Jesus Came To Fulfill Not To Destroy

[Jocund]

So if we are operating as priests on that day we work for the Almighty. If not, we rest. Both acts honor the Sabbath law.

Is there ever a point that it is permissible not to be in Christ? If this happens, will following the OT law instead save us? I would think not.

If this is the case, we should always be willing to be the vessel of Christ's good works. And by occasion, this may mean that rest is the appropriate works that Christ leads us to.

Both rests and works are permissible, but I feel that the reasoning should always be by what Christ leads us to and not by our attempts to honour OT law without Christ.

 

[BroTan]

So the Lord mis-spoke in Matthew 5?

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

And I guess Paul mis-spoke in Hebrews 7 as well.

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.


Maybe its a possibility that your philosophy is wrong and the Lord Jesus and Paul are the ones who are correct?

Or it's very possible that Jesus and Paul are talking about different laws. You may refuse to believe that Paul explain that in (Gal. 3:1, 13, 16-17, 19, 24) (v.1) O FOOLISH Ga-la’-tians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (v.13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, CURSED IS EVERYONE THAT HANGETH ON A TREE: What law is this talking about? Let the bible speak for itself.

(v.16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of One, AND TO THY SEED, which is Christ. (v.17) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Now pay attention, the law that is being spoken of here came four hundred and thirty years after this covenant. But God’s holy commandments have been around forever even before man was created. Remember that Satan was kicked out of heaven because iniquity (sin) was found in him. And what is sin? The transgression of the law (commandments). Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Now we have just read the biblical definition of sin, the transgression (breaking) of the law (commandments.) It doesn’t matter what you or I think sin is, it’s what God says sin is that counts. (1John 3:4)

(v.19) Wherefore then serveth the law? A question is being asked here. Then why should we serve this law? It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; the law that we are talking about here was added because of sin. But we now know that sin is the transgression of the law.

How do you add a law if sin is the transgression of the law? Because there are two sets of laws, you have God’s holy commandments which abided forever, and you had the animal sacrificial law which was added because of sin, but it was only good until the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and that seed was Jesus.

(v.24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. This animal sacrificial law was only a schoolmaster.

And this schoolmaster taught you that when you sinned in ignorance blood had to be shed (an animal sacrificed). But Christ being the ultimate sacrifice shed his precious blood once and for all, and by doing this putting an end to the animal sacrificial law. Paul says in Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. So when you quoted all the places in the Bible that do away with this animal sacrificial law, not understanding that Paul talks about two sets of law. The Royal law (Ten Commandments) and the animal sacrificial law sometimes in the same verse you bring destruction to yourselves.

At some point common sense you kick in. If I'm reading about the doing away of a law or not under a law, then somewhere else Paul tell you that the law is Holy just and good, another place breaking mostly all the Ten commandments down. A light bulb should come on in your head, Paul have to be talking about two sets of laws. In other places Paul explain the animal sacrificial law in Hebrew 10 Chapter.

If you are following all of the writing of Paul, then you will find out that you are following Jesus, and if you are truly following Jesus then you are following the law of God.

 

[Phoneman-777]

The irony here is that you speak of surrendering to the law and judge others for not keeping the Sabbath (in a manner of "keeping" that is not made clear), but if Col 2:16 indeed is about the Sabbath, you would be asking others to violate their understanding of the law of Christ. "Let no one judge you in regard of a Sabbath day". Under the fulfilment interpretation it would literally be disregarding a commandment to "change one's mind" or "surrender" in judgement to a mistruth regarding topics including the Sabbath.

Colossians 2 ain't talking about the weekly Sabbath of the Ten Commandments which "stand fast forever and ever" (Psalms 111:7-8 KJV) - the context of Colossians 2 is the ceremonial sabbaths of meats, drinks, new moons, etc., contained in the Mosaic Law which was nailed to the Cross. Leviticus, Deuteronomy, 1 Kings, Daniel, etc. make a crystal clear distinction between these two laws.

One who accepts the fulfilment of the law through Christ is not disobedient (we are required to fulfil the law of Christ). But there is an importance with understanding that the iteration of the Mosaic ten commandments that counts are the ones in the New Testament.

Unless you're willing to argue that Christ's fulfillment of the Ten Commandments grants me the same permission to break "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not commit adultery" as you claim it grants you permission to disregard "in it thou shalt do no work", there's a severe problem of inconsistency with your reasoning.

I hope you would agree that it isn't right to execute people that don't observe the Saturday Sabbath. But if you don't execute those that are disobedient to OT law, you too are wilfully disobedient to that law.

There's nothing in the Ten Commandments about executing anyone, and the law which did provide for such a penalty has been nailed to the Cross - the Mosaic Law.

We see these long stretches of conversations about interpretations of how the rules should be understood. What does it mean to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?

I'll be happy to tell you: God made it holy at the end of Creation Week when He rested on it and commands that we keep it holy by doing the same: not working.

If I work a weekend job, does this violate my ability to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy? What if that gained income is intended for good works?

What you are engaging in is "situation ethics", the enemy of self-evident truths. Did God say "thou shalt do no work" or "thou shalt do no work unless ..."??? I was making $10,000/month in 2005 working crazy overtime during Katrina storm restoration, but got fired because I refused to violate the Sabbath. God worked it all out two years later and I got full back pay plus interest and lost benefits, a promotion, and a new position that doesn't require weekend work. "For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole Earth, that He may shew Himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward Him."

We should remember that good works are permitted on the Sabbath ("would you not draw an ass from a well on the Sabbath?"). The law of Christ leads us to good works. Your concept of "obedience to law is required but the quality of service is not graded" is therefore fulfilled by letting Christ work through us on the Sabbath.

