Ex-Hebrew Roots/Cult Members

[One Bad Pig]

The problem is that ancient Hebrew didn't use vowels, so that leaves the command open to to a possible interpretation that prohibits eating meat and dairy together. I'm not convinced that that is the correct interpretation, but I no longer use it as an example of rabbis getting carried away.

I would be interested in seeing how a prohibition to boiling a kid in its mother's milk (a deliberately cultic act) could possibly be interpreted to prohibit meat and dairy together.

They agreed that the Torah should be observed, but disagreed about how it should be observed.

And you think we should observe the Torah too, yes?

Messianic Judaism is made up of Jews who recognize Jesus as their Messiah and Gentiles that recognize the innate Jewishness of Christianity and that we follow a Jewish Messiah. Good Messianic Judaism emphasizes the Jewishness of Christianity, not one's Jewishness, and it does not hesitate to identify as Christian. While it is true that there are some Messianics who look down on Gentiles and Gentiles who are made to be inferior, that is not how it should be.

You don't quite get the root of my objection. The term itself emphasizes Judaism, not Christ. In a sense, all practicing Jews are Messianic in the sense that they look for a messiah to come.

Gentile inclusion does not mean Gentile transcendence.

Huh?

I said nothing about following the Old Covenant and I would be opposed to people going back to it. God's holy, righteous, and good standard exist independently of any covenant that offers additional rewards or punishments based on whether or not you live in accordance with God's standard. When people under the Old Covenant sin, they are violating both their covenant and God's standard.

You are aware that Torah IS the Old Covenant? When you say we should follow the first, but not the second, you're not making any sense. The Torah is not a buffet, where you can pick and choose what you want to follow; it's an all or nothing proposition.

My point was that when Jews read the NT they recognize who thoroughly Jewish it is. Also that if Jesus had taught against keeping the law, it would have disqualified him as the Messiah. Jesus was not at odds with God's holy, righteous, and good standard.

That is not in dispute here.

ETA: In doing some reading on the first couple centuries AD, it seems that Jews were actively proselytizing Christians to become Jews, especially in times of persecution (Jews were not persecuted as Christians were, so converting to Judaism meant that one no longer had to worry about being forced to sacrifice to the gods, and Jewish proselytizers capitalized on that). Jews also tended to cooperate with the authorities in accusing or turning in Christians. Christian women tended to be especially attracted to Judaism, since they didn't have to undergo circumcision. This is a big reason why there was anti-Jewish polemic in the early church, and why leaders discouraged participation in Jewish festivals (which would have been occasions for proselytizing).

[Soyeong]

They live with massive contradictions anx do do Messianic Jews.

Of course I disagree. I think MJ makes much more sense of the Bible and that I've gained a much better understanding of the Bible in the past three years since I've started studying the Jewish cultural context than I had in the previous thirty.

If you're looking for massive contradictions, then how can Paul say that the law gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20), that without it we wouldn't even know what sin was (7:7), that we are set free from the law (7:6), and yet that we are not set free to sin (6:15)? How can Paul say that our faith upholds the law (3:31) and that our faith releases us from the law? Why would we even need to be set free from something that is holy, righteous and good in the first place (7:12)? How can the righteous requirement of the law be fulfilled in us if we don't do what the righteous law requires (8:4)? How can Paul say that the mind that is set on flesh is hostile to God and doesn't submit to God's law, if he is saying that we shouldn't submit to God's law (8:6)? How can the children of God who abide in Him be the ones who practice righteousness (1 John 3:6, 10), yet ignore the Bible's instructions for how to practice righteousness? How can we be told that we are a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9-10), to have a holy conduct, and to "be holy, for God is holy" (1 Peter 1:15-16), yet ignore the Bible's instructions that are being quoted from that explain how to have a holy conduct? How can we understand Paul to be saying we don't have to obey the law (Galatians 5:18) if he then goes on to say we should act in accordance with the law (Galatians 5:19-24), and that we should correct people who are caught in sin (Galatians 6:1)? How can walking in the Spirit be in opposition to the law that the Father has commanded? How can Jesus, who kept the law perfectly and did nothing apart from the Father, be in opposition to the law that the Father has commanded? How can the Father's grace be in opposition to the law that He has commanded? How can Paul, who was sent by both Jesus and the Father (Galatians 1:1) say anything in opposition to what Jesus said (Matthew 5:17-19) or against keeping the law that the Father has commanded?

The easy solutions to these contradictions are what is found in MJ by noting that there is an aspect of the law that holds us captive that we need to be set free from and an aspect of law that is holy, righteous, and good that our faith upholds. The aspect of the law that holds us captive is that it condemns us to death for transgressing it (Romans 7:1-4, 8:1-2), our sin nature has the propensity to be perverted into legalism (7:6), and our sin nature leads us to rebel against what we are told to do (7:6-25). The aspect of the law that is holy, righteous, and good, is its instructions for how to live in a manner that is holy, righteous, and good. The law is spiritual (7:14), so walking in the Spirit is walking in accordance with the law, and a role of the Spirit is to cause us to become obedient to the law (Ezekiel 36:27).

Messianic Judaism seems to provide a safe answer to how a believer should understand law, although whether that view is safe is itself debatable since Scripture teaches that those who place themselves under Law are under the curse associated with Law,.since Christ will be of no benefit to them, these losing that which qualifies them to be co-inheritors of the will with Christ, faith in Him, who is Himself the first beneficiary of that will, testament, covenant.

The curse of the law is that it condemns us to death for transgressing it and it is this curse that Jesus became for us when he took our sin. If someone rejects Christ's gift and tries to become justified by keeping the law through their own effort, then because all have sinned, they will fail at becoming justified and fall under the curse of the law, and Christ will be of no value to them. This is not to say it is bad to act in a manner that is holy, righteous, and good, but that we can't be justified by doing so. In fact, the law was never given so that people could become justified by keeping it through their own effort - that is actually a legalistic perversion of the law. So we should not confuse a criticism of a perverted way in which the law was being kept as a criticism of a law that is holy, righteous, and good.

Orthodox Judaism teaches that chayei olam, eternal living, is the observing of God's commandments, doing mitzvot, contributing to the restoration of creation, repairing creation, tikkun olam. The view is derivative, based on that which is found in the written and the oral instructions, and is speculative, since no tangible results are seen.

