In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven. Acts 10:12-16
From the beginning of gentile conversions, "certain men . . . from Judea" insisted that "unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). Notice that they viewed circumcision as a matter of salvation. It was a huge issue to them! So Paul took the matter before Church leadership to be officially resolved (Acts 15:2). "But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses'" (Acts 15:5). By the "law of Moses" they meant the imperatives of the Sinai Covenant, which would have included perhaps some of its rituals and ceremonies-and definitely circumcision. At the Church conference in Jerusalem, both Peter and Paul addressed the assembled elders. The matter of circumcision, Peter noted, had already been settled by God Himself (Acts 15:7-9). Peter's testimony gave proof that God gave the Holy Spirit to gentiles who were not circumcised (Acts 10:44-48). As a result, they could only conclude that God does not require the circumcision of male gentile converts. Paul and Barnabas then spoke, describing how God had performed miracles through them in calling gentiles into the Church (Acts 15:12). Four restrictions on new gentile converts James, the half-brother of Jesus Christ, then issued a concluding statement: "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood" (Acts 15:19-20, NIV). Some people seize on these words to argue that nothing more was required of early Christians-that they (and we) need not keep other laws found in the Old Testament. But does this view really make sense? James said nothing about murder, stealing, lying, taking God's name in vain or a host of other sins. By this rationale, should we conclude that Christians are now free to do these evil things? Of course not! So why, then, did James list only these four restrictions-"to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood"? The link connecting each of these requirements is idolatry. Specifically, each was directly associated with the pagan forms of worship common in the areas from which God was calling gentiles into the Church. Each also violated specific biblical commands (Exodus 20:2-6; Leviticus 20:10-20; Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 7:26-27). It is evident, however, that the apostles also had another reason for singling out these links to idolatry. They wanted to make sure that new non-Jewish converts would have immediate access to learning the teachings of God's Word-the Holy Scriptures (Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:15). Notice the reason James expressed for listing those particular prohibitions: "For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (Acts 15:21, NIV). The purpose for this somewhat puzzling concluding statement now becomes clear: The apostles wanted to ensure that every new gentile convert would be able to avail himself of that instruction as the words of Moses were "read . . . every Sabbath." Access to the Scriptures In that day no one had their own copies of the Bible. Scrolls were handwritten and enormously expensive. Only the very wealthy could afford any kind of personal library. The only places where one could hear the Bible regularly read was at the Jerusalem temple or in the Jewish synagogues that existed in larger cities of the Roman Empire. By renouncing any associations with idolatry and choosing to worship only the true God of the Scriptures, these new gentile converts could attend the Jewish synagogue. There they would be able to learn the basic teachings of the Holy Scriptures every Sabbath. In areas where Christian congregations were not yet established, the synagogue was the only organized training center where the Scriptures could be learned. Paul plainly confirms the importance of new converts being instructed from the Scriptures. In his letter to Timothy-a young minister who helped him serve these gentile converts-Paul makes the point that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable . . . for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). He even reminded the gentile converts in Rome that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). At that time, the only "Scripture" and "word of God" they knew was what we today call the Old Testament. The New Testament didn't yet exist. Paul clearly expected his gentile converts to put effort into both hearing and learning the inspired Word of God. Yet when the Church first began accepting gentile converts, it did not yet have the capacity to instruct non-Jewish believers in the Scriptures in every city-especially in those cities having no Christian congregations. But the Jews welcomed uncircumcised gentiles into the synagogue to learn God's truth-providing they made a commitment to serve only the true and living God of the Bible. The New Testament shows that the earliest gentile converts quickly became familiar with those Scriptures. Because the Scriptures used by the Jews and Christians were exactly the same, the apostles were comfortable having new gentile believers join the Jews and Jewish Christians who attended synagogue services each Sabbath. The Bible itself records that many gentiles first heard Paul's preaching in the synagogue where they were attending alongside the Jews (Acts 17:1-4; Acts 17:10-12; Acts 17:16-17). Both the synagogue and the Holy Scriptures were central to Paul's work in converting Jews and gentiles alike. Both Paul and his converts regarded the Holy Scriptures-as taught by the Jews in the synagogues-as the foundation of their beliefs. Thus he did not always have to explain every detail of the way of life these new converts were to learn. When he was in a city for only a short time, Paul could concentrate his efforts on explaining the role and mission of Jesus Christ and then move on to another city. He knew that gentile converts could continue receiving basic instruction in the Scriptures and God's way of life by attending the regular synagogue services. And the fact that, in his letters to gentile congregations, he quoted extensively from the same Scriptures used by the Jews provides clear evidence that all gentile converts had access to that instruction regardless of where they lived.
So in essence the OT has a mix of -ceremonial laws -civic /custom laws - morals laws And while we can still engage in all the laws, as it can strengthen our faith or have secondary benefits. Only God’s moral law is everlasting (I’ll assume this wasn’t explicitly made clear to all the Hebrew people at that time )
@@Chad-ww9gwThat is nonsense. The Hebrews had 613. Including Love God and Love Thy Neighbor (Dueteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18) Christianity only reiterated the moral law and gave new sacraments of worship for the gentiles
This is all nonsense. There is no distinction within the law. It has all been fulfilled in Christ. No law from the old testament needs obeying, get over it. Practice the summary Jesus taught
It was also a way to make a distinction between them and the unbelieving world. So that they would be holy as the Lord their God is Holy. (Leviticus 19)
I'm teaching through the Torah in my church's Wed night Bible study and just moved into Numbers. The distinction you made between ceremonial and moral laws is a common one for Christians to make, but I'm not a big fan of that distinction. I prefer to think of the "Law" as a contract between God and his people--the children of Israel, specifically--in which we see many prefigures of Christ and moral duties. But instead of saying the moral duties continue while the ceremonial and civic prescriptions do not, I say absolute moral truths *overlap* with the Law. What are your thoughts on that?
You're exactly right. There is no distinction between ceremonial and moral laws in the OT. The law we are bound by is to love our neighbor first and foremost. That's for example why Paul says not to eat meat sacrificed to idols if a brother or sister might take offense at that. 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. Romans:14:14 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Romans:14:2 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. Romans:14:13
By the way, this division is first found in Thomas Aquinas in the XIII century. It's later repeated in the Westminster Confession. But it's just plainly wrong and bad theology
@@robertd9965 What? No. The ENTRIE Mosaic Law needs not to be obeyed by the Christians. The issue of circumcision proves that the 10 commandments are not valid today anymore, there isn't and there was never a distinction in the law. If someone taught you differently, you've been deceived.
@@thegoober3896it was a ban on temple prostitution the gentiles did, and a ban on capturing a man and making him your sexual subordinate even though it says elsewhere than men may take women from other nations, allow them a mourning period, then make them their wives, just for an example; a specific verse says not to do that to men. A very famous verse specifically says one shouldn't "lie with a man as with a woman" as translated is right after verses saying not to have sex with your step mother, grandmother, granddaughter, etc... and then the verse immediately after that seems to actually probably say "don't do it to [their counterpart] boys/men either" in the Hebrew.
It is wrong either way because only sex between a married man and his female wife is allowed, according to Jesus. No other sex is allowed, not premarital sex, not extramarital sex, not same sex, period.
