Do Jewish Christians need to follow the law?

[jubal]

We know that in the time of the ancients that there was a asymmetry between the laws of he jews and the gentiles.

Genesis 9 confirms Noah's decedents are allowed to eat any meat as long as they do't eat the blood

"And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."

So right there we have 1 rule the gentiles don't have to follow, they can eat pigs.

Exodus 12:48-49 "If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”

The above confirms that there are things jews can or can't do that gentiles are not or are able to do.

Finally we get to the time of Jesus.

After the Resurrection the disciples go out and spread the word. At this time the jews still follow the laws of Moses, including Peter who initially refuses to eat unclean animals.

Acts 10 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”

Peter and Paul get into a fight with the Judizers which results in the council at Jerusalem, the descion is to send the following letter to the gentiles

Acts 15 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

Note that the conclusion of this council never claims Jews are off the hook for the law.

What do we make of this?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Hi, welcome to the board. Please fix your signature so folks know how to address you; see the instructions here: https://www.puritanboard.com/help/signature/

 

[Jack K]

To get an answer that satisfies you, you may need to explain where you get the assumption that there is such as thing as a "Jewish Christian." I realize there may a person who was raised in a Jewish culture and is a Christian, and so is a Jewish Christian in a cultural sense. But how is this possible in a spiritual, religious sense? Are there two categories of believers in Christ: Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians?

It seems to me, on the basis of Galatians 3:23-4:7 (and really, the entire book) that there is no such thing as a Jewish Christian. In Christ there is no difference. We are all set free from the law, which was merely a guardian until the time Christ came. We are all baptized into Christ and have put on Christ. All together, all the same. No difference.

It is true that in the days of the early church Jews and Gentiles often did not mix well (and Paul refers to this in Galatians 2). But this not mean they should have been separating themselves that way. And in fact, Peter went back and forth between the Gentile groups and their customs and the Jewish groups and their customs as if the difference didn't matter in Christ, and he was corrected by Paul when for a time he acted as if the difference did matter.

So... there are plenty of people on this board who could speak to the issue better than I can, but I suspect it would help to explain where you get the idea of a "Jewish Christian" to begin with.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Genesis 9 confirms Noah's decedents are allowed to eat any meat as long as they do't eat the blood

"And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."

So right there we have 1 rule the gentiles don't have to follow, they can eat pigs.

I, too, am having a hard time following your assumptions. In this section, which I quoted, are you saying that all of Noah's descendants were/are Gentiles?

 

[jubal]

When I say Jewish Chrisitan I mean a son of Jacob, biologically

It seems to me that the bible implies that the literal blood descendants of Jacob are still required to keep the law.

This is because the council of Jerusalem explicitly states that the gentiles that there is no need for the Gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law.

If the intended meaning was nobody need obey the law then we have a problem that this sentiment is not communicated in the passage in acts.

 

[Taylor]

This is because the council of Jerusalem explicitly states that the gentiles that there is no need for the Gentiles to follow the Mosaic Law.

Not so fast, brother. Before you make such assertions about the conclusion of the Jerusalem Council, you really must pay careful attention to the triggering occasion of the Jerusalem Council. The occasioning assertion was not, "Gentiles must keep the Law of Moses," but, "Gentiles must keep the Law of Moses—at least as it regards circumcision—or they cannot be saved." There is a big difference between the two questions. The question is, "Must one become a Jew ceremonially before they can become a Christian?" That was the question being answered.

Every Christian, no matter their lineage, is required to obey the Law—not for their salvation, but, just like Israel of old, because they are a redeemed people under the direct lordship of Christ.

 

[jubal]

Not so fast, brother. Before you make such assertions about the conclusion of the Jerusalem Council, you really must pay careful attention to the triggering occasion of the Jerusalem Council. The occasioning assertion was not, "Gentiles must keep the Law of Moses," but, "Gentiles must keep the Law of Moses—at least as it regards circumcision—or they cannot be saved." There is a big difference between the two questions. The question is, "Must one become a Jew ceremonially before they can become a Christian?" That was the question being answered.

[you]Every[/you] Christian, no matter their lineage, is required to obey the Law—not for their salvation, but, just like Israel of old, because they are a redeemed people under the direct lordship of Christ.

So you think we can't eat pork?

There is a law that we all must keep, the problem seems to be the jews are special.

Remember in the past a righteous gentile( such as Noah) did not have to keep the law of Moses. (Genisis 9 Noah can eat anything that moves.)

So does that situation still hold post Jesus?

 

[Edward]

[you]Every[/you] Christian, no matter their lineage, is required to obey the Law

Not a very nuanced statement, unless you are ignoring the reformed distinctions between the moral, judicial and ceremonial law. Or you consider only the moral law to be "the Law".

 

[Tom Hart]

So you think we can't eat pork?

There is a law that we all must keep, the problem seems to be the jews are special.

Remember in the past a righteous gentile( such as Noah) did not have to keep the law of Moses. (Genisis 9 Noah can eat anything that moves.)

So does that situation still hold post Jesus?

I'll just say that, as much as I'd like to participate in (or at least read) this discussion, I'm having a hard time following your train of thought.

 

[Taylor]

Not a very nuanced statement, unless you are ignoring the reformed distinctions between the moral, judicial and ceremonial law.

