The Law of Christ

bearbear · 03-22-2024, 09:55 PM

According to verses like Col 2:14, the law of Moses was nailed to the cross:
"Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

In the New Covenant we are no longer under the law of Moses but grace. But why then does Paul refer to the law of Christ in Galatians and encourages us to fulfill it?

Galatians 6:2 "Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ"

Paul gives clues to what the law of Christ could be one chapter earlier:

Galatians 5:6 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."

So we know the law of Christ could be related to faith expressed as love. Jesus also sums up the law in Matthew 22:34-40 as loving God and loving neighbor so this could be the law of Christ.

Another clue is that Paul states multiple times in his epistles that we should still follow the moral portion of the ten commandments in verses like Galatians 5:19-21

"Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

If you think about it, the attributes described above are all opposed to love-- so the moral commandments could be seen as under the umbrella of "love". And in Jesus sermon on the mount He even brings the moral law higher to our hearts by teaching we should not hate our brother (OT version: murder) nor look at a woman with lust (OT version: adultery). Hebrews 4:1-11 even says that the Sabbath day points to entering God's rest through having faith. Paul also says we should honor our father and mother (Eph 6:2-3).

So in a sense we do follow all Ten commandments in the New Covenant but at a spiritual and heart level-- and not of ourselves but through the Holy Spirit by being born again (1 John 4:7). The law of Moses was nailed to the cross, but the commandments related to love carried over.

I think there was a misunderstanding by the LCs regarding the moral commandments not being carried over to the New Covenant and this has caused a lot of problems in the church.

1 John 4:7
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

04-01-2024, 03:34 PM

Jesus also sums up the law in Matthew 22:34-40 as loving God and loving neighbor so this could be the law of Christ.

Another clue is that Paul states multiple times in his epistles that we should still follow the moral portion of the ten commandments in verses like Galatians 5:19-21

If you think about it, the attributes described above are all opposed to love-- so the moral commandments could be seen as under the umbrella of "love". And in Jesus sermon on the mount He even brings the moral law higher to our hearts by teaching we should not hate our brother (OT version: murder).

So in a sense we do follow all Ten commandments in the New Covenant but at a spiritual and heart level-- and not of ourselves but through the Holy Spirit by being born again (1 John 4:7). The law of Moses was nailed to the cross, but the commandments related to love carried over.

I think there was a misunderstanding by the LCs regarding the moral commandments not being carried over to the New Covenant and this has caused a lot of problems in the church.

1 John 4:7
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.[/QUOTE]

Hi bear bear,

I'm afraid I don't agree that the so-called 'moral commandments' were carried over into the new covenant.

First of all, while I accept that there are 'carnal ordinances' contained in the LAW (tithing, for example, is identified as a "carnal commandment" in the epistle to the Hebrews), Paul tells us in his epistle to the Romans that the LAW is 'spiritual' (Romans 7: 14).

And what you call the 'moral commandments' are those commandments' that I would say fall into the category of the 'spiritual' aspect of the LAW.

In spite of this apparent dichotomy between the spiritual and carnal aspects of the LAW, the LAW itself is a complete whole and cannot be disintegrated.

James upholds this view when he writes:

"For whosoever shall keep the WHOLE LAW and yet offend in [just] ONE POINT shall be guilty of [breaking them] ALL. For He that said 'Do not commit adultery', said also, 'Do not kill' (Jas 2: 10-11).

And the Lord Jesus said the following regarding the same matter:

"..till heaven and earth pass ONE JOT or ONE TITTLE shall in no wise pass from the LAW..." (Matthew 5: 18).

It therefore figures that you absolutely cannot subdivide the LAW into 'moral commandments' on the one hand, and into commandments that are of a 'ceremonial' character on the other.

Such classifications only serve narrow academic objectives and are -or at least should be- intended only to enable learners and academics to better understand Scripture. They are a hermeneutic tool in much the same way that the number 'Pi' is useful to architects and engineers.

The LAW is an integer: a monolithic standard. It is NOT kept piecemeal. And was never intended to be.

And so no part of it is 'carried over' into the New Covenant.

"Christ is the END of the LAW for righteousness to everyone that believes" (Romans 10: 4)

But Jesus does give us a NEW COMMANDMENT. It is 'new' and is not something that has been 'carried over' from the Old Covenant.

Crucially, after letting his disciples know about his impending glorification, he says:

"..a NEW commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" (John 13: 34)

A good number of Bible scholars often make the mistake of claiming that what Jesus says to his disciples here is a reiteration of the answer he gave to the lawyer-pharisee in Matthew 22: 36-40. That is not the case.

Firstly, his audience is quite different (verse 35 states explicitly that the lawyer was trying to "tempt" him). Secondly, in contrast to the exhortation to his disciples to love one another, with the lawyer Jesus simply quotes from what is written in the Old Testament. He does not even invite him to try and keep the two great commandments (he knows nobody can). He only explains that the whole LAW hangs on these two.

The 'love' spoken of in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 is completely different from the 'love' that the Lord prescribes as a 'new commandment' in John 13: 34. The difference between them can be compared to that between the blood of bulls and goats, and the blood of Christ.

God's blessings

aron · 04-02-2024, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

you absolutely cannot subdivide the LAW into 'moral commandments' on the one hand, and into commandments that are of a 'ceremonial' character on the other.

Such classifications only serve narrow academic objectives and are -or at least should be- intended only to enable learners and academics to better understand Scripture. They are a hermeneutic tool in much the same way that the number 'Pi' is useful to architects and engineers.

The LAW is an integer: a monolithic standard. It is NOT kept piecemeal. And was never intended to be. And so no part of it is 'carried over' into the New Covenant.

The single biggest error that has been carried forward, causing no small amount of dissension, confusion, and grief, has been the failure to realize that the writers of the NT, with perhaps the exception of Luke, were all law-keeping Jews.

The gospel message to the gentiles was that they (the gentiles) did not have to convert to Judaism to enter into the kingdom. The Jews, being Jews, continued to keep the law, whilst the gentile converts were not beholden, save the "royal law" to love one another (Ja 2:8). Yet the believing Jews kept the law to the grave.

What has happened in the Christian polity is that the gentiles kicked out the law-keeping Jews in the 3rd century, and have been arguing about keeping the law ever since.

Ohio · 04-02-2024, 04:04 AM

Regarding my beloved brothers and sisters who embrace THE LAW, I have found it well nigh impossible to obtain a decent definition of what the LAW actually is. Some annually embrace the Seder meal, yet have no allegiance to Kosher. Some pride themselves by “authentically” calling Him “Yeshua” rather than the “vulgar” Jesus Christ.

It always appears to me to be a “pick and choose” what they like from the Law to prove they are more spiritual than this lawless cretan “Ohio.” That’s OK, I still love them. I allow them their confusion. One time when mentioning Paul’s views on the subject from his letter to the Galatians, I was sternly asked, “why are you reading somebody else’s mail?”

bearbear · 04-02-2024, 04:35 AM

Quote:

I'm afraid I don't agree that the so-called 'moral commandments' were carried over into the new covenant.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond Humble Bricklayer. I agree with you that we follow the law of Christ in the new covenant not at a carnal level but at a spiritual level (which I also tried to convey in the first post). You make some good points on avoiding the language of "carrying over the moral commandments". Perhaps I should have added "at a spiritual level" to make it clear. I agree we do not follow any of the law of Moses at a human / carnal level but only the law of Christ through the Holy Spirit who lives in us after we are born again which is made possible by Jesus' death on the cross as payment for the penalty of our sin which fulfilled the law. It seems like you would also agree though that we still need to follow Jesus' commands to love God and love neighbor and turn away from the sins mentioned in verses like Galatians 5:19-21 (through the Holy Spirit that lives in us and not at a carnal level)?

Ezekiel 36:26-27
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

bearbear · 04-02-2024, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Regarding my beloved brothers and sisters who embrace THE LAW, I have found it well nigh impossible to obtain a decent definition of what the LAW actually is.

The most dangerous among these I think are the sabbatarians like SDA who say that Sabbath keeping on Saturday is "evidence" for Salvation. It does seem like this view could fall under Paul's warning in Galatian 5:1-6 that anyone trying to be justified by a part of the law of Moses can fall away from grace and be cut off from Christ since they will be obligated to keep the whole law.

This first post is actually a result of research of whether one should keep the Sabbath which is something that I had to be sure about because according to their position, Christians who worship on Sunday are not saved. Along the way I found a good page that thoroughly debunks Sabbath keeping as a requirement that I'm trying to share with SDA friends:

https://www.bible.ca/7-Col2-14-16.htm

And a good video I found on debunking Sabbath keeping which also covers some of Ellen G White's visions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XUae8yotvI

Ohio · 04-02-2024, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

The most dangerous among these I think are the sabbatarians like SDA who say that Sabbath keeping on Saturday is "evidence" for Salvation. It does seem like this view could fall under Paul's warning in Galatian 5:1-6 that anyone trying to be justified by a part of the law of Moses can fall away from grace and be cut off from Christ since they will be obligated to keep the whole law.

This first post is actually a result of research of whether one should keep the Sabbath which is something that I had to be sure about because according to their position, Christians who worship on Sunday are not saved. Along the way I found a good page that thoroughly debunks Sabbath keeping as a requirement that I'm trying to share with SDA friends:

https://www.bible.ca/7-Col2-14-16.htm

And a good video I found on debunking Sabbath keeping which also covers some of Ellen G White's visions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XUae8yotvI

Here’s my totally non-spiritual, but sociological, view of observing the Sabbath —

Keeping the Sabbath gave us American Football. And Golf.

You heard that right. Now hear me out. The American Christian public post-WW2 observed Sunday as their version of the Sabbath. It was “keep holy the Lord’s Day.” The Bible says so, eh? Since Sunday for Christians was the new holy Sabbath, we would go to church, and then the rest of the day we could not work. Americans worked M-F, did work around the house on Sat, then rested on Sunday after church. What should we do while we rest, with new TV’s in our homes? Watch them! And the NFL and the PGA capitalized on this.

There you have it, bearbear, keeping the Sabbath American style.

aron · 04-02-2024, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Since Sunday for Christians was the new holy Sabbath, we would go to church, and then the rest of the day we could not work. Americans worked M-F, did work around the house on Sat, then rested on Sunday after church. What should we do while we rest, with new TV’s in our homes? Watch them! And the NFL and the PGA capitalized on this.

There you have it... keeping the Sabbath American style.

Yes, but then we'd have to stone all the golfers to death after handing out the trophy!🤣

04-02-2024, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond Humble Bricklayer. I agree with you that we follow the law of Christ in the new covenant not at a carnal level but at a spiritual level (which I also tried to convey in the first post). You make some good points on avoiding the language of "carrying over the moral commandments". Perhaps I should have added "at a spiritual level" to make it clear. I agree we do not follow any of the law of Moses at a human / carnal level but only the law of Christ through the Holy Spirit who lives in us after we are born again which is made possible by Jesus' death on the cross as payment for the penalty of our sin which fulfilled the law. It seems like you would also agree though that we still need to follow Jesus' commands to love God and love neighbor and turn away from the sins mentioned in verses like Galatians 5:19-21 (through the Holy Spirit that lives in us and not at a carnal level)?.

Hi bearbear,

Thanks for your feedback. I see that you're glued to your guns. That's not such a bad thing. "No man after drinking old wine desires new, for he says that the old is better" (Luke 5:39).

So, you say that you agree with me. Are you sure that you agree with me?

Because, actually I did not say that -and I quote- "we follow the law of Christ in the new covenant not at a carnal level but at a spiritual level". And yes, I know that you tried to convey this thought in your first post (which I read very carefully), but I emphatically DISAGREED with it.

Perhaps, you might like to revisit my post and re-read it a little more circumspectly. I went to great length, I think, to explain my position.

In a nutshell...

The Law of Moses is indivisible and irreducible.

What is the meaning and significance of this?

The significance is that though the Law of Moses reportedly contains up to 613 separate laws -of which the injunctions to 'love God with all your heart' and to 'love thy neighbor' are an integral part- in reality, it is ONE law (and here I'm not referring to the great commandment upon which all the others hang).

Why is the Law of Moses, with all his laws, really ONE law? Or more to the point, what is that ONE law?

The answer to that question is simply:

Observe, obey, and keep ALL 613 laws that are written in the Law that you are commanded to observe, obey, and keep. Do not disobey, do not fail to keep, even one little jot, one tiny tittle...for even a second.

Do this...and you shall have fulfilled the Law.

Don't just obey the Ten Commandments. Don't only keep a hundred laws. Don't only keep two hundred laws. Don't stop at three hundred or four hundred. Don't even stop at 612 and leave one undone. If, according as it is written, I should love God with all my heart and all my soul, and yet on one summer day plough my field with an ox and a donkey yoked together, then I am no better than a thief or a murderer. My love for God -under this regime- counts for absolutely nothing!

No. Follow all 613 injunctions...all the time!

That is the divine standard.

And then...you shall LIVE (this is crucial)

What is the point I'm trying to drive home here?

It's this...

You cannot wrench the two greatest commandments in the LAW and break them free from the other 611 laws (even if you intend to keep them by the power of the Holy Spirit). You can call these commandments "moral" or you can call them "spiritual" (and they are that, I don't disagree), but they are still bound together in a single package called the LAW. And if you're going to extract them from out of the Old Testament and bring them into the New, then you must of necessity bring along with them the remaining 611...and then you shall find yourself in the same dilemma that the Galatians fell into over the similar issue of circumcision. They were in danger of "falling from grace" and becoming "debtors to do the whole law" (Gal 5: 3-4).

...because the LAW is indivisible and irreducible.

And that is why the Lord Jesus speaks of a NEW commandment. It is NEW. And NEW means it is not, and never has been, OLD. If he were only re-introducing an old commandment written in the Old Testament, it would hardly be NEW. He gave us a NEW COMMANDMENT.

In illustration...

If I promised to buy you a brand NEW latest-model Range Rover and then presented you with a used and refurbished model from 1986 instead, it may still be a Range Rover -absolutely, but it certainly is NOT the car I promised you.

I leave you with the words of the Lord...

"No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old garment; otherwise he will tear the new garment, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old" (Luke 5: 36)

"And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish" (Luke 5: 37)

"But NEW wine must be put into NEW bottles; and both are preserved" (vv. 38)

God's blessings.

04-03-2024, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

Why is the Law of Moses, with all his laws, really ONE law? Or more to the point, what is that ONE law?

The answer to that question is simply:

Observe, obey, and keep ALL 613 laws that are written in the Law that you are commanded to observe, obey, and keep. Do not disobey, do not fail to keep, even one little jot, one tiny tittle...for even a second.

Do this...and you shall have fulfilled the Law.

Don't just obey the Ten Commandments. Don't only keep a hundred laws. Don't only keep two hundred laws. Don't stop at three hundred or four hundred. Don't even stop at 612 and leave one undone. If, according as it is written, I should love God with all my heart and all my soul, and yet on one summer day plough my field with an ox and a donkey yoked together, then I am no better than a thief or a murderer. My love for God -under this regime- counts for absolutely nothing!

No. Follow all 613 injunctions...all the time!

That is the divine standard.

It makes me think of a high school let's say chemistry test. I'm imagining that test has a hundred questions and the passmark is 100%. And the rule is if I get 50 answers right but get 50 wrong, I get 0%. And if I get 99 answers right but get only one wrong, I still get 0%. And the penalty for getting 0% is that the chemistry teacher is under instructions to gas you to death. Even if I were a genius I would be out of that class sooo fast.

I think the LSM full time training from what I've heard is a bit, or a lot like this.

One time someone I know, on the first day of training was commended highly for being the best out of all of them at organizing his socks very neatly in his sock drawer. A couple days later he was shamed and criticized before everybody for, I think it was -if memory serves me- having arranged the same socks (just as neatly, mind you) in the wrong color order. He was very discouraged. It emerged later that it was only done to trim him to size because they didn't want his earlier praise to inflate him. This is standard practice at the trainings.

So just as the law's purpose is to show you how weak and sinful you are to lead you to faith in Christ, so all the rules and regulations at the FTT's are purpose built to break you down to expose how weak and useless you are in your humanity, so that you may see your desperate need of The Ministry.

aron · 04-03-2024, 03:05 AM

Regarding Bricklayer's comments, they have validity except he fails to distinguish Jew from non-Jew. Peter kept the whole law, indivisible, as did Paul, as did James. But the main thrust of the NT gospel was that in Christ Jesus the gentiles have access through faith.

Paul wrote, "there is neither Jew nor Greek but one new man", but he also wrote that there was neither male nor female, and no more slave or free, but then he told females to be quiet and slaves to obey their masters. I may say, "I have neither right leg nor left leg (separated, apart, antagonistic) but they are one (coordinated, together) in my body". But I still have a right leg and a left leg. I still have two legs. If you see Paul writing in Ephesians 2:14, he even uses the word "two". He clearly differentiates, even while affirming commonwealth.

So with Jews and non-Jews in the NT. But what happened is that non- Jew church leaders became antagonistic against law-keeping Jewish believers, eventually against all law-keeping Jews (who were law-keeping by definition, it was their culture). Eventually we saw the Orthodox pogroms, the RCC inquisition, the Protestant holocaust, of non-Jew 'Christian' persecution of law-keeping Jew.

Regarding the law of Christ, I tried to affirm bear bear by saying that the royal law of James 2:8 showed Paul and James were holding forth the same gospel message. Love one another, not just lip service but in sharing with those who can't repay you. That was Jesus' core teaching. Give to those who cannot repay you. On this, hangs the law and the prophets.

bearbear · 04-03-2024, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

You cannot wrench the two greatest commandments in the LAW and break them free from the other 611 laws

Sorry I didn't read your first post carefully the first time, especially the last paragraph. That is something I need to work on.

Okay I think I understand more now after reading carefully. Thanks for explaining again. So you're saying it's a brand new covenant without any vestiges of the old covenant and the love Jesus talks about in the New Covenant is higher than the love mentioned in the Old Covenant.

Old Covenant Love:

Lev 19:18
“You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”

Deut 6:5
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

New Covenant Love:

John 13:34
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

So the love in the Old Covenant is bounded by our own human capability to love, but the love in the New Covenant is the divine, selfless, agape love that comes from the Holy Spirit. Thanks for that insight, I haven't heard of that before.

I think God's ultimate desire is that we would return the love he gave us unconditionally. In the book of Hosea, God is broken hearted and is sad that Israel did not return His love so God does expect us to love him back. The thing is, how can you love something you can't see? And that's where I think faith (mental agreement + trust) comes in to bridge the divide between us and God to enable love. Faith, love and obedience cannot be separated because love and obedience are fruits of saving faith (John 3:36, Matthew 10:37). Jesus told Peter: "if you love me you will obey me". So faith results in love results in obedience.

The false disciples in Matthew 7:21-23 perhaps thought that their works were proof of their faith and were indignant at being shut out of heaven. But they got things in the wrong order by focusing on their works instead of faith which results in love which result in obedience. Jesus called them "workers of lawlessness" so they were disobedient and hence did not really have faith.

The church in Ephesus also had good works and maybe they thought that it was proof that they loved God, yet Jesus said they left their first love. The lesson here could be that we have to get things in the right order: focus on having faith so that we can receive God's love and give it back to him, and out of our love of Jesus we obey Him. And the way we love God is to love others, because when we love others we are actually loving Jesus himself as he described it in Matthew 25.

Interestingly some argue that the correct translation for the Greek word "pistis" translated to belief in English in New Testament times is "vow to faithful relationship" similar to the idea of a wedding vow so faith and love are tightly intertwined in this interpretation of faith:
https://thelogosofagape.wordpress.co...ek-word-study/

Romans 5:5
And hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.

