Diversity Within The Early Church
November 8th, 2008 by JohnO
When we look at the second and third centuries we see great diversity between groups claiming the name of Christ. We see Ebionites, Gnostics, Desert monk ascetics, charismatic mob leaders, philosophers and learned men, as well as your more normal peasants and common folk. Each of these groups, as time went on, became more and more divergent from one another in their beliefs, even their fundamental beliefs. Looking back, we don’t seem to associate “normative belief” (what is, or should be, commonly believed by everyone) with any of these groups. The Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox churches find a “normative” belief with only a sub-group of the learned men.
When we look at second Temple Judaism, we see another great diversity between those groups. We see Pharisees, Saducees, Zealots, Essenes, popular charismatic leaders and prophets, bandits who would be Kings, and Kings who are just bandits. We ascertain that neither Jesus nor John the Baptist belonged to anyone of the four groups (they were certainly popular, and charmistic leaders regarded as prophets). The Judaism of today does not look back on any of these groups with “normative belief”. Rather, in the post-Temple period the Rabbis collectively formed what would be (for some time) “normative belief”. Even today there are debates as to what makes a Jew a Jew, ethinicty?, orthodoxy?, can there be an atheist Jew? Some answer yes.
Simplicity and clear lines of development cannot be seen in this picture of history. That a core nugget of diverse peoples (both Jew and Gentile) for 70 years, give or take, agreed to the point of assigning “normative belief” on them and their belief is a big presumtion. It must be proven.
Yes, all Christians had common belief on a few things; Jesus’ death and resurrection as God working in the world, henceforth Jesus’ claim to be God’s annointed, and therefore King over even Caesar, the church as a new community lovingly taking care of one another and the abused/downtrodden of the world, the spirit working wonders in that community, the denial of pagan worship, and entrance into this community through baptism. Much of the New Testament was also written to create Orthopraxy – right practice. Of course to create right practice, one usually leans on what one believes.
But, that does not deny that there were serious differences in belief among early Christians – that is to be expected given the history. Some differences, clearly are; the Gentiles relationship to Israel, and Jewish-Christian observance of the law. Whenever you see an argument in the New Testament over belief, or a strong case being made in favor of a point, there is likely a difference in belief behind it. Passages like Acts 15, 2 Thess 2, most of Hebrews, most of Galatians, Romans 1-3, 7-10, and Col 1 come to mind. They are treatments of differences in belief.
First, I wanted to add something regarding the Gentiles relationship to Israel I found that was very helpful:
Israel believed, sometimes, that when she was redeemed, the Gentiles would share in the blessing. The widespread early Christian impetus towards what was often a risky and costly mission can only be explained in terms of the belief that Israel had now been redeemed, and that the time for the Gentiles had therefore come… Where we fail to find the same enthusiam for this mission (where, for example, there are signs of opposition to the free entry of Gentiles into the community of Jesus’ people, as Acts 15.1 or Gal 2.11-15) the most likely explanation is that the Christians in question were holding to a different retelling of the Jewish story. Many Jews, not least in the first century, believed that when Israel’s god acted to deliver her, the Gentiles would not be blessed, but would be brought to book. In that context, any Gentile who wanted to be rescued would have to show his or her submission to Israel’s god, which meant of course submission to Israel’s Torah. New Testament and the People of God, NT Wright, pg. 445
This helps us understand the the council in Acts 15 on why it was an issue in the first place. And why Peter’s use of God working with Cornelius settles it for James. Faced with two choices, submission to Torah or not, God granted the spirit, the sign of acceptance, proving it with manifestations to Peter – to show that the Gentiles will be included. That is the will of God. Therefore James must adhere to a specific retelling of Israel’s story, the one God is acting out and following.
Moving on then, we come to one other major disagreement: the Jewish-Christian practice of Torah. Is it required or not? We are leaving aside the question of whether it is required for salvation, that is a mixing of categories we cannot unravel here.
