I see the Bible as progressive revelation, containing apparent challenging tensions, and your humility in wrestling with how to be faithful to it blesses me. And I doubt a lot of my perceptions do justice to it either.
On warfare & love: Your solution seems to be that the Law & love only apply to “individuals,” who mustn’t “kill.” I actually doubt that Israel’s wars necessarily violated this term, since a better translation may be, don’t “murder” (and some ‘killing’ might be understood as loving).
But I see Jesus addressing Jews who thot Israel as a nation should again kill God’s rebellious enemies (Rome; just as the O.T. had urged). So, sympathetic to AnaBaptists, I see Jesus in fact challenge them far beyond “individuals in regard to a neighbor.” It urges the nation to reject that O.T. precedent & pattern. Do you think even if Rome drafted Christians for war against national enemies, they could not argue that Jesus called them to refuse (as they actually thought)’:?
On ‘salvation’: Of course I agree that Jesus can’t ultimately “lose any the Father gives him” (which I consider as everyone). Yet you say that persistent sin or defiance of God’s law can’t lead to “spiritual” death. But when Hebrews 10 e.g. warns continuous sinners of “God’s judgment and raging fire,” etc, it sure sounds like much more than ‘physical’ death, which awaits most of us. And when Romans (e.g. 6:16) warns believers that “sin leads to death,” doesn’t Paul mean precisely ‘spiritual’ separation from God. I’m afraid, Yes, I think that can be the wages of sin, albeit not forever.
We agree Jesus shows us how to interpret the Law, but I see him more provocatively challenging a natural reading of its’ letter, in light of wider Scripture such as the prophets. So sensing that Jews understood all Mosaic laws to be ‘moral,’ reflecting God’s own righteousness, I agree with you that they simply should be evaluated “case by case.”
Thanks for correcting my misconstrual of your words that Pharisees erred in seeing picking grain as “normal work.”
But on the specifics: you say “travelling to worship” was fine. Where is that? The folk I watched all of March in Jerusalem’s Mea Shearim didn’t read it that way.
You suggest “gathering food” just to eat was fine, for only grabbing a lot “to get ahead of others” was punished. What text says that? Exodus 16:29 appears to simply say, “Stay in your place, and do not pick up any food.” You agree, “Jesus argues that it’s never wrong to do good on the Sabbath,” But I think the Pharisees had strong precedent to fear that that could be humanistic rationalization of specific prohibitions on quite otherwise ‘good’ things.
You ask where “carrying” stuff is sanctioned. I discussed three passages above on Nov. 7, 5:43pm, where even execution is mentioned. But you suggest that picking grain is not as arduous as picking up manna, and that carrying one’s mat is “nothing like” carrying things in the texts presented. How is that so clear to you? I suspect that it is because you start from the premise that a sinless Jesus clearly did those things; thus they can’t be similar. But it seems to me that someone with no vested interest in reconciling Jesus with the Mosaic code would quite understandably say that it’s hard to be sure which actions were more ‘work.’ A Pharisee would reason, With the fearful precedents, why risk God’s severe wrath? More of a humanist might say, Way to get your priorities right, Jesus!
Perhaps in the same way that Jesus revealed God in the way that he did, perhaps he likewise revealed the nature of the True Torah, removing veils and systems to allow access without need of them or their adherence; as the True-meaning had arrived and so “fulfilled” when it was “finished”, and the Son of God was revealed.
We don’t worship in the Temple, or on the mount of Samaria, the veil is torn, the earth cracked, the tombs open, the law fulfilled by reason of the True-meaning being revealed via the fall of the veiling systems, like The Law.
Love which fulfills the whole Law was revealed, and so the Law was fulfilled and dissipated behind in favour of the genuine article; Truth in Love, worship in Spirit and in Truth, love God, neighbor, self, and one another as Love [Jesus] loves you. Just as genuine access to God’s presence was given as the veil and Temple were torn and doomed to dissipate in favour of the Ecclessia.
Jesus revealed True God and True Law, and both were Love - not systems, temples, religious laws, forbidding of meats, forbidding of marriage, or God behind the veil.
