BibleForums Christian Message Board
General Category => In General => Topic started by: RandyPNW on July 27, 2021, 01:55:33 AM
-
There is a connection between the Covenant of Abraham and the Covenant of Moses' Law that is tenuous and temporary. Paul called the Abrahamic Covenant a "promise," and he called the Law "temporary." He saw Christ as the eternal fulfillment of that promise, leading to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Law, initially connected to that Covenant, was a temporary fill-in.
Rom 4.13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Gal 3.14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. 15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
Abraham was promised the salvation of Israel and of many nations of faith. But this covenant was made with Abraham, as well as with Christ, on the basis of circumcision, and it was made with Israel on the basis of the Law of Moses.
Christ did not immediately come to bring final redemption for those under the Law, who remained hindered from access to the Tree of Life. And this was the purpose of the Law, to confirm that access to the Tree of Life was hindered by the guilt of human sin, and to show that the promises of God could not be fulfilled until guilt was completely and finally dealt with.
Gen 3. 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
But God provided hope, through the Messiah, a descendant of Eve, of a means back to the Tree of Life.
Gen 3.14 14 So the Lord God said to the serpent,... 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
God's plan of redemption of humanity after the Fall continued with Abraham, and this is what Paul referred to as the "promise"...
Gen 17.1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”
3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised."
The problem was, the Law was given to restrict access to the Tree of Life, while at the same time providing a basis for a relationship between God and Israel. Since the Law restricted access to the Tree of Life, its practice was strictly temporary, until Christ could come and establish both a relationship with God and access to the Tree of Life.
The Law therefore had to be detached, along with circumcision, from the covenant God made with Abraham and with Christ, Abraham's seed. As long as the Law was connected to this covenant, the promise of international salvation could not take place. Relationship between God and Israel would only be temporary.
As I said, the Law established a relationship between God and Israel, but it was a tenuous relationship, conditioned on replacing this temporary enablement of the Law with something permanent. Therefore, the Law had to be detached as a limiting element of this covenant, to enable man to have access to Christ, the source of eternal life.
In what way did the Law inform Israel of the limitations placed on their relationship with God? It set up barriers, including veils and walls, between God and Israel. A priesthood separated God from the people in some respects. And all were unable to approach God without carrying out certain rituals of purification.
Heb 9.6 When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. 9 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. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
Good works were required of men by God, while at the same time the Law exposed human sin as preventing them from accessing eternal life. As long as the Law was in effect and connected to Abraham's covenant, eternal life could not be had, and unfettered access to God's salvation could not be had.
Good works, though they be good, would be mixed with bad works, and denial of access to the Tree of Life would continue to be enforced by angels. The best of the saints would be denied, despite their faith in God, the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises, at least until Christ could come and complete their hope.
Gal 2.16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
The limitations of the Law are removed when it is recognized that Christ provided final purification for Israel and for the world. Faith in Christ allows us to follow him, the source of eternal life. And following him enables us to live like him and have our flaws atoned for in the process.
Christ alone is the way to the Tree of Life, and the only way to have a blessed and an eternal relationship with God. The Law was temporary, and had to be stripped from the promises contained in Abraham's Covenant.
When Christ died on the cross, he gave up any need for Israel to participate, under the Law, in self-atonement. All the guilt of human sin died with Christ on behalf of those who choose to put their faith in him and to follow him.
Living by his Spirit enables us to both be like him and to be atoned by him. It is the fulfillment of God's promise of redemption. It is the only way back to the Tree of Life. Any return to the Law of Moses condemns us forever.
-
he called the Law "temporary."
Where?
-
he called the Law "temporary."
Where?
That was the whole argument. You're not going to find God calling the Law of Moses temporary *while it was in effect.* That would amount to an excuse, for some, to not obey it. But the end was known from the beginning, and even as far back as the time when God gave the Law to Moses it was known that Israel would fail under the Law.
Deut 31.15 Then the Lord appeared at the tent in a pillar of cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the tent. 16 And the Lord said to Moses: “You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them.
This means that Law, as a covenant, would not last. Even though it was restored, it would be broken. And if it was broken, it did not have to be restored.
The promises of God had to be fulfilled. But the Law, as a covenant, would fail. That means it was *temporary.*
-
You're not going to find God calling the Law of Moses temporary *while it was in effect.*
Okay, I'll try this again.
Paul called the Abrahamic Covenant a "promise," and he called the Law "temporary."
Where?
-
Paul's exposition in general is interesting. However if one does not consider the NT to be holy writ, there's no logical reason to consider it binding. In fact, having read the NT I perceive an inherent tension between Paul and Jesus, because they sometimes say different things.
For example, we have Jesus at the sermon of the mount in the excellent Matthew 5-
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
"Don't set aside even the smallest of the laws, but rather teach them and do them." I couldn't say it better myself.
Paul, (which you helpfully supplied) on the other hand says "because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression." Which paints the law as negative and says we would be better off without it.
And I don't see how those two statements jive.
-
Paul definitely had a complex understanding of the law and its function, but I genuinely don't think he believed it was "temporary." Even after believing Jesus was the messiah, Paul continued to think of himself as not just a Jew, but a Pharisee. (I'm not interested whether his later critics agree with the accuracy of his self-assessment.) He continued observing the law. His letters are small windows into his thoughts, and I suggest that Galatians lacks the clear-headed nuance of Romans, which is where he says
Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Romans 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.
The key component in reading Paul's epistles is something almost universally overlooked by his average reader today: he wasn't writing to Jews, he was writing to Gentiles. He makes occasional statements on him and his fellow Jews, but by and large his letters are to and about Gentiles. He didn't think Jews should stop observing the law because they follow Jesus "instead," he thought Gentiles shouldn't start observing the law when they became followers of Jesus.
-
The key component in reading Paul's epistles is something almost universally overlooked by his average reader today: he wasn't writing to Jews, he was writing to Gentiles.
That is...a very interesting observation. One that I haven't heard before. It does give context to his thoughts.
On the other hand, he does seem to perceive the law in a negative light. And that gives me pause to accept his claims of being a Pharisee, because normative Rabbinic Judaism sees the law as a positive.
And his statement in Galatians 2 seems to be a complete break with both Jesus's statement and Judaism generally, "if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
-
The key component in reading Paul's epistles is something almost universally overlooked by his average reader today: he wasn't writing to Jews, he was writing to Gentiles.
That is...a very interesting observation. One that I haven't heard before. It does give context to his thoughts.
On the other hand, he does seem to perceive the law in a negative light. And that gives me pause to accept his claims of being a Pharisee, because normative Rabbinic Judaism sees the law as a positive.
And his statement in Galatians 2 seems to be a complete break with both Jesus's statement and Judaism generally, "if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
Here's the thing I've observed from Christians, in treating Paul's theology. They fail, largely, to see the positive elements in the Law behind Paul's denunciation of those continuing to be justified by the Law.
Paul neither rejected the moral values contained in the Law for Christians nor did he deny the value of the Law as a covenant while that system remained in place. So he dealt "negatively" with the Law only in the sense that as a covenant system it had been superseded by its intended fulfillment, the sacrifice of Christ.
He was negative only in the sense that after the Law had been superseded by Christ, those claiming to be "in Christ" were inconsistently falling back into the OT legal system, which falls short of eternal life in Paul's theology. So he wasn't negative against the Law as a valid covenant system in the time it was in place. But he was only negative against those who claimed to have received eternal life apart from that system and yet continued to endorse it as a presently relevant system.
I can't tell you how often I hear from Christians that the Law and works have little value for Christians under a New Testament system. In actuality, Paul's Bible was in his day the Torah. It was the OT Scriptures, or the Jewish Bible. He benefited from that Bible greatly, and apparently loved it. He was *only* denouncing Christians who claimed to have entered into the New Covenant while continuing to proclaim that in some sense they were still under the old system.
And Paul argued this not just as a religious preference but also as a scholastic Jew who really believed that the Jewish Scriptures were teaching a faith that transcended the Law. Otherwise, Christians are put right back under a system that prevents one from obtaining God's eternal promises. In other words, he was emotionally attached to the idea that the Law *had to be* superseded by Christ, so that the purpose of the Law as a stepping stone could actually result in eternal salvation.
-
Here's the thing I've observed from Christians, in treating Paul's theology. They fail, largely, to see the positive elements in the Law behind Paul's denunciation of those continuing to be justified by the Law.
Paul neither rejected the moral values contained in the Law for Christians nor did he deny the value of the Law as a covenant while that system remained in place. So he dealt "negatively" with the Law only in the sense that as a covenant system it had been superseded by its intended fulfillment, the sacrifice of Christ.
Far be it for me to tell you what's in your holy books, but that's not what he says.
"...the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression."
He was negative only in the sense that after the Law had been superseded by Christ, those claiming to be "in Christ" were inconsistently falling back into the OT legal system, which falls short of eternal life in Paul's theology.
But, and this seems to be a really big deal, not in Jesus's theology. For example, in Matthew 5.
And Paul argued this not just as a religious preference but also as a scholastic Jew who really believed that the Jewish Scriptures were teaching a faith that transcended the Law.
But in his musings, he seems to come up with this himself. Because the Torah doesn't say this. As a corollary, it's interesting to observe that Paul receives a much chillier reception by the common Jews than Jesus does.
Otherwise, Christians are put right back under a system that prevents one from obtaining God's eternal promises. In other words, he was emotionally attached to the idea that the Law *had to be* superseded by Christ, so that the purpose of the Law as a stepping stone could actually result in eternal salvation.
This seems to me to be begging the question.
-
You're not going to find God calling the Law of Moses temporary *while it was in effect.*
Okay, I'll try this again.
Paul called the Abrahamic Covenant a "promise," and he called the Law "temporary."
Where?
You seem to have a problem with ultra-literalism. If I say that someone said "the sun is coming out," you claim they did not say that if what they actually said was, "the clouds are breaking and the light is shining."
You seem to claim I'm being disingenuous by claiming that "God called the Law temporary" when we see Him clearly stating that the Law would fail. To fail is the cessation of the Law, meaning that it is temporary. Please forget about your silly tactics, and pay attention to the arguments.
-
You seem to claim I'm being disingenuous by claiming that "God called the Law temporary" when we see Him clearly stating that the Law would fail. To fail is the cessation of the Law, meaning that it is temporary.
God doesn't call the law temporary, and as best I can tell, neither does Jesus. Paul is the only one who paints the law as unnecessary at best and in negative terms generally.
-
On the other hand, he does seem to perceive the law in a negative light. And that gives me pause to accept his claims of being a Pharisee, because normative Rabbinic Judaism sees the law as a positive.
If someone isn't a Jesuit, are they not a Catholic, let alone a Christian?
