What Laws are still valid to christians

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Unbelievers simply don't believe that this is law:

And this is [GOD's] commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1 John 3:23​

 

[Hizikyah]

Disobedience to Jesus commands in Mt 22:37-40, as the result of their counterfeit faith, unbelief.

Mattithyah 22:37-40, "Yahshua said to him: You must love Yahweh your Father with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

None of Yahweh's Laws can be broken and these 2 kept, if you agree with this then I would say we are in agreement.

praise Yahweh for He is the Mighty One!

Exodus 16:4, "Then Yahweh said to Mosheh: I will rain bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out and gather enough for each day, in order that I may test them, to see whether they will walk in My Law, or not."

 

[Elin]

Elin, thank you for finally saying.,"true faith includes obedience".

BUT, you are WRONG to say, it doesn't need to be said.
BECAUSE, so many are saying,"we are justified by faith alone",
the truth is faith and works saves our soul. Grace, faith, works = salvation.! Love to all, Hoffco

Yeah, there seems to be lack of understanding that true faith includes obedience,
it doesn't have to be specified.

"Faith alone", means true faith which necessarily includes obedience, or it is not true faith.
But it is not the obedience of true faith that saves, it is the faith only that saves.
The obedience is simply a manifestion of the true faith that saves.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

None of Yahweh's Laws can be broken and these 2 kept, if you agree with this then I would say we are in agreement.

What an absurd statement considering the fact that Jesus said that obedience to the 2 great commandments fulfills everything required by the 10 lesser commandments.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

If GOD commands us to believe into his son, then faith is obedience to GOD's commandment.

 

[Elin]

Mattithyah 22:37-40, "Yahshua said to him: You must love Yahweh your Father with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

None of Yahweh's Laws can be broken and these 2 kept,
if you agree with this then I would say we are in agreement.

Yes, just as Jesus said, if Mt 22:37-40 is obeyed, then none of the Ten Commandments will be disobeyed, or broken.

We are in agreement.

Bless you.

 

[Yahshua]

I have been reading through Acts and they were having the same argument as this thread, and I'm sure I remember someone mentioned passages from the chapter I'm on...but I don't think it was ever presenting in its entirety, so I just want to share how they settled this same issue we're having.

Now there's a group of us that argues for what's been written "pre-gospel" about the immutability of the law of God...and there's a group of us that argues for what's been written "post-gospel" about the fulfillment of the law through Christ. One group has insinuated that the others are being lawless/rebellious who deny the spirit that leads to obedience while the other group has insinuated there's a denial of Christ for anyone who attempts to obey the laws of Moses because they're attempting to be justified by own works.

And for full disclosure for anyone new to this thread, I'm in the group that argues for obeying the law. But in this round, I hope to present as unbiased, neutral read of what the apostles said starting at Acts 15. I won't delve into different translations of words and I'll use the NIV version (I prefer KJV but will use this version for an easier read since the meaning hasn't change). And I'll cut in at certain points to comment on what was said to maintain the flow of context, as well as to cite references in scripture...but I won't stray from what's actually written in the bible.

-----

Acts 15

Verse 1-3​

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them.

So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad.​

So there were two groups intensely debating with each another about whether believers were required to be circumcised TO BE SAVED. The account then says representatives of *BOTH* groups were send to Jerusalem to stand before the council to see what should be decided about circumcision and the law of Moses as related to salvation.

Verse 4-6​

When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

The apostles and elders met to consider this question.​

OK, so of the two groups that are debating the issues of circumcision and the law of Moses (as it pertains to SALVATION), one of the groups is identified as the Pharisees. This tells us that there were many Pharisees (like Paul) who began believing in the Messiah too, not unlike Nicodemus in the gospels. So it was Pharisees (knowledgeable of the law of Moses) vs. Pharisees (Paul also a learned Pharisee) debating about *what is required of gentiles TO BE SAVED*. We also see that this issues did not concern the requirements of Israelites to be saved (called Jews by this time).