I think it seems clear to all that Paul felt it was not required for himself, a Jew, to obey the Mosaic Law:
To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 1 Cor 9.20-1
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. Gal 2.9
His reasoning behind this is fairly clear, it is laid out in Romans 3 and 4. All have sinned. Boasting is therefore excluded, since salvation comes through faith – even to the Jews. God is the God of the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Was Abraham saved while a Gentile or a Jew? A Gentile, therefore the Gentiles can be saved in such a manner. And if the inheritance of the promises only comes down through the law, the promises are null and void (since the promises were given to Abraham as a Gentile). By the time he gets to cp 7, he explains how he is dead to the law, and how the law is impotent to do what the spirit, through conversion, has done in him. The law is not ‘bad’, rather good because of what it has pointed out, sin. It is holy and just, and has served his purpose. And as Paul acts in his conversion, fulfilling the law of Christ (imitating Jesus and following his teaching), he will fulfill the law’s aims: to reconcile one with God.Now on to James. First, the association of the men in Gal 2 is with James. They are from him, and are therefore acting on his behalf. They are obedient to the kosher laws, and henceforth cannot eat with the Gentiles. Notice Paul does not go after the men, but rather Peter here. Paul knows Peter’s prior experiences with Gentiles – he has not excuse to act the way he is acting, in Paul’s thinking. Second, the Ebionites I mentioned earlier, were a Jewish-Christian group which denounced Paul and held in high esteem James. This group felt it was required to keep the Law of Moses. Third, Josephus (in Antiquities 20.9) records that James was put to death on account of breaking the Mosaic Laws. This was the High Priest’s charge against him, which was contrived based on James’ stance that Jesus was in fact the Christ. Josephus records that other stringent Jews were very put off by the High Priest’s charge against him, disagreeing that James had not broken the law. They protested to the absent ruler and had the High Priest removed from office.
Now let us see the evidence from the New Testament:
If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin {and} are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one {point,} he has become guilty of all. For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. James 2.8-11
The book of James is written to the Diaspora, the twelve tribes dispersed abroad. This seems to me plain that he is encouraging the Law of Moses as Jewish Christians should be following. He cites the Ten Commandments, as well as the common Jewish summary statement of Lev 19.18
And when they heard it they {began} glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. Acts 21:20-1
This is Paul at Jerusalem, greeted by James. James tells him how many Jewish-Christians are zealously keeping the law. The plain disagreement is that Paul is telling Jewish-Christians in the diaspora to “forsake Moses”, which is both a charge to anti-nomianism (against any law whatsoever, which Paul is not, as seen above), and to abandon being Jews. Paul clearly is doing neither in his work in the diaspora. Rather, Paul is telling the Jews in the diaspora that the law yields to something higher. When we are talking about table fellowship and unity – with Gentiles – a Jewish-Christian should partake and not let the Law of Moses prevent that. And that principle can be applied to plenty of other issues as well.Paul re-assures James and men in Jerusalem that Moses is not to be forsaken, to remain Jews in the Diaspora. And he pays for the vows of four men and purifies himself for his case, being a Jew to the Jews. But James’ belief stands, that Jewish-Christians should be keeping the law of Moses. We don’t have anything written by James explicitly on the issue of table-fellowship. Maybe he would have solved it another way. Or maybe it was an issue he didn’t have to handle, being in Jerusalem.
I think putting all this evidence together lays out some basic fundamentals of the differences in the first century. Clearly these differences did not prevent either Paul, Peter, or James from working together – they clearly did that on many occasions. Paul loved James enough to take up a contribution for the Jerusalem Church while they were in famine. Even just examining these two issues, we would be hard-pressed to claim one as “normative”. Certainly, as the church became populated overwhelmingly by Gentiles this issue disappeared.
I wonder where does Wright know this from?
Sorry, I do not understand the bolded phrase. Every Gentile “would have to show his or her Israel’s god”?
IMHO, you are possibly drawing the wrong conclusion here. Your hypothesis is that when it comes to Gentiles, Jews were divided in two camps:
- one who believed “the Gentiles would share in the blessing” when Israel would be redeemed.
and
- one who believed “the Gentiles would not be blessed” but punished, unless they adhere to the Torah. Leaving aside the fact that I see no evidence so far to support this division, I would point out that according to this supposition, the Christians shared unilaterally the 2nd view, otherwise where were those from the 1st camp before God directs Peter to Cornelius?
