How much of God's law is good?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

I don't understand why God would be pleased with the animal sacrifice. Is that what He wants today?

....The Scriptures teach that God wants obedience more than he wants sacrifices. If people obeyed, not as many sin offerings would be necessary.

Are any sacrifices necessary? Are any being offered now by Christians?

Quote:

However, from the time Adam left Eden until the time of the Apostles, obedience to God has entailed offering some bloody sacrifices.

At least until the death of Christ. I don't know of any evidence that bloody sacrifices were ever part of the New Covenant. If you believe they are a part of the New Covenant, can you tell at what time they became part of the NC? Where are we told to offer animal sacrifices in the NT?

Originally Posted By: John317

What was the significance of the vail in the temple being supernaturally torn from top to bottom? (Mark 15: 38)

The only explanation I've found in Scripture is found in Hebrews 10:19-20 "Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body." (NIV)

We have immediate access to God the Father and do not have to wait for a human priest or for an animal sacrifice. The veil also signifies that the sacrificial system was at a close. The Most Holy Place was no longer Holy to God. It was open to the gaze of all, now considered by God to be common. The whole system moved from the earth to heavenly, from type to ante-type.

Quote:

... The New Testament records that the early Christians continued to meet, pray, and worship at the Temple. And at times God met the believers there. (Acts 22:17)

I do not see anything in the New Testament to show early Christians were offering animal sacrifices in the temple. All we have is the incident in Acts 21, which was obviously an exception, which is why it was recorded. Where else is there evidence of a regular practice of Christians offering sacrifices between the time of Jesus' death and 59 AD?

Where is there evidence that Gentile Christians or Jewish Christians offered sacrifices between, say, 61-70 AD?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

This really says it all:

19 I am not anyone's slave. But I have become a slave to everyone, so that I can win as many people as possible. 20 When I am with the Jews, I live like a Jew to win Jews. They are ruled by the Law of Moses, and I am not. But I live by the Law to win them. 21 And when I am with people who are not ruled by the Law, I forget about the Law to win them. Of course, I never really forget about the law of God. In fact, I am ruled by the law of Christ. 22 When I am with people whose faith is weak, I live as they do to win them. I do everything I can to win everyone I possibly can. 1 Corinthians 9:19-22

While we're playing with paraphrases, let's update this one a few centuries to see how it goes....

Here's the New Living and Robert Young's Literal:

Quote:

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.

RYL--

19 for being free from all men, to all men I made myself servant, that the more I might gain;

20 and I became to the Jews as a Jew, that Jews I might gain; to those under law as under law, that those under law I might gain; 21 to those without law, as without law -- (not being without law to God, but within law to Christ) -- that I might gain those without law; 22 I became to the infirm as infirm, that the infirm I might gain; to all men I have become all things, that by all means I may save some.

I think they're both saying pretty much the same thing, aren't they?

What do you believe was Paul's meaning here?

Who are "those under law"? What was Paul doing differently when with Jews that He wasn't doing when he was among those "without the law"? What "law" was this?

And what did Paul mean when he talked about "not being without law to God but within law to Christ"?

[Ron Amnsn]

What evidence do you have that the Christians, particularly the Gentile Christians, were regularly offering animal sacrifices in the Temple? What evidence that it was part of the New Covenant or that leaders of the early church expected Christians to offer blood sacrifices? (I mean besides the incident in Acts 21.)

What's wrong with Acts 21?

There isn't any direct evidence that the Christians were regularly offering animal sacrifices at the Temple. I don't think I said they were doing that. Gentile Christians didn't exist at all until Acts 10. Before that they were only converts to Judaism and were considered Jews. I was talking about the earliest believers at the very beginning of Acts.

The evidence shows that the believers were regularly (continually) at the temple. The temple was where animal sacrifices occurred. The morning and evening sacrifices were sacrifices for all Israel (not personal sacrifices). The believers were part of Israel and they were at the Temple while they sacrifices were offered, so I would consider them to be participants. But they weren't offering the sacrifices themselves, unless the large number of priests who became obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7) continued fulfill their duties in the Temple (and there isn't any biblical reason they should have abandoned their post when Messiah came).

• Luke 24:53 - And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.
• Acts 2:46 - Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.
• Acts 5:12,13 - And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people.
• Acts 5:20 - "Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people the full message of this new life."
• Acts 5:42 - And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.
• Acts 6:7 and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

The evidence later in Acts includes:

