|
Actscelerate.com Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Message |
Author |
|
manogod |
This is a great post, Brad! Keep pressing on with the Grace of God. You are breaking through some hard soil here, but you are getting through. |
Friendly Face Posts: 202 11/23/12 2:06 pm
|
|
| |
|
|
Re: Through out the Torah or the Legalist? |
Daniel Rushing |
Tom Sterbens wrote: | Mark Ledbetter wrote: | Defining the Issue
|
Mark - I didn't quote/reference your entire post in order to conserve space.
Great stuff. Have always enjoyed reading your stuff.
Question: Do you have any citations for the contents? I would love to read some more on particular aspects you wrote.
Thanks |
Agreed Mark. Love the post! My perspective is right there with yours, just nuanced a little differently. Brad, and others, have a certain lens that they will consistently lay over the text; as such, they will arrive at the same conclusions. I guess, you and I do as well. However, our approach, I feel, is much closer to the context and intent of the original 1st century writing; while, the other perspective is more modern and Westernized. You put it much more eloquently that I seem to have been able to using this medium. Thank you. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere Posts: 3063 11/24/12 12:12 am
|
|
| |
|
|
chainrattler |
A part that I think is being left out here in this discussion is the fact that Jesus' death was not only a sacrifice of atonement, it was also initiating a New Covenant. It might be good to focus on that aspect as well.
It seems Paul connected the New Covenant cut by Jesus directly to the promises given to Abraham before he was circumcised, not as directly to the covenant with Israel through Moses.
If anything, he contrasts Jesus and Moses, rather than implying that the New is based on the Old or is an update or extension of the Old. He talks about a New Covenant, a covenant not like the Old, a covenant based on better promises than the Old, a new order of priesthood and a new law to go along with the new priesthood. You can't have it both ways, they are either different or they are the same. |
Acts-celerater Posts: 975 11/24/12 2:34 am
|
|
| |
|
Re: Through out the Torah or the Legalist? |
bradfreeman |
Daniel Rushing wrote: | Agreed Mark. Love the post! My perspective is right there with yours, just nuanced a little differently. Brad, and others, have a certain lens that they will consistently lay over the text; as such, they will arrive at the same conclusions. I guess, you and I do as well. However, our approach, I feel, is much closer to the context and intent of the original 1st century writing; while, the other perspective is more modern and Westernized. You put it much more eloquently that I seem to have been able to using this medium. Thank you. |
As I indicated to Mark, what must be cast out is not the "old testament" it is the "old covenant" system for obtaining the promise of God. Hagar is, allegorically speaking, the old covenant given on Mt. Sinai. I don't know what "lens" makes that unclear to you. Our covenant is not built on Hagar. She is not our mother.
The Galations 4 passage leaves no doubt that:
Hagar and Sarah should not live together in the house;
Hagar is not our mother;
Hagar is not the "basis" or "foundation" the promise to Sarah or for Isaac's birth;
The story of Abraham's experience with Hagar is, allegorically speaking, profitable. Abraham tried to bring the promise of a son to pass by his own human effort. Hagar is the old covenant, allegorically speaking, and illustrates that human effort as a means of obtaining the promise is not God's plan. Abraham's experience with Hagar shows us that:
Human effort is not God's perfect plan;
Human effort creates children in bondage;
Human effort, as a means of obtaining the promise, has no place in the house and must be removed;
In this passage Paul does not liken Hagar to a type of "legalist" or the Torah. He plainly likens her to the Law. If anything, the legalist is typified by Ishmael, the children of Hagar. After all, Hagar's children are in bondage and Paul encourages the Galatians not to get tangled up in legalistic bondage but to get every speck of that "leaven" out. _________________ I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted Posts: 9027 11/25/12 9:07 am
|
|
| |
|
A final thought before leaving the discussion: |
Mark Ledbetter |
I find in ironic in the way the Apostle Paul introduced the allegory:
Quote: | " Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?" (Galatians 4:21, NASB95) |
In other words, you Galatians who have come under the influence of the Judaizers and want to become Pharisee Jews, do you not listen to the law?
