Boyd,
On the first paragraph of page four, you mention a "law of clothing".
The Bible does not teach a law of clothing, but you write as if there was one in the Old Testament.
It's not there!
On page six, beginning of the third paragraph you write, "...who condemn some churches for worshipping nude,"
What are these nude churches? Never heard of them.
I like the essay overall. It addresses some of the underlying causes of the clothing doctrine that some churches teach.
There have been an attempt or three at churches who worship nude. Maybe I should rephrase that to those who worship nude. I was trying to bring "Christian condemning Christian" approach, not Christian condemning non-Christian. And of course, don't forget other cultures besides the Americans. I am talking about the history at large, not our recent American history.
And have you heard of "CNC"?
The law of clothing I was referring to was a law we subjected ourselves to, not a biblical law.
So maybe I should change "We have been subjected to the law of clothing as an attempt" to "We have subjected ourselves to an non-biblical law of clothing as an attempt..."
I think you would be on solid ground if you said something to the effect, "some people in recent years have (erroneously) feel that the Bible teaches a law of clothing. Yep, they think it's in there somewhere.
Here are some copy-editing suggestions for this article:
Page 4: "We have been FREED from sin and it's penalty!" "...it's" should be "...its".
p. 4 "I get more 'Hello sir!' and 'Are you the manager of this store, sir?'...this sir and that sir...when I'm wearing a suit than when wearing jeans." Technically, the ellipses (...) should be replaced with dashes (--). Ellipses properly mean that something in the text has been omitted, such as, "Those ... naturist Christians!" lol
p. 5 "...such as arch welding..." "Arch" should be "arc."
P. 5 "Since Christ has overcome sin, we are now restored to the existence (A walking, talking and living relationship with God) that Adam originally enjoyed in the beginning." That sentence looks clumsy to me. Perhaps: "...we are now restored to the walking, talking, living relationship with God that Adam originally enjoyed..."
p.5 "Clothing itself is not the problem, it's our way..." That comma should be a semicolon; otherwise the sentence is like what happens to pantyhose: run-on.
p.5 "How can we point to our bodies and say it is evil?" This sentence should read "...they are evil?" You wouldn't write "Bodies is evil," would you?
Someday I'd like to start a dialogue on whether it was the Law itself, or merely the Law's penalties, that were "nailed to the Cross." (Colossians 2:14) But aside from these quibbles, the article looks very good.
I agree that the Torah (law of Moses) has not been abolished.
I may disagree with you and Boyd on the penalty of the law.
As I read the Old Testament, I see countless examples of godly men and women who obtained God's mercy because of their love and faith. What they did not have was a system of mercy implemented by Messiah Jesus.
Like you I believe that we should obey the law, but perhaps unlike you, I believe the means of obeying the law is by walking in fellowship with Jesus rather than focusing on individual precepts.
Although I still find the law useful as a second witness to make sure that I have not drifted off into self-indulgence and called it God's will. Of course I also have the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, but this keeps old habits from creeping back in.
Lastly, I make a distinction between moral law (thou shalt not steal) and ceremonial law regarding temple worship when Messiah clearly said that we would worship God in spirit and in truth (and not just on the Temple Mount).
I don't want to take this thread any further off track, but I think that somewhere on this forum is great need to settle to our own satisfaction what role the Torah has to play in our lives.
I am going to stick my neck out and nose in here to give you my 2 cents worth...
ramblingman wrote: I may disagree with you and Boyd on the penalty of the law.
As I read the Old Testament, I see countless examples of godly men and women who obtained God's mercy because of their love and faith. What they did not have was a system of mercy implemented by Messiah Jesus.
I'd have to agree with you here. If you look down the list of "faith examples" in Hebrews 11, each of those are implied to have received salvation, many of them prior to "the law". There is an argument or theology that says "grace" didn't exist prior to Christ but I see grace or it's fingerprints all over the Old Testament.
ramblingman wrote: Like you I believe that we should obey the law, but perhaps unlike you, I believe the means of obeying the law is by walking in fellowship with Jesus rather than focusing on individual precepts.
Although I still find the law useful as a second witness to make sure that I have not drifted off into self-indulgence and called it God's will. Of course I also have the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, but this keeps old habits from creeping back in.
