• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Law, commands, or instructions?

VV76 can certainly speak for himself, but consider the following:

You search the Scriptures, for you think in them you have everlasting life. And they are the ones witnessing concerning Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

My sheep hear my voice and follow me.​

In every generation there are those who diligently master a particular view of written documents and completely miss the presence of God.
 
ZecAustin said:
So what's the difference between the Law and His Commands?
Click to expand...

THAT is in fact a question that I probably answer about as often as any I ever see, and it is CENTRAL to the "Big Lie" that I argue characterizes how Paul has been "twisted...by the unlearned and untaught..." (II Peter 3:15-16) It's also why Yahushua called the pharisees "hypocrites" and comes pretty close to the central core of why the northen kindom ("Israel," sometimes referred to as Ephraim, or Samaria, or the 'ten lost tribes,' etc, etc) are still in exile.

The word "Law" is not, repeat NOT, a very good translation for the Hebrew word "torah", which is a MUCH "bigger" term. His "instruction" would be a far more consistent, and less "twistable" rendering. In large part because of what is called "conflation":

When some letter to former pagans that we are told translates a greek word like "nomos" into "law" -- is the writer talking about "God's law" -- or "man's"? Sometimes it's clear from context, most often it is NOT, and therein lies the rub. (But it's clear from places like Matthew chapter 23, Mark 7, and many others that HaMeshiach was REALLY concerned about making it clear that what MEN called "law" was NOT the same as His! "By your traditions (your so-called 'law') you have made the commandments of Yah of no effect.")

When the Bible uses the word "torah" (or variants, "torot" is plural, sometimes it's 'toroti' or 'My instruction', and so on) is is INCLUSIVE. Statutes, judgments, commandments are all PART of that instruction, as are lessons we learn from the lives of the patriarchs, good kings, bad kings, prophets, judges, and so on. There are "parables", too, ALL part of His instruction. And when YHVH means to use the words that specifically imply "statutes" or "commandments" -- He uses those words (chuqqim, mitzvot, mishpatim).

In His first 'public address', the Sermon on the Mount, He said He would not change the "smallest part" ('one yod or tiddle') so long as HEAVEN and EARTH (the two witnesses from Deuteronomy 30, and many later references in Scripture as well) still exist. They still do, and He is not a liar. (Paul mentioned something about that, too. :) )

To claim that He 'changes', and is NOT the same, 'yesterday, today, and tomorrow' is one of the biggest fallacies in 17 centuries of 'twisting'. But a bit part of that is understanding what is man's law as opposed to His statutes, judgments, commandments...and instruction.

Over time, this is a frequent Sabbath teaching topic, and the subject of a bunch of articles on my site. Here are a few with a bit more detail, and references:

“Who is the Law for?” http://markniwot.com/?p=892

Whose ‘Law’ is it anyway? http://markniwot.com/?p=745

and this one that addresses 'THE' problem in Acts 15:

Does the ‘law’ apply to lost sheep – or only ‘the Jews’? http://markniwot.com/?p=813
 
I would point out that the oft abused Romans 14:1 makes a little more sense if you realize that there appears to be a two track system here. You can observe God's days or no days, the dietary laws or eat whatever you want. The Old Testament also kind of points in this direction too when it sets up the rules for celebrating Passover. People who wanted to celebrate it had to be circumcised, implying there were people who wanted to follow God but weren't necessarily observing all the laws.

There appears to be a non Hebrew state here that is acceptable. As an aspiring Hebrew roots patriarch obviously I think one way has significant advantages but its not the only way. It just seems the more I try to be the man God wants the more important His Laws become. Mainline protestantism was not working for me.

And if you decide you want to stay in the (for lack of a better term, don't read into this he said with zero faith that no one would read into it) Hellenized track that's fine but Romans 14 also kind of makes it clear that the (for lack of a better term and just in case you didn't get insulted at the last imperfect term here's your chance to catch up) Hebrew roots track is at least on par with the (get ready with the outrage) Hellenized track. Now crucify me. Go ahead. I can take it.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
Moderator note: These posts were moved from this discussion, if you wish to see the context leading up to them. Note ends.


