idiom used to describe the Patriarch of the Family or the Kinsman Redeemer. Pre Sinai, this man would have occupied the position of priest of Melchizedek, although not THE Melchizedek. The Patriarch could appoint a substitution to act in his name and position and with his authority, yet when the substitute was in the Patriarch's presence he had to acknowledge that the Patriarch was in charge. This is what John is doing, acknowledging the true Kinsman Redeemer, and relinquishing authority and position. A Kinsman Redeemer who would not take care of his house, would be replaced by the next in line by removing one shoe. At the baptism of Jesus, John is submitting the Levitical Priesthood back to the Melchizedek which is then followed by the Spirit anointing Jesus as the Kinsman Redeemer and only begotten of the Father, the Inheritor or Firstborn.
Deut. 25:9&10 her;
Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.
And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.
Ruth 4:7. Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.
The reason that Jesus' shoe wasn't loosed is because he was fulfilling his role as Kinsman Redeemer. John could have only demanded the shoe if Jesus wasn't fulfilling his role and John could have.
I think its worth noting that Paul associates John fulfilling his course with this event. Within a few months, John is imprisoned and within 7 months is killed. At the end of 40 days of testing, Jesus proclaims Isaiah 61 to those listening in the synagogue, on the Day of Atonement when the Great Trump is to sound throughout all the Land in a Jubilee year. All of this happens in the last recorded Jubilee in the history of Israel.
I thought I'd go back through some Dead Sea Scrolls today to refresh. The Damascus Document was one of the most important sectarian documents recovered from the caves around Qumran. Circa 200 BC (I believe that this is a conservative date but the given date is old enough for these purposes). The reason it was so important is the perspective that it gives about life and religious observance for a community that called themselves the 'Yahad'. In Ancient Hebrew this means Yah sees the door. They also considered themselves to be the Sons of Light, the Children of Light and the Sons of Zadoc. I found it interesting that through the majority of the document, the author stresses the crucial importance of observing the Law (Torah) perfectly. They considered themselves to be in a period of time they referred to as the era of wickedness and wrote about it numerous times. The Law must be obeyed until this era ended. This era would continue until a Messiah from Aaron and a Messiah from Israel would be revealed.
"If the seed of Israel lives according to this law, they shall never know condemnation. This is the rule for those who live in camps, who live by these rules in the era of wickedness, until the appearance of the Messiah of Aaron and of Israel."
Later it continues, "And this is the exposition of the regulations by which they shall be governed until the appearance of the Messiah of Aaron and of Israel, so that their iniquity may be atoned for . . . ". The Damascus Document concludes with the final caveat, "This is the exposition of the regulations that they shall follow during the era of wickedness . . . "
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Hebrews 7:12
Last edited:
So how do you decide what parts of the Law got changed? Was the whole thing changed? Just parts? Which parts? I don't know any Hebrew roots types who don't believe that some parts got changed and I don't know any Greeks (sorry, still looking for a good term) who claim it was all changed. So what was changed and what was left in place?
You definitely want to keep polygyny, the Ten Commandments and prohibitions against incest and bestiality. I definitely want to get rid of the Temple sacrifices. How do we decide what we keep and what we throw away?
This is an important question. There are definitely portions of the Law that everyone believes are still relevant commands. How are we to figure out what those are?
It's also very enlightening to me that the passages some of you guys think proves your point just seems to convince me more of mine. Hebrews 7:12 for instance says there was a need to change the Law, not do away with it. Hebrews 4 has a long passage that seems to say that the Sabbath is for the modern church. I read Romans and came away with the impression that God hates laws that aren't His but still greatly values His Law.
Melchizadek is interesting but very hard to build a completely Bible based theology on. We know so little about him that it seems adventurous to start editing scripture based on nothing more than speculation about him. I would say the same thing about the take on John and sandal. That gets a bit metaphysical and not a clear teaching of scripture for me to use to train my children on how to obey God.
You definitely want to keep polygyny, the Ten Commandments and prohibitions against incest and bestiality. I definitely want to get rid of the Temple sacrifices. How do we decide what we keep and what we throw away?
This is an important question. There are definitely portions of the Law that everyone believes are still relevant commands. How are we to figure out what those are?
It's also very enlightening to me that the passages some of you guys think proves your point just seems to convince me more of mine. Hebrews 7:12 for instance says there was a need to change the Law, not do away with it. Hebrews 4 has a long passage that seems to say that the Sabbath is for the modern church. I read Romans and came away with the impression that God hates laws that aren't His but still greatly values His Law.