• Acts 15 - the council met to discuss whether Gentiles should be required to keep the Law of Moses (Actually, it was the oral law they were discussing). If any of the Jewish believers had been disregarding the Law of Moses at that point, the issue would have been moot for Gentiles and the discussion might have lasted 2 minutes. Jewish believers who were following the Law of Moses would have been at the Temple for services that included sacrifices.
• In Acts 18:18 Paul started a vow that included cutting his hair. If that was a Nazarite vow (Num 6) it required a trip to the Temple to offer sacrifices. Paul's behavior in Acts 21 is consistent with what would be expected for a Nazarite vow.
• Acts 20:16 - Paul was headed for Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost, an event that included animal sacrifices. Later he testified that he had gone up to Jerusalem to worship and was found at the Temple (at feast time) - Acts 24:11-12
• Acts 21 - The whole Jewish congregation at Jerusalem was described as "zealous for the Law". The context shows it was the Law of Moses. Could you expect a Jew living in Jerusalem who is zealous for the Law of Moses to keep from fulfilling the requirements of the Law at God's Temple?
• The fact that there were four men in Acts 21 who had already made a vow that required offerings to be made at the Temple makes it pretty clear that going to the temple for such purposes was not unusual among the Jewish believers.
• Acts 24:14 - Paul testified, "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets." Unless it can be shown from the Law and the Prophets that God's people would stop offering animal sacrifices when Messiah came, it should be safe to assume that Paul believed in offering animal sacrifices.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Ammundsen

From the description of the Jerusalem congregation in Acts 21:20 it appears that they had experienced just that:

“You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law."

(And it was the Law of Moses being spoken of in that context.)

Yes, zealous for the law, not zealous for the gospel or for Christ. They didn't yet fully grasp the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel will lead believers to conform to the will and character of God, but it doesn't lead us to sacrifice animals. Christ is our sacrifice and our passover.

Where is the evidence in Scripture for these assertions?

We're talking about the church founded by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost and led by the deacons like Stephen and the disciples of Jesus and the apostles who penned the New Testament. You speak as if there was something defective about this church? Where in Scripture is the evidence that this congregation was considered defective? Paul commended the Thessalonians for following the example of the Judean churches, of which this congregation was foremost. (1 Thess 2:14)

Is it not possible that the Jerusalem believers were zealous for the Law and zealous for the gospel and zealous for Christ. The fact that there were tens of thousands of Jewish believers there only 30 years or so after the cross makes it pretty clear that they were zealous for the gospel and Messiah. Does the Adventist Church with all it's advantages currently have tens of thousands of Jewish members in Jerusalem? Why not? Hasn't the church been there preaching for at least 30 years?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

What evidence do you have that the Christians, particularly the Gentile Christians, were regularly offering animal sacrifices in the Temple? What evidence that it was part of the New Covenant or that leaders of the early church expected Christians to offer blood sacrifices? (I mean besides the incident in Acts 21.)

What's wrong with Acts 21?

Nothing is wrong with it; it is just that it obviously concerns an usual situation, certainly not a typical thing in the life of the Apostle Paul. How many other instances are there of Paul being involved in that sort of activity? Is there a record of Peter or any other Apostle doing that?

James encouraged Paul to do it for a specific reason.

The fact that James requested that Paul do it shows that Paul probably hadn't ever done it since his Damascus experience. It is significant that Paul hadn't ever mentioned anything like it in his epistles, nor had he ever encouraged any Christians to offer animal sacrifices.

If Paul had done it before, there would no need to ask him to do it in Acts 21. Would you agree?

[John317]

[*]Acts 24:14 - Paul testified, "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets." Unless it can be shown from the Law and the Prophets that God's people would stop offering animal sacrifices when Messiah came, it should be safe to assume that Paul believed in offering animal sacrifices.

Doesn't seem odd to you that throughout the whole book of Hebrews, although the temple was still in existence at the time it was composed, nothing is said about Christians offering animal sacrifices in the earthly sanctuary? On the contrary, the readers are urged to understand the change in the priesthood and the change in the law.

What change? A change from an earthly to an heavily priest, and the knowledge that the ultimate sacrifice had been slain, and that no more sacrifices need to made. It contains clear teachings that those sacrifices weren't able to accomplish what God wanted done, which was the forgiveness of sin and a change in the hearts of people. So the animal sacrifices were incapable of doing what Christ's sacrifice and blood was able to accomplish. Why, then, would they want to return to things that hadn't been successful during all those centuries?

The fact that there was a change in the law and in the priesthood showed that the animal sacrifices were at an end.

Paul certainly did not believe the sacrifice offered in Acts 21 was necessary or important for salvation. It had nothing to do with salvation. It was simply something he did at the very strong suggestion of the leader of the Jerusalem church, which was filled with Jewish believers who were "zealous for the [Mosaic] law."

Why did James want Paul to do it?

[Robert]

The moral law was not intended to be a burden but as a blessing and as a guide to better and happier living.

False!!!

Gal 3:17 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 a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgression* until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

* 3847 parabasis { par-ab’-as-is}

"To create transgressions, i.e. that sins might take on the character of transgressions, and thereby the consciousness of sin be intensified and the desire for redemption be aroused" [strong]

In other words God gave the law to turn sin into transgression. Or as Paul states, "In order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure." [Rom 7:13]

Ellen White agrees:

Paul says that as "touching the righteousness which is in the law"—as far as outward acts were concerned –he was "blameless" (Philippians 3:6); but when the spiritual character of the law was discerned, he saw himself a sinner. Judged by the letter of the law as men apply it to the outward life, he had abstained from sin; but when he looked into the depths of its holy precepts, and saw himself as God saw him, he bowed in humiliation and confessed his guilt.