From beginning to end its not about whether you follow the Law, it has always been about hearing his voice and following His commands.
Click to expand...

I'm certain that this thread will end up much further than I intended or am willing to go on a forum. I wasn't trying to hijack the thread, just comment on @FollowingHim2 's post about listening to God over other people telling you what God said. I'd be happy to discuss whatever in person but for me it was a long involved study that just cant be encapsulated in a few posts. I have a lot of respect for my Hebrew Roots brothers and have learned a lot of information from them that wasn't available in your typical brick and mortar assemblies. I am not a big fan of 119 ministries for various reasons, but to each his own.

My original point that I think I was agreeing with @FollowingHim2 on was following God's voice. It was a requirement in the Garden, "you may eat of everything but this tree", and prior to the Legislated Law being written by Moses you have multiple instances where God places a high emphasis on his spoken word.
Ex. 15:26. Context is just after crossing the Red Sea
And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.
Ex. 16 :4b. Context just shy of 1 month later
and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, † that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. (What Law? Spoken by God Law)
Ex. 19:5. Context: the 8th Sabbath, counted from the day following the High Sabbath of Passover, Pentecost, 7th of Sivan. Place? Sinai/Horeb
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. (this is prior to the Levitical Priesthood. The whole nation were to be kings and priests - a Melchizedek priesthood. It wasn't until after the debacle at the golden calf that this changes. The people couldn't be trusted to follow Gods law, so they were placed into trusteeship until the true Melchizedek would take His rightful place. Thus, the Priesthood, all the trappings, and covenant were strictly a covenant for specified period of time until the Melchizedek announced his majority status and dismissed the incompetent ravening trustees)

According to Josephus, the famous 10 commandments were what was spoken from the mount by God on that third day after Pentecost in the sight of all the people. They were not just spoken to Moses and he relayed them to the people, God spoke the commandments to the people personally. There was no room for "lost in translation".

I also find it interesting that the prophets that God sent to the people later in their history were always sent to repeat the spoken word of God to a people who were fixated on the Legislated Law. These prophets were usually considered outside the norm by the mainstream ravening wolves of the day (thats the Levites/Priests/scribes).

I find it interesting that people quote the verse about how God doesnt change as proof that the Law doesnt change, primarily in respect to sabbaths and dietary laws and feast days.
In regards to dietary laws, God told Adam (spoken law) that the herbs of the field and the trees were to be food for him. God told Noah (spoken law) that everything that moves is food for you, and yet thats not what Moses wrote (Legislated Law).
In regards to the idea that God doesnt change, I have found multiple references that specifically state that God repented or changed His mind on a course of action (not because the original action would have been sin, just that God chose to do it differently). So the question becomes, Is the passage that states that God doesnt change dealing with His Nature and who He is, or does it include the minutia of how He works out His will on earth?
(Disclaimer: I LOVE the Feast days, just don't observe these particular ones)
In regards to feast days, we all know the passages that mention that they are to be kept forever. And yet, Isaiah in particular states that God wants nothing to do with your feast days. (Is. 1:12-14). The book begins with a repudiation of not only their sacrifices and offerings but specifically the feast days and ends with a prophecy that not only are the sacrifices not acceptable, but that they are the equivalent of a gross abomination.

Daniel 9 states that the one who would be cut off would cause the "sacrifice and oblation" to cease. The sacrifice and oblation are two words referencing 3 sacrifices and 2 sacrifices respectively which make up the Passover Feast Day sacrifices and meal. Though some erroneously associate this sacrifice ceasing to the antichrist, the historical evidence doesnt bear this interpretation out.