Our God is a reasonable God, and is why we're told it's acceptable to deal with emergency situations on Sabbath. It's perfectly acceptable to change one's tire on the Sabbath if it goes flat. Jesus did plenty of good works on Sabbath, but did they include swinging a hammer or carving a dove tail joint? No, He was "about His Father's business" on Sabbath, as we are commanded to be.

"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind." - Romans 14:5 NIV
We see in scripture that the answer isn't so simple. The NT permits differences in opinions and understandings. If you feel compelled to view Saturday as a day with very specific legalistic requirements disallowing physical labour, follow what your conscience tells you. But the underscore here is that we shouldn't judge each other for how we honour God (and we shouldn't let others judge us in that regard either). Hebrews 4 has a great bit on this by being in God's rest through Christ.

It's perfectly simple when you understand the Bible clearly differentiates between God's Moral Law of Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Law of ceremonies, sacrifices, types and shadows, etc. - if you've never heard this before, please allow the evidence a chance to speak. Romans 14:5 is referring to ceremonial day observances, menu requirements, etc. found in the Mosaic Law which was nailed to the Cross, but after a few thousand years of keeping them, some were uncomfortable with letting them go or watching others let them go, so Paul had to clarify. The weekly Sabbath "stands fast forever and ever" and will be kept for all eternity, according to Isaiah.

In Christ we should each do what we feel compelled by our conscience. We hope that our conscience is successfully being led by the Holy Spirit through our faith in Christ.

If your "conscience" is telling you to violate the Ten Commandments, your immediate concern should be, "who is putting these ideas in my head"? Certainly not the Holy Spirit, friend.

When it comes to corrections among brothers and sisters, we sharpen eachother like iron on iron. The specific investigation of what scripture states is different than what our conscience compels us to believe but we should humbly test our convictions against scripture.

Finally, something I completely agree with you on If you find a Scripture that says it's OK to violate the weekly Sabbath of the 4th commandment (not those which refer to the yearly sabbaths of the Jews that were nailed to the Cross) by all means, forget it. But there is no such verse - there is, however, one that says "Remember".

From what I see in scripture, the OT ordinances do not apply but the NT ones do. From what I see in scripture, two different people can honour the Sabbath differently and both be right. My objection isn't with your belief that you should not physically labour on Sabbaths. My objection is with the projection of your specific interpretation as being a necessary and universal truth in scripture. And on that note, I hope to gain a better mutual understanding.

Let's be clear: when you say "honor the Sabbath differently", you mean "making the command to rest from daily work optional", right? Was it the mission of Jesus to lessen or expand the concepts of God's Ten Commandments?

"The Lord is well pleased for His righteousness' sake: He (Jesus) will magnify the law, and make it honorable." - Isaiaah 42:21 KJV​

So, He magnified "adultery" to be "looking in lust"; He magnified "killing" to be "hate", but somehow "thou shalt do no work" is lessened to mean "go ahead and work - it's up to you"? Of course not. He came to magnify the ten commandment Law of God, keep it perfectly in order to fulfill His mission, and "make it honorable" aka "enable us to honor them by His indwelling power". Magnify, not diminish.

 

[BroTan]

Paul is saying that before faith came, we were kept under the law period. The law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, in that it shows us that we are sinners in need of a Saviour (Romans 3:20).

Paul didn’t come preaching and teaching his own thing, but he abided in the doctrine of Christ. (Rom. 3:20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sights for by the law is the knowledge of sin. The deeds of the law is referring to the animal sacrificial laws, all those sacrifices can never remove sins, so they could never be justified. This is true because the blood of Jesus can only justify us. The animal sacrificial laws was added because people continue to sin, and the wages of sin bring for death. So instead of God killing people every time they sin, the Lord gave Moses a law to use, animals. So by the other law (Ten Commandments, statutes and Judgement) is the knowledge of sin.

Paul says in Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. You wouldn’t know what sin was if there was no law.

 

[Phoneman-777]

Hi Phoneman,

I believe your response was for someone else...grandma --er --I mean grandpa maybe?

Ooops! You are correct, sorry

 

[Phoneman-777]

John 14:15-18
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

The Lord here is saying to keep HIS commandments, NOT THE 10 commandments.

How come you don't understand His Word?

Seriously? You don't know that it was Jesus Who both spoke and wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger in stone at Sinai? Good gravy, man, have you never heard of the concept of "precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little"? Here's a crash course for you:

OLD TESTAMENT:
Psalms 78:1-2 KJV
78:1 Maschil of Asaph. Give ear, O My people, to My law: incline your ears to the words of My mouth.
78:2 I will open My mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:

NEW TESTAMENT:
Matthew 13:34-35 KJV
13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake He not unto them:
13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.


See what I did there? I showed you the God of the OT Who commands us to give heed to the Ten Commandments which He spoke with His own mouth and wrote in stone to signify the permanent nature of them is the same God Who Matthew says fulfilled the prophecy about what the OT God intended to do in the future: Jesus.

 

[justbyfaith]

Paul didn’t come preaching and teaching his own thing, but he abided in the doctrine of Christ. (Rom. 3:20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sights for by the law is the knowledge of sin. The deeds of the law is referring to the animal sacrificial laws, all those sacrifices can never remove sins, so they could never be justified. This is true because the blood of Jesus can only justify us. The animal sacrificial laws was added because people continue to sin, and the wages of sin bring for death. So instead of God killing people every time they sin, the Lord gave Moses a law to use, animals. So by the other law (Ten Commandments, statutes and Judgement) is the knowledge of sin.

Paul says in Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. You wouldn’t know what sin was if there was no law.

The "law" that Paul generally refers to is the moral tenets as they are found in the Old Testaments.

As evidenced by the fact that "by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20).

The law tells us what sin is; it even defines sin for us. "Sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).

Therefore the law consists of all the commandments that we might violate in order to sin.

