Hi All,<br><br>Recently at work I've been in conversation with a guy that is part of a group called the Hebrew Israelites. Here is one of their websites: http://www.hebrewisraelites.net/.<br><br>From what I know of them they are a predominantly black group that believes that blacks are the "true" children of Israel. However, when I asked the gentlemen I've been speaking with about other race groups or ethnicities he says they are more than welcome and are present in their group.<br><br>Our main topic of discussion has centered around the Old Testament Law. They still feel that, even as believers in Christ, they are to uphold all parts of the law with the exception of the sacrificial law. They keep the sabbath, do not eat pork etc. I've used verses out of Galations 2, Ephesians 2:11-22 & Colossians basically all to no avail. He has used the following verses in defense of keeping the law: Rev. 12:17, Rev. 14:12, Isaiah 8:20(a favorite a of Messianics in my opinion, but I guess I don't understand the verse to well) [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img] Zech. 14 & Ps. 119: 142, 150-152. <br><br>He often asks me why I can't use the O.T. in defense of my position and I ask the same of him about the N.T. I suppose there are a couple of areas that I've began to examine about my own faith as a result of these discussions. First, my inadequacies of studying the Word and really knowing the Scriptures O.T. & N.T. Secondly, I never really considered there to be any use for a Sabbath day...a day of rest and commitment to the Lord. I'm not saying I have a heathen's view of the Lords Day, but other than worship services I've never singled out any day as "sacred". Also, we've had many discussions about Christian holidays...Christmas, Easter etc. and their roots in paganism. My defense has always been that we as Christians would not dare associate these days with anything pagan no matter the roots, but I've also been thinking to myself would it be wrong for a believer to celebrate the feasts & festivals of the O.T. that were shadows of what was to be fulfilled in Christ.<br><br>I would greatly appreciate any Scripture, opinions & insights regarding the issues above. Thanks much.<br><br>
Thredrice,<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Recently at work I've been in conversation with a guy that is part of a group called the Hebrew Israelites. I would greatly appreciate any Scripture, opinions & insights regarding the issues above. Thanks much.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Black Hebrew Israelite sects include "The Stream," "Original African Hebrew Israelite Nation of Jerusalem," "Nation of Yahweh (Yahweh Ben Yahweh)," "New York Yahweh," etcetera. <br><br>In many ways, Black Hebrew Israelite beliefs are a mirror image of the white supremacist Christian Identity religion, which holds that northern Europeans, not Jews, are God's true chosen people. Both see Jews as the spawn of Satan and accuse them of secretly controlling society by Machiavellian string-pulling. Tom Metzger, leader of the White Aryan Resistance, has said, "They're the black counterpart of us." <br><br>Black Hebrews believe the descendants of American slaves and the indigenous peoples of the Americas make up the 12 tribes of Israel. They expect to some day return to Israel (which they call "Northeast Africa"). Adherents reject black Africans, who are usually seen as ''traitors'' who sold their black brethren into slavery.<br><br>The origins of the Black Hebrew Israelite religion may stretch back to before the Civil War. By 1896, "Prophet" William Crowdy founded a sect in Kansas. The religion permitted polygamy, forbade birth control and decreed strict dietary laws similar to Judaism. <br><br>By World War I, there were congregations in several major cities. By the 1980s, others had appeared in Israel and several other countries. <br><br>"he racism, paranoia and millenialism that they have is very flammable," says Suliman Nyang, an expert at Howard University. "They want to take on the entire system, the entire world that they think is evil and against them. The line between reality and imagination doesn’t exist for them." <br><br>Source: Rough Waters, 'Stream of Knowledge' Probed by Officials, Southern Poverty Law Center, Intelligence Report, Fall 1997.<br><br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br>The very words cause many people to grin at what appears to be simply a play on words. No one reads about such people in european authored history books and there are only a few references to "Ethiopian Jews" in white Jewish sources. Yet Black Hebrews have existed since biblical times. In fact, they are the original or proto-typical Hebrews. <br><br>Their story begins with the Patriarch Abraham (2117-1942 B.C.), a native of the Sumerian city of Ur in ancient Mesopotamia. Archaeological discoveries have proven that the earliest inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia were members of the ''Brown Race,'' i.e., the Negroid branch of humanity. <br><br>It has been confirmed that the ancient Sumerians were akin to the modern Black Dravidians of India. The Sumerians also had an affinity with a people known as the Elamites, the very first Semitic group mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 10:22). The Elamites were a black-skinned and woolly-haired people as the colorful glazed artwork on the royal palace walls of the ancient Persian city of Susa clearly show.Thus Abraham, the native of Sumerian and the founding father of the Israelite nation, was a black man. The