Posted on 01/07/2005 7:47:31 PM PST by DouglasKC
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17).
Perhaps the most widespread controversies about the teachings of Jesus concern His attitude toward the laws of God recorded in the Old Testament.
The approach of most churches and denominations regarding Jesus is that He brought a new teaching differing considerably from the instructions of the Old Testament. The common view is that the teachings of Christ in the New Testament annulled and replaced the teachings of the Old Testament. But do they?
The idea that Jesus departed from the Old Testament is also a common assumption within Judaism. Jacob Neusner, in his book A Rabbi Talks With Jesus, explains why Jews as a whole do not follow Jesus and reject any possibility that He could be the Messiah. "Jews believe in the Torah of Moses," he explains, "...and that belief requires faithful Jews to enter a dissent at the teachings of Jesus, on the grounds that those teachings at important points contradict the Torah" (1993, pp. xii).
Here is a serious mistake both Christianity and Judaism make about the teachings of Jesus. Both hold the erroneous view that Jesus departed from the teachings of the Old Testament, especially with regard to law.
As we will see, the record shows that while Jesus disagreed with the religious leaders, He didn't disagree with Old Testament Scriptures. The same record shows that traditional Christianity itself does not follow the teachings of Christ.
To know the real Jesus we have to ask: What did He really say? It doesn't ultimately matter what people say about Him. Nor does it really matter what interpretations they give of what He said. What truly matters is what He really said, and whether we're going to believe what He said.
Clear statement in the Sermon on the Mount
The Sermon on the Mount is a good place to begin. Since this is the longest recorded statement of Jesus Christ's teachings, we should expect to find in it His view toward the laws of God as recorded in the Old Testament. And indeed we do.
One of the reasons for some of Jesus' statements in the Sermon on the Mount is that—because His preaching was so different from that of the Pharisees and Sadducees—some people believed His intention was to subvert the authority of God's Word and substitute His own in its place. But His real intention was to demonstrate that many of the things the Pharisees and Sadducees had taught all along were contrary to the original teachings of the Torah of Moses, the first five books of the Bible.
Jesus refuted the erroneous ideas people had formed regarding Him with three emphatic declarations about the law. Let's look at them.
"I did not come to destroy but to fulfill"
Jesus explains His view of the law very quickly after giving the beatitudes: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17).
So immediately we see that Jesus had no intention of destroying the law. He even tells us not to even think such a thing. Far from being antagonistic to the Old Testament Scriptures, He said He had come to fulfill "the Law and the Prophets" and proceeded to confirm their authority. "The Law and the Prophets" was a term commonly used for the Old Testament Scriptures (compare Matthew 7:12).
"The Law" referred to the first five books of the Bible, the books of Moses in which God's laws were written down. "The Prophets" referred not only to the writings of the biblical prophets, but also to the historical books of what came to be known as the Old Testament.
We have discussed in earlier chapters how Jesus fulfilled "the Prophets." But what did Jesus mean when He spoke of fulfilling the law?
Regrettably, the meaning of "fulfilling the law" has been twisted by many who claim the name of Jesus but don't really understand what He taught. They say that since Jesus said He would fulfill the law, we no longer need to keep it and the law has no further obligation on His followers.
Another view of "fulfilling the law" is that Jesus "filled full" what was lacking in the law—that is, He completed it, partly canceling it and partly adding to it, forming what is sometimes referred to as "Christ's law" or "New Testament teaching." The implication of this view is that the New Testament brought a change in the requirements for salvation and that the laws given in the Old Testament are obsolete. But do either of these views accurately reflect what Jesus meant?
Jesus' view of fulfilling the law
The Greek word pleroo, translated "fulfill" in Matthew 5:17, means "to make full, to fill, to fill up, ... to fill to the full" or "to render full, i.e. to complete" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2002, Strong's number 4137). In other words, Jesus said He came to complete the law and make it perfect. How? By showing the spiritual intent and application of God's law. His meaning is clear from the remainder of the chapter, where He showed the spiritual intent of specific commandments.
Some distort the meaning of "fulfill" to have Jesus saying, "I did not come to destroy the law, but to end it by fulfilling it." This is inconsistent with His own words. Through the remainder of the chapter, He showed that the spiritual application of the law made it even more difficult to keep, not that it was annulled or no longer necessary.
Jesus, by explaining, expanding and exemplifying God's law, fulfilled a prophecy of the Messiah found in Isaiah 42:21: "The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He will exalt the law, and make it honorable." The Hebrew word gadal, translated "exalt" or "magnify" (KJV) literally means "to be or become great" (William Wilson, Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies, "Magnify").
Jesus Christ did exactly that, showing the holy, spiritual intent, purpose and scope of God's law. He met the law's requirements by obeying it perfectly in thought and deed, both in the letter and in the intent of the heart.
All will be fulfilled
The second major statement by Jesus given in the exact same context makes it even clearer that Jesus did not come to destroy, rescind, nullify or abrogate the law. "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18).
With these words, Jesus likened the continuance of the law to the permanence of heaven and earth. He is saying that the law is immutable, inviolable and unchangeable and can only be fulfilled, never abrogated.
We should note that in this verse a different Greek word is used for "fulfilled": ginomai, meaning "to become," "to come into existence" or "to come to pass" (Thayer's, Strong's number 1096). Until the ultimate completion of God's plan to glorify humanity in His Kingdom comes to pass—that is, as long as there are still fleshly human beings —the physical codification of God's law in Scripture is necessary. This, Jesus explained, is as certain as the continued existence of the universe.