Judaism in the second temple era was extremely diverse. One need only read Jewish literature from the time period to see it. This different versions were later considered heretical or unorthodox by Rabbinic Judaism, but that is a later assessment. Pharisees and their opinions were not monolithic, especially the farther outside Judea we get. This is a fact downplayed or entirely ignored too often when it comes to Paul.
Christians > Catholics > Jesuits
Second temple Jews > Pharisees > whatever-branch-Paul-was
He certainly had a very harsh understanding of the law's function, relative to how it convicts people of their sins, but this is hardly abnormal for a second temple Jew with apocalyptic expectations.
And his statement in Galatians 2 seems to be a complete break with both Jesus's statement and Judaism generally, "if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
The versions we're each using translate the second word differently, "righteousness" or "justification."
Paul's argument was a person isn't "justified" by observing the law, but by their faith in the one who gave the law. This is why two paragraphs later Paul appealed to Abraham, since he lived before the law was given (3:6). Abraham had faith in God, so Abraham was justified for his faith. Paul's argument wasn't addressed to Jews. He wasn't saying Jews need to stop observing the law. He was saying Gentiles are justified by their faith in God because they trusted that Jesus was the messiah, therefore they don't need to start observing the law (3:7-9).
-
You seem to have a problem with ultra-literalism.
You have a severe problem with dancing around very straightforward questions. "The Law says it would be cancelled permanently." Where? "Here are nineteen paragraphs that don't once cite any actual statements from the Law regarding the Law's duration."
You seem to claim I'm being disingenuous by claiming that "God called the Law temporary"
I think it's disingenuous to avoid providing a clear answer to a clear question, and then to backtrack and change the substance of what you claimed. You said
Paul .. called the law "temporary."
Now you're saying
God called the Law temporary
Obviously Paul is not God. So... where did Paul say the Law is temporary?
when we see Him clearly stating that the Law would fail.
God literally says the Law is easy to keep.
Deuteronomy 30:11 Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you
God literally provides contingencies for when people fail to keep the Law perfectly.
Numbers 15:22-26 But if you unintentionally fail to observe all these commandments that the Lord has spoken to Moses— everything that the Lord has commanded you by Moses, from the day the Lord gave commandment and thereafter, throughout your generations— then if it was done unintentionally without the knowledge of the congregation, the whole congregation shall offer one young bull for a burnt-offering, a pleasing odor to the Lord, together with its grain-offering and its drink-offering, according to the ordinance, and one male goat for a sin-offering. The priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the Israelites, and they shall be forgiven; it was unintentional, and they have brought their offering, an offering by fire to the Lord, and their sin-offering before the Lord, for their error. All the congregation of the Israelites shall be forgiven, as well as the aliens residing among them, because the whole people was involved in the error.
God literally promises that, if the people persist in disobedience to the point that he will punish them with death and exile, he will restore them.
Deuteronomy 30:1-5 When all these things have happened to you, the blessings and the curses that I have set before you, if you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, and return to the Lord your God, and you and your children obey him with all your heart and with all your soul, just as I am commanding you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the Lord your God has scattered you. Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will bring you back. The Lord your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed, and you will possess it; he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors.
It couldn't be any clearer that the Law absolutely doesn't see itself as "temporary," because it had conditions in place that account for failure from the people: prosperity for obedience, discipline for disobedience, and restoration for renewed obedience.
-
Judaism in the second temple era was extremely diverse. One need only read Jewish literature from the time period to see it. This different versions were later considered heretical or unorthodox by Rabbinic Judaism, but that is a later assessment. Pharisees and their opinions were not monolithic, especially the farther outside Judea we get. This is a fact downplayed or entirely ignored too often when it comes to Paul.
Christians > Catholics > Jesuits
Second temple Jews > Pharisees > whatever-branch-Paul-was
He certainly had a very harsh understanding of the law's function, relative to how it convicts people of their sins, but this is hardly abnormal for a second temple Jew with apocalyptic expectations.
But Paul claims to be a Pharisee. This seems significant. That doesn't mean that he was one (and I don't take his claim seriously) but he is at least appealing to the group's authority and acceptance by the common Jews.
The versions we're each using translate the second word differently, "righteousness" or "justification."
Paul's argument was a person isn't "justified" by observing the law, but by their faith in the one who gave the law. This is why two paragraphs later Paul appealed to Abraham, since he lived before the law was given (3:6). Abraham had faith in God, so Abraham was justified for his faith. Paul's argument wasn't addressed to Jews. He wasn't saying Jews need to stop observing the law. He was saying Gentiles are justified by their faith in God because they trusted that Jesus was the messiah, therefore they don't need to start observing the law (3:7-9).
But it seems to me that Paul begs the question by assuming that we need to be "justified" at all. To use terms like that is to already be talking as a Christian.
And sure, Abram (not "Abraham" yet) believes in God's specific promise that he will have children. (Although as I have mentioned elsewhere, from the Hebrew text it isn't clear who is considering who righteous.) But abstract faith barely features in the Torah at all. It isn't even clear that we're commanded to believe in God (although why would one carry out all the laws if they didn't? Still from the text it isn't clear). In fact, going back to Abraham himself, God explains why He chose Abraham in Gen 18: For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just. Not that he will direct his children to have faith; but that he will direct them to behave as good people. And again in Gen 26: Because Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My instructions.
-
Christians > Catholics > Jesuits
Second temple Jews > Pharisees > whatever-branch-Paul-was
But Paul claims to be a Pharisee.
The "but" makes me think you're understanding my analogy (sorry if you do, I'm not trying to be redundant). Christians aren't monolithic; Catholics are one branch. And even then, Catholics aren't monolithic. Jesuits are a branch of the branch. Paul came from an apocalyptic branch of the Pharisees, which was a branch of Judaism. It was not monolithic, and its branches were not monolithic. Saying Paul wasn't a Pharisee because he believed X but centuries later Rabbinic Judaism believed Y is an anachronistic imposition of later definitions (of what it mean to be a "Pharisee" or even a "Jew") onto an earlier time when those definitions didn't exist.
To use terms like that is to already be talking as a Christian.
"Christianity" didn't exist yet. We're talking about a small apocalyptic movement (Jesus-followers) within a very diverse religion (Judaism) that had spread across the world. We have many Jewish contemporary with Paul, pre-dating Rabbinic Judaism by centuries, to compare his thought process to. The only substantially unique thing is how he framed the "salvation" component of his eschatology around a person he believed had been sent by God.
But abstract faith barely features in the Torah at all.
Paul wasn't saying Gentiles need an abstract faith compartmentalized from behavior and action. His epistles constantly talk about how Gentile followers of Jesus were supposed to live according to their faith. (The key points of contention seem to have been sexuality and idolatry, in both personal and community spheres.) My argument is Paul was only saying -- in contrast to the apparent majority of other Jesus-following Jews -- that Jesus-following Gentiles could be faithful to God without needing to observe the Torah (and he uses Abraham's faithfulness to God before the Torah as the main picture in his slideshow). The idea that Gentiles don't need to observe the Torah to be counted righteous by God is standard in Judaism even today (the whole "Noahide laws" concept). The only real distinction with Paul is that he both categories -- Jews who observe the Torah and Gentiles who don't -- have to believe God sent Jesus to be the messiah.
-
The "but" makes me think you're understanding my analogy (sorry if you do, I'm not trying to be redundant). Christians aren't monolithic; Catholics are one branch. And even then, Catholics aren't monolithic. Jesuits are a branch of the branch. Paul came from an apocalyptic branch of the Pharisees, which was a branch of Judaism. It was not monolithic, and its branches were not monolithic. Saying Paul wasn't a Pharisee because he believed X but centuries later Rabbinic Judaism believed Y is an anachronistic imposition of later definitions (of what it mean to be a "Pharisee" or even a "Jew") onto an earlier time when those definitions didn't exist.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. I think it's reasonable to say that Paul wasn't a Pharisee based on things that he said that were very far from what Pharisees believed. To use your analogy, Catholics aren't monolithic, but if someone doesn't believe in the Catholic church, they're not Catholic. That's by definition. If a Jewish person doesn't believe in the divine origin and importance of upholding the law, in the first century Judea they weren't a Pharisee. I consider that by definition. The whole of the Mishna and Talmud, written by and quoting Pharisees is about upholding the law to the smallest detail. Paul is trying to overthrow the law. It's the exact opposite of what a Pharisee would do.
"Christianity" didn't exist yet.
No, and Paul invented it in part by such concepts saying that we require "justification".
We have many Jewish contemporary with Paul, pre-dating Rabbinic Judaism by centuries
I don't think this is an accurate point either. Rabbinic Judaism quotes and follows first century Jews like Hillel, Rabban Gamliel, and so on.
The only substantially unique thing is how he framed the "salvation" component of his eschatology around a person he believed had been sent by God.
Which is, as I say, a new concept. Which is why I consider Paul and not Jesus the creator of Christianity.
Paul wasn't saying Gentiles need an abstract faith compartmentalized from behavior and action. His epistles constantly talk about how Gentile followers of Jesus were supposed to live according to their faith. (The key points of contention seem to have been sexuality and idolatry, in both personal and community spheres.) My argument is Paul was only saying -- in contrast to the apparent majority of other Jesus-following Jews -- that Jesus-following Gentiles could be faithful to God without needing to observe the Torah (and he uses Abraham's faithfulness to God before the Torah as the main picture in his slideshow). The idea that Gentiles don't need to observe the Torah to be counted righteous by God is standard in Judaism even today (the whole "Noahide laws" concept).
But there is still the expectation of Noahides behaving morally, and nobody believes that Noahides can be saved via "faith".
The only real distinction with Paul is that he both categories -- Jews who observe the Torah and Gentiles who don't -- have to believe God sent Jesus to be the messiah.
Which again, is unusual in that nobody in Judaism has the idea that someone has to "believe" in the messiah. Either someone is or isn't.
You seem to have sympathy for Paul's positions even though you're a self professed agnostic. Which is, again, interesting.
-
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you here.
You don't need to apologize for disagreeing with me.
If a Jewish person doesn't believe in the divine origin (of the law)
Paul did. "For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self."
and importance of upholding the law,
Paul did. "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."
Paul is trying to overthrow the law.
Where?
No, and Paul invented it in part by such concepts saying that we require "justification".
I understand that you think Paul was not an "orthodox" Jew, but outside of theologically conservative Christians, scholars don't agree Paul "invented" a new religion. It genuinely is an outdated way of framing Christian origins, even among critics. He was a leading figure in a very small apocalyptic branch of second temple Judaism. He made an unusual effort to bring Gentiles into this branch -- probably because of his belief the end times were near -- which ended up causing a dramatic shift in the branch's demographics, resulting in a religious community that over a few decades had increasingly weaker connection to its parent religion (which he definitely didn't expect to happen).
