Question #1:
"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless."
(Titus 3:9)
What are "foolish quarrels about the laws" referring to?
Response #1:
This is merely one of several passage wherein Paul makes a sharp distinction between proper and improper use of scripture (1Tim.1:4; 6:4; 2Tim.2:14; 2:23; Tit.3:9); everything written is for our spiritual benefit (Rom.15:4), but the Law is only of benefit if it is used properly:
But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
1st Timothy 1:8-11 NKJV
In other words, the Law's purpose, especially now that all the aspects
relating to foreshadowing the cross have been fulfilled, is to convict
of sin so as to lead to salvation (Rom.7:7; Gal.3:24). Since we now have
a New Covenant which has fulfilled the Old, and a new High Priest whose
appointment necessitated this "change of law" (Heb.7:12), continuing
with the dietary regulations of the Mosaic Law or other such issues, or
worrying about them, or arguing about them, is spiritually debilitating
– because these were only meant for the nation Israel as a community of
faith separate from the world and anticipating the cross and the
Messiah. Using the Law, its rites and regulations, for anything else, is
out of line. And throughout this apostolic period there were Judaizers,
either believers who were spiritually immature and on the edge, or
unbelievers who were only pretending to be of the faith, who disturbed
the early Christian communities by teaching, for example, that
circumcision was necessary for salvation (e.g., Acts 15:1-6). That is
certainly one such controversy, but anything having to do with Jewish
vows, or diet or Gnosticism would also fall into this category
(Gal.1:6-9; and cf. nearly the entire book of Hebrews). Paul is not
specific in the passage you quote, no doubt because of the wide variety
of abuses which this sort of practice was bringing into the churches at
the time – even as legalism and "law-keeping" continue to do today.
See the links:
The Trinity and Messianic Legalism II
Apologetics, Legalism, Cults and Philosophy
Judaism and Legalism in the church-visible
The Trinity and Messianic Legalism
Believers in the World III: Prosperity Gospel, Tithing, Cults and Legalism
The Dangers of Messianic Legalism IV: Unclean and Impure?
The Apostles, the Jerusalem Council, and Legalism then and now.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Hi bro. Robert,
Greetings in Jesus! Thanks for thinking of me; you must have a jillion
people who write you and to remember one of them like that is not only
remarkable, but thoughtful! Thanks a bunch.
I do read your weekly postings of emails, depending on the subject. Some
of it is over my head, but mostly I can get it. I am amazed at how you
deal gently - but firmly - with some of the emails sent to you from
individuals that are so off in left field they come back on the right
side of the screen. Some of them drip legalism. I have learned that if
any group says they are the only way or have the only way, to run from
it like a stick of dynamite with a short, burning fuse. Such groups give
me the heebies. Like Church of Christ, the UPC, Seventh Day, and that
strange group that makes their women wear those funny little white caps;
don't know what they are called.
Your teachings are very encouraging to me and helped me through the
hell-gauntlet (I call it the Zambrano horror) I went through (and also
wonderful support at the church fellowship I attend) ignited by reading
Angelica Zambrano's supposed visit to heaven and hell, and the devil had
his fingers in the middle of it as well. I am out of it now. But the
battle continues just trusting Jesus Christ and not giving the enemy's
lies and accusations the time of day. I believe Paul said in Galatians
that he did not yield to the legalists "even for a moment." So I will
not be bullied in regard to my hair. Serving the Lord should be out of a
glad, willing heart, not as a result of servile "you better or else"
mentality. Now, when it comes to sin that is different story. I avoid
sin the way I avoid getting the Blob on my hand - a healthy respect and
Godly fear to not toy with something that could consume me.
Thanks for letting me know about the new audio file option. I don't
usually listen to tapes or radio much; any listening is usually
instrumental music at work. Will give it a try when I get the chance;
thank you.
I saw the items you posted that I had written; took a few sentences
before I realized it was something I wrote...if it can be a help and
blessing then go for it. That is what I desire.
God bless, brother and keep up His good work...I am praying for you.
In Jesus,
Response #2:
Thanks much for the update, my friend. I'm happy to hear that you are
getting along well, particularly in your spiritual life.
Yes, legalism is a disaster. It's one of the false substitutes that
appeals to some Christians who want to feel "holier than thou", but they
are "smoke in God's nostrils" (Is.65:5). And the only way to accomplish
any standard of perfection in this imperfect world and in these
imperfect bodies is to make it up – adapting and limiting the definition
of sin to a few things one doesn't have any problem giving up whether
actually sinful or not.
Legalism is a good name for this too, because this pattern is precisely
what the Pharisees did in picking and choosing a few things from the Law
and ignoring its truly important "weightier matters" such as justice,
mercy, and faith (Matt.23:23). It's bad enough to adopt for oneself a
terribly false standard of what constitutes godly behavior; but applying
it to others and judging others by that same false standard is downright
evil, not to mention extremely spiritually hazardous.
Thanks much for your prayers, my friend! I'm keeping you in mine too day
by day.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Hi Dr,
Can you please provide exegesis on the following passages:
1. Rom 3:30 - the difference between by and through.
2. Rom 5:13
As far as one of the bible teachers, he uses Rom 6 as one of the chapter
as justification that we can conquer sin. That basically sinners cannot
inherit eternal life, even believers who continue to sin. I don't think
he understand the concept or heard of sin unto death and/diminish
rewards.
We have other bible teachers that are more scripturally sound so I don't
think I will attend when he speak but want your take on it
In Christ Jesus our Lord
Response #3:
In Romans 3:30, the two words are used synonymously. Justification comes
to Jews/gentiles alike by/through faith, the variation serving to
parallel the variation of those who have faith. But just as there is a
difference between Jew and gentile – but not in God's eyes when it comes
to salvation – so there is no difference between by or through faith, as
long as one has it and puts it in Jesus Christ.
On Romans 5:13, here is something I have written on this previously:
For [even] before the Law [was handed down], there was [indeed] sin in the world, but, when there was no Law, sin was not being taken into account [by us as it was after the Law].