Well worded Lefein. But for some, the temple is still a symbol of importance. And I don’t think the NT outright declares that someone cannot. For example, Paul does not school the vegetarian that he’s in the wrong. He simply says, I won’t do it if it offends them. So there’s room for disagreement in the body.
Kelly, you are wonderful and quite an addition to this site, in my estimation. I’m sorry you have spent to much time and energy on this thread. That was not our intention
I don’t think of you as being one dimensional, not at all. As expressed earlier, I’m grateful your here. I have friends who believe similarly to you and personally, I could care less if you abstain from pork. Just don’t judge me or others who eat bacon with our eggs - and you’ve not done that. But the love of God, as endorsed by EU is what I find to be most important and apparently you’ve got that. So people who appeal to your school of thought need you. That’s somewhere I can’t go. As soon as they ask me if I eat pork, then I lose credibility with them. So I believe we need each other. So don’t think I think of Kelly or Mr. Shep as “THOSE LEGALISTS!” - I don’t. I only hope you endorse the all emcompassing love of God as something that will eventually win out ALL people in the end.
Yes the labels are only to feel our way around the elephant. I don’t mean to make it sound as if you believe in salvation by works. Although I have to admit, it’s hard for me to see that is not tantamount to your view, but I accept it - it’s not. I require more thought and inquiry for that. In fact my deeper thoughts is that we’re pretty close on that subject.
I did clarify that I realize you are not abandoning the philosophical for the literal, but rather that you embrace both. So please don’t think that I believe you are shallow. I only see the literal as shallow and therefore unnecessary. The dogma to not commit murder was an inner command - not to hate your brother - the result should be love.
I’m not sure what idea of the pharisees I or Bob hold except that they were the literal ones who lacked a deeper understanding of the torah. When I ask for scriptures which provide provisions for non-preists to pick their food from the fields (harvesting), I’ve only been offered that the provisions for the priests meant ANYONE could do non-vocational work. But if we’re going to take God’s word literally, then I need God’s word to say “nonvocational”. As Bob has pointed out to steve, and as I stated on the other thread, Manna was forbidden to be collected on the sabbath - why? If gathering food is not evil, then why forbid it? The pharisees were putting parameters on “work” because the law fails to define what work is. If one collects wood on the sabbath is it punishable by death? Is working on the day that God rested so immoral? Well according to Numbers 15 it is. The Pharisees as I understand them then (in their minds) were doing a loving thing by defining for them what work is.
Likewise, when one works in the farm and perhaps animal fecies gets on their hands, is it unlawful to eat their food with their hands or should they clean their hands? Is eating animal fecies forbidden? If a woman changes a babies diaper and gets poop on her hands is it moral to wash her hands? I see why the pharisees though the tradition as right, because it seems to be inline with human reasoning - the pig is unclean meat so any fecies or animal filth is unclean as well.
When it’s argue that the pharisees are adding to the torah, then what is Jesus doing? When he says “you’ve heard it said eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth but I tell you turn the other cheek”, is he adding to it? When he says “if you hate your brother you’re guilty of murder” is he adding to it? Where is the command you shall not hate your brother? If you reason with philosphical reasoning, that is the command not to murder is synonomous with not hating your brother, then are you adding to it? I believe the pharisees were no different than us. They had difficulty trying to make sense of the law and took it that if they obeyed the law, then they were clean. But they never realized, that the philosphical deeper meaning was what God required and fullfilled the meaning to obey the law and thus all the laws vanished into one - love.
So simply put, the Pharisees (as far as I can see) had the right idea, being literalists, to put parameters on what constituted work becauase the penalty of breaking the sabbath was death.
Likewise, people properly picked up stones to kill the adulteress. Why? Because the law supported killing the man and woman for doing such things.
We should kill our children for dishonoring their parents.
By the way, I’m very confusing and want to clarify:
When I say the pharisees were right, I only mean that they were right as being literalists. But I certainly agree with Jesus that they were wrong. However, I submit that in order to agree with Jesus one has to use a non-literal interpretation of the law and see it’s subtext (deeper meaning) which is love.
