Rev. Timothy G. Muse

Anyone who does a comparative study between Luke 14:25-35 and Matthew 10:32-39, and looks to Jesus' OWN words cannot deny the meaning. The question is: Should we take JESUS at his OWN word and allow him to provide an explanation of what he means, or should we take the word of those who do oppose Jesus and two thousand years later want to say Jesus meant something other than what he said? The answer to this seems obvious.

God himself addresses this in his word, as revealed through the apostle Paul and apostle Peter:

Romans 2:4 "Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and PATIENCE, not realizing that GOD'S KINDNESS LEADS YOU REPENTANCE."

2 Pet 3:14-15 "So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. BEAR IN MIND THAT OUR LORD'S PATIENCE means SALVATION, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him."

You would have a hard time convincing scholars and interpreters of any other literature or historical document that with proper exegesis one cannot discover what the text is trying to say.

Everyone is limited and can only speak of their own understanding and convictions, but as you see, I am willing to show the Scripture that forms the basis for my beliefs.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

YOU ARE RIGHT ON THE MARK!

The Bible says "...without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Heb 9:22).

And in the Providence of God, the Temple was laid to the ground and destroyed, because it's service as a "Type" and it's funtion of pointing to the greater reality found in Christ was complete upon his fulfillment.

The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that the tabernacle and temple were "pictures" of what was to come. In Heb 9:9, it says "This is an ILLUSTRATION for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper... until the time of the NEW ORDER." You see, the Old Testament sacrifices were only effectual as they pointed to their ultimate fulfillment in Christ. They were a means of teaching and pointing the Old Testament people to the greater and effectual sacrifice that Christ would offer on their behalf, one that would provide for the redemption and forgiveness of their sins.

This was prophesied even before the coming of Jesus. The tabernacle and temple in being built were told to only be a MODEL of the greater reality. In Isaiah 53, concerning the future Messiah, it was written "Surely he took up OUR infirmities and carried OUR sorrows, ... But he was pierced for OUR transgressions, he was crushed for OUR iniquities, the punishment that broght us peace was upon him... He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led LIKE A LAMB to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth." Again, as John the Baptist spoke of him, he said "Look, the LAMB of God who takes away the sin of the world." Then his death is interpreted later by the apostles: "Git rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast - as you really are. For Christ , OUR PASSOVER LAMB, has been sacrificed.(1 Cor 5:7) Again in 1 Pet 1:18-19 "For you know that is was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a LAMB without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed inthese last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God."

This is the CONSISTENT MESSAGE taught throughout the Scripture, and it is the GOSPEL!

Sensei Meela

Let's revisit the explanation for why Christians are excused from Torah [or most of Torah, anyway]. My first question would be, what does it mean to 'abolish' or 'fulfill the Law?' I know most Christians think they know, though most do not; but let’s look at the Scripture, first:
Now let’s take verses 17-20. Verse 17 introduces us to some strange language; “abolish the Law and the Prophets� and “[not abolish but] fulfill.� The term “Law and the Prophets� is a Jewish term for Scripture; ‘the Law’ being the Books of Moses (ie Pentateuch) and ‘the Prophets’ being, well, ‘The Prophets’ [ie Ezekiel, Daniel, Ezra, etc]. Getting on, the two more interesting terms; “abolish� and “fulfill the Law� are, in fact, rabbinical idioms that mean “misinterpret� and “interpret correctly,� respectively! The 1st C Rabbi would criticize his 'opponent' as (unknowingly) attempting to do away with God's Law, debasing it into a human law through poor understanding.

Indeed, this was the very problem Jesus was, here, addressing! He declares, upfront, that he has the mission and authority to correctly interpret the Scripture in verse -:17, and in the very next verse states that the Torah will never pass away, not until heaven and earth have! [Indeed, Paul restates that mission in his Ephesians letter, as we shall see] Jesus then assumes this authority in -:20, announcing that the Pharisees and teachers of the Law are unrighteous, misinterpreting Scripture, and goes on for 28 verses to correct them in the “You have heard them say…but I’m telling you� fashion. Jesus corrects the Pharisees several times throughout the Gospels, accusing them of adding to, replacing or perverting God’s Torah [Mark 7 comes immediately to mind…]; they were “abolishing the Law.�

Speaking of “abolishing the Law�…the Christian often points to Paul’s writing in their defense, thinking he's clearly stated they are unbound by Torah. But Paul doesn’t make that (or most things) clear. His ministry was a bone of contention to many of the Apostles in part because his writing is difficult to understand and creates a lot of “lawlessness� [ie ‘abolishing’] by the spiritually depauperate, as Peter noted in 2 Peter 3:14-18. Polemic aside, Paul uses the term “abolish� in his writings too, right?
Note the subtle difference in translations; the NASB makes the object of verse 15 more clear: Christ abolished the enmity between Jew and Gentile! The enmity is then described as “the law with it’s commandments and regulations.� So it’s clear, right? Paul said Christ abolished the Law? No! This is obvious when you look at the Greek: the ‘law’ used in this passage is “dogma� (the same used in Colossians 2:14 [which I’ll be returning to]) and is not “nomos�, the word used for the Law [aka Torah… ‘law’ is too simple, actually, and contains a lot of baggage for the Western audience; “instructions� or, better yet, “revelations� are more accurate]! Christ put an end to the mistranslations of Torah that gave rise to the ‘ordinances and regulations of men,’ which caused division between Jew and Gentile, by correcting them both and making a new body of believers! [Verse 16 states this more directly.]

So the prima facie contradiction between Matt 5:17 and Eph 2:15 is explainable, but unfortunately not to the benefit of the Christian position! And now, let's see: did Paul say that [Gentiles] are not “under� the Law? I took the liberty of looking up the phrase “under+law� in the NT [NIV]; here are the results:
So first off, what does it mean to be “under the law,� anyway? Quite simply, it means "guilty," though a literalist interpretation would probably render it as ‘the law is binding [for you].’ However, as with most cases in the Bible, you must examine each one closely; this we shall do. The passage above from Acts is obviously irrelevant, so then first up is Romans 2:12. It’s important to read the whole chapter, and the ones that follow it, so assuming you’ve done so…you should notice Paul’s words in the very next line:

“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.�

Truly, he thinks obedience to the Law is needed for righteousness. He even said, in the verse after that, that those Gentiles who don’t know they are keeping the Law will still be rewarded for their unwitting obedience! Paul makes a recurring observation here as an explanation for why: it’s because they have the Law on their hearts! The law is Spiritual in nature [eg Rom 7:14], and one carries it in them, they are not “under� the Law (as though it were a burden placed upon them); it’s all about perspective. Jesus said, “If you love me you will obey what I command� [John 14:15]; John says the one who does righteousness is born from God [1 John 3:9-10]; I needn’t go on…

Paul, nonetheless, goes on and he says in Romans 3:19 -- the next subject of my focus -- that ‘the Law says what it does to those under the Law;’ and that would be everybody in no uncertain terms. He continues, in -:21-31, to declare that there is righteousness apart from Torah, to which the Torah testifies: and that is faith in Christ. [In chapter 4, Paul said that it was the same faith that justified Abraham, whom we are all, as faith-havers, descended from] He then makes [in verse 31] an explicit warning: “Do we nullify the Law by this faith? Not at all!� Chapter 4 begins as a continuation of the thought in 3:31, which elucidates this rather well.

If I were to sum up Paul’s Romans doctrine, here, in a word, I might use “anti-legalist.� For the legalist, salvation was attainable through observance of the Law; Paul says that no one is justified by works but only by faith. Paul is putting obedience in it’s place: after faith in God.

Turning now to the two Corinthians passages, we see that Paul most certainly doesn’t consider himself “free from God’s law� even though he is under Christ’s grace, in verse 9:21. This agrees with his Romans doctrine [sp. 3:31 and 6:15]. I have problems with 9:20-21 that are not worth going into here. Suffice to say, Paul is attempting to grow the new body of believers, with the enmity between Jew and Gentile now out of the way.

Galatians is a repeat of Romans in the sense that it is also anti-legalist. Galatians 2:15 and 3:10 make that point transparent: ‘all who rely on observing the Law are under its curse.’ The Torah, as mentioned before, is better translated as “instructions� or “revelations.� The dual nature of Torah is thereby revealed: its purpose is both to reveal how sinful we are and instruct us in the ways of righteous living. For those who rely on the Law, they are under its curse -- they have not escaped the revelation of our sinful nature -- for none can escape it with Torah observance, alone. Those who are guided by the Spirit are freed from its curse; they are not freed from the Law, itself! Gal 5:18 reiterates Paul’s perspective about the Spiritual nature of the Law.