Romans 5:13The Mosaic Law, while by no means delineating all sinful activity in a comprehensive way (as the tenth commandment shows), exposed many aspects of human behavior as truly sinful which were not generally understood as such before its arrival on the scene. But, as the verse above makes clear, "sin was in the world" to the exact same degree before these divine revelations, even before it was being recognized as such. The same principle applies today. Ignorance of sin does not render a sinful action any less sinful.
On Romans 6, there is no indication in the actual text that sinless perfection
is possible. In verse 19, Paul specifically mentions our human weaknesses – and
these result in sin, after all. Further, the fact that we are being urged by
Paul not to sin makes it very clear that we do sin and need to battle against it
(otherwise this encouragement and teaching would not be necessary). Finally,
anyone who claims it is possible not to sin is without a doubt also claiming
that he/she is not sinning – and that is easy enough to disprove.
I will have more to say on this in answering the other email.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Thank you very much. I'm sorry if I'm being irritating, but I have a last question about idolatry. Do you think posters and similar things are idolatry?
Response #4:
It's always good to hear from you, my friend. I'm zealous for your
spiritual growth in Jesus Christ.
It's what's in the heart that counts, not what's on the wall. It's how a
person feels about a celebrity, a sports team, a fancy car, a false god
that matters. Of course, putting a poster of a false god on the wall is
something it would be odd (at the very least) for a believer to do (not
to mention a very bad idea). Putting a sport's idol's poster on the wall
is not the best sign of spiritual growth or being spiritually where the
Lord wants us to be, but while it is a symptom it's not, in my opinion,
a serious or particularly egregious sin – it all depends, as I say, on
what is going on in a person's heart. And again, if there are external
indications of a lack of spiritual maturity in a person's life, the way
to "fix" this is not by treating the symptoms but by treating the
disease. We can't whitewash our way into a good reward or spiritual
maturity. That is legalism pure and simple, and it comes in many
insidious forms. What a Christian needs is spiritual growth. Once a
person is spiritually mature and moving forward, what they put on the
wall years ago will probably mean nothing to them in their heart – and
thus mean nothing in fact.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #5:
In this, I may also be hung in the translation (KJV.) Jesus said, and
I'm probably bolixing the quote, that of the two greatest commandments
the first was to love God with all your heart and mind. The second was
to love your neighbor as yourself. On this hangs all the rest of the
law.
2 John 1:6 says:
And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
If:
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
John 6:46
Then it seems to me that the glory that sunburned Moses could be none other than
Jesus. In which case, the 10 commandments He gave Moses which is or was stored
in the arc would be "His commandments."
The other commandments recorded in the gospels seem to simply reinforce the two
greatest commandments.
What have I misunderstood?
Yours in Jesus Christ,
Response #5:
If the question is "what is a commandment", the answer is that it is anything the Lord tells us to do or not do – and there are many more than "ten" such commands. The ten are unique in that they comprehend human behavior generally and direct everything we think and do into godly directions so that all may have a chance to use their lives to seek God (see the link: "the ten commandments"). Our Lord simplifies things even more – down to the two you list – which are really two sides of one coin, namely, love:
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.
Romans 13:8 NIV
Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:10 NIV
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #6:
Hi Bob,
The extent to which the civil sanctions in the Pentateuch should be
reflected in the United States federal penal code is an interesting
topic in my view. Why? If we say that “no, the penalties are not
appropriate for the U.S.A.” and if we agree that God is just, then isn’t
that tantamount to saying that justice is not appropriate for the
U.S.A.?
The biggest problem, however, I have with the penal code in the
Pentateuch is that it would be impossible for religious freedom to
exist. Jews, for instance, living under a Christian interpretation of
the Pentateuch, would be guilty of apostasy and have to be killed by
civil punishment, and that seems to close to the pogroms of Russia and
the Nazi Holocaust for comfort.
There is also a second problem: early modern history suggests that a
Mosaic law implementation, at least as it is attempted to be put into
place in the modern state, would be extremely unjust. Take the case of
Thomas Aikenhead, the last person to be executed for blasphemy in the
United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aikenhead)
Far from being celebrated as a triumph of justice, the event was seen to
be so sick and so wrong that it caused the government of the United
Kingdom to permanently retire the death penalty for blasphemy. It is
also somewhat ironic that a person named Thomas was charged for
skepticism of Jesus’s claims.
Response #6:
Here is what I read in scripture:
Moreover I saw under the sun:
In the place of judgment,
Wickedness was there;
And in the place of righteousness,
Iniquity was there.
Ecclesiastes 3:16 NKJV
This rings true, so I don't think we're going to have be concerned about
any such prospect – as if the rulers of this country were going to
suddenly pursue righteous policies from a genuine concern from godliness
anymore than the citizens of this country, for that matter. Also, for we
believers to become concerned would be dabbling in politics, and that is
always a grave mistake which inevitably results in legalism (if that is
not already present as a motivator).
As long as we believers are not prevented from studying and teaching the
Bible and doing the other basic things (such as praying) that Christians
need to do, the rest of what happens in society need not concern us. And
to the extent that it does, to that extent we are letting ourselves be
unnecessarily distracted from "job #1". Much of that distraction, as I
note the involvement or concern of others in politics, is intense
emotional upheaval, and it's hard to focus on living for Jesus Christ if
you're terribly upset about politics (or about anything else, for that
matter).
Also, I think you've hit the nail on the head with the major
"workability" problem: the Law is meant for an all-believer population
of a special nation created and governed personally by the Lord. No
other nation can become ancient Israel (which fell far short of its
mandate at all times, by the way) any more than the Roman Catholic
church can become a new Levitical priesthood (and what they have
produced gives you a pretty good idea of what would happen if a nation
tried something comparable). It is just "one problem", but then that is
like saying that the only thing that keeps us from levitating is a
little thing called gravity.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #7:
What do you think of this verse?
"Even though I gave them all my laws, they act as if those laws don't apply to them.”
