Banned because we're not under law

Discussion in 'Biblical Issues Other Than Marriage & Family' started by Asforme&myhouse, Mar 12, 2017.

  1. Slumberfreeze

    Slumberfreeze Esteemed Member Male

    I'm not sure if this is quite what you're looking for, but I don't know if 'banning' is the word I would use. I would say that the new life in Christ brings with it a new Law that supersedes the old Law, so much so that the practice of the old Law becomes a violation. The law is perfect, converting the soul and the law is Holy. And yet part of this Law is the stoning of those caught in adultery (Leviticus 20:10). Is the law sin? Absolutely not! The Law is Holy Justice!

    But then Jesus arrives on this very scene in John 8 and stops a lawful penalty from being carried out with these words: “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” Thereby disqualifying any sinner from enacting the work of the Law by commandment. And He Himself, the only one present who fit the sinless criteria He had just laid out, refused to condemn her either.

    This is because the call of Grace and Righteousness is of greater weight than the Law of Sin and Penalty. Or to put it another way "Mercy Triumphs over Judgment"

    As disciples of the Lord Jesus, we now learn from Him to follow what Paul refers to as the Law of Faith in Romans 3:27, Or the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus in Romans 8:2, or the Law of Christ in Galatians 6:2, or what James calls the Law of Liberty in James 1:25 and 2:12

    With regard to Laws, our righteousness is to exceed normal human limitations so much that most practice of the law would be desperately unproductive. In life of Christ which pertains to Righteousness, even a harsh word is accounted for like murder and a desiring glance at another man's wife is accounted like adultery.

    In Deuteronomy 6:13 the people are told that they must swear by the name of the Lord, but Jesus says that this practice offends the simple honesty required by the new life.

    Not banned, but required to grow past the law.

    There are even more strict requirements to live by in the new life, because our hearts are required to be soft, and not hard. The commandment of the Law of Moses made allowances for hardness of heart (divorce) but the Law of Christ makes no such allowance. It is hard to prove that women in the OT were required any specific headwear or hair length, but in the new life the truths of the heavenly hierarchy between God, Man, and Women will now be shown by outward appearance, by command in the sight of the angels. Likewise the silence of women in the gathering is hard to see in the Law, but in the new life principles only just barely hinted at will now be practiced. There was no law saying that a woman must call her husband 'lord' but in the new life it becomes a standard to strive towards.

    The law is full of what one owes others in response to infractions or happenstance, the new life requires that we behave as if we really loved each other as much as we love ourselves. The new life in Christ demands that we be Righteous People who do just that.

    We realize that law is not enacted for the righteous (1 Timothy 1:9)

    The challenge for us is not to learn the Law in order to practice it, but to learn the Law so we may grow so far beyond it that merely practicing it would become a complete failure.

    Stoning an adulteress is a failure of Righteousness. Eye for an Eye is a failure of Mercy. Demanding any payment that the law prescribes is a failure of Grace.

    If you're tempted to obey a Law... first ask "Can I do better? Can I do ALOT better?"
     
    Verifyveritas76 likes this.
  2. ZecAustin

    ZecAustin Esteemed Member Male

    Ooooh, I can't go here with you. You lose any and all commands to holiness like this.
     
    Slumberfreeze likes this.
  3. Mojo

    Mojo Esteemed Member Male

    Yes, but Jesus told her.... "go, and sin no more." He acknowledged the sin, just not the punishment (grace). There would be some who would interpret this passage to Jesus denying the "kangaroo court" proceedings for why he refused to punish. Still others think this is more of an "apocryphal" addition by later translators, and not a true canonical narrative (FYI- I don't agree with this one).
     
  4. Verifyveritas76

    Verifyveritas76 Moderator Staff Member Male

    [QUOTE="Slumberfreeze,

    The challenge for us is not to learn the Law in order to practice it, but to learn the Law so we may grow so far beyond it that merely practicing it would become a complete failure.
    [/QUOTE]

    This is truly the cry of David in Psalms 119
     
    Slumberfreeze likes this.
  5. ke4ke

    ke4ke Member Male

    You are correct about the sacrifices. Christ is also our High Priest and thus the Levitical priesthood is also not a part of what we concern ourselves. Hebrews explains both.

    God can not change his morals. It is easy to throw away something when one does not understand it's value and have been misled about new testament verses that seem to disregard God's Law. God's Law is still with us. Check the terms of the new covenant, Hebrews 10:16, a quote from Jeremiah. No Law, no new covenant. Grace can not even exist with out the Law.

