Christ kept the Law of Moses, so....

[evyaniy]

Psalm 161-168

SIN AND SHIN
161 Princes have persecuted Me without a cause,
but My heart stands in awe of Your words.
162 I rejoice at Your word,
as One Who finds great plunder.
163 I hate and abhor falsehood.
I love Your Torah.
164 Seven times a day, I praise You,
because of Your righteous ordinances.
165 Those who love Your Torah have great peace.
Nothing causes them to stumble.
166 I have hoped for Your salvation, YHVH.
I have done Your commandments.
167 My soul has observed Your testimonies.
I love them exceedingly.
168 I have obeyed Your precepts and Your testimonies,
for all My ways are before You.

 

[evyaniy]

Psalm 119:169-176

(He is dead while praying this stanza)

TAV
169 Let My cry come before You, YHVH.
Give Me understanding according to Your word.
170 Let My supplication come before You.
Deliver Me according to Your word.
171 Let My lips utter praise,
for You teach Me Your statutes.
172 Let My tongue sing of Your word,
for all Your commandments are righteousness.
173 Let Your hand be ready to help Me,
for I have chosen Your precepts.
174 I have longed for Your salvation, YHVH.
Your Torah is My delight.
175 Let My soul live, that I may praise You.
(He asks to be raised to continue to praise His Father)
Let Your ordinances help Me.
(He trusts in the promise of life in the law to Him)
176 I am lost like a slain LAMB.
Seek Your Servant, for I don’t forget Your commandments.

He completely obeyed the law, ordinances, precepts, testimonies, and commandments in offering His Life as a Sacrifice to save us, as the Father and the law required of Him. The Law and Torah was His path to life as He tells us in Psalm 119 and other Psalms. The law was for and about Him. He asked to be raised because of His obedience and the promise of life in the law to Him if He gave His life. His Father kept the promise and answered His prayer and raised Him to life again. Life is the desire of His heart so He may continue to praise His Father and declare His truth and accomplish His will.

 

[evyaniy]

Do you have a reason for ending the thread?

Had to step away for awhile. Thank you for your interest.

 

[Beckie]

Had to step away for awhile. Thank you for your interest.

ignore works for me . you are a forum bully nothing new.

 

[Quartodeciman]

Not me, But God Says:

"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through​

the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies​

between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie,​

and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,​

Who is Blessed for ever. Amen.​

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even​

their women did change the natural use into that which is against​

nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the​

woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men​

working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that​

recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:24-27)​

+

"They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."​

(Titus 1:16)​

​

Professing "christian churches"(?) need to "take heed," eh?:

I agree with you that "christian" churches ought to take heed to the plain reading of the Scriptures, especially Romans 1. Simply reading and believing the Scriptures solves most 'christian' problems. However, your citing of Romans 1 doesn't quite address the matter raised. You mentioned the "simplicity approach" of love in a previous post. And again, you're not wrong. But in this post-structural milieu (a counter attack against the Word by Satan) certain words are taking on multiple new meanings causing basic preaching to become less effective. To illustrate, here are some questions that were not questions for Christians 20 years ago:

1) Is it loving to permit/encourage a child of 6 years of age to entertain sexuality?
2) Is it loving to permit/encourage a child of 6 years of age to pretend that they are of the opposite gender that God made them to be?
3) Is it loving to permit/encourage homosexual relationships?
4) Is it loving to kill an unborn baby?

I could go on with this list, but looking at just number 3 above. Does Romans 1 settle this matter? My concern is that it does not. Love is not defined anywhere in Romans 1 thus leaving it's definition officially open for individuals to exercise private interpretation. Secondly, whilst it is clear that homosexuality is in focus Paul does not state his authority for condemning homosexuality. Paul clearly does have an authority in mind, some commandment that settles the matter in black and white, but he doesn't cite that authority in Romans 1.

What authority do you think Paul was relying upon?

 

[Quartodeciman]

And your accusation shows your IGNORANCE of the Word.

And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which vail is done away in Christ. (2 Cor 3:13,15)

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace (Eph 2:15)

When Christ shouted victoriously on the cross "IT IS FINISHED" that declaration included the abolishment of the Law of Moses ("the Law of Commandments"). PROOF: The veil in the temple separating the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place was supernaturally torn in two from top to bottom. That was a message to Israel that the Law of Moses (including the temple worship and the Levitical priesthood) had come to an end, and now the New Covenant in the blood of Christ was in effect.

