Clothing Laws?

[Gman]

And you are clearer. For my own clarification, I don't think the Mosaic Law is either irrelevant or that it has been overridden. I think it applied to the nation of Israel. Gentiles are not Israelites, and so it didn't and doesn't apply to us. Since the Church isn't Israel, then the Law doesn't have authority over the Church, either. So even Jews who accept Christ are no longer under the Law, since they are now members of the Church.

I do think that one day the Church will be taken from the scene, and at that point God will again continue His work with Israel as a nation. But then the New Covenant will be consummated. In short, dispensationalism ftw!

If you want to disconnect from Israel and G-d's laws then that is your prerogative. But the scriptures are very clear that we are part of the commonwealth of Israel... Ephesians 2:11-13, Ephesians 2:19, Ephesians 3:6, Galatians 3:26.

[Jac3510]

If you want to disconnect from Israel and G-d's laws then that is your prerogative.

No it's not. It's God's prerogative or no one's.

But the scriptures are very clear that we are part of the commonwealth of Israel

Does it now? Let's see.

Ephesians 2:11-13

Nothing about a Gentile become part of Israel's commonwealth . . .

Ephesians 2:19

I see that we are fellow citizens; I don't see anything about being a member of Israel . . .

Ephesians 3:6

Yeah, I see fellow-heirs. I don't see anything about being Jewish.

Galatians 3:26.

I see that we're sons of God--I don't see that saying that we are Israel.

So basically, the only way you can get that we are part of the common wealth of Israel is to assume that to belong to the Church is to belong to Israel. The thing is, you need a verse that says that. You can't interpret verses to say that in light of that belief and use it to justify that belief. That's called a circular argument!

On the other hand, I have in Galatians Paul calling the Law a curse that ISRAEL is no longer under (Gal 3:10-14; note esp. the "us" in 13), a jailor from which ISRAEL through faith has been freed (Gal 3:23-23), a nanny whose authority ISRAEL is no longer under (Gal. 3:24-25), a house manager that separated Israel from the Father until "the date set by the father" (Gal. 4:1-7), and a slave woman who is to be cast out from Israel (Gal. 4:21-31). And if that isn't clear enough, Paul just says bluntly that those "lead by the Spirit . . . are not under the law" (Gal. 5:18). He calls the desire to be under the Law foolishness and those who teach others they are under it witchery(Gal. 3:1-5).

Those Israelites who want to stay under their curse, locked up in prison by their jailor, under their nanny, report to a house manager, and embrace the slave woman can certainly do so. That is their prerogative. Christ, however, has called everyone--both Jew and Gentile--to freedom from the Law by faith in Him, by which we are sons of freedom. Now, Paul says not to judge anyone with respect to things like sabbaths and feasts, so if you want to set yourself under them, feel free (irony intended). I only have a problem when you start suggesting that others are bound to the Law, because then, I say you are teaching the Galatian heresy, which Paul calls another gospel, which is no gospel and all, and are to be regarded as anathema (Gal 1:8-9). In short, if you want to be in bondage, that's fine. Christ calls you to freedom, but you have to act in accordance with your conscience. That doesn't break fellowship. What does break fellowship is those who try to put others under bondage. That's where I, standing behind Paul, draw the line.

[cheezerrox]

Ephesians 2:11-13

Nothing about a Gentile become part of Israel's commonwealth . . .

Well, the passage says to Gentiles that they were FORMERLY cut off from the Messiah and the commonwealth of Isra'el, and NOW they are brought near through His blood. At least on a plain reading of the verse, it does give the impression that Gentiles are no longer excluded from the commonwealth of Isra'el.

Ephesians 2:19

I see that we are fellow citizens; I don't see anything about being a member of Israel . . .

Again, since this is in the context of the above quoted passage, and refers specifically to citizenship, it certainly seems to be talking about Gentiles becoming joined together with the citizens of Isra'el (not the secular nation, but G-d's chosen people).

Ephesians 3:6

Yeah, I see fellow-heirs. I don't see anything about being Jewish.

Indeed, there's nowhere in Scripture that indicates that Gentiles become Jewish (or that Jews become Gentiles, for that matter). We're all one in the Body of the Messiah, and ethnicity has nothing to do with our status before G-d, our salvation, or what's required of us (Romans 10:12, Galatians 3:28). But there's a difference between becoming a Jew, and being grafted into Isra'el.

