Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan
Sign in to follow this  
Gregory Matthews

Under Law

Recommended Posts

If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.

Gustave

The moral law of God has been in force as long as God has existed - which is eternal. The law ( 1st 5 Books of the Bible ) is, as the article explained, every commandment mentioned. Jesus, prior to His death on the cross, explicit with His followers, to observe and follow the Law. 

Matthew 23,1: Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,  “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;  so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.  They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear,  and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.

I see a clear point drawn out from what Jesus just said, primarily that the Scribes and Pharisees interpretation of the law WAS THE LAW.  By the time of Jesus the Jews had possessed the Books of Moses for a significant amount of time and anyone who could read Hebrew could read those Scriptures - YET - it was what the Scribes and Pharisees SAID pertaining to the practice of the Jewish Religion that Jesus told both the crowds and His own Disciples to "practice" & "observe". Judaism was a Religion that was "taught" by an ordained Religious Authority - Jesus said it was.

"The Law" or 1st 5 Books of what we know the Bible as contained both MORAL (perpetual) and CEREMONIAL (temporary) commands.

The MORAL part of the law has existed since God existed and that means the MORAL LAW is eternally perpetual. 

The CEREMONIAL part of the law was added due to transgression of the Jews, this is why God kept ADDING TO IT. 

Isaiah 28, 13:   But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

This is why a Gentile who did not have religious Instruction in the Jewish religion could STILL FULFILL THE LAW - because the MORAL LAW of God is perpetual eternally and applies to everyone equally. 

Romans 2,14: For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

A Gentile wouldn't "by nature" know to observe one day over another because that would require special instruction outside of natural or moral law - this would be an example of how to differentiate between ceremonial from moral law. 

Now, when Jesus Rose from the Dead notice what He said - He revisits Matthew 23, 1 with a stunning difference.

Matthew 28, 18:  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Something very radical happened here pertaining to the Law - Jesus didn't tell His Disciples to defer to the Scribes and Pharisees did He. Jesus told His Disciples to go and "teach" everyone to observe and practice what JESUS COMMANDED. This is significant indeed. 

Past this Jesus explicitly gave His Disciples the same "binding and loosing" power Jesus confirmed the Pharisees had back in Matthew 23. It would be pointless to provide power like that to a select group of people and further to provide that power to ONE INDIVIDUAL within that group the same power independantly of the others. 

While it's true that the moral law of God is perpetually in force and that Walter Martin got it wrong about O.S.A.S. I would say Martin's arguments still stand pertaining to observance of ceremonial law. But that's just my 2 cents. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

And, most would say that the ceremonial law  involved the entire Jewish sacrificial system that pointed forward to the coming life and death of Christ with the salvation that was accomplished at the cross.

The discussion generally involves the role and function of the so-called 10-commandments.  I will suggest that there is general agreement that the 10 commandments list elements that will continue on through today and into eternity.  In eternity, we will worship one God, as described  by the Trinity, we will not rob banks, we will not fornicate, we will not take the name of God lightly and we will not make images of God to worship.  I will suggest that we can agree that in this life those are principles that guide us into a better life.

From this perspective, I will suggest that we can say that the ten commandments constitute a part of the moral law exists beyond the time of Israel. This does not have to suggest that nothing changed in relation to the 10 commandments with the death of Christ.  It simply tells us that there is an aspect of the 10 that continues on into eternity.

From this perspective, the only question that remains is related to what the Protestants call the 4th commandment.  {Catholics call it the 3rd commandment.)  That question is this:  Does the moral aspect of the Sabbath commandment require a 7th day Sabbath, or does it allow for a Sabbath on another day chosen by people who want to follow Christ?  

The different responses to this question are represented by people writing in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo

Hi Gregory and Gustave,

Great posts!

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

most would say that the ceremonial law  involved the entire Jewish sacrificial system that pointed forward to the coming life and death of Christ with the salvation that was accomplished at the cross.

I think that's easy to see with our 20/20 hindsight.  But I doubt that many Israelites participated in these sacrifices thinking "this foretells of the Messiah to come".  They were looking for a conquering Messiah; not a meek and poor One who would end up dying on a cross.

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I will suggest that we can agree that in this life those are principles that guide us into a better life.

The 10 Commandments have a much broader application than "Thou shalt not ..."

