Oh, O.k. Thanks for the clarification. I wouldn’t call myself a strict “literalist” then. I see both as equally important. I think God gave us knowledge of both these and perhaps other types of readings because we are both and the Scriptures are for us to understand who He is and how we should be while on this earth in our earthly tabernacle. We are both energy and matter. I think God addresses us as both. You and Bob seem to see me as a “literal” legalist. I am not. The literal reading is an important aspect yes but, not the only one.
I am a he 
My position would be what you term philosophical I suppose.
I don’t think Jesus broke any law by doing what He did. I think all of the mosaic laws minus the 9 (possibly, due to the fact that they were instituted before the levites were consecrated as priests, and when there is a change of priests there is necessarily a change in law) do not apply to us either for salvation or sanctification. Not that they have no significance, but here’s how I see them:
They are likened to Esau, which Edom the country of Esau is the same word as adam. Also Hagar, Mt. Sainai, Physical Jerusalem. 1 Co 10, these things happened for our example. The entire purpose of the OC is not for us to walk in, but to be an example to point us to the spiritual. Which is the contrast to the above. Esau/Jacob, Adam/Christ, Mt. Sinai/Zion, Physical Jerusalem/Spiritual Jerusalem, Hagar/Sarah. The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.
And when I say example, I don’t mean that following them is an outward sign of an inward change. I can’t see at any point why not eating pork would show that we have been more sanctified. I believe that is backwards.
1 Cor 15
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
50Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. 55“O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” 56The [size=150]sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law;[/size] 57but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
The whole point of the letter is to point to the spiritual not the other way around. The OC was meant to point us inward to spiritual truths. Why can’t you wear fabric of wool and linen together? Wool speaks of carnal, linen is of priests. There is nothing sinful about wearing mixed fabrics, but it is to tell us something about the spiritual realm. Flesh and blood/wool cannot inherit the Kingdom of God/linen.
Auggy and Bob,
It seems to me we are moving farther away from the original topic. While these discussions have been insightful and a blessing in many ways, I am not sure they are relevant to the original reason we started these discussions. Would you guys agree?
It seems to me Penal Substitution/Dispensationalism is peripheral to if Jesus did away with the Sabbath and why. And Honestly Auggy I am very confused on what you are asserting regarding my view of the law and how it becomes required for salvation, because I think my view in no way suggests that. We can continue to hash out our views on Sabbath and Law/Grace but I would like to propose we come back to the original topic if that is OK.
It seems to me Bob, that we would both agree that We are all under The New Covenant, thus we see changes made to how we should all view and apply parts of the Mosaic Covenant. We also seem to agree that Certain principles from the Old Testament still are in effect for those under the New Covenant.
We have also agreed that it is important to consider the historical/cultural aspects of scripture in order to determine if certain commands are Universal (for all people always) or limited in scope (limited to a certain people under a certain Covenant or culture).
Bob you have said…
You also have said that you see the 9 commandments as applicable to Us New Covenant People.
It seems to me that there are some people at one side of the extreme that are fine with dismissing anything commanded in the NT as irrelevant because everything hangs on Love God and Love your neighbor. This seems to me to be both simplistic and also dangerous, as Jesus and Paul and all the apostles have plenty of warnings regarding the way we should live and what it means to Love God and Love one another.
I know you both don’t hold to this extreme, dangerous man-defining view of Love. But that you both agree that the way we love should be the way in which God has defined it.
So my question for you guys is how do you determine which Commands of Jesus or any of the NT writers are applicable to Us and which ones should be dismissed on the Basis of culture?
Steve,
I quite agree with you that “what love is like” should now be defined in terms of Jesus’ and Paul’s approach.
Yet I argued last time that in both the old and new covenants obedience which fulfills the deepest intent of God’s Law IS necessary FOR ‘salvation,’ and essential for assurance that we remain therein.
But I’ve said that Jesus (like Paul) urged that the Mosaic Law not be kept with the fearful concern for line-drawing that I see a traditional literal reading could well seem to warrant. Rather that the sabbath e.g. be seen as “made for man” such that it is (re)interpreted in line with whatever love would do (such that this “law of Christ,” not a literal obedience of the letter, is what would “uphold the Torah”).
You responded that Jesus never “redefines” the Torah. Then, that “in a sense he does redefine the Law,” and “introduces a taste of what would be changed.” But later you say that you mean “He redefined the oral law” (which of course is never what I meant by the Torah). I only know to say that I’m afraid all these distinction add little clarity for me.