(Hosea 8:12)
Response #7:
A good verse to show what I've often said, namely, that while people
imagine an Israel in Old Testament times where the Law was followed, in
fact it never ever even came close to being followed. This verse dates
to the time when paganism was preferred; after the exile falsely
treating the Law with legalism was preferred; but never was there
anything close to a community consisting almost exclusively of believers
who zealously kept the actual Law.
In Jesus Christ our Lord,
Bob L.
Question #8:
Hi Bob,
If you’re wondering what’s inspiring this feeling of civics and the
Biblical law, it’s because I just finished reading a 300 or so page
Master’s thesis from Regent University dealing with it. Just for light
reading. Here’s the link. The following statement appears in the
Epilogue:
One might object and argue that since we no longer are required to make
animal sacrifices and obey the dietary laws, then we can’t really know
for sure that this text upholds the Bible’s civil code either. But the
only way to non-arbitrarily interpret the text is to assume all
scriptures are binding except those that the Bible itself abrogates.
(And the Bible abrogates the sacrificial system and the dietary laws,
but not the civil code.) Otherwise, everyone could arbitrarily decide
for themselves what “all Scripture” means by picking and choosing those
laws in the Bible that they desire to obey. Such a reading would destroy
any objective meaning of the text.
However, a clean partition of “civil code” from “ceremonial laws” is not
possible, because civil code often was mixed up with ceremonial laws, as
the adultery test in Numbers 5 shows (a civil offense—suspected
adultery— is taken to the priesthood) or the inclusion of the Sabbath in
the 10 Commandments. I was surprised when I was reading this that the
author devoted an entire section to instituting the death penalty for
Sabbath breaking, and yet not one instance of Paul is quoted in
Colossians where he says that Sabbaths are not binding. I am not sure
whether the author is even aware of the content of Colossians.
Response #8:
That's right:
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
James 2:10 NIV
The Law is all or nothing. If it's not all, it's not the Law. A good
point for legalists to learn and keep in mind, because all legalism
today is very selective: everyone who is a legalist is therefore really
making up their own "law".
In Jesus who died to remove us from the curse of the Law.
Bob L.
Question #9:
Thank you,
And what about mixing two breeds of animals? Is it sin?
Response #9:
There are many prohibitions in the Mosaic Law which were designed to demonstrate the separateness and therefore to symbolize the holiness of God's special nation, Israel. As with the other ritual injunctions of the Law, these do not apply today because we are not a special nation (Israel) governed by the Lord Himself (not that Israel ever actually followed the Law to any great degree).
Question #10:
Are scriptures like De.22:5 (and certain other 'moral law' scriptures like it) binding on all Christians today (albeit not with respect to any specific physical punishments for violation that may be attached thereto)?
Response #10:
Love sums up the Law which was fulfilled in Christ. That said, there is
plenty in the New Testament given to us which is specific guidance about
Christian behavior beyond the basic virtue of love (although of course
completely consistent with it). There are reasons for that, and there is
a reason for everything in the Law.
It would be unwise to claim that everything in the Law is still in
effect for Christians today – that is patently not true (indeed,
participating in animal sacrifice for Paul's contemporaries in Jerusalem
was "crucifying the Son of God afresh" and not only not necessary but an
actual offense against Christ).
It would also be unwise to claim that nothing written in the Law and the
Old Testament now has any effect for Christians today – nine of the ten
commandments are repeated in the New Testament at one point or another
in one way or another. Since even Paul writing under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit was unwilling to rule dietary restrictions in or out –
urging the application of love in virtuous flexibility – it would not be
my place to give a blanket yes or no. And I am convinced by years of
study that this would be a mistake. If we are really interested in
pleasing Jesus Christ, we will do what He really desires, namely, grow
through hearing and believing the truth, progress in passing the tests
that come our way through applying the truth, and help others do
likewise through the ministries to which we are called. That is the way
to victory and to winning the three crowns of eternal reward.
When it comes to "disputable matters", as Paul terms them (Rom.14:1),
the correct course is clear: don't judge a weak believer if you have
another opinion (even if you are right); don't do yourself what is not
of faith (Rom.14:23); and stay away from anything you even think might
be wrong (1Thess.5:22). If we are looking at things the right way, we
will not be using the Law (or any scripture) either as a justification
for our own actions, an escape clause for allowing us to do what we
really want to do irrespective of scripture, or a club to bash other
people with whose conduct we don't agree. This life is all about our own
choices, and if we are genuinely making them in love, in the fear of
God, and out of a desire to please Jesus Christ with a view towards a
good report when we stand before Him on that great day, we will be
well-served in such choices – for there is no law against any of that.
Question #11:
Finally (re this email), are you willing to agree that I Cor.11:5-6,10,13 require that whenever spiritually Israelite (i.e. Christian or Messianic) women pray or prophesy, they are have their head hair covered? And, in view of the NT command to "pray without ceasing" (I Th.5:17), do you agree that it is a reasonable application of these scriptures to require that such women continuously cover their head hair when in public? If not (with regard to these questions), why?
Response #11:
On 1st Corinthians 11:5ff., Paul is talking about hair, not hats (or
literal veils), though this passage is often misunderstood.
With regard to hair, self-produced "baldness" is what women should avoid
(a problem in Corinth of that day resulting both from pagan mourning
rituals and also from misapplying the Law in making vows). Where women
are concerned, such "baldness" is a mark of judgment and dishonor (cf.
Is.3:17; 3:24), so definitely not something women should aspire to.
Avoiding this reproach doesn't require a hat; it merely requires not
tearing out (in mourning) or shaving off (in making a vow) one's hair.
Here are few links on that:
1st Corinthians 11: Hats or Hair?
Are women required to wear hats or veils in church?
More on veils and hats in church.
What length of hair is considered long?
More on hats and hair length
What does the Bible say about hair length for men and women? (see Q/A #10-11)
Question #12:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
Hope all is well. Things are moving along just fine for us. I'm
receiving lots of love from my family and close friends, as well as
reassurance and guidance from the Lord.
