MadDog wrote:I think Ken Powers "The Owners Manuel" covers laws, commandents, rules, mitzvots pretty well. Also Ken has opened up my eyes about the metaphors and symbolism. From reading The Owners Manuel I now see from your verse, a House (your body / Israel / Temple / Set-Apart, etc.), A Priest (Yahsua / Messiyah / A Redemmer, etc.). In other words the owner goes to the priest to claim that his body is unclean and the Priest actually enters the owners house (body) and makes it clean. Later the Priest orders the house to be cleaned if this or that method fails including purifiying some of the bricks and if they that aren't purified the bricks are removed and replaced . The verses around 33-35 are rich in symbolism.
Hi MadDog and Matthew (and anyone else who may read or respond),
I haven't read "The Owner's Manual" yet, but I have downloaded it. So I'm only going off what little MadDog wrote above, and the large excerpt from it that was posted by Matthew.
This past year, I've been thinking about the relevance of the Mosaic Law to modern (post-"Messiah") life, and have been trying to understand things more thoroughly than I have before.
As I was reading this thread, one particular "Messiah" quote (in Matthew 5) came to mind: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
Normally, this passage is either ignored as having no relevance (like most "christians" do), or is interpreted as being good evidence that we are still supposed to follow the Law (in a "letter of the law" sort of way). I've never really
thoroughly considered this third possibility (which I will describe below), but I can say that it has occurred to me before, and I've had sort of a nagging feeling that such a third possibility might just be the right way to understand it...
I'm not sure how good a translation that is, but a few things really stand out to me (from the Matthew 5 quote):
(1) abolish vs. fulfill
(2) none of the Law will disappear until everything is accomplished.
Since I see abolish and disappear as kinda-somewhat-similar concepts (at least in English), and fulfill and accomplish as even-more-similar concepts, it makes me think:
(1) that maybe what he was saying, was that he wasn't going to "completely throw out" the law and prophets, as perhaps some were expecting (or hoping) -- in other words, he was going to do something much deeper than that: fulfill them.
(2) that maybe he was also saying that the Law won't have "run its course," until everything in it is accomplished.
(3) in which case he wasn't talking about simply following the rules, like a police officer would. He was maybe talking about a kind of deeper "spiritual" fulfillment that went far beyond anyone's expectations (or hopes).
I'm guessing from the "Owner's Manual" excerpt, that this third possibility is what the author would promote, and what you guys are talking about. If the Law is more about metaphor and symbolism than "the letter of the law," then that would be amazing and VERY DEEP. Which would be in-line with the other "Messiah" quotes we have in the Gospels (amazing and deep).
Such a "deep" interpretation of the Law would reduce the need to "pick and choose."
Like so many others, as a "Gentile," I'm a little confused about what application the Mosaic Law (that was given to another people group, as a covenant with
them, not me -- I never signed up for that covenant, and my forefathers weren't among those who agreed to it!!) -- what application it has to me personally.
And, of course, I'm also a little confused about how laws relating to sacrifices, a priesthood and a temple can possibly apply (to me or anyone else)
today, when there's presently no functioning priesthood or temple. Matthew's comment about not "living in the land" also makes me wonder.
Add to all of that the apparent decision by the apostles (in Acts 15): "...that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." and it makes me wonder even more...
(Yes, I've heard the argument that in the above Acts 15 passage, the following verse renders this short-list of 4 things just a starting point, and that therefore the "Gentiles" were expected to learn and follow
all of the Law, not just the short-list of 4 things -- but that the burden for sharing all that other, more detailed information with them would have to be carried by the local synagogues -- and that the apostles, then, didn't need to spend any more of their valuable time writing about it...)
So, if there's a more "correct" way to interpret all of this -- other than ignoring it (like most "christians" do) or trying to follow the Mosaic Law (in a strict "letter of the law" sort of way) -- then I'm open to considering it!!
Thoughts?
Q