[Galatians 3:23-25 is often misinterpreted, too: the Law as "schoolmaster leading us to Christ" is a reference to the fact that we need the Law to see how we are sinful and in need of a saviour; once we find the need for salvation, we no longer need the law for the purpose of showing us we are sinful and in need of a saviour! The Law has a dual nature, though, remember, so we still need the Law to know and obey the ways counted as 'righteousness' in the eyes of God!]

Alright, so that’s it…right? We covered all the bases, and we’re clear on the need for Torah observance, yes? Well, almost…

Christians use a few other verses to justify abandoning God’s Law. One that I had mentioned above is Colossians 2:14:
As mentioned before, the term here is “dogma� (ordinances) and not “nomos� (the Law, or Torah). What Christ took away was the dogma that stood opposed to our Spiritual life and salvation; the “list of ordinances against us� was the list of our debt to God, as the NASB makes clearer. In short, Christ took away sins, not the Law!

The Book of Hebrews is also sometimes cited, wherein Paul declares [in 8:13] “the ‘new’ covenant� come, “the old obsolete, ready to vanish.� In fact, Paul was speaking of the Priesthood of the Temple in a bit of prophecy: the Jewish Temple was about to be destroyed, and the Levitican, ‘earthly’ priesthood of the Pharisees replaced by the Melchizedian, ‘heavenly’ priesthood of Jesus [as is obvious with a reading of chapters 7-9].

Let’s recap: Jesus came “not to abolish but to fulfill� Torah. [Interestingly, replace Torah with “revelation� and “fulfill� with “complete� and it makes considerable sense as a literal statement, even in conjunction with the idiomatic expressions] Paul reiterates this in Ephesians, and throughout Romans declares: faith in Christ does not “nullify� the Law [3:31], the Law is “holy, righteous and good� [Rom 7:12], the Law is Spiritual [7:14], those with the Spirit do the things of God [8:5-17]. Galatians warns against seeking salvation through observance; Paul cautions to place faith first, then you will have the Spirit indwelling, compelling you to keep the Torah. Those who love God keep His commands [John 14:15, 24; 1 John 2:4; etc]. In short: Love and obey the LORD (in that order)...

To summarize, then, the selective observance of God’s commands is without Biblical justification.

Thank you.

[see also:
http://www.yashanet.com/library/law_1.htm
http://yourarmstoisrael.org/Articles...tian_attitudes
http://www.lightofmashiach.org/fulfill.html
http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/torah_study.htm
http://www.netten.net/~derekg/forum/...d_the_Law.html ]

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

The error that you make begins with your defintion of abolish and fulfill, and it spreads from there.

In Matt 5:17, the greek word for abolish is "katalusai" which means "to loose, dissolve, demolish, destroy, throw down, etc.", not to misinterpret. It is more along the lines of "to do away with".

In Matt 5:17, the greek word for fulfill is "plarosai" which is the same word used for filling a net with fish. It means "to fill up, to supply, to fulfill, to complete, to accomplish, to perform, etc., not to interpret correctly.

If you begin here, it changes all that you have written.

Here is where you will end up. Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, a recognized authority o the Greek New Testament, writes "When Jesus said that He came not to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill, meaning that He came not only to fulfill the types and prophecies by His actions and sufferings, but also to perform perfect obedience to the law of God in His own person and to enforce and explain it fully by His doctrine,. Thus He has fully satisfied the requirements of the law."

Julian

I agree yet we mean the exact opposite. I think that the words of Jesus are clear whereas as yours seem to distort their meaning into a societally acceptable message. To me, they still read as adherence to god above all else, even to the point of showing that the things of this world are not to be desired as they interfere with a perfect devotion. Why else a call for castration if not to deny oneself from a powerful tie to earthly desires. It sounds almost gnostic, doesn't it?
Ignoring for the moment the anthropomorphic implications of those quotes, I see that patience boils down to inaction. Also, explain to me how throwing unbelievers into hell at the end times is kindness... He provides us with no evidence yet endows us with the capacity for rational analysis and will proceed to punish us for its employment. Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Really? Then please provide me with another explanation for the existence of thousands upon thousands of denominations. I delve quite a bit into exegesis and I rarely (never) see universal scholarly agreement on much of anything. The fact is that the texts are horribly muddled just as christianity was in the early days. To extract a universal, and generally agreed upon, meaning seems to have stymied the scholarly body currently exhorting their followers to absorb the obvious light of their particular insights. Or is there such a thing as a True Christian(tm)?
This I understand. I respect that. I would have poo-poo'd you, had I thought otherwise. I also understand that your beliefs are personal and, as such, make little to no impact on my exegesis (also personal) wherein I try to understand the motivations and history of the early church. To try and sell off your savior as though speaking with your words seem less than honest, however. God is not a nice guy and no amount of exegetical backflips will eradicate the stark meaning of the words which are easily understandable when the mind is not cluttered by ideology.