So basically, the only way you can get that we are part of the common wealth of Israel is to assume that to belong to the Church is to belong to Israel. The thing is, you need a verse that says that. You can't interpret verses to say that in light of that belief and use it to justify that belief. That's called a circular argument!

I believe that Ephesians 2:11-19 shows that Gentiles are made a part of the commonwealth of Isra'el (for what reason would there be to say that Gentiles were only "formerly excluded" from it?), but regardless, there's also Romans 11:17-24.

On the other hand, I have in Galatians Paul calling the Law a curse that ISRAEL is no longer under (Gal 3:10-14; note esp. the "us" in 13), a jailor from which ISRAEL through faith has been freed (Gal 3:23-23), a nanny whose authority ISRAEL is no longer under (Gal. 3:24-25), a house manager that separated Israel from the Father until "the date set by the father" (Gal. 4:1-7), and a slave woman who is to be cast out from Israel (Gal. 4:21-31). And if that isn't clear enough, Paul just says bluntly that those "lead by the Spirit . . . are not under the law" (Gal. 5:18). He calls the desire to be under the Law foolishness and those who teach others they are under it witchery(Gal. 3:1-5).

Galatians 3:10-14 doesn't say that the Law is a curse. I'm sure you would agree that Paul talks about the Law at different times from different perspectives; sometimes he speaks of its relation to salvation and when it's perverted by people into a system of legalism in order to attain righteousness, and other times he talks about it when applied correctly (through faith). To ignore this distinction is to not rightly divide the Word of Truth.

Galatians 3:23-24 doesn't say that Torah is a jailor, or that Isra'el has been "freed" from it. The Greek word paidagogos means literally "boy leader," and was a servant who took care of a child on his way to and from school. In verse 23, the Greek definite article comes before pistis, or "faith," and isn't saying that in times past G-d was fine with people following the "legalism" of the Torah, but now He wants faith. Instead, it's saying that Paul and others subjected themselves to a legalistic understanding of the Law, through which they attempted to gain salvation and righteousness, until the specific faith that Jesus brought released them from this. To take the "faith" this verse is speaking of as faith in general, is to imply that faith either wasn't required or irrelevant in the time before the Messiah came. But that's a ridiculous assertion, and Deuteronomy 6:5 says that it was necessary.

Also, Galatians 5:18 does not say that the Law no longer applies. Again, there is a distinction that needs to be made between when Paul is talking about the Law being made into legalism, and the Law being used "lawfully" (1 Timothy 1:8).

Those Israelites who want to stay under their curse, locked up in prison by their jailor, under their nanny, report to a house manager, and embrace the slave woman can certainly do so. That is their prerogative. Christ, however, has called everyone--both Jew and Gentile--to freedom from the Law by faith in Him, by which we are sons of freedom. Now, Paul says not to judge anyone with respect to things like sabbaths and feasts, so if you want to set yourself under them, feel free (irony intended). I only have a problem when you start suggesting that others are bound to the Law, because then, I say you are teaching the Galatian heresy, which Paul calls another gospel, which is no gospel and all, and are to be regarded as anathema (Gal 1:8-9). In short, if you want to be in bondage, that's fine. Christ calls you to freedom, but you have to act in accordance with your conscience. That doesn't break fellowship. What does break fellowship is those who try to put others under bondage. That's where I, standing behind Paul, draw the line.

Galatians 3:2-3 says what the Galatian heresy was, which was trying to be perfected and/or justified by obeying commandments and living under legalism. NOT obeying the Torah.

Gman and I, as well as others not on this forum, are convinced that Scripture says nothing of abolishing the Law. Although you may disagree with us, our convictions aren't simply that we individually should obey them, but that it's not what Scripture says. We're convicted BECAUSE we believe it's what Scripture says, and so naturally we'll express our belief in accordance with our conviction.

[Gman]

No it's not. It's God's prerogative or no one's.

Then you have no prerogative... Unless you claim G-d's..

Ephesians 2:11-13
Nothing about a Gentile become part of Israel's commonwealth . . .

Very funny Jac.. Let's read the passage..

Ephesians 2:11-13
11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

As we can clearly see, we are part of the commonwealth of Israel.

Ephesians 2:19
I see that we are fellow citizens; I don't see anything about being a member of Israel . . .

What verse do you think it is referring to?

