So just what parts of the Law of Moses survive? Do we honor the Sabbath? The Sabbath as Sabbath or Sunday as Sabbath?
I bring up the Sabbath because it’s a good example of just how muddy our thinking can become. The original Sabbath command was very plain —
(Exo 20:8-10 ESV) 8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates.”
The rule is “Don’t work on Saturday.” Christians generally honor Sunday, to remember the resurrection, although this practice is only indirectly referred to in the New Testament, and the New Testament offers no express rationale for it. The association of Sunday with the resurrection comes from the early church fathers.
And so we combine Sunday, when we remember the resurrection, with the Sabbath, when we do no work. And our wives get up early and cook pot roast and clean the house for company — which is work. And we drive 10 miles to church — which is work. And we return to our houses to putter about in the garden or the woodworking shop — all of which is work.
We convert “don’t work” to “relax” or, for many, “do spiritual kinds of things, like visiting the sick” all without scriptural rationale.
When I was a kid, it was sin to cut the grass on a Sunday — not that working me in the yard was wrong but making lots of noise on a “day of rest” was.
It’s an incoherent mess because we’ve never really gotten comfortable with what to do with the Law of Moses. James and Paul would sympathize. But I think the “rules” are clear enough — we just have to clear our minds of certain preconceptions.
1. Plainly enough, Jesus is our atoning sacrifice. Hebrews repeatedly teaches that Jesus has been sacrificed “once for all” and tells us that we’ve been made “perfect forever” by Jesus’ sacrifice. Therefore, the old animal sacrificial system for atonement is gone.
Just as importantly, God himself allowed the Romans to destroy the Temple. If we learn anything from Jeremiah and Ezekiel, it’s that that destruction of God’s Temple is a sign from God — just as revealing of his will as scripture. This is no historical incidental. It’s a message: the Temple system is thoroughly ended. Jesus is the new Temple. The church, as the body of Christ and temple of the Spirit, is spiritually joined with Jesus as Temple.
The church is therefore the place of God’s special presence, the place of atonement, the place of prayer, and the place of sacrifice. (So much for individual Christianity!)
2. However, the Jews offered many sacrifices other than for forgiveness. There was a class of sacrifices called peace- or thanks-offerings. These were freewill (voluntary) offerings to express gratitude. Jesus did not replace these. Not exactly.
Rather, we give ourselves to God as a freewill, thanks-offering (Rom 12:1). We are the offering. We sacrifice ourselves. And the lives we live must therefore be sacrificial and given to God for his glory.
3. The food laws, the laws re circumcision, clean/unclean things, the Sabbath law, the Jewish festivals, and several other sets of laws are also gone because these were boundary markers designed to mark Jews as separate from Gentiles. The gospel unites Jew and Gentile and so these kinds of marks are no longer needed or even acceptable if undertaken as though commanded. (You may voluntarily circumcise so long as it’s not taught as a command or used to separate believer from believer.)
This is taught by God’s vision to Peter regarding the end of the food laws. They were no longer applicable because God has accepted the “unclean” Gentiles. This only makes sense if the purpose of the food laws was to separate the Jews from the Gentiles.
Of course, God is not going to object if we celebrate Pentecost, so long as we don’t divide over it. When it becomes a “mark of the church,” we’ve divided God’s body, become heretics, and sinned against the gospel. Therefore, it’s never “safe” or “conservative” to impose a mark — just in case.
4. The civil elements of the Law of Moses have long gone away, because God let the Romans run the Jews out of Palestine for centuries. Cities of refuge and rules for civil trials and such are largely gone because we no longer live in a theocracy — more especially, because we are no longer Jews living in the Promised Land.
However, the commands that judges be unbiased, that witnesses not lie, that cases be thoroughly investigated and based on substantial evidence, and that the poor and widows be treated fairly by the courts still apply. Why not? This is why Paul twice refers to the civil law that cases be tried only on the testimony of two or three witnesses — the requirements of substantial evidence and thorough investigation continue.
5. This pretty much leaves the moral laws — but as my old math teacher used to say, some things can only be understood if you hold your tongue just right (think about it). It’s not nearly as simple as “The moral laws in the Law of Moses are still binding.” Forget that. We do not live in a legal relationship with God.
To explain this, I’ve got to sort through a few passages in Romans (and I’m struggling to avoid writing 20 posts on how this works). Turn in your Bibles to —
(Rom 7:4 ESV) 4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
We died to the Law (making it no longer applicable to us) so that we may “bear fruit for God.” We shift from the burden of obeying the Law to doing what should be entirely natural. Apple trees do not have to be commanded to produce apples. It’s just their nature.
(Rom 7:6 ESV) 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
It’s the same parallel, but now we see that “bear fruit” equals “serve in the new way of the Spirit.” The Spirit changes us so that we have a new nature — the nature of fruit bearers.
Where did Paul get this? Well, from the Law and the Prophets. It’ll take a couple of posts. And we have to start in Deuteronomy, because Romans 8 makes no sense unless you know your Prophets.
Many years ago I came to the conclusion that Hebrews 4 teaches that a Sabbath rest really does continue in the present for God’s people, but that it is not in the “keeping” of a day, either the first or seventh day of the week. I posted two items about this sometime ago. The first describes a hidden dilemma I had as I encountered various sabbatarian groups. The second gives the resolution that I came to. The first of these is at http://committedtotruth.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/a-sabbath-rest-for-the-people-of-god/
There is a link to the second at the end of the first. Briefly, the resolution is that the Christ is now our Sabbath and that we enter that rest by God’s grace. I would appreciate critiques of these posts, either here or in the comment section of my own posts.
Jay,
Please tell us you are not in any way saying, “these passages do not mean what they obviously say.” And also please tell us you are not trying to tell us that “being dead to the law does not mean being dead to the whole thing as a means of salvation; it just means being dead to the parts that seem most objectionable to me. Legal mandates still exist in those areas where I’m unable to get past a very limited legalism.” Limited legalism, after all, is better than full – blown legalism, right?
I know it is hard for lawyers to conceive of constraint without law, but is that an excuse for defending any kind of legalism? Do all standards require regulations which exist in a legal code in order for those standards to be meaningful? Or can we be constrained by relationship that is not defined by regulations?
Address how laws written on the heart … laws which require no instruction to be obeyed … are not to be codified outside the heart. Show us that there is reciprocity in the idea that fruit – bearing can be understood as ‘acting in accord with our new nature’ so that we do not pretend that we can ‘act in accord with our new nature’ without bearing fruit that reproduces. Show us that God has always and always will communicate(d) exactly what He means … how He does not say one thing but means something else entirely. Celebrate the exceedingly abundant revelation of who God is that we find in every action and characteristic of the life of Jesus.
There are too many well schooled in the art of explaining God’s word in terms like “what God meant was …” or “let me unwrap that for you …” which sound eerily close to saying “God does not mean what he said … but I can declare what God hid behind words that do not mean what some people think they mean” … you know, like that “no longer instruct their neighbor, saying, “know God …” thing!
Or maybe just tell me how mistaken I am. That would be less obvious than confessing how we have repackaged legalism behind a ‘progressive’ facade. Right? … Or would it?
G
(Rom 7:6 ESV) 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held
us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the
written code.
I believe Jesus told us when this new way of worship began.
Jhn 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall
neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the
Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
OK let’s look at what Jesus said in answer to the following question.
Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
If that had been the total of Jesus’ answer, spiritual worship would have been sofficient, but
that was not all Jesus said. he went on to say this.(there is another one just as important)
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
This command, which is just as important as the other, cannot be obeyed by spirit itself.
Jam 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
Jam 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled;
notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it
profit?
Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Since Jesus said both commandments are equal in importance how can you obey one
and not the other.