I believe we were given a "higher law" to obey. The fullness of the law is wrapped up in the conversation Christ had with the "rich young ruler" (Luke 10).
1) Love the Lord...
2) Love your neighbor...
The principle being that if you follow these two laws, none of the other laws will be broken. From my perspective, Christ's death did abolish the law but gave us a different standard to meet.
Keep shoveling out that love, God has plenty more!
December 25 2007, 12:36 PM
The old laws are good laws, making no mistake about that. But are they Post resurrection laws? No.
They do give us examples, and people were faithful to those laws. God recognized that and made sure they were blessed for it. But are they ours? No. Would keeping those laws make you better in Gods' sight? No. You might impress God (Wow, not bad for a human!"), but no more "righteous" than any other.
Christians were never given a command or even a hint that it would be better to keep those laws. Paul made that point very clear. In fact, he stated that if you try to obey one of those laws, that is, make that a Christian value that needs to be kept for righteousness, then you need to keep the whole law. But Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, and by keeping them, you are keeping them outside of Christ, and you are not under Christ.
Therefore, you have to keep the whole thing, lest you be guilty of greater sin.
Christians are teaching today that we need to keep the ten commandments, but do not have to keep the other laws. Not so says Paul. Keep one, keep 'em all, and by doing so, you break one, you break 'em all.
Or... Jesus. Pick one or the other, not both.
If you were to keep any of the Law of Moses, you must also obey the dietary laws (clean and unclean meats) the Sabbath (Saturday, not Sunday) and the list goes on. That was where our church was since it was founded by Herbert W. Armstrong back in the late forties. We changed around '95-96.
If you want to see the history of that lesson and the outcome, please visit www.wcg.org and look up the history of the church.
We are not under the law of Moses, nor are we commanded to keep them.
Born Nude wrote: "I believe we were given a "higher law" to obey. The fullness of the law is wrapped up in the conversation Christ had with the "rich young ruler" (Luke 10).
1) Love the Lord...
2) Love your neighbor...
The principle being that if you follow these two laws, none of the other laws will be broken. From my perspective, Christ's death did abolish the law but gave us a different standard to meet."
Correct. If you Love one another as God has loved us, then we would have no need for a law that restricts us from doing something we wouldn't do otherwise. Sure, some people seem to need a law like them, but if they were taught love by example of love, then hate and prejudice would not exist, therefore murder, slander, lying, stealing, etc, would not exist! Then they would not need to be told, "Do not kill" when they didn't have that hateful spirit in them in the first place.
How about that teenager in Colorado who shot up another school and then himself? Do you know what he needed? A good dose of Love that he could not resist. Did he get it? Not even remotely. True, he shouldn't have done it, but where were those who had the Law of Love in them? They were too busy teaching him "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt love as I am loving you right now". In fact, given enough love, you wouldn't even have to tell him to love others. He would have all the love that he was given spilling out to the world!
Love your children so much, that it ends up spilling out of them to the world! Don't worry about where that love comes from. God has more than plenty for everyone!!
With that, who needs a command that says thou shalt not kill?
Please, don't think we are not recognizing the "fathers" of Israel and their faithfulness! Quite the opposite, they knew of a Savior and coming king and already put their faith in the Messiah! That is how they were sustained through their life, not the laws themselves.
I would go so far as to say that no one was ever saved by keeping the law. Not Adam, Enoch, Moses, Noah, Abraham, King David, none of them were saved by the law. The law gave them insight, but it was faith then and faith now that saves us.
I think my position is best explained by your own words:
The law and prophets can be summed up in the two great commandments of Jesus.
It was wrong to kill someone in the days of Cain and Abel and it is still wrong today.
It is wrong to bear false witness and it still is today.
As for the Sabbath, is there any Christian who says that we should not set aside a portion of our week to prayer, meditation, Bible study, rest and fellowship? Of course not! Most of us say that it does not have to be from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. Romans 14:5 makes it clear that we are no longer compelled to the Mosaic sabbath hours, but the Bible never said that the principle of Sabbath rest has ceased. Sabbath was established before the Mosaic law. It is simply an acknowledgement that humans need rest and time alone with God, time protected from the demands of greedy bosses and men whose ambition knows no bounds.
It is obvious, therefore that the law has not been abolished, but that the means of obeying the law has changed.
