TV01, Post Your Concerns About The Law Here!

I-man,

I've done so several times, and I didn't further concern myself with your comedies. Perhaps later when I'm less busy, I'll pop over and we can have some more fun, eh?

Just jeje crawl away from this thread and let me see what your brother get to yan. Can you do that for me? Thank you.

No you haven't and you are being dishonest.Where did you back up those claims you made?Did Seun delete them?


You are now like the Muslim posters who tell you "later" when caught in difficulties.You suddenly became too "busy" despite being on NL since 8:14 am.


It took you 3 days to admit "I don't know" to my original question on that thread.How long are you going to drag on this one?


I thought it was only me that noticed!

I-man,

Please be civil. If you miss me so badly, I'll meet you at the other thread. For now, just simply behave and don't distract this thread.

Many thanks.

I'm busy where I work, and have never pressured anyone to answer my questions at short notices. If you want me to pop over to your thread, I've said I will do so. If that is not enough and you must insist on being uncivil about this matter, you can please do as you so please.

However, I offered answers to what you enquired about - if you don't like them, no worries.

Now, could I ask you once again to be civil and let me meet you in the other thread whenever I choose? Thank you.

If you rather would not be civil, you're welcome to do just the opposite thing as well.

It's not as if I'm "too busy" to deal with issues. But all this while I've been waiting for TV01 to clear up his inconsistencies. If he doesn't have the moral spine to answer a simple question to progress this dscussion, I-man you simply tell me who's too busy to be honest and consistent?

How could he be claiming two opposite things and pretending his position is "consistent"? Now that he's logged off to take time off and busy himself with his contradictions, I'D like to get on with a few things and then come back and meet you where you've so missed my posts.

I do kindly ask that TV01 honourable let us know WHICH of his TWO OPPOSITE assertions he wants to defend - and then defend that proposition simply and clearly as honesty allows him to. If he does not, and is unable to, and yet not willing to do so, I'D appreciate that he as well would be civil enough to acknowledge his errors and inconsistencies - so I know exactly how to deal with his worries.

There. Cheers.

Oya,I dey wait for you on the other thread.I'm not leaving untill you explain the dishonest claims you attribute to me.You can't attribute lies to me and tell me to go away.

The "lies" were the misleading claims you attributed to me which I never made.You can't attribute lies to me and tell me to be civil about it. That is totally uncivil of UBy attributing such claims to me,you are effectively questioning my honesty.

I will be back in a few hours,by then I hope you have clarified the dishonest claims you attributed to me.

@pilgrim.1 & TV01,

I will like to interject at this juncture and make a contribution or two if this will be okay.

I believe that the main difference between both presuppositions is in semantics.  Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them."  Amplified.

The key word here is to complete and fulfill in other words to give the proper interpretation of the Law and the Prophets.  Jesus being the Yahweh of the old testament knew the original intent of the moral law and He came to give the proper interpretation of it when He ministered His earthly ministry. 

In an democratic government the legislators make the laws while the judiciary interpretes it appropriately and the executive carries it out effectively .  The Son of God legislated for His people and He became the Son of Man so as to properly interprete and accomplish the moral Law.  This He did when He gave the original intent in marriage and divorce, the law of retaliation, on swearing which was permitted in the old testament but was not the perfect will of God.  He interpreted the Law on adultery, murder as being committed in the heart.

The Pharisees accused the disciples of Jesus because they wrongly interpreted the plucking of corn as harvesting; the rubbing in their hands as threshing; and blowing off the chaff as winnowing!

Jesus defended His disciples like an advocate would take over the case of his client.  He is our Advocate, always defending us against Satan's accusation.  Jesus made reference to instances in the old testament where the ceremonial law was broken for the sake of expediency and yet without the culprit being regarded as guilty Ex 25:30,:23-33; Lev 8:12; 24:5-9; 1Sam 21:3-6.  By this token, Jesus established a principle:  that it is lawful to carry out acts of mercy and goodness - acts that will save lives - and prompt response to emergencies on the Sabbath day.  Luke 6:1-11  Matt. 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28; 3:1-6; Heb 4:9

The Pharisees did not know the Spirit and design of the divine Law and were often superstitious to inhumanity, and indulgent to impiety.  They were intolerant and censorious in spirit.  They were in error as they did not know the commandment of God and made it of no effect with the teaching of the commandment of men.  Matt. 15:1-9.  The Jews would do certain things on the sabbath such as circumcise a child, get an ox or an ass out of a ditch Matt 12:5,11; but when it came to preserving human life that was forbidden Lk 6:6-11; 13:10-17.