I went to your website to find your take on tithing. I have been tithing
consistently for the last couple of months because I thought the Lord
wanted me to based on different scriptures in Malachi and then another
scripture in the new testament when Jesus tells the Pharisees (I believe
it was them) that they should have tithed but not left the other
important things undone. Sorry I can't remember details right now. I
should have looked up the scripture before I sent the email. I did tithe
this week but I see that doing so has put me in a financial bind. I want
to be obedient. But I don't want to get myself into a mess.
On your site you mentioned that tithing was part of Jewish law. I used
this same idea to question my Pastor years ago and he brought to my
attention Abraham giving a tenth to Melchizedek before the law was
given. I am just confused about the whole thing and I want to hear what
you would say to that point about Abraham?
I want to be obedient and be a good steward of the income God is
providing for me. I know we are to be cheerful givers. I don't have a
problem giving when the Lord calls me too. Tithing is just one of those
things I'm not sure about. As I mentioned I did read a couple of your
posts on the subject and thought I would mention Abraham tithing to hear
your take on it.
I know you are busy so there is no rush. This is just something I am
conflicted about.
Sincerely,
Response #12:
Good to hear from you. I'm delighted to hear your good report!
As to tithing, let me assure you that it is not required for believers
today. It's not prohibited. It's not prohibited to give everything, let
alone 10% – but that would be incredibly foolish for most people in most
circumstances. As Paul says very clearly, "the gift is acceptable
according to what one has, not according to what one does not have"
(2Cor.8:12). If a person has nothing to give, then nothing can be given.
And if a person takes food out of their family's mouth (as opposed to
easily disposable income), that verges on being "worse than an infidel"
(1Tim.5:8). Even for those who have, like the Corinthians, more than
enough income to give comfortably and who have, like the Corinthians,
already pledged some of that money, Paul tells them to "set aside a sum
of money in keeping with your income" week by week – no one is expected
to cut into the flesh and bone of their budget to the detriment of their
family's needs.
Tithing for believers today is not a biblical requirement. As I say,
it's not wrong to do it – unless a person assumes that there is some
magic in the 10% figure and that this will bring magical blessing from
God. Helping our brothers and sisters in Christ who are genuinely in
need is a wonderful thing. Giving to some organization or church is not
necessarily giving to the Lord in this way, however, because
organizations and churches do not necessarily (and in my experience,
rarely) channel that money to people in need. For the most part, as I
have observed it, tithing as it is practiced today is a gimmick to get
people in need like yourself to give much more than they can or should
to organizations and churches which have no real need of it and who are
not using it in a particularly godly way in any case.
It's not wrong to tithe, but it is wrong to assume that one is following
a biblical mandate in doing so (there is no such mandate for believers
today and what obtained in ancient Israel is different from what passes
for "tithing" today). Abraham gave ten percent of the spoils from the
victory he won to Melchizedek, that is true. But there are couple of
things to notice about that. First, if Abraham had not given the 10% he
would have been no richer and no poorer, because he gave everything else
(apart from the share that fell to his allies) back to the king of Sodom
"so that you will never be able to say, ‘I made Abram rich" (Gen.14:23).
So Abraham, a very rich man who would not have missed the 10% of this
windfall even if he had decided to keep it, was going to give it all
back anyway. In other words, while returning everything to the king of
Sodom may possibly be seen as a sacrifice of sorts (though Abraham was
already very rich – by God's hand, the very thing he was unwilling to
have compromised), giving the 10% did not represent even a small gift
from what was actually his since it all went back anyway. It was a
recognition that the victory was God's, not his (cf. Gen.14:10), but it
was hardly the sort of "tithing" that is recommended by organizations
and churches today. I would also note that there is no indication that
Abraham ever gave 10% of his personal income to anyone ever at any time
(let alone every week/month/year). This was a "one shot" special
situation. Not exactly "tithing" the way most churches and organizations
represent it. I suppose if a person got a huge sum of money as a
windfall, a one time donation of 10% would be somewhat similar to what
Abraham did – but only if said person for some reason was not planning
to keep any of it anyway.
When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.
Deuteronomy 26:12 NIV
The above verse tells anyone who is wondering about tithing today
everything they need to know. First, tithing has to do with "produce"
(hence the "mint, dill and cumin" of the Pharisees in Matt.23:23), not
money. Second, it only happens every third year, not every year, let
alone every month or week. Third, it is to be given to Levites,
foreigners, orphans widows, not to some organization or church. Fourth,
the purpose is to feed the needy, not to support some organization or
church's staff or building projects. Fifth, there is nothing here about
some special blessing for tithing in this way, rather it was part of the
Law in the same way that income tax in our country is part of the law.
Sixth, it was obligatory for the entire population of the country, not
optional or meant only for a small part of that population belonging to
some organization or church. Seventh, there was no "middleman" between
the tither and the recipient, but today organizations and churches want
the money to come directly to them. In other words, there is no
connection between the tithing of the Law and what people generally call
"tithing" today.
So why do people tithe? Most people tithe because they are made to feel
guilty if they do not and are told (or it is subtly suggested to them)
that they will be blessed if they do. For any Christian with a good
heart, that is a very powerful combination punch, especially seeing as
how it usually comes from an organization or church they trust and
probably belong to.
So why do churches and organizations promote tithing for Christians
today if it's not biblical to do so (and it is NOT biblical to do so)?
I'd like to be charitable here, but I'm afraid in my experience and
observation I have to say that it is all about the money. Churches and
organizations have found out or at least suspect that if their members
only gave when they actually had the means to do so and only if they
felt good about doing so, they would give far, far less than would be
the case with a system like "tithing". For that reason, to be as
charitable as I can possibly be, many churches and organizations have
rationalized this issue and talked themselves into believing (by
twisting scripture) that it is biblical, whereas anyone with a Bible can
easily see that it is not – there is nothing whatsoever in the New
Testament even suggesting tithing, and it is not even mentioned therein
except in connection with the Jewish state (that is the context of
Matt.23:23, after all). If we are to tithe, why are we not sacrificing
lambs, goats and bullocks and offering incense on some altar every time
we sin? That's in the Law too (among very many other things that these
same organizations and churches would not touch with a ten foot pole).
