Is this a salvation issue?

When discussing a biblical topic—especially one that’s disputed—someone will sometimes ask:

But is this a salvation issue?

In Scripture, salvation is consistently tied to the obedience of faith meaning, you believe what God says therefore, submit to His words. So the more biblical question to ask yourself is:

Will this affect my “obedience of faith” that is, my belief in what God has said?

The New Testament does not separate believing from obeying. In fact, it regularly contrasts faith, belief with disobedience. Jesus warns:

“The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; the one who disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)

Note the contrast between faith—belief in the Son—and disobedience. The outcome is spelled out in sobering terms when Jesus adds:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 7:21)

Peter reminds Christians of God’s purpose in calling them:

“...according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus the Messiah...” (1 Peter 1:2)

Paul opens and closes Romans with the same defining phrase, framing his entire gospel message:

“Through him we have received grace and Apostleship, to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for his name.” (Romans 1:5)

“...following the command of the God of the ages, made known to all the nations, to bring about the obedience of faith...” (Romans 16:26)

That repetition is not accidental. Paul emphasizes saving faith as faith that obeys the gospel he delivered. He even describes conversion as becoming obedient “from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed” (Romans 6:17).

The apostle John gives a simple test of authenticity:

“By this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.” (1 John 2:3)

Hebrews makes the same point, tying salvation directly to obedience:

“Although he was a son, he learned obedience through the things that he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him...” (Hebrews 5:8–9)

Anthony's note on Hebrews 5:9 summarizes it well:

"Obedience to Jesus is the condition of salvation. Faith without obedience is false faith and cannot save."

In other words, true faith is inseparable from obedience as properly understood in New Testament terms, and it serves as the foundation for salvation (again John 3:36; Hebrews 5:9, etc.).

Therefore, debates over “faith versus works,” or whether this or that is “a salvation issue,” are unnecessary once the biblical concept of the “obedience of faith” is understood as the unifying key to salvation. The biblical measure of whether something is a salvation issue is straightforward:

Does this teaching or practice affect my obedience of faith—so that I can continue in the obedience that flows from what I believe?

To: Dear Mr. Christian

“Long hair is shameful for a man”

The popular long-haired, and beard image of Jesus in Christian art and media contrasts sharply with first-century Jewish and early Christian cultural norms.

Archaeological and historical evidence from first-century Judea indicates that Jewish men typically wore short, trimmed hair and beards. Long hair was rare and usually associated with a Nazirite vow (Numbers 6:5)—a vow the Gospels never attribute to Jesus. Priestly regulations and broader Jewish norms even discouraged unkempt or excessively long hair (Ezekiel 44:20).

Additionally, in the wider Greco-Roman world, long hair on men often signaled effeminacy or social deviance, while short, well-kept hair marked respectable manhood.

While the New Testament provides no physical description of Jesus, Paul nonetheless appeals to “nature” when addressing the church at Corinth:

“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is a disgrace for him?” (1 Corinthians 11:14).

Although Paul’s immediate argument in 1 Corinthians 11 concerns head coverings in worship, his broader concern is order, modesty, and clear male–female distinctions rooted in creation (Genesis 1:27). By “nature,” Paul is not invoking biological law in a modern scientific sense, but what people instinctively recognize as fitting and honorable—one’s natural sense of what is appropriate for men and women. Even if the specific hairstyle reflects cultural convention rather than a timeless mandate, the underlying principle remains: God’s people should honor, not blur, the distinctions God built into creation.

This understanding is reflected in early Christian art (2nd–3rd-century catacombs and sarcophagi), which often depicts Jesus as a youthful, beardless Good Shepherd with short hair—far removed from the later Byzantine (4th–6th centuries) and Medieval-Renaissance style that drew heavily from Greco-Roman portrayals of philosophers (Aristotle), deities (Zeus or Serapis) and demi-gods (Hercules).

It is therefore unlikely that the familiar long-haired Jesus accurately reflects the historical Jewish Messiah.

