Faith or Law?

[GWH]

There is not a "wide variety" of lists...just 3.

I'm going to post the list.
I'm more than sure that you'll accept this teaching and change your vocabulary in regards to this subject matter.


Moral Law
The moral laws, or mishpatim, relate to justice and judgment and are often translated as "ordinances." Mishpatim are said to be based on God’s holy nature. As such, the ordinances are holy, just, and unchanging. Their purpose is to promote the welfare of those who obey. The value of the laws is considered obvious by reason and common sense. The moral law encompasses regulations on justice, respect, and sexual conduct, and includes the Ten Commandments. It also includes penalties for failure to obey the ordinances. Moral law does not point people to Christ; it merely illuminates the fallen state of all mankind.

Modern Protestants are divided over the applicability of mishpatim in the church age. Some believe that Jesus’ assertion that the law will remain in effect until the earth passes away (Matthew 5:18) means that believers are still bound to it. Others, however, understand that Jesus fulfilled this requirement (Matthew 5:17), and that we are instead under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is thought to be "love God and love others" (Matthew 22:36-40). Although many of the moral laws in the Old Testament give excellent examples as to how to love God and love others, and freedom from the law is not license to sin (Romans 6:15), we are not specifically bound by mishpatim.

Ceremonial Law
The ceremonial laws are called hukkim or chuqqah in Hebrew, which literally means “custom of the nation”; the words are often translated as “statutes.” These laws seem to focus the adherent’s attention on God. They include instructions on regaining right standing with God (e.g., sacrifices and other ceremonies regarding “uncleanness”), remembrances of God’s work in Israel (e.g., feasts and festivals), specific regulations meant to distinguish Israelites from their pagan neighbors (e.g., dietary and clothing restrictions), and signs that point to the coming Messiah (e.g., the Sabbath, circumcision, Passover, and the redemption of the firstborn). Some Jews believe that the ceremonial law is not fixed. They hold that, as societies evolve, so do God’s expectations of how His followers should relate to Him. This view is not indicated in the Bible.

Christians are not bound by ceremonial law. Since the church is not the nation of Israel, memorial festivals, such as the Feast of Weeks and Passover, do not apply. Galatians 3:23-25 explains that since Jesus has come, Christians are not required to sacrifice or circumcise. There is still debate in Protestant churches over the applicability of the Sabbath. Some say that its inclusion in the Ten Commandments gives it the weight of moral law. Others quote Colossians 2:16-17 and Romans 14:5 to explain that Jesus has fulfilled the Sabbath and become our Sabbath rest. As Romans 14:5 says, "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." The applicability of the Old Testament law in the life of a Christian has always related to its usefulness in loving God and others. If someone feels observing the Sabbath aids him in this, he is free to observe it.

Judicial/Civil Law
The Westminster Confession adds the category of judicial or civil law. These laws were specifically given for the culture and place of the Israelites and encompass all of the moral law except the Ten Commandments. This includes everything from murder to restitution for a man gored by an ox and the responsibility of the man who dug a pit to rescue his neighbor’s trapped donkey (Exodus 21:12-36). Since the Jews saw no difference between their God-ordained morality and their cultural responsibilities, this category is used by Christians far more than by Jewish scholars.

The division of the Jewish law into different categories is a human construct designed to better understand the nature of God and define which laws church-age Christians are still required to follow. Many believe the ceremonial law is not applicable, but we are bound by the Ten Commandments. All the law is useful for instruction (2 Timothy 3:16), and nothing in the Bible indicates that God intended a distinction of categories. Christians are not under the law (Romans 10:4). Jesus fulfilled the law, thus abolishing the difference between Jew and Gentile "so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross…" (Ephesians 2:15-16).

Again, Jesus specifically said that he came not to abolish the Law of Moses (Matthew 5:17) and Paul affirmed that our faith does not abolish it but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:31). Instructions for how to embody God's righteousness can't be abolished without first abolishing God's righteousness and the same goes for God's other character traits, which are the basis for morality. Holiness is one of God's character traits, so it is a moral issue, and in 1 Peter 1:16 we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which you have arbitrarily decided have been abolished. The only way to abolish God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy would be by first abolishing God's holiness. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to embody God's character traits, so everything in the Law of Moses is inherently a moral law that will never be abolished. Legislators give laws in accordance with their understanding of what ought to be done, so to claim that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws and is therefore to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.


Many people take the position that we should follow the Law of Christ and not the Law of Moses even though God spoke the Law of Moses and Christ said that man shall live by every word that comes from the mouth of God.

source: https://www.gotquestions.org/ceremonial-law.html



Some theologians do not believe in the 3 categories of the Mosaic Law??

Could you post one?

I don’t see a distinction between various categories of law in the Torah. There is a difference between the law of Moses and Roman laws. Regarding the former Paul said its purpose was leading souls to realize that they were sinners and needed to depend on Christ’s atonement for salvation.