Yes faith is a work of the spirit, but love thy neighbor, is a work of the hands.
Jay,
i just have for many years taken this verse in Malachi to hart…
“the exercise of freedom”
oh boy hot dog
not a care in the world,” the lord has my back”.
and his Spirit guide’s as much as i allow…
4:2 But for you who respect my name, the sun of vindication will rise with healing wings, and you will skip about like calves released from the stall.
4:1 (3:19)1 “For indeed the day2 is coming, burning like a furnace, and all the arrogant evildoers will be chaff. The coming day will burn them up,” says the Lord who rules over all. “It3 will not leave even a root or branch. 4:2 But for you who respect my name, the sun of vindication4 will rise with healing wings,5 and you will skip about6 like calves released from the stall. 4:3 You will trample on the wicked, for they will be like ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says the Lord who rules over all.
Restoration through the Lord
4:4 “Remember the law of my servant Moses, to whom at Horeb7 I gave rules and regulations for all Israel to obey.8 4:5 Look, I will send you Elijah9 the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord arrives. 4:6 He will encourage fathers and their children to return to me,10 so that I will not come and strike the earth with judgment.”11
Jay said, The civil elements of the Law of Moses have long gone away, because God let the Romans run the Jews out of Palestine for centuries. Cities of refuge and rules for civil trials and such are largely gone because we no longer live in a theocracy — more especially, because we are no longer Jews living in the Promised Land.
I disagree that Israel is no longer the Promised Land to the Jewish people. I have been to the Promised Land and what I saw is that it still belongs to the Jewish people as God promised.
Jeremiah 31:31-37 Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.
Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name):
If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever.
Thus says the LORD: If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the LORD.
Jeremiah (31:31) says that there is another covenant the Lord will make that is the New Covenant and (31:32) describes the covenant the Lord made when He brought His people out of Egypt, the older covenant in this passage is the Mosaic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant being broken was a necessary prologue to the presentation of the New Covenant. The fact of the people’s failure under the Mosaic Covenant to keep the laws and it was incumbent on both parties to the covenant it had been broken. The passages of Jeremiah 31:31-37 breaks down into three basic sections. In the first section, the Lord announces the coming of a New Covenant, unlike the Old Covenant when they were brought out of Egypt (31:31-32). The second section of this passage (31:33-34) describes the key characteristics of the New Covenant. Finally, in the last section, the Lord asserts the immutability, eternality, and permanence of both the nation of Israel, and the New Covenant by proxy (31:35-37).
In these passages the Lord continues His assertion of His power to preserve Israel by noting that unless the heavens can be measured, and the foundations of the Earth can be searched out below, then Israel will remain. Here the Lord calls to focus not divine power, but divine knowledge. By adding this clause the passage requires one to not only have abilities that only the Lord Himself posses, but it also requires that one know the Lord’s own secrets. The declaration protects Israel by virtue that the Lord would not turn against His people, since the Lord has the power, and the intention to preserve the nation of Israel, thus the Lord lays out for the reader His duel role as Israel’s physical protector, and spiritual protector.
These passages reflect the will of the Lord in regards to His people. The Lord desires relationship with His people, and will stop at nothing to do what is necessary to provide for right relationship to be played out. In this sense these passages not only serves as a prophecy of the New Covenant, but also serves as a testimony of God’s intense love, and eternal faithfulness to His people.
Glenn Ziegler – Jay I thought was very clear, and didn’t sound like a form of limited legalism nor trying to explain away the scriptures. Please explain how Jay is espousing a limited legalism and what you propose as an alternative. Please explain how Jay is trying to re-write what Romans says.
Justin,
Can you really not see any tension between Jay’s opening question which assumes at least part of the Law survives intact and his later comments on Romans 7:4?
How do we retain any part of something which is, as Jay put it, “no longer applicable to us”?
Time will tell, but it seems to me Jay is hardly any more comfortable with having no Law to fall back on (undergird at least minimal law as being still applicable) than hard line legalists are. Justin, Can you explain what laws are still applicable and why?
G
Colossians 2:13-15 “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.”
Seems to me that Colossians clearly says that the written code was canceled. We serve in the new way of the spirit. Any time the church prescribes mandatory behavior then the church has crossed the line back into a form of legalism.
Grace, As you may know, the promised land was originally way bigger than the current Israeli territory. The Jews never actually possessed all the land that was promised because they failed to push ahead and conquer every territory that God specified. The nation of Israel now only occupies a small fraction of the largest territory they ever possessed. God is blessing “true” Israel, which are Christians and our territory is spiritual not physical. However, Jews today are only a part of the “true” Israel if they are Christians.
I don’t think the primary purpose of those laws was to separate Jew from Gentile(no doubt it was indirectly intended for a time). But to teach them the need to be holy and the inability to be so on their own.
The Pharisees of course blew this way out of proportion by turning this into “us against them” and making these meaningful customs into senseless outward regulations.
God while not approving of such views worked with them to emphasize Christ as the One who would break-down these walls of perdition! No longer were these required nor were they to be defined as separators any longer.
Peter’s rooftop vision was the Holy Spirit attempt to cut through a deeply-held preconceived notion. This whole idea that Gentiles were in and of themselves unclean was wholly a product of the Pharisees controlling the masses. Apparently it was so strong, it even affected the disciples during the Church’s infancy.
Though I cannot sit in judgment. I myself once sincerely thought that the CoC and eventually CC/CC was the universal one body of Christ in there totality. Thanks to Al Maxey and Jay I have seriously reconsidered my previously held convictions.
Jay wrote much that is good, and also “Christians generally honor Sunday, to remember the resurrection, although this practice is only indirectly referred to in the New Testament, and the New Testament offers no express rationale for it. The association of Sunday with the resurrection comes from the early church fathers.” I see no need to question the first statement. Christians in the apostolic age then met on Sunday and NOT on Saturday. We Christians now generally honor Sunday as a day to assemble to together strengthen one another and to honor the Lord we serve. The practice began with apostolic approval. It didn’t take “the early church fathers” later on to associate Sunday with the resurrection.
“And the LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: ‘Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are-northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.’” (Genesis 13:14-15).
“And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” (Genesis 17:7-8)
“all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.” God, who never lies, promised Abraham that his descendants would possess the land forever and He will keep that promise.
The promise about the nation of Israel and the prophecies that elaborate on the promise will be literally fulfilled. The prophecies regarding the reestablishment of Israel are part of a group of prophecies about the second coming of the Messiah. Because the prophecies about the Messiah’s first coming were fulfilled literally, consistent interpretation dictates that the prophecies about His second coming and about the nation of Israel should be interpreted literally as well.
The teaching of replacement theology does not hold to the literal interpretations of the teachings of Scripture and replacement theology must be carefully scrutinized. The covenant promise made to Israel still applies to the nation of Israel, and the possession of all the land of Israel by the Jewish people will be fulfilled literally.
“It shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Assyria and Egypt, from Pathros and Cush, from Elam and Shinar, from Hamath and the islands of the sea. He will set up a banner for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” (Isaiah 11:11-12)
This prophecy records, far in advance, the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham about the land. There is neither a literary nor a biblical reason to interpret this prophecy allegorically. Its fulfillment is indicated as literal. The promise God made about the land of Israel still applies to the Jewish people and will be fulfilled literally.
The modern day re-gathering of the Jewish people and the reestablishment of Israel as a nation is the fulfillment of prophecy. This is consistent with the promise made in the Abrahamic Covenant and the prophetic Scriptures.
God has declared that the nation of Israel will one day be fully reestablished and God has been faithful in keeping this promise. Modern day Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy.
