The Law

[Mattithyah]

I came across this:

"Some Christians believe that they should keep old covenant observances such as the weekly and annual Sabbaths. A person is a "true Christian" only if he or she observes Sabbaths and certain other old covenant requirements. But the truth is that these old worship regulations are not required today, and it is legalistic to teach that people must obey those rules in order to be accounted worthy of salvation."

That is a popular argument for why Christians don't observe those Laws...

Why does that paragraph say the things that it says? First the Bible commanded us to keep 613 Commandments. Where is the prophecy in the "Old Testament" that says those Laws would someday be invalid or no longer required?

So, basically, Christians believe: For example: the Mr. Smith was born 30 B.C.E. He lived a good life before the birth of the Savior and observed those Laws with all his ability. Somewhere around 34 C.E. he no longer had to observe them (for whatever reason.

True? At what exact point in history did those Laws become invalid? What Bible verses in the "Old Testament" prove this?

This cannot be proven. In fact, the opposite is true since there are a dozen or more prophesies about the Law being and standing for ever.
[Zecharyah was written in 520 B.C.E.]
Zechariah 14:18-19 says that the heathen will be forced to observe and travel to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. This prophesy has never been fulfilled, nor has there ever been circumstances that even remotely resembled it.

Why would Yahweh force all people to observe a Feast that is no longer valid, and has no purpose? Why would Yahweh force people to be "legalistic?"

Also, I must point out that the prophecy is that Yahweh will force the heathen to keep the Feast. Does this mean that the Christians are keeping it already voluntarily? Or, does it mean that the Feast of Tabernacles will be a part of Hell?

[FYI I observe the Feast of Tabernacles Deut. 12:5-6]

 

[JayJayDee]

Do the Christian scriptures figure in your belief system at all Mattithyah?

Jesus himself said that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:17) He also condensed the entire law down to just two...often called the "law of love"....this is the law Christians are under. (Matt 22:36-40)

No Sabbath observance was mandated for Gentile Christians. It was a Jewish law that pertained only to Jews
The apostles made that clear when the circumcision issue was raised, that the law did not apply to any Christians as a set of legal requirements.....the only things "necessary" for Christians was to 'abstain from fornication, from eating the flesh of strangled animals (unbled) and from the consumption of blood'. (Acts 15:3-29) No Sabbath, no circumcision, and no festivals were observed by Christians. Christ was the end of the law. (Gal 3:24, 25; Rom 13:9, 10: 4, 7, 6)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I wish I can give you an intelligent answer; but, I agree that Christians should keep all the commandments Jesus had. Jesus said the Law was fulfilled not that is was void. He also said the "sum" of all commandments where love God and neighbor not the only commandments is now love God and love neighbor. Unlike older Christian religions, maybe modern christians feel its too much work to carry their cross? Maybe they feel anything that is an isplated action, such as lighting a candle, is ritual when those who do dont separate that action from the prayer to God. (Example only). I find its kind of laziness and lack of displine to Do what Jesus did not just believe it.

Thats just me. If I were a follower, Id try to follow the commandments in action. OT ans NT are both the Bible. No one more important than the other.

I feel that the Bible doesnt hold all the means of worship that an christian can do to devote himself to God. There are many ways to worship.

I came across this:

"Some Christians believe that they should keep old covenant observances such as the weekly and annual Sabbaths. A person is a "true Christian" only if he or she observes Sabbaths and certain other old covenant requirements. But the truth is that these old worship regulations are not required today, and it is legalistic to teach that people must obey those rules in order to be accounted worthy of salvation."

That is a popular argument for why Christians don't observe those Laws...

Why does that paragraph say the things that it says? First the Bible commanded us to keep 613 Commandments. Where is the prophecy in the "Old Testament" that says those Laws would someday be invalid or no longer required?

So, basically, Christians believe: For example: the Mr. Smith was born 30 B.C.E. He lived a good life before the birth of the Savior and observed those Laws with all his ability. Somewhere around 34 C.E. he no longer had to observe them (for whatever reason.

True? At what exact point in history did those Laws become invalid? What Bible verses in the "Old Testament" prove this?

This cannot be proven. In fact, the opposite is true since there are a dozen or more prophesies about the Law being and standing for ever.
[Zecharyah was written in 520 B.C.E.]
Zechariah 14:18-19 says that the heathen will be forced to observe and travel to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. This prophesy has never been fulfilled, nor has there ever been circumstances that even remotely resembled it.

Why would Yahweh force all people to observe a Feast that is no longer valid, and has no purpose? Why would Yahweh force people to be "legalistic?"

Also, I must point out that the prophecy is that Yahweh will force the heathen to keep the Feast. Does this mean that the Christians are keeping it already voluntarily? Or, does it mean that the Feast of Tabernacles will be a part of Hell?

[FYI I observe the Feast of Tabernacles Deut. 12:5-6]

 

[Awoon]

Who can really follow Jesus and do what he demonstrated?

Sign your name below.

 

[Wharton]

When you change the priesthood, you change the Law so said Paul.

