Jews still don't. But then, they're still looking for the Messiah.
I'm not a cannibal. All sorts of reasons. Do you think the point of proscription was that these animals were inherently evil or that they were simply dangerous to a people who lacked the knowledge of how to eat them safely?
Try quoting the exact scripture you're using if you want us to consider it in context.
Matthew Henry Commentary on Acts 25: 8
25:1-12 ... Preaching Christ, the end of the law, was no offence against the law...Paul was willing to abide by the rules of the law, and to let that take its course. If he deserved death, he would accept the punishment. But if none of the things whereof they accused him were true, no man could deliver him unto them, with justice. Paul is neither released nor condemned. It is an instance of the slow steps which Providence takes; by which we are often made ashamed, both of our hopes and of our fears, and are kept waiting on God.
But if you want to know what he thought about the law, he isn't shy on the point:
Romans 7:4-6
4[FONT="]Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.
[/FONT]5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
No, he didn't miss the larger point. You just missed the lesser included.
Are you living under a new covenant or aren't you?
Ellicott's Commentary Colossians 2:16
(16-19) To the warning against speculative error succeeds a warning against two practical superstitions. The first is simply the trust in obsolete Jewish ordinances (the mere shadow of Christ) with which we are familiar in the earlier forms of Judaism. But the second presents much strangeness and novelty. It is the “worship of angels” in a “voluntary humility,” inconsistent with the belief in an intimate and direct union with Christ our Head.
(16) Let no man therefore judge you.—That is, impose his own laws upon you. See Colossians 2:8. (Comp. Romans 14:3; Romans 14:10, “Why dost thou judge thy brother?” in this same connection.)
In meat, or in drink.—Or rather, in eating and drinking. We see by the context that the immediate reference is to the distinctions of meats under the Jewish law, now done away, because the distinction of those within and without the covenant was also done away (Acts 10:11). (Comp. on this subject the half-ironical description of Hebrews 9:10.) But a study of Romans 14:2; Romans 14:20-21, written before this Epistle, and 1Timothy 4:3, written after it—to say nothing of the tone of this passage itself, or of the known characteristics of the later Gnosticism of the ascetic type—show that these laws about eating and drinking were not mere matters of law, but formed significant parts of a rigid mystic asceticism. Of such, St. Paul declares indignantly (Romans 14:17), “The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
Supra.
Well, no. But to you the fulfilled law looks entirely the same and the new covenant is the old one in a new skin? Else, supra.
I've frequently argued that gratitude should fuel our desire to express it, for our unmerited deliverance.
Bear witness to the truth of my commission, let my yes be my yes, my no be my no, love God first and my neighbor as myself, attempt to put into practice in my life the living definition of love scripture first describes and then illustrates in the person of Jesus. Any number of things, really.
Am I called to? I'm called to proclaim the truth and the fruits of that gift of grace will come as naturally as sin followed my old nature. A man who is in love will never have to tell you. People who are mightily concerned with making the right appearance run the danger of transforming what should be an act of gratitude and love, finding pleasure in God's pleasure, into a subtle boast and a proud, confused message.
Right after your Augustine.
lain:One man's compromise is another man's error.
Who would expect Jesus to act as though the law was fulfilled before he fulfilled it?
Supra and, on the latter point, I've never apologized for being an educated man. I don't aim for grammatical perfection or agonize over word choice. I consider and respond in the moment. If that bothers you to the point where you find yourself commenting on it repeatedly then I'd say its a thing for you to reflect on. It isn't a sin or an encumbrance for me.
No, you missed my point, but that's okay.
They died proclaiming a new covenant, not an intent to replace the law with a new wrapper. How many animal sacrifices have you made this year anyway?
So another point of agreement then. Good. It was bound to happen. :chuckle:
Christ keeps us. The law was given to show us the need of him. I can't think of a better way to respond to grace than to live as an expression of that sacrificial, unmerited love, bearing witness to it and living mindfully.
