This page is a reprint of one of many posts in a discussion on the Law that was originally (but is no longer) found here:
http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/01/23/gods-law-introduction/
-----------------------------------
In addition to what I said in my earlier response, I’m really glad you have chosen to give me more time. As a throwback to our other conversation, my assumption that you didn’t have the time was logical and consistent with my past experiences (with others), but it was wrong. Just how wrong I was remains to be seen. This response took me a while, and we shall see how long you consider it before writing your response. I don’t expect this discussion will conclude even upon our conclusion, because there is a whole lot of scripture in that there book, and it took me years to get through it all. There will always be one more to throw out and evaluate. In fact, I can think of a few right now, and I’m sure there’s a lot that I’ve forgotten to mention. Maybe we can get through a few major points and leave the details for personal study.
“Unless you can find a flaw in my reasoning in my last letter or this one, I think I’ve demonstrated that you are not currently doing these things.” – I found lots of errors in reasoning. Maybe they are mine, and maybe they are yours, but I didn’t bother to present them in the last message because you didn’t seem to be listening. I was a little offended that you kept coming back to claiming that my arguments were lacking in cogency and proper biblical exegesis. Of course I want to be consistent with the scriptures, and I try my darndest to make sure my interpretations are. You will conclude what you conclude, but you don’t have to insult me in this way. I will try to refrain from doing that to you.
I would also like to say that, until my emotional outburst of two posts ago (emotions are awesome!), I’ve seen this discussion going as it goes when I try to convince a materialist of miracles. We can discuss it forever, and they will never see my point. They could see the miracle and not see it as a miracle. The way that scabs heal is miraculous. In our discussion, the issue may not be a matter of evidence. I’m pressing through with prayer, hoping that there will be more to this, in the end, than a waste of time and energy. I can’t open your eyes to see, and you can’t open mine either. God can. I don’t always know what God is doing, but I hope he works through this in us.
As I mentioned already and you clearly noticed, before now, I have skipped a lot of what you said in order to keep to the major themes and avoid rabbit trails. In this response, I will go back from start to finish and compile some of the points I didn’t think were resolved, touch on them briefly, to show you that I’ve been considering what you have said, and then I’ll do my best to keep the central points as central.
Let me also give you a rough sketch statement of faith on this issue. That way, when you’re putting on my perspective to evaluate these scriptures, you know exactly what my position is. You have wasted some time in arguing against positions that I do not hold to.
My statement of faith:
All Christians, Jew and Gentile, are saved by God: his grace given to us, a gift. We get that gift in exchange for faith (or believing what he said to the point of action), esp. in the cross and resurrection of Christ. We don’t keep any of God’s Law as a part of this gift of Salvation, and the gift is evident in our receiving of the Holy Spirit. If we keep any part of the Law of God, it is not because we want God to give us something in exchange, nor do we keep them for fear of punishment if we don’t. We are not slaves. We keep God’s Law (or instructions), because we acknowledge that God knows a lot more than we do (it’s good advice), and because we love God! We are sons!! I also acknowledge that God changes his instruction upon the change of the situation (e.g. killing should be avoided, except when someone has killed or is intent on killing you or others; eat only plants before the flood, but eat meat after the flood; incest; if / then conditions all over scripture), but I also know that God doesn’t change. If it was true for God at one point, it will always be true unless something has changed. I will always ask: If something was true for the Jews, why is it not also true for Christians? I do not think gentiles are a part of the Abrahamic covenant, but like Ruth and Rahab, they can be. For example, not all nations inherit the land, only Israel. Likewise, not all people are obligated by the Mosaic covenant. Gentiles are a part of a new covenant. I do not think that Gentiles have to be circumcised (as a part of the Abrahamic promise), and there are parts of the Mosaic covenant that may or may not apply (e.g. wearing clothing of two kinds of material and other debatable topics). In the same way, Gentiles are not heirs to Abrahamic promises, but they have promises of their own. Exactly what of Moses does apply to Gentiles is not itemized anywhere in scripture, and Jesus taught his sermons from the Mosaic instructions, so we are left to infer what applies where individual items are not specified by the NT. In other words, some of it is a guess. We live by the Spirit of God. It is for this reason (among others) that we are not to judge others, because we don’t know all of what people in this new covenant are being told by God to do, and only God can make a perfect judgment against us. The calculation for sin and redemption is too complicated for any man to do. The best we can do is point things out and let God work in people’s hearts. There are those who believe they are written in the Lamb’s book of life who are not, and the major difference is seen in the works of service done to the least of God’s family. It is better to be safe than sorry, and the safe position is to, when in doubt, obey God in humility.