 

[Thief]

Hmmm.....
The Carpenter said...
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

and then said ....
All of the law is laid upon this.

I agree.
We need nothing else or anything more.

 

[roger1440]

I came across this:

"Some Christians believe that they should keep old covenant observances such as the weekly and annual Sabbaths. A person is a "true Christian" only if he or she observes Sabbaths and certain other old covenant requirements. But the truth is that these old worship regulations are not required today, and it is legalistic to teach that people must obey those rules in order to be accounted worthy of salvation."

That is a popular argument for why Christians don't observe those Laws...

Why does that paragraph say the things that it says? First the Bible commanded us to keep 613 Commandments. Where is the prophecy in the "Old Testament" that says those Laws would someday be invalid or no longer required?

So, basically, Christians believe: For example: the Mr. Smith was born 30 B.C.E. He lived a good life before the birth of the Savior and observed those Laws with all his ability. Somewhere around 34 C.E. he no longer had to observe them (for whatever reason.

True? At what exact point in history did those Laws become invalid? What Bible verses in the "Old Testament" prove this?

This cannot be proven. In fact, the opposite is true since there are a dozen or more prophesies about the Law being and standing for ever.
[Zecharyah was written in 520 B.C.E.]
Zechariah 14:18-19 says that the heathen will be forced to observe and travel to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. This prophesy has never been fulfilled, nor has there ever been circumstances that even remotely resembled it.

Why would Yahweh force all people to observe a Feast that is no longer valid, and has no purpose? Why would Yahweh force people to be "legalistic?"

Also, I must point out that the prophecy is that Yahweh will force the heathen to keep the Feast. Does this mean that the Christians are keeping it already voluntarily? Or, does it mean that the Feast of Tabernacles will be a part of Hell?

[FYI I observe the Feast of Tabernacles Deut. 12:5-6]

The "613 Commandments" are for Jews not Gentiles.

 

[Kolibri]

The "613 Commandments" are for Jews not Gentiles.

'Was' mandated for Jews, not 'is'. The Law was "fulfilled", and by the manner of Jesus' death, all Jews were released from the Law - whether or not they agree with that releasing. (Matthew 5:17,18; Luke 16:17)

"All those who depend on works of law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all the things written in the scroll of the Law by doing them.' Moreover, it is evident that by law no one is declared righteous with God, because 'the righteous one will live by faith.' Now the Law is not based on faith. Rather, 'anyone who does these things will live by them.' Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: 'Accursed is every man hung on a stake.'"
- Galatians 3:10-14; internal quotes are from De 27:26; Hab 2:4; Le 18:5; and De 21:23

"Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. But the Scripture handed all things over to the custody of sin, so that the promise resulting from faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith. However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed. So the Law became our guardian (or, "tutor.") leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian."
- Galatians 3:21-25

 

[roger1440]

'Was' mandated for Jews, not 'is'. The Law was "fulfilled", and by the manner of Jesus' death, all Jews were released from the Law - whether or not they agree with that releasing. (Matthew 5:17,18; Luke 16:17)

"All those who depend on works of law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all the things written in the scroll of the Law by doing them.' Moreover, it is evident that by law no one is declared righteous with God, because 'the righteous one will live by faith.' Now the Law is not based on faith. Rather, 'anyone who does these things will live by them.' Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: 'Accursed is every man hung on a stake.'"
- Galatians 3:10-14; internal quotes are from De 27:26; Hab 2:4; Le 18:5; and De 21:23

"Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. But the Scripture handed all things over to the custody of sin, so that the promise resulting from faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith. However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed. So the Law became our guardian (or, "tutor.") leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian."
- Galatians 3:21-25

If Jewish scripture is now obsolete it must be shown by using Jewish scripture not Christian, Muslim, Hindu or any other.

 

[Awoon]

"Fulfill the Law," means to demonstrate the Law. Jesus demonstrated the Law as he interpreted the Law.

People who claim Law is done away with are just denying their responsibilities. In other words LAZY and wanting an easy way out.

 

[Wharton]

"Fulfill the Law," means to demonstrate the Law. Jesus demonstrated the Law as he interpreted the Law.

People who claim Law is done away with are just denying their responsibilities. In other words LAZY and wanting an easy way out.

Very Good. To "fulfill the Law" is to properly interpret the Law. To "destroy the Law" is to improperly interpret the Law.

 

[roger1440]

Very Good. To "fulfill the Law" is to properly interpret the Law. To "destroy the Law" is to improperly interpret the Law.

If an immigrant comes to the United States and "fulfills the American dream", it does not abolish the dream.

 

[Wharton]

If an immigrant comes to the United States and "fulfills the American dream", it does not abolish the dream.

If the immigrant properly interprets what is required to achieve the American Dream, he attains/fulfills it. If he improperly interprets what is required to attain the American Dream he destroys its benefits for himself and his family. It's simple. Jesus properly interprets the Law unlike the "fathers" he mentioned in the New Testament.