Therefore, Jesus might have broken the commandment of men and their traditions but He properly interpreted the moral law of God and kept them.  He made us to realise that the ceremonial law has been done away with and that Man is not for Sabbath but the Sabbath for man for Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath.

I hope that I have not gone off on a tangent here?  and I hope this might throw more light on the fact that Jesus has come to give us the proper interpretation of the moral law and give us grace to keep abiding in His Word.


   

TV01,

Before I offer the case on John 5, let me quickly respond to the gist of your previous post, as requested.


I'm sorry if I missed it; but I don't remember where you did ask that very question.


Indeed, that has never been my intention. However, I don't think it is correct to assume that "a definition serves no purpose" - because that idea is the very thing that muddles discussions and feeds eisegesis (forcefully reading non-issues into the text). It is for this very reason that I consistently ask that people defend their ideas by clearly demonstrating same from Scripture.

Now, instead of making statements with catchy phrases which could not be defended or demonstrated from Scripture, here's what I do: I present my case, compare texts that relate to the subject and show clearly that the elements being treated are precisely what the texts say, and not what I interject into them.

So it is in your case to the contrary. Instead of assuming that the Pharisees were "correct", I'D only appreciate that you carefully demonstrate your convictions that the Lord had "clearly BROKEN the Law", by going to the Law itself and showing HOW He might have done so! You cannot manitain that He NEVER broke the Law and then come back adjudge that the Pharisees were "correct" that He broke the Law in order that they might accuse Him as a "sinner"! I'll yet come back to this point in the next few lines.


Rather than try to force-read your eisegesis into John 5, please respect the same thing you asserted if it serves any use. You made the assertion earlier that "a definition serves no purpose" - which simply throws out your argument here. In as much as you don't find the Lord trying to teach anyone in John 5 your own "dichotomy" of 'letter' and 'intent' in order to allege that He broke the Law, you'D still have to come back and address the issue of what exactly you're defending.

If for you, John 5 represents that the Lord "clearly broke the Law (as you have asserted above), you cannot come back and at the same time dribble round the idea that He NEVER broke the Law! To scurry round the interpolation that He broke the "letter" and not the Law itself renders your argument untennable in as much as you openly acknowledged that the Lord "never broke the Law".


The reason why I've waited until now to reply this particular post is that you needed to clarify for all to see whether or not you had a consistent position. You cannot be claiming that the Lord BROKE the Law, and then assert that the Pharisees were "correct" to have accused the Lord as they did! I knew you'D make the mistake of proclaming the Pharisees were "correct" - whereas I said so earlier, that you had interpreted that passage in the same way that the Pharisees did! Although you did  not like my referring to you as a true son of the Pharisees (and I apologised thereto), I still asked you questions relating to this issue - which you ignored, and only now are making so much noise about me answering your questions! Which I now do.

What you have failed to understand is that, if you assume that the Pharisees were "correct", then certainly you would be saying that Jesus Christ BROKE the Law, and that the same Pharisees were "correct" in having accused Him to have been a sinner! This is their accusation later on when He also healed a blind man:

   John 9:16 & 24
   'Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day.
   Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. . .
   Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that
   this man is a sinner.'

Since you had claimed that the Pharisees were "correct", how do you explain the case of a sinless Saviour (Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22; and 1 John 3:5) against the claim of the Pharisees who accusatively and perjoratively presented Him as a sinner? Did you not argue that the Phraisees were "correct", TV01? I'D like you to simply and honestly address the "correctness" you see in the Pharisees' interpretation against your contradictory claim that the Lord NEVER broke the Law! You cannot be claiming that He "never" broke the Law and at the same time be claiming that the Pahrisees were "correct"!

Which one of your two very opposite propositions are you trying to defend, TV01? Please kindly let me know where you stand as regards these two convoluted claims you've been making:

   * the Lord NEVER broke the Law

   * the Lord BROKE the Law (because the Pharisees were "correct"). . .

      OR

   * the Lord BOTH "never" broke the Law and He also broke the Law (according to the Pharisees).

Please just simply let me know which part of your contradictions you'D like to defend so we can progress this topic.

I would like to address the issue of the Law of God which cannot be broken.  The 10 commandments that God legislated for His people consisted of 9 moral laws and the 4th a ceremonial law. 

The decalogue was a contract between God and the Israelites and below are 10 reasons the 4th commandment was left out in the new covenant

1. Neither the Father nor the Son made it a part of the new covenant.  If they had it  would be somewhere in new testament as the other 9 are.