1 Cor 13:1
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

bearbear · 04-03-2024, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

If you see Paul writing in Ephesians 2:14, he even uses the word "two". He clearly differentiates, even while affirming commonwealth.

Thanks for sharing aron. I'm also sorry If I looked down on the law of Moses. I'm okay with my Messianic Jewish brethren celebrating their Sabbaths and feast days as long as they don't tie it any way to justification or salvation. There are a lot of scripture in the OT that suggests the same will be done during the millenial kingdom.

Also curious if you adhere to Commonwealth theology as an alternative to dispensationalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Theology

Nell · 04-03-2024, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

...

I think there was a misunderstanding by the LCs regarding the moral commandments not being carried over to the New Covenant and this has caused a lot of problems in the church.
...

Your topic seems to have gone awry from this comment which appears to be the purpose you were attempting to discuss. How does this comment fit your Opening Post in relation to the title "The Law of Christ"? Am I misreading your OP?

What misunderstanding of what moral commandment/s are causing what problems in the LC?

Here's an example to consider:
1. Suppose someone created a forum for discussion of ...anything... .
2. Suppose the forum owner requested that those who desire to join the discussion register as members.

Most who want to join the discussion comply to the request by registering as members.

Some do not register for membership, yet continue to post as "unregistered" or "Guest", expecting the owner to approve their posts anyway...that is...grant "grace" to them while they operate "outside the law".

Suppose the forum owner considered the value of the posts by non-registered to be significant enough to allow the "unregistered" to continued to post anyway...outside the "law". Or, the forum owner continues to extend "grace" to some, to the detriment of the functioning of the forum.

In this example, I'm attempting to bring in the matter of the conscience to the discussion. Does the Law of Christ operate outside the conscience? There is not only a misunderstanding in the LC but in the populace in general. The LC offends the conscience of others to the extent that the conscience becomes seared, demanding that others obey them...LC leadership...rather than God.

Here's a question for you. Do the written verses in the Bible override what God Himself speaks to you personally in your walk, your relationship with him and his relationship with you?

Nell

bearbear · 04-03-2024, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

In this example, I'm attempting to bring in the matter of the conscience to the discussion. Does the Law of Christ operate outside the conscience? There is not only a misunderstanding in the LC but in the populace in general. The LC offends the conscience of others to the extent that the conscience becomes seared, demanding that others obey them...LC leadership...rather than God.

Being a church kid, I'm not as familiar with LC theology as the other posters here so I can't contribute very well in that area and will let other posters step in. But from the way that the Christian life is carried out in the LCs, from what I observe, oneness or zeal for the ministry and winning converts seems to be the top priority in practice and not the law of Christ which is based on love and avoiding sin (which is not loving).

One example I remember was when Titus Chu said that he was sad that there were too many Chinese in the church and he wanted more Caucasians implying that Caucasians were of more value than Chinese. This statement was pretty unloving and seemed to reveal that his heart prioritized winning converts rather than love. As a leader, the principles such as this that he affirmed through his words and practice likely carried over to the rest of the flock. I can't imagine the leadership or the pastors at my current (undercover) Baptist church say anything like this without backlash.

Matthew 23:15
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."

(Note: I'm in no way advocating that Titus Chu is a Pharisee or unsaved, this verse just came to mind. Only God knows Titus' heart and we should pray for him.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Here's a question for you. Do the written verses in the Bible override what God Himself speaks to you personally in your walk, your relationship with him and his relationship with you?

Nell

If the voice I'm hearing is directly contradicting scripture it might come from Satan so in those cases I think I'd need to ask God for confirmation that it's really from him because it could also be that I'm misinterpreting scripture like Peter did when he was on the roof and saw the vision with the animals on a great sheet.

Most of the time my own struggle is that, sometimes God puts desires in my heart that are aligned with what I want to do, but other times they are opposed to it because of my flesh. In those cases I've been learning to ask God to change my heart so that I will want do his will.

Have you ever come across an experience where you felt God speaking to you in a way that contradicted scripture?

Nell · 04-03-2024, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

...
If the voice I'm hearing is directly contradicting scripture it might come from Satan so in those cases I think I'd need to ask God for confirmation that it's really from him because it could also be that I'm misinterpreting scripture like Peter did when he was on the roof and saw the vision with the animals on a great sheet.
...
Being a church kid, I'm not as familiar with LC theology as the other posters here so I can't contribute very well in that area and will let other posters step in. But from the way that the Christian life is carried out in the LCs, from what I observe, oneness or zeal for the ministry and winning converts seems to be the top priority in practice and not the law of Christ which is based on love and avoiding sin (which is not loving).
...
One example I remember was when Titus Chu said that he was sad that there were too many Chinese in the church and he wanted more Caucasians implying that Caucasians were of more value than Chinese. This statement was pretty unloving and seemed to reveal that his heart prioritized winning converts rather than love. As a leader, the principles such as this that he affirmed through his words and practice likely carried over to the rest of the flock. I can't imagine the leadership or the pastors at my current (undercover) Baptist church say anything like this without backlash.

This remark from TC I would put a question mark on. Then, I might privately
and respectfully ask TC for an explanation. You might even tell him "Is it your intention to imply that Caucasians are of more value than Chinese? Did I misunderstand your comment?"

We should always seek confirmation from God.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Matt. 18:15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

While TC's words really don't rise to the level of "sin" (I don't think), we should be accountable for our words.

Quote:

Sometimes God puts desires in my heart that are aligned with what I want to do, but other times they are opposed to it because of my flesh. In those cases I've been learning to ask God to change my heart so that I will want do his will.

This is healthy.

Quote:

Have you ever come across an experience where you felt God speaking to you in a way that contradicted scripture?

No. Nothing comes to mind. Many, maybe most, of my experiences today are much simpler. Lord, should I go to "this" movie? Or, Lord, are you sure you want me to ... do "this"? Lord, I don't think I understand this verse. I think it means .... this. Please give me your understanding. Test all things.

I'll refer back to my simpler example about registering for the forum. While this request does not rise to the level of scripture, it's a reasonable request from a brother who is offering a free service to all, with only a simple request to comply with forum rules and by registering for membership. "Lord, do you want me to register for the forum, or do you want me to ignore this request from the owner.

This practice of testing and obedience to the Lord's speaking is closer to my experiences with him on a daily basis.

Another help regarding the word is to understand that our reading and studying results in our interpretation of scriptures. Witness Lee believed that his interpretation was binding and the final authority. Also, a single verse has a context of maybe many other verses which needs to be considered.

bearbear · 04-03-2024, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

This remark from TC I would put a question mark on. Then, I might privately
and respectfully ask TC for an explanation. You might even tell him "Is it your intention to imply that Caucasians are of more value than Chinese? Did I misunderstand your comment?"

He probably didn't mean it literally like that, but his statement probably still hurt people as it was seared into my memory to this day. As someone who is Chinese that has faced discrimination in college admissions and elsewhere in the workplace for being perceived as "over-represented" it seems cruel that the same mindset would carry over to the church which is supposed to be a safe place of love.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

While TC's words really don't rise to the level of "sin" (I don't think), we should be accountable for our words.

I believe it is a serious sin to treat people differently based on race or class according to the principles in James 2, nevertheless I forgive Titus and thank him for the help he gave our family and protecting the Midwest LCs from some of the worst excesses of LSM. I just brought it up as an example for discussion.

"1. My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?"

bearbear · 04-03-2024, 01:01 PM

Other examples of LC practice violating the law of Christ is not helping the poor.

They twisted Mark 14:7 to mean that the church has no responsibility to help the poor.

Mark 14:7 "For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me."

But if you read carefully, the implication was that Jesus was always involved in ministry to the poor, and Mark 14:7 was the exception not the rule.

Galatians 2:10 "Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do."

Why did the LC ignore verses like Galatians 2:10 which clearly shows we should not forget the poor and needy? I think it's because so much of scripture contradicts LC theology that people just turn off their minds like I once did when I read the bible and instead interpret through the lens of fallible commentary and church tradition.

Although the example I gave earlier is not the best, it is along the lines of thinking that the LC always prioritized getting the right type of converts by focusing on college students and "working saints" rather than the outcasts of society which violates James 2 as well.

DeadManWalkin · 04-03-2024, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Regarding Bricklayer's comments, they have validity except he fails to distinguish Jew from non-Jew. PETER KEPT THE WHOLE LAW INDIVISIBLE, AS DID PAUL, AS DID JAMES. But the main thrust of the NT gospel was that in Christ Jesus the gentiles have access through faith.

So with Jews and non-Jews in the NT. But what happened is that non- Jew church leaders became antagonistic against law-keeping Jewish believers, eventuall inky against all law-keeping Jews (who were law-keeping by definition, it was their culture). Eventually we saw the Orthodox pogroms, the RCC inquisition, the Protestant holocaust, of non-Jew 'Christian' persecution of law-keeping Jew.
.

I'm sorry, but this is complete nonsense!

What Bible are you reading, man? From where have you got this?

Paul warned constantly against 'law-keeping Jewish believers' (called Judaizers) in almost all his epistles. He was not charitable at all towards any of them. He even rebuked Peter in such strong terms for living like a Gentile and then pretending to live like a Jew when those from Jerusalem arrived at Antioch (Gal 2: 11-14).

And what did Peter say at the Council in Jerusalem over a question about the law? Here is what he said:

"And Peter rose up and said unto [the council], 'Men and brethren...God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God which knoweth the hearts bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us AND PUT NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THEM purifying their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the [Gentile] disciples, which [yoke] NEITHER OUR [Jewish] FATHERS, NOR WE, WERE ABLE TO BEAR?" (Acts 15: 7-11)

Does that look like Peter kept the whole law, indivisible? Really? seriously?

Give us a break, man.

Paul dedicated a whole epistle to proving the inferiority of the Mosaic law. He wrote it to Jewish believers who had turned back to the law. He gave them very stern warning that they were in mortal danger of crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him again to an open shame; a falling away from which it is impossible to repent (Hebrews 6:6), (c/f Hebrews 10: 26-29)

So, what this poster is promoting here as his 'take' on the Word carries with it very grave and serious consequences.

I'd advise you, poster 'aron', to read and familiarize yourself thoroughly with the epistle to the Hebrews.

Help yourself, too, to the Recovery Version's footnotes. I don't usually advise that, but in this instance it may prove to be helpful.

Okay, stepping back into the shadows, now.

Ciao.

bearbear · 04-03-2024, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadManWalkin

Paul warned constantly against 'law-keeping Jewish believers' (called Judaizers) in almost all his epistles. He was not charitable at all towards them. He even rebuked Peter in such strong terms for living like a Gentile and then pretending to live like a Jew when those from Jerusalem arrived at Antioch (Gal 2: 11-14).

When I read what aron wrote I interpreted law keeping in a cultural context and not related to justification but I will let him clarify.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. I think the Old Testament saints were actually justified by faith as well and not through law keeping.

Positive Examples of Faith:

Abraham is a famous example who “believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6).

David is another example who murdered, lied, stole, coveted, committed adultery and ate the consecrated showbread yet he was saved through repentance and faith (allegiance) and love to God and did not worship idols. He is who I think of when the verse "love covers a multitude of sins" comes to mind.

Naaman the Syrian was justified by faith (allegiance) to Yahweh who he believed was the one true God. Elisha even gave him permission to bow down to the god of his king because his heart was in the right place. He reminds me of Joseph of Arimathea who had to keep his faith secret until he couldn't anymore.

Negative examples of Faith:

Saul confessed his sins, was anointed, made religious vows and enforced religious laws, but he was likely unsaved since he was not repentant nor obedient nor did he trust or love Yahweh. He is like the Pharisees in the NT who had an outward appearance of being religious but were inwardly evil and killed Jesus out of jealousy, feeling threatened by the people's love for Jesus as Saul felt towards David.

Balaam believed Yahweh was God and was even used by God to speak truth and prophesy but his allegiance was towards himself and money. He was disobedient and 2 Peter 2 says he was unsaved. He may be the OT version of the lawless ministry workers in Matthew 7:21-23.

The Old Testament test for faith seems consistent with this understanding of the Greek word for belief, "pistis" which this blog post says should be understood as "vow to faithful relationship":
https://thelogosofagape.wordpress.co...ek-word-study/

Also think about the saying "obedience is better than sacrifice" in 1 Samuel 15:22. It's really the OT version of "salvation by faith alone and not works". It doesn't matter how much one sacrifices, if one is not obedient, the sacrifices were in vain. See how well this matches Matthew 7:21-23. The ministry workers sacrificed so much for their ministry, but it was all in vain because they were lawless (disobedient), so they did not have saving faith.

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’"

Obedience and faith are also used interchangeably in the NT in verses like:

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Acts 5:32
And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.

Saving faith produces obedience, so the two are intertwined. I think God gave us these OT stories as examples of faith so we could get an idea of what saving faith looks like.

DeadManWalkin · 04-03-2024, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

When I read what aron wrote I interpreted law keeping in a cultural context and not related to justification but I will let him clarify.

He made himself plenty clear, bb, and I quoted him. He left no room for misinterpretation.

Here, let me quote him again...

"...he fails to distinguish Jew from non-Jew. Peter kept the WHOLE LAW, INDIVISIBLE, as did Paul, as did James"

So, where in the quote above does he imply a divide in the law between its cultural aspect and its legal aspect?

That's right, he doesn't.

Let's just say, for argument's sake, that of all three men that, perhaps, James stuck hard by the law a little bit more than he should have, because for sure he was greatly sympathetic towards it. But who, in all the Bible, ever kept the WHOLE LAW INDIVISIBLE?

The poster, 'aron', claims that these three men: Peter, Paul, and James kept the WHOLE LAW INDIVISIBLE.

What a lie! ... What a lie!

What did Paul say concerning the LAW when he addressed the Jewish worshippers in the synagogue at Antioch, while he was announcing the good news of the saviour, Jesus Christ?

Here's what he said:

"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 [both Jews and Gentiles] are justified from all things, from which YOU COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW OF MOSES. Beware therefore..." (Acts 13: 38-40)

Are those the words of a man who 'kept the whole law, indivisible'? I think not.

Moreover, here, Paul was addressing both Jews and Gentiles, but this poster, 'aron', would like us to believe that the Bible teaches that there is a distinction between them, when it actually teaches the exact opposite of that.

It is a falsehood.

...there is nothing to clarify.

Ok, stepping back into the shadows.
Ciao

bearbear · 04-03-2024, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadManWalkin

So, where in the quote above does he imply a divide in the law between its cultural aspect and its legal aspect?

When aron said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

But what happened is that non- Jew church leaders became antagonistic against law-keeping Jewish believers, eventually against all law-keeping Jews (who were law-keeping by definition, it was their culture)

Thanks for sharing DeadManWalkin. I'm curious, after you left the LCs did your salvation theology change? What do you think are the consequences for the Galatian believers who may have held to the true gospel but later corrupted it with circumcision and died without repenting. Do they still get saved after suffering during the millennial kingdom or are they unsaved?

Galatians 5:7
"You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?"

Galatians 4:11
"I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain."

Galatians 5:4
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Ohio · 04-03-2024, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadManWalkin

I'm sorry, but this is complete nonsense!

What Bible are you reading, man? From where have you got this?

Paul warned constantly against 'law-keeping Jewish believers' (called Judaizers) in almost all his epistles. He was not charitable at all towards any of them. He even rebuked Peter in such strong terms for living like a Gentile and then pretending to live like a Jew when those from Jerusalem arrived at Antioch (Gal 2: 11-14).

And what did Peter say at the Council in Jerusalem over a question about the law? Here is what he said:

"And Peter rose up and said unto [the council], 'Men and brethren...God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God which knoweth the hearts bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us AND PUT NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THEM purifying their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the [Gentile] disciples, which [yoke] NEITHER OUR [Jewish] FATHERS, NOR WE, WERE ABLE TO BEAR?" (Acts 15: 7-11)

Does that look like Peter kept the whole law, indivisible? Really? seriously?

Give us a break, man.

Paul dedicated a whole epistle to proving the inferiority of the Mosaic law. He wrote it to Jewish believers who had turned back to the law. He gave them very stern warning that they were in mortal danger of crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him again to an open shame; a falling away from which it is impossible to repent (Hebrews 6:6), (c/f Hebrews 10: 26-29)

Thank you, DMW

This is exactly how I also read the NT - a constant battle between stubborn, hard-hearted, unbelieving Jews jealous for the LAW with its many ordinances vs. the truth of the Gospel of God spread first by John the Baptist, then Jesus our Savior/Messiah, then thru all the Apostles.

The NT is a story of a decades long WAR. One side with love, faith, truth, good news, grace, hope, forgiveness, and God Himself in Christ. The other side with the weapons of O.T. LAWFARE, colluding with pagan idol-worshiping public officials to intimidate, beat, destroy, torture, imprison, and kill these courageous heralds of the gospel of God.

If you have never been in this war, perhaps you have never understood the N.T.

bearbear · 04-03-2024, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

The significance is that though the Law of Moses reportedly contains up to 613 separate laws -of which the injunctions to 'love God with all your heart' and to 'love thy neighbor' are an integral part- in reality, it is ONE law (and here I'm not referring to the great commandment upon which all the others hang).

Hi HB, I'm doing some more research on your position and I read Galatians again and came across this passage in Galatians 5:13-14:
"For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”"

Here Paul is quoting Leviticus 19:18 and says that this commandment fulfills the law. He didn't quote Jesus' new command in John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." The implication could be that Paul treats these two commands as the same, perhaps because in the New Covenant we have the Holy Spirit living in us so we are able to love our neighbor with God's agape love.

Paul also reiterates in Galatians 5:6 that only faith & love counts:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."

So any commandment related to love is probably good in Paul's eyes because love comes from God which John writes about.

1 John 4:7-8
"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. "

Nell · 04-04-2024, 05:30 AM

OK folks. It’s time to dial it back a little. Everyone has an opinion/interpretation. There is no need for name calling or vitriol aimed at those you disagree with. Please read the Mission Statement again, or maybe you’ve never read it.

Nell
Admin/Moderator

04-04-2024, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

Hi HB, I'm doing some more research on your position and I read Galatians again and came across this passage in Galatians 5:13-14:
"For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”"

Here Paul is quoting Leviticus 19:18 and says that this commandment fulfills the law. He didn't quote Jesus' new command in John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

The implication could be that Paul treats these two commands AS THE SAME, perhaps because in the New Covenant we have the Holy Spirit living in us so we are able to love our neighbor with God's agape love.

Paul also reiterates in Galatians 5:6 that only faith & love counts:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."

So any commandment related to love is probably good in Paul's eyes because love comes from God which John writes about.

1 John 4:7-8
"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. "

Hi bear bear,

That's a good observation, on your part. I agree that "any commandment' related to love is probably good in Paul's eyes". But then again, I suppose that all the commandments were good in his eyes. And they should be good in our eyes as well. Let's be clear: Paul never condemned the LAW as bad or evil. On the contrary, in his epistle to the Romans he called the LAW "holy, righteous, and good" (Romans 7:12)

The heart of the problem lies in our interaction with the LAW. And that, he warned firmly against. He explains why in that whole chapter (Rom 7). He states that whenever he would set his will to do good, to obey some commandment out of the LAW, he always found that in that action of obeying the law ANOTHER LAW would swing immediately into action.

He suddenly discovered that within him there existed THE LAW OF SIN. And that this 'law' was activated, made alive, and given legs by what he had just a few verses earlier called "holy, righteous, and good", that is the LAW OF MOSES.

Did he condemn the LAW after that discovery? No he didn't. But to his disappointment he recognized that what God had intended for good, and had ordained for life, when he reached out to lay hold of it, in obedience, instead resulted in bondage and death (he gives the personal example of how the Old Testament "moral commandment", 'Thou shalt not covet' wreaked havoc with him), (Romans 7: 7-12).