On the specifics, I called picking grain “harvesting,” and described carrying one’s bed as a “load.” You answer that this is unjustified language. But since the O.T.‘s severity that I cited upon those gathering food and carrying things, which I suggested justified the Pharisees’ fear, also does not use the words “harvesting” or “load” either, this semantic line-drawing all seems to me to miss the point. It gives the appearance that defending Jesus as a literalist comes down to parsing legal minutiae. My point appears to altogether remain that actions grievously penalized in Torah greatly resemble actions that Jesus boldly defended. And I just don’t see Jesus at all as one who could be intending to encourage anything like these careful line-drawing distinctions. I see him as in harmony with Paul in Romans 14 that each person should carry out such scruples about days and foods in line with their own conscience and desire to glorify God.
Frankly, my interpretation doesn’t even need to worry about discerning such distinctions in that I would tell someone whose employers required total work one sabbath day that following Jesus’ example would not necessarily make even that a sin. My only concern would be that he sought to live a life of N.T. love for God and others, and thus that he would follow a pattern honoring the deepest Sabbath principles of rest and worship that would enable such a life. Since you argue the Sabbath command is literal and still applies to Christians, perhaps it would more concretely illuminate our substantive differences in understanding if you could detail what kinds of actions on Saturdays that you would interpret this command to literally approve of and to condemn.
+1 for you on recognizing that the letter of the law is to point to the Spiritual. Absolutely. And the Letter doesn’t save. The only thing that saves is what the Letter points to, the Spiritual, which is Christ.
But I hope you are not asserting that the letter of the law is bad or should be done away with. This goes back to the arguement that TV makes that we should uphold both. Not those parts of the law that were to pass away and become obsolete of course, but that which Jesus said he did not come to destroy, and that which Paul said we should Absolutely Not nullify.
Jesus and the NT writers make distinctions regarding the purpose of the Law, that in my opinion are important to recognize and not oversimplify.
The Entire Torah (ceremonial, civil, Universal commands)can get summarized down to the Universal part (10 commandments) and the 10 can get summarized down to Love God/neighbor and each of those three (Entire Torah, 10 and Love) can be called the law or called the Torah, though Torah Usually means Entire Torah.
If we really believe God gave the Torah and God is love then we can see that …Torah commands=Love
We might not understand how putting someone to death for breaking a law can be Love, But when we Understand God’s Love for the whole of Israel and Their purpose for the World was also taken into account then we can maybe understand how enforcing these Laws had a Greater priority which was also sourced in Love and superceded the temporal and individual. When we come to understand through further revelation that God’s loving purposes for each individual goes beyond ones temporal life on earth, then the Torah can be viewed as it truly is…love.
Let me give some defintions to my seemingly contradictory statements in order to show how in my mind they are coherent :
Jesus never redefines Torah - Universal parts which were always sourced in God’s Love and defined how to love.
Jesus does redefine the law - Cermonial and Civil going away or being redefined into realitys vs just types.
Jesus Redefined Oral Law - The Oral law which was the interpretation of the God’s Law was exposed as wrong altogther.
It was the pharisees that were nit picking the technicalites of the law and trying to classify what he was doing in the same class as what was penalized in the OT. It was Jesus who pointed out that even their own law justified such exceptions in the same class (david and his men and Ox fallen in Pit). Jesus point wasn’t to say stop following God’s Word, his point was to say stop accusing me of breaking the Sabbath when even your own law Justifies what I am doing. I have pointed out before that the Gospel writers in including these Sabbath encounters are following the same consistent theme in their Gospels, that Jesus is the Spotless lamb of God. The Very outset of his ministry “behold the lamb of God”, the temptations, the Lords supper “this cup is the New Covenant of my blood” all the way to the crucifiction account where the temple curtain is split in two.
I argued that the Literal Sabbath command was kept by Jesus. But where do you see my arguing that the command applies to christians? I said I think a good arguement (as in Kelly and others) can be made to support that the Sabbath should be kept. But I myself have remained Neutral on what We as New Covenant Believers should do regarding keeping the Literal Sabbath . In fact I have made the point that this is the only 1 of 10 commandments that I don’t see recommanded in the NT, and I also defered to Pauls statements that we should not let a man judge us regarding what we eat or days or seasons. I have not done enough study to form an opinion on if and how the Sabbath Applies to Christians, and currently I fully agree with your take that following the Sabbath principles of Worship and Rest is the Spirit and intent of the Sabbath, because Sabbath was created for man by the God who loves and creates intructions for Loving purposes, not just because hes Boss and Likes the Power to direct people around I see complexity with the Sabbath command. It represents many things, and some of those are fulfilled others are not. It was also given under the Mosaic Covenant between God and Israel. But I am not under that Covenant or an Israelite. But the purpose behind the command seems to be sourced in a Universally applicable reason, so again good arguement for why we should continue to keep it.
I can’t speak for Kelly but I think she agrees with my view.