One, "do you not listen to the law?" Could this possibly suggest that they, as Gentile Believers, were, or should have been familiar with the Law?
When the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) reached their decision not to place the "yoke" of circumcision (or any other provisions for conversion to Pharisee Judaism), James also said"
“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”" (Acts 15:21, NASB95).
In other words, they will have the opportunity to hear "The Law of Moses," preached every Sabbath.
Two, and if Brad's position is correct, Paul uses as a source that which he, according to Brad, suggests should be "cast out."
Now if the argument is the story of Hagar is not in the Law of Moses as found in Exodus following, then you have to ignore Paul's comment, "do you not listen to the law," from which the story came.
That is what I find ironic (and amusing).
Shalom!!!! _________________ God-Honoring
Christ-Centered
Bible-Based
Spirit-Led
(This is how I want to be) |
Golf Cart Mafia Associate Posts: 2109 11/25/12 11:48 pm
|
|
| |
|
Re: A final thought before leaving the discussion: |
bradfreeman |
Mark Ledbetter wrote: | I find in ironic in the way the Apostle Paul introduced the allegory:
Quote: | " Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?" (Galatians 4:21, NASB95) |
|
This is pretty straightforward. Paul uses this same technique in Romans and other places. Here the story he uses illustrates that, for a time, Hagar has a place in the house. As you may recall, the first time she leaves an angel tells her to go back. But there came a time when it was time to "cast out the bondwoman and her son". There was no angel turning her around the second time...because the child of promise had come and the two mothers and two sons had no place in the same house.
This is a useful purpose for Torah...to point us to the freedom that the children of the free woman enjoy.
Quote: | Could this possibly suggest that they, as Gentile Believers, were, or should have been familiar with the Law? |
That's quite possible. But even if they weren't, Paul hands them the story from Torah in the next few lines.
Quote: | When the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) reached their decision not to place the "yoke" of circumcision (or any other provisions for conversion to Pharisee Judaism), James also said"
“For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”" (Acts 15:21, NASB95).
In other words, they will have the opportunity to hear "The Law of Moses," preached every Sabbath. |
The reading of Moses was customary in those days. But the appearance of Jesus has made the old covenant "obsolete" and, even then, it was "vanishing away". Heb. 8:13.
Quote: | Two, and if Brad's position is correct, Paul uses as a source that which he, according to Brad, suggests should be "cast out." |
Law, as a source of righteousness, salvation, blessing, miracles and the Spirit, must be cast out. It cannot give freedom. The Law kills and is the ministry of death and condemnation. There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ. We who are in Christ are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Sure, those to whom Paul was speaking likely had familiarity with the Law. If they didn't, he made them familiar by recounting the story.
Quote: | Now if the argument is the story of Hagar is not in the Law of Moses as found in Exodus following, then you have to ignore Paul's comment, "do you not listen to the law," from which the story came.
That is what I find ironic (and amusing).
Shalom!!!! |
The argument Paul puts forth is that:
The old covenant is not our covenant, it is a yoke of bondage;
The old system of working for the promise must be cast out;
Even a hint of this leaven can taint our whole message;
Before you leave the discussion:
Are you suggesting we keep Hagar and Ishmael in the house with Sarah and Isaac?
Are you suggesting we keep a little of this leaven in our lump? _________________ I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted Posts: 9027 11/26/12 6:59 am
|
|
| |
|
Hagar's House? |
Mark Ledbetter |
No, I do not embrace Hagar and I don't use leaven requiring that we observe the Law as a means of righteousness.
But I do not dismiss the legitimacy of the Law as the source of many of Paul's teachings as the foundation for his teachings.