Paul appreciates the LAW, nevertheless, he is wary of it. In the epistle to the Corinthians he calls its ministry, 'THE MINISTRY OF CONDEMNATION' and 'THE MINISTRY OF DEATH' meaning instead of ministering life, it ministers condemnation and death. Yet, in spite of that, he still describes this ministry, the LAW, as being glorious (2 Corinthians 3: 7-9).

Paul also writes:

"The sting of death is sin and the STRENGTH of SIN is the LAW" (1 Corinthians 15: 56)

Yes, the LAW is good. But it is no good for us.

I've just remembered this in connection with that:

There was a television show back in the eighties -you're probably too young to know about it- called 'Alienation', starring James Caan (a Hollywood heavyweight at the time).

It was science fiction, and it was about a bunch of aliens (about a million of them) who'd fled their home planet in a humongous ship that came and landed over Los Angeles (yes, the immigration problem started way back then &#128540

. The aliens were humanoid, super strong, technologically advanced, and 'could speak English'. They adapted, and were assimilated into human society, and became like normal humans, going to school, getting jobs, getting into trouble, et cetera.

But they had one fatal weakness. Planet earth is covered up to 70% in precious water -absolutely crucial and necessary to all life on earth. But to the aliens the oceans were like seas of sulphuric acid: they dissolved in water. They wouldn't get within a mile of a beach out of sheer terror! Imagine that. That something intended for good and lavished liberally on the planet by its Creator, and without which all life on earth would die, became to these aliens nothing but death.

Not a perfect parallel, I know, but the point is clear. We are the Alien Nation and the LAW is a Sea of Sulphuric Acid to us. So why would we ever want to go to the beach?

So, back to the issue you raised in your post.

Is the LAW good in Paul's eyes? Yes.

Does Paul view the Old Testament command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' through the same lens as the New Testament command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself'? No.

Does he "treat them the same"? Well, we have just outlined Paul's own personal experience with the LAW as he laid it out. So, absolutely not!

But Paul said, "..by love serve one another; for the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, love thy neighbor as thyself'

There are a number of issues here, bear bear. But I don't want to get too long-winded. I'm aware that your TikTok generation has a general problem with attention span, and what I'll get into might be too much to digest in one sitting.

But I can give a brief outline:

1. There needs to be a consideration of the immediate context of these words (preferably Gal 4:21 - 6:2)
2. In Hermeneutics there's what's called the 'Principle of First Mention'. This principle can be limited and applied to the whole epistle to the Galatians to better gauge this one verse.
3. There needs to be an appreciation of Paul's Literary Style more generally, including his narrative techniques, his use of imagery, and his use of stylistic devices. All his writings are peppered in this manner.
4. This is more subjective and is chiefly my own opinion, but I think we need to have a discussion over the apparent legal paradox of this verse, the paradox being: Paul says that by love the whole law is fulfilled. But does that necessarily mean that by fulfilling the whole law, that that leads to love?

Paul claimed, in his epistle to the Philippians, that while he still subscribed to the Jewish religion, that as 'touching the righteousness that is in the LAW, he was BLAMELESS' (Phil 3:6). So zealous was he to 'fulfill the LAW', in fact, that it led him to a murderous hatred (the opposite of love) of those who confessed the name of Jesus.

So, we know his personal, lived experience was that 'fulfilling the LAW to the point of 'blamelessness' DOES NOT lead to love. But then WHY does he tell the Galatians to serve each other in love and still mention the LAW?

And whatever the LAW tells you to do, that you must do. If it tells you to love your neighbor, then that you must ensure you do. But Paul knows through his own experience that it can't be done. But he quotes it anyway.

Why?

Why didn't he just say 'hey, Jesus gave us a new commandment, love one another'? Why urge the Galatian believers to follow the LAW by quoting the LAW?

Of course, I don't believe that. But if, actually, you believe that Paul held the New Commandment (as given by Jesus, in John 13) to be the same as the Old Testament commandment, then, by necessity, this is the rabbit-hole you MUST go down. It is the logical outworking of a stated position like that. But it makes no sense.

The explanation is that this verse cannot be interpreted correctly without a proper and careful consideration of its context.

...which I'll try and achieve next time with the other three points.

God's blessings

aron · 04-04-2024, 04:57 PM

I apologize to our readers, I should have given scriptural references earlier. (Not everyone has read the same verses that I have). I should have said that Peter (Acts 10:14), Paul (Acts 16:3; 21:26) and James (Acts 21:18-20) all continued to keep the law after coming to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord. And it is my interpretation that this is because they were Jews, and Jews kept the law, whether or not they believed into the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The issue at hand in the NT was, whether the gentile converts would also have to keep the law - and the answer was, unequivocally, 'no'.

To anyone who thinks there is no difference between Jew and Greek in the NT, then why did Paul have Timothy circumcised? To anyone who thinks there is no difference between male and female in the NT, why did Paul tell women to be silent in church? If there's no difference between slave and free in the NT, why did Paul tell slaves to obey their masters? If you try to take 'no difference' literally, then you have to ignore certain verses that show apparent difference. Which I choose not to do. I think it's important to consider all verses as equal relevance. We can't have certain 'crucial' or 'proof-text' verses that 'show' our points, while ignoring other verses that show, or at least suggest, something quite the opposite.

Suppose a Chinese person believes into the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Suppose that Chinese person continues to observe the Chinese New Year (CNY). Does that invalidate their faith? No, of course not. But if you wanted to persecute the Chinese believer, you could cite Galatians 4:10: "You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!" (NIV) Is that applicable? No!

But what if a Chinese insisted that CNY observance was necessary to be in the One New Man (I mean, how can we all be one unless we observe the same holidays, right? Logical!) Suppose the CNY was held forth in some 'gospel' as a basis of salvation. Then some ignorant non-Chinese was seen observing the CNY, trying to be saved, and suddenly Paul's word in Galatians 4:10 is applicable. In this case, observing as a requirement is wrong.

Likewise, the 'Judaizers' were not Jews who practiced their Jewish life, law-keeping and all, but those Jews who insisted that non-Jews should become law-keepers as a requirement of Christian salvation. In that case, Paul's remonstrations make sense. Once you understand it, it's really not complicated. The NT writers were law-keeping Jews, and the first non-law-keepers 9gentiles) didn't show up until Acts 10. Until then, they were all law-keepers. And there is no part in the NT where the law-keepers stopped. The issue was, making law-keeping as a requirement of salvation. That was the Judaizing.

But what happened centuries later was a reverse 'Judaizing' - where the church Fathers wrote, "You cannot be a Christian and a Jew". What nonsense. Paul was a Jew. Peter was a Jew. James was a Jew. John was a Jew. But the gentile church fathers banned Jews from church. Then they fell to fighting among themselves, schisms, etc. But in my view it started with kicking the Jews out of church.

aron · 04-04-2024, 05:41 PM

I apologize again, my previous lengthy post was put in because I saw a poster apparently telling all of the readers to keep the law, THE WHOLE LAW, i. e. "follow all 613 injunctions, all the time"... My comment was that keeping the law was something done by Jews, not gentiles. I said that the NT writers clearly distinguish between Jew and gentile, and to say "no difference" literally bypasses a lot of plain text. And I enumerated some of the ignored text.

But what I really wanted to do was affirm the first post by Bear Bear, about the "law of Christ" per the apostle Paul's writings. My affirmation was that James in his epistle wrote about the "royal law" and I see Paul and James with the same message. The law of Christ, the royal law, is to love one another. Not just lip service, but real, outstretched love. "When I was in prison you visited me" kind of love. Love that makes you leave yourself and find and embrace the despised 'other' - the leper, the beggar, the widow, the orphan. You care for them just as if they were the son or daughter of the king. That is the law of Christ. That is God's economy, to give to those who cannot repay you in this age, and then your reward will be great in heaven.

To me, that was the purpose of bear bear's writing. Maybe I misinterpreted it, but that was what I saw, in "the law of Christ". James was writing about the exact same thing. If you love one another, you fulfill all the law and the commandments.

bearbear · 04-04-2024, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

Does Paul view the Old Testament command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' through the same lens as the New Testament command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself'? No.

Are you saying that Paul is intentionally stating Leviticus 19:18 as a shadow of John 13:34 and expecting the reader to make that association? Perhaps he was aware of that, but stepping back a bit, I think we may be complicating things a little because after all this is a letter and not a doctrinal dissertation.

The Galatians believers at this point were going astray due to the circumcision party and I think Paul was really worried for their salvation. Paul was probably just trying to give them milk instead of solid food. If he re-stated Jesus' words with commands such as "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. " it may have been too much for them.

Interestingly Paul does the same in Romans 13:8-10 and avoids restating Jesus' words, but focuses on restating the OT commands and again states that Leviticus 19:18 sums up all the law. So this may be a practice of Paul to give milk when he's not confident that "Christ has been fully formed" (Gal 4:19) yet in his audience.

"Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

Some people think of Paul as being extreme, but I think he was really gentle compared to Jesus. Jesus wasn't afraid to say "hell" in his sermons but Paul often used other metaphors like "death", "destruction", "cut off from Christ", "fallen from grace", “believed in vain” or "will not inherit the kingdom of God" and I think people have fallen into a trap of re-interpreting Paul's words to say something they are not.

I mean take this verse:

Galatians 6:8
The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

Paul is directly juxtaposing "eternal life" with "destruction", yet when people who hold to millennial exclusion read this verse it doesn't register in their heads that "destruction" = "hell" and Paul is using a euphemism so his language doesn't come across as too strong in his letters.

Compare this language again to Jesus' on the sermon on the mount.

Mark 9:47-48
It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

Here Jesus juxtaposes the kingdom of God with hell.

Yet when millennial exclusionists read verses like 1 Cor 6:9-20
"... nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God"

they read it to mean the difference between being inside the millennial kingdom and outside it when Paul's audience likely had no idea about the millennial reign of Christ and probably did not survive long enough into 95AD to read the book of Revelation.

What we're debating about now seems like splitting hairs compared to another kind of over-analyzing that could have eternal consequences.

04-05-2024, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

Are you saying that Paul is intentionally stating Leviticus 19:18 as a shadow of John 13:34 and expecting the reader to make that association? Perhaps he was aware of that...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Paul often referenced the things written in the LAW as 'allusions'. A stylistic device he used to give color to, and to bolster his points. He was not prescribing them. His understanding was that all the things written in the LAW were only a shadow and a copy. A pattern of New Testament realities.

For example, he quoted this law to the Corinthian believers:

He begins by saying, "For it is written in the Law of Moses"

"Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn" (Deuteronomy 25:4).

And then he asked them, 'Doth God take care for oxen?' (1Cor 9:9)

In other words, is this written in the LAW because God is so, so concerned about how you treat your cows? No, of course not. Neither did Paul instruct the believers to rush to their fields to make sure their oxes were muzzled. But Paul appealed to the shadow and type of the LAW to urge and exhort the church in Corinth to support him materially as he preached the gospel.

And so it is with the thorny Galatian verse we're discussing.

"...by love serve one another..." (New Testament exhortation)

"... for the whole law is fulfilled in one word: Love thy neighbor as thyself'..." (Old Testament allusion)

[/QUOTE=bearbear;113224]I think we may be complicating things a little because after all this is a letter and not a doctrinal dissertation. [/QUOTE]

All doctrinal dissertations are based on 'primary sources' such as this letter were you able to get a hold of the original copy.

[/QUOTE=bearbear;113224]Interestingly Paul does the same in Romans 13:1-14 and avoids restating Jesus' words, but focuses on restating the OT commands and again states that Leviticus 19:18 sums up all the law. So this may be a practice of Paul to give milk when he's not confident that "Christ has been fully formed" (Gal 4:19) yet in his audience.[/QUOTE]

I see your point, here. It's possible that's what he is doing in quoting the Old Testament.

[/QUOTE=bearbear;113224]What we're debating about now seems like splitting hairs compared to another kind of over-analyzing that could have eternal consequences.[/QUOTE]

I'm beginning to feel the same way. Paul advised us to steer clear of questions, and contentions, and strivings about the LAW (Titus 3:9).

He said that they were not profitable, and that they were vain. I think we've reached that point. We're basically on the same page and I don't see any forward motion on this question.

Let's heed his advice. Let's put this to bed.

God's blessings

04-05-2024, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I apologize again, my previous lengthy post was put in because I saw a poster apparently telling all of the readers to keep the law, THE WHOLE LAW, i. e. "follow all 613 injunctions, all the time"...

Aaron,

I'm not sure why you are purposely pulling my words out of the context in which I put them. Aren't you misleading readers on this forum?

What are you hoping to achieve?

Yes, it's true I reminded readers to keep all 613 laws of the Old Testament LAW -all the time...but only IF...they felt obligated to bind themselves to the LAW to keep it. Whether he or she be Jew or Gentile.

What was my point? (the point you have chosen to ignore)

My point was that despite the fact that there are 613 different injunctions contained in the LAW, yet there is only ONE REQUIREMENT, really.

That SINGLE REQUIREMENT is that there should not occur a single transgression of even one of those injunctions -even for a second. That is the LAW. Like it or not.

Should you, then, as a professed LAW-keeper, fail in just one little point of that LAW, then you immediately come under the CURSE of the LAW. That's why it is written:

"Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them" (Deuteronomy 27:26).

The verse above is the one unique standard of the LAW:

'Continue...in...all...things'....

'Continue...in.. all... things'

And it is an IMPOSSIBLE standard to keep. Why? Because absolutely no one can ever, or has ever, continued in all things that are written in the LAW to do them.

And because of the curse attached to it, that's why Christ had to come and hang on the cross, and, in so doing, redeem us from the curse of the LAW.

The whole world, both Jew and Gentile, lay under this curse prior to that (the Jews, by choice; the Gentiles, by default).

But the curse was laid, instead, on Christ.

That was the point I was making. Nobody should be misled.

I often find myself rolling on the floor laughing uncontrollably when I read posts defending law-keeping Jewish believers in the book of Acts supposedly revealed to the posters through mysterious verses they claim only they have read and seen.

..Oh, please...

We've all read the book of Acts, Aaron.
And you have misread it.

DeadManWalkin · 04-06-2024, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearbear

Thanks for sharing DeadManWalkin. I'm curious, after you left the LCs did your salvation theology change? What do you think are the consequences for the Galatian believers who may have held to the true gospel but later corrupted it with circumcision and died without repenting. Do they still get saved after suffering during the millennial kingdom or are they unsaved?

Galatians 5:7
"You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?"

Galatians 4:11
"I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain."

Galatians 5:4
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Thanks for replying, bb

.. ain't sure what u mean by 'salvation theology', but if you W mean in terms of teachings and doctrines, then absolutely my 'theology' has evolved. Mainly because my mind was allowed finally to 'breathe'...as opposed to the mindless acceptance of Witness Lee's ministry material.

One great benefit of this has been that I began to mine the riches hidden away in the Old Testament. There was a lot I didn't know. It's mind-blowing what God has revealed to me there. I had no idea.

The LORD's promises there are so astoundingly faith-affirming.

Back in the day, a brother from the LC once told me that the OT is like a picture-book, and the NT provides the captions. I preferred only the NT. I felt that the OT was suited for 'legalistic one's' who had not yet grasped the concept of 'grace' and still held on to the 'Law'. But now I see captions are useless without the pictures.
_______________________________

What do I think happens to the Galatian believers who got circumcised?

Well, obviously my opinion does not vary from what is written by the apostle Paul. And you've already provided the verses that reveal his thoughts on the subject. I don't think I need to add anything else. He says they are severed from Christ. They have fallen away from grace. That sounds serious enough.

______________________________

Do they still get saved after suffering in the millennial kingdom?

I don't pretend to know a whole lot about the millennial kingdom.

From what I read I see thrones of judgement with saints sitting upon them living and reigning with Christ as his priests, and priests of God. And they -we- are called blessed and holy because we're part of the 'first resurrection'.

I don't see any mention of the Outer Darkness. But there is a Bottomless Pit. Are they the same thing? Dunno. Are the circumcised Galatian believers who fell away from grace inside it? Dunno.

Here's a thought

But, if, like you said, those errant Galatians died before repenting, the question is, do they still qualify to be part of the First Resurrection? But isn't it by 'grace' that we qualify for this resurrection? But they 'fell away from grace', right?

So they're still dead, we can safely assume, at this point.

But then John reveals, "the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" Rev 20:5

Are those circumcised Galatian believers among these dead? Your guess is as good as mine.

If they are, then I have to say, it doesn't look good for them.

All said, the Outer Darkness teaching is a doctrine cobbled together by Witness Lee out of some evidence in the gospels which he may have fused together with some elements from the Roman Catholic doctrine of 'purgatory'.

I don't know what to make of it, frankly.

good talk..

Ciao.

aron · 04-06-2024, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

Should you, then, as a professed LAW-keeper, fail in just one little point of that LAW, then you immediately come under the CURSE of the LAW. That's why it is written:

"Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them" (Deuteronomy 27:26).

The verse above is the one unique standard of the LAW:

'Continue...in...all...things'....

'Continue...in.. all... things'

And it is an IMPOSSIBLE standard to keep. Why? Because absolutely no one can ever, or has ever, continued in all things that are written in the LAW to do them..

Well, I certainly did misread your initial post. But I still don't know what it had to do with Bear Bear's first post. It seemed that you were contradicting him, but perhaps you were just using his word 'law' to veer off on a tangent.

(btw I think posters often do this - including me - we see a verse or word that we use as a platform for our prepared speech. But it has nothing to do with the OP)

Regarding the law of Christ, the original post, my thought was that James 2:8 shows the royal law, which is another way of saying the same thing. Love the person near you. Even if they are unlovable, unlovely, unloving. You still love them, not just on lip service but in action. That was my reading of it.

Regarding Deuteronomy, I feel that the [only] one who kept the law was Jesus Christ. He was(is) the King, the Law-Giver, and as such was the Law-Keeper. Only he could speak to Moses' law, because Moses' law spoke of him. What was impossible for you or I (or Paul, or John) was not only possible but was his destiny. And as such a one, his 'royal law' supersedes all else for us. Everything feeds into Jesus Christ and everything comes out of Jesus Christ. He is the singularity, unique. He is 'the' Christ. His word is 'the' law.

Regarding my misreading Acts, not sure what you meant. Jesus kept the law. Therefore, it isn't impossible. And Peter said, "I have never eaten anything unclean". Either Peter lied or the word never means never. So, seven years after Christ's death, Peter is seen strictly following dietary restrictions. Am I misreading that?

The other person that I failed to mention was John. At the end of the Bible, John writes of the 'Nations'. Most Christians interpret this as what? I see the same word used throughout the NT 'ethnoi' and into the OT, in the Greek LXX. It means "ethnics", those who are not Jew. Or is the meaning in the last book of the Bible different from the other 65 books? Revelation 21:24 is not a hidden verse, or secret. It is plainly published, now for centuries. "The nations walk in it's light". To John, the New Jerusalem was a Jewish city, and the nations are the non-Jews around. No different from in John's day.

What happened is that the church, now fully gentile, wiped out the idea that there was some distinction between Jew and Greek. So Christians would read right past this verse, as if it were not there. Or else, they would assign some special meaning to this word, as if it were different from all the other times the Bible said 'ethnoi'. No, the meaning is consistent. It is used because it had meaning to the writer, and to his readers. But the wholly gentile church effaced that.

I am a gentile, not opposed to being a gentile. Perfectly happy, frankly. Not in any mood to become something I'm not. But I can see what the church did to the Jews. "You cannot be a Christian and a Jew". But Paul was a Jew.