Rabbinic Judaism quotes and follows first century Jews like Hillel, Rabban Gamliel, and so on.
I suppose this is a point we may not come to any mutual agreement on. I find it difficult to accept teachings of leaders were accurately carried on through oral tradition for several centuries before being written down. It doesn't comport with what we know about the fallibility of oral communication, human memory, and the natural evolution all religious traditions go through (including the ones who say they don't).
Which is why I consider Paul and not Jesus the creator of Christianity.
The formation of a new religion called "Christianity" was a slow-moving process, not a singular event undertaken by a specific person. Neither of them invented Christianity.
You seem to have sympathy for Paul's positions even though you're a self professed agnostic.
I don't have to agree with a text/author to find the quest for an accurate understanding of that text/author a worthwhile pursuit.
I actually agree with you that there's a certain disconnect between Paul and the original disciples of Jesus. Paul remained Torah observant, and expected Jews who followed Jesus to remain Torah observant. But where Paul expected Gentiles who followed Jesus not to begin observing the Torah, Jesus' original disciples did expect Gentiles followers of Jesus to begin observing the Torah. Paul admits as much in Galatians. You'd think the guys who actually knew Jesus in person would have a stronger claim to know what Jesus (would have) taught on the matter.
-
You don't need to apologize for disagreeing with me.
We're being so polite here. Anyway...
Paul did. "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."
Romans 7 " we have been released from the law" and " I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death".
I understand that you think Paul was not an "orthodox" Jew, but outside of theologically conservative Christians, scholars don't agree Paul "invented" a new religion. It genuinely is an outdated way of framing Christian origins, even among critics. He was a leading figure in a very small apocalyptic branch of second temple Judaism. He made an unusual effort to bring Gentiles into this branch -- probably because of his belief the end times were near -- which ended up causing a dramatic shift in the branch's demographics, resulting in a religious community that over a few decades had increasingly weaker connection to its parent religion (which he definitely didn't expect to happen).
I appreciate that Christianity is a daughter religion of Judaism. But it isn't the same religion. The early followers of Jesus were certainly Jewish, and doubtless perceived him to be the messiah. After all, there were many such messiah claimants in first century Judea. Even that after his death some of his followers expected him to come back isn't that far out. But once Paul came along and claimed that people needed to be "justified" and following the law was essentially optional, the break with Judaism was complete.
I suppose this is a point we may not come to any mutual agreement on. I find it difficult to accept teachings of leaders were accurately carried on through oral tradition for several centuries before being written down. It doesn't comport with what we know about the fallibility of oral communication, human memory, and the natural evolution all religious traditions go through (including the ones who say they don't).
Then we'll agree to disagree.
The formation of a new religion called "Christianity" was a slow-moving process, not a singular event undertaken by a specific person. Neither of them invented Christianity.
Shrug. OK.
I don't have to agree with a text/author to find the quest for an accurate understanding of that text/author a worthwhile pursuit.
Fair.
I actually agree with you that there's a certain disconnect between Paul and the original disciples of Jesus. Paul remained Torah observant, and expected Jews who followed Jesus to remain Torah observant. But where Paul expected Gentiles who followed Jesus not to begin observing the Torah, Jesus' original disciples did expect Gentiles followers of Jesus to begin observing the Torah. Paul admits as much in Galatians. You'd think the guys who actually knew Jesus in person would have a stronger claim to know what Jesus (would have) taught on the matter.
Maybe they did, though.
You're not addressing my point about Paul inventing "justification".
-
Romans 7 " we have been released from the law"
He was still addressing Gentiles. They never followed the Torah's law to begin with. Paul's epistles shift between a specific use of the word "law" (Torah) and a generalized use of the word. He does a similar thing with the word "flesh," sometimes literally the human body or the material it's made from as opposed to the mind (as in 7:25), and sometimes instead an expression referring to corruption or moral failure (7:14).
and " I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death".
He has a severe view of the function of law, but just the next verse he blames sin and not the law itself, and the verse after that is when he directly says law is "holy and just and good," and a few paragraphs after that he says "I delight in the law in my inmost self." He's not saying Jews should stop observing the Torah's commandments. He's making a metaphysical claim about sin.
But once Paul came along and claimed that people needed to be "justified" and following the law was essentially optional
This isn't what he was saying. He was telling Gentiles not to begin observing the Torah upon becoming followers of Jesus. He never says Jews can or should stop observing the Torah just because they follow Jesus.
Maybe they did, though.
Oh, they certainly did.
You're not addressing my point about Paul inventing "justification".
He didn't invent it. He innovated upon it, but he didn't come up with it himself. This idea of "justification", especially in an end times context -- people justified or condemned in a final judgment -- definitely existed within second temple Judaism before Paul came around. Some examples
Community Rule He shall not be justified by that which his stubborn heart declares lawful, for seeking the ways of light he looks towards darkness. He shall not be reckoned among the perfect; he shall neither be purified by atonement, nor cleansed by purifying waters, nor sanctified by seas and rivers, nor washed clean with any ablution.
Community Rule As for me, my justification is with God. In His hand are the perfection of my way and the uprightness of my heart. He will wipe out my transgression through His righteousness. ... From the source of His righteousness is my justification, and from His marvellous mysteries is the light in my heart. ... For mankind has no way, and man is unable to establish his steps since justification is with God and perfection of way is out of His hand. ... He will draw me near by His grace, and by His mercy will He bring my justification. He will judge me in the righteousness of His truth and in the greatness of His goodness He will pardon all my sins.
Thanksgiving Hymn Let them say: Blessed be God, Author of majestic [w]onders, who reveals might splendidly, and justifies with knowledge all His creatures, so that goodness is on their faces.
Songs of the Sage Thou hast placed on my lips a fount of praise and in my heart the secret of the commencement of all human actions and the completion of the deeds of the perfect of way and the judgements regarding all the service done by them, justifying the just by Thy truth and condemning the wicked for their guilt.
Apocalypse of Abraham And (I saw) there the earth and its fruit, and its moving things and its things that had souls, and its hostf of men and the impiety of their souls and their justification, and their pursuit of their works 'and the abyss and its torments,' and its lower depths and (the) perdition in it.
Testament of Abraham And if the fire burns up the work of anyone, immediately the angel of judgment takes him and carries him away to the place of sinners, a most bitter place of punishment. But if the fire tests the work of anyone and does not touch it, this person is justified and the angel of righteousness takes him and carries him up to be saved in the lot of the righteous.
This kind of apocalyptic mindset might not be a typical focus of later Rabbinic Judaism, but it wasn't uncommon in second temple Judaism before and contemporary to Paul. The innovation of the Jesus-followers (maybe Paul, maybe someone before him) was this justification depended on acting on the faith that Jesus was the messiah sent by God.
-
You seem to claim I'm being disingenuous by claiming that "God called the Law temporary" when we see Him clearly stating that the Law would fail. To fail is the cessation of the Law, meaning that it is temporary.
God doesn't call the law temporary, and as best I can tell, neither does Jesus. Paul is the only one who paints the law as unnecessary at best and in negative terms generally.
In Christianity, the Law was fulfilled in Christ--not in Israel. Nobody could fulfill the Law but the one from God who could, on God's behalf, forgive all sin committed against God and against Man.
In saying this surely you understand the Christian position that nobody under the Law could do what Christ did? All of mankind were condemned as having been born with a sin nature. All men are predisposed to sin, even if they can do good, as well.
Jesus' entire message was that he would have to die, due to the incapacity of Israel to dispose of sin both within their nation and within themselves. Christ's death proved that the endpoint of all human sin was national murder committed against Christ.
It is for this reason that Christ had to come as a Man and die for Israel, to bring about his own personal forgiveness on behalf of God, to bring about eternal atonement for Israel. Up until then, the Law was just a foreshadowing of this crucial event. Animal sacrifice could only bring a temporary cover for sin.
So as much as Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law *in his own person,* he did indicate that the Law had eternal value. But that value resided in Christ's salvation, consisting of his own divine virtue and of the virtue that he distributes, willingly, to his followers.
As such, those who have chosen to remain under the Law or outside of a relationship with Christ are by necessity separated from the hope of eternal life. The Law was a step in the direction of eternal life, but only up until Christ came to fulfill that hope.
The entire Law pointed out that Israel would fail, from Deut 31 and on, and even before. Israel would fall. All men would have to die. And the only hope of eternal life for Israel was in following the Law in hope that God would provide a means, beyond the Law, to bring about a lasting salvation. Nothing done under the Law accomplished that.
-
Here's the thing I've observed from Christians, in treating Paul's theology. They fail, largely, to see the positive elements in the Law behind Paul's denunciation of those continuing to be justified by the Law.
Paul neither rejected the moral values contained in the Law for Christians nor did he deny the value of the Law as a covenant while that system remained in place. So he dealt "negatively" with the Law only in the sense that as a covenant system it had been superseded by its intended fulfillment, the sacrifice of Christ.
Far be it for me to tell you what's in your holy books, but that's not what he says.
"...the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression."
Yes, Fenris, you don't understand the Christian Scriptures. You might be able to, however, since you're Jewish and Paul was Jewish?
Paul was not teaching antinomianism. Rather, he was using a logical argument. If under a law you commit a sin against me, and I declare a dispensation of forgiveness against all who have committed that particular sin against me, then I have in effect forgiven an entire class of people, defined by that particular law.
If 7 people have stolen something from me, and I forgive all who have stolen from me, then I'm forgiving not just people who have sinned against me, but more specifically, those who have committed the sin of theft against me.
That's what Paul is saying, that the Law was designed to expose Israel's specific sins against God, and that when God creates a dispensation of grace on behalf of all those who have broken the Law, then where that class of law applies no guilt can any longer be found.
Whoever has broken the Law can be forgiven of that particular trespass, assuming they meet the terms of the New Covenant. And the New Covenant, not being based on the Law, continues to apply this dispensation of grace towards those who have broken the Law, while at the same time determining the terms by which the new standard applies.
He was negative only in the sense that after the Law had been superseded by Christ, those claiming to be "in Christ" were inconsistently falling back into the OT legal system, which falls short of eternal life in Paul's theology.
But, and this seems to be a really big deal, not in Jesus's theology. For example, in Matthew 5.
It's important to recognize that Matt 5 presents Jesus' teaching for Israel *while they were still under the Law of Moses.* Jesus, therefore, was not dismissing the Law--on the contrary, he was upholding every detail of it.
But in terms of its "fulfillment," he indicated only *he* himself would fulfill it. Israel would have to continue obeying it, including every detail of the Law, including his own fulfillment of the same. And when he fulfilled it, the Law, as a foreshadowing of Christ, was superseded by Christ as the thing that was foreshadowed. Instead of animal sacrifice, Christ's own sacrifice sufficed. In place of the temple, unity between God and Israel was no longer separated by walls and veils. The Law was *fulfilled* in Christ--not destroyed. It was superseded when Jesus said, "It is finished." That's when the veil of the temple was ripped from heaven downward.
