I agree that faith would be dead without works that show that we uphold the purpose of God’s law as Jesus interpreted it. But where do you find John requiring that we must “obey THE commandments”? I have long perceived that in the context John’s reference is to “his” commandments which is a reference to Jesus’ teaching rather than to the Mosaic commandments. Wouldn’t that leave us back at the previous discusssion of whether Jesus and the apostles saw those commands as binding upon Christians? Do you perceive that they saw that read in a literal way it is vital that every Mosaic commandment be obeyed and enforced by Christians?
In Romans 13:8-14 Paul sums up the 10 commandments in the one commandment…Love your Neighbor. Following Jesus Pattern of course. Paul says love is the fulfillment of the law. And that makes sense because the 10 commandments reflect how we Love God and Love others.
I find it interesting that in this same breath Paul also says…
vs13 Let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly as in the day not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust not in strife and envy. But put on the Lord Jesus and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.
So for starters, we can know for sure that the 10 commandments are to be followed as they are right in line with this Law of Love.
We also know that walking in the Spirit is commanded as opposed to walking in the flesh. And some of the deeds of the flesh are spoken of here.
The Lusts of the flesh were already spoken of back in Chapter 1 by this same author and these included…
Revelry, unatural relations, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, malicousness, envy, murder, strife the list goes on and on but i think everyone is pretty clear on what the sins of the flesh are.
It has already been documented on this thread what Paul said about the sexually immoral within the Church. In the book of acts this same topic is addressed when the Jersusalem council meets and addresses the Jew/gentile situation.
People can debate whether sexually immoral or sodomites refers to homosexuality, I am not addressing that topic. I am simply making the point that Paul and the other NT writers within the same breath speak of the Law of Love and fullfilling the commands and then also speaking of Walking in the Spirit and giving us clear instruction as to what constitiutes Spirit vs Flesh.
There are many other times the NT Authors do this very thing and give us the deeds of the flesh to avoid, just as jesus did. I will get a comprehensive list and post it if you would like. Both Jesus and the NT writers tell us that those who walk according to the flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Bob,
I believe that Jesus is the God that you say he is supposedly interpreting. Since Jesus is that God, His commandments are one and the same… “THE commandments”. I don’t really see a distinction between Jesus’ teachings and the Mosaic teachings because the source of the Mosaic commands - was “God”.
However, there are several “laws” that are still in effect. Paul gives us several of the Ten Commandments in the book of Ephesians:
Eph. 4:25 - Wherefore putting off the lie speak ye truth each man with the neighbor of him…
Eph. 4:28 - The one stealing no more let him steal.
Eph. 5:3 - But fornication and uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you…
Eph. 5:4 - no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
Eph. 6:2,3 - “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”
Aren’t these part of “THE commandments” that you were referring to?
Paul’s teachings are not his - he was given by revelation from Jesus.
Which, btw, is where he is telling the Galatian believers that they are not living rightly in Christ because they are trying to live by works.
Yes we are to obey God’s / Jesus’ “laws” - however, we do it because of our faith, not to gain our faith.
Steve & Mr. Shepherd, Thanks for affirming and clarifying your understanding!
I’m hearing your central argument to be: Since Jesus and the apostles agree that love "fulfills" the Mosaic Laws, then “we can know for sure that Moses’ commandments are to be followed” (Steve). For “THE commandments and Jesus’ teaching are one in the same” (MrShepherd). So I take it that you both answer my question as to whether they ALL need to be enforced with a “Yes.”
But I’m not clear on how you understand mine and Christianity’s historic argument that the apostles thought requiring Gentiles to keep them would be disastrous. So 1st, e.g. when it comes to O.T. divine laws, do you see remaining uncircumcized, touching unclean people, mixing fabrics, eating unclean foods, cutting hair near the ears, laws for sacrifices, failing to carry out Mosaic capital punishments, etc., all as failures to follow the love revealed to us in the law of Christ? If you are simply saying that some of the O.T. remains useful or binding, I whole-heartedly agree with that.
First off I want to acknowledge what a blessing your writings have been for me, as i have found many of your essays very helpful in my study of EU.