His servants must keep the law
The third statement of Jesus pronounces that our fate rests on our attitude toward and treatment of God's holy law. "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least [by those] in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19). The "by those" is added for clarification, since, as explained in other passages, those who persist in lawbreaking and teach others to break God's law will not themselves be in the Kingdom at all.
Jesus makes it very clear that those who follow Him and aspire to His Kingdom have a perpetual obligation to obey and uphold God's law. He is saying that we cannot diminish from the law of God by even a jot or tittle—the equivalent of the crossing of a "t" or dotting of an "i."
The value He places on the commandments of God is also unmistakable—as well as the high esteem toward the law that He requires from all those who teach in His name. His disapproval falls on those who slight the least of the law's commands, and His honor will be bestowed on those who teach and obey the commandments.
Since Jesus obeyed the commandments of God, it follows that His servants, too, must keep the commandments and teach others to do the same (1 John 2:2-6). It is in this way that the true ministers of Christ are to be identified—by their following the example He left them (John 13:15).
Must exceed the scribes and Pharisees
With the next statement in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus leaves no doubt as to what He meant in the previous three declarations. He meant without question for His disciples to obey God's law—and He was requiring them to obey according to a standard that went beyond anything they'd heard before. "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20).
Who were the scribes and Pharisees? The scribes were the most renowned teachers of the law—the interpreters of the law, the learned men, the experts. The Pharisees, a related group, were commonly viewed as the most exemplary models of Judaism. They formed a sect of Judaism that established a code of morals and rituals more rigid than that spelled out in the law of Moses, basing much of their practices on years of traditions. The scribes and Pharisees were both highly strict and highly respected in Judaism (Acts 26:5).
While the scribes were the experts, the Pharisees professed the purest practice of righteousness. So when Jesus stated that one's righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, this was a startling declaration!
The Pharisees were looked up to as those who had attained the very pinnacle of personal righteousness, and the common people supposed that such heights of spirituality were far beyond their reach. But Jesus asserted that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees wasn't enough to entitle them to enter the Kingdom of which He spoke! What hope, then, did others have?
Jesus condemns religious hypocrisy
In actual fact, there was a real problem with the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. The heart of the matter was that their righteousness was defective in that it was external only. They appeared to obey the law to those who observed them, but broke God's law inwardly, where it couldn't be seen by others.
Notice Jesus' scathing denunciation of their hypocrisy in making a show of religion: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence ...For you ...indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness ...You also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness" (Matthew 23:25-28).
These self-appointed religious teachers emphasized minor aspects of the law while neglecting more important issues. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.
These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone" (verse 23). Jesus was concerned that every part of the righteous requirement be obeyed, and angry that they were blind to the "weightier" parts—the major spiritual aspects—of the law.
While they were fastidious with their ceremonial traditions, at the same time they took liberties to disobey God's direct commands. In some situations they actually elevated their traditions above the clear commands of God (Matthew 15:1-9).
Behind their actions was the base motive of self-exaltation and self-interest. They went public with what should have been their more private devotions toward God—prayer, fasting and giving of alms—all so they could be seen and thought of by others as righteous (Matthew 6:1-6; 23:5-7).
Religious leaders did not keep God's law
Immediately after His statement that He had no intention of doing away with God's law, Jesus proceeded to give examples of the traditions and teachings of the Jewish religious leaders that completely missed the point or even contradicted the spiritual intent of God's laws.
The first example He gave was the Sixth Commandment, "You shall not murder." All that the Pharisees understood about this commandment was that the act of murder was prohibited. Jesus taught what should have been obvious, that the intent of the Sixth Commandment was not just to prohibit the literal act of murder, but every evil attitude of heart and mind that led to murder—including unjust anger and contemptuous words (Matthew 5:21-26).
He did likewise with their narrow view of the Seventh Commandment, "You shall not commit adultery." The Pharisees of the day understood the physical act of sexual relations with a woman outside of marriage to be sin. They should also have known, as in the case of the Sixth Commandment, that lust for another woman was sinful because the one lusting had already broken the Commandment in his heart.
These are examples of the "righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees" that Jesus characterized as making the outside of the cup and dish clean, while on the inside remaining "full of greed and self-indulgence" (Matthew 23:25, NRSV).
Jesus instructed His disciples that God's law must indeed be obeyed outwardly, but it must also be obeyed in the spirit and intent of the heart. When Jesus taught such heartfelt obedience to God's laws, He was faithful to what the Old Testament taught: "For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7).
The prophet Jeremiah looked forward to a time when God would establish a new covenant in which God promised to "put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts" (Jeremiah 31:33). God's original intent for His law was that people would observe it from their hearts (Deuteronomy 5:29). The failure of human beings to obey God's law in the "inward being" (Psalm 51:6, NRSV) inevitably led to outward disobedience.
Jesus did not change the law
Jesus prefaced His contrast of the scribes' and Pharisees' narrow interpretation of the law with its true spiritual intent using the words, "You have heard that it was said ...But I say to you ..." (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28).
Some erroneously think Jesus' intention was to contrast His own teaching with that of Moses and thereby declare Himself as the true authority. They assume that Jesus was either opposed to the Mosaic law or modifying it in some way.
