Man of Lawlessness?

[heb13-13]

I agree that you have presented the correct NT view of the commandments. But I would add that violation of the seventh commandment always included the internal act of lusting. Christ did not add to the law or change it in any way. He merely explained the true significance of that commandment that had always been there from the beginning.

Thank you, Richard.

And, though 27:1 says that Christians have contempt for the Sabbath by saying Christ is their Sabbath, you could say that those who say the Sabbath is an external regulation to be observed once a week have contempt for Christ and His work. Either that, or they just don't have the understanding, yet. I am in no way being condescending, because I remember a time when I had thought that just because of the religion I was brought up into.


Peace to all,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I think you misunderstand Paul's intentions which is hard to prove. Remember, 2 Peter3:16 has a warning concerning Paul's difficult sayings. It is safer to stick to plain texts than to get caught up in his use of hyperbole. "All things are lawful or clean." Please, that is just Paul using hyperbole. You seriously can't believe that sleeping with your neighbor's wife is okay if everybody else is cool with it. I also don't think Paul was saying go ahead and stick any crap in your mouth. You think it's clean, it's clean. Right. Monkey brains and pig testicles are clean. Why stop there? Let's eat maggots. Some people do, so it must be okay. Do you see how absurd this is getting. Lawlessness, anarchy, and confusion lie behind the door to which your key fits. Both you and Rick conveniently avoided the biggest dilema I posited. Namely, why put the 4th with the other 9, on tables of stone and in the ark no less, if it doesn't belong? Again, I say, the perfect 10 rise and fall together. Who authorized you to pick and chose. Paul surely did not. ( Do not confuse the 4th with the ceremonial sabbaths.) He kept the Sabbath and preached to the Gentiles on the Sabbath.

Shalom, Steve!

It looks like you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the meaning of "clean" vs. "unclean" food. It has nothing to do with foods that might seem "disgusting" to you like "pig testicles." The dietary laws were not based on any principle of "literal physical cleanliness" per se. Sure, there is some overlap with the concept of physical cleanliness, but it is not the ruling principle. For example, chickens are "clean" but they eat a lot of the same crap as pigs. And we eat their embryos (eggs)! How disgusting is that? And properly raised pigs are not "unclean" as a food in any literal physical sense. And why would rabbits be listed as "unclean?" And besides all that, foods that were otherwise "clean" would be considered "unclean" if prepared by Gentiles. My point is that the "cleanliness" talked about regarding food is ritual cleanliness not literal physical cleanliness. Most scholars seem them as devised to separate Israel from the surrounding nations.

Also clean and unclean foods were in the time of Noach, that is why the Holy One told Noach to take 7 pairs of clean animals. Also Paul (Shaul) tells us that we (believers in Messiah) are the Temple of the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) so if that is the case and the former things were written for our admonishment, then we need to look back at the Temple service and see if pig was acceptable on the altar of Elohim or allowed in the Temple as well as any of the other unclean foods.

We are not "offering food on the altar" when we eat. Paul said not to worry about the ritual cleanliness of food.

1 Corinthians 10:25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience' sake; 26 for "the earth is the LORD's, and all its fullness." 27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the LORD's, and all its fullness."

If there were any danger of violating God's law by eating "unclean" foods, then Paul would not have said to "eat whatever is sold in the meat market."

The sabbath is a specific block of time made holy (set apart) by God before man ever sinned. God is holy and expects us to be holy. God spells out 10 distinct and exclusive guidelines for holy living. Those guidelines are said to be perfect in several places including the NT. God, in the form of Jesus, gives us a personal demonstration of how he expects us to follow those guidelines because people have distorted them over the years. Jesus clearly said he did not come to destroy the law but fulfill it. Paul to the Corinthians said we are to keep God's commandments. John said if we love him, we will keep his commandments. In Rev, the identifying marks of the saints are faith of Jesus and keeping God's commandments.

The Ten Commandments are not "10 distinct and exclusive guidelines for holy living." On the contrary, they are laws made for sinners, not the righteous, as it is written (on Spoke 10 of the Bible Wheel, I might add):

1 Timothy 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. 8 ¶ But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

There is no law that can be a "guide to righteousness" because righteousness comes through faith, not the works of the law. Look at what Paul says about the law:

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Your idea that the law is a "guide to righteousness" is fundamentally fallacious. The Law is a revealer of sin, not a guide to righteousness because righteousness comes by faith.