Regarding the keeping of the 10 commandments, I think the NT is pretty clear that they are to be upheld by Jew and Gentile as they are the guidelines of what it means to Love. I’m not sure anyone would argue that. Jesus and every new Testament writer in one fashion or another Reiterate this. Do you not agree?
I see Overwhelming evidence in the NT for this.
Mr. SHepherd gave an example from Ephesians 4-6 and I gave an example from Romans 13:8-14 where Christians are exhorted to follow the 10 commandments as they fulfill the law of Love. Even Jesus Remphasized all 10 commandments confirming that they were God’s Word, not Just Moses words.Jesus also mentioned that he did not come to do away with them…in case we were unclear. I don’t see jesus turning the law upside down in the way I understand you mentioning, I see Jesus Reiterating the need to follow the law…but with the correct heart(not just commiting adultry but also lusting, not just murdering but also harboring anger and bad thoughts towards someone)…as opposed to the pharisees, who inside were dark, coveting, hateful, prideful etc. What Jesus says is exactly what I see Paul Emphasizing when he talks about walking in the spirit vs the flesh.
Regarding Gentiles keeping some parts of the Mosiac law, My personal view currently (which may differ from Mr.Shepherd) is that The council of Jersusalem in Acts 15 did decide that Gentile converts to christianity were not obligated to keep some of it, such as circumcision, laws for sacrifices, etc. But that they did need to keep other parts of it such as sexual purity etc.
There is no question in my mind that we need to seperate what God intended for certain people during a certain time and what applies to other people for other times.
God does have to instruct people in the culture and understanding they are in with certain commands that have no relevance to a later culture and time, wisdom is sometimes needed I believe for us to see when this is the case. In all fairness to God, he does have to give instruction to people in the culture they are in, even if it does not make sense to a later culture.
God also gives commands that are temporal…such things as sacrifices for example, which foreshadow something to come (Jesus) and then are no longer Neccessary.
But I believe it’s pretty clear that God does also give Universal Commands/instructions/wisdom that apply to all people always. Such as the 10 commandments and instruction on sexual purity as defined by God in the OT, reiterated by Jesus, and yet again reiterated in various places in the NT. These principles are taught in the OT and reemphasized in the NT, so in my mind it’s hard to argue that they were intented to be temporal.
I think prayer and study is needed to sort through which OT commands are applicable today to Gentiles but I find the NT to repeat this theme of walking in the spirit vs the flesh and clear instructions that this involves upholding the 10 commandments with special emphasis on having a right heart and avoiding idolatry and sexual immorality.
So I would agree that the NT supports some of the OT as binding. What you reap is what you sow, if you sow to the flesh then your life will be miserable and cutoff from the life God created us to experience. However if you walk in the Spirit as God outlines, the blessings of God are multiplied upon your life and you are able to experience fellowship with him and the fullness of Love, Joy and Peace in the Spirit.
I strongly believe there is no Law binding in terms of affecting our salvation which God has secured for all, but these commands that the NT writers exhort us to follow are binding in terms of having a direct affect on our lives here and now. And the work that God is intending to do in us.
Relevant to the subject of this thread it seems to me that sexual Purity as defined by God is one of those “laws” that is Universal and applicable for all people always, as it’s reemphasized by the Apostles of Jesus at the jersusalem Council and all throughout the NT epistles, right there many times in the same passage with the same emphasis on Love and the 10 commandments.
I’d like to further my thoughts on why I believe that Jesus was not referring only to the washing of hands when declaring all foods were clean.
It seems, if I understand it correctly, that Kelly is endorsing that Jesus was telling them that clean foods cannot be defiled by not washing your hands. I disagree.
The disciples were eating WITHOUT washing their hands.
The Pharisees were appalled that the disciples were eating without washing their hands.
Jesus declares nothing that goes into your mouth can defile you.
The disciples did not understand his parable.
"There is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”
**If the disciples already knew that the washing of hands - the tradition of the elders - was unncessary and didn’t defile their food, then why do they question Jesus on his parable?
I submit that the reason is because they understood Jesus exactly as almost everyone else - by saying nothing outside your body can defile you (just as Mark puts it) all foods are clean. - This is what the Disciples struggled with.
