OT Law vs Grace...

[verbatim]

Brother Jason for clarity I would like to mention that Jesus also quoted Deut 6:4-5 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Mark 12:28-30 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

If the LORD was the "only" God, then they ought not to love any other being supremely - then they might not bow down before any idol.
Exodus 20:3-5 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Mark 12:31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Regards

[Jason]

Verbatim, that is quite true. It's also true that Jesus told the young ruler, on the subject of inheriting eternal life, to follow the commandments, listing a few of the Ten. I trust Jesus' judgement of the Ten Commandments, that they were given by God. But to my knowledge, no one is this thread has criticized the Ten Commandments, but rather the bringing forward of more obscure laws that deal with moral activity and their appropriate punishments. The examples I gave are stoning rebellious children and homosexuals. And as previously stated, the reason I chose those two examples are because they are popular examples that non-Christians use to criticize unfair practices of the Bible, and if not for that reason, for demonstrating a distinct difference between what is considered "moral" in the OT when contrasted to the NT. Hope that helps.

[parsonsmom]

Jason asked; I understand why the ceremonial laws were abolished, since they were symbolically fulfilled in Jesus during his incarnated life. But what of the moral laws?

I think Jesus' condemnation of the Jewish Law keepers was enough to give most people reason to withhold Law administration, refrain from policing others on the Law, and refrain from pointing out sins in others. The Jesus perspective is to 'pull the log out of our own eye' and 'if your own eye causes you to sin tear it out', so the Christian admonition is to judge ourselves first. Desire mercy not sacrifice, and "do not Judge so that you may not be judged, for with the judgment you make you will be judged" (Matt 7). The woman caught in adultery is a great example (apocryphal or not) because the guilty man should also have been brought in, not just the woman, so they were unjustly protecting the man involved. And this also illustrates how the tables are turned, now it is the Pharisees who are guilty of sin. This has to be the Christian principle in judging 'we are all guilty' but in order to keep civility law and order amongst a society you still must have law and courts rather than rampant and flagrant immorality (as it is today) that is why Jesus also says;
"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church" (Matt 18:15-18)
But we keep in mind Jesus will be Judge and He also says;
"but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matt 18:5)

========================================================================================

Shalom jriccitelli; I agree with you on this statement; this law was that you are speaking of was made by evil rabbis and judges, It was very much like the shera law of today that is practiced by some of the eastern culture. Respectfully; Parsonsmom

think Jesus' condemnation of the Jewish Law keepers was enough to give most people reason to withhold Law administration, refrain from policing others on the Law, and refrain from pointing out sins in others. The Jesus perspective is to 'pull the log out of our own eye' and 'if your own eye causes you to sin tear it out', so the Christian admonition is to judge ourselves first. Desire mercy not sacrifice, and "do not Judge so that you may not be judged, for with the judgment you make you will be judged" (Matt 7). The woman caught in adultery is a great example (apocryphal or not) because the guilty man should also have been brought in, not just the woman,

[Paidion]

And not to veer too far off topic, but the "woman caught in adultery" is a sketchy passage and may not be true account. It's earliest appearance (which, I think, actually appears in Luke's gospel) carries a pretty late date (9th century?). It may be a genuine passage, but I wouldn't stock any important doctrines upon it.

I guess most people who intended to address the topic have done so (not to your satisfaction, I bet), and so I just want to "veer off the topic" a bit, and respond to your statement above. I don't think the earliest appearance of the story, even in the gospels, is as late as the 9th century. Please note the following:

1.It seems that Papias (about 125 A.D.) referred to the story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins."

2. In the Apostolic Constitutions, Book 2, chapter 24 (thought to have been written in the 200s) we read:
"And when the elders had set another woman which had sinned before Him, and had left the sentence to Him, and were gone out, our Lord, the searcher of hearts, inquiring of her whether the elders had condemned her, and being answered, No, He said to her: "Go thy way therefore, for neither do I condemn thee."

3. A number of Latin fathers, including John Chrysostom and Augustine (300s), stated that the passage was canonical, and that some had removed it from the manuscript. He wrote:
"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."

[Jason]

Paidion, those examples do lend some credibility to the Adultery Pericope. I'm less convinced by Papias since he said "falsely accused of many sins." In that particular story, the woman was accused of one sin (adultery) and from her conversation with Jesus, it seems she was guilty. I have a certain sentimentality about this story so I choose to believe the event occurred. Certainly no harm has come from its inclusion, and many have been edified by reading it.

[Paidion]

Not to belabour the matter, Jason. But could you tell me where you got the information that Papias said "falsely accused of many sins"?
The writings of Papias didn't survive, but the early church historian Eusebius wrote "[Papias] relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." Eusebius didn't prefix "accused" with "falsely". Why would anyone suppose the Papias had done so?

"The Gospel according to the Hebrews" is thought to have been an earlier name for the canonical "The Gospel of Matthew".

[Jason]

Eusebius states that Papias "reproduces a story about a woman falsely accused before the Lord of many sins." J. B. Lightfoot identified this story with the Pericope Adulterae, and included it in his collection of fragments of Papias' work. However, Michael W. Holmes has pointed out that it is not certain "that Papias knew the story in precisely this form, inasmuch as it now appears that at least two independent stories about Jesus and a sinful woman circulated among Christians in the first two centuries of the church, so that the traditional form found in many New Testament manuscripts may well represent a conflation of two independent shorter, earlier versions of the incident."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

My source may be inaccurate so if you find this to be the case, please let me know. Thanks Paidion!