Orthodox Judaism can be used to help provide a better understand of the cultural context in which the Bible takes place, and it can sometimes have teachings that are good, but those teachings should be taken with a grain of salt.

I suppose I'm saying that doctrinal soundness isn't going to generate progress in this discussion, because highly qualified scholars have already formed well supported views for their own positions. What may tip the discussion in favor of a particular position is evidence of tangible improvement in the situation of creation, actual regeneration of dead creatures:

I agree with all of those verses and see no conflict between them and MJ.

[Soyeong]

I would be interested in seeing how a prohibition to boiling a kid in its mother's milk (a deliberately cultic act) could possibly be interpreted to prohibit meat and dairy together.

Thinking that it was a cultic act is one theory for why the command was given, but I think it also has to do with mixing what was meant for life with dead flesh. A lot of the purity laws have to do with not bringing something that represents death or corruption into the presence of God. In any case, you might find this video interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWRQIV04l80

And you think we should observe the Torah too, yes?

Indeed.

You don't quite get the root of my objection. The term itself emphasizes Judaism, not Christ. In a sense, all practicing Jews are Messianic in the sense that they look for a messiah to come.

"Messiah" and "Christ" mean the same thing and Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, so I don't see how that takes the emphasis away from who he is and who we are following. If there is any emphasis away from Christ, it is that modern Christianity has tried to sanitize its Jewishness.

Huh?

Gentiles do not transcend Israel, but by faith are included with it.

I said nothing about following the Old Covenant and I would be opposed to people going back to it. God's holy, righteous, and good standard exist independently of any covenant that offers additional rewards or punishments based on whether or not you live in accordance with God's standard. When people under the Old Covenant sin, they are violating both their covenant and God's standard.

You are aware that Torah IS the Old Covenant? When you say we should follow the first, but not the second, you're not making any sense. The Torah is not a buffet, where you can pick and choose what you want to follow; it's an all or nothing proposition.

Actually, the point I was making was precisely that the Torah IS NOT the Old Covenant. The Torah contains God's law according to His holy, righteous, and good standard and the Old Covenant is a serious contract to live according to that law. There are several covenants in the Torah and things in the Torah that are not covenants, so they are not the same thing. Even if we were not made part of Israel and called to be a holy nation by faith and all you knew was that God had given instructions for how to live in a manner that is holy, righteous, and good to some other group of people, it would still at the very least be a good idea to follow those instructions independently of any covenant to follow them. Not be because you will become justified by doing so, but simply because that's how to live rightly.

ETA: In doing some reading on the first couple centuries AD, it seems that Jews were actively proselytizing Christians to become Jews, especially in times of persecution (Jews were not persecuted as Christians were, so converting to Judaism meant that one no longer had to worry about being forced to sacrifice to the gods, and Jewish proselytizers capitalized on that). Jews also tended to cooperate with the authorities in accusing or turning in Christians. Christian women tended to be especially attracted to Judaism, since they didn't have to undergo circumcision. This is a big reason why there was anti-Jewish polemic in the early church, and why leaders discouraged participation in Jewish festivals (which would have been occasions for proselytizing).

Early Messianic believers didn't fit with the unbelieving Jews or with the Gentiles, so they were having problems from both ends. Jews certainly weren't innocent, but our hands are stained with blood too. Unfortunately, in an effort to protect themselves from Jews, they sanitized Christianity from its Jewishness. In doing so, they also removed our tools to proselytize Jews and to provoke them to jealousy. God's Feasts contain such rich teachings about the Messiah that it is only to Christianity's tremendous loss to give up celebrating them. Fortunately, I've been regularly hearing about more and more churches that are teaching about God's Feasts. Even if you don't ever agree with me about whether we should keep them, you can still learn about them.

[Scrawly]

Sorry Soy, the library was closed this weekend so I was unable to listen to your Rabbi's teaching. Hopefully I will be able to get around to it this upcoming weekend, however I can't make any promises Oh, have you received an email back from Rabbi Farr regarding his theological training?

Now, just to briefly clear the air regarding some important issues:

1. The Troublemakers in Galatia

Commonly identified by the name “Judaizers.” One commentator describes them in these terms: Paul’s opponents were conservative Jewish Christians who mandated that a Gentile must first obey the precepts of Judaism … prior to being accepted as a full member of the Christian church (S.E. McClelland, p. 1001.) Another commentator describes them as “Jewish Christians who wanted to combine the gospel of Christ with the observation of Jewish ceremonies” (H. Ridderbos, p. 16.) But anyone who adheres to the doctrines cherished and propagated by these men cannot be called Christian at all. Their teaching was a denial of the very essence of the Christian faith.

Who were these men and how was it that they were found within the Christian church? Note that the Apostle Paul calls them “false brethren” (Gal. 2:4) and in the Book of Acts Luke identifies them as “certain men of the sect of the Pharisees” (Acts 15:5.) So, the question becomes, How did these Pharisees happen to be present at a council of the Christian church?
One must bear in mind that the Pharisees were firm believers in the doctrine of the resurrection (Acts 23:8.) Apparently, when the Lord Jesus was raised from the dead, and His disciples presented their irrefutable witness to His resurrection, some of the Pharisees acknowledged Him to be the Messiah and associated themselves with His church. But when they entered the church, they did not understand the gospel; they continued to hold to their former religious beliefs. They did not place their faith completely in Christ alone; rather, they sought to fit Christ into their religious system. As we have seen, they believed in the necessity of circumcision and personal obedience as part of an effort to earn and maintain one’s own salvation. Apparently, these “false brethren” only viewed the Lord Jesus as an example to be followed, rather than as what He is in fact: the Savior to be trusted.