But it's hard to imagine that Jesus, just after delivering the most solemn and emphatic proclamation of the permanence of the law and emphasizing His own high regard for it, would now undermine the authority of the law by other pronouncements. Jesus wasn't inconsistent; He honored and upheld the law in all His statements.
In this passage He is not pitting Himself against the Mosaic law, nor is He claiming a superior spirituality. What He was doing was refuting the wrong interpretations perpetuated by the scribes and Pharisees. This is why He declared that one's righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus was restoring, in the minds of His listeners, the Mosaic precepts to their original place, purity and power. (For a better understanding of these laws, request or download your free copy of the booklet The Ten Commandments.)
It should also be obvious that because the same God is the Author of Old and New Covenant alike, there can be no vital conflict between them, and that the fundamental laws of morality underlying both must be and are in full accord. God tells us in Malachi 3:6, "I am the LORD, I do not change ..."
Jesus and the Sabbath
Among those who claim to follow Jesus, no biblical command has aroused as much controversy as the Fourth Commandment—God's instruction to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy (Exodus 20:8-11). Here in particular we find that people's interpretations of Jesus' teaching are all over the map.
Some argue that Jesus annulled all of the Ten Commandments but that nine were reinstituted in the New Testament—all except the Sabbath. Some believe that Jesus replaced the Sabbath with Himself, and that He is now our "rest." Some believe that no Sabbath at all is needed now, that we can rest or worship on any day or at any time we choose. Regardless of which argument one uses, an overwhelming portion of traditional Christianity believes that Sunday, the first day of the week, has replaced the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week.
Can we find support for these views in Christ's practice or teaching? In light of Jesus' clear teaching on the permanence of God's laws, what do we find when it comes to His attitude toward the Sabbath day?
In studying the Gospels, one of the first things we should notice is that Jesus' custom was to attend the synagogue for worship on the Sabbath (Luke 4:16). This was His regular practice. On this particular occasion, He even announced His mission as Messiah to those in the synagogue that day.
Interestingly, we later find that Paul's custom was also to worship and teach in the synagogues on the Sabbath day (Acts 17:2-3). Neither he nor Jesus ever so much as hinted that they needn't be there or that they should worship on a different day!
Confrontations over how, not whether, to keep the Sabbath
Where many people jump to wrong conclusions about Jesus and the Sabbath is in His confrontations with the scribes and Pharisees. Yet these confrontations were never over whether to keep the Sabbath—only over how it should be kept. There is a crucial difference between the two!
For example, Jesus boldly challenged the Jews concerning their interpretation of Sabbath observance by performing healings on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6).
According to the Pharisees, rendering medical attention to someone, unless it were a matter of life and death, was prohibited on the Sabbath. And since none of these healings involved a life-and-death situation, they thought Jesus was breaking the Sabbath. But as the Savior, Jesus understood the purpose of the Sabbath, that it was a perfectly appropriate time to bring His message of healing, hope and redemption to humanity and to live that message through His actions.
To make His point, Jesus asked the Pharisees the question, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" (Mark 3:4). He exposed their hypocrisy in that they saw nothing wrong with working to rescue an animal that fell into a pit on the Sabbath day, or watering an animal on that day, yet they were condemning Him for helping on the Sabbath a human being—whose worth was far greater than that of any animal (Luke 13:15-17; Matthew 12:10-14).
He was rightfully angry at their inability to see that they placed their own traditions and interpretations over the true purpose of Sabbath observance (Mark 3:5). Yet they were so spiritually blind that they hated Him for exposing their distortions of God's commands (verse 6).
On one occasion Jesus' disciples, as they walked through a field on the Sabbath day, picked handfuls of grain so they would have something to eat. The disciples weren't harvesting the field; they were merely grabbing a quick snack to take care of their hunger. But the Pharisees insisted this was not lawful. Jesus used an example from Scripture to show that the spirit and intent of the law were not broken and that God's law allowed for mercy (Mark 2:23-26).
It was in this context that Jesus gives the true purpose of the Sabbath. "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath," He said (verse 27). The Pharisees had reversed the priorities of the law of God. They had added so many meticulous regulations and traditions to the Sabbath commandment that trying to keep it as they demanded had become an enormous burden for people rather than the blessing God had intended it to be (Isaiah 58:13-14).
Jesus then claimed to have authority to say how the Sabbath should be observed: "Therefore, the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath" (verse 28). Here Jesus takes His rightful place as the One who gave this law of the Sabbath in the first place. For, being the very Creator as we have previously seen (Colossians 1:16; John 1:3), He is the One who created the Sabbath by resting on it (Genesis 2:2-3). Thus it is foolish to argue that Jesus would abolish or annul something that He had personally created for the benefit of every human being!
What Jesus is in essence saying to the Pharisees here is: You don't have a right to tell people how to keep God's laws. I am the One who gave the laws to man in the first place, therefore I know why it was commanded and how it was intended to be observed.
When Jesus spoke, it was from the authority He inherently possessed as the great Lawgiver. Jesus never abrogated His own law! But He did most certainly correct these religious leaders' perversions of the law without hesitation. (If you would like to know more about the biblical Sabbath day, request or download your free copy of the booklet Sunset to Sunset: God's Sabbath Rest.)
Judaism forsook Moses, Christianity forsook Christ
When it comes to Jesus and the law, we have to conclude that the "Christian" religion has let us down by not holding to the original teachings of Christ, who Himself held to the original teachings of the Old Testament Scriptures. And as the teachings of Jewish religious leaders corrupted Moses, so did the later teachers of Christ—that is, false teachers—corrupt the teachings of Jesus. In reality, Jesus and Moses agreed.