Jeremiah 7:21-24
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: (Do you notice what is not in the 10 Commandments? Who did this? Moses in the Legislated Law)
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.
But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.
In case you missed it, God has just disclaimed any responsibility for burnt offerings and sacrifice. That's HUGE.
If this seems like an anomaly that must be a mistake or a perversion, consider the first century perspective and account by Flavius Josephus which states,
Now when the multitude had heard God himself giving those precepts which Moses had discoursed of , they rejoiced at what was said: and the congregation was dissolved; but on the following days they came to his tent, and desired him to bring them, besides, other laws from God. Accordingly he appointed such laws, and afterwards informed them in what manner they should act in all cases; Antiquities of the Jews 3.5.6

It's also interesting to note that all of the statements made by Christ about the law, . . . Ye have heard it said, but I say. Are all regarding the 10 Commandments.

Did Christ fulfill the Legislated Law? Absolutely. IMHO, not that he was subject to it (being God) but to prove that it could be done by a man.
Was Christ bound by the Legislated Law? only to the point that He submitted Himself (as God) to it. Multiple instances of where He did things outside the Legislated Law, only some of which was perceived as being outside the law due to commandments of men.
Is the Legislated Law important today? ABSOLUTELY. In spite of my comments above, I greatly enjoy studying through the Books of Moses, I just am convinced that I am in Christ under a different, though similar, covenant. To me, the Legislated Covenant is important, even crucial, because it reveals the character and intent of the Father for a specified period in History, not because being in Christ binds me to it.
Are we free as believers in Christ to do whatever we want? Absolutely not, I have been bought with a price, I may not be the servants of men or sin. I have a master. However, I am in a covenanted servitude that has similar but different stipulations and clauses in it.

Something to think about: though Christ fulfilled the Legislated Law, just prior to Crucifixion there were several things that He did which the Law specifically states that one doing these things must be cut off. One of which was to die on a cross. This makes Jesus Christ a cursed thing under the Legislated Law. I know that He had to, but it doesnt change the fact. After Golgatha, Jesus Christ is incompatible with the Mosaic Law. As heretical as this may sound, you cannot hold the Mosaic Law (as justification) in one hand and Jesus Christ in the other. Though the Mosaic Law was all about the person we know as Jesus Christ, it was only a poor, two dimensional facsimile for the perfect, three dimensional Messiah, the Spoken Word of God in the flesh.

In the words of Christ, if you love me, keep my commandments. And, . . . Herein shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another.
John 14:21,23. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 23) Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

I have done a lot of study on Hebrew Roots, I just didnt land there at the end of my study. If anyone is curious about my conclusions, I'd be happy of course to visit with you in person or PM about it. I am always open to truth and welcome dissenting perspectives. If you do hold a dissenting view, I'm ok with that. My fellowship is not contingent upon this particular topic, this is just where I've landed.
 
Last edited:
@Verifyveritas76 , that is a very calmly worded and well stated presentation of where you have come to on this, and I am impressed given the potential for this issue to be so divisive. Thankyou. Please also note that I didn't post that image to promote 119 Ministries, but simply because I had run across it earlier in the day and found the message in it thought-provoking.

There is actually a strong agreement between yourself and @Mark C in at least one area:
Mark C said:
The word "Law" is not, repeat NOT, a very good translation for the Hebrew word "torah", which is a MUCH "bigger" term. His "instruction" would be a far more consistent, and less "twistable" rendering.
Click to expand...
Verifyveritas76 said:
My original point that I think I was agreeing with @FollowingHim2 on was following God's voice. It was a requirement in the Garden, "you may eat of everything but this tree", and prior to the Legislated Law being written by Moses you have multiple instances where God places a high emphasis on his spoken word.
Click to expand...
The fundamental issue is that we are to follow YHWH's instructions. These instructions are not necessarily just a list of 613 written instructions in Torah (as per rabbinical understanding). His instructions are whatever He instructs a particular person to do. He gave Adam particular instructions, gave Moses others, and gave the disciples others (the degree to which these differ is a matter for very long discussion, I'm skipping over that controversy here). And He may still give each one of us very specific additional instructions that relate only to our own personal life (e.g. "go talk to that homeless guy over there and buy him lunch"). All this is His instruction.