 

[justbyfaith]

Maybe a different question; would the Almighty allow such confusion?

2 Thessalonians 2:7-11
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:


Generally speaking, I only share the above passage to show that He would allow such confusion; that it's not out of the realm of possibility and purpose.



Sure, it's possible. But if we read the context of the letter at the specific portion in question, Paul is speaking against others who would try to tempt the believer with extra doctrines of men as opposed to "what [they] had been taught". It was a constant battle between the "leaven" of the Pharisees and the pure truth of the Law, as they tried to frame Paul for speaking against the law almost constantly.

The "ordinances" that were nailed to the cross were "of the doctrines of men". The Messiahs said the Pharisees were placing heavy burdens on the people with their extra traditions, of whom He made a public spectacle (i.e. He made them look silly for their traditions).

So with that in mind, the question is, which rendering makes more sense in that context:


- Therefore, let no man judge you [with regard to the Sabbath] but the body of Christ.

- Therefore, let no man judge you [with regard to the Sabbath]. But the substance of it is Christ.


One rendering sets an objective boundary on who is authorized to judge the believer's walk, while the other rendering makes the believer's walk subjective if no one is to judge them, not even elders in the faith...it's a slippery slope towards iniquity (the fruit of which is evident in today's generation in the church).

When you said this,

- Therefore, let no man judge you [with regard to the Sabbath]. But the substance of it is Christ.

You did not quote properly from the verse. If you had, it would have become more evident that this is the correct understanding.

Col 2:16, Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17, Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body, of Christ.

I believe that God would also have avoided confusion here if He had placed "which are a shadow of things to come" in parentheses, if your contention is accurate. As it is, in reading the passage I relate "the body" to "the shadow" in my interpretation and I do not think that that is a mistake.

Also, what exactly are you trying to say by your correcting of this scripture (if indeed it is a valid correction)?

That seventh-day adventists, who might in this context be the body of Christ (if I am not mistaking your intent), have the right to judge people in respect to sabbath days?

Are not seventh-day adventists really the only ones who take it upon themselves to judge concerning these matters?

Therefore, when it says, "Let no man judge you...", you appear to be saying that the exception to the rule is those who would generally take it upon themselves to judge you.

I would also say that a careful examination of Romans 14 might bear out the fact that those who esteem one day above another do not exclusively have a right to the proper understanding of scripture. One can be a believer and yet esteem every day alike.

Such a believer, if he were judged by those who are in "the body of Christ" might be judged by the true body of Christ as being a member of the body; and that the fact that he does not esteem Saturday above Sunday or other days of the week is not to the condemnation of his soul.

 

[justbyfaith]

The "law" that Paul generally refers to is the moral tenets as they are found in the Old <and New> Testaments.

Must have had a *brain fart*

 

[justbyfaith]

Maybe a different question; would the Almighty allow such confusion?

2 Thessalonians 2:7-11
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:


Generally speaking, I only share the above passage to show that He would allow such confusion; that it's not out of the realm of possibility and purpose.

I'm sorry I do not believe that God is the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).

When it comes to preserving His unadulterated message of the gospel in His word, I believe that the Lord would have made His meaning absolutely clear and would not have allowed error to creep into the translation that is contended for as being the superior translation of holy scripture while some contend that it is the only inspired and inerrant version (the kjv).

 

[Jocund]

Colossians 2 ain't talking about the weekly Sabbath of the Ten Commandments which "stand fast forever and ever" (Psalms 111:7-8 KJV) - the context of Colossians 2 is the ceremonial sabbaths of meats, drinks, new moons, etc., contained in the Mosaic Law which was nailed to the Cross. Leviticus, Deuteronomy, 1 Kings, Daniel, etc. make a crystal clear distinction between these two laws.

The argument you are presenting is that Biblical scholars for centuries have been getting Colossians 2:16 wrong and that miraculously you have determined that "Sabbath" in that passage absolutely cannot connote the Sabbath. And you have made this determination because... it is an inconvenience for your interpretation?

You cite books of the Bible, but I don't see passages that state this distinction. Realistically, if you were trying to make a case for your position, you would be referencing NT passages instead of OT ones.

Unless you're willing to argue that Christ's fulfillment of the Ten Commandments grants me the same permission to break "thou shalt not steal"

It is an explicit commandment in the New Testament to not steal. It is part of the law of Christ.

"For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." - Romans 13:9 KJV

The mistake you are making here is assuming that the process of Christ's law fulfilling the OT law is a form of lawlessness. To be in Christ is to follow the law of Christ. This isn't some conversation about "grace gone wild" which as a concept isn't very Christian in nature. Instead of discussing the topic at hand you have decided to make the "grace gone wild" straw man and attacked it instead.

"Grace gone wild" definitely deserves criticism, but that's not what I'm talking about here.

and "thou shalt not commit adultery" as you claim it grants you permission to disregard "in it thou shalt do no work", there's a severe problem of inconsistency with your reasoning.

You have this backwards. If you believe that in order to show obedience to God that you must fulfil the OT law including the provisions around the Sabbath such as "do no work" you must also follow the provisions which state "you shall kill those that break the Sabbath".

You clearly don't kill people that work on the Sabbath and therefore you wilfully disobey the OT law.

If you want to draw a line in the sand about how OT laws must be divided, you have to determine how that bundle of "do no work" and "kill Sabbath breakers" apply. Both exist as the same type of commandment. If you are looking to justify your position only using OT law, you can't pick one and not the other.

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." - Exodus 31:12-17 KJV

There's nothing in the Ten Commandments about executing anyone, and the law which did provide for such a penalty has been nailed to the Cross - the Mosaic Law.

If you are counting the provision "kill Sabbath breakers" to be obsolete, so too is the provision "rest on the Sabbath".