We should not be leaving this question aside since one could reason that if the law was not considered by James a requirement for salvation, then why would he view it as required for the Christian Jews?
Let us not draw hasty conclusions. Nothing can be attributed to James just because the men came from James. Guilty by association? If James would be tried in a court of Law, accused of advocating the separation of Jews and Gentiles, this piece of evidence would not hold. Does James agree with these men’s point of view? A lawyer for the defense would likely tell you that there’s absolutely no physical evidence (written or whatever) that James ever advocated this separation after Cornelius. In fact he will point out how what happened to Peter sheds light on James’ views. Peter tells Cornelius:
Acts 10:28-29 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean. “That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for. So I ask for what reason you have sent for me.”
So Peter, when he goes to Cornelius, breaks this Jewish law condemning association of a Jew with a Gentile. He even ate with Gentiles, because we know that “they asked him to stay on for a few days” (Acts 10:48) And that is why:
Acts 11:1-3 When Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised [including James probably] took issue with him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.”
So after Peter relates all that happened, what do these Jewish Christians say?
Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”
Did they still condemn Peter for associating with Gentiles? No. So then why would James pursue this further, insisting that Peter should not eat with the Gentiles in Antioch? Is it allowed for him to do it in Caesarea, but not in Antioch? No indication that James believed such a thing.
That doesn’t prove James actually required the law for Jews.
IMHO, James 2.8-11 doesn’t prove either that James advocates the law of Moses to the Jews. If you read carefully, he sometimes qualifies his references to the “law” saying “James 1:25; 2:12 the law of liberty“, “James 2:8 the royal law”, while other times he simply says “law”. I believe he does this to differentiate between the two laws: the law of Christ (1 Co 9:21) which is the opposite of the Mosaic Law, and the Law of Moses.
Does he refer to the law of Christ, the one mentioned by Paul?:
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
I believe so, because James too refers twice to this law as “the law of liberty“, the one that Paul says above has set the Roman Christians free. He tells the Jews in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch:
Acts 13:39 through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.
In other words, the law of Moses is not the law of freedom. This was the Gospel which Paul submitted to the pillars of the Church (to James as well that is – Galatians 2:2), and they, including James, did not add or revoke anything from it (2:6), on the contrary, James gave Paul “the right hand of fellowship” (Galatians 2:9)
Accordingly, when James refers to the “royal law”, he indicates that this law is “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (James 2:8), and not the entire law of Moses. The issue was that:
James 2:2-4,6,9 If a man comes into your (1)assembly with a gold ring and dressed in (2a)fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in (b)dirty clothes, and you (1)pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil (1)motives? [...] You have dishonored the poor man. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
Which law were they they transgressing? The royal one he just mentioned: “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”. And to make this clearer he gives them a parallel example: he reminds them that not holding the entire law of Moses, transgressing in some aspect of it, makes them guilty of breaking the whole law of Moses:
James 2:11 For He who said, “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY,” also said, “DO NOT COMMIT MURDER.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
This is to make them understand that transgressing the royal law “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” in one aspect, that of being partial towards the poor and dishonoring them, makes them guilty of transgressing against all royal law, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”. They could have said they love their poor neighbour, but were breaking this law by being partial towards them. That’s why, James ends cautioning:
James 2:12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.
This is the law they will be judged by, the Law of Liberty, not of Moses. He doesn’t impose the law of Moses upon his fellow Jews.
This is another instance where IMHO James cannot be considered to impose to Mosaic Law upon the Jews. This is how I explained this earlier (http://kingdomready.org/blog/2008/10/25/dying-for-god-%e2%80%93-or-dying-for-a-man-made-error/#comment-35949):
In conclusion, IMHO, James and Paul are not holding opposing views regarding the requirement of the Law for the Jews. I see no such indication.