So I'm afraid I have to conclude that on this issue money has corrupted
principles – as it often does (1Tim.6:10). And it is not a far step from
tithing to the prosperity gospel: "Want to be blessed even more by God?
Give even more? We take credit cards!" God does bless legitimate giving
done by godly people in a godly way . . . in godly causes. But to me
that is the greatest irony of "tithing" as it is practiced today. God
does bless us for godly acts done in a godly way . . . but NOT for
things done out of guilt ("You must tithe!") or out of greed ("God will
bless you!"). So it is a pity that so many people who feel they are
being godly by doing this are only wasting their money and, worse to
tell, compromising themselves spiritually – so that they are worse off
for tithing than if they had refrained (and poorer too).
And along with the "why" we are doing it, it also does matter "to whom"
we are giving. If we give to an individual whom we know and whom we know
is in true need, that is relatively pure. If we give to an organization
or a church which is likely not to use most (or any) of the money on the
truly needy, and whose actual connection to the Lord and to His Word is
tenuous at best, do we really expect that not to affect negatively the
value of our gift?
Finally on this point, one other problem with tithing is that it tends
to cement the loyalty of those who tithe to the organizations and
churches who demand it. "In for a penny, in for a pound", the saying
goes, and it is true that it is human nature to throw good money after
bad, very literally in this case – and for a very bad cause too,
because, again in my observation and experience, I've never seen or
heard of an organization or church that demanded tithes which was
actually doing the Lord's work they way they should be doing it to any
significant degree: you're very unlikely to receive the sort of teaching
of the Word capable of leading you to spiritual maturity from any place
that asks for tithes.
Here are some more links on all this in case you missed something at the
site:
The prosperity gospel and tithing (see especially Q/A #4)
Do feel free to write me back about any of the above.
Keeping you and your family in my prayers day by day.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #13:
Wow! Thank you so much for answering my question and providing so many
other links to reference. I will go over them all.
I have just had a hard time with the tithing question because I think
I'm giving out of guilt. Meaning if I don't give I am not honoring God
with what He has provided for me. Money is not a hang up for me but I
still struggle to know if tithing is/was something God commands me to
do. I have been asking Him for guidance in this area. I truly appreciate
your detailed response Dr. Luginbill. Thank you so much for sending
this. I just read it and I'm about to click on some of the links to read
more. I love that this is available to me.
I asked about Ichthys yesterday because even though ___ has been
referencing and studying on your site for quite a while I never knew
much about it. I have just now started typing in topics and reading your
posts. What a great resource!
Thank you Dr. Luginbill,
Response #13:
You're most welcome.
Thanks for your good words of encouragement (Ps.115:1)!
Do feel free to write me any time.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Living flesh (’d btr bnpšw) and blood (dm), which emblems
this condition of life, are both excluded from human diet. This
restriction excludes from human diet meat that is still alive, such as
swallowing goldfish and first kill celebrations where the animal begins
to be devoured while still alive. Letting 1 Samuel 2:15 inform this
Genesis 9:4 statement of life would likely identify whole sushi and
similar raw uncooked meat as “alive” (npš) and thus inappropriate for
one’s diet on the basis of the Noahic Covenant as well.
Before you say that "well, the law is done away with," notice what
James, Jesus's brother says about the Noahide covenant:
"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 15:20)
Response #14:
Here's what I read in scripture:
“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
Mark 7:18-23 NIV
I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.
Romans 14:14 NIV
Blood has no magical properties. Its importance resides in its symbolism: it
symbolizes life and also death, when shed, so that its most important symbolism
in its representation of Christ's work in dying for the sins of the world (see
the link:
"the
Blood of Christ").
That is why animal blood is important and why animals were not to be eaten "with
the blood". Fish are never used in sacrifice (not even in the pagan regime), so
the strictures on blood don't apply to them. Now fish do have blood, I
understand, but now we are in the realm of the literal, not the symbolic. In
literal terms, all the blood could never be removed from any animal meat either.
So I wouldn't worry about it. I'm not a sushi fan. I only had it a few times
very many years ago. It tasted OK, but I couldn't abide the palpable arrogance
of the sushi chefs – you would think they were admirals in the Russian navy or
something. Honestly.
Your friend in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Thank you. I had one more question. I'm not sure if you read it.
I want to ask what is the meaning of Acts 21:25?
I thought that we can eat everything.
Response #15:
Apologies for the delay. I was out of town at a family wedding and I am
behind in answering emails.
As to Acts 21:25, this decision of the Jerusalem council was an
application rather than a scriptural pronouncement. The book of Acts
relates what Christians (and others) did historically, and is an
accurate account. But it is not really possible to build doctrine on
what happened in Acts (see the link) because 1) sometimes mistakes were
made, even by Christians, 2) some things relate entirely to the
transitional period between Israel and the Church Age (which is now long
past), and 3) some things are applications which are not necessarily
directive in nature. The passage you ask about is a combination of #2
and #3. This was a concession to Jewish believers in the Church at that
time – of which there were many, still by far the majority in the Church
at this early period. This letter counsels gentile Christians to stay
away from a small list of things which were particularly offensive to
Jews but prevalent in the pagan culture of that time (not today). Of
course, "sexual immorality" is sinful and terrible dangerous,
spiritually and otherwise, at all times, but like blood and
strangulation of animals this refers to the cult-prostitution which was
a part of the pagan worship and temple cults of that time and not
thought – by non-Christians – to be any problem at all. We can eat
anything (Mk.7:19), but sometimes certain actions give others offense
and out of love we ought not to do things in their presence which might
be a spiritual stumbling block to them (Romans 14 and 1st Corinthians 10
gives more detail on this topic).
