Legalism empowers DEMONS in your life!

[AngelFrog]

Legalism not only opposes grace, but it brings us into the bondage of guilt just as the law did. Our focus then is on ourselves instead of the mercy of God.

Do you ever wonder about the paradigm of mercy? When it was God that made it necessary in the first place. Think of the paradox of good vs. evil.
Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotence has a rival that works humans like chess pieces on a board. All designed to take a piece away in order to show God that the Devil can win the game at least in that move.

When God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and humans are asked to believe in the mercy God extended after being merciless in the garden due to the first error the first humans made.
All in the presence of omnipresence. All with the foreknowledge afforded omniscience.

Wild, huh?

 

[sparty-g]

A Christian cannot fail to take note of the law God desires them to keep for that law is written on their mind and placed on their heart

The law comes in two parts. The law itself and the penalty for disobedience(sin). The latter is removed for the born again Christian, the former has been transferred from tablets of stone to tablets of human hearts. The two are inextricably linked

I'm not the best at articulating it, maybe since I haven't pieced together the entire concept, but I may be in agreement with what you say here about the distinction between the Torah-Law itself and the penalty for disobeying it. I believe the Messiah came to take upon Himself the penalty for our disobedience. I believe that when Paul refers to the "Law of Sin and Death," he is not referring to the Torah-Law itself, but to the principle effect that to sin leads to death. It might be good to think of the "Law of Sin and Death" as a "natural law" of this world we live in -- a result of the corrupt state of this world, whereas the Torah-Law is a spiritual law handed down to us from God Himself. The Messiah pays the death penalty for us by dying in our place. I also believe this to be the message of Col. 2, as opposed to Mitspa's interpretation as shared in the very first post of this thread. The Messiah has nailed to the cross the charges against us, or our legal indebtedness, which is our death for our disobedience. This reflects exactly what happened at the cross for the Messiah -- His charge was placed above His head; the commands were not. Thus, I don't believe the cross has anything to do with eliminating the Torah-Law. I will conclude by adding to your thought here: I believe the Torah-Law has been transferred to our hearts so that we can do it. The commands were powerless on stone tablets, a "ministry of death" to quote Paul, but the Messiah has paid our death penalty, eliminated the charges against us, and the Holy Spirit now empowers us to do the things God wants us to do as they our internal to us and no longer external.

 

[sparty-g]

It might be better for you to come to an understanding of Paul's core message of grace, before you dwell on other things so intently

I appreciate your passion for Paul's message of grace but I would humbly disagree with this approach, or maybe offer a suggestion for revision. As Peter states, Paul's words are difficult to understand and can lead to the error of the lawless (2 Peter 3:14-18). It's like trying to learn advanced calculus without knowing basic algebra. Practically speaking, look around this thread! It almost all centers on disagreements over interpreting Paul. This was a problem in Paul's day, too, which is why Peter made that obvious statement, why James instructed Paul to demonstrate his obedience to the Torah-Law to squash the false accusations against him, why Paul had to defend himself so many times against the false accusations (in front of Felix, Festus, Jewish leaders at Rome), etc. I would suggest someone start with the front of the book and first learn the basics: the historical narrative, what God has revealed through the Torah-Law and the prophets, what God Himself has to say about His commands and how the people who received them viewed them. Then I would suggest moving on the Messiah: study His words, His ministry, How he lived His life, what did He honor and respect, etc. Then I would suggest studying Acts for more of the narrative of the early disciples and since actions can speak louder than words. After all that, I would finally suggest moving on to the apostolic letters, which include Paul. If it's a matter of interpretation, which I believe it to be (especially with regards to Paul's writings), I would strongly suggest we strive to interpret Paul in light of what God has established through His spoken word and the example of the Messiah, and not try to fit God's revelatory instructions and the Messiah's life into our interpretation of Paul's message of grace. Honestly, when it comes down to figuring out which interpretation is correct, sometimes it's about weighing the available evidence. If there is a consistent message or example throughout the Scriptures, but we interpret one piece of it in a seemingly conflicting way, then which is most likely in error: our interpretation of the mountain of evidence spoken through many voices, or our interpretation of a single voice? I'm just asking rhetorically but this has been part of my general approach to the Scriptures as I try to harmonize the full breadth of God's Word. Be blessed~

 

[WheresEnoch]

All you have to do is look at the national flag of Israel to tell you they are still in error.