(see, e. g., Stroumsa, G. A. (1996). From anti-judaism to antisemitism in Early Christianity. JCB Mohr.)

aron · 04-06-2024, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Regarding Deuteronomy, I feel that the [only] one who kept the law was Jesus Christ. He was(is) the King, the Law-Giver, and as such was the Law-Keeper. Only he could speak to Moses' law, because Moses' law spoke of him. What was impossible for you or I (or Paul, or John) was not only possible but was his destiny. And as such a one, his 'royal law' supersedes all else for us. Everything feeds into Jesus Christ and everything comes out of Jesus Christ. He is the singularity, unique. He is 'the' Christ. His word is 'the' law.

Deuteronomy and the NT is a bit of a sidebar from Bear Bear's initial post, so I'll make my comments here, as a sidebar.

Deuteronomy 17 speaks of the King, who keeps God's Law.

Deut 17:18 “Now it shall come about when he [the King] sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. 19 And it shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear [and worship] the Lord his God [with awe-filled reverence and profound respect], by carefully obeying (keeping foremost in his thoughts and actively doing) all the words of this law and these statutes, 20 so that his heart will not be lifted up above his countrymen [by a false sense of self-importance and self-reliance] and that he will not turn away (deviate) from the commandment, to the right or to the left, so that he and his sons may continue [to reign] for a long time in his kingdom in Israel." (Amplified version).

Note that the King keeps "all" the laws.

Now, look at Psalm 1: 1-3 Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
2 but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

3 He is like a tree
planted by streams of water
that yields its fruit in its season,
and its leaf does not wither.
In all that he does, he prospers.

Is it coincidence that Psalm 1 is followed by Psalm 2? Not if the Righteous Man is the Son of God. Seems that they form a conceptual pair.

"Christ is the end of the law" not because he ignored it but because he kept it. Therefore it is not impossible for a man to live in the reality of Psalm 1. Jesus Christ did it.

bearbear · 04-07-2024, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I am a gentile, not opposed to being a gentile. Perfectly happy, frankly. Not in any mood to become something I'm not. But I can see what the church did to the Jews. "You cannot be a Christian and a Jew". But Paul was a Jew.

In a sense, we who have given our life to Christ are all Jews. Paul says in Romans 2:28 that we are made spiritual Jews through "spiritual circumcision". Yet physical Jews can also participate in this process of spiritual circumcision, and as aron said, while keeping the physical side of their Jewishness.

Romans 2:28
"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter..."

What is remarkable about physical circumcision is that it was done on the eighth day after birth (Leviticus 12:3). I believe this points to the first day of the new creation after the seven days of the old creation.

2 Cor 5:17
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come."

(As a side note we are close to nearing six thousand years of creation, so if the millennial kingdom started within our lifetime this would nicely fit the pattern of six days of creation followed by one day of sabbath followed by the new heavens and new earth.)

Even if we have the spiritual reality through Jesus Christ, the shadow is still important because it gives us a picture of the spiritual reality which is unseen. Physical circumcision involves the cutting of our physical flesh so spiritual circumcision must involve the same kind of "cutting" but at a spiritual level. Paul describes this spiritual circumcision in verses like:

Galatians 5:24
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Romans 6:6-7
We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin.

But why do we need to die to our flesh? It's to make room for the free gift of a new life through the Holy Spirit. Just as a servant cannot serve two masters, neither can man live two lives but one must let go of the old life to take on a new one (Luke 9:24). It doesn't matter how many "good works" one does (which are filthy rags per Isaiah 64:6), how many meetings or conferences or prayer meetings one attends, if a person is not willing to participate in this exchange which results in a new birth in Christ, that person will never see the eternal kingdom of God (John 3:3).

But how can someone come to decide to participate in such a process? That's where faith (trust + mental agreement within a vow to faithful relationship) comes in. After a person comes to faith by means such as studying the historicity and veracity of the Christian faith and becomes fully convinced of the "unseen things" (Heb 11:1), that person will then desire to undergo spiritual circumcision by dying to self and being reborn with a new life which the sacrament of baptism represents.

And how does this all tie in to the law of Christ which is to love? Our flesh desires to love itself and not our neighbor. But God's will is that we would love our neighbor. When we die to the flesh and let God's Spirit live through us, we will be able to love our neighbor selflessly as God loves them. That's why as HB shared, that Leviticus 19:18 is a shadow of John 13:34 because the highest form of divine love is self-less whereas the Old Testament version of it retained the self love.

The danger behind LC teaching and practice (and to be fair they are not alone in this) is that one can be deceived into thinking they've made this exchange of life when they actually haven't. One of Satan's strategy is to get people so busy with works such as conferences, meetings, trainings which may be good but will be done in vain if it causes them to ignore the need to undergo spiritual circumcision preventing them from participating in the true exchange. The sobering aspect of circumcision is that it can only be done in this life and not the next. Dying to our flesh can only be done on this side of the veil inhabited by flesh & blood and not the other side of the veil where there will be no more flesh to circumcise and where sin and death can carry over into eternity.

God offers us the chance to repent and participate in the cross of Christ by dying to sin in the flesh (Romans 6:1-14) while we are still alive which allows us to love our neighbor through the Holy Spirit. There is no more chance to repent once we die.

Hebrews 9:27
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment"

2 Cor 6:2
"...Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation..."

aron · 04-07-2024, 01:33 PM

A little background is in order, perhaps. Prior to the NT era, the Jewish nation was unique in access to God, via obedience to the divinely accorded law. The Psalmist thus thanked the LORD for blessings, followed by, “You have done this for no other nation, because they have not known your law” (Psa 147:20, NIV). Without the law, the Jews were no better than any other people, but by knowing God’s law, they were in a position far superior to the nations (Gk, ethnoi). This can be seen in the gospel messages given by Paul, who addresses both groups, in synagogue. “Fellow Israelites, and those who worship God.” (Acts 13 The law-keeping Jews were the first group, the gentile proselytes were the second. There was not just distinction but separation by class.

Another example is in the gospel story of the Roman centurion. "For he loves our nation, and has built us a synagogue" (Luke 7:5). This person, for all his love for God and God's people, would forever remain a non-citizen in the commonwealth of Israel.

But Christ changed all that. Christ was the new Moses, the new Law-giver. "A prophet will God raise up like me, you must listen to him" (Deut 18:15; Acts 3:22,23). So Christ as the new Law-giver instituted a new commandment, to love one another, that Paul said filled all the requirements of God. My comment was that James called this the royal law (2:8), that Paul and James were saying the same thing.

Another poster then came on and mentioned the necessity keeping the whole law of the OT. I now understand it was meant that it's impossible to keep the whole law, but I and several others (bearbear, Ohio) interpreted this as a kind of injunction for (non-Jewish) Christian believers to keep the law. Obviously there are modern "Christian" teachings like the Sabbaterians who require this. But I guess the reaction, and the subsequent deviation from the OP, was based on a misunderstanding.

But your original point about the law of Christ, I felt, was an excellent observation. I merely tried to affirm that. The Jew/nonJew topic was an unnecessary sidebar.

aron · 04-09-2024, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

You cannot wrench the two greatest commandments in the LAW and break them free from the other 611 laws (even if you intend to keep them by the power of the Holy Spirit). You can call these commandments "moral" or you can call them "spiritual" (and they are that, I don't disagree), but they are still bound together in a single package called the LAW. And if you're going to extract them from out of the Old Testament and bring them into the New, then you must of necessity bring along with them the remaining 611...and then you shall find yourself in the same dilemma that the Galatians fell into over the similar issue of circumcision. They were in danger of "falling from grace" and becoming "debtors to do the whole law" (Gal 5: 3-4).

...because the LAW is indivisible and irreducible.

I think that I understand your points better. Initially I thought that you meant that we (the readers) must keep all the law, now I see you saying that we (like the Galatians) can't keep all the law, and thus shouldn't try to keep parts of it to the exclusion of others.

There's a lot there, actually, and in seizing upon the wrong sentence or phrase, and forcing it through our mental model, may cause us to contrast ourselves with something that's not there. Which, as I said, probably happens a lot.

DeadManWalkin · 04-10-2024, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

Aaron,

My point was that despite the fact that there are 613 different injunctions contained in the LAW, yet there is only ONE REQUIREMENT, really.

That SINGLE REQUIREMENT is that there should not occur a single transgression of even one of those injunctions -even for a second. That is the LAW. Like it or not.

"Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them" (Deuteronomy 27:26).

The verse above is the one unique standard of the LAW:

'Continue...in...all...things'....

'Continue...in.. all... things'

And it is an IMPOSSIBLE standard to keep. Why? Because absolutely no one can ever, or has ever, continued in all things that are written in the LAW to do them.

The whole world, both Jew and Gentile, lay under this curse prior to that (the Jews, by choice; the Gentiles, by default).

But the curse was laid, instead, on Christ.

That was the point I was making.

Hi HB,

I was looking at Romans 8:3-4, and in my NIV, the verses there are rendered as:

"... For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the RIGHTEOUS REQUIREMENTS of the law might be fully met in us (or fulfilled)".

Notice the words that are capitalized: the 'righteous requirements', as of many requirements. One may be forgiven for thinking that what Paul refers to here are the 613 requirements written and commanded in the Torah (in a way, yes) And that he is showing how Jesus kept all of them and how he is now helping us to keep them through the power of the Holy Spirit.

This kind of flawed interpretation owes its existence to a loose translation of one of the words in the verse. The translation (above) is not an absolutely faithful one. And because it is a mistranslation, that in turn, has also led to the verse being misinterpreted.

When you take a look at other Bible versions, verse 4 is translated with a subtle difference, with the kind of nuance that would escape the scrutiny of a casual reader of the Bible. The difference is the singular and plural form of the word rendered as 'requirements'.

Have a look at these alternative renderings below:

"... that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us..." (KJV)

"... that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us..." (RecV)

"... that the ordinance of the Law might be fulfilled in us..."

(this last translation was the one favored by Watchman Nee; and he drew his quote from it in chapter 10 of his book, 'The Normal Christian Life').

See the difference?

I know from experience that the NIV often takes liberties in its translations that it might fit in more snugly with a an increasingly modern approach to the Bible, and so I'm inclined to dismiss it in favor of even the Recovery Version. At least the LC tried to remain faithful to the original languages.

So...

The original Greek form of the word translated as 'requirements' in the NIV is actually singular. It is not pluralized.

This lends credence to your eisegesis that the Law, as far as fulfilling it is concerned, has only ONE requirement...and Romans 8 tells us that that unique requirement was met in full on the cross, through Jesus Christ.

Isn't it amazing when the Bible agrees with the Bible?

Ciao.

Ohio · 04-10-2024, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadManWalkin

So...

The original Greek form of the word translated as 'requirements' in the NIV is actually singular. It is not pluralized.

This lends credence to your eisegesis that the Law, as far as fulfilling it is concerned, has only ONE requirement...and Romans 8 tells us that that unique requirement was met in full on the cross, through Jesus Christ.

Isn't it amazing when the Bible agrees with the Bible?

Ciao.

Thanks DMW,

As a rule, when making a case for the truths of scripture, we should always consult multiple translations and word-studies.

04-10-2024, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Regarding my misreading Acts, not sure what you meant. Jesus kept the law. Therefore, it isn't impossible. And Peter said, "I have never eaten anything unclean". Either Peter lied or the word never means never. So, seven years after Christ's death, Peter is seen strictly following dietary restrictions. Am I misreading that?

hullo mr.aron

simple simon says, does peter's strict following of the law's dietary restrictions mean that he kept the whole law? Is the law made up of only dietary restrictions? I think from what I've gathered on this thread, to keep the law you must keep the whole law. Or is the poster who wrote that mistaken? So even if peter had never eaten anything unclean in his life (as he declared) before the demanding rigorrs of the law he was still guilty. But it looks like you take another view.

also, aren't you ignoring the context of that episode you've brought up? the context is that peter was being challenged by God to eat unclean animals (even though they symbolized the gentiles). why would God choose a metaphor like this, if staying away from eating unclean animals is the essence of being perfect in the eyes of the law, as you are insinuating? and besides, didn't Jesus declare unclean animals fit to eat before he was even crucified? Mark 7:17-19. what do you make of that?

In india, where I lived for many years, they hold cows to be most sacred and they do not eat them. that's the law and, if you dare, you eat them at the peril of your life. cows are considered deities in india. I knew of no indian who, like peter, ever ever ate beef. they observe that 'restriction strictly'. my question is, would you think strict observance makes them holy and righteous, as you think peter must have been because of his own strict observance of the jewish dietary laws?

moreover, I have friends who are muslims. I have never known a muslim to eat swine flesh. they will lie, cheat, steal, even drink alcohol (which is forbidden under general islamic law, called 'haram'), but they will, with as much resolution as peter displayed, never, never, never, ever eat swine flesh! they are perfectly ready to die before they ever violate that 'dietary restriction'. in your opinion, does this make them holy and righteous? because it would seem it would, in line with the argument that you've made in your post.

finally, back in the gospels, after Jesus was done teaching the crowds, he instructed peter to lower his nets into the sea despite the fact that he had fished all night and caught nothing. the catch of fish he made, however, at the Lord's behest almost sank the ship, and peter cried

'depart from me for I am a sinful man, O' Lord. for he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes they had taken' Mark 5:5-9

could it be that peter, in that moment, suddenly realized how sinful he was when he saw that he couldn't hope to eat all that fish in one go, and therefore inadvertently break the 'strict dietary restrictions' that had made him holy and righteous all his life, and which he had never ever violated?

I'm trying to apply your interpretative framework to that episode, and that's what I come up with. but what do you think?

simple simon is done saying.

aron · 04-10-2024, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadManWalkin

Paul dedicated a whole epistle to proving the inferiority of the Mosaic law. He wrote it to Jewish believers who had turned back to the law. He gave them very stern warning that they were in mortal danger of crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him again to an open shame; a falling away from which it is impossible to repent (Hebrews 6:6), (c/f Hebrews 10: 26-29)

I doubt the author of the epistle To the Hebrews was Paul. He said that the gospel was made known to him by those who saw the Lord (Heb 2:3). Paul got his revelation from God, he made that plain and would not have contradicted himself this way.

The epistle To the Hebrews does speak of the inferiority of the law, but it doesn't say that Hebrews couldn't be Hebrews, just that they shouldn't be shrinking back (or "falling away" in your term) from faith in Jesus Christ back to Jewish customs. Do you see the difference? Just like Paul saying to the Galatians that if they try to keep the law that their faith is of none effect, it is because they are gentile Christians, not because they are Christians.

If a Chinese person believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and confesses him as Lord and Saviour, are they able to observe the Chinese New Year? Or, do we say, "There is no more Chinese, no Japanese, no Turkish" and forbid them from observing any of their native customs? If not, then why were the Jews the only race that were forbidden from observing their native customs?

No, the issue was either forcing the gentiles to observe Jewish customs & laws (Epistle to the Galatians) or the native Hebrews abandoning their Christian faith and returning to Jewish customs alone (To the Hebrews). The Hebrews of that epistle had started out as Jewish Christians, and after persecution decided it was preferable to simply be Jews. But the author remonstrated with them, that "falling away" from Christ rendered their journey void.

Paul never stopped being a Pharisee, but he never left in the revelation that appeared to him on the road to Damascus: Jesus is the resurrected Lord, and salvation comes to all who confess his name, both to the Jew and to the Greek. Paul held forth that revelation until the day he died.

bearbear · 04-11-2024, 07:30 AM

Just as New Testament grace should not be used as a license for deliberate sin (Romans 6) but was intended for unintentional sins to empower Jesus' followers trying to walk the narrow way that leads to life, the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were also intended to atone for the people's unintentional sins according to

Hebrews 9:7:
"but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people."

This is in reference to passages such as Numbers 15:30-31 (NLT)
“But those who brazenly violate the Lord’s will, whether native-born Israelites or foreigners, have blasphemed the Lord, and they must be cut off from the community. Since they have treated the Lord’s word with contempt and deliberately disobeyed his command, they must be completely cut off and suffer the punishment for their guilt.”

So Hebrews 10:26-31 in this context is not referring to Jews who went back to the law but believers who are abusing the grace of God and using it as an excuse to "deliberately sin". Willful sin such as murder and adultery resulted in stoning in the law of Moses and the writer of Hebrews is saying how worse a punishment there will be for false Christians who use grace as a license to sin since they are profaning not the blood of animals, but the blood of Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 10:26-31
"For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

In his letter to the churches, Jesus has a strong rebuke for the Nicolaitans. The Nicolaitans adhered to the Nicene creed like we all do but they taught that God's grace allowed them to live immoral lives for pleasure. Their heart was not circumcised so they were not spiritual Jews.

https://www.samstorms.org/enjoying-g...he-nicolaitans

DeadManWalkin · 04-11-2024, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I doubt the author of the epistle To the Hebrews was Paul. He said that the gospel was made known to him by those who saw the Lord (Heb 2:3). Paul got his revelation from God, he made that plain and would not have contradicted himself this way.

The epistle To the Hebrews does speak of the inferiority of the law, but it doesn't say that Hebrews couldn't be Hebrews, just that they shouldn't be shrinking back (or "falling away" in your term) from faith in Jesus Christ back to Jewish customs. Do you see the difference?

No, the issue was either forcing the gentiles to observe Jewish customs & laws (Epistle to the Galatians) or the native Hebrews abandoning their Christian faith and returning to Jewish customs alone (To the Hebrews). The Hebrews of that epistle had started out as Jewish Christians, and after persecution decided it was preferable to simply be Jews. But the author remonstrated with them, that "falling away" from Christ rendered their journey void.

Paul never stopped being a Pharisee, but he never left in the revelation that appeared to him on the road to Damascus: Jesus is the resurrected Lord, and salvation comes to all who confess his name, both to the Jew and to the Greek. Paul held forth that revelation until the day he died.

The poster 'aron',

First off, I'm glad to see that you took my advice and went off and took a quick scan through the book to the Hebrews. I, of course had strongly suggested that you take your time in order to thoroughly digest it; but it seems your sole and only intent was to quickly rummage through its contents that you might find some convenient verse you might use to come back here to refute me with.

... this shows little heart for the truth...

You've given a nice little summary of what you discovered (paragraph 4). It seems to me that once you found yourself fully exposed in the bright glare of Scripture (as was intended) you suddenly realized you were gravely and sorely mistaken; and now, with your little summary, you are attempting to pass yourself off as someone who knew what Hebrews said "awwwll" along, and are vainly hoping that we shall forget -that barely a day ago- you ignorantly defended the very opposite view.

This can be borne out by all your preceding posts: your own words testify against you.

But I'm happy that you learned something.
__________________________________________________ ________

Secondly, you began your riposte by asserting that you didn't think that Paul wrote the book to the Hebrews.

I mean, really?

I sent you to the book to the Hebrews to discover for yourself how spurious your claims were about the false dichotomy you like to draw between Jews and Gentiles. A most substantive matter.

And your big take-away was that you don't think Paul wrote the epistle? ? ?

..For crying out loud...

What does it matter whether it was Paul, or Peter, or Bugs Bunny, or Donald Duck, who wrote it?

You certainly love to quibble, don't you?

But allow me to indulge you.

First of all, as is your usual custom, you have once again misread, misquoted, and misrepresented the Word of God in the presentation you make to support your doubts as to the authorship of the epistle.

You say -yes, you- that it says, that the author says, the "gospel was made known to him by those who saw the Lord"

Is that what it really says, poster 'aron'?

Here is what it actually says:

"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was CONFIRMED unto us by those that heard him" (Heb 2:3)

You seem to possess a passable vocabulary, poster 'aron', and I would beg you to draw your attention to the word, 'CONFIRM'. You must know what this word means.

