Judaizers and SDAizers

[Ron Amnsn]

What's the difference between a Judaizer and those people who Jesus said "shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" for teaching and keeping the least of the commandments in the Law and the Prophets (Matt 5:17-19)?

[doug yowell]

What's the difference between a Judaizer and those people who Jesus said "shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" for teaching and keeping the least of the commandments in the Law and the Prophets (Matt 5:17-19)?

Good question!

[skyblue888]

Matt.5:17-19 has nothing to do with keeping the feasts if that is what you have in mind, Ron, but with the moral law.

sky

[Ron Amnsn]

Matt.5:17-19 has nothing to do with keeping the feasts if that is what you have in mind, Ron, but with the moral law.

Where does scripture define the difference between the "moral law" and the rest of God's instructions?

The context of the passage is "the Law and the Prophets". In the culture of the day, what were they talking about when they said, "the Law and the Prophets" ?

[skyblue888]

Ron, we all know that the prophets spoke of the law, both ceremonial and moral. They spoke about the ten commandments, the sacrificial system, and about the ceremonial feasts. True, Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets." verse 18. By putting an end to the sacrificial offerings and the ceremonial feasts, Christ did not destroy the prophets. The sacrificial system and the ceremonial feasts pointed to Christ's life and death and resurrection, and to His Priestly Ministry in the sanctuary above, both in the holy and most holy places. But this earthly priesthood and its sacrificial offerings and ceremonial feasts were shadows of things to come, not the substance! Why continue to cling to the shadows as the Jews are doing today? Hebrews 8:4,5.

But the moral law had nothing shadowy about it. It is eternal.

So by putting an end to the sacrificial system and the ceremonial feasts, Christ did not destroy their meaning. Every type in the Old Testament was to meet its antitype. So these types still serve their purpose in the sense that when we study the Old Testament we see that all those things pointed to Christ, to the New Covenant sacrifice and its Priesthood. Today we are to study them in order to better understand their antitypes, that is, their reality, the Substance!

sky

[Guest]

I agree sky.

[hfsturges]

Ron,

The Judaizers first surfaced when Jewish Christians of the Pharisee sect objected to new gentile converts not fulfilling the ceremonial law (being circumcised and keeping the "law of Moses"). In the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) it was determined that new gentile converts need not keep any of the ceremonial law except to "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood" (Acts 15:20).

The only thing involving the ten commandments was "the pollutions of idols" and even this probably did not refer to idol worship, but rather whether or not to eat things offered to idols.

In Matthew 5:17,18 Jesus spoke of "the law, or the prophets". In Jesus' case, the sermon on the mount dealt with the deeper issues of keeping the ten commandments. Nothing was said about the ceremonial law. Further, the sacrifices and oblations came to an end when Jesus died -- removing them from consideration in Matthew 5:17,18 where Jesus spoke of the law being unchanged "till heaven and earth pass".

[hfsturges]

How does one distinguish between the Ten Commandment Moral law and the rest of the laws given at Sinai.

First of all, all of them were given by God. The Ten Commandment moral law was spoken in the audience of the entire nation of Israel from Sinai, then written in tables of stone with the finger of God. This law was also called the testimony or the covenant and kept inside the Ark of the Covenant.

In contrast God gave the ceremonial law privately to Moses, who wrote them in a book. Moses read this book to Israel during the ratification ceremony of Exodus 24. This book was kept in the side of the ark. There is no reference speaking of the ceremonial law or any part of it as being the testimony or the covenant. Further, the ceremonial law came to an end at Calvary.

This is an issue with Evangelical Christians who deny that the law given at Sinai was anything but one single law. Further discussion always boils down to the belief that nine commandments are still binding, but the fourth is not!

Go figure .........

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, we all know that the prophets spoke of the law, both ceremonial and moral. They spoke about the ten commandments, the sacrificial system, and about the ceremonial feasts.

Agreed. The Jews referred to the Old Testament as "the Law and the Prophets". The Law was the five books of Moses, also known as Torah.

To keep this thread on the topic of Judaizers I'll not respond to the assertions you made that lack scriptural support. If your question was not rhetorical, I can answer it on another thread.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron,

The Judaizers first surfaced when Jewish Christians of the Pharisee sect objected to new gentile converts not fulfilling the ceremonial law (being circumcised and keeping the "law of Moses"). In the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) it was determined that new gentile converts need not keep any of the ceremonial law except to "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood" (Acts 15:20).