Amos 5:26
"But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves."

The star of Saturn/satan is the so called "star of David"

Acts 7
42 But God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets:
“‘Did you bring to me slain beasts and sacrifices,
during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?
43 You took up the tent of Moloch
and the star of your god Rephan,
the images that you made to worship;
and I will send you into exile beyond Babylon.’

 

[michael56]

I'm not the best at articulating it, maybe since I haven't pieced together the entire concept, but I may be in agreement with what you say here about the distinction between the Torah-Law itself and the penalty for disobeying it. I believe the Messiah came to take upon Himself the penalty for our disobedience. I believe that when Paul refers to the "Law of Sin and Death," he is not referring to the Torah-Law itself, but to the principle effect that to sin leads to death. It might be good to think of the "Law of Sin and Death" as a "natural law" of this world we live in -- a result of the corrupt state of this world, whereas the Torah-Law is a spiritual law handed down to us from God Himself. The Messiah pays the death penalty for us by dying in our place. I also believe this to be the message of Col. 2, as opposed to Mitspa's interpretation as shared in the very first post of this thread. The Messiah has nailed to the cross the charges against us, or our legal indebtedness, which is our death for our disobedience. This reflects exactly what happened at the cross for the Messiah -- His charge was placed above His head; the commands were not. Thus, I don't believe the cross has anything to do with eliminating the Torah-Law. I will conclude by adding to your thought here: I believe the Torah-Law has been transferred to our hearts so that we can do it. The commands were powerless on stone tablets, a "ministry of death" to quote Paul, but the Messiah has paid our death penalty, eliminated the charges against us, and the Holy Spirit now empowers us to do the things God wants us to do as they our internal to us and no longer external.

Hi

Thank you for responding to the post. If I may, I will avoid discussing which laws the Christian is expected to follow, and concentrate on the law of sin and death. We agree, the penalty of sin has been removed, and it is the penalty of sin, that I believe is the true power of sin, for through that penalty sin has the power to condemn you to hell.

Paul stressed the law itself is holy, righteous and good, however, he also stated this:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.[SUP]8 [/SUP]But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Rom 7:7-11

We can safely assume, Paul is speaking in the above of the time he made a commitment to God as a Pharisee, for he is speaking of the time the law came to him. He said, sin used his knowledge of the commandment 'Thou shalt not covet' to arouse all manner of concupiscence in him. Therefore, through Paul's knowledge of the law, he became a worse sinner. Sin used what was good and Holy to condemn him. Why could sin do that?

I believe, the penalty of sin brings great fear of sin, and fear of sin brings much allurement to sin. To Paul the Pharisee if he could not obey the law he was condemned. He was an ardent Pharisee, the love, mercy and compassion of God were not the deciding factor to him at that time. It may seem a strange concept, but if I said to you. ''If you think of a pink rabbit God will condemn you to hell, what is the first thought that will enter your head if you believe me? However, as you know no such penalty exists, you won't be consumed with thinking of such a creature will you.

Paul tells us Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness, not the end of the law full stop. Therefore if Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness, you cannot be made unrighteous in God's sight by your imperfections concerning those laws can you, the penalty of your sin must therefore have been paid.
It is strange, but many then say you have a license to sin. The reality is the very opposite is true. What happens if you take something's power away? It must weaken mustn't it, nothing else is possible. Therefore, with the penalty of sin removed from your life, the true power of sin, is also removed. You therefore will live a holier life.
A famous evangelist once said. ''Christ died to pay the penalty of your sin, and he died to remove the power of sin, and the power of sin is the law(1Co. r15:56) Or to put it concisely, the power of sin is the penalty attached to the law if you break it.
Hence Paul states:

Do we then nullify the law by this faith(a righteousness of faith in Christ, not obedience to the law) not at all! Rather we uphold the law. Rom 3:31

 

[sparty-g]

You believe the law of God should be obeyed, is that correct?

What are the most important two laws according to Christ you believe must be obeyed?