My view is not what you have just said.
This is my view:
Salvation is something accomplished apart from the law. Salvation has absolutely nothing to do with keeping the law. The only way salvation and the law should ever be in the same sentence is that the law points out that we are sinners and in need of salvation.
Now, when God saves someone they are a new creation. The process of sanctification starts and is a Loooooooooong process. A good tree will bear good fruit. But a brand new good tree (or creation) does not bear immediate fruit and in fact it goes through seasons where there is no fruit. When the Love of God is in us we bear fruit. But we have to grow in the love of God and be perfected in it. Paul prays that we will grow in the Love of God and the grace and knowledge of the lord.
When John says “he who says he knows him but does not keep his commands is a liar and the love of God is not in him” I believe he is saying that if someone claims to be following God but are opposed to God then they dont possess the Love of God and Dont know him. But this doesnt mean if someone is a new creation and failing to keep the law that they never knew God, its just right now they are not perfected. They are lacking in the Love of God. The Love of God in them needs to grow and become greater.
I do NOT believe that obedience to God’s commands have anything to do with Salvation or our permanent standing before God. We stand forever forgiven and nothing can seperate us from the Love of God. He starts the good work in us and will continue it, It may take a long time but he is faithful to continue what he started …in everyone. Jesus doesnt lose anything that God gives him, and all heaven and earth will be given to Christ, who then turns it over to the father.
Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves (walking in the letter), but our adequacy is from God(walking in the spirit), 6who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. 11For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
Heb 7:18,19
For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness,(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
Its weak and useless now that the new has come, and it has made nothing perfect (sanctification). The letter kills. Walking in the oldness of letter and not in the newness of life. The flesh(letter) profits nothing. The law is a ministry of death. Old wineskins vs. New wineskins.
What use do I have to walk in the letter at all? All of the commands hang on Love God and your neighbor. The word hang is the same word used as hang Christ on the cross. The law Paul says to not nullify is the spirit of the law, love.
Christ is about life, and that abundantly. We can only have that through walking in the spirit, not in the letter, for the letter kills. The letter is an anti-type to life. As in adam/flesh/letter all die, so also in christ/spirit/life all will be made alive.
As for heaven and earth passing away, I believe it did on the cross. The words I speak are spirit (not letter, not literal), tear down this temple in 3 days I will raise it again.
Genesis 1:1 The firstfruits birthed elohim Aleph-Tau(alpha-omega) heaven(the abode of God, in Him the fullness dwelt) Aleph-Tau Earth (the abode of men, in Him we live and move and breathe)
Thats a literal translation of Gen 1:1 
Hey Redhot!!
God’s Blessings on you Brother!
I am in full agreement that the letter points to the Spiritual and is useless without the spiritual. The end Goal of the Letter without Christ is sin and death. The law shows our sin and brings us to Christ and the Spiritual. If a Person is not a new Creation in the spirit then they have no Aeonian life.
But while Paul Contrasts the significance of the Spirit to the letter it appears he circles back repeatedly and upholds the letter, or the divine law (e.g. 9 commandment). Would you agree? Or are you supporting antinomianism? 
Steve,
I appreciate your efforts toward closure! But on your premise that “the entire Torah” is “summarized down to the 10 commands,” what texts present that? Likewise then saying “Jesus does redefine (only?) the ceremonial and civil Law” seems unBiblical. Where is Moses’ Law divided into these categories**?** Weren’t the Pharisees (and Paul!) Biblically correct to consider the Mosaic Law as an undivided whole?
You repeat: It was technical “nitpicking” to see Jesus’ actions “in the same class as what the O.T. penalized.” But that is what I don’t see! I see them understandably believing that such clearly unnecessary efforts were hugely like that for which God snuffed O.T. people out, and sincerely that such blatant disobedience dangerously kept God’s kingdom from coming!
I appreciate your final distinction from Kelly, clarifying that the Sabbath command may not apply to Christians. Thus, our real difference seems to be that you then see Paul as overturning Jesus’ obedience of its’ literal letter, while I see Jesus Himself as the model, genuis, and founder of the Christian approach to Sabbath, who repeatedly signaled that obsession with the letter of the law was religion’s disaster.
P.S. Sorry I have so many questions, but if you’re right that “Salvation has absolutely nothing to do with keeping God’s law,” isn’t Jesus then misleading in telling inquirers that “eternal life” requires obeying it (Lk. 10:25-28; Matt. 19:16,17)? And why would Romans say that God sent his Son “in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us who do not live according to the flesh.” “For it is those who obey the law who shall be declared righteous” (8:4; 2:13)? It seems throughout the Scriptures that obedience to God’s righteous standard has a ton to do with salvation, and is its’ essential goal! That may be why I consider it worth wrestling with what that “law of Christ” actually is.