1) I subscribe to the WCF, as indicated in my profile. Whatever I say about the Law is within that context, which I assumed would be understood.

2) When I say that every Christian is required to obey the Law, I am obviously saying it as someone who upholds the entire canon of Scripture, which is clear that some aspects of the Law are abrogated. So, when I say "the Law," I mean nothing other than the Law as presented and interpreted by all of Scripture, not the Pentateuch in isolation.

3) As a clarification, the WCF is very clear, at least to me, that the general equity of the civil law is just as binding as the moral law. So I do not see only the moral law as binding. But that is another discussion for another time.

 

[Taylor]

So you think we can't eat pork?

No, because the New Testament is clear that the ceremonial aspects of the Law which separated Jews from Gentiles have been abolished. Refer to my comment immediately above regarding the reading of the Law in light of the entire canon, not in isolation.

There is a law that we all must keep, the problem seems to be the jews are special.

Are you a Dispensationalist? Sorry to be so blunt, but this theme in your posts that the Jews are "special" strikes me as odd and vague.

 

[jubal]

Are you a Dispensationalist? Sorry to be so blunt, but this theme in your posts that the Jews are "special" strikes me as odd and vague.

When I say they are special i mean they have a covenant with God guaranteeing them dominion over the geographic region of Israel.

The USA doesn't have such a promise, but the decedents of Jacob do.

Now for your first claim.

Could you specify what passages you think indicate the laws that separated Jews from Gentiles have been abolished?

 

[Edward]

1) I subscribe to the WCF, as indicated in my profile. Whatever I say about the Law is within that context, which I assumed would be understood.

When a new Baptist member asks about the Mosaic law (post 5), it may be dangerous to assume that they understand the Westminster construct, or mean other than they have clearly said. At that point at best you may be talking past each other, and at worst engendering confusion.

 

[Edward]

When I say they are special i mean they have a covenant with God guaranteeing them dominion over the geographic region of Israel.

Your thought does show some dispensationalist influence.

 

[Taylor]

When a new Baptist member asks about the Mosaic law (post 5), it may be dangerous to assume that they understand the Westminster construct, or mean other than they have clearly said. At that point at best you may be talking past each other, and at worst engendering confusion.

Very good point, brother. I should have much clearer.

 

[Taylor]

When I say they are special i mean they have a covenant with God guaranteeing them dominion over the geographic region of Israel.

The USA doesn't have such a promise, but the decedents of Jacob do.

The descendants of Abraham do. And Scripture is very clear about who the descendants of Abraham are: all who are in Christ (Galatians 3). Besides, the redemptive development of Scripture is rather clear that the inheritance of God's people is not a strip of land in the Middle East, but the whole earth. Israel is a type.

I ask again, are you a Dispensationalist? If so, it would be important to point that out up front.

Could you specify what passages you think indicate the laws that separated Jews from Gentiles have been abolished?

There are several. The two biggest are perhaps Colossians 2 and Ephesians 2. There is also the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 and Peter's vision in Acts 11.

 

[OPC'n]

The New Testament was written for both Jew and Gentile. What was deemed clean in the NT was for all his children not just some. Food laws in the OT were just some of the laws given to the Jews to keep them as a separate people from Gentiles unto God. Christ ripped that veil and united us together in him. There is nothing that Jews have to do that we don’t or vise versa.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Hi William, welcome aboard. I see by your signature that you are a Reformed Baptist. Please read chapter 19 of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. It explains these issues of the law quite clearly.
You'll find on this forum that we all (mostly) speak within the framework of the various confession our churches subscribe to, so please don't be startled if someone holds you to something found in the confession--per your signature it will be the LBCF 1689 unless you specify otherwise--whether you've worked it our for yourself or not.

 

[jubal]

It should be noted that I adopt the creed of my church, but i am not strictly a church goer. In fact my job has me isolated on a mountainside weather station.

Modern tech means i can can post on the internet (fun fact the summit of Mt. Everest has WIFI)

That why I joined here, i cant be at church 90% of the time. So this allows me to study assisted along with video sermons.

 

[chuckd]

Could you specify what passages you think indicate the laws that separated Jews from Gentiles have been abolished?

Heb. 7:12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

What laws were associated with the Levitical priesthood?

 

[De Jager]

Hebrews 10:1 teaches us that the law contained a shadow of the things to come. In Christ, we have the body which casts the shadow. If we have the body, why would we focus on the shadow?

Before Christ, God dealt with his people via. sacrifices and the priestly system set up under Moses. Now Christ has come, who is the high priest who has offered a sacrifice once for all time, and who is in the holy of holies continually before God, with his shed blood bearing witness to our complete forgiveness.

If you want to insist that ethnic Jews must obey the Mosaic laws, then you also must insist that they must offer sacrifices too - you can't divorce that from the Mosaic dispensation - and to be honest, It strikes me as extremely offensive to God for someone to offer sacrifices in order to please God when he has already provided the lamb, once for all.

 

[JimmyH]

I have been reading Martin Luther's commentary on Galatians the past few days. I'm in the midst of his exposition of chapter 2 and reading this there is no doubt that the Jewish believers in Christ, like their Gentile counterparts, were no longer under the law, whether they knew it or not.