Notice that the Messiah was asked "What is the greatest command?" not "What is the only command?" And He responded with the greatest command (love God) and the second greatest command (love neighbors), not the only two commands. I do not believe He was in any way implying there are no other commands to follow. Also, I do not believe that these two being summary commands upon which the rest of the Law and Prophets hang mean they replace the other commands. I see it as a priority thing: focus on these two things and get them right and you'll be better equipped with the right focus or perspective and you will flow into keeping the other commands. The Holy Spirit helps and guides in these things. Be blessed~

 

[sparty-g]

I am one of the strongest ADVOCATES that SALVATION IS ONLY BY GRACE ALONE. What you seem to misunderstand, is that SALVATION and Sanctification are two different things. I was NOT talking about Salvation, but rather our Sactification of the body and our CHRISTIAN WALK.

YES! I don't know to what extent you and I agree or disagree on a plurality of issues, but I agree with you here! There seems to be a lot of conflating of these two issues: salvation and sanctification. Personally, in no way do I believe that I merited salvation by observance of any commands. No, it was an unmerited gift graciously given to me through faith. But faith requires action, response. The central, practical issue I have attempted to address throughout this entire thread has been: what should a believer do after salvation? I have my particular stance of how one is to learn what obedience means and what this obedience entails: consulting the full counsel of God's revelation -- the Scriptures (OT and NT), the example of the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[michael56]

I appreciate your passion for Paul's message of grace but I would humbly disagree with this approach, or maybe offer a suggestion for revision. As Peter states, Paul's words are difficult to understand and can lead to the error of the lawless (2 Peter 3:14-18). It's like trying to learn advanced calculus without knowing basic algebra. Practically speaking, look around this thread! It almost all centers on disagreements over interpreting Paul. This was a problem in Paul's day, too, which is why Peter made that obvious statement, why James instructed Paul to demonstrate his obedience to the Torah-Law to squash the false accusations against him, why Paul had to defend himself so many times against the false accusations (in front of Felix, Festus, Jewish leaders at Rome), etc. I would suggest someone start with the front of the book and first learn the basics: the historical narrative, what God has revealed through the Torah-Law and the prophets, what God Himself has to say about His commands and how the people who received them viewed them. Then I would suggest moving on the Messiah: study His words, His ministry, How he lived His life, what did He honor and respect, etc. Then I would suggest studying Acts for more of the narrative of the early disciples and since actions can speak louder than words. After all that, I would finally suggest moving on to the apostolic letters, which include Paul. If it's a matter of interpretation, which I believe it to be (especially with regards to Paul's writings), I would strongly suggest we strive to interpret Paul in light of what God has established through His spoken word and the example of the Messiah, and not try to fit God's revelatory instructions and the Messiah's life into our interpretation of Paul's message of grace. Honestly, when it comes down to figuring out which interpretation is correct, sometimes it's about weighing the available evidence. If there is a consistent message or example throughout the Scriptures, but we interpret one piece of it in a seemingly conflicting way, then which is most likely in error: our interpretation of the mountain of evidence spoken through many voices, or our interpretation of a single voice? I'm just asking rhetorically but this has been part of my general approach to the Scriptures as I try to harmonize the full breadth of God's Word. Be blessed~

To put it simply, this is what I believe, and it incorporates Paul's message.

The penalty(the true power of sin) of sin is removed for the born again believer. This is because the law God requires a person to keep has been transferred from tablets of stone to tablets of human hearts(2Cor3:3 & Heb 10:16&17) Bassically, the Christian is born again of the Holy Spirit at the point of conversion, the law is written on their mind and placed on their heart, they in their heart want to obey. Because, and only because this is so, the true power of sin(its penalty) is removed from their life. Jesus will be no ones saviour from sin unless they are born again of the Spirit, for he will be no ones saviour from sin unless they in their heart want to obey his father.

Therefore, the born again Christians heartfelt desire to obey can now come to fruition for what opposes obedience(sin) has been dealt a crushing blow by its true power being removed from the Christian(its penalty)

To me that makes for an incredible covenant

 

[sparty-g]

To put it simply, this is what I believe, and it incorporates Paul's message.

