1 corinthians 9:19-23

[HomesteadWife]

We have freedom in Christ Jesus. I don’t judge you for eating or not eating, keeping a Shabbat, or feast days, enjoy! By the same token do not judge another believer who chooses not to. We are not under that law.

I wasn't trying to be judgemental or condemning in my argument for those who keep Torah law vs. not. It was more about stating a belief. I can agree to disagree with those who believe that the law no longer applies without judging.

 

[JudahYAHites]

Going back to the OP....

I'm looking for some deeper understanding of the statement by Paul that he isn't under the law but yet states he became one outside the law but not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ. Acts certainly makes it clear it followed the law but this statement makes it appear he didn't need to but did it to reach those under the law..any help would be appreciated.

@Mark C made some very pertinent comments that it would do everyone well to pause and consider in answering the original question posed. Reading through some threads I know that there are some (not mentioning any names @The Revolting Man lol ) who are not fans of hebrew and greek dictionaries, thesaurus etc. However we all know that no one in the bible spoke english, so, what @Mark C presented is worth taking a second look at.

Utlimately - it's simple:

WHICH 'law' - YHVH or man? "Nomos" - the Greek word - is ambiguous, it conflates both.

His Master, Yahushua, said (Matthew 5:17-10, with elaboration in MANY places, including Matthew chapter 23, Mark 7, etc) that He would NEVER change so much as a tiny part ('yod or tiddle') of His Word, so long as "heaven and earth" (Moses' two witnesses, Deuteronomy 30) still exist. They do, and if you believe He's coming back, then "all" has not been "fulfilled", either.

Elsewhere, you'll see renderings of "the traditions of the elders," or "your traditions" - which were CLAIMED to be "law" - but, as He said, were NOT. Or worse.


PS> The actual word He used, "torah," is a bigger set than just "law", even though most of the "old" testament translates it that way. "His teaching and instruction," or even just instruction, is better.

Because "torah" includes, but is not limited to, just "law". There are stories, examples, 'precedents', and even parables for our instruction. And when He MEANS to say things like "law" - He uses words like 'chuq', "mishpat," and "mitzvot" - which translate as things like "statute, judgment, and commandment"

Actually, NO. The 'law' of the Pharisees was Shaul's previous master; he was, by his own admission, a 'Pharisee of Pharisees'. In fact, he was SO bound "under the law" that he committed crimes, and murders, under that nomos. But it was NOT Yahuah's 'torah'!

And when his eyes were opened, he saw that. And was no longer 'bound' under the WRONG 'law'.

The problem with most English renderings (often steeped in the 'divine right of kings'!) is that they fail to discern the difference.

And, unfortunately, you can't really understand his letter to the Romans, much less Galatians, without seeing that.

Here's one clear example, once you see it:

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" (Romans 6:16)

The context is vital.

And - this is important: The Hebrew root word which is rendered into all forms of 'righteous' or "righteousness"

I agree with @FollowingHim ...

we all come to Christ imperfect, being justified by faith but still struggling with sin. We then undergo a process of sanctification, whereby we grow to be more Christ-like in our actions. Salvation is by grace through faith alone - but the saved person may still be doing things God disapproves of either because they are knowingly struggling to change, or because they simply don't know that they are sinning as they haven't looked at that area of their life in the light of scripture yet. E.g., if eating pork is sinful, the man who comes to Christ and keeps enjoying bacon for breakfast because he simply hasn't figured this out yet is still saved, just not fully sanctified.

I think this is a fairly universal understanding of salvation among most Christians. The only thing we differ on is exactly which things are sinful - which things should be expected to change during that process of sanctification. But the basic principle of justification vs sanctification that @The Revolting Man is espousing is fairly universal.

Now extrapolating the biblical phrase used by @Children of God lets go to the portion of scripture that he is (I believe) referring to. (correct me if I am wrong @Children of God )

[1Co 9:19-23 KJV] For though I be free from all [men], yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with [you].

the phrase... "...being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ ..." is the key phrase we are discussing.

Was Paul without law to God? Obviously not, because he states it clearly.

So, I previously asked was Paul a hypocrite? Obviously not, YAHushuWaH aka Jesus clearly scolded the Pharisees for being hypocrites. They taught one thing and did something else, so, that key phrase "...being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ ..." should be the framework of the discussion.

Now please bear with me as I go on to make my point.

The words of the apostles are understood through the words of MessiYAH aka Christ shedding light on the writings of the Prophets.

...Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. [Eph 2:19-22 KJV]

also lets take into account

...continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them]; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. [2Ti 3:14-17 KJV]

We have to understand ALL the writings of the apostles THROUGH the words of Christ, which is why I shared the definition of eisegesis and exegesis, not that it is anything new to anyone here, but, having been involved in these conversations many atime before over decades, I have encountered many who vehemently defend doctrine that they later found out to be incorrect from a biblical standpoint once they decided to search the scriptures like the bereans.

As an example YAHushuWaH aka Jesus clearly stated that...

For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. [Mat 12:8 KJV]
Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. [Mar 2:28 KJV]
And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. [Luk 6:5 KJV]

Yet "christians" hold onto "sun"day as being the Lords day... and yes I am very aware of the argument.

Which leads me to the crux of the point I am presenting contained within a simple question:

Are you a christian or a disciple?

...If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. [Jhn 8:31-32 KJV]

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen. [Mat 28:18-20 KJV]

by definition disciples of MessiYAH aka Christ obey his teachings through the apostles doctrine as a way of life.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; [Jhn 17:20 KJV]

In contrast I have found that "christians" obey / uphold the interpretations of teachers who were not authorised by MessiYAH aka Christ ie the church fathers.

So a good question would be, do you want to be a disciple of MessiYAH aka Christ, or a christian ?

Let's keep in mind the disciples did not call themselves christians they referred to themselves as disciples even AFTER being labelled as christians

...And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch... [Act 11:26 KJV]

Consequently, in light of the words we have in our bibles in red do the arguments against torah really hold water?

Especially when the Apostle Paul who is being quoted heavily stated clearly the he himself as being "...not without law to God..."

The apostle Peter stated regarding his writings

As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. [2Pe 3:16-17 KJV]


For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. [2Pe 2:20 KJV]

MessiYAH came to destroy the works of the devil, what are those works ?

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. [2Co 11:3 KJV]

The serpent beguiled Eve by getting her to go along with an understanding of the word of YAH that deceived her to disobey the very simple command that YAH had given.

With all that being said,

Prayerfully consider this, have you been beguiled to observe the customs of this world / the works of the devil and inadvertently disobey the customs of YAH?

 

[The Revolting Man]

No, a tithe of crops (e.g. mint, anise, cumin) is a clear requirement of the Law - e.g. Lev 27:30 among other passages. This is not just a Pharasaical tradition, it's in the Law.
In this specific passage Jesus was accusing them of misprioritisation within the Law, not referring to substitution with their own tradition.

I couldn’t find where these particular offerings were required. Do you have a reference?

 

[The Revolting Man]

I have to disagree with this statement. If eating pork is a transgression of the law and transgression of the law is sin,

(1 John 3:4 KJV
[4] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.)

then christians are obligated to keep the law of Moses. There is no middle ground.

I’m convinced! That’s a stronger stance than I would take but you make a compelling case!

I agree that the believers life should be marked by spiritual growth.

And what is that growth? Platitudes like “Grow in faith” or “Just love Him more every day brother!” are empty.

However that growth should be in the grace of God and being conformed into the image of His Son.

And His Son kept what?

you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous

So righteousness is defined by doing? It’s actions?

whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God

And it’s opposite is not doing? It’s a lack of actions?

And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments

We keep what? Growing in faith? Loving Him more everyday? Oh, we keep commandments? Well that’s pretty straightforward.

and love one another, as he gave us commandment

These commandments seem like a big deal.

And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him

Keeping His commandments allows you to dwell in Him?

In 1 John the Apostle John doesn’t tell us to keep the law of Moses, he tells us to keep the commandments

What exactly do you think that God’s Law that He delivered to Moses is? It’s a whole bunch of commandments that came from God. Which the Apostle John kept. You’re really strengthening my faith here brother.

All of the law was fulfilled. If any part of the law changes, that means that all is fulfilled, according to Matthew 5:18 KJV
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Alright, I think we’ve covered this before but we can do so again. I’ll start a new thread for it because it’s important. I’m going to put it in the Hebrew roots section but I’ll mark it meat and it will be open for elbow throwing.

Of all your innovations this is of course the most bold and wide reaching and most easily refuted. A number of those Laws are specifically labeled eternal and there are unfulfilled prophecies interspersed all through out the Old Testament. Clearly it hasn’t all been fulfilled, you would clearly forbid incest between a father and a daughter and I’m sure you find great value in the Psalms and Proverbs which is why they’re in your pocket New Testament but we’ll do this. It seems to be the crux of this latest attack.

Bear in mind that Jesus also celebrated man made feasts.

This is an area where I get in to conflict with my Torah keeping brethren. I don’t celebrate Christmas in order to be in fellowship with them but I think we get that one wrong. The alleged pagan roots of Christmas are non existent in history, being largely the invention of atheists who wanted to discredit Christianity. Easter of course is evil and should be eradicated.