 

[Toknow]

I don’t see a distinction between various categories of law in the Torah. There is a difference between the law of Moses and Roman laws. Regarding the former Paul said its purpose was leading souls to realize that they were sinners and needed to depend on Christ’s atonement for salvation.

To clarify:
Moses didn't state in which category each law belonged.

However, it's easy to see that there are categories --- defacto:

A wedding follows the ceremonial law.
A sacrifice follows the ceremonial law.
A divorce follows the civil law.
Action to take if someone steals a cow follows the civil law.
Stealing is a moral law.
Taking the name of God in vain is a moral law.

Moral Laws will never be abolished because they represent the very nature of a moral God.

As to the Law being a school master or leading souls to Christ...
That could be said NOW.

But I doubt Moses thought of that when he was writing down the rules by which the Israelites were to live.

 

[GWH]

To clarify:
Moses didn't state in which category each law belonged.

However, it's easy to see that there are categories --- defacto:

A wedding follows the ceremonial law.
A sacrifice follows the ceremonial law.
A divorce follows the civil law.
Action to take if someone steals a cow follows the civil law.
Stealing is a moral law.
Taking the name of God in vain is a moral law.

Moral Laws will never be abolished because they represent the very nature of a moral God.

As to the Law being a school master or leading souls to Christ...
That could be said NOW.

But I doubt Moses thought of that when he was writing down the rules by which the Israelites were to live.

I am unaware of laws in the Torah regarding weddings.
I understand divorce to be a moral.
I do see a distinction made between Levitical/sacrificial law and moral laws reaffirmed in the NT, such as stealing and murder.
I also see the moral "thou shalt not" laws as subsumed by the NT "thou shalt" law of love.

And yes, laws are intended to lead sinners to faith in Christ, because all humans except JC sin,
but this intent was not known/revealed to Moses or other pre-NT believers.

 

[Soyeong]

There is not a "wide variety" of lists...just 3.

I'm going to post the list.
I'm more than sure that you'll accept this teaching and change your vocabulary in regards to this subject matter.

Again, the issue of what Paul meant categories law other than the Law of God such as the law of sin or works of the law is different that the issue of subcategories within the Law of God. The Mosaic Law contains 613 laws, so if someone were to sort all of those laws into which they thought were part of the civil, ceremonial, or moral law, then there would be a high chance that anyone that they speak to about the civil, ceremonial, and moral law would not sort them in exactly the same way. For example, I've spoken with people who debate whether the Sabbath is a moral or civil law or people who consider just the Ten Commandments to be the moral law while others allow room for other laws to be part of the moral law like those against sexual immorality. Some people would also debate whether there are 613 laws. You are a step up from most by going back to the Hebrew, but the Hebrew does not correspond to the categories of moral, civil, and moral laws.

Moral Law
The moral laws, or mishpatim, relate to justice and judgment and are often translated as "ordinances." Mishpatim are said to be based on God’s holy nature. As such, the ordinances are holy, just, and unchanging. Their purpose is to promote the welfare of those who obey. The value of the laws is considered obvious by reason and common sense. The moral law encompasses regulations on justice, respect, and sexual conduct, and includes the Ten Commandments. It also includes penalties for failure to obey the ordinances. Moral law does not point people to Christ; it merely illuminates the fallen state of all mankind.

The mishpatim are laws in regard to righteousness and justice, but the Bible does not state that the mishpatim are the moral laws in contrast with the other categories of law. All of God's laws are based on His moral nature, which is unchanging. Righteousness and justice are also civil issues. All of God's laws point us to Christ and we should live in a way that points to Christ by following his example of obedience them. For example, Christ is righteous and just, so when we embody his righteousness and justice in obedience to the Law of God we are point to who he is, and the same is true when we embody his other character traits. Nowhere where does the Bible state that the mishpatim merely illuminate the fallen state of all mankind.

Modern Protestants are divided over the applicability of mishpatim in the church age. Some believe that Jesus’ assertion that the law will remain in effect until the earth passes away (Matthew 5:18) means that believers are still bound to it. Others, however, understand that Jesus fulfilled this requirement (Matthew 5:17), and that we are instead under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), which is thought to be "love God and love others" (Matthew 22:36-40). Although many of the moral laws in the Old Testament give excellent examples as to how to love God and love others, and freedom from the law is not license to sin (Romans 6:15), we are not specifically bound by mishpatim.

In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus warned against teaching to relax the least part of the law and did not specify that he was only speaking about the mishpatim. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done and should continue to do in perpetuity, not to something unique that Christ did to to free us from the requirement of loving our neighbor. Sin is the transgression of the Law of God and we are obligated to refrain from sin, which includes, but is not limited to the mishpatim.