The prophets foretold a servant whose appearance would not draw attention through outward beauty:

“He had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2).

Finally, correcting inherited imagery is not an act of diminished devotion but one of greater fidelity to Scripture. Within this framework, it is difficult to imagine the New Testament’s “last Adam” and “perfect man” (Hebrews 4:15), who fulfills God’s will without sin, embodying what Paul elsewhere in the same letter calls a “disgrace” for men.

Let us therefore honor the real Jesus—the first-century Jew who perfectly fulfilled God’s will—by allowing Scripture, rather than later artistic tradition, to shape our understanding of who he was. In this seemingly small adjustment, men can more faithfully model and reflect the true Messiah.

Addendum:

Whenever this topic comes up, a common response is to say:

“Well, it depends who or what defines long hair.”

But that is beside the point of 1 Corinthians 11:14. Paul isn’t giving a tape-measure rule for hair length; he is simply calling such a look a disgrace—something shameful—and he uses the word “nature” to mean what your common sense, shaped by your faith and conscience, recognizes. Paul assumed that men generally wore shorter, plainly masculine hair and women generally had longer, feminine hair—practically speaking, long enough to put in a bun or ponytail (see 1 Corinthians 11:15).

Also, Christians should not dismiss what Paul here says by claiming it too “legalistic”—in the process condemning an apostle of Jesus himself! As Paul reminds us in the same chapter:

“If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God” (1 Corinthians 11:16, NIV).

And think about this: If secular professions like law enforcement (police, military) and some businesses are able to tell what constitutes long hair, why can’t you, Mr. Christian, who claim that you too have the Spirit of God?

Food For Thought

Throughout history it has often been claimed that biblical food laws were given for health reasons. One of the earliest to argue this was the medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides, whose Guide for the Perplexed later shaped both Jewish kosher practice and, indirectly, Islamic halal regulations. But when we read the Torah itself, and listen carefully to the way the laws are framed, it becomes clear that their primary purpose was not for health reasons.

Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 repeatedly ground the food laws in Israel’s calling to be set apart to Yahweh (cp. Lev. 11:44–45; Deut. 14:2). The Law itself never says, Avoid these animals because they are bad for your health. In fact, as the ESV Study Bible notes on Leviticus 11:1–8:

“The diet of these animals is apparently not the basis of their cleanness or uncleanness. The passage itself says nothing about what the animals eat, and the camel, rock badger (hyrax), and hare are exclusively vegetarian but unclean.” [bold mine]

The popular “health laws” interpretation creates theological and ethical problems the text itself does not. Deuteronomy 14:21 adds:

“You shall not eat anything which dies of itself. You may give it to the sojourner who is in your town so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you are a holy people to Yahweh your God.” [bold mine]

If the concern were primarily for health reasons, why would Israel be allowed to hand "unclean" meats to a resident alien or sell it to a foreigner? Are we to imagine that God carefully protected the nation of Israel only while being indifferent to the health of everyone else? That would contradict the wider biblical portrait of Yahweh’s compassion and promise to save all the nations (read His Abrahamic covenant, Genesis 12-17).

Similarly, in Deuteronomy 12:21 God speaks of slaughtering certain clean animals “as I have instructed you.” If “clean” simply meant “healthy,” why would God add detailed ritual instructions for their slaughter? And if the Torah were a comprehensive divine health code, why no parallel legislation for a “healthy plant-based diet,” or for numerous other foods and environmental hazards that can threaten human health but are never mentioned?

The fact is food laws functioned as daily, tangible reminders that Israel belonged uniquely to Yahweh. Every meal taught them to distinguish, to separate, to live differently from the nations around them because they were to be a holy people.