Ray,
Paul met with others in the synagogues on Saturdays … and with ‘prayer groups’ on unknown days … and the earliest records (Acts 2) have the Christians meeting daily from house to house and in the Temple courtyards. We have several examples of daily, Sabbath, and occasional meetings as opportunities allowed. What we have only singular and isolated evidence for is the merest suggestion of a weekly Sunday meeting in one town. We have NOTHING AT ALL in 21st century western assemblies that even resembles their potlucks(?) in the slightest detail.
Ray, the overwhelming evidence in scripture does not even begin to support your claims and hardly even hints at what Jay makes of it. Tradition is only evidentiary if there is corroborating evidence to establish both existence and origin of the practice. At least that is how courts in Texas, Illinois and Indiana have ruled … in cases in which I have been either a juror or an interested observer.
Grizz
Grace, I think the scriptures clearly teach that the church is now the true Israel and thus all promises regarding the future “Israel” apply to the church.. Quotes and scriptures like below help to convince me.
“Christians are the True Israel” (Justin Martyr, Dialogues, Chapter CXXIII, 130 AD)
“Christ is King of Israel, and Christians are the Israelitic Race. (Justin Martyr, Dialogues, Chapter CXXXV, 130 AD)
“Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’? “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. “And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.” When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. ” (Matthew 21:33-46)
A couple more scriptures on the true Israel:
” For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. Romans 9:6-8.
“Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.”
Galatians 3:7.
Justin Martyr’s writings became incorporated into early Christian thought, and were the origins of Christian Anti-Semitism.
Romans 11:1-18 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Just as it is written:
“God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”
And David says:
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,
And bow down their back always.”
I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
Romans 11:19-36 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
“For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?”
“Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”
For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
Sorry about the reposts, I think my comment got hung in the filter and wasn’t showing and tried to make it shorter so it would post.
WHAT i find in this worn out concept (below)
is just what. we take for granted when we are taught.
simple little truths,
LIKE;
heir of the” world,” rOM.4:13 BELOW
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
WHATS FUNNY IS Hopefully WE ALL KNOW what “his Seed means.”
and “Good Lord” we all know what the “world ,”means.
“World “= or the same as KOSMOS
‘
so Abraham is a fellow heir with his Seed’ (Christ) in the inheritance through the faithfulness of the son built upon an covenant of life, not a Covenant of Death.heb9,10,11,12..
unto all those that believe.
All people of faith in the OT, the NT, and in our age will be present together with the Lord for eternity. There is no Jew/Israelite who will be saved simply because he or she is Jewish. They must repent, they must accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, they must pursue a life following Jesus. My point was and is that the Jewish race does not get a corner in heaven simply because of their genetic heritage. Abraham was saved by faith, we are saved by faith, everyone since Jesus can only go to heaven one way – faith in the Son of God.
As Jesus said, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by me.” John 14:6
Amen Skip,
And the Jews must obey and be baptized just like us Gentile dogs or as we teach each other, be lost. How many today are following Jesus and the apostles teaching in the new Testament?
I know of no better way to demonstrate out of all the gods being worshipped at the time which one was the real God than to bring a bunch of ignorant sheep herders to greatness.
All around them were civilizations of great buildings and educated, unbelievable craftsmen that created things we marvel at today.
God picked the Isrealites for ther lack of creativity and ability to demonstrate His power over the other gods of the day by bringing them up out of ignorance and making them mightier than those around them.
If God had chosen the Babalonians or any of the others that had men like Goliath far more educated and skilled it would of proven nothing and He knew it.
I didn’t say any of the Jewish people, the remnant of Israel the prophecies speaks about, would be without faith.
“I see no need to question the first statement. Christians in the apostolic age then met on Sunday and NOT on Saturday.” Interesting. I guess that “daily and from house to house” thing was just some sort of temporary cultural aberration. I continue to be astounded how we can turn a couple of local anecdotes into a universal negative without any intervening logical steps. The math required to do this must be quite involved. But no more challenging than creating an “apostolic age” from whole cloth and attributing to it real and definitive characteristics recognized forever after. Wow.
Charles
mostly the math is
” too simple for our complex minds”
or
” too complex for our simple minds”
u MUST agree with this statement
2+2=5
🙂
it is what we almost all do with scripture
it is just a compared to …
what
blessings
the journey continues
RICH
Ray wrote,
Oskar Skarsaune’s In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity is the definitive work on the early church’s Jewishness. And he reports evidence that many Christians (not all) continued to attend synagogue for centuries after Pentecost. They also attended church. And since the synagogue had the scrolls of the OT, it only makes sense that many Christians would want to hear regularly from the OT.
Skip,
/2014/02/from-the-comments-the-connection-of-the-church-with-israel-part-10-is-the-law-hung-on-the-cross/
From 2/14/14
Jay, Thanks, I used the old NIV. We agree that the entire law is summed up in loving God and loving our neighbors – right?
Yes, the entire Mosiac Law is summed up by the two commandments stated by Jesus. And sabbath keeping was good for the Jewish nation. It has nothing to do with Christianity.
Jay suggests that the early Christians met together to honor Jesus on Saturdays. The apostolic writings have them meeting on Sundays and NOT on Saturdays. I wonder what texts can be cited to prove early Christians met as a church assembly on any sabbath day. If Jewish Christians continued to meet with other Jews on sabbath days and then did not meet with Christians on the first day of the week, surely this strange practice would be mentioned. Christians went to synagogues in order to tell about JESUS. I base my claim on the apostolic writings rather than any other writings thought to be ancient.
Skip,
Yes, we agree.
Ray Downen wrote,
No, what I wrote is at this link, and I said no such thing.
/2014/02/from-the-comments-the-connection-of-the-church-with-israel-part-7-rightly-dividing-the-law-of-moses/#comment-46174
Read the comment again and tell me whether you’ve fairly represented what I said.
Ray,
I started to assemble many scriptures to verify that the early church met a lot more often than the first day of the week or Sunday. The scriptures are very plain that they met daily, while they were gathered together they obviously did many of the same things that we have considered as the worship that Christians today do. They admonished and built each other up probably a great deal more than we do, and of course it is stated they met in the Temple.
You have stated that, “The apostolic writings have them meeting on Sundays and NOT on Saturdays. I wonder what texts can be cited to prove early Christians met as a church assembly on any sabbath day. If Jewish Christians continued to meet with other Jews on sabbath days and then did not meet with Christians on the first day of the week, surely this strange practice would be mentioned.”
I thought I remembered you indicating that the early Christians did not meet as a church assembly, as we know it today.
Noticing this next verse, I am wondering how it could be proven that they did not meet on the Sabbath, if they met daily why would they refrain from meeting on the Sabbath and continue to meet the other six days?
(Acts 2:46 KJV) And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Was the following a Sunday? I thought that the Jews were meeting in the Temple to pray three times daily. Appears that Peter and John were going to pray with them, there is no mention of them going there as a mission for the purpose of teaching and converting Jews. At this time in the beginning of the early church there was not a great division between the Jews and those Jews who became followers of Jesus. In the lessons that we find in scriptures being taught at that time do we see a plea by Apostles for the Jews to abandon the Jewish teachings to become a different sect? You know like if you follow Jesus you will be sinning if you attend the assembly of Jews. In comparison to the divisions today.
(Acts 3:1 KJV) Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.
Should we believe that assemblies of the church were only weekly on Sunday, as we read of the record here?
(Acts 11:26 KJV) 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.
Grace,
As a student of the ECF, I disagree with your assessment that “Justin Martyr’s writings became incorporated into early Christian thought, and were the origins of Christian Anti-Semitism.”