Ceremonial Law
The ceremonial laws are called hukkim or chuqqah in Hebrew, which literally means “custom of the nation”; the words are often translated as “statutes.” These laws seem to focus the adherent’s attention on God. They include instructions on regaining right standing with God (e.g., sacrifices and other ceremonies regarding “uncleanness”), remembrances of God’s work in Israel (e.g., feasts and festivals), specific regulations meant to distinguish Israelites from their pagan neighbors (e.g., dietary and clothing restrictions), and signs that point to the coming Messiah (e.g., the Sabbath, circumcision, Passover, and the redemption of the firstborn). Some Jews believe that the ceremonial law is not fixed. They hold that, as societies evolve, so do God’s expectations of how His followers should relate to Him. This view is not indicated in the Bible.

A number of the hukkim have nothing in particular to do with ceremony. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be a holy as God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus that includes many hukkim such as refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), yet the article associates holiness with the mishpatim rather then the hukkim. Moreover, the feasts and festivals are not part of the hukkim. Again, we should live in a way that points to Messiah by following his example of obedience to the hukkim rather than a way that points away from him. In addition, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey both the mishpatim and the hukkim (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Christians are not bound by ceremonial law. Since the church is not the nation of Israel, memorial festivals, such as the Feast of Weeks and Passover, do not apply. Galatians 3:23-25 explains that since Jesus has come, Christians are not required to sacrifice or circumcise. There is still debate in Protestant churches over the applicability of the Sabbath. Some say that its inclusion in the Ten Commandments gives it the weight of moral law. Others quote Colossians 2:16-17 and Romans 14:5 to explain that Jesus has fulfilled the Sabbath and become our Sabbath rest. As Romans 14:5 says, "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." The applicability of the Old Testament law in the life of a Christian has always related to its usefulness in loving God and others. If someone feels observing the Sabbath aids him in this, he is free to observe it.

The Greek word "ekklesia" is translated as "church" and is used many times in the OT to refer to the assembly of Israel in the wilderness, which is first used in the OT at Pentecost. In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul said that we should continue to celebrate Passover. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the law leads us to Christ because it was give in order to teach us how to know him, but it does not lead us to him so that we can then reject everything that he taught and go back to being workers of lawlessness. in regard to Colossians 2:16-23 and Romans 14, things that were only said against the transitions or teachings of men should not be applied as if they had been said against following the commandments of God, and if think that Paul should be interpreted as speaking against following the commandments of God, then you should follow God instead of Paul because the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man.

Judicial/Civil Law
The Westminster Confession adds the category of judicial or civil law. These laws were specifically given for the culture and place of the Israelites and encompass all of the moral law except the Ten Commandments. This includes everything from murder to restitution for a man gored by an ox and the responsibility of the man who dug a pit to rescue his neighbor’s trapped donkey (Exodus 21:12-36). Since the Jews saw no difference between their God-ordained morality and their cultural responsibilities, this category is used by Christians far more than by Jewish scholars.

It is good that it admits that this category was added by the Westminster Confession and that Jews so no difference between God-ordained morality and cultural responsibilities. We have no good grounds to interpret Paul as referring to the category of civil law when that category wasn't created until after he died. We have the freedom to create however many categories we want and to decide for ourselves which laws we think best fit into our categories, but we should not interpret the Bible with respect to our categories.

The division of the Jewish law into different categories is a human construct

nothing in the Bible indicates that God intended a distinction of categories.

Thank you, that is my point.

Some theologians do not believe in the 3 categories of the Mosaic Law??

Could you post one?

Again, I was speaking about categories of law other than the Law of God, not about subcategories within the Law of God.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

So the OP actually believes that Christians are under The Law??

Thanks.

that wasn’t a reply to the op it a reply within a discussion i was having with someone else.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

come under that curse.

In Galatians 3:10-12, Paul associated a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 that the righteous shall live by faith with a quote from Leviticus 18:5 that those who obey the Law of Moses shall attain life by it, so the righteous who are living by faith are the same who are living in obedience to the Law of Moses. Moreover, the context of Habakkuk 2:4 does present the righteous who are living by faith as a way of living that is an alternative to living in obedience to the Law of Moses. In Isaiah 51:7, the righteous are those on whose heart is the Law of Moses, in Romans 2:13, only the doers of the Law of Moses will be declared righteous, and in 1 John 3:4-7, everyone who is a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of Moses is righteous even as they are righteous, so again the righteous living by faith is describing the way that the righteous are living in obedience to the Law of Moses.


Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked, so Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example neither Galatians nor Acts 15 should interpreted as ruling against Gentiles being followers of Christ. Rather, Acts 15:6-7 affirms the Pharisees from among the believers Acts 15:5 that Gentiles had heard and bellied the Gospel of the Kingdom/Grace that calls for obedience to the Law of Moses. Im Ezekiel 36:26-27, God will take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, and send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Law of Moses, which is in accordance with Acts 15:8-9 where Peter argued that Gentiles had received the Spirit and had their hearts cleansed, so again he was affirming the Pharisees from among the believers. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Law of Moses, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so the has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, which is in accordance with what Peter argued in Acts 15:10-11, so again he was affirming the Pharisees from among the believers. No one there was arguing that Gentiles should follow Christ, but rather it was a debate between the men from Judea and the Pharisees from among the believers in regard to whether salvation is by circumcision (Acts 15:1) or by grace.

Acts 15:19-21 either contains an exhaustive list for mature believers or it does not, so it would be contradictory to treat it as being an exhaustive list in order to limit which laws Gentiles should follow while also treating it as being a non-exhaustive list by taking the position that there are obviously other laws that Gentiles should follow. It was not given as an exhaustive list for mature believers but as a list intended to avoid making things too difficult for new believers, which they excused by saying that Gentiles would continue to lear about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.


In 1 Timothy 1:8, it says that the Law of Moses is good if it is used properly, so verses 9-10 should not be used to argue that it is not good to follow. If someone tries to use these verses to justify their freedom to be a doer of unrighteous works in disobedience to the Law of Moses, then that means that they are among the unrighteous and lawlessness that the Law of Moses was made for.
‬‬

If you agree that it is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is and that we should refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin, then you should agree that we should obey the Law of Moses.


God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore the way to embody His righteousness is also eternal (Psalms 119:160), and if the way to embody His righteousness were to ever change, then His righteousness would not be eternal. So Hebrews 7:12 could not be referring to a change of the law in regard to its content such as with it becoming righteous to commit adultery or sinful to do charity, but rather the context is speaking about a change in the priesthood, which would also require a change of the law in regard to its administration. Being under a priesthood that is led by God's Word made flesh does not involve changing away from following God's Word.


The same God who gave the law to Moses also sent Jesus as the promised seed to bless us by turning us from our wickedness in disobedience to it, so there is no disagreement. Jesus asked how we could believe him if we didn't believe Moses (Luke 6:46). The vail was preventing them from seeing that the goal of everything in Scripture is to teach us how to know Christ and is preventing you from seeing the same thing. You want to call me blindfolded, but you are the one who is trying to interpret servants of God in a way that turns them against following Christ's example of obedience to what He has commanded.


In Matthew 4, Jesus consistently preceded a quote from what was written by saying "it is written...", but in Matthew 5, he proceeded a quote from what the people had heard being said by saying "you have heard that it was said...", so his emphasis on the different form of communication is important. Jesus was not sinning in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 by making changes to what was written but rather he was fulfilling the Law of Moses by correcting what the people had heard being said and by teaching how to correctly obey it as it was originally intended. "An eye for an eye" is still a good guidelines for judges to help ensure fair judgements that are in proportion to the offense, but it was a guideline that was only intended to be used by judges and was not intended to be used in personal situations in order to take vengeance into our own hands.

…..“But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

…..Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.( the only elements of Moses law ever taught to the gentiles )


forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15:5-6, 10, 19-20, 24‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

[Toknow]

that wasn’t a reply to the op it a reply within a discussion i was having with someone else.

Thanks Pilgrim.

I understand better now....

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Thanks Pilgrim.

I understand better now....

No problem brother

 

[Toknow]

I am unaware of laws in the Torah regarding weddings.
I understand divorce to be a moral.
I do see a distinction made between Levitical/sacrificial law and moral laws reaffirmed in the NT, such as stealing and murder.
I also see the moral "thou shalt not" laws as subsumed by the NT "thou shalt" law of love.

And yes, laws are intended to lead sinners to faith in Christ, because all humans except JC sin,
but this intent was not known/revealed to Moses or other pre-NT believers.

I don't make the rules GWH

I do repeat them.

There's a lot on the internet regarding the different categories of Law in the OT.

The separate categories could be looked up.
I found the following, but didn't take the time to get the best explanation...but this looks pretty good..
and even speaks to some on this thread that seem to feel that the actual Mosaic Laws must be followed,,,which is a pretty silly idea, if I may say so.


https://www.trusting-in-jesus.com/Old-Testament-Law.html



https://rlsolberg.com/the-moral-ceremonial-laws/

 

[Toknow]

Again, the issue of what Paul meant categories law other than the Law of God such as the law of sin or works of the law is different that the issue of subcategories within the Law of God. The Mosaic Law contains 613 laws, so if someone were to sort all of those laws into which they thought were part of the civil, ceremonial, or moral law, then there would be a high chance that anyone that they speak to about the civil, ceremonial, and moral law would not sort them in exactly the same way. For example, I've spoken with people who debate whether the Sabbath is a moral or civil law or people who consider just the Ten Commandments to be the moral law while others allow room for other laws to be part of the moral law like those against sexual immorality. Some people would also debate whether there are 613 laws. You are a step up from most by going back to the Hebrew, but the Hebrew does not correspond to the categories of moral, civil, and moral laws.