If you disagree then you’re saying that the disciples didn’t undertand how NOT WASHING YOUR HANDS DIDN’T DEFILE FOOD. But we already know they knew that for they were already eating without washing their hands.**
Unlike Shepherd, you’re close to my view that the whole Mosaic Law is not binding, and may not apply. Yet you single out the Ten Commandments as an exception. But where does the O.T. ever separate them from the rest of Mosaic Law? You say every N.T. writer cites the Decalogue as “upheld.” I see many of them cited with approval, but I don’t see Jesus ever cite the “10 commands” as a whole (he never says the 10 commands won’t pass away, but that the whole law needs to be fulfilled). Do you have a reference that cites the '10 commands" as a whole? Specifically, I’m skeptical that Jesus and the apostles upheld a literal reading of the Sabbath laws (no work or lifting on Sat. etc). He agrees, I do work on the Sabbath, and cites David’s ‘desecretion’ of the Sabbath as a Biblical justification for his violation of this rule.
You argue that anything about sex and purity must be binding since Acts 15 requests no “immorality.” But since Christians regard many O.T. conceptions of purity as unbinding, I think your assumption may beg the question of how immorality should be understood by Christians.
Possibly the 10 are to be upheld because they were instituted under the Melchizedek priesthood. The Levite priesthood wasn’t instituted until Moses came down saw them dancing to the golden calf, and had 3000 Levites go kill all those people. The ten were given prior to the rest of the law. Where there is a change in priesthood there is a change in Law (Heb, see my post above).
Like I said I’m not sure about this (not that I’m sure about anything except Gods never failing Love). But even then the law and prophets hang on the 2 (love God and Neighbor). The word hang is the same word as Christ hanging on a tree. I’ve heard the illustration of the cross that the vertical post represents Love God, the horizontal represents Love neighbor. All the rest of the laws are crucified on those two.
Even with that, the Sabbath is Christ, He is our rest, every day is a Sabbath now for those who have entered His rest.
My sister is a lesbian. We grew up in a Christian home and she ran away at age 14 so that she could live that lifestyle. My father told her that it was wrong (there were some late 20’s women in the neighborhood that she was hanging out with, drinking, and fooling around and my dad said he wouldn’t allow it). She came back home in her early 20’s and committed her life to Christ and went to counseling to try to overcome her homosexuality. 2 tragic things happened during this time period. First, the president of the ministry, “Desert Streams”, a ministry for overcoming homosexuality, fell into sin and went back to his homosexual lifestyle saying that it was impossible to change. Then, my sisters counselor, who was a woman, had her husband leave her for another man (the husband was a Christian who also happened to be my church history professor in college). These 2 things, back to back, shook my sisters confidence and she gave up and went back to the lifestyle without looking back. That was almost 30 years ago. Things have changed a lot in 30 years. My view used to be unacceptable to the mainstream evangelicals. I thought my sister’s lifestyle was wrong, but I loved her. Her girlfriends were always welcome in my house because I knew that gay people pretty much hung out with gay people and I wanted to be able to be a witness to my sister and her girlfriends. I didn’t really talk about it much because by the time you tell a gay person that it is a sin, it will be the million and sixth time they’ve heard it. So I just left the door open for opportunities to be a good Christian friend in their lives. I was a shoulder to cry on during some break ups and I never used those as “opportunities” to tell her that she was wrong. A broken heart is a broken heart.
Eventually, this was not good enough for my sister. As gay activism advanced, it was no longer acceptable to have the Christian attitude that even though you thought it was wrong, you still loved them. For my sister, I had to either accept that her lifestyle was right or I was no longer allowed to be part of her life. I poured over the scriptures and read tons of stuff “pro-gay” “anti-gay” and everything in between. I read pro-gay arguments using the “clobber texts”, but simply couldn’t see that God thought it was OK. I thought the church had done a terrible job with the gay community. I watched my sister go through anguish as she was in puberty and to call it simply a “choice” was foolishness. It wasn’t as if the pubescent child looked at girls, then guys, then girls and decided on girls. She wished with all her heart that she had no attraction to women so the church’s oversimplification was insulting and alienating as well. Nevertheless, with everything I’ve read, and as much as I would like to give my sister my blessing and say that she is doing nothing wrong (except that she became an atheist), I’m simply not convinced. I think the Christian argument in favor of homosexuality is horribly weak. There is not a single verse in the bible that shed’s any positive light, and every mention, regardless of the context, is negative. It seems to me that the bible calls it a sin. The passage in Leviticus 20 mentions is in context with bestiality, incest, adultery, etc. Food was made clean, but sexual immorality was not, and it seems to be in context with sexual immorality. I’m not homophobic, hateful, bigoted, etc. etc. I would love to give my sister my blessing, but scripture seems to constrain me. Every argument in favor seems really strained and stretching.