Verses 7-9​

After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them:

"Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith...”​

Peter reminds everyone that God sent him to preach the gospel to gentiles. God also gave the gift of the Holy Spirit to gentiles and purified their hearts. Peter continues...

Verses 10-11​

"...Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."​

Remember the issue up for discussion is "the requirement of gentiles to follow circumcision and the law of Moses TO BE SAVED". This issues is not "whether the law of Moses should be followed". So in conclusion, Peter says both Israelites & gentiles are saved through Christ's grace...and rhetorically suggests that putting the suggested "requirements" on (a gentile's) salvation is a yolk that not even their (Israelite) ancestors could bear. Paul and Barnabas begin testifying...

Verses 12​

The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.​

Next James testifies to Peter's words...

Verses 13-18​

When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

'After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
things known from long ago.'"​

So scripture proves that God said he would take a people from among the Gentiles, which confirms both Paul's testimony (why God performs miracles for them) and Peter's testimony (how God purifies their hears with his spirit). So to summarize, Israelite and Gentile alike are both save by the grace of Christ, so to put requirements on a gentile's "salvation" - which Pharisees are known to do - is wrong. Now with the salvation issue settled, James, an elder, passes judgment on the overarching issue of following the law of Moses...

Verses 19-21​

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."​

James tells the council they should write a letter of what the gentiles should do as it concerns the law of Moses and lists a few key laws that they should follow to make it easier on Gentiles who are coming to God. Note, James wanted to make it easier on a Gentile's conversion to God (since they're coming from a pagan background). This text doesn't suggest that the law is nullified, rather it suggests that the law is still active but that - by God's grace (concluded by Peter) - there's a leniency/mercy to *ease* converts into the way.

James then lists the key components in the law that gentile converts should follow:

1. No Idolatry - Deuteronomy 12:29-32 (commandment)

2. No Sexual Immorality - Leviticus 18:1-30 (levitical)

3. No Food of Strangled Animals - Leviticus 11:1-47 (dietary)

4. No Blood - Leviticus 17:10-14 (unclear which "blood" law James is referring to; either dietary, purification, or both)

5. Sabbath - Exodus 20:8 (a commandment I've *implied* here because that was the day Gentiles would learn more of The Law at the synagogue)

James then finishes by saying that the Law of Moses has been preached in every city since "the old days" and is read every Sabbath. So again, with the salvation issue settled ("it is not the law that saves but the grace of God that saves") James still notes that the law should be followed by gentiles...but eased into, starting with a few key laws; the Sabbath also (by implication of the text). So then the council sends the letter along with witnesses.

Verses 22-35​

Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. With them they sent the following letter:

"The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell."

So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.​

Again, I tried to be as neutral as possible when presenting the entire passage to hopefully maintain context and see what the apostles said about this issue. Please read the NIV and KJV for yourselves to confirm the text I've quoted.

-----

In context, this is after the Cross and Pentecost...

So if we suggest that "to follow the law of Moses is to deny Christ in an attempt to be justified by works", we have to ask ourselves why the council of apostles - the patriarchs of the faith - would even suggest that gentiles (as we are) should follow (any) laws of Moses if they too have already received salvation by the grace of God, as well as the gift of the Holy Spirit. Would we accuse the apostles of leading gentiles to be justified by their works and negating Christ?

From the text I've given, can we then conclude that following the laws of Moses does not countermand the salvation of Christ; that it's the "goal" or "eventuality" of a believer in God, but that such an eventuality it's ONLY possible AFTER we're saved (by grace through faith in Christ), because that's when we receive his Holy Spirit and have a change of heart (a heart that grows in its desire to please God)?

If we think about it this way, this is the same grace of Christ in full display: to be lenient/patient with us while we conform to his obedience...we're just at different stages of growth.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

So if we suggest that "to follow the law of Moses is to deny Christ in an attempt to be justified by works", we have to ask ourselves why the council of apostles - the patriarchs of the faith - would even suggest that gentiles (as we are) should follow (any) laws of Moses if they too have already received salvation by the grace of God, as well as the gift of the Holy Spirit. Would we accuse the apostles of leading gentiles to be justified by their works and negating Christ?