The mishpatim are laws in regard to righteousness and justice, but the Bible does not state that the mishpatim are the moral laws in contrast with the other categories of law. All of God's laws are based on His moral nature, which is unchanging. Righteousness and justice are also civil issues. All of God's laws point us to Christ and we should live in a way that points to Christ by following his example of obedience them. For example, Christ is righteous and just, so when we embody his righteousness and justice in obedience to the Law of God we are point to who he is, and the same is true when we embody his other character traits. Nowhere where does the Bible state that the mishpatim merely illuminate the fallen state of all mankind.


In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus warned against teaching to relax the least part of the law and did not specify that he was only speaking about the mishpatim. According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done and should continue to do in perpetuity, not to something unique that Christ did to to free us from the requirement of loving our neighbor. Sin is the transgression of the Law of God and we are obligated to refrain from sin, which includes, but is not limited to the mishpatim.


A number of the hukkim have nothing in particular to do with ceremony. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be a holy as God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus that includes many hukkim such as refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), yet the article associates holiness with the mishpatim rather then the hukkim. Moreover, the feasts and festivals are not part of the hukkim. Again, we should live in a way that points to Messiah by following his example of obedience to the hukkim rather than a way that points away from him. In addition, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey both the mishpatim and the hukkim (Ezekiel 36:26-27).


The Greek word "ekklesia" is translated as "church" and is used many times in the OT to refer to the assembly of Israel in the wilderness, which is first used in the OT at Pentecost. In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul said that we should continue to celebrate Passover. In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the law leads us to Christ because it was give in order to teach us how to know him, but it does not lead us to him so that we can then reject everything that he taught and go back to being workers of lawlessness. in regard to Colossians 2:16-23 and Romans 14, things that were only said against the transitions or teachings of men should not be applied as if they had been said against following the commandments of God, and if think that Paul should be interpreted as speaking against following the commandments of God, then you should follow God instead of Paul because the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man.


It is good that it admits that this category was added by the Westminster Confession and that Jews so no difference between God-ordained morality and cultural responsibilities. We have no good grounds to interpret Paul as referring to the category of civil law when that category wasn't created until after he died. We have the freedom to create however many categories we want and to decide for ourselves which laws we think best fit into our categories, but we should not interpret the Bible with respect to our categories.


Thank you, that is my point.


Again, I was speaking about categories of law other than the Law of God, not about subcategories within the Law of God.

Apparently you don't believe the Laws in the OT fall into categories.

I'm not going to debate this any further since it's not a salvation issue and one could believe what he will and it will make no difference to a person's life.

However,
The categories do exist.

You could find out about it or not....
Your choice of course.

I'll post this if it could be of help:

https://www.trusting-in-jesus.com/Old-Testament-Law.html


https://rlsolberg.com/the-moral-ceremonial-laws/

 

[Soyeong]

…..“But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

…..Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.( the only elements of Moses law ever taught to the gentiles )


forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15:5-6, 10, 19-20, 24‬ ‭KJV‬‬

I spoke in regard to how I think Acts 15 should be understood, so please interact with what I said. Do you think that the members of the Jerusalem Council thought that following verses accurately describe the Law of Moses?:

Psalm 19:7-11 “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them Your servant is warned; In keeping them there is great reward.”
‭‭
If so, then why does it make sense to you to interpret Acts 15 as them expressing views of obeying the Law of Moses that are incompatible with the truth of what they considered to be Scripture?

 

[Toknow]

I spoke in regard to how I think Acts 15 should be understood, so please interact with what I said. Do you think that the members of the Jerusalem Council thought that following verses accurately describe the Law of Moses?:

Psalm 19:7-11 “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them Your servant is warned; In keeping them there is great reward.”
‭‭
If so, then why does it make sense to you to interpret Acts 15 as them expressing views of obeying the Law of Moses that are incompatible with the truth of what they considered to be Scripture?

So you believe the Old Testament...
its laws
and that they are required to be followed?

Is this correct?

Did Jesus say that the Sabbath is made for man or man for the Sabbath?
Did Jesus change the meaning of the Sabbath?
He did go to synagogue ....
but He also worked on the Sabbath
He healed the sick
He cast out demons
He gathered wheat for food.
This was WORK,,which was forbidden by OT laws.

Why did Jesus CHANGE the OT laws?


Jesus changed the divorce law.
In the Mosaic Covenant a man could divorce his wife for ANY reason and even overnight...
leaving a woman in an impoverished, desperate state.
Jesus CHANGED this law and gave the rules for divorcing.
The ONLY law that Jesus maintained is the MORAL LAW.

Do you know why Jesus was able to change the LAWS?

Because HE created them.
And HE can change them if he desires to because He deems the new ones are better.

Hebrews 8:6-7
6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.