The penalty(the true power of sin) of sin is removed for the born again believer. This is because the law God requires a person to keep has been transferred from tablets of stone to tablets of human hearts(2Cor3:3 & Heb 10:16&17) Bassically, the Christian is born again of the Holy Spirit at the point of conversion, the law is written on their mind and placed on their heart, they in their heart want to obey. Because, and only because this is so, the true power of sin(its penalty) is removed from their life. Jesus will be no ones saviour from sin unless they are born again of the Spirit, for he will be no ones saviour from sin unless they in their heart want to obey his father.

Therefore, the born again Christians heartfelt desire to obey can now come to fruition for what opposes obedience(sin) has been dealt a crushing blow by its true power being removed from the Christian(its penalty)

To me that makes for an incredible covenant

I agree. I would add that I believe this matter of where the Torah-Law resides (internally or externally), and the penalty of the Torah-Law, to be two of the chief differences between the covenants. It has to do with our positional relationship to the Torah-Law: Is it within our heart written on our inward parts, and what is our positional relationship with regards to the punishment? I think you have answered both of these questions quite nicely. I will also add that I do not believe this is the complete picture. The next question is, as you and I have both mentioned in our recent posts: which commands are a Christian expected to follow? How are we to live our lives after salvation? I believe this is intimately connected to our positional relationship to the Torah-Law, thus part of the picture. I take a maximalist approach to answering this question and my example is the Messiah. There is no one else's example I would rather follow. But I feel I'm in good company since the disciples also followed His example.

 

[michael56]

I agree. I would add that I believe this matter of where the Torah-Law resides (internally or externally), and the penalty of the Torah-Law, to be two of the chief differences between the covenants. It has to do with our positional relationship to the Torah-Law: Is it within us heart on our inward parts, and what is our positional relationship with regards to the punishment? I think you have answered both of these questions quite nicely. I will also add that I do not believe this is the complete picture. The next question is, as you and I have both mentioned in our recent posts: which commands are a Christian expected to follow? I believe this is intimately connected to our positional relationship to the Torah-Law, thus part of the picture. I take a maximalist approach to answering this question and my example is the Messiah. There is no one else's example I would rather follow. But I feel I'm in good company since the disciples also followed His example.

If we accept the law God requires us to keep has been written on our minds and placed on our hearts at the point of conversion, as we know sin is transgression of the law(1John 3:4) The simple answer to your question is. You know which law is placed on your heart, for you must have heartfelt conviction you sin when you break it.

For through the law we become conscious of sin (Rom 3:20)

 

[MarcR]

All you have to do is look at the national flag of Israel to tell you they are still in error.

Amos 5:26
"But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves."

The star of Saturn/satan is the so called "star of David"

Acts 7
42 But God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets:
“‘Did you bring to me slain beasts and sacrifices,
during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?
43 You took up the tent of Moloch
and the star of your god Rephan,
the images that you made to worship;
and I will send you into exile beyond Babylon.’

I don't know where you got that from; but I suggest you bring it back where it came from!

All Jewish reference to your 'star of Saturn' is Mogayn David, Mogayn Avraham... the Shield of David, the shield of Abraham.

 

[WheresEnoch]

Well, where I am at differs from some on this site. I believe that those who are truly born again will not only desire to live in obedience to God's commandments, but they will also be given the power to do so joyfully by the Holy Spirit. I think there are many who believe themselves born again in this world, but they have no evidence to suggest it.

So most of us can agree that IF we are born again, we necessarily become obedient from the heart to the basics of loving God and people. We become a new creation with new desires. Things such as hateful, adulterous, covetous, disrespectful thoughts must be immediately taken captive and brought into submission to Christ. If they are not dealt with in this way, then we are still slaves to sin and walking in the flesh.

I believe there is no place for willful sin in the body of the believer or the body of Christ. Those who would consider themselves Christians, yet continue to walk in darkness do not truly know Christ.

So the only part I am still sorting out is mainly the dietary and Sabbath commandments.
Now, before people go calling me a legalist, you must understand that in no way do I believe I am earning my salvation or justifying myself before God. I never cared for pork anyways, so what does it matter to me. Many people already keep a Sabbath to a degree (Sunday church) so what is the big deal with trying to observe the Sabbath on it's proper day in the proper way? I desire to give God that place in my life and devote a day to spending time with Him in prayer, contemplation and study.