Hey Bob!
These are some good discussions and I am open to continuing on if you wish. I’ll just make my best attempts at explaining my viewpoints and trying to understand yours and then pray God will square me away if I’m in error. Which is a huge possibility always!!
As indicated here:
hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Torah/Ten_Cmds/ten_cmds.html - According to Jewish Rabbinical Tradition, the Ten Commandments comprise a distilled subset of the complete Torah. All 613 commandments found in the Torah are categorized and reduced down to one of the 10 principles found in the 10 commandments. At the Temple the 10 commands were recited immediately before the Shema as part of the order of worship. The Shema encapsulates all of the commandments to Love.
Jesus said all the law and prophets hang on Love God and Love your Neighbor. Matt22:40 Or as Matt7:12 puts it…Love is the law and prophets.
Rom 13:8-10 Paraphrase - Love fulfills the law. The 10 commandments and all the commandments are summed up in loving your Neighbor.
THe 10 commandments were given at Sinai when God made the covenant with Israel and sprinkled them with Blood. It was after this that the book of the covenant and the rest of the commands were given.
The Greatest 2 commands love God and Love your neighbor are expanded in Love God (the first four commands) and Love Your Neighbor (in the last 6 commands).
The 10 Commandments were repeated by Jesus and The New Covenant Writers but do you see Jesus or any writer post-Jesus repeating any of the Ceremonial or civil law or commanding any of it?
Jesus said I did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill. Did he not fulfill much of the Ceremonial? Was is not pointing at him and therefore that is what he fulfilled? Did not Jesus introduce a New Covenant in his blood and therefore the Old Covenant passes away? Did not The NT writers in Hebrews in other places point this out? Was not the civil laws established in the old Mosaic covenant and therefore logically not part of the New Covenant?
Did not Paul say don’t let anyone judge you regarding food and days and seasons in the context of the New Covenant?
Moses Law is not divided in these categories, I am just using them in a way others have categorized so we can group parts of the law together for the sake of discussion. We see by Jesus and Other NT Writers that much of the Mosaic law is now fulfilled or becoming obsolete for new covenant Gentiles. We clearly see in acts 15 that for Gentiles nothing of the civil law or ceremonial is forced onto the gentiles dont we? There is the Issue of blood, meat sacraficed to Idols but not much more. And even with those things Paul explains that those things are nothing at all, but for the sake of the weaker brother that we
abstain.
So it appears to me under the New Covenant much of what was Forshadowing Jesus was fulfilled (Ceremonial) and the civil was between God and Israel so the gentiles under the new covenant are left with not much. But Lo and Behold we do see Jesus and the NT writers repeating the 10 commandments don’t we. Not so with the ceremonial or civil.
I can see how the pharisees errored in comparing healing and picking grain for food as on the same level as what people were put to death for, which was “normal work”. But they were in error because they did not know the Word of God or the heart of why God gave the SAbbath commands in the first place. I guess we will have to disagree here Bob. I don’t understand how you can side with them here and see what Jesus did as the same as what God punished for. I CAN see
why they would be upset because if they weren’t in error then there would be nothing to be upset about.
Also why would you see them as “understandably believing” he was breaking the Sabbath if their own law justified eating temple bread on the Sabbath and picking a mule out of a pit. How can you call the healing unneccessary. The Guy needed to be healed and Jesus had the power to heal. I would call that Neccessary.
Jesus was exposing the Pharisees for twisting the Word of God. For missing the Love aspect. This is what Jesus was constantly Addressing. The Pharisees twisting the law into something unloving or Harsh. And it maligned the Character of God.
The Sermon on the mount is very telling to me. Here is Jesus sitting above the people as a sort of foreshadow of him as king on the throne as the Messiah King will one day literally do as he rules over the people in TRUTH and RIGHTEOUSNESS with the LAW of GOD. And Jesus opens his mouth to bring clarity to the Truth of GOd’s Word. His words validate everything God’s word had said. He calls the people back to the heart of the law and the heart observance vs the external only observance.
Blessed are the…meek and merciful and peace makers and righteous and persecuted and those that mourn for theirs is the kingdom of God.
He then further validates the commands of God as ALL True!, but makes a point to expose the error of the way the pharisees and teachers taught and practiced the law (because of the harsh additions they made to the Righteous law of God) :
Therefore **anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands **and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but **whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great **in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus series of “you have heard…but I tell you” statements goes on to give the real way these commands should be interpreted, vs the way their oral traditon of the pharisees twisted it. Notice he says… You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy’.