Ephesians 3:6
Yeah, I see fellow-heirs. I don't see anything about being Jewish.

Where does it say you have to become Jewish?

Galatians 3:26.
I see that we're sons of God--I don't see that saying that we are Israel.

Who are the promises or covenants made to?

So basically, the only way you can get that we are part of the common wealth of Israel is to assume that to belong to the Church is to belong to Israel. The thing is, you need a verse that says that. You can't interpret verses to say that in light of that belief and use it to justify that belief. That's called a circular argument!

I've already provided the relevant verses.. Who did Christ come for?

On the other hand, I have in Galatians Paul calling the Law a curse that ISRAEL is no longer under (Gal 3:10-14; note esp. the "us" in 13), a jailor from which ISRAEL through faith has been freed (Gal 3:23-23), a nanny whose authority ISRAEL is no longer under (Gal. 3:24-25), a house manager that separated Israel from the Father until "the date set by the father" (Gal. 4:1-7), and a slave woman who is to be cast out from Israel (Gal. 4:21-31). And if that isn't clear enough, Paul just says bluntly that those "lead by the Spirit . . . are not under the law" (Gal. 5:18). He calls the desire to be under the Law foolishness and those who teach others they are under it witchery(Gal. 3:1-5).

Those verses say nothing about Israel... You are simply reading your theology into it.. Also we have been freed from the curse pronounced in the Torah Deut 27,28, but not from G-d's instructions or Law itself. G-d's Laws are not evil.. They are what set us to be free..

Those Israelites who want to stay under their curse, locked up in prison by their jailor, under their nanny, report to a house manager, and embrace the slave woman can certainly do so. That is their prerogative. Christ, however, has called everyone--both Jew and Gentile--to freedom from the Law by faith in Him, by which we are sons of freedom. Now, Paul says not to judge anyone with respect to things like sabbaths and feasts, so if you want to set yourself under them, feel free (irony intended). I only have a problem when you start suggesting that others are bound to the Law, because then, I say you are teaching the Galatian heresy, which Paul calls another gospel, which is no gospel and all, and are to be regarded as anathema (Gal 1:8-9). In short, if you want to be in bondage, that's fine. Christ calls you to freedom, but you have to act in accordance with your conscience. That doesn't break fellowship. What does break fellowship is those who try to put others under bondage. That's where I, standing behind Paul, draw the line.

Again... G-d's Laws are not evil or bondage.. According to James, the Law, when practiced correctly brings freedom.

James 1:25
But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

G-d's laws are holy and just. Christ saved us from the curses of the law becoming our penalty for us.

Romans 7:7, What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

Romans 7:12, “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”

And Christ did not come to destroy the law. He came to fulfill it..

Matthew 5:17-19, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Romans 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”

[Gman]

Deuteronomy 22:11 11Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

While this law specifically mentions wool and linen, I think if we go by the spirit of this law, any mixed material clothing would be wrong. I used to wear cotton/polyester shirts, but the guilt I felt was so overwhelming, that I had to sacrifice a lamb every time I wore my favorite shirt. Those sacrifices allowed me to sleep at night.
.

Ok.. But did you read the other part of it?

Deuteronomy 22:12 “You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself.

Where is your tzitzit Rick?

[KBCid]

I keep seeing that when others here refer to the 'law' there is an assumption that this is inclusive of every commandment given by God to israel. I think there should be a clarification on this point especially as regards the definitive point made in Galatians about the "book of the law"

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

The 10 commandments were not considered the book of the law by the israelites. The Book of the law was written by moses with Gods direction and then read aloud to everyone and finally a blood oath agreement was made based on the words of 'the book'. The 2 tablets of stone written by the finger of God is not a book.

Exo 24:7-8 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Deu 31:9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.
Deu 31:10 And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles,
Deu 31:11 When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.

2Ki 22:8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.

The book of the law was a separate writing from the tablets of stone and was housed either on the side of the ark or in the side of the ark depending on which version you read.

Deuteronomy 31:24-26, "And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee."

This site gives the best recounting that I have seen on this point about the book of the law vs. the ten commandments;

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/different_laws.html

2 Kings 21:8, "Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them."

Here we are assured that the statutes which Moses gave the people were called a "law". Two different laws are being described now. God speaks of the law "I commanded" (The Ten Commandments) and also of the law "Moses commanded" (the law of Moses).