black racial origins of the Patriarchs is not based on mere conjecture, it is in complete agreement with the picture one gets from examining the identity of the earliest inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia. <br><br>This truth is grossly neglected, suppressed, and distorted in most European and American historical texts which are flavored with race prejudice. Fortunately, however, there are enough well authored and highly researched works by Black historians that challenge the Eurocentric revisions of history and correct the various erroneous views regarding the ethnic identity of the Hebrews. <br><br>Biblical history relates that the descendants of Abraham, namely Jacob (Israel) and his twelve sons and their wives, 70 in all, migrated from Canaan to Egypt around the year 1827 B.C. During their sojourn in Egypt the Children of Israel multiplied from being a family of 70 souls to a nation of over 3 million people at the time of the Exodus which took place in 1612 B.C. <br><br>This astounding number of people in so short a time can only be adequately explained by intermarriage between the family of Jacob and the native Egyptian populace. It is an established fact that the ancient Egyptians were a black African people. Thus, even if the Hebrews were not black before they arrived in Egypt, which is unlikely given Abraham's background, they were definitely black by the time they left Egypt under Moses <br>[...more...] Black Hebrew Israelites<br><br><br>
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
If I may, let me recommend an excellent article, "Christians and the Law", by Bob Felts. It's lengthy (5,000+ words), but well worth reading. <br><br>http://mikeblume.com/thelaw.htm<br><br>Among others, these questions are answered:<br><br>1. Ok, one might argue, we are saved by faith in Jesus. But, because the Law is still in effect, can it not still judge us? <br><br>2. Ok, the Law can no longer condemn me. But doesn't it still guide me? <br><br>3. If the Law is not my guide then how am I to live? <br><br>4. Jesus said, "If you love me, you keep my commandments" (John 14:15, and similarly John 14:21, 15:10; 1 John 5:2-3). Doesn't this mean that we are to keep the Law? <br><br>5. I have been trying to live by the Law. What should I do? <br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Alex
Alex the article your refferenced contained this statement:
In reply to:[color:"blue"]2. Ok, the Law can no longer condemn me. But doesn't it still guide me?
The reply was this:
In reply to:[color:"blue"]This is a common notion held by many Christians. Common ... but wrong.
What usually happens is that the Law is divided into pieces -- usually the Ten Commandments are in one group and the remaining 603 are in the other. Then it is said that Christ fulfilled the 603, but it is up to us to fulfill (or live) the Ten.
But the Law is not divisible as was previously shown. Remember, in Gal. 3:10 Paul wrote:
For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law." The Christian who wants to be guided by part of the Law must be guided by all of the Law. But just as the Law has no authority to condemn those who are in Christ, it likewise has no jurisdiction to guide those who are in Christ.
And the Christian who desires to be guided by the Law has forgotten (or not understood) the relationship between law and sin. This was discussed under "What is the purpose of the Law." Remember -- the "power of sin is the law." By turning to law a believer is giving sin the very thing it needs to become more sinful. In an earnest desire to live a more Christ-like life, a believer who does this is actually feeding the "flesh" with the very thing that it needs to energize sin.
If the Law is not my guide then how am I to live? By the power of and by walking with the Holy Spirit. The life that God wants each Christian to live is really quite simple, and quite different from what is expected in many churches!
Our life is to be a life of love. A life of rejoicing. A life of peace between men in all circumstances. A life marked by patience, kindness, and goodness. A life which is gentle and faithful. A life of self-control.
When our life is filled with these things then we are living the true Christian life.
And the source of our Christian life is the Holy Spirit:
... the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. (Gal 5:22-23)
How does this square up with what the London Baptist Confession says
In reply to:[color:"blue"]The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XIX Of the Law of God
V. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof,[10] and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it;[11] neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[12]
10. Rom. 13:8-10; James 2:8, 10-12 11. James 2:10-11 12. Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31
VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned,[13] yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin;[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of His obedience: it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatening of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. These promises of it likewise shew them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.[15]
13. Rom. 6:14; Gal. 2:16; Rom. 8:1; 10:4 14. Rom. 3:20; 7:7-25 15. Rom. 6:12-14; I Peter 3:8-13
VII. Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it,[16] the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.[17]
16. Gal. 3:21 17. Ezek.36:27
Is not Bob Felts actually postulating antinomian position?