The only thing involving the ten commandments was "the pollutions of idols" and even this probably did not refer to idol worship, but rather whether or not to eat things offered to idols.

[Ron Amnsn]

How does one distinguish between the Ten Commandment Moral law and the rest of the laws given at Sinai.

[Ron Amnsn]

We know that wise men traveled from the east when Jesus was a baby and accepted him as the promised Messiah. I think most of us would agree that if people like this, who lived far from Jerusalem, taught others to live according to existing Scriptures (the Old Testament) they would be doing a good and honorable thing, if they did that teaching before Calvary.

But what if those wise men continued teaching people to live according to the Old Testament after Calvary? Would they unwittingly become Judaizers simply because something happened at distant Jerusalem that they weren't aware of? Would what was formerly a good activity (teaching Scripture), suddenly become an evil activity (Judaizing)? How would they find out that God's view of their teaching activity had [allegedly] changed suddenly?

Even if one of their companions had traveled to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost and had listened to Peter's sermon when the Holy Spirit was poured out, and had returned to tell those old wise men all about it, what part of Peter's sermon would have indicated that they should now quit teaching Old Testament stuff?

[doug yowell]

The Jews recognize that the Ten Commandments are like the Table of Contents to the whole Law of Moses, which gives the detailed instructions about how to observe the Ten Commandments (ie the 4th Commandment says to work six days and rest on the seventh day, and the the Law of Moses tells you how to do your work and how to rest). In that sense you are correct that the Sermon on the Mount dealt with the Ten Commandments -- as the core of the Law of Moses, not separate from the Law of Moses.

So in the full context, the Law that Jesus was talking about was much more than the Ten Commandments.

That's a good way of explaining it. Condensing the whole law even more Jesus explained "...on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets"

[skyblue888]

Let's say it again for the record. Nobody is saying that it is no longer necessary to teach from the Old Testament since Christ died on the cross but that some "stuff" from the Old Testament came to an end when Jesus died and that does not mean that we cannot learn from this "stuff" because this "stuff" pointed to Christ and to His Priestly Ministry after His acension. This "stuff" as Ron calls it were shadows of things to come, like the sacrificial system and the ceremonial feasts. But in Christ we have the substance, "Old things have passed away, behold all things have become new." 2 Cor.5:17; Rom.2:28,29; Gal.3:29.

sky

[doug yowell]

Where does Scripture actually say that the "ceremonial law" came to an end at Calvary? Jesus said not a stroke will pass from the Law until heaven and earth pass away and all the prophecies are accomplished.

The attitude of God towards the ceremonial law and the temporal nature of it's requirements are stated by Him over and over again in the pages of Scripture.I think this was well covered in the discussion of the New Covenant.If one is looking for a "this will be gone at Calvary" quote it won't be found.But God is clear on the purpose of the earthly sacrificial system and contrasting it with what what He really required.Those who need a direct command in order to see the difference are not really paying attention to what God has been trying to say for the past 6000 years of so.

[doug yowell]

But what if those wise men continued teaching people to live according to the Old Testament after Calvary? Would they unwittingly become Judaizers simply because something happened at distant Jerusalem that they weren't aware of? Would what was formerly a good activity (teaching Scripture), suddenly become an evil activity (Judaizing)? How would they find out that God's view of their teaching activity had [allegedly] changed suddenly?

Even if one of their companions had traveled to Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost and had listened to Peter's sermon when the Holy Spirit was poured out, and had returned to tell those old wise men all about it, what part of Peter's sermon would have indicated that they should now quit teaching Old Testament stuff?

You mean someone like Apollos? Or would John the Baptist's gospel be Judaizing? Are we agreed on the definition of what Judaizing is? I,for one, liked your previous explanation of the Jewish leaders adding lots of extras to the OT teachings.

[phkrause]

GP, I for one still have not seen an actual answer to Ron's original question as to what a Judaizer is? As one poster that used to be here on C/A used to say that a Judaizer is a legalist. This still is the best answer I've heard anyone claim that a judaizer is. The only problem I have with this answer is, that we would have to know the heart of the person who's being judged as a legalist (judaizer), or do we have a better description of a "Judaizer"? Just throwing this out there.