Justin’s defenses are echoed fairly consistently among his contemporaries. Justin echoes 1 Peter and Galatians viewing Christianity as spiritual Israel while contrasting the spiritual sacrifices of Christianity with OT physical sacrifices of physical Israel (e.g. Dialogue with Trypho, 116-118). Justin did not oppose blood lines (i.e. Jewish race), rather he opposed Judaism as a religion to which anyone could convert. His opposition to Judaism as a religion was just as strong as his opposition to paganism.
Jay,
I have not read every part of post 1-8 that you have made on this topic, forgive me if this has been covered. Some do not, but others believe the OT is divided into moral, ceremonial, and civil laws in the OT. You discuss these elements, of which I agree, but I would describe them slightly differently. Moral generally pertains to things grounded in God’s character which do not change (i.e. stealing). These are affirmed or naturally carry into the NT because God has not changed, though he changes covenant. Ceremonial things pertain to worship or methods of approaching God within a specific covenant (i.e. sacrificial system differences between Noah, Moses, David, and Christianity). Sometimes the Hebrew writer groups all of the Old into one aspect “OC” (Heb. 8:13) and compares it with the new, other times he highlights the ceremonial abrogation in totem [or fulfillment if that language is more palatable] to cover the whole sacrificial/altar system, including all offerings, priesthood, etc. (Heb. 10:8). I would group the OT food laws under ceremonial. Civil laws, of course, pertain to the theocracy of God’s reign, revealed most visibly in the physical kingdom from David to Christ. That is a simplified summary, but I try to keep my posts shorter these days.
I agree that we have died to the Law (the ceremonial and civil aspects), and serve in the new way of the Spirit. On the one hand the NT is not a new law like the Old, but the new does require submission to it; on the other hand, we submit to ourselves to the Spirit, but it is the Spirit who produces fruit in us (it is the Spirit’s fruit and a product of sanctification). I am just getting into your post and am interested to see how you develop the concept of bearing fruit and new way of the Spirit.
I agree many traditions have arisen in Christianity regarding the Sabbath/Sunday merging, but this was not the case in the early church. Theologically, Sunday was special and related to certain ceremonies, but practically speaking Christians (many slaves) worked, which is quite the opposite of 1950s middle class America.
Interesting post… Look forward to seeing how you develop it..Might take 20..:)
Thought about this passage and how you might develop it.. [Rom 8:7 ESV] 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.”
Also, was Paul removing the man who was having a relationship with his mother n law based in the Law? Seems it was specifically listed as a “don’t do this” item and never mentioned in the NT…I’m of the mindset that God’s “moral” laws, still exist except as modified…
Ray/Grizz Would agree that the early church met much more frequently and with much more involvement with one another than we do today…Not sure if they had a Sunday Buffet to get to before the Baptists or not….John does write in Revelation that he was in the Spirit on the “Lord’s Day.” Surely, that is reflective of how the church felt about Sunday regardless of how many other times they met during the week. I think it’s all a bunch to do about nothing.. Our society has allowed us the privilege of meeting together on Sunday without most having to work.. very convenient.. what difference does it make what the early church did in their cultural setting. There is no COMMAND to meet on any day as far as I can tell… Some of us have bible studies during the week, and not exactly sure when Wednesday night services became “official” but it’s been a while.. Not like that is a C or and E or an NI either…
I wonder why I didn’t get any blowback on saying the work of the hands counts for just as much as the work of the spirit. in one’s salvation, could it be because Jesus said it first?
Jay, I’m sorry if I misunderstood or misrepresent what you’re saying/writing. It’s made clear in the apostolic writing that the Jews in Judea became very antagonistic to followers of the Christ. This may not have been the case elsewhere or it very possibly could have been brought to Jews in other cities (per Saul in Damascus). We see that Paul and no doubt each evangelist went first to the synagogue in order to spread the good news of the risen Messiah. We further see that soon they met separately and were not considered friends of Jews who rejected Jesus.
You quote/cite a “scholar” who disagrees with the apostolic writings. So I may be reading too much into what you write. If that’s the case, I’m sorry. But I do not for an instant believe that Christians were welcome to attend and participate in Jewish synagogue rituals when the Christians began meeting separately from the synagogue where the Jewish teacher was in charge. My thinking is based entirely on what the Bible says rather than on any scholar’s opinion. Jewish leaders in Judea crucified Jesus and cast out of the synagogue any who believed in Jesus. Jews from everywhere were present in Jerusalem 50 days later for the Pentecost celebration. I assume, with no concrete proofs to present that those faithful Jews who had come to Jerusalem carried back home with them news of the new movement. I figure they also carried news of how many Jewish leaders regarded the followers of the Christ.
To me, it seems that the theory of warm relations between Jewish partisans and Christians is clearly differing from what we read about Saul in Damascus. Everyone there knew that Saul had come there to take captive to Jerusalem for punishment those Jews who had become followers of Jesus of Nazareth.
I wrote in reply to Jay, using my CHROME interface. The reply seems to have been lost rather than sent. I apologized if I misunderstood or misrepresented what Jay is saying. I pointed to the situation in Damascus when Saul went there with permission from the Jerusalem Jewish authorities to take captive and bring to Jerusalem “for punishment” any followers of Jesus. I remarked that Jews from far and near had been in Jerusalem for the major feasts that year, so surely carried back home with them the controversy between Jewish leaders and these strange followers of the Messiah they thought was false.
I don’t think early Christians would have been welcomed in Jewish synagogues if their allegiance to the Christ was known. Paul went to synagogues first when he entered each town or city. But soon it was necessary for him and his followers to meet elsewhere. And they didn’t meet on Saturdays with a “priest” to teach them the Law of Moses. They met on Sundays, which they recognized as “the Lord’s Day.” They did not observe the sabbath.
Laymond, The work of the hands demonstrates we are saved and are gratefully responding to God’s grace. But the work of the hands are never meritorious in securing salvation. As Paul said, “Not by works so that no man may boast.”
In Romans 9 Paul speaks about the Jewish people from the nation of Israel that some Jewish people are True Israelites and some are not.
Romans 9:4-5 They are Israelites. The adoption as God’s children, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the worship, and the promises belong to them. The Jewish ancestors are theirs, and the Christ descended from those ancestors. He is the one who rules over all things, who is God, and who is blessed forever. Amen.
Romans 9:6-9 It cannot be said that God broke his promise. After all, not all of the people of Israel are the true people of God. In fact, when God made the promise to Abraham, he meant only Abraham’s descendants by his son Isaac. God was talking only about Isaac when he promised Sarah, At this time next year I will return, and you will already have a son.
In Romans 11 Paul is telling Gentiles that the God has not cast away the Jewish people the True Israelites from the nation of Israel.
Romans 11:1-5 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Romans 11:12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
Romans 11:26-29 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob; For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are IRREVOCABLE.
We must also consider how much blood is required in a isrealite in order for that person to be considered an Isrealite. I’ve heard that debated among jewish people that know living in captivity or even in other countries they inerbred with the populace.
Or, is it by practice and sometimes dancing and dress alone?
If so, why don’t we all claim the status and be assured of heaven?
Even today there are those of Jewish blood that will not shake the hand of a Gentile since we are so unclean. How will it be in heaven with those that look at us like that?
Skip, I see you didn’t bother to read what I wrote about what Jesus, and his brother James said. or you just can’t believe it.
Jesus said Love your neighbor is equivalent to love God. and James explained what “love your neighbor” means. but I guess according to you, that don’t jive with Paul’s teachings, so naturally it has to be wrong. No matter who said it.
If there was an early move away from the Old Testament in the early church, Paul wasn’t having any of it. He reminds Timothy that ALL the scriptures are still from God and that they remain useful in the church, for many of the purposes they always carried. In fact, the phrase “so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped” seems to infer (I know, it’s MY inference) that without said OT scripture, the equipping is not as thorough as it should be.