Alex,<br><br>Thanks for posting the article by Bob Felts. However, I have to take issue with his denial of the perpetuity of the Moral Law which is binding upon believers, in fact, all men. He states:<blockquote>Objection #3: If the requirements of the Law are fulfilled by our union with Christ, then what does "keep my commandments" mean? <br>The answer has already been given -- by walking in love. No more, no less. In John 13:34-35, Jesus said to us:</blockquote>"Walking in love" doesn't tell a Christian HOW he is to live. It is only the basis from which he is to live. "Love" is the motive from which a believer's "obedience of faith" is expressed. (Rom 16:26).<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Objection #2: Jesus said, "If you love me, you keep my commandments" (John 14:15, and similarly John 14:21, 15:10; 1 John 5:2-3). Doesn't this mean that we are to keep the Law? <br>This is the favorite verse used by those who would insist that Christians are to keep the Sabbath according to the fourth commandment. We have shown that Christians are not under the jurisdiction of the Law nor are we under the guidance of the Law. How then do we satisfy the desire of Christ to keep His commandments?</font><hr></blockquote><p>Mr. Felts fails to give any exegetical grounds upon which he has based his view. Rather he totally ignores the actual words of the Lord Christ, "keep my commandments". Christ did not say, "keep my commandment" nor "just love", etc. It is a popular thing for NCT and Antinomians to single out the Fourth Commandment (Sabbath) and to totally ignore the other 9. Idolatry, taking God's name in vain, dishonoring parents, murder, stealing, adultery, lying and bearing false witness, and coveting are still grievous sins which no one, especially Christians are to practice. Loving God means worshiping only Him and that aright, honoring Him in all things, keeping the Sabbath day holy, honoring parents, etc., etc... So again, love is the "motive" and the law is man's "duty". They cannot be bifurcated, for in doing so, neither is pleasing to God, but rather sinful.<br><br>You might want to read such articles on The Highway as:<br><br>The Moral Law a Rule of Obedience by Samuel Bolton<br><br>The Law not Abrogated by Christ to Believers by Ernest Kevan<br><br>Law: Civic, Ceremonial and Moral by Richard Alderson<br><br>In His Grace,
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]<br>"Walking in love" doesn't tell a Christian HOW he is to live. It is only the basis from which he is to live. "Love" is the motive from which a believer's "obedience of faith" is expressed. (Rom 16:26).<br></font><hr></blockquote><p><br>If we accept 1 Cor 13:4-7 as Paul's definintion of walking in love, we could say it does,<br><br> "Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." <br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Alex<br>
Alex,<br><br>Appealing to 1Cor. 13:4-7 doesn't diminish nor disprove the fact that "Love" is the motive of which a person lives before God and treats mankind. It tells us "WHY" but not "WHAT" is to be done. For example, a person may be really exciting about going on a trip to some exotic destination. But if there is no map nor directions as to how to get there, the excitement will hardly suffice in itself. We are instructed to live and be "holy" (1Pet 1:15, 16) and "perfect" (Matt 5:48). What is it to be holy? and What defines perfect? In the Corinthian passage, Paul is clearly teaching how "Love" is expressed by summarizing the moral law in it's "spiritual" application as did the Lord Christ:<blockquote>Matthew 22:36-40 (ASV) "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like [unto it] is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets."</blockquote>Aside from the Sabbath, the Fourth Commandment, which is the favorite target of all who have no desire to submit to it, which of the other Nine Commandments of the Decalogue are no longer binding upon a Christian? Is there anything in those other Nine which a Christian is free to do?<br><br>In His Grace,
When a man walks in agape (self for others), he expresses ALL the requirements of the OT moral law plus much, much more.<br><br>As for the Fourth Commandment, a reasonable argument can be made for its lack of applicability in this covenant. I'm sure that issue has been discussed here --- both pro and con --- previously.<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Alex<br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]When a man walks in agape (self for others), he expresses ALL the requirements of the OT moral law plus much, much more.</font><hr></blockquote><p>If the law of God, according to the Lord Christ is summarized totally by loving God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, how can it be possible to surpass them? Further, in every mention in Scripture where God "loves" a person, group, etc.... it is always expressed in an action. Thus "love" to be true love must be co-joined with something that is done. That which is "done" must be perfectly holy. That which is "holy" is God's moral law.<blockquote>Romans 7:12 (ASV) So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good. . . . (22) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:</blockquote>Since you have not chosen to answer any of my previous questions, perhaps you will at least answer this one?<br><br>QUEST: Since it is your position that the Moral Law is not binding upon a Christian how does one know that he is "walking in agape (self for others)," if there is no moral standard by which this "love" is expressed? Jesus said if we "love" Him, we will keep His commandments, which are surely one and the same as that which He Himself was obligated to keep and the very same commandments which He gave to Moses on Sinai, since He only did and taught that which belonged to the Father.<br><br>BTW, I'm curious whether you have taken the opportunity to read any of the articles that you have been referred to? And yes, the Sabbath issue has been discussed here before. A simply search will find the different threads/posts in the database.<br><br>In His Grace,
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]<br>If the law of God, according to the Lord Christ is summarized totally by loving God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, how can it be possible to surpass them?<br></font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Yes, my statement was not precise. It should have read, "When a man walks in agape (self for others), he expresses ALL the requirements of the Ten Commandments plus much, much more." Thanks.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]<br>BTW, I'm curious whether you have taken the opportunity to read any of the articles that you have been referred to? <br></font><hr></blockquote><p><br>No, but thank you for taking the time to post the links.<br><br>Alex<br><br>"The winter is past, the rain is over and gone. The flowers appear on the earth, the time of singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land."<br>
To be antinomian is to be against law (and not just the Law). To walk in love cannot be antinomian, "for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law."