Today it is popular to say pork was forbidden because of parasites like trichinella, or that shellfish were banned because they can carry toxins. It is certainly possible that, in God’s providence, some of Israel’s restrictions brought incidental health benefits. But that is very different from saying that health was the stated or primary purpose of His laws. Many “clean” animals and permitted foods can be dangerous if mishandled, and many unregulated aspects of ancient life (water, sanitation, plants, other animals) carried serious health risks that the Torah never addresses. The biblical authors do not appeal to parasites, bacteria, or possible plant-based poisons or toxins. They repeatedly appeal to holiness, obedience, and Israel’s distinct identity as Yahweh’s chosen people.

This is important because if we turn the food laws into a divinely inspired nutritional health diet, we risk missing what God was actually teaching Israel: that every aspect of life, right down to the dinner table, was to express their loyalty to Him. The laws were covenant boundary markers, not a timeless menu for superior health.

Today, in Messiah Jesus, the church is not under the Sinai food laws as an expression of its “obedience of faith.” The New Testament consistently locates holiness not in Torah-mandated rituals—what Paul later terms “works of the Law,” such as circumcision of the flesh and observance of the Jewish calendar (Gal. 5; Col. 2:16–17)—but in the practice and preaching of the Messiah. The food laws should now serve as a reminder that God calls a people to be His own, to live visibly different from the world—not primarily by what we refuse to eat, but by whom we serve and by what He now teaches through His unique Son.

In Mark 7:14–15 Jesus called the crowd to him again and said to them:

“Everyone listen to me and understand this: nothing which is on the outside and goes into you [such as food] can make you unclean. Instead, it is what comes out that makes you unclean.” [bold mine]



With this one remark Jesus pronounced every kind of food clean, thus abolishing the Levitical food laws, as Mark 7:19 later makes clear.

When Charismatics Eclipse the Kingdom Gospel

DISCLAIMER: This critique does not reject miracles or the ongoing work of the holy spirit. It is a call for biblical discernment. Jesus warned that false prophets would perform great signs to deceive, if possible, even the elect (Matt 24:24). He also promised that the spirit of truth would guide believers into all the truth and glorify him—not human personalities (John 16:13–14).

The modern charismatic movement has grown into the most influential system within Christianity, with estimates nearing one billion adherents. What began as fringe, itinerant revivalism now shapes the lives of Catholics and so-called Evangelicals alike. At its heart, however, it is driven by spectacle—prioritizing personal experiences like “encounters,” “anointings,” and “manifestations” over Scripture. This has turned many a faith into an egocentric, glory-seeking enterprise, focused on feelings and status rather than the original New Testament purpose: to preach the Kingdom as the Gospel. As Hebrews 2:3-4 makes clear:

"This salvation had its beginning when spoken through the lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God validated their witness by signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of holy spirit distributed according to His own will."

In other words, God backed up what they said about the kingdom and the name of Jesus (Acts 8:12) by giving them signs, wonders, different kinds of miracles, and distributions of holy spirit, just as He decided. The primary thing was not the gifts in and of themselves. In fact, Paul later warns that “the lawless one” will stage a counterfeit parousia with Satan’s power, “with all kinds of miracles, signs, and amazing but deceptive displays of Satanic power,” deceiving those “who refused to develop a passion for the truth in order to be saved,” so that God “will let loose on them an energy of delusion so that they will believe what is false,” and judgment falls “on those who decided not to believe the truth but took pleasure in wickedness” (2 Thessalonians 2:9–12).

Paul instead insists that all Scripture is God-breathed and sufficient to equip the believer for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16–17), making Scripture—not subjective experiences—the final judge of doctrine and practice. Authentic New Testament faith centers on the teachings of Jesus and a “love of the truth in order to be saved” (2 Thess 2:9–10), not on a signs-driven, personal experience-addicted religion.

In the Gospels, the signs and miracles of Jesus reveal what the coming Kingdom of God will be like—no sickness, no death, and nonviolence in the spirit. The gifts worked by Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy and served as a preview of the age to come (Matthew 11:4–5; Hebrews 6:5). That is why he sent his disciples to proclaim the Kingdom and heal (Luke 9:2; 10:9), yet warned them not to rejoice in power over demons, but that their “names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20). Yet, at the same time warned that many who perform signs will still be rejected for being "workers of evil" (Matthew 7:21–23). His priority was clear: rejoice not in spiritual power, but in your secure place in God’s coming Kingdom.