He [Paul] says, "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Romans 7:9. When he saw the spiritual nature of the law, sin appeared in its true hideousness, and his self-esteem [pride] was gone.

[Lineman]

The topic is, "How much of God's law is good?". We KNOW that God's laws were in place even before Satan sinned, because sin is defined as breaking God's law. (Romans 4:15 "...where no law is, there is no transgression." and 1 John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.")

I just posted this in another topic and wanted to share it here too because it is very relevent. The "fence" in this illustration is God's Law of love and without any part of this fence/law in place there would be total disaster throughout the universe; without this fence warning us of danger we would be killed by sin. We need the whole law, the whole fence, in this illustration:

Try to imagine the largest flat space you can. Envision the center area fenced off with a one way fence (God's Law). Once you get into the center (This is where we all start.) you cannot get out, unless you ask God to help you (surrender to Him).

In this center we see all sorts of things the Devil has made that appeals to the visual/physical appitite but that are not good for us. In fact, if you take a closer look you see that in the very center of this area (circle) there is a venturi/funnel (like water spinning as it goes down a drain) that is pulling everyone into the deepest pit you have ever seen (death).

This is all quite unnoticed by most people as they go about their daily life, but those who cry to the Lord for help will be placed (by God) outside of the oneway fence, which is seen to be anything but flat space.

Outside the "fence" you and I have complete freedom to go and do anything we would like to do. (In fact, we are even free to return through that oneway fence and die if that is what we want.) Just think of the places in the entire universe you can go visit and the things you can see and learn about there. Think of all the good stuff you can eat and drink. Think of all the people you will get to meet who really care about things. Think about being able to not just see Jesus, but visit with Him.

Each speck of light in this picture is at least one sun and some of them are actually thousands or even billions of suns. Think of all the "planets" that must be in orbit around each of them and ask yourself:

"What has God created out there that I know nothing about?"

"Why did He create so much for me to enjoy if He does not want me to be happy?"

"How long will it take me to visit just the ones in this picture (though I can't see them) if I were to spend a day on each one?"

I see God's Law as being something that will protect us if we let it. God wants us to be happy and healthy, therefore He told Adam and Eve what to do to remain that way, but they did not believe Him and walked through that "fence". Now, you and I are born inside this fence and there is only ONE way out.

Jesus!

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

The moral law was not intended to be a burden but as a blessing and as a guide to better and happier living.

False!!!

Gal 3:17 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 a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgression* until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

....

To those who are in rebellion against God, the law is condemning. To those who want to earn salvation by obeying the law, it is a great burden.

However, to those walking in the Spirit, the law is a delight. For them, the law shows us how to please God and they run to obey His law. They recognize that the law of God is holy, just and good. Their attitude is the same as that described in Psalms 119. They're not thinking about earning justification or earning merit or salvation. They're thinking about their love for God and they desire to do what's right because it is right.

What would the world be like if everyone in society obeyed God's law? Would society be worse off or better off?

The moral law does certainly show us our sins, of course. But it also shows us how to live well. Psalms says, "They walk at liberty who seek your laws."

If you don't like God's moral law, it is terrible, and a great burden. If you love God and want to do His will, and are walking in the Spirit, His law becomes part of your inner being. That's what the Bible means by having it written on our hearts and minds. It's what sanctification is all about: learning to be more like Jesus. The law was in Jesus' heart. It becomes in our heart, too, as we walk with Him and He purifies us.

You are talking about the law from the viewpoint of the person before they know and love Jesus Christ and have His Spirit. I'm talking about the law of God from the viewpoint of those who aren't resisting God and His law.

(By the way, I'm not saying that we obey God's law absolutely perfectly or that we are without sin. The purpose is not to earn salvation by law-obedience. It's about relationship. See 1 John 1: 5-10.)

It seems like you are arguing that people who obey God's law are under a curse and those who disobey it are under a blessing.

Or maybe that both are under a curse and that whether one obeys God's law is not important.

Or maybe that no one can possibly obey God.

Take a look at Deut. 28 about the blessings of obeying God's law and commandments.

Also look up in Ellen White's index to her writings about the blessings of obeying God's commandments.

You seem so stuck on the law as a bad thing that you can't see what a blessing God wants His people to experience from being in a personal relationship with Him and obeying Him. It's not all bad!

For instance, it's a blessing not to get involved in adultery and unfaithfulness. It's a blessing to be honest and not to steal. It's a blessing not to hate people and kill them. It's a blessing to obey the tenth commandment, which says we shouldn't desire the things that belong to our neighbor. And it's also a blessing to make God #1 in our life and to rest on the Sabbath and to consider the fact that God is the reason for our being and existence. I see these things as real blessings and am sincerely grateful to God for them, aren't you?

[Ron Amnsn]

You are so stuck on the law as a bad thing that you can't see what a blessing God wants His people to experience from being in a personal relationship with Him and obeying Him. It's not all bad!

There are many good points in this whole post. But it seems you're still dividing God's law up into what you perceive as "good" law, (which you call the "moral law") and separating it from the rest of God's Old Testament instructions.

