Does Jesus still keep the Mosaic Law?

[jasd]

Erratum: typo, in my above post #563143 - Today (30 July) at 02:46 AM

Per: "He made the matter of divorce pre Moses - obsolete."

read, "He made the matter of divorce per Moses - obsolete."

[Ron Amnsn]

Indeed. However, be that as it may, Acts 15:28, 29 goes straight to the heart of the matter in delivering the crux of Acts 15; that is, "no greater burden than these..."

You seem to be assuming that the new Gentile believers would consider the Law of Moses to be a greater burden than the decision of the Jerusalem Council.

Of the 613 instructions that the Jewish sages have identified in the Law of Moses, one of them is the command to "Be fruitful and multiply." It seems that most men are rather eager to participate in fulfilling that command, and would generally have a hard time looking at that as a burden, but instead view the fulfilling of that command as a great pleasure.

I've noticed a similar attitude in the cats who are supposed to eliminate the mice in our house. Those cats have never looked on that job as a "burden", but always fulfilled their role with enthusiasm and delight.

There are many verses in Scripture that express that same attitude toward God's law:

Psalm 40:8 I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart."

Psalm 119:16 I shall delight in Your statutes; I shall not forget Your word.

Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, O LORD, And Your law is my delight.

When Adam and Eve were given their jobs in the Garden of Eden, do you think they viewed their duties (such as naming the animals) as a burden or a delight? Is it not possible that when God fills a person with the Holy Spirit (as Ezekiel prophesied) that they would view all of God's commands as a delight? Indeed, they may carry out the requirements of God's Law without even realizing that there is a Law at all, as people do when they fulfill the "Be fruitful and multiply" law.

According to the testimony of the Jerusalem elders in Acts 21:20, the tens of thousands of Jewish believers who were filled with the Spirit viewed the Law of Moses with zeal, rather than as a burden. With an example like that from the Jewish believers who were teaching them, it would be natural for the Gentile believers to emulate that.

The crux of the issue in Acts 15 is mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, "Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'"

The issue was, "What do Gentiles have to do to be saved?". The men from Judea wanted the Gentiles to comply with the man-made requirements that they referred to as "the custom of Moses". Even today, Jews attribute the man-made customs of their "oral law" to Moses at Sinai. Where in the Law of Moses do we find a "custom of Moses" regarding circumcision for Gentiles to "be saved"? Such requirements are not found in the Law of Moses. Circumcision was first given to Abraham. If there is a "custom of Moses" recorded in the Books of Moses regarding circumcision, it would be the tendency of Moses to not circumcise people. Moses failed to circumcise his own son, and he didn't circumcise the Israelites during the 40 years in the wilderness (Joshua 5:1-5).

The evidence of the full context shows that the men from Judea probably wanted the Gentiles to "be saved" by going through the standard ritual program for Jewish proselytes that supposedly turned a Gentile into a Jew. Such a doctrine of "salvation by Jewishness" for Gentile converts is contrary to both the Gospel and the Old Testament.

The decision of the Jerusalem Council dealt with the entrance requirements for Gentiles. They were answering the question "What do Gentiles need to do to be saved?" Obedience is the response of a person who has already been saved.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: ... v6 He that regards the day, regards it unto the Lord; and he that regards not the day, to the Lord he does not regard it. He that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks.

>>You are apparently assuming that this passage is referring to eating or abstaining from unclean meat.<<

More to the point, I'd gathered from the text that the 'new faith (way)' had abandoned the dietary laws of the OT - and the strong in the '[new] faith' "believed that he may eat all things";

(Rom 14:20 ...All things indeed [are] pure; but [it is] evil for that man who eateth with offence. ... v22 Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth)

whereas, the 'weaker' brother lacked confidence that the OT dietary laws had actually been abandoned - and elected rather to stay with what he was more certain of - by eating herbs.

>>While that is perhaps one of the possible options,<<

Well, what I take to be the most direct, anyway...

>>The contrast in Romans 14:2 is between the one "who has faith that he may eat all things" and "he who is weak eats vegetables only". Can you find anywhere in the Law of Moses where eating only vegetables is contrasted with eating unclean creatures? (or contrasted even with eating clean creatures?) Is there any sensible situation related to eating unclean meat where a believer living in Rome who was weak in faith would eat only vegetables?<<

Umm no, however, Writ makes it clear enough that the Early Xtian Church (whose intention was to proselytize the entire world) was in the process of leaving the very limiting OT strictures behind, yes? Never was it implied in Writ that the intent of the proseltyzing Xtian community was to persuade the world of new Xtian believers to abide by the Mosaic health laws. I mean, "eat all things"..., "all" doesn't mean all in this instance? If one is forced to parse words that have clear and explicit definitions - how can one ever understand clear meaning by subtexting "all" in this instance?