So I don’t mean I agree with them and Jesus was wrong. I only mean that if one subscribes to literalism then they should be able to sympathize with the pharisees. But I find most people find the pharisees as being antagonists of God’s law but then those same people turn around and use a non-literal interpretation of God’s law.
Thank you, but just for clarification as well - I was just using the Temple as a symbol of the “old system” of limited, localised, liturgical, “priestly monopoly on the presence of God” forms of worship, among other things of that line of thought.
Yes Lefein, I agree. I’m just bringing you up to speed that Kelly and TV both seem to see the “literal” as still being an important function today. I think I follow you that if the shadows were just that then what’s really necessary about continuing to practice them - for example the temple.
If I’m not following you correctly, then please explain and thanks for joining in.
Matt,
what do you make of Jesus’ actions and his interpretation of the sabbath law, food laws and other external types of legal codes? I’d like to hear your take on it. Bob, Magma and I all hold (to some degree or another) that the law is not to be taken in a strict literal sense. Do you see that resting on Saturdays is what God is looking for? Do you think eating rabbit is unclean? You’re a really good writer so drop your thoughts
You mean me? lol (still not used to my real name being used here I guess lol)
I think all animals were made “and it is good” and God gave us the capacity to make all meats “and it is really good when cooked!” - I feel that a great many of the Old Testament laws were for the Hebrew’s sake, like burying your poop outside of the camp because you don’t get very bad diseases that way, and not eating pork so as not to get trichinosis because it is awfully hard to cook pork on an open fire. But as far as it being “immoral” to eat pork or rabbit, I don’t think so, and I don’t think God thinks so. Every kind of meat is clean if eaten with thanksgiving, Paul said, if I recall.
I see the whole point of kosher laws, and Sabbath laws as being fulfilled and more or less “updated with a patch” as mankind matured, and especially when Christ the Son of God was revealed and made Way as the Waymaker; The Way, to Truth, and Life, and Spirit - which he himself is Truth and Life. I believe he settled the whole issue of The Law by boiling it down to what it is actually supposed to be, Love. Resting on Saturday, having a Sabbath day I believe was replaced with having a “Sabbath Life”, where the importance of the Sabbath - a day of rest for our benefit - was shown for what it really was, not a day to be legally distraught and stoned over for “breaking” but the spirit behind it was made known.
“You ought to have time for rest, if you don’t, you’re killing yourself - stoning yourself.”
And the same with Kosher Laws.
“You ought to not eat things unless they’re clean, and healthy. If you know it is riddled with parasites, don’t eat it just because you’re hungry. And for My Sake Goodness Sakes…cook your food thoroughly. And stay away from things that are going to give you a heart attack if you know well and good you’re already halfway to death’s door via obesity.”
It all comes down to the “love yourself” part of “love your neighbor” - abstaining from bacon isn’t the same as abstaining from bacon that you know is going to give you a parasite that can kill you. And keeping the sabbath so you actually have some time to rest and be present with God isn’t the same as being cowed with fear over whether or not God is going to smite you in the middle of Sunday football…or Saturday morning cartoons, for not going to church that day.
If that makes sense, lol. Kinda a long winded way to answer a simple question I suppose.
Agreed. Though I would not endorse the scientific approach to why God had hebrews abstain from pork, primarily because the same is not true of rabbits, I do think it’s common sense not to eat things that are bad for you. If cholesterol is the problem then one should abstain from beef as well So I see the healthy diet argument as failing, but still appreciate your common sense - if you’re diabetic then abstain from sugars.
I can’t find in the Bible the reason why God called some things unclean to eat. Is there somewhere that explains that? If we could know why, it would be easier to either hang on to what He commanded or let go of it, imo.
Thank you! No need to apologize, Auggy. I only meant that, like all of us, I only have so much time to spend here and in an attempt to get across my thoughts, I have ignored most of the other threads in which I may have been reflecting a different image than just literal.