The gifts, therefore, are temporary signposts pointing to that future Kingdom, not permanent badges of status and prestige in the church. Healings display God’s compassion and authenticate the Kingdom message; they were never given to create profit or personality cults. Pentecost itself showcases intelligible foreign languages serving the Gospel to diverse crowds (Acts 2:4–11)—a reversal of Babel, not a model for private, unintelligible ecstasy.

Paul teaches that charismatic gifts are given “for the common good” (1 Corinthians 12:7), not for your health or to just make you feel good. Paul says that uninterpreted languages edify only the speaker, not the church (1 Cor 14:4–5, 26). Without love, even the so-called “tongues of men and of angels” are nothing but noise (1 Cor 13:1).

Peter’s healing of the lame man directs all attention to the risen Messiah, not to himself (Acts 3:12–16), and he insists that every gift is to be used in serving others so that “in all things God may be glorified through Jesus” (1 Peter 4:10–11).

James prescribes simple, local prayer by the elders for the sick (Jas 5:14–15) and reminds us that even Elijah “was a man with a nature like ours” (Jas 5:17)—no special “super-anointed” class or brand. By contrast, much of today’s charismatic influencer culture functions as ego-driven entertainment and monetized “ministry,” sharply departing from the New Testament pattern. When Simon tried to buy spiritual gifts, Peter rebuked him severely and called him to repent, warning of the danger of such corruption (Acts 8:18–23).

The New Testament call is to return to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles as our sure guide, where the spirit of God always points to the preaching of the Kingdom as God’s Gospel, builds up the church, and advances the honor of our coming King—not ourselves.

"The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some among you who refuse to believe.” John 6:63-64

The Nations Will Serve, Obey Christians

In Daniel 7:27, modern translations differ over a small but important detail: will the nations “serve and obey him” (the son of man) or “serve and obey them” (the saints)?

Many scholars point out that the Aramaic grammar and the flow of the vision strongly support the sense “obey them” (the saints), not “obey him” (son of man alone), in the final clause. This matters because Daniel 7 as a whole emphasizes that God, the Ancient of Days, gives dominion to the Son of Man and then to the saints, who share in that rule.

Just before the obedience clause, the text shows that the kingdom is given to “the people of the saints of the Most High.” This is a clearly plural group. The natural, straightforward reading is that the following phrase about obedience refers back to that same plural subject. Earlier in the chapter this corporate rule is already promised:

“But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, for all ages to come.” (Dan. 7:18)

Daniel 7:27 is the climax of that promise.

The saints receive the kingdom and therefore become the ones to whom the nations render service and obedience. The whole chapter contrasts beastly kingdoms, which devour and oppress, with the final God-given kingdom that is entrusted to the Son of Man and then shared with the saints. Dominion changes hands: from the beasts, to the Son of Man, to “the people of the saints of the Most High.” When we finally read that “all dominions shall serve and obey ___,” the obvious question is: to whom has the chapter been building up as the new rulers? The answer is the saints. “Obey them” fits this transition perfectly as a description of corporate rulership under God’s authority.

The Aramaic grammar supports this reading. The verb translated “obey” in Daniel 7:27 is יִשְׁתַּמְּעוּן (yištamməʿûn), a third person plural form (“they will obey”). This naturally points to a plural reference in the context. To read this as “obey him” requires us to take a plural form and funnel it into a singular object, against the grain of the immediate plural subject, unless we appeal to a more unusual grammatical explanation. The simpler, more direct sense is that the nations will obey the saints who now share in kingly authority.