    I'll give two quick verses. More explanation can be found at: http://www.gospelminutes.org/lawpages.php

    For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. Romans 10:4 The Law has three parts. Command, Statute and Judgment. So this verse should be understood this way.
    For Christ is the end of the law [judgment of death] for righteousness to every one that believes. Romans 10:4
    Paul said "Therefore the Law indeed is Holy, and the Commandment Holy, and Righteous, and Good." Romans 7:12. Christ didn't redeem us from the Law, but the curse of the Law, death Galatians 3:13.

    It is important to know the source of quotes in Scripture. The reader is expected to know the meaning behind a quote from the old testament.
    1 Peter 1:16 "Be holy, for I am holy."
    The quote is from Leviticus 11:44, God's health laws, the food laws. The implication is that being holy is effected by what we eat. Therefore the question, can one be holy before God as commanded in 1 Peter 1:16 and still eat pork?

    As you read your New Testament begin to notice all the quotes from the old and you'll find that some of the teaching we all have received was not correct because it did not include the intended meaning from the quote. Also as you read notice all the pro God's law comments made. We have one God. Christ is God. They are one. They did not have their own Laws. God is one with one moral.

    I like to tell people that what was sin the day The Adam was placed in the garden is still sin today. What is sin today was sin that very same day. God can not change. To change what is right and wrong from one day to the next or even from one covenant to the next changes God into another God. A God who changes what is right and wrong can not be counted on for stability. He would not be reliable and thus not much of a god.

    Malachi 3:6 For I am Yahweh, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

    Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

    James 1:17b ...the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.


    Tim
     
  6. Slumberfreeze

    Slumberfreeze Esteemed Member Male

    I don't know what you mean exactly. I have maybe some ideas, but they're probably not what you're saying. Could you elaborate a bit?

    That's what I'm saying, sort of. The practice of the Law demanded her death. And under the Law, her death was not optional. But if Jesus came not to abolish the Law, by what right did He substitute His own response : An admonishment to repent with any and all judgment suspended? By virtue of being Himself Greater than the law, for the Law is that which testifies of Him. He is not subject to the law that he *must* obey it, nor is He in opposition to it, for the Law was not made for Him to be under (1 Tim 1:9 again). Nor does He contradict the Law, for He states that not all Laws are the same, and some matters of the Law are weightier than others, Mercy being one of them. And the weightiest matter of them all is "Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, and mind; and Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Which is why he said in this "hang all the Law and the Prophets."

    Yeah for sure. A popular theory in the Churches I've been to was "Well if she was caught in the act, there should have been a man there, where was he at? The Law demands his blood too! There was clear favoritism in the dispensing of justice here and Jesus, having none of it, called the whole thing off"... which to a certain extent I totally get. Something hinky was going on, for sure. But Jesus didn't point out that particular inconsistency. That would be how i would defend her in court maybe, but Jesus is on a whole 'nother level. He (sort of imperiously) denied the right of anyone who had ever sinned to participate in Judging another sinner. It's not that throwing rocks at an adulterous woman until she stops moving is any kind of sin. It's just that for any man who had ever sinned, it would be grossly inappropriate from the standpoint of righteousness.
     
    Verifyveritas76 likes this.
  7. Slumberfreeze

    Slumberfreeze Esteemed Member Male

    This is truly the cry of David in Psalms 119[/QUOTE]

    YES!!!
    Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works.

    I am so taken with this word. (H6490 translated as precepts). There are plainly stated commandments, statutes, laws, ordinances etc: in the Law, but not one single plainly stated precept. They aren't even mentioned. David is the only one that uses the word, 3 times in three different psalms, but in psalm 119 he just runs off at the mouth and can't stop saying the word!

    I'm terrible with Hebrew, but if the translated word is at all faithful, then the first definition of precept is

    : a command or principle intended especially as a general rule of action (italics mine)

    Which is to say, what David refers to 21 times in this Psalm is not just the keeping of individual commandments, but being faithful to the spirit and principles BEHIND the laws that link them together.
     
  8. Verifyveritas76

    Verifyveritas76 Moderator Staff Member Male

    I find it so interesting that with David having access to and transcribing his own personal copy of the law, that he realized the importance of being shown truth beneath the symbols on the pages and within the phrases and language of the text.
    Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
    word.
    I have declared my ways, and thou heardest me: teach me thy statutes.
    Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works.
    Teach me, O LORD, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end.
    Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law; yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.
    Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight.