When Jesus said, "keep my commandments" did He mean "keep the Decalogue"? How about "all of the (613 rules) in the Pentateuch"? Or "love one another as I have loved you" and "make disciples of the world"? The only way to determine what He meant is to compare the entirety of Scripture. Paul is emphatic that we are not under law. Therefore it seems reasonable that the latter commandments (which are the natural outworking of God's love in us) is what Jesus meant.<br><br>Dividing the Law into civic, ceremonial, and moral won't help you (i.e. keeping the Decalog while ignoring the other 603 rules), for the Law is indivisible and, as James says, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all". If you're going to be consistent, you can't avoid adultery yet eat lobster.
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]When Jesus said, "keep my commandments" did He mean "keep the Decalogue"? How about "all of the (613 rules) in the Pentateuch"? . . . etc.</font><hr></blockquote><p>First of all, are you going to bifurcate the "law" of Christ for the "law" which was of God throughout the history of mankind? The Lord Christ did not recognize anything of Himself, but only that which was given Him by the Father. (Jh 6:38; 8:28; 10:25; 10:30, 32, 37; et al). Notice how Jesus equates His commandments with that of His Father:<blockquote>John 15:10 (KJV) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."</blockquote>As to the division of the Mosaic law into: "civil, ceremonial and moral", this is a legitimate designation as anyone can see by reading the O.T. The ceremonial laws were shadows of that which was to come, i.e., the atonement of Christ and therefore are fulfilled in Him. The book of Hebrews makes this perfectly clear. The civil law was given to Israel as a Theocracy and they too were shadows and types of the New Heaven and New Earth. The principles of the civil law are applicable to the temporary kingdom of God on earth, which is the church. Thus they too cannot be what Jesus is speaking about when He tells His sheep to keep His commandments. This leaves the moral law, which did not originate on Mt. Sinai, but were from the beginning and by which all men were held accountable and judged. They, being the expression of the very nature of God Himself cannot be abrogated by the coming of Christ, as He Himself said:<blockquote>Matthew 5:18 (KJV) "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."<br><br>Luke 16:17 (KJV) "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."</blockquote>Are Christians no longer bound to avoid idolatry? If not, then the law applies. Are Christians free to take God's name in vain? If not, then they are bound to keep it. Are Christians prohibited from murder? stealing? lying? gossiping? talebearing? adultery? fornication? coveting? If so, then these these laws are binding upon their conscience and soul no less than any other man since Adam. The very definition of holiness and righteousness is defined by the moral law. Without the law, "love" is inexpressible. For the law is the basis of loving God and one's neighbor:<blockquote>Matthew 22:36-40 (ASV) Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like [unto it] is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. [color:red]On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.</font color=red>" (cf. Matt 5:17)</blockquote>When Christ was going through Galilee and taught the multitudes that had followed Him there, He sat down to teach them, in which teaching Matt 5:17 is included. This teaching has been called, "The Sermon on the Mount". In it, Jesus set forth the ethics of the kingdom. You will notice that He quotes from the Decalog in several places. What He taught was NOT against the Ten Commandments, but rather against the superficial and distorted teaching of them by the Pharisees. The moral law is not something to be restricted to the external; it is a matter of the heart, thus spiritual in nature. (cf. Matt 5:19f)<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Paul is emphatic that we are not under law.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Let's take this quote in its original <span style="background-color:yellow;">context</span>, for a text out of context is nothing more than pretext! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<blockquote>Romans 6:11-18 (ASV) "Even so reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts thereof: neither present your members unto sin [as] instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves [as] servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness."</blockquote>First of all, being no longer under sin but grace is in reference to JUSTIFICATION. No man is justified by the keeping of the law. So we can quickly dismiss any notion that law-keeping makes one right with God. Now, knowing that some would take this to the extreme error which you and Alex_Light have, he continues and shows that just because one is freed from the law unto justification does not mean that one is free to sin because the believer is now no longer under the condemnation of the law. (Rom 8:1; Gal 3:11-13, 19ff) How does one not let sin (transgression of the law) become his master? By substituting Masters. Those who were unregenerate were slaves of sin (their master). But when they were given a new nature and became one with God in Christ, that relationship was broken and a new relationship was established with God as their Master. Thus, as enemies of God, men naturally transgress the moral law of God (unrighteousness). As children of God, men naturally do not transgress the law of God. Contrariwise, they love the law of God and desire to keep it by grace unto SANCTIFICATION, knowing that God is within them to will and do His good pleasure, ergo: If you love Me, keep my commandments.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]If you're going to be consistent, you can't avoid adultery yet eat lobster.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Well, I guess that makes God inconsistent according to your system of thought. For Peter was told by God directly to eat things which were previously forbidden in the Mosaic dietary laws. (cf. Acts 10:9-15; see also 1Cor 8:1ff, 10:23ff; Rom 14:1ff) Thus, the dietary laws, having fulfilled the purpose for which they were intended by God, does this then mean, according to your "reasoning", that adultery is no longer prohibited? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rolleyes.gif" alt="rolleyes" title="rolleyes[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]First of all, are you going to bifurcate the "law" of Christ for the "law" which was of God throughout the history of mankind?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you can bifurcate the Mosaic law (cf. your reference to Law: Civic, Ceremonial and Moral by Richard Alderson.) then I can do the same. And at least I have support for my position, since we are under the New Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant.<br><br>And I disagree completely with your statement that the "division of the Mosaic law ... is a legitimate designation". Deuteronomy 28 is a good place to start.<br><br>To answer the question, "Are Christians no longer bound to avoid adultery, ..."; define "bound". In particular, bound by what? I need no law to tell me that it is wrong, because I happen to love my wife.<br><br>The statement "without law, love is inexpressible" is backwards. The true statement is "without love, [the] law is inexpressible".<br><br>The context for our not being under law is really Romans 7:<br><br><blockquote>Therefore, my brethren, you also [color:red]were made to die to the Law</font color=red> through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at workin the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But 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.</blockquote><br><br>Paul's point being the death breaks the jurisdiction of the Law -- and we died with Christ.<br><br>Peter was told to eat things contrary to the Mosaic law after the Crucifixion and Resurrection because of the principle of Romans 7, that death breaks the jurisdiction of the Law; not because the Law is divided into several parts, some of which are no longer applicable.<br><br>
wfr3,<br><br>Unfortunately and like your friend "Alex_Light", you have conveniently ignored my exegesis of the Rom 7:14 and its context as well as most all my other questions. Perhaps you might consider another biblical passage in light of your dismissal of God's moral law as being obligatory upon all men until the end of the age when Christ returns:<blockquote>Jeremiah 31:31-33 (ASV) "Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: <span style="background-color:yellow;">I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it;</span> and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:"</blockquote>This "new covenant" is obviously that covenant established by Christ and his vicarious substitutionary atonement for and with those whom the Father gave Him, i.e., the elect, predestined from before the foundation of the world. In this context, it is the LORD God speaking and Who says He is going to "write HIS LAW in the hearts of those who will become "His people". Will you now suggest that God had another law other than that which all men from Adam onward lived under, were held accountable to, and judged by? Secondly, will you suggest that when the Lord Christ taught His disciples, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments", that they belonged to yet "another covenant" other than the one the LORD spoke of in Jeremiah? and that the "commandments" that Jesus referred to were something totally different than either the moral law established from Adam and/or that which was given to Moses on Sinai, aka: the Decalogue? In short, do you deny the oneness of purpose in the Trinity and dissimulation in the revelation given to man in the inspired biblical record?<br><br>In His Grace,
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
