European Calendar

[Madeline]

Whilst it is true that the law was a shadow of what Christ came to fulfill, Jewish believers were still under that law, but Gentile believers were not.

We know from Gal. that Gentile believers were not to be circumcised which would mean that they were obligated to obey the law. But in Acts 21 we see that Paul went out of his way to show that he himself was obeying the law of Moses.

Acts 21:20-26, "And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord and said unto him, 'Thou seest, brother, now many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Genitles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to ciurcumcise their children neither to walk after the customes.....Do therefore this that we say to thee..... and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing, but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepsest the law. .....Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifiing himself to signify the accomplishment of the days of pruification......". .

In other words Paul did what was asked of him in order to prove that he himself was obeying the law of Moses. The Sabbath is a very important part of the Mosaic law and obviously was being obeyed by believing Jews until Israel was set aside at Acts 28. But of course I could be wrong.

Love,
Madeline

[Jerry]

Yep, you're wrong. There are not two sets of laws - one for Jewish believers and another for Gentile believers. In Acts 21 you have Paul putting himself under the law so as to not cause a stumbling block to his brethren. It is not that he HAD to do so, he willingly did so to have a better influence and not mar his testimony with them.

[rstrats]

Jerry,

re: ? No, the passage is not referring to which days to eat or not eat food ?


That would be incorrect. You need to look at the context. Romans 14:5 says that ?One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.? ?Esteemeth? for what? The very next verse tells us: ?He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.??

Paul was writing to a mixed church of Jewish and gentile believers in Rome. In verses 2 and 3 Paul discussed vegetarianism (?he who is weak eats only vegetables?) and continued this theme in verse 6 (?he who eats...and he who does not eat?). The passage in question about days is in verses 5 and 6, immediately between references to eating meat and vegetarianism in verses 2,3 and 6. There is no Biblical connection between Sabbath observance and vegetarianism, so these verses have to be taken out of context to assume that Paul was referring to the Sabbath.

?The close contextual association with eating suggests that Paul has in mind a special day set apart for observance as a time for feasting or as a time for fasting? (Everett F. Harrison, The Expositor?s Bible Commentary).

Again, no where does the book of Romans mention the word ?Sabbath? or give any references to Sabbath keeping. To say that it does would take a manipulating of scripture to make it say something that it does not say in an effort to support a non-biblical position, i.e., the abrogation of the Sabbath.

[Jerry]

Yeah, okay :loco

You are the only person I know who has ever tried to make Romans 14 refer to what days to eat or not eat meat on...

Regardless, Colossians 2:16-17 quite clearly teaches that the NT believer is not bound by the sabbath law. It is fulfilled in Christ, and was a sign between God and Israel, not God and the church.

[Madeline]

Yep' date=' you're wrong. There are not two sets of laws - one for Jewish believers and another for Gentile believers. In Acts 21 you have Paul putting himself under the law so as to not cause a stumbling block to his brethren. It is not that he HAD to do so, he willingly did so to have a better influence and not mar his testimony with them.[/quote']

I have heard this argument before. It says in effect that even though Paul knew that God did not want him to obey the law of Moses any more, he did so anyway. There are several things wrong with that argument.

1) The Paul we know from the NT was absolutely devoted to Christ and would certainly not have disobeyed Him.

2) Paul certainly did not stand back in telling those Gentiles in Galatia that they were wrong to want to be circumcised. The point is that when Paul knew of something that believers were doing that was contrary to the will of God, he certainly told them about it.

3) To say that Paul went contrary to the will of God in order to win more Jewish believers to Christ would present a terrible moral dilema for us today. That is to say, if Paul went against God's will, and was never brought to task for doing so, then we may also go against the will of God. Then you have the Word of God saying in effect, "Go ahead and disobey Me if it brings others to Me". No way

4) In Acts 15 we read of the letter that was sent out to Gentiles and what they should not do. Note that the letter was sent to Gentiles. It was understood that Jews were under the law that God had given them, if for no other reason because God had given it to them.