Melchizadek is interesting but very hard to build a completely Bible based theology on. We know so little about him that it seems adventurous to start editing scripture based on nothing more than speculation about him. I would say the same thing about the take on John and sandal. That gets a bit metaphysical and not a clear teaching of scripture for me to use to train my children on how to obey God.
Very good points. From my own studies I began with the question did Jesus really have any commands that He was referring to with the intent that they may have been different from the Mosaic. I would recommend that you begin with the Gospels and read them with the focus of Jesus' commands.
Also, familiarize yourself with the actual commands of the Torah. It is very difficult to compare them if your only familiarity comes from someone else. Not saying this is true in your case, but often when conversing or studying on this subject, my experience is that most people only have a peripheral knowledge of Torah and that is mostly secondhand.
Godspeed on your studies.
Also, familiarize yourself with the actual commands of the Torah. It is very difficult to compare them if your only familiarity comes from someone else. Not saying this is true in your case, but often when conversing or studying on this subject, my experience is that most people only have a peripheral knowledge of Torah and that is mostly secondhand.
Godspeed on your studies.
My position on doing away with the Law is that there are ditches on both sides of this debate. Our job as believers is to rightly divide. To be successful in rightly dividing means to view any topic as God sees it and to have His understanding of it. I have some thoughts on what was changed, some of which is from a new and better position, thanks to some studying that this thread has inspired. I am currently rereading a lot of documents I trust as well as a lot of Scripture to verify this.
I think we Greeks (I'll take it. It works for me) and Hebrew roots folks are looking at the question in a bit of a different context. For us (well, me) it isn't a matter of which laws to keep and which ones to throw away, as we (well, I) never intended to keep any of them in the 'observant' sense of the word. Anything beyond staying away from blood, idols, and sexual immorality, really.
For me, the Law was a schoolmaster to bring me to Christ. Now that I've been brought to Christ, and have become His disciple, I do not recognize the Law's authority any more than I recognize my 8th grade homeroom teacher's authority. I've graduated from that.
Now her, lessons still apply, and if she were handy I would totally get Mrs. Griffin's opinion on some things and take them to heart. But if she assigned me homework or decided to try to issue me a detention, it wouldn't get more than a chuckle out of me. She's trying to treat me as though I were under her care and authority still, the big weirdo. I'm not obligated to do her works, or submit to her punishments.
If I did obey her for a season, it would be sort of tongue-in-cheek, with the understanding that I'm doing this to gain an understanding of a lesson that I must have slept through. So if I ever kept a feast or a holy day or even a Sabbath it would be with the intention to learn a moral behind the activity.
The law is not for the righteous but for lawless and disobedient, the ungodly and sinners, the unholy and profane, murderers of parents and manslayers, for sexually immoral and homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers, and for anyone else who is averse to sound teaching.
Well, since I am in Christ, I have become the righteousness of God, and am a student of righteousness. The Law "Thou shalt do no murder" doesn't apply to me, because I am righteous in Christ; yet I would do no murder because my current discipline is to learn to love my neighbor as myself. Telling me to be careful not to murder anyone is a bit grade school when I'm pondering if the way I'm treating someone else is precisely how I would prefer to be treated.
Excellent, @Slumberfreeze. @ZecAustin, I'm just chiming in here to emphasize that in this domain, as in so many, how you frame the questions is going to have a huge and sometimes dispositive effect on the answers you get. Asking "what parts do you keep and what parts do you throw away?" begs the question of whether the law applies to non-Jews in the first place. And frankly, my personal opinion, trying to sort it out into two categories, keepers and tossers, is a bit of a "one foot on the boat, one foot on the pier" situation—eventually it's going to end badly. Pick one and make a commitment.
"Pick one" is reasonable. But I can't help but note that most people (including Jews I know who've asked that question) who that think 'torah' isn't applicable to 'non-jews' don't have a clue about why Israel - the NORTHERN kingdom/wife (Aholah, Samaria, 'backsliding Israel') was exiled to begin with: rebellion to Him, and His torah/instruction.
I do think it's reasonable to expect that those who read His Word and recognize that not only ALLOWS for "more than one Covenant wife" but has more than one Himself, would see the implications as well. BOTH wives were "sent away" (put away, 'shalach') for the same reason: whoring, adultery, idolatry.
That exile still applies, and I suggest that the reasons still do as well. The Bride(S) may think they've cleaned up a bit, but still haven't decided Who is to really be "head of the house". (Look and see what 'she' has been taught, and then ask why marriage world-wide is such a mess!)
“Pick one.”
