law of moses

[Andre]

does this apply to christians why or why not? seemingly simple question but maybe not as clear-cut as i've always thought... what are some thoughts?

[Candlepower]

does this apply to christians why or why not? seemingly simple question but maybe not as clear-cut as i've always thought... what are some thoughts?

Hello Andre,

Are you asking if the law of Moses applies to Christians? If so, then I believe that in the New Covenant age, the Law of Christ transcends the Law of Moses.

See James 1:25, 2:8, 2:12 & Romans 7:2,3.

The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant. Jesus is our Husband now. He superseded Moses.

For an excellent in-depth explanation, I think you will be blessed by listening to this: http://www.thenarrowpath.com/mp3s/bible ... /rom14.mp3

Candlepower

[Jill]

.

[Andre]

now i've not had a chance to listen to the teaching yet (i will tomorrow at work when i can take notes and do some studying on what is said)
looking at james it says:
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well."
so if i were just to take that alone it would seem that that is all i need to do however James goes on to say:
9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
then:
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all...12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

it seems that James is saying the law is still in place as a code of conduct (obviously not for our salvation) and that he is even advocating that we follow it so that we will not be "convicted by the law" because we have been "committing sin" but above following it we should show mercy to those stumble...
what are your thoughts?


as for Romans i think it's too small of a snippet to just take those 2 verses to decide what Paul is talking about:
2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
so he's not yet talking about our relationship to the law...

if we keep going we get to the crux of the matter 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

we could say, “We no longer serve the law but we serve Christ.” but if we add the possible subjects into the verse (“law” or “Christ”) it doesn't' seem to say that:

“…we should serve [Christ] in the newness of the Spirit and not [serve Christ] in the oldness of the letter.”
This CANNOT be the intention of the verse: Why? Because Christ was never served in the oldness of the letter by us or by the Jews. It has to read, instead:

“…we should serve [the law] in the newness of the Spirit and not [serve the law] in the oldness of the letter.”

he also says about the law:
12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
and
14For we know that the Law is spiritual...
if these statements are true wouldn't it be good for us to heed it?

thoughts? and thank you for your input

[Candlepower]

Andre,

I'm glad you're interested in Scripture and in finding truth. You are in good company with many of the folks on this forum.

In my statements about the Law of Moses being superseded by Jesus, I did not mean to imply that God annulled the Law, or that it is not spiritual. In fact, Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly. The point I was briefly making is that Jesus had the authority to abolish parts of the Mosaic Law that He had fulfilled. For instance, the mosaic Law included many legal instructions concerning animal sacrifice. Jesus fulfilled the purpose of those animal sacrifices, thereby ending their valid practice. Another example of Jesus superseding Moses and the Law was when he magnified it by teaching that anger without a cause is akin to murder (Matthew 5:21-22).

I'm also glad you will be listening to the lecture I gave a link to. It will help clarify the verses in James and Romans, and others.

he's not yet talking about our relationship to the law...

When you listen to the lecture, I think you will be surprised to find out just how much Romans 7:1-4 has to do with our relationship to the law. When you finish that lecture, I highly encourage you to listen to all of Steve Gregg's lectures on Romans.

God bless you,

Candlepower

[IsaacJ]

This is an interesting subject for sure, I'm always chewing on little bits of it's implications...here's some things I've learned that seem to make sense and be consistent with what I see in the scripture:

-Israel was the only country that's ever been a Theocracy, -meaning completely governed by God. He gave them all of their law: Civil laws for peace and order in the land; Ceremonial laws for instructions having to do with the temple and worship; and moral laws declaring right and wrong. Of course some of these categories tend to overlap at times and aren't listed in these sections but lumped together. Whenever we see a part of the law it seems helpful to ask what category of law it is...because the New Testament seems to re-affirm the Moral laws (morality is unchanging since it's based on God's nature) and let most of the other laws go. The civil laws were for the nation of Israel at a specific time and the ceremonial law died with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Of course, all that to say, what God says about moral right and wrong continues to be affirmed in the New Testament and as has been mentioned; is fulfilled by those walking in love. We are not under the law, but if we make it our aim to please God and love Him, we'll want to do what He declares right and wrong. Praise the Lord we don't have to do this to earn our salvation...but in view of His mercy, we offer ourselves back to bless Him (Romans 12:1-2).

Hope that helps somewhat...may the Spirit continue to lead you into all truth.

[Andre]

“When you listen to the lecture, I think you will be surprised to find out just how much Romans 7:1-4 has to do with our relationship to the law.”
Sorry I may have been unclear I knew he was using at as an illustration to help us to understand our relationship with the law but at that point, and Steve breaks it down a little too saying that it is an imperfect analogy because we wind up taking the position of the wife who dies. The law on the other hand does not die.
He quotes from Mark 4:26 to point out that holiness is like a fruit and it is something that once we are united with Christ we will naturally produce.

I guess that then brings up the question that was posed to me which got me thinking about all this, “what does it look like to live a holy life in the spirit and is Holy Spirit going to tell you anything contrary to what He told the Israelites to do?” (i.e. has God’s standard of holiness of what holiness looks like when lived out changed?)