[See also Leviticus 9:5 and Deuteronomy 33:4 for the commandments of Moses. Deuteronomy 6:2; 8:11; 11:22,27,28; 13:18; 15:5; 19:9; 27:10; 28:1,13,15 and Joshua 22:5 for two different laws. And Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 for the commandments of God]

[Gman]

For me I actually tend to see G-d's commandments broken down to more than just two, three, or even 613 commandments. In fact I would argue that the New Testament also has many commandments. I think the point here is which one's do we do? Obviously we can't do them all... Some are strictly for women, some are for priests, some are for lepers, some are agricultural, etc. So we simply do the ones that we can apply to us today..

Also about the other laws.. According to Ezekiel, the sacrifices will come back Ezekiel 43:19-27, including circumcision if you want to enter His sanctuary Ezekiel 44:9... So sometime in the near future, these laws may come back. I would be cautious to throw them under the bus for now.

[kmr]

It isn't that we are not under the law. Christ's coming established the new covenant, which replaced (Or enhanced? Or transformed?) the one God established with Israel. I don't have verses at hand, but I am sure someone might be able to help out!

[neo-x]

Cant you guys clearly see that you're continuous highlighting of the law over and over is actually shifting the entire focus from Christ. Yeshua came to fulfill and magnify the law, what is that? where did you even came up with the idea? highlighting the law??? The law came through Moses, but truth and grace came through Jesus Christ, it is really that much simple. Christ didn't highlight the law, he highlighted grace to which the law owes no part.

I think the law was placed to imitate what Christ would do and not the other way around. The law in itself is nothing except a standard based on works. What sets it apart is that it would one day be perfected in one being alone paving way for salvation for mankind which the law itself could never bring. That is the plain reason we have a new covenant and an old one. You can not be under both at the same time.

LOL.. Male-supremacy laws? I see that you are appealing to the emotional rather than an understanding of scripture. But yes, G-d's laws are relevant today for both Jew and Gentile and when we don't follow them we sin..

if by God's law you mean the Law given by Moses then I am afraid that is indeed the Galatians heresy.

what does verses like these mean to you:
Ephesians 2:15
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace...

Romans 6:14
For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

???

Look at the following verse
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means!..


what is paul saying? should we comit sin when "we are not under the law" but under grace? The point of the verse is different but the premise is crucial here. He goes on to say whether we should sin or not under grace, not under law because we all know how the law treats sin. It doesn't get much clearer than this. We are not under the law, period.

The point of your following of the law is not required by God, you may follow it but at least God doesn't require it.

[RickD]

Neo-x wrote:
The point of your following of the law is not required by God, you may follow it but at least God doesn't require it.

Neo, I think you hit the nail on the head. This is what some of us have been trying to say all along. If a Christian wants to follow the law, that's fine. But it's not required for any reason. Requiring Christians to follow any OT law, is placing the law above what the law was supposed to point us to: Jesus Christ!

[neo-x]

I have said in my previous posts that as long as people are following the law without being legalistic about it, they are free in Christ to do so. It doesn't affect the work of the Cross and I thank God for that.
I am not sure, but I know Gman's post hints at not following the laws as sin. I am not sure what does he mean when he uses the word "laws" but I somehow find it easy to believe that he is in fact pointing towards the Law given to Moses and to not obey them is sinning; and so we have a problem. I have talked to Cheezrox about it and while I still think that the law was done with, at the core of it I actually do not blame him of legalization because he makes it clear that it is not a sin/salvation issue. And that he obeys the law because he loves to. Why he does what he does and is that contradictory, is another issue and one which I believe is not proper for anyone to judge other than God. And while I may muse over with him on the issue I do not think that following of the law is such a crucial problem and therefore I respect his opinion as I understand that there is indeed some margin that I must give since it is not a salvation issue.

But when it is hinted that not obeying the law is sin then I can not help but point out the obvious. In all of this people are crossing fine lines about, should the law be followed or must the law be followed? I believe there are people who say that we "should" follow it and as long as grace and salvation are not being legalized I am okay with this. When the "must" is applied and the negation of it is called sinning than I believe we are well within dangerous boundaries and this is worth contemplating on and the error being rectified.