They provide a global moral compass that separates right from wrong for us.  Without that moral compass, who is there to determine what is right and wrong.  Look at what ignorance (willful or unconscious) of the 10 Commandments has brought us - a celebration of all forms LGTBQ+, laws allowing abortions up to the point of birth, racial hatred (much of it for no reason), increasing persecution of believers, etc.  God gave us the Law because it is GOOD!  It is not meant to be restrictive; it is meant as a guide on how to live in complete freedom and security.

satan has placed in our psyche the notion that the best way to exercise our free will is to violate God's Law - to show Him that we do indeed have a free will; and we don't have to do what He wants.  He never mentions the fact that a better way to exercise our free will is to choose to accept Go's Law and His rulership.

I'm not preaching legalism here. None of us will keep God's Law in Spirit perfectly for the rest of our lives (unless you die while reading this).  Where is our heart? What do we consult as our moral compass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave

I agree with JoeMo, that this was a thought provoking post by Gregory. 

The pinnacle for both the Old and New Testament was "worship" and when one considers the brutality of life at that time this is a significant concept to consider. 

Imagine living at that time, particularly as an Israelite or Jew!.

Hordes of marauding tribes and nations all out to kill YOU, take your wife, kids and livestock away. Whether you wanted to or not this was a time where you lived and died by the sword and your 'daily bread' was a HUGE DEAL. If everything was going right and you weren't under attack you either could WORSHIP and praise God - OR - become decadent and slide into the worship of false God's (which happened so many times Israel was identified as the Great Whore by God Himself). The ironic thing is when Israel was at it's low points they mourned they COULDN'T worship God yet when the good times were rolling along the 1st thing you could take to the bank was that they would soon be sliding into decadence again - I think this is human nature for all of us.

If you had livestock and crops to offer as Sacrifice YOU WERE DOING GOOD - being afforded time to worship God with the bounty He provided you with was proof at that time Israel was "collectively" doing what was right. My point is IF you can worship it means primarily everything else is about as good as it could be. 

You're not worshiping when a 200,000 man Army is at your doorstep or you are wondering if you're going to be eaten by a cave bear or lion when you go out to check on your sheep. 

I would suspect in Heaven and on the new earth it will be a PERPETUAL SABBATH (as in never ending). Those that make it will be cemented into God's Rest for ETERNITY. There will be no day or night, no evening and mornings to count days. Time will be irrelevant. 

 

Isaiah 60, 18: Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise. The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended. Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.

Revelation 21, 22: And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.  And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

The ancient Lunar Month, the Gregorian week will be irrelevant - those who make it will be eternally inside God's Rest.  Let's pray for each other that we all make it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
On 8/8/2019 at 12:39 AM, Gustave said:

Now, when Jesus Rose from the Dead notice what He said - He revisits Matthew 23, 1 with a stunning difference.

Matthew 28, 18:  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Something very radical happened here pertaining to the Law - Jesus didn't tell His Disciples to defer to the Scribes and Pharisees did He. Jesus told His Disciples to go and "teach" everyone to observe and practice what JESUS COMMANDED. This is significant indeed. 

Jesus "commanded" His followers to do what their Jewish leaders told them to do.  Wasn't THAT one of His commands - part of what He commanded? 

After His resurrection, He did NOT say, "You to obey only the commands I give you from now on.  All the past is erased." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
On 8/8/2019 at 12:39 AM, Gustave said:

CEREMONIAL (temporary) commands.

 

On 8/8/2019 at 12:39 AM, Gustave said:

A Gentile wouldn't "by nature" know to observe one day over another because that would require special instruction outside of natural or moral law - this would be an example of how to differentiate between ceremonial from moral law. 

By this definition, it seems you would put the Sabbath of the 7th Day, into the "ceremonial (temporary)" category.  

I don't.  I believe the Sabbath will be a day to worship and celebrate the LORD for eternity.  Same with the other prophetic Feasts.  We will all "go up" to the New Jerusalem, on those days to worship the LORD, and remember His work of salvation. 

The only thing I see "changed" in "the law" was "the priesthood" (Hebrews 7).   And if you change "the priesthood", the animal sacrifices go with it.  That is what I see "changed". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

I've been searching for the origin of the phrase  "under the law" - as in Paul's statement that those in Christ are "not under the law", and unbelieving Jews are "under the law". 

Was it a reference to the Roman practice of posting the portion of law broken, over the head of the executed or otherwise punished criminal?

Is the phrase found anywhere outside of Scripture, in any manuscript from the Roman period? 

Is Paul using a phrase referring to Roman punishment, to describe believers and unbelievers relationship to God and His Law? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
22 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Jesus "commanded" His followers to do what their Jewish leaders told them to do.  Wasn't THAT one of His commands - part of what He commanded? 