What the Jerusalem council recommended that believing Gentiles should follow was not the law of Moses, but an incipient form of the laws of Noah that non-believing Jews felt governed righteous gentiles. It was not recommended to be followed as a means of any form of righteousness, but to avoid offending their hosts in the synagogues.

Sabbath keeping was not part of the laws of Noah. That was for Jews only. Your attempt to include the sabbath as one of their recommendations was really desperate and pathetic.

 

[Yahshua]

What the Jerusalem council recommended that believing Gentiles should follow was not the law of Moses, but an incipient form of the laws of Noah that non-believing Jews felt governed righteous gentiles. It was not recommended to be followed as a means of any form of righteousness, but to avoid offending their hosts in the synagogues.

Sabbath keeping was not part of the laws of Noah. That was for Jews only. Your attempt to include the sabbath as one of their recommendations was really desperate and pathetic.

Laws of Noah? "Noahide?" Really??

So you're saying the apostles were more concerned with not offending men/hosts than with preaching the gospel which is (in your opinion) saying "no laws of Moses. Grace only"? Again, these were the patriarchs of the faith with the power of the Holy Spirit who welcomed being thrown in prison and being beaten by the Jewish authorities (because it testified to Christ); with Steven being stoned to death...why would they suddenly be concerned with offending the leaders of synagogues?

That makes no sense HeRose.

And how were gentile to hear law of Moses that James says was preached without heading to the synagogue on Sabbath? He didn't need to say it because gentiles were ALREADY following it.

 

[Elin]

I have been reading through Acts and they were having the same argument as this thread. . .but I don't think it was ever presenting in its entirety, so I just want to share how they settled this same issue we're having.

And for full disclosure for anyone new to this thread, I'm in the group that argues for obeying the law. But in this round, I hope to present as unbiased, neutral read of what the apostles said starting at Acts 15. I won't delve into different translations of words and I'll use the NIV version (I prefer KJV but will use this version for an easier read since the meaning hasn't change). And I'll cut in at certain points to comment on what was said to maintain the flow of context, as well as to cite references in scripture...but I won't stray from what's actually written in the bible.

Verses 19-21:

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

James tells the council they should write a letter of what the gentiles should do as it concerns the law of Moses and lists a few key laws that they should follow to make it easier on Gentiles who are coming to God. Note, James wanted to make it easier on a Gentile's conversion to God (since they're coming from a pagan background). This text doesn't suggest that the law is nullified, rather it suggests that the law is still active but that - by God's grace (concluded by Peter) - there's a leniency/mercy to *ease* converts into the way.

Thanks for all that effort, but the easing of converts was a two-way easing (blue text above).

Not only was circumcision an issue causing tension to the Gentiles,
but because "the law had been preached in every city from the earliest times,"
there were likewise many Jews in the church of Antioch who were particularly
repulsed by the Gentiles eating food sacrificed to idols (1Co 8:7-13), meat of
strangled animals and blood, and by their proclivity to sexual immorality.

These issues were making it difficult for Christian Jews and Gentiles to fellowship
in the church of Antioch. So the stipulations regarding food were temporary
concessions to the sensitivities of the Jews, while dropping the demand for
circumcision would ease the tension for the Gentiles.

James then lists the key components in the law that gentile converts should follow:

1. No Idolatry - Deuteronomy 12:29-32 (commandment)

2. No Sexual Immorality - Leviticus 18:1-30 (levitical)

3. No Food of Strangled Animals - Leviticus 11:1-47 (dietary)

4. No Blood - Leviticus 17:10-14 (unclear which "blood" law James is referring to; either dietary, purification, or both)

5. Sabbath - Exodus 20:8 (a commandment I've *implied* here because that was the day Gentiles would learn more of The Law at the synagogue)

No, to add to what is written (1Co 4:6) is to misrepresent the word of God.

