Not By Works

[posthuman]

You don't see the phrase 'oral Torah' in Acts 15 however. In fact you don't see it in the Bible, anywhere.

You see in Moses that God commanded him to write down all the laws He gave.

So how do I know you're not just making things up out of thin air & while cloth? Especially as acts 15 explicitly says 'the law of Moses'? You want me to believe that 'the law if Moses' means something entirely different than 'the law of Moses'?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

One whose father did not circumcise him andwho, upon reaching adulthood, willfully never circumcises himself, is punishedby having his soul cut off from its divine source (karet). As the verse states: “And anuncircumcised male, who will not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, thatsoul will be cut off from its people; he has broken My covenant.”[SUP] [/SUP]This is one of only two positive commandments whose neglectcarries this punishment. The other is the Paschal sacrifice.

This what the Talmud says about circumcision.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I look at it this way, God does not put us under bondage, it is outside of His character. So if He told us not to eat something I will do it, not because I am afraid to sin but it is required of me in my relationship with God. With limited research we will find that pork meat is actually bad for you so I trust God I am not missing out on something good

I don't judge anybody for eating anything I simply state what is in our manual from the mouth of God

its good bro

I disagree God told me a gentile to not eat pork. But if you think he told you that, Thats fine, and we will leave it at that.

to me this issue not worth two brothers fighting over.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
(1 Corinthians 9:20-21)

​

the apostle clearly makes a distinction here between being under "the law" and being under the law of Christ.
being under Christ, he is free to make himself as though under "the law" to those who are under it.
being under Christ, he is free to make himself as though "without law" to those who are without it.
this does not make him "without law" in the sight of God.

so i wonder if when when God says He will put His law in our hearts and minds, is He speaking about the law He gave through Moses? from this text, it appears that is not the meaning. there is a law, if this is the case, which is God's law, which isn't the one written in Moses.

Studyman will say, when the scripture says "law" it doesn't mean "law" it means 'purely human pharisetical traditions'
that's an explanation, yes, but it seems plain that it is not a viable one. why does scripture say "law" if it really means 'traditions that are not and never were binding in the sight of God' ? if we take Studyman's explanation, we find ourselves quickly in the position of re-writing the Bible to fit our own tradition, redefining & replacing its words with ones that are more palatable to our view.

The torah was a term used by jews to mean the whole of the word of God. It could also be used of the first 5 books, it could also be used to represent the law of moses.

 

[soberxp]

Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Posthuman, lets look at these verses from the Torah and maybe we can find some answers.

Deu 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

The circumcision of our hearts is not a NT concept and God gave us this verse already in Deuteronomy. So what was the Pharisees pushing? Oral Torah.

Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

In Acts 15:28 he is referring to (you might see a pattern here) oral Torah because verse 29 is basically a summary of written Torah. The greater burden is oral Torah my friend, and the problem with the oral Torah is even though they might mean well it is impossible to live it and it is not from God.

What is Paul referring to in Galatians 5 when said we are obligated to keep the whole law. It is important to understand that for a Jew there is no difference between written and oral Torah. For them law is law but they say that oral Torah is more relevant than written Torah because it was written for the times they are living in. When Paul refers to the whole law he is referring to oral and written Torah because to a Jew that is the whole law.The whole law is not only the first five books of the TaNaKh.

Paul kept on keeping the written Torah so that would make him a hypocrite by today’s standards.

If I may, Paul quoted being indebted to the whole law for a reason, as shown in gal, anyone who is under law is cursed if they do not obey every word. of course this oath was given back in Deuteronomy by Moses. and included many laws, including the ten commands. My point being that it was the written law (law written by moses) which paul spoke of. Not the laws added later or spoken law.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

You don't see the phrase 'oral Torah' in Acts 15 however. In fact you don't see it in the Bible, anywhere.

You see in Moses that God commanded him to write down all the laws He gave.

So how do I know you're not just making things up out of thin air & while cloth? Especially as acts 15 explicitly says 'the law of Moses'? You want me to believe that 'the law if Moses' means something entirely different than 'the law of Moses'?

I am glad you ask this,

Mat 5:38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

Jesus quote this in Matthew 5 but He either did not knowTorah or He was quoting something else. Read the verse carefully, Ye have heard that it hath been said. Who said it? Oral Torah (Talmud).

This is written Torah :
Deu 19:13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

And also Exodus 21 verse 26-28.

What was Jesus busy teaching them? The Hebrew picture is if you do something wrong to somebody they must be compensated equally. If you take my eye and I need my eye to work you had to compensate me equally for that.