2. The Relationship Between Galatians and Romans and James

The similarity of the Epistle to the Galatians in many points to the Epistle to the Romans has often been observed. John Eadie, in the introduction to his commentary (pp. lvii-lx), lists nineteen passages of Galatians that are either repeated or developed in the Book of Romans.
But, as H. Ridderbos points out (pp. 20-21), commentators have noticed a difference between Paul’s treatment of the law in the Epistle to the Romans when compared to the Epistle to the Galatians. In Galatians the emphasis is predominantly placed on the negative significance of the law. By way of example, note the following passages:

-All who place their hope in the law are under a curse (3:10)
-The law is antithetical to the covenant of promise (3:12)
-The function of the law is to curb sin (3:19)
-The law cannot give life (3:21)
-The law is provisional: holding men captive and driving them to Christ (3:23-25)
-The law produces children of bondage who are eventually expelled (4:21-31)

In the Epistle to the Romans this negative significance of the law is also mentioned (note Rom. 4:15 and 5:20.) However, in Romans, in addition to the negative aspect of the law, there is far greater emphasis on the loftiness and holiness of the law (note, for instance, Rom. 7, especially, 7:12.)
Some commentators have taken this difference to be indicative of a development in the Apostle Paul’s understanding of the law. According to them, in the interim between the writing of Galatians and Romans, Paul came to a much more positive appreciation of the law. But, as H. Ridderbos rightly points out (pp. 21-22), “There is no reason for such a judgment.” The different presentation of the law in Roman, when compared to Galatians, is not due to a change in the apostle’s thinking; it is to be found, rather, in his differing purposes in writing the two Epistles.
It must be remembered that in the letter to the Galatians, as distinguished from the letter to the Romans, the whole argument is governed by Paul’s refutation of the Judaizers (men who promoted obedience to the law as the way of salvation.) It is altogether appropriate, therefore, that in the Epistle to the Galatians the provisional and negative aspect of the law should be emphasized so as to dissuade the Galatians from foolishly forsaking the gospel in favor of the law as the way of salvation. In the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle’s presentation of the law is more balanced: slanted less toward the danger inherent in viewing the law as the means of salvation and bringing out more of the positive and permanent aspects of the law (note, for instance, Romans 8:3-4.) We may summarize the distinction found in these two Epistles as follows: The Epistle to the Galatians, written as an urgent corrective to the churches’ dangerous infatuation with the law, emphatically stresses the inadequacy of the law to serve as the means of salvation. The Epistle to the Romans, written more on the order of a reasoned theological treatise, is expounding the full scope of God’s holy moral law.

Just as there are obvious similarities between the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to the Romans; so, too, there is apparent a striking contrast between the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle of James. Once again, the key to reconciling the apparent difference lies in an understanding of the distinct purpose for which each Epistle was written.
To understand the respective purposes of these two Epistles, we need to go back again to the controversy and the questions that arose when the church began to expand into Gentile territory and embrace Gentile converts. As M. Tenney remarks (pp. 260-261), the controversy over circumcising Gentile converts was no small, localized matter that could be settled by having the Gentile believers make a few small concessions to their Jewish brethren. On the contrary, several questions of great importance were involved. Such questions as, What is the place of the law in the plan of God? Is obedience to the law, in addition to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, necessary for salvation? If the Gentiles did not need to submit to all the Old Testament regulations, were they, nevertheless, still obligated to obey the moral law? In other words, What exactly is the relationship between salvation by faith and ethical behavior? To put it another way, What connection is there between faith and works? These and similar problems are reflected in many of the epistles of the New Testament that were written in the decade between A.D. 50 and A. D. 60. Two such Epistles in particular deal with these issues, each focusing on one or the other aspect of the question—the one focusing on faith, the other focusing on the place of works in the believer’s life. These two Epistles are Galatians and James.
The Epistles of James and Galatians illustrate the two aspects of Christianity that from the very beginning have seemed to be conflicting, though in reality they are supplementary. On the one hand, James focuses on the necessity of the Christian ethic: faith must demonstrate its genuineness by bearing the fruit of good works. (Nevertheless, James, no less than Paul, emphasizes the need of the transforming grace of God. At the very outset of his epistle, the Apostle James writes, “Of his own will, (God) brought us forth by the word of truth, in order that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.”) Galatians, on the other hand, stresses the dynamic of the gospel (“the word of truth”) that produces the Christian ethic.

In Romans 8:3-4 we find these two essential elements brought together. There the Apostle Paul writes, “What the law could not do [namely, be the means by which sinful man could make himself acceptable to God] … God did by sending his own Son [to be our Savior whom we receive by faith] … so that the righteous requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” Or again, we may consider Ephesians 2:8-10, “It is by grace that you have been saved through faith—and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God—it is not of works, therefore no one can boast. We are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared in advance in order for us to walk in them.” The means of our salvation is faith—a faith imparted to us by the sovereign grace of God. The purpose of our salvation is holiness—the doing of those good works that God Himself has prepared for us to perform. The Epistle to the Galatians focuses on the means of our salvation; the Epistle of James focuses on the purpose of our salvation.

3. a) A Defense of the Gospel Against Libertinism (5:1-6:10)

-The Christian must not exchange his freedom for circumcision and the law (5:1-6)
-Those who insist on circumcision are leading people astray (5:7-12)
-Christian freedom must not be equated with libertinism (5:13-15)
-Walking by the Spirit is the safeguard against libertinism (5:16-26)
-Specific applications of the Spirit-filled life (6:1-10)

b) A Defense of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith (3:1-4:31)
-The Galatians received the Holy Spirit by faith, not works (3:1-5)
-Abraham was saved by faith (3:6-9)
-The Law can only impose a curse, from which Christ redeemed us (3:10-14)
-The Covenant of Promise precedes and takes precedence over the Law (3:15-18)
-One great function of the Law is to bring us to Christ (3:19-29)
-By faith in Christ the N.T. believer enjoys the status of mature sonship (4:1-7)
-Paul interrupts his arguments to make a personal appeal to the Galatians (4:8-20)
-By the illustration of Sarah and Hagar, the believer’s freedom is contrasted with the Judaizers’ bondage (4:21-31)

Source(s):

-McClelland, Scott E.; “Galatians”
-Ridderbos, Herman N.; “The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia”

[Scrawly]

I noticed you also used Romans 8:7 to support your view that Christian's must obey the law of Moses (Acts: 15:5), however, I think you are missing the forest for the trees as this verse is demonstrative of how the unregenerate is unable to obey God's law or please God. We can only do that by faith and by the power of the Spirit. We please God by faith, not by human law-works.