Our Shabbat in the new covenant is continual, because Christ Jesus is our rest.

Does this new covenant say that anywhere? Or are you trying to get in front of a pro-Torah argument you’ve run up against before?

Isn’t tithing part of the law?

This is a deeper dive than I’m going to get in to here but no, tithing those things are not in the Law. An obsessive tithing of exactly 10% of every individual thing that grew was a tradition. The Law was that the total increase got tithed.

 

[FollowingHim]

I couldn’t find where these particular offerings were required. Do you have a reference?

The reference I gave requires a tithe of "the seed of the land". That includes cumin seed for the same reason that it includes wheat. I appreciate you may not have noticed this before.

 

[The Revolting Man]

@The Revolting Man has stated numerous times throughout this debate that believers in Christ are not presently under the new covenant, that the new covenant is only for the Jews and won't be in effect until after Christ's return.







That, my friend, is a false gospel. The Lord Jesus Christ plainly stated: “This cup is the new covenant [Gk: kainos diatheke] in My blood” (Luke 22:20). The Apostle Paul plainly stated: “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:5-6). The writer of Hebrews plainly states: “And for this reason He [Christ Jesus] is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Hebrews 9:15). As I stated before, “You either enter the new covenant by genuine faith in Christ, or you remain under the bondage of the old covenant, which only ends in death and eternal condemnation.”

Fantastic! That’s all smashing. Now, what is the new covenant, where is it in scripture and what are it’s requirements and privileges?

 

[The Revolting Man]

The reference I gave requires a tithe of "the seed of the land". That includes cumin seed for the same reason that it includes wheat. I appreciate you may not have noticed this before.

Don’t be a passive aggressive snit. That’s what got you and I in to conflict to begin with.

So you’re saying the “seed of the land” means that 10% of the yield of every seed planted had to be given to the temple? Rather than just 10% of the total increase? Interesting. I think you’re mistaken. Understandable though since the Pharisees made the same mistake.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

What MarkC gives is a false dichotomy, man’s law or Gods law. He ignores the new covenant law, and because of that he misinterprets many passages in the New Testament.

the phrase... "...being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ ..." is the key phrase we are discussing.

Was Paul without law to God? Obviously not, because he states it clearly.

Yeah, he’s under the law of the new covenant, not the law of Moses

So, I previously asked was Paul a hypocrite? Obviously not, YAHushuWaH aka Jesus clearly scolded the Pharisees for being hypocrites. They taught one thing and did something else, so, that key phrase "...being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ ..." should be the framework of the discussion.

Because he is a minister of the New Testament/covenant. He is not lawless but he is not under the law of Moses.

Now please bear with me as I go on to make my point.

The words of the apostles are understood through the words of MessiYAH aka Christ shedding light on the writings of the Prophets.

Which book did Jesus write? We understand what Jesus said through the words of His disciples and Apostles. He taught them many things that are not written in the gospels and this knowledge that they had informs their teachings to us. Those who hear the Apostles hear Him.

We have to understand ALL the writings of the apostles THROUGH the words of Christ,

No, it’s the other way around.

As an example YAHushuWaH aka Jesus clearly stated that...

For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. [Mat 12:8 KJV]
Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. [Mar 2:28 KJV]
And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. [Luk 6:5 KJV]

Yet "christians" hold onto "sun"day as being the Lords day... and yes I am very aware of the argument.

Which leads me to the crux of the point I am presenting contained within a simple question:

Was Jesus telling christians/disciples (same difference, by the way) to go to synagogue on Shabbat? You are eisegeting here (Yes I just made that a verb).

by definition disciples of MessiYAH aka Christ obey his teachings through the apostles doctrine as a way of life.

Yeah, why did you have it backwards above?

In contrast I have found that "christians" obey / uphold the interpretations of teachers who were not authorised by MessiYAH aka Christ ie the church fathers.

Christians/disciples (same difference) follow obey the teachings of the Apostles and use the church fathers historical writings to help understand what the early church practiced. The least of the Apostles supersedes anything the church fathers said.

So a good question would be, do you want to be a disciple of MessiYAH aka Christ, or a christian ?

False dichotomy.

Let's keep in mind the disciples did not call themselves christians they referred to themselves as disciples even AFTER being labelled as christians

You’re making a huge distinction where there isn’t one.

Consequently, in light of the words we have in our bibles in red do the arguments against torah really hold water?

Especially when the Apostle Paul who is being quoted heavily stated clearly the he himself as being "...not without law to God..."

He is not without law because he is under the law of Christ.