Our role is to figure out what His instructions are to us personally, to the best of our understanding, and then do them to the best of our ability.

My understanding of His instructions gradually changes (I hope improves!) through my life. I started with a traditional Protestant understanding, and am continually trying to improve this. I hope we are all on that journey.

What I currently understand is that His Torah is good. We can't just throw away everything except the 10 commandments, because so much is not stated in the 10. For instance, homosexuality is not mentioned in the 10, only in Moses' other writings. Yet homosexuality is affirmed in the New Testament to be sinful. Rape is not mentioned in the 10, yet penalties are given for it elsewhere, so we know it too is wrong. Clearly more than just the 10 are applicable today.

And if more than the 10 are applicable, where do we draw the line? If Leviticus 20:13 (prohibition of homosexuality), 20:19-21 (incest) and 20:27 (witchcraft) are still applicable, then what about the verse in between them, Leviticus 20:25 (differentiating between clean and unclean animals)? By what standard can we choose which instructions are applicable and which are not?

When we hunt for such a standard, do we risk just finding a proof-text that agrees with our presuppositions and thereby listening to our own thoughts rather than God's instructions?

We know that YHWH's character does not change. I agree that that in itself does not mean that His instructions do not change. Clearly He may have instructed my grandfather to do one thing (e.g. an evangelistic ministry), yet He may instruct me to do something different. So in the same way, some of what He instructed in scripture may have been applicable only to the people who heard it, and not to us today.

However, if his character does not change, then the intent of His instructions will remain the same. The detail may differ, but the intent will remain comparable. He is not going to completely reverse and state that what was mandatory for one generation is sin for the next (hence the meme I posted earlier). Obeying Torah cannot be "wrong" - it could be "unnecessary", but not "wrong".

For instance, if my grandfather was told to have a tract-distribution ministry, it would not be wrong for me to copy him and also have a tract-distribution ministry - it might not actually be what God intended for me to do, I may be actually supposed to be doing something else, which would be better, but still distributing tracts cannot be said to be sinful - if God felt this was a worthwhile pursuit for my grandfather, it cannot be an evil pursuit for me.
Galatians 3:10-14 said:
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Click to expand...
Christ did not redeem us from the Law - He redeemed us from the curse of the law. This is very important. The curse of the law is that those who do not obey the law are cursed. In other words, sinners are cursed. Christ has redeemed us from this curse, by becoming cursed himself, yet without sinning. He therefore took on the curse for us, so that even though we are sinners, we do not receive the curse that is the just penalty for this sin upon ourselves. He gives us forgiveness for our past sin, ie our lawlessness, so we can be reconciled to God.

Having been reconciled, we are to obey His instructions. What are those instructions? We will differ in our understanding somewhat, as we're all still learning and will never reach perfect knowledge. And that is ok, as per Romans 14. The key thing is to do our best to figure out what He is telling us personally, and then to obey that. We should use scripture to help us figure that out, and as we do we will likely be progressively convicted of more things that we really should have been following all along but hadn't been.

But what matters most is that we obey His instructions to the best of our understanding today. Obedience is more important than doctrinal perfection.
 
Last edited:
Sorry VV, you have some very good posts on some other stuff but that was almost universally crap. You went to extra biblical sources, you took things way out of context. You still didn't explain the difference between God's Laws and His commands or how we know His spoken commands if they're not written down and I presume then become Laws and so are no longer valid. At least that's the conundrum you leave your reader in.
 
FollowingHim said:
...Christ did not redeem us from the Law - He redeemed us from the curse of the law. This is very important...
Click to expand...

Correct, and it makes even more sense when we recognize that -- since He was the "Torah Made Flesh" -- He didn't redeem us from His instruction, but the singular curse (death) that results from ignoring it.

The analogy I often use is that of a convicted murderer being strapped down for execution. Suddenly the phone rings, and the warden says, "It's the governor, you've been PARDONED!"