It is simple really, when Paul was among the Gentiles he was more giving the ways of Jewish Law and tradition. I believe that for whatever reasons this is, Paul had the intention in his heart set on spreading the Gospel as Christ had commanded, under any way he could.
We need to take into account that Paul was an avid missionary, more so than James.
I agree with JohnE and Joseph. James’ “royal law” of “love your neighbor as yourself” is another way of saying what Jesus (“On these two [love God and neighbor] hang all the law”) and Paul (“Love is the fulfilling of the Law”) both said. This is the essence of the New Commandment that the Lord gave us.
If Paul thought that James advocated keeping the Law of Moses for salvation or righteousness in God’s eyes, I don’t think he would have gone along with it. It was a matter of helping his brethren not to stumble as he describes in Rom. 14, as well as trying to be “all things to all men” to win some, as in I Cor. 9:22.
We have to be very careful when we talk about division in the early church. Skeptics and anti-Christians use that argument all the time to try to prove that the New Testament doesn’t represent what they really believed (not that JohnO is doing that). Yes there were controversies, but the NT resolves them, IMO.
JohnO,
Are you saying that Jewish Christians should keep the Law of Moses? Or are you saying that Paul and Peter would says no to this question whereas James would say yes?
Hi Sean,
IF the end of that age hasn’t come yet, perhaps all Christians should keep the Law of Moses?
Or is it that the age of the Law of Moses is over, and thus NO Christians (whether they were once under the Law or whether they were Gentiles) are any longer required to keep the Law of Moses ?
Are there even any “Jewish” Christians today – biblically speaking? How do those who claim to be of the natural tribes of Israel confirm that their claims are indeed true? Or does it not matter anymore today whether one is of Israel (that is, of the tribes of Israel), just as long as one makes some claim that one is a “Jew”?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
“Many nations will come and say, ‘Come and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.’ The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”
What law in being spoken about in the above passage?
If you would have quoted the next verse that comes after that, it would have been clear:
Isaiah 2:4 And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war.
The law of Moses does not advocate pacifism. Christ’s law does. Paul was “not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ” (1 Corinthians 9:21). He urged us to “bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.” Galatians 6:2
“Christ is the end of the [Mosaic] law” – Romans 10:4
The word law is from Torah which means instruction not just Law (as in Mosaic Law).
Good point Sean.
JohnE,
Simply inserting the word [Mosaic] with Law doesn’t change anything about what the Law is, and doesn’t make it into something new. The Law never changes, only Doctrine.
Remember, Christ didn’t come to abolish the Torah (Law), not one jot or tittle, but to fulfill (lit. fill full).
How did Christ fill full the Torah (Law)?
Joseph, are you arguing here with Paul, that Christ is not really the end of Mosaic law? And yes, please tell us, how did Christ fulfill the Torah?
JohnE,
I’m not arguing with Paul. Please tell me in what speech you believe Paul uses to do away with the Torah so that we can discuss it in further detail and context?
Mat 3:15
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Christ could not be the Messiah if he spoke against Torah (Isa. 8:16-20).
Christ upheld the Torah and even fulfilled it further (Matt. 5:17-20).
We’re not “under the law” anymore because our works aren’t counted as means to save us anymore. Our faith is what matters now. Instead of living to the law for salvation now we are freed from our own inevitable failures and we live to Yeshua who is our master now. But does that mean we discard the law? NO!!! (Rom. 3:31, 7:21-25, Col. 2:16-17).
Some time in the future all the world will be OBLIGATED to keep Torah (Zech. 14).
So you do then agree with him that Christ is the end of the law?
Sure let’s take his letter to the Galatians. Please discuss.
Speaking against Torah? Who speaks against the Torah?
Christ went beyond the Torah.
Amen.
What exactly do you mean by “discarding the law”???
Really? Where exactly does Zech 14 say that?
Actually the new testament does say to go to the law:
[Matthew 5:19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
[Colossians 2:16-17] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days – Which are a shadow of things to come – but the body of Christ.
Look at the 144, 00 in revelation:
Revelation 15:3
[3] And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. [Moses and Yeshua].