I'll be happy to tell you: God made it holy at the end of Creation Week when He rested on it and commands that we keep it holy by doing the same: not working.

Would you save an ass from a well on the Sabbath? If so, you agree that it isn't a clear cut line drawn that states: "working on the Sabbath = bad"

By allowing Christ to work through us on the Sabbath, we fulfil the requirement to keep the Sabbath holy. We can draw asses from wells on the Sabbath and still fulfil OT law through Christ.

What you are engaging in is "situation ethics", the enemy of self-evident truths.

Jesus' analogy of drawing an ass from a well on the Sabbath is an example of situational ethics.

Did God say "thou shalt do no work" or "thou shalt do no work unless ..."???

Yes. Absolutely.

"But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth. Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it? And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other. And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus." - Luke 6:8-11 KJV

I was making $10,000/month in 2005 working crazy overtime during Katrina storm restoration, but got fired because I refused to violate the Sabbath. God worked it all out two years later and I got full back pay plus interest and lost benefits, a promotion, and a new position that doesn't require weekend work. "For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole Earth, that He may shew Himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward Him."

And you were right to follow your conscience. If you feel it is the right thing to observe the Sabbath by resting, there is nothing inconsistent with this and the fulfilment interpretation.

Sometimes we can come to the correct conclusion using the wrong logic. Incorrect logic can sometimes reinforce the correct ideas. My attempt here wasn't to gainsay your conclusion that resting on the Sabbath is right for you, but I disagree with the approach that it would necessarily be a universal rule in order to honour the Sabbath.

What you are engaging in is "situation ethics", the enemy of self-evident truths.

Taking another look at this. If you were referring to the idea that different things can be true for different people, a great example of this is in Paul's discussions of unclean things. The self-evident truth is that nothing is unclean in itself, but to those that esteem something unclean, it is unclean to them. He also applies this reasoning to idols, etc. This isn't a blank cheque for all moral issues, as there are firm stances in the NT, but the covenant is written on the heart and mind. Through our faith guided by God we determine what is right and wrong.

If someone esteems pork to be unclean, it is unclean to them. It is morally correct for them to avoid this thing but may not be morally necessary for others to avoid that thing. If booze is something that someone has a sinful relationship with, it is something that they should avoid, but it isn't necessarily the case that everyone should avoid booze. What is sinful for one person may not be sinful for another.

"So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin." - Romans 14:22-23 NIV

/part 1

 

[Jocund]

Our God is a reasonable God, and is why we're told it's acceptable to deal with emergency situations on Sabbath. It's perfectly acceptable to change one's tire on the Sabbath if it goes flat. Jesus did plenty of good works on Sabbath, but did they include swinging a hammer or carving a dove tail joint? No, He was "about His Father's business" on Sabbath, as we are commanded to be.

"thou shalt do no work unless ..."
Ah hah!... Unless it's changing a tire!

Who should determine what is counted as a good work? We are justified through faith in Christ. If we feel that Christ is calling us to work on weekends, surely there may be an unseen reason for that. And likewise if we feel that Christ is calling us not to work on weekends. Being in the body of Christ, sometimes the hand and the foot have different requirements for how they are to operate, but together each part works as a whole even if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. We follow our faith, even if it leads us to witness contradictory compass directions, our roads are different but our destination is the same.

Some might interpret the willingness to change a tire on the Sabbath as breaking God's "Moral" law. But is it? Or is it a situation ethic? Maybe only change it if it's an emergency?

This is where I don't see the value in trying to impose OT commandments based only on the authority of the OT. We can come to the same conclusion that changing a tire on the Sabbath is an acceptable form of work easily within the fulfilment interpretation. Within the fulfilment interpretation we can even come to the conclusion that one should limit nonessential work on the Sabbath. But there is room for differences in what one is compelled to do.

It's perfectly simple when you understand the Bible clearly differentiates between God's Moral Law of Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Law of ceremonies, sacrifices, types and shadows, etc.

There are certainly procedural commandments in place in the OT. But as much as "do no work on the Sabbath" could be seen as a procedural commandment with the aim at compliance with the required standard "Keep the Sabbath day holy", it then comes down to the question of which commandments are we interpreting as procedures and which are we interpreting as standards. I see "do no work on the Sabbath" as procedural ("ceremonial", etc.), but accept that you could look at "Keep the Sabbath day holy" as a standard. The fulfilment interpretation just covers the basis that any standard or "Moral" law from the OT is covered by or fulfilled through Christ and the law of Christ.

- if you've never heard this before, please allow the evidence a chance to speak. Romans 14:5 is referring to ceremonial day observances, menu requirements, etc. found in the Mosaic Law which was nailed to the Cross, but after a few thousand years of keeping them,

For the sake of exploring the interpretation that Romans 14:5 is not inclusive of the Sabbath, I'm with you so far. Let's assume you're right here for the moment.

some were uncomfortable with letting them go or watching others let them go, so Paul had to clarify.

And his conclusion (in part) in Romans 14 was to allow your faith to guide you to the correct answer but to freely discuss disagreements.

"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." - Romans 14:17-19 NIV

The weekly Sabbath "stands fast forever and ever" and will be kept for all eternity, according to Isaiah.

Hebrews 4 seems to address this topic. And the conclusion that might be drawn from Heb 4 is that by being in Christ we rest from our own works (and allow Christ's works to happen though us).

If your "conscience" is telling you to violate the Ten Commandments, your immediate concern should be, "who is putting these ideas in my head"? Certainly not the Holy Spirit, friend.

The only violation would be in regards to the ordinances revolving around different Mosaic commandments. If "keep the Sabbath" is the standard, the procedure I'm using to fulfil that is the idea that changing a tire is OK on the Sabbath. Some people wouldn't see that as OK. Some people would see even the simplest labour as a disobedience to keeping the Sabbath. We should be lead to our conclusions by faith, not by legalistic man-made conventions of what counts as work.