After His resurrection, He did NOT say, "You to obey only the commands I give you from now on.  All the past is erased." 

Hebrews 7,12: For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

Jesus' command to observe and practice the binding and loosing authority of the Jewish Leaders was prior to His Death and Resurrection.

Matthew 5,17: Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

When Jesus said, as He died on the Cross, "IT IS FINNISHED" was Jesus simply referring to His current state (as in poor me, I'm all washed up and finished) OR, did He mean something else?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
26 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

 

By this definition, it seems you would put the Sabbath of the 7th Day, into the "ceremonial (temporary)" category.  

I don't.  I believe the Sabbath will be a day to worship and celebrate the LORD for eternity.  Same with the other prophetic Feasts.  We will all "go up" to the New Jerusalem, on those days to worship the LORD, and remember His work of salvation. 

The only thing I see "changed" in "the law" was "the priesthood" (Hebrews 7).   And if you change "the priesthood", the animal sacrifices go with it.  That is what I see "changed". 

Circumcision was an even bigger deal than the Sabbath was, according to "God" - that was in "the law" - did that change in your view?

I would agree with you that there will not be "Sabbath worship in the New World or Heaven". Anyone who makes it there will be in a perpetual (never ending) Sabbath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
16 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I would agree with you that there will not be "Sabbath worship in the New World or Heaven". Anyone who makes it there will be in a perpetual (never ending) Sabbath.

 Isaiah 66:22-23 "For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will make shall remain before Me," says the LORD, "So shall your descendants and your name remain. And it shall come to pass that from one New Moon to another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me," says the LORD." (NKJ)

I do NOT see an end to the Sabbath of "the 7th day".   Jerusalem will remain in the "new earth", and the Sabbaths, and New Moon celebrations will remain too. 

Here's link to my studies on the Sabbath:

https://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/41a-Sabbath-12 REASONS.htm

https://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/40b-SABBATH-25 OBJECTIONS.htm

We can start another thread on this topic if you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
23 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Circumcision was an even bigger deal than the Sabbath was, according to "God"

I disagree with that.  I don't ever see a record of God punishing a group of people just because they weren't circumcised.  I see plenty of examples of Him punishing people who didn't keep the Sabbath.

As far as circumcision goes:

"Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.  Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.  You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Gal. 5:2-4)

I think that the Bible gives us a choice - to be under the Law (striving to earn our salvation through total compliance to the terms and conditions spelled out in the Bible), or to be under grace - living under the cover of Christ's righteousness, forgiveness and grace.

"For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. "(Romans 6:14)

I am not saying the law of grace is a license to sin; rather grace is not only the forgiveness of sin, it is the power to be free from the slavery of sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I disagree with that.  I don't ever see a record of God punishing a group of people just because they weren't circumcised.  I see plenty of examples of Him punishing people who didn't keep the Sabbath.

As far as circumcision goes:

"Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.  Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.  You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Gal. 5:2-4)

I think that the Bible gives us a choice - to be under the Law (striving to earn our salvation through total compliance to the terms and conditions spelled out in the Bible), or to be under grace - living under the cover of Christ's righteousness, forgiveness and grace.

"For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. "(Romans 6:14)

I am not saying the law of grace is a license to sin; rather grace is not only the forgiveness of sin, it is the power to be free from the slavery of sin.

God was going to kill Moses himself over the issue of circumcision, was he not? 

Who was it that Korah questioned the Authority of? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest
21 hours ago, Gustave said:

God was going to kill Moses himself over the issue of circumcision, was he not? 

Who was it that Korah questioned the Authority of? 

Yes, that story is in Exodus 4:24-25.  Moses had not circumcised his younger son.  He was about to go into the confrontation with Pharaoh and his sorcerer priests.  ANY loophole that Satan could site, to claim an advantage over Moses he would exploit.  The LORD was showing Moses that his life, and that of his family was on the line in this confrontation.  Dark forces were involved, NOT just simple (maybe not important) rules.  Apparently Zipporah (who was Midianite) had not wanted to see her baby "hurt".  But when she saw the danger they were in, she took the knife herself and circumcised her little boy.  Moses lost that honor, just as he lost the honor of leading Israel across the Jordan.  (Small insights into Moses heart.) 