Why couldn't a person (or the whole Jerusalem congregation in Acts 21) perceive ALL of God's Torah in the healthy and beneficial way that you perceive the "moral law"?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

You are so stuck on the law as a bad thing that you can't see what a blessing God wants His people to experience from being in a personal relationship with Him and obeying Him. It's not all bad!

There are many good points in this whole post. But it seems you're still dividing God's law up into what you perceive as "good" law, (which you call the "moral law") and separating it from the rest of God's Old Testament instructions.

Why couldn't a person (or the whole Jerusalem congregation in Acts 21) perceive ALL of God's Torah in the healthy and beneficial way that you perceive the "moral law"?

According to the NT, a person could do that if he didn't believe that his doing those things are salvation issues. I don't see that it's sinful or wrong to celebrate the feast days, nor is it necessarily wrong to get circumcised. But if we do those things with the motive of doing it in order to earn merit or because we think it will help us to be saved, then we need to stop and reexamine our beliefs and our practices in the light of the gospel.

As far as that goes, it is the same with the moral law. The difference is that our faith in Christ means that we can dispense with obeying the ceremonial laws, whereas faith in Christ does not release us from obeying the moral law.

For instance, my faith in Christ does not mean that I will necessarily celebrate the Passover. It releases me from any obligation to do that. I am free to do it or not to do it, as I choose. Same with circumcision, according to 1 Cor. 7: 19. But my faith in Christ does not mean I am free to choose whether to obey God in the matter of the seventh commandment. If I am walking in the Spirit and setting my mind on the Spirit, I will obey God's moral law. It's the result of a genuine relationship with God and of having a knowledge of His will

As far as offering animal sacrifices goes, I wouldn't feel right doing that. Based on what I know, it would be a denial of Christ, because I would be saying that the Messiah has not come yet. I believe the evidence is the sacrifices were all fulfilled in the life and death of Jesus Christ, and he offered the one and only sacrifice that needs to be made. Jesus is our sacrifice.

So when I apply the verse in the Bible that says anything that does not proceed from faith is sin, I have to reject animal sacrifices. That's because I am under conviction that it would be wrong to kill animals as a sacrifice. I believe they ended at the cross. There were no doubt some Jewish Christians who continued to offer them, but that is because they didn't have a clear view of what it meant to accept the Messiah. Remember that Peter didn't have a clear understanding of that issue until long after Acts 10, 11 and Gal. 2: 12-15.

[Ron Amnsn]

Here's the New Living and Robert Young's Literal:

Quote:

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.

RYL--

19 for being free from all men, to all men I made myself servant, that the more I might gain;

20 and I became to the Jews as a Jew, that Jews I might gain; to those under law as under law, that those under law I might gain; 21 to those without law, as without law -- (not being without law to God, but within law to Christ) -- that I might gain those without law; 22 I became to the infirm as infirm, that the infirm I might gain; to all men I have become all things, that by all means I may save some.

I think they're both saying pretty much the same thing, aren't they?

What do you believe was Paul's meaning here?

Who are "those under law"? What was Paul doing differently when with Jews that He wasn't doing when he was among those "without the law"? What "law" was this?

And what did Paul mean when he talked about "not being without law to God but within law to Christ"?

When interpreting passages like this from Scripture we're trying to reconstruct the original meaning of the author. To do this we need to find a meaning that -

• Makes sense in the larger written context where the passage is found
• Makes sense within what we know of the historical, social, and religious context.
• Is consistent with what we know about the life and lifestyle of the author.
• Agrees with the other teachings and beliefs of the author.
• Agrees with previously recorded Scripture.

If we come up with an interpretation of a passage that fails on any of the above points, we can be quite certain that it is not what the original author meant. We must be careful with the second point above, because it's easy to imagine a false context that will fit with a false interpretation. Most often this happens because we tend to project our own culture and beliefs anachronistically back onto a historical situation, where our beliefs and culture were actually unknown.

In my previous postings I've tried to show how your interpretation (as I understand it) violates the above tests of a valid interpretation. The biggest challenge is that you imagine that the New Testament Christians related to the Law of Moses in the same way that you relate to the Law of Moses. But when the historical and New Testament evidence is taken as a whole it can be seen that New Testament Christians related to the Law of Moses in the same way as the author of Psalm 119 related to the Law of Moses and in the same way that Jesus related to the Law of Moses. (When I finally realized this, it was like, "Duh! How could I have thought otherwise. Of course the followers of Jesus would have the same relationship to Torah as Jesus did.") That's why it's only natural that the Jerusalem congregation was zealous for Torah in Acts 21 -- they inherited the same zeal that caused Jesus to clear the Temple. (And that's also why James and the elders would have been concerned for Paul when he was about to meet those tens of thousands of believers with the zeal of Jesus, if the believers remained misinformed about Paul's ministry.)

But I digress. Here's how I would interpret Paul's remarks in 1 Cor 9:19-22.