Steve brought up an excellent picture of a woman working for a boss and washing his socks lol. They then fall in love and get married. She still washes his socks but now does it out of love for him and no longer out of obligation. That seems to be what I’m leaning towards. We should still use the law as a way of showing God we love Him and are obedient to Him. It is not however our basis for salvation; our union with Christ is.

This then leads me to what Isaac is saying… which laws apply to me? Not because I have to but because they make my new Husband (Christ) happy. Should I wear a tzitzit? Should I not eat pork or lobster? Do I have to understand why I can’t eat those even though I love them or should I just do it because I love God more?

[Candlepower]

This then leads me to what Isaac is saying… which laws apply to me? Not because I have to but because they make my new Husband (Christ) happy. Should I wear a tzitzit? Should I not eat pork or lobster? Do I have to understand why I can’t eat those even though I love them or should I just do it because I love God more?

There are some OT laws I don't think we need to be concerned with, such as those dealing with the tabernacle/temple, animal sacrifices, the priesthood, and diet. Those were shadows that are now realized in the Church and the Kingdom of God. Jewish Christians in the early church era had a very difficult time understanding this. Much of Paul's writings deals with counteracting the Judaizers' corrupting influence.

Romans 14 helps us understand whether we should eat pork, and whether we should wear tzizits (that's the first time I ever wrote that word). If you choose to wear one because you think it pleases Jesus, Paul might tell you, "Go ahead and wear a tzizit, but don't judge us who don't." And if I choose not to wear one because I don't think Jesus cares a whit about tzizits, Paul might tell me, "You are not required to wear a tzizit, but don't despise your brother who thinks he is. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

It (the Law) is not however our basis for salvation; our union with Christ is.

That says it!

Candlepower

[Andre]

Now is Romans 14 talking about the dietary laws or, since Paul is writing to a gentile and not Jewish community is he referring to the meat they would be getting in the markets which was sacrificed to idols like in 1 Cor. 8?

He does after all talk about “doubtful things” which I would take to mean meats where you couldn’t tell their history like if they were killed the right way or if they had been sacrificed to idols or had some sort of “blessing” from a false god of some sort. Things like that.
It is also interesting that the word “unclean” which Paul uses is not the word which in the Greek refers to the dietary laws in Leviticus but he is instead using the word meaning common or defiled. So this makes it even less likely that it’s a reference to Levitical law and more likely that it is a reference to the same thing he spoke of in Corinthians.

As far as the “days” go isn’t it also more likely that he is referring to pagan holidays and not the Sabbath since he is speaking to gentiles and not Jews? It seems more likely that he is here giving us a way of dealing with things like Halloween than Sabbath. He’s saying if your church has a Halloween party that’s cool or if they have a harvest party that’s cool too. If they shut their doors in fear that they will be tainted by pumpkin demons then they are weaker in faith but we should not fault them for it. What we should not do is what we cannot do unto the Lord i.e. worship pumpkin demons

When Jesus gave teaching on the law He always gave us even more strict examples of observance then the actual letter did because He required obedience from the heart. Even with the Sabbath he confirmed it saying the Pharisees were doing it all wrong but that it should be done. Shouldn’t we question our understanding of a reading from Paul which contradicts Christ?
And what should we make of Jesus’ saying in Matt 5:17-19 “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."

Again Christ confirms it’s not a salvation issue but it is nevertheless an issue… Wouldn’t it be to our benefit to teach the law if it will mean we will be called great in the kingdom?

P.S. yeah tzitzit is a way funny word
p.p.s. sorry i'm not trying to be a pain i'm just trying to get to the bottom of this and i'm trying to get as much info from both camps as i can while i reread the new testament with all this in mind...

[Candlepower]

You touched on several subjects in your last post. I wish to discuss only one, which is your statement that Romans was written to Gentiles, not Jews.

Now is Romans 14 talking about the dietary laws or, since Paul is writing to a gentile and not Jewish community is he referring to the meat they would be getting in the markets which was sacrificed to idols

I'm not sure why you think Romans was written to a gentile community and not to a Jewish community. Clearly, the letter was written to a community (the Church at Rome) that consisted of some believers who had gentile background and some who had Jewish background.

The first four chapters of the letter contain blunt criticism by Paul of the Jews for their apostasy and spiritual adultery. Much of the contents of chapters 5-13 concerns primarily the Jewish Christians in the church. In chapter 14, Paul encourages the converted Jews not to Judge (according to Jewish standards) their converted gentile brethren. And he encourages the converted gentiles not to despise their converted Jewish brethren because of their insistence on clinging to some of their Jewish traditions.

It may be accurate to say that the central purpose of the letter was to address the misunderstanding among the converted Jews concerning what Christianity was all about. Many of them were having a very hard time liberating themselves from their Jewish legalism. While Paul encouraged the gentile believers not to despise their Jewish brethren, he openly called the Jewish brethren "weak." As I re-read Romans, it seems clear that the Jewish believers within the church at Rome were the target audience atwhich Paul aimed his letter. It seems the gentile believers were the secondary audience.

In Galatians (a letter Paul wrote for the same reason he wrote Romans) Paul said, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek...for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal. 3:26-29 NKJV) This is the message Paul wanted to drive home to the converts (Jew and gentile) in both Galatia and Rome.

Candlepower