"Hurray!" says the killer. "That means the Law is Done Away With! I got some more folks I wanna kill..."

If that guy doesn't understand the difference between being pardoned or redeemed from the INDICTMENT "under the law" for rebellion to YHVH, perhaps a review of Matthew 7:23 might help. ;) And note that the sequence starts with a warning that it's a "wide path that leads to destruction," while the way that leads to LIFE (His instruction, Deut. 30:15) "is narrow, and few there be that find it."

If it was indeed "His Law" that was "done away with" - you'd think the masses wouldn't have any trouble with that.

Finally, here's one that people who begin to see how the Hebrew words in context often make ALL the difference in the world usually find a bit shocking.
Check out Proverbs 28:9 with a concordance or interlinear Bible on-hand.

"One who turns his ear from hearing torah, (Strongs H8451)

even his prayer is an abomination!"

While it makes more sense in English to understand 'torah' as instruction, it's an eye-opener any way you look at it.
 
I think we all can agree that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses perfectly. However, clarity is often realized by asking the right questions.
Why did Jesus fulfill the Law?
Was it because he was bound to it or under it? Or was it to prove a point? The point would be so that no man would be able to argue that it was an impossible standard that was set for justification. Jesus kept it as a man so the impossible standard excuse is mute.
If on the other hand, the answer is that he fulfilled it because he was subject to it, then there are multiple instances where I (playing devil's advocate) or any lost man with a short amount of study could destroy the argument that Jesus Christ was in fact the Messiah and a spotless lamb at Crucifixion simply by comparing some of his very deliberate actions against the Law.
As I have found it, Jesus was always subject ultimately to the spoken directives of His Father and those superseded the authority of the Torah. Because of these directives, Jesus did and performed certain deliberate acts that set Him at odds with Torah knowing that the punishment dictated that He would be cut off. As the Son of God, he was immune to both the authority and the consequences of Torah, yet as the man, he submitted himself to it to prove that it could be done and to finish or complete the terms and conditions of the Sinai Covenant. An early payoff if you will, so that a more perfect covenant could be established whose burden was easier and whose yoke was light. The two could not coexist. That would be confusion, so Jesus laid the foundation for His perfect covenant exactly as Moses had done for the Sinai Covenant while paying off the "mortgage" on the first. (Heb 9) Even going so far as to utilize the hyssop as Moses did (Heb.9:19) before crying "It is finished" or the Hebrew equivalent, "The work which my hands have completed" Strongs 6213 'asah (Ps. 22:31b. . . . That he hath done this)
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I think we all can agree that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses perfectly
Click to expand...

No, not really. For a number of reasons, but the misunderstanding of 'fulfilled' is a big part of it. (As if, having been 'fulfilled' it is somehow thus "done away with." Same thing goes for an ambiguous translation like He is 'the END of the Law'. His mission was more accurately the GOAL of the INSTRUCTION, since Yahushua was the "Torah Made Flesh". After all, He Wrote it, and said he wasn't gonna change so much as the smallest part so long as "heaven and earth" still exist. Big differences all.)

The corollary, often extrapolated form the claim that it was "fulfilled perfectly" is that "ONLY JC can keep the Law perfectly". Which is not true, because Scripture says, and a bit sarcastically at that, that keeping His Instruction is "NOT too hard" for you. (Deut. 30:11-16).

Here's why it's important we not miss the Big Lie here. ("To whom much is given, much is expected." )

We, meaning humanity, and that goes for both "whoring wives," northern and southern kingdoms, Aholah and Aholibah, are still in exile. (Yahushua pointedly did NOT "restore the lost ten tribes," so evidently not "all" is fulfilled there, either. But if we expect to be regathered in a Greater Exodus, and I certainly believe that is also still to come, then we need to be washed, ready, and obedient - THIS time. The first section of Deuteronomy 30 lays that out succinctly, too.