@@thegoober3896Homosexuality wasn't a ceremonial law, neither were the dietary restrictions. Think about it, what does "ceremony"mean? A formal religious or public OCCASION...a particular event or ANNIVERSARY. Saying the dietary laws were a part of the "ceremonial laws" is basically saying they could eat unclean animals, just not during a ceremony or day of a ceremony The children of Israel weren't allowed to eat unclean foods at ANYTIME. The ceremonial laws were the sacrifice of animals and feast days. Infact the distinction between clean and unclean animals goes back as far as after the flood. When Noah sacrificed clean animals ONLY to God. And they never ate meat until after the flood, meaning God had told them which animals were clean and unclean as far back as Adam since Adam's son Abel sacrificed clean animals to God. This distinction has always been around. We don't eat unclean animals because it is an ABOMINATION to holy people. It didn't stop being an abomination when Jesus died on the cross. Pork is still unclean And regarding Homosexuality that is an abomination too, not a ceremonial law and it is repeated in the New Testament. And we see an example in Genesis when God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual immorality. And homosexuality was one of the offense. Scriptural references Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" 1 Corinthians 6:9 "Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals. Genesis 8:20 " Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animals and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar." Genesis 18:20 "And LORD said 'Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and because their sin is very grave" Genesis 19:4 " Now before they lay down, the MEN of the city, the men of Sodom both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you Tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them CARNALLY" The reason "Christians" eat unclean foods is because they love the taste of the unclean foods more than the word of God. It's the same reason why Christians party, get drunk, fornicate and do all manner of sin because they love their sin more than they love God and claim the 10 commandments was thrown out. And then condemn gay people while also being guilty of fornication, adultery and Idolatry. Did you know if you are consciously breaking the Sabbath it is a form of Idolatry. "Christians" have show a bad example to the world
This division of the Mosaic law into the ceremonial and moral is not a scriptural concept. Christ's death removed the entire mosaic law and replaced it with the law of Christ. There is a great deal of overlap between the Mosaic law and the law of Christ and that's why it looks like we've held on to the moral law of Moses's law.
A few years ago, I had an epiphany about the mosaic laws. Before I got saved, the way I read the 10 Commandments was picturing an OT prophet wagging his finger at me in a scolding, and probably with some killjoy. However, praise God, some time after my salvation, it occurred to me that I *get to* obey the 10. Now I know how to love Jesus practically! Now this is FREEDOM!!!!😊🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌
“and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Acts 15:9 KJV Do Jews have to keep Law? Circumcision is only for living in the land of Israel (not the tiny thing called Israel) basically the entire Middle East
“And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, And will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, Saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” Acts 15:15-21 KJV What is this called? Read Leviticus 17 and 18 for reference
@@Bible43 Wow , are you not embarrassed when you butcher scripture like that? Literally just read the verse before verse 9. “Acts 15:8 [8] And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,” The passage is saying there is NO DIFFERENCE between Jew and Gentile in *receiving the Holy Spirit* Gentiles who don’t follow the law and get circumcised versus Jews who do , both get the Holy Spirit lol. That legit proves our point. Also Acts 15-21 again proves my point, non Jews are said to NOT BE TROUBLED. The yoke of the old covenant law is explicitly removed from gentiles. Circumcision is not mandatory, kosher diet is not mandatory etc… The only thing asked is to give to the poor, abstaining from meat that has been strangled , and meat with blood. This is a stipulation that Leviticus 17 also asked the people of Israel to follow. These being exceptions only proves that the Old covenant is no longer binding …
At the Church conference in Jerusalem, both Peter and Paul addressed the assembled elders. The matter of circumcision, Peter noted, had already been settled by God Himself (Acts 15:7-9). Peter's testimony gave proof that God gave the Holy Spirit to gentiles who were not circumcised (Acts 10:44-48). As a result, they could only conclude that God does not require the circumcision of male gentile converts. Paul and Barnabas then spoke, describing how God had performed miracles through them in calling gentiles into the Church (Acts 15:12). Four restrictions on new gentile converts James, the half-brother of Jesus Christ, then issued a concluding statement: "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood" (Acts 15:19-20, NIV). Some people seize on these words to argue that nothing more was required of early Christians-that they (and we) need not keep other laws found in the Old Testament. But does this view really make sense? James said nothing about murder, stealing, lying, taking God's name in vain or a host of other sins. By this rationale, should we conclude that Christians are now free to do these evil things? Of course not! So why, then, did James list only these four restrictions-"to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood"? The link connecting each of these requirements is idolatry. Specifically, each was directly associated with the pagan forms of worship common in the areas from which God was calling gentiles into the Church. Each also violated specific biblical commands (Exodus 20:2-6; Leviticus 20:10-20; Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 7:26-27). It is evident, however, that the apostles also had another reason for singling out these links to idolatry. They wanted to make sure that new non-Jewish converts would have immediate access to learning the teachings of God's Word-the Holy Scriptures (Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:15). Notice the reason James expressed for listing those particular prohibitions: "For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (Acts 15:21, NIV). The purpose for this somewhat puzzling concluding statement now becomes clear: The apostles wanted to ensure that every new gentile convert would be able to avail himself of that instruction as the words of Moses were "read . . . every Sabbath." Access to the Scriptures In that day no one had their own copies of the Bible. Scrolls were handwritten and enormously expensive. Only the very wealthy could afford any kind of personal library. The only places where one could hear the Bible regularly read was at the Jerusalem temple or in the Jewish synagogues that existed in larger cities of the Roman Empire. By renouncing any associations with idolatry and choosing to worship only the true God of the Scriptures, these new gentile converts could attend the Jewish synagogue. There they would be able to learn the basic teachings of the Holy Scriptures every Sabbath. In areas where Christian congregations were not yet established, the synagogue was the only organized training center where the Scriptures could be learned. Paul plainly confirms the importance of new converts being instructed from the Scriptures. In his letter to Timothy-a young minister who helped him serve these gentile converts-Paul makes the point that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable . . . for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). He even reminded the gentile converts in Rome that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). At that time, the only "Scripture" and "word of God" they knew was what we today call the Old Testament. The New Testament didn't yet exist. Paul clearly expected his gentile converts to put effort into both hearing and learning the inspired Word of God. Yet when the Church first began accepting gentile converts, it did not yet have the capacity to instruct non-Jewish believers in the Scriptures in every city-especially in those cities having no Christian congregations. But the Jews welcomed uncircumcised gentiles into the synagogue to learn God's truth-providing they made a commitment to serve only the true and living God of the Bible. The New Testament shows that the earliest gentile converts quickly became familiar with those Scriptures. Because the Scriptures used by the Jews and Christians were exactly the same, the apostles were comfortable having new gentile believers join the Jews and Jewish Christians who attended synagogue services each Sabbath. The Bible itself records that many gentiles first heard Paul's preaching in the synagogue where they were attending alongside the Jews (Acts 17:1-4; Acts 17:10-12; Acts 17:16-17). Both the synagogue and the Holy Scriptures were central to Paul's work in converting Jews and gentiles alike. Both Paul and his converts regarded the Holy Scriptures-as taught by the Jews in the synagogues-as the foundation of their beliefs. Thus he did not always have to explain every detail of the way of life these new converts were to learn. When he was in a city for only a short time, Paul could concentrate his efforts on explaining the role and mission of Jesus Christ and then move on to another city. He knew that gentile converts could continue receiving basic instruction in the Scriptures and God's way of life by attending the regular synagogue services. And the fact that, in his letters to gentile congregations, he quoted extensively from the same Scriptures used by the Jews provides clear evidence that all gentile converts had access to that instruction regardless of where they lived.
@@sjappiyah4071 Yeshua never said you are not saved, what He would have said is Satan get behind me. To the best of my knowledge. “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one yod or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done. “Whoever, then, breaks one of the least of these commands, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the reign of the heavens; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall by no means enter into the reign of the heavens.” Mattithyahu (Matthew) 5:17-20 TS2009
That is a very convenient explanation to ease guilt in doing what you deny other groups to do. Pick and choose which scriptures to follow. Try selling that argument to gays, women in clergy, divorced and remarried.....
Yup..And the Old Covenant that was made at mt. Sinai was made obsolete and taken away (by the death and resurrection of Christ...) We're in the New Covenant. A better Covenant with better promises.
I always ate pork and shellfish but ironically, once I began to learn about the Old Testament/New Testament regulations, I quickly became disgusted with unclean meat. It should have had the opposite effect but for some reason I can't fully enjoy shrimp, lobster, or pork anymore. I'll still take nibbles here and there, but it grosses me out now.
I love the old testament and I also think we, as christians actually, we have to read it, since it leads to everything in the new testament. I also think, we need to understand the whole bible in a jewish way, since our lord was a jew. But the jewish poeple also need to accept Jesus as the messaiah since it’s more than clearly written in Jesaiah 53. Then the jews and the christians should pray toghether, for a better world🙏
I prefer John Walton’s explanation to Torah over this reformed innovation division of Torah into categories favored by Calvinists. The whole Torah stands and falls as a body there is no distinction between moral law and ritual law. The Royal law of Love or the Law of the Spirit of Life in the NT is our energy and wisdom as Gentiles grafted in to the promise. The Royal Law is of course every bit as concerned with morality as the obsolete Torah, but is not a reboot of the old covenant. It is a new covenant for the new age when Christ’s love and the Holy Spirit move me to present my body daily as a living sacrifice unto God, renewing mind and transforming my whole worldview to action for Kingdom ethics around Matthew 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount. But I still love Luther too.