What do we do, exactly? Remember that this is just my current position. There are probably things I’m leaving out. I think there are generally three tiers:
1. Essentials
a. faith
b. milk truth
c. spiritual disciplines (Prayer, scripture)
d. love God, love people
e. this one is tricky, because some may fall under 2, but living a wholesome life (not lying, feeding the poor, abortion, sexual purity, keep from being polluted by the world, etc.)
2. A good idea – things God says to do, but they’re not tied directly to our salvation. Sacrifices aren’t always mandatory. You certainly won’t be reprimanded for obeying them.
a. feasts
b. food laws
c. meat truth
d. living tough scriptures (a man cannot have long hair, no tattoos for the dead, modesty, etc.)
3. I don’t know for sure, but I think there’s grace for breaking these, partly because we currently can’t keep some of them and some don’t apply to us for whatever reason (I’m not a woman)
a. touching “unclean” people / making them use another counter, gloves, and knife at Quiznos
b. until the priesthood is restored, sacrifices
c. unintended ignorance
You once said that good scholars can disagree on which category to place what, and I agree with that. God is our judge. I think it’s also interesting that most pastors will claim that the tithe is required for the believer, but keeping the Sabbath (among others) is not for many.
So that’s it. As I find that this position is faulty, I’ll modify it. As it’s found fuzzy, I’ll clarify it. I’ve never written anything like this on this topic, so I’m confident that it will be changed. Changed like Einstein changed Newton’s gravity, mind.
Before I get into the item by item responses, I wanted to recall the fact that I agree with you on so many things. You are probably closer to my perspective (at least from my perspective) than the majority of people I talk to about this. We’re working on some relatively minor issues here, though the impact on our lives can be noticeable. Many of the things you said were not substantiated with scripture. You didn’t need to, because I agreed with you already. Here is an example. “Does this indicate salvation by works? No! It indicates a correlation between works and salvation, but works are not the cause.” Because I didn’t address something doesn’t mean I didn’t understand it or didn’t have an answer. There could be any number of reasons why I didn’t respond, and it was mostly for the sake of time and brevity, and it might have been that I didn’t have a problem with what you said.
–
Major theme 1:
Sometimes people don’t see the point. They miss it because it’s invisible to them. They can’t see it because they have trained their mind to miss it, or God has hardened their hearts. There may be things this is true about for me, and I pray that God opens my eyes to see. I believe there are things you can’t see, refuse to see, or haven’t shown me that you can see. A couple examples of this are that Jesus said that anyone who practices the least of the commands of Moses will be called great in the Kingdom of heaven. (Mt. 5 – Seriously, read this 20 times today. Memorize it. This is the key to my entire argument. If I have to call attention to it again, I will know that you haven’t given my perspective an adequate amount of thought.) Another is that the apostles put away the leaven after Jesus ascended. See my quote on Polycarp. It doesn’t say Communion, but Passover.
Major theme 2:
Summary of your position: All the feasts, all the commands pointed to Jesus (past tense). Since Jesus was the fulfillment of those laws, they do not apply to anyone anymore.
Answer:
The feast of Trumpets was a few days ago. That feast points to a future fulfillment. Some rituals are for commemoration and not only for prophecy. Two other feasts are just about to be fulfilled. If Christians kept them, they would be ready for what’s coming.
Major theme 3:
Mt. 5 says (in all sorts of ways) that the Law and the prophets will not be abolished. Yet your interpretation of Galatians and Zech. 14 required that they be abolished. At very least, they are set aside, making them effectively abolished. Since I have read all the “forevers” and “all generations” in the Law of Moses, I cannot accept that they are abolished. I trust Jesus over Paul, so if Paul really is saying what you seem to be saying that he is, and I’m attempting to be a good Berean, I cannot accept Paul’s teaching. (Deut. 12:32) He’s a false teacher. But I don’t think he’s saying that at all, so we’re ok, provided we accept my interpretation of Paul.