“If Jewish Christians continued to meet with other Jews on sabbath days and then did not meet with Christians on the first day of the week, surely this strange practice would be mentioned.
This is our old friend, the “argument from silence”. It presents a conclusion not from any writings, whether apostolic or otherwise, but rather from the absence of writings to its contrary. An infinite number of specious conclusions can be drawn using this method.
Also, this statement argues against a position not taken by anyone (a strawman) and presumes that all believers met every Sunday as universal practice (unproven proposition). When we “base” our conclusions on the scripture or on any other document, that simple statement is inadequate as evidence of validity. Just as it was in freshman algebra, the student must “show his work”; that is, he must provide the detail of exactly how he gets from the writing referenced to the conclusions eventually offered as fact– if he expects those conclusions to receive serious consideration.
Skip says:
Laymond, The work of the hands demonstrates we are saved and are gratefully responding to God’s grace.
So Skip, that is what John spoke of when he said.
1Jo 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1Jo 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
Strange I never understood John to be saying what you said, I understood John to be speaking of the two Great commandments, the two egual commandments. I understood John to say you can’t do one without the other.
There seems to be a good bit of discussion regarding the summation of the Law as (1) loving God and (2) loving neighbor as one loves self. But what about John 13:34-35, explicitly presented as, “A new commandment”? Loving one another as Christ has loved us – not merely as we love ourselves. Is not this the new standard? And then He said, “By this all people will know…”
Emmett, that could very well have been Jesus’ intent to set a higher standard, not just love your neighbor, but love your neighbor so much you would die for them. But we know that is asking people to meet Jesus like standards, which is impossible for most, if not all of us.
Ray wrote,
Oskar Skarsaune, “In the Shadow of the Temple,” pages 436 ff support what I said. The Christians who attended synagogue also went to the Christian assembly. They did not convert to Judaism. They were not circumcised. But they regularly attended synagogue, which is hardly surprising given the expertise of the Jews in the Law and the Prophets and their access to the scrolls.
HG,
I wouldn’t disagree with your divisions. I prefer to distinguish atonement ceremony from other ceremony because the NT treats them differently. And I certainly don’t disagree with you re the Spirit.
HG,
Re the alleged anti-Semitism of Justin Martyr — I agree. Many Jewish writers make this statement on Internet sources, but it’s not a fair assessment if you understand the Christian theology that underlies Justin’s statements.
Lamond …
Loving your neighbor so much you would die for them is part of the commitment of every soldier in the armed forces. Are you saying their commitment to country is deeper or stronger than that of most Christians???
Grizz
Yes I am, Glenn. not only to country, but to each other.
Glenn, I believe Jesus commanded us to be an army of Christian soldiers, not a congregation of his dependents, as some here would have you think.
Laymond,
Your sarcasm does not make your weak argument stronger. I believe all scriptures on salvation of course. We must balance the need for works with an understanding that my works don’t obligate God to save me. I believe every scripture you quoted plus I believe the following:
“not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us”. Titus 3:5
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But IF IT BE OF WORKS, THEN IT IS NO MORE GRACE: otherwise work is no more work.” Romans 11:6
” Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Romans 3:26-28
“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Romans 4:5
“For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Romans 10:3-4
“Knowing that a man is NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and NOT BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW: for BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED” Galatians 2:16
“I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Galatians 2:21
“O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” Galatians 3:1-3
Laymond said, “Strange I never understood John to be saying what you said, I understood John to be speaking of the two Great commandments, the two equal commandments. I understood John to say you can’t do one without the other.”
I am afraid I don’t know what you are talking about. I believe we should love God and lay down our lives for others. I see no conflict. However, obviously if I love God first then I will want to love others. If I don’t love God then the second command is moot.
Laymond said, “So Skip, that is what John spoke of when he said.
1Jo 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
1Jo 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.”
This scripture makes my point. If I love God then I will love others. If I don’t love God then I won’t love others. Thus, loving God is my first priority as well as it is the 1st and greatest commandment. Loving others flows from loving God.
Laymond,
Why do you think most Christians have less commitment to the kingdom of God than our nation’s soldiers have to defending this nation whenever and wherever sent? Is it because of a deficiency in the less-commited? Or is it because preachers among us are not making it clear that this commitment is something to which all Christians are called?
(1) If we are only responsible for what we have been taught … and
(2) if we were NOT taught about the level of commitment demanded of all disciples …
and (3) if we were particularly not taught that we will be known as followers of Jesus ONLY when we love one another as He loves us …
Then are we NOT responsible for following Christ with those commitments?
That is to ask, is there really such a thing as a Christian of any sort who has not died to self yet?
Grizz
Grizz, I believe we have been taught, recently, that being a Christian is a walk in the park, why would we do anything if we have the “holy ghost” guiding our every step, and if he were to mess up Jesus is on standby with a bag filled with forgiveness. Be baptized, and live the good life.
As for your question, there are way fewer Christians than some like to believe. I believe Jesus said “pick up your cross, and follow me” . Not throw your cross on my back, and party down.
I believe the craziest thing I hear people say is, I know I am saved, but anything I did had nothing to do with it. I am very sorry, but the bible has some very bad news for these folks. Maybe they should put more stock in what Jesus said than what they think Paul said.
Skip said “I am afraid I don’t know what you are talking about.”
And Skip I am very sorry you don’t understand. But I can walk and talk at the same time, even start at the same time. Loving your fellow man can lead you to God, just as well as loving God can lead you to love your fellow man. and it is nice when they both come together. As a matter of fact it is absolutely necessary to follow Jesus.
Skip said; “Thus, loving God is my first priority” Skip is that what you get out of 1Jo 4:20 ?
1Jo 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
“If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar” I don’t think John said loving your brother was a secondary goal. I believe he said you are lying if you claim to “love God” and loving your brother will come. I don’t see where it is said that you can’t love your brother without loving God first..
At a meeting Ronald Reagan called of all of the biggest named preachers of the day, one old man stood up and asked Mr. Reagan what will he say to God if asked what has he done to be allowed to enter heaven?
After much thought, Mr. Reagan (before being president) answered he would say to God that he didn’t deserve to enter heaven. He did believe because of what Jesus did and the mercy and grace that sacrifice caused, he would be allowed enter.
Wonder how each of us would and will answer God? Something to think about.
So AJ, you think we will have to pass a one question quiz to get in. I hope I get an easy question. 🙂
I hope you do too or we will be there for a long time and the line will get impatient!! lol
Skip,
Is it sin (missing the mark God has set) to come to Him by faith with works obedient to the truth?
And is it only possible to overemphasize works and never possible to overemphasize grace as though neither faith nor any other works matter to God?
Does a living faith exist apart from works as some seem to believe?
Were James and Paul arguing about faith versus works and how each relates to the grace which saves?
Finally, how many letters have to be written and how many times truth repeated in order for a sound doctrine to be established?
Just wondering out loud …
Grizz
Grizz, Obviously we can overemphasize works or grace. The tragedy on this blog is that few look openly at both sides of the argument. My faith in Jesus Christ and my love for God lead me to good works. My works don’t lead me to find God. As the scripture clearly says, “We love BECAUSE he FIRST loved us. Maybe some can’t find God without presenting him with a list of accomplishments.
It is reported that Christians were not WELCOME in synagogues even while Jesus was alive. Later we hear of Paul going to synagogues outside of Jerusalem in order to tell the Jews of the risen Lord, but soon he needed to meet elsewhere with the believers. There is no record in Luke’s reports of Christians meeting in synagogues to honor Jesus. Not once. Never. This idea is not based on anything in apostolic writings. It’s a fantasy trying to convince us that Jews who converted to Christianity were still welcome in synagogue gatherings. No, they were cast OUT of the synagogues.