And Paul argued this not just as a religious preference but also as a scholastic Jew who really believed that the Jewish Scriptures were teaching a faith that transcended the Law.
But in his musings, he seems to come up with this himself. Because the Torah doesn't say this. As a corollary, it's interesting to observe that Paul receives a much chillier reception by the common Jews than Jesus does.
Death on a cross is "lighter treatment" than Paul's rejection by the Jews?
Otherwise, Christians are put right back under a system that prevents one from obtaining God's eternal promises. In other words, he was emotionally attached to the idea that the Law *had to be* superseded by Christ, so that the purpose of the Law as a stepping stone could actually result in eternal salvation.
This seems to me to be begging the question.
-
You seem to claim I'm being disingenuous by claiming that "God called the Law temporary" when we see Him clearly stating that the Law would fail. To fail is the cessation of the Law, meaning that it is temporary.
God doesn't call the law temporary, and as best I can tell, neither does Jesus. Paul is the only one who paints the law as unnecessary at best and in negative terms generally.
Well, that's at least admitting that what Paul and Jesus said was not anti-Semitic! In fact, both of them condemned Israel for their anti-Christian attitude, as well as for conduct that warranted the destruction of both Jerusalem and the temple.
The point is, this condemnation of Israel in their time did indicate that both Jesus and Paul foresaw the devastation that Israel saw in 70 AD, and following. This I've explained is a *divorce* between God and Israel.
But God has provided a way out apart from the Law, which I call "mercy." Actually, that's what Jesus called it. He said, "Go and find out what this means. 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' "
What Jesus was saying was that the practice of the Law would fail to keep Israel in relationship with God and in control of their land. Just "offering animal sacrifices under the Law" would not bring about peace in their land.
Rather, it would require God's mercy, extended to Israel after their failure under the Law, in order to restore them, as a nation, to their land forevermore. The Law would not be the means of eternal salvation for their nation. Christ would have to extend mercy to them for their failure under the Law.
-
Paul definitely had a complex understanding of the law and its function, but I genuinely don't think he believed it was "temporary." Even after believing Jesus was the messiah, Paul continued to think of himself as not just a Jew, but a Pharisee. (I'm not interested whether his later critics agree with the accuracy of his self-assessment.) He continued observing the law. His letters are small windows into his thoughts, and I suggest that Galatians lacks the clear-headed nuance of Romans, which is where he says
Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Romans 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.
The key component in reading Paul's epistles is something almost universally overlooked by his average reader today: he wasn't writing to Jews, he was writing to Gentiles. He makes occasional statements on him and his fellow Jews, but by and large his letters are to and about Gentiles. He didn't think Jews should stop observing the law because they follow Jesus "instead," he thought Gentiles shouldn't start observing the law when they became followers of Jesus.
I do agree that the average reader, including the average Christian, most likely fails to understand the deeper part of Paul's arguments. But I've also found that even new-born Christians benefit from Paul, because they instinctively recognize the focus on Christ as the sum of all spiritual things. That pretty much drives away the clouds.
To say that we're not under the Law, with its elemental regulations of washing with water, etc. is also easy to understand. It's easy to understand how these things are external, and do not purify in their essence. True cleansing is internal and spiritual.
That being said, I don't think evangelizing on behalf of Christ is antinomian. There is always moral law associated with Christ, even if he extends beyond the Law of temple, priesthood, and sacrifice. God has called Man, from the beginning, to live in His image. And as long as we are "Men," we have an obligation to the associated morality connected to that.
-
You seem to have a problem with ultra-literalism.
You have a severe problem with dancing around very straightforward questions. "The Law says it would be cancelled permanently." Where? "Here are nineteen paragraphs that don't once cite any actual statements from the Law regarding the Law's duration."
I've answered you repeatedly, and you seem incapable of understanding. I thought perhaps you were looking strictly for those exact words, "I'm cancelling the Law, because it is temporary." As I said, while the Law was in effect, it remained in effect and nothing said discouraged Israel from following the Law.
But here is the crucial argument, which you continue to ignore. From the start, at least form Deut 31, Moses said Israel would *fail* under contract of the Law. It was a covenant, a contract. As such, if either of the 2 parties failed to meet the conditions of the contract, it failed.
Not only was it predicted that Israel would fail but it did fail! And the evidence of its failure was Israel's being exiled from their land, where God and Israel had contracted to live together.
Now, don't argue this with me any further unless you understand that I am indeed answering your questions. If you don't see that, then what are we arguing about, that I'm still not answering the question? In that case, you're being disingenuous--not me!
when we see Him clearly stating that the Law would fail.
God literally says the Law is easy to keep.
You see, you're not saying I'm not answering you--you're just disagreeing with me, and then using the ruse that I'm "not answering you." I'm saying that Moses' claim that Israel would fail under the Law was a clear statement that the Law was temporary, and that mercy would be required to reinstate it. It would not continue unabated, but would be halted, and need to be restored. The evidence that it had stalled would be Israel's captivities, ie their exile form the land of their "marriage" with God.
Yes, the Law said Israel could obey the requirements...obviously! Why would God ask Israel to do something if they couldn't do it?
But Israel could obey the Law. That doesn't mean they would not fail under the Law as a nation. And they did! Their Law, as a contract, was broken. The covenant failed. The divorce certificate was issued.
The fact God started over, apart from the Law, is a different matter. Mercy came apart form Israel's observance of the Law, because under the Law they had failed and were not worthy of restoration. So Israel was restored by God's mercy quite apart from the Law so that they could try again under the Law.
They were not restored *by the Law,* or by their *successful observance of the Law.* Rather, they were restored by God's mercy *despite their failure under the Law.*
This was evidence that the Law, as a contract, had failed. It was proof positive that God foreknew, in advance, that the Law would be a temporary phenomenon. If it had to be restored, then it had only been temporarily in effect until it could be restored again.
If it had remained in even partial observance, during the time of Captivity, it was still, in effect, a failed contract, with only the means of "holding on" until restoration. Keeping the Law during the Captivity was evidence of a failed contract that had only worked temporarily, while Israel was in the land. The fact they were in exile was evidence that that system had failed.
The continuation of observance under the Law was an indication that God provided a path towards restoration, not due to Israel's obedience under the Law, but only because God was mercifully willing to restore the Law.
-
he indicated only *he* himself would fulfill it.
Where?
But God has provided a way out apart from the Law, which I call "mercy."
This is another example of how disingenuous you're being about what the Bible says about the Law. You're literally saying that "the Law" and "Mercy" are mutually exclusive concepts. As if the Law and the Prophets never talk about mercy. Like... that's not a defensible misrepresentation of the Old Testament.
-
he indicated only *he* himself would fulfill it.
Where?
Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
But God has provided a way out apart from the Law, which I call "mercy."
This is another example of how disingenuous you're being about what the Bible says about the Law. You're literally saying that "the Law" and "Mercy" are mutually exclusive concepts. As if the Law and the Prophets never talk about mercy. Like... that's not a defensible misrepresentation of the Old Testament.
I am not being disingenuous. James indicated that even during the era of the Law, God demonstrated that mercy could be provided when it failed. That is, the Law could operate in the midst of its failure by showing that God's mercy transcended the Law.
Jam 2.12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
I've already showed you that Moses foresaw the failure of Israel under covenant of the Law in Deuteronomy.
Deut 31.16 They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them.
Indeed, that's exactly what happened. Israel forsook God as a nation and broke the agreement they had made with God through the Law. In other words, the agreement of the Law utterly failed. And it was indicated by Israel's exile from the land where they lived with God and had been blessed by God, where they had been blessed by this relationship with God. Exile had taken them away from the very covenant that had blessed them. Going into exile meant that they had fallen away from the covenant of blessing.
And so, the Law of Liberty means that there is an exercise of God's Law that transcends the failure of the Law. It means that their failure at performing works of justification can be redeemed by Christ, who did the work of justification for them, liberating them from the need to do any work of redemption.
But this is not going to be articulated while the Law remained in force, in the OT era. It was strictly a Christian phenomenon, which the lessons of the OT history of Israel pointed to by necessity. Israel could not do the work of redemption themselves, because they failed under the Law. They remain under the Moral Law of God, but not under the Law of Moses, which required work of redemption from them--work that failed. They were liberated from doing these works by Christ who did the work for them.
James made a big deal out of the need for Christians to follow the Law of God in the sense of performing works with our faith. This had nothing to do with the Law of Moses because this Law was liberated from any need to do the work of redemption. It strictly required obedience to the moral mandates of Christ, who called upon his followers to love God and to love others with a whole heart.
Matt 9.13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
The lesson of the OT era is that Israel failed under the Law, and learned that they could go on, serving God under the Law, even though that Law had failed. God desired to have mercy upon them, and to forgive them for their failure under the Law. He wanted to keep them in service to His laws and provided redemption for all who fail. He knew from the start that nobody could, by the Law, achieve eternal salvation.
-
he indicated only *he* himself would fulfill it.
Where?
Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
The qualifying word you used was "only," and I don't see Jesus saying only he could fulfill the law in that verse. Seems to me you're adding a word to change what he says.
I am not being disingenuous.
Refusing to provide book, chapter, and verse when asked over and over, but pretending you already did, is 100% disingenuous.
James indicated
I wasn't asking about James. At the very beginning, you claimed, "The Law says this." James is not a book of the Law. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are.
I've already showed you that Moses foresaw the failure of Israel under covenant of the Law in Deuteronomy.
Deut 31.16 They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them.
We finally have a book, chapter, and verse.
Except it doesn't say what you claim it says. All this verse says is Israel will someday disobey the stipulations of the covenant. It doesn't say the covenant will be abrogated and replaced. And since literally just the previous chapter says, plain as day, that disobedience to the covenant will be followed by a restoration of obedience to the covenant, your interpretation of this verse is simply wrong. As Fenris and I have pointed out from the very start, you keep purposely ignoring that part: the covenant expected disobedience, yeah, but it also spells out that restoration is also part of the covenant. There is no permanent abrogation ever anticipated in the Law. That is a much later Christian concept you're jamming backwards into the Law while completely disregarding whole chunks of the Law which talk about failure and restoration, which is why you took so long to scrounge up a single verse that still doesn't say what you claim it does.
-
Community Rule He shall not be justified by that which his stubborn heart declares lawful
If I may ask, what is the source of these documents?
-
In Christianity, the Law was fulfilled in Christ--not in Israel.
the law is not something to be "fulfilled". Its something that you do. Every day. As circumstances apply. I mean, if I give a lot of charity one day, is my obligation to give charity "fulfilled"? Am I no longer obligated to care for the poor?