This is also evident by what the future brings about in the kingdom [Zech. 14:16-21; Ezek. 45:21-25; Isa. 66:22-24; Luke 22:15-16; Col. 2:16-17].
Specifically Zech. 14 when we will be required to keep Sukkot (feast of Tabernacles) and abide in sacrifices…
16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.
20 In that day “HOLINESS TO THE LORD” shall be engraved on the bells of the horses. The pots in the LORD’s house shall be like the bowls before the altar. 21 Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the LORD of hosts.[a] Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.
Also, you believe that Christ went beyond the Torah, then shouldn’t you observe even the basics of Torah? If you want a clear exegesis of the word “fulfillment” just jump back two chapters from Matthew 5:17 to Matthew 3:15 where Yeshua says to John:
Matthew 3:15
[15] And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Interpret the word “fulfill” how you please my brother but the above usage of the word is same as the Matthew 5:17 occurrence. Fulfill means to literally “fill full” and therefore to make larger/bigger/replete.
Wolfgang,
We’ve been over this endlessly. The period of time of the Mosaic Law is NOT called an age. All throughout both Old and New Testaments this present evil age is contrasted with the age to come in which there will be no more war, as the verses quoted above (and others) declare. This has clearly not come to pass yet, since there is still war.
The discussion is about diversity in the first century church, and particularly about the controversy over whether or not it was required to keep the Law. Let’s not sidetrack the thread with this this erroneous interpretation of “end of the age.”
Hi Mark C.
The period of the time of the Mosaic Law is most certainly described as an age, for example in Jesus’ prophecies concerning “the end of THE AGE” which he linked specifically with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple which ended all keeping of the Mosaic Law rather quickly, since there was on more temple, no more priesthood, etc.
Yes, we are talking about whether or not Christians in the early church (and by extension, the discussion has had references to Christians today) should keep the Mosaic Law or not … and my rather simple point is this: IF the age (time, or call it whatever else you want) of the Mosaic Law has come to an end, then no Christians are required anymore to keep the Mosaic Law … and IF that age (time, or call it whatever else you want) has not come to an end, then perhaps all Christians should keep the Mosaic Law.
In addition, what “age” do you think is “this present evil age” whose end — according to the Lord’s prophectic words — was to be accompanied with the destruction of the temple? On what ground do you interpret “present” in the expression used by a writer in the first century as meaning “present” at the time of you and I as a reader 2000 years later? Should the scriptures be read and interpreted from the perspective and in light of the understanding of things which readers 2000 years later have? or should it the scriptures be read and interpreted from the perspective and in light of the understanding of things which the writers at the time had?
I would think that one can only gain a correct understanding of the questions regarding whether or not Keeping the Law of Moses was required in the early church and/or is required by Christians now IF one reads and interprets the Scriptures from the correct perspective.
By the way, if one does, the answers to such questions about requirements for keeping the Mosaic Law are rather simple …. it’s just when one looks at the matter from the wrong place, the thing appears ambiguous and also complicate
Cheers,
Wolfgang
As for the keeping of the Law, I think one thing we’re forgetting is that “The Law” (or Torah) is not limited to the Mosaic Law. God said (in Gen. 26:5) that “Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” This was long before Moses and the laws he received on Mt. Sinai. And the Law which Moses afterward gave to Israel was not for everyone, but specifically for the nation of Israel. Deut. 5:3 specifically states that “The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.” And Galatians tells us that the Law (of Moses), which was 430 years later, does not invalidate the promises made to Abraham.
Joseph said, “We’re not ‘under the law’ anymore because our works aren’t counted as means to save us anymore. Our faith is what matters now.” But the fact is, faith more than works is what has ALWAYS mattered. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness. Israel was required to keep the Law because it was part of their unique covenant with God, and thus an outward demonstration of their relationship with, and faith in, God.
But it was only temporary, as a “schoolmaster” to bring them to Christ. When Christ came he redefined the Law in many ways, saying, “You have heard it said…but I say to you…” He raised the Law to a new level, but it’s one that is not dependent on keeping the letter of rules and regulations, because the letter cannot change a person’s heart. What Jesus introduced, and what Paul continued to preach, is a new law, the royal law of love. Only with a heart that is transformed by God’s holy spirit can anyone follow God’s ways. When they do, they are above the letter of the law, yet they fulfill the true heart of the law.