To make that long story [too] short, I submit that there's a Whole Lotta Ugly comin' right down the pipe. We see prophetic warnings, economic warnings, social warnings, and plagues on the horizon. (Interestingly, prior to gene-spliced bio-engineered weapons, it was observed that EVERY single human pandemic ultimately came through pigs into man. If there still are "blessings for obedience," and He warns repeatedly against "plagues" -- doesn't it make sense that if we just simply eat what He says is 'food' that might be a major move in the right preparedness direction?)

His promises are often conditional. (I.e., they start with a word like "IF...") And if we want His protection (much less a 'wedding invite') or -- best of all, to be told "well done, good and faithful servant" -- doesn't it make sense to "shema" (the Hebrew word literally means hear AND obey) His Instruction?

It is our "reasonable service".
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I think we all can agree that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses perfectly.
...
Jesus did and performed certain deliberate acts that set Him at odds with Torah knowing that the punishment dictated that He would be cut off.
Click to expand...
I'm struggling to reconcile these apparently conflicting statements. You seem to be saying that Christ perfectly obeyed Torah, then later saying that He also deliberately disobeyed Torah. You made similar statements in your previous post. Could you please clarify what you mean, with specific examples?
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
I think we all can agree that Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses perfectly. However, clarity is often realized by asking the right questions.
Why did Jesus fulfill the Law?
Was it because he was bound to it or under it? Or was it to prove a point? The point would be so that no man would be able to argue that it was an impossible standard that was set for justification. Jesus kept it as a man so the impossible standard excuse is mute.
If on the other hand, the answer is that he fulfilled it because he was subject to it, then there are multiple instances where I (playing devil's advocate) or any lost man with a short amount of study could destroy the argument that Jesus Christ was in fact the Messiah and a spotless lamb at Crucifixion simply by comparing some of his very deliberate actions against the Law.
As I have found it, Jesus was always subject ultimately to the spoken directives of His Father and those superseded the authority of the Torah. Because of these directives, Jesus did and performed certain deliberate acts that set Him at odds with Torah knowing that the punishment dictated that He would be cut off. As the Son of God, he was immune to both the authority and the consequences of Torah, yet as the man, he submitted himself to it to prove that it could be done and to finish or complete the terms and conditions of the Sinai Covenant. An early payoff if you will, so that a more perfect covenant could be established whose burden was easier and whose yoke was light. The two could not coexist. That would be confusion, so Jesus laid the foundation for His perfect covenant exactly as Moses had done for the Sinai Covenant while paying off the "mortgage" on the first. (Heb 9) Even going so far as to utilize the hyssop as Moses did (Heb.9:19) before crying "It is finished" or the Hebrew equivalent, "The work which my hands have completed" Strongs 6213 'asah (Ps. 22:31b. . . . That he hath done this)
Click to expand...

Alright, I think I know where you go off the rails here. Like so many other people you assume that all the references in Romans to " law" are all the same law. So that God's perfect Law is the same as the law of death and destruction. As far as I can tell this is not the case. I am flabbergasted that anyone thinks a perfect God promulgated a flawed Word for a few thousand years so that it would be more impressive when he fixed it. God's Law is perfect. He says so. He doesn't say anything about it being subject to His spoken word. I am not familiar with this concept as it's the first time I've encountered it.

How are we to know if someone has heard clearly from God and is so okay to violate scripture? If someone gets a spoken word and writes it down does it become no more important than the written Word?

This seems like an idea drought with peril. It calls into question God's character and judgement, the inerrancy of scripture and looses everyone to go off on any old charismatic tangent they want. This sounds like chaos.

And it directly contradicts scripture. If anyone brings a gospel other than what was received it is to be rejected. Your idea here is saying anyone can set scripture aside and deliver their received word as superceding it. I hear Mohammed and Rev. Jim Jones shouting amen from the back pew.
 
ZecAustin said:
How are we to know if someone has heard clearly from God and is so okay to violate scripture? If someone gets a spoken word and writes it down does it become no more important than the written Word?