Let's be clear: when you say "honor the Sabbath differently", you mean "making the command to rest from daily work optional", right? Was it the mission of Jesus to lessen or expand the concepts of God's Ten Commandments?

Do you not live life with the philosophy that your only purpose in life is to do God's work? And despite not having a good quality of service that we strive to do what we can to opening ourselves up to having Him work through us? (For only God is good).

I think in a very significant way, the NT iteration of the law does magnify the law. One of the examples is "thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour" became "don't bear false witness at all". Many of the commandments transformed from "I'm in the good books because I conformed to a fleshly requirement" to being focused on a spiritual requirement.

When comparing the OT to the NT, the NT is the harder path to follow.

So, He magnified "adultery" to be "looking in lust"; He magnified

"Thou shalt do no work" became "do good works for the Sabbath". It's easy to do nothing on a day, it requires the presence of faith and the guidance of God to even approach having good works being performed through you. And beyond that, if "today" is the Sabbath as Hebrews 4 argues, how much harder that is to even dream of approaching that perfection (a thing we'll never reach).

//

As a recap for the 2-part post, it is interesting that you asked the question about God ever granting exceptions for "no work" on the Sabbath and yet you acknowledged Christ doing good works on the Sabbath as well as noting your personal example of an emergency tire change as an acceptable work on the Sabbath.

That becomes a slippery slope in itself, where even if you have determined for yourself where the line is drawn between "good works" vs "not good works" someone else might have a different concept using the same logic. That's how the Pharisees got into their mess to begin with.

And the other interesting observation is how exactly you could be attaching the "no work" procedure to "Keep the Sabbath" without also attaching "kill Sabbath breakers"?

/part 2

 

[justbyfaith]

Isa 58:12, And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
Isa 58:13, If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:
Isa 58:14, Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Here, keeping the sabbath day has to do with dedicating one day a week wholly to the Lord, not finding your own pleasure, or speaking your own words.

This is good for those who have not yet given their lives over wholly to the Lord. It is important that everyone should set apart a day of rest and worship to God whether they are born again or not. Because that specific day may serve to bring them to the Lord.

But I believe that those who have surrendered their whole lives to the Lord see every day alike.

For them, every day is a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; in which they shall honour Him, not doing their own ways nor finding their own pleasure nor speaking their own words.

 

[Grandpa]

I think the conversation always comes back to the fact that law means different things in different instances in scripture. As a result of that, there are disagreements about interpretations.

If we are to say the law refers to the entire body of OT law, and look at commandments in isolation we see what superficially appear to be contradictions. Are OT commandments about circumcision in play? No, because that is explicitly addressed in the NT as being fulfilled by Christ. What other commandments are fulfilled by Christ? I see no reason why it wouldn't be the case that all of the OT commandments are. But in order to partake in the covenant of Christ, one must observe the law of Christ. Many elements of the law of Christ are similar to OT law, with differences. "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour" from the OT appears as "thou shall not bear false witness" in the NT. An untrained eye isn't going to see the subtle difference, but the OT phrasing permits bearing false witness in favour of others as well as bearing false witness against non-neighbours. The NT contains an iteration of that commandment that is different.

Likewise in regard to the Sabbath, the NT instructions for how to respect the Sabbath seem to be more open ended and not necessarily a requirement to strictly adhere to OT provisions for the Sabbath.

We see in Exodus 21:23–27 that the basis of the law is equivalency. Where the Pharisees skewed this principle to serve their own unGodly purposes, those in Christ are called to live for God's will with the love of Christ being the guiding force for decision making, rather than a legalistic interpretation that follows the letter of righteousness at the expense of its spirit.

If the OT law says it is a requirement to execute nonobservers of the Sabbath rest, is it then righteous to do so? The execution wouldn't be considered murder in accordance with OT law. But, is it righteous? Are we being disobedient to the law by not partaking in that execution?

Would you draw an ass from a well on the Sabbath? If yes, we see that good works are permitted on the Sabbath, and if we endeavour to be in Christ, we aim to have Christ always work through us in good works. Is it then not acceptable to always work on the Sabbath knowing that our aim is to have good works produced through us? How then would that be considered a disobedience to the law?

Look at the scriptures that TMS used. Law of the Lord. The Lords Law. The Law of God.

That's not Moses Law. Its not the 10 commandments. Legalists love to conflate this issue.

Or it's very possible that Jesus and Paul are talking about different laws. You may refuse to believe that Paul explain that in (Gal. 3:1, 13, 16-17, 19, 24) (v.1) O FOOLISH Ga-la’-tians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (v.13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, CURSED IS EVERYONE THAT HANGETH ON A TREE: What law is this talking about? Let the bible speak for itself.

(v.16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of One, AND TO THY SEED, which is Christ. (v.17) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Now pay attention, the law that is being spoken of here came four hundred and thirty years after this covenant. But God’s holy commandments have been around forever even before man was created. Remember that Satan was kicked out of heaven because iniquity (sin) was found in him. And what is sin? The transgression of the law (commandments). Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Now we have just read the biblical definition of sin, the transgression (breaking) of the law (commandments.) It doesn’t matter what you or I think sin is, it’s what God says sin is that counts. (1John 3:4)

(v.19) Wherefore then serveth the law? A question is being asked here. Then why should we serve this law? It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; the law that we are talking about here was added because of sin. But we now know that sin is the transgression of the law.

How do you add a law if sin is the transgression of the law? Because there are two sets of laws, you have God’s holy commandments which abided forever, and you had the animal sacrificial law which was added because of sin, but it was only good until the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and that seed was Jesus.

(v.24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. This animal sacrificial law was only a schoolmaster.