 

[Levite]

Nobody can "fulfill" the entirety of the commandments-- not even by observing them all his own self, much less somehow fulfilling them in such a way that nobody ever has to follow them again. The concept is both foreign to Jewish thought and tradition, and foreign to the basic concept of a law.

If I go my whole life without murdering someone, will I have fulfilled the law so that other people can murder after me? Laws don't work like that.

Second of all, it bugs me when Christians (and even sometimes Jews) talk about "legalistic" observances or "ritualistic" observances, as though there were certain commandments and certain practices one could simply drop like a hot rock from Torah while retaining others. The entirety of the Torah, all of the commandments, are a holistic fabric, everything connected to everything else. That is why change-- if there is to be change-- must be cautious and careful, and strictly following the pattern of Jewish law and tradition, otherwise the whole thing will be ruined.

Which is precisely what Christianity has done to the Torah and the rest of Jewish tradition. For Christianity, everything Jewish has been ruined, which is fine for them, because they are not Jewish, and they have a non-Jewish religion (Christianity) to take the place of what their originators destroyed.

But it is both useless and disrespectful to Jewish text and tradition to somehow pretend that Christianity integrates seamlessly with Torah and Judaism, or simply cleanly resolves and replaces it.

 

[roger1440]

'Was' mandated for Jews, not 'is'. The Law was "fulfilled", and by the manner of Jesus' death, all Jews were released from the Law - whether or not they agree with that releasing. (Matthew 5:17,18; Luke 16:17)

"All those who depend on works of law are under a curse, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all the things written in the scroll of the Law by doing them.' Moreover, it is evident that by law no one is declared righteous with God, because 'the righteous one will live by faith.' Now the Law is not based on faith. Rather, 'anyone who does these things will live by them.' Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: 'Accursed is every man hung on a stake.'"
- Galatians 3:10-14; internal quotes are from De 27:26; Hab 2:4; Le 18:5; and De 21:23

"Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. But the Scripture handed all things over to the custody of sin, so that the promise resulting from faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith. However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed over into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed. So the Law became our guardian (or, "tutor.") leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian."
- Galatians 3:21-25

What does any of what you quoted has to do with Gentiles? The Law pertains only to Jews. Christians are not Jews, never were, never will be.

 

[Kolibri]

The Law pertains only to Jews..

That is right.

Christians are not Jews, never were, never will be.

However Christians come from all backgrounds, not just from the Gentiles but from the Jews too. Christianity is a faith adopted first by people who came from Jewish background.
Those previously under the Mosaic Law did not suddenly stop being Jews when they became Christians.

As Paul was warning the congregations in southern Galatia, there were those that had slipped into the congregation that were pushing an amalgam of Jewish Law and Christian Faith. While the Christians with a Jewish background may or may not continue with what had become the cultural norm for them, the Law was no longer to be considered required. Even Paul's rebuke of Peter shows that the Jewish apostle Peter was not typically following the laws of the Law Covenant as Law anymore, but had adopted a pretense of keeping the Law to avoid confrontation with these false brothers.

"But when I saw that they were not walking in step with the truth of the good news, I said to Ce'phas before them all: 'If you, though you are a Jew, live as the nations do and not as Jews do, how can you compel people of the nations to live according to Jewish practice?'" - Ga 2:14

 

[roger1440]

Those previously under the Mosaic Law did not suddenly stop being Jews when they became Christians.

Most Jews I know of would not agree with that statement. We can run a poll right now and ask the Jews on this forum.

 

[Kolibri]

Most Jews I know of would not agree with that statement. We can run a poll right now and ask the Jews on this forum.

Really it all depends on how the term is defined. Those that became Christian did not forsake their identity as Jewish.

"I [Paul] am a Jew," - Acts 22:3a

"I ask, then, God did not reject his people, did he? By no means! For I too am an Israelite, of the offspring (Lit., "seed.") of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin." - Romans 11:1

While no longer living by Law, the Jewish Christians were still greatly influenced by the culture they were raised in and the familiarity they had with the Scriptures they were raised on.

 

[roger1440]

Really it all depends on how the term is defined. Those that became Christian did not forsake their identity as Jewish.

"I [Paul] am a Jew," - Acts 22:3a

"I ask, then, God did not reject his people, did he? By no means! For I too am an Israelite, of the offspring (Lit., "seed.") of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin." - Romans 11:1

While no longer living by Law, the Jewish Christians were still greatly influenced by the culture they were raised in and the familiarity they had with the Scriptures they were raised on.

You are quoting from a renegade Jew. It's a no brainer he would write that.

 

[Kolibri]

You are quoting from a renegade Jew. It's a no brainer he would write that.

Interesting that you label him as the renegade. If Jesus was truly the promised offspring of Abraham, it was not Paul that was the renegade but those eyewitnesses of Jesus' works that rejected Jesus that were the renegades.

"If I [Jesus] had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin. But now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me also hates my Father. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have both seen me and hated me as well as my Father. But this happened in order to fulfill the word written in their Law: 'They hated me without cause.'" - John 15:22-25; the last part is a quote from Ps 35:19 and 69:4.