Every time Jesus said“it is said” you will see that He is not quoting written Torah but oral Torah and then He explain written Torah when He says “but I say to you”.

 

[posthuman]

I am glad you ask this,

Mat 5:38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

Jesus quote this in Matthew 5 but He either did not knowTorah or He was quoting something else. Read the verse carefully, Ye have heard that it hath been said. Who said it? Oral Torah (Talmud).

this is not 'oral Torah' -- it is written:

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
(Exodus 21:23-25)​

this was specifically in the context of a bystander hurt by others fighting amongst themselves, but taken as a principle in a way quite similar to you taking a statement from Isaiah specifically about the Jews under a covenential dietary law ((which isn't the same dietary law for example Noah was given)) and applying it in principle to other situations outside of its immediate context in the written Law

Talmud isn't 'out of thin air' -- it's the work of people who devoted their entire lives to studying the Torah and drawing out principles from it. people far more scripturally literate and devout than us. while it may be misguided, it is the ((written)) Law that is the originating point for what is contained in it.

 

[mailmandan]

Faith makes us righteous before God.
Works reveals our faith to all of His Creation.

In this way, faith is made complete by our works.

Notice James says "show me your faith"... and "I'll show you my faith by my works".

He's talking about what he sees and what we see. Not what God sees. God see's the heart, we don't see the heart like He does. He already knows we have, but it's our works that reveal it to everyone else. And also make it "profitable" for people around us.

Even in James' example we see Abraham already had faith, but his faith was perfected by his actions.

James 2:21Was not our father Abraham justified by what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith was working with his actions, and his faith was perfected by what he did.

Amen! In James 2:21, we notice James does not say that Abraham's work of offering up Isaac resulted in God's accounting Abraham as righteous. The accounting of Abraham's faith as righteousness was made in Genesis 15:6, many years before his work of offering up Isaac recorded in Genesis 22. The work of Abraham did not have some kind of intrinsic merit to save him, but it showed or manifested the genuineness of his faith. This is the sense in which Abraham was justified by works. He was "shown to be righteous."

In James 2:22, faith made perfect or complete by works means bring to maturity, carry to the end, to complete like love in 1 John 4:18. It doesn't mean that Abraham was finally saved based on merits of his works after he offered up Isaac on the altar in Genesis 22. When Abraham performed the good work in Genesis 22; he fulfilled the expectations created by the pronouncement of his faith in Genesis 15:6.

In James 2:23, the scripture was fulfilled in vindicating or demonstrating that Abraham believed God and was accounted as righteous. Abraham was accounted as righteous based on his faith (Genesis 15:6) not his works (Romans 4:2-3) long before he offered up Isaac on the altar in Genesis 22.

 

[posthuman]

And also Exodus 21 verse 26-28.

if you were aware of Exodus 21 how could you say "eye for eye" is not written in the Law???

 

[Cee]

Amen! In James 2:21, we notice James does not say that Abraham's work of offering up Isaac resulted in God's accounting Abraham as righteous. The accounting of Abraham's faith as righteousness was made in Genesis 15:6, many years before his work of offering up Isaac recorded in Genesis 22. The work of Abraham did not have some kind of intrinsic merit to save him, but it showed or manifested the genuineness of his faith. This is the sense in which Abraham was justified by works. He was "shown to be righteous."

In James 2:22, faith made perfect or complete by works means bring to maturity, carry to the end, to complete like love in 1 John 4:18. It doesn't mean that Abraham was finally saved based on merits of his works after he offered up Isaac on the altar in Genesis 22. When Abraham performed the good work in Genesis 22; he fulfilled the expectations created by the pronouncement of his faith in Genesis 15:6.

In James 2:23, the scripture was fulfilled in vindicating or demonstrating that Abraham believed God and was accounted as righteous. Abraham was accounted as righteous based on his faith (Genesis 15:6) not his works (Romans 4:2-3) long before he offered up Isaac on the altar in Genesis 22.

Exactly! Well put. He was already considered righteous FAR before James' example of his works proving his faith.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

if you were aware of Exodus 21 how could you say "eye for eye" is not written in the Law???

Yes but the Jews used this verse to say if you take my eye I can take your eye (it is in the Talmud) but the picture in the written Torah is compensation and to leave the judgment to God.

If Jesus taught anything else but Torah he would have changed and our God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

 

[gb9]

Yes but the Jews used this verse to say if you take my eye I can take your eye (it is in the Talmud) but the picture in the written Torah is compensation and to leave the judgment to God.