2. Of all the words of Jesus on earth only 4 references are made of the sabbath Matt 12:8; 24:20; Mark 2:27-28; Lk.6:5.  Jesus Christ merely taught that it was lawful to do good  on this day and that no day is lord of man.  He did not once command any particular observance of any definite day.  The disciples chose the 1st day of the week because that was the day that Jesus resurrected, manifested himself to them and  the out pouring of the Holy Spirit upon them consecutively.

3. The old Jewish sabbath was part of the contract between God and Israel and a token and sign of that covenant Ex.20:8-11; 31:13-18; Ezek.20:12-20.  The contract was not made with men before Moses Deut.5:2-3 , or with Gentiles and the church Rom.2:14; Deut.4:7-10.  The sabbath was not for them.

4. The 4th commandment was the only one of the ten that was a ceremonial, not a moral law.  It's sole purpose was to commemorate the deliverance from Egyptian bondage when Israel had no rest Deut.5:15.  It was only a type of future and eternal rest Col.2:14-17; Heb.4:1-11; 10:1.  It was natural for it to be left out of the new contract when the reality of rest came of which it was a shadow Matt.11:28-29; Col.2:14-17.  The physical and spiritual benefits of a rest day can be realised on any other day as well as on Saturday but Sunday had been chosen by the apostles for the reasons I mentioned above.

5. The 4th commandment was the only one that could degenerate into a mere form without affecting the morals of men.  All others concern the moral obligations of men.  It is the only one of the ten that can be done away with and still leave a moral law for men.

6. God foretold and  promised that he would do away with the old Jewish sabbath Hos. 2:11; Isa.1:10-15.

7. The prophets predicted that God would abolish the old and make new covenant Isa.42:6; 49:8; 59:21; Jer.31:31-40; 32:37-44; Ezek.36:24-38.  That this referred to the new testament is clear in Rom.11:25-29; Heb.8:8-12; 10:16-18; Matt.26:28.

8. In no passege is it stated that men should keep the Jewish sabbath to commemorate the old creation rest.  It was to commemorate deliverance from Egypt Deut.5:15.  This was what they were to "remember" Ex.20:8.

9. It is the only commandment that could be and has been broken without breaking a moral law.  Israel marched on that day Num.33:3; Lev.23:5-11; Josh.6:12-16;  they set up the tabernacle Ex.40:1,17 with Lev.23:5-11; They searched Canaan Num.13:25; and made war 1Kings.20:29; 2Kings 3:9; Josh.6:12-16 .  David and others broke it and were blameless Matt.12:2-5.

10. The new testament permits Christians to keep any day as the sabbath, it being one of the doubtful things not covered by the commandment in the new covenant Rom.14:1-13; girl.4:9-11; Col.2:14-17;  The day early Christians observed, not by commandment but by choice, was the first day, Sunday Jn.20:1,19; 20:7; 1Cor.16:2; Acts 20:7. as stated above.   Dakes' commentary.


Therefore, God who legislated to His people and then properly interpreting how the law applies to us today that the moral law remains unaltered but the ceremonial law is to be abrogated.  For the Son of Man is the Lord of sabbath so that we might enter into His rest which signifies the present spiritual rest and deliverance from the rigours of sin and satanic bondage Matt.11:28,29.  By virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, believers can enjoy a moment-by-moment Sabbath everyday of their lives.  Another significance is that it portrays a future eternal rest in our final home in heaven Heb.4:9

After the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, the Old Jewish Sabbath gave way to the Lord's Day which is Sunday as a day of rest and worship for New testament believers Matt.281; Jn.20:1,19,26; Acts 20:7;1Cor.16:2; Rev.1:10.

The truth is that it was only the ceremonial laws, associated with rituals and sacrifices that were nullified by the vicarious death of Christ on the cross; the moral laws remain binding.  Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself was not antagonistic to the moral laws.  In His ministry He upheld, taught, established and showed the true meaning of the commandments.  He restored the proper meaning and significance of the laws, and revealed the appropriate way in which they should be obeyed.  The Jewish sabbath law was a ceremonial not a moral law but it was a shadow or type of the real thing to come.
Rom.3:31; 2:28,29; Matt.5:17; girl.3:22-24; Rom.10:4; Heb.10:16

The moral law is unalterable; it remains in force and Jesus did not break it.  Though the ceremonial laws are abrogated or done away with, the moral law delivered by God's own mouth is of perpetual use in the church today.