James then finishes by saying that the Law of Moses has been preached in every city since "the old days" and is read every Sabbath. So again, with the salvation issue settled ("it is not the law that saves but the grace of God that saves") James still notes that the law should be followed by gentiles...but eased into, starting with a few key laws; the Sabbath also (by implication of the text). So then the council sends the letter along with witnesses.

I'm afraid you weren't able to present that "unbiased and neutral read" here that you had hoped.

James is not easing the Gentiles into the law, he is easing the Jews out of it, by granting
temporary concessions to what they found so objectionable in Christian freedom (1Co 8:7-13).

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

...why would they suddenly be concerned with offending the leaders of synagogues?

That makes no sense HeRose.

And how were gentile to hear law of Moses that James says was preached without heading to the synagogue on Sabbath? He didn't need to say it because gentiles were ALREADY following it.

You answered your own question. The gentiles were guests in the synagogues, so why do things that might offend their hosts and get them kicked out, when they needed to be there to have access to the bible. Or why risk offending them and create a stumbling block to the gospel?

The fact that they met on Saturdays doesn't mean that they followed the sabbath. It just means that's the day they met because that's when the synagogue was open to them.

 

[Yahshua]

You answered your own question. The gentiles were guests in the synagogues, so why do things that might offend their hosts and get them kicked out, when they needed to be there to have access to the bible. Or why risk offending them and create a stumbling block to the gospel?

The fact that they met on Saturdays doesn't mean that they followed the sabbath. It just means that's the day they met because that's when the synagogue was open to them.

Thanks for all that effort, but the easing of converts was a two-way easing (blue text above).

Not only was circumcision an issue causing tension to the Gentiles,
but because "the law had been preached in every city from the earliest times,"
there were likewise many Jews in the church of Antioch who were particularly
repulsed by the Gentiles eating food sacrificed to idols (1Co 8:7-13), meat of
strangled animals and blood, and by their proclivity to sexual immorality.

These issues were making it difficult for Christian Jews and Gentiles to fellowship
in the church of Antioch. So the stipulations regarding food were temporary
concessions to the sensitivities of the Jews, while dropping the demand for
circumcision would ease the tension for the Gentiles.


No, to add to what is written (1Co 4:6) is to misrepresent the word of God.


I'm afraid you weren't able to present that "unbiased and neutral read" here that you had hoped.

James is not easing the Gentiles into the law, he is easing the Jews out of it, by granting
temporary concessions to what they found so objectionable in Christian freedom (1Co 8:7-13).

Ok...let's take the Gentiles out of the picture for the moment...

Question to both of you; did Paul preach against the law of Moses?

 

[Elin]

Ok...let's take the Gentiles out of the picture for the moment...

Question to both of you; did Paul preach against the law of Moses?

See Ro 13:8-10.

 

[Yahshua]

"Yes" or "No" please did Paul preach *against* the law of Moses.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Ok...let's take the Gentiles out of the picture for the moment...

Question to both of you; did Paul preach against the law of Moses?

Of course not. He exalted the law. And he taught against following it as a means of righteousness. He knew how to use it lawfully.

 

[Elin]

Question to both of you; did Paul preach against the law of Moses?

See Ro 13:8-10.

"Yes" or "No" please did Paul preach *against* the law of Moses.

That's all I got.

 

[Yahshua]

That's all I got.

I can't get a yes or no. oh well...

Of course not. He exalted the law. And he taught against following it as a means of righteousness. He knew how to use it lawfully.

You keep adding this phrase in there...what is righteousness?

 

[Isdaniel]

See Ro 13:8-10.

What is the Law of Moses ?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

You keep adding this phrase in there...what is righteousness?

Look it up yourself.

 

[StandStrong]

Look it up yourself.

can't stand on your beliefs and share them with others?