Let's ask a question here. If Jesus were here today, which day would He observe as the Sabbath? It would be the day He commanded in the Ten Commandments, the seventh day.
The real Jesus kept the law and expected His disciples to do the same. He made clear His attitude about anyone diminishing one iota from the law. Anyone not keeping it is only using the good name of Christ without doing what He said.
He warns us: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:21-23).
So we have to ask, Do the churches which claim to represent Christ really represent Him accurately?
Jesus often pointed out that His teaching was based in the Old Testament Scriptures. When challenged concerning His teaching He responded, "Have you not read ...?" before pointing His challengers to the Scriptures that supported what He had said (Matthew 12:3, 5; 19:4; 22:31).
Those who say that Jesus departed from the Old Testament are simply wrong. In this chapter we have demonstrated that both many Jews and most of Christianity are incorrect in their assessment of Jesus' teachings. Jesus faithfully taught the written word of the Old Testament.
We have seen earlier that Jesus was actually God in the Old Testament. God doesn't change His ways. He is eternal. It would not inspire much faith to know that He required one thing in the Old Testament but then changed His mind and came up with a wholly difsferent set of requirements in the New. Jesus Christ is consistent, "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).
Okay, I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't go so far in the thought process as thinking that these commandments are not the greatest. These are the words of Christ after all. In order to have salvation this is the type of love we need to have. Luckily Christ died so that we can have his indwelling spirit that will bring us into this love.
But I'm not going to quibble about this.
That's the same exact argument I'm making. The moral law is the law of love and the ten commandments are the written expression of the law of love.
That is a stretch, Douglas. Threats and fear are all mixed in with that highly conditional love of OT's God. Compassion and mercy is tagged to obedience and not belief. It all goes back to the way the Hebrews experienced and (mis)interpreted God's revelations.
You're misunderstanding my point on a very basic level.
If you love someone unconditionally then you are never going to violate the letter of the law of the ten commandments.
If you love your spouse unconditionally then you will never think about committing adultery, much less actually committing adultery.
If you love God then you are never going to think about worshiping something else before him in spirit much less deed.
Without the commandments you would never be able to define Godly love. It would be subjective and subject to change, to human definitions. Those who toss aside the commandments as not relevant are doing this which has contributed to a coarseness in our society.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Iniquity IS lawlessness. Sin is transgression of the law. The type of lawlessness Christ is talking about isn't man made law, but the God's law.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Thanks for the links on wave sheaf offering. And yes it is a subject in itself and quite lengthy. May YHWH Bless you in your search for the TRUTH.
First of all they are not holidays. They are HOLY days. They are holy because they are imbued with the presence of the Lord.
Secondly, these holy days were not "given" to anyone. These days, as I keep stating, are God's Holy days:
Can you show me where He declared them to all the other nations around Israel?
Lev 23:4 These [are] the feasts of the LORD, [even] holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.
Doug that is God speaking to the Jews. EVERY ONE OF THEM DEMONSTRATE GODS WORK AMONG THEM (the Jews)
I could celebrate your birthday and anniversary , but it has no meaning to me ..THEY ARE YOUR DAYS
Show me where God commanded ANY GENTILE NATION to celebrate them, JUST ONE OTHER NATION
You can talk around this fact, try to rationalize it away, or ignore it...but it won't go away because it's the truth...scripture can't be broken.
Doug I am not the one intentionally skipping or misreading scripture...
You just show what low esteem you have for the work of Christ, HIS work was for men of all races and nations. That is the thing that we have to celebrate. That He had sheep from other flocks . The Jew 1st and then all mankind. You demean the gift of Christ as Saviour by needing to add to it the legalism of the Pharisees
On the contrary, God's holy days are for the benefit of all mankind. In the future, when Christ returns, all nations will celebrate the holy days that Christ created. The evidence of this is in the prophechies of Zechariah - :
Will there be animal sacrifices? Does your church do the MANDATED sacrifices?
Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. Zec 14:17 And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. Zec 14:18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that [have] no [rain]; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. Zec 14:19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Doug one of the priorities of good hermeneutics is to look at the audience ...WHO WAS THAT WRITTEN TO? Was he a prophet to the Greeks the romans and the heathen nations?
The entire theology that somehow you are a part of some lost tribe that is here comes from mormon theology not Christian . You are not a Jew, that was not written to you .
When Christ returns I pray that you are still not hard hearted about this issue and will keep his feast days Terry. Why wait until then though? Why not now?
Because Christ has fulfilled the law for those that are saved. You may continue your personal work to save yourself, offer heifers in your back yard. But I have a high Priest that offers daily sacrifices for me, He is my advocate with the Father.
You may continue on your quest to earn your own salvation . My was accomplished on the cross.
Did Luke keep the Jewish feasts? What of Stephen the man chose as the first martyr?
Of course they did. These days were part of the culture and life of their society at the time...just like holidays in the United States are to most people today.
Could you show me where they ever "celebrated" them. THEY WERE NOT JEWS, THE WERE GREEKS .
That is why the Jewish leaders were so infuriated with Stephen. Here was a NON JEW a Greek TEACHING THEM their scripture .
Non Jews did not celebrate Jewish holy days...that was a Hellenistic/ Roman , pagan culture. Those were not 'cultural days' Doug.