Circumcision of the male foreskin, was a "blood sacrifice" - rather than sacrificing the firstborn son (as was done in some Canaanite rituals of worship).  Such "blood sacrifice" was "changed" with "the priesthood".    It foreshadowed the "circumcision of the heart" by Christ Himself - our High Priest.  It also foreshadowed the "circumcision of the flesh" by which believers will be "changed in a moment" to receive the new "spiritual body" (not flesh). 

Ezekiel 44:9 “Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner who is among the children of Israel.’”

       I used to wonder what this verse meant.  Are we going back to physical circumcision?  But then I realized that Christ will circumcise BOTH flesh and heart, and we will serve Him as “priests of God and of Christ”.  

        Zechariah said it a different way.  “There will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts” (Zech. 14:21).

Paul wrote a great deal about circumcision. 

    Galatians 5:2 “Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.”

    Galatians 5:3 “And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.”

        In the days of Paul, circumcision was only one step in the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism.  Circumcision was performed after the man had received at least two years of instruction, and finally had taken an oath to keep ALL of the written Law as well as the Oral Law (traditions) added by the Pharisees.  

    Galatians 5:6  “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.”

He never wrote such things about the Sabbath of the 7th Day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
3 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Yes, that story is in Exodus 4:24-25.  Moses had not circumcised his younger son.  He was about to go into the confrontation with Pharaoh and his sorcerer priests.  ANY loophole that Satan could site, to claim an advantage over Moses he would exploit.  The LORD was showing Moses that his life, and that of his family was on the line in this confrontation.  Dark forces were involved, NOT just simple (maybe not important) rules.  Apparently Zipporah (who was Midianite) had not wanted to see her baby "hurt".  But when she saw the danger they were in, she took the knife herself and circumcised her little boy.  Moses lost that honor, just as he lost the honor of leading Israel across the Jordan.  (Small insights into Moses heart.) 

Circumcision of the male foreskin, was a "blood sacrifice" - rather than sacrificing the firstborn son (as was done in some Canaanite rituals of worship).  Such "blood sacrifice" was "changed" with "the priesthood".    It foreshadowed the "circumcision of the heart" by Christ Himself - our High Priest.  It also foreshadowed the "circumcision of the flesh" by which believers will be "changed in a moment" to receive the new "spiritual body" (not flesh). 

Ezekiel 44:9 “Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner who is among the children of Israel.’”

       I used to wonder what this verse meant.  Are we going back to physical circumcision?  But then I realized that Christ will circumcise BOTH flesh and heart, and we will serve Him as “priests of God and of Christ”.  

        Zechariah said it a different way.  “There will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts” (Zech. 14:21).

Paul wrote a great deal about circumcision. 

    Galatians 5:2 “Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.”

    Galatians 5:3 “And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.”

        In the days of Paul, circumcision was only one step in the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism.  Circumcision was performed after the man had received at least two years of instruction, and finally had taken an oath to keep ALL of the written Law as well as the Oral Law (traditions) added by the Pharisees.  

    Galatians 5:6  “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.”

He never wrote such things about the Sabbath of the 7th Day. 

You realize that to validly observe the Sabbath or any other Mitzvot a male would 1st have to be circumcised, right? 

I thought you said earlier that the "animal sacrifice system" was what part of the law ended at the resurrection of Christ. I provided circumcision because it is understood in Judaism as the gateway to all commandment keeping. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

I know that traditional Jews say that Sabbath observance is only for the circumcised.  They believe that only the physically circumcised are Israelites.   But Paul uses the Olive Tree of Romans 11, to show that believers are "grafted in" to the olive tree (which represents Israel), and unbelievers (in Christ) are "broken off" from that tree.  That is why "all Israel will be saved".  Salvation is only in Christ.  In the earth made new, "all Israel" ("circumcised" in flesh and in heart) will come before the LORD to worship Him - on the Sabbath. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
1 minute ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I know that traditional Jews say that Sabbath observance is only for the circumcised.  They believe that only the physically circumcised are Israelites.   But Paul uses the Olive Tree of Romans 11, to show that believers are "grafted in" to the olive tree (which represents Israel), and unbelievers (in Christ) are "broken off" from that tree.  That is why "all Israel will be saved".  Salvation is only in Christ.  In the earth made new, "all Israel" ("circumcised" in flesh and in heart) will come before the LORD to worship Him - on the Sabbath. 

 

Jesus was a traditional Jew.

That's why He told the crowds and His Disciples to observe and practice whatsoever the Pharisees & Scribes ordered with the caveat to not do as they do. They preached the truth but did not live it. 