This seems like an idea drought with peril. It calls into question God's character and judgement, the inerrancy of scripture and looses everyone to go off on any old charismatic tangent they want. This sounds like chaos.
Click to expand...

Some think that people who love and want liberty are promoting anarchy. A neighbor commenting on a relative of mine who travels without a driver's license made an ignorant, and fear filled statement that "If everyone did that, there would be tons of accidents" as if all accidents are caused by people that don't have the state's permission to be on the road.

God is not subject to the laws He created. He walked on water, preserved His servants through a fiery furnace, and changed water into wine. He can suspend the laws of the universe at His will, including stopping the sun, and causing it to go back.
When Jesus sent out his disciples, He gave them verbal instruction to "Eat what was set before them." This would trump the dietary laws, would it not? If this instruction was not intended to supersede the dietary laws they knew, why did he say it?
 
Joleneakamama said:
When Jesus sent out his disciples, He gave them verbal instruction to "Eat what was set before them." This would trump the dietary laws, would it not? If this instruction was not intended to supersede the dietary laws they knew, why did he say it?
Click to expand...
This is Luke 10:7-8:
"And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you."
Verse 7 seems to indicate that they may have hesitated to eat out of politeness, because they did not want to be supported for free by other people, while Yeshua stated that they were to willingly allow themselves to be provided for because "the labourer is worthy of his hire". Verse 8 then repeats that they are to accept such support in every city they go into. This seems reason enough for the statement.
Furthermore, He was only sending them into "every city and place whither he himself would come" (v1), so only among the Jews, places they could expect the dietary laws to be being followed. To read a statement about unclean foods into this is to take it out of context.
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that I don't see sufficient reason to believe that you're right...
 
I'm sorry @ZecAustin but you are truly chasing your own rabbit trail on that one.

My point at the start and then throughout has always been the supremacy of the spoken word to the Legislated Law.
Yes I realize that a good bit of it was given directly through the spoken word of God, and yet even in the written part, Moses warns of a "sent one", an Angel who would give them verbal commands that they were to obey because God's name is in him. Ex. 23:20,21 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak;

When you get to the New Testament, you have this fulfillment of this "Angel" or sent one. Unfortunately, the mantra that is used is "If you love me, keep my commandments." (FACT). So, what are Jesus' commandments? (Q). The answer typically given follows a convoluted logic that returns to Moses instead of investigating the simple question, Did Jesus give any commandments that could be specifically His, and is he referring to them specifically or is he referring to Moses obliquely? (Interpretation). The Application of this Interpretation for Torah observers always returns to Moses. John brings this into focus even more as the last of the Gospels written chronologically by focusing on Jesus as the Word, the spoken word of God and the importance that this carries. No doubt in response to the attitude of the Church in Jerusalem by that time where they are all so zealous of the law that they have to coerce another believer in Christ to fake the law before he can report the great things that God has done among the Gentiles. (I'm referring to Paul being forced to participate in the culmination of a Nazarite vow that he never vowed, never fulfilled but yet the leadership wants him to shave his head and go into the Temple as if he truly had.). It's interesting that Paul never gets to give that report. Dare anyone say conspiracy?
I find it interesting that the writer of the Law would caution people to watch out for this Angel, instruct them to pay attention and obey what the Angel says, because the Angel speaks for God and carries God's name in him, only to really mean that the Angel is going to refer you back to something they already have! This is circular logic at it's finest.

As far as using extra Biblical sources, please, spare me, It was not the primary source or authority, it is used as a secondary authority and yet far superior to most reconstructionist opinions or commentary today because the histories he wrote utilized much more accurate sources than are available today, plus the man was a child prodigy and had thoroughly studied under the Sadducees, Essenes and primarily the noted scholar of the first century Pharisee's, Hillel.

Also, I'm not certain how to take the Jer.7:22 passage out of context. He plainly states that God denies having anything to do with the sacrifices and burnt offerings.