Christians need to be perfectly clear that they are under the New Covenant, and God has abolished the Old Covenant. The book of Hebrews explains everything.

With respect, nowhere in 2nd Corinthians 3 is the 'new ministration' said to be at odds with the 'old ministration' with the exception of the ministrations' effectiveness and persistent glory. Nowhere is the content of God's commandments altered. Paul is clarifying that the letter without the Spirit is necessarily a ministration of death since the letter alone cannot help man to obey the letter and without full obedience to the letter, the letter requires condemnation. But now under the New Covenant Christ has taken the penalty of condemnation upon Himself, thus the power of the letter to condemn the believer is abrogated but the Law itself is not. Christ has abolished in his flesh the enmity (Eph 2:15) which is defined in the law of commandments contained in (ie. limited to) ordinances (specifically, principally, Exodus 26-31 plus the subordinate ordinances from the ensuing parts of Torah, espcially throughout Leviticus). To be clear, the ordinances (instructions for temple worship, including but not limited to sacrifices made for sin) are not abolished but their power to condemn is abrogated because Christ is the new High Priest who has satisfied the ordinances on our behalf (See Hebrews).

And, the only similarity between the "vail" mentioned in 2 Cor 3:13 and the "veil" of Mat 27:51 is how the words are pronounced. The vail on Moses face separated the Israelites from the countenance of the glory of the Lord showing on Moses' face. The veil of the temple separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place. They do not symbolize the same thing.

The modern 'new-law' Christian has a problem. They do not possess a black and white benchbook to refer to in matters of judgement regarding right and wrong action. For example, how can the modern 'new-law' Christian tell a man that God forbids him to dress as a woman?

Food for thought.

 

[Quartodeciman]

Christ FULFILLED all the OT sacrifices including that of the Passover Lamb. Therefore it must be taken as final -- "one sacrifice for sins for ever". Therefore Paul says that Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us: (1 Cor 5:7) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.(Heb 10:12-14)

We don't disagree on what you've said here. But that's not what I'm asking you about. Let me ask another way. If Christ is THE passover lamb (and, He is) who, in fulfillment of Leviticus 23:4-8, was crucified on the day of passover, has permanently set aside the commandment to observe the passover (Lev 23:4-8) then why does Jesus tell us that He will eat the passover again in the future? In Luke 22 He also tells His disciples to continue to observe the passover in rememberance of Him.

 

[Quartodeciman]

Do you suppose that all of Scripture is about things that we ought to do... or does it contain lessons about what not to do?
(I'm led by the Holy Spirit too... but, still get things wrong from time to time).

Your argument is wrong-headed. You're essentially arguing that because you have the Spirit of Christ and can make mistakes that the men of the Jerusalem council, who also had the Spirit of Christ, could get things wrong - therefore - they got their judgement in Acts 15 wrong.

In light of 2 Tim 3:16 the question is not - can men get things wrong - but rather - Given that Acts 15 is Scripture did God get it wrong? The answer is obviously - no.

 

[Nehemiah6]

then why does Jesus tell us that He will eat the passover again in the future? In Luke 22 He also tells His disciples to continue to observe the passover in rememberance of Him.

Jesus actually did not tell His disciples to continue observing the Passover. It was converted to the Lord's Supper, and Scripture is crystal clear about that. And also about the difference between the two. As to the future, we do not really know enough one way or another.

 

[TMS]

We don't disagree on what you've said here. But that's not what I'm asking you about. Let me ask another way. If Christ is THE passover lamb (and, He is) who, in fulfillment of Leviticus 23:4-8, was crucified on the day of passover, has permanently set aside the commandment to observe the passover (Lev 23:4-8) then why does Jesus tell us that He will eat the passover again in the future? In Luke 22 He also tells His disciples to continue to observe the passover in rememberance of Him.

From my understanding of scripture the 14th day of the month was the passover and thats the day that Jesus died. The 15th day was the weekly sabbath and also a sabbath according to Lev 23.
Lev 23:6-7 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. 7 In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.