Circumcision followed the same path as the Sabbath did. It was a part of the ceremonial law. Man is no more commanded by nature to circumcise than he is commanded by nature to observe one day over another. Both required special instruction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

I'm asking what the words "under the law" mean.  What is your understanding of that phrase?  You immediately focus in on circumcision and the rest of the 7th Day.  Please connect the dots from "under the law" to those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8thdaypriest

The word translated as "under" or "by" is hupo (Strong's 5259).

It is used to indicate a  physical place or state, as in Luke 8:16.  "No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a vessel or puts it under a bed".

A state of relationship between two things or persons:  Metaphorically, the LORD would "cover" Israel "with His wings".  Psalm 91:4 "He shall cover you with His feathers, And under His wings you shall take refuge;"

A state of  relationship whereby one is ruled or governed by, or under the authority of another. 

1 Timothy 6:1 “All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.”

Matthew 8:9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I say to this one, 'Go' and he goes, and to another 'Come' and he comes, and to my slave 'Do this' and he does it." (NET)

Galatians 3:24 Therefore the law was our tutor (guardian or schoolmaster) to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

When one becomes an adult, he is no longer "under" his parents.  Does that mean he suddenly stops doing everything his parents taught him is wise, or good, or healthful, or moral?  Of course not.

It would seem obvious that we - as mature Christians, retain the Law, except where the Bible specifically indicates some part of it has been "changed" or can legally be relegated to the "school master" category.

One critical difference, would be that we (even mature Christians) are still "under" our Father in Heaven, and are still "under" Jesus our King.  The Father reveals His will.  We follow it.

The Sabbath of the 7th Day,  is the one commandment - of The Ten, that is most debated, with only the minority still upholding it's sanctity.    The use of images in worship, comes in a distant second. 

But the 7DSabbath did not begin with the Sinai Covenant.  It began with the creation.  The LORD simply commanded Israel to "remember" it, as part of His Covenant with them. They would show their loyalty and submission to the Creator God by resting on the day He had hallowed.  Even if Israel broke their Covenant with the Creator, even if the Sinai Covenant was declared void (a divorce), that does not erase the Creator or His Law.  Israel just agreed to keep His Law, and He promised to bless them in return. 

The "new covenant" does not bring in a new law.  Why would it?  God is the same.  It simply provides a new remedy for breaking God's original and "everlasting covenant" with mankind, and new power within - enabling the believer to live in harmony with God and His Law. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave
5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I'm asking what the words "under the law" mean.  What is your understanding of that phrase?  You immediately focus in on circumcision and the rest of the 7th Day.  Please connect the dots from "under the law" to those things.

My understanding (and I may be incorrect here) is that the term "under the law" in that context was a simply a euphemism.

"for all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse" Gal 3, 10 

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" Gal 3, 13

"now before faith came we were confined under the law, kept under restraint" Gal 3, 23

"why do you make a trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" Acts 15, 10

Being "under the law" was simply a way of saying a Jewish or Gentile convert to Christianity that didn't understand the law was simply a taskmaster or schoolmaster that's only purpose was to prepare for Christ. If a person opted to trust in the law to save them they were UNDER THE LAW, a ministry of death. I'm not speaking of the moral or natural aspects of the law of Moses but of the ceremonial - those things that SEPARATED Jew from Gentile.

If everyone is subject to the Moral or Natural Law of God (and Scripture says all people are) those things that separated the Gentiles from the Jews were the DISCTINCTIVES within the law that were ceremonial. Such as what you couldn't eat or wear, the specific day set aside for worship, etc. that kind of stuff. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gregory Matthews

Perhaps,  Jewish male would have to be circumcised in order to properly keep the Sabbath.

SDAs do not keep the Sabbath in the same manner that the Jews kept it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gustave

The common Jewish understanding of Jesus' time and long prior to that was that no ceremonial law could be kept without 1st being circumcised. Moral laws, sure, those were held in common by all mankind but Jewish distinctives which separated the Jews from everyone else were all out of the ceremonial camp. 

Acts 15, 5: But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.

This understanding exists among religious Jews even today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeMo
10 hours ago, Gustave said:

This understanding exists among religious Jews even today.

This understanding may have been held (and still held) by orthodox Jews, but the Pharisees lost the battle as far as Gentile Christians go. in the incident described in acts 15:

"When they finished, James spoke up. ...  “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." (Acts5:13 - 20)

No mention of circumcision here.  Also, no mention of Sabbath-keeping. Also, it appears that James is giving the orders for the whole church here; not Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.



×
×
  • Create New...