Do you wanna be “grafted in” or not? And to WHAT? Yahushua said He was sent “to the lost tribes of the house of Israel”. The ones that were sent out (“shalach” - ed) for cause, for adultery/idolatry. The ones He told “return to Me”.
The rest is simple. He said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.”
Which? The ones He Wrote. (Not the ones men said He SHOULD' have.) And, by the way, there are explicitly more than ten for which He uses the words that have that meaning. Summaries, including even the simplest one or two, are great, but only if people understand the Big Picture and the details that make it work first.
“Pick one.”
Yahushua, offered the kingdoms of the world by His adversary, didn't argue that they were in fact his to give, but did reference His namesake, who said, “as for me and my house, we will serve YHVH.” And, He taught, “Him alone,” since no one can serve two masters. Thus, perhaps it should be, ““Pick One.”
Agreed. No doubt about it.
Here I just suggest that you read Acts 15 again, and note the parts that don't get emphasized in 'sunday-school'. The “four things” are what an engineer or mathematician would call “necessary, but NOT sufficient, conditions.” They're a starting-point. How do we know that?
Because ALL of them who supported the letter agreed on the explanation!
Acts 15:21 “For Moses has been taught through many generations in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
This “pleased” them all. Because they all understood that once you got former pagans “cleaned up enough” not to get kicked OUT of those places, they could begin to learn the rest.
The problem is that 'the church' not only does NOT “teach Moses”, but they don't even keep His Sabbath. And they eventually began to first excommunicate, and then execute, those who did. Is it any wonder that the four “minimum necessary conditions” aren't even regarded as a goal any more?
Finally, I do like the “schoolmaster” example, but usually explain it differently. Years ago I took primary flight training, and flew for many hours with a flight instructor in the right seat, while I learned “the law” – of gravity, aerodynamics, airspeed, icing, traffic patterns, oxygen altitudes, cold fronts, and aviation regulations. Eventually my flight instructor told me to stop on the runway, opened the door, got out, and said, “you take it around the pattern a few times by yourself.”
I realized then, perhaps for the first time that it really hit home, that my understanding and application of what I had learned was now literally, and in an immediate sense, a matter of life and death. Mine.
Later I passed the oral, written, and flight checks with another instructor, who approved of what I had learned so far, and then told me I had a “license to learn” the rest. I've been flying and learning now for over three decades. The flight instructor is no longer with me – in a physical sense – in that right seat. I am no longer “under the schoolmaster.”
But I am also not under any delusion.
The Law -- of Gravity, Aerodynamics, and all the intricacies of thermodynamics, wind, and weather -- still applies. To behave otherwise will get one killed, as most of us know.
For a good pilot, you could almost say (and know, by watching the fruit) that that instruction has been written “on his heart” and in his attitude, skill, and performance.
But if I ever hear ANY pilot tell me “I'm no longer under the LAW...”
... not only will I never fly with 'em, but I suspect they won't make it to be “old AND bold”.
Well yes, that would be the part that satisfied the Pharisee sect that rose up.
The others in the assembly who were not interested in making gentiles follow the law were satisfied with:
God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
And the thing is, these Gentiles were already disciples. Whose disciples? Well none other than Jesus. This Pharisee sect of Christians were trying to negate that by inserting their own opinion into the training of another man's servants. Which, by the way, the only Pharisee involved in actually preaching the gospel to the gentiles at this time was Paul. These guys didn't go out and preach to gentiles and now wanted to make it harder for them to come to Christ. It seems like they hadn't changed much from when Christ was addressing them personally:
13“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
Of course we actually agree that those 4 things are necessary, but not sufficient, assuming we both mean 'to please Jesus' not 'to be saved'.
I am mystified how trying to keep the law as strictly as I can pleases Jesus, who said "Upon these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets"
Why don't I try to actually love God with all my heart, mind and strength, and love my neighbor as I love myself? I mean, it's a real possibility now that I am clean before God and have become a temple of the Holy Spirit, right?
My heart is flesh now, isn't it? And if I succeed, all the law and prophets were only trying to get me to behave EXACTLY as I am already doing, so why would I submit myself to following all the dictates therein?
Now I see great worth in studying the law as I am able, to define terms as God would define them, to correct my thinking. But only as it touches and helps me love Him and My neighbor. The feasts don't please God. He hates the feasts of the sinners and would rather see Justice and Righteousness. He desires mercy, not sacrifice.
And this is where the Greeks lose me because we're told repeatedly if we love God then we'll obey Him. And if it was God's Law the their forefathers were unable to bear then God's Law was unjust and so God was unjust, despite Him telling us He is a righteous judge.