@@TheScholarlyBaptist Then you already have a law but what is in Torah says pig, crab, shellfish, ect. Should make you disgusted as well. I believe God knows what should be disgusting to us better than our own mind.
“And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Acts 10:28 KJV Peter’s vision is about him eating with the gentiles as it was forbidden comparing them to animals, not that he should disregard the dietary law altogether. Jesus came not to destroy the law but to fulfill the law, and to fulfill means not to make void. Stop eating unclean foods, and keep the law if you can, however, keeping the law will not save you. It is only by grace we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ. Hope this helps. 🙏🏾✝️
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. Romans:14:13 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Romans:14:2 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. Romans:14:14 Etc. it's pretty clear I think.
So I don't have to keep the Laws? They were done away with at the cross? I can eat and drink anything I want to? I don't have to try to keep the ten commandments? I don't have to remember to keep the Sabbath Holy? I can murder? I cAn commit adultery? This is what you're telling me and others if you're saying that the Laws were done away with. God YHWH had many covenants and as gentiles being grafted in, those apply to us as we become aware, study, and follow Him.
So I don't have to keep the Laws? They were done away with at the cross? I can eat and drink anything I want to? I don't have to try to keep the ten commandments? I don't have to remember to keep the Sabbath Holy? I can murder? I cAn commit adultery? This is what you're telling me and others if you're saying that the Laws were done away with. God YHWH had many covenants and as gentiles being grafted in, those apply to us as we become aware, study, and follow Him.
@@lauriegoinyou're engaging in a slippery slope fallacy. Being able to eat all things isn't the same as murder. The lense through which biblical writers view all of this is love. If it makes your brother stumble - don't do it. Murdering someone or commiting adultery is certainly not loving. I'll recommend reading the new testament. A lot of your confusion might be cleared up.
Gentile Christians (almost all of us) follow ALL of the Old Testament laws that forgieners in the land were required to obey. Nothing was discarded. There is no distinction between purely "ceremonial" and "moral" injunctions. Is it ceremonial or moral to not drink blood? The early Jewish Christians still kept Torah. They were obliged to. They didn't disregard the "ceremonial" laws. Would love to see what this could look like again if there was a mass Jewish conversion.
@@lufax Fulfilled is not the same as abolished. We can talk about justification, but that doesn't mean we no longer follow the laws against murder or idolatry (instance)
@@murrydixon5221 We are no longer under any law but "the law of Christ" (1 Co 9:21). Judiazing Christianity has been dealt with at the very start. Your standards not to murder or be sexually immoral is God's moral standard. You can utilize the Old Testament to learnabout it. But you're not governed by even one single article of Mosaic Law
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey-whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Romans 6:15-16, NIV). Some people had assumed that grace meant they could continue in a sinful lifestyle. Paul scorns that idea, saying sin is a form of slavery that leads to death. But what does Paul mean by “under law” and “under grace”? When the meaning of a Bible passage is unclear, we should first read the context-the verses before and after. That will usually help clear up any confusion. At times we will need to read the entire chapter or even the entire book or how certain language is used elsewhere to see the context. Interestingly, the epistle to the Romans-the letter that misguided theologians cite the most in arguing that Paul dismissed the Old Testament as being valid for Christians-actually has the largest number of Old Testament quotes that Paul uses to support his teachings! Paul quotes or paraphrases the Old Testament 84 times in this letter-an average of more than five times per chapter! So it’s nonsensical to argue that Paul in Romans is arguing against the validity or authority of the Old Testament or the laws of God written there. In all, Paul quotes or paraphrases 184 Old Testament passages in his writings (not counting another 83 in the book of Hebrews, which he likely also wrote), and this figure doesn’t include his additional dozens of references to people, places and events in the Old Testament. Who in his right mind quotes from a source as a primary support of his teachings while simultaneously arguing that this source is no longer valid or authoritative? Clearly that makes no sense. (This is addressed in detail in our free book The New Covenant: Does It Abolish God’s Law?) What subject is Paul addressing? But back to the context of Romans 6-what subject is Paul actually addressing? In Romans 6:1-2 Paul tells us: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” The issue or question he is addressing is simple: Can a Christian who has “died to sin”-by recognizing that his or her sin deserves the death penalty, and has sincerely repented, been baptized as a symbol of burying the old person in a watery grave and been symbolically raised to a new life as an entirely new person now led by God’s Spirit-continue in a life of sin? Paul’s answer is blunt and simple: “Certainly not!” In no way does grace nullify, invalidate or negate God’s law. As explained in this chapter, God’s law is actually another gift of God’s grace toward mankind-it reveals the thinking, character and mind of God and shows us the way He wants us to live! The longest chapter in the Bible, Psalm 119, is one long hymn of praise and thanks to God for the wisdom of God’s law and the blessings it brings to those who obey it. Grace and law don’t contradict one another, they greatly complement each other! After the first few verses of Romans 6, Paul goes into a detailed discussion of two ways of life. One is our old way of living that led to slavery to sin, suffering and death (sin being the breaking of God’s law, 1 John 3:4). The other, continuing in Romans 6, is to “die with Christ” (Romans 6:8), accepting His sacrifice to pay the death penalty we deserved, symbolically dying and being buried with Him in baptism, then rising from that watery grave “in newness of life” (Romans 6:4), now “alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:11). Now living a new life led by God’s Holy Spirit, we are to “not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts” (Romans 6:12), but to “present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead” (Romans 6:13). The crux of the matter Then we come to Paul’s pivotal statement in Romans 6:14: “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” With the background leading up to this, Paul’s meaning is clear. For a Christian, “sin shall not have dominion over you”-because Christians are freed from slavery to sin (from being under sin’s “dominion”) by Christ having died for us and are now “dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:11). Sin no longer has us enslaved. We have escaped its power and its penalty of death. “For you are not under law but under grace.” Throughout the chapter up to this point Paul has been comparing and contrasting a sinful way of life that leads to death and a way of receiving and accepting God’s gift of grace and mercy that leads to a new way of life that will ultimately be eternal life. Now he compares and contrasts two very different outcomes. “Under law,” in this context, is referring to being under the penalty of the law-which, as he has mentioned in nearly every verse up to this point, is death. The law required death as punishment for sin. That never changed. What changed is that through God’s grace, Jesus Christ emptied Himself of the glory, splendor, majesty and power that He shared with God the Father and came to earth as a physical human being to take that awful penalty on Himself in our place (Philippians 2:5-8; 1 Peter 1:18-19). Because of that supreme sacrifice on our behalf and His resurrection from the dead-also mentioned in nearly every verse in this chapter up to this point-we are no longer under the penalty of death, but “under grace.” In God’s grace He has called us to His truth, forgiven our sins by the sacrifice of His Son, and offers us resurrection to eternal life just as Jesus Christ has been resurrected to eternal life. Paul goes on to explain the only logical response in the lives of those who experience and recognize this great gift of God’s grace: “But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” (Romans 6:17-18). In deep gratitude our response to God is to become “slaves of righteousness”-totally committed and dedicated to our new Master and totally rejecting our old master of sin and death. Thus, being under grace does not mean out from under obligation to obey God’s law. Being under grace means out from under the penalty of the law for breaking it so that we may be empowered with new life to live in obedience to it in following Jesus Christ as Ruler of our lives! Paul summarizes the point of this discussion in the last verse of the chapter, Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” “Gift” here translates the Greek word charisma, closely related to the word charis, meaning “grace.” And charisma means “gift”-the gift in this case being “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”-the ultimate gift of God’s grace!