To help you I've supplied some synonyms:

1. Reassert
2. Corroborate
3. Validate
4. Verify
5. Strengthen
6. Establish
7. Prove
8. Uphold, et cetera

Do you get the apostle's drift?

He had already had the gospel made known to him. It was simply 'confirmed' to him by those who had been with Jesus.

And is this true? Is what the apostle Paul claims here true? Can any other part of the Bible uphold (confirm) his claim?

In the epistle to the Galatians, Paul speaks of having gone up to the church in erusalem where those 'which were apostles before him' resided. He went up with Barnabas and Titus. And he met with just Peter and James on one occasion, and on another he met ...

"... privately [with] them which were of reputation -communicating unto them the gospel that [he] preached- lest by any means [he] should run, or had run, in vain.." (Gal 2:2)

Paul, here, is describing how the gospel was "confirmed" to him by the apostles, and others, in Jerusalem.

I'll stop there on that topic. I could go on and discuss Paul's 'signature salutation' that was unique only to him and not to any of the other apostles, and with which the Hebrew epistle is signed (John later adopted it many decades later), but enough already.
__________________________________________________ _______

Poster 'aron', you said that the epistle to the Hebrews doesn't say that Hebrews can't be Hebrews, but it does say that they shouldn't shrink back to Jewish customs.

I really wonder how you feel when you swallow your tongue like this? How do you feel having to repeat scripture you were unaware of, and that only a day ago you were refuting with all your might?

... okay, so you appear to have spotted some difference.

...the difference between what, I wonder? I dunno. The epistle, apart from the fact that it is addressed to the Hebrews, makes no mention of the word "Hebrew". What do you call a Hebrew without his Jewish customs, anyway? What is he? Aren't you just equivocating?

This is a point of controversy that you have spun like a cobweb right out of your own head.

You seem to have fabricated your own 'difference' to try and make the epistle say -in words of your own manufacture- what it unequivocally does not say. In effect, you are dragging Paul into a debate that he did not have.

You are simply quibbling yet again.

Let's even say that what you're trying to assert is even remotely true. The difference you're trying to make me see -like an illusionist- is the same difference between 'six of these' and 'half a dozen of the other'.

"Do you see the difference?" you asked..

No, I don't. But I bet you do.

__________________________________________________ ______

Poster 'aron',

You claim Paul was a pharisee all his life and that he never left it.

Have you some scrolls, some parchments, the rest of us are not privy to?

If he remained in the sect of the pharisees, even after his conversion, then why were they seeking to kill him?

There was also a sect of the pharisees in Jerusalem who believed and professed faith (Acts 15:5). Is there any indication that Paul was any part of them?

No. None.

They commanded that Gentiles should be circumcised and that they should keep the Law of Moses. Paul stood vociferously against this position because he viewed it as a turning away from liberty and a return to bondage.

What did he say about those pharisees?

Let the Bible provide you with the answer:

"But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of FALSE BRETHREN unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage..." (Galatians 2:3-4).

He called his erstwhile fellow-pharisees (who believed) false brethren!

Paul "never stopped being a pharisee", you say?

Are you quite sure?

"I was circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as touching the law, a pharisee... but what things (above) were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ... for whom I have suffered the loss of all [those] things (above), AND DO COUNT THEM BUT DUNG that I may win Christ" (Phil 3:5-8)

Do I need to spell it out for you, poster 'aron'?

He considered being a 'pharisee', and all things to do with the Jewish nation, and its law, and its customs, nothing but LOSS, nothing but DUNG.

In 'American': he called those 'things' good, ole Texan BS!

(his words, not mine)

I'm out.

Ohio · 04-11-2024, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I doubt the author of the epistle To the Hebrews was Paul. He said that the gospel was made known to him by those who saw the Lord (Heb 2:3). Paul got his revelation from God, he made that plain and would not have contradicted himself this way.

Years ago I studied this topic about the authorship. All the best scholars said only Paul could write such a monumental treatise. All the best scholars concluded that, of all the N.T. writers, only Luke's Greek writing skills could match the vocabulary and grammatical writing skills. The scholars also said Hebrews was probably written while Paul was under house arrest and "only Luke was with him." Putting the puzzle pieces together, the best solution seemed that Paul authored the draft, and Luke wrote the final epistle. Since Paul was forsaken by nearly all, and so hated by the Jews, the Spirit directed the writer to plead anonymity.

DeadManWalkin · 04-12-2024, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Years ago I studied this topic about the authorship. All the best scholars said only Paul could write such a monumental treatise. All the best scholars concluded that, of all the N.T. writers, only Luke's Greek writing skills could match the vocabulary and grammatical writing skills. The scholars also said Hebrews was probably written while Paul was under house arrest and "only Luke was with him." Putting the puzzle pieces together, the best solution seemed that Paul authored the draft, and Luke wrote the final epistle. Since Paul was forsaken by nearly all, and so hated by the Jews, the Spirit directed the writer to plead anonymity.

Thanks Ohio, for your scholarship...

I had read about the uncertainty and controversy surrounding the mysterious authorship of the letter to the Hebrews many years ago; and, like you, after carefully weighing all the evidence, decided that Paul must have penned it.

However, either I seem to have forgotten, or I didn't know, that Luke might have been with him when he wrote it. Thanks for bringing that up. It thickens the plot.

I had suspected that Paul didn't append his name because he was writing to his fellow Jews. I thought that was because he assumed that they all knew him; unlike it was with the Gentiles he wrote epistles to, who were unfamiliar with him.

But the reason you've given -that it was because of the violent antagonism of the Jews towards Paul (and not just their familiarity with him) that led him to remain anonymous. That explanation adds color to the mystery.

...alright, I'm outta here, g'nite.

aron · 04-12-2024, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Years ago I studied this topic about the authorship. All the best scholars said only Paul could write such a monumental treatise. All the best scholars concluded that, of all the N.T. writers, only Luke's Greek writing skills could match the vocabulary and grammatical writing skills. The scholars also said Hebrews was probably written while Paul was under house arrest and "only Luke was with him."

I've heard this in the past & was unimpressed, but decided to revisit, and you are right, there is a fair amount of scholarly support for the idea. I read one paper that hypothesized that Luke transcribed a sermon of Paul to the discouraged Jews, just as he did Paul's speeches in Acts. Then the "to us" part of Hebrews 2:3 makes sense. Here, Paul is speaking on behalf of the steadfast ones, who believed and have not fallen away.

Be that as it may, the point remains, that the law of Christ, the royal law, and the new commandments to love one another are seen as the foundation of the kingdom of God, and its crown. Love one another. And in that commandment there is truly no Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. All are beloved children in the Father's house. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "What do you have that you did not receive?"

And the economy of God, as I have argued on this forum, is love expressed, to share with one another. "When I was sick you visited me", is followed by "He who gathered much had no excess, he who gathered little had no lack", and, "It is better to give than to receive." When you see this, the apostles charge to Paul fits neatly: "Only remember the poor". Its all one seamless, coherent narrative.

Ohio · 04-12-2024, 04:46 AM

Actually, I never read a scholar coming to my conclusion about Hebrews. All I have read limited the authorship to a lone individual, and that’s why there was no agreement.

Concerning the “economy of God,” I have always agreed that your views match both the scripture and the heart of God. Just yesterday I read in Acts “it is more blessed to give than receive.” Paul said this was the Lord’s word, yet it is not recorded in any of the Gospels. So it must have been circulated among the disciples as one of their remembrances of being with Jesus.

And this highlights the conflicts with the WL “economy.” It was all about going to more meetings and trainings, hearing more, receiving more, ergo more “dispensing.” As long as we “loved the ministry” which is to “love WL,” then supposedly we were healthy in the faith, and “one with the brothers.” But God’s household administration is all about loving God to love your neighbor, you know, the one you don’t like.

Ohio · 04-12-2024, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadManWalkin

Thanks Ohio, for your scholarship...

Dead Man Walkin, after reading a few of your posts, I noticed your seasoned sarcasm skills rival even my own. That is both encouraging and frightening. Sometimes when fully engaging our common passion, the Lord reminds me that sarcasm etymologically means to “cut flesh.” Ouch! Then I am reminded of another saying of the Lord, “I will have mercy on those who show mercy.” To hear the Lord while we write is a wonderful thing. Thanks for joining the discussion.

UntoHim · 04-12-2024, 09:02 AM

To our new friend DeadManWalkin:

Your post #43 was way over-the-top, and unnecessarily argumentative. There is no need to address every point aron has made on this entire thread in one post. Also, most of this post falls under the category of an ad hominem. Kind of ironic that this took place on a thread entitled "The Law of Christ"!
-

DeadManWalkin · 04-12-2024, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

To our new friend DeadManWalkin:

Your post #43 was way over-the-top, and unnecessarily argumentative. There is no need to address every point aron has made on this entire thread in one post. Also, most of this post falls under the category of an ad hominem. Kind of ironic that this took place on a thread entitled "The Law of Christ"!
-

It shan't happen again, I'm sorry.
I promise to do better next time...

DeadManWalkin · 04-12-2024, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I doubt the author of the epistle To the Hebrews was Paul. He said that the gospel was made known to him by those who saw the Lord (Heb 2:3). Paul got his revelation from God, he made that plain and would not have contradicted himself this way.

The epistle To the Hebrews does speak of the inferiority of the law, but it doesn't say that Hebrews couldn't be Hebrews, just that they shouldn't be shrinking back (or "falling away" in your term) from faith in Jesus Christ back to Jewish customs. Do you see the difference? Just like Paul saying to the Galatians that if they try to keep the law that their faith is of none effect, it is because they are gentile Christians, not because they are Christians.

Paul never stopped being a Pharisee, but he never left in the revelation that appeared to him on the road to Damascus: Jesus is the resurrected Lord, and salvation comes to all who confess his name, both to the Jew and to the Greek. Paul held forth that revelation until the day he died.

SCRUBBED & REVISED VERSION

(only points raised in 'aron's post are addressed)

Dear 'aron',

I apologize and extend you my deepest regrets for my callous and heartless post.

I allowed myself to be overwhelmed by passion.

I hope you will forgive me.

________________

Moving on...

You began your response by asserting that you didn't think that Paul wrote the book to the Hebrews.

I had previously kindly asked you to go through the book to the Hebrews to discover for yourself that the claims you've made about the dichotomy you believe exists between Jews and Gentiles are, sadly, unsubstantiated. So the thing about the authorship was kind of besides the point.

But let me address it, anyway.

First of all, I think you may have unfortunately misunderstood the actual words that are written in the second chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews.

And the words I believe you have misread are the same words you have made your appeal to as support for your doubts as to the authorship of the epistle.

No problem. We all misread things at one time or the other.

You say that the author says, the "gospel was made known to him by those who saw the Lord"

My version of the Bible doesn't say that .

Here is what it says:

"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was CONFIRMED unto us by those that heard him" (Heb 2:3)

I would like to draw your attention to the word, 'CONFIRM' in this verse.

Some synonyms for this word include:

1. Reassert
2. Corroborate
3. Validate
4. Verify
5. Strengthen
6. Establish
7. Prove
8. Uphold, et cetera

Do you appreciate the subtle difference?

He had already had the gospel made known to him (by revelation, as you correctly pointed out) and now it was simply 'confirmed' to him by those who had been with Jesus.

And the question is: is it true? Can any other part of the Bible corroborate (or, confirm) the claim he has made here in Hebrews? Did it actually happen?

In the epistle to the Galatians, Paul speaks of having gone up to the church in erusalem where those 'which were apostles before him' resided. He went up with Barnabas and Titus. And he met with just Peter and James on one occasion, and on another he met ...

"... privately [with] them which were of reputation -communicating unto them the gospel that [he] preached- lest by any means [he] should run, or had run, in vain.." (Gal 2:2)

Paul, here, is recounting how the gospel was "confirmed" to him by the apostles, and others, in Jerusalem.

Scholars also claim that Paul's distinctive 'signature salutation' i.e. "grace be with you" is used in this epistle.
__________________________________________________ _______

Dear 'aron',

... in the post you have said that the epistle to the Hebrews doesn't say that Hebrews can't be Hebrews, but it does say that they should not return to their Jewish customs.

I'm confused. Is there any difference between those two things?

What does it mean to be a Hebrew?

Perhaps, you'd care to explain.

__________________________________________________ ______

Dear 'aron',

You say Paul was a pharisee all his life and that he never left it.

If, in fact, he remained in the sect of the pharisees, even after his conversion, then why were they seeking to kill him, I ask?

There was also a sect of the pharisees in Jerusalem who believed and professed faith (Acts 15:5). Is there any indication that Paul was any part of them?

There is none.

They commanded that Gentiles should be circumcised and that they should keep the Law of Moses. Paul stood vociferously against this position because he viewed it as a turning away from liberty and a return to bondage.

What did he say about those pharisees?

Let me let the Bible provide the answer:

"But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of FALSE BRETHREN unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage..." (Galatians 2:3-4).

He called his erstwhile fellow-pharisees (who believed) false brethren!

So, if Paul "never stopped being a pharisee", as it is claimed..

...then why would he tell the Philippians:

"I was circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, as touching the law, a pharisee... but what things (above) were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ... for whom I have suffered the loss of all [those] things (above), AND DO COUNT THEM BUT DUNG that I may win Christ" ? (Phil 3:5-8)

I don't think he could have made himself more abundantly clear.

He considered being a 'pharisee', and all things to do with the Jewish nation, and its law, and its customs, nothing but LOSS, nothing but DUNG.

In 'American': he called those 'things' good, ole Texan BS!

(his words, not mine)

Be blessed, dear brother, 'aron'

aron · 04-12-2024, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

God’s household administration is all about loving God to love your neighbor, you know, the one you don’t like.

I don't have the quote in front of me, but I believe it goes something like, "And now, you are not far from the kingdom of God..."

aron · 04-12-2024, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadManWalkin

Dear 'aron',

I apologize and extend you my deepest regrets for my callous and heartless post.

I allowed myself to be overwhelmed by passion.

I hope you will forgive me.

No worries. I occasionally do the same thing, I'm sure. "Forgive, even as ye are forgiven". So, no worries

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadManWalkin

__Paul had already had the gospel made known to him (by revelation, as you correctly pointed out) and now it was simply 'confirmed' to him by those who had been with Jesus.

I see your point. Thank you. Always happy to consider alternatives to my views. I think we tend to read our concepts onto the text, looking for confirmation, rather than allowing the text to shape our concepts. So your comments are helpful indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadManWalkin

Dear 'aron',

... in the post you have said that the epistle to the Hebrews doesn't say that Hebrews can't be Hebrews, but it does say that they should not return to their Jewish customs.

I'm confused. Is there any difference between those two things?

What does it mean to be a Hebrew?

Perhaps, you'd care to explain..

I suppose you missed my homespun analogy, or thought it unworthy. However, my thinking went like this. Suppose a Chinese became a Christian. Can he still celebrate Chinese New Year? If he can, and remain a Christian, then why can't the Hebrew, as well? How is it that the only race that can't be themselves any more are the Hebrews? Does that position make any sense?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadManWalkin

You say Paul was a pharisee all his life and that he never left it.

At the end of Acts, Paul said, "I am a Pharisee". I don't know if the Greek or some other translation would help, but my English translation seemed pretty plain. I didn't try to read too much into it, I think.

Again, the Chinese can say, "My Chinese culture is dung to me", and so can the Scot and the Swede. But I won't forbid the Scot from wearing a kilt, the Chinese from eating dumplings. If being a Pharisee was dung to Paul, why did he still say, "I am a Pharisee"? Either he was talking out of both sides of his mouth, or it really didn't matter.

Some observe some days, some don't. So said Paul. Some eat certain foods, some don't. So said Paul. The issue was insisting on foods, or days, or customs, as a requirement of the salvation pathway. Paul had done that, prior to meeting Christ on the road outside of Damascus (Acts 9:3), now he insisted on nothing, and wouldn't allow others, not for a moment (Gal 2:5). No, the cross nullified all that. Paul was dead to the world and the world was dead to Paul. But he was still a Pharisee, albeit a Pharisee that was crucified with Christ.

---------------------

Back to the topic at hand. The law of Christ, the royal law, the new commandment, made external distinctions such as male and female, Jew and Greek, slave and free, Pharisee and non-Pharisee, null and void. To Paul they were now just dust, detritus of world completely gone. What was left? Just, love one another. (But notice that Paul still tells wives to obey husbands, slaves to obey masters, etc. He's willing to acknowledge the temporal, corporeal order, even while declaring it as rendered void)

aron · 04-14-2024, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simple simon

... does peter's strict following of the law's dietary restrictions mean that he kept the whole law? Is the law made up of only dietary restrictions? I think from what I've gathered on this thread, to keep the law you must keep the whole law. Or is the poster who wrote that mistaken? So even if peter had never eaten anything unclean in his life (as he declared) before the demanding rigorrs of the law he was still guilty. But it looks like you take another view.

I overstated my case, that Peter, 7 years after the resurrection, is seen saying that he never ate anything unclean. Certainly I never meant to imply that he considered this the basis of holiness or righteousness. But I did say that Peter followed the whole law, which isn't in the text.

And I want to follow DMW and make an apology with deepest regrets for being provocative. I deliberately do so, to shake people out of somnolence (as I perceive it) and to question their assumptions, many of which seriously need to be challenged. But in doing so, I state conjectures and possibilities (to my mind they are possible) as though they were in fact so. When something is possible, that's a far cry from being certain, and I typically state suppositions and hypotheses as though they were bald facts.

This is I'm sure annoying to many. Please accept my apologies. I'll try to be more circumspect in the future.

--------

On that note, I did learn something from DMW about authorship of Hebrews. I didn't think it possible that Paul could have written Hebrews 2:3, now I see scenarios where either Paul or Paul/Luke could have written that.

My certainty is that I believe and confess that God raised Jesus from the dead. If Jesus died and remains buried to this day, then my life, as my confessed faith, was for nothing. But beyond that, I don't hold too much firmly, lest I should find myself arguing over nothing. I like to think aloud but sometimes do it too aggressively. Considerations are not wrong. But they are not facts.

-------

My present consideration has been whether the law of Christ, the royal law, the new commandment, that we love one another as we love God, has been obviated by the considerations, interpretations and opinions of others, which when imposed, effectively became the new laws in the church. Our desires color our opinions, and our opinions color the facts, and obscure them. Now centuries have passed, and the facts are buried by layers of opinions, customs, cultures, and organized detritus. But it's still rubble, just stacked up in piles and painted shiny white.

aron · 04-14-2024, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

My present consideration has been whether the law of Christ, the royal law, the new commandment, that we love one another as we love God, has been obviated by the considerations, interpretations and opinions of others, which when imposed, effectively became the new laws in the church.

I'll try not to overstate my case, nor make it antagonistic. But my sense has been that "There is neither Jew nor Greek" within a few generations became "There is no Jew, only Greek", followed by whichever non-Jewish variant had wrested ecclesiastic power in turn - Romans, Germans, Spanish, English, Dutch, Americans, etc. But in all cases, "No Jews" continued to be the watchword within the now wholly Christian church.

It is so bare, so stark, and so striking, that a casual observer of Christian history can quickly point to the first Jew who showed up in church in the modern era: a young student in the late 19th century in Eastern Europe, who'd been studying religious texts as an exercise in comparative religious literature, and in reading the New Testament, believed into Jesus Christ. I won't look up his name, but anyone can find him with a quick search of the internet. For centuries not one Jew had darkened door of the church, and the first one that finally did, caused something of a sensation. I find that rather striking.

So my observation is that something interfered with the law of Christ, if the Jews who started it all were soon shut out, even violently so. Something was very off. Billy Graham's unfortunate expressions of anti-Semitism, for example, this wasn't some aberrant feature of the broader spectrum. No, it was very much par for the course, a long and unsavory course.

