The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Eye for an Eye

Hi Auggy!
I’m sorry, I have been distracted lately and haven’t been here on the forum. I did not mean to ignore your response.

I obviously don’t know everything but, I try to walk in the understanding I have until God gives me more. So, when I say “stealing is wrong” for example, I intuitively know that to be true and the Bible confirms it to be true. It is God that speaks this truth, it is not me that says what is right or wrong. If I am uncertain about my intuition or do not hear in the Spirit, I check the only other authority I have - the Bible. So, I agree with God that stealing is wrong. If someone steals, I would say that is a wrong thing to do and I can show them a source outside of myself that confirms that. I don’t judge or condemn the person - I only try to speak truth to show them a better way. A person can turn (repent) and choose not to steal anymore. A person can confirm that truth intuitively by the Spirit and with the Bible. When I say a thing is good or wrong, I am not using my own logic or deciding I know a better way than what the Spirit speaks to me or through the Bible. It is our job to stand in truth, imo. It is not my job to change hearts, to bend others or to judge hearts - only to stand in truth. I think (please correct me if I’m wrong) that EU even agrees that any sin will be burned off in the purifying fires. I think standing in truth is loving. It is a loving thing to do it now, imo.
I do think everything still matters. And, the symbols were/are there for us to understand Christ better. Imagine if we didn’t think anything of Him being the Passover Lamb because it is only a symbol. We would miss knowing who He is in that symbol. Now, imagine knowing all the symbols and how Christ fulfills them. Wouldn’t that bring greater understanding of who He is? Wouldn’t it help us to have a closer relationship with Him because we know Him better? I can say conclusively, Yes! I understand all of us are at different places on the path and I think God gives us a chance to walk that path and grow. I think that is why He has reserved that judgment until the end. I also think He has called us to be transformed into His likeness daily as we walk with Him. Therefore, I conclude that it must necessarily be impossible to remain in the former sins we used to walk in and that should be obvious outwardly if there is transformation inwardly.
I do embrace a “literal”, by that I mean a physical view how we must look outwardly if we are transformed inwardly. However, the inward transformation or “spiritual” is where the transformation takes place first. I am therefore not bound to a “literalist” only view of Scripture or outward living but, adhere to the idea that the outward man will necessarily be changed by the inward transformation. I simply am not bound to one or the other as a matter of doctrine.

Ah. Yes, I suppose you could use the same argument about tithing or helping the poor, or any literalist, physical thing we do as a matter of living out faith. My main area of concern is that I live out my faith. That manifests outwardly in my physical person as well and in my inward person. I love God and my neighbor and so I help my widowed friend, my cousin’s orphaned children, etc. My “intuition” or conscience compels me to and my physical hand reaches out with provision and love. For me, it is natural to obey God any way I can. In the matter of pork, I know it can not make me godly not to eat. I already have the righteousness of Christ by way of His finished work on the cross on my behalf. I don’t do anything to earn God’s love, I obey simply because He loves me. If it is the faith of a child that He desires us to have then I have to be honest and say a child obeys most of the time without understanding why. I walk in most all things without complete understanding. You? I did not mean to defend the law. I only meant to share with others what God has shared with me to this point and I hoped that something would be a benefit to someone else, even as I have benefited from others here. As far as health reasons, I said there certainly is merit in considering what is good for the body. If pork is bad for the body then that shows the Creator made us in a way that does not align with pork consumption and then it may be said that all living things are created for a purpose, swine are garbage eaters and the Creator did not design them for our consumption. The logic could continue . . . that it is our desire for that which the Creator did not give to us eat that compels us to eat. That could be called greed. It could be said the same thing happened in the garden. However compelling the idea may be, I don’t eat it simply because God said not to and I trust Him in this thing.