@@geordiewishart1683that's a lot of cherry picking and jumping to conclusions in one comment. Never does Paul say anywhere that gentile Christians need to follow all the laws of the OT. You're pretty alone here with this interpretation. It was quite the opposite actually. In Jesus's time it was even considered sinful for gentiles to keep the sabbath because the Torah was given exclusively to Israel as a sign of its election among the peoples of the world.
@@RowanShek no no, people should be able to comment and ask questions. Hopefully it is done in good faith For instance reading to the Bible (studying and learning about God) isn’t a one time thing. It’s a continuous thing. So the same way questions can pop up before you read the scripture, to while you’re doing it for the first time. To the 100th time all questions are welcome, provided they are done in good faith I am happy how easy it is to study the word. In our day and age
@@quesostuff1009 that’s not exactly my point, people should correct Christians only when they fully know that they know what they’re talking about; you feel me?
I really love your videos, this one needs some correction or a little extra in depth explanation from a fellow theologian if I may. There is no distinction between ceremonial and moral laws in the OT. All of the laws were given to Israel as a sign of its election by God amongst the people of earth. It was even considered sinful for gentiles to keep the sabbath because it was given exclusively to Israel. Therefore even before Christ's incarnation the so-called friends of Israel, who believed in the God of Israel but didn't fully convert, followed the noahide laws given to all mankind after the flood. The question then arose in the beginning of Christianity when more and more gentiles joined the apostles and early Christianity grew, whether they should fully convert to Judaism to become Christians. The apostels decided against it and decided on a reduced version of the noahide laws for the gentiles in Acts 15. And Paul also explains why, because following the law doesn't lead to salvation. Which for him BTW wasn't a relief from being freed from the law but it was a huge issue, because the law was the sign of Israel's election before God, one might even say kind of a love letter to Israel. So since salvation and the way to God's love for us as gentile Christians is the belief in Christ and his death on the cross for our sake, we don't follow the law. We follow the law of love - love God and thy neighbor as Jesus said is the essence of the tanakh. Which was not an unknown sentence in Judaism at the time. If I remember correctly, Hillel said something similar, and I think Joseph Klausner wrote in his Jesus book that this double commandment of love comes from the idea that a jew should be able to explain the tanakh in the same time a listener can stand on one leg. Keep up the great work Dr. Cooper, really enjoying your channel! I often listen to your content while going for my morning run and think you're doing awesome work. You and Gavin Ortlund are probably my favourite RU-vid theologians (even though I don't agree with everything but who has the same opinion about everything?). Greetings from Germany :)
I think most Christians do. They claim morality is objective but they cherry pick all the time. At least, even if they would argue and agree only the moral laws in the OT are still in effect. I guess no Christian is even considering to k1ll a girl who can't prove her virginity based on the hymen/blood myth for example.
Why wouldn't he? Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew:7:12
I avoid blood, meat of animals that have been strangled, food offered to idols, and animals that are still alive. The last one may not be explicitly forbidden, but if God says, “Hey, stay away from blood and animals that have been strangled,” I’m not going to eat an animal that still has blood pulsating in it!
Leviticus is a record of the laws for the priesthood of Levi (which doesn't exist anymore). Christians are from the priesthood of Melchizedek. Some of y'all don't read your Bibles and it shows.
Leviticus also contains the second most important law ever given, you shall love your neighbor as yourself, incidentally Jesus seemed to care about this one and he was not a Levite
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey-whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Romans 6:15-16, NIV). Some people had assumed that grace meant they could continue in a sinful lifestyle. Paul scorns that idea, saying sin is a form of slavery that leads to death. But what does Paul mean by “under law” and “under grace”? When the meaning of a Bible passage is unclear, we should first read the context-the verses before and after. That will usually help clear up any confusion. At times we will need to read the entire chapter or even the entire book or how certain language is used elsewhere to see the context. Interestingly, the epistle to the Romans-the letter that misguided theologians cite the most in arguing that Paul dismissed the Old Testament as being valid for Christians-actually has the largest number of Old Testament quotes that Paul uses to support his teachings! Paul quotes or paraphrases the Old Testament 84 times in this letter-an average of more than five times per chapter! So it’s nonsensical to argue that Paul in Romans is arguing against the validity or authority of the Old Testament or the laws of God written there. In all, Paul quotes or paraphrases 184 Old Testament passages in his writings (not counting another 83 in the book of Hebrews, which he likely also wrote), and this figure doesn’t include his additional dozens of references to people, places and events in the Old Testament. Who in his right mind quotes from a source as a primary support of his teachings while simultaneously arguing that this source is no longer valid or authoritative? Clearly that makes no sense. (This is addressed in detail in our free book The New Covenant: Does It Abolish God’s Law?) What subject is Paul addressing? But back to the context of Romans 6-what subject is Paul actually addressing? In Romans 6:1-2 Paul tells us: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” The issue or question he is addressing is simple: Can a Christian who has “died to sin”-by recognizing that his or her sin deserves the death penalty, and has sincerely repented, been baptized as a symbol of burying the old person in a watery grave and been symbolically raised to a new life as an entirely new person now led by God’s Spirit-continue in a life of sin? Paul’s answer is blunt and simple: “Certainly not!” In no way does grace nullify, invalidate or negate God’s law. As explained in this chapter, God’s law is actually another gift of God’s grace toward mankind-it reveals the thinking, character and mind of God and shows us the way He wants us to live! The longest chapter in the Bible, Psalm 119, is one long hymn of praise and thanks to God for the wisdom of God’s law and the blessings it brings to those who obey it. Grace and law don’t contradict one another, they greatly complement each other! After the first few verses of Romans 6, Paul goes into a detailed discussion of two ways of life. One is our old way of living that led to slavery to sin, suffering and death (sin being the breaking of God’s law, 1 John 3:4). The other, continuing in Romans 6, is to “die with Christ” (Romans 6:8), accepting His sacrifice to pay the death penalty we deserved, symbolically dying and being buried with Him in baptism, then rising from that watery grave “in newness of life” (Romans 6:4), now “alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:11). Now living a new life led by God’s Holy Spirit, we are to “not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts” (Romans 6:12), but to “present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead” (Romans 6:13). The crux of the matter Then we come to Paul’s pivotal statement in Romans 6:14: “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” With the background leading up to this, Paul’s meaning is clear. For a Christian, “sin shall not have dominion over you”-because Christians are freed from slavery to sin (from being under sin’s “dominion”) by Christ having died for us and are now “dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:11). Sin no longer has us enslaved. We have escaped its power and its penalty of death. “For you are not under law but under grace.” Throughout the chapter up to this point Paul has been comparing and contrasting a sinful way of life that leads to death and a way of receiving and accepting God’s gift of grace and mercy that leads to a new way of life that will ultimately be eternal life. Now he compares and contrasts two very different outcomes. “Under law,” in this context, is referring to being under the penalty of the law-which, as he has mentioned in nearly every verse up to this point, is death. The law required death as punishment for sin. That never changed. What changed is that through God’s grace, Jesus Christ emptied Himself of the glory, splendor, majesty and power that He shared with God the Father and came to earth as a physical human being to take that awful penalty on Himself in our place (Philippians 2:5-8; 1 Peter 1:18-19). Because of that supreme sacrifice on our behalf and His resurrection from the dead-also mentioned in nearly every verse in this chapter up to this point-we are no longer under the penalty of death, but “under grace.” In God’s grace He has called us to His truth, forgiven our sins by the sacrifice of His Son, and offers us resurrection to eternal life just as Jesus Christ has been resurrected to eternal life. Paul goes on to explain the only logical response in the lives of those who experience and recognize this great gift of God’s grace: “But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” (Romans 6:17-18). In deep gratitude our response to God is to become “slaves of righteousness”-totally committed and dedicated to our new Master and totally rejecting our old master of sin and death. Thus, being under grace does not mean out from under obligation to obey God’s law. Being under grace means out from under the penalty of the law for breaking it so that we may be empowered with new life to live in obedience to it in following Jesus Christ as Ruler of our lives! Paul summarizes the point of this discussion in the last verse of the chapter, Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” “Gift” here translates the Greek word charisma, closely related to the word charis, meaning “grace.” And charisma means “gift”-the gift in this case being “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”-the ultimate gift of God’s grace!