Logically, the 4th commandment is not primarily a shadow type because: a) none of the other nine are shadow types b) it was made before the fall
c) it exists in the new heaven and earth.

a) The fact that one of the commands is a "shadow type" does not imply they all must be.

b) The Sabbath came with the law of Moses, and was established on the pattern of creation. It was not itself "made before the fall."

c) The New Heaven and Earth is the Church which finds her rest in Christ.

Logically, the men of God would have kept the sabbath before Sinai because: a) God calls it his sabbath and it's part of his law b) the flood was sent because people had become so evil whcih the bible defines as lawbreaking c)where there is no law there is no sin.

Your logic is fallacious. Circumcision is part of the law. By your logic, we must conclude that men were being circumcised before the flood.

I would like to add that we need to come to understand what the very first commandment is. Most Christians and even some Messianics don't know. It is because we have been taught for many years that "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me," but this is part of the second commandment. The first commandment is a declaritive commandment and it says a lot. Aleph: "I am YHWH, your Elohim, who brought you up out of the land of Mitzraim (trials and tribulation) out of the land of slavery." This declares the image of Elohim and the question that is begged is; do we believe that He is who He says He is? What Elohim is declaring is that there is NOTHING we did or could ever do or say that merits our deliverance and salvation, it is only for His great Names' sake that He did it and will do it again.

Yes, that's the traditional Jewish way of counting them. But it makes no sense to me to interpret the preamble as a commandment. The statement "I am the Lord ..." is not a command. It's an introduction to the ten commandments.

[Ps 27:1]

Greetings Rick,

What did Moses do?

When he came down on mount Sinai, he made known unto them the Holy Sabbath.

Meaning they did not know about it before Moses was informed about it!

So the Word of God tells us that this is when God made known unto the Children of Israel, the Jews, His Holy Sabbath.

No one from Adam knew about the Sabbath or were ever commanded to observe it.

How could they observe what they never knew about? And that is why we never see a record of Sabbath keeping before Moses.

Again, you are making an assumption. I believe a better assumption is that over time, the sabbath became forgotten. The laws that were probably handed down orally, now were in stone.

What was the Apostle's take on the external law of Sabbath Keeping?

The very first council that ever took place in the early church with Apostles and Prophets attending would have been the ideal situation to tell the Gentiles to "observe the Sabbath" one day a week. If there was ever a time to do, this was the time and yet there was no mention of it, at all.

Let's see what took place.

And if you back up 2 chapters, you will see that the Gentiles were already keeping the sabbath So to use your logic, if Paul wanted to do away with the sabbath, now was a good time. See, it works both ways.

Colossians 2:12: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Colossians 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;
Colossians 2:14: 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;
Colossians 2:15: And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Colossians 2:16: 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:

I you are interested, I can point you to a christian author who has done an extensive study on that passage. It is not the 10 commandments nor the sabbath. It is like a bill of debt. Besides, saying the law was against us in your thinking, is like saying the mirror in my bathroom is against my dirty face. The bible even uses the mirror metaphor and tells us to look intently into it. (James ch 1) Not toss it or break it because we don't like what we see.

heb13-13







Originally Posted by Ps 27:1


My major point that seems to be invisible, is that we would not be having this discussion if we were talking about any of the other 9. What is it about the sabbath that so many christians seem to have contempt for? One more time. The perfect 10 rise and fall together. You want to dismiss the importance of the 4th, the other 9 are going to walk out the door with it and that is why:

I beg to differ with you. Just like the Sabbath was fulfilled in the person of Jesus, the commandment of not committing adultery is also fulfilled or "filled up to the fullest", by Christ.

Adultery is no longer just an outward act, but an inward act of lusting.

So, I would be happy to talk about the other 9. If someone wants to say that they only have to obey the 10 commandments from an outward point of view, we certainly have a discussion on the other 9.

Jesus "filled up to the fullest" all 10 commandments.

You just don't like the way He did it for the 4th.

He is our Sabbath Rest.