"One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observed the day, to the Lord he does not observe it." (Romans 14:5-6a).
The problem with using this verse in support of NOT observing Christ's holy days is that it doesn't mention the holy days. The NT when referring to God's Holy days uses the word:
LOL yea , and you do not like it . On the other hand you will take a verse written to Jews and try to apply it to Gentiles. The meaning IN CONTEXT is clear Doug
Who was the letter written to?
Roman Church
What was the topic of the letter?
A basic doctrinal treatieson Christ and salvation
This part was specific to gentiles being TIED to the Jewish law. Lets look at it :)
| Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations. | |
| For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. | |
| Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. | |
| Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. | |
| One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. | |
| He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. 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. | |
| For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. | |
| For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. | |
| I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean. | |
| But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. | |
| Let not then your good be evil spoken of: | |
| For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. | |
| For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed [are] pure; but [it is] evil for that man who eateth with offence. | |
| [It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. | |
| Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. | |
| And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin. |
The meaning and significance of these words are clear Doug. He is dealing with the fact that Jews were trying to Judaize the Gentiles.
He is clearly teaching that the Gentiles have Christian liberty in this .
Those Holidays were given to the Jews, remain a sign to the Jews. I did not say they were " done away with" .
Holy days Terry, holy days. If they were not done away with then they are still holy. Your creator and mine still have feast days that they made holy.
He gave them to the jews, and as much as you want to be one, you are not Doug. Can't you celebrate how God made you ?
The "Christians" that observed them were the JEWISH Christians , not the Roman or greek Christians.
I think the burden of proof is on you for this. Paul specifically tells "Jewish" christians and gentile christians alike to celebrate at least one holy day:
LOL Not at all doug, the burden is on you. I want ONE scripture where God ordered the Gentile nations to celebrate the remembrances of His relationship with the Jews.
The NT is very specific, the gentiles were exempted from the Jewish law.
1Co 5:8 Therefore let us keep the feast (heortazo), not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth.
The word FEAST is singular Doug Not plural, so what is the FEAST? The one He gave us in the NT >
Leaven is a simile of their sin here , not literal leaven,
From Gill
pursuing, the same metaphor, taken from the Jewish passover, he exhorts to remove from them the man that had sinned, as the Jews at the passover removed the leaven out of their houses; that so they might appear to be a church renewed, and purged, and clear of leaven, keeping the true and spiritual passover, which they were under obligation to do, since Christ, the antitype of the passover, was sacrificed for them,
1 Corinthians 5:7 wherefore it became them to keep the feast of the Lord's supper; and indeed, to have the whole course of their conversation so ordered, as to avoid sin and sinners, and to behave in truth and uprightness, 1 Corinthians 5:8 when the apostle goes on to put them in mind of what he had formerly written unto them, as suitable to the present case, which was, that they should not keep company with wicked men, particularly with fornicators, such as this man, though in a more heinous manner, 1 Corinthians 5:9 and explains what was his meaning; not that they were to have no manner of conversation with persons of such a character, and of such like evil characters, in things of a civil nature, for then there would be no living in the world, 1 Corinthians 5:10.
"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ .
That does not mean what you think it means. Explain this: Paul wrote this, by most scholars estimates, over 20 years after the death of Christ.
And so???
Yet Paul says that the feast days ARE...not WERE...ARE a shadow of things to come. ARE a shadow. Why does Paul believe, 20 years after the death of Christ, that the feast days ARE a shadow of things yet future, things yet to come? The answer of course is that they are. Christ will return...the fall feasts picture the return of Christ and the millenial kingdom.
Doug he says ARE because they were and are yet today a SIGN TO THE JEWS .
did not say there was an injunction , that Christian may not celebrate them. We have Christian liberty we are free to do that , but it is no spiritual benefit.
On the contrary I've found that observing God's feast days have great spiritual benefits. That's why God made them.
No Doug, they make you FEEL holy and special and different. The ritual is an external kind of holiness, it does nothing for the saved man, that is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
For all of time men have sought their own righteousness. They think that somehow they are holy because they are doing what they perceive as holy . For most of professing trinitarian Christianity Christ fulfilled the law perfectly .
Every time you refuse a piece of pork or shell fish you deny Christ's sufficiency . You deny the imputed righteousness of Christ in the believer.
When an OE and a Calvinist both see the error It must be a whopper :>)
Good posting Kosta
We are not forgiven because we are "good" but because we repent. That's why "penance" became such a distorted issue in Luther's time, and why Purgatory is something no one ever mentioned before it was invented as a heavenly "jail" where you do "time" being roasted to God's "satisfaction".
God's laws are inscribed in our hearts; not in stone. Our relationship with God is personal and spiritual, not legal. Once you fall in love with God, it is irresistible. That is a much stronger bond than any law can establish.
Love means acceptance (unconditional in this case), not legal obedience. If you love someone you are not legally bound to that person, but spiritually.
That law established obedience to God, not love for God. We are not saved because we obey but be cause we believe. That is the fundamental difference.
Irresistibly so!
Sure:
Lev 23:4 These [are] the feasts of the LORD, [even] holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.
Since God proclaims these as his feasts, he is proclaiming it to anyone who claims to follow him. There is a worldwide religion called Christianity. Christianity is based upon the teachings of Christ. Christ observed the holy days...scrupulously and often. Therefore every Christian should follow in his steps.