I have seen a previous thread when Gman, locked the thread because of harsh words, and I admit they were on both sides but on a side note I do not buy the "anti-Semitic" lecture as is often given. I think people misuse the term to degrade and discredit opponents. I would be really disappointed if this thread ends up the same way, by both sides. I do not hate the Jews, nor Israel, but I am also not going to give them any more credit than I find due from scriptures and if that is going to be called as anti-Semitism in the long run than I am not sure what qualifies for such discrimination against people who question the Jewish tradition on religious, spiritual and intellectual grounds.

That being said, I feel we are all brothers on both side of the fences, so lets not muddy the waters with unneeded sarcasm and stereotyping and ad hominem attacks.

[cheezerrox]

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =9&t=37866

I've made a thread for this discussion in the Bible and Scripture forum, which you can go to through the above link. Lately there've been many brief debates about the role of the Law in a Christian's life, but they're usually abandoned at a certain point. I think people on both sides would benefit if there was a thorough discussion that actually looked at the relevant Scriptures concerning the subject.

[Jac3510]

Then you have no prerogative... Unless you claim G-d's..

That's my point, G. And likewise, nor do you. When you put people under the Law when Paul says explicitly that are not under it, you presume to lay upon men a burden God does not, and you are preaching a false Gospel (Gal. 1:8-9).

Very funny Jac.. Let's read the passage..

Ephesians 2:11-13
11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

As we can clearly see, we are part of the commonwealth of Israel.

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

Well, the passage says to Gentiles that they were FORMERLY cut off from the Messiah and the commonwealth of Isra'el, and NOW they are brought near through His blood. At least on a plain reading of the verse, it does give the impression that Gentiles are no longer excluded from the commonwealth of Isra'el.

And, again, there's nothing here saying we are not a part of the commonwealth of Israel. You are both reading into the text something you want to see. He says that we were without Christ; why, because we were not part of Israel. Christ is the Jewish Messiah, and being non-Jews, we were separated from the covenants and thus without hope and without God. The solution to the problem of being without God isn't being united with Israel's commonwealth. It is to be in Christ.

You have an unstated premise here, namely, that the only way to have hope and to be with God is to be a part of Israel. That's not true. In OT times, it was true, but Christ has extended the promise to the Gentiles as well. That's what made the Gospel so perplexing to Peter--even the Gentiles can be saved. You are basically undoing all of that work.

Anyway, the point is simply that the text doesn't say that we are made part of Israel in Christ. It says that since we were NOT a part of Israel, we were not heirs to the promise. But that is changed in Christ. Your unstated premise needs to be proved before you can get that out of the text. Shy of that, you are, again, just reading your theology into the text and coming up with a false gospel in doing so.

What verse do you think it is referring to?

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

Again, since this is in the context of the above quoted passage, and refers specifically to citizenship, it certainly seems to be talking about Gentiles becoming joined together with the citizens of Isra'el (not the secular nation, but G-d's chosen people).

Citizenship in the Kingdom of God. You do realize that the Kingdom is centered in Israel but not identical with it, right? If everyone in the Kingdom is part of Israel, then it makes no sense for the OT to talk about the nations (e.g., Egypt) coming to worship in Jerusalem.

Again, that's another unstated, and incorrect, premise in your theology.

Where does it say you have to become Jewish?

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


Indeed, there's nowhere in Scripture that indicates that Gentiles become Jewish (or that Jews become Gentiles, for that matter). We're all one in the Body of the Messiah, and ethnicity has nothing to do with our status before G-d, our salvation, or what's required of us (Romans 10:12, Galatians 3:28). But there's a difference between becoming a Jew, and being grafted into Isra'el.

So then you either have to argue that the commonwealth of Israel is not Jewish (which is absurd), or you have to argue that the Church is the New Israel (which is heresy).

Both the Jew and Gentile are, for now, united in one new body--the Church. The Church is not under the Mosaic Law, since the Mosaic Law governs Israel. The Church is saved thanks to Israel's salvation (which is yet future), for we will reign with Israel. We are not identical with her.

Who are the promises or covenants made to?

Primarily to Israel, and that for universal blessing. But you cited this verse to prove that we are a part of Israel's commonwealth. The verse doesn't say that. Not even close. It says that Gentiles through faith in Christ are Sons of God. Your unstated premise is that Sons of God are always part of Israel's commonwealth. Prove that.

I've already provided the relevant verses.. Who did Christ come for?

You've provided NO verses that say as much. You cited one that used the phrase and noted that Gentiles were not a part of Israel's commonwealth, and then assumed the verse teaches that we are now a part of Israel, when in fact, it does not say that. You are going beyond the text

So, again, do you have ANY verses in Scripture that says the Gentile is a citizen of Israel?