Jesus taught that it is not what goes into the mouth,
but what comes out of it.


Matthew 15.10
10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”


The Old Covenant has been replaced with a better Covenant.

 

[James456]

In obtaining a list for the differences between the 3 categories of Law in the OT, for a member that requested it,,,I've run across an article explaining that some Christians believe that we are still under THE LAW.

This is new to me and only one more proof that Christianity is losing all meaning.

I'd say it like this:
We are justified by faith.
We are sanctified by obedience.

NOT TO THE LAW...which is dead and has been for 2 thousand years.
But obedience to Jesus.

Ive been a bit reticent to come back to this, for although I generally agree with you, there is still much that can be said concerning it.

In the church I grew up in, I gleaned from what was said Jesus died for the sins I committed before I got saved but not after. I then in effect lived under the law as a believer. I view things simply. If someone said to me

‘’The justified will obey the law’’ I would then consider my continued justification hinged on obeying it, and I would then view it, practically speaking as, I would be living under the law. Maybe that’s just me.



We are justified by faith, absolutely

Sanctified by obedience. I would say, it would vary from believer to believer as to how sanctified they become, would you agree?

I agree the law is dead, insofar as a binding law as such. But I do believe what is written in nine of the ten commandments is now in the hearts and minds of believers

IE

I instinctively know in my mind God does not want me to steal, commit adultery, murder, covet, take his name in vain, lie

And in my heart(my flesh is another matter) I do not want to do those things.

When you say obedience to Jesus, are you referring to his individual commands in the Gospels, or as Paul stated in Galatians6:2?



I would think, according to what Paul wrote we must show love to others, and in that way we fulfil the law of Christ.



I just felt I should respond to the post as you posted it to me

 

[Toknow]

Ive been a bit reticent to come back to this, for although I generally agree with you, there is still much that can be said concerning it.

In the church I grew up in, I gleaned from what was said Jesus died for the sins I committed before I got saved but not after. I then in effect lived under the law as a believer. I view things simply. If someone said to me

‘’The justified will obey the law’’ I would then consider my continued justification hinged on obeying it, and I would then view it, practically speaking as, I would be living under the law. Maybe that’s just me.



We are justified by faith, absolutely

Sanctified by obedience. I would say, it would vary from believer to believer as to how sanctified they become, would you agree?

I agree the law is dead, insofar as a binding law as such. But I do believe what is written in nine of the ten commandments is now in the hearts and minds of believers

IE

I instinctively know in my mind God does not want me to steal, commit adultery, murder, covet, take his name in vain, lie

And in my heart(my flesh is another matter) I do not want to do those things.

When you say obedience to Jesus, are you referring to his individual commands in the Gospels, or as Paul stated in Galatians6:2?



I would think, according to what Paul wrote we must show love to others, and in that way we fulfil the law of Christ.



I just felt I should respond to the post as you posted it to me

Happy you did.
But I'm on phone now.
Tomorrow.

 

[Dino246]

Again, the issue of what Paul meant categories law other than the Law of God such as the law of sin or works of the law is different that the issue of subcategories within the Law of God. The Mosaic Law contains 613 laws, so if someone were to sort all of those laws into which they thought were part of the civil, ceremonial, or moral law, then there would be a high chance that anyone that they speak to about the civil, ceremonial, and moral law would not sort them in exactly the same way.

The problem with the categorization is that no Scripture supports it.

According to Galatians 5:14, anyone who has loved their neighbor has fulfilled the entire law, so it refers to something that countless people have done and should continue to do in perpetuity, not to something unique that Christ did to to free us from the requirement of loving our neighbor.

You have completely misunderstood what Paul is saying. Paul didn't mince words, and he wasn't confused. He meant the entire law, all 613 ordinances.

In 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul said that we should continue to celebrate Passover.

No, he did not. Here is the text:

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

In other words, Paul is saying that we are to act consistently in sincerity and truth. If we only do so during Passover week, we will have failed completely. Isaiah's rebuke to Israel is relevant here:

58:3-7 Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers.
Your fasting ends in quarreling and strife, and in striking each other with wicked fists.
You cannot fast as you do today and expect your voice to be heard on high.
Is this the kind of fast I have chosen, only a day for people to humble themselves?

In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the law leads us to Christ because it was give in order to teach us how to know him, but it does not lead us to him so that we can then reject everything that he taught and go back to being workers of lawlessness.

You perpetuate the straw man fallacy by misrepresenting what real Christians believe about freedom from the Law. You should really get some integrity on this matter.

 

[Dino246]

I spoke in regard to how I think Acts 15 should be understood, so please interact with what I said. Do you think that the members of the Jerusalem Council thought that following verses accurately describe the Law of Moses?:

Psalm 19:7-11 “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether. They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them Your servant is warned; In keeping them there is great reward.”
‭‭
If so, then why does it make sense to you to interpret Acts 15 as them expressing views of obeying the Law of Moses that are incompatible with the truth of what they considered to be Scripture?