[Woody]

I am not sure we would have to know a person's 'heart' to know if they have a certain belief such as legalism. Many proclaim that they believe that they are saved if they live a good life by obeying the law. I've seen it here on this forum many times. So if they proclaim themselves to be a legalist ... I don't think we need to judge their hearts. I think we can safely proclaim about them what they proclaim.

[Ron Amnsn]

Let's say it again for the record. Nobody is saying that it is no longer necessary to teach from the Old Testament since Christ died on the cross but that some "stuff" from the Old Testament came to an end when Jesus died and that does not mean that we cannot learn from this "stuff" because this "stuff" pointed to Christ and to His Priestly Ministry after His acension. This "stuff" as Ron calls it were shadows of things to come, like the sacrificial system and the ceremonial feasts. But in Christ we have the substance, "Old things have passed away, behold all things have become new." 2 Cor.5:17; Rom.2:28,29; Gal.3:29.

sky

Sky, I understand what you are saying. But I'm not sure you realize that you are saying something quite different than what Jesus was saying.

Jesus said that the people who will be called great in the kingdom of heaven are those who do the least commandments of the Law (the context refers to the Law of Moses) and teach others in order that they will also do them as Jesus did.

That's not the same as teaching about the Old Testament. For example I could teach about Buddha without doing or believing in what Buddha lived and taught. That would be merely academic.

If the wise men from the east were truly wise, they would go back and teach people to do God's commands from the Old Testament so their students would live as Jesus lived. They would not just teach about the Old Testament. If those wise men were merely academics, they would not have journeyed so far to worship the Messiah. Academics would have stayed in the east talking about the birth of the Messiah. But these wise men were doers. They had involved their hearts, not just their heads.

At the time of Christ there were Jewish people and Israelites scattered among the distant nations. Some of those people had a heart connection to God, which resulted in them living and doing and teaching what the Scriptures taught. Would those people suddenly become Judaizers the day after Jesus died?

[skyblue888]

I for one still have not seen an actual answer to Ron's original question as to what a Judaizer is? As one poster that used to be here on C/A used to say that a Judaizer is a legalist. This still is the best answer I've heard anyone claim that a judaizer is. The only problem I have with this answer is, that we would have to know the heart of the person who's being judged as a legalist (judaizer), or do we have a better description of a "Judaizer"? Just throwing this out there.

pk

____________________________

pk, i didn't think it was necessary to explain what a "Judaizer" was. We usually turn to Acts 15 to find out who the "Judaizers" were.

"And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according to the custcm of Moses, you cannot be saved." Acts 15:1.

If you keep on reading, it is said that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them went up to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles and elders about this question. And then it says that "Some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." verse 5.

To keep the law of Moses meant much more than merely being circumcised in the flesh. It also meant sacrificing animals and keeping the feasts.

If they could not be saved unless they were circumcised, then it would follow that they could not be saved unless they kept the feasts or offered animal sacrifices.

In the New Covenant every type meets with its antitype. For example, it is no longer necessary to be circumcised in the flesh, for "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." Col.2:11.

The circumcision of Christ is the circumcision of the heart.

"But he who is a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter." Rom.2:29.

It is the same with the sacrificial system and ceremonial feasts. They too have their counterparts.

Peter speaks of the priesthood of the believers. In the Old Covenant the priests offered animal sacrifices. In the New Covenant the believers offer the sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. 2 Peter 1:9.

We could go on and on. I think we are getting the drift of what the difference is, the difference between the letter and the Spirit, between the shadow and the subtsance, don't we?

sky

[Ron Amnsn]

The attitude of God towards the ceremonial law and the temporal nature of it's requirements are stated by Him over and over again in the pages of Scripture.I think this was well covered in the discussion of the New Covenant.If one is looking for a "this will be gone at Calvary" quote it won't be found.But God is clear on the purpose of the earthly sacrificial system and contrasting it with what what He really required.Those who need a direct command in order to see the difference are not really paying attention to what God has been trying to say for the past 6000 years of so.

Doug, I appreciate your comments. Yes, there are passages in the New Testament that teach the realities about Jesus that are represented by the Levitical worship system instituted by God. But when taken in context, there isn't anything in those NT passages that tells people to actually stop obeying the commands that God gave in the Old Testament. When God want's his people to stop obeying certain instructions, He is capable of saying so in as clear a manner as when He originally gave the the instructions.