Nobody could fulfill the Law
Well, the entire law didn't apply to any one person. Some parts of the law apply to men, some to women, some to priests, some to non priests, some to farmers, some to businessmen, etc
-
Yes, Fenris, you don't understand the Christian Scriptures.
I think I do understand them fairly well. I just don't believe them. So.
-
Well, that's at least admitting that what Paul and Jesus said was not anti-Semitic!
Um, I never claimed that they were anti-Semitic.
In fact, both of them condemned Israel for their anti-Christian attitude,
This is an anachronism, as Christianity didn't exist during their lifetime.
The point is, this condemnation of Israel in their time did indicate that both Jesus and Paul foresaw the devastation that Israel saw in 70 AD, and following.
I mean, everyone saw it coming. One didn't have to be a prophet.
This I've explained is a *divorce* between God and Israel.
Lev 26 etc. Exile is not a "divorce" it's a temporary state due to disobedience. Lev 26:44 says that the covenant will never be broken and Deuteronomy 30 says what happens when the Jews return to God- the exile ends.
And since there's a modern day state of Israel...
But God has provided a way out apart from the Law, which I call "mercy."
There is no way out. The covenant is permanent.
What Jesus was saying was that the practice of the Law would fail to keep Israel in relationship with God
We have a relationship with God whether we are obedient or not. God states that Israel is His firstborn. One's child remains one's child even if they are disobedient.
Just "offering animal sacrifices under the Law" would not bring about peace in their land.
No, because offering sacrifice is not sufficient. Sacrifice isn't magic. God expects us to love Him and uphold His covenant by following His laws. This is all over the bible.
-
This is another example of how disingenuous you're being about what the Bible says about the Law. You're literally saying that "the Law" and "Mercy" are mutually exclusive concepts. As if the Law and the Prophets never talk about mercy. Like... that's not a defensible misrepresentation of the Old Testament.
So here's how I see the role of mercy.
Your father gives you a long list of chores to do. You do them to the best of your ability, and when you fall short, you ask him for mercy.
You don't throw the list out and rely on mercy.
-
If I may ask, what is the source of these documents?
Community Rule, the Thanksgiving Hymn (one of several), and Songs of the Sage are from the Dead Sea Scrolls, written between 50 and 200 years before Paul (depending on the individual book).
Apocalypse of Abraham was written around 70-100 CE in Hebrew (maybe Aramaic). We don't know where it was written, but Judea is likely based on the language and the book's spread in Europe and Asia.
Testament of Abraham is from Egypt, written in Greek (not uncommon in the Diaspora), also around the end of the first century CE.
These are all Jewish texts, covering a wide range of time and a decent geographical spread. They're also all from authors who expected the end times were about to happen, similar to Paul. It's reasonable to think their shared idea of end times "justification" was common to apocalyptic forms of second temple Judaism.
-
he indicated only *he* himself would fulfill it.
Where?
Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
The qualifying word you used was "only," and I don't see Jesus saying only he could fulfill the law in that verse. Seems to me you're adding a word to change what he says.
When Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, he was not saying he came so that others would fulfill the Law. The implication is that *only he* had come to fulfill the Law. When he was dying on the cross he said, "It is finished." The implication was not the others too were finishing it!
I am not being disingenuous.
Refusing to provide book, chapter, and verse when asked over and over, but pretending you already did, is 100% disingenuous.
What a bunch of baloney. I've given you Scriptures. I've given you the words that indicate "cancellation" of the covenant, of the Law. Jer 31 indicates a new and different covenant would emerge because the first had failed. But you just keep repeating that I'm disingenuous. Maybe if you keep repeating it long enough you might actually believe it? ;)
James indicated
I wasn't asking about James. At the very beginning, you claimed, "The Law says this." James is not a book of the Law. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are.
James explains the Law the same way I explain the Law, that mercy had to rule, not just under the Law, but also apart from the Law, because the Law *had failed!* Mercy triumphs over the Law. If not, the people under the Law were lost forever!
But you're stubborn, and you'll refuse to accept the argument. So this is just for anybody else who may be interested. I know the type that you are. You will concede nothing. You will be generous for nobody. Good people are generous even with those with whom they disagree. You refuse to do that.
I've already showed you that Moses foresaw the failure of Israel under covenant of the Law in Deuteronomy.
Deut 31.16 They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them.
We finally have a book, chapter, and verse.
I don't know about this particular thread, but I've been arguing these things for years. And I've long been giving the relevant Scriptures, and have not failed to provide them when asked for them. To say I've "finally" given a Scripture is a ruse, and I've seen it before.
Except it doesn't say what you claim it says. All this verse says is Israel will someday disobey the stipulations of the covenant. It doesn't say the covenant will be abrogated and replaced. And since literally just the previous chapter says, plain as day, that disobedience to the covenant will be followed by a restoration of obedience to the covenant, your interpretation of this verse is simply wrong. As Fenris and I have pointed out from the very start, you keep purposely ignoring that part: the covenant expected disobedience, yeah, but it also spells out that restoration is also part of the covenant. There is no permanent abrogation ever anticipated in the Law. That is a much later Christian concept you're jamming backwards into the Law while completely disregarding whole chunks of the Law which talk about failure and restoration, which is why you took so long to scrounge up a single verse that still doesn't say what you claim it does.
False, I have a different interpretation than you do. I see the Law as cancelled because in any covenant agreement, when one of the parties fails to meet the conditions, the contract fails, the covenant is abrogated.
The Law failed not just because of sin, but because of widespread, nation-wide sin. It was the failure of the whole nation that brought about the nullification of the covenant, and not just occasional sins.
So the promise of restoration was not a declaration that the Law hadn't failed, but rather the promise of mercy *after failure.* You keep saying I ignore things, but you're just in disagreement, while failing to recognize that I'm answering you.
-
In Christianity, the Law was fulfilled in Christ--not in Israel.
the law is not something to be "fulfilled". Its something that you do. Every day. As circumstances apply. I mean, if I give a lot of charity one day, is my obligation to give charity "fulfilled"? Am I no longer obligated to care for the poor?
I'm fully aware of this Jewish argument, which Christians, whether of Jewish extraction or not, would heartily disagree with. The Law was both a moral code and a prophecy. It was predictive of what was needed for the Messianic Kingdom to come. When Jesus came he understood this, and claimed to be the Prophet of which the Law spoke, the one "like Moses," who heard the words of God. It laid down the rules for a genuine prophet, but it also spoke of THE Prophet, the Messiah, in my view.
And my argument is that since Moses anticipated the failure of his system, the Law, he expected the promises given to Abraham to be fulfilled through mercy, and not through that system. Jeremiah understood that when he said (ch 31):
"It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
Nobody could fulfill the Law
Well, the entire law didn't apply to any one person. Some parts of the law apply to men, some to women, some to priests, some to non priests, some to farmers, some to businessmen, etc
Christians see the entire Law fulfilled in the one man, the Messiah Jesus. All of the moral righteousness of the Law was perfect in him. All of the pictures of redemption, that only applied temporarily by an imperfect priesthood, was fulfilled by the more perfect priesthood of Jesus, the offering of himself.
The many laws of purification indirectly related to Christ's more permanent purification, relieving Israel from seeking temporary means of purification using elements that only symbolized internal purification. Dietary constraints that Israel used, showing their need for purification and separation from sin was not necessary for Jesus. His pure food came from the word of God, and he offered that to Israel, with eternal redemption, to bring the hope of restoration to Israel.
-
Well, that's at least admitting that what Paul and Jesus said was not anti-Semitic!
Um, I never claimed that they were anti-Semitic.
Not my point.
In fact, both of them condemned Israel for their anti-Christian attitude,
This is an anachronism, as Christianity didn't exist during their lifetime.
It depends how you define "Christianity." Normally, you would find "Christianity" wherever you find the ministry of Christ. ;)
The point is, this condemnation of Israel in their time did indicate that both Jesus and Paul foresaw the devastation that Israel saw in 70 AD, and following.
I mean, everyone saw it coming. One didn't have to be a prophet.
The Jews inside Jerusalem didn't see 70 AD coming--certainly not the way it ended up.
This I've explained is a *divorce* between God and Israel.
Lev 26 etc. Exile is not a "divorce" it's a temporary state due to disobedience. Lev 26:44 says that the covenant will never be broken and Deuteronomy 30 says what happens when the Jews return to God- the exile ends.
And since there's a modern day state of Israel...
You see, my friend, we have a disagreement, and it is not "ignoring one another," nor being "dishonest." It is an honest disagreement. For me, an "exile" implies the failure of a covenant designed to keep a nation inside the Promised Land. As long as Israel remained inside the land, they were married. Once they stepped into exile, they were "divorced." This is the metaphorical language of the Prophets, in my opinion.
Restoration of the state of the Law has nothing to do with it. Israel could, by God's mercy, return to the land and be forgiven for breaking the Law. The Law had been broken, and the covenant of the Law had failed, but it could be restored. It didn't mean failure hadn't taken place--it just means that mercy triumphs over judgment.
But God has provided a way out apart from the Law, which I call "mercy."
There is no way out. The covenant is permanent.
This also is where we can have a respectful disagreement. For me the basic Abrahamic Covenant can never fail, because it relies upon a divine promise, which cannot fail. However, there is paraphernalia associated with the Promise that can be abrogated and removed. Both circumcision and the entire Law can be removed from the Abrahamic Covenant and still see God's Promises fulfilled for Israel! This takes place not by the covenant of Law, but rather by a new covenant of mercy.
What Jesus was saying was that the practice of the Law would fail to keep Israel in relationship with God
We have a relationship with God whether we are obedient or not. God states that Israel is His firstborn. One's child remains one's child even if they are disobedient.
God's children are named only among those who are faithful to the covenant. Jacob was accepted by God, and Esau was not. God cuts off disobedient children, whether you consider them "children" or not. God's Kingdom is holy, and He will not have "unholy" children with Him in His eternal Kingdom.
Just "offering animal sacrifices under the Law" would not bring about peace in their land.
No, because offering sacrifice is not sufficient. Sacrifice isn't magic. God expects us to love Him and uphold His covenant by following His laws. This is all over the bible.
I've never said animal sacrifices were "magic!" God required them as a self-recognition that Israel lacked the purity necessary to obtain restoration to the Tree of Life. It was a condition required for relationship with God under covenant of the Law. And if the Law of sacrifices was to be kept, then the whole Law had to be kept.
What is important about the Law of Sacrifice is to understand not just that it is to be done, but also what it means to convey. It suggests that a greater sacrifice would be needed to bring about resolution of the problem of the Law itself, that nobody in Israel was perfect enough to bring about Israel's eternal salvation.
The lesson of both the Law and Israel's history was that they were too flawed to bring about their own national salvation for all time. A Messiah had to come, who was perfect enough to accomplish this. And I believe he had to be God Himself, or as we say, "God's Son." We call him "God in the flesh."