Ex. 12:24 says that passover is forever. You changed the word to perpetual. This is the word it uses: (http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/owlam.html) I don’t think it could be clearer that it wasn’t to cease. Also, Deut. 13 says that false prophets would come and try to turn them to other gods, but they were to ignore them, fear God, obey his commandments, and listen to his voice. Then they put the guy to death. If Jesus really did try to change the commands of God, they were right to put him to death. But Jesus didn’t do that. Of course, I agree with you that Jesus has the right to change God’s orders, because He is God! But Jesus upheld the prophets. Others in the NT did too. It is just your interpretation of Galatians and Romans that makes this a problem. I don’t believe Paul says that anything was abolished, apart from the enmity. You have to read it properly.
God has always been able to give us mercy for any reason at all. That’s OT ~and~ NT.
“They were never intended to be permanent, but were imposed ‘until a time of reformation’ (Hebrews 8:10).”
I think I’ll point you back to Mt. 5 again. I don’t see a problem here. I am certain that the veil was torn in the temple upon the death of Jesus, and there are parts of the ceremonies that were fulfilled in the 1st coming. The first 4 feasts were fulfilled. But it’s not done yet. There are still three feasts to go, and he hasn’t finished setting up his Kingdom. It hasn’t been abolished yet. Heaven and earth are still of the old set. The new will be complete upon the recreation of heaven and earth. 9:28 “he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”
Major theme 4:
“Scripture provides its own interpretation. People may ‘interpret’ texts of Scripture different ways, but there is only one MEANING. The meaning is discovered by applying proper (i.e. biblical) methods of hermeneutics: interpreting Scripture with Scripture, understanding the context, applying logic, and so forth.”
I don’t disagree with that in any way, but I disagree with your application of it. So far, whenever we’ve had a difference in opinion, you have indicated that my interpretation is faulty. I haven’t seen any indication that you might even consider the possibility that your reading is wrong. I also think your list is missing a vital aspect of interpretation, namely a person’s personal inspiration of the Holy Spirit. (John 16:13) It’s not false because of my reading or your reading, but because it’s wrong. Let’s not assume that either one of us is right, because it’s a pride bias, and pride is dangerous indeed.
(Hebrews 8:13, Colossians 2:16-17, Galatians 3:24-25) – it’s a new covenant in the way that this is a new command: (John 13:34, 1 John 2:7) The key to understanding that is in worshiping in spirit and truth as sons, not slaves.
Major theme 5:
You said, “Paul is warning the converted Jews not to go back to the Jewish administration under the Old Testament.”
Acts 21:15 on, Paul meets with James and the elders. James confronts Paul (after Acts 15) He heard, “…that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. … We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them… that you [Paul] yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.” He then repeats what was for Gentiles in Acts 15. Then the mob accuses him of breaking the Law, which Luke informs us, he did not. So we take it back to what Acts 15 says. It only gives 4 commands, because, “For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” Why those four? I think it’s because those four touch on the Gentile (pagan) rituals. In other words, I think it’s a bare minimum, in order to keep the fellowship, but we expect people who love God to want to do more.
Now comes the real test to see if you have the time to discuss this with me. I have a very short article about Paul. (click)
Major theme 6:
As you think about these things, like the mistranslations of Mark 7 and other passages, and following logic to its conclusion, you begin to see that there is a lot of corruption from the view that the Law was abolished. There’s a lot of sin in the lives of those who believe it’s abolished. If there is a method that the devil uses (remembering how you called my interpretation of the scriptures as reminiscent of his), it is that he doesn’t want us to obey God. Just like he doesn’t want us to believe Genesis. Both are key foundational axioms, and in each case, one is more dangerous than the other.
Major theme 7:
It’s safer to obey God by faith than to ignore his commands by faith.
–
It may be necessary to come back to all these themes in a step by step through Galatians, Colossians, Hebrews, and Romans. Then we can go through 1 John and James step by step. I’ve done a summary of some (below), but those are big books. To get the full context, you really do need to read everything in the full context. It’s impossible to do in this setting, even if you do have the time. This really is a several month study, maybe even several years.
–
Minor point 1:
The time I have spent on the topic is relevant, not because it shows that I am right, but because I know how long it takes to consider. You haven’t really considered it if you have only spent a couple hours on it. You said you considered it in the past, which rendered my point moot. I do question, however, just how much you considered it in the past and how much your then current view influenced your interpretations of scripture. I wonder if you actually took on my perspective, or if you just looked at it superficially.
Minor point 2:
“No – not the same reason. Zechariah is prophetic literature!”