The apostle Peter stated regarding his writings

As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. [2Pe 3:16-17 KJV]

“Some things hard to be understood” not everything. You guys make way too much out of this statement, as if everything Paul says is upside down and backwards. Paul was a brilliant mind and his arguments are used today in law schools to teach law students how to make an argument, so yeah, some things are hard to understand, not impossible, if one simply applies themselves.

MessiYAH came to destroy the works of the devil, what are those works ?

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. [2Co 11:3 KJV]

The law of Christ is very simple believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and love one another.

The serpent beguiled Eve by getting her to go along with an understanding of the word of YAH that deceived her to disobey the very simple command that YAH had given.

With all that being said,

Prayerfully consider this, have you been beguiled to observe the customs of this world / the works of the devil and inadvertently disobey the customs of YAH?

No. The question is what law are you under, the law of Moses or the law of Christ?

 

[The Revolting Man]

What MarkC gives is a false dichotomy, man’s law or Gods law. He ignores the new covenant law, and because of that he misinterprets many passages in the New Testament.



Yeah, he’s under the law of the new covenant, not the law of Moses



Because he is a minister of the New Testament/covenant. He is not lawless but he is not under the law of Moses.



Which book did Jesus write? We understand what Jesus said through the words of His disciples and Apostles. He taught them many things that are not written in the gospels and this knowledge that they had informs their teachings to us. Those who hear the Apostles hear Him.



No, it’s the other way around.



Was Jesus telling christians/disciples (same difference, by the way) to go to synagogue on Shabbat? You are eisegeting here (Yes I just made that a verb).



Yeah, why did you have it backwards above?



Christians/disciples (same difference) follow obey the teachings of the Apostles and use the church fathers historical writings to help understand what the early church practiced. The least of the Apostles supersedes anything the church fathers said.



False dichotomy.



You’re making a huge distinction where there isn’t one.



He is not without law because he is under the law of Christ.



“Some things hard to be understood” not everything. You guys make way too much out of this statement, as if everything Paul says is upside down and backwards. Paul was a brilliant mind and his arguments are used today in law schools to teach law students how to make an argument, so yeah, some things are hard to understand, not impossible, if one simply applies themselves.



The law of Christ is very simple believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and love one another.



No. The question is what law are you under, the law of Moses or the law of Christ?

There is no Law of Moses. It is God’s Law delivered through Moses. Why are you so willing to denigrate and down grade God’s Words in to the words of men?

 

[JudahYAHites]

What MarkC gives is a false dichotomy, man’s law or Gods law. He ignores the new covenant law, and because of that he misinterprets many passages in the New Testament.



Yeah, he’s under the law of the new covenant, not the law of Moses



Because he is a minister of the New Testament/covenant. He is not lawless but he is not under the law of Moses.



Which book did Jesus write? We understand what Jesus said through the words of His disciples and Apostles. He taught them many things that are not written in the gospels and this knowledge that they had informs their teachings to us. Those who hear the Apostles hear Him.



No, it’s the other way around.



Was Jesus telling christians/disciples (same difference, by the way) to go to synagogue on Shabbat? You are eisegeting here (Yes I just made that a verb).



Yeah, why did you have it backwards above?



Christians/disciples (same difference) follow obey the teachings of the Apostles and use the church fathers historical writings to help understand what the early church practiced. The least of the Apostles supersedes anything the church fathers said.



False dichotomy.



You’re making a huge distinction where there isn’t one.



He is not without law because he is under the law of Christ.



“Some things hard to be understood” not everything. You guys make way too much out of this statement, as if everything Paul says is upside down and backwards. Paul was a brilliant mind and his arguments are used today in law schools to teach law students how to make an argument, so yeah, some things are hard to understand, not impossible, if one simply applies themselves.



The law of Christ is very simple believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and love one another.



No. The question is what law are you under, the law of Moses or the law of Christ?

You are very adept at avoiding deflecting and twisting so let us make this simple with direct questions.

What are the works of the devil that Christ came to destroy?

Did the disciples ever call themselves Christians?

Did Jesus authorize and recognise the apostles or the church fathers?

What are customs?

What are the customs that the Apostles taught?

Why could Roman's not receive or observe the customs that the Apostles taught?

Did Apostle Paul ever teach customs contrary to the customs of the Israelites?

Is covenant the same as law ?

Did Jesus ever say that the law is done away with?

What does holiness mean?

What does it mean to be holy?

What does iniquity mean?

What does it mean to be a worker of iniquity?

 

[Mark C]

Up to the last few comments, this has been the most profitable thread on Torah vs Grace (to over-summarise) that we have ever had on this site. By which I mean it has been the most well-referenced and well-argued on both sides...

Nobody is going to change their mind in a discussion like this...