Those verses say nothing about Israel... You are simply reading your theology into it.. Also we have been freed from the curse pronounced in the Torah Deut 27,28, but not from G-d's instructions or Law itself. G-d's Laws are not evil.. They are what set us to be free..

Wrong, ALL mention Israel. "We" and "Us" in Galatians always refers to Israel. "You" always refers to the Galatian Christians. "They" refers to the Judaizers Paul was so against. Moreover, Paul does not say that we are free from the curse pronounced in Deut 27-28. It compares the LAW to a curse; it compares the LAW to a jailor; it compare the LAW to a nanny; it compares the LAW to a house manager; it compares the LAW (and those who live under it) to the slave woman Hagar and says it (and her children) are to be EXPELLED, since they share NO INHERITANCE with the children of freedom (those not under the Law).

Further, your suggestion that we are under all the Law except Deut 27-28 is repugnant. You can't pick and choose which part of the Law you want to be under. Paul and James both say to break one part is to break all of it. Jesus said that Scripture cannot be broken. To suggest that the Law remains but not the part that says you are in trouble if you break it points to a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the Law itself. It is written in the form of a vassal treaty. The curses are an essential element. To break the Law is to come under those curses. To keep it is to reap the blessings enumerated in Deut 28. You divide up the Law as if some can be kept some some not, as if some is fulfilled and some not, as if some is active and some is not. That's not the way it works, Gman. You have absolutely no biblical basis for making that distinction. The Law is a whole. Your dividing it into active and inactive parts is just a sign that you don't take it seriously.

Again... G-d's Laws are not evil or bondage.. According to James, the Law, when practiced correctly brings freedom.

So Paul is wrong? The Law is not a curse? It isn't a jailor? It isn't a nanny? It isn't a house manager? It isn't a slave women to be expelled from the people of God?

Beyond that, you are wrong about James 1:25. The "perfect law" is not the Mosaic Law. It is identical to the Royal Law (see Jas. 2:8), which is to love one another. That law does bring freedom.

Romans 7:7, What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."

Romans 7:12, “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”

And Christ did not come to destroy the law. He came to fulfill it..

Matthew 5:17-19, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Romans 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”

Apparently He came to fulfill and not destroy everything but Deut 27, right?

I'll tell you the same thing I used to tell PL -- if you want to sight a bunch of verses, offer some commentary as to what you think it is saying. Just quoting a lot of verses doesn't add anything to the conversation. I know what they all say and agree with all of them.

I believe that Ephesians 2:11-19 shows that Gentiles are made a part of the commonwealth of Isra'el (for what reason would there be to say that Gentiles were only "formerly excluded" from it?), but regardless, there's also Romans 11:17-24.

See my comments above.

Galatians 3:10-14 doesn't say that the Law is a curse. I'm sure you would agree that Paul talks about the Law at different times from different perspectives; sometimes he speaks of its relation to salvation and when it's perverted by people into a system of legalism in order to attain righteousness, and other times he talks about it when applied correctly (through faith). To ignore this distinction is to not rightly divide the Word of Truth.

The verse says plainly, "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse." If I said, "Everyone who is under Obama is under a dictator!" you'd have no doubt seeing that I was calling Obama a dictator. Now, if you want to get technical, Paul isn't CALLING the Law a curse. He is comparing it to a curse. He uses five word pictures (which I have listed repeatedly so far) to which to compare the Law; all of them have something in common--they are things you want to get away from.

Galatians 3:23-24 doesn't say that Torah is a jailor, or that Isra'el has been "freed" from it. The Greek word paidagogos means literally "boy leader," and was a servant who took care of a child on his way to and from school. In verse 23, the Greek definite article comes before pistis, or "faith," and isn't saying that in times past G-d was fine with people following the "legalism" of the Torah, but now He wants faith. Instead, it's saying that Paul and others subjected themselves to a legalistic understanding of the Law, through which they attempted to gain salvation and righteousness, until the specific faith that Jesus brought released them from this. To take the "faith" this verse is speaking of as faith in general, is to imply that faith either wasn't required or irrelevant in the time before the Messiah came. But that's a ridiculous assertion, and Deuteronomy 6:5 says that it was necessary.

There are two word pictures in Gal 3:23-24.