God’s word Never said Hate your enemy! Jesus is quoting Leviticus on the Love your Neighbor part. But their oral tradition added “and hate your enemy”.Jesus is exposing this false teaching that malignes the law of God. He is bringing people back to the heart of what it meant, in contrast to the unloving way that the Pharisees tradition was teaching it.
Eye for Eye and tooth for Tooth was a righteous command within the government of Israel and was needed within their Theocracy. many saw the U.S. killing of BIn Laden as Justified by a governement. We see justice and righteousness in our judicial system when a person that commited a horrible crime is punished.
Jesus upholds this, But points out that on an individual level we are to turn the other cheek.Vengence is mine saith the lord. And in the NT, authorities, Rulers/Kings are to be viewed as servants of God carrying out justice and so we are submit to them as onto the Lord. But we are told to Love one another and live at peace with each other on the individual level.
My point is this…Jesus teaching ministry was constantly one in which he upholds the Literal Commands of God and exposes the errors of the pharisees. Forcing people back to the heart and intent of the law which was Love. Exposing the Pharisees false way of thinking and false interpretations of the Law of God. They added to what was said and put heavy burdens on Gods law that God never ever endorsed. This Maligned the Pure, Loving, Righteous law of God. Jesus is constantly correcting the Pharisees interpretations of Gods law. He does this on the Sermon on the Mount and he does it in the same fashion regarding the Sabbath.
Obsession with the letter of the law without the Spirit is disaster! Agreed. And trying to follow the letter of a law that is from an old Covenant doesn’t even make sense to me actually.
I see Jesus Obedience to the literal letter because he was born under law, an israelite under that covenant so expected as the spotless lamb of God to follow the law to fulfill all righteousness as he said. But he introduced the New Covenant in his blood at the last supper did he not? When he gave up the Ghost the Veil was ripped in apart. The new covenant he spoke about was ushered in. He then set apart Paul to bring this new Covenant to the Gentiles. Paul is doing nothing of his own. Paul is introducing the new covenant that Jeremiah prophesied, what Jesus Predicted and introduced at the Lords Supper, and what he Told Paul when he made him his servant.
In John 3 this same Jesus tells Nicodemus that No One can see the Kingdom of God unless they are born of the Spirit.
I can see two reasons why keeping the commandments would be an appropriate answer to an Eternal Life Seeker
-
In trying to keep the commandments a person is able to see their own sin. This could prepare their heart for receiving the Love of CHrist and the work GOd wants to do in them in making them a new creation in Christ.
-
If a person is already a new creation, Keeping the commandements leads to loving God and Loving others which allows them to experience Aeonian life here and now.
I believe:
It is by Grace through faith that we are saved.
Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.
Following the law of God and becoming perfected IS the inevitable outcome of the one who has Faith. But this may take time.
We are to work out our salvation.
We are to grow in Grace.
We are to Grow in Love.
We are to Grow in Knowledge.
We Battle the Flesh.
I am confident that he who began a good work in you (new creation) will carry it to completion.
I am can give a bunch of verses to support this view, if we want to make it a seperate thread, but we may be saying the same thing on this one!
So well said, Steve. I have been blessed by your words over and over on this thread. I have found your words rightly reflect my view save, my practice of resting on the 7th day which, I consider part of my love for God and desire to focus that day on our relationship wholly and without interruption. Bob - Not for the last time do I say, I am not “under” the law. My position has been largely ignored and contorted by a few, which I find interesting. It is one of those brainwashing positions of traditional mainstream Christianity that has to put a person who shows what the believe by what they do into a category labeled “literalist”, “legalistic”, or “under the law”. I am none of these. By faith, Abraham believed God & it was credited to him as righteousness but, he also performed the physical act of obedience to show that he believed, this was before the written law was given. By faith, I believe God and am credited with Jesus’ righteousness but, I perform the physical acts of obedience to show that I believe. “Faith without works is dead”. The sabbath was established from creation. By faith, I believe God gives us rest so, I rest to show that I believe God. He sees that I remember His gift and His way. That matters to me and, to Him. It’s seems funny and a bit odd to me that I’m the one who believes in keeping the commandments and I do it without and guilt or worry about it and, you say we don’t need to keep them but, you are fretting over petty legalism about how exactly we should keep the law. What I do in upholding the instructions of God is a natural flow from the Spirit of God in me. I do not worry and fret over it. Obedience is a natural flow of the Spirit, of living water that carries the reflection of the image of God.
Hi Kelly,
My interpretation is shared by few. So I’m esp. grateful to you and Steve for defending the one I’ve often cited as the dominant evangelical view of the O.T. and its’ Law. Yours is what I was always taught. Thus, without you guys, I would have no help in learning how that view responds to the texts that I find instructive. As I’ve said, I know that your approach brings healthy blessing for you, and I am glad that it does.