Thanks. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I don’t think EU is what should draw us together and bind us though. And, maybe you aren’t saying that. Once we have to unite under only the banner of EU we will cease to be EU. We will then be UU which is or at least, as I see it, is the exact opposite.
Thank you, again. I see us (humans) as a layered creatures. God is not shallow. The first commandment relays the idea of bringing our whole being into a love relationship with Him. To those who do not yet know Him, we can be a living symbol to help them in their journey to Him. Our vessels are the temple (a copy of the temple in heaven) in which no unclean thing will ever enter. It is still truth. Until we are raised up from death, we still live in the material. We shouldn’t live like that’s all we are but, as long as we are, we are a witness to those who may desire Him though, may not be able to take hold of all the philosophical ideas. That is one reason why I deem it important to continue to glorify God in that way.
Even if they did go out to gather, the manna would not have been there.
And Moses saith, `Eat it to-day, for to-day is a sabbath to Jehovah; to-day ye find it not in the field: six days ye do gather it, and in the seventh day–the sabbath–in it there is none.’ (Exo 16:25-26)
Apparently, Yehovah said to keep the Sabbath because He did and because He blessed it and does sanctify it.
`Remember the Sabbath-day to sanctify it; six days thou dost labour, and hast done all thy work, and the seventh day is a Sabbath to Jehovah thy God; thou dost not do any work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy handmaid, and thy cattle, and thy sojourner who is within thy gates, – for six days hath Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and resteth in the seventh day; therefore hath Jehovah blessed the Sabbath-day, and doth sanctify it. (Exo 20:8-11)
The day was also for everyone among God’s people including foreigners. It was as a continual reminder that they used to serve a tyrant king god and that Yehovah has freed them from slavery. As He has all for all time who have turned to Him including me, so I do take the time, the day to remember that and it is a witness to His majesty, goodness and love.
`Observe the day of the sabbath–to sanctify it, as Jehovah thy God hath commanded thee; six days thou dost labour, and hast done all thy work, and the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah thy God; thou dost not do any work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant, and thy handmaid, and thine ox, and thine ass, and all thy cattle, and thy sojourner who is within thy gates; so that thy man-servant, and thy handmaid doth rest like thyself; and thou hast remembered that a servant thou hast been in the land of Egypt, and Jehovah thy God is bringing thee out thence by a strong hand, and by a stretched-out arm; therefore hath Jehovah thy God commanded thee to keep the day of the sabbath.
(Deu 5:12-15)
The Sabbath is for all and those who keep it have a better station and name than sons and daughters.
Thus said Jehovah: Keep ye judgment, and do righteousness, For near is My salvation to come, And My righteousness to be revealed.' O the happiness of a man who doth this, And of a son of man who keepeth hold on it, Keeping the sabbath from polluting it, And keeping his hand from doing any evil. Nor speak let a son of the stranger, Who is joined unto Jehovah, saying:Jehovah doth certainly separate me from His people.’ Nor say let the eunuch, Lo, I am a tree dried up,' For thus said Jehovah of the eunuchs, Who do keep My sabbaths, And have fixed on that which I desired, And are keeping hold on My covenant: I have given to them in My house, And within My walls a station and a name, Better than sons and than daughters, A name age-during I give to him That is not cut off. And sons of the stranger, who are joined to Jehovah, To serve Him, and to love the name of Jehovah, To be to Him for servants, Every keeper of the sabbath from polluting it, And those keeping hold on My covenant. I have brought them unto My holy mountain, And caused them to rejoice in My house of prayer, Their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices Are for a pleasing thing on Mine altar, For My house,A house of prayer,’ Is called for all the peoples. (Isa 56:1-7)
If thou dost turn from the sabbath thy foot, Doing thine own pleasure on My holy day, And hast cried to the sabbath, A delight,' To the holy of Jehovah,Honoured,’ And hast honoured it, without doing thine own ways, Without finding thine own pleasure, And speaking a word. Then dost thou delight thyself on Jehovah, And I have caused thee to ride on high places of earth, And have caused thee to eat the inheritance of Jacob thy father, For the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken!(Isa58:13-14)
Jesus warns us of the end times and says to pray that we don’t have to get out of Jerusalem on the Sabbath. Why, if He already established that we don’t need to keep it?