If Jesus taught anything else but Torah he would have changed and our God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

so, if that part of the law was not a literal command to limit savere retaliation, then how many more are not literal? ( just using your logic ).

 

[posthuman]

Every time Jesus said“it is said” you will see that He is not quoting written Torah but oral Torah and then He explain written Torah when He says “but I say to you”.

really?

v. 21 -- you have heard it said "you shall not murder"

that's Exodus 20:13

v. 27 -- you have heard it said "you shall not commit adultery"

that's Exodus 20:14

v. 31 -- it has been said anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce

that's Deuteronomy 24:1

v. 33 -- it has been said since long ago 'do not break your oath to the Lord of fail to fulfill your vow'

that's Deuteronomy 23:21

v. 38 -- you have heard it said 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth'

that's Exodus 21:23-27

v. 43 -- you have heard it said 'love your neighbor and hate your enemy'

that's Leviticus 19:18 coupled with such things as Deuteronomy 23:3, Psalm 69:27-28, Psalm 143:12, Exodus 17:14, etc, and the Lord's command to destroy the people in such places as Jericho





so you see none of this comes from 'oral torah' -- all​ of it comes from the books of the Law, though it be wrongly interpreted or misapplied. while He may be correcting interpretation and application of the written Law, it is false that He is merely correcting traditions of purely human origin. even when it may be called 'tradition' those 'traditions' came from the written Law that is the Torah.

 

[gb9]

just a quick note post- some translations render Jesus saying " in ancient times " when He says " you have heard it said ".

 

[posthuman]

Yes but the Jews used this verse to say if you take my eye I can take your eye (it is in the Talmud) but the picture in the written Torah is compensation and to leave the judgment to God.

"used this verse"

that means it comes from written Law.
you can make the case that the written Law was misinterpreted, misapplied, misunderstood, whatever --- but these are not sayings purely originating from extra-scriptural oral traditions. they are directly taken from the Law itself.

If Jesus taught anything else but Torah he would have changed and our God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

how does God give Noah every living creature for food and then give the people of the Sinai covenant a law that forbids eating some of them?
how does God command Jericho be wholly destroyed but allow Ai to be taken as spoil?
does this mean He is not the same?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

so, if that part of the law was not a literal command to limit savere retaliation, then how many more are not literal? ( just using your logic ).

I will use a simple example to explain this to you.

In Afrikaans we have a saying (directly translated). "The bullet is through the church", without knowing Afrikaans what does this mean to you? Think about it before reading the answer.







It means you are to late. It is done, you can't change it.

The point is if we don't understand a language and the culture, the meaning of words directly translated will sometimes not make sense or have a different meaning to what it actually is. By understanding the Hebrew words and culture it will open new doors to us.

I am no expert and still have a lot to learn but we have to start somewhere

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I am glad you ask this,

Mat 5:38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

Jesus quote this in Matthew 5 but He either did not knowTorah or He was quoting something else. Read the verse carefully, Ye have heard that it hath been said. Who said it? Oral Torah (Talmud).

This is written Torah :
Deu 19:13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

And also Exodus 21 verse 26-28.

What was Jesus busy teaching them? The Hebrew picture is if you do something wrong to somebody they must be compensated equally. If you take my eye and I need my eye to work you had to compensate me equally for that.

Every time Jesus said“it is said” you will see that He is not quoting written Torah but oral Torah and then He explain written Torah when He says “but I say to you”.

I think different bro, when he says it is written he speaks of written torah, (ie, it is written, though shalt not commit adultry) when he says but i say, he is explaining the written torah is good, but truth is, it goes deeper than that. if i never sleep with another woman, according to the written word (torah) i am not a sinner, yet if I lust, i have sinned, the written word was insufficient in helping me keep from sin.

He was xplainimg how people used the law,to justify themselfs as righteous. When reality said otherwise.

 

[posthuman]

its good bro

I disagree God told me a gentile to not eat pork. But if you think he told you that, Thats fine, and we will leave it at that.

to me this issue not worth two brothers fighting over.

this is the page post is on too

it pragmatically means to me, when Gandalf comes to my house ((yes, you are invited!!)) we will definitely not be serving ham

just like there are people i will gladly share wine with, and others who i know i should never drink around, because of their own conscience, though mine may be clean.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yes but the Jews used this verse to say if you take my eye I can take your eye (it is in the Talmud) but the picture in the written Torah is compensation and to leave the judgment to God.

If Jesus taught anything else but Torah he would have changed and our God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

This was only true if the torah was given for the purpose of showing us how to live and be righteous. The torah was not given for that reason, as paul said in Gal 5