If we love the Lord and love our neighbor, (guided by the Holy Spirit, the Bible and those to whom we are accountable in the family of God), then we are extremely unlikely to disobey any single precept of the Torah.
I think there is a danger from ignoring the Torah and the books of the prophets because there is a lot of wisdom there. It is presumptuous to say that because we are post-resurrection Christians that we will never make a misstep nor disobey the Lord. Until that day, I am keeping my nose in the Bible for the same reason that people look in a mirror.
Nobody can argue the wisdom of the Old Testament. Nobody can argue the wisdom of setting aside some time with God in the form of rest.
But we can argue that the law is not our law today. Our desire to rest in God is not our desire or a law, but God's desire through us by the holy spirit. We were invited into HIS rest.
Our love for one another is not our love, but God's love expressed to and through us by the holy spirit, not because the Law says so, or it's "good wisdom" to do so.
Our righteousness is not ours, but God's righteousness through Jesus Christ.
None of these come from the Law or Torah. It all comes from the Trinitarian aspect of God expressed by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not a law written in stone.
Yes, the law still exist, but only for those who live by the law. Those who live by the law, dies by the law, for the law only tells us that we are sinners, no matter how well we keep it. Our ability to keep the law is not going to save us.
You also wrote: "As for the Sabbath, is there any Christian who says that we should not set aside a portion of our week to prayer, meditation, Bible study, rest and fellowship? Of course not! Most of us say that it does not have to be from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. Romans 14:5 makes it clear that we are no longer compelled to the Mosaic sabbath hours, but the Bible never said that the principle of Sabbath rest has ceased."
You and I both agree that most Christians, if not all, should set aside some time, be it an hour or a day. But you also said that most of us (including you?) say that it does not have to be from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. If you live by the Law, then yes, it does imply that! You are taking some part of the law and living by it, but not another. Is the law divided? Did Paul say we can do that? No. He stated clearly that if you live by the law, you live by the whole law. Jesus did not take parts of the law and fulfilled them. He didn't takes parts of the prophecy and fulfilled only a few. He fulfilled all the law and prophets. Where is there room for us to fulfill them?
Our Sabbath is in Christ, not a day. Our law of love is from God, not in keeping the "Big Ten". If you take out the sabbath as it is laid out in detail in the Law, then you have only the nine or eight or seven commandments.
Jesus did not rewrite the law and prophets, he fulfilled them. He fulfilled the destiny of the Law and that is to condemn man to death. Jesus took that condemnation upon himself, therefore there is no more condemnation upon man, ever! And as a result, nothing for the Law to do unless we give that power back to the Law, which only points us to death, which Jesus already fulfilled!
Jesus did not meet us half way and we do the rest. Jesus came all the way to and including becoming fully flesh, a crying baby and up to death on the cross! He ate our food, breathed our air, bathed in our waters, slept in our beds, and other human "quirks" of life I won't mention here. He was fully man! He cannot meet us any closer than that.
When he ascended to heaven, he was still flesh and blood man. Therefore, (think about this....drum roll please) there is a Fleshly Human Being (Man) sitting at the right hand of God right now!!!! (Hey, he said he was still flesh and bone)
So, if we tried to keep the commandments, then are we ignoring what God has already done for us? Are putting that Man back to shame again by not being able to obey the very laws that this Man has already fulfilled? Who are we to say we are better? His very existence guarantees we are in the presence of the Father right now! That is something even the prophets of old knew about, but could not obtain. Even the Law Obeying Daniel begged for something like this, and God told him it was not yet for him to see or understand.
As long as we live by the Laws of the old testament (Notice, it's the OLD testament, not the NEW Testament or covenant) as if we are still bound by them, we are not paying attention to the New Covenant.
"I think there is a danger from ignoring the Torah and the books of the prophets". I say there is even more danger of living by them and ignoring the New Covenant, which far out runs the old. Jesus said you cannot put new wine (New Covenant) into old wine skins (Old Covenant). Mixing them up will only cheapen the New. The new will expand much larger than the old can hold. It will cover the earth, whereas the old only covered a few. But those few in whom it covered, held off God's wrath until the One who is to come has come and brought humanity back to the Father.