Read Acts 15:28-29 until you get it.

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

 

[Soyeong]

Apparently you don't believe the Laws in the OT fall into categories.

I'm not going to debate this any further since it's not a salvation issue and one could believe what he will and it will make no difference to a person's life.

However,
The categories do exist.

You could find out about it or not....
Your choice of course.

I'll post this if it could be of help:

https://www.trusting-in-jesus.com/Old-Testament-Law.html


https://rlsolberg.com/the-moral-ceremonial-laws/

Don't get me wrong, I agree that subcategories exis, that the mishpatim and hukkim are two of them, and that the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey the mishpatim and hukkim (Ezekiel 36:26-27), however, the categories used by the Bible do not correspond to the categories of the civil, ceremonial, and moral law for a number of reasons that I discussed, especially because they do not distinguish between which laws are moral. Your article strongly made my point for me in no uncertain terms:

"The Westminster Confession adds the category of judicial or civil law."

"The division of the Jewish law into different categories is a human construct"

"nothing in the Bible indicates that God intended a distinction of categories."

We have no good grounds to interpret Paul as referring to the category of civil law when that category wasn't created until after he died. We have the freedom to create however many categories we want and to decide for ourselves which laws we think best fit into our categories, but we should not interpret the Bible as if authors were referring to categories that we created.

Why are you ignoring the issue that I was originally speaking about categories of law other than the Law of God rather than about subcategories within it?

 

[GWH]

I don't make the rules GWH
I do repeat them.
There's a lot on the internet regarding the different categories of Law in the OT.

The separate categories could be looked up.
I found the following, but didn't take the time to get the best explanation...but this looks pretty good..
and even speaks to some on this thread that seem to feel that the actual Mosaic Laws must be followed,,,which is a pretty silly idea, if I may say so.

https://www.trusting-in-jesus.com/Old-Testament-Law.html

https://rlsolberg.com/the-moral-ceremonial-laws/

Okay, but you did not seem to address my comments, so I will repeat them:

1. I am unaware of laws in the Torah regarding weddings. Can you or your internet sources cite any?

2. I understand divorce to be a moral law per Matt.19:6-9. Is there some reason you do not agree with Jesus?

3. I do see a distinction made between Levitical/sacrificial law and moral laws reaffirmed in the NT, such as stealing and murder
based on Scriptures such as Heb. 7:11, Matt. 5:20, 19:18, Eph. 4:28, 1John 3:15. Agree?

4. I also see the moral "thou shalt not" laws as subsumed by the NT "thou shalt" law of love per Matt. 22:37-40 & Gal. 5:6. Agreed?

5. And yes, laws are intended to lead sinners to faith in Christ, because all humans except JC sin,
but this intent was not known/revealed to Moses or other pre-NT believers. Agree?

Over...

 

[Soyeong]

So you believe the Old Testament...
its laws
and that they are required to be followed?

Is this correct?

Indeed.

Did Jesus say that the Sabbath is made for man or man for the Sabbath?

He said that the Sabbath is made for man. The Sabbath is a previous gift from God that was made for our good and was not intended to bring about situations that are to our detriment.

Did Jesus change the meaning of the Sabbath?

No.

He did go to synagogue ....
but He also worked on the Sabbath
He healed the sick
He cast out demons
He gathered wheat for food.
This was WORK,,which was forbidden by OT laws.

The issue is that some of God's laws appear to conflict with each other such as with God commanding to rest on the Sabbath while also commanding priests to make offerings on the Sabbath (Numbers 28:9-10), however, it wasn't the case that priests were forced to sin by disobeying one of God's commands no matter what they chose to do but that the lesser command was not intended to be understood as preventing the greater command from being obeyed. This is why Jesus said in Matthew 12:5-7 that priests who did their duties on the Sabbath were held innocent, why David and his men were held innocent, and why he defended his disciples as being innocent. This is also why it is lawful to get an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath, why it is lawful to circumcise a baby on the 8th day if it happens to fall on the Sabbath, and so forth.

Some Pharisees had reasoned that it is unlawful to work on the Sabbath and that healing is work, therefore it is unlawful to heal on the Sabbath, however, we are also commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves, we would not be doing that if we refused to heal them, and no command was intended to be understood as preventing us from obeying the greatest two commandments, which is why it was lawful for Jesus to heal on the Sabbath. So there are some forms of work that are permitted on the Sabbath.

Why did Jesus CHANGE the OT laws?

He didn't. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the Law of Moses, so the position that Jesus changed it is the position that he sinned and is therefore not our Savior.

Jesus changed the divorce law.
In the Mosaic Covenant a man could divorce his wife for ANY reason and even overnight...
leaving a woman in an impoverished, desperate state.
Jesus CHANGED this law and gave the rules for divorcing.