Bottom line, I believe, is that faith involves trusting and obeying the commands that are specifically addressed to you. There was one set of commands given to Israel, there is another given to us through the Lord Jesus. The two covenants have many things in common (don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, etc.) but they are handled in different ways. In addition, there are some commands that all will be expected to obey in the coming Kingdom, such as observing the Feast of Tabernacles.
But we must keep straight which set of commandments we are bound by. And we must also remember that Jesus did more than establish new rules. He showed us that by our own ability we CANNOT live according to God’s standard of love and perfection, but we need grace to be saved, and holy spirit to enable us to live righteously.
It was a tricky thing to understand in the first century, and it still is. That’s why Paul wrote about it so much. I exhort everyone participating in this discussion to read Galatians (as well as II Corinthians and Colossians, which also deal with this subject) before continuing the debate.
You’re defining it backward. He spoke of signs of the end of the age, which would include, among other things, the destruction of the Temple. But it is not the only definition of the coming new age. A thorough examination of the subject throughout the Scriptures shows that it also includes his personal presence on earth, and the end to war.
Your whole “simple” point is based on the assumption that the end of the age means the end of the Old Covenant, which is not what the Bible says. Paul spoke of the Mosaic Law having been replaced by the New Covenant commandments, and he wrote his epistles BEFORE the Temple was destroyed in 70AD. But the whole question of whether we have to keep the Law has nothing to do with the end of the age, as the New Covenant replacing the Old Covenant is never called a “new age”.
You know what I think the present evil age is, as we have debated back and forth about it many times. I really think this argument is getting away from the point of the thread, and I don’t want to derail it any further.
Joseph,
Actually this verse does not say to go the law. It says that whosoever BREAKS these commandments and teaches men to break them, or that it is allowed to break them, is disapproved by God. Whenever I can, I do teach people not to murder, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to bear false witness, not to dishonor their parents. The Law did not end because it was wrong, not because it would be right to steal, murder, etc, but because it served as a tutor to Christ (Gal 3:24), and when he came, its role was fulfilled, its aim accomplished. When the child reached maturity, he is no longer under a tutor. Since Christ came, God’s people are no longer under the law (Gal. 3:25)
And of course, the Law was condemning every man to death, because nobody could wholly keep the law (John 7:19 “Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law”). Look what a man who was formerly under the law says:
Romans 8:2-4 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
That is how we fulfill the law. Also, consider how we further fulfill it:
Romans 13:8-10 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, “you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law [same at Gal. 5:14; 6:2].
Our love of God and our neighbor is the fulfillment of the Law.Why is this significant to this discussion, where you assert that the Law has not really ended, but is still in force? Because Jesus said this about the fulfillment of the Law:
Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I came to abolish the (a)Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Jesus did not come to say “you can murder”, abolishing thus the law, but to fulfill it, and he did fulfill it. The law shall not pass until “all is accomplished”. And he did accomplish all in the Law, so the Law passed. We do accomplish everything in the law when we really love God and our neighbor, so the law passed.
But when you come and say that we are (or will be) under the law, you effectively destroy all what Christ accomplished. You contradict the Holy Spirit, who says that “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death”. You effectively say “no, we were NOT made free from the law of sin and death, we are still under it”. The same Spirit says that we “were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ (Romans 7:4), but you effectively say no, we “were NOT made to die to the Law through the body of Christ”. And the same Spirit says “Galatians 5:18 if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law” but you effectively abolish what the Spirit says, saying “yes we are (or will be) under the law”. And so on…
Joseph wrote:
I look, but I still do not see how this verse “does say to go to the law”. The song of Moses (Ex. 15) is a song of victory, does not “say to go to the law”. The song that is sang in Rev. 15:3,4, the song of Moses and of the Lamb, does not “say to go to the law”. In fact, we know the words of this song, they are clearly shown in these 2 verses.