This idea of shared rule does not diminish God’s glory; it reflects His consistent way of working through chosen human agents. In the Hebrew Bible, God often rules through His anointed kings, judges, and especially through David and his descendants. Obedience to the king, when he is faithful, is obedience to God’s appointed representative. Daniel 7 continues this pattern, but now on a larger scale: God establishes the kingdom, gives it to the Son of Man and the saints, and the nations “serve and obey” them as His representatives.

The New Testament echoes Daniel’s vision of shared kingly rule. Revelation 5:10 (OGNT) says of the redeemed:

“You made them a Kingdom and priests for our God, and they will reign upon the earth.”

Likewise, 2 Timothy 2:12 (OGNT) promises:

“If we endure, we will also reign with him.”

In both passages, the saints are not merely subjects; they are co-regents with the Messiah. Christ is the supreme ruler under God, but the saints participate in his reign. This is exactly what “obey them” in Daniel 7:27 expresses: obedience rendered to God’s people because they are sharing Messiah’s throne.

Translating Daniel 7:27 as “obey him” is theologically possible, since all service and obedience ultimately belong to God Himself. However, it creates several difficulties. It breaks the immediate plural focus on “the people of the saints of the Most High,” weakens the climax of the chapter where the emphatic point is that dominion has changed hands, and underplays the biblical theme of delegated rule, where honoring God’s appointed agents is part of honoring God Himself. Grammatically and contextually, “obey him” is less natural, introducing a sudden singular object where the text has been emphasizing a plural community receiving the kingdom.

Taken together, the plural verb, the immediate context, the structure of Daniel 7, and the wider biblical theme of shared rulership all support the translation “obey them.” This reading matches the plural grammar, aligns with the subject of the sentence, preserves the flow of Daniel’s apocalyptic vision, and harmonizes with the New Testament picture of believers reigning with the Messiah on the earth. Far from detracting from God’s glory, “obey them” celebrates His plan to share His rule with the faithful—those who have endured with Messiah and will reign with him in the coming kingdom “under the whole heaven” (Dan. 7:27).

What's in a Name?

Salvation in the Bible is not based on a magical formula or superstitious name-calling. In Scripture, “name” usually stands for a person’s character, mission, and authority.

In the Old Testament, a name can express who it is (Gen 27:36; 1 Sam 25:25), reputation (Gen 11:4; 2 Sam 8:13), authorized agency (“speaking in someone’s name,” 1 Sam 25:9; 1 Kgs 21:8), or ownership/claim (“calling a name over” something, 2 Sam 12:28). The same idea applies when calling on the Name of the one God.

In Psalm 54 David prays, “Save me, O God, by Your name, and vindicate me by Your power” (Ps 54:1). In Hebrew parallelism, “Your name” corresponds to “Your power,” showing that vindication is God’s work, not ours (Ps 54:5–7). Judgment belongs to God, and our response is trust, thanks, and worship “to Your name, O Yahweh, for it is good.”

Jesus takes up this OT “name” principle when he teaches us to pray:

“Our Father in heaven, may Your name be held in honor. May Your Kingdom come. May Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:9–10).

Honoring the Father’s Name means honoring Him as our Father, looking forward to His coming Kingdom when His will, power, will rule this world.

In John 17, Jesus says, “I have manifested Your name to the people whom You gave me out of the world” (John 17:6), and prays, “Holy Father, keep them in Your name, which You have given me… While I was with them, I kept them in Your name which You have given me” (John 17:11–12). “Your name” here means the Father’s revealed character and protective authority, entrusted to the Son as His representative. The one God—the Father—remains the ultimate source; the Messiah His one and only appointed channel.

This same structure appears in Jesus’ teaching on prayer:

• “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it” (John 14:14).

• “Whatever you ask the Father in my name He will give you… Ask and you will receive” (John 16:23–24).