All sin in men and in Israel renders illegitimate the work of eternal redemption, whether for Israel or for the world. Only a perfect man could attain this. But we have a man that attained it not for himself, but for all who would follow him in his own spiritual righteousness, Israel's Messiah and Lord.
-
I'm fully aware of this Jewish argument, which Christians, whether of Jewish extraction or not, would heartily disagree with. The Law was both a moral code and a prophecy. It was predictive of what was needed for the Messianic Kingdom to come.
This is Christian dogma. But I don't see it in the bible.
And my argument is that since Moses anticipated the failure of his system, the Law, he expected the promises given to Abraham to be fulfilled through mercy, and not through that system.
And yet we are commanded to follow the law as "eternal statute", "throughout your generations" "in all your dwelling places" etc. I mean, it certainly sounds permanent. If God did indeed want it to be permanent, what stronger language could He possibly use?
Jeremiah understood that when he said (ch 31):
"It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
Very next verse For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people.
Same law.
Christians see the entire Law fulfilled in the one man, the Messiah Jesus.
Yes, I know. And I don't understand it. Because no one person could do the entire law.
The many laws of purification indirectly related to Christ's more permanent purification, relieving Israel from seeking temporary means of purification using elements that only symbolized internal purification. Dietary constraints that Israel used, showing their need for purification and separation from sin was not necessary for Jesus. His pure food came from the word of God, and he offered that to Israel, with eternal redemption, to bring the hope of restoration to Israel.
So he didn't follow all the law after all? I thought you said he did.
-
God's children are named only among those who are faithful to the covenant. Jacob was accepted by God, and Esau was not.
Actually, weirdly enough, Esau was Jewish.
I've never said animal sacrifices were "magic!" God required them as a self-recognition that Israel lacked the purity necessary to obtain restoration to the Tree of Life.
"restoration to the Tree of Life" is not part of Judaism. You're creating a problems that don't exist and then creating ways to solve them that aren't necessary.
It was a condition required for relationship with God under covenant of the Law. And if the Law of sacrifices was to be kept, then the whole Law had to be kept.
What is important about the Law of Sacrifice is to understand not just that it is to be done, but also what it means to convey. It suggests that a greater sacrifice would be needed to bring about resolution of the problem of the Law itself, that nobody in Israel was perfect enough to bring about Israel's eternal salvation.
Sacrifice isn't about "eternal salvation" and it never was. Again, you're creating problems so you have the opportunity to create a solution. But the problems don't exist.
The lesson of both the Law and Israel's history was that they were too flawed to bring about their own national salvation for all time. A Messiah had to come, who was perfect enough to accomplish this.
This isn't what the prophets say at all. Most of them (specifically Isaiah) say that when we return to God and repent, He will send the messiah. Ezekiel says that God will send the messiah whether we deserve it or not, for the sake of His name. In either case, the messiah isn't part of the process. We, human beings, specifically Jews, are. And when we merit it on a national level, the messiah is the reward.
-
God's children are named only among those who are faithful to the covenant. Jacob was accepted by God, and Esau was not.
Actually, weirdly enough, Esau was Jewish.
I agree, and that's the whole point. Belonging to race is not the critical thing, though it was important. God was honoring a family-the family of Abraham!
But it was critically important that there be the faith of God, ie faith in the God of Abraham. Without that loyalty, which at that time was under the Law, true "belonging" to Israel was not there. Unfaithful people, therefore, could be cut off.
It isn't that they were illegitimate Hebrews or Jews. Rather, it was that they disqualified themselves from remaining in the society of the same. They were sent packing.
I've never said animal sacrifices were "magic!" God required them as a self-recognition that Israel lacked the purity necessary to obtain restoration to the Tree of Life.
"restoration to the Tree of Life" is not part of Judaism. You're creating a problems that don't exist and then creating ways to solve them that aren't necessary.
As a Christian I'm not concerned what "Judaism believes." Of course, I do care about the fate of the Jewish People with God! Access to the Tree of Life is a continuing issue for me, as a Christian. It's where I wish all peoples to get to.
It was a condition required for relationship with God under covenant of the Law. And if the Law of sacrifices was to be kept, then the whole Law had to be kept.
What is important about the Law of Sacrifice is to understand not just that it is to be done, but also what it means to convey. It suggests that a greater sacrifice would be needed to bring about resolution of the problem of the Law itself, that nobody in Israel was perfect enough to bring about Israel's eternal salvation.
Sacrifice isn't about "eternal salvation" and it never was. Again, you're creating problems so you have the opportunity to create a solution. But the problems don't exist.
Again, that's your belief--not mine. Obviously, before Christianity began the Jews were not intended to understand the fulfillment of the Law in Christ. They were only given to learn the lessons derived from obeying the Law.
In my view, offering sacrifices informed Israel that they needed them, being imperfect human beings. It was a lesson derived from the Garden of Eden story, in which Adam and Eve sinned and came to be prohibited from access to the Tree of Life.
So sacrifices were given under the Law. And in the history of Israel, as told by the Prophets, Israel failed under the Law, delegitimizing the sacrifices under the Law. So it is in my opinion to be concluded that a greater sacrifice needed to be offered *beyond the Law* to cover those who had failed not just one thing, but the whole Law!
Cleary, sacrifices under the Law were not enough if the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices all failed! That's why Christians believe that Christ came to fulfil this need for mercy beyond the Law itself.
The lesson of both the Law and Israel's history was that they were too flawed to bring about their own national salvation for all time. A Messiah had to come, who was perfect enough to accomplish this.
This isn't what the prophets say at all. Most of them (specifically Isaiah) say that when we return to God and repent, He will send the messiah. Ezekiel says that God will send the messiah whether we deserve it or not, for the sake of His name. In either case, the messiah isn't part of the process. We, human beings, specifically Jews, are. And when we merit it on a national level, the messiah is the reward.
I don't disagree except with your conclusion that Messiah was necessarily a perfect priest to atone for Israel's ins. Obviously, such a Messiah was not spelled out under the Law, because I believe Messiah came to establish a new covenant. While the old covenant of Law was still in effect, it was to remain a mystery how Messiah would provide everlasting atonement for Israel.
Some things Jews just don't know because they are self-satisfied with their old system, and are not open to God revealing new mysteries to them. But in the history of Israel it's apparent that Israel missed something! Jesus may seem strange to Jews who insist on continuing under a Law that is broken. But he fits the need for a "spotless lamb."
-
As a Christian I'm not concerned what "Judaism believes."
If you're appealing to the Jewish bible, it should be of at least some interest to you.
[quote
Again, that's your belief--not mine. Obviously, before Christianity began the Jews were not intended to understand the fulfillment of the Law in Christ.
And yet you claim it's in the Jewish bible.
In my view, offering sacrifices informed Israel that they needed them, being imperfect human beings.
What anyone needs is not sacrifice, but repentance and mercy. Of course we're imperfect, God created us that way. So why would He expect perfection from his imperfect creations?
So sacrifices were given under the Law. And in the history of Israel, as told by the Prophets, Israel failed under the Law, delegitimizing the sacrifices under the Law. So it is in my opinion to be concluded that a greater sacrifice needed to be offered *beyond the Law* to cover those who had failed not just one thing, but the whole Law!
Yes. Your opinion.
Cleary, sacrifices under the Law were not enough if the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices all failed!
But the sacrifices didn't fail. It was people that failed, by believing that sacrifices were some sort of magic, and that they didn't have to change their behavior because they brought sacrifice. It's right there in Isaiah 1: “The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?” says the Lord. ... Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.
God wants us to be good, not bring sacrifice while behaving badly.
I don't disagree except with your conclusion that Messiah was necessarily a perfect priest to atone for Israel's ins.
Yeah but this isn't in the bible anywhere. The messiah isn't a a priest and in any case priests bring sacrifice, they aren't sacrificed themselves.
Obviously, such a Messiah was not spelled out under the Law
Well. That's kind of a problem then, isn't it?
Some things Jews just don't know because they are self-satisfied with their old system
I don't think self-satisfied is the right word. God told us to follow the law, and we're following it. Why should I listen to a person who tells me not to? How could I even defend myself before God for doing that?!
-
The Law says it will be permanently broken and replaced by something completely different. Here's a verse from Amos. Here's another from Matthew. Oh, you want a verse from the Law because that's what I said? Here's one from Paul, and another from Psalms. Here's several dozen paragraphs where I don't cite any scripture at all. What? I'm not being disingenuous! Of course I cited a verse from the Law to back up what I'm saying! Here's a quote from Jeremiah and another from James, just to prove I quoted a verse from the Law! You think I'm being dishonest when I claim I said one thing when my post history proves I said something else? After another twenty seven paragraphs, I will deign to cite a single verse from Deuteronomy. No, I didn't take several dozen comments spread across four threads to finally answer your request. You are playing games and a ruse and you don't even believe what you're saying.
This gaslighting is ridiculous.
-
If you're appealing to the Jewish bible, it should be of at least some interest to you.
I refer to the Jewish Scriptures. But my arguments do not rest solely on the Jewish Scriptures. Christian truth *requires* a NT fulfillment, and therefore, trying to argue the NT from OT truth is an exercise in futility. It is to remain in an unfulfilled state of mind.
As I've said before, the Law was a state of mind that at best contained a mystery of what its fulfillment would be. In a nutshell, the purpose of the Law was to lead to *final national salvation* for Israel, as opposed to momentary deliverances. How that would specifically result in resurrection and eternal life were hinted at but not explained in detail until the NT era.
What anyone needs is not sacrifice, but repentance and mercy. Of course we're imperfect, God created us that way. So why would He expect perfection from his imperfect creations?
He doesn't expect perfection. Would He have given Israel the Law, requiring atonement for sins, if He expected perfection? No. But to say nobody needed sacrifice is bizarre, since that's exactly what God required of Israel!
But the sacrifices didn't fail. It was people that failed, by believing that sacrifices were some sort of magic, and that they didn't have to change their behavior because they brought sacrifice. It's right there in Isaiah 1: “The multitude of your sacrifices— what are they to me?” says the Lord. ... Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.
God wants us to be good, not bring sacrifice while behaving badly.
Failing people fail to prove true faith in making sacrifices. Sinners give offerings with an impure heart. That's why God wanted true repentance together with sacrifices made to Him.
When a system of sacrifices, such as the Law, failed, a completely transcendent system of atonement for sin must apply, from heaven, to cover a system of sacrifices that were rendered irrelevant due to failed people offering those sacrifices.
Yeah but this isn't in the bible anywhere. The messiah isn't a a priest and in any case priests bring sacrifice, they aren't sacrificed themselves.