I just can't lose everything you guys are risking here. Every time I hear one of the Greek proof texts it sure seems to support the opposite side.
The Pharisees weren't pushing His "law" -- they were pushing theirs. That is the context of the whole Acts 15 story (by REQUIRING something a priori that is not a CONDITION of Covenant, but just one outward sign OF it). Which is why (Mark 7, Matthew 23, etc, etc, etc) Yahushua rightfully called them "hypocrites". Over and over again. They were "adding to," building "fences", imposing their own "burdens". (Kinda makes you wonder how many of those saying "go get a knife" would be willing to be circumcised THEMSELVES again at 35, as opposed to 8 days...
)But we've "been there, done that."
And they were "milk-drinkers." Which is why the idea wasn't to start by cutting their you-know-what, but instead to get 'em into the place where the schoolmasters could teach 'em the REST of His Instruction, as Written. (Read Jeremiah 31:31-36. Can anyone here HONESTLY tell me that it's a done deal? That is is "no longer necessary" (or even was then!) because "ALL" of us, everyone, "knows Him," "from the least of them to the greatest..."? They don't even know that His Name is NOT 'the LORD' in all-caps. That somebody took that out. (See Jer. 16:21, or Ezekiel 36:23 or 39:7, and so on.)
We are still in exile. Yahushua did NOT 'restore the lost tribes of Israel.' Still hasn't. I contend the reason is right there, in that "divide". "Let THIS mind be in you, which was also in Yahushua HaMashiach." It was the mindset of the Torah Made Flesh, not made of "no effect". Doesn't help that those who knew better were subject to the Inquisition, either.
Then you haven't raised a child, or applied the lesson, perhaps. Is a Father not pleased when his children TRY to keep His Instruction, whether they can or not? (And we CAN'T - not all of it, for obvious reasons. There is no mishkan/tabernacle/temple. So don't sweat it.) But we can "memorialize" the feasts He said were His, and we were to keep "forever," "throughout your generations," "in all your dwelling places." Given what He did for us, and tried to teach us, isn't that our "reasonable service?"
This, though, is just plain wrong. Because it's SO utterly "out of context:"
Which? His? Then why make them commandments? (They are prophetic, too.)
OK, well - partial credit, but think about what THIS MEANS!
Exactly. THEIR feasts, the pagan feasts, new moons, and "sabbaths" NEVER pleased Him. He said so OVER and over and over again. (I can't help but think He's not wild about having His Perfect Sacrifice re-named in favor of a forbidden pagan fertility goddess, either. Guess that lesson still hasn't sunk in, but does make the point. And if that doesn't, read Ezekiel chapters 8 and 9 and study what the 40 days of "weeping for Tammuz' are now. And remember, they're His Words, and His warnings, not mine.)
He hates the feasts of paganism REAL bad, no doubt about it.
If we come to Him as "little children", two things should be clear.
1) We have a lot to learn. Maybe that's why He Wrote it all down for us, in Genuine Print.
2) Children try to please their Father. Every way they can. Start with the milk, work up to meat. And a good Father is consistent, and clear, like He IS, Was, Shall Be.
Last edited:
Well what was Peter talking about there? The context doesn't leave much open to the imagination. Peter said this in regards to circumcision and keeping the law of Moses.
Maybe my family's practices just differ from yours? Where I come from, my father would view me with extreme derision if I still followed the rules that he set for my diet as a child.
"That's funny, that you still eat your vegetables first, before anything else"
"Well yes father. For that was the instruction you gave me"
"... you're kidding.."
"No, I'm quite serious. I have been as always, your obedient son"
"Boy you are 37 years old. Eat your dang food however you want. How did I raise such a man? This is the inheritor of my name? I just want you not to neglect your health!"
But when He says it's established for all time as a covenant, that just seems pretty cut and dried. You can argue that it only applies to Israelites but it's hard to make the claim it's a flawed system that has no bearing.
I don't think I would ever argue that it's a flawed system. The American prison system is a flawed system because it fashions itself a 'corrections institute' but nobody is ever really corrected. Instead it is a system where criminals become worse criminals under duress. However, if it decided to call itself a 'punishment institute' then it would be working beautifully.
I believe the Law is perfect and without flaw: for what it is supposed to do, it does. The Law was given to sinners so that sin might appear exceedingly sinful. It does a super job of that! The whole point of showing sin to be sinful was to produce death that we might look to Jesus to recieve life.
But the Law cannot impart Life, for the only way to get life is to keep the law perfectly, and if one does not, the law will never justify you.