“…and pray ye that your flight may not be in winter, nor on a sabbath; for there shall be then great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world till now, no, nor may be.” (Mat 24:20-21)
Surely Jesus would have been able to teach His disciples that they need not keep the Sabbath, if indeed they need not.
" . . . and the women also who have come with him out of Galilee having followed after, beheld the tomb, and how his body was placed, and having turned back, they made ready spices and ointments, and on the sabbath, indeed, they rested, according to the command." (Luk 23:55-56)
Jesus says that the commandments allow for partial healing (circumcision) on the Sabbath so, He asks, what’s the big deal if I heal the whole man on the Sabbath? Then He tells them they are not making right judgments. IT WAS THE PHARISEES WRONG JUDGMENTS THAT MADE THEM INTERPRET THE LAW WRONGLY. BUT, THE LAW IS NOT WRONG. It is good, holy and just.
" . . . because of this, Moses hath given you the circumcision–not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers–and on a sabbath ye circumcise a man; if a man doth receive circumcision on a sabbath that the law of Moses may not be broken, are ye wroth with me that I made a man all whole on a sabbath? judge not according to appearance, but the righteous judgment judge.’ (Joh 7:22-24)
The ritual hand washing has nothing to do with the Torah. I don’t see human reasoning as equal with the Torah. Unfortunately, that’s why we kill unborn babies, because we think we know better than God, because we think He’s old fashioned or outdated. I think, because He knows all, all is still relevant for us today. For my part, I have to give Him that. I don’t abstain from pork because it is necessarily dirty. I abstain because God said to and He knows more than me. Also, because we are the temple of God and no unclean thing enters the temple, never did and no unclean thing will enter the temple in heaven.
I think I understand your perspective here and I see what you mean. Very valid question. God always wanted His people’s hearts. He didn’t give the law to get some sick pleasure from watching disobedient people get stoned. He gave the Torah because it showed who He was, perfect in every way. He wanted them to love Him as He was and desire Him and desire to be like Him. Keeping Torah is love. All (all means all) the law and the prophets hang on the two greatest commandments. The 10 are a summation of the whole and, the 2 greatest are a summation of the whole law and prophets. If His people did have a right heart there would be no need for consequences for sin. When they made mistakes, He allowed for a sacrifice so, that they would not be stoned (or whatever). Love/Torah is the same thing. When they were “unloving”/broke a commandment concerning their neighbor, they had to reconcile with the neighbor and God, they had to “make it right”. The Torah is more about doing what’s right than worrying about being punished for trying to cheat God by skirting what He says is right then, trying to take some legal ground for not getting the consequences they rightly deserved. God knew the hearts of His people back then too.
If their hearts were not right, and indeed they were not, then I can see why they were “literalists”, as you call it. But, to just obey God and follow Him in what He says is right, good, holy and perfect is not “literalism”. If your heart is to not go your own way on the Sabbath then you really don’t have to deal with what you can and can’t do on the Sabbath because you will too busy spending that whole day enjoying God’s company.
I don’t think we know the whole story there. Notice in the account, that there was no man present to be judged? Obviously, they were trying to “get” Jesus on something. If He would have judged her without the man present, He would not have kept the whole Torah concerning the judgment of adultery. And indeed, she may not have done it. The pharisees were the rulers. What common woman could lay a charge of “false witness” against the whole bunch of them? He also was not “in court” so to speak following all the Torah concerning the judgment. There are safeguards against condemning an innocent person.
Again, you don’t just take a kid to the gate because they didn’t eat their green beans. On the other hand, can you imagine how serious parents would have taken their duty to raise their children? Needed! In our culture, we abort babies because they hinder our ability to be successful and other various reasons so what’s the big deal? (Just saying that for contrast. It is a big deal) Today, the kid that would have been stoned mostly ends up running away, lives on the street, takes drugs and dies a horrible death or ends up killing parents, etc. But, back then, most other kids didn’t want to go to the gate. They knew what it meant whereas, running away, etc., can look deceivingly freeing or exciting.