Spiritually, I believe ultimate judgment and the refiner’s fire happens at the end of the age, as I stated above. I think the flesh is a shadow. Shadow’s mirror the image of the real thing. It is thus with the shadow of Messiah and it is thus with us. The shadow mirrors dimly what is going on inside the real being. No transformation on the inside means no change outwardly. Although as I said, we are all at different places on the path.
If we are transformed we are being freed from sin. Because Christ died for us we ARE being set free from sin. Intuition (witness of the Holy Spirit) and the Bible concur that stealing is a sin. When we confess our sin and, by the aid of the Spirit, stop stealing we are set free from the sin and are now free to serve Christ. Thus, following the “law” of God does set us free. God’s law is just law. How could it not be? Torah makes allowances for honest ignorance and unintentional sin - even for a murderer. There was and is now a sacrifice for those who sinned and repent. God’s law is only harsh for those who intentionally sin and don’t want to be accountable for it. Without just law anyone who didn’t care about doing right according to God, could commit any atrocities they wished and there would be no way for the innocent to plead for help from the hurt or oppression. God has a law, in part, for those who can not defend themselves, who can’t take care of themselves and yes, it means making those who would show no mercy accountable for the way they treat the weak. It calls for restitution to the widow (or anyone else) who has had their provisions stolen. A few ways why God’s law is good.

I’ll have to look closer at the context of the passages and get back to you on this Auggy. Sorry, it’s late and I feel like I’m probably already bogging down the system here. :laughing: Here are a couple I thought of when I read your fear passages above. Don’t know if they mean anything here but . . .

“FEAR of Yehovah is a beginning of knowledge, Wisdom and instruction fools have despised!” (Pro 1:7)

" . . .giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the God and Father;
subjecting yourselves to one another in the FEAR of God." (Eph 5:20-21)

" . . .that which I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light, and that which you hear at the ear, proclaim on the house-tops. `And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but FEAR rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna." (Mat 10:27-28)

Hey redhotmagma… I’ve been out for a while (working too many hours) but have a couple questions for you…

It sounds like what you mean is that because one part of the law is “killed” it kills the rest of the law.

To argue that if a part is killed (done away with), the whole is killed (done away with), doesn’t seem to follow. The “part” that is done away with is the sacrifice, not the entire set of God’s instructions.

Also,
Yehovah is the one who set passover in place. Yehovah meant the passover to be age-during.
In Exodus ch. 12 esp. v14

The sacrifice was changed to one sacrifice for all instead of many that needed repeated offering.
The temple that was literal and phyisical was changed to our physical bodies where we offer sacrifices.
He changed the way certain things happen (what the sacrifice is and the location of the temple) but didn’t completely do away with the rest of his instructions (the law).

Hi Mag! I’m so sorry about the lag time on a response.

I agree.

I think these people are right that the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices will be offered in it but, I agree with you that it will be an abomination.

Agree.

I’m not sure about this. Abraham kept Torah before there was a tabernacle so, I don’t believe the Torah necessarily needed to revolve around the tabernacle or temple.
" . . . and I have multiplied thy seed as stars of the heavens, and I have given to thy seed all these lands; and blessed themselves in thy seed have all nations of the earth; because that Abraham hath hearkened to My voice, and keepeth My charge, My commands, My statutes, and My laws.’(Gen 26:4-5)

Also, I haven’t read it specifically stated that the law is echad although, I think I would agree with you. I have to mull it over and pray about that before I can say conclusively.

I would not take that line of logic and draw the same conclusions. There is still a literal passover because there is still a literal Passover Lamb- Jesus. He was the literal sacrifice. If He had not been or if He isn’t, then we would still be sacrificing animals until He became that sacrifice. I would say that He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world although, the animal sacrifices took place until He became the literal Lamb slain. I celebrate Pesach in this manner not, according to animal sacrifices (not sure if that was already understood so, I should say, I do not live like a Jew under the law but, as a goy grafted into the spiritual Israel - as one who has seen the Hebrew Messiah and so, I celebrate Him in Pesach - I celebrate Him in everything.) Paul has stated it thus . . .
“Not good is your glorying; have ye not known that a little leaven the whole lump doth leaven?
cleanse out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened, for also our passover for us was sacrificed–Christ, so that we may keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of evil and wickedness, but with unleavened food of sincerity and truth.” (1Co 5:6-8)
And so I do.
Also, We are not left without a sacrifice. The sacrifice remains. The law of sacrifice could not be “killed” or we would be without a sacrifice. It could only be changed or fulfilled so it would remain. If the sacrifice did not stand we would be without a covering.