Jesus does not mean spiritual power lies in the exact vocalization of “Jesus” or “Yeshua.” To pray “in Jesus’ name” is to approach the Father on the basis of Jesus’ person, teaching, and mission. The Father, “the only true God” (John 17:3), chooses to work through the name of His anointed human Son because “there is one God and one mediator between that one God and humanity, Messiah Jesus, who is himself human” (1 Timothy 2:5).

After his resurrection, Jesus summarizes the church’s mission so “that repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). Forgiveness, which belongs to God alone (Isa 43:11), is now found in His Son, "in his name," because God has invested that authority to this one person.

Likewise, Jesus says "signs will accompany those who have believed in my name…” (Mark 16:17). Hence, the Apostles are amazed and say to Jesus:

“Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name” (Luke 10:17) meaning by the authority God has uniquely invested in the person of His Son.

At Pentecost, Peter applies Joel 2 to Jesus:

“Everyone who calls on the name of the lord [Messiah] will be saved” (Acts 2:21), and commands to “repent and be baptized…in the name of Jesus Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38).

Acts 4:12 sums it up:

“There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.”

Thus the church is defined as those “who in every place call on the name of our lord Jesus Messiah” (1 Corinthians 1:2), and church discipline is carried out “in the name of our Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 5:4; cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:6).

So in Psalm 54, salvation is “by Your name,” Yahweh’s name; in Acts, salvation is by the name of Jesus Messiah—by the authority God has given him. The one true God has not ceased to be the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11); He has made Jesus “both lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:36) and now saves through the one man He raised from the dead (Romans 10:9–13).

The apostles and early church use Jesus’ name to:

• Preach and offer salvation – Acts 2:21, 38; 4:10–12; Romans 10:13

• Baptize – Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16

• Heal and cast out demons – Acts 3:6, 16; 4:30; 16:18; 19:13

• Issue commands and discipline – 1 Corinthians 1:10; 5:4; 2 Thessalonians 3:6

• Frame thanksgiving, worship, and daily life – Ephesians 5:20; Col 3:17

• Describe suffering and mission – Acts 5:41; 15:26; 21:13; 1 Pet 4:14; 3 John 7

This is why baptism and discipleship are bound up with Jesus’ name. To be baptized “in the name of Jesus Messiah” is to come under his authority—just as, in the OT, having a name called over something marked it as claimed (2 Samuel 12:28). So that Paul can later say:

“You belong to Messiah, and Messiah belongs to God.” (1 Corinthians 3:23).

Saturday 1/10/26: New Laws of Jesus on Marriage/Divorce

Theme series in the form of this question: Did Jesus actually change the Law of Moses?

• The point is to see whether Jesus was merely repeating Moses…or whether, as the New Covenant lawgiver, he changed and even overturned Torah at certain points:

• Today we look at marriage/divorce and whether or not Jesus changed that law.

What Was Said? Deut. 21:10-14; 22:28-29; 24:1-4; Ex 21:7-11

• NET Study Bible: The Pharisees were all in agreement that the OT permitted a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce his wife (not vice-versa) and that remarriage was therefore sanctioned. But the two rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel differed on the grounds for divorce. Shammai was much stricter than Hillel and permitted divorce only in the case of sexual immorality. Hillel permitted divorce for almost any reason (cf. the Mishnah, m. Gittin 9.10).

• Deuteronomy 21:15–17 addresses inheritance rights when a man has two wives, ensuring the firstborn son (even from the less favored wife) receives his double portion.

• Examples: Abraham (Sarah, Hagar, and later Keturah); Jacob (Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah); David (multiple wives, including Michal, Abigail, Bathsheba); Solomon (700 wives and 300 concubines, though criticized for excess and foreign alliances).

• Polygamy: The Torah does not explicitly prohibit a man from having more than one wife. Instead, it regulates the practice in several places;

• Later, Mal 2:13-16 a prophetic rebuke about misuse of divorce and covenant unfaithfulness;

• Addendum: Deut. 17:17 limits kings from "multiplying" wives warning it could lead their hearts astray (as happened with Solomon).