Here let me help you : *Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these among those which chew the cud, or among those that divide the hoof in two: the camel and the rabbit and the shaphan, for though they chew the cud, they do not divide the hoof; they are unclean for you. 8 The pig, because it divides the hoof but does not chew the cud, it is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses. *
One day Jesus found a group of people who accused a woman of commiting adultery. Being godly people, they obeyed the torah and picked up their stones to stone her. But Jesus intervened and said
Jesus: You’re a luck little whore, if the man you slept with was here, I’d obey the torah myself and do what it calls for. But instead I forgive you.
No I don’t buy it that the reason he restrains capital punishment is because the man is not present. He has the power to forgive and that is why he does not do what the torah instructs. But if his heart is right, and if he obeyed EVERY JOT AND TITTLE in a literal sense, then how is he fulfilling it? I always said when Jesus says “let he who’s without sin cast the first stone”, I would have handed him the rock. But he forgives her when the law demands he read her mind, find the man in town, take them outside the gates and kill them both.
It looks as though you agree with my assesment when I stated that You and Steve believe not that “love fullfills the law” but rather that the “law fullfills love”, which I find sad. When people actually believe that meat is unclean identified by it’s hoof not being split or whether it chews the cud or not, then it’s hard for me to understand how they can’t be legalistic to some degree on these very grounds; it’s simply unavoidable. We believe love fullfills the law and that doing what is right, just and mercy is all that is required. Eating foods and wearing fabrics is an external measure and one cannot clean the cup by doing these things and likewise cleaning the inside does not mean you’ll begin wearing the right fabrics and eating the right foods because God’s kingdom is not about mean or drink - it’s about righteoussness, peace, mercy, kindness, gentleness, self-control.
With all that said, perhaps this would help me gather where you’re at with this:
According to the Torah, if one disobeys the sabbath he is to be killed (capital punishment). That is God’s holy and perfect command. In Numbers 15, Goes does not instruct them to sacrifice for the sabbath breaker but supports his literal words regarding capital punishement for sabbath breakers where he states “The man shall surely be put to death”.
a) Do you support stoning for breaking the sabbath?
b) Do you believe Jesus changed the death penalty rule for the church?
c) Do you think breaking the sabbath (doing unneccessary work) is a sin?
Not to get too off topic here, but this instance may have been following the law because Jesus may have been the woman’s adopted son. Okay I know you’re like what? Unfortunately the site that had this all worked out is gone. But I’ll try to give as much as I can remember off hand, and ask the guy at TM who had posted the info originally if he has it. I’ll start from the end and work backwards. Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene and Nicodemus were set to sea in a raft without oars or sail by the Jews or Romans I can’t remember, but it was to die. They were saved through an act of divine providence and ended up in brittain. There was a thriving christian community there long before the Roman church came, in fact the roman church was kept out of brittain for a long time because they didn’t want their pagan garbage there. Why would those three be together? Mary was married to Joseph, and her father is Nicodemus. Magdalene means pillar or tower, like the tower of babel is migdal. In the tribe of Benjamin the women passed the inheritance. Joseph of Arimathea was Mary Jesus’ mothers brother, and when Joseph died (Jesus’ “father”) Joseph of Arimathea would have adopted Jesus by law. And by law Father, husband or son could forgive adultery. Also the Magdalena, the pillar of the tribe of Benjamin was the one who could anoint priests and kings, and when she anoints Him with the Nard it is not just some nard but the actual Nard used to anoint the king.
One piece of corroborating evidence here is that Nicodemus came to Jesus at night. Why, and how would he do that? Walk down the hall to Jesus’ room since he was his grandfather.
I think some of this comes from Stephen Jones’ material. Sorry I don’t have more primary evidence to support these fantastical claims, and it may not be true .