It seems to me that the fall of man into sinful nature introduced this issue. We have, as Jeremiah says, a desperately sick heart. Guys would have sex with as many women as possible, if it were allowable. I don’t think man was like this before the fall. I don’t think we lied so easily, or murdered, or coveted, etc. etc. Until I see proof otherwise, it seems as if the bible calls homosexuality a sin that should not be embraced. To this day my sister would still be welcome at my house, with her partner and I will love her to the day she dies whether she chooses to follow Christ or not, but I can’t bless her partnership.
dirtboy,
I am sorry about your situation. I know that must be hurtful. I agree with your post. If, in christian churches and organizations people were taught that “keeping” Torah was important instead of “we’re free from the law” there may have been some responsible believers that could have been an example for your sister instead of being an example of what not to do.
In our state they are trying to push a curriculum in the schools that is reverse gay discrimination. Any child that doesn’t go along with the agenda is a “bully”. Kids will not have the freedom to say they don’t agree with it. The schools are also teaching kids how to be “gay” and encouraging them to “try it”, starting in kindergarten with a “softer” message. No wonder kids think they are “gay” at 13. No wonder they are confused! There was an article recently in which a lesbian couple is giving their 11 year old adopted son hormone treatments. According to them he has wanted to be a boy since he was 3 years old and they are “supporting” his “choice”. It seems all the tolerance talk in the activist groups just means tolerance for them not anyone else. You are correct in saying it is sin. God says it. He tells us what is right and wrong because He knows what is good for us and wants us to enjoy life to the full in Him, in His way. Thank you for sharing your heart with us and thank you for your honesty.
I was pondering these questions and I just wondered, "why did God divide “clean” and “unclean”? Can anyone help me out with that? Also, (if He did) why did He change it to all is clean? Anyone?
Bob,
I think you should take a closer look at these “laws”. Just from the way you are using them it seems you may not understand what you are quoting. Also, for my part, I don’t see any of the law as “binding”.
Everything in the natural tells us something about the spiritual. Every one of those laws are to point at spiritual applications in us. When the transition came from natural/outside to spiritual/inside the need for the following of the type was no more. The reality had come. Thats the way I see it.
You may be misunderstanding me, I believe everything I need to know about living in the Spirit, Loving my Neighbor and even what the bible says about immorality is all right there in the NT epistles.
I think that with the exception of the Sabbath all 10 commandments are universally applicable to all people for all time…and all of these are commanded to be followed even by Gentiles in the NT. I believe the Sabbath is the one exception because this specific command much like the sacrifices was foreshadowing the “day of rest” that Jesus accomplished for all, as the book of Hebrews talks about. Similar to the sacrifices.
I come across alot of people that want to go back to the words of Jesus in the Gospels almost exclusively, in order to understand how to live, and most people just sort of end with…love one another. Therefore as in this thread, people start to question when others make distinctions about what is right or wrong, or immoral or loving, as if Jesus statement of Loving one another (in the Gospels) and this sort of ambiguous meaning people are giving it, should take precedence over how Paul to the Gentiles defines that Love, when speaking through that same Spirit of Jesus himself.
I see a little bit of a problem with that approach. First of all Jesus specifically came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not Gentiles. Secondly, Jesus spoke of the coming of the Holy Spirit which would lead the believers into all truth. When we read the book of Acts we see that the Holy Spirit was poured out as Jesus predicted and specifically set aside Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles.We read that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke by the Spirit. Peter, also tells us that Paul’s Writings were of the Spirit of God and specifically Pauls exhortations regarding living Holy and spotless lives. (2 peter 3:14-16).