@@geordiewishart1683your copy-pasting is highly annoying. Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew:7:12
@@geordiewishart1683Well said and very biblical. There is much delusion in the world and by many of these comments it shows. Satans been very busy misleading God YHWHs people into believing this strong delusion. May He bless you 🙏.
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey-whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Romans 6:15-16, NIV). Some people had assumed that grace meant they could continue in a sinful lifestyle. Paul scorns that idea, saying sin is a form of slavery that leads to death. But what does Paul mean by “under law” and “under grace”? When the meaning of a Bible passage is unclear, we should first read the context-the verses before and after. That will usually help clear up any confusion. At times we will need to read the entire chapter or even the entire book or how certain language is used elsewhere to see the context. Interestingly, the epistle to the Romans-the letter that misguided theologians cite the most in arguing that Paul dismissed the Old Testament as being valid for Christians-actually has the largest number of Old Testament quotes that Paul uses to support his teachings! Paul quotes or paraphrases the Old Testament 84 times in this letter-an average of more than five times per chapter! So it’s nonsensical to argue that Paul in Romans is arguing against the validity or authority of the Old Testament or the laws of God written there. In all, Paul quotes or paraphrases 184 Old Testament passages in his writings (not counting another 83 in the book of Hebrews, which he likely also wrote), and this figure doesn’t include his additional dozens of references to people, places and events in the Old Testament. Who in his right mind quotes from a source as a primary support of his teachings while simultaneously arguing that this source is no longer valid or authoritative? Clearly that makes no sense. (This is addressed in detail in our free book The New Covenant: Does It Abolish God’s Law?) What subject is Paul addressing? But back to the context of Romans 6-what subject is Paul actually addressing? In Romans 6:1-2 Paul tells us: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” The issue or question he is addressing is simple: Can a Christian who has “died to sin”-by recognizing that his or her sin deserves the death penalty, and has sincerely repented, been baptized as a symbol of burying the old person in a watery grave and been symbolically raised to a new life as an entirely new person now led by God’s Spirit-continue in a life of sin? Paul’s answer is blunt and simple: “Certainly not!” In no way does grace nullify, invalidate or negate God’s law. As explained in this chapter, God’s law is actually another gift of God’s grace toward mankind-it reveals the thinking, character and mind of God and shows us the way He wants us to live! The longest chapter in the Bible, Psalm 119, is one long hymn of praise and thanks to God for the wisdom of God’s law and the blessings it brings to those who obey it. Grace and law don’t contradict one another, they greatly complement each other! After the first few verses of Romans 6, Paul goes into a detailed discussion of two ways of life. One is our old way of living that led to slavery to sin, suffering and death (sin being the breaking of God’s law, 1 John 3:4). The other, continuing in Romans 6, is to “die with Christ” (Romans 6:8), accepting His sacrifice to pay the death penalty we deserved, symbolically dying and being buried with Him in baptism, then rising from that watery grave “in newness of life” (Romans 6:4), now “alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:11). Now living a new life led by God’s Holy Spirit, we are to “not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts” (Romans 6:12), but to “present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead” (Romans 6:13). The crux of the matter Then we come to Paul’s pivotal statement in Romans 6:14: “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” With the background leading up to this, Paul’s meaning is clear. For a Christian, “sin shall not have dominion over you”-because Christians are freed from slavery to sin (from being under sin’s “dominion”) by Christ having died for us and are now “dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:11). Sin no longer has us enslaved. We have escaped its power and its penalty of death. “For you are not under law but under grace.” Throughout the chapter up to this point Paul has been comparing and contrasting a sinful way of life that leads to death and a way of receiving and accepting God’s gift of grace and mercy that leads to a new way of life that will ultimately be eternal life. Now he compares and contrasts two very different outcomes. “Under law,” in this context, is referring to being under the penalty of the law-which, as he has mentioned in nearly every verse up to this point, is death. The law required death as punishment for sin. That never changed. What changed is that through God’s grace, Jesus Christ emptied Himself of the glory, splendor, majesty and power that He shared with God the Father and came to earth as a physical human being to take that awful penalty on Himself in our place (Philippians 2:5-8; 1 Peter 1:18-19). Because of that supreme sacrifice on our behalf and His resurrection from the dead-also mentioned in nearly every verse in this chapter up to this point-we are no longer under the penalty of death, but “under grace.” In God’s grace He has called us to His truth, forgiven our sins by the sacrifice of His Son, and offers us resurrection to eternal life just as Jesus Christ has been resurrected to eternal life. Paul goes on to explain the only logical response in the lives of those who experience and recognize this great gift of God’s grace: “But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” (Romans 6:17-18). In deep gratitude our response to God is to become “slaves of righteousness”-totally committed and dedicated to our new Master and totally rejecting our old master of sin and death. Thus, being under grace does not mean out from under obligation to obey God’s law. Being under grace means out from under the penalty of the law for breaking it so that we may be empowered with new life to live in obedience to it in following Jesus Christ as Ruler of our lives! Paul summarizes the point of this discussion in the last verse of the chapter, Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” “Gift” here translates the Greek word charisma, closely related to the word charis, meaning “grace.” And charisma means “gift”-the gift in this case being “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”-the ultimate gift of God’s grace!
We're not bound by those Laws because they weren't given to the Church , but to the nation of Israel only ( within and part of their Old Covenant) . That Old Covenant is obsolete.
Ok then explain how food restrictions are ceremonial. You tried to pass over that but your “explanation” doesn’t clarify how Christian’s say eat pork when God declared it unclean. That’s has nothing to do with ceremony.
Actually, it does. Because cleanliness was part of entering the temple and participating in the Jewish ritual. This was a high standard set for the Jews. But now we practice it by fasting before mass and liturgically renewing our baptismal vows. I completely agree that this is a problem for fundamentalist Protestants who just reject ritual altogether. But the church transformed the rituals to open up worship to the Gentiles
Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. The Greek word pleeroo translated "fulfill" can mean to complete or accomplish. But it can also mean to fill to the full. Which understanding is correct? We can answer that question easily by simply looking at the complete statement: "I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." Barnes' Commentary explains the meaning of "to destroy" as "to abrogate; to deny their Divine authority; to set men free from the obligation to obey them." That is, Christ did not set men free from their obligation to the law. Interpreting "to fulfill" to mean Christ came to end the Law or the Prophets, when in the same breath, He said He did not come to end them doesn't make any sense! However, the meaning "fill to the full" does. This meaning of pleeroo is found is several New Testament passages. For instance, Romans 15:13 says, "Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit." Obviously, the correct way to understand "fulfill" in Matthew 5:17 is "to fill to the full." His complete statement means, "I didn't come to do away with the Law or the Prophets, but rather I came to uphold them in everything that I say and do." The prophecy of the Messiah in Isaiah 42:21 helps explain what Christ did in fulfilling the law: "He will exalt [magnify, King James Version] the law and make it honorable." Jesus expanded our understanding of God's law by showing that we must obey the spirit of the law as well as the letter, as several of Jesus' following examples in Matthew 5 show.
@@geordiewishart1683that's cherry picked proof texting what you're doing. It's abundantly clear that the apostles especially Paul didn't believe following the law (all 613 mizvot BTW) would lead to salvation.
@@MrSeedi76 Stop. Nobody has ever said the Law saves, but the denial of the Law is damnation. “as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these matters, in which some are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the other Scriptures. You, then, beloved ones, being forewarned, watch, lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the delusion of the lawless,” Kĕpha Bĕt (2 Peter) 3:16-17 TS2009
@@Bible43Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew:7:12 I don't deny any law, I follow it by loving my neighbor.
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew:7:12 You're not gonna find slavery and genocide in there. No matter how hard atheists try to cope.
I agree, but what about eating blood as in....eating pork in it's blood? I went to a Filipino party with a fellow Christian friend and we ate that as one of the dishes. It was amazing
In Acts 15:29, it's written, "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things." NIV translation. So I personally would stay away from foods with blood in them, whether it be pork, beef, or chicken, in Acts it's prohibited, but I'm sure there's room for debate for the opposite viewpoint that we can still eat whatever we'd like as Christians.