I could celebrate your birthday and anniversary , but it has no meaning to me ..THEY ARE YOUR DAYS
You've stumbled upon a great analogy. If I were your husband would you observe my birthday? Of course you would. Why? Because you love me and recognize that it is special to me. You don't do it because you think I'll like you better or because I asked you to. You do it because you know it's MY birthday. In the same way, these ARE God's holy days. They are the holy days of our Lord, Jesus Christ. I love Christ so I recognize and observe HIS holy days.
Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. Zec 14:17 And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. Zec 14:18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that [have] no [rain]; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. Zec 14:19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Doug one of the priorities of good hermeneutics is to look at the audience ...WHO WAS THAT WRITTEN TO? Was he a prophet to the Greeks the romans and the heathen nations?
It's a prophecy of the future kingdom, when Christ returns to earth Terry. You can choose to believe that Zechariah was a prophet inspired by God in vision to write this...or you can blow him off. It really doesn't matter because GOD says that all nations will celebrate his feasts when Christ returns. Start now Terry. Get rid of man made traditions and observe the only holy days ever created or sanctioned by God.
Did Luke keep the Jewish feasts? What of Stephen the man chose as the first martyr?
Of course they did. These days were part of the culture and life of their society at the time...just like holidays in the United States are to most people today.
Could you show me where they ever "celebrated" them. THEY WERE NOT JEWS, THE WERE GREEKS .
Non Jews did not celebrate Jewish holy days...that was a Hellenistic/ Roman , pagan culture. Those were not 'cultural days' Doug.
Nonsense Terry. Here is scripture that says that non-Jews celebrated God's feast days:
Joh 12:20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:
The problem with using this verse in support of NOT observing Christ's holy days is that it doesn't mention the holy days. The NT when referring to God's Holy days uses the word: LOL yea , and you do not like it . On the other hand you will take a verse written to Jews and try to apply it to Gentiles. The meaning IN CONTEXT is clear Doug
You don't have to believe me. Do the word study. Feast days is one word. A regular day is another. Sorry.
The meaning and significance of these words are clear Doug. He is dealing with the fact that Jews were trying to Judaize the Gentiles.
Thanks for posting Romans 14. Read it again. It never once mentions any of Gods holy days. The focus of the chapter is on food. Most likely the issue was a controversy about eating...whether or not to fast on certain days or whether or not to be vegetarians.
Yet Paul says that the feast days ARE...not WERE...ARE a shadow of things to come. ARE a shadow. Why does Paul believe, 20 years after the death of Christ, that the feast days ARE a shadow of things yet future, things yet to come? The answer of course is that they are. Christ will return...the fall feasts picture the return of Christ and the millenial kingdom. Doug he says ARE because they were and are yet today a SIGN TO THE JEWS .
No Terry, he says they ARE a shadow of things to come. He does not say they are a sign to the Jews. That's your addition.
For all of time men have sought their own righteousness. They think that somehow they are holy because they are doing what they perceive as holy . For most of professing trinitarian Christianity Christ fulfilled the law perfectly . Every time you refuse a piece of pork or shell fish you deny Christ's sufficiency . You deny the imputed righteousness of Christ in the believer.
I believe in the complete sufficiency of Christ for salvation. I observe Gods holy days because I love God, they are his and I want to honor and obey him. Doing it doesn't earn me a thing...they are the result of my salvation.
Okay, let me try this one more time. I'll use Paul's example:
Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Okay, Paul starts off by telling us that love fulfills God's law. But how?
Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Ah...these commandments are summed up in the phrase "love thy neighbor as yourself".
But HOW?
Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.
Ah ha! If you love your neighbor as yourself your thoughts and attitudes ARE going to conform to this. You don't have to try to conform to the written law. YOU will do it as easily as breathing.
It's not "legalism" when your love is so great that it causes you to live a righteous life. It's obedience to the law of love. It's letting the love of Christ live in and through you.
If you don't love your fellow man then your thoughts and attitudes are NOT going to conform to the written law.
The ten commandments ARE the written definition of love.
Understand where I'm coming from?
Doug who wrote the book of leviticus ? Who was it written for?
CONTEXT DOUG
Lev 23:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 23:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, [Concerning] the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim [to be] holy convocations, [even] these [are] my feasts.
Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day [is] the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work [therein]: it [is] the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.
Lev 23:4 These [are] the feasts of the LORD, [even] holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.
Doug this was a law given to Moses to be GIVEN TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL
The problem with cults are they bend scripture to make it fit.
Sorry , Doug those are days for the jews..
"But be very careful to keep the commandment and the law" (Joshua 22:5)
The Gentiles are under God's commandments but not under the law of Moses. A Jew can be "righteous" even if (s)he does not believe. It's all works [of the law]. If you drive 55 in a 55, you are being "righteous" as far as the state is concerned, but you do not merit reward for observing the law. Also, you do not drive 55 in a 55 because you love the law, but because you obey it (out of fear).
You quote from the NT, of course, because it was Christ jesus who redefined the whole concept of righteousness. Saving a life on a Sabbath is the right thing to do, even if it breaks the law. Obey the love, not the law.
Judaism does not teach that man is in need of salvation. It proposes that if you live a decent life you will make yourself acceptable to God. It's all about the law. It assumes that if you obey the law, you will obey the commandments, but it doesn't care why.
You quotes are appropriate -- for Christian mindset. We are in agreement on that. My disagreement with you is over the OT.