In truth, I desire to observe God's calender and feasts because I am tired of the pagan holidays of Christmas easter etc...
I want to observe the things of God with my family, not the things of the world, to bring us closer as a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession all united under our High Priest Christ.

I do not understand why so many feel God's commandments are tiresome or burdensome.
Some dreadful yoke that will bring us under judgement and lead to our destruction.
As long as they are not viewed as our source of salvation, but instead observed out of love for the grace, mercy and forgiveness of God, what is the problem?

Anyways--- Sparky-g or anyone else, what do you make of Romans 14?

Romans 14
Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.

 

[MarcR]

Amos 5:25-26

Moloch and Chiun. Moloch means king, answering to Mars (Bengel); or answering to the Sun (Jablonski); or answering to Saturn, the same as "Chiun" (Maurer). The Septuagint translates "Chiun" into Remphan, as Stephen quotes it (Ac 7:42-43). The same god had often different names. Moloch is the Ammonite name; Chiun the Arabic and Persian name, written also Chevan. In an Arabic lexicon, Chiun means austere; so astrologers represented Saturn as a planet baleful in his influence. Hence, the Phoenicians offered human sacrifices to him, children especially: so idolatrous Israel also. Rimmon was the Syrian name (2 Ki 5:18); pronounced as Remvan, or 'Remphan,' just as Chiun was also Chevan. Moloch had the form of a king; Chevan or Chiun, of a star (Grotius). Remphan was the Egyptian name for Saturn: hence, the Septuagint translator of Amos gave the Egyptian name Raiphan for the Hebrew, being an Egyptian [anelabete teen skeeneen tou Moloch kai to astron tou Theou humoon Raifan, tous tupous autoon hous epoieesate heautois] (Hodius II. 'Bibl.,' 4:115). The same as the Nile, of which the Egyptians made the star Saturn the representative (Harenberg). Bengel considers Remphan or Rephan akin to Teraphim, and Remphis, the name of a king of Egypt. The Hebrews became infected with Sabeanism, the oldest form of idolatry, the worship of the
tsaabaa°
, starry hosts, in their stay in the Arabian desert, where Job notices its prevalence (Job 31:26): in opposition to such Sabeanism, in Am 5:27, Yahweh declares Himself "the God of hosts."

Your images, the star of your god. R. Isaac Caro say all the astrologers represented Saturn as the star of Israel. Probably there was a figure of a star on the head of the image of the idol, to represent the planet Saturn; hence, "images" correspond to "star" in the parallel clause. A star in hieroglyphics represents God (Nu 24:17, "There shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel"). Images are either a Hebraism for image, or refer to the many images made to represent Chiun. Pusey suggests that Chiun [comes from
kuwn
, to set firmly, and] means the pedestal. 'Ye did bear the (portable) shrine of your idol-king, and the pedestal of your images.'
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1997, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

 

[WheresEnoch]

I don't know where you got that from; but I suggest you bring it back where it came from!

All Jewish reference to your 'star of Saturn' is Mogayn David, Mogayn Avraham... the Shield of David, the shield of Abraham.

I am sorry if I have offended you brother Marc. Maybe I am wrong, but it is my understanding that God does not use such symbols and that it's origin and use is from Babylon, baalism, pagan rituals, occultism, dualism, kabbalah, sorcery etc

1 Kings 11
Now King Solomon loved many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love. 3 He had 700 wives, who were princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart. 4 For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and did not wholly follow the Lord, as David his father had done. 7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem. 8 And so he did for all his foreign wives, who made offerings and sacrificed to their gods.

 

[sparty-g]

Anyways--- Sparky-g or anyone else, what do you make of Romans 14?

Romans 14
Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died.

Sparky-g! It's close enough, I guess! Haha!