This passage follows chapter 8 where Paul admonishes the believers to self-limit their freedom to eat meat that had possibly been offered to idols for the sake of their brothers. Then at the begining of chapter 9 Paul explains how he self-limits his own rights and freedoms in order that the gospel might be better received. Then he continues this theme in our passage by explaining how he makes himself a slave to the various types of groups to which he ministers.

In the first century, Judaism was comprised of many different sects. Besides the Pharisees and Saducees, there were also the Essenes, the Zealots, and some lesser known groups. Each of the sects held to different teachings regarding how the Torah should be lived out, with regional variations even within the sects. For example Pharisees from Galilee lived out Torah in a slightly different manner than the Pharisees from Judea, depending on what the local rabbis taught. But the Torah was common ground, even if they didn't always agree on what it meant.

The early Christians were also considered to be a sect within Judaism, which was called "the Way", and Paul confirmed that he too believed "everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets." (Acts 24:14) That would make the Torah common ground for all the different Jewish Christians who accepted Jesus as the Messiah they had been waiting for. Even when the Gentiles later started coming into the faith, they were ready to receive the Jewish Messiah because they were already attending the Jewish synagogues (see Paul's ministry in Acts) or studying the Old Testament as the Ethiopian eunuch was (Acts 8). Nevertheless, even with the Old Testament Scriptures as common ground, there were bound to be difficulties within the Christian congregations. In this passage Paul is encouraging the believers to handle the differences as he himself handled them, not by being pretentious, but by serving each other with the attitude of a slave.

When a slave or servant worked in a Jewish household he would need to learn the religious customs of that household in order to keep the food "kosher" and to keep the household from becoming "defiled" in a way that might interfere in their Temple worship. They had to learn what to do when food spoiled in a container, and what could and couldn't be done on the Sabbath. The slave didn't need to pretend that he held these beliefs himself, he just needed to respect his owner's religion and do things whichever way was considered proper in that household. That's the attitude I believe Paul was teaching in this passage.

Paul refers to four different groups in the passage:

• Jews (literally Judeans) - These could be Jews in general, or specifically Judeans
• those under the law - This could refer to Pharisees who adhered to oral law in addition to Torah (as in Acts 15:5)
• those without law - this could refer to the Jewish sects that did not adhere to oral law
• the weak or infirm - this could refer to those who had come out of pagan worship and needed to distance themselves farther from pagan elements (as in chapter 8)

Just in case someone might misunderstand Paul's intent when he was talking about being as those not under the law, Paul clarified that he himself was not outside God's law (Torah), and then clarified still further by saying he followed Messiah's way of teaching and living Torah (rather than how one of the other sects did it). Later in this epistle Paul re-affirmed this by telling the Corinthians, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." (11:1)

Regardless of the actual identity of the groups mentioned by Paul (for he included "all men"), it is his attitude of serving each group (while keeping himself within Torah as Messiah did) that would dispel the differences within the congregation and allow the gospel to spread.

What Paul was teaching comes rather naturally to most Christians when visiting outsiders. For instance, when we visit in an Orthodox Jewish home we respect their desire to keep the "meat" utensils separate from the "dairy" utensils, etc. Where we have trouble, and this is what I think Paul was aiming at, is within the fellowship of believers when we notice someone doing something we consider "legalistic" or "lax" according to man's traditions. It is then that we most need to adopt the attitude of service that Paul exemplified.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Ammundsen

Why couldn't a person (or the whole Jerusalem congregation in Acts 21) perceive ALL of God's Torah in the healthy and beneficial way that you perceive the "moral law"?

According to the NT, a person could do that if he didn't believe that his doing those things are salvation issues. I don't see that it's sinful or wrong to celebrate the feast days, nor is it necessarily wrong to get circumcised. But if we do those things with the motive of doing it in order to earn merit or because we think it will help us to be saved, then we need to stop and reexamine our beliefs and our practices in the light of the gospel.

The idea that the Old Testament teaches a different way of salvation than the New Testament is a strange one, since both testaments were inspired by the same God.

Can you name even one Old Testament person who earned his salvation by keeping God's law?

A person keeping Old Testament law for the wrong reasons would also need to reexamine their beliefs in light of the Old Testament (which was the only existing Scripture in New Testament times). Speaking of the Israelites in the wilderness, Hebrews 4:2 says, "For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did." Sounds like the NT gospel was first heard by the generation God spoke to at Sinai.

Do you know any Torah-observant Jews who believe that their obedience is what earns them salvation? The Jews that I've heard believe that they are "saved" because God chose them.

[olger]

A quick flashback to the central question of this thread. According to Paul, all of the Law is good (1 Timothy 1:8; Romans 7:12,16).

Just thought you brethren would appreciate the Scriptural affirmation.

oG

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

According to the NT' date=' a person could do that if he didn't believe that his doing those things are salvation issues. I don't see that it's sinful or wrong to celebrate the feast days, nor is it necessarily wrong to get circumcised. But if we do those things with the motive of doing it in order to earn merit or because we think it will help us to be saved, then we need to stop and reexamine our beliefs and our practices in the light of the gospel.[/quote']

The idea that the Old Testament teaches a different way of salvation than the New Testament is a strange one, since both testaments were inspired by the same God.