All the best,
Rick

I don't follow your logic. Christ fulfilled the law. Agreed and he magnified the law. Adultery even includes the thoughts of the heart (lusting). Agreed. Christ is our "sabbath rest". Agreed loud and clear. "I don't like the way he fulfilled the 4th"? Where do you get that conclusion from? Are you saying that since Christ kept the 4th I don't have to? If so, then by your logic, I don't have to keep the 7th, which contradicts what you said above. You are in a hopeless state of contradiction.

LAWLESSNESS, is anyone engaged in a LAW unto themselves and not abiding in The LAW of the SPIRIT of LIFE in CHRIST.

That is Anti-Christ and that is LAWLESSNESS. No matter how "good" and "religious" and "sincere" it looks.

Does the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ say to disregard any of the 10 commandments? If the sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:27), why the contempt? I just don't get it.

Blessings,
Steve

[Ps 27:1]

Hi Richard,

I believe you attributed to Shalom what I was saying. You might want to fix that.

Also, you missed the main point of my "clean or lawful" argument. Paul likes to use hyperbole. Agreed?

The point about circumcision is irrelevant because it is not 1 of the perfect 10. Paul makes that distinction in Corinthians.

Psalms 19 and 119 have plenty to say about the law being a guide, etc.

Blessings,

Steve

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I believe you attributed to Shalom what I was saying. You might want to fix that.

Steve

Aha. I get it. Shalom didn't use the quote function so it was not clear which words he was quoting and which were his. I'll fix it. Thanks!

[Ps 27:1]

Richard,

Don't forget to read my edited post above this one. Thanks

Steve

[heb13-13]

And if you back up 2 chapters, you will see that the Gentiles were already keeping the sabbath So to use your logic, if Paul wanted to do away with the sabbath, now was a good time. See, it works both ways.

Hi Steve,

I am not using logic nor assumptions.

But by your logic and assumptions this won't be an edifying discussion.

So, I will graciously bow out if you don't mind.

Have a good time,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I believe you attributed to Shalom what I was saying. You might want to fix that.

Also, you missed the main point of my "clean or lawful" argument. Paul likes to use hyperbole. Agreed?

The point about circumcision is irrelevant because it is not 1 of the perfect 10. Paul makes that distinction in Corinthians.

Psalms 19 and 119 have plenty to say about the law being a guide, etc.

Blessings,

Steve

Yes, Paul (and most other biblical writers) liked hyperbole. But I was not addressing that argument. I was trying to point out that you seem to be confusing "ritual cleanliness" with literal physical cleanliness as if the purpose of the law was to keep people physically healthy. If that were the case, then the law is not relevant since we don't have physical health problems from eating shellfish and whatnot.

As for the "perfect ten" - that was the law given to Israel. It was never given to Gentiles.

Please cite the specific verse where Paul makes a "distinction" between circumcision and the ten commandments.

And yes, Psalm 119 says a lot about how the law is a guide. But there is no indication anywhere in that Psalm that it is talking about the Ten Commandments per se. On the contrary, the word "law" is used synonymously with "judgments" and "commandments" and speaks of the general teaching of the entire body of Scripture that existed at that time.

[Charisma]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for replying to me. Yes, I see that you didn't follow my post, but no matter. I'll just pick up on a point you made in your response:

I never said or implied that keeping the law was separate from grace through faith

I believe this statement is at variance with the teaching of the New Testament.

Before I quote it, let me say a different way, that the keeping of the New Covenant includes keeping the spirit of the laws previously reaching only to an external standard, and, to a supremely higher standard than that of the Mosaic Covenant (which did not exist in the minds of the people until Moses received it on the Mount and passed it on) - which is not to say or suggest that the cultural benefits of the Mosaic Covenant have been done away: rather, they have been strengthened to the degree that without the Holy Spirit, they are beyond keeping.

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


If you still don't understand what Paul is saying here, please ask the Lord to explain it to you in a way you will understand. I know it took me years to 'get it', so learning from Him is probably quicker!

[Charisma]

Hi Richard,

I've enjoyed the clarity your posts have brought from a NT perspective.

My impression of the issue in Hebrews 3 and 4, is not whether sabbath be kept, but whether faith is in operation. The writer makes clear that resting from 'works' is the necessity under examination.

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 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? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.


I wonder if this has become a 'Gentile' point of view within the Church (today), whereas it was originally the 'Israel' point of view into which Gentiles were welcomed?