I commend you for your walk and willingness to share about. I observe in much the same way you have described. To get right to your question about Romans. Please take the following as my belief or interpretation:

I don't believe this chapter has anything specifically to say about the topic of clean and unclean meats (i.e., kashrut, from the Hebrew meaning "fit [for consumption]"). The chapter is about an issue of unity in the community of believers, which seems to be one of Paul's larger concerns throughout his letters. Beginning in verse 1, Paul is exhorting the reader to accept the brother or sister who is "weak in faith." For us to properly understand the chapter, we need to find the context, and one of the keys to the context of the chapter is found in verse 2: "One person has faith to eat anything, but the weak eats only vegetables" (TLV). So we see here that Paul is not identifying the division in the community as those who follow kashrut and those who do not, but instead as between those who only eat vegetables (i.e., vegetarians) and those who eat anything (i.e., those who do not restrict themselves to eating only vegetables; omnivores). The one who "eats anything" doesn't mean literally anything (e.g., they are not consuming blood, human flesh, etc.), so it's not best to automatically assume the one who "eats anything" is including unclean meats in their diet, but this must instead be understand in context as being someone in contrast to the person who limits their diet to only vegetables. Thus, all the verses that follow must be understood in this context: a disunity in the community between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.


Next we must ask ourselves: why was this an issue during the first century? Various commentators have proposed different ideas. The NIV Life Application Study Bible suggests the dispute might be about meat offered to idols and that "the person weaker in the faith eats only vegetables and refuses to eat meat that has been offered to idols." In the first century, followers of the Messiah could end up unknowingly eating meat that had been offered to idols through the Roman market system, which is where sacrifices presented to idols in pagan temples would end up. Some believers were known to give up eating meat altogether in order to avoid a guilty conscience. This would especially be a stumbling block for former idol worshipers coming out of the pagan worship system into newfound faith in the Messiah. 1 Cor. 10 deals with this same issue in some detail.


David H. Stern (Jewish New Testament Commentary) points to the broader issue of asceticism, suggesting the "weak believers" were those who had not yet grown sufficiently in their faith to have given up attachments to various ascetic practices, which included the popular first century practice of denying oneself pleasure from eating meat or drinking wine. Verse 21 may offer further evidence that the issue at hand is asceticism (and not kashrut) since the example given is of someone who refrains from eating meat and drinking wine in contrast to someone who does not restrain themselves in this way. Again, we see the comparison between a vegetarian and teetotaler (someone who doesn't drink alcohol) on one hand, and the person who does not restrain themselves in this manner on the other hand. Asceticism seems to have been a widespread problem for those coming out of paganism in the first century, and had infiltrated both Judaism and early Christianity. Col. 2 is likely about this same issue of asceticism.


In conclusion, I do not believe this chapter has anything to do with kashrut, so we should be careful to not read this into the situation, but we should instead accept the situation that Paul explicitly defines: a disunity in the community between those who eat only vegetables (refraining from meat and possibly also wine) and those who do not restrict themselves to a vegetarian diet. Paul advises those who eat more than just vegetables not to look down on nor despise "the weak in faith" who restrain, but also advises those who restrain from eating to not have a holier-than-thou attitude toward those who eat. Throughout his letters, Paul frequently weighs in on matters of opinion, usually ruling that everyone should accept the decisions of their brothers and sisters in faith and not judge one another nor let it cause division in the body. However, he is not espousing moral relativism -- matters of opinion are those not explicitly or sufficiently covered in the Torah (Law), but Paul is firm on matters clearly covered by the Torah. Nothing in the Torah requires a person to be a vegetarian, so I do not believe a Torah issue (such as kashrut) is being discussed in Rom. 14.

I look forward to discussing this topic further with you, and to others who will rip this interpretation apart!

 

[sparty-g]

If we accept the law God requires us to keep has been written on our minds and placed on our hearts at the point of conversion, as we know sin is transgression of the law(1John 3:4) The simple answer to your question is. You know which law is placed on your heart, for you must have heartfelt conviction you sin when you break it.