The law cannot impart life, and it produces no righteousness. That does not make it flawed. My car produces no milk, which is cool, because it was never supposed to. It was only supposed to carry me to the store so I could buy the milk.
As far as how it applies to present messianic Jews... well, I'm not really sure and I'm not sure they really want my opinion anyways.
I believe the Law is perfect and without flaw: for what it is supposed to do, it does. The Law was given to sinners so that sin might appear exceedingly sinful. It does a super job of that! The whole point of showing sin to be sinful was to produce death that we might look to Jesus to recieve life.
But the Law cannot impart Life, for the only way to get life is to keep the law perfectly, and if one does not, the law will never justify you.
The law cannot impart life, and it produces no righteousness. That does not make it flawed. My car produces no milk, which is cool, because it was never supposed to. It was only supposed to carry me to the store so I could buy the milk.
As far as how it applies to present messianic Jews... well, I'm not really sure and I'm not sure they really want my opinion anyways.
Am I just too simple? Here is how I view it.
- I Learn of God's perfect Law and realize I've broken just about all of it.
- I realize I cannot keep all of God's Law because of my depraved state, even if I try.
- I realize I am doomed!
- I accept Yeshua Hamashiach and his sacrifice to atone for my depravity and inability to keep all of it.
- I seek to live my "new life" according to the two greatest commandments.
- As I become more mature and can handle strong meat, I go back to the Law and seek to follow each part of it to please my Lord. But like a weightlifter, I must go to the 5 pound rack before I look at the 100 pound rack. In this, my Father is pleased.
- In following these Laws, I reap blessings on myself, please my Lord, and become a great testimony to others around me.
- As I follow these Laws more and more daily, I realize that it is His Spirit that empowers me to live a more holy and devoted life, not the other way around.
- The Laws that I follow are to show my devotion to the Father who has adopted me into His family already, not to earn being a member of the family.
No, he really didn't. But I know that's what we've been told.
This, too, may be great dogma, but you will NOT find that claim in Scripture. (Oh, and it does help to know what the Hebrew word "tamim" is not translated "perfectly" either. Check Strong's H8549 for the proof. See how it's used, like Josh. 24:14, II Sam. 22:24-33, and so on. One can be "complete" or "upright," or even "sincere" and do the best we can without meeting an impossible doctrine that was set up to prove it can't be done. Scripture - Deuteronomy 30:11+ makes that clear. But it still boils down to, "Who Yah gonna believe?")
Last edited:
No, pretty good.
(And, honestly, you couldn't possibly 'break' all of it, even if you tried.)But I'm a stickler for the meaning of words. We try to keep His "statutes, judgments, and commandments," and thus follow His Instruction.
@Mojo I guess i divert around step 6.
My step 6 looks like
6: As I become more mature and can handle strong meat, I go back to the Law and seek to uncover the mysteries the Holy Spirit reveals through it, and walk in them to please My Lord.
To drag out my old and crusty example: The Law requires unmuzzled oxen treading grain.
If my aim was to 'Follow the Law' I would be in the mindset that I would perform all of the duties I could that applied to me and not bother with the ones that don't touch my actual situation.
But assuming I was a wheat farmer and cattle rancher, I would probably try to thresh my grain with unmuzzled oxen, at least ceremonially.
Which Paul assures me God doesn't even care about. The oxen literally don't matter. If I were to engage in that, God might be pleased with me, but only like Mr. and Mrs. Rogers are pleased with Amelia Bedelia.
The only way to properly keep this law in a way that God is actually concerned about it is to pay the expenses of elders and apostles who benefit me out of my own pocket.
I would feel like I was being deliberately obtuse if I decided to just ... do the law...
My step 6 looks like
6: As I become more mature and can handle strong meat, I go back to the Law and seek to uncover the mysteries the Holy Spirit reveals through it, and walk in them to please My Lord.
To drag out my old and crusty example: The Law requires unmuzzled oxen treading grain.
If my aim was to 'Follow the Law' I would be in the mindset that I would perform all of the duties I could that applied to me and not bother with the ones that don't touch my actual situation.
But assuming I was a wheat farmer and cattle rancher, I would probably try to thresh my grain with unmuzzled oxen, at least ceremonially.
Which Paul assures me God doesn't even care about. The oxen literally don't matter. If I were to engage in that, God might be pleased with me, but only like Mr. and Mrs. Rogers are pleased with Amelia Bedelia.
The only way to properly keep this law in a way that God is actually concerned about it is to pay the expenses of elders and apostles who benefit me out of my own pocket.
I would feel like I was being deliberately obtuse if I decided to just ... do the law...