And I don't mean to be provocative; but it seems as though the dominant culture callously takes its own proprietary spin on the "Neither Jew nor Greek" theme. In the case of Witness Lee and his Local Church, we laughed as he made fun of Western culture - Santa Claus, Xmas stockings, the Easter Bunny, har-har. But when it came to Chinese culture, nobody laughed if Witness Lee the church elder had unspiritual sons: "Don't touch the [Chinese] leader's family" over-rode Titus 1:6. So, my point is that "no culture" was a Trojan Horse for "my culture".

And the law of Christ, apart from the occasional lip service, mostly got set aside. It was something to be waved when convenient, ignored when inconvenient.

UntoHim · 04-15-2024, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

And the law of Christ, apart from the occasional lip service, mostly got set aside. It was something to be waved when convenient, ignored when inconvenient.

This is a very poignant and pertinent observation. And this dynamic comes into play in almost every aspect of the teachings and practices in the Local Church of Witness Lee.

With one breath it is said "We don't take a name!" and with the next breath "We are Witness Lee tape recorders!". With one breath "We accept all Christians as our brothers and sisters!" and with the next "All Christians outside of our movement are spiritually bankrupt!" With one breath "The Word of God is our only standard!" and with the next "We only accept the One Publication from the One Minister with the One Ministry for the age!" With one breath "There are no official positions or leaders in our movement, we are all just brothers and sisters in Christ!" and with the next "Witness Lee was/is an apostle just like the apostle Paul and all others are at best junior apostles and must submit to his person and work or be quarantined and/or excommunicated!"

In the Local Church "the Law of Christ" is actually a moving target....it all depends on what Witness Lee said it was....unless he contradicted himself (something that happened all the time) in which case the Law of Christ is whatever the Blended Brothers say it is on any given day. And with this the followers of Witness Lee are constantly "making void the word of God (and by extension, the Law of Christ) by their traditions that have been handed down." (taken from Mark 7:13)

May God have mercy!
~

04-17-2024, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

At the end of Acts, Paul said, "I am a Pharisee". I don't know if the Greek or some other translation would help, but my English translation seemed pretty plain. I didn't try to read too much into it, I think.

Again, the Chinese can say, "My Chinese culture is dung to me", and so can the Scot and the Swede. But I won't forbid the Scot from wearing a kilt, the Chinese from eating dumplings. If being a Pharisee was dung to Paul, why did he still say, "I am a Pharisee"? Either he was talking out of both sides of his mouth, or it really didn't matter.... But he was still a Pharisee, albeit a Pharisee that was crucified with Christ.

Back to the topic at hand. The law of Christ, the royal law, the new commandment, made external distinctions such as male and female, Jew and Greek, slave and free, Pharisee and non-Pharisee, null and void. To Paul they were now just dust, detritus of world completely gone. What was left? Just, love one another. (But notice that Paul still tells wives to obey husbands, slaves to obey masters, etc. He's willing to acknowledge the temporal, corporeal order, even while declaring it as rendered void)

hullo mr.aron,

simple simon says...

paul defended and stood for the LAW OF CHRIST until the end of his life. he was often before kings, rulers, and governors defending this driving principle of the gospel.

i've identified the passage in book of acts that you must be alluding to (paul does not mention the word 'pharisee' elsewhere toward the end of the book, so this must be it) and he is in chains before 'rulers and kings', as it were, and under examination, having been accused of the jews of subverting their religion. but I wouldn't be so sure that he boasts of being a pharisee here [acts 26:1-11]. . maybe if you read it again while also considering the context paul's words might yield a different meaning.

so, the context is, under examination, paul stands accused by the jews of speaking against the 'Law Of Moses', and teaching things contrary to the Law.

paul has denied this...

he had already told the governor, festus, that 'neither against the Law of the jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against ceasar have i offended in anything at all' [acts 25:8]

and in the portion of scripture you have referenced he stands before king agrippa whom he knows is an expert (like him) in all the questions and customs of his accusers, the jews;

and he tells the king that these same jews knew his "manner of life from his youth" (referring to the past) and because they knew him "from the beginning" (referring, again, to the past) they -his accusers- could 'testify that after the most straitest sect of their religion he had LIVED as a pharisee' (past tense).

it doesn't look like he is making a proud boast of being a pharisee, the way you seem to have read it, i don't think, mr.aron...paul doesn't say 'i am a pharisee'.

his intention, instead, in telling the king of this detail about himself is to reassure the king that in any question concerning the jewish law, he, paul, was just as well versed on any point concerning it as any of his accusers, and that he was not simply some idle subverter of the law: he, in fact, having been a member of the extremely strict sect of the pharisees, knew better than anybody what he was talking about when he 'appeared' to be preaching against the Law.

that is his point

don't you think the context cries out for this interpretation?

i'd be interested in hearing your response, mr.aron, there could be something that i've missed which you see.

that's it

...coz simple simon said so...

aron · 04-18-2024, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simple simon

hullo mr.aron,

simple simon says...

paul defended and stood for the LAW OF CHRIST until the end of his life. he was often before kings, rulers, and governors defending this driving principle of the

and in the portion of scripture you have referenced he stands before king agrippa whom he knows is an expert (like him) in all the questions and customs of his accusers, the jews;

hello mr ss,

The topic of this thread is the law of Christ, the royal law, the new commandment, to love one another. That is my understanding. If you believe and confess that God has raised Jesus from the dead, then all other positions become moot. You can be a Pharisee, albeit one that has believed into the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Being a Pharisee, or not, is dung, it is refuse, it is detritus of a world now gone forever.

(Now, I would argue that you categorically can not be a Sadducee and a Christian because Sadducees don't believe in the resurrection. I think some of them tried, but Paul called them out. 1 Cor 15:12)

As far as the context of Paul's speech, you could interpret is as if he was formerly a Pharisee. I can infer that he is a Pharisee, albeit a disciple of Yeshua.

"Then Paul, knowing that some were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out to the Sanhedrin, 'My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees, I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead." ~Acts 23:6

My point has been that either Paul lied to win a debating point and split the Sanhedrin, or he remained a Pharisee after converting to be Jesus's disciple.

But whether my interpretation is 'valid' is irrelevant. The cross of Christ has rendered arguments moot. Whether or not Jews continued Jewish practice, and if so how much, is really not worth arguing over.

I think what was definitively fixed was that the gentiles were not to be forced to live like the Jews. THAT would have validated the law of Christ. Paul remonstrated with Peter using these exact words: "How can you force the gentiles to live like the Jews?"

bearbear · 04-21-2024, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

In the Local Church "the Law of Christ" is actually a moving target....it all depends on what Witness Lee said it was....unless he contradicted himself (something that happened all the time) in which case the Law of Christ is whatever the Blended Brothers say it is on any given day. And with this the followers of Witness Lee are constantly "making void the word of God (and by extension, the Law of Christ) by their traditions that have been handed down." (taken from Mark 7:13)

The description of the "moving target" reminds me of Matthew 7:26
"And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand."

Sand is not stable and tends to move or "shift" when the wind and waves beat against it. If the LCs were built on such a foundation of WL's words which were changing and shifting, then Jesus' prophecy would ring true.

I remember growing up in the LCs that we were taught that the sermon on the mount showed our need for Christ because it was impossible to follow-- but then it just stopped there as if we weren't expected to actually attempt to follow Jesus' teachings because it was too hard. Perhaps this gave the opportunity for WL's commandments to fill the void.

Yet Jesus actually ends the sermon on the mount with a warning that people who only hear his word but don't actually do it will have a great fall:

Matthew 7:27
"And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

I think the sermon on the mount is also contained in the law of Christ because it contains Jesus' commandments which are related to love.

In the sermon on the mount, Jesus equated hatred towards a brother with murder.

Matthew 5:21-22
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

The Apostle John confirms that we should take Jesus at his word in verses like 1 John 3:15
"Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him."

Someone who hates his brother may not be born again of the Holy Spirit. We can only "do" Jesus' sermon on the mount through the Holy Spirit who lives in us because it is humanly impossible. I agree the sermon on the mount shows our need for Christ, but it would be a tragedy to stop there and not try to obey. When we try to obey that's where God's grace comes in to help us through the Holy Spirit

Acts 5:32
And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.

04-24-2024, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

As far as the context of Paul's speech, you could interpret is as if he was formerly a Pharisee. I can infer that he is a Pharisee, albeit a disciple of Yeshua.

"Then Paul, knowing that some were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out to the Sanhedrin, 'My brothers, I am a Pharisee, DESCENDED FROM PHARISEES, I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead." ~Acts 23:6

My point has been that either Paul lied to win a debating point and split the Sanhedrin, or he remained a Pharisee after converting to be Jesus's disciple.

Paul did not actually lie to win a debating point. ..

...and neither did he remain a pharisee after converting to be Jesus' disciple.

To explain, for example, former President Trump, on occasion, refers proudly to his German roots. His grandfather, emigrated to America back in the nineteenth century having hailed from Germany. His grandfather was naturalized (and even slightly altered his name) and became an American citizen. This man's acquired citizenship passed down naturally to former president, Donald Trump.

President Trump can make the claim on any given day to be "German" by virtue of the fact that he has German blood coursing through his veins because he is DESCENDED from German grand, and great-grand parents.

But legally and legitimately, he is an American.
His passport is American.
He speaks American English.
He owes his allegiance to the American flag.
Once, he would have been expected to serve with the American military (as, and when, necessary).
He pays his taxes to the American government.

None of the above applies to him in relation to the State of Germany because he is NOT a German in any real or meaningful sense.

But he can truthfully claim to be (when it suits him).

The same can go for Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Russian-Americans, Asian-Americans, African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, etc, the list goes on.

There was a time in this country, a hundred or so more years ago, when immigrants would simply describe themselves by the nationality from which they hailed, and not even call themselves "American" e.g. "I'm Italian", or "I'm Mexican". They who considered themselves "real" Americans were those who could trace their roots back to the Mayflower, or circa.

Nevertheless, legally and factually, they're all Americans.

* (please note that I have deliberately avoided the question of the native Americans)

Two thousand years ago, Paul told the council he was standing before:

'I am a pharisee. I am DESCENDED from pharisees'

Take careful note that he qualified his standing as a pharisee, ONLY by identifying with that religious sect by a link of lineage. And no more.

And that was because his status had, in fact, changed. His 'citizenship' had been altered (Eph 2:19)...and because it had been altered he no longer 'belonged' to the sect of the pharisees.

His life was no longer governed by the Mosaic Law, to which the pharisees clung like a drowning man to a floating debris, and without which they could have had no justification whatsoever for their existence. Their lives revolved around the 'law', and nothing else (Matthew 23:2)

Paul's life, however, was now governed by Christ's Law (or, the law of Christ). He was a 'new creature' and 'old things had passed away'. From Saul, his name was changed to Paul, signifying his change of citizenship.

He was as much a pharisee, therefore, as President Joe Biden is Irish.

Thank you

8

aron · 04-25-2024, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lee-ading Lady

Two thousand years ago, Paul told the council he was standing before:

'I am a pharisee. I am DESCENDED from pharisees'

Take careful note that he qualified his standing as a pharisee, ONLY by identifying with that religious sect by a link of lineage. And no more.

And that was because his status had, in fact, changed. His 'citizenship' had been altered (Eph 2:19)...and because it had been altered he no longer 'belonged' to the sect of the pharisees.

His life was no longer governed by the Mosaic Law, to which the pharisees clung like a drowning man to a floating debris, and without which they could have had no justification whatsoever for their existence. Their lives revolved around the 'law', and nothing else (Matthew 23:2)

Paul's life, however, was now governed by Christ's Law (or, the law of Christ). He was a 'new creature' and 'old things had passed away'. From Saul, his name was changed to Paul, signifying his change of citizenship.

He was as much a pharisee, therefore, as President Joe Biden is Irish.

I see your argument, but it looks strained. Would anyone ever say, "I used to be Irish, but now I'm a Christian"? No, of course not, because being Irish isn't mutually incompatible with being Christian.

Why then do we think it's mutually incompatible with being Christian and Pharisee? Luke says in the next verse, in case anyone lacks awareness, that Pharisees believe in the resurrection. How then is it fantastic if they believe in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead?

Following your logic, we end up in a strange world, like a Jehovah Witness painting, where everyone looks like us, or at least what we think they should look like according to our cognition.

The Bible says, "Every tribe and tongue and nation", and we add, "as long as they are not Jewish", but by our qualifiers, what have we done to the law of Christ? "I will love you, as long as you're not a Pharisee"?

To repeat, the the running theme of the NT was whether the gentile converts should be forced to live like the Jews, and that in a perpetual second-tier status, like a proselyte. The answer was unequivocally "no". But nothing was stated, or implied, that Jews were forced to abandon the law.

I was in a meeting once, the Blended Brother read the part in Acts where James told Paul that all the Christian Jews in Jerusalem were "zealous for the law". The brother then closed his eyes, leaned back, and went, "Noooooooo!!!" But notice that Paul never did this. He only did this when they tried to force the gentiles to live like the Jews. See, e. g., Gal 2:14

aron · 04-26-2024, 06:55 AM

There is a discussion in modern scholarship on the so-called "New Perspective on Paul", that Paul wasn't necessarily antagonistic to the Jewish faith, but rather exporting aspects of its ceremonial 'purity' laws (dietary, circumcision, observances of days) on the gentile converts. The 'Judaizers' were then Jews who imposed ceremonial purity on non-Jews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul

But it's not something that I'm invested in, or deeply informed about, just adding a note here, that my perspective probably has some overlap with a wider body, with some maybe influenced by verses that have impacted my thinking.

But a perspective is just that: it's a view, based on some available information, and a personal, subjective interpretation of said information. It's not reality itself. At the end of 1 Corinthians 12, Paul writes, "And now I will show you a better way". (12:31b) My perspective isn't something to argue over, nor is anyone else's. So I try to hold my perspective lightly, lest I should lose my way.

If I've made any positive contribution to this thread, I think it was to point out that James' "royal law" seemed apace with Paul's "law of Christ" and the Fourth Gospel's "new commandment". Because of our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we've been transferred into a kingdom of love. And now we endeavour, through steadfast faith (his faith transferred into us as a growing seed, and now operating in us, and flourishing through good works of love expressed) to remain on the Way home to the Father.

I don't see NT authors James, John, Peter, Paul, and Luke, as operating at different spiritual levels, some 'lower and more natural' and some 'higher and more mystical'. All were holding forth the same singular reality, of the faith of Jesus Christ, and the flourishing life that follows. There is everything else, and then there is "the more excellent way".

04-30-2024, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

To repeat, the the running theme of the NT was whether the gentile converts should be forced to live like the Jews, and that in a perpetual second-tier status, like a proselyte. The answer was unequivocally "no". But nothing was STATED, or lMPLIED, that Jews were forced to ABANDON THE LAW.

hey there, mate,

I don't know whether you've ever read through the epistle to the Hebrews, but it most certainly does not agree with you up there (particularly, chapter 3, which carries a sobering word of caution). Why don't you take a peep?

Just my two-pence,
...Lovely day, cheerio...

04-30-2024, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I see your argument, but it looks strained, Would anyone ever say, "I used to be Irish, but now I'm a Christian"? No, of course not
Following your logic, we end up in a strange world

So, would anyone ever say 'I used to be Irish, but now I'm a Christian' is what you think nobody would ever say?

Have I got that right?

Well actually, and for your information, Paul said EXACTLY that!

Unfortunately, there were no Irish people that he knew of back in those days, and so he used a current example...e.g.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek"

Why is there no longer any Jew or Greek?

".. BECAUSE... ye are all ONE in Christ"

And what does that last part mean? (and I've taken note that you like to conveniently leave it out and not address it whenever you whine and complain about this verse).

That last part simply means 'I am a CHRISTIAN'.

So, how does what Paul say differ significantly from what a modern person would say today?

'.. there is neither Jew nor Irish, for we are all Christian (i.e. 'one in Christ')

OR 'I used to be Irish, but now I'm Christian'

So, yes following the logic we do end up in a strange world, but it is a world of faith, for we walk by faith, and not by sight. But the world that you seem to belong to, comrade, well my Bible tells me I'm a 'stranger and a pilgrim' in it (1 Peter 2:11) i.e. a FOREIGNER, meaning I do not belong here.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (all Jews, by the way) have this witness about them from Paul:

"They all died in FAITH, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and CONFESSED that they were STRANGERS AND PILGRIMS on the earth. For they that say such things (by faith, not by sight) declare plainly that they seek AFTER A COUNTRY OF THEIR OWN.". (Hebrews 11:13-14)

Thank you

I hope my absurdly simple explanation hasn't 'straaained' and taxed you too much again this time.

05-01-2024, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeadingLady

Unfortunately, there were no Irish people that he knew of back in those days, and so he used a current example...e.g.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek" Why is there no longer any Jew or Greek?
".. BECAUSE... ye are all ONE in Christ"
That last part simply means 'I am a CHRISTIAN'. So, how does what Paul say differ significantly from what a modern person would say today?
'.. there is neither Jew nor Irish, for we are all Christian (i.e. 'one in Christ') OR 'I used to be Irish, but now I'm Christian

Ma'am,

I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Don't you think you are oversimplifying the verse you've quoted above?

In that verse, the writer also mentions 'slaves and free', 'male and female' as well as 'jews and gentiles'

I don't see how your..forgive me..oversimplification applies to these other categories. I'm sure you left them out in your example so that you might better serve your point, I can see that.

But still, I can't see how you can pick that verse to serve your argument in isolation to the other parts of the verse.

If there are no longer 'male and female', for example, then why does the epistle to Timothy say that 'women should stay silent in the churches'; that 'women should not teach', and that 'women should have no authority over men'? Isn't that a contradiction?

Also, if there are no more 'slaves and free', then why does the epistle to the Colossians say that slaves should obey their masters, and that masters should treat their slaves fairly? Wouldn't that be another contradiction?

Also, if there are no more 'jews and gentiles', then why does the book to the Acts show that all the jews in Jerusalem were 'zealous for the Law', including Paul (he took a vow and shaved his head according to the Law, and he also circumcised Timothy), and including James, the leader, and also Jesus' own brother?

The book to the acts shows clearly, then, that believers in Christ are two people, not one. The Jews who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, but who also keep the whole Law, on the one hand; and gentiles, on the other hand, who also believe in Jesus resurrection, but are exempted from keeping the Law. TWO PEOPLE, NOT ONE...in Christ, I say.

I believe this is the revelation of the book to the acts, but I think you need to have the special eyes and the special understanding in order to see and appreciate it.

Witness Lee, the so-called Seer of the Age did not see this and completely missed it. It was not revealed to him as it is to a handpicked few who now see this.

In fact, just to nail this in, if you go to the epistle to the Ephesians, the writer drives the point home. Apostle Paul, the writer, says that..

.. 'in Christ Jesus [the gentiles] who were at one time far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For [Christ] is our peace who has made BOTH one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition [between the TWO], having abolished in his flesh the hostility, that is, the Law of Commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of TWO one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile BOTH unto God in one body on the tree'
... Ephesians 2:13-16...

I have capitalized the 'crucial' and 'critical' words in this portion of Scripture that give the key to unlocking the grand revelation of the NT. That there are two people in Christ: jews and gentiles.

Don't you see how Apostle Paul keeps mentioning the words BOTH and TWO? Would he have mentioned the number 'Two' if God did not intend for there to be 'two' peoples? No, of course not. This has to be the economy of God, doesn't it?