But I Say: Matt 5:31-32; 19:1-12

• Note Antithesis vv.8-9, cp. Mark 10:5 Moses "wrote this commandment for you because of your hard hearts. 6 But from the beginning of creation He made them male and female."

• Jesus echoes Malachi ("I hate divorce," Mal 2:14–16) and grounds marriage from Genesis (Mal 2:10, 15; Gen 1:27; 2:24), opposing divorce as violations of God’s original design.

• Under Torah Adultery was typically understood as a sexual relationship involving a married woman (Deut 22:22; Lev 18:20).

• But Jesus broadens the definition of adultery to cover any sexual relationship between a married man and a woman who is not his wife, regardless of whether the woman herself is married.

• Polygamy explicitly outlawed;

• The exception to divorce (for pornea) not a hard rule, i.e., couple can agree to forgive, reconcial in order to continue the marriage.

Post-Resurrection: Mark 12:18-27; Matt 22:23-33

• Even though Jesus roots his overall argument in the Torah (proving life after death), it is consistent with Jesus as the new covenant lawmaker.

• Jesus' statement that we will be "like the angels in heaven" must not be generalized to mean that humans will be like angels in every respect.

• This confirms "sons of God" were angels, i.e., fallen angels because "they saw that the daughters of humankind were beautiful. Thus they took wives for themselves from any they chose," (Gen 6:2) producing a race of giants (“Nephilim”) whose power and notoriety intensified the world’s corruption. Hence, the worldwide Flood;

Apostolic Additions: 1 Cor 7:10-40

• Paul is not repeating Torah divorce law; he is under the Law of Messiah (1Cor 9.21), which itself goes beyond Moses back to creation;

• Although 2Cor 6:14 echoes Torah prohibitions against unequal yoking (Deuteronomy 7:3–4; Exodus 34:15–16; Ezra 9–10; Nehemiah 13:23–27);

• In 1 Cor 7 Paul extends marriage/divorce to new situations (like mixed marriages; seperation not divorce);

• They are characteristic of Jesus’ stricter standard, not found in Torah.

• The “Not I, but the Lord” vs. “I, not the Lord” doesn’t mean Paul’s words are less authoritative; he is a legitimate apostolos, aka shaliach of Jesus himself which means his words are Jesus!

• Torah treated unbelief as a form of spiritual incompatibility or "fornication" (Greek: porneia), which could justify separation to preserve holiness and produce godly offspring (Malachi 2:15);

• But Paul is not putting Christians “back under” the intermarriage laws of Moses.

Saturday 1/3/26 New Law of Jesus: On the Sabbath

 Part 4: On the Sabbath, Matthew 12; John 5

Theme series in the form of this question:

Did Jesus actually change the Law of Moses?

• The point is to see whether Jesus was merely repeating Moses…or whether, as the New Covenant lawgiver, he changed and even overturned Torah at certain points:

• Today we look at the Sabbath law and whether or not Jesus changed that law.

• As before, first read what God had originally required from His covenant people.

1. What was said? Exodus 16

• Ex 16:22-30, takes place before the formal giving of the Law at Sinai, represented by the 10 commandments: 

"Tomorrow is a Sabbath rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD. Bake what you will bake today."

READ: Ex 20:1-10, the 10 words given at Sinai: 

"You must not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the foreigner who is within your gates." Cp. Lev. 23:3; Deut 5.12-15 where the 10 are repeated.

• Later prophets like Jeremiah 17:19-27 add: 

vv. 22, 24: "You must not carry a load out of your houses on the Sabbath day or do any work." Cp. Nehemiah 13:19.

• Punishment for breaking the Sabbath? Numbers 15:30-36.

• v.30 "sins defiantly," (NIV) "brazenly violate the LORD’s will," (NLT) Heb. literally reads “with a high hand," i.e., Hebrew expression or idiom meaning doing something deliberately, premeditated, malice of aforethought hence with an arrogant attitude towards God's law.