Quote:

Quote:jasd

1 Cor 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, [that eat], asking no question for conscience sake: ... v27 If any of them that believe not bid you [to] a [feast] and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

>>In 1 Corinthians chapter 8 and chapter 10 it is clear that the issue is meat that may have been offered to idols, not meat that was inherently unclean because it came from an unclean creature. The next verse after the one you quoted makes that rather plain, "But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake;<<

I take your meaning, as the letter to the Romans was written from Corinth - where Saint Paul did broach the subject of foods offered to idols; however, the matter is directed with consideration to the 'conscience' of the weaker brother. The concern was that that brother may follow our lead though not certain that he may - therein he sinneth - by acting without faith that he may.

1 Corinthians 8 allows for the the one whose knowledge includes this: "But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse." (1 Cor 8:8)

[jasd]

>>In a city where the meat sold in the marketplace may have been sacrificed to idols, the "weak" person of Romans 14:2 would probably be a Gentile believer who, before becoming a believer, attended the pagan temples, participated in the sacrifices and other sensual activities there, and believed in the whole pagan scene. After becoming a believer in the Messiah, reading the Old Testament Scriptures, and hearing the decision of the Jerusalem Council, such a person would reasonably have difficulty buying meat in the market without remembering all the rubbish associated with his former pagan lifestyle. It would be reasonable for such a believer to eat only vegetables, if he didn't have access to meat other than that sold in the public market. On the other hand, a Jewish person who never believed in the pagan idols and never participated at the pagan temples, would probably not have qualms about eating meat that may have been sacrificed to idols, because to him those idols had never meant anything.<<

Indeed, as might the new Gentile believer who had the confidence of faith. However, we're disassociating the fact that herbs also - were offered to idols, as was oil, and wine, grains, etc - even on occasion - children were either sacrificed or offered to idols. Jews had embraced such practices and were familiar with them. So, it may be that the issue of eating whatever one wished when in the local mall - went deeper than simply 'meats' offered to idols. I suggest that

the issue was in fact, that many new proselytes were unable to believe that such a dichotomy might exist re the seeming new practices of the early Xtian vis-a-vis the dietary laws of the Jews.

>>Further along in Romans 14 it sounds like Paul may be talking about special days where some people didn't eat at all (fasting), and others did eat. Those days may have been the traditional fasting days of the Jews (as in "I fast twice in the week." Luke 18:12), which were not part of the Law of Moses.<<

Umm, here also, I seem to be ol' contrary jasd, as I think the correct interpretation of Luke 18:12, notwithstanding such as the Didache, ought to have been "I fast twice in/on the Sabbath, or as some would have it, "I fast twice in respect to the Sabbath". I think our translators allowed tradition to influence their work.

"Indeed, to judge from the accounts by the first-century Jewish writers Philo Judaeus of Alexandria and Josephus Flavius, the Jewish populace spent the seventh day assembled in the synagogues for meditation and philosophical instruction."

I believe that Luke was written in Greek and hebdomas (seven/week) would have been the word of choice should the intent have been week. I'd probably feel different were Luke written in Hebrew and Shavua (seven) have been used. And then, it may be that I am simply wrong.

>>At the end of the previous chapter, Romans 13, Paul had admonished the believers in Rome to "put on the Lord Jesus Christ", or to figuratively clothe themselves with the Messiah. Is Paul asking them to put on a "Jesus Christ costume" so they can hide inside it and hypocritically do things that the Messiah never did, or is he asking them to actually model their lives according to the righteous life of Messiah? Because Messiah is "spotless" and "holy" as well as a priest, there are some things that could never be done, as defined in Scripture, one of which is making yourself detestable by unclean animals (Lev 20:25-26).<<

Leviticus, huh?--that is really OT. That said, I don't know that Jesus Christ would eat 'unclean' meat; however, how would a new Xtian in the jungles of So America with no close river from which to gather fish - obtain his protein other than from monkeys, puercos, snakes, and other such? No supermarket for him to trade in his native 'currency' to buy groceries that would provide a healthy diet. Protein, B-complex, and C - vital for health. Moses' dietary laws would prove useless under those conditions.

Same with someone living on the ice in the Arctic. Hardly the environment to raise sheep, goats, and beef. Nothing but that odd fish and unclean mammals - and if he got lucky - a great big white bear once in a while. Also, he would have to eat all the fat that he could gather, as his environment burned through his calories as though he were a man afire.