[parsonsmom]

Prov.3: 5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.

8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.

9 Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:

10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lean on, trust in, and be confident in the Lord with all your heart and mind and do not rely on your own insight or understanding; and in all your ways know; recognize; and acknowledge Him; and He will direct and make straight and plain your paths.
Be not wise in your own eyes; reverently fear and worship the Lord; and turn entirely away from evil; so it shall be health to your nerves and sinews, and marrow and moistening to your bones.
Honor the Lord with your capital and sufficiency; from righteous labors; and with the firstfruits of all your income; So shall your storage places be filled with plenty; and your vats shall be overflowing with new wine.

The reason for my posting as is; not for so much the the ones that understand the Word; as for the newbes; or some one
that has not understood the KG; some has fallen away just because of not understanding. I am defining words ;or hoping to lead to more of understanding of the subjects.

[oldschoolcq]

If I could be so bold? as to address the question that arrises in the title alone: Old Testament Law vs Grace, and pose some questions based on my comments on that?

Seems to me that this is the central point to what makes or breaks what Christianity is in our day. For some reason it appears to me that law is seen (especially in evangelical circles) as itself a negative, primarily because of misconstruing the writings of Paul. Yet. Christian law is itself Truth at its core.

Evangelicals would that law and love oppose each other, yet Christian law is the very embodiment of love. Every command is itself about selflessness. This is why I cannot see a dispensation of law separate from a dispensation of love. The reason this breaks down (the church) is that love has a singular meaning that is hard to redefine in the minds of men that makes it incongruent to the conversation of law and truth as would appear in what John speaks of in John 14.21 which puts live in a context of obedience. That single verse answers the question of a distinction that would empower grace outside of active confession and thus behavior is every bit as important today as it was then, in fact as I read Hebrews 10 I would say that BECAUSE of Christ's sacrifice, it is more important today than it was then because of an awareness now of what sacrifice actually is and thus God's expectations now that He sacrificed His only begotten Son on my behalf. This would be why there remains no more sacrifice for sin should I continue on in it. Thus I tremble as I ask forgiveness.

The very idea of law being repealed and love in its place makes no sense to me in that the awe and reverence of the sacrifice gets its very meaning from knowing(having) God's law. Its the mirror that reveals my sins, it is the mirror that shows me Jesus, both perfect and crucified. I believe that today the evangelicals are at the heart of what is destroying both Christianity and
the most Christian nation to have existed by ruining the meaning of lawfulness that begets a behavior (that results in freedom). They are the nexus of creating a feelings faith that because it is about grace ALONE, puts feelings ahead of behavior, accountability, consequences, and any number of other politically incorrect subjects. Really this is why feelings today trumps the truth. It is the new norm that has removed the intrinsic link between accounting and accountability. It is why people today rarely postulate what they believe and instead only reveal what it is they "feel". Could it be this is (what has helped create) the relativity that is dissolving beliefs? is dissolving law? created churchianity? reveals distinctions themselves as the problem rather than the solution?

Does love even have meaning outside the existence of law or truth? Is the reason for the myriad of new (theological) questions about truth arising from having removed the answers?(the law) .. and created the very reason that we are more often offended rather than convicted? and, if we come to a point where conviction is no longer valid inside the "correctness" of our age, could we be stumbling on the answer to why God is so distant from us today? , and why freedom of conscience in our land today is becoming instead freedom from owning one? Would this be the very reason Jesus said what He said about the law in the sermon on the mount? (Matt 5.19)

[dwilkins]

I'm not sure I follow all of your thoughts, but from what I can tell you have bumped into the mistake that Luther made when he confused "works of the Law" and "works" (usually meaning good works). When Paul wrote Galatians he was condemning people for attempting to be justified by being members of the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant (the Mosaic Covenant established at Sinai). His condemnation of "works" had nothing to do with good works or morality as such, it was aimed at people who were being circumcised or otherwise observing indicators of being members of the nation in order to gain favor with God. Instead, Paul was saying that Christians are justified by having faith like Abraham did.

In a sense, your post is the logical conclusion of an incorrect understanding of Paul's point. He never said that Christians were free from standards, or anything similar to that. He was saying that Israel under the Old Covenant was in bondage (primarily because there was no intrinsic method for permanently doing away with sin) and that Israel under the New Covenant was the answer. To get there meant walking away from seeing worship practices of the Old Covenant system as inherently important and joining the New Covenant under Christ. The Old Covenant had a written law that reflected morality from God's point of view. The morality (found in the 10 Commandments and elsewhere) was true before, during, and after the Old Covenant. The articulation of that morality under the New Covenant includes upgrades to the expectations (thinking about adultery vs. doing adultery) so there are no grounds for antinomianism even through the Old Covenant (including the 10 Commandments) has been deprecated (upgraded).

The term grace is simply a term used to describe the package of salvation that God has offered men under the New Covenant. It was a gift (they couldn't have provided their own packaged deal). It's opposed to the Old Covenant because grace (the gift of salvation) only comes through a New Covenant.

Doug