In 23, the Law is pictured as a jailor. The verse says, "Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed." First look at the word pictures. "We" (Israel -- not Christians!) were held in custody; Israel was locked up. Who holds a person in custody and keeps them locked up? A jailor. But that was "before faith came"--the jailor held Israel captive "until the faith" was revealed. Israel, then, is no longer held by her captive. She has been freed from the Law.

We have no English equivalent of the word picture in 24 (which you suggest "boy leader" and I suggest "nanny"). The word was an office or a position that someone held, and it was rather common in Paul's day. Here's as good an explanation as any I've read of the meaning of the word and the associated word-picture:

• In the figure here used the "pedagogue" is the man--generally a slave-- in whose custody the slave-owners boys were placed, in order that this trusted servant might conduct them to and from school, and might, in fact, watch over their conduct throughout the day. He was, accordingly, an escort or attendant, and also at the same time a disciplinarian. The discipline which he exercised was often of a severe character, so that those placed under his guardianship would yearn for the day of freedom. And, as has been shown, that was exactly the function which the law had performed. It had been of a preparatory and disciplinary nature, readying the hearts of those under its tutelage for the eager acceptance of the gospel of justification by faith in Christ. (Hendriksen 1968:148)

So the Law is a Paidogogos--the person who discipline children until they became adults. When the boy became an adult, he was free from the authority of the Paidogogos. The very use of the word points to the temporary nature of the Law's purpose (which is amplified by a proper understanding of the word unfortunately usually translated as "to lead us to"--the word is eis and ought to be rendered "until").

As to your comments on the definite article, there are many, many ways in which it was used that went far beyond the way we use it in our sentences. Suffice it to say here, the first occurrence of the article should be rendered with the demonstrative pronoun "this," and the second is qualified with the phrase "that was to come." Paul is clearly distinguishing between faith in the OT and faith in the NT. You cannot assert that they are identical without denying Paul's words at the end of verse 23.

Also, Galatians 5:18 does not say that the Law no longer applies. Again, there is a distinction that needs to be made between when Paul is talking about the Law being made into legalism, and the Law being used "lawfully" (1 Timothy 1:8).

It says bluntly that those lead by the Spirit are not under the Law. He makes no distinction between legalism and being used lawfully in Galatians, so at best you're doing a bit of eisogesis (do you think that the readers of Galatians needed 1 Tim. to understand how to read the letter?). But let that pass. 1 Tim 1:8 proves my point. Paul says it is good if used lawfully. He then goes on to tell us how to use it lawfully -- it is to be applied to "lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine," and it is applied to them because "the law is made not for the righteous." So it doesn't apply to Christians, who are righteous. The context even proves the point -- Paul is blasting those who want to be teachers of the Law. These are people in the Church. Paul says that, fine, they can teach the Law, but let them teach it to those who are unrighteous, not to apply it to those already righteous. That's basically the same problem he had with the Galatian heretics--you had Christians putting others under the Law for the sake of bringing them to a mature faith. Paul calls that foolishness and witchery, a false gospel, and that those who teach such things are anathema.

Galatians 3:2-3 says what the Galatian heresy was, which was trying to be perfected and/or justified by obeying commandments and living under legalism. NOT obeying the Torah.

Gman and I, as well as others not on this forum, are convinced that Scripture says nothing of abolishing the Law. Although you may disagree with us, our convictions aren't simply that we individually should obey them, but that it's not what Scripture says. We're convicted BECAUSE we believe it's what Scripture says, and so naturally we'll express our belief in accordance with our conviction.

Wait, wait, wait -- look at the words I bolded and underlined. And/Or? Which is it? To be perfected is not the same thing as to be justified. To be justified is to be declared righteous. Most people wrongly think the Galatian heresy is to attempt to be justified by the Law. But that's not what Paul attacks. He attacks the notion that we can be perfected by the Law. Having begun in faith, he says, are we now trying to be perfected by the flesh, by works of the law? The word "perfected" is the word telos, and means "brought to maturity." In short, Paul is talking about sanctification. Paul is talking to Christians who knew they had been justified by faith but were now trying to be perfected by keeping the Law. That, Paul says, is foolishness, witchery, and a false gospel.

Beyond that, I don't think you've invented your desire to follow the law out of thin air. I know you think you find it in Scripture. But you know what? Some people think they find infant baptism in Scripture. Some think they find replacement theology in Scripture. Some think they find the possibility of losing your salvation in Scripture. Some think they find reincarnation in Scripture.