• Group questions:

1. What is the one thing you cannot do on the Sabbath?

2. Did "work" include basic "humanitarian" needs like food (cooking+eating), tending to your family, your livestock?

1. Jesus Healing at Bethesda: John 5:1-23

• Jesus deliberately heals a man on the Sabbath (contra Num 15:30-36) and rather brazenly commands him to carry his load (contra Jeremiah 17:21);

• The Jewish leaders’ accusation is grounded in Scripture, not their "traditions";

• John had said Jesus "was doing these things on the Sabbath.” John 5:16;

• Therefore right to conclude Jesus was "breaking the Sabbath.” John 5:18a;

• Jesus did not deny the charge but even doubled down saying:

“My Father is always at his work to this very day [which day?], and I too am working [on what day?].” John 5:17

• Again, what was the one thing you could not do on the Sabbath according to Torah?

• Judaism acknowledged God never kept the Sabbath!

1. God always gives life on the Sabbath (births occur).

2. God always takes life on the Sabbath (death occurs).

3. Genesis 2:2 The NET Bible note:

The Hebrew term שָׁבַּת (shabbat) can be translated “to rest” (“and he rested”) but it basically means “to cease.” This is not a rest from exhaustion; it is the cessation of the work of creation.

Addendum: John 5:18b “Making Himself Equal with God”:

• In context "equal with God" = Authority, not some Trini ontological statement;

• The Sabbath was a divine prerogative and by claiming the right to work as God "always works," Jesus claims that same authority over the Sabbath, see NET Bible John 5:17 footnote.

• Like Moses doesn't mean the same as Moses, Deuteronomy 18:18–19 (LSB)

“I will raise up for them a prophet like you… and I will put My words in his mouth… I Myself will require it of him who does not listen to My words.”

1. Christian Lawbreakers: Matthew 12:1-8

• Jesus makes OT exceptions the new rule, Matthew 12:5;

• And mercy (Hos 6:6) the new spirit-led standard over "the letter of the law."

• All points to the deeper meaning found later in the NT, 1 Peter 2:

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people who are God’s own possession, so that you may announce the excellence of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light.  

10 In time past you were not a people, but now you are the people of God. You had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (Gal. 3:28; 6:16; Rev. 5:9-10).

The Core Paradigm Shift

• Jesus had authority to break the Sabbath, and by extension so did his apostles.

• This does not make them “sinners” or lawbreakers, because they were operating under a different covenant law.

• Jesus was uniquely given mastery—ownership, aka lordship—of the Sabbath by God Himself.

• It is this authority, not the act of breaking the Sabbath in and of itself, that explains his actions.

Mark 2:27 "The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath. 

28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

New Covenant Implications

• Under the New Covenant (subject to the Law of Messiah, 1Cor 9:21), Christians are no longer required to keep the Sabbath.

• Read, Col 2:16-23: In other words, not just let no one tell you to observe sabbath but condemn you for not obeying God!

• As a matter of fact Paul now regards keeping the Jewish calendar tantamount to gnostic-heresis!

• These are all described as "elementary principles of the world" that enslave believers. The Jew-Gentile Gnostic Heresy – Kingdom Gospel

Summary

• The Messiah uniquely exercised a new, divinely granted authority, thereby establishing the new covenant and granting his followers that same authority.

• As a result, the strict requirement to observe the Sabbath was not merely being questioned or challenged but completely changed.

• The church is now called to acknowledge Jesus, the Son of Man, as "lord even of the Sabbath" (Mar 2:28) the one who now holds authority over the day on which one rests.

• Through this authority, all debates and fine distinctions about Sabbath keeping are brought to an end.

Baptism of Cornelius and his whole household.

Acts 10:34 Opening his mouth, Peter began to speak: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism, 35 but He welcomes from every nation the person who fears Him and does what is right. 36 You know the Gospel-word which He sent to the Israelites, proclaiming the Gospel of peace through Jesus Messiah — he is lord of all."