Jay wrote Oskar Skarsaune, “In the Shadow of the Temple,” pages 436 ff support what I said. The Christians who attended synagogue also went to the Christian assembly. They did not convert to Judaism. They were not circumcised. But they regularly attended synagogue, which is hardly surprising given the expertise of the Jews in the Law and the Prophets and their access to the scrolls. But Oskar is obvious oblivious to the fact that the Jewish leaders opposed Jesus and persecuted those who believed in Him. So what could Oskar possibly be talking about, how many years later was it that some synagogues welcomed visiting Christians who had once been Jews and no longer were faithful to Moses and His law?
Oddly, Skip, you and I seem (in this case, at least) to be opposite sides of that coin. In a way, I actually did meet Jesus because of and through good works.
Early on I did what good church people learn to do in order to hide behind those works. Along the way I had 2 amazing friends who called me on the church game I was playing. They challenged me to meet Jesus the person in the gospels.
What I found was a guy who did so much more … and it wasn’t a game for Him. He loved deeply and without any embarrassment. He challenged people who were all about doing more, people like me, and showing them a deeper why than I had ever imagined. He called them to a being … a life of giving … a life of meaning. He came and loved and changed people who wanted to hate. He met fakery with reality and honesty and forged friendships out of confrontation. (How is that possible?!!!) And He did it longer, better, and with true joy because NONE of it was even a little bit of any of the hundreds of games we all (the rest of us) play as naturally as breathing.
To say His works impressed me is incredible understatement. To say His heart embraced and overwhelmed me and exposed me is to speak truth deeply. But what changed me is that He liked me in ways that I had been terrified to hope someone ever would. He loved … better than we had given up hoping to ever be loved. And He doesn’t walk away when we embarrass anyone near us. He doesn’t cringe when people our putrid littleness of heart and we cling to His friendship in desparation. And when we doubt He will keep being our friend, and deserve it less than ever, He just shows us His scars and holds us closer than ever. No judging … and no accusing. Just infinite love.
I fell in love to the core of my being because that is how deeply He loves me. So … in a way … it was His works that astounded and profoundly changed me forever.
Skip, you got that part right … it wasn’t my works … it was His works.
Grizz
I surely like what Skip has written! And of course it’s right that we love Jesus because of His works and His teaching which we read about in the gospels and in apostolic writings. But unless we turn to Jesus and seek with our whole heart to serve HIM as our Lord, all the good works He did will not profit US in the slightest. We are called to live and love as HE did, not to rely on what He did, but to ourselves save ourselves by becoming like Him. Peter urged his hearers in Acts 2 to save themselves. He told them how to do so. People today should hear the same message and should respond as did 3,000 that first day the church of Jesus Christ was in existence.
Hearing about what Jesus did is good. Realizing that we need to live AS HE DID is best. We’re not saved by what He did unless we also act as He acted in loving others and loving God supremely. And in obeying the Father always. I sent this once and it seemed to not go as a reply. So this may be a duplicate as I send it clearly as a REPLY this time.
It seems to me that in order for us to rightly divide the Law of Moses, we need to start with its’ purpose. The purpose of the law was not to impart life but to help us see the hopelessness and powerlessness of our human condition.
‘…For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe’ Gal.3:21b-22.
The whole world is a prisoner of sin because the only way we can stand before a Holy God on the basis of law is to keep that law flawlessly. And the ugly truth is that we fail miserably at that. Paul describes us as ‘powerless’ in Rom.5:6. ‘…I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out…’Rom7:18. ‘…the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God…’Rom.8:7-8. The purpose of the law is to help us see ourselves as we really are before a holy, perfect, sinless God and to drive us to the feet of Jesus and to the foot of the cross where God does for us what we could not do for ourselves. The Hebrew writer contrast the old and the new covenants when he quotes Jer.31:31-34 and he speaks of the new being ‘…founded on better promises.’ Hb.8:6b. The flaw in the first covenant was the inability of the people to keep it. They promised,
‘…Then he took the Book of Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey…’Ex.24:7
‘…But God found fault with the people and said: The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…BECAUSE they did not remain faithful to my covenant…’Hb.8:8-9. Israel’s inability to do what they promised under the first covenant is then contrasted with what God promises to do under the new, ‘…I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts…’ Hb.8:10. Jesus comes to our rescue under the new covenant. He remembers our sins no more and He gives us a new nature where God’s laws become our desires through the work of the cross and the promised Holy Spirit, Rom.8 and 2 Cor.3
‘…for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are BEING TRANSFORMED into His likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.’2 For.3:14-18
I wish there were a way to say “AMEN” to what is well said without having to write a formal reply. AMEN to what Les has written! But even though we have a new nature, we are NOT perfect and ARE free to return to our old life and lose salvation! We are BEING TRANSFORMED, that’s right. As long as we continue to love and serve Jesus we will be BEING TRANSFORMED. But some turn away after seeking salvation in Him and no longer love Jesus and serve Him. And they are worse off than before!
Ray,
Beware overgeneralizing. Stereotypes are not meant to be absolutes.
Acts 7:57, 8:1 … Saul watches as people lay coats at his feet and then hurl stones at Stephen.
Acts 9:20 … Converted by Jesus, Saul ‘ s 1st sermons were in a synagogue.
Acts 10-11 … The gospel taken to Gentiles.
Acts 12 … Persecution reaches the apostles and other leaders of ‘the Way.’
Acts 13 … Barnaby and Paul called to Mission Work … see v.5 …they began in synagogues.
Verses 14-15 … doing outreach in the synagogue again … in Pisidian Antioch … and in vss.42-45 … the response and follow up work.
Acts 14:1 … P & B do their ‘usual’ thing in Iconium … preaching in the synagogue.
They finish missionary journey # 1 and report back to the church who sent them out.
Acts 15 … The 1st Annual World Evangelism Workshop in Tul … er, um mm … Jerusalem … Theme: What to do about these Gentiles …
so they wrote them up!!! Well, they wrote a letter … (1st gospel newsletter???) …
End of Acts 15 … planning for missionary journey # 2.
Acts 16 … Newsletter distributed … churches strengthened … vss.11-16 evangelism at the Riverside Prayer Chapel in Philippi … and vss. 27-40 more evangelism … from the local jail!!!
Acts17:2 … back into synagogues … this time in Thessalonika.
Acts 17:10-15 … then to the more noble synagogue in Berea.
(Ray, I thought you said they stopped meeting in synagogues when they started getting thrown out??? Guess you mis-remembered about that, huh?)
Acts 17:16-17 … on to synagogues in Athens … as well as other meetings.
Acts 18:4 … then on to synagogue in Corinth … and then across the street for about 18 months more.
Acts 18:19 … from Corinth to the synagogue in Ephesus … for a while … until returning to Antioch by way of the church in Caesarea.
End missionary journey #2/vs.23/beginning missionary journey #3 … Acts 18 closes with Apollos in the synagogue in Corinth, preaching Jesus the best he knew how.
(Of course, Paul kept going to synagogues … He was stubborn like that. But now Apollos, too?)
Acts 19:8 … Paul back to Ephesus … and back to the synagogue … vss.8-9.
Acts 20-21… trouble in Ephesus, so on to Jerusalem … to the Temple!
Acts 22-23 … trouble in Jerusalem, too … so under Roman guard to Caesarea.
Acts 24 … in chains before Felix for 2+ years.
Acts 25-26 … before Festus and then Agrippa.
Acts 27 … first sailing for Rome under guard … then shipwrecked on the Isle of Malta.
28:1-16 … from Malta to Rome … in chains.