5) There is nothing in God's Word that indicates that Paul disobeyed God's will in showing that he was still obeying the law of Moses.

Love,
Madeline

[Jerry]

I never said Paul disobeyed God at all. What I did say was that though Paul was no longer bound by certain OT laws, he still put himself under them voluntarily so as to have an influence upon them who still thought they were under that law. That is not sin - but relinquishing your freedoms for the sake of others - which is something Paul speaks about in various places:

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

That would be like me trying to witness to a Jewish family and choosing to not eat pork around them, so that I would not be a stumbling block to them in their lack of understanding, and so I could have a better influence on them. I am not bound by the clean/unclean laws - however, it is not sin to refrain from eating unclean meats - I have the freedom in Christ to eat them, but in that case I chose not to.

[Madeline]

I never said Paul disobeyed God at all. What I did say was that though Paul was no longer bound by certain OT laws' date=' he still put himself under them voluntarily so as to have an influence upon them who still thought they were under that law. [/quote']

This comment is not addressing the difficulty. So the believing Jews were not under the law in the Acts period? You had previously wrote that Paul was no longer bound by certain OT laws, but that Paul put himself under them voluntarily. Weeelllll, if Paul was no longer under the law, obviously he hadn't decided that for himself, he believed that God had made him no longer under the law. That being the case, Paul disobeyed God's putting the law aside. In short, the five points I had made in my earlier post are not addressed.

1 Cor. 9:19-23 does indeed tell us that Paul would do anything to bring some to salvation. But again, Paul would not go against the will of God to do that. And again, if the law had been set aside before Acts 21 (and I don't believe that it was) then it was God Who did it. If Paul obeyed the law after God had put it aside, Paul was disobeying the will of God. I do not believe that he would do that as it presents all the unanswered difficulties enumerated in my last post.

You also wrote that some thought they were under the law, as if to imply that they weren't really. Why then did Paul not tell them they were wrong? He told the Gentiles in Galatia that they were wrong in wanting to be under the law. Besides, the thousands that are spoken of in Acts 21 who were obeying the law were believers, so 1 Cor. 9:19-23 has no place in the argument as concerning the law. That is to say, those thousands of Jewish believers were already saved so 1 Cor. 19 is not applicable. Furthermore, by Paul not saying anything, he was allowing those thousands to also disobey (albeit unknowingly) God's will. Acts 21 would have been the perfect time for Paul to say that they should not obey the law, if indeed they should not. But he did the exact opposite. He took steps to prove that he himself was obedient to the law of Moses. That makes no sense. That is to say, if they were doing something that was contrary to the will of God Paul would have told them that they were. But instead he showed them that he was also disobeying the will of God (knowlingly) so that they could continue to do so. Now really, that's ridiculous, don't you think? :smile

Love,
Madeline

[Jerry]

The Scriptures make it pretty clear that Paul relinquished his freedom in Christ to have an influence on others. Here is another example:

1 Corinthians 8:7-13 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

[Madeline]

The Scriptures make it pretty clear that Paul relinquished his freedom in Christ to have an influence on others. Here is another example:

1 Corinthians 8:7-13 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

I'm going to go over this one more time in the hopes that you see the key issues here. What you had quoted says in effect that we should not do anything that would be a stumbling block for a brother in Christ. You implied message is that the reason Paul showed that he was obeying the law was so as to not be a stumbling block. But that still says that Paul knowingly went contrary to the will of God in showing his obedience to the law. In short, it doesn't answer any of the difficulties I mentioned in my previous posts. And again, it makes no sense to say that rather than Paul correcting those believers who were zealous of the law, he encouraged that disobedience. Also, how would Paul's obedience to the law have been a stumbling block to believing Jews? That makes no sense either. In short, there is no escaping it, we have one of two choices:

1) Paul deliberatly went out of his way to disobey God and by doing so encouraged thousands of others to do the same, or...
2) The law of Moses was still in effect at least up to Acts 21.