Can you name even one Old Testament person who earned his salvation by keeping God's law?

A person keeping Old Testament law for the wrong reasons would also need to reexamine their beliefs in light of the Old Testament (which was the only existing Scripture in New Testament times). Speaking of the Israelites in the wilderness, Hebrews 4:2 says, "For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did." Sounds like the NT gospel was first heard by the generation God spoke to at Sinai.

Do you know any Torah-observant Jews who believe that their obedience is what earns them salvation? The Jews that I've heard believe that they are "saved" because God chose them.

The idea that people can be justified by works or obedience to law is not something that the Bible teaches is true. It is a perversion of the proper use of God's laws.

That's what the book of Galatians is all about and also parts of Romans and 1 Cor. 3. Some people looked to the law rather than to Christ for justification and salvation from sin, whereas only Christ is the source of both.

Jews are not saved in any other way than by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ, the same as anyone else.

Abraham was saved the same way we are today: by God's grace, though faith in the Messiah. He had the same everlasting covenant we have, and he was justified by God the same as we are.

[Ron Amnsn]

Study Hebrews 7 closely. What is involved in the New Priesthood that is spoken of there?

[Ron Amnsn]

A quick flashback to the central question of this thread. According to Paul, all of the Law is good (1 Timothy 1:8; Romans 7:12,16).

Just thought you brethren would appreciate the Scriptural affirmation.

Thanks olger.

That was the original question. And that is the Scriptural answer.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

What does it mean to you that the book of Hebrews (9) and Revelation (11:19) both speak of the sanctuary as being now in heaven where Christ serves as our High Priest?

Hebrews 9 indicates that the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries operated concurrently. Hebrews 9 talks extensively of the animal sacrifices which were still occurring in the earthly sanctuary without giving any indication that those sacrifices were in any way offensive or represented a denial of Messiah.

There is no doubt that since the book of Hebrew was written before 70 AD, the temple in Jerusalem was still standing and still in service. That means that of course animals were still being slaughtered. But those animal sacrifices no longer had any significance to God since Christ the real Lamb of God had been sacrificed. The animals sacrificed up to Jesus' time had only been foreshadowing Christ's coming. Once He came and died, there was no more use for them.

It is not a question of whether the earthly sanctuary continued after Christ's death and ascension, but of whether the earthly sanctuary had any more to do with salvation. It didn't. All the services were transferred to the heavenly sanctuary where Christ went. The earthly sanctuary after that point was nothing but an empty shell. Its time of service was over.

Quote:

Revelation 11:19 indicates that God still intends to honor his original covenant with Israel just as He planned when He showed Moses the heavenly pattern to copy.

The church is spiritual Israel and God's plan was transferred to the church. Physical Israel has no more importance in terms of salvation. Rev. 11: 19 must be seen in the context of the Judgment which takes place before the Second Coming of Christ. The standard in the judgment is God's moral law that is in the ark of the covenant.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Do you find anything in the NT indicating that sacrificing animals was to continue after the death of Christ?

History records that animal sacrifices did indeed continue at God's temple in Jerusalem after the death of Christ. And the book of Acts records that Christ's followers actually worshiped at the Temple during that time.

Yes, the animal sacrifices did continue but not because it was what God wanted. The dividing curtain was ripped open from top to bottom, showing that it was no longer considered holy to God. To God the services were common from that point on.

Do Christians offer animal sacrifices today or should they? Obviously not. The temple in Jerusalem was abandoned by God, showing that it has no more relevance to God whatever.

The fact that Jewish Christians worshipped in the Temple doesn't mean they were slaughtering animals as part of their worship. There is nothing in Acts to indicate that. They were going there because that is where people who loved God went. It had been the center of worship for hundreds of years. That is where they would meet God-fearers and Jews who want to do God's will.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Study Hebrews 7 closely. What is involved in the New Priesthood that is spoken of there?

In Hebrews 7 I see

• that the Melchizedek priesthood and the Levitical priesthood were concurrent, not sequential.
• that both are spoken of as valid ministries.
• that the priesthood of Jesus is far superior to the Levitical priesthood (a major theme of Hebrews)
• The author says nothing to denigrate the Levitical priesthood or its duties, except to point out that the priesthood of Jesus is superior.
  
  
  The Old Covenant is no longer valid. It was abolished and its place was taken by the New Covenant. There's no salvation under the Old Covenant. You can't pick which covenant you will be saved under. It is either under the New Covenant or nothing.
  