Jesus did not, but rather what he taught about divorce is in accordance with the OT, which does not permit divorce for any reason.

The ONLY law that Jesus maintained is the MORAL LAW.

In Matthew 4:4, Jesus said that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God and he notably did not specify that he was only speaking about a subset of moral laws. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God's character traits, so everything in the Law of Moses is inherently a moral law. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of Moses and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:6).

Do you know why Jesus was able to change the LAWS?

He wasn't.

Because HE created them.
And HE can change them if he desires to because He deems the new ones are better.

The Law of Moses is perfect (Psalms 19:7), so it has no room for improvement.

We embody what we believe to be true about God through our works, such as with James 2:18 saying that he would show his faith through is works. In other words, the way to believe in God is by embodying His character traits, so the way to believe that God is compassionate is by being compassionate (Luke 6:36), the way to believe that God is holy is by being a doer of His instructions for how to be holy as He is holy (1 Peter 1:16), and so forth, so if someone refuses to follow God's instructions for how to be holy as He is holy, then they believe in a God who is not holy, which is an incomplete understanding of the God of Israel, who is holy. Instructions for how to embody God's character traits can't be changed without changing God's character traits, but God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying the Law of Moses, so it is either incorrect to interpret Jesus as doing that or he was a false prophet. Christians teaching wrongly that Jesus spoke against obeying the Law of Moses is sadly one of the biggest reasons why Jews have rejected him as the Messiah, and if Jesus had done that, then they would have been correctly acting in accordance with what God has commanded out of love for Him. To follow a different set laws for how to embody a different set of character traits would be to not follow the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who has the character traits that the Law of Moses was given to teach us how to embody, which is why Deuteronomy associates leading people away from following the Law of Moses with leading people to follow other gods.

Hebrews 8:6-7
6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.

Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Law of Moses by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or so that we could continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Law of Moses (Hebrews 8:10, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Jesus taught that it is not what goes into the mouth,
but what comes out of it.

Matthew 15.10
10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

Jesus was having a conversation in regard to a tradition of the elders in regard to whether someone could become common by eating bread with unwashed hands, so he was not even speaking about eating animals. Jesus had just finished criticizing Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commandments of God in order to establish their own traditions, so he should not be interpreted as turning around and even more hypocritically doing what he just finished criticizing them as being hypocrites for doing. We should be careful not to take things that were only said in regard to the traditions of men and apply them as if they were said in regard to the commandments of God.

 

[Gideon300]

There's the rub. For Christians, obeying the Law is sort of a fruit of the faith. Many don't understand that. The Lord said, be ye Holy even as I am Holy so being Holy and repentant of our sin, we turn from the sin and thereby follow the law. Right?

No, not right. The Law is the shadow and Christ the reality. All who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. There are two problems with following the law. First, we cannot. It was never given to man to keep. It was to expose the unwillingness of men to keep the law and to make known what sin is. Second, the law for the believer is a shadow of the reality.

Look at a shadow. What do you see? Just an outline. The shadow is cast by the Lord Jesus. Those who focus on the law are only looking at the shadow. You cannot have a relationship with words on stones or with a shadow.

The law has not ceased exist. However, God knows that it is useless for anything to do with being spiritual. The letter still kills and it is still the Spirit that gives life. We do not follow the Law. We have a vital relationship with the living, risen Saviour. We seek to be led by the Spirit and enjoy the fruit of the Spirit that comes as we walk in the Spirit.

A bird is a bird because it has the nature of a bird. It can fly without trying. A Christian is one who has a new nature. We do not have to try to be spiritual. I questioned this for years. How do I get in the Spirit? It seemed impossible. Then I read Romans 8:9. I'd read it before but it did not register. Believers are already in the Spirit.

So why all the controversy? Romans 8 says it all. It all depends on where we are looking. Are we looking at the flesh? Are we making our Christian lives dependent on what we can do, how we interpret God's word and how hard we have to try to suppress sin? Or do we give up on self and yield entirely to the Lordship of Christ. Do we seek for Him to live out His life in us, through us and in place of who we were in Adam. The former is a life of striving that is guaranteed to fail. The latter is humble submission to the Lordship of Christ, so that He can do the living in place of us.

The natural man is the nature that we received from Adam. All that I've said will make no sense to him. If we will allow the Holy Spirit to enlighten us, the penny will drop and it will become clear.

I struggle even to remember the 10 commandments. Never do I ask myself if I'm obeying the law. I ask Jesus to live out His life in me, through me and in place of who I am apart from Him. Then I leave it to Him. Lord Jesus has no problem living the Christian life. He does not sin. He never fails.

I understand how hard it is to grasp these truths. We are conditioned to obey rules. It's so much easier. But it's the difference between a mindless slave doing what he's told and a blessed servant who longs to please His gracious and loving master. I know which I prefer.