If you are under the new covenant you are certainly a child of Israel Terry. That is who the new covenant is with:
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Both the old testament and the new testament state this explicitly. Do you agree with it?
Christ restored the concept of righteousness to what it was intended to be. Judaism had added unbiblical rules, regulations and legalisms and elevated them to the same status as scripture.
You quotes are appropriate -- for Christian mindset. We are in agreement on that. My disagreement with you is over the OT.
I honestly think that you're mixing in Judiac tradition with what's actually in scripture. But oh well...close enough.
All references of God addressing the "children of Israel" in the OT are exclusively to the Hebrews. And since the NT replaces the Old, what was passed on to the Jews is not binding for the Gentiles. We are not required to follow Hebrew customs, works of the law, feats and sacrifices. But, as Paul says, "those under the law" must.
That Doug was the problem addressed in Acts 15, and Galations Doug.
Deu 7:6 For thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth.
Deu 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people:
Deu 7:8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
God never considered the gentile nations a part of Israel in the OT.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
And who was the book of HEBREWS written to? This is a teaching to the Jewish Christians , this is not about the Gentiles being tied to the Old Covenant laws .
When Moses was told to tell Israel to celebrate the holy days the message was to Israel not Gentiles. Now Hebrews teaches that the New Covenant supersedes the old covenant of levitical laws and mandatory holy days
..I asked .WHO WAS THAT WRITTEN TO? Was he a prophet to the Greeks the romans and the heathen nations?( meaning Zechariah )
It's a prophecy of the future kingdom, when Christ returns to earth Terry. You can choose to believe that Zechariah was a prophet inspired by God in vision to write this...or you can blow him off. It really doesn't matter because GOD says that all nations will celebrate his feasts when Christ returns. Start now Terry. Get rid of man made traditions and observe the only holy days ever created or sanctioned by God.
Doug , each of the prophets were sent to a specific target audience. Who was the audience that this prophet was sent to? It was the returning remnant OF Jews. His prophecy was for them .
I asked you before, will they be offering sacrifices for sin? Will animals be slain as mans substitutes? They are a part of the Jewish law are they not? Does your church believe that they too should be re instituted?
Doug, I am not the one that has man made observances, your church does. It advocates, no demands, that you observe the legalism that the Jews believed would save them . The one remembrance we have of Gods work is the one given when the passover was eliminated as a sign . I observe the One that Jesus ordained.. "Do this in remembrance of ME " ( no longer in memory of the passing over of the angel )
Nonsense Terry. Here is scripture that says that non-Jews celebrated God's feast days:
Joh 12:20 And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast:
There was always a "mixed multitude" Doug, heck there was a court of the gentile in the temple. That is not the issue at all.
If it was a common and accepted practice it would not have been mentioned here the there were "CERTAIN Greeks" that came . That was not the general practice of the greeks ,( remember the discourse to them in acts? ) These were Greek proselytes that were expected to observe the holy days
Thanks for posting Romans 14. Read it again. It never once mentions any of Gods holy days. The focus of the chapter is on food. Most likely the issue was a controversy about eating...whether or not to fast on certain days or whether or not to be vegetarians.
It encompasses all the law ....but you also observe the dietary laws do you not ? So it is relevant to you.
However it does mention the holy days ( and Sabbath keeping)
Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it].....
consider
Col 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]:
Yet Paul says that the feast days ARE...not WERE...ARE a shadow of things to come. ARE a shadow. Why does Paul believe, 20 years after the death of Christ, that the feast days ARE a shadow of things yet future, things yet to come? The answer of course is that they are. Christ will return...the fall feasts picture the return of Christ and the millenial kingdom. Doug he says ARE because they were and are yet today a SIGN TO THE JEWS .
No Terry, he says they ARE a shadow of things to come. He does not say they are a sign to the Jews. That's your addition.
No, the shadow was a foreshadow of Christ and the church .
From Matthew Henry
v. 16. Much of the ceremonies of the law of Moses consisted in the distinction of meats and days. It appears by Rom. 14 that there were those who were for keeping up those distinctions: but here the apostle shows that since Christ has come, and has cancelled the ceremonial law, we ought not to keep it up. "Let no man impose those things upon you, for God has not imposed them: if God has made you free, be not you again entangled in that yoke of bondage.’’ And this the rather because these things were shadows of things to come (v. 17), intimating that they had no intrinsic worth in them and that they are now done away. But the body is of Christ: the body, of which they were shadows, has come; and to continue the ceremonial observances, which were only types and shadows of Christ and the gospel, carries an intimation that Christ has not yet come and the gospel state has not yet commenced. Observe the advantages we have under the gospel, above what they had under the law: they had the shadows, we have the substance.
From Wesley
Verse 16. Therefore - Seeing these things are so. Let none judge you - That is, regard none who judge you. In meat or drink - For not observing the ceremonial law in these or any other particulars. Or in respect of a yearly feast, the new moon, or the weekly Jewish sabbaths. Verse 17. Which are but a lifeless shadow; but the body, the substance, is of Christ.
From Darby
The apostle does so here with regard to the Person of Christ, which alone could bring them back to it; and at the same time he develops the efficacy of His work in this respect, in order to set them free from the shackles that kept them back, and to shew them that all obstacles had been removed. But in detail he has to apply it to the dangers that beset them rather than to display its glorious results in heaven.
Jewish ordinances were but shadows, Christ is the substance.