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #16:
Thank you. Paul also says he is law keeper (in Acts 21). Maybe I misunderstood something.
Response #16:
Here is what I read in scripture:
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
1st Corinthians 9:20-21 NIV
It is true that in Acts 21 James says:
"Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law."
Acts 21:24
But Paul said nothing in response. Going up to Jerusalem was a mistake.
The Holy Spirit had told Paul not to do so (Acts 21:3-3; cf. Acts
20:22-23; 21:10-14; 22:17-18; see the link:
"Paul's Jerusalem Error" for
the details), but Paul was acting out of sentiment for his people,
wanting to bring the financial offering of the gentiles to Jerusalem in
person and zealous for the salvation and spiritual growth of his people.
And what was the result of this mistake? Years of captivity. Like the
others, Paul too had a learning curve, and we see him here not at his
best. I hasten to add that most of us would be happy to have our
greatest post-salvation mistake be a misplaced zeal for the salvation of
others leading to compromise. Nevertheless, Paul was given and of course
developed (through attention to the Spirit) the best understanding of
grace and the best understanding of the fact that the Church Age meant
new things (specifically, the cessation of following the Law), greater
than that of any other apostle – and with great understanding comes
great responsibility.
As I mentioned before, Acts records what happened, the good, the bad and
the ugly . . . the mistakes as well as the victories (see the link in
the prior email). By the time Paul wrote the book of Hebrews to these
very Jewish believers in Jerusalem, he was willing to make the point (of
cessation of the Law) crystal clear, and without compromise. There is a
lesson here. If we want to win people over for Christ or lead them to
the truth and spiritual growth, we will never do so by compromising the
truth. We can accommodate on any other non-essential thing, but not on
the truth.
When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 2:11-16 NIV
If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.
Hebrews 7:11-12 NIV
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #17:
So we can eat meat with blood? By the bible, life is in blood. Why did God forbid it?
Response #17:
I certainly wouldn't recommend it! In any case, that would probably
require effort on your part – in a very dubious cause – because most
butchering in the west is done according to Kosher principles. Blood was
forbidden because in the animal sacrifice of the Old Testament it
represented
the Blood of Christ (i.e., it was a symbol of His spiritual
death; see the link). There is no legitimate animal sacrifice at present
(but there will be again during the Millennium).
So when you say "so we can eat meat with blood?", I don't know of anyone
who is doing that, so while it is perhaps an interesting academic
question it's not very important to one's spiritual growth. That is what
we are here to accomplish after salvation, after all, to win rewards
that glorify Christ – and what we eat is of negligible consequence in
this regard.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Bob L.
Question #18:
Hi I found this: https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/699-bible-study-on-eating-meat-with-the-blood-in-it.html
I'm not sure what is the truth.
Response #18:
Do you make a habit of eating meat with the blood still in it? That is very unusual. I don't know about your country, but in most western countries all meat is prepared in a kosher way. So you would not be "giving offense" to Jewish Christians by simply eating what is normally available for sale. So in practical terms this would be a non-issue and one not worth much investment of time or spiritually energy.
For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Romans 14:17 NKJV
We are here after salvation to grow spiritually, make progress in our Christian walk in passing the tests that come our way through applying the truth we have believed, and then to help others grow through the gifts and ministries we have been given. What we eat and drink is of no spiritual consequence (unless we give others offense).
Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—“Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
Colossians 2:20-23 NKJV
The article you reference says – incredibly – that Peter's vision about
food in Acts chapter 10 is not about food (!?). Whenever something you
are looking at makes a ridiculous claim that is so obviously false on
the face of it, it is wise to ignore it altogether.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Thank you,
So why did God forbid it (eating blood) and now its again allowed? It's because
that law was only for Israel and that must be avoided to be pure?
Also I found article about ___ which I believe is truth.
Response #19:
Eating meat with the blood it in was prohibited before there ever was an
Israel (Gen.9:4); that is because blood symbolically represented "life"
and the blood shed in sacrifices (even before the Mosaic Law)
represented our Lord giving up His life to save ours eternally by dying
for our sins. When the Jerusalem council wrote to the gentiles in
Antioch that they had no need of following the Law, they did require the
gentiles to keep to this provision of the Law as something particular
offensive to Jewish believers (Acts 15:20; cf. Rom.14:1ff.). So eating
blood has never been approved. Eating rare/red meat (your previous
email) from an animal which has been slaughtered in a way that drains
the blood is not eating blood (it would be physically impossible to
remove all vestiges of blood cells from a piece of meat, after all).
In any case, to reiterate, the important point is that the blood of
sacrificed animals (and there is no more animal sacrifice taking place
today) is meant to symbolize "the blood of Christ" – which was not
Christ's literal blood being shed but the much more important and
difficult death He died for us in bearing our sins on the cross, a
spiritual death wherein He was judged and suffered for every single
human sin that we might be saved through faith in Him (1Cor.5:21;
1Pet.2:24; see the link:
"The Blood of Christ"). Let's no lose sight of
what is really important here. The Law itself only has any validity in
that it represents this greater truth.
As to the link, I'm not going to look at this link. That is something
everyone knows in their heart of hearts is wrong, so there's no reason
even to debate the matter (1Cor.6:18).
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Hi,
I don't know much about this subject, so I want to ask why God in OT
forbade eating pork etc.
And why people must cut their necks before they die?
Response #20:
To take these in reverse order, if you're talking about draining out the
blood, that was because the physical blood of animals was dedicated by
God to the altar so that it might represent
the spiritual death of Jesus
Christ (see the link). That sacrifice of our Lord for our sins was the
most important thing in the history of the world, after all, so the
symbol representing it (before the cross) was to be treated with
appropriate sanctity.