I am enjoying this discussion, thank you for your feedback

Julian

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

The words of Jesus were NOT accepted by many in society in his day or in our own. Sinners controlled by the sinful nature do not want to prioritize Jesus and his ways. The solution is found in looking to Christ, in whom God provides us with a new heart, a renewed mind, and reformed practice.

I do not try to distort God's Word so that it is societally acceptable; rather my calling is similar to that of Ezekiel, to whom God says "Son of man, ... Say to them This is what the Sovereign Lord says. And whether they listen or fail to listen - for they are a rebellious house - they will know that a prophet has been among them... You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen"

Here, patience is inaction "for a time." It is the delay of the delivering justice in an attempt to provide time for the sinner to open his eyes and repent, before it is too late.

"Throwing unbelievers into hell at the end times" is not kindness, but just punishment.

On one level you make a good point, but this is the same argument often thrown up. The point is that truth is truth whether others recognize it or not. I won't belabor this issue, for it is addressed in many threads, but several issues should be included in the discussion, which include but are not limited to: The apostles own agreement as to what Scripture says, the agreement you do find among Christians especially regarding the issues of primary importance, the sinful nature and it's affects, and the different levels of sanctification among people. This discussion centers on the specific question of whether the message of the Bible can be understood. Even the witness of Scripture itself says that it can be. So, on one level, I accept God's word on this. Secondly, I have my own experience (growth). Third, if you take any piece of literature and say for example have a high school literature class discuss and report on what the book says, though you may have many answers, the truth remains that the author had a purpose in mind. Not only that, but even among some who gave different answers might agree on the major points, especially if the teacher is trained and can clearly communicate those points to them. The disagreement from the many with untrained eyes would not necessarily negate some from arriving at the author's original intention.

Whose word am I to take? Yours or God's (as well as over two thousand years of faithful witnesses, not to mention my own experience)?

Ps 36:6 "Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the great deep."

Ps 145:8-9 "The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made."

Mt 5:45 "... He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

1 Jn 1:5 "... God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."
I am enjoying this discussion, thank you for your feedback

Avatar

Well, since I really doubt you've even been given God's word, you're kind of left with his by default. What you have been given is a book that claims it is the word of God and does nothing to back it up except to make references to itself. BTW: argument ad populum is not particularly convincing...especially since quite a few of those 2000 years of "faithful witnesses" did some pretty nasty things in their own right regardless of what "God's Word" supposedly says.

Perm

So which of you is right? You both believe in a god... to your average unbeliever (me) it seems that even those who believe in pink unicorns can't even agree on the nature or degree of pinkness or unicorness.

Sensei Meela

Yes, and I would (roughly) define "arm" and "leg" as 'appendages of the body,' but to say "that cost me an arm and a leg" does not mean that I lost any limbs; idioms and figures of speech. [ETA - Refer to Toto's post in a nother thread where this is covered a little more thoroughly]
I am aware of all the dogma and apologia; one might be tempted to examine whether Jesus did in fact "perform perfect obedience to the law of God" and what that might mean -- particularly WRT Torah observance by Christians -- but that's really the subject for another thread.

Wallener

The Greek is irrelavant. Jesus and his merry band did not wander the Judean countryside speaking Greek to each other, so your very first problem is that you do not even have Jesus' actual words. They are gone, poof, non-existant. If we take at face value that the Greek captures the flavor the Aramaic someone believes they remember someone else telling them that Jesus said, then you have a real problem: "Fulfill the law" means one and only one thing in a Jewish context: to uphold it and keep it alive. And since these were Jews speaking to other Jews...

I am baffled why you are wandering into this dead end. The Law was never intended for non-Jews anyway. So Jesus correctly teaching that Jews must follow The Law does not contradict Paul teaching Gentiles they don't have to.