  First Covenant
  
  1) The Old Covenant faded away, was transitory (1 Cor. 3: 10, 11);
  2) Its sanctuary a mere copy (Hebrews 8:5)
  3) Its sanctuary a shadow
  4) Not faultless (8:7); brought death and condemnation (2 Cor. 3:7,9);
  5) Its gifts and sacrifices cannot perfect the conscience (9:9)
  6) Its sanctuary symbolic (9:9)
  7) Its arrangement deal only in food and drink and ablutions, things for the body
  8) Arrangements imposed only until the time of reformation (i.e., New Covenant) (9:10);
  9) Ratified by the shedding of the blood of calves and goats (9:10);
  10) Taught that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood (9:22);
  11) Merely the copies of things in heaven (9:23);
  12) Earthly sanctuary needed to be purified every year (9: 25);
  13) Shadow of good thing to come (10:1);
  14) Cannot make perfect those who draw near (10:1); no perfection attainable (7:11);
  15) People under it continue to have consciousness of sin (10:2)
  16) Not possible to take away sins (10: 4, 11)
  17) God never took pleasure in burnt offerings and sins offerings (10: 6, 8)
  18) God abolishes the animal sacrifices in order to establish Christ's sacrifice (10: 9)
  19) The fact that Christ is the High Priest proves that the law was changed/removed (7:12);
  20) The New Covenant made the Old Covenant obsolete, or out of date (8:13);
  
  
  
  New, or Second, Covenant:
  
  1) A better hope (Hebrews 7: 1)
  2) A better covenant (He. 7: 22)
  3) Christ the High Priest (8:1)
  4) Sanctuary in the heavens, the true
  5) Sanctuary was the pattern of the earthly
  6) Ministry more excellent than earthly ministry (8:6)
  7) Enacted on better promises (8:6)
  8) Blood of Christ purifies the conscience from dead works (9:14)
  9) Christ's death redeems people from transgressions committed under Old Covenant (9:15)
  10) Jesus appeared once for all to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (9: 26; 10: 12);
  11) The true form of the realities (10:1)
  12) Christ came to do the will of the Father (10:7);
  13) By a single sacrifice, Christ has perfected for all time those who are sactified (10: 14);
  14) When our sins are forgiven through Christ, no more sacrifices are needed (10: 18);
  15) Christ came as Priest by the power of an indestructible life (7:16);
  16) Brings righteousness and life (2 Cor. 3:9).
  
  Summary: Hebrews 8: 6-13 leaves no room for doubt about the fate of the Old Covenant: it was set aside in favor of the New Covenant that has better promises.
  
  
  
  
  

[John317]

[

As far as I know' date=' only the sacrifice of Jesus.

Quote:

This is quite true. Only the sacrifice of Jesus is part of the New Covenant. There is no other sacrifice under the New Covenant.

How is the Old Covenant going to help? What needs to be done yet in order for the New Covenant to be fully implemented?

Quote:

Paul says that a newer covenant does not annul an older covenant (Gal 3:17), so perhaps the new covenant and the old covenant run concurrently until the new covenant is fully implemented.

In the following verses, the New Testament teaches clearly that the Old Covenant is obsolete, set aside, etc.:

1) Old Covenant arrangements imposed until the time of reformation (i.e., New Covenant) (Hebrews 9:10);

2) The Old Covenant faded away, was transitory (1 Cor. 3: 10, 11);

3) God abolishes the animal sacrifices in order to establish Christ's sacrifice (Hebrews 10: 9)

4)The fact that Christ is the High Priest proves that the law was changed/removed (7:12);

5) The New Covenant made the Old Covenant obsolete, or out of date (8:13);

6) By a single sacrifice, Christ has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (10: 14);

7) When our sins are forgiven through Christ, no more sacrifices are needed (10: 18).

[John317]

In Acts 18:18 Paul willingly takes a vow that resembled a Nazarite vow, which would require him to offer an animal sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem. Then in Acts 21 Paul willingly agrees to participate in the conclusion of a vow which includes animal sacrifices and which resembled the Nazarite vow described in Numbers 6.

But given what Paul says in 1 Cor. 7: 17 and 9: 21, 22, the fact that Paul did these things cannot be used as evidence that it was something that all Christians should do. At one time Paul thought it best not to have Titus circumcised, but he did have Timothy circumcised under different circumstances (cf. Acts 16:3; Gal. 2: 3-5). Paul knew that they were not anything of importance in themselves, just like he knew that the false gods did not exist, so he didn't consider them except as they would affect the salvation of others. If it would benefit his ministry among the Jews or among the Gentiles Paul was not opposed to doing something, as long as it didn't conflict with the law of God, as he says in 1 Cor. 9: 21.

One thing I'd like to bring to your attention is that the language of Acts 21: 26 gives the distinct impression that Paul himself did not do the actual sacrifice but remained in a part of the Temple separate from where the sacrifice was offered. He probably remained in the outer area of the Temple. Notice the offering was made for the men he took with him. It was not offered on behalf of Paul. Paul simply paid the expenses of the men making the vow, as a show of respect for the Law of Moses. His reputation among the Jewish believers was important to him for his ministry.

The point to notice here is that the Gentiles weren't being force to live like Jews, and the Jews weren't being forced to live like Gentiles. Unfair and inaccurate reports had circulated about Paul, doubtless by the circumcision party, that he had been compelling Jews to abandoned the Laws of Moses. In actuality, all Paul had ever done was make it clear that the Law of Moses could not function as a means of salvation.