@mikaelaltairbruneau474 If I'm reading your reply right, then it depends. Idk the medical risks of eating pork covered in blood off the top of my head. Though if you meant biblically, I'd say eating the blood wasn't a good thing. Though it's not like you murdered somebody, don't let it weight on your mind too much. I'd just ask for forgiveness and try keeping yourself away from meals with blood in them as best as you can. May God be with you
@dregnr51 And that's the problem with Sola Scriptura. It's revealed to Peter that gentiles are not bound by Jewish law and Paul affirms this in Romans 14 (we are ultimately bound by conscience on these matters). The Counsil of Jerusalem affirmed James' personal judgement for Christians at that time. But the early church moved away from this custom as it became less of a potential for scandal. This is all hard to parse out with scripture alone which is why God gave us a church to provide guidance on these matters
@sivad1025 I never stated that the gentiles are bound by Jewish law. All I said was that there are food restrictions for Christians that come from the book of Acts. Acts 15:29 NIV, "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meat of strangled animals and from sexual immortality. You will do well to avoid these things." Which is scripture from the New Testament. As I said earlier, I'm sure there's room for debate when it comes to dietary laws for Christians, and I'd be happy to learn from you if you have any input for it. God bless
I’m sorry to say brother but the reason many don’t follow laws that were intended for all generations (our father’s words not mine) is because many practice a religion that is based on traditions layered on the authentic teachings of the Messiah, over thousands of years. The New Testament doesn’t teach arbitrary distinctions between certain segments of the law that Christians commonly violate today. We are to imitate the Messiah as best we can and he followed the whole law.
This seems…incongruent with history. Also… I don’t think this rule fits all the “ceremonial” treatments by modern Christianity… did you omit some things to taint a listener’s view?
It's how the early church viewed the matter. It's also how Jews have always viewed the law. Judaism does not evangelize Mosaic governance. But Jews do preach the moral law. Granted, modern day Protestants do ignore a lot of customs that Christians are bound to (like regular worship and fasting) which is a valid criticism
@@sivad1025 nice. I like the attempt but it also seems not to align with actuality. The claim that these laws can be interpreted either as moral or ceremonial and that there is inconsistency to those interpretations makes it a long shot to be actual. It’s more likely those Hebraic laws were all meant to be followed and not parsed such.
There is not and there has never been a division in the law. It has all been fulfilled in Christ. Weak theology parses it in three and holds onto the 10 commandments
It says it shall be a law from generation to generation. An everlasting covenant. As a Jew, am I not “in that time in that place”? I’m literally a member of the group this law was given to as an everlasting covenant, so why should I make way for a newer one?
Isaiah 43:19, behold, I am doing a new thing. God told the people of Israel that changes were coming because they refused to follow what he had formerly given. Instead of laws written on stone, ge writes them on their h
@happypiano4810 Much more than that. A way was made for the Gentiles. Acts shows that it means that Jews aren't required to follow additional laws either. All related to sacrifice and ritual cleanliness is covered by the sacrifice of Jesus. Israelites that refuse Jesus are already in trouble as they are not following the law anyways as there is no sacrifice for them so they are failing.
@@masterkeep “Not following” and “can’t follow” are two different things. We have no temple to offer these sacrifices in. Imagine it’s time for your child’s baptism and you’ve both been exiled to the middle of a desert. G-d isn’t gonna hold it against you that you lack the materials required. You’d do what you can. We do what we can as well, which in our case is prayer. Also, a lot of purity laws weren’t required to be upheld unless a state of ritual impurity was necessary for something (like bringing an offering). Those that are required regardless, like niddah, are still kept today.
Very biblical. When the law was given, it states that much was to mark the Israelite as a strange people. Christians aren't Israelis. Jesus specified laws that were moral and reiterated them, more strictly than in the Old Testament.
@@masterkeep It's only Biblical when you justify Old Testament rules after you falsely associate some verse from the New Testament. What Bible verse states your lie the those "613 OT laws are for ceremonial purposes"? If it exists, I'll add it to my book on "Biblical Contradictions". If it's true, then you contend that not many people can pick up the Bible and read it for "God's truth." Plus, your video indicates that God didn't make the Bible so every one of his children would understand it. We must rely on somebody (a for-profit preacher) to find another bible verse to make God's word righteous and not evil.
Is it specifically mentioning the tattoo in general or is it more to it, the passage mentioning marking the body for the dead. What if it’s a Christian tattoo?
I just want to note that you didn't explain why "Christians" eat pork and shell fish. You explained that the ceremonial laws were done a way with, the foods that we are permitted and forbidden to eat aren't apart of any ceremonial laws. They were spoken by God himself to Moses. Ther ceremonial laws were nailed to the cross. But the "law of animals" wasn't. It was put forth to distinguish between unclean and clean foods. Pork and shellfish are still unclean foods to this day. Would you the carcass of animal that was rotting?
Clean and unclean is ceremonial. It all had to do with identifying Israel as different than the surrounding peoples. In Acts God tells Peter that all is "clean" for eating.
@@masterkeep God did not tell Peter in acts that everything was clean for eating. He gave Peter a vision, the unclean animals in the vision REPRESENTED the gentiles. Acts 10:27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has SHOWN me that I should not call ANYONE impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me? And can you point to Leviticus and tell me what ceremony was the "laws of animals" for? A ceremony is a formal religious occasion... Occasion being the key word there, The implication is, if the "law of animals.." are apart of a particular ceremony that means outside that ceremony the children of Isreal would be eating unclean animals. But that wasn't the case, they didn't eat unclean animals at ANYTIME, meaning by definition it wasn't ceremonial. In fact, Adam distinguish between clean and unlcean animals. He didn't eat animals, but he offered sacrifices because Abel offered sacrifices to God and must have learned it from Dad. You can ONLY sacrifice clean animals to God and sacrificing unclean animals would be an abomination. So during the time before the flood they knew what animals where unclean and what animals were clean. Genesis 7 "The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate..." Genesis 8 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it It was after the flood that God gave man permission to eat animals. And he gave all animals to them for food. But it was understood that they ate only the clean animals. "The law of animals" been around before Sinai, before the ceremonies at Sinai. "It's easier to say you eat pork chops because you don't want to obey God. But do not use scripture to justify disobedience"
@@mikhailhunter5277 Hesys, quoted in Matthew 15:11 and Mark 7:15, says that nothing that goes into a man makes him unclean, only that which comes out of a man’s mouth makes him unclean. In Mark 7:19 it finishes the commentary on the saying with this “and thus he declares all foods clean.”
the statement at the end of Mark 7:19, often translated into English as “Thus he declared all foods clean”? Here is the phrase in Greek: καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα. This phrase literally translates as “cleansing all the food” and is often understood as Mark’s parenthetical explanation of Jesus’s teaching. This is because most translators take the opening participle in the phrase, καθαρίζων (“cleansing”), as being grammatically attached to the verb λέγει (“he said,” referring to Jesus) in Mark 7:18. Thus, translators understand “Jesus” to be the subject of the participle καθαρίζων. That is, Jesus is the one “cleansing all the food.” Translators supply the word “declared” to make the construction intelligible. However, it seems unlikely that λέγει is the antecedent of καθαρίζων. As Dr. Logan Williams explains, if the final clause of Mark 7:19 were Mark’s parenthetical statement, this would require the participle καθαρίζων to reach back thirty-five words to modify λέγει. According to Williams, “This would be the only instance in Mark’s gospel in which a participle follows direct discourse while also modifying the main verb of the clause which came prior to that discourse.”[20] Grammatically, it makes more sense to read this final phrase in Mark 7:19 not as Mark’s parenthetical comment about what Jesus does but instead as a continuation of Jesus’s own explanation about what the digestive system does. Thus, Mark 7:19 should be translated as “since it enters not his heart but his stomach and is expelled (literally ‘goes out into the latrine’), cleansing all the food.” But this raises a question: how does the process of digestion “cleanse” the food a person eats? Surprisingly, Pharisaic tradition did not consider excrement to be a thing that transmits ritual impurity (e.g., m.Makshirin 6:7; BT Yoma 30a; JT Pesahim 7:12 [35b]). The Torah itself calls excrement “indecent” (Deut. 23:14), but it does not say that excrement transmits ritual impurity. Thus, the Pharisaic and rabbinic view also made this distinction. How do these Jewish views regarding the purity status of excrement shed light on Jesus’s statement in Mark 7:19? According to David Garland, “This surprising judgment may be the key to Jesus’ argument. With a droll twist Jesus argues that if food defiles a person, why is it not regarded as impure when it winds up in the latrine?”[21] In other words, using the Pharisees’ own logic, Jesus points out that since excrement is not considered ritually impure, the stomach must function to “cleanse” any food that a person eats. Thus, it does not matter if someone eats food with ritually unwashed hands-the food cannot defile them because the stomach cleanses the food when it turns it into excrement.