Acts 28:17-22 … Unable to go to synagogue, Paul invites leaders of the Jews to his home where he is under house arrest … and they keep coming back to hear more … and Acts closes with crowds coming to hear Paul preach Jesus.
So, Ray, when did the Christians stop going to the Jews first in each community? Not in the whole book of Acts! So what apostolic record do you have that says Christians stopped going to synagogues and their leaders?
Josephus was a captive Jewish historian and an avowed agnostic.
Tacitus was a Roman soldier and politician.
Pliny was another who wrote about Christians he had interrogated.
None of them was an inspired writer, but all of them wrote about weekly gatherings and rituals. I hope you weren’t referring to what they wrote.
So where are your sources, Ray?
Put up or confess up!
Confession is good for the soul.
Grizz
None of the citations you list prove that Christians met for Christian fellowship in synagogues at any time at all. They went there when that was possible to preach to convert Jews, but the clear teaching is that Jewish leaders opposed the Way and did NOT open their doors to believers, but rather cast OUT believers from membership in synagogues. In cities where Jews were welcome, Jewish Christians such as Paul was were accepted AS JEWS, not as Christians. As soon as the Jewish Christians openly preached about Jesus they were disinvited from attending the synagogues wherever they went. My sources are simply what Luke records in Acts. Luke makes no mention of Jewish rabbis being cozy with followers of the Way, as you imply was the norm.
Ray,
Read ALL of the passages, not just some. The evidence in Acts shows that the further Christians ventured from Jerusalem, the less likely that Jesus’ name was well-known or that there would be strong opposition.
The teaching done in Ephesus, Corinth and Rome was regarded more and more positively. On the other hand, as you left Ephesus heading east, the reception was more and more significantly negative. In fact, once they left Judea, Paul ‘ s safety became less and less endangered.
Read the entire account. It gets more and more clear as you go.
Grizz
Ray,
Luke never implies that the treatment of all teachers was the same, nor that even Paul’s reception was always the same. You imply as much and overstate your case consistently. You distance yourself from this truth in your own claims … either indicating you stopped reading or that you stopped using the same criteria somewhere along the way, thus maintaining a similar inference while ignoring changing evidence.
What makes you think all Christian fellowship stopped at the doors of the synagogues? Paul traveled with an entourage, after all!
As far as whether their focus was evangelism or edification in their trips to the synagogue, they (Paul and his companions) called the Jews ‘brothers’ … NOT an adversarial address. Maybe you should infer something about that.
And what about the synagogue leaders in Rome who went out of their way to go to Paul for weeks and then years? Was that their way of casting Paul out of their circle? Why didn’t they ALL stop going to Paul? That is all that would be needed to support your inferences … but at the end of Acts, many were still going to Paul.
Grizz
Luke writes, but does not agree with what you say he said: Paul’s Arrival at Rome
11 After three months we put out to sea in a ship that had wintered in the island—it was an Alexandrian ship with the figurehead of the twin gods Castor and Pollux. 12 We put in at Syracuse and stayed there three days. 13 From there we set sail and arrived at Rhegium. The next day the south wind came up, and on the following day we reached Puteoli. 14 There we found some brothers and sisters (RAY: obviously Christians rather than Jews) who invited us to spend a week with them. And so we came to Rome. 15 The brothers and sisters there (RAY: Obviously Christians rather than Jews) had heard that we were coming, and they traveled as far as the Forum of Appius and the Three Taverns to meet us. At the sight of these people Paul thanked God and was encouraged. 16 When we got to Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with a soldier to guard him.
Paul Preaches at Rome Under Guard
17 Three days later he called together the local Jewish leaders. When they (RAY: The Jewish leaders) had assembled, Paul said to them: “My brothers, although I have done nothing against our people or against the customs of our ancestors, I was arrested in Jerusalem and handed over to the Romans. 18 They examined me and wanted to release me, because I was not guilty of any crime deserving death. 19 The Jews objected, so I was compelled to make an appeal to Caesar. I certainly did not intend to bring any charge against my own people. 20 For this reason I have asked to see you and talk with you. It is because of the hope of Israel that I am bound with this chain.”
21 They replied, “We have not received any letters from Judea concerning you, and none of our people who have come from there has reported or said anything bad about you. 22 But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect.”
23 They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus. 24 Some (RAY: Some Jewish leaders) were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your ancestors when he said through Isaiah the prophet:
26 “‘Go to this people and say,
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
27 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’[a]
28 “Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!” [29] [b]
30 For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all (RAY: No mention of it being Jews rather than Christians or seekers) who came to see him. 31 He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!
And from this “evidence” you conclude that the Jewish leaders and the Jews in Rome all liked Paul and what he taught? I think it is not I who is reading into what was written. I see clearly that the Jews in Rome, just as in every city, were approached and some DID believe in Jesus and therefore leave the Jewish faith and enter the Way of Jesus Christ while others did NOT believe in Jesus and did NOT become Christians or supporters of those who were followers of Jesus. There is no mention of even one Christian who continued attending synagogue teaching sessions other than to there testify about the risen Jesus of Nazareth and His Way of life.
Paul ALWAYS went to the Jews first with the gospel. Those who accepted Jesus as Lord left the synagogue and attended meetings with other Christians on the Lord’s Day (Sunday). I do not agree that after leaving the Jewish faith and practice that these converts would be welcome IN any synagogue.
RAY: “30 For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all (RAY: No mention of it being Jews rather than Christians or seekers) who came to see him. 31 He proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ—with all boldness and without hindrance!
And from this “evidence” you conclude that the Jewish leaders and the Jews in Rome all liked Paul and what he taught?
GLENN: Ray, you claim that in verse 15 ‘brothers and sisters” OBVIOUSLY means they were Christians, but Paul addressed in v.17 people whom you admit were Jewish leaders in the synagogue also calling them ‘brothers’ but using a more gender specific term. What in v.15 makes it so obvious to you that those who met Paul were Christians?
Also, I noted several places where Paul left the synagogues in some of the cities, but kept sharing the gospel at other popular gathering places until he left those cities. I never made the claim that ALL the Jews in Rome liked Paul. I just quoted the passages that noted his general reception by many in Rome for a period of more than 2 years which is described in the closing verses of the book of Acts. I did not single out Jews or Gentiles in those comments because Luke did not single them out.
RAY: I think it is not I who is reading into what was written. I see clearly that the Jews in Rome, just as in every city, were approached and some DID believe in Jesus and therefore leave the Jewish faith and enter the Way of Jesus Christ while others did NOT believe in Jesus and did NOT become Christians or supporters of those who were followers of Jesus. There is no mention of even one Christian who continued attending synagogue teaching sessions other than to there testify about the risen Jesus of Nazareth and His Way of life.”
GLENN: Here I definitely disagree about the evidence, Ray. Paul and the others who believed in Jesus, (that is … who put their trust in Jesus), kept meeting with the others until the others who did not believe, (that is … who did not put their trust in Jesus), until those unbelievers stopped coming to Paul.
The situation in Rome had nothing to do with synagogues because Paul was under house arrest and guard and was not permitted to go to the synagogue. Paul and the other Jewish believers with him met with Jews from Rome until some of them stopped coming. Then Paul continued to meet with those who DID come. As I pointed out previously concerning this passage, Not even those who stopped coming to meet with Paul made any trouble for him during his stay in Rome.
Also, frankly, to think Paul wasn’t making any new converts after the original number of converts is to make an assumption that at the very least seems to contradict the idea that he continued meeting with ALL (Luke’s word) who came to see him at the house he rented there … and that he did so without any hindrance, as Luke noted. Surely some who came were Jews and others were Gentiles, but to rule out any from either ethnic background flies in the face of Luke’s inclusive terminology.