Joseph wrote:
I hope you do realize this verse is proving you wrong, do you? If you would have quoted the context, you would have seen that there were ones trying to force these Colossians to keep the law, and Paul argues against that, saying the law has ended, nailed to the cross:
Colossians 2:13-17 He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us [the Law], which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. [...] Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day– 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
So the Jews who would judge adversely the Colossians because they were eating pork (food forbidden under the law), or that they did not observe the festival of the booths (prescribed by the law), or that they did not observe the Sabbath, these Jews were not in their right to do so – these decrees of the law were already taken out of the way, having been nailed to the cross. Why? Because these aspects of the law were only “a mere shadow of what is to come”. As I already mentioned so many times – without any response from you.
So when Zechariah 14 mentions that the nations will have to celebrate the festival of the booths, we know that the Judeo-Christian exegesis has already shown this to be “a mere shadow of what is to come” almost 2000 years ago. It states that these aspects of the Law were merely pointing to the realities that would take place in relation with the Christian Church, and were not the real thing per se.
But, again, what might seem obvious for almost 2000 years is not so obvious to you, so let me state the obvious, giving you some examples. We, Christians, Jews and Gentiles, believe the NT has doctrinal authority, and that this NT sheds light on the VT. Jews repeatedly said in the NT that things mentioned in the Law are “a mere shadow of what is to come” (also repeated in Heb 10:1). And here are some examples: the earthly High Priest was a symbol of the real heavenly High Priest (Heb 9:11), the Messiah. The curtain separating the Most Holy chamber from the Holy chamber (Heb 10:20). And the letter to the Hebrews is filled with examples like these. But let’s discuss a bit the aspects where days are involved, like festivals, or the sabbath.
Chapter 4 of the same letter explains that the God’s people enter the real sabbath, God’s rest, by faith in Jesus, by resting from their evil works and their disobedience.
Leviticus 23:16-17 You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh sabbath; then you shall present a new grain offering to the LORD. You shall bring in from your dwelling places two loaves of bread for a wave offering, made of two-tenths of an ephah; they shall be of a fine flour, baked with leaven as first fruits to the LORD.
These grain offerings, that were brought on the Pentecost as “first fruits to the LORD” were a symbol of God’s Christian people, who are considered “first fruits of the Lord” – James 1:18; Rev 14:4. The real first fruits were not grains, it was them. And the real event that took place at the Pentecost, was the baptizing of Christ’s disciples with Holy Spirit – Acts 2.
Likewise, the lamb sacrificed during the Passover was a mere symbol of Jesus – and I hope there’s no need for me to prove that. Also, the sacrificing of this lamb was merely a symbol of the real sacrifice of Christ. And the Day of Atonement had the same meaning.
And so let’s get to the festival of the booths (Lev 23:33-…) It was a time when God’s people had to present offerings and sacrifices to Him, and live for 7 days in booths, to remind them that they were rescued by God from the enslavement of Egypt, and made to live in temporary dwellings, like strangers, before entering the promised land. They would “rejoice before the LORD” during these seven days.
What does this really signify for Christians today, in relation to whom the real aspects of this symbolic celebration is fulfilled? Do Christians present offerings, sacrifices to the Lord, were they liberated from anything, and are they alien residents living in temporary dwellings in this world? Yes of course.
—-Sacrifices, offerings to God—–
God says that the sacrifices brought under the law were not really the ones He desired:
Isaiah 1:11 What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?” Says the LORD. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle; And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.
Likewise, Jesus says about the greatest of the real sacrifices:
Hebrews 10:5-6 Sacrifice and offering you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you have taken no pleasure.
So then, other than Jesus’ sacrifice, what sacrifices does God really expect from Christians?
1 Peter 2:5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
What kind of spiritual sacrifices “through Jesus Christ”?
Hebrews 13:15 Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name.. (comp. w/ Ro 10:8-15)
Hebrews 13:16 And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.
Romans 12:1 Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.
Philippians 2:17 & 2Ti 4:6 But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all.
Philippians 4:18 But I have received everything in full, and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God.