There are common assumptions that underlie the common interpretations of the NT. We need to actually look at those assumptions and test to see if they are biblical or merely man-made systems. For example, people often use the term "ceremonial law" as if it really meant something. But the terms "moral law" and "ceremonial law" are not found in scripture. Neither is the concept that God's Law can be divided into categories so that some categories can be discarded or deemed obsolete.

When we try to actually pin down the meaning of "ceremonial law" we find that it is really undefined. It's a vague category where we relegate any of God's instructions that we don't feel like doing. It's a handy concept handed down to us by the Roman church. At the heart of the issue is the same question that tripped up Eve and Adam, "Does God really mean what he said?"

There is a story in 1 Kings 13 about a prophet of God who was given specific instructions, which he originally followed with dramatic results. Then he met another man who was a prophet who said he had new instructions from God and the original instructions could be disregarded. But it turned out badly because God really meant what he originally instructed.

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament offer ways to test whether a teaching is valid. The popular concept of "cermonial law" fails both tests.

[doug yowell]

Doug, I appreciate your comments. Yes, there are passages in the New Testament that teach the realities about Jesus that are represented by the Levitical worship system instituted by God. But when taken in context, there isn't anything in those NT passages that tells people to actually stop obeying the commands that God gave in the Old Testament. When God want's his people to stop obeying certain instructions, He is capable of saying so in as clear a manner as when He originally gave the the instructions.

I disagree with this assumption.God expected the Jews (and us)to use the common sense that He gave us in order to decipher His plainly stated revelations. I have always said that it is not what the Bible says that's important, it's what the Bible means by what it says that's important.When God says something like "Sacrifice and offerings I did not desire..." " Behold the days are coming,when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel...not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt...","Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat. For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in that day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.But this is what I commanded them,saying,Obey My voice...and walk in all the ways that I have commanded you..." and many more examples,I assume that the distinction of the moral verses the ceremonial(meaning ceremonies representing in type spiritual realities yet to come)should have put the listener in a more receptive mode to know how to respond when they saw the conditions fulfilled.I have a hard time seeing God's desire for man as being a game of cosmic "red light,green light".

[doug yowell]

There are common assumptions that underlie the common interpretations of the NT. We need to actually look at those assumptions and test to see if they are biblical or merely man-made systems. For example, people often use the term "ceremonial law" as if it really meant something. But the terms "moral law" and "ceremonial law" are not found in scripture. Neither is the concept that God's Law can be divided into categories so that some categories can be discarded or deemed obsolete.

When we try to actually pin down the meaning of "ceremonial law" we find that it is really undefined. It's a vague category where we relegate any of God's instructions that we don't feel like doing. It's a handy concept handed down to us by the Roman church. .

Again, I disagree. Man made terms often accurately describe biblical truths that are expressed in different terms in the Bible: the incarnation, the Trinity,antinomianism,Sabbatarianism,ect...I believe that it was Sky who previously addressed the "ceremonial" aspect.It specifically refers to the assumptions of the NT writers that the death of the Son of God made the types and shadows of that reality completely unnecessary. As Jesus said to His disciples "...This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you." Neither the NT or the OT inspired writers apply this reasoning to any aspects of the principles of the 10 commandments.Thus, a difference!

[phkrause]

Sky I know the difference, I just wanted to read if someone actually knew, because I hadn't seen it clarified per say. But thanks again.

[doug yowell]

GP, I for one still have not seen an actual answer to Ron's original question as to what a Judaizer is? As one poster that used to be here on C/A used to say that a Judaizer is a legalist. This still is the best answer I've heard anyone claim that a judaizer is. The only problem I have with this answer is, that we would have to know the heart of the person who's being judged as a legalist (judaizer), or do we have a better description of a "Judaizer"? Just throwing this out there.

Just reread this and I don't know how substituting the word legalist for Judaizer clarifies anything? What's a legalist" If Jesus said that "not one jot or tittle will pass away" would that make Him a legalist?The original ? seeks to determine the diff between Judaizer and one who teaches the OT is foundational to Christianity? At least that's what I got out of the ? Might have misunderstood though.