From Gill
The "sabbaths" were also shadows of future things; the grand sabbatical year, or the fiftieth year sabbath, or jubilee, in which liberty was proclaimed throughout the land, a general release of debts, and restoration of inheritances, prefigured the liberty we have by Christ from sin, Satan, and the law, the payment of all our debts by Christ, and the right we have through him to the heavenly and incorruptible inheritance.
The seventh year sabbath, in which there was no tilling of the land, no ploughing, sowing, nor reaping, was an emblem of salvation through Christ by free grace, and not by the works of men; and the seventh day sabbath was a type of that spiritual rest we have in Christ now, and of that eternal rest we shall have with him in heaven hereafter: now these were but shadows, not real things; or did not contain the truth and substance of the things themselves, of which they were shadows; and though they were representations of divine and spiritual things, yet dark ones, they had not so much as the very image of the things; they were but shadows, and like them fleeting and passing away, and now are gone:
but the body [is] of Christ: or, as the Syriac version reads it, "the body is Christ"; that is, the body, or sum and substance of these shadows, is Christ; he gave rise unto them, he existed before them, as the body is before the shadow; not only as God, as the Son of God, but as Mediator, whom these shadows regarded as such, and as such he cast them; and he is the end of them, the fulfilling end of them; they have all their accomplishment in him: and he is the body of spiritual and heavenly things; the substantial things and doctrines of the Gospel are all of Christ, they all come by him; all the truths, blessings, and promises of grace; are from him and by him, and he himself the sum of them all. The allusion seems to be to a way of speaking among the Jews, who were wont to call the root, foundation, substance, and essence of a thing, apwg, "the body of it" {n}: so they say {o}, "the constitutions concerning the sanctification of the offerings and the tithes, are, both the one and the other, hrwt ypwg, "the bodies," or substantial parts of the law:"
and again {p}, that "the constitutions or rules about the sabbath, the festivals and prevarications, they are as mountains that hang by an hair; for the Scripture is small, and the constitutions are many; the judgments and the services, the purifications and uncleannesses, and the incests, they have, upon which they can support themselves, and these, and these, are hrwt ypwg, "the bodies of the law":" they say {q} of a small section, or paragraph, that all the bodies of the law depend upon it: once more {r}, "the sabbaths, and the good days (the feasts or holy days) are Npwg, "the bodies" of the sign;" which the phylacteries or frontlets were for; but our apostle says, that Christ is the body and substance of all these shadows, in opposition to these sayings and notions of the Jews: some connect this last clause with the former part of the following verse, rendering it as the Arabic version thus, "because of the communion of the body of Christ, let no man condemn you"; and the Ethiopic version thus, "and let no man account you fools, because of the body of Christ," but there is nothing in the text to support these versions.
{n} Vid. Misn. Abot, c. 3. sect. 18. & Bartenora in ib. & Halicot Olam, par. 2. c. 1. p. 48. {o} T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 32. 1. {p} Misn. Chagiga, c. 1. sect. 8. T. Bab. Chagiga, fol. 11. 2. {q} T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 63. 1. {r} T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 36. 2. Vid. T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 5. 1.
Doug, what I have presented is the prevailing view of professing Christianity, that should tell you something about what you are being taught
I believe in the complete sufficiency of Christ for salvation. I observe Gods holy days because I love God, they are his and I want to honor and obey him. Doing it doesn't earn me a thing...they are the result of my salvation.
Those that keep legalisms deny the sufficiency of Christ. Doug, the sheet has been lowered, all things are declared clean , all days are holy and worthy of remembrance of Christ and his work
If that observance of jewish law and legalisms was an outgrowth of ones salvation, then all the saved would be moved to observe them by the indwelling Holy Spirit
Jhn 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
2Cr 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty.
Legalism and bondage is not a mark of salvation
The essence of the NT has nothing whatsoever to do how you worship. Judaic tradition is just that -- a man-made tradition. There is nothing holy about it. Whether I cross myself or not has no bearing on the orthodoxy of my faith.
Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive because Christianity recognized the Word in Jesus; Judaism rejected and still rejects Him.
A Jew is considered a Jew even if he is an atheist. A Jew is not considered a Jew if he becomes a Christian. Why? because one does not have to be observant to be a Jew. One only has to lead a righteous life to be acceptable to God. Jews do not believe that man is in need of salvation. To a Jew, Messiah is a a mortal man who will appear to restore Israel (a state) as a dominant kingdom on earth.
But a Christian Jew, by definition, accepted different theology, just as a Jew who converts to Islam is no longer a Jew but a Muslim. As far as Judaism is concerned, he is no longer considered a Jew. Judaism and Islam identify nationality, customs and God's laws all as one and the same. It is Judaism (or Islam) that makes God's laws and man-made traditions one and the same.
Some Christians associate the manner of worship (a man-made tradition) as holy and confuse it with faith. Worship is a manner of expressing praise to the Lord and must not be confused with faith or theology.
Christians have no concept of a Christian "nationality". We differentiate between man-made culture built around faith and faith which is universal. One does not cease being a German if he become an atheist, but he ceases to be a Christian.
Christ did a lot more than just restore the concept of righteousness, my friend. But the bottom line is this: let Judaism be what Judaism is. Christ gave the world a new covenant that should not be confused with the old one.
If there is any confusion between God's laws and man-made traditions, between salvation and works of the law, it is what the NT teaches us to not do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.