[John317]

In Matt. 5:17-19 Jesus proclaimed that until heaven and earth pass away not a jot or tittle will pass from the law. The parts of the Torah that describe the animal sacrifices undoubtedly contain numerous jots and tittles.

Yet surely we misunderstand Jesus if we believe He intended to say that we should keep all the civil laws and all the ceremonial laws, including circumcision. That would pit Paul against Christ. Remember that in Matt. 5: 17, Jesus says He came to fulfill the law, meaning that once he fulfilled the parts of the law which pointed to His sacrifice, it would obviously not be something that people needed to keep doing. If this is not true, then Jesus would be contradicted by Hebrews 10: 9, 18. Also, if it not true-- that is, if Jesus means for us today to be obeying all of the Torah-- then we are all of us committing grave sins by not keeping all those laws, including those which pertain to animal sacrifices and the human priesthood, etc. This, of course, would contradict Acts 15 and Galatians, and Hebrews, and involve us in one very big theological mess.

[John317]

Rev 10:7 says, "the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets." God's servant Ezekiel recorded a temple where a prince would reign and animal sacrifices would be offered. That has not yet been accomplished. Perhaps that's part of the mystery of God that will be accomplished in Rev 10.

There are some prophecies that will never be literally fulfilled. Prophecies are conditional, based on the response of people. (I do not mean God's ultimate plan of restoring the earth and salvation of people are conditional.) Literal, physical Israel has been rejected; they are no longer God's special, chosen people. God's special people is the church. Physical Jews must come to Christ as their Lord and Savior for salvation the same as anyone else. The plans that God had in store for literal Israel will be fulfilled spiritually in His church, made up of both Gentiles and Jews. But the Jews are to be saved the same way as any Gentile, by God's grace through exercising personal faith in Jesus Christ. See end of Acts 28. The new Israel is of all races and tongues. Paul himself says, "So you see that it is men of faith who are the son of Abraham." Gal 3: 7.

I believe the view that there will be animal sacrifices as part of worship to God, or because God wants them, is plainly contradicted by the following:

God abolishes the animal sacrifices in order to establish Christ's sacrifice (Hebrews 10: 9)

The New Covenant made the Old Covenant obsolete, or out of date (8:13);

By a single sacrifice, Christ has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (10: 14);

When our sins are forgiven through Christ, no more sacrifices are needed (10: 18).

On the basis of these verses, why would God's will be for sacrifices to be offered by Jews at some time in the future?

[Ron Amnsn]

There is no doubt that since the book of Hebrew was written before 70 AD, the temple in Jerusalem was still standing and still in service. That means that of course animals were still being slaughtered. But those animal sacrifices no longer had any significance to God since Christ the real Lamb of God had been sacrificed. The animals sacrificed up to Jesus' time had only been foreshadowing Christ's coming. Once He came and died, there was no more use for them.

It is not a question of whether the earthly sanctuary continued after Christ's death and ascension, but of whether the earthly sanctuary had any more to do with salvation. It didn't. All the services were transferred to the heavenly sanctuary where Christ went. The earthly sanctuary after that point was nothing but an empty shell. Its time of service was over.

Interesting assertions. No Scripture to back it up. These are simply the traditions of men. If you repeat them often enough, do they become Scripture?

Where in all of the Old Testament does it indicate that the earthly temple would become irrelevant when Messiah would come?

Where in all of the New Testament does it indicate that the temple would become irrelevant after Messiah died?

Where in all of Scripture did God tell his people that they should only offer sacrifices that were foreshadows and to never offer sacrifices that were commemorations?

If you were a faithful Jew living in a distant country at the time Jesus died, but traveled to Jerusalem to obediently offer sacrifices every 10 years or so, how would you find out that your once faithful God who had instructed you to offer sacrifices had now become fickle and changed his mind and was now offended by those sacrifices that you came to offer in obedience to his instructions? When you arrived at the Temple, you saw the followers of Jesus meeting there, but even they did not tell you that your sacrifice was now worthless or offensive. How would you ever find out that God had suddenly, silently, mysteriously changed his mind, but wouldn't bother to tell anybody that the rules had changed until decades or centuries after the fact. And all this time you had thought God's word could be trusted. Even if you had listened to Peter preaching in Jerusalem at Pentecost in Acts 2, he mentioned nothing about any change to God's instructions for all the worshipers who had traveled to Jerusalem for God's Feast of Weeks. What kind of a god would treat his obedient Covenant people in such an inconsiderate way? Was the coming of Messiah a good thing, or was it an opportunity for God to play tricks on the Jews and turn their intended obedience into something offensive?

If the temple would be irrelevant after Jesus death, why did Jesus bother to cleanse the temple less than one week before his death and teach that it would be called a house of prayer for all nations? (Mark 11:17) Jesus was teaching from this prophecy in Isaiah 56:6-9

6 Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,

To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord,

To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath

And holds fast My covenant;

7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain

And make them joyful in My house of prayer.

Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;

For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”

8 The Lord God, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares,

“Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered.”

Apparently Jesus didn't believe as you do about God's temple becoming irrelevant.