On the 16th day of the month Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Ted01]

Your argument is wrong-headed. You're essentially arguing that because you have the Spirit of Christ and can make mistakes that the men of the Jerusalem council, who also had the Spirit of Christ, could get things wrong - therefore - they got their judgement in Acts 15 wrong.

In light of 2 Tim 3:16 the question is not - can men get things wrong - but rather - Given that Acts 15 is Scripture did God get it wrong? The answer is obviously - no.

Hmm... well if you think that everything in the Bible is "the Godly thing to do", why aren't you out stoning people for their sins? That's Scriptural, is it not? Are you drinking wine for your stomach's sake, as Paul suggested to Timothy? Handling serpents, lately? Is your church a communal-type church... similar to the early churches?

I'm not suggesting that that God is wrong... that's "wrong-headed" of you to say. I merely think that the application of "laws/rules" was not inspired by the Holy Spirit... God wasn't wrong, it's the interpretation of some have that those rules given in Acts 15 are still in effect for today... that is what's incorrect, IMHO.

 

[Quartodeciman]

In Matt 26:29 Jesus said He would not drink of the wine until He drank it new with the disciples in the Father's kingdom. No mention of Passover.
Also, the institution of Communion as a memorial to His death is what is continued, not Passover.

I'm certain you knew I was referring to the Luke account, and specifically Luke 22:16. Citing Mat 26:29 is a strawman. Your last statement about communion is gratuitous.

Without controversy Luke 22:19 and 1st Cor 11:24-25 are speaking of the Passover (See Luke 22:15).

 

[Cameron143]

I'm certain you knew I was referring to the Luke account, and specifically Luke 22:16. Citing Mat 26:29 is a strawman. Your last statement about communion is gratuitous.

Without controversy Luke 22:19 and 1st Cor 11:24-25 are speaking of the Passover (See Luke 22:15).

You missed the point. Jesus changed the Passover meal. He started as usual, but soon deviated. Either He forgot the order of the Passover meal or He changed it. I'll leave it to you to decide.

 

[Quartodeciman]

How did you jump to this conclusion? The Ten Commandments are embedded in the Law of Christ (the Law of Love).

No 'jumping to conclusions' required. Just weighing the evidence at hand. The various points of view expressed in this thread can be categorized roughly in the following way:

1) The entire OT is no longer relevant to God's people, thus "law" in the NT points to a 'new law' which some call the 'law of love', some call 'the law of Christ'. Some define the 'new law' as the two commandments (Mat 22:37-40) neglecting to see that Jesus was quoting specific commandments from the Torah AND telling His followers that the rest of the commandments of Torah, rather than being abolished, find their relevance in these two commandments. The people in this category don't seem to be able to use this 'new law' to make determinations about right and wrong action, thus making the new law of none effect.

2) The Law of Moses has been abolished except for the 10 commandments (for some reason). This group seems to think that God's Judgements (Exodus 21-23) have no relevance even though God gave them to clarify the 10 commandments. This group also seems to think that the 4th commandment is open to re-interpretation. This group also struggles to apply 'the law' to make right judgement about right and wrong action. Some in this group recognize the Scriptural evidence that the Law will once again take effect just as it did in the past but for some reason it is now temporarily abolished. I've yet to hear a sound basis for temporary abolition.

3) Neither a jot nor a tittle has passed from the law but the law's relevance to the Christian is of low importance (many variations of this including that God doesn't care whether or not you keep the law). This group tends to gravitate towards cheap grace and gets caught up on odd traditions.

4) Neither a jot nor a tittle has passed from the law but it only speaks to those who are under the law and such people are not under Christ. This group struggles to define "under" in it's context.

5) The Law has not been abolished (eg. nailed to the cross) but rather still defines sin for both saved and unsaved people. For such people the law is used by the Holy Spirit to convict them of sin and to move them towards righteous behavior in the flesh, even as Christ has made them righteous in the spirit. They usually recognize that what was nailed to the cross was the 'handwriting of ordinances' (ordinances being the section of the law principally detailed in Exodus 26-31 and subordinate clauses) which describe physical temple practices which Christ as the new High Priest (and Law giver) had the authority to change. Some define 'handwriting of ordinances' to mean a bill of debt representing the debt of our sin.