As to pork and all of the other dietary restrictions of the Mosaic Law,
they have in common that they were to mark out Israel as a people apart,
a people who stayed away from the physically profane as a way to
symbolize their spiritual separation. As with circumcision, where we are
told many times in the Bible that it is the circumcision of the heart by
faith that counts really rather then physical circumcision, so also with
the dietary regulations it is the sanctification of oneself from sin and
evil which these rules represented that really counted, not the eating
or refraining from one food or another. Now that the Law has been
fulfilled by the cross of Christ, there is no further spiritual purpose
to be served by following these dietary rules (or the other
non-spiritual parts of the Law). Please see the link:
"Should Christians
Eat Pork?".
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #21:
Hi Robert,
I think God gave laws about not eating pig (pork) because of health problems in
it's consumption.
With today's science this is confirmed by the fact that pork not properly cooked
has minute worms or the like which can migrate to the brain and cause serious
illness. This law was only for the people of Israel? And not gentiles. Do you
have any articles on this?
Best regards in the love of Jesus
Response #21:
Good to hear from you as always.
Your observations are certainly correct. When I was a boy, I had a
Sunday school teacher who had been an observant Jew before coming to the
Lord. He would point out that the Law and Jewish traditions which stem
from it made good sense from precisely this practical point of view. And
I think that any objective observer would be able to come to the same
conclusion. That is not actually the purpose of the Law, but the fact of
the fairly clear distinction between clean and unclean that anyone might
be able to observe in many of the dietary restrictions highlights the
point that Israel was to separate from the nations, to be spiritually
"clean" as opposed to being far removed from the Lord's holiness as the
gentiles were – physically but more importantly spiritual.
In practical terms today, however, we know that there is nothing wrong
with eating anything that is actually edible (cf. Acts chapter 10 and
also especially Mark 7:19). Some foods are trickier to prepare than
others. I would never dare to eat wild mushrooms again, for example,
after hearing of what happened to some folks in Michigan who were more
experienced in differentiating good Morels from poison look-a-likes and
perished as a result. And even foods which are "clean" according to the
Law can go bad or cause trouble if not properly prepared. But the bottom
line is that for us today there is nothing spiritually wrong with eating
anything that can be eaten (common sense in preparation and selection,
and prudence in dietary choices still being factors we might want to
consider for personal health reasons).
Here are two particular links on the "pork" question: "Should Christians
Eat Pork?" and
"More about pork" (see Q/A #2).
After all, eating and drinking are given to us as symbols of the cross.
Christ gave us His body and blood for us to eat and drink and live as a
result of His death. The food represents His perfect Person, the drink
His blood, His work on the cross, and by eating and drinking we express
our faith in Him and delight in our salvation through Him – when we
remember Him in so doing as we should (see the link:
"Communion").
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #22:
I'm afraid of one thing, and that's not keeping sabbath. I'm not sure if we need to observe sabbath. I read some articles about col 2 and romans and there was written that we must still keep sabbath and these verses don't speak about any end of keeping sabbath, but about food in sabbath etc.
Response #22:
First of all, in Colossians chapter two I find this:
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Colossians 2:16-17 NIV
This passage "says what it says", namely, that judging someone else who
does not celebrate festivals or Sabbaths is wrong – and how could it be
wrong if there was a requirement for Christians to observe the Mosaic
Law's ordinances regarding the Sabbath? Also note the word "or": this
passage is not talking about what is eaten on the Sabbath, obviously
enough for anyone who can read.
The fourth commandment is never repeated in the New Testament as
something believers need to observe – and it is the only one of the ten
of which that is true. The reason is that we are now to observe a moment
by moment rest of faith in the Lord (Hebrews chapters three and four;
see the link).
For those who are troubling you about this, you might ask them what day
of the week the Sabbath is. The vast majority of groups which teach
Sabbath observance honor Sunday – but the true Sabbath is Saturday.
So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
Romans 7:4 NIV
Believers have "died to the Law" – which means it no longer has any authority over us. Abraham did not observe the Sabbath and neither do we . . . Christians who are serving in the Spirit and not the letter (2Cor.3:6), that is.
For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.
Hebrews 7:12 NIV
Our Lord is the new High Priest, so we have had a change of priesthood
and necessarily a change of law – from letter to Spirit.
Anything that goes backward to the Law is going to impede spiritual
growth (at a minimum), and since most who want to "follow the Law"
really have no idea of its underlying symbolism, even worse outcomes are
easily possible.
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Galatians 5:1 NIV
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Question #23:
Thank you but sabbath keepers saying that grammar in this verses are
incorrect.
Jesus says to keep commandments. I'm confused
Response #23:
People who want to follow their own ways regardless of what the Bible
says always disregard the Bible. Pretending it says something different
from what it actually says (through whatever means), is the same thing.
There are many commandments which foreshadowed the coming of the Son and
His sacrifice on the cross, many of which rites and regulations it is
not even possible to accomplish today – such as all the commandments to
keep festival at the temple in Jerusalem which no longer exists. But
love is the greatest commandment, love for Jesus Christ and for our
brethren in His Church. And Love fulfills the law.
And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1st John 3:23 KJV
Question #24:
Thank you but Jesus also said that he didn't come to cancel law.
Response #24:
Jesus came to fulfill the Law . . . and so He did.
For Christ is the fulfillment (lit., “end”) of the Law, resulting in righteousness for everyone who believes [in Him].
Romans 10:4
So now we are not under the Old Covenant (the Mosaic Law) but under the New Covenant (Heb.9:15), because of Christ's victory on the cross which nullified the written code.
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Colossians 2:14 KJV
We serve in the new way of the Spirit, the way of life (Rom.7:6). But the old way of the Law results only in death because no one can keep the Law (Rom.7:7-13). The Law's purpose is thus to lead us to faith:
Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Galatians 3:24-25 NKJV
Now that you have come to faith and been freed from sin and death by the blood of Christ (Rom.6:17-18), why do you wish to become enslaved all over again?
But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?
Galatians 4:9 NIV
You have been freed from the curse of the Law, a burden no one was ever able to bear even when the temple was standing (Acts 15:10), and which is impossible to carry out now except selectively – but violating the Law in one part is the same as violating it an any part (Jas.2:10). You are under grace. Do not fall from grace through turning back to Old when you are a son of the New (Gal.4:21ff.).
Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Galatians 5:1-4 NKJV
Legalism is one of the most deceptive and spiritually enervating curses under which the present day church-visible labors; it cannot justify anyone (Gal.2:16). It accomplishes nothing positive but has been the spiritual shipwreck of many (even as it keeps the rest in the darkness of spiritual infancy). Ask yourself this: does keeping the Law really demonstrate the love of God or respond to it?
Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:10 NKJV
Keep the Sabbath in the new way explained in the book of Hebrews: walking moment
by moment in
peace and rest
with Jesus Christ (Heb.4:9-11; and see the link).
That requires more commitment on your part than the ritual observances of the
past, but it is also infinitely more rewarding and pleasing to Jesus Christ.
In our dear Savior,
Bob L.
Question #25:
Well. So final question about this. Matt 5:18-19. It saying that nobody can abolish one of commandments? Thank you very much for your time. God bless
Response #25:
When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.
Deuteronomy 26:12 NIV
I don't know of any person or group that does this precisely according to the
regulations listed here – and it is a commandment of the Law. It may be objected
that it is impossible to fulfill, but it's not – though it would clearly be
extremely difficult to do; or they may say that we fulfill the spirit of the
commandment today when we give charitably to our fellow believers in need. With
the second part I would certainly agree – just as love fulfills the Law
spiritually and obviates the need for it entirely.
What I want to know is why such people as are plaguing you think they can pick
and choose which commandments are to be fulfilled in spirit and which are to be
fulfilled literally? If they say they are following scriptural guidance on this
point of the Sabbath, that is definitely not the case. As I pointed out to you
before, 1) uniquely of the ten commandments, there is no repetition of the
fourth, Sabbath observance, at any time following the cross and the
resurrection; 2) groups which practice it anyway do so on the wrong day of the
week for the most part (Sunday instead of Saturday), and even those who observe
Saturday do not observe all of the other Sabbaths of the Law (i.e., the new moon
and all of the other festivals of the Law which likewise commanded rest); 3)
most important is the fact that such groups/teachers conveniently ignore what
Paul has to say on the subject, particularly in the book of Hebrews about
the day
by day Sabbath-rest that we believers are supposed to now be
observing at all times (Heb.4:9; see the link).
This third point above is of the utmost importance because it specifically and
scripturally addresses the question of the transformation of the fourth
commandment into something else, something better, something actually spiritual
instead of physical and merely representing the spiritual. That is the essence
of the change between the covenants too, from the Old to the New. So that anyone
who is intent on Sabbath observance in a literal sense is actually pointing
those foolish enough to be persuaded backwards to the time before
the cross. In other words, as in the case of water-baptism, Sabbath observance
is subtly (and blasphemously) implying that Christ has not yet come and that
therefore we are still under the shadows of the Law.
For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 6:14 NIV
For Christ is the fulfillment (lit., “end”) of the Law, resulting in righteousness for everyone who believes [in Him].
Romans 10:4
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10 NIV
For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.
Hebrews 7:12 NIV
The Law has been terminated/changed/ended/fulfilled by the coming of Christ and His victory at the cross (Rom.10:4 and Heb.7:12 above). As a result, we are no longer under the Law but under grace (Rom.6:14 above). And on top of that when we believers, in the Spirit, are truly walking in love we are fulfilling the essence of the Law (Rom.13:9-10 above); and that is clearly superior to fulfilling the letter of the Law, because "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2Cor.3:6) – and of course no one CAN or ever HAS fulfilled the Law . . . except Jesus Christ whose sacrifice on the cross put an end to it.
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Matthew 5:18 NIV
But "everything" now HAS "been accomplished" – Christ now HAS fulfilled, completed, ended, terminated the Law – as He said on the cross after He had been judged for our sins: tetelestai, "it has been fulfilled" (Jn.19:30; see the link). As part of the written Word, the Law does still exist, of course, and it is beneficial when spiritually considered (Rom.15:4). But if we are walking in love, we are not under the Law any longer.
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.
Galatians 5:18 NASB
One of the practical problems with Sabbath observance, spiritually speaking, is
that it necessarily replaces the true spiritual import of the fourth
commandment, namely, believers resting in the Lord, relying on the Lord,
trusting in the Lord completely so as to put aside all worry and care, with a 24
hour ritual whose symbolic significance has been lost – otherwise the people who
insist on this would be doing things the right way in the first place. It is
ironic and tragic that such individuals, now that we have the Holy Spirit, now
that we have the entire truth, now that we can actually rest in Jesus Christ at
all times (with growth, progress and practice) have decided instead to "turn
back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be
enslaved all over again" (Gal.4:9).
Finally, just to drive this all home, if Matthew 5:19 ("Whoever then annuls one
of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be
called least in the kingdom of heaven" NASB) were to apply to Sabbath
observance, it would surely also have to apply to every other "jot and tittle"
of the entire Law – as in the third year tithe given to the Levites et al. with
which I began my response. And if a person is not carrying out every single part
of the Law, then that person is not following the Law at all, because doing one
thing does not make up for failing to do another:
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
James 2:10-11 NIV
James of course goes on in the next verse to emphasize what I have been telling
you here: we are under the "perfect Law of freedom" now, not the Law of Moses.
That is not a license to sin (God forbid! Rom.6:1-2); that is a license to put
the spiritual reality over mere material symbolism and ritual, a license to walk
in love (rather than worrying about specific symbolic strictures), a license to
trust the Lord at all times and rest in Him completely (rather than observing
religious ritualistic rote and ceremony one day a week).
Here are some links if you wish to pursue this further:
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #26:
Thank you but I ask mainly for Matt.5:19. Why is it that nobody can't stop keeping and teaching commandments.
Response #26:
The point is that we believers who are walking in faith and trusting in Christ are following the fourth commandment, fulfilling it in it's full spiritual sense, when we are resting, "having a Sabbath" in Jesus Christ at all times (Heb.4:1-11; see previous links).