7–8 Verses 7–8 explain why the mind-set of the flesh must lead to death. As shorthand for the principle and power of the godless world, “flesh” and the mind-set characteristic of it are necessarily hostile to God and all his purposes. No neutrality is possible; without the Spirit’s mind-set, found only through union with Christ (see vv. 9–10), people can only order their lives in a way that is hostile to God and that will incur his wrath. The second part of v. 7 and v. 8 explain this hostility to God. The “mind-set produced by the flesh” does not, and cannot, submit to God’s law. Those “in the flesh”—the “natural” person apart from Christ—cannot please God. In light of vv. 3–4 (and chap. 7), we might expect “law of God” to refer to the Mosaic law. On the other hand, this may be one of those verses in which Paul uses nomos to depict the demand of God generally rather than any particular expression of that demand. In either case, we may draw two important implications from these statements.

First, the “law of God” remains a standard by which the conduct of unbelievers can be measured and condemned. Believers are no longer “under the law” (Rom. 6:14, 15), subject to its binding authority (7:4); but unbelievers are subject still to this power of the “old age.” Second, Paul’s assessment of persons apart from Christ may justly be summed up in the theological categories of “total depravity” and “total inability.” “Total depravity” does not mean that all people are as evil as they possibly could be—that all people commit every possible sin—nor does it deny that there is knowledge of the good within each person. What is meant rather is that every person apart from Christ is thoroughly in the grip of the power of sin, and that this power extends to all the person’s faculties. This Paul has enunciated clearly by accusing all non-Christians of having a “mind-set,” a total life-direction, that is innately hostile to God (v. 7). All people, by nature derived from Adam, are incurably “bent” toward their own good rather than the good of others or of God. The various sins to which we are attracted—desire for riches, or station in life, or power, or sexual pleasure—are but different symptoms of this same sickness, this idolatrous bent toward self-gratification. Once again, we must remember that Paul is not here using “flesh” as we often do, to denote sexual sin specifically. To be “in the flesh,” or “carnal,” or “fleshly,” includes, in the sense Paul is using flesh here, all sins. The person who is preoccupied with his or her own success in business, at the expense of others and of God, is just as much dominated by the flesh as the person who commits adultery. Both persons are manifesting, in different ways, that destructive, self-centered rebellion against God and his law which can be overcome only by the power of God’s Spirit in Christ. Verse 8, on the other hand, plainly shows that no person can rescue himself from this condition. As long as that person is “in the flesh”—and only the Spirit can rescue us from this envelopment in the flesh—he or she is “totally unable” to please God.

Source: Moo, D. J. (1996). The Epistle to the Romans (488–489).

[Scrawly]

I'll have some comments forthcoming on Galatians 3:28 and surrounding verses momentarily as well.

[Scrawly]

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). See also (Rom. 10:12, John 10:16, Eph. 2:14).

The Results of Faith (Gal. 3:26-29). No statements in the Pauline corpus reveal more readily than these the radical newness of human experience Paul believed to be a direct result of a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. In the cultural and religious context of first century Galatia, where distinctions of national origin, gender and economic status were the defining tools for human interaction, Paul's words here declare the inauguration of a new paradigm of human value.

Paul switches back to the second person plural from the first person singular (3:15-25) to state his conclusion. If the Galatians are being pressured to become something more than they believe they already are, they should note with care the fact that once they have been joined to Christ (3:26), all temporal distinctions become meaningless; all of them are already "children of Abraham" (see 3:7). This is where the opponents have missed the radical nature of faith in Christ. Access to God through Christ is opened to all, and once access has been appropriated, the unity of humanity that began prior to the fall is restored, with the resultant loss of distinctions, which were simply echoes of the fall.

It should be noted that the main emphasis of these statements is on the reality of kinship (or sonship) in the covenantal family of Abraham as a result of faith in Christ. Paul's elaboration of this fact in verses 27-28 is a timeless truth, but in the context of the first century Gentile church led to feel its experience is inferior to a Jewish experience in Christ, these words would make a far greater impact that we may be capable of imagining. Paul specifies the accompanying full rights of this new intimate relationship, showing that Gentiles in Christ are also "heirs according to the promise" (3:29). Such statements leave no doubt that the opponents' position not only fails to add anything to the Galatians but in fact will negate that which they already have received.

While much has been made of the fact that Paul uses baptismal imagery here, it is too much to say with certainty that he reflects this wording from an existing ceremony. Nevertheless, with the image of being "clothed" in Christ, Paul might very well have a baptismal ceremony in mind. Many early Christian baptisms utilized white robes for the participants to display the overall newness of life in Christ (with the effect of also reducing any visible human distinctions of status or even gender).

The three couplets in verse 28 may reflect an ordering by Paul devised to contradict existing prayers found in Jewish and Gentile circles that gave thanks to God for an individual's superiority over supposed inferiors. In any case, Paul's elaboration on the oneness found in Christ leaves no room for those in Galatia (or for modern readers) to allow for any prejudicial treatment of fellow believers in light of ethnic, economic, or gender particularities. Rather than an exhaustive list, the apostle provides enough elaboration to show that absolutely no distinction can be carried over into the Christ experience.

We should also note, as do many, that the couplets Jew/Greek and slave/free are not exactly like male/female. While the two former couplets eradicate any distinction whatsoever, the latter one, linked by the conjunction KAI ("and"), indicates that while the complementarity of gender difference remains, each difference no longer represents any barrier to full participation in the newness of life found in Christ.

Source: McClelland, Scott E; Galatians (pp.564); The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary (2012).

[Soyeong]

Sorry Soy, the library was closed this weekend so I was unable to listen to your Rabbi's teaching. Hopefully I will be able to get around to it this upcoming weekend, however I can't make any promises Oh, have you received an email back from Rabbi Farr regarding his theological training?

Not yet, he likes to talk to me in person, but I missed the chance, hopefully next week.

The Epistle to the Romans, written more on the order of a reasoned theological treatise, is expounding the full scope of God’s holy [moral] law.