I agree, of course. But, if Messiah is our Passover Lamb, why not celebrate that with an understanding of what it means to us? And also, just to clarify - these passages in Hebrews are speaking specifically to the sacrifices and priesthood. It is not speaking of all of God’s instructions to mankind (Torah).

I think when we are transformed by the Spirit of God we do, as a side effect, keep the law. If I am transformed and no longer have a desire to take what is not mine but, choose to give what I have instead then I will not steal. That means I would also outwardly, by the inward change, keep the commandment. I’m not trying to earn anything by the law. I think the fruits of the Spirit could also be equated with, or be summarized in the commandments - love Yehovah your God with all your heart, mind, soul and body and love your neighbor as yourself which, as I have stated, is the summation of Torah.

Oh, don’t worry about that, J. I feel that way sometimes and I’m not detoxing. :laughing: I’m thankful for you and Auggy conversing with me on this so much.

The good news is that we’re all on the same path. Maybe not on the exact same stepping stone but, the same path. :smiley: Blessings to you BOTE!

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

?

This is coming after a quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34, which says a lot.

What Law are we talking about here, anyway? There’s a lot of those.

It says that it’s “becoming” and “ready” to vanish… not that it has.

Yehovah didn’t get rid of the law that He’s talking about in Jeremiah. He continued it by putting his law in their minds and writing it on their hearts.

I’m talking of Yehovah’s instructions. His Torah. Law in this passage and in the context that I meant is the whole of God’s teachings. The word law used in Jeremiah 31:33 is Torah in Hebrew. Torah means instruction or teaching, which is derived from the root word Yarah, which means to throw, or point at something. So Torah gets its meaning from Yarah in the sense that by teaching, one is “pointing things out”.

We have the same concept in English in phrases like, “Just throwing that out for your consideration.” or “Pointing things out”

Not a single Christian I know has various Jewish rituals in their hearts, I assure you.

If you’re referring to the 613 laws, I have to strongly disagree. Half of that law is not valid due to the absence of judges, for one, and because Jesus invalidated half of it himself.

The only law I could imagine him writing anywhere is the absolute law that was included in the Torah - such as the Noahide laws, etc.

Which laws specifically are the ones that you say are Invalidated?

The food ones?

It seems to me that Jesus contrasted what He taught in “The Sermon on the Mount” with the Mosaic Law.
“It was said to you of old-time…, but I tell you…”

In one case, Jesus’ teaching was the exact opposite:
"You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:43-45 NASB)

I don’t know the source of the command to which Jesus referred. But it must have been a well-known command among the Hebrews.

Hi Paidon, I hope you’re well. My ideas have changed since first writing this (6 years ago!—wow!). But not significantly in substance. That said, I do agree with you that Jesus radically contrasted his elevated teachings with the teachings of Moses (and what was presumably a popular aberration: “hate your enemy”). I cannot recall Jesus ever criticizing Moses for Moses’ revelation though. Rather Jesus seems to take Moses as a great prophet, and not essentially mistaken for his time and mission, even if Moses’ teachings weren’t morally ideal and are no longer appropriate or mandatory for the universal brother/sisterhood that God (and Jesus) envisioned.

Actually you are right that Jesus did not contrast the teachings of Moses but pointed out that they were looking to the wrong place… They were looking to their own understanding (old covenant understanding) and Christ was telling them of another understanding (the new covenant through Him… Christ)

It is not a point of Moses’ / Gods laws to the OT not being relevant, but the idea that God was and is progressing his Creation to new things.