To love one's neighbor as one's self is the summation of the Law regarding the issues included, but to love one's neighbor as one's self doesn't get me to heaven, faith in Jesus' death and resurrection is the path to justification.
The "royal" law is post-salvation and is an expression of salvation, much like Abraham's post-faith circumcision, it is a sign and a seal of our salvation.
To seek out the Law to determine how it was to be used, i.e., Leviticus 19:9-19 and Romans 13:8-10, does not place the believer under bondage unless you believe Paul's words "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another," an imperative.
Interesting enough, Dakes, who apparently had plenty of time on his hands, cites over 1000 commandments in the New Testament.
As part of the Great Commission, Jesus included "teaching them (all nations) to observe what I have commanded you (Matt 28:20)
In John 14:15 Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep my commandments" (or because you love Me...).
John wrote:
Quote: | "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:3, NASB95) |
Paul wrote in Romans 8 that the problem lies not in the Law but in the "flesh" that opposed to the Law, but through faith we are able to walk in accordance of the leading of the Holy Spirit.
This spiritual/inward transformation is tantamount to the "circumcision of the heart" Israel so desperately needed and God promised to do in Deuteronomy 30:6.
This spiritual change of "heart" is one that the Holy Spirit performed for we read in Ezekiel:
Quote: | “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." (Ezekiel 36:26-27, NASB95) |
And it is the change of heart, not the Law, that God promised a "new covenant":
Quote: | "“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”" (Jeremiah 31:31-34, NASB95) |
Since we are living in the "last days," and have been since Pentecost (Acts 2:17), the Age of Messiah, we who place our faith and trust in Jesus as Savior and Lord, have had a spiritual transformation and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit to teach us and guide us in all truth, we continue on our journey.
I am not saved because I am deserving or merit salvation based upon any work that I have done, if so, Paul writes, my salvation is my wages for service. But I am saved by faith.
And I serve my Master who has set me free from the tyranny of the law (principles) of sin and death and serve him from the heart out of love and gratitude for what He has done.
I look first to what Jesus teaches and gladly bear His "yoke" (Matt 11:28-30), and augment my understanding of how I should conduct my life by the writings of the Apostles.
And since I believe much of what they teach is founded upon the Law of Moses as interpreted and applied by Jesus, then I gladly embrace the "bondage" of Loving God from a grateful heart, serving Him in a manner that honors him, and expressing my love for my neighbor, which means I love them in the manner in which Jesus and Paul taught, which are founded upon the Law.
At times I chaff under the "chains" when I am confronted by those that act "unlovable," by reign my "flesh" in and submit to the changed heart that is influenced by the Holy Spirit.
Quote: |
"Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God." (Romans 6:12-13, NASB95)
|
Quote: | "Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." (1 Corinthians 6:18-20, NASB95) |
_________________ God-Honoring
Christ-Centered
Bible-Based
Spirit-Led
(This is how I want to be) |
Golf Cart Mafia Associate Posts: 2109 11/26/12 8:24 am
|
|
| |
|
Some thoughts... |
Aaron Scott |
1.) If circumcision is not required of Gentiles, that is a sure and certain sign that the other points of the Mosaic Law are not required. For circumcision was the clear sign and seal of being under that covenant.
2.) The 10 Commandments pre-date the law. In fact, they predate circumcision, etc. Every one of the 10 Commandments is expressed in some way before and outside the Law. These are NOT the Law, but were included in the Law of Moses. These are moral laws that, I believe, God expects from Jews and Gentiles alike. (Some believe the Sabbath has been taken away, but I have not found any solid NT evidence for this, even though I do not, myself, observe the Sabbath in any way more than resting on Sunday...which is not the literal Sabbath, of course.)
3.) When James speaks of the law being preached in synagogues throughout the world, his point, I believe, was to say this: "We are asking that Gentile believers observe certain things--such as abstaining from blood and meat offered to idols--in order not to offend the Jews throughout the world."