I said that you reject Zeph. 3 / Zech. 14 for the same reason I rejected your interpretations of NT passages, and you claimed that the reason was not the same, but because it’s prophetic. I think you thought I missed your point, but I didn’t. I just rejected your point and asserted my opinion without properly connecting the dots for you. I apologize. When I read Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53, though there is room for poetic language, most of it is literal in its fulfillment. I read it quite literally, and it makes sense to. True enough, trees don’t have hands, and I don’t believe that nations have horns. I believe prophesy is some fuzzy, some literal, and some run on sentences. It’s a little vague so that God can reveal the truth to some and hide it in plain sight from others. We can’t assume that a passage is not literal because it’s prophetic. Even if you do, you can’t make me do it, because I believe there’s error in that kind of interpretation. I couldn’t make sense of an allegorical, poetic Zech. 14 anyway. Heresy is a harsh word, though I see you didn’t come right out and say it of my view, but you connected my interpretational method to Satan’s interpretational method. Not very nice, man.
Minor point 3:
“the Bible is true, and here is how I see things at the moment. But if I find Scriptures that are contrary to this position, then I will change my position. I want to be faithful to Scripture” – This is my position, but I don’t think it’s beyond either of us to use rescuing devices to protect our current views.
Minor point 4:
This almost made it to the major point section, because this is important, but I also think you’ll agree with me, so it isn’t worth making it central to our discussion. James Trimm is no more authoritative to me than John Gill is to you. They have a lot of good ideas and some bad ideas. And in the case of John Gill, his bad ideas are central to his interpretation of scripture! I’m saying this tongue in cheek. You said that about Trimm. But it’s absolutely true that foundational interpretations spread to a lot of your theology, and I have trouble with Gill’s interpretation of Zech. 14, since he directly contradicts Jesus in saying that any part of the Law was abolished (not the smallest letter or least stroke of a pen will disappear – until heaven and earth disappear). We deal with this issue elsewhere.
Minor point 5:
I wrote, “I believe everyone has some bias and is, therefore, not perfectly rational.” You responded, “A bias is not necessarily irrational or a hindrance to knowledge; a bias can be helpful if it is true.” I agree that a bias can be helpful and true. I don’t agree that it’s rational (BI – other discussion), as it’s not based in knowledge. But it’s ok to hold some positions without knowledge. Babies have almost no knowledge, but we can hardly imagine anything more innocent.
A couple of your unsubstantiated statements:
“We no longer hold to the Old Testament shadow encapsulated in the dietary laws.”
“The Galatian church was not comprised of pagans who had converted. It was comprised of Jews who had converted.”
Colossians notes:
Chapter 2 talks about not letting people judge us because of food or festival. Because he says they were a shadow of things to come, he is also saying here that they are prophetic, thus of God and good. Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, and it was made for man, and Paul talks a lot about food sacrificed to idols, so it makes sense that he’s talking about those sorts of issues. We can assume that Jesus’ Passover meal also instituted new traditions as part of Passover. We are not to condemn people for how they keep these things, nor are we to feel condemned for how we keep or do not keep them. (Personal note: We will all stand before God individually, and we will be judged for our own actions.) Verse 20 is no longer talking about good commands of God, but the commands of men. 3:1 continues the thought. Don’t worry about earthly commands, but be mindful of heavenly things. (I think we’re obeying this command through this discussion, Dr. Lisle!) In that theme of putting off the earthly and putting on the heavenly, Paul tells us to stop sinning, no matter what walk of life you come from. Christ is in us all.
I see no conflict with my view in this book.
Hebrews notes:
4:11 says that we need to make every effort to rest (lol – effort to rest) and avoid disobedience. v. 12 is very famous. The word of God judges our attitudes, and we will give an account.
6:1 gives a list of elementary teachings (milk) that we shouldn’t have to have laid out for us again. Among them is repentance from sin that leads to death.
Melchizedek (Shem!!) was of a different priesthood, just as Jesus became a priest, though not a descendent of Levi. 7:18, the Levitical priesthood was imperfect, but Jesus had a better covenant (v. 22). We no longer need sacrifices for sin, because Jesus sacrificed once for all. (v. 27)
We already talked about ch. 8, and I have no problems with the new covenant. I will note that v. 13 should be read in the KJV. NIV doesn’t get that one correct. The key here is not the abolition of the old covenant, but that it would be written on our hearts.
I can’t summarize this and do it justice. “Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?”
12:1 “let us throw off … the sin that so easily entangles”
13:9 says that ceremonial foods have no value to those who eat them.
I see no conflict in Hebrews with my view.
