Back from hunting.
Did you get a deer?
Terry wrote:
Let me express what is logical to me, then you can point out where my logic may be flawed.
1. Lets start with the law. The book of the law, Leviticus, states very plainly, after laying out all these rules, that they are "For the children of Israel" (27:34). That not only leaves me out. It leaves out every non Jew everywhere on earth unless that person is a Jewish proselyte. With that one exception in mind, no Gentile has ever been under Torah. We had two thousand years before the law. The Jews then had two thousand years under the law. We have now had two thousand years since the end of the law, roughly speaking.
I am with you. So far so good.
Terry wrote:
2. Even before the law was fulfilled, God became tired of meaningless sacrifices, no longer finding a sweet savor in burnt offerings or the blood of bulls. The end of the law was in sight then, but no one could see it.
Ok, I'm mostly with you. I tend to think of the end of the Covenant of Sinai rather than the end of the law per se. I think as long as there are lawless people, there will be a need for the law. However, for those of us in Christ, there is no need to be "under the law" because we fulfill the law when we walk in the righteousness of Christ. Note that Paul said that the law is good if a man use it lawfully.
Terry wrote:
3. Paul plainly states that if you fail to keep one law, you have failed to keep the whole law.
I think you mean James, here, but I get what you are trying to say. We need to walk by the law of liberty and be full of mercy. Still, we should keep in mind that James was more Torah observant than the best Jew when he said this. He then when on to argue in this same chapter that faith without works is dead, and that man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Terry wrote:
With no temple and no levites and no alter it is now impossible to keep the whole law. Do you suppose that a loving God would demand that you do the impossible, and then find you guilty of not doing it? If the law/Torah was still in effect, would He have allowed the temple to be destroyed?
Good point. Either the law is done away, or the meaning of the law has been misunderstood. As you know, I tend to follow the early church father Barnabas on this, reading the law as spiritual. So while I agree with you about the Covenant of Sinai being done away, the law itself continues to have benefit and will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away.
Terry wrote:
4. I find it interesting that right after Jesus spoke of keeping the law in Matt.five, that He said "If your righteousness does not exceed that of the Pharisees, you will never get to Heaven". If just doing your best to keep the law would make you pleasing to God, the Pharisees would have been a shoo in.
Good point. I'm tracking with you here.
Terry wrote:
5. Jesus went on in the sermon on the mount to point out that what He required of His followers was far more than was required by Mosaic law, making hatred as serious as murder and the thought of adultery the same as the act, commanding us to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, and give the shirt off our back. Those two commands He gave replace all the law, yet they completely cover our relationship with God and with other men. The only thing missing is the things God grew tired of sacrifices and legalism.
We are pretty close here. The only thing I would question here is the idea that the two commands "replace" all the law. I don't think that is a proper word choice. Do you know any passage that uses this kind of wording?
Jesus taught that all the law and the prophets hang on these two commands (which were two commands found in the Torah, by the way, not new commands). The logical extension is that if someone loves their neighbor, they do not covet what they have, they do not steal from them, they do not kill them, they do not commit adultery with their wife, they do not bear false witness, etc. In like manner, the one who loves God does not make other gods, does not take God's name in vain, keeps the sabbath day holy, etc. This understanding is not original with me. Paul expounds upon it in Romans 13.
Romans 13:8-10
(8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
(9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
I think Jesus was teaching exactly what Paul was teaching here in Romans 13:10. Love is the fulfilling of the law. This does not mean that the law has ended, but that there is no law that condemns us when we walk in love. Paul reiterates something similar in Galatians, saying that we are not under the law IF WE BE LED BY THE SPIRIT. Furthermore, when speaking of the fruit of the Spirit, he says again, "against such there is no law."
Galatians 5:18-23
(18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
(19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
(20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
(21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
(23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Therefore, the fulfillment of law does not mean that the law has been abolished, but rather that we do not violate the law when we walk in love by being in Christ.
Terry wrote:
6. When the judaizers tried to say that the Christians had to keep Torah, Paul made it plain that they were wrong.
Paul said they were wrong to make GENTILES keep the law and customs of Torah. This is because Paul understood that the circumcision that the law spoke of was not the circumcision of the flesh, but the circumcision of the heart. The carnal observance of Torah was for a time only, but its spiritual observance needs to continue. We who believe in Christ are not under the law in terms of our covenant with God, but this does not mean that the law has been abolished. As long as there are lawless people, there is the need for the law.
Terry wrote:
Logic tells me that God never intended me to be circumcised, or to refrain from touching my wife when she had her period, or to stone my disobedient children, or to grow a beard. Logic also tells me that if I don't have to do those things, and He was tired of the Jews doing those things, then no believer has to do those things.
I understand what you are saying here. If the law is understood to be spiritual, however, then we can understand how the law continues, yet our covenant with God is not based upon the law, but upon Christ. Then we see the law as simply a schoolmaster for children, to bring us unto Christ.
Terry wrote:
Like the Bible says, there is a time for everything. That would include a time to be dead to the law and alive in Christ.
How do you see it?
Yes, I do believe in a time to be dead to the law and alive in Christ.
We are close to thinking the same about this, but you tend to think of the law itself as abolished, which in my mind not only violates what Jesus taught, but does not make sense when we recognize that no society today can continue to exist without law. There are just too many lawless people, and we need the law to restrain their behavior. What better law than God's law as a standard?
We come to agreement in terms of the mechanics of this for Christians, because when we are in Christ and walk in the Spirit, we do not need the law to tell us what to do and what not to do. The Spirit guides us and when we walk in love, we will fulfill the law.
In summary, I think we probably differ on the following assumptions:
1. I do not see the law per se as abolished, but only the covenant of Sinai as abolished, a covenant based upon the law.
2. The law will not be abolished until heaven and earth pass.
3. As long as there are lawless people, we need God's law.
4. The law can help us understand what love is and what love is not. Expressed another way, the law helps us understand what sin is and what sin is not.
We probably agree upon the following concepts:
1. The believer does not need the law to be perfect in love. In fact, the law may hinder him from being perfect in love if he uses it wrongly.
2. Walking in love toward God and neighbor is all the Christian need do to fulfill the requirements of the law.
3. The veil being rent and the destruction of the Temple is a huge statement about the end of the covenant of law.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