The choice seems quite obvious to me, but I will leave your choice to you.

Love,
Madeline

[Bakershalfdozen]

The law was nailed to the cross and therefore not in effect in Acts 21.


Col. 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

[Madeline]

The law was nailed to the cross and therefore not in effect in Acts 21.


Col. 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Yes, I was wondering when this passage would enter the conversation.

Paul certainly does seem to be saying in this passage, as well as in Eph. 2:13-15, that the law of Moses was abolished at the cross. But if that is true, are we to conclude that Paul deliberately disobeyed God's abolishing of the law and encouraged thousands of others to do the same? That brings up all the difficulties I had mentioned in my two previous posts. I suggest we take a deeper look at this difficulty.

I'm sure you can see that this question is not going to be answered by a simple quote, so please bear with me if I digress just slightly. I will try to make this digression as short as possible. Hope you understand that I am not in any way saying that we are justified by our works, as you will see as we carefully examine this discussion.

Gal. 3:23-25, "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster."

This also seems to say that we are no longer under the law, but again, Paul went out of his way to prove that he was observing the law. What's the answer here?
The law was the schoolmaster. What was the purpose of the schoolmaster? To lead them to faith, so that they may be justified. Why did they no longer need the schoolmaster? They no longer needed the schoolmaster (the law) because they had already come to faith in Christ. If we add an ellipsis from the immediate context it will help make this passage a bit clearer. Verse 25 would read then, "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." They were no longer under the schoolmaster to bring them unto faith because they already had faith.

Let's try to put this passage in perspective. The message to the Galatians is that the law does not justify, it is faith in Christ Jesus that justifies. That being the case, they did not need to observe the law for their justification because they had already been justified through faith in Christ.

Here is my point in relation to Col. and Eph. where Paul wrote that the law was abolished. For the purpose of justification they were not under the law. But Jews had been given the law by God and were expected to obey it for several reasons. But again, for the purpose of justification they were no longer under the law.

Now we're ready to discuss Eph. 2. We read that the law was "abolished" at the cross. We must determine what Paul meant when he wrote that it was "abolished". The Greek word translated "abolished" is" katargeo". It is also used in 2 Thess.2:8 where we read of the "wicked" one, i.e. the antichrist. "And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming". The word is also used in Heb. 2:14 of Satan, ".....that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil". It is clear that the word does not mean a temporary putting aside, it implies a permanent doing away with.

But we read of sacrifices in the millennial reign in Zech. 14:21, "Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts." We read in Mal. 3:3,4 that, "...that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years." Ezek. 36:27, "And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (See also Jer. 31:33 and Ezek. 20:40.) So the law was not abolished it will be observed in the millennium.

Eph. 2:15 speaks of the abolishing of the law, which is permanent, not temporary. There are no contradictions in the Word of God. Therefore we must think prayerfully about this question. We are told in Eph. 2 that when Christ died on the cross, the middle wall of partition (the Mosaic law) was abolished. What that did was to create a body in Christ, in which there was no longer a partition between Jew and Gentile; believing Jew and Gentile were one in Christ.

So the law for the purpose of separating the Jew and Gentile was abolished by the cross.

Just as we read in Gal. that for the purpose of justification they were no longer under the law, so too for the purpose of breaking down the middle wall of partition (for making Jew and Gentile equal in one body) the law was permanatly abolished.

Please read this a few times. It is deep and it is new, but it is the only way to avoid a contradiction in the Word of God and of putting Paul in the position of total disregard for the will of God. I am open to your correction Bakers6! :smile

Love,
Madeline

[JerryNumbers]

Jerry,


re:

[Tim]

[JerryNumbers]

OH, I thought he meant for it to come out that way for some reason.

Never seen that take place of a message board.