I do apologize again for describing the view I challenge with vocabulary (like ‘literal’) that “contorts” your view and seems like a “brainwashing position.” Ignore any problematic terms and use any you want to describe your understanding. I entered the original thread only to argue that it’s not Biblical to assume that each original Mosaic law should be obeyed by Christians. I doubt that any of the offensive semantics are vital to my interest in that question.
Grace be with you,
Bob
Steve,
I asked, Which Scriptures say the Law is summarized in the Decalogue? You respond, the “Jewish Rabbinical tradition!” But isn’t that precisely what we’ve agreed that Jesus challenged, and not Scripture at all? Of course, I again agree that the N.T. sees the commands as fulfilled by love.
On Jesus and ‘civil law,’ Yes, I do see Jesus citing many issues: vows, retaliation rules, sacrifices, divorce, cleanliness, food rules, etc. But how would I know which are civil or ceremonial? My whole point was that the Torah provides no such distinctions. But yes, of course, I heartily agree that much of the old covenant law “passes away,” and is “obsolete.” We both cite the same texts here-Acts 15. We also agree that whatever the N.T. reaffirms should be assumed as abiding.
At core, on what was an “understandable” reading of the severe O.T. Sabbath texts, you agree that picking grain would be seen as “normal work.” So I can’t see why you think knowing priests ate the Temple sacrament would justify not being horrified by the “work” Jesus encouraged. Everyone ate food on the Sabbath. It was the effort of gathering the food which was fatal. You argue work is plainly “necessary” if there is a need, such as for healing. But those stuck down for gathering food or carrying things surely thought it was needed. But the standard is whether it could be done another day. Jesus could have healed on Sunday, but He purposely did it on Saturday to challenge their interpretation! So I agree with you that the Pharisees “missed the love aspect.” But I don’t see that the O.T. Sabbath penalty texts ennunciate such a “love aspect.” So, Yes, I sympathize with them, and rejoice in being post-Jesus! (more to follow)
Steve, regarding the Sermon on the Mt., I quite agree that Jesus argues that the intent should be love!
But not that the O.T. emphasized, “love your enemy”! Quite commonly, your ‘enemies’ and other empires were to be regarded as God’s enemies and thus killed! Not so for Jesus in the context of the evil empire which sat upon Israel. Leviticus’ “love your neighbor” is explicitly not your “enemies,” but specifically in the context loving one of your own, a brother. So I don’t see Jesus’ definition of ‘neighbor’ as just reaffirming the literal meaning of such a text, or reaffirming a literal O.T. emphasis on loving Israel’s enemies. I believe that Jesus brougt a fuller and better revelation of God and His ways. And so at the heart I find that He actually challenged what you describe concerning him as “obedience to the literal letter.”
I agree that salvation is always ultimately totally grace. But I was raised with your view that Jesus required keeping the commandments for salvation because he was “born under the law,” and wanted to “prepare” us to see our sin (as hopelessly entrenched) and thus “receive” a salvation that has in your words, “absolutely nothing to do with God’s law.” But when I see even Paul warn Christians that persistance in sin will lead to death, consistently agree that judgment rests on our works, and insist that the “only thing that counts” is keeping the commandments, I suspect that the O.T., Jesus, and Paul are all agreed that speaking of keeping the law as essential to salvation is proper, simply because it is true. But I do agree with you that “the requirements of the law being met in us” by how we live, is something that “may take time” as we trust God to bring it to completion.
Hey Kelly, Likewise I appreciate your comments and insights! All of us on this thread seem to have different views on some parts but also commonalities on others… Especially our common View of God’s radical, pure, Love for all his creation. So all posters have been a blessings to converse with. And really we are all just trying to understand how to walk in that love perfectly! Wouldn’t you agree!
I think Bob’s view presents Jesus as introducing a radical love that supercedes everything else. This is a great attractive and even accurate view of Jesus, so I love hearing Bob talk about it and agree with how he views Jesus in that regard. I think the one way our view deviates from his understanding, is we view Jesus bringing people back to what the Law had always revealed vs something new per se. I Jesus ripping apart the veil that the Pharisees oral tradition had put on the Love of God as revealed in the law and prophets. I see Jesus as fulfilling and keeping the law as opposed to redefining it. EIther way a New Covenant did come and we all (Bob, Auggy and Redhot included) see that Jesus is clearly emphasizing Love God and Love one another as the Greatest of all commands and the summary of all commands.
What we should do with all these OT commands and how they fit into “loving our neighbor” seems to be where we are differing.