Jesus made reference to instances in the Old Testament where the ceremonial law was broken for the sake of expediency and yet without the culprit being regarded as guilty.  See point #9 for other instances where the sabbath was broken and the perpetrators remained blameless.  This is not to say that Jesus broke the sabbath laws but He gave a proper interpretation of it that acts of mercy and goodness, that would save life and prompt response to emergencies should be done on the sabbath day.

The sabbath law was part of the contract that God had with the Jews which was to be a temporary ordinance Hos.2:11.  Jesus said that the sabbath is made for man and not the other way round.

I concur that the Old testament Sabbath law as given in the Decalogue, was God's provision to help man rest from his labours after working for six days in the week.  You were right as God had intended it as a day of rest and refreshment for the body and soul.  But the Pharisees perverted this law by their traditions and they developed out of it a series of rules and regulations that made the Sabbath a heavy burden rather than a delight.  They were bitterly opposed to Jesus Christ because He did not conform to their traditions on Sabbath regulations.  The Pharisees emphasised the letter of the law, thereby, making man subservient to the Sabbath, Jesus taught by the Spirit that inspired the law, that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

I will like to refer you to the reference you quoted above to see that the consequences of "breaking the law" was not always dire. 

 28And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who commits an error when he sins unknowingly or unintentionally, to make atonement for him; and he shall be forgiven.

    29You shall have one law for him who sins unknowingly or unintentionally, whether he is native born among the Israelites or a stranger who is sojourning among them.

    30But the person who does anything [wrong] willfully and openly, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one reproaches, reviles, and blasphemes the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people [that the atonement made for them may not include him].

    31Because he has despised and rejected the word of the Lord, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.

    32While the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man who was gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.

    33Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation.

    34They put him in custody, because it was not certain or clear what should be done to him.

    35And the Lord said to Moses, The man shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

    36And all the congregation brought him without the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses.

As you can see that the man gathering sticks did it in defiance to the Lord and the consequence was death, there was no atonement for such a person.


If the Pharisees were consistent with their accusations they would have seen this as breaking the law.  Lk.6:4; Lev.24:9   The Pharisees had the wrong interpretation of the Mosaic covenant as their observance had become superficial and external and this was why they condemned Jesus' disciples.  Jesus on the other hand knew the intention of the Sabbath laws when He applied the principle of Hos.6:6  "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings".  and not for adding extra burdens to the lives of the people.  Jesus' yoke was easy compared to that of the Pharisees Matt.11:29  Eating grain while passing through the fields was permitted by the Mosaic law Deut.23:25  The Sabbath was a day to reflect on God's work of creation and delight in the Lord Isaiah 58:13-14

Jesus cited two instances 1Sam.21:1-6 and Lev.24:8 which occured on the Sabbath day as having greater priorities and taking precedence over the levitical law.  The point our Lord and Saviour was making here was that we should recognise that meeting a person's need was more important than following every ritual element of Sabbath observance.  He then practically demonstrated the importance of doing acts of mercy before practising religious rituals by healing a man with a lame hand on the Sabbath day.  Matt.12:9-14


Paul describes the letter of the law in 2Cor.3:6 "[It is He] Who has qualified us [making us to be fit and worthy and sufficient] as ministers and dispensers of a new covenant [of salvation through Christ], not [ministers] of the letter (of legally written code) but of the Spirit; for the code [of the Law] kills, but the [Holy] Spirit makes alive.

In the old testament the Law was written on the table of stones but God's plan was to write them by the Holy Spirit in our hearts.  A bible commentator once wrote:  "Those who know not the Spirit and design of the divine law are often superstitious to inhumanity, and indulgent to impiety.  An intolerant and censorious spirit in religion is one of the greatest curses a man can well fall under".  This is the danger of legalism and religious bigotry that the Pharisees well portrayed in their attitude.  The Pharisees were so callous and insensitive of the burden they placed on people because they were much obsessed by their incongruous traditions which was due to the wrong interpretation of the written Law.

The other extreme are some "Christians" who misinterprete the scriptures.  They think that by virtue of the vicarious death of Christ on the cross and the salvation it brings into the believer through faith, the moral law is no more binding on the believer.  By holding such erroneous view, they "make void the law" Rom.3:31.  To think that once we are born-again, we can live anyhow we like, drink what we like, do what we like is to make nonsense of God's grace.  These are what I will call carnal Christians these are equally dangerous.


There were two instances that Jesus cited in the Old Testament;

1Sam.21:1-6

 
1THEN DAVID went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech was afraid at meeting David, and said to him, Why are you alone and no man with you?
    2David said to Ahimelech the priest, The king has charged me with a matter and has told me, Let no man know anything of the mission on which I send you and with what I have charged you. I have appointed the young men to a certain place.