BTW I believe Jesus fulfilled the law to the letter, the pure spotless lamb. BUT the letter was done away with at the cross, which I’ve laid out in previous posts. His life and death consummated the contract between God and Israel, it is finished, there is no use for it now, all the external/literal is worthless as they only serve as signposts to spiritual truth. Not the other way around that spiritual purity leads to ritual purity.
So we just had our family “church”. We read Acts chapter 1. This is where the disciples choose Matthias for the 12th disciple. They choose him by lots. Lots were one of the ways God’s will was deciphered in the OC. This was an external thing. This is the last time we see lots being used in the Bible. Why? well the Holy Spirit hadn’t come upon them yet. Thats in ch 2. They still needed an external confirmation because the internal/HS wasn’t there. There are some significant things in this chapter that relates to our subject at hand.
He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; 5for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
OC literal baptism water, NC spiritual baptism fire
The reason the ladies adhered to the letter in the Luke passage is that the new law had not yet come upon them. Pentecost signified the giving of the law at Sinai/OC, and at Zion/NC. So before the day of pentecost they were in limbo, or the wilderness because the HS hadn’t brought the law into them.
It also says Jesus showed himself to them for 40 days before He ascended. It was forty years in the wilderness for Israel, and 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem. 40 is also the time for gestation. And Jesus uses birth pangs to describe the end of the age. The end of the age came upon them in 70 ad when the temple was destroyed. I see the time of the 40 years as a transition time between the OC and the NC. The birthing of the new man that took place finally at 70 ad, this is the mystery Paul spoke about. Prior to that gentiles were still grafted in to the olive tree. After 70 ad there was no Jew, Greek, slave or free. Without a temple Judaism was dead. The OC law was centered around the temple. This is one of the reasons I see no use for the literal. And I think it arbitrary to choose which laws to still follow. The stamp was given that this system was dead.
I think much of the confusion about law comes in because people expect that the end of the age Jesus spoke about is some time in the future. But He says that generation would not pass away before those things were fulfilled, well 40 years is a generation. He also says in REV that these things must take place quickly.
The general letters (non-Pauline) were written to Jews, and were written for the transition period for those Jews. Gehenna took place literally at 70 ad, and the kingdom was given to the gentiles. Not that the internal hadn’t already come, but that God was giving them time to break free of their habits.
Man I wish I had better writing skills I know this is probably hard to follow, its all there in my head, I just can’t seem to put it down on paper.
Exactly. See literalists want to hold on to God’s word regarding rules to follow but then seem to have reasons why the punishments don’t.
I’m hoping Kelly will answer the three questions because I get confused. On one hand I get this idea that obeying sabbath is about blessing, on the other hand I get this “if you don’t obey” then you don’t love for obedience to the law is “love”.
Kelly, it seems you miss the point. I’m saying it was “sinful” for them to go out and get the manna. If you continue reading you’ll see some did go out on the sabbath and this is God’s words to Moses: 27 It came about on the seventh day that some of the people went out to gather, but they found none. 28 Then the LORD said to Moses, “(AF)How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My instructions? 29 See, [v]the LORD has given you the sabbath; therefore He gives you bread for two days on the sixth day. Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.
For anyone to read this and say that vocational work, or necessary work or even “good” work is permissible is missing the mark. The point is that God did not want people going out and picking up their dinner on that day. Whether or not the “grain” or Mannah was there is irrelevant.
Still I hope you’ll answer the questions above for clarity.
Hello everyone,
I’m sorry, I just can’t keep up with this thread. If you are asking an answer of me, would you do me a favor and post the question/ questions again. I’m getting confused as to what is a rhetorical question or a question someone has as to what I believe. Sorry. Thank you.
Auggy,
I’m hoping this post will help clarify my position overall. I don’t want to get into arguments about the law. Especially, because I keep it by faith not by the letter. Not to invalidate the written Torah though or anything you may be trying to resolve with it.