This thread is valuable because it is a very well-referenced resource for any reader whose mind is not made up already. It allows them to read the arguments of both sides and come to their own prayerful conclusion.

Samuel is certainly correct, and it's something that's been obvious to many of us for some time. I don't expect those (and here I'll restrain myself ) ...who...don't see it...
to suddenly admit, like Shaul did, that he (well, three days later, anyway that he DID, and realize he was "under the [wrong] law."

But I do believe discussion is valuable, up until it becomes repetitive, or worse. And I participate here because I know many will read this thread (and others) who are honestly seeking His Truth.

Which brings me to what convinced me so many years ago, that I had "inherited lies from our fathers." And as such, admittedly, it sites at the heart of my frustration with those who break even the LEAST of His commandments, and "teach others to do so." (I don't care that some aspire to be "least in the kingdom." But Yahushua had harsher words still for the 'hypocrites'.) It is this, and it is fundamental:

Why do you claim that that claims by others -- whether you understand that they are taken out of context, or are bad translations, or whatever -- OVER-RIDE and "make of no effect" the Words in Red?

Again, I don't expect an answer, any more than the twisted lawyer-ese we say claiming that when He said He isn't changing even the tiniest part of His Torah and prophets as long as heaven and earth still exist...somehow isn't what He REALLY meant. They know better. (II Peter 3:15-16)

(Anybody ever heard the Bill of Rights-hating Tyrants claim that "some rights are better'n others?" Like, it's a RIGHT to kill kids, or take them from parents to cut off their breasts or genitalia, but YOUR 'privilege' to assemble, worship, speak, or keep and bear arms, etc, are just "ceremonial"...)

One more quote from the One Whom Shaul/Paul claims as his Master, which, I contend, clearly makes His point (again):

"Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust." (OK, well...that was a long time ago... )
“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.
“But if you do not believe his Writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:45-47)

So, for those who are genuinely seeking His Truth, I offer this question, that I suggest is fundamental, and at the heart of why Acts 17:11 called those in Berea "fair-minded" (remember what THEY called Scripture, then, before Acts et al had even been written!)

If All of Scripture, which "wrote of Me," as He claimed, established the Rock upon which all else was to be built...and if He, Himself, in His very first public address, said He wasn't changing ANY of it, (and, is 'the same, yesterday, today, tomorrow," too) and if He warned those who DID, repeatedly (starting in that same speech, Matthew 7:21-23)...
...if someone, ANYONE, then comes along preaching "another jesus, whom we have not preached" (II Corinthians 11:4)...
...then Who are you gonna believe?

All that said, "let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. Fear Elohim, and keep His commandments, because this is the whole duty of man."

 

[Mark C]

Finally, on only a slightly different aspect, and hopefully received in, at least, good humor, I have to return to the topic of this forum, polygyny, and why this aspect of the "whole matter" is so fundamental to me (and, I contend, to Him, too - but "your mileage may vary.")

You hear terms like "unequally yoked," head of house, "can two walk together unless..." and the concept of vows, and a huband's authority in Numbers chapter 30, and many more.

I asked the questions about what OTHER things in His Word might still apply (like to marriage) if things He said to keep "forever," and "throughout your generations," and "in ALL your dwelling places," no longer mean that. If men can change His "law," His 'times and seasons,' His Sabbaths, etc, etc, etc, then why NOT anything else?

Honestly, when it comes to me, personally, and the prospect of a wife -- whether she's 15 or 55 --
if I can't convince her, completely, that we serve the SAME Master, and that He "changes not", and that He means what He says, and is the "Torah Made Flesh," and that when He makes a Covenant - EVERY single time! - He keeps it:

then why would I EVER expect her to believe me, much less submit to MY authority?

 

[NVIII]

Pretty sure (correct me if I'm wrong) that one side is concerned that the other side is saying you must follow the Law in order to be saved, while the other side is concerned that the one side is saying there is no point in observing the Law. Does either side describe your perspective?

I'm also pretty sure that no one here believes that we may be saved by works, neither that faith without works is alive. If that guess is wrong and you do believe either of those, then raise your hand so that I can pray for you to have your mouth shut and your eyes opened.

For myself, I know that my righteousness is as filthy rags. I will be redeemed by His covering alone. I have done nothing to deserve it and can never repay it. The Law is flesh, it is of earth and will pass away with earth. I study the things I may see, which are described by the Law, so that I may learn about things unseen: about Him and about myself and what my relationship is with Him. I know I am not bound to follow it for the purposes of salvation, but blessings and curses are still bound to the Law because it is the way He created the world, and so I follow for that reason. The world is passing away, but His Word, who fulfills the Law, lasts forever. So, even though the world is passing away, I can learn the mysteries of His Word by studying it and following it, never idolizing it or forgetting that my life is forfeit and my effort is in vain if I do not have His covering, which cannot be provided by the Law. Hopefully this comes fairly close to describing you as well.