    3Now what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you may have.

    4And the priest answered David, There is no common bread on hand, but there is hallowed bread--if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.

    5And David told the priest, Truly women have been kept from us in these three days since I came out, and the food bags and utensils of the young men are clean, and although the bread will be used in a secular way, it will be set apart in the clean bags.

    6So the priest gave him holy bread, for there was no bread there but the showbread which was taken from before the Lord to put hot bread in its place the day when it was taken away.

And also cited Lev.24:8

"Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant."


These are the instances that Jesus cited, where greater priorities took precedence over the levitical law and neither the Pharisees nor our Lord Jesus Christ regard them as guilty .  Since they both agreed on this Jesus seized this opportunity to establish a principle: that it is lawful to carry out acts of mercy and goodness which are acts that will save lives and also prompt response to emergencies on the Sabbath day.

This is Jesus' proper interpretation of the Sabbath law that the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath, for the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.  Luke 6:5

   

   

@OLAADEGBU,


I'D seen that verse and studied it much earlier. But we should understand that the Amplified Version is not a translation, but a flavoured paraphrase - although I sometimes consult it for personal use. The point is that anyone reading that verse on its own in the Amplified would run the risk of a polemical debate on what is meant by the "the code" - and we've seen that repeatedly in previous discourses. The tendency is that many people so using that phrase "the code" (or, "the written code") are unable to define what they actually mean!

For instance, I requested TV01 to clarify his use of this term much earlier:

"I did not introduce your confusion about a "written code" - you did. Do you care to please explain that to your reader?"

And this was his brotherly response:

Again you play to decieve. You have clearly distinguished "divine principles" inherent within the law. If the law is the law, is the law, with no distinguishing between letter and intent, why do you make this distinction. Or is it just another instance on your anal taxonomy ?

It is true that I had distinguished between "the letter" and "divine principles" of the Law - and I did so far earlier than that in showing how the term "the Law" is used in the NT in various contexts:

   (b) Its application in the NT furnishes us with the following:
      * specific commandments
      * prophecies
      * exhortations
      * divine principles

. . . and also elsewhere:

"I also made reference to the fact that we are not asked to look for LITERAL applications of every single verse; but rather seek to understand the PRINCIPLES stated, explained and applied in the NT."

His problem, as so many people usually have, is making the mistake of appealing to equivocations in meaning when reading such texts as 2 Cor. 3:6 from the Amplified Version! Presumably, that was how he came about the mistaken idea of making healing a matter of the "written code" - ("The written code - healing on the sabbath - was clearly broken", said TV01). Now, what really did he mean by "the written code"? He did not explain - and predictably so, because he was confusing "the letter" for "the written code"!

There's a huge difference between "the letter" and "the code". The former is referring to outward, literal interpretation (as in 'to adhere to the letter of the law'); and the latter simply means "the Law itself" (understood as 'set of rules or principles or laws' - WordWeb Online)! The Amplified unfortunately muddles up the simplicity of that verse by its meaningless tautology. For in saying 'the code [of the Law] kills', it is simply saying the same thing as 'the law [of the Law] kills' in so far as "code" is simply the same thing as "law"! I can't emphasize enough that "the Law" as used in the NT for Christians is a matter of dealing with divine principles and not literal interpretation and applications!


If people are confusing "the letter" for "the code", my question is: does it make any sense to argue that "God's plan was to write them by the Holy Spirit in our hearts"? What is it really that God planned to write in our hearts - was it "the Law" or "the code" (Heb. 10:16)? To argue that it was "the Law" and not "the code" would be meaningless indeed, because both are simply the same thing - as we've seen earlier (code = 'set of rules or principles or laws' - e.g., WordWeb Online). God has clearly said in the verse cited: "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them". However, both are distinguished from "the letter" (i.e., a literal interpretation of the Law). Let me explain:

* the Law IS spiritual >> "For we know that the law is spiritual" (Rom. 7:14a)

* the problem is with the nature of man >> "but I am carnal, sold under sin" (Rom. 7:14b)

* the 'letter' (not "code") of the Law is distinct in its spiritual meaning >> "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Rom. 2:29).

It is the spiritual value (divine principles) in application that God sought as fruit from those to whom He committed the Law (see Isaiah 5:1-7 and Matt. 21:43). However, with time in the history of the Jews, they had departed from the real value of the Law and sought extreme applications that were merely outward, rigid, literal and deeply lacking in its purpose. We certainly would not suppose that God annulled the divine Law when He was to write them in our hearts and minds, and you effectively made that point yet again (and I'll come back to that).