Yes… “Behold, I will do a new thing, now it shall spring forth; Shall you not know it?

No, it’s simply good ole’ ‘bait n’ switch’ / ‘sleight of hand’ — create an air of ‘guilt by association’ with a rather generalised comment, something like… it seems Jesus contrasted what He taught in “The Sermon on the Mount” with the Mosaic Law, but then covering one’s tracks with a lukewarm caveat something like, I don’t know the source of the command to which Jesus referred — but of cause enough mud sticks. The truth is as stated here…

You are right… Jesus NEVER did! In fact Jesus legitimised as kosher that which some people call error; take for example Jesus backing what Moses said as being the command of God…

Mt 15:1-4 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’

Jesus was in nowise muddled over Moses… He knew and indicates by this testimony that Yahweh had spoken explicitly to and through Moses.

Oh yes. but there is a idea that somehow God changed… But to understand that there never was and has never been a change (took me a while to figure that out) is to have to re look the covenant relationship between God and man in a different way than evangelicals’ have been doing it.

It is actually kind of being freed from a slog… (my terminology) :laughing:

I never met anyone who thought that God changed. I certainly do not think that God has changed. But I think Moses sometimes thought God had spoken to or through him, when in fact, he came up with his own ideas as to how to deal with Israel.

If you want to know what God is like in character, just look at Jesus. Jesus is Another exactly like His Father. He is the exact image of the Father’s essence (Hebrews 1:3). Jesus never ordered His disciples to kill anyone, or to put to death rebellious childen, or to cut off women’s hands for certain offences as God supposedly did,.

The Pharisees were about to stone to death the woman discovered in adultery. Had Jesus followed the Mosaic law, He would have said, “The law is clear; she must be stoned” and perhaps would have cast the first stone Himself. Instead He shamed the Pharisees into inaction, and then simply said to the woman, “I don’t condemn you; go and sin no more.”

1 Like

Not only was it said, it is also written in Lev. However, Neither God nor Moses commanded it. Jeremiah tells us where it came from- the false pen of the scribe.

“He who is speaking evil of father or mother – let him die the death.” YLT.

The unchanging God is only about abundant life (Jn. 10:10). Jesus was NOT reaffirming a supposed divine command to kill disrespectful children. Rather, he was sarcastically confronting religious hypocrisy, as he goes on to say:

But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you…

Jesus indeed sometimes contradicted Moses:

  • ‘You have heard that it was said [through Moses]…But I [Jesus] tell you….’ Mt. 5.
  • ‘Eye for an eye’…’Turn the other cheek.’
  • ‘Moses commanded us to stone such women’…’Go now and leave your life of sin.’
  • Subject to bleeding [unclean were to remain apart]…’Who touched me?…Go in peace.’
  • ‘MOSES wrote you this law…because your hearts were hard.’

In the Old Testament we see breakthroughs of the progressive revelation of God’s true nature that subvert the law of Moses. For example, Isaiah 1:11 says, “I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.”

Paul highlighted imperfections of the law of Moses thus: “The ministry that brought death…engraved in letters on stone…The ministry that brought condemnation.” 2 Cor. 3:7-9.

In the Sermon on the Mount, lusting became adultery; anger became murder. Jesus was NOT reaffirming the law of Moses. He was jerking the “works rug” out from under his listeners’ feet and pointing them to the grace of God, himself, the savior of all mankind. (He did the same thing with the rich young ruler, who insisted that he had indeed faithfully kept the commandments.)

Thank you for your enlightening post, Hermano, ad for your quote from Richard Murray (above).
In early Hebrew days, Satan was depicted as a servant of God through whom God sometimes worked. Later he was understood to be an enemy of God.

Notice in the texts below, in 2 Samuel it is state that the LORD (Yahweh) incited David to number Israel, whereas in 1 Chronicles it is stated that Satan incited David to number Israel. This suggests that the LORD incited David to number Israel by means of his servant Satan.

2Sa 24:1 Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
1Ch 21:1 Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.

That’s actually an excellent point.