Yehovah is not shallow and forgetful. He does not change with the wind. Everything He sets in place has purpose and even, purpose in layers. Nothing disappears. There may be change to fulfill but, there is nothing that Yehovah speaks that will ever be irrelevant or outdated. In the case of the Yeshua’s death, burial and resurrection, there was a change in the law to fulfill but, it did not take away. We still have a “Priesthood”-High Priest and priests under Him. In fact, the account in Genesis of Melchizedek says that the decedents of Levi paid their tithe because they were even then in the body of Abraham.
Now consider how great this man was(Melchizedek), unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: (Heb 7:4-5)
Thus, we have a “change in the law” via the priesthood.
We also have a change in the law via sacrifices, as Yeshua was the perfect and final sacrifice for sin.
The blood of the first covenant was lacking (sacrifices) but, is now fulfilled in Yehovah’s Salvation.
Thus, we have a “change in the law” via the sacrifices.
I do not see in the Bible where the rest of Torah is changed. His people were always suppose to keep Torah with all their hearts and minds. Yehovah has written Torah on our hearts and minds.
Just asking the question . . . Are we Abraham’s seed? Could circumcision, apart from the law, still be important to the seed of Abraham? Does what Yehovah spoke so long ago still matter? As you can see, even the stranger (gentile) brought into Abraham’s house was circumcised. Interesting.
And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. (Gen 17:9-12)
The “new” covenant is not “new”. There is nothing “new” under the sun. OC and NC are only label of men. This word new is the same word used for “new” moon yet we know when the “new” moon appears it is not a DIFFERENT moon. It is the same moon, renewed. There may be changes to the moon that occurred during its last cycle but, it is indeed the same moon. Similarly, the “new” covenant is not new. It is RENEWED with the sacrifice of Yeshua and His position as High Priest. It is renewed in the hearts and minds of His people. His instructions are the same, our beings and conduct of them, should align with His instructions. Our purpose is still the same, renewed yes. The seed of Abraham followed Yehovah’s instructions, even before they were written on stone or paper. They knew Yehovah would come to save them before a word was written on rock or paper about it. Even the true knowledge we have about Yehovah is not “new”, it has been from the beginning. It’s written in the stars, was prophesied by Adam, is attested to by all created things. Nothing is “new”.
חדשׁ châdash
BDB Definition:
to be new, renew, repair
1a) (Piel)
1a1) to renew, make anew
1a2) to repair
1b) (Hithpael) to renew oneself
I keep Torah, “Yehovah’s instructions”. There are many arguments that set themselves against Yehovah and His way but, they are reasoned by human arguments, at best. I can not reason against such theologies. They are too powerful in the minds of those who hold them. Also, in my ignorance of the labels and ideas that swirl around in the little boxes of religion, I struggle with grasping what is even being said at times. It is here that much of our communication is foiled. I don’t have the heart or inclination to spend the years it would take to understand religious dogmas so, this may be where we need to part ways. I have been struggling with lightly sharing my relationship with Yehovah and what He has taught me. It is not a religious dogma to be tossed about or taken hold of only long enough to create a quick dogmatic rebuttal. I do not hold certain beliefs. I am what I believe because Yehovah is shaping me. (Not that He isn’t shaping others). I’m not exploring all kinds of ideas that sound good and deciding which sounds the best to believe, I am pressing into Yehovah for answers to my questions constantly. I think more along the lines of the Spirit of Yehovah awaking my understanding and teaching me spiritually. He taught me to obey His commandments, He shaped me that way. Yes, it does run along the written word but, it nevertheless came to me from Him in a different form. That is the best I can explain it, or want to. This is why I say that I accept a literal meaning but, I’m not a “literalist”. I struggle with kicking what is sacred around like a football and I think, perhaps a forum isn’t the right place for me. I wanted to share what Yehovah was doing in me not argue what He was doing. I haven’t done that very well and I am sorry for that.
Maybe I’ll head over to the political threads.
I appreciate your drive to discuss and am thankful for everyone else too. These are my apprehensions. I can appreciate that people aren’t all the same, etc.
.
I know this is probably hard to follow, its all there in my head, I just can’t seem to put it down on paper.