James notes:
He starts out with a powerful exhortation to never doubt that God will give wisdom. I pray that for both of us, and I do not doubt that God will supply it to us.
1:15 Desire -> Sin -> Death.
1:25 says that the Law brings freedom, but we have to do what it says. Last verse of ch. 1 says to look after orphans and widows and keep from worldly sin.
“For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.” – And there are a lot more laws where that came from.
2:14-26 is worth memorizing! Can faith without action save anyone? As the body without the spirit is dead, faith without action is dead.
3:13-18 – awesome. Wisdom is shown by good deeds.
4:4 “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.” This idea that the Law was abolished leads many people to this kind of attitude. The reason I liked your posts so much is because you were clearly not accepting this faulty lifestyle of sin + faith = Eternal bliss, now and evermore. Verse 7 “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. … Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.”
The last thing James leaves us with is probably more (most?) important. I know I pack my writings at the beginnings and the ends. V. 19-20 “My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.”
James not only doesn’t conflict, it supports my view. I don’t think it contradicts your view either, because you’ve noticed a few key insights that others in our culture have not.
1 John notes:
He starts out with a focus on not sinning, confessing sin, walking in the light.
Ch. 2 is powerful. “We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.” Now I know that Jesus did a lot of things, including miracles, and he never owned a house, so we can’t take his entire life and say that any given thing is right or wrong based on it or a lack of it, but one key thing I notice about his life is that he obeyed the commands of Moses and taught others to do the same.
2:15 “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 29 “If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him.”
The beginning of ch. 3 is so clear, it perplexes me that people can’t see it. If people sin, they are of the devil. Sin is defined as disobedience of the Torah (3:4).
At the end of ch. 3, he gives the summary commands of love God (Jesus) and each other. We know that God is in us because we have the Spirit.
5:3-4 “This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world.” I recall that the Laws of Moses weren’t burdensome either, assuming there’s a difference. (Deut. 30:11)
5:17 says again that every time we break the Law, we sin. I’ll pray that we don’t sin, as it commands me to, and I would anyway, even if it didn’t command it. I don’t think your sin (if it is sin) is the one that leads to death.
2 Peter notes:
1:19 “Because of [the voice from heaven], we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. Pay close attention to what they wrote…”
2:20-21 “And when people escape from the wicked ways of the world by learning about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and then get tangled up with sin and become its slave again, they are worse off than before. It would be better if they had never known the right way to live than to know it and then reject the holy commandments that were given to them.”
3 – a chapter we who love Genesis know well, calls us to live in purity to avoid the judgment of fire that is coming to our world. It also says that people twist what Paul says in his letters, because what Paul says is a little confusing. It says not to be carried away by the errors of these wicked people. At the end of ch. 3, I don’t know about you, but I see Peter saying that people are saying that Paul says that we can be wicked, but we shouldn’t be (unless we want to be the object of God’s judgment). Read it how you want, but that’s what I see. And it makes sense that Peter would couple those two topics, because our generation needs them both!
Jude notes:
This book has almost as much as these others, and it’s only one chapter.
“They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality…”
“In the very same way [as Sodom], these dreamers pollute their own bodies…”
This all reminds me of the homosexual agenda of our day. The very defense they use for their lifestyle when they quote scripture is that Jesus abolished the Law. I contend this is a dangerous position to hold, and even though your position is a lot closer to truth, with a more solid foundation, it can still lead to error.
Other books can likewise be read through and notes can be taken. I have done this on many occasions, and I have had to change my views ever so slightly to align myself to what is written. The truth is, after years of study, I haven’t seen any contradictions to my current view in the scriptures. If I am blind, may God open my eyes. Your answers haven’t swayed me. Maybe your answers weren’t convincing.
Closing remark:
It may end up being true that you are better at debating than I am. If that is the case, I hope you are right when you win the argument, because God is a better debater than either of us. Don’t aim to win the debate, or save face in this public forum, or whatever; aim to be right in the eyes of God. Let God be true and every man (including myself) a liar. (Ro. 3:4)
-----------------------------------
A mention is made of a Polycarp quote. It is this, and found here:
"And when the blessed Polycarp went to Rome, in the time of Anicetus, and they had a little difference among themselves likewise respecting other matters, they immediately were reconciled, not disputing much with one another on this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe [the Passover], because he had always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated. Neither did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe, who said that he was bound to maintain the practice of the presbyters before him."
Back to Mankind's Origin According to History