And this schoolmaster taught you that when you sinned in ignorance blood had to be shed (an animal sacrificed). But Christ being the ultimate sacrifice shed his precious blood once and for all, and by doing this putting an end to the animal sacrificial law. Paul says in Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. So when you quoted all the places in the Bible that do away with this animal sacrificial law, not understanding that Paul talks about two sets of law. The Royal law (Ten Commandments) and the animal sacrificial law sometimes in the same verse you bring destruction to yourselves.

At some point common sense you kick in. If I'm reading about the doing away of a law or not under a law, then somewhere else Paul tell you that the law is Holy just and good, another place breaking mostly all the Ten commandments down. A light bulb should come on in your head, Paul have to be talking about two sets of laws. In other places Paul explain the animal sacrificial law in Hebrew 10 Chapter.

If you are following all of the writing of Paul, then you will find out that you are following Jesus, and if you are truly following Jesus then you are following the law of God.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

There AREN'T two sets of Laws. There is one Law.

Otherwise the Lord would have stated ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE shall in no wise pass from the TWO laws...

Paul would have stated do not be entangled again in ONE OF THE TWO yokes of bondage.



It is YOU in your own IMAGINATION that breaks the Law down into two. NO ONE has the authority to split the law into its parts and do away with the parts they don't like and "keep" their favorite parts.

If anyone is given this authority, show it in scripture.

Galatians 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.

 

[ImageofGod]

If you are following all of the writing of Paul, then you will find out that you are following Jesus, and if you are truly following Jesus then you are following the law of God.

instead of reading our own ideas too much into scripture it is perhaps good to just read the scriptures, and ask God - what does this mean? and not try to figure it out all on our own. this is where many errors will appear or better understanding will not. thinking we know. thinking our doctrine is truth, the whole truth, and there is no other. this is vanity. the Spirit will help with understanding if we want to learn the truth - but if we are not wanting to learn from God - we will learn from ourselves, from other people (who agree with us), and from teachers who might often lead us astray without our even knowing it. because we believe we are right even though we did not write the scriptures, are not God, are not the Spirit, depend on own understanding too much, have not wondered if we are wrong.

 

[Laura798]

"thou shalt do no work unless ..."
Ah hah!... Unless it's changing a tire!

Who should determine what is counted as a good work? We are justified through faith in Christ. If we feel that Christ is calling us to work on weekends, surely there may be an unseen reason for that. And likewise if we feel that Christ is calling us not to work on weekends. Being in the body of Christ, sometimes the hand and the foot have different requirements for how they are to operate, but together each part works as a whole even if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. We follow our faith, even if it leads us to witness contradictory compass directions, our roads are different but our destination is the same.

Some might interpret the willingness to change a tire on the Sabbath as breaking God's "Moral" law. But is it? Or is it a situation ethic? Maybe only change it if it's an emergency?

This is where I don't see the value in trying to impose OT commandments based only on the authority of the OT. We can come to the same conclusion that changing a tire on the Sabbath is an acceptable form of work easily within the fulfilment interpretation. Within the fulfilment interpretation we can even come to the conclusion that one should limit nonessential work on the Sabbath. But there is room for differences in what one is compelled to do.



There are certainly procedural commandments in place in the OT. But as much as "do no work on the Sabbath" could be seen as a procedural commandment with the aim at compliance with the required standard "Keep the Sabbath day holy", it then comes down to the question of which commandments are we interpreting as procedures and which are we interpreting as standards. I see "do no work on the Sabbath" as procedural ("ceremonial", etc.), but accept that you could look at "Keep the Sabbath day holy" as a standard. The fulfilment interpretation just covers the basis that any standard or "Moral" law from the OT is covered by or fulfilled through Christ and the law of Christ.



For the sake of exploring the interpretation that Romans 14:5 is not inclusive of the Sabbath, I'm with you so far. Let's assume you're right here for the moment.



And his conclusion (in part) in Romans 14 was to allow your faith to guide you to the correct answer but to freely discuss disagreements.

"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." - Romans 14:17-19 NIV



Hebrews 4 seems to address this topic. And the conclusion that might be drawn from Heb 4 is that by being in Christ we rest from our own works (and allow Christ's works to happen though us).



The only violation would be in regards to the ordinances revolving around different Mosaic commandments. If "keep the Sabbath" is the standard, the procedure I'm using to fulfil that is the idea that changing a tire is OK on the Sabbath. Some people wouldn't see that as OK. Some people would see even the simplest labour as a disobedience to keeping the Sabbath. We should be lead to our conclusions by faith, not by legalistic man-made conventions of what counts as work.



Do you not live life with the philosophy that your only purpose in life is to do God's work? And despite not having a good quality of service that we strive to do what we can to opening ourselves up to having Him work through us? (For only God is good).

I think in a very significant way, the NT iteration of the law does magnify the law. One of the examples is "thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour" became "don't bear false witness at all". Many of the commandments transformed from "I'm in the good books because I conformed to a fleshly requirement" to being focused on a spiritual requirement.

When comparing the OT to the NT, the NT is the harder path to follow.



"Thou shalt do no work" became "do good works for the Sabbath". It's easy to do nothing on a day, it requires the presence of faith and the guidance of God to even approach having good works being performed through you. And beyond that, if "today" is the Sabbath as Hebrews 4 argues, how much harder that is to even dream of approaching that perfection (a thing we'll never reach).

//

As a recap for the 2-part post, it is interesting that you asked the question about God ever granting exceptions for "no work" on the Sabbath and yet you acknowledged Christ doing good works on the Sabbath as well as noting your personal example of an emergency tire change as an acceptable work on the Sabbath.

That becomes a slippery slope in itself, where even if you have determined for yourself where the line is drawn between "good works" vs "not good works" someone else might have a different concept using the same logic. That's how the Pharisees got into their mess to begin with.