Here is the old law in comparison to the New: 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I think you've hit the nail on the head: there are a lot of people who are in congregations that proclaim their salvation by the blood of Jesus, but in actual practice are preaching legalism, condemnation and line by line obedience to Old Testament law.
I got caught up in that stuff myself for a few years and I want to make it very clear that I don't want to go back to that false gospel. If you read any of Jesus sermons, they don't sound anything like the fire and brimstone crowd.
I do not give my blessing to sin. As Paul said (slight paraphrase), "Should we sin the more that grace may abound? God forbid!".
The principles behind the law are as eternal as the God who gave them. And although I am suggesting that we learn those underlying principles and learn the prophets and the history of God dealing with his people through the ages, I want to walk closer with Jesus and focus on that, not on whether I tithed exactly ten percent of the peppermint in my garden this year and was it pretax or after tax income, etc.
Many Christians cannot become naturists until they get over their hard shell ways.
And not just so they can be naturist of course, but so they can walk in total freedom to serve Christ all the more.
"Like you I believe that we should obey the law, but perhaps unlike you, I believe the means of obeying the law is by walking in fellowship with Jesus rather than focusing on individual precepts."
No, ramblinman, you'll get no argument from me there! The salvation Jesus offers, with the Holy Spirit's indwelling presence and encouragement, makes us able to obey whatever laws there may be as I believe the LORD intended from the beginning: in mercy and flexibility, caring more for people than for the laws that were meant to free us but too often just bind.
For example, my keeping the Sabbath is a conscious choice, made not to "work my way to Heaven," but because I love the LORD and willingly follow this among many other things He has said. And there are times I find I have to make choices. Do I go to a Sabbath-keeping church many miles away and worship without rest, or do I stay at home and rest and worship without the sacred assembly? (There are no Sabbath-keeping churches near me except possibly Adventist ones, and I'm not comfortable with Adventist doctrine and practices.) But I feel He understands that the world is not necessarily as I would have it. And I have never believed that this law, alone of all laws, is "essential for salvation;" rather, that it is something I do willingly in response to the salvation I've already received.
We can say "The Law of Love is our law," but even Love needs some guidance in practical details. (Of course, I Corinthians 13 is a good guide to Love. :D )
In Romans 7:1-6, Paul talks about the law being for those who are living, but, because we died with Christ on the cross when we accepted his gift of salvation, the law holds no power over us (vs 4).
Also, the question that I started meditating on was "What is the purpose of the law"? At the end of one of the books of the law (can't remember if it is Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy or Exodus), it talks about the law being a lighter "yoke" than those of the peoples around them. Here, in Romans 7:7, the purpose of the law is to show my sin.
As we look back to Romans 1:18-23, the discourse about the sinful state of man, Paul states that we have the truth about God (and I believe the law) written in our hearts but we choose to reject is.
*How can we point to our bodies and say it is evil?" This sentence should read "...they are evil?" You wouldn't write "Bodies is evil," would you?*
The line just before that is written the same way, "God made our bodies this way and said it was “very good”. I can see "was" is in there and may have made the difference. But could you please clarify the difference?
However, in the web portion (updating as I write this) I did rewrite that line to say "God made our bodies this way and said it was very good. How can we point to those same bodies and say they are evil?"
if you break the sentence down, you correctly say, "this way was very good". It is also grammatically correct to say "those bodies are evil" (of course it is doctrinely incorrect)
If it's not too late, you might consider changing:
We have subjected ourselves to a non-biblical law of clothing as an attempt to resist sin long enough!!
To:
We have for too long subjected ourselves to an unscriptural law of clothing, as an attempt to resist sin!!
I also think "unscriptural" is probably the better choice of words over "non-biblical".
Sometimes writing "correctly" is not as direct as writing as you speak.
People do not normally speak this way, so I do write in a more common language to get the point across.
But try this for an experiment. Imagine me standing in front of a large crowd crying out for change in our political arena, and say the following words with emphasis and pounding a table.
"We have for too long subjected ourselves to an unscriptural law of clothing, as an attempt to resist sin!!"
Now try this one:
"We have subjected ourselves to a non--biblical--law of clothing as an attempt to resist sin long enough!!"
Most people are reading your words silently.
I understand your desire for a more casual style, as if you were speaking. It's your call; I'm just saying how I'd approach the sentence structure.