It is just like having two legs on a man walking together in carefully coordinated fashion. There are two legs, not one. If there was only one how would he walk on only one leg? Likewise, if there is truly "neither Jew nor Gentile" as Galatians says, how will Christ walk? It has to be wrong! That's just plain common sense ! ! !

aron · 05-02-2024, 02:28 AM

I would follow Charlie's post (#65) by adding, look what happens to the rest of scripture if you take "neither Jew nor Greek" to the literal extreme. The scripture concludes the NT by calling "every tribe and tongue and nation" to be present in glory. They are not effaced in the church.

Rev 7:9 "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands."

There is no sense that human distinctions are obliterated. It even says the 12 apostles will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes. If the 12 tribes are in the New Jerusalem, they can't be in church?

And finally, look what happens when we try this - it becomes a trojan horse for whatever culture wants to rule the others. There's no mutuality, reciprocity. I think of Lee's face beaming as he sees the Taipei trainees, during "The New Way". He has eliminated all possible rivals.

And lest anyone think this was an odd blip, he codified it in the Recovery Version footnotes. All local churches were to be "absolutely identical", and "with no distinctions whatever". Does this sound like utopia, or dystopia?

aron · 05-03-2024, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuckoo Charlie

.. if there are no more 'jews and gentiles', then why does the book to the Acts show that all the jews in Jerusalem were 'zealous for the Law', including Paul (he took a vow and shaved his head according to the Law, and he also circumcised Timothy), and including James, the leader, and also Jesus' own brother?

The other illustration which Paul uses to some effect in Ephesians 2 is the idea of two opposing walls joined together through a cornerstone to make one spiritual house. The walls are distinct and even to some degree opposed, but by being joined together the tension supports a roof. In verse 22 Paul says, "You [gentiles] also are being built together..." The walls of my house are separate and distinct and I can point to an East wall and a North wall. Each is by definition unique. But by being joined together, something greater is produced. If we try to efface one of the walls, the building suffers.

05-03-2024, 03:59 AM

From what I’ve seen in the scriptures, the Jewish people appear to have status akin to that of the firstborn child. While all the children of God from ever nation shall receive an inheritance, there is still something unique and distinct about how the Jews have been treated by the Lord throughout history, and the scriptures show that this has not changed.

Romans 1:14-17

14 I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15 That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

Romans 2:5-11

5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

So the reward is given first to the Jews since they have come first, but in the same way a firstborn child is given the most responsibility and therefore more is expected, judgement will also come first upon the Jew and then the Gentile.

So while we should consider “no distinctions” in the sense that all should be treated with honor, love, and respect, there is still a distinction to recognize that plays a role here. This is why I agree with Charlie and Aaron thats we should not take “no distinctions” to the extremes that Witness Lee did. I also ditto and appreciate that it way pointed out that this also applies to the various churches which though they were all one in Christ surely contained many cultural and ethnic distinctions that did not jeopardize their oneness. And I don’t mean differences in the matter of crucial things like sexual immorality and idols. I mean norms and customs which invariably differ among God’s people in the different assemblies.

The Jewish believers and Gentile believers did NOT live their lives in the same way. There were differences in diet, dress, philosophy, etc., and many of these things really were ok s long as the Jews didn’t go around telling everyone that being Koser will save you and so long as the Romans didn’t go around telling everyone that the Jews were a lost cause because they still wanted to eat Kosher.

Bible-believer · 05-03-2024, 10:01 PM

The law of Christ(see Gal. 5:13–18 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. ) is the law of love (John 15:12), and helping others bear their loads is part of it. The greatest burden-bearer who ever lived was the Sin-bearer (Isa. 53:3–10) who said, “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:30). The psalmist tells us to cast our burdens on the Lord (Psa. 55:22) while we are helping others bear theirs.

05-05-2024, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuckoo Charlie

Ma'am, I have to respectfully disagree with you.
Don't you think you are oversimplifying the verse you've quoted above?
In that verse, the writer also mentions 'slaves and free', 'male and female' as well as 'jews and gentiles'
Also, if there are no more 'slaves and free', then why does the epistle to the Colossians say that slaves should obey their masters, and that masters should treat their slaves fairly? Wouldn't that be another contradiction?

Charlie, or rather 'Cuckoo Charlie' (I prefer to use your full username as I feel it to be quite full of meaning and appropriate)

Yes, you are quite right, the verse I quoted does mention 'slaves and free'. It says that there are no longer 'slaves and free' and offers a reason for that. The reason why the apostle Paul says there is no more real distinction of this kind is because both the 'slave' and the 'free' -if they are believers- are 'one in Christ'. They are one...it doesn't say they are two.

Either you believe this or you don't.

You have already indicated in your post that you think Paul's words here are erroneous and that you don't believe them. "Galatians has to be wrong", you wrote.

Cuckoo Charlie, sadly, this makes you an 'unbeliever'.

It is written, "But not all [Israelites] accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "LORD, who has believed our message? Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ".

[Romans 10:16-17]

I would urge you strongly, therefore, Cuckoo, to not become the fulfilment of a negative prophecy out of the book of Isaiah, or out of the Scriptures, just like Judas Iscariot was and unwittingly fulfilled the prophecies about himself.

You have, unfortunately, chosen to deliberately disbelieve a portion of clearly revealed Scripture penned by a specially appointed apostle all in favor of what you have, in rustic simplicity, termed "plain commonsense"

Normally I would not waste my time with you because as someone who has rejected the inerrancy of the Word of God I find I have no common ground with you. Anything I might say would only appear as 'foolishness' to you, and anything you say would only appear as rank foolishness to me. That's how it works [1Cor 2:14-15].

But I'm gambling that you're probably a 'church kid', like me. This wins you a slight reprieve. You are therefore young and impressionable. At your age it is easy to be influenced by all kinds of 'winds of teaching'. And there are plenty of them blowing around -even on this thread.

The words you've written appear to be ideas that you have simply imbibed on this site, even down to the what some would call the 'lame' examples that you draw (you spoke of legs).They are almost the mirror-opposite of the wildly off-course, out-of-kilter ideas I have come across here.

You need to exercise caution, Cuckoo, when you're reading some of the submissions here (including mine). Just because some brothers were way back in the churchlife before you or I were ever born doesn't make them all necessarily wise.

Jesus said, "Take heed what ye hear. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you" [Mark 4:24]. That just means 'nonsense in, nonsense out'.

Now, to your point

It's true that Paul gave instructions to some of the churches that slaves who had believed and been converted should continue to obey their masters, and that masters shouldn't treat them with too heavy a hand. And I can also see why you would question (or why 'others' would lead you to question) Paul's assertion to the Galatians insisting that there's no distinction between 'slave' and 'free'.

It does seem a little odd, doesn't it?

Of course, the only explanation I can offer is that which I discern in the Word of God. I will not invent, and spin, some theory out of what I may have cobbled together from the vain philosophies of the world while I make a pretense of being learned and erudite at whatever cost, even of the truth. Nah, I won't go there.

So, going back to the Word of God, what do we see Paul telling the Corinthians in regard to slaves and freedom?

'Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you -although if you can gain your freedom, do so. FOR he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's 'free' man'; similarly, he who was a 'free' man when he was called is Christ's 'slave'. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men...'

[1Cor 7:20-23]

In short, if you're a believer, and you are free, actually, you are not free. You are a slave that belongs to Christ. He bought you, Paul reminds us, for the price of his own blood, as any slave would have been bought at an auction back in those days.

Alternatively, if you're a believer, and if you are, unfortunately, a slave, in reality, you are, in fact -and crucially in the Lord's consideration- the Lord's 'free' person. And Paul adds that such a person should not consider themselves 'a slave of any man'. That's what the apostle actually says. And I don't dispute it.

But Cuckoo, you want it all to make perfect sense before you can accept it, don't you? Because this doesn't seem to make any sense, does it?

The reason it doesn't make sense to you and appears to be 'foolishness' is because you chose to discard your faith, and elect the 'plain commonsense' that's been presented to you by your new pal and his newfangled theories.

Salvage and 'unshipwreck' your faith, Cuckoo, please. You can't keep calling the Word of God "wrong" every time you run across something you don't understand.

Let's go back to the Word..

Now, it's easy to imagine ourselves as Christ's slaves, even though we're actually free, isn't it? (it sounds all spiritual and self-sacrificial) But it's quite another matter when you're a slave, and in chains, to be told that you are free. It's almost like being mocked, I would imagine.

But here's what I believe Paul meant..

He wrote to the Romans:

'..thanks be to God that, though you used to be 'slaves to sin'...you have [now] been set 'free' from sin and have become 'slaves to righteousness' '

'.. you used to offer your members 'in slavery' to uncleanness, and iniquity unto iniquity, [but] now offer [your members] 'in slavery' to righteousness leading to holiness.'

'.. when you were 'slaves to sin', you were free from the control of righteousness...But now that you have been 'set free from sin' and have BECOME SLAVES TO GOD, the benefit you reap leads to HOLINESS...'

[Romans 6:17-22]

As you can see, Cuckoo, the whole matter before God regarding 'slavery' and 'freedom', 'slaves' and 'free' is not really a question of whether or not you're physically in iron chains and fetters.

Though it is of a little concern, it does not seem to be God's chief and primary concern.

This kind of explains why the Lord Jesus did not deliver the Jewish nation from the iron hold of the Roman Empire when he, as the long-awaited Christ, the son of the warrior-king, David, written of in prophecy, was widely expected to. This was the general expectation. But even by his own disciples his true mission and purpose was misunderstood.

The epistle to the Romans makes it plain that in regard to 'slavery' it is the 'slavery to sin' that is the most pernicious. It is the form of slavery that we, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, are in most need of being delivered from.

And Christ's death on the cross achieved this!

As long as we are believers in him, and his work, we are free!

But we are not free to live unto ourselves [Romans 14:8]. We've been bought, like slaves, for a price. We belong to the Lord, and we "live unto him" and we also "die unto him".

We are, Paul tells the Romans, SLAVES TO RIGHTEOUSNESS, and therefore, SLAVES TO GOD -whether Jew or Gentile, there are no special exceptions.

Some will, of course, be greatly riled and nettled that I've clumped their precious 'Jews' together with those 'dirty Roman Gentiles' (after all, the epistle is addressed to Rome). I mean, how d-d-dare I?

Actually, Paul -and other writers- have gone to extraordinary lengths, throughout the epistles to show that between the Jews and the Gentiles, the Jews are, above all peoples, the most in bondage (the book of Acts, though it doesn't overtly teach this -because of its narrative structure and because it is not its purpose- vividly illustrates it).

Paul, however, does openly teach this to the Galatians by providing them with an allegory that explains the 'two covenants'. He explains that the covenant (the Mosaic Law) given to the children of Israel on Mount Sinai corresponds to Hagar, and her children. Hagar was the bondwoman (the slave), and figuratively, Paul says, all her children are in bondage with her. The children that are in bondage are identified by him as the Jewish nation, represented by the earthly city of Jerusalem. [Galatians 4:21-31]

He concludes this little picture by quoting and stating momentously that the children of Hagar, the bondwoman, (indicating the 'Jews' who are in bondage under the Law) should have no part in the inheritance promised through Isaac, and should be cast out.

This is really meaningful.

Cuckoo Charlie, if you really understood what Paul means, you would not lend your ears so readily to those who would -knowingly or unknowingly- warp and influence your mind, and thus clap you in chains, and rob you of your heritage as a believer.

Take heed how ye hear..

Thank you

There's no time right now to address your concern over the 'neither male nor female' thing. But if God allows...

aron · 05-07-2024, 02:36 AM

In my understanding, the NT came forth onto a conceptual matrix that held up two classes of people. There were the Jews, who obeyed God's law, and there was everyone else. After thanking and blessing the LORD for His provenance, the psalmist added, "You have done this for no other nation, for they have not known Your laws." (147:20 NIV)

But there was a third class, partly in shadow, partly in light. These were non-Jews who attached themselves to the One True God through the obedience of faith. They were called 'proselytes' (Acts 2:10 [KJV]). You can see them as Jesus' initial followers, like Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch in Acts 6:5.

All that changed when Peter visited Cornelius. The Holy Spirit came on Cornelius' house, as it had on the 120 in the upper room at Pentecost. Those leaders who heard of this gift to the gentiles acknowledged the singular reality it represented: repentance unto eternal life (Acts 11:16-18). Why then, lay additional burdens on the believers? If you lay something beyond what God has done, you are fighting against God.

All of this is set in high relief by the law of Christ, the royal law, to love one another. Believe that God has raised Jesus from the dead, and given him glory, and confess this faith, and endure in the confession, and love one another. Then, there are no associate members, no second class citizens dwelling in the shadows. We are all the same, and we are all one.

aron · 05-08-2024, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Some Guy

From what I’ve seen in the scriptures, the Jewish people appear to have status akin to that of the firstborn child. While all the children of God from ever nation shall receive an inheritance, there is still something unique and distinct about how the Jews have been treated by the Lord throughout history, and the scriptures show that this has not changed.

Romans 1:14 I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15 That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

Romans 2:9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

So the reward is given first to the Jews since they have come first, but in the same way a firstborn child is given the most responsibility and therefore more is expected, judgement will also come first upon the Jew and then the Gentile.

If you want to understand Paul, it may help to see him describing himself, what he was, and what he was not. Paul was the self described apostle to the gentiles, alternately the apostle to the uncircumcised just as Peter to the circumcised. Paul didn't erase or supplant or supersede the Twelve, he augmented them.

The Jews were first chronologically but were the center geographically. The gentiles were on the periphery, the Jews in the center. Paul's mission was to go out, and to return, "with alms for my nation." Remember that Paul was in a hurry to make Jerusalem by Pentecost*, knowing what his return symbolized to the Twelve and the Jerusalem ekklesia. And Paul didn't cry out with alarm, as I saw with the local church elder, in recounting the story, when James said that they were all zealous for the law.

Another helpful image is Chist as the cornerstone. There's a cornerstone because there's a corner, and there's a corner because there are two walls. Christ joins them together in union, makes the resulting structure viable. Paul labored on the "gentile wall" just as Peter and the Twelve on the "Jewish wall."

(*and if this seems like a one-off, or anomaly, look at the conclusion of the NT. The gentiles [nations, or 'ethnoi'] walk in the light of the New Jerusalem and bring their glories & treasures to it, just as in Solomon's time. "Are you at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel" was the last query to the Lord, pre-ascension).

aron · 05-09-2024, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Humble Bricklayer

.. in contrast to the exhortation to his disciples to love one another, with the lawyer Jesus simply quotes from what is written in the Old Testament. He does not even invite him to try and keep the two great commandments (he knows nobody can). He only explains that the whole LAW hangs on these two.

The 'love' spoken of in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 is completely different from the 'love' that the Lord prescribes as a 'new commandment' in John 13: 34. The difference between them can be compared to that between the blood of bulls and goats, and the blood of Christ.

I find that the categorical statement is categorically wrong. Jesus kept the law. That is why his death was held as acceptable and substitutionary. The love of Deuteronomy and Leviticus was kept by Jesus, and none other. His love is the love of God.

What happens instead is that we dismiss Scripture. "All men have fallen short of the glory of God." and "All men are sinners." All men but one. If it were truly all men then we would have no hope.

"I love the LORD for He has heard my voice" Psalm 116 "He brought me into a spacious place; He rescued me, because He delighted in me." Psalm 18. We can either say, "No, the psalmist didn't love the LORD at all, and the LORD didn't delight in the psalmist" because the psalmist was a sinner. All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

We could say that. But that would kind of miss the whole point of the New Testament. Jesus loved the Father. The Father delighted in Jesus. "This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I delight. Hear Him."

Anyone who says, "Nobody can keep the law" is saying "Jesus could not keep the law". I find this concept to be directly at odds with the entire testimony of the Bible. Not only wrong but completely mis-aiming.

UntoHim · 05-09-2024, 06:14 PM

“The Gospel does not abrogate God's law, but it makes men love it with all of their hearts.”
J. Gresham Machen
~
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
KJV
Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.
Darby
Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.
Amplified
(Matthew 5:17)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Jesus kept the law. That is why his death was held as acceptable and substitutionary.

The simple truth is that "The Law of Christ" was nothing more, or nothing less, than the Law of the Father - AKA The Law that was referred to in the Torah since the beginning. When the Lord Jesus proclaimed "A new commandment I give unto you", he was neither destroying, making void or doing away with the basic tenets of The Law - in fact he was fulfilling the Law. Now, if the Lord Jesus, our example, did not destroy, make void or do away with "the perfect law of liberty" (James 1:25) - and neither did the original apostles - then how shall we even begin to think this would be our supposed assignment, much, much less mandate?

Yes, I believe Machen was right on - The Gospel does not abrogate God's law, on the contrary, it makes us love it with all our hearts. This is one of the reasons I think our friend aron can speak to this so convincingly here on this thread - the Psalms are full of The Law. One could argue that one of the main themes of the Psalms is the saints love for the Law. (aron can correct me on this for sure!) It never ceases to amaze me how so many of the (successful) governments of the world are based on laws - - yet many of us modern day Christians seem to think that God's government is not as strictly based on laws? Just sayin...
-

04-01-2024, 03:34 PM	#2
Humble Bricklayer Guest Posts: n/a	Re: The Law of Christ Jesus also sums up the law in Matthew 22:34-40 as loving God and loving neighbor so this could be the law of Christ. Another clue is that Paul states multiple times in his epistles that we should still follow the moral portion of the ten commandments in verses like Galatians 5:19-21 If you think about it, the attributes described above are all opposed to love-- so the moral commandments could be seen as under the umbrella of "love". And in Jesus sermon on the mount He even brings the moral law higher to our hearts by teaching we should not hate our brother (OT version: murder). So in a sense we do follow all Ten commandments in the New Covenant but at a spiritual and heart level-- and not of ourselves but through the Holy Spirit by being born again (1 John 4:7). The law of Moses was nailed to the cross, but the commandments related to love carried over. I think there was a misunderstanding by the LCs regarding the moral commandments not being carried over to the New Covenant and this has caused a lot of problems in the church. 1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.[/QUOTE] Hi bear bear, I'm afraid I don't agree that the so-called 'moral commandments' were carried over into the new covenant. First of all, while I accept that there are 'carnal ordinances' contained in the LAW (tithing, for example, is identified as a "carnal commandment" in the epistle to the Hebrews), Paul tells us in his epistle to the Romans that the LAW is 'spiritual' (Romans 7: 14). And what you call the 'moral commandments' are those commandments' that I would say fall into the category of the 'spiritual' aspect of the LAW. In spite of this apparent dichotomy between the spiritual and carnal aspects of the LAW, the LAW itself is a complete whole and cannot be disintegrated. James upholds this view when he writes: "For whosoever shall keep the WHOLE LAW and yet offend in [just] ONE POINT shall be guilty of [breaking them] ALL. For He that said 'Do not commit adultery', said also, 'Do not kill' (Jas 2: 10-11). And the Lord Jesus said the following regarding the same matter: "..till heaven and earth pass ONE JOT or ONE TITTLE shall in no wise pass from the LAW..." (Matthew 5: 18). It therefore figures that you absolutely cannot subdivide the LAW into 'moral commandments' on the one hand, and into commandments that are of a 'ceremonial' character on the other. Such classifications only serve narrow academic objectives and are -or at least should be- intended only to enable learners and academics to better understand Scripture. They are a hermeneutic tool in much the same way that the number 'Pi' is useful to architects and engineers. The LAW is an integer: a monolithic standard. It is NOT kept piecemeal. And was never intended to be. And so no part of it is 'carried over' into the New Covenant. "Christ is the END of the LAW for righteousness to everyone that believes" (Romans 10: 4) But Jesus does give us a NEW COMMANDMENT. It is 'new' and is not something that has been 'carried over' from the Old Covenant. Crucially, after letting his disciples know about his impending glorification, he says: "..a NEW commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another" (John 13: 34) A good number of Bible scholars often make the mistake of claiming that what Jesus says to his disciples here is a reiteration of the answer he gave to the lawyer-pharisee in Matthew 22: 36-40. That is not the case. Firstly, his audience is quite different (verse 35 states explicitly that the lawyer was trying to "tempt" him). Secondly, in contrast to the exhortation to his disciples to love one another, with the lawyer Jesus simply quotes from what is written in the Old Testament. He does not even invite him to try and keep the two great commandments (he knows nobody can). He only explains that the whole LAW hangs on these two. The 'love' spoken of in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 is completely different from the 'love' that the Lord prescribes as a 'new commandment' in John 13: 34. The difference between them can be compared to that between the blood of bulls and goats, and the blood of Christ. God's blessings