So the revelation that Paul received through the Holy Spirit, intended for the gentiles, was written down. And what do we see in these writings of Paul? We see him telling us what is expected of the Gentiles (or as you called it binding) what love is, and how to live righteous lives before God…please notice the emphasis below on the 10 commandments.
As Mr Shepherd points out,
Paul gives us several of the Ten Commandments in the book of Ephesians:
Eph. 4:25 - Wherefore putting off the lie speak ye truth each man with the neighbor of him…
Eph. 4:28 - The one stealing no more let him steal.
Eph. 5:3 - But fornication and uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you…
Eph. 5:4 - no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
Eph. 6:2,3 - “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”
Aren’t these part of “THE commandments” that you were referring to?
Paul’s teachings are not his - he was given by revelation from Jesus
As some others have pointed out in Romans 13…
8To no one owe anything, except to love one another; for he who is loving the other – law he hath fulfilled,
9for, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false testimony, Thou shalt not covet;' and if there is any other command, in this word it is summed up, in this:Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;’
10the love to the neighbor doth work no ill; the love, therefore, [is] the fulness of law.
11And this, knowing the time, that for us, the hour already [is] to be aroused out of sleep, for now nearer [is] our salvation than when we did believe;
12the night did advance, and the day came nigh; let us lay aside, therefore, the works of the darkness, and let us put on the armour of the light;
13as in day-time, let us walk becomingly; not in revellings and drunkennesses, not in chamberings and lasciviousnesses, not in strife and emulation;
14but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and for the flesh take no forethought – for desires.
In the NT (to Gentiles) we see that all 10 commandments (with the exception of the Sabbath) are reiterated…over and over. To be more specific, Paul under the Holy Spirit says to love one another and then proceeds to quote the 10 commandments to define for us How to love our Neighbor. Paul then goes on to tell us to walk in the Spirit (or in Romans 13:14 put on the Lord Jesus Christ) and not fulfill the lusts of the Flesh. He then goes on to detail the deeds of the flesh and what walking in the Spirit is, commonly asserting some of the 10 commandments once again. And always warning to avoid sexually immorality and Idolatry.
We are told not to judge each other regarding what we eat or what day we observe as Sabbath (Romans 14, Collosians 2:16) and in the book of Hebrews we learn that the old covenant (sacrificial system) is abolished.
Paul gets real heated in Romans emphasizing with great warning that we must uphold the law. He is clear that the law does not save. But he is clear that the law is to be upheld.
He tells us to live righteous not sinful lives and even tells us that it is the law that shows us how to live righteous lives before God.
Regarding your last statement…
The Holy Spirit through the Apostles not only tells us to avoid sexual immorality in Acts 15. It’s Romans, Timothy, Ephesians, Collosians, Galatians and many other epistles. It’s the unmistakable command of God’s Word to the Jews and Gentiles.
What the OT says regarding immorality is irrelevant if the NT addresses it, would you not agree?
Do you not agree that the NT addresses this? I am not even sure how this can be debated without a huge stretch of ones imagination and without a deep Bias to make it say what one wants it to say. Would you not agree?
I am open to differing opinions regarding what Romans 1 is talking about, and I pray God to show me if I am misunderstanding it, but is there anything unclear about what Paul under the Spirit of God says here:
Wherefore also God did give them up, in the desires of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonour their bodies among themselves;
25who did change the truth of God into a falsehood, and did honour and serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed to the ages. Amen.
26Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;
27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.
28And, according as they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things not seemly;
29having been filled with all unrighteousness, whoredom, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil dispositions; whisperers,
30evil-speakers, God-haters, insulting, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31unintelligent, faithless, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful;
32who the righteous judgment of God having known – that those practising such things are worthy of death – not only do them, but also have delight with those practising them.
I agree and think the NT in many places including Hebrews indicates this. There are many laws that were Types and no longer needed. There are other parts that were specifically for the Culture the Hebrews found themselves in and how to uphold justice and peace, and fairness etc for them, so some of those things do not apply to us obviously. I do think however that all the 10 commandments (except sabbath) are universal commands that apply to us since they deal with how to love God and Love one another, in any culture. Each of the 9 Commandments being re-commanded if you will, in the NT, after the pouring out of the Spirit.