And the other interesting observation is how exactly you could be attaching the "no work" procedure to "Keep the Sabbath" without also attaching "kill Sabbath breakers"?

/part 2

Jocund you said: The argument you are presenting is that Biblical scholars for centuries have been getting Colossians 2:16 wrong and that miraculously you have determined that "Sabbath" in that passage absolutely cannot connote the Sabbath. And you have made this determination because... it is an inconvenience for your interpretation?

Here is Colossians 2:16: "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." I'm fairly certain you have seen my explanation in other posts-- 'A' Sabbath day is not THE Seventh day Sabbath--this is referring to special holy days, like holidays--her is a list of them and no scholar would include THE Sabbath Day-the 7th Day in this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Shabbat#Shabbat_Shirah_–_Song

 

[Yahshua]

You did not quote properly from the verse. If you had, it would have become more evident that this is the correct understanding.

Col 2:16, Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17, Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body, of Christ.

I wasn't quoting scripture I was paraphrasing it to distinguish both potential renderings of the message. And God didn't place any punctuation in the original text. That was also added by modern translators.

Also, what exactly are you trying to say by your correcting of this scripture (if indeed it is a valid correction)?

I thought I said what I was trying to say...

That words were added to the text which changes Paul's message. This may be difficult to see when we already have an established doctrine in mind based on those words, but someone reading the unaltered passage for the first time would receive a completely different message than the one currently taught.

Here's the following command quoted without punctuation, verse separation, or added italicized words:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of an holyday or of the new moon or of the sabbath which are a shadow of things to come but the body of Christ"

If Paul was standing in front of a new believer today and he said this after everything else in the chapter, would that person respond by saying, "yes, you're right, the substance of all of that IS Christ!" or would they say, "ok I understand, no one but the body of Christ is to judge me in those things. Not those outsiders"?

Paul isn't addressing the matter of judgment but is saying "don't let the Pharisees or other outsiders (like gnostic philosophizers) tempt you away from what we taught you; don't listen to them". MY point is that this passage - when read in context and without added words - thus can't be used to support the argument that the Sabbath day or any of the other commandments - as shadows of good things still to come - don't still need to be honored.

That seventh-day adventists, who might in this context be the body of Christ (if I am not mistaking your intent), have the right to judge people in respect to sabbath days?

Are not seventh-day adventists really the only ones who take it upon themselves to judge concerning these matters?

non sequitur / Ad hominem. How'd this group come into the conversation? We're speaking about alterations to scripture, which are not allowed. The Almighty never said His word wouldn't be altered, but specifically warned against it both in Deuteronomy and Revelation (which suggests its possibility and probability). It's what the entire conflict was about between Messiah and the Pharisees. They altered the word of God to fit their traditions.

If it happened before it can happen again (and has). First, it was the Pharisees, then it was the RCC.

I would also say that a careful examination of Romans 14 might bear out the fact that those who esteem one day above another do not exclusively have a right to the proper understanding of scripture. One can be a believer and yet esteem every day alike.

When was it stated or suggested by me that someone who keeps the Sabbath has exclusive right to the proper understanding of scripture? But let's address Romans 14. The opening line of the chapter establishes the context of what Paul teaches in the chapter.

Romans 14:1 (partial)
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.

And each time the word judgment is used in the chapter it's tied to the word contempt. He goes on to say not to cast stumbling blocks in front of others or treat someone who isn't following certain things with contempt because not everyone's faith is at the same level. This is perfectly harmonious with Messiah who says "judge righteously".

Stating that the commandments are still to be followed isn't treating someone with contempt. Recall the beginning of Galatians and how Paul rebuked Peter (a judgment on Peter, by the way) for no longer sitting with gentiles or eating with them once Jews visited, as Peter defaulted back to Pharisee traditions.

In Romans, Paul is once again contending with Pharaseic traditions and behaviors that easily creep into the faith. Ostracizing, alienating, or mistreating someone in the body for not eating or worshiping as they do - when they're coming from a pagan lifestyle into the faith - is casting a stumbling block in front of them.

Such a believer, if he were judged by those who are in "the body of Christ" might be judged by the true body of Christ as being a member of the body; and that the fact that he does not esteem Saturday above Sunday or other days of the week is not to the condemnation of his soul.

Judgment isn't condemnation. This is a frequent failure in understanding the two concepts.

A few principles:

1) Scripture says there is no condemnation in Christ (Romans 8:1).

2) Scripture also says to reprove, rebuke and exhort one another (2 Timothy 4:2).

3) The Messiah never said not to judge, but to judge righteously (John 7:24).

4) The Holy Spirit was sent to reprove/judge (John 16:8), that's His job.

5) The Holy Spirit is in the believer (Galatians 3:2)...so then He does His job by (refer to point #2)

6) This process of correcting one's walk is sanctification, the next step after justification and the reason why the 5 ministries were given to the body; to mature the believer unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:13)...not "sort of" like Christ but into His fullness.

7) Because we are to walk as He walked (1 John 2:6)

Righteous judgment isn't claiming whether one is in a "true" body of Christ or not, but correcting how a member of the body is meant to walk in this faith. If we're not correcting each other (i.e. reproving, rebuking, and exhorting) we're not growing, and sanctification is stalled.

I fear that many in the body are so estranged from the process of sanctification these days that ANY righteous judgment (read: "correction") feels like condemnation. It's more pleasing to the ears to spread a message of "no correction whatsoever for those in Christ".

 

[Yahshua]

Is there ever a point that it is permissible not to be in Christ? If this happens, will following the OT law instead save us? I would think not.