@@masterkeep Jesus didn't declare all foods clean in Mark 7:15, 19 nor in Matthew 15:11 which is the same story. I wrote a whole book in a different thread explaining this... So I'm tired 😂 In order to arrive at that conclusion you have to take Mark 7:15 and 19 out of context. And earlier, I saw you taking Acts 10 out of context. Did you read Mark 7 from verse 1? I'm going to try and keep this short ... The Pharisees and the scribes instructed ALL Jews to conduct a SPECIAL hand washing ceremony before eating when they come from the marketplace. Mark 7:3 "...Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way...." This was a "tradition of the elders" and they also did washing of "cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches" The Pharisees found fault with Jesus's disciples because they did not perform the special hand wash. It was basically a law amongst the Jews. Jesus was not too happy with the Pharisees and responded saying "And in vain they worship Me teaching as doctrine the commandments of men" He continues in Mark 7:8 "For laying aside the commandments of God, you hold the tradition of men the washing of pitchers and cups, and many such things you do...All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition" The "special way" the Jews washed their hands isn't in the same way you and I wash our hands. This was some sort of religious practice, a CLEANSING ceremony. And I gather that just from reading Jesus's response and the fact that the Pharisees were offended at his disciples Jesus then called all the multitudes to Himself and says. "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him, but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man" (Mark 7:15) Let's take a look at what are the things that DEFILE a man. And that's defined in Mark 7:20 as the things which comes out of a man from in the HEART which are "....evil thoughts, adultery, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, blasphemy...." And he goes on And in Mark 7:18 Whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it DOES NOT ENTER HIS HEART but his stomach and is eliminated thus PURIFYING all foods." It doesn't say "thus he declares all food clean" which is what you quoted to me. It says "thus PURIFYING all foods" Remember when I said the hand washing ceremony was a CLEANSING ceremony. You can also say it was a PURIFICATION ceremony. The Pharisees had people believing that if they didn't PURIFY themselves with the "special hand washing" ceremony then proceeded to eat food they would defile themselves and become sinful. But Jesus sets the record straight by explaining sin comes from within a man's heart, Not from eating food, because food doesn't go to heart, it goes to the stomach and he reassures them a step further by saying " it is eliminated and purified". Thus you don't need to perform a ridiculous "special hand wash" to avoid defiling your food because it gets purified in the stomach, and it doesn't cause you to sin. My friend read Mark 7:1-23 and you'll see that it is not declaring unclean foods clean. I could go one step further..... Jesus quoted Moses from Exodus 20:12 while speaking to the Pharisees before he addressed the multitudes "For Moses said Honor your father and mother..." If Jesus quoted Moses and mentioned him by name don't you think he could have referenced the "law of animals" he could have quoted Moses from Leviticus 11 easily. And even one step further The subject of Jesus's response in Mark 7:15 &19 is that the disciples ate bread without performing the "special hand wash" If this was about unclean meats Mark 7:2 would've said "they saw some of his disciples eating pork and they found fault" THEN Mark 7:15 & 19 would support your point. But it didn't say that, instead it was about hand washing. Now Jesus says "There's nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him" He's right eating pork is not going to make you commit fornication. It is the desire of heart and acting on it that defiles you. But did Jesus say to eat pork? No Are there sincere Christians who eat pork? Yes Did God say not to eat pork? Yes, he did Leviticus 11 God spoke directly to Moses, this was not a ceremonial law, and the law of clean and unclean animals was around before the flood. Is knowingly disobeying God a sin? Yes My friend I implore you, just read the from verse 1 of Mark 7. You can use Bible gateway to compare versions. There is no support in the Bible for eating unclean meat. I assure you, there is none
Okay, I can accept that Christian interpretation is that all animals are clean to eat but why do they mix dairy and meat? Boiling a child in it's mother's milk, a lot of the law isn't about fulfillment but just ethics or humane treatment, obviously murder is still not allowed and I assume Christians don't eat animals while they are still living. So saying "fulfillment of the law" doesn't really make sense from my perspective, maybe if you were speaking about the Kohen and Levi Mitzvot. But then why bring it up about food or ethic norms.
I had read that boiling meat in milk is a mistranslation or a misunderstanding. Some believe it to mean do not eat an animal which is still taking its mother's milk. Such animals may carry diseases because their immune system is still weak.
Because this has no bearing on meat in general most of which comes from adult animals and we don't drink pig milk, chickens don't have milk and beef comes from a different breed of cow than milk. So the only time this applies if you were to consume cow's milk and veal and even then the odds that the milk comes from the mother of that specific calf is next to 0 in the modern world.
@@geordiewishart1683 There are Hebrew words whose exact meanings may have been lost, luckily that isn't one of them. It's more kin to making a sauce or soup/stew. It shows up 3 times in the Torah, in 2 separate books so we know it's important, the debate can be seen more in the mishnah and its commentary as to debate why the prohibition was placed on the Jewish people. Is it a humane thing, it is out of decency, is it simply meant to separate us from the nations around us, or is there some unknown reason that will be revealed in the future.
@@RickyVis We (Jewish people) don't drink pigs milk because milk from a non kosher animal is forbidden. The chicken one is valid, modern day Orthodox Jews only extend the ban of not mixing dairy and meat to chicken to avoid confusion (literally that is the reason) but chicken was never really an actual issue. Now for the baby cow vs adult cow, who draws the line in the sand, who makes the decision on when they are cow b'nai mitzvav, if you will? Regardless, the large opinion is usually either we don't know where the age line is for cows exactly or it really doesn't matter because the act should be seen as obscene. (IE. Not only are we gonna cook and eat you but cook you in your mother juices that were meant to sustain your life.)
@@yrutrippingWell you were asking about Christians, which is why I mentioned the pigs. But again that doesn't make sense. Steak and milk come from different breeds of cows, we don't get steak from dairy cows or milk from beef cows. The only time there is a tiny chance this could happen if you were to eat veal with milk because veal is meat from male dairy calfs or if you eat very low quality ground beef or dog and cat food.
I have noticed that God typically dispenses his laws in batches rather than all at once. At least looking at the scriptural passage There’s also a heart of thr law, which if we genuinely looked at the lens of loving God and loving man with our actions that would solve most of our problems Where I think things get tricky is to what is loving to do? And for that we look for biblical guidance and the Holy Spirit
It’s called a dispensation. We had the dispensation of the law but now we are in the dispensation of grace. It is a period of time that God with deal with man in a particular way. Thank you Jesus for ushering in the age of Grace!