Christians believe that Messiah was called to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Again, Jewish Scriptures are not in themselves sufficient to prove Christian truth. They are just support. The idea was that the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood never could achieve the perfection necessary to get to the Tree of Life on behalf of Israel.
I don't think self-satisfied is the right word. God told us to follow the law, and we're following it. Why should I listen to a person who tells me not to? How could I even defend myself before God for doing that?!
Go ahead and follow the Law Fenris. I'm just trying to be a brother human being to you and tell you what I think is best for you. Fighting between religious sects accomplishes nothing. The best we can do is share our own truth, if we think it will help. If it doesn't help, God bless you.
-
He doesn't expect perfection. Would He have given Israel the Law, requiring atonement for sins, if He expected perfection? No. But to say nobody needed sacrifice is bizarre, since that's exactly what God required of Israel!
1 Samuel 15:22
But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams."
Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
Micah 6: Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
You were saying?
The point of sacrifice is to stir repentance. That's it.
Again, Jewish Scriptures are not in themselves sufficient to prove Christian truth.
Bingo! You get it.
Go ahead and follow the Law Fenris.
I'm going to uphold the covenant my ancestors made at Sinai, as countless Jews before me.
God bless you.
And you as well.
-
He doesn't expect perfection. Would He have given Israel the Law, requiring atonement for sins, if He expected perfection? No. But to say nobody needed sacrifice is bizarre, since that's exactly what God required of Israel!
1 Samuel 15:22
But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams."
Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
Micah 6: Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
You were saying?
The point of sacrifice is to stir repentance. That's it.
The point is, God required of Israel animal sacrifice. Period. We shouldn't deemphasize that. To explain the purpose of it is still to focus on its being required by God. To do it with the proper motive is, as you say, the important thing. But it remains important that it be done. To say that we should love others by being genuine is not to say that we shouldn't love others, but only be genuine.
Again, Jewish Scriptures are not in themselves sufficient to prove Christian truth.
Bingo! You get it.
Yes, I do. The NT was a "mystery" in the Jewish Bible. But it was meant to be understood when it was realized, because of the Jewish background that supported it.
And there are too many reasons, in history, for not ignoring it.
1) What Jesus said about Jewish religion came true. The temple was completely destroyed throughout the present age.
2) The Law cannot be followed except in its present Rabbinical form, which is the equivalent of observance in a state of captivity--there is no temple, no priesthood, and no sacrificial system in place.
3) The Jewish Scriptures pointed to the need for something to mitigate the problems of the Law, which is the failure of the priesthood to preserve Israel in their land. It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.
-
Samuel 15:22
But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams."
Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
Micah 6: Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
You were saying?
The point of sacrifice is to stir repentance. That's it.
The point is, God required of Israel animal sacrifice. [/quote]You're just hand waving away the verses I posted. Same bible.
Yes, I do. The NT was a "mystery" in the Jewish Bible. But it was meant to be understood when it was realized, because of the Jewish background that supported it.
But Jews don't think the Jewish religion does support it.
And there are too many reasons, in history, for not ignoring it.
1) What Jesus said about Jewish religion came true. The temple was completely destroyed throughout the present age.
Most, perhaps all of the NT was written after the temple was destroyed anyway. So it could just as likely be a "prediction" after the fact. And even if he said it beforehand, so what? The temple in his day was built by the wicked Herod. And it didn't conform to the dimensions of Ezekiel's temple (see Ez 40-48). It would have to be destroyed regardless.
2) The Law cannot be followed except in its present Rabbinical form, which is the equivalent of observance in a state of captivity--there is no temple, no priesthood, and no sacrificial system in place.
Neither was there sacrifice from 586BC to 516BC. Judaism survived that too.
3) The Jewish Scriptures pointed to the need for something to mitigate the problems of the Law, which is the failure of the priesthood to preserve Israel in their land. It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.
Please show me where. Because not one observant Jewish person believes this.
-
1) What Jesus said about Jewish religion came true. The temple was completely destroyed throughout the present age.
Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple wasn't a comment about "Jewish religion." Jesus was a member of the Jewish religion. He wasn't predicting supersessionism anymore than Ezekiel or Jeremiah did when they predicted the destruction of the first temple.
2) The Law cannot be followed except in its present Rabbinical form, which is the equivalent of observance in a state of captivity--there is no temple, no priesthood, and no sacrificial system in place.
This was the case during the Babylonian exile. I don't understand how this is a "reason" in support of the "mystery" of Christianity.
3) The Jewish Scriptures pointed to the need for something to mitigate the problems of the Law,
The Law itself contains mitigations for failures to uphold the commandments. Like... this has been spelled out to you several times. "If you fail do do this, then you must do this, and all will be set right." "If you persist in disobedience, you will be punished, but then restored after a time." These are not problems with the Law itself, but with the people failing to keep it. It's not any different than a Christian who claims to follow the commandments of Jesus, but sins. They set things right by following X instruction.
It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.
The Jewish Scriptures say nothing about a Messiah replacing the Law. This is one of those situations where you insist the Old Testament "says" or "points" to something, but you can't actually cite a chapter or verse that says what you're claiming.
-
1) What Jesus said about Jewish religion came true. The temple was completely destroyed throughout the present age.
Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple wasn't a comment about "Jewish religion." Jesus was a member of the Jewish religion. He wasn't predicting supersessionism anymore than Ezekiel or Jeremiah did when they predicted the destruction of the first temple.
Actually, I believe Jesus was predicting the end of Jewish religion as it was, namely the end of sacrifice, as indicated in Dan 9.27.
2) The Law cannot be followed except in its present Rabbinical form, which is the equivalent of observance in a state of captivity--there is no temple, no priesthood, and no sacrificial system in place.
This was the case during the Babylonian exile. I don't understand how this is a "reason" in support of the "mystery" of Christianity.
The Babylonian Exile set the precedent for the termination of the covenant of Law. Once a covenant is broken, it may either be restored or abandoned altogether. If indeed the Jewish covenant was abandoned entirely, as it had existed under the Law, that recommends a new mysterious system, no longer under the Law.
3) The Jewish Scriptures pointed to the need for something to mitigate the problems of the Law,
The Law itself contains mitigations for failures to uphold the commandments. Like... this has been spelled out to you several times. "If you fail do do this, then you must do this, and all will be set right." "If you persist in disobedience, you will be punished, but then restored after a time." These are not problems with the Law itself, but with the people failing to keep it. It's not any different than a Christian who claims to follow the commandments of Jesus, but sins. They set things right by following X instruction.
It has been pointed out to you several times my answer for this, and you apparently wish to pretend I haven't responded to it. A *divorce* took place, ending the covenant of the Law. The curses of disobedience reflected exile, which was an end of the covenant agreement to bless Israel in the land. Restoration does not mean the Law wasn't broken.
There is a difference between being restored *under the Law* and being restored *after the covenant of the Law has been broken.* I'm referring to a system of mercy that works outside of the Law because the covenant of Law itself has been broken, rendering its own formula for mercy irrelevant and invalidated.
If you're going to keep on ignoring this point, and assert that I don't answer for the umpteenth time, I'll just consider that you're either belligerent or incapable of understanding the argument. But I think you can decipher the argument?
It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.
The Jewish Scriptures say nothing about a Messiah replacing the Law. This is one of those situations where you insist the Old Testament "says" or "points" to something, but you can't actually cite a chapter or verse that says what you're claiming.
I'll quote it one more time.
Jer 31.31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
It was no mystery to know Messiah would come to establish a salvation that transcended anything prior, because it would somehow provide everlasting national salvation, "never again" to be oppressed by enemies.
But what form this salvation would take was indeed a mystery in the Jewish Scriptures. Otherwise, all Jews would've acknowledged Jesus was that salvation. Instead, they considered his apparent "failure" to bring in the Kingdom an indictment on his lack of credentials.
But that there was need for a system to transcend a failing Law was indeed in the Jewish Scriptures, as I point out here for the umpteenth time.
-
Actually, I believe Jesus was predicting the end of Jewish religion as it was, namely the end of sacrifice, as indicated in Dan 9.27.
The verse specifically says the sacrifices are halted only temporarily, "for half of the week." It's talking about the exact same thing as the previous chapter, which says "then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state" after the sacrifices were temporarily halted.
The Babylonian Exile set the precedent for the termination of the covenant of Law.
What? It sets the precedent for the exact opposite: exile for disobedience followed by restoration for newfound obedience. The Babylonian exile ended and the Jews took up the Law again.
"See how the Jews went into exile for disobeying the Law and then were brought back from exile to continue obeying the Law, exactly like Leviticus and Deuteronomy say will happen? This is secretly saying that the Law will be abrogated permanently when there is exile."
It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.
The Jewish Scriptures say nothing about a Messiah replacing the Law. This is one of those situations where you insist the Old Testament "says" or "points" to something, but you can't actually cite a chapter or verse that says what you're claiming.
I'll quote it one more time.
Jer 31.31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
Quoting the verse one more time doesn't help when the verse still doesn't say what you claim it says. Not one word about the Messiah. Not one word about the Law. It doesn't "point" to anything about the Messiah throwing away the Law. You have to conjure those ideas from thin air, because Jeremiah says nothing about them. This is genuinely one of the most dishonest hermeneutics I have seen in quite a while.
Like, how do you just happen to stop one verse short of what Jeremiah says this "new covenant" actually is, a verse which completely undermines what you're saying?
Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jeremiah elaborates on this "new covenant" in the next chapter, calling it "an everlasting covenant"
Jeremiah 32:37-43 See, I am going to gather them from all the lands to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation; I will bring them back to this place, and I will settle them in safety. They shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for all time, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them, never to draw back from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, so that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing good to them, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul. For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good fortune that I now promise them. Fields shall be bought in this land of which you are saying, It is a desolation, without human beings or animals; it has been given into the hands of the Chaldeans. Fields shall be bought for money, and deeds shall be signed and sealed and witnessed, in the land of Benjamin, in the places around Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, of the hill country, of the Shephelah, and of the Negeb; for I will restore their fortunes, says the LORD.
So what are the components of this "new covenant"?
- God will "gather them from all the lands to which I drove them"?
- Deuteronomy 30:3-4 "gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the LORD your God has scattered you"
- God will bring them back to "this land" (which he directly says is the land of Benjamin and Jerusalem and the cities of Judah)?
- Deuteronomy 30:5 "the LORD your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed"
- God will give them "good fortune"?
- Deuteronomy 30:3 "the LORD your God will restore your fortunes"
- God will put "my law within them" and "write it on their hearts"?
- Deuteronomy 30:6 "the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants"
- They will be his people and he will be their God?
- An idiom used throughout the Old Testament, but which Jeremiah directly says in context of the Babylonian exile
- Jeremiah 24:5-7 Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Like these good figs, so I will regard as good the exiles from Judah, whom I have sent away from this place to the land of the Chaldeans. I will set my eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them back to this land. I will build them up, and not tear them down; I will plant them, and not pluck them up. I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.