Well if you think about it, there is no law, in the history of laws ever made within any society, that has the power to save the offender from the consequences once that law is broken. That's not the function of any law, anywhere (whether we're talking about Almighty's law or your local government's law). A law's only function is to establish what crime is. Thus something "outside" of that construct must save the offender from the punishment a particular law demands.

This is what Paul tries to explain in his letter.

So it isn't a matter of Christ vs. law. Christ - apart from the law - saves from the punishment after breaking Almighty's law like a pardon - apart from the law - saves a criminal from the punishment after breaking the law in your city. But no citizen, in either case, is then free from obeying the law forevermore once pardoned, but they're told: "go and break that law no more". The law remains in both cases, and citizens must obey it.

If this is the case, we should always be willing to be the vessel of Christ's good works. And by occasion, this may mean that rest is the appropriate works that Christ leads us to.

Both rests and works are permissible, but I feel that the reasoning should always be by what Christ leads us to and not by our attempts to honour OT law without Christ.

Through faith in Christ, we establish the law not make it void.


The law splits into two parts:
[Things to obey to avoid sin] - [Things to do to remedy sin once commited]


Paul distinguishes these two parts in our translations of his writings as follows:
[The law] - [works/deeds of the law]


The 1st part was given by voice at Mt. Sinai before Israel's sin, the 2nd was given after the sin of the golden calf:
[The Commandments] - [The sacrifices and rituals]


The problem is, the 2nd part was always a shadow that pointed to Messiah, as the blood of an animal can't pay for or cleanse the sins of a man. And all of the world - Jew and gentile - are guilty of sin because the law is eternal, we simply didn't know about our crimes until it was given.


The 1st part was given as terms of the covenant, the 2nd was given as a shadow to teach & prophesy Messiah's work:
[Law's full meaning limited by Letter/Stone] - ["wage of sin" ministered by earthly priests as "shadow"]


Paul explains that the 1st part is fully realized in Christ and the 2nd part is no more after Christ:
[Law's full meaning understood through the Spirit] - ["wage of sin" satisfied by Messiah on earth and then ministered by Him in heaven]


We have faith that Messiah has done // is doing the 2nd part, and through faith, we're given His strength and the Holy Spirit to do the 1st part like He did when He was here...but we must do it. We must use that strength and obey.

[Walk of sanctification through obedience] - [Justified by faith in Messiah (so we DO NOT do this part as the Galatians attempted)]

 

[Jocund]

For anyone curious about Colossians 2:16 and its reference to Sabbath, Most scholars agree this in reference to THE Sabbath (7th day rest) and many other scholars extends this concept to describe THE Sabbath and other sabbaths / holy days. One would have to make a an extraordinary case to declare that all of the translators for all of those editions of the Bible were wrong.

Here is the Strong's ID for the word used: https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4521.htm

Here is a list of Bible editions addressing the verse: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Colossians 2:16

It doesn't take much to see that "Sabbath in Col 2:16 cannot refer to the weekly Sabbath" is a false claim and contradicts a scholarly approach to scripture.

We should remain mindful of those whom would choose to use Rabbinic Judaic interpretations to inform their Christian interpretations. Oil and water do not mix. An antiChristian ideology should not be used to inform Christian thought. The modern Rabbinic Judaism is different than the Biblical Judaism. The modern Rabbinic Judaism is led by an illegitimate priesthood (Christ is the true head of the priesthood) that has spent centuries trying to justify why they think the law still leads to their salvation without Jesus Christ. Of course these sources of information will preach to you that in lieu of Christ, performing works of the law is the way to salvation. Such are lies from the pits of hell.

 

[Jocund]

Well if you think about it, there is no law, in the history of laws ever made within any society, that has the power to save the offender from the consequences once that law is broken. That's not the function of any law, anywhere (whether we're talking about Almighty's law or your local government's law). A law's only function is to establish what crime is. Thus something "outside" of that construct must save the offender from the punishment a particular law demands.

This is what Paul tries to explain in his letter.

So it isn't a matter of Christ vs. law. Christ - apart from the law - saves from the punishment after breaking Almighty's law like a pardon - apart from the law - saves a criminal from the punishment after breaking the law in your city. But no citizen, in either case, is then free from obeying the law forevermore once pardoned, but they're told: "go and break that law no more". The law remains in both cases, and citizens must obey it.



Through faith in Christ, we establish the law not make it void.


The law splits into two parts:
[Things to obey to avoid sin] - [Things to do to remedy sin once commited]


Paul distinguishes these two parts in our translations of his writings as follows:
[The law] - [works/deeds of the law]


The 1st part was given by voice at Mt. Sinai before Israel's sin, the 2nd was given after the sin of the golden calf:
[The Commandments] - [The sacrifices and rituals]


The problem is, the 2nd part was always a shadow that pointed to Messiah, as the blood of an animal can't pay for or cleanse the sins of a man. And all of the world - Jew and gentile - are guilty of sin because the law is eternal, we simply didn't know about our crimes until it was given.


The 1st part was given as terms of the covenant, the 2nd was given as a shadow to teach & prophesy Messiah's work:
[Law's full meaning limited by Letter/Stone] - ["wage of sin" ministered by earthly priests as "shadow"]


Paul explains that the 1st part is fully realized in Christ and the 2nd part is no more after Christ:
[Law's full meaning understood through the Spirit] - ["wage of sin" satisfied by Messiah on earth and then ministered by Him in heaven]


We have faith that Messiah has done // is doing the 2nd part, and through faith, we're given His strength and the Holy Spirit to do the 1st part like He did when He was here...but we must do it. We must use that strength and obey.

[Walk of sanctification through obedience] - [Justified by faith in Messiah (so we DO NOT do this part as the Galatians attempted)]

Doing things that are not out of faith in Christ is sin. We see this in Romans 14.

I agree with the concept "do the right thing" but the question comes back to "what is the right thing?" And the answer to that is in the New Testament.