9 is the number of the Holy Spirit, so it makes sense that 1 was removed for the New Covenant. Again by removed I mean fulfilled daily as He is our Sabbath.
Thanks, you amplify & confirm what I understood as your view, with which I mostly agree, including on the 10 commands as part of THE law, the Eph. texts, and on Rom. 13. I would not put it: “All I need is in the epistles.” I perceive the Gospel accounts are intended as vital to equip Christians. Suggesting Jesus & his Gospel therein is dispensationally not for Gentiles can sound like His Lordship & values are inferior to the apostles. I see them as consistently following Jesus’ lead.
Yes, of course the epistles urge sexual morality. When you say that this makes what the rest of the Bible says ‘irrelevant’ I understand & respect as coherent, the belief that you have sufficient texts there to know God’s ultimate view & mandate. But as one who agrees that many Biblical instructions are troubling and not what we are now convinced believers should practice, or as you put it, “do not apply,” then the totality is ‘relevant’ to me, in that the Bible as a whole suggests that it is not simply a volume that provides grist that is all equally useful for easily formulating an ultimate systematic code. I.e. it urges us to wrestle with hermeneutical questions such as those to which you allude, as to how to see, compare, interpret, and apply the viewpoints that are reflected in such a Book. Views may differ as to how to do that.
When I said “All I need is the Epistles” I didn’t of course mean to suggest that the Epistles were all I or anyone needs for being equipt to live our lives before God. I beleive The Gospels are essential for our understanding.
When I said “All I need is the Epistles” I meant in context, that I don’t need to go back to the OT or the Gospels to show that the 10 commandments are re-commanded so to speak for the Gentile Believers under the new covenant. It was in response to your statement…
It appears to me that Jesus on the Sermon of the Mount reaffirmes the 10 commandments, and also expands on them showing they must be followed at the heart level not just externally.
The exception of the breaking of the Sabbath/washing of hands/unclean foods to me were clear declarations by Jesus of the new age dawning. The time of the Gentiles and the Fading away of the types/symbols. These lessons were speaking of what Jesus had come to accomplish as later confirmed by Paul the apostle in whom the meaning had been revealed (Romans 14, Collosians 2:16)
It seems to me the main arguments that those who want to support homosexuality are making are along these lines:
The OT does not apply to Gentiles under the new covenant.
Jesus abolished the law and even purposely broke the law to show his disdain for it, or his opposition to it.
Jesus idea of Love is something different then how Paul by the filling of the Holy Spirit Defines Love.
Paul says alot of strange things that we should question and we need to go back to Jesus for direction .
I think there is Huge Error and subtle distortions in the above arguements. This new covenant/Time of the Gentiles and Life in the Spirit that Jesus told us was coming, did indeed come and we read scripture tell us that this same Jesus came to Paul the Apostle to give him the revelation to the Gentiles. The Apostles authenticate Paul as having received Apostleship From God to the Gentiles. In 2 Peter, Peter himself confirms this. In the book of Acts God confirms it through the Miracles Paul is able to perform through the Spirit of God witnessed by others. Paul Makes it clear in his Epistles that this Revelation he is given was not taught by men but by God himself. Even Peter had to be corrected in a vision, that this message regarding the Gentiles given to Paul was from God, not man.
Paul constantly reminds that his message is not of man but from God. Here are some samples:
Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle – not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father.
Galatians1:12-13
And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that were proclaimed by me, that it is not according to man, for neither did I from man receive it, nor was I taught [it], but through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
When we read Pauls writings He is pretty clear, even redundant… that the 10 commandments are to be upheld (Ephesians, Romans, Galatians etc). Not for Salvation, which is by Grace through Faith, but for Spirit Living. Paul addresses the issue of casting aside the law and living for the Flesh with an unmistakable “Absolutely Not” followed by warnings that those that want to live like that will not inherit the reign of God (which I believe can be shown to refer to the reign of God here and now in our lives vs referring to salvation).