Every part of this "everlasting" "new covenant" is part of the restoration package promised in Deuteronomy. The one exception, the "my people" idiom, Jeremiah already invoked when talking about the Judean exiles returning from Babylon.
-
Actually, I believe Jesus was predicting the end of Jewish religion as it was, namely the end of sacrifice, as indicated in Dan 9.27.
The verse specifically says the sacrifices are halted only temporarily, "for half of the week." It's talking about the exact same thing as the previous chapter, which says "then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state" after the sacrifices were temporarily halted.
Yes, it's not a proof text--just part of the line of thought that leads to the conclusion Christians make. As I've been saying, Christ was a mystery in the era of the Law, but the precedent was set for a priesthood that had to transcend the imperfect, failed priesthood of the Old Covenant.
The Babylonian Exile set the precedent for the termination of the covenant of Law.
What? It sets the precedent for the exact opposite: exile for disobedience followed by restoration for newfound obedience. The Babylonian exile ended and the Jews took up the Law again.
Again, I'm not using the Jewish Bible as a proof text, but as evidence of a precedent for drawing the conclusions Christians make. The failure of a covenant can mean either the covenant gets reinstated by mercy (from outside of the covenant), or an entirely new covenant can be made.
It pointed to a Messiah who would bring about Jewish Law that frees Israel for all time from condemnation.
The Jewish Scriptures say nothing about a Messiah replacing the Law. This is one of those situations where you insist the Old Testament "says" or "points" to something, but you can't actually cite a chapter or verse that says what you're claiming.
I'll quote it one more time.
Jer 31.31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
Quoting the verse one more time doesn't help when the verse still doesn't say what you claim it says. Not one word about the Messiah. Not one word about the Law. It doesn't "point" to anything about the Messiah throwing away the Law. You have to conjure those ideas from thin air, because Jeremiah says nothing about them. This is genuinely one of the most dishonest hermeneutics I have seen in quite a while.
Your sense of a "dishonest hermeneutic" is actually based on an argument from silence, that something "cannot" be interpreted in such a way simply because it is not spelled out. The mere suggestion that this refers to the Messianic Kingdom may imply a mysterious interpretation, reserved for future clarification.
What is "dishonest" to me is your claim that "not one word has to do with the Law."
When the verse suggests there will be a "new covenant," it means the "old covenant" is going away. And the "old covenant" consisted of a Law, which formed the basis for this agreement between God and Israel. And you say it has "not one word about the Law?'
Furthermore, you say this doesn't say anything about the Messiah. That may be true, but that doesn't mean it doesn't refer to the Messianic Kingdom. Inferences are not "dishonest hermeneutics!" It means there are hypothetical views that must be figured out when the complete set of data comes in. And this is what the NT Scriptures state:
1 Peter 1.10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.
Like, how do you just happen to stop one verse short of what Jeremiah says this "new covenant" actually is, a verse which completely undermines what you're saying?
Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jeremiah elaborates on this "new covenant" in the next chapter, calling it "an everlasting covenant"
Jeremiah 32:37-43 See, I am going to gather them from all the lands to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation; I will bring them back to this place, and I will settle them in safety. They shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for all time, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them, never to draw back from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, so that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing good to them, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul. For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good fortune that I now promise them. Fields shall be bought in this land of which you are saying, It is a desolation, without human beings or animals; it has been given into the hands of the Chaldeans. Fields shall be bought for money, and deeds shall be signed and sealed and witnessed, in the land of Benjamin, in the places around Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, of the hill country, of the Shephelah, and of the Negeb; for I will restore their fortunes, says the LORD.
So what are the components of this "new covenant"?
- God will "gather them from all the lands to which I drove them"?
- Deuteronomy 30:3-4 "gathering you again from all the peoples among whom the LORD your God has scattered you"
- God will bring them back to "this land" (which he directly says is the land of Benjamin and Jerusalem and the cities of Judah)?
- Deuteronomy 30:5 "the LORD your God will bring you into the land that your ancestors possessed"
- God will give them "good fortune"?
- Deuteronomy 30:3 "the LORD your God will restore your fortunes"
- God will put "my law within them" and "write it on their hearts"?
- Deuteronomy 30:6 "the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants"
- They will be his people and he will be their God?
- An idiom used throughout the Old Testament, but which Jeremiah directly says in context of the Babylonian exile
- Jeremiah 24:5-7 Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Like these good figs, so I will regard as good the exiles from Judah, whom I have sent away from this place to the land of the Chaldeans. I will set my eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them back to this land. I will build them up, and not tear them down; I will plant them, and not pluck them up. I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.
Every part of this "everlasting" "new covenant" is part of the restoration package promised in Deuteronomy. The one exception, the "my people" idiom, Jeremiah already invoked when talking about the Judean exiles returning from Babylon.
What you call a "restoration package" is actually proof that the covenant will fail. And when an agreement fails, it can be restored, and it was. Or, it can be terminated forever.
The only requirement for a restored covenant that had failed was God's promise that it would be restored. But God never said it would *always* be restored. And it wasn't. When the temple was destroyed, after Jesus' death, it was never restored. It was a broken covenant, and there was no provision, within the covenant itself, nor in prophecy, that required it to be restored.
The "everlasting covenant" was God's promise to Abraham to have a people from all nations, including from Israel, forever. But the contingency of the Law was not part of this everlasting promise.
It was just a temporary attachment to an everlasting promise. Once the Law had failed, the everlasting covenant given to Abraham had to continue forever--but not the Law that had previously been attached to it.
It had failed, and there was no compelling reason to restore it once a better, and eternal, means of salvation had been brought forward and attached to the eternal promise. Once Christ had come and made eternal atonement for sin, there was no need to keep temporary forms of atonement in the Law attached to the promise.
-
As I've been saying, Christ was a mystery in the era of the Law
This is just awful. Using this concept, you can throw out all of the bible. Every word. Nothing means anything, because it's all "mystery".
-
As I've been saying, Christ was a mystery in the era of the Law
This is just awful. Using this concept, you can throw out all of the bible. Every word. Nothing means anything, because it's all "mystery".
When you watch a mystery movie on TV, you get all kinds of clues. Who did it?
But in the Bible, you get all kinds of principles established, with a vague resolution up ahead. When the resolution comes, you're expected to fit the pieces together. That's the kind of mystery I'm talking about--not jumping into a black hole.
-
When the resolution comes, you're expected to fit the pieces together.
No, we're not. Because if the bible is strange and vague, God can't blame us for coming to the wrong conclusion. The bible uses clear and plain language for this very reason.
-
When the resolution comes, you're expected to fit the pieces together.
No, we're not. Because if the bible is strange and vague, God can't blame us for coming to the wrong conclusion. The bible uses clear and plain language for this very reason.
Be careful who you're describing as "us." When Israel, as a nation, turns to Christianity, "they" may not include *you!*
The Bible is not strange, but it is sometimes opaque. And that's because God knows some people don't even want to know the truth. Why should He argue with them, even if it is for their own good?
Isa 29.11 For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I can’t; it is sealed.” 12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I don’t know how to read.”
13 The Lord says:
“These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is based on merely human rules they have been taught.
14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.”
-
Be careful who you're describing as "us." When Israel, as a nation, turns to Christianity, "they" may not include *you!*
Israel as a nation hasn't turned to Christianity though. I'm sure this bothers you a lot.
The Bible is not strange, but it is sometimes opaque.
If the bible is opaque, then God can't really punish us for not understanding it, now can He? Then it's His fault.
And that's because God knows some people don't even want to know the truth.
And how do we know who those people are? Of course, it's anyone who disagrees with your personal understanding of the truth. Of course.
Isa 29.11 For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I can’t; it is sealed.” 12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I don’t know how to read.”
13 The Lord says:
“These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is based on merely human rules they have been taught.
14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.”
This is talking about the generation that saw the Temple's destruction by Babylon. Not all Jews or all humanity for all time. Heck, the chapter even ends with a consolation:
No longer will Jacob be ashamed;
no longer will their faces grow pale.
When they see among them their children,
the work of my hands,
they will keep my name holy;
they will acknowledge the holiness of the Holy One of Jacob,
and will stand in awe of the God of Israel.
-
Be careful who you're describing as "us." When Israel, as a nation, turns to Christianity, "they" may not include *you!*
Israel as a nation hasn't turned to Christianity though. I'm sure this bothers you a lot.
I do get frustrated a lot, but not on this point. It saddens me greatly, but it's to be expected. Jesus predicted "the way is broad that leads to destruction, and only a few enter into life." I think that's true of all nations. Relative few find the narrow path that leads to life, that leads to divine blessing.
The Bible is not strange, but it is sometimes opaque.
If the bible is opaque, then God can't really punish us for not understanding it, now can He? Then it's His fault.
Sometimes He chooses only to give us enough light to get from one room to another. It's better than pitch blackness.
And that's because God knows some people don't even want to know the truth.
And how do we know who those people are? Of course, it's anyone who disagrees with your personal understanding of the truth. Of course.
My word doesn't mean anything. It's my arguments that matter. And it's not because I argue them, but only if the arguments are true and compelling.
Some people reject even compelling arguments because they have their own personal agenda.
Isa 29.11 For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I can’t; it is sealed.” 12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I don’t know how to read.”
13 The Lord says:
“These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is based on merely human rules they have been taught.
14 Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
the wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.”
This is talking about the generation that saw the Temple's destruction by Babylon. Not all Jews or all humanity for all time. Heck, the chapter even ends with a consolation:
No longer will Jacob be ashamed;
no longer will their faces grow pale.
When they see among them their children,
the work of my hands,
they will keep my name holy;
they will acknowledge the holiness of the Holy One of Jacob,
and will stand in awe of the God of Israel.
I fully understand this. It's an eternal principle. God never changes.
-
I do get frustrated a lot, but not on this point. It saddens me greatly, but it's to be expected. Jesus predicted "the way is broad that leads to destruction, and only a few enter into life." I think that's true of all nations. Relative few find the narrow path that leads to life, that leads to divine blessing.
I think most people in the world will merit some kind of positive afterlife. But then I have a different outlook.
Sometimes He chooses only to give us enough light to get from one room to another. It's better than pitch blackness.
Or maybe He told us everything that we need to know. No riddles, no obfuscation, no darkness.
My word doesn't mean anything. It's my arguments that matter. And it's not because I argue them, but only if the arguments are true and compelling.
Which they may be, to people who already believe as you do.
Some people reject even compelling arguments because they have their own personal agenda.
Or maybe the arguments aren't compelling. Also possible.
I fully understand this. It's an eternal principle. God never changes.
And yet you think that God changes His mind.