So, my question was a genuine question about the supposed temporary abolition position which some seem to hold.

Make sense?

 

[Nehemiah6]

The Law has not been abolished

Since you are willing to CONTRADICT Scripture to fit your theology, there is no point discussing anything else. You have been shown very clearly that the Law has indeed been abolished. If you cannot understand why, then you do have a problem.

 

[Quartodeciman]

Quite to the contrary. Paul emphasized liberty. Your postings seem to envision a NT Church with absolutely no spiritual mooring whatsoever. That was not the True Church. The OT Law cannot provide this necessary mooring and cannot be used as a substitute. It is now the Spirit that gives us aid as we build upon the Cornerstone, which is Jesus.

You seem to be attributing the wickedness of the early and modern "Church" to a lack of understanding OT Law. Please take a closer look. These "Churches" were and are filled to overflowing with men who have neither intention nor desire to walk in His (Jesus') light. The Pharisees were masters of the Law, but it got them nowhere either. They loved to swat at leaves also, but they never laid the axe to the root of their problems nor those of their followers.

Paul taught "liberty", but did this liberty point to a setting aside of the Law? -

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Rom 3:31)
"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." (Rom 7:12)
"While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all." (Act 25:8)

Liberty indeed, but not to sin.

Additionally, you are mistaken in thinking that it is my assertion that the NT Church has no spiritual mooring whatsoever. In fact just the opposite is true. -

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (Joh 14:26)"

Notice that the Holy Ghost teaches the disciple of Christ everything that the Son taught the first disciples, including Mat 5:17-20?

Not sure what you're referring to by "the wickedness of the early and modern Church", but I've certainly made no reference to them.

Also not sure how you came to see the unsaved Pharasees as "masters of the law" considering how many words of Christ are attributed to rebuking the Pharasees for NOT keeping the Law.

The cornerstone is Christ indeed, and that means ALL of His teaching from Scripture, which are in agreement with the teachings of the Holy Ghost. After all, the Spirit and the Word are in agreement -

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1Jn 5:7)


Hope this clarifies for you what my position is.

 

[Quartodeciman]

The Law of Christ. You have never heard of it?
Gal 6:2
Rom 8:2
Rom 10:4
Gal 2:16
Gal 2:21
Gal 5:4
Phl 3:9

Not sure what this kind of equivocating is supposed to achieve. The question pertains to THE Law as expounded in the Torah. If you were following the thread you would have seen that the discussion centered around Luke's account of the observance of the Passover and Paul's reference (1st Cor 11:24-25) to what Christ said at this Passover to His disciples. Since obedience of God's people to the Law in the past was important, and since it is evident from Scripture that obedience to the Law will also be important in the future, those who advocate for current abolition of the Law seem necessarily to be advocating for a temporary abolition. I was just wondering what the logic behind such a temporary abolition could mean?

 

[Quartodeciman]

Perhaps it might be helpful to remind you that our focus today is on the Way of Salvation, who is Jesus. Today our focus is on a Man, not a religion. This Man is Jesus. Today our focus is on a relationship, not an ancient code of does and don'ts. The OT Law can teach us some things, but I pray that it will not be a distracting stumbling block for yourself and others.

John 14:6
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Ah, I'm not seeing an answer to my question here oyster.

 

[Quartodeciman]

"God's Law"? Which package and what era?

As for "proposing.....getting rid of it", I need not exert myself in the least to wrestle with that question, as it has already been answered in the most exorbitant manner imaginable.

BTW, the Church is not "under the law"......we are "under grace". Just to let you know.

Rom 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Rom 6:15
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

You: "Which package and what era?"
Answer: THE Law. Christ made reference to it over and over again, for example Mat 5:17.

Your statement about law and grace is gratuitous. I do not suppose that anyone who walks in the Spirit is 'under' the Law.

Paul kept the Law -

"While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all." (Act 25:8)

and taught others to do the same -

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Rom 3:31)
"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." (Rom 7:12)
"For we know that the law is spiritual... " (Rom 7:14a)

According to Christ he will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven (Mat 5:17-20).

 

[cv5]

I was just wondering what the logic behind such a temporary abolition could mean?

Logic? What does the prescribed, foreordained, predestinated New Covenant have to do with logic?

Oh......and you are fired. Bye-bye.