We shouldn't slander the Law. Neither should we slander man. Neither should we idolize either one. Both are like poor reflections of God in a mirror. Just recognize and appreciate what they are...flawed. If the Law was perfect, then salvation could have come through it. If the Law was bad, then God would not have given it to us.

 

[HomesteadWife]

@Asforme&myhouse - Tagging you on a what I had already posted as a response on 2 Cor: 3.

I've seen a lot of discussion of Old vs. New covenants, but feel like RENEWED covenant is not really referenced at all.

The terms New Testament or New Covenant are used in the Testimony of Yeshua portion of the English Bible in exactly nine places (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24), (With most of the Hebrews verses being italicized and added for translation rather than being in the original texts.)

In the Testimony of Yeshua, there are two Greek words for new: neos and kainos, and each one has a different connotation. Neos more often means “brand new or numerically new,” while kainos means “renewed, refreshed or repaired or qualitatively new.” When you see the term New Covenant or New Testament used, in eight of nine time the authors use kainos. Only in Hebrews 12:24 is neos used in reference to the new covenant.
The Testimony of Yeshua’s preference over using the Greek word for renewed over the word (brand) new is exactly consistent with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrew’s usage of the word in Hebrews 8:8, The author is here quoting directly from Jeremiah 31:31.

Based on this linguistic evidence it seems that the terms new testament or new covenant should be more accurately translated as renewed covenant instead of new (as in brand new) covenant. This was the preference of the apostolic writers, although, it can be clearly demonstrated from Hebrews 12:24 that the term new covenants is acceptable as well.

Thus the case would be made that the New Covenant renews the Old Covenant.
After all, the New Covenant is a separate and New Covenant. At the same time, it is a reworking or refreshing of the Old Covenant, but with two major additions: the blood of Yeshua to wash away the sins of his people once and for all, and the Set-Apart Spirit of Elohim who will write his laws on their hearts, so that they will not only want to obey them, but will have the internal spiritual power to do so.
In reality, Yeshua the Messiah is not really going to make a brand new covenant with his people when he returns to marry his spiritual wife, which is the spiritual body of believers of whom he is the head. Instead, he will repair or renew the former covenants (plural, see Eph 2:12) that ancient Israel broke and that many people are still breaking today by not keeping Yeshua’s Torah-commandments as they should (remember John 14:15?). After all, there was nothing wrong with the covenants themselves. The problem was with the people—they failed to be faithful to the terms of that covenant to which they agreed as Heb 8:8 states. Under the Renewed Covenant, the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants will be combined to make this new covenant or what the Bible also refers to as the Everlasting Covenant (Jer 32:40; Ezek 37:26) as well as the Covenant of Peace (Ezek 37:26).

The fault was with Israel (it wasn’t with YHVH or his Torah-laws—the terms of the covenant), since they failed to keep the terms of the covenant to which they agreed at Mount Sinai. What did Elohim require of them? Simply this: faith in him and obedience to his laws. YHVH Elohim married Israel the first time at Mount Sinai, when they said, “I do” to Elohim three times (Exod 19:8; 24:3, 7). However, they quickly broke their vows when they failed to remain faithful to Elohim and instead worshiped the golden calf (Exod 32 cp. Ezek 16:1–31).The renewed covenant that Jeremiah prophesied that Elohim would make with his people (Jer 31:31, 33) will still have the Torah-law as the terms of the agreement, but this time, YHVH will pour out his Set-Apart Spirit onto his people to soften their hard hearts and write his laws on their hearts. This time, they will want to obey his laws. With Yeshua, the Messiah, the Living Torah-word of Elohim, living in their hearts through the power of Elohim’s Spirit, this time they will be an obedient wife to YHVH instead of a rebellious one. This bride will be made up of both Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Yeshua the Messiah, which Scriptures refers to as “the one new man” (Eph 2:15) or as “the Israel of Elohim” (Gal 6:16).