The real sacrifices and offerings are the “sacrifice of praise to God”, doing good, sharing – like the Philippians did in the last verse, presenting our bodies as living and holy sacrifice in the service of God, and even being literally sacrificed (martyred) for God.
—-Liberated—-
Romans 6:18, 22 having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.[...] having been freed from sin and enslaved to God
Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery [of the Law].
Hebrews 2:15 and might free those who through a)fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
John 8:34, 31,32 everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. [...] If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
—-Resident aliens, not part of the world—-
Our home is not this world but the heavenly kingdom. We are rather “ambassadors for Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:20) – and ambassadors always live in a foreign country. Indeed, we “are not of the world” (John 17:14), but “aliens and strangers” in it (1 Peter 2:11)
Of course, all these real aspects of the festival of the booths presuppose faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to God. What Zechariah seems to be saying is that the nations will have to abide by all these things above, otherwise they will perish. God’s Spirit does not indicate through him that the Law will be enacted once again. Because it was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery of the Law (Gal 5:1) Do not think that after the realities of God took shape, we are going to revert back to the shadows they project. We are not going to be transformed from mature men who should have the “measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ” to babies who are tutored by the Law (Eph. 4:14; Gal 3:24,25). We’ve already found Christ.
JohnE,
You’re right that we are no longer under the letter of the Law which was a shadow of the better things to come. But regarding the Feast of Booths in the future Kingdom, Zechariah is not saying that WE will revert back to the Law. It is talking about the nations who will have tried to fight against Jerusalem.
Zech. 14:
14 Judah also will fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the surrounding nations will be gathered, gold and silver and garments in great abundance.
15 So also like this plague will be the plague on the horse, the mule, the camel, the donkey and all the cattle that will be in those camps.
16 Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths.
17 And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them.
18 If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the LORD smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.
19 This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.
It seems that those nations who tried to fight against Jerusalem will be required to submit to this ordinance as a sort of sign of their submission and allegiance to the new King, Jesus.
That being said, in this present time period of the Church, we are not required to follow such ordinances, and do indeed offer spiritual sacrifices rather than the old shadows of the Mosaic Law.
Hi Mark C.,
yes, of course you are right, WE are not going to be required to observe the shadow of the Sukkot. But I was responding to Joseph, who said that
As for the nations who will be required to observe this shadow, let us not forget that these words are part of the “Law and the Prophets”. If the NT would have said this, it would have been a whole different ball game.
But it is the “Law and the Prophets”, Zechariah specifically, that talks about the shadowy Sukkot to be observed by the nations, not the NT, and so his reference itself, is a shadow of the future things.
If Zechariah does not reference a shadow here, but the real thing, that these nations would have to observe the Mosaic Law with everything in it – animal sacrifices, circumcision, Sabbath, Pentecost, Passover, everything, which would mean Christ is really no benefit to them:
1) the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has NOT set them free from the law of sin and of death (Romans 8:2-4)
2) they were NOT made to die to the Law through the body of Christ (Romans 7:4)
3) they are NOT led by the Spirit, because they are under the Law (Galatians 5:18)
4) they were NOT alive together with Jesus, God did NOT forgive their transgressions, He did NOT cancel out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against them, which is hostile to them; and He has NOT taken it out of the way, He did NOT nail it to the cross. (Colossians 2:13-17)
All this (and more) would point to the fact that the above 4 points are valid because they really have no faith in Jesus Christ – because for everybody who really does have faith in Jesus, the contrary of these 4 points is true.
Nevertheless, despite all these 4 points, as Zechariah says, they “will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts”!!! How can they still worship the King if they do not believe in his Messiah? Please notice, all Zechariah says it is required for these nations to stay alive is the celebration of the Sukkot, not real belief in Jesus Christ. I have a real difficulty comprehending this situation, if we’re not talking about shadows here.
An alternative would be, one could say, that they will not be required to observe the whole law, but only the Sukkot and the animal sacrifices – what would be the point for them to sacrifice animals anyway?
If this would be so, why would they celebrate the Sukkot? Were they liberated from something and lived as strangers in temporary dwellings?