Just because you think you find something in Scripture doesn't make your practice commendable. The Jews thought they found eternal life in Scripture, and they stoned Jesus for it. The question is what Scripture actually says. And what Scripture says is that CHRISTIANS ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW. Those who attempt to put Christians under the Law are anathema, teaching a false Gospel. This is VERY serious, cheezerrox. You are sincere. I don't doubt that. So is Gman. I don't doubt that. But you are sincerely wrong. And when you tell people they are sinning by NOT keeping the Law, you are committing exactly the same error that Paul so harshly condemned the Galatian Judaizers for.

If you want to keep the Law for cultural or aesthetic reasons, then fine. There's nothing sinful in observing its commandments anymore than there is anything sinful in observing any tradition we choose (so long as that tradition doesn't violate the Gospel). What IS sinful is telling people that they are under the Law, that they are obligated to keep it, and that to fail to do so is sinful. It's the first heresy the Church faced. It is one that some on this board and are still propagating. It's dangerous. It needs to stop.

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
What IS sinful is telling people that they are under the Law, that they are obligated to keep it, and that to fail to do so is sinful. It's the first heresy the Church faced. It is one that some on this board and are still propagating. It's dangerous. It needs to stop.

This is a pretty strong charge here. Gman, cheezerrox, are you claiming that we as Christians are "under the Law, are obligated to keep it, and that to fail to do so is sinful."
Could you please explain if this is or isn't what you're saying? I think this needs clarification before we continue.

[Jac3510]

I don't think that cheezerrox is doing that, RickD. In fact, he's said explicitly elsewhere (I think) that he doesn't think it's sinful not to keep the Law (I'll double check in a minute -- it was during the conversation about God v G-d).

Gman, on the other hand, said this:

But yes, G-d's laws are relevant today for both Jew and Gentile and when we don't follow them we sin..

Now, perhaps he had something other than the Mosaic Law in mind. He has long argued that the OT Laws are still in effect. That's been his basic thesis here. He's argued that, as Christians, we are a part of the commonweath of Israel; he insists that the OT Law governs that commonwealth; so it is fair to conclude that the OT Law still applies to believers. And what do we call breaking the law but sin?

Now, perhaps that isn't how he intended the quoted statement to come across, and perhaps he thinks that even though we are citizens of Israel and even though the Mosaic Law still applies to Israel it either doesn't apply to us (which seems contrary to his basic argument here) or that ignoring it is not a sin. I'll let him make that distinction himself.

In the meantime, I'll amend my statement--I'll not say that some on this board are advocating the necessity of keeping the Law. I am saying that some on this board appear to be advocating the necessity of keeping the Law.

edit:

Well now I'm confused on cheezerrox' position. He has seems to have said that keeping the Sabbath is not a salvation issue, but elsewhere he said this:

Also, when I said that it's simply out of respect and not out of keeping a commandment, I was speaking of myself personally, as I don't see the commandments of the Oral Torah as binding on believers like the Written Torah.

This seems to suggest that he thinks the Mosaic Law is binding. And that seems to suggest that breaking the Sabbath, or not keeping any OT Law, is a sin. Also, in this very thread, Gman has said:

Again, if you believe it is an abomination to wear "women's" clothes, do you also think that adulterers should be executed? Or that wearing mixed threads is evil?

Yes, it's sin... Whether someone should be executed for a certain law is not up to any individual. It's would be up to a ruling court known as the Sanhedrin (which is absent today).

So he clearly states here that "it" is a sin. Does the "it" refer to adultery or wearing mixed threads or both? The actual question was about wearing mixed threads, and the ellipsis (...) suggests to me that he's moved on to discuss the comment about execution. Moreover, the statement I quoted in this post above was in response to Ivellious asking, "So, Gman, to be perfectly clear, you believe that wearing mixed threads, other clothing laws, dietary laws, and all sexual laws, and all male-supremacy laws stated within the Old Testament are absolutely relevant and applicable to Christians today, and that violating any of them is an abomination toward God?"

If Gman does NOT think it is a sin for Christians to ignore or break OT Laws, then he needs to clarify what he means here. I am right now wearing a shirt made of a polyester/cotton mix. I want to know if cheezerrox and Gman think I am sinning.