The same paradigm exists all over the world. Hardly a place where a Mosaic diet can be observed and still stay alive.

Having said the above, I'm certain there is that odd story now and again, where people have managed...

[Ron Amnsn]

That may be, however, text is very specific. It may be that it is hoped that whatever succeeds or follows after the four requirements are to the good, but text leaves one to view it as entirely volitional.

I agree with this, but I'm not sure that "volitional" is what you meant to say.

Following Jesus is an intentional choice, so learning to live according to the Scriptures like Jesus did is also a matter intentional choice.

[Ron Amnsn]

Did not Jesus Christ teach His followers, inclusively, that there was a New (different) Covenant?--that shifted the High Priesthood from Levi to Judah Hebrews 5:10) and which accepted Gentiles as priests?--an entirely 'non-Mosaic' order... And, speaking of a new prieshood:

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

If the Mosaic Law had been still in effect, Jesus Christ, a Jew/Judahite, would have broken it by becoming High Priest.

Jesus did say that there was a New (or renewed) Covenant, as did the other NT authors. Their teaching was completely in agreement with the Old Testament Scriptures, while your teaching seeks to overturn what is written in the Old Testament.

The New Testament says nothing about the High Priesthood being "shifted" from Levi to Judah. God could do that if he wanted to, of course. God already shifted the priesthood once as a result of the golden calf incident. The priesthood was shifted from the firstborn of each family to the tribe of Levi. In that case the firstborn were counted and the men of Levi were counted and a payment was made because there were not enough men to make the exchange even. God made the change very clear and very explicit.

The New Testament explicitly states that the priesthood was not "shifted" from the tribe of Levi: "Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law;" (Heb 8:4) If the priesthood had been "shifted" to Judah as you claim, it wouldn't matter where Jesus was-- he would still be a priest even if he was on earth. But this verse clearly says of Jesus that "if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all," and the reason given is because the Law concerning the Levitical priesthood was still valid when Hebrews was written and there were still valid priests serving at the earthly Temple. That would not be the case if the priesthood had been "shifted" to Judah as you claim.

Hebrews 7:12 (which you quoted) is often used to suggest wholesale changes to the Law of God, but the passage does not support that kind of change. The passage states specifically what was changed. The word translated as "changed" comes from the Greek metathithemi which commonly means move to another location. In the Septuagint metathithemi is used in Genesis 5:24 where God "took" or translated Enoch from the earth. In this case the change of location of Jesus' priesthood corresponds to a change of location and legal jurisdiction. This is confirmed in Hebrews 8:4 where it is clear that there are different laws for the priesthood in heaven than for the priesthood on earth: "if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all."

Near the end of Paul's life and ministry he testified before Festus, " To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles." (Acts 26:21-22) If you could show from Moses and the Prophets that the Messiah would set aside the Law of God, then it would be possible that Paul was preaching such a message. Otherwise, for you to be correct, Paul's words to Festus would have been lies.

I strongly doubt that Paul's testimony was untrue at all. Rather, I believe his testimony before Festus and Felix were examples of the Holy Spirit giving Paul the words to speak just as Jesus promised:

"And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say." (Luke 12:11-12)

[Ron Amnsn]

>>and the Gentiles were only following the four requirements decided in Acts 15. It would be impossible to maintain unity in the body of Christ is such a situation.<<

It would should the followers of Jesus Christ take to heart the injunction against judging another man's servant...

Speaking of the Old Testament, Paul tells Timothy that, "All Scripture ... is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (2Tim 3:16)

How would unity be maintained between the Christians and the Torah-observant Jewish believers when someone comes to you with the Paul-endorsed Scriptures and reproves you for breaking the Law of Moses?

And how would we preserve unity when you teach regularly teach my kids at church that God's Law as given to Moses is obsolete? Or when I teach your children to follow the Law of Moses as Jesus did?

How would it work when a Christian young man wants to date the daughter of a Torah-observant family? If such a couple married, would their children be Torah-observant? It seems that the Torah-observant families would naturally segregate themselves to avoid the possibility that their children might marry into a non-observant family.

I regularly attend the non-denominational Christian church in our community. Although I keep my Torah beliefs to myself there, situations come up regularly that illustrate how difficult it would be for Jewish believers to fully participate in a Torah-less Christian church. For example church work-bees and fund-raisers are always on Saturday, potluck meals always have unclean meat in many of the dishes, and sermons regularly talk about God's perfect Law as if it were something that the world is better off without.

The fact that Paul doesn't address many of the practical issues that would inevitably occur in a mixed congregation of Torah-observant Jews and non-observant Gentiles is rather strong evidence that such a situation was not what existed in the congregations to which Paul wrote epistles. Try keeping Torah for a year and you'll see the difficulties too.