    I think David understood that having the Law memorized means nothing if it doesn't produce the realization that
    That we as imperfect people are unable to keep it perfectly thus failing entirely. With that realization comes the understanding that without a Messiah to provide perfect righteousness for our covering we are forever separated from a holy God. Jesus Christ is the door, the Adown, the perfect covering for an imperfect humanity.

    The litmus test for those who belong to Him has always been, If you love me, keep my commandments. It was established at the garden, "don't touch the tree". It has been reinforced at every critical juncture before and after Moses ever existed. Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
    And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Pre Law of Moses)
    After the Law, multiple prophets preaching, "Thus sayeth the Lord . . . "
    Finally Jeremiah comes out and declares the unthinkable in 7:21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.
    For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
    But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
    (Josephus also bears witness to Jeremiah's statement above)

    So often I find that people have elevated the Law of Moses higher than the authority of the Bridegroom. Though the Law of Moses is an incredible work no doubt inspired by the Holy Spirit, and deserving of its place in our canon, it was always intended to be limited in both scope and function. It was only instituted after they proved themselves incapable of following the declared Word of God! Moses and John the Baptizer were both just men fulfilling a role in the wedding sequence of the Son of God. Moses was the friend of the Bridegroom that was to prepare the Bride as best he could to be ready for the Bridegroom. Moses and the prophets were until John the Baptist because he fulfilled the role of Elijah saying he is nigh, even at the door completing the sequence. The Adown has arrived! Any instruction given to the bride by the friends of the Groom are subject to modification by the Adown and are only to be understood as preparatory. The Master is not bound by the servant. Once the Groom assumes his rightful position the Bride is no longer subject to the "trustee or steward". She is now subject to the Adown. Jesus said ALL POWER is given unto me in heaven and in earth, by the Father. This is what is so fundamentally important about the phrase, "If you love me, keep MY commandments." Also, "ye have heard it said, . . . BUT I SAY!" Matt. 5-7

    If all this seems to be a bit much, I'll refer you some of the last words of Moses himself,
    Deut. 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
    I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
    And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

    Thus, the preimminence of Christ in all things and why God has highly exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name.
     
    Joleneakamama and Slumberfreeze like this.
  9. Mojo

    Mojo Esteemed Member Male

    So then, have we distilled a "banned?"
    The nation of Israel was responsible for dispensing punishment for violation of The laws of Moses. All those under the covenant were to abide by the laws and be subject to the consequences. Those outside it were not included.

    So, then are you saying a "banned" in NT but not banned in OT is punishment?

    We need the law to be applicable in defining what is sin, but then relying on Grace to override punishment?

    Do any of you Hebrew roots folks practice applying the consequences of the Law?

    Am I hearing you correctly Slumberfreeze?
     
  10. aineo

    aineo Moderator Staff Member Male

    I would say the punishment is still in effect. The worst punishment one could have would have been a violent death - Yeshua accepted that punishment on our behalf. According to Romans 3:24-25 we were freed from the punishment of sin because He is our sacrifice. 1 John 2:2 says He was the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. In other words, no one has to be punished under the Law for sin because Yeshua was a sacrifice on our behalf, but the punishment was still fulfilled - fulfilled in Him.
     
  11. Slumberfreeze

    Slumberfreeze Esteemed Member Male

    Oh... I don't know? I've brewed some mead but am pretty much ignorant on what distilling really even is.

    That is my understanding for sure.

    Pretty much, yes. It seems that participating in any judgment action against sin violates the nature of what we are called to be.


    I think that is exactly what I mean. Obviously if we break government enforced laws we are subject to government punishments, and if we are acting unfitting of a child of God then we can expect discipline. But otherwise yes, just so.

    Yes I think so. Absent the distilling part that I don't understand, I'm pretty sure.
     
  12. Mojo

    Mojo Esteemed Member Male

    1. c : to extract the essence of : concentrate distill the experience into a poem

      From Merriam-Webster online dictionary

      Like distilling alcohol or oil into gasoline, you take an original concept, heat it, vaporize it, cool it and it comes out a different form.
     
  13. Mojo

    Mojo Esteemed Member Male

    But that takes the human element of OT law punishment out of it and places it on Christ.

    So then the NT bans men from punishing/consequences prescribed in OT and places it on governmental authorities for the temporal world and then to Yahweh in the afterlife???

    Modern Israel is a secular democracy. If it were to become a theocracy, would Believers be able to join that government under a clear conscience and participate within it?
     
  14. Joleneakamama

    Joleneakamama Well-Known Member Female

    This is very close to how we see it.
    The great commission tells believers to bring others to Christ. Once they are in fellowship with Christ, the holy spirit can convict them on various issues as they grow in faith, and knowledge.