I am not 100 percent Bob’s view is wrong however. Some parts of it do ring true. And I am trying to maintain a level amount of humilty that he may be correct! I am at one level entertaining the idea that it might be possible that Jesus was not under Mosiac law, but rather God’s law, I notice that the prophecy in pslams 110 see the Messiah as a priest of the order of Melchizidek and the writer of Hebrews picks up on this to show us that Jesus was a priest of a different order than the Aaron Priesthood under the Mosaic law. Strict Hebrew law would not see Jesus as possibly being a legal high priest under the Mosaic law because he was from Judah. Just some thoughts I am considering. I See God making different Covenants with different people that have different requirements. If the New Covenant was possibly usher in before his death (such as his birth or start of public ministry) then being of the line of Aaron is unneccesary under New Covenant. I see Melchizedek as the King/messiah type also foreshadowed in the psalms and the context of Jeremiahs prophecies of the New Covenant as the writer of Hebrews picks up one when he quotes jeremiah regarding the New Covenant:
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.
I don’t know if that sounds like rambling. But is it possible the new covenant offically came before Jesus death, such as at his birth? and if so doesn’t that put Jesus outside of the requirements of the Old Covenant (mosaic) and therefore Legal as our High Priest from the order of Melchezidek under this New Covenant that he was now under? Or Mabye this was the point Redhot was making 
Yea this is a weak point by me Bob. I can’t really support it scripturally. I am not sure of its relevance to the discussion though, to be honest. Jesus did challenge the Rabbi tradition, they were terribly wrong on some things and right on others. They were right on the pulling Mule out of pit and justifying David and his men. So they were not ALWAYS wrong. But, I agree pointing to them does not validate anything. I was just using that example because I don’t have the time or interest in seeing if 613 commands could be sorted logically into the 10 commandments, and they had done the leg work and shown that to be true at least in their view. It also seems that the way in which God gave them the Ten and then all the other ones seemed curious and meaningful. And then I showed how Jesus and Paul summarize them down to Love.
So i may be incorrect on this, and there is no Direct scripture to prove the point. Only indirect indications for those that want to follow the rabbit trail, in my opinion. But some have also argued heavily in Favor for the Trinity, which is a Major doctrine, these same people admit there is no direct Trinity reference anywhere, only independent scripures that can be pieced together to show there must be a Trinity.
I guess if we were going to use those Terms (i.e. civil and ceremonial) then it would be helpful to define what fits into what category. Maybe it’s a bad idea to use those terms anyways. But i think all would agree that things involving sacrifice and its related ceremonial routines has passed away since the NT tells us these were foreshadows of Jesus. Maybe using the other things (which some group into civil) should be looked at on a case by case basis.
I would not see picking grain as normal work. I dont think i ever said that. If I did i apologize for the confusion. It would take more work for me to travel to the temple for the sabbath then to pick some heads of grain and eat them. And Travelling to Worship on sabbath was expected.
Can you show me where gathering food for the belly was fatal. I don’t see any of the punishments in the OT on the sabbath as a result of a person grabbing a few handfuls of food for their belly. I see the punishments in the OT for those who were doing more than a one meal “grabbing”. It appears to me that the punishment texts were for those who were out doing work that was more involved than that. That they were doing work to get ahead of the others, disregarding the command purposely and not for an immediate need.
I would agree Jesus healed on Sabbath to make a point. It was meeting a need and also Making a point. The point according to Jesus appears to be that its never wrong to do good on the sabbath. Your arguement is people were struck down in the OT for “Carrying a load”. This is the Basis of your arguement for why telling someone to take their mat is breaking the sabbath, correct? Please provide your “Carrying a load” reference. The one I am thinking of is nothing like the man picking up his mat. It’s confusing me why you would compare these two different events. What kind of Mat do you imagine this to be? That it would be considered work to pick it up?
What God command a Nation regarding War and possessing a nation for Gods righteous reasons was pretty clearly independent of what he commanded the individual in regard to his Neighbor. If we don’t acknowledge this then we have a view of God that seems very contradictory. “Thou Shall Not Kill” was also uttered by God as one of the Revered big 10! Spoken by God himself and Agreed on by the People in the Blood Covenant.
This command to not kill is in the context of other commands which appear to be for the individual "commit adultery, honor father and mother, steal, bear false witness, covet, make graven image. Notice all the commands are not qualified by your neighbor or “brother” they are “you shall not” i.e. don’t kill neighbor or anyone including your enemy. So it appears to me that the command from God in the OT (of which Jesus is Reaffirming) was to love neighbor and enemy all along. So was Jesus bringing a new meaning to Love? or just Reaffirming what God had already said in the 10 commandments.
Hmm, interesting. Yeah I definitely do not see sin leading to death as representing spiritual death, if that is what you are trying to say. It sounds like in your view that keeping the law is critical so we dont lose our salvation. i.e. spiritual standing before God. I think there is no possible way that Jesus can lose any that the father gives him. His sheep hear his voice and follow him but they dont follow perfectly as Peter showed. But still, none are lost.