Perhaps it was felt at that point that the Jews were still reachable and that Gentiles should not, in order not to offend their brethren (as Paul speaks of elsewhere), take certain liberties that might be allowed them under different circumstances.
4) So, we see from these that we are not "free" from obeying the 10 Commandments, for they are not Mosaic Law, but are Moral Law that transcends all religions. We also see that we ARE free from Jewish law, for if circumcision is not required--it being the distinguishing characteristic of the covenant--then neither are the elements after that. Also, we see more on this same point in the way that Jesus "flaunted" the Pharisees' take on the law--his disciples eating with unwashed hands; healing on the Sabbath, having to do with "unclean" people, etc. Jesus was harking back to THE Law...while the Pharisees were stuck at Moses' Law. Lastly, however, we see that even if Gentiles are free of the Mosaic Law, we are to take care not to offend brethren of weaker conscience. We do this by perhaps making certain allowances/restrictions on dietary matters, etc.
HOWEVER, I believe that now that we understand that the Jews will not be converted by our witness, we can and ought to proceed in the FULL LIBERTY of the Gospel. Very simply, we are not going to win the Jews by being observant of this or that dietary rule or such. Certainly we should not go out of our way to offend, and should live in Christian politeness and charity, but we should not circumscribe our lifestyles in order not to offend the Jews. They have had 2000 years to convert, and have rejected Jesus at every turn. We simply leave their conversion up to God and move on. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 11/26/12 11:34 am
|
|
| |
|
Aaron, |
Mark Ledbetter |
you wrote:
Quote: | I believe that now that we understand that the Jews will not be converted by our witness |
I know this personally to not to be a true statement. It needs to be modified.
Quote: |
"I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" (Romans 11:11-15, NASB95)
|
If the church had not spent so much time provoking the Jews, and the Muslims, to anger, then perhaps our witness to the Jews would be much more effective.
But when, in the name of Christ Jews were either forced to convert or executed (Crusades, Inquisitions, Pogroms, etc.), we can hardly expect the Jews to open their arms to those that have historically dubbed them as "Christ-killers" or accused them of killing God. [please note I'm speaking historically and not addressing you personally].
Regardless, there are hundreds of thousands of Jews world-wide, including Israel, that are accepting Jesus as Savior and Messiah.
And, if we are called upon to do so then we can follow the example of Paul:
Quote: |
"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some." (1 Corinthians 9:19-22, NASB95)
|
In some evangelistic circles it is more effective to understand who we are witnessing to and contextualizing the Gospel in a manner they understand more effectively and hopefully believe and embrace.
Is it imperative that one don a kippah, prayer shawl, eat kosher, to win everyone? No. Nor is imperative to be observant to win all Jews. But if it means reaching one Jew then the time spent to understand the Jewish culture, belief system, worship system, etc. is well worth it.
The Jews historically have been the least evangelized people group and this is just as much as anti-Jewish sentiment as any form of persecution perpetrated against them in the name of Jesus.
It denies them the opportunity to hear the Gospel, and if hearing the Gospel in Hebrew, if understanding their traditions and point out where their prayers are parallel to the prayers we pray as Christians, if this is a means to reaching them with the Good News of their Messiah, then it cannot, and it should not be dismissed or ridiculed. _________________ God-Honoring
Christ-Centered
Bible-Based
Spirit-Led
(This is how I want to be) |
Golf Cart Mafia Associate Posts: 2109 11/26/12 2:09 pm
|
|
| |
|
Mark... |
Aaron Scott |
I hear you, my brother, but I must stand by my comments. When it comes to cost-effectiveness of missions giving, Jews are the VERY BOTTOM in terms of results. Can you name any other group that is so unresponsive to the gospel?
Indeed, many have accepted Jesus. I applaud that. But again, in terms of dollars spent, I can't think of a single group that has a lower response rate than Jews.