In Ephesians 2:11–19, Paul talks about the Gentiles coming into a spiritual and covenantal relationship with the Elohim of Israel, becoming part of the nation of Israel, and being brought into a relationship with Elohim through the covenants (plural) of Israel. What were these covenants (plural)? This is the Torah Covenant, which can be subdivided into the Abrahamic and Mosaic (Sinaitic) Covenants, along with the New or Renewed Covenant, which the Tanakh refers to as the Everlasting Covenant (Jer 32:40; Ezek 37:26). The latter was prophesied about by Jeremiah, and came into reality during the time of Yeshua and the apostles. It is the New Covenant that is the spiritually renewed or refreshed Torah Covenant of old that becomes a reality in the lives of born-again, spiritually regenerated believers through a spiritual relationship with Yeshua, the Messiah of Israel. Paul makes this abundantly clear as he relates the Abrahamic Covenant subsection of the Torah Covenant to the salvation of the believer in his epistle to the Romans chapter four. Paul then references the Mosaic Covenant aspect of the Torah Covenant to the life of the believer when he clearly indicates that YHVH’s Torah-law is to be the standard of righteousness for the saints (see Rom 3:31; 7:12, 14, 22; 13:8–10; Act 24:14; 25:8 compare with John 14:15 and Matt 5:19).

So the New, Renewed Covenant is a both a new and separate covenant, yet at the same time, it is a renewed or refreshed form of the Torah Covenant made up of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. This time the covenant is sealed not with the blood of a sacrificed animal as was the case with the Mosaic Covenant (Exod 24:5–6), but with the blood of Yeshua who once and for all paid for man’s sins (Matt 26:27–28; Heb 9:26, 28; 10:10, 12).

Moreover, those who come to faith in Yeshua are promised the gift of the Set-Apart Spirit to live inside of them, to write YHVH’s laws on their hearts, and to empower them to be a faithful bride and eventual wife of Yeshua as they remain faithful and obedient to him and love him by keeping his Torah-commandments (John 14:12).

There can be arguments made whether this New Renewed covenant is fully in affect now, or if it will not fully be so until Yeshua returns. This new renewed covenant being like the Abrahamic covenant which had a delay in being promised and fulfilled completely. Furthermore, the original Mosaic Covenant was bilateral (had the approval of both parties) but the renewed covenant is mono-lateral (similar to Abrahamic). In other words, a Yahweh only Covenant, who freely offers the renewed Covenant to all that are willing to accept it and keep it, everyone under the same terms.

 

[FollowingHim]

Don’t be a passive aggressive snit. That’s what got you and I in to conflict to begin with.

So you’re saying the “seed of the land” means that 10% of the yield of every seed planted had to be given to the temple? Rather than just 10% of the total increase? Interesting. I think you’re mistaken. Understandable though since the Pharisees made the same mistake.

Not being passive-aggressive in any way, I think you're anticipating conflict between the two of us and seeing it where it is not intended.

I did not say anything about how to calculate the 10%. You're right that it is 10% of the increase. My point was that it was 10% of the increase on all seed crops - so that includes minor crops, and therefore includes the three crops named by Jesus. The Pharisees had not invented the need to tithe these crops - that requirement is in the Law. They might have been calculating the quantity rightly or wrongly, I have no idea as Jesus doesn't comment on that.

Jesus' criticism was that the Pharisees were being really pedantic about making sure they calculated their tithe on the most random minor crops, which was the law but a tiny little corner of it, while neglecting the weightier matters such as justice.

I could imagine Him saying "seriously Mr Pharisee, how much cumin do you really grow, and would it really be a big deal if you got that tithe wrong? Stop weighing it all, just grab a handful to give to the temple and get busy with something more important"

 

[Mark C]

Pretty sure (correct me if I'm wrong) that one side is concerned that the other side is saying you must follow the Law in order to be saved,

Yes, correction: You are in fact VERY wrong.

"This side" - meaning ME - has NEVER, EVER said "you must follow the Law in order to be saved."

For many reasons, all of which I have made clear in this thread and elsewhere:

1) Yahushua never said such, and I have quoted NOTHING such. What He says, is, "IF you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15) Paul says, obedience to Him ("bondservice" even!) is our "reasonable service," given what He has ALREADY done for us.

2) "Law" is, for the umpteenth time, a truly Crappy Translation. "Torah" is His "teaching and instruction." Which is NOT, repeat NOT, the same as "Law". (When He means words that imply 'law' - He says so: "chuqat," "mishpatim," "mitzvot," etc.) Torah is MUCH bigger. And it includes parables, as hopefully even those who claim the "law is done away with" can recognize as His Instruction.

3) He says, repeatedly, that there are curses for rebellion to Him, and blessings for obedience. Arguably, one can be "saved," and still insistent on deserving His curses. (See, for example, Deuteronomy 28:60-61).

I've seen a lot of discussion of Old vs. New covenants, but feel like RENEWED covenant is not really referenced at all.

Excellent point, but yes, one I have made countless times. It's "my covenant which y'all broke!" and with BOTH whoring wives (Jer 31). Both of whom are told "return to Me." (t'shuvah)

PS> Corollary: His Covenants are forever, even when we break them. All else follows...