I don’t in any way see Jesus teachings as “inferior” to the apostles. Jesus very words predicted this age of the Gentiles and time of the filling of the Spirit under the New Covenant. But the Fact is Jesus came to the lost sheep of Israel…and even commisioned his Disciples to the lost sheep of Israel…because salvation is first to the Jew and then the Gentile. We see one account of Jesus talking to the Samaritan woman (gentile) and mentioning the time coming where the true Worshippers will worship in spirit and truth. We then see Jesus Promising his disciples the Holy Spirit who will guide them into truth. Followed by Pentecost and the Spirit Filling the Gentiles. This whole age of the Gentiles was planned from eternity, spoken of in the Prophets and OT, and predicted by Jesus. Paul then was Chosen by God and taught by Jesus himself. Paul was then commisioned to reveal this plan. So when we read his writings we can be sure he is not defining Love and living for God of his own, but how he was taught it by Jesus himself, under the filling of the Spirit. So it seems to me that those who have a problem with Pauls words, really have a Problem with God’s words.
There is no question that views may differ on how to interpret and apply the bible even Peter mentions that Pauls words contain some things that are hard to understand which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). I think we all need to pray for wisdom and carefully see if our statements and lives match up with scripture. We need to strive to Love as Jesus Loved, that pure love that he displayed in the Gospels(which forgave the greatest of sins with ease and then said to go and sin no more, that threw over tables in the place of worship and also spoke harsh words to the pharisees), the kind of love that is outlined in the 10 commandments and defined by the Holy Spirit in the writings of Paul. The kind of lives that are in humility before God loving and living by the Spirit and giving no provision for the Flesh.
I agree we must wrestle with hermeneutical questions or we can find ourselves doing or believing things that God did not say or intend for us. If we want to understand what Love is we need to ask God to help us understand what true Love is as he has revealed and defined in “ton logon tou theou”. We not only read that Jesus is God’s Spoken Word (John1:1) but Jesus himself calls the commands of God spoken of by Moses “ton logon tou theou” (The word of God). In the Book of Acts we see that the Apostles ministry was moved away from serving tables to the explicit purpose of delivering this same “Word of God”.
The way I see it, God’s revelation of how Jesus loved and lived right before God is 100 percent harmonious with what he commanded in the 10 Commandments and what Paul Describes Spirit filled living and Loving to be in the Epistles. It is the same God speaking the Word of God everywhere.
I pray we all have open minds to challenge our traditions and errors and bring everything back to the Revealed Truth, me included. I also Pray we are filled with the knowledge of God’s Love and seek him out with humble hearts.
Hey Steve! You seem to explain non-epistolary Scripture as ‘irrelevant’ just as I surmised in my paragraph 2. But most of the problem I presented with such language seems to remain.
2nd, I’m saying that once you agree that Jesus presents “exceptions” among the commands, it seems inaccurate to assert that He (or Paul) “reaffirms” them as originally given and never passing away.
I also don’t grasp your argument #2, that others say Jesus’ idea of love differs from Paul’s. How are these said to be different? I argued, especially about love, that Paul consistently gets Jesus, and follows His lead.
I sense that you’re arguing that while other Scriptures present moral demands that we now see shouldn’t be followed, Paul’s own perception that homosexuality is rebelliously immoral is an abiding and authoritative value. You phrase this respected conservative perspective by saying that it was “God’s words.” But of course, e.g. the commandments that supported Peter’s rejection of Gentile behavior are equally ‘God’s words.’
So some less conservative interpreters see Scripture as written by men moved by God’s Spirit, yet still reflecting some of the vantage point of their humaness. It’s often thus seen as offering a “progressive revelation,” wherein writers’ reflection of God’s whole picture remains incomplete. Then, it’s more challenging than citing one given text and insisting that everything else is irrelevant. It could make room for becoming convinced, as in your example of Peter, that through present experience God is revealing a fuller untraditional conclusion, which may involve a way of interpreting which Biblical principles call for pre-eminence in shaping our ultimate understanding of God’s will.
There seems to be a 3 position being argued here. Kelly and Shepherd see ALL the law as applicable, even for the gentile church. Steve seems to take the view that Some of the law is applicable for the church. Bob and I would probably agree that it’s somewhere in the middle.
Steve,
You stated “The exception of the breaking of the Sabbath/washing of hands/unclean foods to me were clear declarations by Jesus of the new age dawning.”
Are you saying Jesus broke the Sabbath or would you say he did not?