I agreed with pretty much everything in that post except I see no justification for limiting it to only moral laws or for the distinction between moral and nonmoral laws. If moral laws are in regard to man's relationship with man and not man's relationship with God, the the first four of the Ten Commandments are not moral laws, including the law against idolatry. However, if they are also in regard to man's relationship with God, then all of God's laws are moral laws.

[Soyeong]

I noticed you also used Romans 8:7 to support your view that Christian's must obey the law of Moses (Acts: 15:5), however, I think you are missing the forest for the trees as this verse is demonstrative of how the unregenerate is unable to obey God's law or please God. We can only do that by faith and by the power of the Spirit. We please God by faith, not by human law-works.

The law of Moses was God's instructions for how to practice righteousness. People who are declared to be righteous are called to be people who practice righteous, so saying Christians should obey the law of Moses because that's what people who are declared righteous are supposed to do is very different from saying that Christians must obey the law of Moses in order to be declared righteous. So please stop confusing me with the Judaizers in Acts 15 because I oppose their position.

People who have their mind set on the flesh are hostile to God and won't submit to God's law. It seems pretty straightforward to me that if you won't submit to God's law, then you have at least that much in common with them. We can't obey God's law through our own effort, we can only do that by faith and by the power of the Spirit. We please God by faith, not by human law-works, but it nevertheless our faith that leads us to do law-works in obedience to God. Obeying God's law is an expression of our faith and love in Him.

[Soyeong]

We should also note, as do many, that the couplets Jew/Greek and slave/free are not exactly like male/female. While the two former couplets eradicate any distinction whatsoever, the latter one, linked by the conjunction KAI ("and"), indicates that while the complementarity of gender difference remains, each difference no longer represents any barrier to full participation in the newness of life found in Christ.

Again, the distinction is not relevant when it comes to who can be in Christ, but that is not the same as eradicating every distinction in all contexts. Paul himself noted distinctions in Romans 3:1-2.

[Scrawly]

The law of Moses was God's instructions for how to practice righteousness. People who are declared to be righteous are called to be people who practice righteousness

Define righteousness according to the New Covenant please.

so saying Christians should obey the law of Moses because that's what people who are declared righteous are supposed to do is very different from saying that Christians must obey the law of Moses in order to be declared righteous. So please stop confusing me with the Judaizers in Acts 15 because I oppose their position.

The Judaizers in Acts 15 simply said "obey the law of Moses". This is what you are saying as well. Nevertheless, your position can also be characterized as the Galatian heresy -a child of Hagar. Look how Paul starts in relation to the slave-woman and the freewoman - "Tell me, you who want to be under law..." (Gal.4:21). Read the rest of chapter 4 to see which woman represents those who "want to be under the law".

People who have their mind set on the flesh are hostile to God and won't submit to God's law. It seems pretty straightforward to me that if you won't submit to God's law, then you have at least that much in common with them.

"this may be one of those verses in which Paul uses nomos to depict the demand of God generally rather than any particular expression of that demand". In any event, believers who walk in the Spirit and produce the fruit of the Spirit are not hostile to God's law because they are already fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law. (Rom. 8:4). Mosaic law obedience is not an expression of being born-again, because many Orthodox Jews faithfully obey the law and do not possess the Spirit which only comes about by faith in Christ. For example see Paul's experience of being under the law as an unregenerate Jew (Rom. 7:14-24).

We can't obey God's law through our own effort, we can only do that by faith and by the power of the Spirit. We please God by faith, not by human law-works, but it nevertheless our faith that leads us to do law-works in obedience to God. Obeying God's law is an expression of our faith and love in Him.

Devotion to the person of Christ, walking in the Spirit, and adherence to Apostolic teaching under the New Covenant from a position of gratitude for all that Christ has done on our behalf is the proper expression of genuine faith.

[Scrawly]

Again, the distinction is not relevant when it comes to who can be in Christ, but that is not the same as eradicating every distinction in all contexts. Paul himself noted distinctions in Romans 3:1-2.

The lack of distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ is representative of the "one new man"/"third humanity"/"new creation" whose citizenship is in heaven (Philp. 3:20).

[footwasher]

Of course I disagree. I think MJ makes much more sense of the Bible and that I've gained a much better understanding of the Bible in the past three years since I've started studying the Jewish cultural context than I had in the previous thirty.

If you're looking for massive contradictions, then how can Paul say that the law gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20),

The law exists, it gives us the ability to identify sin, but we are not affected by its sentencing power, no contradiction here.

that without it we wouldn't even know what sin was (7:7),

The law exists, it gives us the ability to identify sin, but we are not affected by its sentencing power, no contradiction here.

that we are set free from the law (7:6),

The law exists, it gives us the ability to identify sin, but we are not affected by its sentencing power, no contradiction here.

and yet that we are not set free to sin (6:15)?

The law exists, it gives us the ability to identify sin, but we are not affected by its sentencing power, so a choice has been presented which was not so before.

The old choice was

1. to sin and be sentenced, or
2. not sin and avoid sentencing.

The new choice is:

1. to sin and avoid sentencing or
2. not to sin and avoid sentencing.

In the first we are really not free to choose, not because we will face sentencing, but doing so will lead to death, the loss of ability to contribute to restoring creation:

Hebrews 10:5Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; 6IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.

7“THEN I SAID, ‘BEHOLD, I HAVE COME
(IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME)
TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.’”

8After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


no contradiction here. In other words, we are free from the tyranny of the law, it's death threatening power, but we are losing out on an opportunity to take part in the creation completing task that was first gifted to Adam, if we do not sanctify our body.

How can Paul say that our faith upholds the law (3:31)

The law still serves the purpose of identifying sin, but we are not affected by it's sentencing power.

and that our faith releases us from the law?

We are not affected by its sentencing power, through faith in Christ.

Why would we even need to be set free from something that is holy, righteous and good in the first place (7:12)?

We are set free from obeying the law because it leads to death through being impossible to be compliant. The law cannot justify, it is brokenness, realisation of inadequacy, confession that does.

How can the righteous requirement of the law be fulfilled in us if we don't do what the righteous law requires (8:4)?

By living according to the Spirit.

Romans 8:4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

How can Paul say that the mind that is set on flesh is hostile to God and doesn't submit to God's law, if he is saying that we shouldn't submit to God's law (8:6)?