Ray, all you have has been described very accurately as an argument from silence. When your argument is based on nothing being said, your argument amounts to nothing. That is the problem with arguing from what is not said. You have nothing as the foundation of your argument and so it crumbles without any response from anyone.
A foundation on sandy ground is bad enough, but you don’t even have sand to stand on. I have what Luke said to stand on. You make claims about what Luke did not say, as though you have any knowledge of what that might be. (I know you are older than I am, but you are NOT that much older!! NEITHER of us was there to see or hear what was not written into the record … and I am not aware of any evidence from non-biblical sources being cited by you. In fact, did you not claim that ALL of your source material comes from the inspired scriptures??? Give me the references and I will happily admit that I failed to consider ALL of the evidence. But I expect the same consideration if you have no such references to provide.)
Grizz
Since I quoted exactly what Luke did write, I am surprised that I’m accused of basing my understanding on silence. Unbelieving Jews were enemies of Christians, and proved so by many stated proofs. The brothers and sisters who remained with Paul were Christians. There’s absolutely no sensible reason to believe otherwise. Paul in each city went first to the synagogues or since in Rome he couldn’t go anywhere, called to him instead of going, and reasoned with the Jewish men who would listen, inviting them to believe in the Messiah. After those who did believe became followers of the Messiah, the others turned them out of the synagogue. Rome was no exception. Luke doesn’t say otherwise. The Christians did not choose to continue in sabbath meetings with those who didn’t share their faith in Jesus. They didn’t then and we don’t now.
Ray says,
‘…I see clearly that the Jews in Rome, just as in every city were approached and some DID believe in Jesus and therefore leave the Jewish faith and enter the Way of Jesus Christ…’
I wonder Ray if those Jews who accepted Jesus as their Messiah actually saw themselves as leaving the Jewish faith or rather did they see Jesus as the filling up of everything their Law and Prophets had been pointing to? Late in Paul’s life when he travels to Jerusalem and he stands before James and the elders, they say to him:
‘You see,brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles, to turn away from Moses, telling them to not circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come.There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites, so that they can have their heads shaved. THEN EVERYBODY WILL KNOW THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THESE REPORTS, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.’ Acts 21:20b-24
I don’t get the impression that going to the temple or the synagogue or circumcising their children or keeping their Jewish customs would have ceased immediately when they became Christians.
Les, is every advice given you good advice? Paul did as his brother suggested and it landed him in a ship headed for Rome to be tried as a criminal there. I think the advice was not sensible. I think those who tried to be both Christian and Jew failed to be either. Hebrews addresses the situation. I don’t see that the inspired advice from apostles agreed with trying to compromise and be both Jew and Christian. I don’t agree that the apostles encouraged or practiced trying to be both at the same time. Nor should we do so.
Ray,
Less than half of this …
“Paul in each city went first to the synagogues or since in Rome he couldn’t go anywhere, called to him instead of going, and reasoned with the Jewish men who would listen, inviting them to believe in the Messiah. After those who did believe became followers of the Messiah, the others turned them out of the synagogue. Rome was no exception. Luke doesn’t say otherwise. The Christians did not choose to continue in sabbath meetings with those who didn’t share their faith in Jesus. They didn’t then and we don’t now.”
… can be found in Luke’s writings. It is your imagination filling in where Luke was silent. Luke doesn’t talk about Christians doing or not doing anything in general on Saturdays – with the notable exception that Paul and his friends often went to synagogue on Saturdays. Your bluster and assumptions are making claims you have no evidence to support, Ray. Bluster + Assumptions = hot air.
Yes, you are accused of disseminating hot air and calling it ‘facts.’ Luke doesn’t say that Paul was not the King of Tarsus, either. Does that mean Paul was the king of Tarsus??? And how about all the other things we can pretend it is significant that Luke did not say? Shall we build a theology on those, too???
C’mon, Ray. Can’t we at least try to be honest intellectually?
Grizz
Ray wrote,
There were no Christians while Jesus was alive. I assume you mean disciples. You should recognize that there were synagogues all over the Roman Empire. The synagogues mentioned in the Gospel are only those in Judea or Judea and Galilee. Context, context, context.
Were there synagogues in Asia Minor that closed their doors to Paul? Of course. Does that mean Christians in Alexandria or Rome couldn’t attend synagogue? Not likely.
And for a while, Paul daily in the synagogues of Asia Minor, but I doubt he would have had the same privilege in Jerusalem.
It was a complex, fluid world, and the synagogues west of Jerusalem were largely not controlled by the rabbis and Pharisees. They acted autonomously. After all, there was no Internet or telephones.
I have understood that many of the Jews accepted Christ and the teachings of the Apostles in Acts. In the early stages of Christianity there was not a clear line drawn between procedures in a meeting of the Jews in the synagogue and the procedures of having a meeting in an assembly of converted Jews (Christians). In fact I believe that anyone would be hard pressed to verify that those early converts would feel just as comfortable meeting with those who had not yet converted or accepted Christ as we sometimes feel as we meet in assemblies with brothers that we know disagree with us. I will liken this process to the same events which take place today, if a few members of a congregation today begin to through studying the Word decide that what is being or has been taught is not correct, do they immediately leave the congregation and begin meeting somewhere else. No. They normally will begin communicating one with another and those that agree will attempt to convince their friends and brethren of their new found concepts. They will have a great hope of being able to you might say convert the whole assembly, they will not just leave as has been suggested, they will only leave when the hierarchy or leadership identifies them as a threat to the body and forces them to either stop that teaching or leave. Remember, there was no option then to just join the other assembly on the other side of the street. Another assembly had to be created. The major problem that we have today is we assume there was very little difference in the world back then as we see today. Today we see a tradition of how we conduct a church assembly, and compare that to how we believe that the events were in the synagogue. But, the synagogues did not resemble the services in the Temple which the Jews considered worship. As I understand the meeting at the synagogue would be much more like a study group, assembling allowing almost any Jew to communicate a portion of scripture that he desired. What kind of different procedure would you believe took place in the meetings of the early Christians? We can be assured there was no 5 acts of worship. Think about 3000 in one day 5000 later all in Jerusalem, could there have been many synagogues where the majority became Christians, and therefore the few Jews left to attend a different synagogue?
I would think that many Jews who were not Christians and Christians met together for a good length of time before parting ways, especially as the distance from Jerusalem became greater.
It is written “Glenn Ziegler – Jay I thought was very clear, and didn’t sound like a form of limited legalism nor trying to explain away the scriptures. Please explain how Jay is espousing a limited legalism and what you propose as an alternative. Please explain how Jay is trying to re-write what Romans says.”
The letter to the Roman CHURCH is clear in teaching about the Way of Jesus and how it calls for believers to leave every other religion and turn to Jesus as Lord in all ways in all things. In Romans, Paul makes clear how Christians are made. He agrees with what Peter said as recorded in Acts 2:38. Baptism is INTO Christ. Dead sinners are buried in water and are raised up into NEW LIFE. Anyone who claims the life began prior to baptism is misunderstanding and misstating apostolic teaching.
By “the life” in that sentence I refer to being now IN CHRIST and in His Kingdom (the church of the Lord). No one is in Christ until they’re reborn into new life. Our earthly life prior to being a Christian is apart from God. Those who die without Christ are without God and without hope of eternal life.
Christ died for all mankind, even for those in the old testament that never heard of him. Jesus forgiveness reached back as much or more than he will go forward.
It’ll be very interesting to know who were all the folks and where in the world they all were that Jesus visited after his crucifiction. He could walk through walls and we cannot explain that either.
Never forget if all the books were available that were written that Jesus did, the world wouldn’t hold them.
We just might not know all from the book we have and that in my opinion was not its intent.