[Ron Amnsn]

Whatever else we may think that Jesus Christ taught His disciples as meant for an enlargement upon those requirements in Acts 15 - we may consider it suppositional, as the HG was specifically named as party to the ecclesiastical.

It is interesting to consider the role that the Holy Spirit played in the decision of Acts 15.

If the Holy Spirit verbally inspired the wording of the letter that was sent from Jerusalem to the Gentiles then the common interpretations such as yours are problematic.

One of the problems is that the target group of the letter was very limited. Although James declared during the discussion that Moses is proclaimed in "every city", the letter was addressed only to the Gentile brothers in certain regions who had been troubled by the "some persons" who had gone out from Jerusalem without authorization of the elders. Specifically, the letter was addressed to "the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia", presumably at the direction of the Holy Spirit.

If the Holy Spirit verbally inspired the letter, then the decision of the Jerusalem Council does not apply to the Gentiles "in every city" who would hear someone proclaiming Moses. Instead it is addressed only to those Gentiles who were in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia who were troubled or unsettled by the teachings of the certain persons who went out from Jerusalem without authorization. The Holy Spirit could easily have inspired the Council to write the letter to the Gentiles in "every city" if that had been the Holy Spirit's intent. Gentiles outside of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia are outside of the boundaries established by the Holy Spirit, if the letter was indeed verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The fact that the letter was not addressed to "every city" where Moses was proclaimed makes it clear that it was not actually the teachings of Moses that were causing the problem in Acts 15, but instead it was the man-made teachings of certain "persons" that the Jerusalem Council was concerned with.

Another problem with the idea of verbal inspiration of the letter by the Holy Spirit, is that those who want the letter to be verbally inspired usually want the letter to be interpreted so that it contradicts earlier Scriptures inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Is the Holy Spirit divided against itself or is it confused?

Rather than indicating verbal inspiration, it is likely that the phrase "it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit" means that the apostles had heard from Peter the report about the Holy Spirit being poured out on the Gentiles (at Cornelius's house in Acts 10) and heard similar reports of "signs and wonders" among the Gentiles from Barnabas and Paul (Acts 15:12) and from those reports the elders had concluded that the Holy Spirit did not require Gentiles to go through the traditional proselyte process before entering into community with the Jewish believers. Instead, only the four requirements contained in the letter were necessary to protect the community of believers from Gentile idolatry while the Gentiles "who are turning to God" learned to live according to the example of Jesus.

[Ron Amnsn]

Currently, "a race-based split in Christianity", as you put it - does not appear to present a problem. You'll note that very few Jews have become Xtians.

That's a strange comment. Are you suggesting that alienating a "very few" Jewish believers is not a problem? What if Jesus the Messiah is among the few Jews that are alienated?

I agree that very few religious Jews accept the Torah-less Christianity that is taught today. That was not the case in New Testament times when Jesus and the apostles were teaching the Gospel that included following the Torah-observant example of Jesus. Although Christians often claim that the Jews rejected Jesus, the New Testament tells a different story.

John 11:48 "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him"

Luke 24:19 And He said to them, "What things?" And they said to Him, "The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people,

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands [literally: myriads, meaning tens of thousands] there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,

[Ron Amnsn]

>>If the "something" that the believing Pharisees wanted to teach the Gentile converts was only the Law of Moses, then your interpretation could be valid,<<

"If"? Acts 15:1 states specifically that the Judahizers spoke only to the issue of circumcision, which was the Law of Moses. Verse 2 verifies: "and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. (Acts 15:2)

[jasd]

Appreciate all that you post - as I find it both stimulating and informative; however, I will be neither visiting (but intermittently) nor posting for awhile.

Was out of State seeing my youngest son married this weekend - and am presently vacationing. It will probably turn into more a Sabbatical of sorts, as I have much to do to prepare my place for winter (and generally clean it up - to better represent Xtianity when I soon begin pamphleteering).

I will be 'bumping' this thread (from this or that library) as necessary to respond to your posts; however, as stated, intermittently...

Lastly, I did not say that the priesthood was transferred to Judah - rather, I said that Jesus Christ was a Judahite and it was He to whom the High Priesthood was committed - with all Xtianity becoming priests and kings of the new order of priests... That priesthood would include some Levites as well a greater number of non-Levites.

Noted: that Ezekiel speaks of another Temple wherein the Levites would still be performing sacrifices - indicating that there would still be those who chose to live by the Mosaic Law - detrimentally, imho.