By saying that those who set their mind on the flesh will die:

Romans 8:6for the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

But the alternative is not to submit to the law of God, which he DOES say we shouldn't do:

Galatians 2:nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

So we shouldn't submit to the law but have faith in Christ.

How can the children of God who abide in Him be the ones who practice righteousness (1 John 3:6, 10), yet ignore the Bible's instructions for how to practice righteousness?

The Bible's instructions for how to practice righteousness is to have faith in Christ.

How can we be told that we are a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9-10), to have a holy conduct, and to "be holy, for God is holy" (1 Peter 1:15-16), yet ignore the Bible's instructions that are being quoted from that explain how to have a holy conduct?

The Bible's instructions for how to have a holy conduct is not in:

1 Peter 1:15but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.”

or:

1 Peter 2:9But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED mercy.

but in:


1 Peter 1:1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

and:

1 Peter 2:6For this is contained in Scripture:
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”


In fact he tells his readers to act as men freed from the law:

1 Peter 2:16Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.

What is being contrasted? Unselfish acts are contrasted against selfish living, but obeying food laws is not contrasted with freeing yourself from those laws.

How can we understand Paul to be saying we don't have to obey the law (Galatians 5:18) if he then goes on to say we should act in accordance with the law (Galatians 5:19-24), and that we should correct people who are caught in sin (Galatians 6:1)?

Unselfish acts are contrasted against selfish living, not obeying food laws against freeing yourself from those laws. He is not saying we have to obey the food laws and correct those who are not following those laws.

How can walking in the Spirit be in opposition to the law that the Father has commanded? How can Jesus, who kept the law perfectly and did nothing apart from the Father, be in opposition to the law that the Father has commanded? How can the Father's grace be in opposition to the law that He has commanded? How can Paul, who was sent by both Jesus and the Father (Galatians 1:1) say anything in opposition to what Jesus said (Matthew 5:17-19) or against keeping the law that the Father has commanded?

Unselfish acts are set in opposition to selfish living, but obeying food laws is not set in opposition to freeing yourself from those laws. He is not saying we have to obey the food laws and correct those who are not following those laws. I challenge you to find a single instance where Christ insists on following of the food laws. All His criticisms are towards those who have neglected justice, mercy and faithfulness.

The easy solutions to these contradictions are what is found in MJ by noting that there is an aspect of the law that holds us captive that we need to be set free from and an aspect of law that is holy, righteous, and good that our faith upholds. The aspect of the law that holds us captive is that it condemns us to death for transgressing it (Romans 7:1-4, 8:1-2), our sin nature has the propensity to be perverted into legalism (7:6), and our sin nature leads us to rebel against what we are told to do (7:6-25).

Not true. Our sin nature has the propensity to pervert viewing laws as burdens rather than as instructions for proper living.

We love the orderly traffic system that provides safe and efficient use of public roads, but we follow rules that control and restrict our actions grudgingly. That is called following the letter of the law. It's a nuanced idea: those who will judge angels view law differently from those who will not be allowed to be judges. The attitude of son is different from the hired hand: he has a vested interest.

Romans 7:6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The aspect of the law that is holy, righteous, and good, is its instructions for how to live in a manner that is holy, righteous, and good. The law is spiritual (7:14), so walking in the Spirit is walking in accordance with the law, and a role of the Spirit is to cause us to become obedient to the law (Ezekiel 36:27).

See above.

The curse of the law is that it condemns us to death for transgressing it and it is this curse that Jesus became for us when he took our sin.

In doing so he did not remove the curse, he removed the law. A contract is considered completed if the terms are met or if the penalty is paid. Christ assumed federal headship of the old humanity and paid the penalty.

If someone rejects Christ's gift and tries to become justified by keeping the law through their own effort, then because all have sinned, they will fail at becoming justified and fall under the curse of the law, and Christ will be of no value to them.

Wrong. If someone rejects Christ's gift of fulfilling the old contract and tries to become justified by keeping the law as if the old contract had not been fulfilled, then because all have sinned, they'll fail at becoming justified and fall under the curse of the law because the Old Contract requires perfect obedience, and Christ will be of no value to them. It is an insult to Christ, tantamount to trampling his blood underfoot.

This is not to say it is bad to act in a manner that is holy, righteous, and good, but that we can't be justified by doing so. In fact, the law was never given so that people could become justified by keeping it through their own effort - that is actually a legalistic perversion of the law. So we should not confuse a criticism of a perverted way in which the law was being kept as a criticism of a law that is holy, righteous, and good.

Wrong. The law had to be observed by obeying ALL its requirements. The minor as well as the weightier points of the law, which the Pharisees did not do. The righteousness they established on their own was tithing of even mint and cummin, but skipping justice mercy and faithfulness, God's righteousness.

One of the purposes of giving the law to the Israelites was to help her to identify her messiah, as He would fulfill at least 300 actions charted out in the law and the prophets, which any knowledgeable Jew will tell you is what Torah really is, not just the pentateuch.

The next purpose of the law was to give a set of customs and traditions to Israel that set her apart from the pagan nations. Not only was she not allowed to mix with those nations, it would be difficult for her to do so. Imagine going out for dinner with a vegan. It would be so difficult and expensive to do so that you would not wish to repeat the experience.

Thirdly, the law was meant to reveal transgression, inability to perform, and ultimately bring a believer to his knees. This was what justified, not the actual observance of Law. Justification resulted in God's provision and protection. Those who turned away from loyalty to the ideals of God, justice, mercy and faithfulness, towards Baal, self serving living lived under the wrath of God. God always preserved a part of Israel, a remnant, those who had not bowed their knee to Baal, else Israel would have faced the fate of nations like Sodom and Gomorrah, disappearing totally from the face of the earth.

Orthodox Judaism can be used to help provide a better understand of the cultural context in which the Bible takes place, and it can sometimes have teachings that are good, but those teachings should be taken with a grain of salt.

Orthodox Judaism addresses the promise to Abraham to make his Seed a blessing to the world , something missing from most Christian denominations.

I agree with all of those verses and see no conflict between them and MJ.

So how is MJ being a blessing to the world? Are dead bones being spoken to and being filled with life?