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey-whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (Romans 6:15-16, NIV). Some people had assumed that grace meant they could continue in a sinful lifestyle. Paul scorns that idea, saying sin is a form of slavery that leads to death. But what does Paul mean by “under law” and “under grace”? When the meaning of a Bible passage is unclear, we should first read the context-the verses before and after. That will usually help clear up any confusion. At times we will need to read the entire chapter or even the entire book or how certain language is used elsewhere to see the context. Interestingly, the epistle to the Romans-the letter that misguided theologians cite the most in arguing that Paul dismissed the Old Testament as being valid for Christians-actually has the largest number of Old Testament quotes that Paul uses to support his teachings! Paul quotes or paraphrases the Old Testament 84 times in this letter-an average of more than five times per chapter! So it’s nonsensical to argue that Paul in Romans is arguing against the validity or authority of the Old Testament or the laws of God written there. In all, Paul quotes or paraphrases 184 Old Testament passages in his writings (not counting another 83 in the book of Hebrews, which he likely also wrote), and this figure doesn’t include his additional dozens of references to people, places and events in the Old Testament. Who in his right mind quotes from a source as a primary support of his teachings while simultaneously arguing that this source is no longer valid or authoritative? Clearly that makes no sense. (This is addressed in detail in our free book The New Covenant: Does It Abolish God’s Law?) What subject is Paul addressing? But back to the context of Romans 6-what subject is Paul actually addressing? In Romans 6:1-2 Paul tells us: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” The issue or question he is addressing is simple: Can a Christian who has “died to sin”-by recognizing that his or her sin deserves the death penalty, and has sincerely repented, been baptized as a symbol of burying the old person in a watery grave and been symbolically raised to a new life as an entirely new person now led by God’s Spirit-continue in a life of sin? Paul’s answer is blunt and simple: “Certainly not!” In no way does grace nullify, invalidate or negate God’s law. As explained in this chapter, God’s law is actually another gift of God’s grace toward mankind-it reveals the thinking, character and mind of God and shows us the way He wants us to live! The longest chapter in the Bible, Psalm 119, is one long hymn of praise and thanks to God for the wisdom of God’s law and the blessings it brings to those who obey it. Grace and law don’t contradict one another, they greatly complement each other! After the first few verses of Romans 6, Paul goes into a detailed discussion of two ways of life. One is our old way of living that led to slavery to sin, suffering and death (sin being the breaking of God’s law, 1 John 3:4). The other, continuing in Romans 6, is to “die with Christ” (Romans 6:8), accepting His sacrifice to pay the death penalty we deserved, symbolically dying and being buried with Him in baptism, then rising from that watery grave “in newness of life” (Romans 6:4), now “alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:11). Now living a new life led by God’s Holy Spirit, we are to “not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts” (Romans 6:12), but to “present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead” (Romans 6:13). The crux of the matter Then we come to Paul’s pivotal statement in Romans 6:14: “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” With the background leading up to this, Paul’s meaning is clear. For a Christian, “sin shall not have dominion over you”-because Christians are freed from slavery to sin (from being under sin’s “dominion”) by Christ having died for us and are now “dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:11). Sin no longer has us enslaved. We have escaped its power and its penalty of death. “For you are not under law but under grace.” Throughout the chapter up to this point Paul has been comparing and contrasting a sinful way of life that leads to death and a way of receiving and accepting God’s gift of grace and mercy that leads to a new way of life that will ultimately be eternal life. Now he compares and contrasts two very different outcomes. “Under law,” in this context, is referring to being under the penalty of the law-which, as he has mentioned in nearly every verse up to this point, is death. The law required death as punishment for sin. That never changed. What changed is that through God’s grace, Jesus Christ emptied Himself of the glory, splendor, majesty and power that He shared with God the Father and came to earth as a physical human being to take that awful penalty on Himself in our place (Philippians 2:5-8; 1 Peter 1:18-19). Because of that supreme sacrifice on our behalf and His resurrection from the dead-also mentioned in nearly every verse in this chapter up to this point-we are no longer under the penalty of death, but “under grace.” In God’s grace He has called us to His truth, forgiven our sins by the sacrifice of His Son, and offers us resurrection to eternal life just as Jesus Christ has been resurrected to eternal life. Paul goes on to explain the only logical response in the lives of those who experience and recognize this great gift of God’s grace: “But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” (Romans 6:17-18). In deep gratitude our response to God is to become “slaves of righteousness”-totally committed and dedicated to our new Master and totally rejecting our old master of sin and death. Thus, being under grace does not mean out from under obligation to obey God’s law. Being under grace means out from under the penalty of the law for breaking it so that we may be empowered with new life to live in obedience to it in following Jesus Christ as Ruler of our lives! Paul summarizes the point of this discussion in the last verse of the chapter, Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” “Gift” here translates the Greek word charisma, closely related to the word charis, meaning “grace.” And charisma means “gift”-the gift in this case being “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”-the ultimate gift of God’s grace!
Jesus never changed the Jewish laws because he's God and those are God's. You're trying to excuse why Christians don't follow those laws. God is perfect and he doesn't change his mind.
This is only a partial explanation. Christians also ignore punitive and moral laws, such as ignoring stoning a woman to death for adultery, but clinging to antiquated views on homosexuality when those passages lie side by side in The law…
Well you could break down the OT laws into - ceremonial laws -civic laws - moral laws Any Christian that suggests that we should put sinners to death, such as the adulterers and the immoral clearly aren’t following Jesus’s teachings But to call out people out of their sinful ways is very much a thing we picked up from Jesus I honestly don’t know why God laid out the sex ethic by the Bible as he did, but it def seems to be more of a moral teaching than a civic one by the fact that it was repeated in both the OT and NT
@@quesostuff1009improper sexuality is seen as destructive in general. Homosexuality, fornication, adultery. It doesn’t matter. Its all self destructive, socially, societally, economically, etc. Sex is meant for the enjoyment of a married couple made up of one man and one woman. And it is meant for procreation. Scripture is pretty clear on that. And marriage is supposed to be representative of Christ’s relationship with His church. So not only is a sin against one’s self to practice sexual immorality of any kind, it is a sin against your neighbor, and it is outright blasphemy against God. It is to say to God “what you made and what you made it for is in error.” And to engage in sexual immorality is also a proclamation of your detest for Christ’s relationship with His people…its a rejection of the Gospel in a very direct way rather than just a thought or via words. This is why, I imagine, that homosexuality is one of the few sins God refers to as an abomination. And He is right, even if it is for some other reason unknown to us.
The punishments were matters of judgement, not eternal in the moral law. However, it is true that adultery is morally wrong in all time and that it SHOULD be a crime, even if the death penalty isn't instituted
Well first of all he didn't explain why "Christians" eat unclean foods. He explained that the ceremonial laws were done away with, which is true. The law of sacrifices ended when Jesus died on the cross. But the dietary restrictions aren't a part of the ceremonial laws. In Leviticus 11 GOD clearly states which animals are clean and unclean. And he gives us these restrictions because he is Holy and wants us to be Holy. And these animals are still unclean. Now concerning antiquated views on homosexuality. It is also not a part of ceremonial law that was done away with. It is an abomination, it never stopped being an abomination. Just like how unclean foods are an abomination. But I can understand from an outside perspective how Christians seem inconsistent. They eat foods that are an abomination, fornicate, then say homosexuality is bad. While ignoring their own actions
Jesus affirmed that the only acceptable sex was within marriage between one woman and one man. All other sex (both examples you list) is forbidden. There is no more stoning for any offense as Jesus offers forgiveness for sin, but sin those examples are.
Leviticus is for Jews alone. The Bible clearly says in the OT that gentiles are not expected to follow those laws. You just aren't quite as educated as you though.
Well what you are missing is most of the laws in Leviticus broken up into different kinds of laws. Moral laws and laws that kept a person clean, which are the ceremonial laws. The ceremonial laws are there to keep a person holy, because they did not have a perfect sacrifice in Christ to keep them clean. This is why Peter was given a vision about how all animals are clean because they were all created by God and to call an animal unclean is to call God's creation unclean. Hebrews is an excellent epistle to read to understand the difference of moral law and ceremonial law and why many of the laws in Leviticus are not moral laws but ceremonial.
@@paulnash6944Shellfish & pork require special preparation. The reasons were not known until certain bacteria were identified under a microscope. The Lord knew; the people did not.
Love to hear someone calmly and rationally discussing an all knowing sky fairy who magically hears all your thoughts and knows if you’ve been bad or good, like Santa Claus. Makes perfect sense 😂
No, not a fairy, and it's not magic. And no, the saints being only humans don't have the divine ability to know all human thoughts. 2) notice he refuted one of the most common objections that unbelievers have which is based on the ignorance of them not reading the rest of the new testament which explains that Christians don't follow ceremonial food laws. Why do you think unbelievers make objections based on ignorance? 3) can you tell me what the classical attributes of God are? 4) can you tell me the title of a book you have read that argues for the existence of God?
And finally, God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ. And He does know all your evil thoughts and evil desires. And God shall punish the unforgiven in everlasting fire. Will you trust the Lord Jesus for the forgiveness of sins or will you die in your sins?