@FollowingHim , I knew when this was started that it would end up with these questions. I am more than happy to provide support for these statements, but as I stated at the beginning of this thread, I am not willing to put some of this in open forum as it would give ammunition to unbelievers against the qualifications of Christ if twisted. I would be happy to visit with you by PM, email or at the Retreat if you're gonna be there. What I am willing to say is that if you do some searches of the law focused on "unclean" and "cut off", and compare it with the last couple of days pre Crucifixion, you will see what I mean. That's just the beginning, the rest of it revolves around the Last Supper Accounts.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
Also, I'm not certain how to take the Jer.7:22 passage out of context. He plainly states that God denies having anything to do with the sacrifices and burnt offerings.
Click to expand...

Easy. Because that's what's happened. Read the verses that comes first.

It's about "walking after other gods". "Do not trust in lying words." It's why they were "cast out" into exile. And it's still the problem.

The prophet was even told, "do NOT pray for this people!"

"Don't you see what they do?" They make offerings to the "queen of heaven" (which is still an issue.) They "provoke Me to anger."

Yet, they "did not listen" but followed their own hearts.

It was NEVER "His" moedim, korbon, offerings that were the problem, or the "stench in His nostrils". It was the things men said were "Law" that were not His, but theirs.
 
So... just in regards to food:

In Mathew 21:1-8, Jesus's disciples were being jammed up by the Pharisees for doing what was unlawful on the Sabbath, namely picking grain to eat.

Jesus had a 2 point rebuttal (which is really just one point), but the first of them is in verses 3-4. There are many avenues He could have chosen to pursue in His disciple's defense, but He chose to make His primary argument a strange tale of David eating the shewbread, which was not lawful that he or his men should eat.

My belief is that Jesus' defense was rooted in the saying "behold, in the volume of the book, it is written of me", or to re-state: that the story of David and his men is principally about Jesus Himself. There is almost no other legitimate way to view this, because any other lens to view this through basically has Jesus spouting a really weird non-sequitur that makes no logical sense.

However, this being true, the story of David's men is both Doctrine and Prophecy, to be viewed with the same weight as Law (or else why bring it up?) Viewed spiritually, it is a telling that the King and His men would eat unlawful food. (because the specific law being broken was different in the two cases, the pertinent fact was that both foods were unlawful) From the standpoint of prophecy, it was also necessary that His disciples appear to transgress in this matter, that all things foretold would come to pass. Even if no-one recognized it to have been a prophecy, or really even pertinent to the biblical narrative. (As an aside, this took place at the time after David had been anointed king, but before he was publicly acknowledged as king, before he sat on the throne.)

Jesus's second point was that priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent. There is a whole class of people who are allowed to break the law (in this case, the Sabbath) and no sin is ascribed to them for it. This too, applies to the disciples (or else, once again, why bring it up?). Therefore Jesus's claim becomes: By virtue of what is put forth in Scripture, the disciples are allowed to eat things unlawful with the same clearness of conscience before God as a priest who works in the Temple on the Sabbath.

Whether it constitutes a breaking of the Law to do things specifically allowed by the Scripture is a vexing question for me, but I lean towards... "Well Jesus said so, so obviously not". God's Word is much like a contract with bizarre loopholes intentionally written in that He intends to exploit for His purposes. And unlike earthly contracts, whose loopholes largely contradict the intent of the contract, the loopholes God writes in are very much to the point of the Spirit by which it was written.

To which I say that the eating of food that is prohibited by the Law, is yet not a transgression of the Law. Or if it is: it is a transgression that is specifically allowed by Jesus Himself, and the man who does so under these circumstances is held blameless. The circumstances are: You are one of the King's men (a disciple) and you are hungry...

Taken together with God's command to Peter (Arise, Kill and Eat), I think it to be reasonable for a man (yea, even a Jew!) to eat things that the Law would say no to all day long, but still not be held in contempt of the Law, as God understands it and intends it to be understood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top