[One Bad Pig]

"Messiah" and "Christ" mean the same thing and Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, so I don't see how that takes the emphasis away from who he is and who we are following. If there is any emphasis away from Christ, it is that modern Christianity has tried to sanitize its Jewishness.

Way to completely misconstrue my point.

Gentiles do not transcend Israel, but by faith are included with it.

Of course.

Actually, the point I was making was precisely that the Torah IS NOT the Old Covenant. The Torah contains God's law according to His holy, righteous, and good standard and the Old Covenant is a serious contract to live according to that law. There are several covenants in the Torah and things in the Torah that are not covenants, so they are not the same thing. Even if we were not made part of Israel and called to be a holy nation by faith and all you knew was that God had given instructions for how to live in a manner that is holy, righteous, and good to some other group of people, it would still at the very least be a good idea to follow those instructions independently of any covenant to follow them. Not be because you will become justified by doing so, but simply because that's how to live rightly.

This looks mostly like one heaping evasion, given that the Old Covenant is the Torah. The Mosaic Covenant is part of the Torah, and is the sticking point, which I'm sure you realize. And in Messianic Judaism, you're picking and choosing which parts of the Mosaic Covenant you want to follow (feasts) and which you do not (blood sacrifices, circumcision).

Early Messianic believers didn't fit with the unbelieving Jews or with the Gentiles, so they were having problems from both ends.

I'm not sure that Acts bears out this assertion. Once the followers of Jesus were forced out of the synagogues, they continued to meet together elsewhere. Since the apostles seemed to attract both Jews and God-fearers from the synagogues, there would already have been a mixture of Jew and Gentile, to which other Gentile converts would have been added.

Jews certainly weren't innocent, but our hands are stained with blood too. Unfortunately, in an effort to protect themselves from Jews, they sanitized Christianity from its Jewishness. In doing so, they also removed our tools to proselytize Jews and to provoke them to jealousy.

You realize that the apostles themselves (in Acts 15) were the ones who "sanitized" Christianity, yes? And there certainly were attempts to proselytize the Jews beyond then (Justin martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, for example), though they had to contend with Jewish slander.

God's Feasts contain such rich teachings about the Messiah that it is only to Christianity's tremendous loss to give up celebrating them. Fortunately, I've been regularly hearing about more and more churches that are teaching about God's Feasts. Even if you don't ever agree with me about whether we should keep them, you can still learn about them.

Oh, I agree that there are rich teachings about the Messiah in the feasts of Israel, but they are shadows or types of what has been fulfilled in Him. And Pascha (Easter) = Passover, Pentecost = Feast of Weeks, and first fruits are offered when we celebrate the Transfiguration (August 6).

[Soyeong]

The law exists, it gives us the ability to identify sin, but we are not affected by its sentencing power, no contradiction here.

Umm...the contradiction was in the conjunction of the the verses with theology that says the law is not binding, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to break up my question into small parts to repeat something that I've already stated in this thread. I've argued that "not being under the law" refers to being free from power of the law to condemn us to death for breaking it, the power of our sin nature to cause us to pervert the law into legalism, and the power of our sin nature to cause us to rebel against the law, but that it does not refer to being free from the instruction of the law. If we were free from the instruction of the law, then we would be free to sin all we wanted, but Romans 6:15 says that we aren't. In other words, if sinning is still wrong for us to do, then we should still avoid doing what the law identifies as sin. The law identifies eating unclean animals as a sin, so even though we won't face sentencing for eating unclean animals, our faith upholds the law by leading us in obedience to it and away from sin.

8After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” (which are offered according to the Law)

Why do you think God commanded Moses and the Israelites to do sacrifices when he didn't desire them?

We are set free from obeying the law because it leads to death through being impossible to be compliant. The law cannot justify, it is brokenness, realisation of inadequacy, confession that does.

By living according to the Spirit.

Romans 8:4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

The law is holy, righteous, and good in accordance with God's standard of holiness, righteousness, and goodness. This is a standard that we should all aspire to align our lives with, not something that we need to or can be set free from. If God could just lower His standards, then Christ would not have needed to die. The fact that we can't live up what that standard requires through our own effort does highlight our inadequacy, but that's far from the only reason God made His standard known. A role of the Spirit is to cause us to be obedient to God, so God set us free from our sin nature's mastery over us and sent His Spirit to cause to be able to live up to that standard and meet its righteous requirement, not so that we could disregard it. What we needed to be set free from was not God's holy, righteous, and good standard, but the penalty for violating it.

By saying that those who set their mind on the flesh will die:

Romans 8:6for the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

But the alternative is not to submit to the law of God, which he DOES say we shouldn't do:

Galatians 2:nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

There is a huge difference between submitting to God's law because that it what He has called those who have been justified by faith to do and submitting to God's law in an effort to become justified in God's eyes through our own effort. God never gave His law for His people to become justified by keeping it, so that is a perversion of the law. You should not confuse criticism of a perversion of the law with with a criticism of God's holy, righteous, and good law.

So we shouldn't submit to the law but have faith in Christ.

Christ is not at all at odds with the Father, so He is not at odds with the law God has commanded. Having faith in Christ should lead us to submit to the law, just as Christ did.

The Bible's instructions for how to practice righteousness is to have faith in Christ.

Having faith is not simply saying that you trust someone, but it is demonstrating through your actions that you do, so having faith is demonstrated by obedience to the law. As James says, faith without works is useless. The holy, righteous, and good law unsurprisingly instructs how to have a holy conduct, how to practice righteousness, and how to do good works. Christ lived in perfect accordance with the law and taught how to follow it both in word and by example, so faith in Christ is in perfect accordance with the law.

The Bible's instructions for how to have a holy conduct is not in:

1 Peter 1:15but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.”

You don't think it is relevant to look at what this verse is quoting from?

1 Peter 2:9But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED mercy.

Deuteronomy 7:6 “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

They are saying that Gentiles are now included as part of God's chosen people and what God once said the Israelites now applies to them.

1 Peter 1:1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Again, Christ lived in perfect accordance with the law and he is not at odds with the Father, so obedience to Christ is in perfect accordance with the law that God has commanded. Sanctifying us to be more like Christ in how he thought and in his obedience to God is likewise in perfect accordance with obedience to God's law.

and:

1 Peter 2:6For this is contained in Scripture:
“BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

Other verses that to do explain how to have a holy conduct do not exclude the law's instructions for it, but rather are in perfect accordance with it.