It may be that our definition of salvation is different.
I was away with my Honey and kiddies for her birthday, it’s been great catching up.
Kelly, No pejoratives have been tossed your way so I don’t think any apologies are neccessary. Just understand we label it like that because that’s how we might see it. We may be wrong about that but just hang in there and explain why a label such as “literalist” is bad or inaccurate. I still see “literalist” and “legalist” as accurate (you yourself said you wouldn’t consider yourself a strict literalist). For you literally abstaining from pork keeps a person clean. For you God set a legal code which is built on the foundation of love. At least that’s how I read you. No one is stating you’re doing anything wrong by resting on Saturdays and certainly no one is fretting over the “petty legalism”. It’s a discussion, that’s all. Your words sound more like you’re trying to convince yourself and others that because we have difficulty with your view, then it must prove you’re right. Well Jesus had difficulty with the Pharisees so they must have been right. What matters are the arguments, not the fact that someone is either passionate or not.
Steve, I’ll refrain from the atonement issue since it is a digression. It is difficult because different issues which have been raised are naturally required in order to get clarity on this very issue eg. atonement, food laws. We can discuss those on different threads at a later time. I agree with you - stay focused on this topic without the major digressions.
One way to frame our difference (albeit probably not correctly) would be to say that I understand Steve and Kelly to uphold that the law fullfills love. Whereas Bob, Magam and I would argue that love fullfills the law. For obeying legal codes including food laws and resting on Saturdays is an act of obedience, which flows from love. Whereas for us, loving God and others as much as we love ourselves is to rest on the sabbath (be in Christ).
This distinction is raises probably another thread for the future: Is human intuition something to be employed or something to be bypassed. I would think you and Kelly would favor the latter, while Bob, Magma and I would support the former. For the law, according to Kelly and you (as I understand you) defines for us the love of God. For us, to love God and love others fullfills the INTENT of the law. I agree with Magmas words earlier that abstaining from Murder is a violation of God’s love. In other words, if I understand Magma correctly, the legal obedience is not what shows value, rather it’s in bearing the image of God - LOVE - in that sense we uphold not murdering, because we, by faith, believe in the love of God.
With respect and love,
Auggy
That’s awesome! Hope you all had a wonderful time!
I’m not so much worried about pejoratives. Also, a don’t consider a literal reading of the text “bad”. Incomplete possibly. What I have seen is, because I have spent so much time on this thread, my belief’s are mostly regarded this one way. My last post to Bob was mainly to share that, in addition to a literal reading, I also value philosophical reading and many other reading types that we have not yet labeled on this thread. Also, to make the point that regardless of any labels anyone wants to tag onto reading types or certain people with reading types, I find that “literalist” falls short of my particular belief’s. I was hoping that would end the cacophony of thoughts coming from the idea that I take the Bible strictly in a literal sense. I have had a difficult time getting that across I think mostly because of the particular thread subject, my ideas about it and the fact that I haven’t gotten a chance yet to participate on many of the other “philosophical” threads. Hope that clears up any confusion about what I was trying to get across. No apologies necessary.
As far as eating pork, I don’t abstain to remain “clean”. I abstain out of simple obedience and, as I think I have already stated, not only to obey that command but, also to participate “philosophically” as a type of “tabernacle” or “temple” of God. There is more at work than we may understand in Torah and through us.
I think if a person keeps the command not to murder another person “literally” and also keeps the command “philosophically” by not hating his brother, he does well. This is my more obvious bent inside of your labels. I think we do well to do both. I see this as obedience, not legalism. I aim to hit the mark but, I know I am not perfect and I know my salvation is not of works. So, I also have no need for “petty legalism” which is what I meant by that term. I don’t mean to offend but, how I say things is the best way I know how.
Further, I find the idea you hold of the pharisees is unhistorical as well as, unbiblical. I shared scripture earlier in the thread about what Jesus said concerning them and I hear you saying the opposite of what Jesus said. I guess I’m not sure why you hold to that idea, contrary to Jesus’ words in the scripture.
Kelly thinks the Torah is the image of the invisible God and, that Jesus also was the image of the invisible God. Both are love.
Human intuition should not be bypassed. But, if your intuition tells you to steal your neighbor’s car it should be bypassed. I think being objective and using objective information/processes is important. We are both flesh and spirit, God speaks to both. Love is not just a feeling, it is a standard, a way of life. I can love someone both in the flesh and the spirit, with my outward “man” and my inner “man”. And should, imo.
Thanks for the back and forth, Auggy!
Kelly