For through the law we become conscious of sin (Rom 3:20)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. You may not have been implying this, but I don't agree we should rely solely on our personal convictions. Practically speaking, there is great division on these matters across the tens of thousands of denominations and everyone is relying on their personal convictions as they feel are being laid upon them by the Holy Spirit. The problem isn't the Spirit, it's us. We are still in the flesh and many things get in the way of the clear guidance of the Spirit. There's a lot of static, so to speak. If this is not the case, then why would I feel convicted not to eat unclean meats while the believer next to me does not feel this same conviction? Clearly the Spirit is not the author of confusion and I certainly don't believe in a type of moral relativism. Either eating unclean meats is a sin for all or for no one. The only argument I believe might be worth considering is the one found being espoused by certain prominent figures of the Messianic Jewish movement, specifically the UMJC, where they believe in "divine invitation," -- that is, Jewish believers are required to keep the dietary restrictions while Gentiles are not required to do so, but the Gentiles are invited to freely join the Jewish believers in this observance. I currently disagree with this idea.

As I've said a few times in this thread, I believe we are to look to the wider counsel of God beyond solely the Holy Spirit, which also includes the Word of God as revealed in the Scriptures (the OT and NT Scriptures, which includes the commands found in the Torah-Law) and the Word of God in the flesh (the example of the life of the Messiah). Be blessed~

 

[Mitspa]

I never said the law will save you but relationship with God will. I said the law show you the characteristics of the God we serve.

No Christ is the express Image of God...the law was to show us we are not God and need Christ. So the law is a witness and shadow of Christ.

 

[JaumeJ]

Why not the Holy Spirit is the image of God. The Fathr, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One. Mankind is created in the image of God, yet each man is unique. Do you suppose it is the Spirit by chance? Come the Kingdom we will all be just like Jesus. We do not know what that will be, but we will be just as he. A reminder, we will not be He, but we will be just as He..........Now we are speaking here of the image and not the character of God...

 

[Jeff_56]

Why not the Holy Spirit is the image of God. The Fathr, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One. Mankind is created in the image of God, yet each man is unique. Do you suppose it is the Spirit by chance? Come the Kingdom we will all be just like Jesus. We do not know what that will be, but we will be just as he. A reminder, we will not be He, but we will be just as He..........Now we are speaking here of the image and not the character of God...

the gentiles never find out, unless remarkably abba reveals it to someone.

a lot of Jews don't know. it is still up to abba to reveal.... but a lot more Jews know, simply, like little children (pre-k) than any gentiles anywhere......

 

[Mitspa]

Good morning! Great to discuss with you again. I agree that love agrees with the Torah-Law. But how do you reconcile love agreeing with the Torah-Law, for example, if you claim love leads you to eat whatever you like, but the Torah-Law says not to eat certain things which God has declared as detestable or abominable (and please recognize, when the Torah-Law says something, what it really means is God said something since He is the giver of the commands contained within)? Isn't this a disagreement? Also, if these unclean animals weren't suitable for sacrifice at the physical Temple, which housed God's spirit, why are they acceptable to be consumed in our physical body, which we know is the Temple of the Holy Spirit?

As for the dietary commands, I humbly disagree with you about the NT being "perfectly clear" that these requirements have been "fulfilled in Christ" -- which is to mean we are not to observe them and we can eat whatever we like. I take issue with every NT verse presented as evidence of this position, and I've studied them all over the years. I admit, my study itself doesn't make me correct in my understanding -- I just mean to say I've explored the evidence and am in disagreement with the common interpretation of that evidence. I've presented my case on Acts 10 in a couple of my recent posts. This thread isn't about dietary restrictions, so I don't wish to derail the topic or explore it further here.

As far as the NT showing dietary restrictions have no relation to true godliness, it should be worth noting that when the dietary restrictions are given in Lev. 11, God clearly more than once states: "I am the Lord your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy." (Lev. 11:44a). There seems to be a direct connection to godliness here regarding the dietary commands! God is holy, and he wants us to be holy! We should all be careful about letting our interpretations of the NT authors and writings undermine what God has clearly spoken with His own mouth. Be blessed~

First do you just ignore the New Testament that speaks clearly on these issues? And then expect me to get you to see the truth of the New Covenant while you ignore it?
The best I can do is do is point you to the Word of God...and you must submit to what is says even if you don't agree or don't understand...right? "you must become a fool to be made wise"

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of legal dogma that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
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.
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Ro 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

I would ask you, how food can possibly make anyone godly unless one believes they can justify their flesh? And since the New Testament speaks so clearly on this issue, how can anyone claim to obey Christ and ignore His Word?