In fact he tells his readers to act as men freed from the law:

1 Peter 2:16Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.

What is being contrasted? Unselfish acts are contrasted against selfish living, but obeying food laws is not contrasted with freeing yourself from those laws.

If our freedom in Christ means that we have freedom from the instructions of law in regard to sin, then we have the freedom to sin and to do what is evil, but this verse is saying that we should not understand our freedom in Christ to mean that. Rather, we are set free from sin to become bondslaves of God, which means obediently following His commands.

Unselfish acts are contrasted against selfish living, not obeying food laws against freeing yourself from those laws. He is not saying we have to obey the food laws and correct those who are not following those laws.

All of those acts list in Galatians 5:19-23 are found in the law. The law identifies breaking the dietary laws as a sin, so I see no good reason to exclude it from Galatians 6:1. The lists in Galatians 5:19-23 are not exhaustive.

Unselfish acts are set in opposition to selfish living, but obeying food laws is not set in opposition to freeing yourself from those laws. He is not saying we have to obey the food laws and correct those who are not following those laws. I challenge you to find a single instance where Christ insists on following of the food laws. All His criticisms are towards those who have neglected justice, mercy and faithfulness.

If you eat unclean animals because that is what you want to do in defiance of God, then that's just as much a selfish act as anything else. Jesus gave no indication that he thought some laws were unimportant, but rather in Matthew 5:17-19, he said that not the least commandment would disappear from the law and warned against those who would teach to relax them, which includes the dietary laws. He spoke about what he thought was most relevant to his Jewish audiences and apparently he didn't think they needed to be exhorted to keep the dietary laws, probably because they were already doing that.

Not true. Our sin nature has the propensity to pervert viewing laws as burdens rather than as instructions for proper living.

Correct, sorry, that was a typo. This is exactly the problem with people considering God's law to be a heavy burden, when it is actually instructions for proper living.

We love the orderly traffic system that provides safe and efficient use of public roads, but we follow rules that control and restrict our actions grudgingly. That is called following the letter of the law. It's a nuanced idea: those who will judge angels view law differently from those who will not be allowed to be judges. The attitude of son is different from the hired hand: he has a vested interest.

Romans 7:6But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

I'm in agreement. There's just such huge disconnect between how the Jews view the law as a delight, such as in Psalms 119, or with them frequently giving thanks to God for giving them His Torah as instructions for life and with Christians who view the law as a heavy burden. I've become convinced that in this the Jews have the right idea and that it is absurd to think that they would have referred to God's holy, righteous, and good law as a heavy burden in Acts 15. Through the leading of the Spirit, it is a delight to keep the law and to exceed what it requires, and we are set free from keeping the law legalistically.

Wrong. If someone rejects Christ's gift of fulfilling the old contract and tries to become justified by keeping the law as if the old contract had not been fulfilled, then because all have sinned, they'll fail at becoming justified and fall under the curse of the law because the Old Contract requires perfect obedience, and Christ will be of no value to them. It is an insult to Christ, tantamount to trampling his blood underfoot.

God's holy, righteous, and good standard exists independently of any contract to obey it and the law is as you said, "instructions for proper living". We can't become justified by following instructions for proper living, but it was never given for that purpose, and it is nevertheless still good to live properly. Does it really make sense to you that Jesus is at odds with the Father and following God's instructions for living properly makes Christ of no value? Of course not, what was making Christ of no value to someone was not obedience to God, but rather it was seeking justification in any way other than faith in Christ. Christ died to set us free from our sin nature and sent the Holy Spirit to enable all to enable us to practice righteousness in accordance with the righteous requirement of God's law, so it is disregarding God's law that is the insult to Christ. It's amazing what Christ has done for us in that we get to not sin, but people want to ignore what the law says about what sin is.

Wrong. The law had to be observed by obeying ALL its requirements. The minor as well as the weightier points of the law, which the Pharisees did not do. The righteousness they established on their own was tithing of even mint and cummin, but skipping justice mercy and faithfulness, God's righteousness.

Someone who kept the law almost perfectly and only sinned once would still have lived their life properly, they just would not be justified by doing so.

One of the purposes of giving the law to the Israelites was to help her to identify her messiah, as He would fulfill at least 300 actions charted out in the law and the prophets, which any knowledgeable Jew will tell you is what Torah really is, not just the pentateuch.

The law does point to our need for the Messiah and the prophets do help to identify him, but that does not exclude other that it was given to instruct how to live properly.

The next purpose of the law was to give a set of customs and traditions to Israel that set her apart from the pagan nations. Not only was she not allowed to mix with those nations, it would be difficult for her to do so. Imagine going out for dinner with a vegan. It would be so difficult and expensive to do so that you would not wish to repeat the experience.

And we are apart of Israel, God's chosen people, and a holy nation by faith. A holy nation is also one that is set apart from the pagan nations, or in other words, we are to be in the world, but not of the world.

I am a vegan, so I would likely find that an enjoyable experience.

Thirdly, the law was meant to reveal transgression, inability to perform, and ultimately bring a believer to his knees. This was what justified, not the actual observance of Law. Justification resulted in God's provision and protection. Those who turned away from loyalty to the ideals of God, justice, mercy and faithfulness, towards Baal, self serving living lived under the wrath of God. God always preserved a part of Israel, a remnant, those who had not bowed their knee to Baal, else Israel would have faced the fate of nations like Sodom and Gomorrah, disappearing totally from the face of the earth.

Indeed, God making His holy, righteous, and good standard known does reveal our transgressions, but it is nevertheless something that we should aspire to through the leading of the Spirit.

So how is MJ being a blessing to the world? Are dead bones being spoken to and being filled with life?

More and more Christians are gaining a deeper understanding of the Bible and are being blessed by coming into a fuller obedience to God. Many Jews are also coming to see the truth that Jesus is their Messiah. We've also recently helped to host a annual March of Remembrance at our State Capital. I'm not trying say we're better or worse than other churches, but we try do our part.