PSS> Sorry - bad typo fixed.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I’m convinced! That’s a stronger stance than I would take but you make a compelling case!

And what is that growth? Platitudes like “Grow in faith” or “Just love Him more every day brother!” are empty.

And His Son kept what?

So righteousness is defined by doing? It’s actions?

And it’s opposite is not doing? It’s a lack of actions?

We keep what? Growing in faith? Loving Him more everyday? Oh, we keep commandments? Well that’s pretty straightforward.

These commandments seem like a big deal.

Keeping His commandments allows you to dwell in Him?

What exactly do you think that God’s Law that He delivered to Moses is? It’s a whole bunch of commandments that came from God. Which the Apostle John kept. You’re really strengthening my faith here brother.

Alright, I think we’ve covered this before but we can do so again. I’ll start a new thread for it because it’s important. I’m going to put it in the Hebrew roots section but I’ll mark it meat and it will be open for elbow throwing.

Of all your innovations this is of course the most bold and wide reaching and most easily refuted. A number of those Laws are specifically labeled eternal and there are unfulfilled prophecies interspersed all through out the Old Testament. Clearly it hasn’t all been fulfilled, you would clearly forbid incest between a father and a daughter and I’m sure you find great value in the Psalms and Proverbs which is why they’re in your pocket New Testament but we’ll do this. It seems to be the crux of this latest attack.

This is an area where I get in to conflict with my Torah keeping brethren. I don’t celebrate Christmas in order to be in fellowship with them but I think we get that one wrong. The alleged pagan roots of Christmas are non existent in history, being largely the invention of atheists who wanted to discredit Christianity. Easter of course is evil and should be eradicated.

Does this new covenant say that anywhere? Or are you trying to get in front of a pro-Torah argument you’ve run up against before?

This is a deeper dive than I’m going to get in to here but no, tithing those things are not in the Law. An obsessive tithing of exactly 10% of every individual thing that grew was a tradition. The Law was that the total increase got tithed.

You like that argument? Haha I thought you might. Seriously though, how does a torah starter pack work? Why wouldn’t the starter pack start with more vital commands like “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” or “Thou shalt not kill”? Is food really that important? Color me skeptical, but if I was telling a group of former pagans that they need to keep the law of Moses, I think three out of the four commands would be WAY down the list... especially if they can hover there with those four indefinitely.


So what are your thoughts on 2 Corinthians chapter three?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

You are very adept at avoiding deflecting and twisting so let us make this simple with direct questions.

Do you always start your inquisitions with an insult?

You’ll have to make a case using Scripture for your position on those questions before I bother answering them. I’m not here to answer lists of arbitrary questions with no context.

But before you do that, how does 2 Corinthians 3 square with your theology? Anyone?

 

[JudahYAHites]

Do you always start your inquisitions with an insult?

You’ll have to make a case using Scripture for your position on those questions before I bother answering them. I’m not here to answer lists of arbitrary questions with no context.

But before you do that, how does 2 Corinthians 3 square with your theology? Anyone?

Are facts insulting? you have avoided, deflected and twisted previous questions it's a simple statement. You literally just did it again.

Interesting...

I read the following statement on the bottom of a post from @Sons of Issachar and I am very much inclined to agree with what it says, especially after this discourse.

"In most debates, notice that one side has a plain reading of scripture, while the other side has tradition, manipulated or isolated scripture, emotional appeals, and circular or flawed logic. Develop an eye for this, and you will quickly learn truth."

 

[Michael Moon]

So what are your thoughts on 2 Corinthians chapter three?

The Law does kill us. Not because it is evil but because it is good (Romans 7:12) and WE are evil! We must be dead to receive new life. For we must know that we have wronged God to truly repent and receive new life. Knowing we have wronged God means knowing we have sinned.

The change is in us. Not in the Law. The Law was made to bless those who keep it and curse those who go against it. It still does that today, the change is that we are empowered through the Holy Spirit to be like Christ. Sanctification leads us towards the perfection of Christ. His SINLESSNESS is his perfection. Sin is the transgression of God's Law.

The Law of Sin and Death is just that. By breaking the Law we sin and deserve death. By the ministry of the spirit we are granted rebirth and power! The Law condemns us because we are unable to keep it on our own (not because the Law is too difficult to keep, but rather because we are rebellious and evil), we are too weak (Romans 8:7-8). But through the Spirit we are empowered to keep the Law! We are empowered to no longer live in the flesh and hold enmity against God. We are able to keep the Law because we can rely on the Spirit to do the heavy lifting. And if we fail, if we fall into the flesh, if we sin, we can ask for forgiveness, and we can truly repent. We can be forgiven and continue our walk.

So should we then be free to break the law so that God's grace abounds? (Romans 6)