04-03-2024, 03:05 AM	#11
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,635	Re: The Law of Christ Regarding Bricklayer's comments, they have validity except he fails to distinguish Jew from non-Jew. Peter kept the whole law, indivisible, as did Paul, as did James. But the main thrust of the NT gospel was that in Christ Jesus the gentiles have access through faith. Paul wrote, "there is neither Jew nor Greek but one new man", but he also wrote that there was neither male nor female, and no more slave or free, but then he told females to be quiet and slaves to obey their masters. I may say, "I have neither right leg nor left leg (separated, apart, antagonistic) but they are one (coordinated, together) in my body". But I still have a right leg and a left leg. I still have two legs. If you see Paul writing in Ephesians 2:14, he even uses the word "two". He clearly differentiates, even while affirming commonwealth. So with Jews and non-Jews in the NT. But what happened is that non- Jew church leaders became antagonistic against law-keeping Jewish believers, eventually against all law-keeping Jews (who were law-keeping by definition, it was their culture). Eventually we saw the Orthodox pogroms, the RCC inquisition, the Protestant holocaust, of non-Jew 'Christian' persecution of law-keeping Jew. Regarding the law of Christ, I tried to affirm bear bear by saying that the royal law of James 2:8 showed Paul and James were holding forth the same gospel message. Love one another, not just lip service but in sharing with those who can't repay you. That was Jesus' core teaching. Give to those who cannot repay you. On this, hangs the law and the prophets. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

04-03-2024, 01:01 PM	#18
bearbear Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 644	Re: The Law of Christ Other examples of LC practice violating the law of Christ is not helping the poor. They twisted Mark 14:7 to mean that the church has no responsibility to help the poor. Mark 14:7 "For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me." But if you read carefully, the implication was that Jesus was always involved in ministry to the poor, and Mark 14:7 was the exception not the rule. Galatians 2:10 "Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." Why did the LC ignore verses like Galatians 2:10 which clearly shows we should not forget the poor and needy? I think it's because so much of scripture contradicts LC theology that people just turn off their minds like I once did when I read the bible and instead interpret through the lens of fallible commentary and church tradition. Although the example I gave earlier is not the best, it is along the lines of thinking that the LC always prioritized getting the right type of converts by focusing on college students and "working saints" rather than the outcasts of society which violates James 2 as well. __________________ 1 John 4:9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

04-04-2024, 05:30 AM	#25
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,060	Dial it back OK folks. It’s time to dial it back a little. Everyone has an opinion/interpretation. There is no need for name calling or vitriol aimed at those you disagree with. Please read the Mission Statement again, or maybe you’ve never read it. Nell Admin/Moderator

04-04-2024, 04:57 PM	#27
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,635	Re: The Law of Christ I apologize to our readers, I should have given scriptural references earlier. (Not everyone has read the same verses that I have). I should have said that Peter (Acts 10:14), Paul (Acts 16:3; 21:26) and James (Acts 21:18-20) all continued to keep the law after coming to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as Lord. And it is my interpretation that this is because they were Jews, and Jews kept the law, whether or not they believed into the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The issue at hand in the NT was, whether the gentile converts would also have to keep the law - and the answer was, unequivocally, 'no'. To anyone who thinks there is no difference between Jew and Greek in the NT, then why did Paul have Timothy circumcised? To anyone who thinks there is no difference between male and female in the NT, why did Paul tell women to be silent in church? If there's no difference between slave and free in the NT, why did Paul tell slaves to obey their masters? If you try to take 'no difference' literally, then you have to ignore certain verses that show apparent difference. Which I choose not to do. I think it's important to consider all verses as equal relevance. We can't have certain 'crucial' or 'proof-text' verses that 'show' our points, while ignoring other verses that show, or at least suggest, something quite the opposite. Suppose a Chinese person believes into the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Suppose that Chinese person continues to observe the Chinese New Year (CNY). Does that invalidate their faith? No, of course not. But if you wanted to persecute the Chinese believer, you could cite Galatians 4:10: "You are observing special days and months and seasons and years!" (NIV) Is that applicable? No! But what if a Chinese insisted that CNY observance was necessary to be in the One New Man (I mean, how can we all be one unless we observe the same holidays, right? Logical!) Suppose the CNY was held forth in some 'gospel' as a basis of salvation. Then some ignorant non-Chinese was seen observing the CNY, trying to be saved, and suddenly Paul's word in Galatians 4:10 is applicable. In this case, observing as a requirement is wrong. Likewise, the 'Judaizers' were not Jews who practiced their Jewish life, law-keeping and all, but those Jews who insisted that non-Jews should become law-keepers as a requirement of Christian salvation. In that case, Paul's remonstrations make sense. Once you understand it, it's really not complicated. The NT writers were law-keeping Jews, and the first non-law-keepers 9gentiles) didn't show up until Acts 10. Until then, they were all law-keepers. And there is no part in the NT where the law-keepers stopped. The issue was, making law-keeping as a requirement of salvation. That was the Judaizing. But what happened centuries later was a reverse 'Judaizing' - where the church Fathers wrote, "You cannot be a Christian and a Jew". What nonsense. Paul was a Jew. Peter was a Jew. James was a Jew. John was a Jew. But the gentile church fathers banned Jews from church. Then they fell to fighting among themselves, schisms, etc. But in my view it started with kicking the Jews out of church. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

03-22-2024, 09:55 PM	#1
bearbear Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 644	The Law of Christ According to verses like Col 2:14, the law of Moses was nailed to the cross: "Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." In the New Covenant we are no longer under the law of Moses but grace. But why then does Paul refer to the law of Christ in Galatians and encourages us to fulfill it? Galatians 6:2 "Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ" Paul gives clues to what the law of Christ could be one chapter earlier: Galatians 5:6 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." So we know the law of Christ could be related to faith expressed as love. Jesus also sums up the law in Matthew 22:34-40 as loving God and loving neighbor so this could be the law of Christ. Another clue is that Paul states multiple times in his epistles that we should still follow the moral portion of the ten commandments in verses like Galatians 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." If you think about it, the attributes described above are all opposed to love-- so the moral commandments could be seen as under the umbrella of "love". And in Jesus sermon on the mount He even brings the moral law higher to our hearts by teaching we should not hate our brother (OT version: murder) nor look at a woman with lust (OT version: adultery). Hebrews 4:1-11 even says that the Sabbath day points to entering God's rest through having faith. Paul also says we should honor our father and mother (Eph 6:2-3). So in a sense we do follow all Ten commandments in the New Covenant but at a spiritual and heart level-- and not of ourselves but through the Holy Spirit by being born again (1 John 4:7). The law of Moses was nailed to the cross, but the commandments related to love carried over. I think there was a misunderstanding by the LCs regarding the moral commandments not being carried over to the New Covenant and this has caused a lot of problems in the church. 1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. __________________ 1 John 4:9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. Last edited by bearbear; 03-23-2024 at 07:49 AM.

04-02-2024, 04:04 AM	#4
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,664	Re: The Law of Christ Regarding my beloved brothers and sisters who embrace THE LAW, I have found it well nigh impossible to obtain a decent definition of what the LAW actually is. Some annually embrace the Seder meal, yet have no allegiance to Kosher. Some pride themselves by “authentically” calling Him “Yeshua” rather than the “vulgar” Jesus Christ. It always appears to me to be a “pick and choose” what they like from the Law to prove they are more spiritual than this lawless cretan “Ohio.” That’s OK, I still love them. I allow them their confusion. One time when mentioning Paul’s views on the subject from his letter to the Galatians, I was sternly asked, “why are you reading somebody else’s mail?” __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

04-04-2024, 05:41 PM	#28
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,635	Re: The Law of Christ I apologize again, my previous lengthy post was put in because I saw a poster apparently telling all of the readers to keep the law, THE WHOLE LAW, i. e. "follow all 613 injunctions, all the time"... My comment was that keeping the law was something done by Jews, not gentiles. I said that the NT writers clearly distinguish between Jew and gentile, and to say "no difference" literally bypasses a lot of plain text. And I enumerated some of the ignored text. But what I really wanted to do was affirm the first post by Bear Bear, about the "law of Christ" per the apostle Paul's writings. My affirmation was that James in his epistle wrote about the "royal law" and I see Paul and James with the same message. The law of Christ, the royal law, is to love one another. Not just lip service, but real, outstretched love. "When I was in prison you visited me" kind of love. Love that makes you leave yourself and find and embrace the despised 'other' - the leper, the beggar, the widow, the orphan. You care for them just as if they were the son or daughter of the king. That is the law of Christ. That is God's economy, to give to those who cannot repay you in this age, and then your reward will be great in heaven. To me, that was the purpose of bear bear's writing. Maybe I misinterpreted it, but that was what I saw, in "the law of Christ". James was writing about the exact same thing. If you love one another, you fulfill all the law and the commandments. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

04-07-2024, 01:33 PM	#36
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,635	Re: The Law of Christ A little background is in order, perhaps. Prior to the NT era, the Jewish nation was unique in access to God, via obedience to the divinely accorded law. The Psalmist thus thanked the LORD for blessings, followed by, “You have done this for no other nation, because they have not known your law” (Psa 147:20, NIV). Without the law, the Jews were no better than any other people, but by knowing God’s law, they were in a position far superior to the nations (Gk, ethnoi). This can be seen in the gospel messages given by Paul, who addresses both groups, in synagogue. “Fellow Israelites, and those who worship God.” (Acts 13 The law-keeping Jews were the first group, the gentile proselytes were the second. There was not just distinction but separation by class. Another example is in the gospel story of the Roman centurion. "For he loves our nation, and has built us a synagogue" (Luke 7:5). This person, for all his love for God and God's people, would forever remain a non-citizen in the commonwealth of Israel. But Christ changed all that. Christ was the new Moses, the new Law-giver. "A prophet will God raise up like me, you must listen to him" (Deut 18:15; Acts 3:22,23). So Christ as the new Law-giver instituted a new commandment, to love one another, that Paul said filled all the requirements of God. My comment was that James called this the royal law (2:8), that Paul and James were saying the same thing. Another poster then came on and mentioned the necessity keeping the whole law of the OT. I now understand it was meant that it's impossible to keep the whole law, but I and several others (bearbear, Ohio) interpreted this as a kind of injunction for (non-Jewish) Christian believers to keep the law. Obviously there are modern "Christian" teachings like the Sabbaterians who require this. But I guess the reaction, and the subsequent deviation from the OP, was based on a misunderstanding. But your original point about the law of Christ, I felt, was an excellent observation. I merely tried to affirm that. The Jew/nonJew topic was an unnecessary sidebar. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

04-11-2024, 07:30 AM	#42
bearbear Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 644	Re: The Law of Christ Just as New Testament grace should not be used as a license for deliberate sin (Romans 6) but was intended for unintentional sins to empower Jesus' followers trying to walk the narrow way that leads to life, the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were also intended to atone for the people's unintentional sins according to Hebrews 9:7: "but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people." This is in reference to passages such as Numbers 15:30-31 (NLT) “But those who brazenly violate the Lord’s will, whether native-born Israelites or foreigners, have blasphemed the Lord, and they must be cut off from the community. Since they have treated the Lord’s word with contempt and deliberately disobeyed his command, they must be completely cut off and suffer the punishment for their guilt.” So Hebrews 10:26-31 in this context is not referring to Jews who went back to the law but believers who are abusing the grace of God and using it as an excuse to "deliberately sin". Willful sin such as murder and adultery resulted in stoning in the law of Moses and the writer of Hebrews is saying how worse a punishment there will be for false Christians who use grace as a license to sin since they are profaning not the blood of animals, but the blood of Jesus Christ. Hebrews 10:26-31 "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." In his letter to the churches, Jesus has a strong rebuke for the Nicolaitans. The Nicolaitans adhered to the Nicene creed like we all do but they taught that God's grace allowed them to live immoral lives for pleasure. Their heart was not circumcised so they were not spiritual Jews. https://www.samstorms.org/enjoying-g...he-nicolaitans __________________ 1 John 4:9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

04-12-2024, 04:46 AM	#47
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,664	Re: To the Hebrews Actually, I never read a scholar coming to my conclusion about Hebrews. All I have read limited the authorship to a lone individual, and that’s why there was no agreement. Concerning the “economy of God,” I have always agreed that your views match both the scripture and the heart of God. Just yesterday I read in Acts “it is more blessed to give than receive.” Paul said this was the Lord’s word, yet it is not recorded in any of the Gospels. So it must have been circulated among the disciples as one of their remembrances of being with Jesus. And this highlights the conflicts with the WL “economy.” It was all about going to more meetings and trainings, hearing more, receiving more, ergo more “dispensing.” As long as we “loved the ministry” which is to “love WL,” then supposedly we were healthy in the faith, and “one with the brothers.” But God’s household administration is all about loving God to love your neighbor, you know, the one you don’t like. __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

04-12-2024, 09:02 AM	#49
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,798	Re: The Law of Christ To our new friend DeadManWalkin: Your post #43 was way over-the-top, and unnecessarily argumentative. There is no need to address every point aron has made on this entire thread in one post. Also, most of this post falls under the category of an ad hominem. Kind of ironic that this took place on a thread entitled "The Law of Christ"! - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

04-26-2024, 06:55 AM	#62
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,635	Re: The Law of Christ There is a discussion in modern scholarship on the so-called "New Perspective on Paul", that Paul wasn't necessarily antagonistic to the Jewish faith, but rather exporting aspects of its ceremonial 'purity' laws (dietary, circumcision, observances of days) on the gentile converts. The 'Judaizers' were then Jews who imposed ceremonial purity on non-Jews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul But it's not something that I'm invested in, or deeply informed about, just adding a note here, that my perspective probably has some overlap with a wider body, with some maybe influenced by verses that have impacted my thinking. But a perspective is just that: it's a view, based on some available information, and a personal, subjective interpretation of said information. It's not reality itself. At the end of 1 Corinthians 12, Paul writes, "And now I will show you a better way". (12:31b) My perspective isn't something to argue over, nor is anyone else's. So I try to hold my perspective lightly, lest I should lose my way. If I've made any positive contribution to this thread, I think it was to point out that James' "royal law" seemed apace with Paul's "law of Christ" and the Fourth Gospel's "new commandment". Because of our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we've been transferred into a kingdom of love. And now we endeavour, through steadfast faith (his faith transferred into us as a growing seed, and now operating in us, and flourishing through good works of love expressed) to remain on the Way home to the Father. I don't see NT authors James, John, Peter, Paul, and Luke, as operating at different spiritual levels, some 'lower and more natural' and some 'higher and more mystical'. All were holding forth the same singular reality, of the faith of Jesus Christ, and the flourishing life that follows. There is everything else, and then there is "the more excellent way". __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' Last edited by aron; 04-26-2024 at 12:48 PM. Reason: brevity

05-02-2024, 02:28 AM	#66
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,635	Re: The Law of Christ I would follow Charlie's post (#65) by adding, look what happens to the rest of scripture if you take "neither Jew nor Greek" to the literal extreme. The scripture concludes the NT by calling "every tribe and tongue and nation" to be present in glory. They are not effaced in the church. Rev 7:9 "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands." There is no sense that human distinctions are obliterated. It even says the 12 apostles will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes. If the 12 tribes are in the New Jerusalem, they can't be in church? And finally, look what happens when we try this - it becomes a trojan horse for whatever culture wants to rule the others. There's no mutuality, reciprocity. I think of Lee's face beaming as he sees the Taipei trainees, during "The New Way". He has eliminated all possible rivals. And lest anyone think this was an odd blip, he codified it in the Recovery Version footnotes. All local churches were to be "absolutely identical", and "with no distinctions whatever". Does this sound like utopia, or dystopia? __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers'

05-03-2024, 03:59 AM	#68
Some Guy Guest Posts: n/a	Re: The Law of Christ From what I’ve seen in the scriptures, the Jewish people appear to have status akin to that of the firstborn child. While all the children of God from ever nation shall receive an inheritance, there is still something unique and distinct about how the Jews have been treated by the Lord throughout history, and the scriptures show that this has not changed. Romans 1:14-17 14 I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15 That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” Romans 2:5-11 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism. So the reward is given first to the Jews since they have come first, but in the same way a firstborn child is given the most responsibility and therefore more is expected, judgement will also come first upon the Jew and then the Gentile. So while we should consider “no distinctions” in the sense that all should be treated with honor, love, and respect, there is still a distinction to recognize that plays a role here. This is why I agree with Charlie and Aaron thats we should not take “no distinctions” to the extremes that Witness Lee did. I also ditto and appreciate that it way pointed out that this also applies to the various churches which though they were all one in Christ surely contained many cultural and ethnic distinctions that did not jeopardize their oneness. And I don’t mean differences in the matter of crucial things like sexual immorality and idols. I mean norms and customs which invariably differ among God’s people in the different assemblies. The Jewish believers and Gentile believers did NOT live their lives in the same way. There were differences in diet, dress, philosophy, etc., and many of these things really were ok s long as the Jews didn’t go around telling everyone that being Koser will save you and so long as the Romans didn’t go around telling everyone that the Jews were a lost cause because they still wanted to eat Kosher.

05-03-2024, 10:01 PM	#69
Bible-believer Member Join Date: Jul 2021 Posts: 162	Re: The Law of Christ The law of Christ(see Gal. 5:13–18 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. ) is the law of love (John 15:12), and helping others bear their loads is part of it. The greatest burden-bearer who ever lived was the Sin-bearer (Isa. 53:3–10) who said, “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:30). The psalmist tells us to cast our burdens on the Lord (Psa. 55:22) while we are helping others bear theirs.

05-07-2024, 02:36 AM	#71
aron Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Natal Transvaal Posts: 5,635	Re: The Law of Christ In my understanding, the NT came forth onto a conceptual matrix that held up two classes of people. There were the Jews, who obeyed God's law, and there was everyone else. After thanking and blessing the LORD for His provenance, the psalmist added, "You have done this for no other nation, for they have not known Your laws." (147:20 NIV) But there was a third class, partly in shadow, partly in light. These were non-Jews who attached themselves to the One True God through the obedience of faith. They were called 'proselytes' (Acts 2:10 [KJV]). You can see them as Jesus' initial followers, like Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch in Acts 6:5. All that changed when Peter visited Cornelius. The Holy Spirit came on Cornelius' house, as it had on the 120 in the upper room at Pentecost. Those leaders who heard of this gift to the gentiles acknowledged the singular reality it represented: repentance unto eternal life (Acts 11:16-18). Why then, lay additional burdens on the believers? If you lay something beyond what God has done, you are fighting against God. All of this is set in high relief by the law of Christ, the royal law, to love one another. Believe that God has raised Jesus from the dead, and given him glory, and confess this faith, and endure in the confession, and love one another. Then, there are no associate members, no second class citizens dwelling in the shadows. We are all the same, and we are all one. __________________ "Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' Last edited by aron; 05-07-2024 at 09:58 AM. Reason: Brevity