What I mean by Jews not being converted by our witness is NOT that no Jews will be saved by our witness, but that we have to accept that of all the outreach we do in the world, they are the worst soil to sow into. Not that their souls are not important--they are! But that if you have X dollars to give, you are virtually ALWAYS taking it away from better results when you sow into Jewish missions. That is, you can put your mission dollars just about ANYWHERE and have far better results than if you allocate it to Jewish missions.
The Jews will convert in large numbers only when they see Him Whom they have pierced, I believe.
Yes, the Church has persecuted the Jews. There is no excuse for it. But consider that the Jews persecuted the Church CENTURIES before the Church was in a position to persecute them. They jailed and executed Christians, but some would have us think that it is all OUR fault that they aren't saved. Not so! They were the first to whom the gospel was preached, and they have steadfastly rejected it (in the larger sense) for 2000 years now.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't witness to them when it presents itself. Rather it means that we have to accept that we will have very limited success with them. It means, for me, that I don't allocate funds for missions to Jews. NOT because I don't want them saved, but because it has a greater risk of being utterly ineffective.
If the Apostle Paul turned from the Jews to the Gentiles, that's a good enough indication to me as to the direction the church should go. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 11/26/12 2:49 pm
|
|
| |
|
Aaron, |
Mark Ledbetter |
thoughts that concern me:
One, measuring our efforts based on the cost factor. The early church and the Apostle Paul had no budget, did not consider a budget, but just went without considering the cost or the who it was they were evangelizing, just following the Great Commission that included Judea, Samaria, and the rest of the world.
It just doesn't set well with me to measure any evangelistic effort in terms of dollars and cents whether it is to the Jews, the remotest tribe in the Amazon, or the Gilbert Islands.
If we determine our mission budget on cost effectiveness then we have made evangelism and souls won a commodity and betrays both the value of the effort and the value of any soul worth reaching, be that soul Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female.
Two, while I rejoice and am indebted to the Apostle Paul's call to the Gentiles, he wasn't the only Apostle sent:
Quote: | "But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." (Galatians 2:7-9, NASB95)
|
And while I rejoice today in Paul's far reaching success not only then but through the ages by the Gentiles, what is often overshadowed is the work of those sent "to the circumcised."
When Paul returned to Jerusalem, Acts gives this account:
Quote: | "After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law;" (Acts 21:17-20, NASB95) |
Then, if it is ok for Paul, even necessary for Paul, to be selected by Jesus and the Holy Spirit to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, shouldn't it be ok for Gentiles to take the Gospel to the Jews?
Three, lets see, the Jews persecuted the church for "centuries?" How many of the 2000 centuries did they persecute the Church? How many centuries did the Church persecute the Jews? Is this another attempt to balance the scales? The Jews persecuted us so let's just forget about them? After all, they owe us after all. I don't understand this mindset.
Which leads to this thought: So, they persecuted the church in the beginning, and the church in turn persecuted the Jews. The Jews persecuted the early believers because they believed they were in grievous error and felt threatened. The Church persecuted the Jews by forcing their conversion at the risk of losing their material wealth and/or their lives.
I don't see the scales balancing out in this either.
Finally, I see the grand plan for evangelizing the Jews - lets wait until they all get their act together.
Meanwhile, all the Jews that did without Jesus will cast their lot with every Gentile that refuses to believe and so that really balances the scales, evens the score, and in long run helps us to balance our budgets.
Now, if this had been another people group and the same arguments made I would still have wonder what does dollars and cents have to do with the mandate to reach out to all people with the Gospel, Jew and Gentile? _________________ God-Honoring
Christ-Centered
Bible-Based
Spirit-Led
(This is how I want to be) |
Golf Cart Mafia Associate Posts: 2109 11/26/12 3:39 pm
|
|
| |
|
Mark... |
Aaron Scott |
I had written something, but I think we must simply agree to disagree. I love you, my bro. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 11/26/12 6:35 pm
|
|
| |
|
|
|